Let remind us the general context Khan Sheikhoun gas attack
In 2012 U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton decided that she knew best what was good for the people of Syria. She
decided that President Assad "had to go".Calling off America's Bombs
(Common Dreams: Jeffrey Sachs, 9-5-13)
In coordination with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar she launched a war to invade Syria and overthrow the government. Training
and recruiting centers were set up in Jordan and Turkey. KSA provided the money.
Before the U.S. got involved, this was a war with casualties in the 1,000's. Yet now around 150,000 people have died and cultural
and archaeological treasures have been destroyed. The U.S. has inflamed a conflict that may have been ended quickly by the Syrian
government, had we not chosen to get involved. The other fact is that a majority of Syrians (55%) support Assad. Is it right for
the U.S. to oppose the will of the Syrian people? Jeffrey Sachs discusses this more
Over 300,000 people have been killed by Clinton's policies. Assad remains in power. Hilary's
"Syrian Free Army" is in chaos. Meanwhile, Islamic extremists backed by Hilary's allies have invaded Iraq. Al nustra Front
emerged the major fighting force against Assad forces. It behaved completely ruthlessly and earned the nickname of headchoppers.
"An uneasy alliance of foreign-funded jihadists, Western intelligence, and NGOs like Doctors Without Borders" forged during
soviet occupation of Afghanistan is a fact in Syria too.
The USA plays on both sides in Syria: supporting ISIS and affiliated groups such as Al Nusra Front on one hand and simultaneously
trying to eliminate this. "There US and its coalition were supposedly fighting ISIL/Daesh but missed the massive convoys of oil
to Turkey that propped them up [financially]"
Turkey is a strong supporter of jihadists in Syria is a NATO member and formally the USA ally. Syria in the past was a
part of Ottoman empire and Erdogan positions himself of moderate autocratic Islamist hell-bent of restoring the old glory of
Ottoman empire and possibly acquiring back some of lost territories. They used to buy oil from jihadists. Turkish military intelligence
is especially active in jihadi support as well as support of "Turkoman" separatist on the borders with Turkey.
Previous time sarin materials were procured from Turkey.
There pare many foreign fighters (both mercenaries and volunteers), especially from Lybia nd KSA. But also some from xUSSR area
and Western Europe, especially Britain.
At the beginning there was some real grievances the Assad government chose to ignore and suppress and that might helped to defuse
the situation, but it is very unlikely because foreign powers were strongly in favor of driving the conflict into civil war and deposing
Assad. They succeeded and the country is now destroyed.
Only few undisputed facts are know about Khan Sheikhoun attack
It is unknown who is responsible for attack. The major are three
The USA official -- Assad did it.
Russian Hypothesis (hit of jihadist chemical lab or storage by Syrian military jets released toxic fumes),
Lambasting the United States' aggression against Syria, Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations Sacha Llorenti compared
the basis for the unilateral move to former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous 2003 presentation to the body,
when fraudulent evidence of an alleged Iraqi weapons program was presented to justify the U.S. war on Iraq
Holding up an enlarged photo of Colin Powell's “weapons of mass destruction” speech, Llorenti made an impassioned plea
to hold the U.S. to account for Thursday's unprovoked attack on Syria, noting the U.S. history of imperialist interventions
in other nations, including Latin America.
"Now the United States believe that they are investigators, they are attorneys, judges and they are the executioners.
That's not what international law is about."
The Andean nation currently holds a non-permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.
"I believe it's vital for us to remember what history teaches us and on this occasion (in 2003), the United States did
affirm, they affirmed that they had all the proof necessary to show that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but they were
never found … never were they found," the Bolivian envoy told the emergency Security Council meeting on Friday.
So far the most plausible is Russian hypothesis.
This is the second major sarin attack in Syria (it it was sarin, which is still unclear; some witnesses reported a strong
smell) . The previous one was a false flag operation in which over thousand people including women and children died.
previous (false flag) sarin attack was staged Syria in 2013 with the explicit goal to provoke Western military response like in Lybia.
This was so called "Ghouta chemical attack"; sarin was used in an attack in the Ghouta region of the Rif Dimashq Governorate of Syria
during the Syrian civil war.[51] Varying[52] sources gave a death toll of 322[53] to 1,729.[54] It were a part of rebels strategy
to weaken and isolate internationally Assad government, which coincides with the desires of the USA and its allies such as Turkey
and KSA.
On Tuesday April 4th 2017, videos and images emerged from sources belonging to Al Nustra within Syria showing what is claimed
to be a chemical weapon attack that targeted Al Sheikhun south of Idlib. There
were never independent investigators on the ground. All information is from Al Nusra sources. The attack occurred in the city Khan
Sheikhoun in Idlib province, an area on the Turkish border mostly controlled by al-Qaeda affiliated rebels.
Khan Sheikhoun was bombed by Assad air force and during or after bombing chemical subscrances were releases.
Coordinates of the target were known to USA as they were communicated as a part of Memorandum about avoiding incidents between the
USA and Russia. The USA has a drone in the vicinity which might have the footage of the attack.
Mechanism of delivery is unclear, but is was not sophisticated bomblet-based weapon of Russian origin.. No reliable photos
of the weapon exist.
Around than 80 people were killed by
suspected chemical weapons
in Khan Sheikhoun. A large proportion victims them were children (local inhabitants or hostages is not known) died, possibly
of gas poisoning
British Doctor from Khan Sheikhoun who reported about the attack previously held on terror charges in Britain, but managed
to escape to Syria.
Turkey performed autopsies of several victims and claims that they died form poisoning, althouth they do not say
what exactly it was.
The "known unknown" area is much larger. Even origin and chemical composition of toxic cloud is disputed (was it "sarin";
was it air attack of munitions depot explosion? what is staged event (aka false flag operation) or a blunder by Assad forces which accidentally
hit chemical depot in a school or close to a school. Here is attempt to collect the most interesting questions about this event
that I have found in various forums (collected from foreign sources, mostly from British and German):
Is not unilateral military intervention in a sovereign country that does not threaten the USA constituting an act of aggression,
a war crime by the UN statute? Or, as an exceptional nation, the USA is above the UN...
How can journalists and Western diplomats be so lacking in the desire or ability to question what they are told?
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/04/its-wmd-all-over-again-why-dont-you-see-it-.html, The Kremlin issued a statement
saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin found it "unacceptable to make groundless accusations against anyone without conducting
a detailed and unbiased investigation."
Cue bono? Effectively the USA acted as Al Nustra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front) air force. Which
promptly initiated an attack on government forces in Palmira. Does this means that the USA foreign policy in Syria is now aligned
with Gulf monarchies policy and Israeli policies of dismembering this country and establishing a permanent Al Nusra Caliphate on
the part of the territory as well as possibly Kurdish enclave ? The Syrian regime may not have had a compelling motive,
believes Günther Meyer, the director of the Research Center for the Arab World at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz. "Only
armed opposition groups could profit from an attack with chemical weapons," he told DW. "With their backs against the wall, they
have next to no chance of opposing the regime militarily. As President [Donald] Trump's recent statements show, such actions make
it possible for anti-Assad groups to receive further support."http://www.dw.com/en/is-assad-to-blame-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/a-38330217
Is not Israel the major beneficiary of this bombing? Syrians shot down an Israeli jet a week before using this airbase. Now this
airbase is destroyed.
On April 3, the USA government announced that the US is no longer insisting that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has to
step aside. The attack happened on April 4th, a day after. On April 6 after the attack, but before any investigation,
the USA goverment changed its mind. Did Trump reneg on his promises to fight ISIS and establishing détente with Russia after
unprecedented attack by neocons in Washington and folded? Removal of Bannon might be connected. Does this mean that Trump
metamorphosed into Hillary Clinton in around 100 days in office? Or does that mean that the president does not matter and deep state
rules the country?
Previous sarin attack was a false flag: The attack took place while UN weapons inspectors were in the country, on Assad's
invitation, said Meyer. Assad had asked them to investigate a chemical weapons attack from March 2013 outside Aleppo, which killed
Syrian soldiers. Former weapons inspector Richard Lloyd and MIT professor Theodore Postol cast further doubt on Assad's role in the
Ghouta attack. They reported in 2014 that the chemical weapons could have only been fired from rebel-held territory, with a range
of up to 2.5 kilometers (1.6 miles).
The Nusra Front's weapons include chemical weapons and they inflicted casualties on Syrian army. This Al Qaeda
affiliate is today the most significant rebel group in the northern Syrian province of Idlib. Along with other jihadi groups, it
has turned itself into the "de facto ruler of Idlib." Syrian government reiterated the claim, echoed by Moscow, that the tragedy
occurred because the rebels had been stockpiling sarin gas, and the Syrian army had no way of knowing it was there.
What will be consequences (other then deserved Nobel Peace Price for Trump) for the USA if the investigation implicated the
rebels? BTW none of "volunteers" treating victims died from poisoning, despite working without HASMAT suits, which suggest that
at least "sarin" version is bogus.
What was the function of the buildings hit by air strike (hitting a depot of chemical weapons is the Russian version of events)?
it is clear they they were in or close to residential area were those private residences or not is unclear. What was exact time
of Assad forces attack? Rebels are known to store munitions in schools and mosques to protect them from air strikes. Why so many
children were affected if only two houses were hit. Outside school, in Syria children are usually accompanied by women.
There were less victims among adults.
Under the pact, the two countries have traded information about flights by a U.S.-led coalition
targeting the Islamic State and Russian planes operating in Syria in support of the Assad government. Moscow was taking its action,
the Defense Ministry said, because it sees the U.S. strike “as a grave violation of the memorandum.”
Which created for them a theoretical possibility to shoot down planes if they threaten russian forces.
I always assumed that Trump was the candidate of MIC in 2016 elections, while Hillary was the
candidate of "Intelligence community." But it looks like US military is infected with desperados
like Mattis and Trump was unable fully please them despite all his efforts.
But it looks like US military is infected with desperados like Mattis and Trump was unable
fully please them despite all his efforts. Military desperados are not interested in how many
American they deprived of decent standard of living due to outside military expenses. All they
want is to dominate the word and maintain the "Full Spectrum Dominance" whatever it costs.
It is Trump's tortured relationship with the military that stands out the most, especially
as told through the eyes of former Secretary of Defense Jim 'Mad Dog' Mattis, a retired marine
general. It is clear that Bob Woodward spent hours speaking with Mattis -- the insights,
emotions and internal voice captured in the book show a level of intimacy that could only be
reached through in-depth interviews, and Woodward has a well-earned reputation for getting
people to speak to him.
The book makes it clear that Mattis viewed Trump as a threat to the US' standing as the
defender of a rules-based order -- built on the back of decades-old alliances -- that had been
in place since the end of the Second World War.
It also makes it clear that Mattis and the military officers he oversaw placed defending
this order above implementing the will of the American people, as expressed through the free
and fair election that elevated Donald Trump to the position of commander-in-chief. In short,
Mattis and his coterie of generals knew best, and when the president dared issue an order or
instruction that conflicted with their vision of how the world should work, they would do their
best to undermine this order, all the while confirming to the president that it was being
followed.
This trend was on display in Woodward's telling of Trump's efforts to forge better relations
with North Korea. At every turn, Mattis and his military commanders sought to isolate the
president from the reality on the ground, briefing him only on what they thought he needed to
know, and keeping him in the dark about what was really going on.
In a telling passage, Woodward takes us into the mind of Jim Mattis as he contemplates the
horrors of a nuclear war with North Korea, and the responsibility he believed he shouldered
when it came to making the hard decision as to whether nuclear weapons should be used or not.
Constitutionally, the decision was the president's alone to make, something Mattis begrudgingly
acknowledges. But in Mattis' world, he, as secretary of defense, would be the one who
influenced that decision.
Mattis, along with the other general officers described by Woodward, is clearly gripped with
what can only be described as the 'Military Messiah Syndrome'.
What defines this 'syndrome' is perhaps best captured in the words of Emma Sky, the female
peace activist-turned adviser to General Ray Odierno, the one-time commander of US forces in
Iraq. In a frank give-and-take captured by Ms. Sky in her book 'The Unravelling', Odierno spoke
of the value he placed on the military's willingness to defend "freedom" anywhere in the world.
" There is, " he said, " no one who understands more the importance of liberty and
freedom in all its forms than those who travel the world to defend it ."
Ms. Sky responded in typically direct fashion: " One day, I will have you admit that the
[Iraq] war was a bad idea, that the administration was led by a radical neocon program, that
the US's standing in the world has gone down greatly, and that we are far less safe than we
were before 9/11. "
Odierno would have nothing of it. " It will never happen while I'm the commander of
soldiers in Iraq ."
" To lead soldiers in battle ," Ms. Sky noted, " a commander had to believe in the
cause. " Left unsaid was the obvious: even if the cause was morally and intellectually
unsound.
his, more than anything, is the most dangerous thing about the 'Military Messiah Syndrome'
as captured by Bob Woodward -- the fact that the military is trapped in an inherited reality
divorced from the present, driven by precepts which have nothing to with what is, but rather by
what the military commanders believe should be. The unyielding notion that the US military is a
force for good becomes little more than meaningless drivel when juxtaposed with the reality
that the mission being executed is inherently wrong.
The 'Military Messiah Syndrome' lends itself to dishonesty and, worse, to self-delusion. It
is one thing to lie; it is another altogether to believe the lie as truth.
No single
general had the courage to tell Trump allegations against Syria were a hoax
The cruise missile attack on Syria in early April 2017 stands out as a case in point. The
attack was ordered in response to allegations that Syria had dropped a bomb containing the
sarin nerve agent on a town -- Khan Shaykhun -- that was controlled by Al-Qaeda-affiliated
Islamic militants.
Trump was led to believe that the 59 cruise missiles launched against Shayrat Airbase --
where the Su-22 aircraft alleged to have dropped the bombs were based -- destroyed Syria's
capability to carry out a similar attack in the future. When shown post-strike imagery in which
the runways were clearly untouched, Trump was outraged, lashing out at Secretary of Defense
Mattis in a conference call. " I can't believe you didn't destroy the runway !",
Woodward reports the president shouting.
" Mr. President ," Mattis responds in the text, " they would rebuild the runway in
24 hours, and it would have little effect on their ability to deploy weapons. We destroyed the
capability to deploy weapons " for months, Mattis said.
" That was the mission the president had approved, " Woodward writes, clearly
channeling Mattis, " and they had succeeded ."
The problem with this passage is that it is a lie. There is no doubt that Bob Woodward has
the audio tape of Jim Mattis saying these things. But none of it is true. Mattis knew it when
he spoke to Woodward, and Woodward knew it when he wrote the book.
There was no confirmed use of chemical weapons by Syria at Khan Shaykhun. Indeed, the
forensic evidence available about the attack points to the incident being a false flag effort
-- a successful one, it turns out -- on the part of the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamists to
provoke a US military strike against Syria. No targets related to either the production,
storage or handling of chemical weapons were hit by the US cruise missiles, if for no other
reason than no such targets could exist if Syria did not possess and/or use a chemical weapon
against Khan Shaykhun.
Moreover, the US failed to produce a narrative of causality which provided some underlying
logic to the targets that were struck at Khan Shaykhun -- "Here is where the chemical weapons
were stored, here is where the chemical weapons were filled, here is where the chemical weapons
were loaded onto the aircraft." Instead, 59 cruise missiles struck empty aircraft hangars,
destroying derelict aircraft, and killing at least four Syrian soldiers and up to nine
civilians.
The next morning, the same Su-22 aircraft that were alleged to have bombed Khan Shaykhun
were once again taking off from Shayrat Air Base -- less than 24 hours after the US cruise
missiles struck that facility. President Trump had every reason to be outraged by the
results.
But the President should have been outraged by the processes behind the attack, where
military commanders, fully afflicted by 'Military Messiah Syndrome', offered up solutions that
solved nothing for problems that did not exist. Not a single general (or admiral) had the
courage to tell the president that the allegations against Syria were a hoax, and that a
military response was not only not needed, but would be singularly counterproductive.
But that's not how generals and admirals -- or colonels and lieutenant colonels -- are
wired. That kind of introspective honesty cannot happen while they are in command.
Bob Woodward knows this truth, but he chose not to give it a voice in his book, because to
do so would disrupt the pre-scripted narrative that he had constructed, around which he bent
and twisted the words of those he interviewed -- including the president and Jim Mattis. As
such, 'Rage' is, in effect, a lie built on a lie. It is one thing for politicians and those in
power to manipulate the truth to their advantage. It's something altogether different for
journalists to report something as true that they know to be a lie.
On the back cover of 'Rage', the Pulitzer prize-winning historian Robert Caro is quoted from
a speech he gave about Bob Woodward. " Bob Woodward ," Caro notes, " a great
reporter. What is a great reporter? Someone who never stops trying to get as close to the truth
as possible ."
After reading 'Rage', one cannot help but conclude the opposite -- that Bob Woodward has
written a volume which pointedly ignores the truth. Instead, he gives voice to a lie of his own
construct, predicated on the flawed accounts of sources inflicted with 'Military Messiah
Syndrome', whose words embrace a fantasy world populated by military members fulfilling
missions far removed from the common good of their fellow citizens -- and often at conflict
with the stated intent and instruction of the civilian leadership they ostensibly serve. In
doing so, Woodward is as complicit as the generals and former generals he quotes in misleading
the American public about issues of fundamental importance.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Scott Ritter
is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ' SCORPION
KING : America's Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.' He served in the
Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff
during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter
@RealScottRitter
Whichever construct you want to believe, the fact remains that US has continued to sow
instability around the world in the name of defending the liberty and freedom. Which brings
to the question how the world can continue to allow a superpower to dictate what's good or
bad for a sovereign country.
Johan le Roux Jewel Gyn 18 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 03:42 AM
The answer you seek is not in the US's proclaimed vision of 'democracy' ot 'rescuing
populations from the clutches of vile dictators.' They just say that to validate their
actions which in reality is using their military as a mercenary force to secure and steal the
resources of countries.
Joaquin Montano 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 04:57 PM
Bob Woodward was enshrined as a great, heroic like journalist by the Hollywood propaganda
machine, but reality is he is a US Security agent pretending to be a well informed/connected
journalist. And indeed, he is well informed/connected, since he was a Naval intelligence man,
part responsible of the demise of the Nixon administration when it fell out of grace with the
powerful elites, and the Washington Post being well connected with the CIA, the rest is
history. And as they say, once a CIA man, always a CIA man.
That is correct. Woodward is a Naval intelligence man. The elite in the US was not happy
about Nixon's foreign policy and his detante with the Soviet Union. Watergate was invented,
and Nixon had nothing to do with it. However, it brought him down, thank's to Woodward.
NoJustice Joaquin Montano 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:48 PM
But he also exposed Trump's lies about Covid-19.
lectrodectus 17 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:45 AM
Another first class article by ....Scott .. The book makes it clear that Mattis viewed Trump
as a threat to the Us' standing as the defender of a " rules -based order -built on the back
of decades -old alliances-that had been in place since the end of the second World War". It
also makes it clear that " Mattis and the Military officials he oversaw placed defending this
order above the implementing the will of the American People " These old Military Dinosaurs
simply can't let go of the past, unfortunately for the American people / the World I can't
see anything ever changing, it will be business as usual ie, war after War after War.
Jonny247364 lectrodectus 5 minutes ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:53 PM
Just because donny signs a dictact it does not equate to the will of the americian people.
The americian people did not ask donny to murder Assad.
neeon9 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:56 PM
"a threat to the US’ standing as the defender of a rules-based order –" Who made
that a thing? who voted for the US to be the policeman of the planet? and who said their
"rules" are right? I sure didn't, nor did anyone I know, even my american friends don't know
whose idea it was!
fezzie035fezzm 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:29 PM
It's interesting to note that every president since J.F.K. has got America into a military
conflict, or has turned a minor conflict into a major one. Trump is the exception. Trump
inherited conflicts (Afghanistan, Syria etc) but has not started a new one, and he has spent
his three years ending or winding down the conflicts he had inherited.
NoJustice fezzie035fezzm 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:34 PM
Trump increased military deployment to the Middle East. He increased military spending. He
had a foreign general assassinated. He had missiles fired into Syria. He vetoed a bill that
would limit his authority to wage war. Trump is not an exception.
T. Agee Kaye 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 05:59 PM
Good op ed. 'Rage is built on a lie' applies to many things.
E_Kaos T. Agee Kaye 7 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:46 PM
True, the beginning of a new narrative and the continuation of an old narrative.
PYCb988 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 07:25 PM
Something's amiss here. Mattis was openly telling the press that there was no evidence
against Assad. Just Google: Mattis Newsweek Assad.
erniedouglas 12 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:14 AM
What was Watergate? Even bet says there were tapes of a private relationship between Nixon
and BB Rebozo.
allan Kaplan 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:03 PM
Continuation of a highly organized and tightly controlled disinformation campaign to do one
singularly the most significant and historically one of the most illegal act of American
betrayal... overthrow American elections at any and all costs to install one of the most
deranged, demoralized sold out brain dead Biden and his equally brown nosing Harris only to
unseat a legally and democratically elected US president according to our Constitution! Will
their evil acts against America work? I doubt it! But at a price that America has never
before seen. Let's sit back and watch this Rose Bowl parade of America's dirtiest of the
dirty politics!
E_Kaos allan Kaplan 7 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:49 PM
"brown nosing harris", how apropos with the play on words.
Bill Spence allan Kaplan 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:29 PM
Both parties and their politicians are totally corrupt. Why would anyone support one side
over the other? Is that because you believe the promises and lies?
custos125 17 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:35 AM
Is there any evidence that both Mattis and Woodward knew that the allegations of a Syrian use
of chemical weapons by plane were not true, a false flag? On the assumption of this use, the
capacity to fly such attack and deploy such weapons was destroyed for some time. I recommend
reading of Rage, it is quite interesting, even if some people will not like it and try to
keep people away from the book.
E_Kaos custos125 7 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:58 PM
My observations were: 1 - where were the bomb fragments 2 - why use rusted gas cylinders 3 -
how do you attach a rusted gas cylinder to a plane 4 - were the rusted gas cylinders tossed
out of a plane 5 - how did the rusted gas cylinders land so close to each other My conclusion
- False Flag Incident
neeon9 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:58 PM
The is only one threat to peace in the world, and it's the US/Israeli M.I.C.. War mongering
children, who actually believe, against all reason, that they are the most worthy and
entitled race on earth! they are not. The US has been responsible for more misery in the
world than any other state, which isn't surprising given how many Nazi's were resettled there
by the Jews. They are also the only Ppl on the planet who think a nuclear war is winnable!
How strange is that!
NoJustice 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:22 PM
So everything is a lie because Woodward didn't mention that there was no evidence found that
linked the Syrian government to the chemical attack?
Strongbo50 6 minutes ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:58 PM
The left is firing up the Russian Interference narrative again, how Russia is trying to take
the election. The real truth is in plain sight, The main stream media is trying to deliver
Biden a win, along with google yahoo msn facebook and twitter. I say, come on Russia, if you
can help stem that tide of lies please Mr Putin help. That's a joke but the media is real.
And Woodward in his old age wants one more trophy on his mantle.
CuttySark 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 05:41 PM
Trump has become the great white whale. Seems like there are Ahab's everywhere willing to
shoot their hearts upon the beast to bring it down whatever the cost. I think it was this
kind of rage and attitude that got Adolf off to a good start.
NoJustice CuttySark 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 05:44 PM
He's an easy target because he keeps screwing up.
Gryphon_ 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:59 PM
The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon. Never in my life have I seen a
newspaper that lies as much as the post. Bob Woodward works for the post.
"... "There can be no doubt in the international community's mind that Syria has retained chemical weapons in violation of its agreement and its statement that it had removed them all. There is no longer any doubt ," Mattis told reporters. ..."
"... there's absolutely No Doubt that the Outlaw US Empire's mouthpieces are lying yet again. ..."
"... Perhaps the more disturbing alternative is Mattis is fully aware of everything surrounding the run up to the 2003 Iraq war and is thinking to himself: "Declaring there is no doubt worked last time..." ..."
"... The particular genius of our oppressors has been to erode the public's collective memory. With a dumbed-down educational system, a 24-hour propaganda, and an utterly vacuous popular culture, we are deprived of precisely that faculty on which following Burke's admonition depends. With our "post-literate" reliance on the Internet, it's a wonder any of us can remember what happened last week. ..."
"... If the Syrians used them, then clearly they have them. Did the Syrians use them? The US does not recognize that as a valid question. That is where Mattis goes astray. It is a valid question. We were fooled by false flag use before. There are signs it may have happened again. It is not clear enough to be sure, but it is not clear enough to be sure the other way either. ..."
"... That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. ~Aldous Huxley ..."
"There can be no doubt in the international community's mind that Syria has retained chemical weapons in violation of its
agreement and its statement that it had removed them all. There is no longer any doubt ," Mattis told reporters.
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them
to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will
lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors ...
"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
And there's absolutely No Doubt that the Outlaw US Empire's mouthpieces are lying yet again. Makes me even more curious
as to what Putin said to Tillerson, as both Putin's and Lavrov's remarks about the global situation are blunter and more accusatory
than ever before. Given the info provided by Lavrov at the press conference following the meeting of their Foreign Ministers Astana,
I must assume the SCO nations are on the same page regarding the entire International Situation. In June in Astana, the SCO Summit
will admit India and Pakistan as full members and begin the process to enroll Iran. Here, again, is the link to that press release,
http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2734712
Perhaps the more disturbing alternative is Mattis is fully aware of everything surrounding the run up to the 2003 Iraq war
and is thinking to himself: "Declaring there is no doubt worked last time..."
The particular genius of our oppressors has been to erode the public's collective memory. With a dumbed-down educational system,
a 24-hour propaganda, and an utterly vacuous popular culture, we are deprived of precisely that faculty on which following Burke's
admonition depends. With our "post-literate" reliance on the Internet, it's a wonder any of us can remember what happened last
week.
If the Syrians used them, then clearly they have them. Did the Syrians use them? The US does not recognize that as a valid
question. That is where Mattis goes astray. It is a valid question. We were fooled by false flag use before. There are signs it
may have happened again. It is not clear enough to be sure, but it is not clear enough to be sure the other way either.
Therefore, Mattis is wrong to conclude anything either way. However, given the official position of the US, he can hardly
say anything different in public.
We ought to be looking at this very closely, but we vetoed such a close look by the international body that would do it. That
would put into question the missile strikes we launched based on assumptions.
Pepe Escobar evokes T.S. Eliot's Hollow Men in his latest enumeration of Russia & China's strategic relationship. Oh, and
I forgot to mention in #1 that BRICS also stands with Russia regarding all events Syria and Ukraine; and despite many efforts
to destabilize it, BRICS still stands in solidarity and continues its work to economically counter the Outlaw US Empire, which
Pepe also reminds us about,
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201704211052866086-washington-terrified-of-russia-china/
Why would insignificant village be intentionally "gassed by Assad" while he has an absolute upper hand on the field? - is the
question nobody in the Western media asks, nor has an answer to it.
Bio-chem weapons would be last resort to use on the battlefield in a desperate situation - was an original thought of making
and having them.
Me and probably all of us here have no doubt that it is just a false flag perpetrated, oversaturated and pathetically served
to us to validate continuation to oust Assad for Saudi's concessions, oil and money. Pure con and a rather amateurish one.
As expected, no doubt. :)
Which state is Iran's greatest enemy? - Israel .. Where was the statement made? .. Who are the greatest financial political contributors
in America? Res Ipsa Loquitur.
The importance of Mattis's pronouncement, as well as some "
tilling of the soil " in the prestige press, is that another false flag attack is coming. The Hillary-McCain directive to
take out Syrian airfields is going to be implemented.
@1 karlof1
Talking Lavrov, talking history... The comprehensive history lesson Lavrov delivers to Tillerson is worth watching a number of
times. It is an absolute shut down, in Tillersons face...rolling straight off the tongue. Tillerson: 'trust us, we are sure, beyond doubt, Assad has chemical weapons' Lavrov: 'here have this 5 minute history lesson you
cabbage. '
SmoothieX12 Difference this time is Syria has Russian backing and the BRICS [almost half the population of the World].Russia knows
Syria is the key to the Middle East, if Syria fell, Hezbollah could not resist the head choppers from the North and East and attacks
from the aparthied state from the South. Iran would then be exposed and attacked financially and militarily. Of course its a huge
gamble, will those nutcases in Washington take it? These are existential stakes for many states in the region.
Assad's recent announcement about wanting to buy more Russian air defense systems comes close to addmiting that the Russians
will not be defending Syrian airspace.
To paraphrase tRump:
...the submarines, even more powerful than the carriers...
So, all the assets are in place. We're starting to see the accusation swarm against Assad occur at a rate that's too fast to
refute individual charges against the Syrian president.
Don't be surprised if the decapitation strikes against Syria and N.Korea happen simultaneously.
@18 This probably won't appear in the MSM so I'll post it here...
"Emmanuel Macron fears this as well. The 39-year-old presidential candidate – an unknown quantity here just two years ago–
is campaigning for the Jewish vote, keenly aware of the threat. But when France goes to the polls on Sunday, its Jews will face
a unique choice: To vote in the spirit of Jewish Americans, prioritizing principles of welfare and liberal democratic values,
or in the Israeli posture, with security first in mind.
Macron is betting on the former, appealing to Jewish community values shared with the French Republic of liberty, equality
and fraternity.
"He knows there is a real danger from a double extremism – from the far-Right with Marine Le Pen, and from the far-Left," said
Gilles Taieb, a prominent member of the French Jewish community who joined Macron's En Marche! campaign in August. "He understands
the specific needs of the Jewish community.""
Assad's recent announcement about wanting to buy more Russian air defense systems comes close to addmiting that the Russians
will not be defending Syrian airspace.
This is rather a confusing (in BBC's or NYT vein) statement, since Russia, through a number of her high ranking representatives
openly stated that she will upgrade Syria's AD. Syria IS NOT going to buy them, since has very little precious money, but what
Syria is doing already is letting a truck load of Russia's extracting and construction companies on her market. Google Translate
will do the job (link is in Russian)
Iran would then be exposed and attacked financially and militarily.
I have a different opinion about this dynamics and I will not be surprised if Iran "suddenly" will become a full member of
ODKB. At least for a little while.
Fog of war warning and all, but Assad definitely mentioned price as a factor in getting New AD systems in a sputniknews interview.
Of course, mechanism of what in Russian is called vzaimoraschety (mutual "payments" or "coverage") is always established. The
price of military technology may be compensated through other means, such as contractual preferences or any other privileges.
I think Russia's oil companies will be quite happy and so will be weapons' manufacturers. Come to think about it--they already
are.
The question of Russian air defence missiles to Syria should not even be asked, Israel has nuclear weapons, the US don't care,
the US supplies Israel with the latest OFFENSIVE weaponry and aircraft [f35, f16 ect]plus Iron Dome. It would be the height of
folly for Russia not to give Syria the means to defend themselves.
Just as an FYI, I'm unable to access this site when I use a VPN server based in Canada, however VPN servers located elsewhere
connect without issue. Anyone else experience this?
what's the sound of one mad dog jarhead barking? if it sounds off in the media echo-chamber, does it make a noise? it only echoes
in the tnc msm. every american knows he's howling at the moon. it may well be that there's plenty of energy among those clipping
coupons on american war bonds for more war, and no energy among those who fruitlessly opposed empire in the face of those same
coupon-clippers.
its all-war, all-the-time with tee-rump just as it was with obama, bush, and clinton before him. people who are surprised at
this are no more acute than those who might salute the flag the mad dogs have again run up the flag pole.
it would be exceptionally keen if all those cruise missiles unleashed on syria and/or north korea not only turned around, but
struck their origin. wouldn't that be the end?
The American public has to be the most ignorant and gullible group of ass-hats on the planet, if they fall for this BS being shoveled
at them again. God-almighty this crap gets old!!!
All for the sake of global hegemony, and more wealth for the Trumps of the world.
First of all, I don't know how you can tell those speeches are the same though I heard them both mention WMDs. But here's the
kicker, that's not the Canadian PM, not on that date, he was the Leader of the Opposition at that time. Harper became PM later.
Jean Chretien was the PM and he kept Canada out of Iraq. End of story.
b cites Edmund Burke "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
There is also this little ditty:
"If at first you don't succeed try and try and try again. Never stop trying."
It works very well for TPTB who hold the sheeples are too dumbed down and will never recall moving lips.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
@ Perimetr 16
Israel needs to take the other side of the Golan - that's where the oil bubbles bigly. Ask Genie HQ NJ and while at it check
out their Board of Directors, Strategic Advisory Board. Hint, it's the gang and No One dares to spank
[Alert: page may load slowly but a worthy wait].
So forget about it. The op word is Strategic
Israel can strike Syria with 10 MOABs per second 24hr/7 and lips will be festiviously sealed tighter than a crabs rear-end.
A long essay by Robert Kennedy Jr Feb 2016:
"[W]e may want to look beyond the convenient explanations of religion and ideology and focus on the more complex rationales
of history and oil, which mostly point the finger of blame for terrorism back at the champions of militarism, imperialism and
petroleum here on our own shores," Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., intoned in an April editorial for
Ecowatch
thanks b... waiting for the exceptional empire to collapse.. not holding my breathe here.. the same game is being played and the
same folks are hoping for the same results.. they are already getting them when it comes to money thrown into war and prep for
war.. they are winning regardless if they can convince everyone to go deeper..
@17 wwinsti.. could be a head fake... no one knows for sure other then assad and russia.. welcome to the world of endless speculation..
@28 ia... this canuck is not having any issues accessing moa.. who nose.. maybe trudeau and freeland have set up a firewall to
protect us from a different perspective then the 'rah, rah, rah - war 24/7 we support twitter mans agenda'..
The verdict on the chemical attack was swift and certain. When it comes to the recent bus bombing, somehow it is so different:
We are investigating, but I don't have any specific ... But we think it's exaggerated . Inqury on Syria. Security Council Stakeout, 21 April, 2017
Those people have no shame. They are not going to investigate the Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack. All the want is the flight
plans from the Syrian government to finish their "work".
"No doubt" is not a statement about an objective reality out there (in country x); it is a statement about the subjective reality
in the mind of the speaker (observer). A cunning ploy to speak a non-falsehood (about the mental conditioning of speaker and audience)
that is merely opinion implying it is fact about a situation lacking empirical evidence.
This hype is getting so tedious.
The WMD crap from The International (Christian Colonial) Community isn't about 'manufacturing consent'. It's about manufacturing
CONSENSUS within the Christian Colonial Community itself. The Jew-controlled MSM takes care of the brainwashing. We already know
that bribed politicians are paid to disregard the Will Of The People.
"Those people have no shame. They are not going to investigate the Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack."
They're just plugging stuff into the dossier so that historians will be able to look back and see how reasonable and restrained
the U.S. was before deciding to bomb the crap out of Assad and his country.
Here's how they can do that : They say " Look , we admit that proving guilt absolutely is next to impossible in these events
, and that we may have been a bit hasty in bombing Syria's airfield before the investigation was done. We'll even concede the
odds in Assad's favor , say 3:1 , or only a 25% chance he was guilty for any given sarin attack , even though we're pretty sure
he's been the culprit. Just know this , when we're sure - let's set a higher standard here and say 90% certainty - when we're
sure about his culpability for just one use of sarin , big or small , that's our red line, after that he gets the full Gaddafi
, no questions asked. OK ? Understand ? "
Everyone nods , probably including some here. When there's any uncertainty , which there always is , he gives Assad the benefit
of the doubt , and then requires a higher threshold to hold him accountable. You can't get more reasonable than that.
Well , maybe somewhat predictably , false-flag activity picks up - two sarin attacks per month over the following two months
, always with the typical doubts about who dunnit. The U.S. keeps their word , with no significant escalation. With the next event
, as soon as sarin is confirmed but well before we think we know who was guilty , the U.S. announces breach of the red line and
launches a full-scale attack on Assad and his partners , demanding that he step down immediately or watch as his country is turned
to rubble. Why ?
Counting the three sarin attacks to date , and the five more that follow , the probability that the rebels committed all eight
attacks is .75^8 , or 10%. That means there's a 90% chance that Assad was responsible for at least one attack - i.e. , he crossed
the red line.
That's why the false-flags will continue , and why a regime-change war with Syria is inevitable , and why the buy-in by the
public when it happens will be nearly unanimous.
That could just as easily be interpreted as Russia planning to intervene while claiming that "Syrian" air defenses have shot
down US aircraft/tomohawaks. I certainly don't know for sure that Russia has actually decided to take it to that level. Perhaps
the Russians will never do that, or perhaps they themselves have not yet decided but want to keep that option open to them if
later they do. At any rate, there is no advantage at all to reassuring the Americans that they will NOT intervene. It is best
to keep Mattis and McMaster guessing just like we are.
I do not know to what degree US planners are confident of easily overcoming serious air defenses. They probably feel that if
they defeat the S400s then US military dominance will remain unchallenged for a very long time. I'm not sure if they've gamed
the opposite outcome. If "Syria" shoots down a few F22s or 35s the US is in deep trouble and any victory (to the extent bringing
jihadists to power can be called a victory) would be a Pyrhic one.
Well, fuck! Here we go again; U.S. is blitzing the international airways with propaganda and lies.
Zieg heil, zeig heil, herr Trump...
You bloody, rotten, bastard!
Karlof1 and Harrylaw: talking about BRICS'support to Russia, never trust Brazil. After Lula and Rousseff,the right-wing president
Michel Temer has transformed the country in just another latin american lackey of Trump...
Of course, there's no way to predict the outcomes of certain actions or read minds of any of the various actors involved with
this sarin drama, but the events in Syria since Sept. 2015 or even Sept. 2001 do allow us to lean our interpretations a certain
way, don't you think?
At the end of the day, an increasingly desperate USA has available 4 Ohio class submarines that carry just short of 200 cruise
missiles each. They are, with some quibbling, decapitation weapon systems designed to overwhelm nearly any defense. I can't see
the US not making use of such a capacity if they are as hell bent on regime change as they claim.
Because the strike on Syrian territory was against International law
http://www.dw.com/en/us-missile-strike-on-syria-a-violation-of-international-law/a-38389950
Putin has to make up his mind, if the US strike Syria again or repeatedly without harming Russial personnel or assets and
without a military response, Russia should sue for peace and get the hell out of Syria, thereby acknowledging that the US are
the only Nation that can decide the fate of Nations with regard to International affairs. In other words the unanimous agreement
of the 5 veto wielding members of the UNSC will no longer be applicable and article 2 of the UN Charter is null and void.
Article 2. [3] UN Charter All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international
peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
[4] All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity
or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Are you the NEW York Times commentator. I really enjoy your comments their. I hardly drop by NYT however this week you were
the only sane poster on North Korea. Your a jem keep it up. In fact I think cut and pasted you comment onto a Australian paper.
Bravo.
Yes, the US has an enormous amount of cruise missiles. But judging by the damage done by the last 60 tomohawaks, it does not
have enough to destroy Syrian air power with tomohawaks alone. In past invasions, they were used to destroy radars so that the
subsequent air campaign can be conducted without contending with air defenses. They are not an end in and of themselves. In this
case, that isn't possible unless the US plans on attacking Russian forces on both land and sea directly. The US is so far extremely
reluctant to kill any Russian personnel and that is not likely to change. And this reluctance is not because of good sportsmanship.
Add to that, the Russians have shut down the deconfliction line. It means the US can't warn the Russians to get out of the
way during the next attack. In other words, the Russians are prepared to be human shields to protect Syria. That does not scream
"we are backing down" to me. There are also indications that US and allied sortie rates over Syria have dropped in number quite
substantially since communication has been shut down.
While I agree the US is absolutely determined to destroy Syria, it is not at all clear that Russia plans to step aside while
the US does it.
OT but LA, SF, NYC all experience power outages at the same and only RT makes the connection while MSM oblivious. Meanwhile exercises
for an EMZ attack over a major US city ongoing. Strange
Peter AU @52. Sorry Peter I was being a little sarcastic. I think it has already been established that any US attack on Syria
must be countered in the first instance by Syrian forces, since Russia was invited into Syria to help put down terrorism, it might
not be in Russia's interest or anybody's [unless their forces are hit] to start WW3. Hence my point about arming Syria up the
same way the US does with Israel and Saudi Arabia.All 5 veto wielding powers are of course above International law for all time,
so that if the other members of the Security Council propose a Resolution condemning US aggression, the US simply uses its veto
and that Resolution goes down the memory hole. Here is an excellent article on the veto..
http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iraq/ags-legal-advice.pdf
"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" does not appear in the complete 12-volume set of Works of Edmund Burke,
and Bartlett's books of quotations have never included it, but the allegation nowadays is common that Burke said this, because
many writers say things that are false. Anyone who trusts a mere allegation, like gossip, is not reliable and cannot be trusted
in what that person alleges, because falsehoods mix in with truths for any such person. The person isn't necessarily fabricating,
not necessarily intentionally falsifying; the person just doesn't care whether what he or she alleges to be true IS true. Any
such person is untrustworthy to cite on anything.
Furthermore, that alleged Burke-quotation doesn't even sound like Burke's writing-style, which was a very distinctive style.
So, anyone who has actually read Burke would suspect that this apocryphal statement from him was probably never said by him. Only
pretentious people would allege that Burke said it -- people who pretend to have read Burke.
@54 lysander, 'In other words, the Russians are prepared to be human shields to protect Syria.'
i don't think that's the message sent or that it's indicative of the action to be taken in the event of another us attack on
syria. as it stood pre-tee-rump-attack the us could call the russians and 'warn' them that the cruise missiles were theirs ...
now they can no longer do that, and the russians have made a point of stating that an attacking aircraft/missile - and the originating
vessel/station - are going to be shot down/taken down ... that the russians will not waste time in trying to figure out just whose
attacking missiles/aircraft they are destroying.
i think it will be a cold day in hell before the russians 'sacrifice' themselves to make a point.
Eric Zuesse | Apr 22, 2017 7:15:46 AM | 59
"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"
This from, of all places, Yahoo answers (blech); however it is referenced;
CITES: George Santayana, The Life of Reason or The Phases of Human Progress: Reason in Common Sense 284 (2nd ed., Charles Scribner's
Sons, New York, New York 1924 (originally published 1905 Charles Scribner's Sons)(appears in chapter XII, "Flux and Constancy
in Human Nature")). George Santayana, The Life of Reason or The Phases of Human Progress 82 (one-volume edition, Charles Scribner's
Sons, New York, New York 1954)(appears in Book I, Reason in Common Sense, chapter 10, "Flux and Constancy in Human Nature").
This information was found at: http://members.aol.com/Santayana/gsguestbook.htm
``Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it,'' said Penton, echoing philosopher George Santayana's famous admonition.
All this lies, fake news, psyop by US, NATO and MSM is possibly just because they rule the world. They refuse any other views,
parties, nations questioning their wars and propaganda. Its quite scary when you think about it.
Like, is there ANYONE condemning this in the MSM nowadays? No one.
Every journalist (MSM) from Germany, to US, to Spain, to Portugal, to Columbia, to Sweden, to South Korea etc, all western MSM
peddle this same propaganda for the american empire and their endless wars.
1984?
@ 60, I don't think sacrifice is the word I would use. The US understands that killing openly Russian soldiers soldiers (vs indirectly
by arming terrorist proxies) would mean Russian retaliation. And therefore will not do it.
@ 60, I don't think sacrifice is the word I would use. The US understands that killing openly Russian soldiers soldiers (vs indirectly
by arming terrorist proxies) would mean Russian retaliation. And therefore will not do it.
well, we're real impressed that you've memorized all 12 volumes of Edmund Burke, but for those of us who haven't, Google does
credit him with this remark. a simple oversight, perhaps? so thanks for the lesson(even if you haven't cleared anything up), and
the mini diatribe, teach, even though your scholarly footnotes have fuck all to do with b's intent.
"no doubt"
Did they get this from Bush's speech to congress in March, 2003?
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some
of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Real intelligence left all kinds of doubt especially from the family members of Iraqi scientists who went into Iraq to ask. They
risked their lives for this and were ignored.
"we assess" - recent prepeated mantra from USG declarations. I'm waiting for The Donald or his CIA minion to declare Syrian
WMDs to be a "slam dunk." I think Cheney used to say "we have it on good authority." The rule for most politicians and media is
if their lips move they're lying.
Perhaps after another coalition of the willing has destroyed Syria will the US president joke about searching for WMDs like Bush
did. An insult to us all.
The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Quotations has the quote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" made
by George Santayana (1863 - 1952) in The Life of Reason (1905) vol. 1, ch. 12
Oxford is fairly reliable sourcing for such questions, FWIW. As far as the western world and history another quote comes to
mind from Dante Alighiere (1265-1321) that translates: Abandon all hope, you who enter! [with regard to history].
We need a Jon Stewart style montage of all these people saying "no doubt" followed by the group No Doubt saying it. (like he did
with the GOP/FNC meme of "It's A Trap")
"Counting the three sarin attacks to date , and the five more that follow , the probability that the rebels committed all eight
attacks is .75^8 , or 10%. That means there's a 90% chance that Assad was responsible for at least one attack - i.e. , he crossed
the red line."
I understand that this was presented as an incorrect reasoning, but perhaps not all readers here see the mistakes. First, probability
is used to describe random events and not historical events. The post that you see here could be written by Piotr Berman, an identifiable
individual, or by an impostor. In itself the claim that it was written by Piotr Berman is true or false, it does not have probability.
However, from the point of view of a reader, it is but one of a large number of comments posted on internet so one can apply some
guessed estimates, like "10% of comments signed with uniquely identifiable names are written by impostors". This of course begs
the question how we arrive at such estimates etc. In short, the probability assigned to a single sarin attack is an exhalation
from someones terminal end of the digestive system and quite hazardous if used.
However, even if we form an abstract model in which a chemical attack is randomly perpetrated by X with probability p and not
by X with probability 1-p, and we have 8 attacks, the probability that X perpetrated at least one attack is anywhere between 0
and 1. The formula (1-p)^8 applies only if the events are independent. For example, if X possesses the means to perpetrate an
attack with probability q, then the probability that it perpetrated any of many attacks is never larger than q.
That said, probabilities have their place in war strategy. If a false flag attack has a random effect on a key decision maker,
that repeating it many times may increase the probability that a desired decision will be made. And Trump's and Obama's behavior
has (and had) a degree of randomness.
You're correct about the technical probability considerations , of course , but I think the real-life effect of each new false-flag
may fall closer to the line drawn by the bad model than by the good. I think all parties involved know that each new false-flag
has an incremental impact driving us closer to war ,in addition to the random one you mention , at least as long as there remains
considerable doubt about the true culprit with each new event.
From Khan al-Assal to Ghouta to Khan Sheikhoun we've moved closer and closer to the real "red line". For the anti-Assad camp
, the false-flag strategy is still working and they'll keep it up , though I'm sure they're getting impatient. For the Assad side
, gaining territory has the opposite effect , moving us away from the red line. Had Assad and Putin doubled-down on battlefield
intensity after Aleppo and made further gains , rather than pausing as they did , I think they'd be in much better shape today.
The usage of "there can be no doubt" is a bit different from what we could learn in English classes. First, "doubt" is a kind
of thought-weed that is at times harmless, and at times seriously detrimental and thus subjected to eradication efforts. "There
is no doubt" declares the success of the eradication campaign while "There can be no doubt" is more like "There should not be
any doubt", i.e. an exhortation to continue and expand eradication campaign. Usually the large fields of major agribusiness companies
are well tended with copious amounts of herbicides, while on the edges, meadows, smaller organically tended fields etc. the weeds
can survive and in isolated places they can even thrive.
From that point of view excessive consumption of, say, NYT or TV news can make people positive for "symptoms of sarin or sarin-like
chemicals" like Roundup when we take swabs from their mucosal surfaces and analyze with sensitive instruments. Smaller but proudly
"mainstream" publications like New Yorker have no doubt either (in this case it is easy, because New Yorker is very compartmentalized,
few individuals are allowed to write on the topic, this way they can keep doubt from showing without mass use of chemicals). The
Nation has some articles written by doubt-free persons (like Katha Pollit) but doubt levels are significant -- kept down mostly
by small number of articles on Syria. And Counterpunch is a weed in itself.
How about this: The US is prime Nazi country/regime, and the Zionist state is modeled after the US, or the European racism.
The settler states are known for its unprecedented violence. Unfortunately, still the phenomenon of extermination is connected
with Germany and not the US.
One of many U.S. state laws that Nazis examined was this from Maryland:
"All marriages between a white person and a Negro, or between a white person and a person of Negro descent, to the third generation,
inclusive, or between a white person and a member of the Malay race or between a Negro and a member of the Malay race, or between
a person of Negro descent to the third generation, inclusive, and a member of the Malay race . . . [skipping over many variations]
. . . are forever prohibited . . . punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than eighteen months nor more
than ten years."
@78 bp. 'From that point of view excessive consumption of, say, NYT or TV news can make people positive for "symptoms of sarin
or sarin-like chemicals" like Roundup when we take swabs from their mucosal surfaces and analyze with sensitive instruments.'
very nice piotr berman. the metaphor is so well drawn, and in the following cases as well. One has a malady, here, a malady.
One feels a malady.
the dysfunctions all swell from a common source, into a slum of bloom. the wigs despoiling the Satan ear.
Yes, I was apprehensive at first, but the new regime toed BRICS's lines, participated in its functions as usual, and has tried
to use it in its national interest. Brazil's internal contradictions don't allow it to abandon its one big success story. And
as I stated, BRICS policy declarations are all in line with Russia and China's in every area.
While many of the big brains go to Wall St. to front guess Mr. Market, there are others, "no doubt", that build geopolitical
dashboards, models and simulations for the elite to monitor all the countries/governments/militaries/public.
In spite of their visibility of their universe, they are losing control and know it. The absurdity of the ongoing global debt
situation is a tell.
All countries have evolving relationships with both the US and China as well as within the various groups of nations. China
is talking growth and the US/private finance is talking austerity. It is not if but a matter of when growth wins out and global
finance is put under public control.
That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. ~Aldous Huxley
Afghan officials have said nearly 100 militants and no civilians were killed, but the remoteness of the area, the presence
of Islamic State fighters, and, more recently, American security forces, has left those claims unverified.
If you are interested in Higgins and 'Bellingcat', you might want be interested in a
'Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media' which has recently been set up by a group of
British academics.
At the moment, work which has already been done is being prepared for publication on the
site. However, some of it has already appeared on the blog of one of the members, Tim
Hayward.
This includes a detailed discussion of the report of the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism'
on the Khan Sheikhoun attack by Paul McKeigue.
His professorship, at Edinburgh, is in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics. This
means that, unlike most of us interested in these matters, with the obvious exception of
Theodore Postol, he has a grasp of a lot of relevant science.
A basic tool of his trade is a technique called 'Bayesian analysis', one of whose many
applications is to separate out genetic factors in disease from others. His use of it in the
piece may make bits of it somewhat hard going for those of us whose scientific education
stopped at school.
But if you are interested in a demonstration of the way that the kind of pure charlatanry
propagated by Higgins and Kaszeta has come to be accepted uncritically by supposed impartial
international bodies, you should read the piece.
Also on Hayward's blog is an article which was submitted to the Guardian's 'Comment is
Free' page, in response to a piece by Olivia Solon smearing those who have had the temerity
to suggest that the 'White Helmets' may be something less than a band of disinterested
charity workers, and an account of the attempts of the 'Working Group' to get a response from
the paper.
Thanks for the link. But what Mattis has said relates to the latest accusations, not early
ones. Key paragraphs:
'A deadly sarin attack on another rebel-held area in April 2017 prompted President Donald
Trump to order a U.S. missile strike on the Shayrat airbase, from which the Syrian operation
is said to have been launched.
'"We are on the record and you all have seen how we reacted to that, so they would be
ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical (weapons) convention," Mattis said.'
So he is not repudiating the conventional wisdom according to which sarin was used at Khan
Sheikhoun, and the possibility of a military response to a fresh 'false flag' is left open.
Unless he is basing his accusation on credible evidence, this to be blunt, comes close to
inciting jihadists to atrocity.
The extent -- and unscrupulousness -- of the mounting propaganda campaign in relation to
the recently claims is well brought out in a piece by Rick Sterling in 'Consortium News' on
Sunday. Whether those involved are still hoping to precipitate a serious American military
intervention, and whether those hopes might be realistic, I cannot say.
This makes the detailed demonstration by Professor McKeigue of the frankly farcical nature
of the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism' report into Khan Sheikhoun, to which I linked, all the
more important. In addition to exposing the total dependence of its analysis on a completely
incredible claim about the aircraft which is supposed to have delivered the chemical weapon,
and discussing much other evidence, he brings out a key point about developments in 'chemical
forensics' over the past years.
As well as the 1995 sarin attacks, the 2001 anthrax letter attacks led to an enormous
investment of money and intellectual energy in the development of analytical techniques
making it possible to identify perpetrators of chemical weapons incidents. A fascinating
article entitled 'Tracing a Threat' by Bethany Halford in 'Chemistry & Engineering News
World' in February 2012 provides a good picture of what the state of play was at that
time.
She quotes an expert called Joseph Chipuk, from a consultancy called 'Signature Science'
in Austin, explaining how the 'spectra' -- different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation
associated with different 'impurities' in samples, including 'environmental' ones, such as
soil, fragments of weapons, and clothing -- can be matched with reconstructions of possible
'synthetic pathways'.
The levels of sophistication of which this kind of analysis was already capable, he made
clear, are close to breathtaking:
'To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says
that the synthetic chemists on his team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as
2,000 times in an "almost robotic manner," following a database that tells them exactly what
conditions to use. They then hand off the product to the analytical chemists, who look at all
the tiny impurities that turn up along with the toxic chemical -- "the stuff that's down in
the weeds," as Chipuk describes it. From there, the hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of
spectra that are collected go to statisticians and computer scientists who work their magic
to tease out the unique attribution signatures.'
At the end of the article, Halford quotes Chipuk again making clear that improvement is
continuous in a way that is making it quite extraordinarily difficult to fool analysts who
are genuinely looking for the truth -- as not only Dan Kaszeta but, very regrettably, key
figures at the OPCW and some of its 'Designated Laboratories' do not appear to be:
'"The fact is that technology continues to improve, instrumentation continues to improve,
and computers continue to improve. The chances of someone being able to slip by undetected
are getting smaller and smaller," says Signature Science's Chipuk. "If you were to choose to
do something like this, the science is going to catch up to you."'
In relation to the claims now being made, what is initially at issue is simply the
question of whether the 'impurities' identified by the 'spectra' in samples from the
incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal match.
What characterised the 'hexamine hypothesis' as put forward by Kaszeta was the -- close to
surreal -- suggestion that a single substance, hexamine, was a 'smoking gun'. To anyone who
had taken the trouble to read easily accessible discussions of the methodology, such as
Halford's piece, it would be apparent that it is simply ludicrous to base a claim on a single
substance -- particularly given that hexamine is also used in explosives.
In the 'Reuters' report on 30 January, we were told:
'Two compounds in the Ghouta sample matched those also found in Khan Sheikhoun, one formed
from sarin and the stabilizer hexamine and another specific fluorophosphate that appears
during sarin production, the tests showed.'
So we have an -- unidentified -- compound which supposedly establishes that the hexamine
did indeed form part of the sarin production process, rather than of the explosive charge.
And we are then told of the presence of another compound, which are told is 'another specific
fluorophosphate': why not tell us which?
To anyone interested in actually making sense of the evidence, to have a mere two
compounds mentioned, and those not adequately identified, suggests an alternative
possibility: that people who knew details of the 'synthetic pathway' by which Syrian
government sarin had been synthesised leaked them to those who were producing the substance
for a 'false flag.' It would have been beyond the capabilities of a relatively primitive
operation to produce any kind of close fit -- to get a couple of compounds to match would
probably not have been difficult at all.
If this suspicious interpretation if false, there is a very simple way to refute it -- and
General Mattis is in a perfect position to do this.
The close links between the American and British 'intelligence communities' have been
stressed in comments on this thread. It is clear that in relation to Syrian chemical weapons,
there was a division of labour.
Analysis of 'environmental' samples was concentrated at the British OPCW-certified
facility, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down in Wiltshire.
Meanwhile, preparations for the dismantling of the Syrian chemical arsenal were the made at
one of the two American OPCW-certified laboratories, the U.S. Army's Edgewood Chemical
Biological Center in Maryland.
The destruction of the 581 tonnes of the sarin precursor methylphosphonyl difluoride, or
DF, aboard the specially kitted out vessel 'M.V. Cape Ray' in the Mediterranean was announced
in August 2014. In the extensive reporting on the preparations for this, it was made
absolutely clear that -- as one would expect -- the vessel was equipped with a proper
analytical laboratory, with OPCW scientists involved as well as those from the Edgewood
Center.
In a post entitled 'Sentence First -- Verdict Afterwards?' shortly after the Khan
Sheikhoun attack, and then in two 'open letters' to the members of our Defence and Foreign
Affairs Committees, I pointed to the mass of evidence suggesting that the test results from
different incidents did not match each other or those from the stocks destroyed on the 'Cape
Ray.'
The publicly available evidence, I argued, provided strong reason to believe that results
from Porton Down and the OPCW confirmed the claim made by the Russians, supposedly on the
basis of tests from their own OPCW-certified laboratory, that the sarin used at Khan Al-Asal
and Ghouta was a 'cottage industry' product. This was also what Seymour Hersh claimed that
tests carried out at Porton Down had revealed about the sarin used at Ghouta - he used the
term 'kitchen sarin.'
What the Reuters report has -- perhaps inadvertently -- confirmed is that Porton Down had
in fact tested 'environmental' samples from the Khan Al-Asal incident on 19 March 2013, the
first where sarin was used in Syria, by suggesting that tests from that incident as well as
those at Ghouta and Khan Sheikhoun matched the results from the stocks on the 'Cape Ray':
'Laboratories working for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
compared samples taken by a U.N. mission in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta after the Aug. 21,
2013 attack, when hundreds of civilians died of sarin gas poisoning, to chemicals handed over
by Damascus for destruction in 2014.
'The tests found "markers" in samples taken at Ghouta and at the sites of two other nerve
agent attacks, in the towns of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib governorate on April 4, 2017 and Khan
al-Assal, Aleppo, in March 2013, two people involved in the process said.
'"We compared Khan Sheikhoun, Khan al-Assal, Ghouta," said one source who asked not to be
named because of the sensitivity of the findings. "There were signatures in all three of them
that matched."'
Can anyone seriously believe that if the tests we know to have been done on at Porton Down
had established what this 'source' who does not have the guts to the identify himself claims,
this fact would not have been trumpeted to the skies -- first when the results from Ghouta
matched those from Khan Al-Asal, and then when both matched those from the 'Cape Ray'?
Allright -- sometimes the practically incredible turns out to be true. But if he has any
evidence on which to base his claims, General Mattis should have the courage of his
convictions, and order the disclosure of the relevant 'spectra.'
You are wrong about this. That the 'chain of custody' principle has been flagrantly
violated in the reports of the 'Fact-Finding Mission' and the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism'
is patently the case, and in itself reason why the almost unanimous acceptance of these in
the MSM is scandalous. But that is a separate issue.
The reasons why the test results from the various laboratories were critical were set out
last April in my '"Sentence First -- Verdict Afterwards"?' piece, and the two 'open letters'
to the members of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Committees pointing out the need for
clarification as to what was being claimed about the test results.
Let me recap, and update.
An example of the kind of 'chemical forensics' one needs in incidents like this was
provided by the analysis of test results on 'shell and soil' samples purporting to derive
from the Khan Al-Asal incident on 19 March 2013 which formed part of the document from the
Russian OPCW-certified laboratory which was submitted to the UN Secretary-General on 9 July
that year.
On 4 September, as part of the attempt to stop the visible attempt to use Ghouta to create
an unstoppable momentum towards the destruction of the Syrian government, more details of
what looks like an expanded version of the original document were made public by the Russian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In it they claimed that:
'shell and soil samples contained nerve agents -- sarin gas and diisopropylfluorophosphate
-- not synthesized in an industrial environment, which was used by Western states for
producing chemical weapons during World War II.'
It was also made clear that the conclusions rested upon precisely the kind of very complex
analysis Bethany Halford is describing:
'We highlight that the Russian report is extremely specific. It is a scientific and
technical document containing about 100 pages with many tables and diagrams of spectral
analysis of the samples. We expect that it will significantly assist in the investigation
into this incident by the UN. Unfortunately, it has in fact not started yet.'
Unfortunately, the detailed 'spectra' have not been released, but they have certainly been
analysed by experts at the OPCW and that organisation's 'Designated Laboratories' in the
West, including Porton Down. We know that the results from the materials tested on the 'Cape
Ray' will show a sarin precursor 'manufactured in an industrial environment.'
To prove what Mattis and others want to claim it is necessary that the 'spectra' from none
of the other tests match those in the Russian report, and the 'markers' from the 'Cape Ray'
materials are the same as those from Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, and Khan Al-Asal. If there are
serious 'chain of custody' problems, the 'markers' from the four sets of tests might not be
sufficient to establish Syrian government culpability -- a lack of a match would be quite
sufficient to establish that the indictment cannot be accepted as it stands.
As I brought out in my post last April, the publicly available evidence -- of which
Hersh's 'Red Line and Rat Line' article and subsequent interviews form an important part --
strongly suggests the Russian claims that the toxin used in both Khan Al-Asal and also Ghouta
was 'cottage industry', as they put it, or 'kitchen sarin', as he put it, are correct.
It is simply not a refutation of these claims to treat one compound supposed to validate
the 'hexamine hypothesis', and an unspecified fluorophosphate, which could be the
diisopropylfluorophosphate reported by the Russians, or hexafluorophosphate, as conclusive
evidence. (The implications, or lack of them, would be quite different, depending on which
compound it was.)
And all this hush-hush whisper-whisper from 'diplomats and scientists' who are not
prepared to be identified, as well as assurances from that supposedly 'independent' expert
Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, only add to the grounds for scepticism. As I brought out in
my post, he is under the strongest possible suspicion of having been involved in covering up,
and quite possibly colluding in, the 'false flags.'
If they have evidence to support the case, then let Western governments produce the
'spectra' -- as also should the Russians. We do not need complete reports, which may need to
be kept secret for perfectly good reasons -- simply the 'many tables and diagrams' which must
exist. Once these were out in the open, then it would be much easier to have an informed
argument.
Most of this ground I covered last April. However, there is some crucial new context. Part
of this is provided by a report in 'The Intercept' last October, entitled 'NSA Document Says
Saudi Prince Directly Ordered Coordinated Attack By Syrian Rebels On Damascus.' As it
explains:
'According to a top-secret National Security Agency document provided by whistleblower
Edward Snowden, the March 2013 rocket attacks were directly ordered by a member of the Saudi
royal family, Prince Salman bin Sultan, to help mark the second anniversary of the Syrian
revolution. Salman had provided 120 tons of explosives and other weaponry to opposition
forces, giving them instructions to "light up Damascus" and "flatten" the airport, the
document, produced by U.S. government surveillance on Syrian opposition factions, shows.'
This was on 18 March -- the day before Khan Al-Asal. Further relevant context is provided
by a piece in February 2017 on the 'Monitor on Massacre Marketing' site by Adam Larson,
entitled 'What happened on March 19, 2013?' which is subtitled 'The First Bodies Tossed
Across Obama's "Red Line" in Syria.'
This starts by reviewing the -- ample -- evidence that the Khan Al-Asal attack came at a
point where there was very visible enthusiasm on the part of a lot of people in the United
States and Western Europe for intervention in support of the 'Assad must go' agenda, so that
he had every incentive to avoid chemical weapons use, and the insurgents every incentive to
produce a 'false flag.'
And Larson goes on to note that 'Ironically, the first solid news of the feared chemical
attack came in the form of a Syrian government announcement on March 19 that their forces had
been gassed by "terrorists" in a town just west of Aleppo" -- that is, the Shi'ite town of
Khan Al-Asal.
There follow detailed reviews of the evidence of another incident on the same day, in
which the victims appeared to be insurgents, at the Damascus suburb variously transliterated
as Otaybah and Uteibah, and more fragmentary and puzzling evidence about events at Homs.
And Larson goes on to suggest that a three-pronged 'false flag' was planned for 19 March,
in Aleppo, Damascus and Homs -- the country's three largest cities. This would obviously fit
very well with the NSA intercept, in that it would suggest that the intent was to portray
these as Assad's savage response to the attacks in Damascus, thus, hopefully, generating
unstoppable momentum for American military intervention.
This seems to me eminently plausible, but it leaves open two possible interpretations of
Khan Al-Asal. When insurgents who are difficult to control are given access to weapons like
sarin, there is an obvious possibility of matters developing in unexpected directions, either
as the result of their bungling an attack, or succumbing to the temptation to use it against
government forces.
However, a different set of unintended consequences is also possible. It could be that
Syrian intelligence, perhaps with the assistance of Russian and/or Iranian, and with a
combination of 'SIGINT' and 'HUMINT' methods quite possibly being deployed, knew precisely
what was going on -- and had double agents inside the groups preparing the 'false flags.'
Rather than wait until the inevitable chorus calling for all-out air strikes began, it
could well have made sense to turn one of the incidents into a 'false flag' within a 'false
flag.'
The anti-Assad camp would then have been effectively 'snookered.' They would have faced a
situation where they would know that, if they acceded to the calls from the Syrians and
Russians for a proper UN/OPCW investigation, making a rigorous use of 'chemical forensics',
these would implicate the insurgents. And if the evidence suggested that it was these who had
crossed Obama's 'red line', it would have been game and set, and probably match, to the
Syrian and Russian governments.
Irrespective of people's views on what interpretation is plausible in relation to Khan
Al-Asal, the important point is that strategies which rely strongly on convert action -- as
the 'régime change' projects I outlined in the current post do -- are inherently
liable to run out of control. The uncontrollability of their instruments, and the possibility
of covert action meeting covert action in return, are always liable to generate unintended
consequences which can escalate.
As soon as the possible that an impartial investigation would implicate the insurgents was
real, in relation to Khan Al-Asal, irrespective of whether the imputation would have been
justified, the alternative to facing a complete collapse of their projects in Syria, for
Western governments, was inherently likely to be at best covering up, at worst colluding in,
further 'false flags.' Moreover, intense pressure had to be mounted, to ensure that what were
supposed to be sources of independent expertise supported their cover-ups.
This pattern, I am suggesting is common both to history of the 'StratCom' in which
Christopher Steele has been involved, and that relating to chemical weapons use in Syria.
Particularly when the 'Fourth Estate' ceases to do its job, a likely result is the
progressive systematic corruption of institutions.
You have read one of the articles on what James Mattis said on Friday about sarin? He quite
clearly states that the United States has no evidence that the Syrian government has used
sarin. Given the way, the French, British, German, etc. intelligence services share
information, that suggests that if James Mattis is speaking the truth then no one in NATO,
except perhaps for Turkey given Erdogan's recent behavior, has any evidence either. This
means that both incidents, East Ghouta and Khan Shaykhoun, and any other incidents that are
alleged by the terrorists to have involved sarin are not what they are claimed to be in
western msm and most western politicians. Bellingcat and all the other NGOs who have made
similar claims about sarin are all wrong.
Bannon backed candidate later lost. So much for this Bannon "success".
This idea of Trump playing 6 dimensional chess is a joke. It's the same explanation that was pushed for Obama disastrous neocon
foreign policy. Here is one very apt quote: "What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars
of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to
Afghanistan..." What 6-dimetional chess?
According to Occam razor principle the simplest explanation of Trump behaviour is probably the most correct. He does not control
foright policy, outsourcing it to "generals" and be does not pursue domestic policy of creating jobs as he promised his
electorate. In other words, both in foreign policy and domestic policy, he became a turncoat,
betraying his electorate, much like Obama. kind of Republican Obama.
And as time goes by, Trump looks more and more like Hillary II or Republican Obama. So he might have problems with the candidates he supports
in midterm elections. His isolationism, if it ever existed, is gone. Promise of jobs is gone. Detente with Russia is gone.
What's left?
Note the level disappointment of what used to be Trump base in this site comment section...
Notable quotes:
"... In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide ..."
"... The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92% of the votes counted... ..."
"... These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory. It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. ..."
"... Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole. ..."
"... I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included. ..."
"... The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger. ..."
"... Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World. Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" ..."
"... A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment puppet once the braindead voters put him in office. ..."
"... When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies, but not for the US population. ..."
"... Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope. ..."
"... In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson. It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators are worthless. ..."
"... I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the media reports... ..."
"... Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"- (great leaders) do not do that. ..."
"... What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan... ..."
"... It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing display of disloyalty to America ..."
"... YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER. ..."
Congratulations to Roy Moore on his Republican Primary win in Alabama. Luther Strange started way back & ran a good race. Roy,
WIN in Dec!
In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and
alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide
The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to
recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92%
of the votes counted...
... ... ...
However, as Politco
reported this evening, President Donald Trump began distancing himself from a Luther Strange loss before ballots were even cast,
telling conservative activists Monday night the candidate he's backing in Alabama's GOP Senate primary was likely to lose ! and suggesting
he'd done everything he could do given the circumstances.
Trump told conservative activists who visited the White House for dinner on Monday night that he'd underestimated the political
power of Roy Moore, the firebrand populist and former judge who's supported by Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon, according
to three people who were there.
And Trump gave a less-than full-throated endorsement during Friday's rally.
While he called Strange "a real fighter and a real good guy," he also mused on stage about whether he made a "mistake" by backing
Strange and committed to campaign "like hell" for Moore if he won.
Trump was encouraged to pick Strange before the August primary by son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner as well as other aides,
White House officials said. He was never going to endorse Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks, who has at times opposed Trump's agenda,
and knew little about Moore, officials said.
... ... ...
Déjà view -> Sanity Bear •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM
AIPAC HAS ALL BASES COVERED...MIGA !
On Sept. 11, the Alabama Daughters for Zion organization circulated a statement on Israel by Moore, which started by saying
the U.S. and Israel "share not only a common Biblical heritage but also institutions of representative government and respect
for religious freedom." He traced Israel's origin to God's promise to Abram and the 1948 creation of modern Israel as "a fulfillment
of the Scriptures that foretold the regathering of the Jewish people to Israel."
Moore's statement includes five policy positions, including support for U.S. military assistance to Israel, protecting Israel
from "Iranian aggression," opposing boycotts of Israel, supporting Israel at the United Nations, and supporting direct Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations without outside pressure. He added, "as long as Hamas and the Palestinian Authority wrongly refuse to recognize Israel's
right to exist, such negotiations have scant chance of success."
While those views would give Moore common ground with much of the Jewish community regarding Israel, most of the state's Jewish
community has been at odds with Moore over church-state issues, such as his displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and
his outspoken stance against homosexuality, both of which led to him being ousted as chief justice.
moore misreads the Bible as most socalled christians do. they have been deceived, they have confused the Israel of God( those
who have been given belief in Christ) with israel of the flesh. They cant hear Christs own words, woe is unto them. they are living
in their own selfrighteousness, not good. they are going to have a big surprise for not following the Word of God instead following
the tradition of men.
They were warned over and over in the Bible but they cant hear.
I Claudius -> VinceFostersGhost •Sep 27, 2017 6:27 AM
Forgive? Maybe. Forget? NEVER!! He tried to sell "US" out on this one. We now need to focus on bringing "Moore" candidates
to the podium to run against the RINO's and take out McConnell and Ryan. It's time for Jared and Ivanka to go back to NYC so Jared
can shore up his family's failing empire. However, if his business acumen is as accurate as his political then it's no wonder
the family needed taxpayer funded visas to sell the property. Then on to ridding the White House of Gen Kelly and McMaster - two
holdover generals from the Obama administration - after Obama forced out the real ones.
Clashfan -> Mycroft Holmes IV •Sep 26, 2017 11:33 PM
Rump has hoodwinked his supoprt base and turned on them almost immediately. Some refuse to acknowledge this.
These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory.
It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. The
Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) came to Bannon's defense and accused the ADL of a "character assassination" against Bannon.
The Wizard -> Oh regional Indian •Sep 26, 2017 10:12 PM
Trump should figure out the Deep State elites he has surrounded himself with, don't have control of the states Trump won. Trump
thought he had to negotiate with these guys and his ego got the best of him. Bannon was trying to convince him he should have
stayed the course and not give in.
~"American politics gets moore strange by the day..."~
Technically speaking OhRI, with Moore's win politics became less Strange, or "Strange less", or "Sans Luther", depending on
how one chose to phrase it [SMIRK]
Adullam -> Gaius Frakkin' Baltar •Sep 26, 2017 11:05 PM
Trump needs to fire Jared! Some news outlets are saying that it was his son in law who advised him to back Strange. He has
to quit listening to those who want to destroy him or ... they will.
overbet -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:41 PM
Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole.
Juggernaut x2 -> overbet •Sep 26, 2017 10:07 PM
Trump better pull his head out of his ass and quit being a wishy-washy populist on BS like Iran- the farther right he goes
the greater his odds of reelection because he has pissed off a lot of the far-righters that put him in- getting rid of Kushner,
Cohn and his daughter and negotiating w/Assad and distancing us from Israhell would be a huge help.
The whole Russiagate ploy was a diversion from (((them)))
NoDebt -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:42 PM
I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to
kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's
face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included.
Oldwood -> NoDebt •Sep 26, 2017 10:08 PM
I think it was a setup.
Bannon would not oppose Trump that directly unless there was a wink and a nod involved.
Trump is still walking a tightrope, trying to appease his base AND keep as many establishment republicans at his side (even
for only optics). By Trump supporting Strange while knowing he was an underdog AND completely apposed by Bannon/his base he was
able to LOOK like he was supporting the establishment, while NOT really. Trump seldom backs losers which makes me think it was
deliberate. Strange never made sense anyway.
But what do I know?
Urahara -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 12:20 AM
Bannon is hardcore Isreal first. Why are you supporting the zionist? It's an obvious play.
general ambivalent -> Urahara •Sep 27, 2017 2:23 AM
People are desperate to rationalise their failure into a victory. They cannot give up on Hope so they have to use hyperbole
in everything and pretend this is all leading to something great in 2020 or 2024.
None of these fools learned a damn thing and they are desperate to make the same mistake again. The swamp is full, so full
that it has breached the banks and taken over all of society. Trump is a swamp monster, and you simply cannot reform the swamp
when both sides are monsters. In other words, the inside is not an option, so it has to be done the hard way. But people would
prefer to keep voting in the swamp.
Al Gophilia -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 3:58 AM
Bannon as president would really have those swamp creatures squirming. There wouldn't be this Trump crap about surrounding
himself with likeminded friends, such as Goldman Sachs turnstile workers and his good pals in the MIC.
Don't tell me he didn't choose them because if he didn't, then they were placed. That means he doesn't have the clout he pretends
to have or control of the agenda that the people asked him to deliver. His backing of Stange is telling.
Bobbyrib -> LindseyNarratesWordress •Sep 27, 2017 5:38 AM
He will not fire Kushner or Ivanka who have become part of the swamp. I'm so sick of these 'Trump is a genius and planned this
all along.'
To me Trump is a Mr. Bean type character that has been very fortunate and just goes with the flow. He has nearly no diplomacy,
or strategic skills.
NoWayJose •Sep 26, 2017 10:35 PM
Dear President Trump - if you like your job, listen to these voters. Borders, Walls, limited immigrants (including all those
that Ryan and McConnell are sneaking through under your very nose), trade agreements to keep American jobs, and respect for our
flag, our country, and the unborn!
I had hope for Trump, but as someone who reads ZH often, and does not suffer from amnesia (like much of America), I knew he
was way too good to be true.
We all know his back tracking, his flip flops...and while the media and many paid bloggers like to spin it as "not his fault",
it actually is.
His sending DACA to Congress was the last straw. Obama enacted DACA with a stroke of his pen, but Trump "needed to send it
to Congress so they could "get it right". The only thing Congress does with immigration is try and get amnesty passed.
Of course while Trump sends DACA to Congress, he does not mind using the military without Congress, which he actually should
do.
Why is it when it's something American's want, it has to go through the "correct channels", but when its something the Zionists
want, he does it with the wave of his pen? We saw the same bull shit games with Obama...
Dilluminati •Sep 26, 2017 11:02 PM
Anybody surprised by this is pretending the civility at the workplace isn't masking anger at corporate America and Government.
I'll go in and put in the 8 hours, I'm an adult that is part of the job. However I'm actually fed up with allot of the stupid
shit and want the establishment to work, problem is that we are witnessing failed nations, failed schools, failed healthcare,
even failed employment contracts, conditions, and wages.
The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well
imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger.
You haven't seen anything yet in Catalonia/Spain etc, Brexit, or so..
This is what failure looks like: That moment the Romanovs and Louis XVI looked around the room seeking an understanding eye,
there was none.
Pascal1967 •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM
Dear Trump:
Quit listening to your moron son-in-law, swamp creature, Goldman Sachs douchebag son-in-law Kushner. HE SUCKS!! If you truly
had BALLS, you would FIRE his fucking ass. HE is The Swamp, He Is Nepotism! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HATE HIM.
MAGA! LISTEN TO BANNON, DONALD.
DO NOT FUCK THIS UP!
ROY MOORE, 100%!!!!
You lost, Trump ... get your shit together before it is too late!
ElTerco •Sep 26, 2017 11:28 PM
Bannon was always the smarts behind the whole operation. Now we are just left with a complete idiot in office.
Also, unlike Trump, Bannon actually gives a shit about what happens to the American people rather than the American tax system.
At the end of the day, all Trump really cares about is himself.
samsara •Sep 26, 2017 11:25 PM
I think most people get it backwards about Trump and the Deplorables.
I believed in pulling troops a from all the war zones and Trump said he felt the same
I believed in Legal immigration, sending people back if here illegal especially if involved in crime, Trump said he felt the
same.
I believed in America first in negotiating treaties, Trump said he felt the same.
I didn't 'vote' for Trump per se, he was the proxy.
We didn't leave Him, He left us.
BarnacleBill •Sep 26, 2017 11:31 PM
Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World.
Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" It's high time he turned back to the
job he promised to do, and drain that swamp.
napper •Sep 26, 2017 11:47 PM
A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just
turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment
puppet once the braindead voters put him in office.
America is doomed from top (the swarm) to bottom (the brainless voters).
Sid Davis •Sep 27, 2017 1:40 AM
When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment
rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies,
but not for the US population.
Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence
that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope.
In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson.
It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators
are worthless.
nevertheless -> pfwed •Sep 27, 2017 7:33 AM
I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the
media reports...
LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 2:56 AM
Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"-
(great leaders) do not do that.
nevertheless -> LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 7:16 AM
What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis,
killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan...
But most treasonous of all was his sending DACA to "get it right", really? Congress has only one goal with immigration, amnesty,
and Chump knows dam well they will send him legislation that will clearly or covertly grant amnesty for millions and millions
of illegals, dressed up as "security".
Obama enacted DACA with the stroke of a pen, and while TRUMP promised to end it, he did NOT. Why is it when it's something
Americans want, it has to be "Constitutional", but when it comes form his banker pals, like starting a war, he can do that unilaterally.
It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing
display of disloyalty to America, and loyalty to Zionism.
Trump should always have been seen as a likely Zionist shill. He comes form Jew York City, owes everything he is to Zionist
Jewish bankers, is a self proclaimed Zionist...
YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER.
Either Zero Hedge is over run with Zionist hasbara, giving cover to their boy Chump, or Americans on the "right" have become
as gullible as those who supported Obama on the "left".
"... GRAHAM: The first thing I want to tell you he beat me like a drum. He ran against 17 Republicans and crushed us all. He ran against a Clinton machine and won. So all I can say is you can say anything you want to say about the guy. I said he was xenophobic race-baiting religious bigot. I ran out of things to say. He won. Guess what he's our president. ..."
"... GRAHAM: In my view he is my president and doing a good job on multiple fronts. Again I'll tell you why. I went into this thing not voting. I didn't vote for the guy. ..."
Monday on ABC's "The View," when asked about President Donald Trump's
tweet saying he was a "stable genius,"
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that if Trump didn't call himself a genius, "nobody else will."
.to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius .and a very stable
genius at that!
BEHAR: Saturday Trump called himself quote "like really smart" and a stable genius. Do you think he's like really smart and
a stable genius?
GRAHAM: I think this, if he doesn't call himself a genius, nobody else will.
NAVARRO: That was funny.
GRAHAM: The first thing I want to tell you he beat me like a drum. He ran against 17 Republicans and crushed us all. He
ran against a Clinton machine and won. So all I can say is you can say anything you want to say about the guy. I said he was xenophobic
race-baiting religious bigot. I ran out of things to say. He won. Guess what he's our president.
BEHAR: You're calling him a xenophobic religious bigot?
GRAHAM: I did during the campaign.
BEHAR: Yeah you did.
NAVARRO: Is he still all those things?
GRAHAM: In my view he is my president and doing a good job on multiple fronts. Again I'll tell you why. I went into this
thing not voting. I didn't vote for the guy.
Trump is now 100% pure neocon. What a metamorphose is less a year from inauguration...
Notable quotes:
"... It says, with extreme hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people." ..."
"... A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of offensive capabilities." ..."
"... Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely. ..."
"... And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might well dispute. ..."
"... So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated, something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United States. ..."
If one takes Trump at his word, the U.S. will use force worldwide to make sure that only
Washington can dominate regionally, a frightening thought as it goes beyond even the wildest
pretensions of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And equally ridiculous are the potential
consequences of such bullying – the White House clearly believes that it will make other
nations respect us and follow our leadership whereas quite the reverse is likely to be
true.
On the very limited bright side, Trump did have good things to say about the benefits
derived from intelligence sharing with Russia and he also spoke about both Moscow and Beijing
as "rivals" and "adversaries" instead of enemies. That was very refreshing to hear but
unfortunately the printed document did not say the same thing.
The NSS report provided considerably more detail than did the speech but it also was full of
generalizations and all too often relied on Washington group think to frame its options. The
beginning is somewhat terrifying for one of my inclinations on foreign policy:
"An America that is safe, prosperous, and free at home is an America with the strength,
confidence, and will to lead abroad. It is an America that can preserve peace, uphold liberty,
and create enduring advantages for the American people. Putting America first is the duty of
our government and the foundation for U.S. leadership in the world. A strong America is in the
vital interests of not only the American people, but also those around the world who want to
partner with the United States in pursuit of shared interests, values, and aspirations."
One has to ask what this "lead" and "leadership" and "partner" nonsense actually represents,
particularly in light of the fact that damn near the entire world just repudiated Trump's
decision to move the American Embassy in Israel as well as the nearly global rejection of his
response to climate change? And Washington's alleged need to lead has brought nothing but grief
to the American people starting in Korea and continuing with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and
numerous lesser stops along the way in places like Somalia, Panama and Syria. The false
narrative of the threat coming from "foreigners" has actually done nothing to make Americans
safer while also diminishing constitutional liberties and doing serious damage to the
economy.
The printed report is much more brutal than was Trump about the dangers facing America and
it is also much more carefree in the "facts" that it chooses to present. It says, with extreme
hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests,
attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies
less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to
repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to
destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people."
A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written
report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of
America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions
and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness
to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its
neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of
offensive capabilities."
Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone
is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is
the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump
approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from
Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely.
And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the
conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant
preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist
organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the
cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin
Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it
was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might
well dispute.
So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of
the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump
might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to
strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated,
something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe
they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how
Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to
get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way
of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United
States.
"... Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike. ..."
There was a sinister plot to meddle in the 2016
election, after all. But it was not orchestrated from the Kremlin; it was an entirely homegrown
affair conducted from the inner sanctums---the White House, DOJ, the Hoover Building and
Langley----of the Imperial City.
Likewise, the perpetrators didn't speak Russian or write in the Cyrillic script. In fact,
they were lifetime beltway insiders occupying the highest positions of power in the US
government.
Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators:
John Brennan, CIA director;
Susan Rice, National Security Advisor;
Samantha Power, UN Ambassador;
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence;
James Comey, FBI director;
Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI director;
Sally Yates, deputy Attorney General,
Bruce Ohr, associate deputy AG;
Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of FBI counterintelligence;
Lisa Page, FBI lawyer;
and countless other lessor and greater poobahs of Washington power, including President
Obama himself.
To a person, the participants in this illicit cabal shared the core trait that made Obama
such a blight on the nation's well-being. To wit, he never held an honest job outside the halls
of government in his entire adult life; and as a careerist agent of the state and practitioner
of its purported goods works, he exuded a sanctimonious disdain for everyday citizens who make
their living along the capitalist highways and by-ways of America.
The above cast of election-meddlers, of course, comes from the same mold. If Wikipedia is
roughly correct, just these 10 named perpetrators have punched in about 300 years of
post-graduate employment---and 260 of those years (87%) were on government payrolls or
government contractor jobs.
As to whether they shared Obama's political class arrogance, Peter Strzok left nothing to
the imagination in his now celebrated texts to his gal-pal, Lisa Page:
"Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support......I LOATHE
congress....And F Trump."
You really didn't need the ALL CAPS to get the gist. In a word, the anti-Trump cabal is
comprised of creatures of the state.
Their now obvious effort to alter the outcome of the 2016 election was nothing less than the
Imperial City's immune system attacking an alien threat, which embodied the very opposite
trait: That is, the Donald had never spent one moment on the state's payroll, had been elected
to no government office and displayed a spirited contempt for the groupthink and verities of
officialdom in the Imperial City.
But it is the vehemence and flagrant transparency of this conspiracy to prevent Trump's
ascension to the Oval Office that reveals the profound threat to capitalism and democracy posed
by the Deep State and its prosperous elites and fellow travelers domiciled in the Imperial
City.
That is to say, Donald Trump was no kind of anti-statist and only a skin-deep populist, at
best. His signature anti-immigrant meme was apparently discovered by accident when in the early
days of the campaign he went off on Mexican thugs, rapists and murderers----only to find that
it resonated strongly among a certain element of the GOP grass roots.
But a harsh line on immigrants, refugees and Muslims would not have incited the Deep State
into an attempted coup d'état; it wouldn't have mobilized so overtly against Ted Cruz,
for example, whose positions on the ballyhooed terrorist/immigrant threat were not much
different.
No, what sent the Imperial City establishment into a fit of apoplexy was exactly two things
that struck at the core of its raison d' etre.
First was Trump's stated intentions to seek rapprochement with Putin's Russia and his
sensible embrace of a non-interventionist "America First" view of Washington's role in the
world. And secondly, and even more importantly, was his very persona.
That is to say, the role of today's president is to function as the suave, reliable
maître d' of the Imperial City and the lead spokesman for Washington's purported good
works at home and abroad. And for that role the slovenly, loud-mouthed, narcissistic,
bombastic, ill-informed and crudely-mannered Donald Trump was utterly unqualified.
Stated differently, welfare statism and warfare statism is the secular religion of the
Imperial City and its collaborators in the mainstream media; and the Oval Office is the bully
pulpit from which its catechisms, bromides and self-justifications are propagandized to the
unwashed masses---the tax-and-debt-slaves of Flyover America who bear the burden of its
continuation.
Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would
sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless
tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting
and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe
and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike.
Yet that is exactly what has the Deep State and its media collaborators running scared. To
wit, Trump's entire modus operandi is not about governing or a serious policy agenda---and most
certainly not about Making America's Economy Great Again. (MAEGA)
By appointing a passel of Keynesian monetary central planners to the Fed and launching an
orgy of fiscal recklessness via his massive defense spending and tax-cutting initiatives, the
Donald has more than sealed his own doom: There will unavoidably be a massive financial and
economic crisis in the years just ahead and the rulers of the Imperial City will most certainly
heap the blame upon him with malice aforethought.
In the interim, however, what the Donald is actually doing is sharply polarizing the country
and using the Bully Pulpit for the very opposite function assigned to it by Washington's
permanent political class. Namely, to discredit and vilify the ruling elites of government and
the media and thereby undermine the docility and acquiescence of the unwashed masses upon which
the Imperial City's rule and hideous prosperity depend.
It is no wonder, then, that the inner circle of the Obama Administration plotted an
"insurance policy". They saw it coming-----that is, an offensive rogue disrupter who was soft
on Russia, to boot--- and out of that alarm the entire hoax of RussiaGate was born.
As is now well known from the recent dump of 375 Strzok/Gates text messages, there occurred
on August 15, 2016 a meeting in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (who is still
there) to kick off the RussiaGate campaign. As Strzok later wrote to Page, who was also at the
meeting:
" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that
there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk......It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you're 40."
They will try to spin this money quote seven-ways to Sunday, but in the context of
everything else now known there is only one possible meaning: The national security and law
enforcement machinery of Imperial Washington was being activated then and there in behalf of
Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Indeed, the trail of proof is quite clear. At the very time of this August meeting, the FBI
was already being fed the initial elements of the Steele dossier, and the latter had nothing to
do with any kind of national security investigation.
For crying out loud, it was plain old "oppo research" paid for by the Clinton campaign and
the DNC. And the only way that it bore on Russian involvement in the US election was that
virtually all of the salacious material and false narratives about Trump emissaries meeting
with high level Russian officials was disinformation sourced in Moscow, and was completely
untrue.
As former senior FBI official, Andrew McCarthy, neatly summarized the sequence of action
recently:
The Clinton campaign generated the Steele dossier through lawyers who retained Fusion GPS.
Fusion, in turn, hired Steele, a former British intelligence agent who had FBI contacts from
prior collaborative investigations. The dossier was steered into the FBI's hands as it began
to be compiled in the summer of 2016. A Fusion Russia expert, Nellie Ohr, worked with Steele
on Fusion's anti-Trump research. She is the wife of Bruce Ohr, then the deputy associate
attorney general -- the top subordinate of Sally Yates, then Obama's deputy attorney general
(later acting AG). Ohr was a direct pipeline to Yates.....
Based on the publication this week of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and
Lisa Page, the FBI lawyer with whom he was having an extramarital affair, we have learned of
a meeting convened in the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe...... right around the
time the Page FISA warrant was obtained......
Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele. And after Trump was elected, according to Fusion
founder Glenn Simpson, he requested and got a meeting with Simpson to, as Simpson told the
House Intelligence Committee, "discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election."
This, of course, was the precise time Democrats began peddling the public narrative of
Trump-Russia collusion. It is the time frame during which Ohr's boss, Yates, was pushing an
absurd Logan Act investigation of Trump transition official Michael Flynn (then slotted to
become Trump's national-security adviser) over Flynn's meetings with the Russian
ambassador.
Here's the thing. There is almost nothing in the Steele dossiers which is true. At the same
time, there is no real alternative evidence based on hard NSA intercepts that show Russian
government agents were behind the only two acts----the leaks of the DNC emails and the Podesta
emails----that were of even minimal import to the outcome of the 2016 presidential
campaign.
As to the veracity of the dossier, the raving anti-Trumper and former CIA interim chief,
Michael Morrell, settled the matter. If you are paying ex-FSA agents for information on the
back streets of Moscow, the more you pay, the more "information" you will get:
Then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their
motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the
sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a little
bit because if you're paying somebody, particularly former [Russian Federal Security Service]
officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they're going to call
you up and say, 'Hey, let's have another meeting, I have more information for you,' because
they want to get paid some more,' Morrell said.
Far from being "verified," the dossier is best described as a pack of lies, gossip, innuendo
and irrelevancies. Take, for example, the claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen met with
Russian Federation Council foreign affairs head Konstantin Kosachev in Prague during August
2016. That claim is verifiably false as proven by Cohen's own passport.
Likewise, the dossier 's claim that Carter Page was offered a giant bribe by the head of
Rosneft, the Russian state energy company, in return for lifting the sanctions is downright
laughable. That's because Carter Page never had any serious role in the Trump campaign and was
one of hundreds of unpaid informal advisors who hung around the basket hoping for some role in
a future Trump government.
Like the hapless George Papadopoulos, in fact, Page apparently never met Trump, had no
foreign policy credentials and had been drafted onto the campaign's so-called foreign policy
advisory committee out of sheer desperation.
That is, because the mainstream GOP foreign policy establishment had so completely boycotted
the Trump campaign, the latter was forced to fill its advisory committee essentially from the
phone book; and that desperation move in March 2016, in turn, had been undertaken in order to
damp-down the media uproar over the Donald's assertion that he got his foreign policy advise
from watching TV!
The truth of the matter is that Page was a former Merrill Lynch stockbrokers who had plied
his trade in Russia several years earlier. He had gone to Moscow in July 2016 on his own dime
and without any mandate from the Trump campaign; and his "meeting" with Rosneft actually
consisted of drinks with an old buddy from his broker days who had become head of investor
relations at Rosneft.
Nevertheless, it is pretty evident that the Steele dossier's tale about Page's alleged
bribery scheme was the basis for the FISA warrant that resulted in wiretaps on Page and other
officials in Trump Tower during September and October.
And that's your insurance policy at work: The Deep State and its allies in the Obama
administration were desperately looking for dirt with which to crucify the Donald, and thereby
insure that the establishment's anointed candidate would not fail at the polls.
So the question recurs as to why did the conspirators resort to the outlandish and even
cartoonish disinformation contained in the Steele dossier?
The answer to that question cuts to the quick of the entire RussiaGate hoax. To wit, that's
all they had!
Notwithstanding the massive machinery and communications vacuum cleaners operated by the $75
billion US intelligence communities and its vaunted 17 agencies, there are no digital
intercepts proving that Russian state operatives hacked the DNC and Podesta emails. Period.
Yet when it comes to anything that even remotely smacks of "meddling" in the US election
campaign, that's all she wrote.
There is nothing else of moment, and most especially not the alleged phishing expeditions
directed at 20 or so state election boards. Most of these have been discredited, denied by
local officials or were simply the work of everyday hackers looking for voter registration
lists that could be sold.
The patently obvious point here is that in America there is no on-line network of voting
machines on either an intra-state or interstate basis. And that fact renders the whole election
machinery hacking meme null and void. Not even the treacherous Russians are stupid enough to
waste their time trying to hack that which is unhackable.
In that vein, the Facebook ad buying scheme is even more ridiculous. In the context of an
election campaign in which upwards of $7 billion of spending was reported by candidates and
their committees to the FEC, and during which easily double that amount was spent by
independent committees and issue campaigns, the notion that just $44,000 of Facebook ads made
any difference to anything is not worthy of adult thought.
And, yes, out of the ballyhooed $100,000 of Facebook ads, the majority occurred after the
election was over and none of them named candidates, anyway. The ads consisted of issue
messages that reflected all points on the political spectrum from pro-choice to anti-gun
control.
And even this so-called effort at "polarizing" the American electorate was "discovered" only
after Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its first two searches. Instead,
this complete drivel was detected only after the Senate's modern day Joseph McCarthy, Sen. Mark
Warner, who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator
on Internet regulation, showed up on Mark Zuckerberg's doorstep at Facebook headquarters.
In any event, we can be sure there are no NSA intercepts proving that the Russians hacked
the Dem emails for one simple reason: They would have been leaked long ago by the vast network
of Imperial City operatives plotting to bring the Donald down.
Moreover, the original architect and godfather of NSA's vast spying apparatus, William
Binney, has essentially proved that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider who downloaded
them on a memory stick. By conducting his own experiments, he showed that the known download
speed of one batch of DNC emails could not have occurred over the Internet from a remote
location in Russia or anywhere else on the planet, and actually matched what was possible only
via a local USB-connected thumb drive.
So the real meaning of the Strzok/Gates text messages is straight foreword. There was a
conspiracy to prevent Trump's election, and then after the shocking results of November 8, this
campaign morphed into an intensified effort to discredit the winner.
For instance, Susan Rice got Obama to lower the classification level of the information
obtained from the Trump campaign intercepts and other dirt-gathering actions by the
Intelligence Community (IC)--- so that it could be disseminated more readily to all Washington
intelligence agencies.
In short order, of course, the IC was leaking like a sieve, thereby paving the way for the
post-election hysteria and the implication that any contact with a Russian--even one living in
Brooklyn-- must be collusion. And that included calls to the Russian ambassador by the
president-elect's own national security advisor designate.
Should there by any surprise, therefore, that it turns out the Andrew McCabe bushwhacked
General Flynn on January 24 when he called to say that FBI agents were on the way to the White
House for what Flynn presumed to be more security clearance work with his incipient staff.
No at all. The FBI team was there to interrogate Flynn about the transcripts of his
perfectly appropriate and legal conversations with Ambassador Kislyak about two matters of
state----the UN resolution on Israel and the spiteful new sanctions on certain Russian citizens
that Obama announced on December 28 in a fit of pique over the Dems election loss.
And that insidious team of FBI gotcha cops was led by none other than......Peter Strzok!
But after all the recent leaks---and these text messages are just the tip of the
iceberg-----the die is now cast. Either the Deep State and its minions and collaborators in the
media and the Republican party, too, will soon succeed in putting Mike Pence into the Oval
Office, or the Imperial City is about ready to break-out in vicious partisan warfare like never
before.
Either way, economic and fiscal governance is about ready to collapse entirely, making the
tax bill a kind of last hurrah before they mayhem really begins.
In that context, selling the rip may become one of the most profitable speculations ever
imagined.
Not sure why Stockman went off on a tangent about Trump's innumerate economic strategy -
kinda dilutes from an otherwise informative piece for anyone who hasn't a handle on the
underhand shit that's been hitting the fan in recent months. Its like he has to have a go
about it no matter what the main theme. Like PCR and "insouciance". And then there's the
texting...
Clue yourself in, David.
A very small percentage of the public are actually informed about what is really going
down. Those that visit ZH or your website. Fox is the only pro-Trump mainstream TV news
outlet, and as to the NYT, WP et al? The media disinformation complex keep the rest in the
matrix, and it has been very easy to see in action over the last year or so because it has
been so well co-ordinated (and totally fabricated).
Given the blatant and contemptous avoidance of the truth by the MSM (the current litany of
seditious/treasonous actions being a case in point), it is fair to say that Trump's tweets
provide a very real public service - focussing the (otherwise ignorant) public's attention on
many things the aforementioned cunts (I'll include Google and FaecesBook) divert from like
the plague (and making them look utter slime in the process).
I do respect stockman but here's bullshit-call #1: he says that the deep state doesn't
like the divisiveness he causes: bush certainly did that and Obama' did so at an order of
magnitude higher. I don't believe that the left is more upset by trump than we were by Barry-
we're just not a bunch of sniveling, narcissistic babies like they are.
When the details of the FISA warrant application are revealed, it will be like a
megaton-class munition detonating, and the Deep State will bear the brunt of destruction.
Similar mass deception was in play to start the Iraq war as well. Constant bombardment led
to public consensus and even the liberal New York Times endorsed the war. Whenever we see
mass hysteria about something new, we should just go with the flow and not ask any questions
at all. It is best for retaining sanity in this dumbed down and getting more dumber
world.
Susan Rice and Obama should be indicted for illegally wiretapping Trump Towers for the
express purpose of finding oppo research to help Hellary's late term abortiion of a
campaign
This one is deeper but well laid out. Comey & Mueller Ignored McCabe's Ties to Russian
Crime Figures & His Reported Tampering in Russian FBI Cases, Files
Great read, loved the 'Imperial City's immune system' analogy...
I disagree about the economy though.
It feels strange to me that the architect of the Reagan Revolution is unable to see the
makings of another revolution, the Trump Revolution.
We have had 10-20 years of pent up demand in the economy and instead of electing another
neo-Marxist Alynski acolyte, the American people elected a hard charging anti-establishment
bull in a China shop.
Surely Dave can see the potential.
It kills me when people are surprised by a 12 month, 5000 point run up on Wall Street.
For God's sake the United States was run by a fucking commie for 8 years, what the fuck
did you think was gonna happen?
America is divided and will remain divided. I think it will last at least for the next 50
years, maybe longer. The best way out is to limit the federal government and give each state
more responsibility. States can succeed or fail on their own. People will be free to move
where they want.
Somewhere there is a FISA judge who should be defrocked and exposed as a fraud. No sober
judge would accept such evidence for any purpose, much less authorizing government snooping
on a major party candidate for president.
The CIA holds all the videos from Jeff Epstein's Island (20 documented trips by Bill, 6
documented trips by Hillary), I'm sure Bill doing a 12 year old, Hillary and Huma doing an 8
year old girl together, etc. So what are they willing to do for the CIA? Anything at any
cost, getting caught red handed with a dossier is chump change when you look at the big
picture..they don't care and will do anything...ANYTHING to get rid of Trump.
This is the only reason they are so frantic. There is absolutely no other reason they
would play at this level.
As always, Dave puts it all into prospective for even the brain dead. Ya think Joe and his
gang will be talking about this article on their morning talk show today?? I wonder how
Brezenski's daughter is going to tell daddy that the gig is up and they may want to look into
packing a boogie bag just to play it safe?
David Stockman is a flame of hope in a world of dark machievellian thought!
Why did the alt media and the msm all stop reportinmg that McCabe's wife recieved 700
thousand dollars from Terry McAulife (former Clinton campaign manager times 2!) for a
Virginia State Senate run? Quid pro quo? Oh no, never the up and up DemonRats.
So when I hear that the conversation was held in McCabe's office- I want to puke first
then start building the gallows.
fucken brilliant article!! There is a lot I don't like about trump (some of which stockman
discusses above), but as a retired govt worker, I can tell you that he right about what he is
saying here.
One little tidbit that has been lost in all of this:
If the FBI was willing to use their power to back Hillary and defeat Trump at the national
level, what did they try to do in McCabe's wife's state senate campaign? She is a
pediatrician and she ran for state senate. ??? WTF is that about? She's not only a doctor but
a doctor for children. Those people are usually wired to help people. Yet she was going to
for-go being a doctor for a state senate position. ??? And the DNC forked over $700,000 to
put her on the map.
I'm sure the people meeting daily in Andy's office were not pleased with the voter
resistance to his wife and to Hillary. The FBI needs to be shut down. They have become an
opposition research firm for the DNC. Even if they can't find dirt on candidates using the
NSA database, they are able to tap that database to find out political strategies in real
time on opposition The fish is rotten from the head down to the tail.
No matter what article you read here, and don't get me wrong, I love the insight, but
every fucking article is "it's all over. America is doomed, the petro dollar days are over,
China China China. It's getting a bit old. The charts and graphs about stock market
collapse......it becoming an old record that needs changed. If I say it's going to rain every
fucking day, at some point I will be right. That doesn't make me a genius....it makes me
persistent.
It's a Deep State mess and Sessions is trying his best as he cowers in a corner sucking
his thumb.
If they continue to go after Trump, the FBI is going to be found guilty of violating the
Hatch Act by exonerating Hillary. See burner phones. See writing the conclusion in May when
the investigation supposedly ended with Hillary's interview on July 3rd. The FBI will also be
exposed for sedition as they then carried out the phony Russiagate investigation as their
"insurance policy."
However, they have created an expectation with the left that Trump and his minions will be
brought to "justice." If we thought the Left didn't handle losing the election well, they
will not be pleased at losing Russiagate.
The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
Notable quotes:
"... Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure Zionist
and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch out
2018. ..."
"... But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without
Trump and we are seeing it play out now. ..."
"... America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative
ways of operating getting traction. ..."
"... Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic and
foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's "near abroad"
than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria, and they have no
intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and corporations are being
slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by all. ..."
"I won't be optimistic about AmeriKKKa until Russia and/or China announce a Zero Tolerance policy toward US military adventurism
in countries on the borders of Russia/China - by promising to bomb the continental USA if it attacks a Russia/China neighbor.
Imo it's absolutely essential to light a big bonfire under AmeriKKKa's Impunity. And it would be delightful, sobering,
and a big boost for Peace and Diplomacy to hear the Yankees whingeing about being threatened by entities quite capable of following
through on their threats."
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 19, 2017 11:10:32 AM | 14
Hell yes, I'd love that scenario, but never happen. Too much $to be made by kissing up to the empire.
Sad Canuck @ 31: Abso fukken 'lutely!!
b, you better change what you're smoken' if you believe the empire is going isolationist.
@48 They did not want him lol? So many comments in here make me chuckle.
Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure
Zionist and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch
out 2018.
But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with
or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
@26 "I think you would find that the vast majority of Americans would be quite happy to disengage militarily from the rest of
the world, and put resources at work on domestic problems."
Disengage militarily? I would like to think so sleepy but why do they keep getting so involved internationally? Instead of
concentrating on domestic issues putting 'America first' seems to mean bullying any country that doesn't do what it's told.
@ Debsisdead with the end of his comment
" America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative
ways of operating getting traction.
"
There are those that say the same (vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink) about China, so there might be some competition
in our world yet.
I , for one, want to end private finance and maybe give the China way a go. Anyone else? I did future studies in college and
am intrigued by planning processes at the scale that China has done 13 of....their 5-year plans.
May we live to see structural change in the way our species comports itself......soon, I hope
NemesisCalling, I suggest paying little to know attention to Trump's (or any other politician/oligarch) platitudes.
Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic
and foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's
"near abroad" than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria,
and they have no intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and
corporations are being slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by
all.
I remain amazed that people who KNOW that the MSM lies to us constantly, about things big and small, still believe with all
their hearts the MSM narrative that Trump is an "outsider" whom the Establishment hates and has fought against ever since they
gave him $5 billion in free advertising.
Disengage? In 2017, U.S. Special Operations forces, including Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets, deployed to 149 countries around
the world, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by U.S. Special Operations Command. That's around 75 percent of the nations
on the planet.
What the vast majority of Americans might want has been cast aside by this president after he got their votes. There go hope
and change again, damn.
"... The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease,
as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly,
we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's
all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured. ..."
"... The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car,
er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped,
repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state. ..."
"... Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should
evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest
of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll
settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding
their own business. ..."
"... Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media.
Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive
in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command. ..."
"... Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks
doesn't. ..."
"... The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The
social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible
to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get
fat, hogs get slaughtered. ..."
So, after getting up late, groggy, and feeling overworked even before I started, I read
this article . Just
after, I had to feed a dozen cats and dogs, each dog in a separate room out of respect for their territorialism and aggressive desire
to consume more than they should (hmm, where have I seen this before), and in the process, forgot where I put my coffee cup. Retracing
steps, I finally find it and sit back down to my 19-inch window on the ugly (and perhaps remote) world of the state, and the endless
pinpricks of the independent media on its vast overwhelmingly evil existence. I suspect I share this distractibility and daily estrangement
from the actions of our government with most Americans .
We are newly bombing Libya and still messing with the Middle East? I thought that the wars the deep state wanted and started were
now limited and constrained! What happened to lack of funds, lack of popular support, public transparency that revealed the stupidity
and abject failure of these wars?
Deep state. Something systemic, difficult to detect, hard to remove, hidden. It is a spirit as much as nerves and organ.
How do your starve it, excise it, or just make it go away? We want to know. I think this explains the popularity of infotainment
about haunted houses, ghosts and alien beings among us. They live and we are curious
and scared.
The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the
disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak
perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your
pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It
can and should be cured.
My summary of the long Jeffrey Goldberg piece is basically that Obama has become more fatalistic (did he mean to say fatal?) since
he won that Nobel
Peace Prize back in 2009 . By the way, the "Nobel prize" article contains this gem, sure to get a chuckle:
"Obama's drone program is regularly criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability, especially considering incomplete
intelligence means officials are often unsure about who will die. "
[M]ost individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names," Micah Zenko, a scholar at
the Council on Foreign Relations told the New York Times."
This is about all the fun I can handle in one day. But back to what I was trying to say.
The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new
car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked,
stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state.
Because
inflated salaries ,
inflated
stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities
are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field
once known as some of richest
counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government
basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with
people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business.
Can a lack of public support reduce the deep state, or impact it? Well, it would seem that this is a non-factor, except for the
strange history we have had and are witnessing again today, with the odd successful popular and populist-leaning politician and their
related movements. In my lifetime, only popular figures and their movements get assassinated mysteriously, with odd polka dot dresses,
MKULTRA suggestions, threats against their family by their competitors (I'm thinking Perot, but one mustn't be limited to that case),
and always with concordant pressures on the sociopolitical seams in the country, i.e riots and police/military activations. The
bad dealings toward, and genuine fear
of, Bernie Sanders within the Democratic Party's wing of the deep state is matched or exceeded only by the genuine terror of
Trump among the Republican deep state wing. This reaction to something or some person that so many in the country find engaging and
appealing - an outsider who speaks to the growing political and economic dissatisfaction of a poorer, more indebted, and
more regulated population – is
heart-warming, to be sure. It is a sign that whether or not we do, the deep state thinks things might change. Thank you, Bernie and
especially Donald, for revealing this much! And the "republicanization" of the Libertarian Party is also a bright indicator blinking
out the potential of deep state movement and compromise in the pursuit of "stability."
Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment
media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle
to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command.
Maybe we will one day soon be able to debate how deep the deep state really is, or whether it was all just a dressed up, meth'ed
up, and eff'ed up a sector of society that deserves a bit of jail time, some counseling, and a new start . Maybe some job training
that goes beyond the printing of license plates. But given the destruction and mass murder committed daily in the name of this state,
and the environmental disasters it has created around the world for the future generations, perhaps we will be no more merciful to
these proprietors of the American empire as they have been to their victims. The ruling class deeply fears our judgment, and in this
dynamic lies the cure.
LIST OF DEMANDS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE
I.CURB CORRUPTION AND EXCESSIVE POWER IN THE FINANCIAL ARMS OF THE US GOVERNMENT
A. FEDERAL RESERVE
1. Benjaman Bernanke to be removed as Chairman immediately
2. New York Federal Reserve Bank and all New York City offices of the Federal Reserve system will be closed for at least 3
years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Interest rate manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
6. Balance sheet manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT
1. Timothy Geithner to be removed as Secretary immediately
2. All New York City offices of the Department will be closed for at least 3 years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Market manipulation/intervention to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
II. END THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF GIANT BANKS AND PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FURTHER EXPOSURE TO THEIR COLLAPSE
A. END CORRUPT INFLUENCE
1. Lifetime ban on government employment for TARP recipient employees and corporate officers, specifically including Goldman
Sachs and JP Morgan Chase
2. Ten year ban on government work for consulting firms, law firms, and individual consultants and lawyers who have accepted
cash from these entities
3. All contacts by any method with federal agencies and employees prohibited for at least five years, with civil and criminal
penalties for violation
B. PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM FURTHER HARM AT THE HANDS OF GIANT BANKS
1. No financial institution with assets of more than $10billion will receive federal assistance or any 'arm's-length' bailouts
2. TARP recipients are prohibited from purchasing other TARP recipient corporate units, or merging with other TARP recipients
3. No foreign interest shall be allowed to acquire any portion of TARP recipients in the US or abroad
III. PREVENT CORPORATE ACCOUNTING AND PENSION FUND ABUSES RELATED TO THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
A. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING
1. Immediately implement mark-to-market accounting rules which were improperly suspended, allowing six months for implementation.
2. Companies must reserve against impaired assets under mark-to-market rules
3. Any health or life insurance company with more than$100 million in assets must report on their holdings and risk factors,
specifically including exposure to real estate, mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other exotic financial instruments.
These reports will be to state insurance commissions and the federal government, and will also be made available to the public
on the Internet.
B. PENSION FUNDS
1. All private and public pension funds must disclose their funding status and establish a plan to fully fund accounts under
the assumption that net real returns across all asset classes remain at zero for at least ten years.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You know what happens when politicians get into Number 10; they want to take their place on the
world stage.
Sir Richard Wharton: People on stages are called actors. All they are required to do is look plausible, stay sober,
and say the lines they're given in the right order.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Some of them try to make up their own lines.
The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences.
The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally
susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on
Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
The failed coup in Turkey is a significant indication of institutional weakness and also vulnerability. The inability to exercise
force of will in Syria is another. The list of failures is getting too long.
"... There was a story (sorry, lost any references) that stated that at least one of the US warships that launched the Tomahawks after this incident, was still in Spain on April 2nd. So that ship had to travel across the Mediterranean at full speed (and not at cruise speed) to be on time for the attack. ..."
"... And that implies the attack was know by the US forces beforehand, and their riposte was also planned and decided before the attack took place. ..."
"... I have come to the point of 100% initially assuming that reports by the MSM in the West are fabrications and then work back to find the few percent of truth, if any. Lying is normal in the West. Honestly is getting very rare, and is abnormal. ..."
Many of the reports findings are based on open source videos and photographs published by
the opposition. It acquired witnesses statements from the area which is under control of
al-Qaeda. It also examined forensic evidence for which no chain of custody existed. Some
findings are strange .
In annex II, on page 36 (of 39) of the pdf, it notes:
Certain irregularities were observed in elements of information analysed. For example,
several hospitals appeared to start admitting casualties of the attack between 0640 and 0645
hours. The Mechanism received the medical records of 247 patients from Khan Shaykhun who were
admitted to various health-care facilities, including those of survivors and a number of
victims who died from exposure to chemical agent. The admission times of the records range
between 0600 and 1600 hours. Analysis of the aforementioned medical records revealed that in
57 cases, patients were admitted in five hospitals before the incident in Khan Shaykhun (at
0600, 0620 and 0640 hours). In 10 such cases, patients appear to have been admitted to a
hospital 125 km away from Khan Shaykhun at 0700 hours while another 42 patients appear to
have been admitted to a hospital 30 km away at 0700 hours. The Mechanism did not investigate
these discrepancies and cannot determine whether they are linked to any possible staging
scenario , or to poor record-keeping in chaotic conditions.
At least 23% of the alleged casualties of the incident WERE ADMITTED TO HOSPITALS BEFORE THE
INCIDENT HAPPENED
Another example of fakery of the incident. The report (linked above) notes this, but draws no
conclusion:
... In particular, the Mechanism noted that fully equipped hazmat teams appeared at the
scene later that afternoon and reported early detection of the presence of sarin, seemingly
using a Dräger X-am 7000 ambient air monitor, which was not known to be able to detect
sarin.
and
Of further concern to the Mechanism was the relative unprofessionalism by which certain
environmental samples appear to have been taken, e.g. sampling from a muddy puddle.
and
The Mechanism also noted scenes recorded just after the incident at the medical point to
the east of Khan Shaykhun, where rescue and decontamination activities filmed shortly after
0700 hours showed rescue personnel hosing down patients with water indiscriminately for
extended periods of time. Such video footage also depicted a number of patients not being
attended to, and some para-medical interventions that did not seem to make medical sense,
such as performing heart compression on a patient facing the ground.
But based on all of that, and on the patients that arrived in hospital before the incident
happened, the report concludes that Syria dropped Sarin at a moment and place that made zero
military or political sense...
There was a story (sorry, lost any references) that stated that at least one of the US
warships that launched the Tomahawks after this incident, was still in Spain on April 2nd. So
that ship had to travel across the Mediterranean at full speed (and not at cruise
speed) to be on time for the attack.
And that implies the attack was know by the US forces beforehand, and their riposte was also
planned and decided before the attack took place.
I have come to the point of 100% initially assuming that reports by the MSM in the West are
fabrications and then work back to find the few percent of truth, if any.
Lying is normal in the West. Honestly is getting very rare, and is abnormal.
With Trump and T Rex now saying the right things, the hegemon is back up to speed. The US
crossed there Rubicon when Obama made his speech at the UNGA a couple of years back. No way
China/Russia will be able to give the US a soft landing. Hard times when the bubble bursts
for the US.
All those who rule the Western world through control of finance have bankrupt morals because
of their fealty to the God of Mammon. War and treachery are the tools that fit their mental
condition and if they can't BS you into being cowed by their existence they will bomb you
into submission.
Negotiation for God of Mammon acolytes is for losers and they will keep the carousel
spinning furiously until they are neutered or they take us with them in a blaze of what they
consider nuclear glory......I have never seen any of the assholes that my life has presented
me with show a smidge of contrition for glaring facts about their societal perfidy.....they
double down like Trump does regularly and I suspect it is likely we will see such
grandstanding with this situation as well.
War is a cover for anti-humanistic leadership which is the best that can be bought in
Amerika.
It's irksome that 6:55 is the time Hersh gave for the bombing he was told about. If it were
an hour or two earlier, it would make sense of what I take to be his idea - that some
bomb-induced chemical disaster was 'converted' into a sarin episode after the fact.
The bombed building was most likely part of the prep. Possibly chemicals or perhaps simply
somthing that woukd give oiff yellow smoke placed into the building then its co-ords slipped
into inteligence somehow as an AQ headquarters or whatever so it would become a target for
the bombing. The US were notified that the building would be hit and at what time, so
AQ/whitehelmets would have been alerted and ready to go into logie award winning action at
the allotted time.
"We Were There to Document The Event
before the incident happened
happened
november 22nd 1963
a gentlemen of the press at the cambridge gazette received a gpo telephonic marconi bakerlite
call suggesting he should pronto ring
whitehall 772005 and the us embassy kensington 091101 urgently sharpish fashion for some
scoop dum dum head busting historical cia news.
the call related to the assasination of a mr john fitzgerald oflaherty otool kennedy, know
relation to the fully oirish john heinz kerrys of killarney we should note.
after the calls where done the cambridge gentlemen of the press was shocked to find that
jfk was still alive by several bbc minutes.
he later went to his local police house to report the queer time looper affair indeed.
it later transperspired that the call from the americas had arrived 25mins before the grassy
gnome texas kilshot back and to the left don't you know.
25mins before to go what what.
jane stanley bbc on 9 and 11 talmud event building 7 25mins to soon spoke out as well time
looping very queer affairs
i really do believe in the future hospitals will have a better success rate if we can get the
cadavers into surgery before these events happen
certainly for turkey and israel live organ dealings the living syriana organs from pre
incident not happened are prefential
indeeds
Thanks for deconstructing this latest bogus report.
We are now living in "Reality TV", sad to say.
Not to be naïve or sentimental about it, but government and civic institutions used
to maintain at least a modicum of integrity, probity, and objectivity.
Now, official investigations are routinely compromised by nefarious political and social
interests. Bad enough that law enforcement and state-security agencies habitually distort or
fabricate information to serve their own ends, and their masters' ends.
But it's somehow more insidious when nominally independent investigative bodies become
channels of authoritarian governments' infoganda.
This series of slanderous, manufactured, trumped-up (no pun intended) accusations that the
Syrian government/military used chemical weapons is practically a "sub-genre" by now.
But it also brings to mind NIST's fraudulent analysis of the destructive events in New
York City on 9/11/01, and the equally fraudulent findings of the Dutch-led Joint
Investigation Team tasked to investigate the downing of the MH-17 aircraft.
I thought of "reality TV" because all of these tendentious reports from ostensibly
prestigious organizations are merely props-- items to wave around in front of the camera, and
allude to sanctimoniously in support of some reprehensible official policy or narrative.
"... It's easy to understand why some of President Trump's senior advisers privately consider him a "moron," with a limited vocabulary and stunning lack of normal human empathy, as William Blum explains at Anti-Empire Report. ..."
"... Capturing the wisdom and the beauty of Donald J. Trump in just one statement escaping from his charming mouth: "Our military has never been stronger. Each day, new equipment is delivered; new and beautiful equipment, the best in the world – the best anywhere in the world, by far." [Washington Post, Sept. 8, 2017] ..."
"... And in case you still don't fully appreciate that, notice that he specifies that our equipment is the best in the world BY FAR! That means that no other country is even close! Just imagine! ..."
"... Lucky for the man his seeming incapacity for moral or intellectual embarrassment. He's twice blessed. His fans like the idea that their president is no smarter than they are. This may well serve to get the man re-elected, as it did with George W. Bush. ..."
"... Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II ..."
"... Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower ..."
It's easy to understand why some of President Trump's senior advisers privately consider
him a "moron," with a limited vocabulary and stunning lack of normal human empathy, as William
Blum explains at Anti-Empire Report.
Capturing the wisdom and the beauty of Donald J. Trump in just one statement escaping
from his charming mouth: "Our military has never been stronger. Each day, new equipment is
delivered; new and beautiful equipment, the best in the world – the best anywhere in the
world, by far." [Washington Post, Sept. 8, 2017]
Here the man thinks that everyone will be impressed that the American military has never
been stronger. And that those who, for some unimaginable reason, are not impressed with that
will at least be impressed that military equipment is being added EACH DAY. Ah yes, it's long
been a sore point with most Americans that new military equipment was being added only once a
week.
And if that isn't impressive enough, then surely the fact that the equipment is NEW will win
people over. Indeed, the newness is important enough to mention twice. After all, no one likes
USED military equipment. And if newness doesn't win everyone's heart, then BEAUTIFUL will
definitely do it. Who likes UGLY military equipment? Even the people we slaughter all over the
world insist upon good-looking guns and bombs.
And the best in the world. Of course. That's what makes us all proud to be Americans. And
what makes the rest of humanity just aching with jealousy. And in case you don't fully
appreciate that, notice that he adds that it's the best ANYWHERE in the world.
And in case you still don't fully appreciate that, notice that he specifies that our
equipment is the best in the world BY FAR! That means that no other country is even close! Just
imagine! Makes me choke up.
Lucky for the man his seeming incapacity for moral or intellectual embarrassment. He's
twice blessed. His fans like the idea that their president is no smarter than they are. This
may well serve to get the man re-elected, as it did with George W. Bush.
As one commenter aptly said: " 'Moron', as Tillerson would say." and as another noted "Don the Neocon..
We can keep the military in the end-stateless, goal-less, sinkhole known as Afghanistan for decades,
STILL subsidize the defense of rich EU and Asian countries, fight the latest "Al Qaeda offshoot" everywhere
on the African continent but we can't afford universal healthcare like US welfare baby Israel or about
every other developed country, or restore power or drinking water in a US territory."
Notable quotes:
"... the question is, who are these people all excited about Iran? Other than politicians who may be working for foreign lobbies? ..."
"... This is pure lawlessness. We are breaking an agreement and by advocating regime change against a govt that has not attacked us or even threatened us in a serious manner are breaking the U.N. charter. ..."
"... Screw Trump. I mean really, screw him. He got my vote because I thought he was going to first crush ISIS and then get us out of the Middle East. Instead he's intensifying nearly every aspect of our Middle East entanglements. ..."
"... Now he's creating a new mess of his own. And this crap he's pulling with Iran is for Saudi Arabia and Israel. America First really? ..."
"... Of all of the Obama-era foreign policy decisions Trump could pull back, he's hell-bent on crushing one of the only good ones. I'd be shocked if he has even an elementary understanding of the agreement. "Moron", as Tillerson would say. ..."
"... "Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense to think of him as an American senator anymore." ..."
"... It appears that Trump's strategy is to insult and ruin Ran's economy to the point where he can get Iran to do something that will allow him to declare war against Iran because they attacked us. ..."
"... And how many countries has Iran invaded in the last 200 years? And how many countries has Israel invaded in the last 80 years? ..."
"... We will really find out who the Swamp creatures are now. Any congressman or Senator who votes for new sanctions against Iran – a country that poses virtually no threat to the United States – exposes himself as a bought-and-paid-for tool of Saudi Arabia and the jihadist fanatics the Saudis support. ..."
"... it's less that Trump wants to undo what Obama did and more that he wants to do what Netanyahu wants. ..."
"... Any notion of American excellence has now been erased. Our country will not soon recover all that Trump has tossed away and as citizens, we cannot absolve ourselves from blame. We have elected the most odious leader in our history and have allowed (mostly) a Republican Party to participate in government without having made a single contribution to the welfare of the American republic. Cotton is not alone in his folly that dismisses all real national interest. Like others, there have been many times I have despaired at the state of affairs in our Country, but this is different. Trump and his vandal allies I believe have inflicted permanent and irreversible damage to our country. Joe F , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:07 pm One follow up to earlier post: with this action, Trump has proven beyond doubt that the Mullah regime in Iran is a far more trustworthy nation than the United States. Well done Donald ..."
Making war in other people's countries is what an American government captured by globalist financial
elites is all about. For elites, such wars, paid for by the deplorable ordinary Americans they
loathe, have no downside and carry no risk to them. Lose-lose for the American public is win-win
for them, they cannot lose, especially since wars that can't be won will never end, perfect profit
streams.
"Cotton was among the fiercest and loudest opponents of the agreement before it was made,
and he has continued to look for ways to sabotage it."
Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really
whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly
pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense to
think of him as an American senator anymore.
He's more like a member of the Netanyahu government who somehow ended up in one of Arkansas's
US Senate seats.
Does anyone here know any real Americans who are pushing for this policy against Iran? My family
and friends are nearly all real Americans, and not one of them has any interest in ending the
deal with Iran. Most of them wish we would get out of the Middle East altogether.
So the
question is, who are these people all excited about Iran? Other than politicians who may be working
for foreign lobbies?
This is pure lawlessness. We are breaking an agreement and by advocating regime change against
a govt that has not attacked us or even threatened us in a serious manner are breaking the U.N.
charter.
We are doing this while condemning other countries for not following a 'liberal, rules based
world order' (whatever that is, oh, wait, it is following Caesar's decrees). Our Hubris will catch
up to us, whether it will be by the Almighty that the Haley's and Cotton's claim to serve or just
the law of reciprocity, I don't know. No one is more blind than those corrupted by power.
John Quincy Adams, "But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy She well knows
that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign
independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication The fundamental maxims
of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force . She might become the dictatress
of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."
He was able to see this because we were not yet intoxicated by power.
Screw Trump. I mean really, screw him. He got my vote because I thought he was going
to first crush ISIS and then get us out of the Middle East. Instead he's intensifying nearly every
aspect of our Middle East entanglements.
Now he's creating a new mess of his own. And
this crap he's pulling with Iran is for Saudi Arabia and Israel. America First really?
Of all of the Obama-era foreign policy decisions Trump could pull back, he's hell-bent on
crushing one of the only good ones. I'd be shocked if he has even an elementary understanding
of the agreement. "Moron", as Tillerson would say.
What seem to be missing here is anybody talking about Israel nuclear capability. That's the "dirty
little secret" that nobody talks about. Imho, as long as Iran is in compliance the deal should.
Of course Trump and the Hawks in Congress are going to do everything to scuttle it and bring about
a war with Iran which will end up being a World War and will necessitate the US returning to a
military draft to fight this war. It will be a sad way to "wake up" America to what is being done
militarily in their name. But perhaps when they see their little "Johnny and Jill" marched off
to war, they'll see what has been done in these endless, unwinnable wars in the Middle East.
[Tom Cotton gets] "Really whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified."
He got a $700,000 check from a single Israel donor in 2014. You think anybody in Arkansas not
named "Walton" can match that? No sir. Tom Cotton does what Israel tells him to do. Scuttle the
Iran deal? No problem.
It's time that my fellow Arkansans did for Tom Cotton what those upstanding Virginians did
for Eric Cantor back in 2014, and for the same reason: we want our government back from corrupt
politicians working for foreign interests.
" the president made clear over the summer, he didn't "believe" Iran was in compliance and
would not certify again."
Wait, what?! What does Trump know that the IAEA has been unable to learn and at the risk of
compromising intelligence sources, why has he not shared that knowledge? As with many of the man's
"beliefs", such attitudes do not make issues remotely true. We don't need to stir the Iran pot,
for goodness sake. Has not this man kicked enough hornets nests around the world?
"Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really
whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly
pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense
to think of him as an American senator anymore."
Cotton is wrong on this issue, but he's hardly a Swamp politico. He understands the dangers
of mass immigration and looks likely to replace Jeff Sessions as the leading immigration hawk
in the Senate. Unfortunately, I suspect he has presidential ambitions and being pro Israel is
a must in GOP primaries.
Rand Paul, on the other hand, like his dad, is good on foreign policy, but doesn't get the
immigration issue. People like me who want a non interventionist FP and low immigration seldom
have candidates that believe in both to support. I had high hopes for Trump, but he seems to have
too many generals around him telling him the wrong things.
"Cotton is wrong on this issue, but he's hardly a Swamp politico. He understands the dangers
of mass immigration and looks likely to replace Jeff Sessions as the leading immigration hawk
in the Senate. Unfortunately, I suspect he has presidential ambitions and being pro Israel
is a must in GOP primaries. "
No it's not. It was a litmus test for the old neocon Establishment GOP, and it's gone the way
of Eric Cantor. You have to go to New York, DC, or some left coastal city to find anyone who gives
a goddamn about it, and those places don't vote Republican anyway.
Politicians who take the Israel dollar care about it a lot, naturally. And Cotton's near the
top of the list.
Don the Neocon.. We can keep the military in the end-stateless, goal-less, sinkhole known as Afghanistan
for decades, STILL subsidize the defense of rich EU and Asian countries, fight the latest "Al
qaeda offshoot" everywhere on the African continent but we can't afford universal healthcare like
US welfare baby Israel or about every other developed country, or restore power or drinking water
in a US territory.
"NO KIN IN THE GAME": STUDY FINDS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WITHOUT DRAFT-AGE SONS
WERE MORE HAWKISH"
1. Even though Iran and Iraq are 4 letter words and share the first 3, they are very, very
different animals. Iran is an industrial state of 85 million capable of designing and building
effective rockets. It is highly unlikely the US can defeat Iran in a conventional war on its own
turf.
2. Even if we did defeat them, there is nobody there yearning for American style pseudo-democracy.
While they are not perfectly happy with their own government, they'll be dammed if they're going
to accept one from us. So you'd have to put millions of American troops in harms way against the
civilian population essentially forever.
And a note on the President. I don't believe he knows or cares a thing about Iran or their
capabilities. What he does know, after watching Fox News for the last 8 years is: Obama bad. So
the only reason, I'm certain, that Trump cares about this is because it was an Obama initiative.
It appears that Trump's strategy is to insult and ruin Ran's economy to the point where he
can get Iran to do something that will allow him to declare war against Iran because they attacked
us.
And how many countries has Iran invaded in the last 200 years? And how many countries has
Israel invaded in the last 80 years?
As I recall we made a regime change in the Iranian government when we had the CIA along with
the English intelligence by replacing the elected Prime Minister of Iran with the despotic, tyrannical
Shah.
As an American, Trump has desecrated our flag with his flat out lies, not the NFL athletes
who simps knelt during the National Anthem.
We will really find out who the Swamp creatures are now. Any congressman or Senator
who votes for new sanctions against Iran – a country that poses virtually no threat to the United
States – exposes himself as a bought-and-paid-for tool of Saudi Arabia and the jihadist fanatics
the Saudis support.
"So the only reason, I'm certain, that Trump cares about this is because it was an Obama
initiative."
I've heard this before, but if it were true than why is Trump helping the Saudis wreck and
starve Yemen? That was an Obama initiative too. That's why I now think that it's not really the
Obama connection so much as the Netanyahu connection that drives Trump. In other words, it's
less that Trump wants to undo what Obama did and more that he wants to do what Netanyahu wants.
Any notion of American excellence has now been erased. Our country will not soon recover all
that Trump has tossed away and as citizens, we cannot absolve ourselves from blame. We have elected
the most odious leader in our history and have allowed (mostly) a Republican Party to participate
in government without having made a single contribution to the welfare of the American republic.
Cotton is not alone in his folly that dismisses all real national interest. Like others,
there have been many times I have despaired at the state of affairs in our Country, but this is
different. Trump and his vandal allies I believe have inflicted permanent and irreversible damage
to our country.
One follow up to earlier post: with this action, Trump has proven beyond doubt that the Mullah
regime in Iran is a far more trustworthy nation than the United States. Well done Donald
Regarding the 25th amendment option: how far down the line of succession must one go to find someone
who has solid, bona fide cred to stop this inanity?
The Economist today opines that Xi Jinping has more clout than Donald Trump.
And I read on TAC that Trump is p***ing away our wealth and power doing favors for Israel and
Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, like scuttling the Iran deal and picking fights with the Iranian
government. And I conclude that the reason that the Economist may be right about Xi Jinping is
because Trump is doing what I read about in TAC, wasting our time, blood, money, and focus on
appeasing a bunch of goddamn foreigners in the form of the Israel and Saudi lobbies.
"... Despite the potential pitfalls of Cotton and Netanyahu's plan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley embraced the approach. Haley, a possible replacement for embattled Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, tweeted yesterday, "[Sen. Tom Cotton] has clear understanding of the Iranian regime & flaws in the nuclear deal. His [CFR] speech is worth reading." ..."
"... The United States must cease all appeasement, conciliation, and concessions towards Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table, undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak." ..."
"... Any agreement that advances our interests must by necessity compromise Iran's -- doubly so since they are a third-rate power, far from an equal to the United States. The ayatollahs shouldn't be happy with any deal; they should've felt compelled to accept a deal of our choosing lest they face economic devastation and military destruction of their nuclear infrastructure. That Iran welcomes this agreement is both troubling and telling. ..."
"... Ben Armbruster, writing for LobeLog last week, detailed the ways in which Mark Dubowitz , CEO of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies , pushes for a so-called "better deal" while explicitly calling for regime change in Tehran. ..."
"... But perhaps a bigger pressure on Trump to de-certify comes from three of his biggest political donors : Sheldon Adelson , Paul Singer , and Bernard Marcus . All three have funded groups that sought to thwart the negotiations leading to the JCPOA, including Dubowitz's FDD, and have given generously to Trump. ..."
"... Adelson has also financed Israel's largest circulation daily newspaper, whose support for Netanyahu and his right-wing government earned it the nickname "Bibiton." ..."
The Post credits Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Tom Cotton
(R-AR) with this "fix it or nix it" approach to U.S. compliance with the JCPOA. Indeed, Cotton
laid out essentially this very strategy in a speech
at the Council on Foreign Relations in which he proposed that the president should decertify
Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal based on Iran's actions in unrelated areas and toughen
key components of the agreement, arguing that the deal fails to serve U.S. national security
interests.
Despite the potential pitfalls of Cotton and Netanyahu's plan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
embraced the approach. Haley, a possible replacement for embattled Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, tweeted
yesterday, "[Sen. Tom Cotton] has clear understanding of the Iranian regime & flaws in the
nuclear deal. His [CFR] speech is worth reading."
But Cotton has been clear that renegotiating the nuclear deal isn't his actual intention. In
2015, he made no secret of his desire to blow up diplomacy with Iran, saying
:
The United States must cease all appeasement, conciliation, and concessions towards
Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional
restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table,
undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these
negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an
intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak."
Later that same year, Cotton explained his terms for any agreement with Iran, qualities that
more closely resemble a surrender document than anything the Iranians would agree to in a
negotiation. Cotton
said :
Any agreement that advances our interests must by necessity compromise Iran's --
doubly so since they are a third-rate power, far from an equal to the United States. The
ayatollahs shouldn't be happy with any deal; they should've felt compelled to accept a deal
of our choosing lest they face economic devastation and military destruction of their nuclear
infrastructure. That Iran welcomes this agreement is both troubling and telling.
Indeed, Cotton and his fellow proponents of the president de-certifying Iranian compliance,
despite all indications that Iran is complying with the JCPOA, have a not-so-thinly-veiled goal
of regime change in Tehran, a position in which the JCPOA and any negotiations with Iran pose a
serious threat. Ben Armbruster, writing for LobeLog last week,
detailed the ways in which Mark Dubowitz , CEO of the
neoconservative Foundation for
Defense of Democracies , pushes for a so-called "better deal" while explicitly calling for
regime change in Tehran.
"I think that Iran is the devil," said Marcus in a 2015 Fox Business interview . Adelson told a Yeshiva University
audience in 2013 that U.S. negotiators should launch a nuclear weapon at Iran as a
negotiating tactic. Adelson may hold radical views about the prudence of a nuclear attack on Iran, but he
appears to enjoy easy access to Trump. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, who were Trump's biggest
financial supporters by far during his presidential run, met with the president at Adelson's
headquarters in Las Vegas recently, ostensibly to discuss the recent mass shooting there.
But Andy Abboud, senior vice president Government Relations for Adelson's Sands Corporation,
told the Adelson-owned Las Vegas Review Journal that the meeting was "pre-arranged and set to
discuss policy,"
according to the paper .
Adelson has also financed Israel's largest circulation daily
newspaper, whose support for Netanyahu and his right-wing government earned it the nickname
"Bibiton."
Eli Clifton reports on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy. He's
previously reported for the American Independent News Network, ThinkProgress, and Inter Press
Service.
"... Nearly every assertion in the president's speech was embarrassingly incorrect. Iran is not allied with al-Qaeda, as the president stated. The money President Obama sent to Iran was their own money. Much of it was a down-payment made to the US for fighter planes that were never delivered when Iran changed from being friend to foe in 1979. The president also falsely claims that Iran targets the United States with terrorism. He claims that Iran has "fueled sectarian violence in Iraq," when it was Iranian militias who prevented Baghdad from being overtaken by ISIS in 2014. There are too many other false statements in the president's speech to mention. ..."
"... Unfortunately the American people are being neoconned into another war. Just as with the disastrous 2003 US attack on Iraq, the media builds up the fear and does the bidding of the warmongers without checking facts or applying the necessary skepticism to neocon claims. ..."
President Trump has been notoriously inconsistent in his foreign policy. He campaigned on and
won the presidency with promises to repair relations with Russia, pull out of no-win wars like Afghanistan,
and end the failed US policy of nation-building overseas. Once in office he pursued policies exactly
the opposite of what he campaigned on. Unfortunately Iran is one of the few areas where the president
has been very consistent. And consistently wrong.
In the president's speech last week he expressed his view that Iran was not "living up to the
spirit" of the 2015 nuclear agreement and that he would turn to Congress to apply new sanctions to
Iran and to, he hopes, take the US out of the deal entirely.
Nearly every assertion in the president's speech was embarrassingly incorrect. Iran is not allied
with al-Qaeda, as the president stated. The money President Obama sent to Iran was their own money.
Much of it was a down-payment made to the US for fighter planes that were never delivered when Iran
changed from being friend to foe in 1979. The president also falsely claims that Iran targets the
United States with terrorism. He claims that Iran has "fueled sectarian violence in Iraq," when it
was Iranian militias who prevented Baghdad from being overtaken by ISIS in 2014. There are too many
other false statements in the president's speech to mention.
How could he be so wrong on so many basic facts about Iran? Here's a clue: the media reports that
his number one advisor on Iran is his Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley. Ambassador Haley is a "diplomat"
who believes war is the best, first option rather than the last, worst option. She has no prior foreign
policy experience, but her closest mentor is John Bolton – the neocon who lied us into the Iraq war.
How do these people live with themselves when they look around at the death and destruction their
policies have caused?
Unfortunately the American people are being neoconned into another war. Just as with the disastrous
2003 US attack on Iraq, the media builds up the fear and does the bidding of the warmongers without
checking facts or applying the necessary skepticism to neocon claims.
Like most Americans, I do not endorse Iran's style of government. I prefer religion and the state
to be separate and even though our liberties have been under attack by our government, I prefer our
much freer system in the US. But I wonder how many Americans know that Iran has not attacked or "regime-changed"
another country in its modern history. Iran's actions in Syria are at the invitation of the legitimate
Syrian government. And why won't President Trump tell us the truth about Iranian troops in Syria
– that they are fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda, both of which are Sunni extremist groups that are Iran's
(and our) mortal enemies?
How many Americans know that Iran is one of the few countries in the region that actually holds
elections that are contested by candidates with very different philosophies? Do any Americans wonder
why the Saudis are considered one of our greatest allies in the Middle East even though they hold
no elections and have one of the world's worst human rights records?
Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's
compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the bullseye
of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?
"Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?"
The die was cast the minute they ended the draft and mandatory service. What the hell does
anyone in this country care about the next war? Maybe some realize it's a theft, a looting, but
as long as it isn't THEIR blood being spilt, nothing goes nuclear, they don't care. Few outside
our little venue here even understand, they think it's still Rah! Rah! And then, I suppose if
I were in Congress, I might demand votes on these deals. Civilian control of the military, funding
the wars, etc. Of course, if I pushed the point, they'd put a bullet in my HEAD . Just
because. And headline me, my Mistress and my wife on the front page of the Post. Because NSA just
KNOWS shit. Probably set me up with my Mistress to begin with so they'd have something on me,
heh. This is the dilemma the Hill has on a personal level. We don't vote on wars, we gave em a
blank check after 9/11 and that's that. Keeping it all going? That's all private. None-ya.
"... The reality is that the above situation outlined by Kerry two years ago has only worsened with Trump's inability to understand that reality leading to the current irrationality in policy-- unless --Trump is actually trying to further the Neocon policy of Full Spectrum Dominance. ..."
"... "Have you met America? That's the country that needs "lives matter" movements because of its prevailing culture of utter indifference to human welfare, but which trips over itself in its eagerness to wage war in defense of the petrodollar." ..."
"... I can easily envision a joint announcement by Russia, China and Iran that all trade conducted with them must be transacted in Yuan, Ruble, Rial, or Euro--that the dollar is no longer welcomed. And given the utter stupidity of the Republican controlled US Congress, more sanctions will be applied to Iran thus sealing the onset of the Outlaw US Empire's international isolation. ..."
"... Imho, the US political establishment, as publically projected, is moving closer to a realm where words, be they snide remarks, lofty pronouncements, declarations of intent, or vile accusations, become substitutes for action. ..."
"... US overt behavior is hapless unless entered into with cold calculation, a specific hidden aim in mind, and levers of control somewhere. Not the case imho, but dismissing Trump as a fool is not useful. We see symptoms of floundering, weakened, posturing Empire -- imho empty sorts o' threats (Iran, NK) are often dismissed by others, rightly so, but that is dangerous too: the US has to play the military domination position combined with the unpredictability card. Extremely volatile situation. ..."
"... Remember when Trump said he would never do a first nuke strike? :) ..."
In the final days of the Iran Deal negotiations, August 2015, I completely missed the
interview Kerry did with Reuters, https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/08/245935.htm
that Mercouris parses for his detailed article proving the Outlaw US Empire's Imperial Policy
is now "irrational"--utterly I'd say since for me it's been irrational for decades when
weighing the actual interests of the United States's populous. The key excerpt:
"But if everybody thinks, 'Oh, no, we're just tough; the United States of America, we have
our secondary sanctions; we can force people to do what we want.' I actually heard that
argument on television this morning. I've heard it from a number of the organisations that
are working that are opposed to this agreement. They're spreading the word, 'America is
strong enough, our banks are tough enough; we can just bring the hammer down and force our
friends to do what we want them to.'
"Well, look – a lot of business people in this room. Are you kidding me? The
United States is going to start sanctioning our allies and their banks and their businesses
because we walked away from a deal and we're going to force them to do what we want them to
do even though they agreed to the deal we came to? Are you kidding ?
"That is a recipe quickly, my friends, for them to walk away from Ukraine, where they are
already very dicey and ready to say, 'Well, we've done our bit.' They were ready in many
cases to say, 'Well, we're the ones paying the price for your sanctions.' We – it was
Obama who went out and actually put together a sanctions regime that had an impact. By
– I went to China. We persuaded China, 'Don't buy more oil.' We persuaded India and
other countries to step back.
"Can you imagine trying to sanction them after persuading them to put in phased
sanctions to bring Iran to the negotiating table, and when they have not only come to the
table but they made a deal, we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them you're going
to have to obey our rules on the sanctions anyway?
"That is a recipe very quickly, my friends, businesspeople here, for the American
dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world – which is already bubbling out
there .." (Bold italics in original.)
The reality is that the above situation outlined by Kerry two years ago has only worsened
with Trump's inability to understand that reality leading to the current irrationality in
policy-- unless --Trump is actually trying to further the Neocon policy of Full
Spectrum Dominance. If that is indeed the case, then Trump's behavior is rational in that the
only alternative facing the Outlaw US Empire in its drive to enslave the planet is to launch
a non-proxy hot war to achieve its goals.
Or... Trump's smarter than any of us as he expects
the neocons to fold when faced with the possibility of escalating the ongoing Hybrid Third
World War into one that's no longer Hybrid and promises to bring horrendous amounts of death
and destruction to The Homeland.
yes, I just read that Mercouris piece
and I was excited to read about that Kerry interview, that everyone seems to have missed. So
here's what seems to be the authoritative background on the the Iran deal.
b said in his last piece -
October 14 , linked in his article above:
Obama pushed sanctions onto sanctions to make Iran scream. But the country did not fold.
Each new U.S. sanction step was responded to with an expansion of Iran's nuclear program.
In the end Obama had to offer talks to Iran to get out of the hole he had dug himself.
For me this was the first time I'd seen an explanation of why the Iran deal happened, and
I really wanted to know more. Now this retrospective by Mercouris shows exactly how accurate
b's assessment was, but fills in the detail to show that the EU was already on the verge of a
major split from the dollar. Only the deal, which allowed EU to grow its trade with the huge
market of Iran, saved this potential run from the dollar by Europe.
I read the full Reuters interview , and I find
it debatable how much of Kerry's statement was applied to Russia and China and how much to
Britain, France and Germany. I'll parse it as, Asia will say it out loud, Europe will think
it silently - the unthinkable, that is. Mercouris seems sure it was Europe:
In other words the US was pushed into the JCPOA somewhat against its will at the insistence
of its European allies, who were considering lifting sanctions on Iran unilaterally if the
US rejected the deal which was on offer. The US submitted to their demands because it
feared that the alternative – threatening economic war on its European allies by
imposing sanctions on them – would have hastened the ending of the reserve currency
status of the US dollar.
It is rare to say the least for US officials to so much as contemplate in public the
possibility of the US dollar losing its reserve currency status. The fact that in August
2015 Secretary of State Kerry actually did so shows the pressure that the US was under.
Astonishing. Here we are two years later trying to think that if Trump does whatever
nonsense he does with the Iran deal, it will encourage a rift between the US and the EU - but
actually this has already come to be the situation, and two years ago at that.
This is some serious shit, that we all seem to have missed. EU leaders may be craven, but
European business wants to trade with Iran, and it's simmering around the point of breaking
away from the dollar in order to do it. Surely this calls for a large re-calculation of the
situation.
What happens if Iran starts to negotiate payments settled in Yuan? Hezbollah can take down
Israel militarily. But perhaps Iran can take down the US financially?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/text-obama-gives-a-speech-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal/?utm_term=.aac92dd70db9
..."Moreover, our closest allies in Europe or in Asia, much less China or Russia, certainly
are not going to enforce existing sanctions for another five, 10, 15 years according to the
dictates of the U.S. Congress because their willingness to support sanctions in the first
place was based on Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was not based on the belief
that Iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power, and it certainly wasn't based on a desire for
regime change in Iran.
As a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are
selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position, as some have suggested, Congress'
rejection would almost certainly result in multi-lateral sanctions unraveling.
If, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, beefen them up,
we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of
every major power in the world. In order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction,
for example, some of the world's largest banks. We'd have to cut off countries like China
from the American financial system. And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt,
such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by way, raise
questions internationally about the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. That's
part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived."...
Another time when Obama was covincing US to pass the Iran deal, he stated bluntly that not
passing the deal would put the US dollar at risk. Have not been able to find it as yet.
I just read this comment by Oh Homer at another site and felt motivated to share it here.
"Have you met America? That's the country that needs "lives matter" movements because of its
prevailing culture of utter indifference to human welfare, but which trips over itself in its
eagerness to wage war in defense of the petrodollar."
Good questions! The extremely rare candor shown by Kerry, as Mercouris notes, isn't being
shared by the Trumpsters and is likely responsible for their outward state of high anxiety
and knee-jerk reactions to just about anything.
Iran says it has a plan: "Speaker of Iran's parliament Ali Larijani said that Iran 'had a
developed plan and a certain law,' should the United States withdraw from the agreement on
Tehran's nuclear program, adding that Washington would 'regret it.'" https://sputniknews.com/world/201710161058275364-iran-plan-us-nuclear-deal/
RT reports Larijani thusly: "' We have a plan We've recently approved in parliament
what we should do given the Americans undertake certain steps, ' Larijani told reporters
Monday on the sidelines of the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting in St. Petersburg.
' We will take steps so that the Americans will regret it. '" (Emphasis in
original.) https://www.rt.com/news/406851-iran-has-plan-if-us-withdraws-nuclear/
If that is so, then what Iran plans to do ought to be discerned by looking at its
parliamentary actions on the subject by those able to read Farsi. I rather doubt it's bluff
and bluster.
And the EU won't support Trump's decertification: "After a closed-door meeting [of EU
Foreign Ministers at Luxembourg] chaired by EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini on how
best to proceed on the Iran issue, ministers issued a joint statement saying that the 2015
deal was key to preventing the global spread of nuclear weapons." https://www.rt.com/newsline/406844-iran-eu-us-mogherini/
I can easily envision a joint announcement by Russia, China and Iran that all trade
conducted with them must be transacted in Yuan, Ruble, Rial, or Euro--that the dollar is no
longer welcomed. And given the utter stupidity of the Republican controlled US Congress, more
sanctions will be applied to Iran thus sealing the onset of the Outlaw US Empire's
international isolation.
Imho, the US political establishment, as publically projected, is moving closer to a realm
where words, be they snide remarks, lofty pronouncements, declarations of intent, or vile
accusations, become substitutes for action.
Likewise, minor symbolic moves like withdrawing, "quitting" which is ambiguous, from e.g.
UNESCO - *US didn't pay dues in any case.*
Trump is not alone, all the Dem. Russia-bashing/blaming leads nowhere, the Trump
denigration as well, Trump threatening NK is similar.
The word is sufficient to itself! As are incantatory spells, religious appeals, etc. All
one clumsy step beyond the Rovian "when we act, we create our own reality.." which rests on
the power to act and transform reality (sometimes with sleight of hand, mirages..)
transferring that power to symbols with hope and 'belief'... That's the comforting
take.
US overt behavior is hapless unless entered into with cold calculation, a specific hidden
aim in mind, and levers of control somewhere. Not the case imho, but dismissing Trump as a
fool is not useful. We see symptoms of floundering, weakened, posturing Empire -- imho
empty sorts o' threats (Iran, NK) are often dismissed by others, rightly so, but that is
dangerous too: the US has to play the military domination position combined with the
unpredictability card. Extremely volatile situation.
Remember when Trump said he would never do a first nuke strike? :)
"... Tillerson told a news conference in Beijing two weeks ago that the US was directly communicating with North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs, but it had shown no interest in dialogue. Trump took to Twitter the next day, saying Tillerson was "wasting his time" trying to negotiate with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un. ..."
"... "The greatest diplomatic activities we have are with China, and the most important, and they have come a long, long way," Corker said. "Some of the things we are talking about are phenomenal. "When you jack the legs out from under your chief diplomat, you cause all that to fall apart." He added that working with China was the key to reaching a peaceful settlement with North Korea. ..."
"... "When you publicly castrate your secretary of state, you take that off the table," Corker said. ..."
"... If Tillerson is undermined by Trump, why is he hanging around. He can't be effective. Honorable thing to do is to hand over his resignation. He doesn't need the job. ..."
"... It's bad, but having experienced the 60s and early 70s (Nixon, Watergate, Vietnam, assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Kent State, 1960 Dem Convention, Weather Underground, etc.) I think it's safe to say that we are nowhere near that level. And then there's the Civil War, Andrew Johnson, etc. ..."
"... Forty years of Reagan's mantra that government, taxes, and unions are evil and business is the way, the truth, and the power. Forty years of his trickle down economics which has led to stagnating/declining wages, crumbling infrastructure and, importantly, divestment in k-16 education. Ongoing dog whistles to now include Christian persecution in a primarily Christian country. ..."
"... And remember, we're a big ass country with small, far flung towns. Trump's support is strongest in small, rural communities ..."
"... Trump picked up the GOP ball and ran with it to its natural conclusion -- a know nothing incompetent, narcissistic president who won on the back of the bigotry, fear, and economic lies the GOP's been peddling for decades. ..."
"... I think many people have been secretly hoping that the good cop/bad cop act was part of an agreed strategy for dealing with Kim and the DRK. It's not though is it? Dozza really is as pathetic as he looks. Absolutely out of his depth and endangering everybody with his bullshit. ..."
"... Sadly the typical American has very little to no awareness of the world outside of the US. Their world view and knowledge of the rest of the world is extremely limited and biased. That is why 'America First' is the perfect strap-line for this 'president'. ..."
"... Trump isn't evil. He's thin-skinned, easily goaded, petty and vindictive, and lacks foresight and self-awareness. His attempts to dismantle Obamacare will kill people, but that's not his aim and he doesn't think of it in those terms. He's not evil, just incompetent and irrational. ..."
"... Trump doesn't understand the word "negotiation" anyway. That's why he previously said that any negotiations with NK would be very short. It's because his definition of the word is, "we tell you what we demand, and you do it, regardless of your viewpoint." That's why he makes enemies of everyone he has contact with, a total lack of understanding that a Win-Win approach is better for all (what does it matter what the outcome for "all" is, as long as Trump appears to be the winner). Boils down to his mental condition meaning he has no empathy. ..."
"... Trump is "riding" the surge in jobs that is related entirely to a cyclical recovery from worldwide recession. ..."
"... I think everyone knows the keys the North Korea crisis are China and dialog. But who says the Corporate States and their military-industrial complex want peace? War drives profits. And as anyone who has travelled the US - outside of Vegas, 5th Ave and Hollywood and Vine - knows war is essential to the American identity and needed to maintain cohesion in that fracturing society. Pride in the US military is a foundation stone of the modern US. War is needed to distract the peasants from the rising poverty virtually nil opportunities at home. War on the Korean peninsula may be needed by the Corporate State and if it is it will happen. ..."
"... It is almost as if Donald Trump thinks the Secretary of State's job is to take notes on Donald Trump's statements. ..."
Bob Corker accuses the president of undercutting the secretary of state's efforts to rein in
North Korea's nuclear program
US Republican senator Bob Corker stepped up his public feud with Donald Trump on Friday,
saying the president's undermining of his secretary of state was like castrating him in
public.
Corker told the Washington Post in an interview that Trump had undercut Rex Tillerson's
efforts to enlist China in reining in North Korea's nuclear program by denigrating the
diplomat.
"You cannot publicly castrate your own secretary of state" without limiting the options for
dealing with North Korea, Corker, the chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, told
the Post.
Tillerson told a news conference in Beijing two weeks ago that the US was directly
communicating with North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs, but it had shown no
interest in dialogue.
Trump took to Twitter the next day, saying Tillerson was "wasting his time" trying to negotiate
with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un.
"The greatest diplomatic activities we have are with China, and the most important, and they
have come a long, long way," Corker said. "Some of the things we are talking about are
phenomenal. "When you jack the legs out from under your chief diplomat, you cause all that to fall
apart." He added that working with China was the key to reaching a peaceful settlement with North
Korea.
"When you publicly castrate your secretary of state, you take that off the table," Corker
said.
Artgoddess 14 Oct 2017 17:05
Tillerson gets A LOT of $ if he lasts a year. Mnuchin, too.
humdum 14 Oct 2017 14:55
If Tillerson is undermined by Trump, why is he hanging around. He can't be effective.
Honorable thing to do is to hand over his resignation. He
doesn't need the job.
LibtardMangina -> imipak 14 Oct 2017 13:06
Like Sadam had no WMDs yet George and Tony pretended they cared whether they were there or
not and went in guns blazing. We're still trying to pick up the pieces. Thanks guys. Dozza's
adventures in NK is the next instalment of this shit show.
willyjack -> lochinverboy 14 Oct 2017 12:54
"This is the low point in America's political history"
It's bad, but having experienced the 60s and early 70s (Nixon, Watergate, Vietnam,
assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Kent State, 1960 Dem Convention, Weather Underground, etc.)
I think it's safe to say that we are nowhere near that level. And then there's the Civil War,
Andrew Johnson, etc.
ConBrio -> CorvidRegina 14 Oct 2017 12:16
She came, she manipulated the nomination process, she lost! Get over it the precipitous
canonization of damaged goods and try to elect someone competent. She ain't risin again.
CorvidRegina -> Abusedbythestate 14 Oct 2017 11:30
politicians playing on people's fears and telling them what they want to hear
That is the true culprit here. The role of politicians has always been to protect the
country, including from its own citizens. Every politician makes use of some fear as a
rhetorical tool, but the American conservatives really took this to a whole new level; they
found an easy and lazy way to keep their support bolstered, by conflating the very worst
traits of the ignorant and gullible with moral, even religious, superiority.
Of course they now consider themselves superior to even the politicians that fed them.
It's hard to feel much pity.
john ayres -> colacj 14 Oct 2017 11:18
[Edited for clarity] Anyone other then primate chosen for this position would outshine
him. Leave at the Russia BS. It is the result of $2B of propaganda from US agencies.
DAW188 14 Oct 2017 11:02
On an international scale what should probably be concerning American voters more than it
is, are the US allies that appear to be pivoting away from them and towards each other. With
an incompetent ninny of a POTUS and absolutely no clear military or diplomatic direction it
is unsurprising that other global players are looking to each other for some security. The
latest fallout over the Iran deal will only exasperate it.
I imagine it has caused some of the diplomats and bureaucrats in Washington to sit up and
feel concerned. But as most US news reporting (even from internationally regarded
publications like the NYT) seems to look no further than the end of its nose, I doubt its
getting much, if any, play amongst US voters.
A fine example of this would be the machinations of the recent meetings between Theresa May
and Shinzo Abe. They represent two of the closest political, economic and military allies of
the US and are arguably key to the US' Atlantic and Pacific spheres of influence. Both
countries find themselves in a bit of a bind. May turns up with a big empty bag labelled
trade deals and Abe greets her with a tin-helmet on fearing a NK missile might drop on his
head at any moment and that the US administration is not reliable enough to step in and
diffuse the tension as it has in the past.
Abe conveniently has a country full of investors who would quite like to get access to the
UK to buy up business on the cheap. May had a few hundred nuclear warheads in her back pocket
that are all transferable anywhere in the world undetected and underwater (say for example in
the South China Sea or the Sea of Japan), as well as a large intelligence agency and a UN
security council seat. Not hard to see how tempting it would be for the two to cut a deal.
The speech that the two leaders gave at the end of their little summit spelt it out. Abe
bigged up Brexit, the opportunities it would afford and the strength of the Anglo-Nippon
economic partnership, whilst May reaffirmed British commitments to defend its ally Japan's
interests in a big two fingers up to Beijing and Pyongyang. Suddenly the US has two powerful
allies turning away from it and towards each other, providing support that the US was once a
bridge for.
This isn't restricted to the UK or Japan. Look at Macron in France and Merkel in Germany.
Trudeau in Canada and Pena Nieto in Mexico. Even loyal old Bibi is getting in on the act when
he recently invited India's Modi around for tea in Jerusalem.
Then you have theoretical allies, that have questionable intentions. Qatar and the Saudis
remain at each others throats. The Emir of Qatar (or should that be his mother, the former
Queen Moza, the power behind the curtain) certainly seems increasingly enamored with the
Iranian's. Whilst the tensions in the Gulf are the way they are, it may not be the time to
try and up-end again the relationship with Iran.
mbidding -> JEM5260 14 Oct 2017 11:00
Fifty years of the GOP putting party before country is how too many voters have been duped
and misinformed.
Fifty years of Nixon's Southern Strategy and subsequent dog whistle politics aimed at
convincing "real" Americans that people of color, liberals, intellectuals, and secular
humanists are out to destroy their way of life and are the causes of all their woes.
Forty years of Reagan's mantra that government, taxes, and unions are evil and
business is the way, the truth, and the power. Forty years of his trickle down economics
which has led to stagnating/declining wages, crumbling infrastructure and, importantly,
divestment in k-16 education. Ongoing dog whistles to now include Christian persecution in a
primarily Christian country.
Thirty five years of repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by which "news" has become nothing
more than politically propagandized infotainment.
And remember, we're a big ass country with small, far flung towns. Trump's support is
strongest in small, rural communities -- communities with no experience with diversity of any
type (political, economic, and social). These folks have been groomed by the GOP for fifty
years to believe that liberal policies and non whites are out to get them and only the GOP
and business have their backs.
Trump picked up the GOP ball and ran with it to its natural conclusion -- a know nothing
incompetent, narcissistic president who won on the back of the bigotry, fear, and economic
lies the GOP's been peddling for decades.
LibtardMangina 14 Oct 2017 10:44
I think many people have been secretly hoping that the good cop/bad cop act was part of an
agreed strategy for dealing with Kim and the DRK. It's not though is it? Dozza really is as
pathetic as he looks. Absolutely out of his depth and endangering everybody with his
bullshit.
Abusedbythestate -> Conradsagent 14 Oct 2017 08:23
It will still end in tears for the yanks - a powerful military will not save the dollar -
change is the one constant in the universe - where is the roman empire, the British empire,
the Portuguese and Spanish empires, the Venetian empire now???? No one state stays the top
dog for ever.
The rest of the world will see to that - the British and Europe are starting to
look East and Trump is helping them do that to become so isolated, the US will become a
backwater as quick as the USSR collapsed almost overnight. It only takes one extra straw to
break the camel's back
Abusedbythestate -> digamey 14 Oct 2017 08:19
Indeed - I have many German friends and we talk about how any group of people in a nation
can vote a nutter into power - Hitler being one of the most in(famous). At the end of the
day, in all of the world in every nation state, there are a lot of very dumb people - the
majority of the electorate to a greater or lesser degree - it's not their fault - we are all
born entirely ignorant and our culture forms our opinions and our ability to question - do
you remember how often at school, you were encouraged to question anything? or were facts,
facts?
Pile on top of that a very powerful media, politicians playing on people's fears and
telling them what they want to hear, and people's general gullibility and it's no great
surprise that the Germans voted for Hitler, the Yanks voted for Trump and our dumb country
voted .... well, vote the way they do - the fact that people seem happy with our so called
democracies around the world that are far from democratic, depending on definition, and where
we're often given a choice of just one or two options that seem incredibly similar in policy
compared to the vast possible alternatives on how to run a country/economy - heaven forbid we
might attempt an "extreme" alternative!!!
3melvinudall 14 Oct 2017 08:18
It seems some Republicans have decided now is the time to take down Trump. From what the
country has seen of how Trump does "business" better to take him on now than deal with the
disastrous consequences of his failures. Captain Trump is taking the ship down with his
incompetence...problem is: we are all on that ship.
Gytaff -> Mordicant 14 Oct 2017 07:48
Sadly the typical American has very little to no awareness of the world outside of the
US. Their world view and knowledge of the rest of the world is extremely limited and biased.
That is why 'America First' is the perfect strap-line for this 'president'.
The Trump base doesn't give a toss about 'worldwide economic momentum', they only see what
is happening in their own back yards. This is why Trump is doing well with his base, they see
his posturing against North Korea, Iran and Syria as strength, they see his threats to trade
deals as protectionist and have absolutely no problem with it, it's perfectly aligned with
their views and mindset.
The Democrats are going to have a serious battle in the mid-terms, they need to find a way
to appeal to the common man and give them what Trump keeps promising to deliver (but not, so
far!). They need to show that they, as elitists can empathize with the common man's position,
needs and beliefs, sadly the democrats have a long way to go! The Republicans are also
screwed as Trump_vs_deep_state is anathema to their candidates too.
The next 12 months are going to be 'interesting times'!
Conradsagent -> ConBrio 14 Oct 2017 07:34
The US is one of the most fundamentalist, extreme religious whack job countries on the
planet.
As for addiction to US protection...it is also one of the most (if not, the most)
dangerously confused countries on earth. The world needs protecting 'from' it...not by it
corneilius -> pruneau 14 Oct 2017 07:24
Exactly the same can be said of the Tory party in the UK, especially the belief that you
run a national economy on the same principles of a household budget.
saintkiwi -> Prumtic 14 Oct 2017 07:23
I think half the cabinet and half of Congress may actually go along with it; we know from
whispers around the White House and Washington that many, if not most, Republicans think
Trump is temperamentally/psychologically unfit for the post. Maybe Corker is the crack in the
dam that eventually leads to catastrophic failure and flood; maybe not.
Pence is a total stiff, though. No way such a conservative guy would implement such an
historic and radical action as forcibly* removing a sitting president, no matter how nuts
that C-in-C was.
*(and yes, I can envisage Tump literally having to be dragged from the Oval Office)
UB__DK 14 Oct 2017 07:02
I hope the 25th amendment is on the agenda behind the scenes. It is clear to everyone that
the president is unqualified. He is steadily eroding the credibility of the office he holds
and of the entire West on the international political scene. And the longer his removal is
delayed the worse it will get.
BeenThereDunThat -> ClearlyNow 14 Oct 2017 06:39
Oh dear, another Trumpkin. I am no fan of Merkel - a neoliberal to her boots. But at least
she has some humanity and actually cares for other members of the human race outside of her
immediate family - and to be honest, I doubt the Tango Tyrant cares for his family other than
their being a projection of his own narcissistic ego.
As for Germany, its economy still marches along with it being the number 4 economy in the
world and the top of the G5 group. It's standard of living remains high while social
inequality is far lower than in countries such as the US or the UK.
So sorry, but another pathetically failed straw-man - or in this case, straw-woman -
attempt to deflect attention from the discussion at hand.
Ramas100 14 Oct 2017 05:49
It's the military generals who are stroking Trump's ego by telling him there is a military
solution to N Korea and Iran.
RichWoods -> blairsnemesis 14 Oct 2017 05:47
but Trump is the most evil and worst person to hold the post, ever.
Trump isn't evil. He's thin-skinned, easily goaded, petty and vindictive, and lacks
foresight and self-awareness. His attempts to dismantle Obamacare will kill people, but
that's not his aim and he doesn't think of it in those terms. He's not evil, just incompetent
and irrational.
All those things were apparent during the election campaign, so whatever your politics you
have no excuse if you voted for someone who is so patently unfit to hold public office.
blairsnemesis -> FrankRoberts 14 Oct 2017 05:23
I suspect he realised before he even took up the post that he was far too thick for the
job. Reagan was an appalling bag of shit but Trump is the most evil and worst person to hold
the post, ever. I only hope that if someone doesn't kill him (and they'd have my full backing
because he is an immense threat to the world), he gets put behind bars, along with the rest
of his thick-as-pigshit family, for life.
Prumtic -> HelpAmerica 14 Oct 2017 05:14
Trump doesn't understand the word "negotiation" anyway. That's why he previously said
that any negotiations with NK would be very short. It's because his definition of the word
is, "we tell you what we demand, and you do it, regardless of your viewpoint." That's why he
makes enemies of everyone he has contact with, a total lack of understanding that a Win-Win
approach is better for all (what does it matter what the outcome for "all" is, as long as
Trump appears to be the winner). Boils down to his mental condition meaning he has no
empathy.
MortimerSnerd 14 Oct 2017 05:11
Just trying to keep the faith here until the mid terms. Trump is more bluster than balls,
and he is not The Emperor. There are checks and balances in the system and the system has
thwarted him on many occasions.
peterxpto -> LondonFog 14 Oct 2017 05:03
Trump is "riding" the surge in jobs that is related entirely to a cyclical recovery
from worldwide recession.
Kevin Cox -> WhigInterpretation 14 Oct 2017 04:46
Well said. Regarding Congress, people do not understand the way the US is hobbled by a
constitution that facilitates the lobbying of special interests - so long as it is not the
labor movement - and which is very, very hard to change. So much for the Founding Fathers and
what they accomplished and made difficult to alter.
tippisheadrun -> simba72 14 Oct 2017 04:29
Absolutely.
President Ted Cruz, President Mike Huckabee, President Ben Carson, President Chris Christie,
President Rick Santorum, President Marco Rubio - take your prick - none of them would promote
any sense of security in the populace. With the exception of John Kasich, the GOP nominee was
destined to be a dangerous character- either through lack of scruples or a misguided sense of
their own righteousness.
daWOID -> digamey 14 Oct 2017 02:53
Fun fact: "the lifestyle of the good citizens of Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Wisconsin, West
Virginia and Texas etc., etc" collapsed a long time ago.
juster digamey 14 Oct 2017 02:50
The dollar is not going to stay the reserve currency forever. Its just math. If an average
chinese can reach 25% productivity of an average amreican, and there is no reason they cant,
they will have by all metrics the largest economy. At that stage USD keeping its present day
status is impossible even if Abraham Lincoln gets revived an re elected.
charles47 -> RealityCheck2016 14 Oct 2017 02:22
I am involved in negotiations every day of my working life, with staff, with Trustees
(directors), with local authorities, with suppliers.
I have good working relationships with most of them. Must be doing something right, while
doing a job that matters to me personally. I've met Trump types. They wouldn't last five
minutes in the world I live and work in. Too "entitled" and far too full of themselves.
Generally, if I come across someone like that, they don't get our business because they are
long on promise, short on delivery, and more interested in getting the "deal" than
considering our needs as an organisation - which is the selling point I look for, as with
most people. One-sided deals don't work and don't last.
As for affording to go to a Trump hotel...if I could, I wouldn't. I have my favourites,
and my personal standards that don't involve glitter without substance.
jon donahue -> BhoGhanPryde 14 Oct 2017 01:57
Iran. At about 10,000 dead, it could go on for about three years with beaucoup contracts
to be had. Perfect for all the flag-wavers.
Korea? No. Too many dead too fast, could run up to 25,000 in a hurry. Plus, Seoul smoked.
Bad optics, no money in it...
jon donahue 14 Oct 2017 01:52
Trump is a train wreck. Incompetent. Unable to manage, unable to negotiate, unable to
govern.
The good news is that we don't actually need a functioning President, with the world
pretty much at peace and the economy doing well enough.
Everybody in the government and military can just work around the jerk.
digamey 14 Oct 2017 01:38
Republicans are experts at protecting their own butts. While Trump's numbers hold, they
will bitch about him in private and suck up to him in public. Once his numbers start to tank,
as inevitably they will, they will turn upon him and savage him in a manner with which even
the most voracious hyenas could not compete.
BhoGhanPryde 14 Oct 2017 00:38
I think everyone knows the keys the North Korea crisis are China and dialog. But who
says the Corporate States and their military-industrial complex want peace? War drives
profits. And as anyone who has travelled the US - outside of Vegas, 5th Ave and Hollywood and
Vine - knows war is essential to the American identity and needed to maintain cohesion in
that fracturing society. Pride in the US military is a foundation stone of the modern US. War
is needed to distract the peasants from the rising poverty virtually nil opportunities at
home. War on the Korean peninsula may be needed by the Corporate State and if it is it will
happen.
Mike Bray 13 Oct 2017 23:37
It is almost as if Donald Trump thinks the Secretary of State's job is to take notes
on Donald Trump's statements.
Atlantic used to have a strong pro-Hillary bias and stooges are prominent among its correspondents, so all information should be
take with huge grain of salt. may be this is just a "color revolution" style campaign to provoke the President of some outburst that
hurts him politically.
But Trump behaviour in case of North Korea speaks for itself so this is not pure insinuations...
Notable quotes:
"... On the North Korean front, the president has repeatedly made bellicose remarks for months, even as aides try to slow-walk the slide toward war, warning of the catastrophic destruction that would result, insisting that all options remain on the table, and trying to keep diplomatic channels open -- only to see Trump repeatedly undercut them. Even as the president seems eager for confrontation, more prudent members of the team have sought to redirect his anger. ..."
"... Bargaining is another technique, as recent news about Iran shows. While many of Trump's aides had their gripes about the 2015 deal with Tehran to prevent nuclear proliferation, most of them seem to agree that keeping the deal in place is far preferable to eliminating it. ..."
"... Trump's childish behavior was worrying when it involved belittling his opponents, discussing his genitalia, or taking swipes at former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, but it takes on a new level of danger when it affects U.S. military policy ..."
... Or, for that matter, whether the U.S. might go to war soon with either North Korea or Iran,
as I wrote yesterday
. On the North Korean front, the president has repeatedly made bellicose remarks for months, even as aides try to slow-walk the
slide toward war, warning of the catastrophic destruction that would result, insisting that all options remain on the table, and
trying to keep diplomatic channels open -- only to see Trump repeatedly undercut them. Even as the president seems eager for confrontation,
more prudent members of the team have sought to redirect his anger.
Bargaining is another technique, as recent news about Iran shows. While many of Trump's aides had their gripes about the 2015
deal with Tehran to prevent nuclear proliferation, most of them seem to agree that keeping the deal in place is far preferable to
eliminating it. But now the administration seems likely to punt the issue, decertifying the deal but leaving it to Congress to either
let it stand or fall. (So much for Harry S. Truman's "the buck stops here.") Why take this halfway step? Part of it is that, just
as on DACA, Trump wants to keep a campaign promise to end the deal without suffering the consequences, but another part is childish
petulance: Olivier Knox reports Trump simply hates
being confronted with the need to recertify the deal every 90 days.
And then, as every parent knows, sometimes you just have to give in -- let the kid have a victory on something less significant.
Aides can try to prevent war with North Korea, and they can seek compromise on the Iran deal, and they can quietly kill the demand
for more nukes, but they've got to let the president have his way on occasion.
When Trump demands "goddamned steam" to power catapults on aircraft carriers, aides shrug and let it go.
Trump's childish behavior was worrying when it involved belittling his opponents, discussing his genitalia, or taking swipes
at former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, but it takes on a new level of danger when it affects U.S. military policy, from Iran
to North Korea to the nuclear arsenal.
There's a powerful, perhaps too powerful, urge to
seek historical analogues for Trump , but
seldom has there been
a president whose own loyalists and insiders were so dismissive of his maturity, judgment, and prudence. So how does the presidency
work when the president's aides treat him like a child? The immediate answer is, not very well. The longer-term answers are murkier
and scarier.
That's neoliberal elite after all. Why the author expects them to be ashamed is unclear
Notable quotes:
"... Business practices aimed at boosting shareholder value – like outsourcing, offshoring, automation, union-busting, predatory lending, and a range of anti-competitive abuses – have undermined the security of large swaths of the country. In turn, a flood of business dollars for campaign donations and lobbying over decades has helped thwart effective government responses to rising pain on Main Street. ..."
"... History tells us that societies with extractive and self-serving upper classes tend to fall into decline – whereas societies with inclusive elites are more likely to thrive. With the rise of Trump, we're seeing what an unraveling of the social fabric looks like after decades in which nearly all the nation's income gains have flowed upwards to a tiny sliver of households. ..."
Since January, though, we've also seen a new level of rapaciousness by corporate interests in
Washington DC that seem intent on extracting as much wealth as they can from wherever they can: consumers,
investors, public lands, student borrowers, the tax code and even the war in Afghanistan.
Longtime watchers of the .01% won't be surprised by this bifurcated picture. For over two decades,
an ever more educated wealthy elite has trumpeted its belief in tolerance, diversity, and meritocracy
– even as it's also helped usher in record levels of inequality that have left many Americans feeling
economically excluded and increasingly angry.
Trump's retrograde presidency has revealed the profound contradictions at the top of the US income
ladder.
... ... ...
Corporate leaders have already been supportive of Trump's sweeping push to gut regulations in
ways that would tilt the rules governing the economy more in favor of business and the wealthy. Social
inclusion may be a growing public mantra of the far upper class. But economic extraction remains
among its core operating principles.
... ... ...
Social inclusion is a public mantra of the upper class. But economic extraction remains
a core operating principle
The answer is that many corporate and financial leaders were, and still are, a big part of the
problem. These leaders have fostered the economic conditions that have thrown the values of tolerance
and diversity on the defensive in America.
Business practices aimed at boosting shareholder value – like outsourcing, offshoring, automation,
union-busting, predatory lending, and a range of anti-competitive abuses – have undermined the security
of large swaths of the country. In turn, a flood of business dollars for campaign donations and lobbying
over decades has helped thwart effective government responses to rising pain on Main Street.
... ... ...
History tells us that societies with extractive and self-serving upper classes tend to fall
into decline – whereas societies with inclusive elites are more likely to thrive. With the rise of
Trump, we're seeing what an unraveling of the social fabric looks like after decades in which nearly
all the nation's income gains have flowed upwards to a tiny sliver of households.
Rarely has the American experiment – the notion of a country united by ideas rather than shared
heritage – felt more fragile than it does right now. It's an ugly picture of division and resentment,
but a predictable one given the economic trauma inflicted on millions of people over recent decades.
... ... ...
David Callahan is the author of The Givers: Wealth, Power, and Philanthropy in a New Gilded
Age. He is the founder and editor of Inside Philanthropy
"... While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality. ..."
"... Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their name and at least nominally on their behalf? Why, as our wars drag on and on, doesn't the disparity between effort expended and benefits accrued arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of dismay? Why, in short, don't we give a [ expletive deleted ..."
"... The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated. ..."
"... On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. ..."
"... Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. ..."
"... Blather crowds out substance. ..."
"... Besides, we're too busy. ..."
"... Anyway, the next president will save us. ..."
"... Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism. ..."
"... Well, yes, the US has recently killed 100.000′s of Arab civilians because they were Terrorists (?) or to Bring them Democracy (?) or whatever, or something – or who cares anyway. There's more coverage of the transgender toilet access question. ..."
Consider, if you will, these two indisputable facts. First, the United States is today more
or less permanently engaged in hostilities in not one faraway place, but
at least seven . Second, the vast majority of the American people could not care less.
Nor can it be said that we don't care because we don't know. True, government authorities
withhold certain aspects of ongoing military operations or release only details that they find
convenient. Yet information describing what U.S. forces are doing (and where) is readily
available, even if buried in recent months by barrages of presidential tweets. Here, for anyone
interested, are press releases issued by United States Central Command for just one recent
week:
September 19 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
September 20 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
September 25 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
September 26 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
Ever since the United States launched its war on terror, oceans of military press releases
have poured forth. And those are just for starters. To provide updates on the U.S. military's
various ongoing campaigns, generals, admirals, and high-ranking defense officials regularly
testify before congressional committees or brief members of the press. From the field,
journalists offer updates that fill in at least some of the details -- on civilian casualties,
for example -- that government authorities prefer not to disclose. Contributors to newspaper
op-ed pages and "experts" booked by network and cable TV news shows, including passels of
retired military officers, provide analysis. Trailing behind come books and documentaries that
put things in a broader perspective.
But here's the truth of it. None of it matters.
Like traffic jams or robocalls, war has fallen into the category of things that Americans
may not welcome, but have learned to live with. In twenty-first-century America, war is not
that big a deal.
While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara
once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it
possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire."
With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved
grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality.
Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their name and at
least nominally on their behalf? Why, as our wars drag on and on, doesn't the disparity between
effort expended and benefits accrued arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of
dismay? Why, in short, don't we give a [ expletive deleted ]?
Perhaps just posing such a question propels us instantly into the realm of the unanswerable,
like trying to figure out why people idolize Justin Bieber, shoot birds, or watch golf on
television.
Without any expectation of actually piercing our collective ennui, let me take a stab at
explaining why we don't give a @#$%&! Here are eight distinctive but mutually reinforcing
explanations, offered in a sequence that begins with the blindingly obvious and ends with the
more speculative.
Americans don't attend all that much to ongoing American wars because:
1. U.S. casualtyrates are low . By using proxies and contractors, and
relying heavily on airpower, America's war managers have been able to keep a tight lid on the
number of U.S. troops being killed and wounded. In all of 2017, for example, a grand total of 11 American soldiers have been
lost in Afghanistan -- about equal to the number of shooting deaths in Chicago over the course of a
typical week. True, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries where the U.S. is engaged in
hostilities, whether directly or indirectly, plenty of people who are not Americans are being
killed and maimed. (The estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed this year alone exceeds 12,000 .) But those
casualties have next to no political salience as far as the United States is concerned. As long
as they don't impede U.S. military operations, they literally don't count (and generally aren't
counted).
2. The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated. In a famous
speech , dating from early in his presidency, Dwight D. Eisenhower said that "Every gun
that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft
from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dollars spent
on weaponry, Ike insisted, translated directly into schools, hospitals, homes, highways, and
power plants that would go unbuilt. "This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense," he
continued. "[I]t is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." More than six decades later,
Americans have long since accommodated themselves to that cross of iron. Many actually see it
as a boon, a source of corporate profits, jobs, and, of course, campaign contributions. As
such, they avert their eyes from the opportunity costs of our never-ending wars. The dollars
expended pursuant to our post-9/11 conflicts will ultimately number in the multi-trillions . Imagine the benefits of
investing such sums in upgrading the nation's aging infrastructure . Yet don't count on
Congressional leaders, other politicians, or just about anyone else to pursue that
connection.
On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. Others have made the
point so frequently that it's the equivalent of hearing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" at
Christmastime. Even so, it bears repeating: the American people have defined their obligation
to "support the troops" in the
narrowest imaginable
terms , ensuring above all that such support requires absolutely no sacrifice on their
part. Members of Congress abet this civic apathy, while also taking steps to
insulate themselves from responsibility. In effect, citizens and their elected
representatives in Washington agree: supporting the troops means deferring to the commander in
chief, without inquiring about whether what he has the troops doing makes the slightest sense.
Yes, we set down our beers long enough to applaud those in uniform and
boo those who decline to participate in mandatory rituals of patriotism. What we don't do
is demand anything remotely approximating actual accountability.
4. Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. While international
terrorism isn't a trivial problem (and wasn't for decades before 9/11), it comes
nowhere close to posing an existential threat to the United States. Indeed, other threats,
notably the impact of climate change, constitute a far greater danger to the wellbeing of
Americans. Worried about the safety of your children or grandchildren? The opioid epidemic
constitutes an infinitely greater danger than "Islamic radicalism." Yet having been sold a bill
of goods about a "war on terror" that is essential for "keeping America safe," mere citizens
are easily persuaded that scattering U.S. troops throughout the Islamic world while dropping
bombs on designated evildoers is helping win the former while guaranteeing the latter. To
question that proposition becomes tantamount to suggesting that God might not have given Moses
two stone tablets after all.
5. Blather crowds out substance. When it comes to foreign policy, American public
discourse is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- vacuous, insipid, and mindlessly
repetitive. William Safire of the New York Times once characterized American political
rhetoric as BOMFOG, with those running for high office relentlessly touting the Brotherhood of
Man and the Fatherhood of God. Ask a politician, Republican or Democrat, to expound on this
country's role in the world, and then brace yourself for some variant of WOSFAD, as the speaker
insists that it is incumbent upon the World's Only Superpower to spread Freedom and Democracy.
Terms like leadership and indispensable are introduced, along with warnings
about the dangers of isolationism and appeasement, embellished with ominous
references to Munich . Such grandiose posturing makes it unnecessary to probe too
deeply into the actual origins and purposes of American wars, past or present, or assess the
likelihood of ongoing wars ending in some approximation of actual success. Cheerleading
displaces serious thought.
6. Besides, we're too busy. Think of this as a corollary to point five. Even if the
present-day American political scene included figures like Senators Robert
La Follette or J. William Fulbright ,
who long ago warned against the dangers of militarizing U.S. policy, Americans may not retain a
capacity to attend to such critiques. Responding to the demands of the Information Age is not,
it turns out, conducive to deep reflection. We live in an era (so we are told) when frantic
multitasking has become a sort of duty and when being overscheduled is almost obligatory. Our
attention span shrinks and with it our time horizon. The matters we attend to are those that
happened just hours or minutes ago. Yet like the great solar eclipse of 2017 -- hugely
significant and instantly forgotten -- those matters will, within another few minutes or hours,
be superseded by some other development that briefly captures our attention. As a result, a
dwindling number of Americans -- those not compulsively checking Facebook pages and Twitter
accounts -- have the time or inclination to ponder questions like: When will the Afghanistan
War end? Why has it lasted almost 16 years? Why doesn't the finest fighting force in history actually win?
Can't package an answer in 140 characters or a 30-second made-for-TV sound bite? Well, then,
slowpoke, don't expect anyone to attend to what you have to say.
7. Anyway, the next president will save us. At regular intervals, Americans indulge
in the fantasy that, if we just install the right person in the White House, all will be well.
Ambitious politicians are quick to exploit this expectation. Presidential candidates struggle
to differentiate themselves from their competitors, but all of them promise in one way or
another to wipe the slate clean and Make America Great Again. Ignoring the historical record of
promises broken or unfulfilled, and presidents who turn out not to be deities but flawed human
beings, Americans -- members of the media above all -- pretend to take all this seriously.
Campaigns become longer, more expensive, more circus-like, and ever less substantial. One might
think that the election of Donald Trump would prompt a downward revision in the exalted
expectations of presidents putting things right. Instead, especially in the anti-Trump camp,
getting rid of Trump himself (Collusion! Corruption! Obstruction! Impeachment!) has become the
overriding imperative, with little attention given to restoring the balance intended by the
framers of the Constitution. The irony of Trump perpetuating wars that he once roundly
criticized and then handing the conduct of those wars to generals devoid of ideas for ending
them almost entirely escapes notice.
8. Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism.
As recently as the 1990s, the U.S. military establishment aligned itself with the retrograde
side of the culture wars. Who can forget the gays-in-the-military controversy that rocked Bill
Clinton's administration during his first weeks in office, as senior military leaders publicly
denounced their commander-in-chief? Those days are long gone. Culturally, the armed forces have
moved left. Today, the services go out of their way to project an
image of tolerance and a commitment to equality on all matters related to race, gender, and
sexuality. So when President Trump announced his opposition to transgendered persons serving in
the armed forces, tweeting
that the military "cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that
transgender in the military would entail," senior officers politely but firmly disagreed and
pushed
back . Given the ascendency of cultural issues near the top of the U.S. political agenda,
the military's embrace of diversity helps to insulate it from criticism and from being called
to account for a less than sterling performance in waging wars. Put simply, critics who in an
earlier day might have blasted military leaders for their inability to bring wars to a
successful conclusion hold their fire. Having women graduate from
Ranger School or command
Marines in combat more than compensates for not winning.
A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America. But don't
expect your neighbors down the street or the editors of the New York Times to lose any
sleep over that fact. Even to notice it would require them -- and us -- to care.
You have enumerated ten general reasons why Americans "don't attend" to ongoing
wars.
Let me add a further specific one: the draft or lack of same. If there were a draft
in place either the powers-that-be would not even dare to contemplate any of our present
martial misadventures, or failing that the outraged citizenry would burn down the
Congress!
BTW I had never thought about reason #8: the military's embrace of diversity helps to
insulate it from criticism. This explains General Casey's inane statement that diversity
shouldn't be a casualty of the Fort Hood massacre by a "diverse" officer!
One reason Trump won is that he promised to pull back the empire, while suggesting the
Pentagon already has plenty of money. After the election, he demanded a 10% increase, and
threatens North Korea to justify it! This increase alone is bigger than the entire annual
military budget of Russia! The public is informed that this is because of cuts during the
Obama years, but there were no cuts, only limits to increases.
How did the Democrats react? Most voted for a bigger military budget than the mindless
increase proposed by Trump! That news was not reported by our corporate media, as Jimmy Dore
explained:
A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America.
Well, yes, the US has recently killed 100.000′s of Arab civilians because they
were Terrorists (?) or to Bring them Democracy (?) or whatever, or something – or who
cares anyway. There's more coverage of the transgender toilet access question.
Structurally, you have arms production, military bases, hospitals, and related service
industries across nearly all the congressional districts in the country.
So it is an enormous set of vested interests with both voting power and corporate money
for campaign treasuries.
Quoting Ike was good, and he mentions the opportunity cost in schools, roads, etc. –
but also the organizing political and economic power of the military industrial complex.
The government schools are with some exceptions worthless. No subject, let alone war, is
taken on seriously.
The legacy media has been co-opted by the MIC/Financial interests. The state is spying on
everyone and everyone knows so. Free speech, free association, free assembly, right to bear
arms, confront your accuser, trial by jury, habeas corpus – all gone now.
So the sheep behave. They walk by the dead whistling, and look straight ahead.
While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the
"greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the
United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard
to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely
premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality.
He was dead wrong about this in the 60′s as it soon became obvious to everyone else.
But we learned how "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." Cut out
the military draft and embed the press into the ranks so they dare not report the actions
they witness.
Bob Corker followed up on his initial response to Trump's attack on him with some
scathing criticism in an interview with The New York Times :
Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, charged
in an interview on Sunday that President Trump was treating his office like "a reality show,"
with reckless threats toward other countries that could set the nation "on the path to World War
III."
In an extraordinary rebuke of a president of his own party, Mr. Corker said he was alarmed
about a president who acts "like he's doing 'The Apprentice' or something."
"He concerns me," Mr. Corker added. "He would have to concern anyone who cares about our nation."
Corker isn't saying anything that many others haven't already said, but it is significant that
it is coming from such a high-profile elected Republican. The senator was among a very few in the
Senate inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in the past, and he sometimes went out of
his way to say positive things about Trump's foreign policy. During the election, he was
saying that Trump was bringing a "degree of realism" and "maturity" to foreign policy. That was
always wishful thinking, and Corker's criticism now is a belated admission that he was wrong about
all of that. It is fair to fault Corker for not realizing or saying any of these things sooner, but
that doesn't make it any less extraordinary that he is saying it on the record. Thanks to Trump's
foolish attack on him yesterday, he evidently no longer feels obliged to keep quiet about the problems
he has with the president.
One of the more interesting things that Corker confirmed concerned Trump's repeated undermining
of Tillerson:
The senator, who is close to Mr. Tillerson, invoked comments that the president made on Twitter
last weekend in which he appeared to undercut Mr. Tillerson's negotiations with North Korea.
"A lot of people think that there is some kind of 'good cop, bad cop' act underway, but that's
just not true," Mr. Corker said.
Without offering specifics, he said Mr. Trump had repeatedly undermined diplomacy with his
Twitter fingers. "I know he has hurt, in several instances, he's hurt us as it relates to negotiations
that were underway by tweeting things out," Mr. Corker said.
We already knew this, but it is important that someone in Corker's position is acknowledging that
the administration's foreign policy is every bit as dysfunctional as it appears to be. It remains
to be seen whether Corker's break with Trump will translate into meaningful opposition to any part
of Trump's foreign policy, but his remarks in this interview suggest that it might.
"... Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards." ..."
"... In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that they are sophisticated and in the know. ..."
"... Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia are false. ..."
"... This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to military attack. ..."
"... What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes? ..."
"... I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. ..."
Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept exposes the fake news put out by the US Department of
Homeland Security (an euphemistic name for a Big Brother operation that spies on US citizens) that
Russia hacked 21 US state elections, news that was instantly spread around the world by the presstitute
media. The propagandists running Homeland Security were contradicted by the state governments, forcing
Homeland Security to retract its fake news claims.
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/
The unasked/unanswered question is why did Homeland Security put out a FAKE NEWS story?
Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see
Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious
dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says
is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia.
Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard
for evidentiary standards."
In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for
the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans
sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that
they are sophisticated and in the know.
What Greenwald doesn't address is the effect of the massive amount of fake news on Russia, China,
Iran, and North Korea. Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia
are false. So why is Washington making false accusations against Russia?
This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false
accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime
criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North
Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to
military attack.
Iran and North Korea cannot attack the US and its European vassals, but Russia and China can.
I have written about the Operational Command of the Russian armed forces conclusion that Washington
is preparing a surprise nuclear attack on Russia. Instead of reassuring the Russians that no such
planning is in the works, Washington has instead pushed further the fake news Russiagate story with
the false report that Russia had hacked the elections of 21 states.
What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly
filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder
as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because
the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about
the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream
of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes?
If you were the Russian government, would you conclude that your country was the next to
be attacked militarily by Washington? If you were the Russian government, you would know that Washington/NATO
cannot possibly attack Russia except by surprise nuclear strike. Knowing this, if you were the Russian
government, would you sit there and wait on the strike? Imagine yourself the Russian government listening
day in, day out, to endless wild improbable charges against Russia. What can Russia possibly conclude
other than this is preparation of Western peoples for a nuclear attack on Russia?
Russia is not going to be hung like Saddan Hussein or murdered like Gaddafi.
I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most
extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. The crazed morons in Washington are risking the
life of the planet. The presstitutes are worse than the whores that they are. They never question
the path to war; they only amplify it. Washington's craven, cowardly, moronic vassal states in UK,
Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, and the rest of the EU/NATO idiots are, by
their cooperation with Washington, begging for their own destruction.
Nowhere in the West is there a sign of intelligence.
Will Washington follow Adolf Hitler's folly and march into Russia?
"... The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation of a disintegrating neoliberal order – a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness. ..."
"... This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future. ..."
"... In this sense, Trump's election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat Trump to avert this neofascist outcome! ..."
"... The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang ..."
"... The white house and congress are now dominated by tea party politicians who worship at the altar of Ayn Rand.....read Breitbart news to see how Thatcher and Reagan are idolised. ..."
"... if you think the era of "neo liberalism" is over, you are in deep denial! ..."
"... The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad. ..."
"... Didn't Obama say to Wall Street ''I'm the only one standing between you and the lynch mob? Give me money and I'll make it all go away''. Then came into office and went we won't prosecute the Banks not Bush for a false war because we don't look back. ..."
"... He did not ignore, he actively, willingly, knowingly protected them. At the end of the day Obama is wolf in sheep's clothing. Exactly like HRC he has a public and a private position. He is a gifted speaker who knows how to say all the right, progressive liberal things to get people to go along much better than HRC ever did. ..."
"... Even when he had the Presidency, House and Senate, he never once introduced any progressive liberal policy. He didn't need Republican support to do it, yet he never even tried. ..."
The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of
Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded
to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians.
The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist
billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election
of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation
of a disintegrating neoliberal order – a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness.
White working- and middle-class fellow citizens – out of anger and anguish – rejected the economic
neglect of neoliberal policies and the self-righteous arrogance of elites. Yet these same citizens
also supported a candidate who appeared to blame their social misery on minorities, and who alienated
Mexican immigrants, Muslims, black people, Jews, gay people, women and China in the process.
This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism
to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility
and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that
threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive
fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic
and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future.
What is to be done? First we must try to tell the truth and a condition of truth is to allow suffering
to speak. For 40 years, neoliberals lived in a world of denial and indifference to the suffering
of poor and working people and obsessed with the spectacle of success. Second we must bear witness
to justice. We must ground our truth-telling in a willingness to suffer and sacrifice as we resist
domination. Third we must remember courageous exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr, who provide moral
and spiritual inspiration as we build multiracial alliances to combat poverty and xenophobia, Wall
Street crimes and war crimes, global warming and police abuse – and to protect precious rights and
liberties.
The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic
gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing
inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad.
Rightwing attacks on Obama – and Trump-inspired racist hatred of him – have made it nearly impossible
to hear the progressive critiques of Obama. The president has been reluctant to target black suffering
– be it in overcrowded prisons, decrepit schools or declining workplaces. Yet, despite that, we get
celebrations of the neoliberal status quo couched in racial symbolism and personal legacy. Meanwhile,
poor and working class citizens of all colors have continued to suffer in relative silence.
In this sense, Trump's election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and
Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie
Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the
rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat Trump to avert this neofascist
outcome!
In this bleak moment, we must inspire each other driven by a democratic soulcraft of integrity,
courage, empathy and a mature sense of history – even as it seems our democracy is slipping away.
We must not turn away from the forgotten people of US foreign policy – such as Palestinians under
Israeli occupation, Yemen's civilians killed by US-sponsored Saudi troops or Africans subject to
expanding US military presence.
As one whose great family and people survived and thrived through slavery, Jim Crow and lynching,
Trump's neofascist rhetoric and predictable authoritarian reign is just another ugly moment that
calls forth the best of who we are and what we can do.
For us in these times, to even have hope is too abstract, too detached, too spectatorial. Instead
we must be a hope, a participant and a force for good as we face this catastrophe.
theomatica -> MSP1984 17 Nov 2016 6:40
To be replaced by a form of capitalism that is constrained by national interests. An ideology
that wishes to uses the forces of capitalism within a market limited only by national boundaries
which aims for more self sufficiency only importing goods the nation can not itself source.
farga 17 Nov 2016 6:35
The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang.
Really? The white house and congress are now dominated by tea party politicians who worship
at the altar of Ayn Rand.....read Breitbart news to see how Thatcher and Reagan are idolised.
That in recent decades middle ground politicians have strayed from the true faith....and now
its time to go back - popular capitalism, small government, low taxes.
if you think the era of "neo liberalism" is over, you are in deep denial!
Social36 -> farga 17 Nov 2016 8:33
Maybe, West should have written that we're now in neoliberal, neofascist era!
ForSparta -> farga 17 Nov 2016 14:24
Well in all fairness, Donald Trump (horse's ass) did say he'd 'pump' money into the middle
classes thus abandoning 'trickle down'. His plan/ideology is also to increase corporate tax revenues
overall by reducing the level of corporation tax -- the aim being to entice corporations to repatriate
wealth currently held overseas. Plus he has proposed an infrastructure spending spree, a fiscal
stimulus not a monetary one. When you add in tax cuts the middle classes will feel flushed and
it is within that demographic that most businesses and hence jobs are created. I think his short
game has every chance of doing what he said it would.
SeeNOevilHearNOevil 17 Nov 2016 6:36
The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words
and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners,
oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians
abroad.
Didn't Obama say to Wall Street ''I'm the only one standing between you and the lynch mob?
Give me money and I'll make it all go away''. Then came into office and went we won't prosecute
the Banks not Bush for a false war because we don't look back.
He did not ignore, he actively, willingly, knowingly protected them. At the end of the
day Obama is wolf in sheep's clothing. Exactly like HRC he has a public and a private position.
He is a gifted speaker who knows how to say all the right, progressive liberal things to get people
to go along much better than HRC ever did.
But that lip service is where his progressive views begin and stop. It's the very reason none
of his promises never translated into actions and I will argue that he was the biggest and smoothest
scam artist to enter the white house who got even though that wholly opposed centre-right policies,
to flip and support them vehemently. Even when he had the Presidency, House and Senate, he
never once introduced any progressive liberal policy. He didn't need Republican support to do
it, yet he never even tried.
ProbablyOnTopic 17 Nov 2016 6:37
I agree with some of this, but do we really have to throw around hysterical terms like 'fascist'
at every opportunity? It's as bad as when people call the left 'cultural Marxists'.
LithophaneFurcifera -> ProbablyOnTopic 17 Nov 2016 7:05
True, it's sloganeering that drowns out any nuance, whoever does it. Whenever a political term
is coined, you can be assured that its use and meaning will eventually be extended to the point
that it becomes less effective at characterising the very groups that it was coined to characterise.
Keep "fascist" for Mussolini and "cultural Marxist" for Adorno, unless and until others show
such strong resemblances that the link can't seriously be denied.
I agree about the importance of recognising the suffering of the poor and building alliances
beyond, and not primarily defined by, race though.
l0Ho5LG4wWcFJsKg 17 Nov 2016 6:40
Hang about Trump is the embodiment of neo-liberalism. It's neo-liberalism with republican tea
party in control. He's not going to smash the system that served him so well, the years he manipulated
and cheated, why would he want to change it.
garrylee -> l0Ho5LG4wWcFJsKg 17 Nov 2016 9:38
West's point is that it's beyond Trump's control. The scales have fallen from peoples eyes. They
now see the deceit of neo-liberalism. And once they see through the charlatan Trump and the rest
of the fascists, they will, hopefully, come to realize the only antidote to neo-liberalism is
a planned economy.
Nash25 17 Nov 2016 6:40
This excellent analysis by professor West places the current political situation in a proper
historical context.
However, I fear that neo-liberalism may not be quite "dead" as he argues.
Most of the Democratic party's "establishment" politicians, who conspired to sabotage the populist
Sanders's campaign, still dominate the party, and they, in turn, are controlled by the giant corporations
who fund their campaigns.
Democrat Chuck Schumer is now the Senate minority leader, and he is the loyal servant of the
big Wall Street investment banks.
Sanders and Warren are the only two Democratic leaders who are not neo-liberals, and I fear
that they will once again be marginalized.
Rank and file Democrats must organize at the local and state level to remove these corrupt
neo-liberals from all party leadership positions. This will take many years, and it will be very
difficult.
VenetianBlind 17 Nov 2016 6:42
Not sure Neo-Liberalism has ended. All they have done is get rid of the middle man.
macfeegal 17 Nov 2016 6:46
It would seem that there is a great deal of over simplifying going on; some of the articles
represent an hysteric response and the vision of sack cloth and ashes prevails among those who
could not see that the wheels were coming off the bus. The use of the term 'liberal' has become
another buzz word - there are many different forms of liberalism and creating yet another sound
byte does little to illuminate anything.
Making appeals to restore what has been lost reflects badly upon the central political parties,
with their 30 year long rightward drift and their legacy of sucking up to corporate lobbyists,
systems managers, box tickers and consultants. You can't give away sovereign political power to
a bunch of right wing quangos who worship private wealth and its accumulation without suffering
the consequences. The article makes no contribution (and neither have many of the others of late)
to any kind of alternative to either neo-liberalism or the vacuum that has become a question mark
with the dark face of the devil behind it.
We are in uncharted waters. The conventional Left was totally discredited by1982 and all we've
had since are various forms of modifications of Thatcher's imported American vision. There has
been no opposition to this system for over 40 years - so where do we get the idea that democracy
has any real meaning? Yes, we can vote for the Greens, or one of the lesser known minority parties,
but of course people don't; they tend to go with what is portrayed as the orthodoxy and they've
been badly let down by it.
It would be a real breath of fresh air to see articles which offer some kind of analysis that
demonstrates tangible options to deal with the multiple crises we are suffering. Perhaps we might
start with a consideration that if our political institutions are prone to being haunted by the
ghost of the 1930's, the state itself could be seen as part of the problem rather than any solution.
Why is it that every other institution is considered to be past its sell by date and we still
believe in a phantom of democracy? Discuss.
VenetianBlind -> macfeegal 17 Nov 2016 7:00
I have spent hours trying to see solutions around Neo-Liberalism and find that governments
have basically signed away any control over the economy so nothing they can do. There are no solutions.
Maybe that is the starting point. The solution for workers left behind in Neo-Liberal language
is they must move. It demands labor mobility. It is not possible to dictate where jobs are created.
I see too much fiddly around the edges, the best start is to say they cannot fix the problem.
If they keep making false promises then things will just get dire as.
"... His threat to wipe out North Korea reminded me of Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN. Great theater but makes one thing that the shoe banger is crazy. There is no acceptable military option in North Korea. ..."
"... But Trump is not the only one spouting such madness. We've heard the same delusional threats from SecDef Mattis and National Security Advisor McMaster. ..."
That's essentially what Donald Trump did yesterday. He spoke from the gut without thinking through the consequences.
His threat to wipe out North Korea reminded me of Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN. Great theater
but makes one thing that the shoe banger is crazy. There is no acceptable military option in North Korea.
But Trump is not the only one spouting such madness. We've heard the same delusional threats from SecDef Mattis and National
Security Advisor McMaster.
I learned a long time ago that you do not make threats you are not will to carry out. In fact, I'm a firm believer in the sucker
punch. Why tell someone what you are going to do and how you are going to do it? That stuff only works in Hollywood.
"... In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international realities. ..."
"... We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless degradation of his presidency by his political opposition. ..."
"... The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness. ..."
"... The invasion of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia). The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade agreements in Asia excluding China. ..."
"... After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed to reverse Obama's 'international order'. ..."
"... Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and other Obama-designated endless war zones. ..."
"... The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog' Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price. ..."
"... While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has enraged his own Party's leaders. ..."
"... The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. ..."
"... Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses. ..."
"... The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons: ..."
"... the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries who possess the capacity to retaliate. ..."
"... Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create millions of refugees. ..."
"... Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed forces and has not led to any permanent military gains. ..."
"... Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities. ..."
"... American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or punishment of peoples who think and act differently. ..."
"... They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering beacon that once shone brighter. ..."
"... How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward. Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ... ..."
"... It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself ..."
Clearly the US has escalated the pivotal role of the military in the making of foreign and, by
extension, domestic policy. The rise of ' the Generals' to strategic positions in the Trump
regime is evident, deepening its role as a highly autonomous force determining US strategic policy
agendas.
In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda
and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international
realities.
We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless
degradation of his presidency by his political opposition.
The Prelude to Militarization: Obama's Multi-War Strategy and Its Aftermath
The central role of the military in deciding US foreign policy has its roots in the strategic
decisions taken during the Obama-Clinton Presidency. Several policies were decisive in the rise of
unprecedented military-political power.
The massive increase of US troops in Afghanistan and their subsequent failures and retreat weakened
the Obama-Clinton regime and increased animosity between the military and the Obama's Administration.
As a result of his failures, Obama downgraded the military and weakened Presidential authority.
The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government
and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations
of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered
in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness.The invasion
of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing
war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct
control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. The US
military intervention in Iraq was only a secondary contributing factor in the defeat of ISIS; the
major actors and beneficiaries were Iran and the allied Iraqi Shia militias. The Obama-Clinton
engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power
in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia).
The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while
dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions
against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures.
The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international
order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined
as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic
sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade
agreements in Asia excluding China.
The Obama 'legacy' consists of an international order of globalized capital and multiple wars.
The continuity of Obama's 'glorious legacy' initially depended on the election of Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump's presidential campaign, for its part, promised to dismantle or drastically revise
the Obama Doctrine of an international order based on multiple wars , neo-colonial 'nation' building
and free trade. A furious Obama 'informed' (threatened) the newly-elected President Trump that he
would face the combined hostility of the entire State apparatus, Wall Street and the mass media if
he proceeded to fulfill his election promises of economic nationalism and thus undermine the US-centered
global order.
Trump's bid to shift from Obama's sanctions and military confrontation to economic reconciliation
with Russia was countered by a hornet's nest of accusations about a Trump-Russian electoral conspiracy,
darkly hinting at treason and show trials against his close allies and even family members.
The concoction of a Trump-Russia plot was only the first step toward a total war on the new president,
but it succeeded in undermining Trump's economic nationalist agenda and his efforts to change Obama's
global order.
Trump Under Obama's International Order
After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations
and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed
to reverse Obama's 'international order'.
Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial
to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term
commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and
other Obama-designated endless war zones.
Trump's military priorities were supposed to focus on strengthening domestic frontiers and overseas
markets. He started by demanding that NATO partners pay for their own military defense responsibilities.
Obama's globalists in both political parties were aghast that the US might lose it overwhelming control
of NATO; they united and moved immediately to strip Trump of his economic nationalist allies and
their programs.
Trump quickly capitulated and fell into line with Obama's international order, except for one
proviso – he would select the Cabinet to implement the old/new international order.
A hamstrung Trump chose a military cohort of Generals, led by General James Mattis (famously nicknamed
' Mad Dog' ) as Defense Secretary.
The Generals effectively took over the Presidency. Trump abdicated his responsibilities
as President.
General Mattis: The Militarization of America
General Mattis took up the Obama legacy of global militarization and added his own nuances, including
the 'psychological-warfare' embedded in Trump's emotional ejaculations on 'Twitter'.
The ' Mattis Doctrine' combined high-risk threats with aggressive provocations, bringing
the US (and the world) to the brink of nuclear war.
General Mattis has adopted the targets and fields of operations, defined by the previous Obama
administration as it has sought to re-enforce the existing imperialist international order.
The junta's policies relied on provocations and threats against Russia, with expanded economic
sanctions. Mattis threw more fuel on the US mass media's already hysterical anti-Russian bonfire.
The General promoted a strategy of low intensity diplomatic thuggery, including the unprecedented
seizure and invasion of Russian diplomatic offices and the short-notice expulsion of diplomats and
consular staff.
These military threats and acts of diplomatic intimidation signified that the Generals' Administration
under the Puppet President Trump was ready to sunder diplomatic relations with a major world nuclear
power and indeed push the world to direct nuclear confrontation.
What Mattis seeks in these mad fits of aggression is nothing less than capitulation on the part
of the Russian government regarding long held US military objectives – namely the partition of Syria
(which started under Obama), harsh starvation sanctions on North Korea (which began under Clinton)
and the disarmament of Iran (Tel Aviv's main goal) in preparation for its dismemberment.
The Mattis junta occupying the Trump White House heightened its threats against a North Korea,
which (in Vladimir Putin's words) ' would rather eat grass than disarm' . The US mass media-military
megaphones portrayed the North Korean victims of US sanctions and provocations as an 'existential'
threat to the US mainland.
Sanctions have intensified. The stationing of nuclear weapons on South Korea is being pushed.
Massive joint military exercises are planned and ongoing in the air, sea and land around North Korea.
Mattis twisted Chinese arms (mainly business comprador-linked bureaucrats) and secured their UN Security
Council vote on increased sanctions. Russia joined the Mattis-led anti-Pyongyang chorus, even as
Putin warned of sanctions ineffectiveness! (As if General ' Mad Dog' Mattis would ever take
Putin's advice seriously, especially after Russia voted for the sanctions!)
Mattis further militarized the Persian Gulf, following Obama's policy of partial sanctions and
bellicose provocation against Iran.
When he worked for Obama, Mattis increased US arms shipments to the US's Syrian terrorists and
Ukrainian puppets, ensuring the US would be able to scuttle any ' negotiated settlements'
.
Militarization: An Evaluation
Trump's resort to ' his Generals' is supposed to counter any attacks from members of his
own party and Congressional Democrats about his foreign policy. Trump's appointment of ' Mad Dog'
Mattis, a notorious Russophobe and warmonger, has somewhat pacified the opposition in Congress and
undercut any 'finding' of an election conspiracy between Trump and Moscow dug up by the Special Investigator
Robert Mueller. Trump's maintains a role as nominal President by adapting to what Obama warned him
was ' their international order' – now directed by an unelected military junta composed of
Obama holdovers!
The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering
Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog'
Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price.
While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the
attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has
enraged his own Party's leaders.
In sum, under a weakened President Trump, the militarization of the White House benefits the military
junta and enlarges their power. The ' Mad Dog' Mattis program has had mixed results, at least
in its initial phase: The junta's threats to launch a pre-emptive (possibly nuclear) war against
North Korea have strengthened Pyongyang's commitment to develop and refine its long and medium range
ballistic missile capability and nuclear weapons. Brinksmanship failed to intimidate North Korea.
Mattis cannot impose the Clinton-Bush-Obama doctrine of disarming countries (like Libya and Iraq)
of their advanced defensive weapons systems as a prelude to a US 'regime change' invasion.
Any US attack against North Korea will lead to massive retaliatory strikes costing tens of thousands
of US military lives and will kill and maim millions of civilians in South Korea and Japan.
At most, ' Mad Dog' managed to intimidate Chinese and Russian officials (and their export
business billionaire buddies) to agree to more economic sanctions against North Korea. Mattis and
his allies in the UN and White House, the loony Nikki Hailey and a miniaturized President Trump,
may bellow war – yet they cannot apply the so-called 'military option' without threatening the US
military forces stationed throughout the Asia Pacific region.
The Mad Dog Mattis assault on the Russian embassy did not materially weaken Russia, but
it has revealed the uselessness of Moscow's conciliatory diplomacy toward their so-called 'partners'
in the Trump regime.
The end-result might lead to a formal break in diplomatic ties, which would increase the danger
of a military confrontation and a global nuclear holocaust.
The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the
ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially
succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations
in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. These are Mattis' short-term gains over
the excessively pliant Chinese bureaucrats. However, if Mad Dog intensifies direct military threats
against China, Beijing can retaliate by dumping tens of billions of US Treasury notes, cutting trade
ties, sowing chaos in the US economy and setting Wall Street against the Pentagon.
Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate
Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized
after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses.
Conclusion
The militarization of US foreign policy, the establishment of a military junta within the Trump
Administration, and the resort to nuclear brinksmanship has not changed the global balance of power.
Domestically Trump's nominal Presidency relies on militarists, like General Mattis. Mattis has
tightened the US control over NATO allies, and even rounded up stray European outliers, like Sweden,
to join in a military crusade against Russia. Mattis has played on the media's passion for bellicose
headlines and its adulation of Four Star Generals.
But for all that – North Korea remains undaunted because it can retaliate. Russia has thousands
of nuclear weapons and remains a counterweight to a US-dominated globe. China owns the US Treasury
and its unimpressed, despite the presence of an increasingly collision-prone US Navy swarming throughout
the South China Sea.
Mad Dog laps up the media attention, with well dressed, scrupulously manicured journalists
hanging on his every bloodthirsty pronouncement. War contractors flock to him, like flies to carrion.
The Four Star General 'Mad Dog' Mattis has attained Presidential status without winning any
election victory (fake or otherwise). No doubt when he steps down, Mattis will be the most eagerly
courted board member or senior consultant for giant military contractors in US history, receiving
lucrative fees for half hour 'pep-talks' and ensuring the fat perks of nepotism for his family's
next three generations. Mad Dog may even run for office, as Senator or even President for
whatever Party.
The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons:
First of all, the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries
who possess the capacity to retaliate. Intimidation via sanctions can succeed in imposing significant
economic pain on oil export-dependent regimes, but not on hardened, self-sufficient or highly diversified
economies.
Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince
opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries
can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that
can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create
millions of refugees.
High intensity military brinksmanship carries major risk of massive losses in lives, allies, territory
and piles of radiated ashes – a pyrrhic victory!
In sum:
Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal
thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing
its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed
forces and has not led to any permanent military gains.
Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their
stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual
respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating
past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities.
American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to
many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or
punishment of peoples who think and act differently. Those policy thrusts will accomplish
the opposite of the stated intention.
They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China
and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering
beacon that once shone brighter.
Anyone with military experience recognizes the likes of Mad Poodle Mattis arrogant, belligerent,
exceptionally dull, and mainly an inveterate suck-up (mil motto: kiss up and kick down).
Every VFW lounge is filled with these boozy ridiculous blowhards and they are insufferable.
The media and public, raised on ZioVision and JooieWood pablum, worship these cartoonish bloodletters
even though they haven't won a war in 72 years .not one.
How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes:
if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks
down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward.
Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ...
It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures
to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a
place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and
impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries
can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself .
Now military has decided to reverse the roles . At least the military leaders don't have to
campaign for re employment . But very soon the forces that corrupt and abuse the civilian power
structure will do same to military .
Never met him at any of the parties I attended in the '70s and '80s, so I don't know much about
Mad Dog, but I can say that only in America can the former commander of a recruiting station grow
up to pull the strings of the President.
"... The truth is that it was the Americans who created this Wahabi monster and that they aided, protected, financed, trained and armed it through all these years. ..."
"... The US also viciously opposed all the countries which were serious about fighting this Wahabi abomination. ..."
"... And then, just to make things worse, The Donald *proudly* mentions the failed attack against a Syrian air force base which had nothing to do with a false flag fake chemical attack. Wow! For any other political leader recalling such an event would be a burning embarrassment, but for The Donald it is something he proudly mentions. The hubris, ignorance and stupidity of it all leaves me in total awe ..."
In Syria and Iraq, we have made big gains toward lasting defeat of ISIS. In fact, our
country has achieved more against ISIS in the last eight months than it has in many, many years
combined. The actions of the criminal regime of Bashar al-Assad, including the use of chemical
weapons against his own citizens, even innocent children, shock the conscience of every decent
person. No society could be safe if banned chemical weapons are allowed to spread. That is why
the United States carried out a missile strike on the airbase that launched the attack.
When I heard these words I felt embarrassed for Trump. First, it is absolutely pathetic that
Trump has to claim as his success the victories with the Syrians, the Russians, the Iranians and
Hezbollah have achieved against the Wahabi-crazies of Daesh/al-Qaeda/al-Nusra/etc, especially
since the latter are a pure creation of the US CIA!
The truth is that it was the Americans who
created this Wahabi monster and that they aided, protected, financed, trained and armed it
through all these years.
The US also viciously opposed all the countries which were serious about
fighting this Wahabi abomination.
And now that a tiny Russian contingent has achieved infinitely
better results that all the power of the mighty CENTCOM backed by the Israeli and Saudi allies of
the US in the region, The Donald comes out and declares victory?!
Pathetic is not strong enough a
word to describe this mind-bogglingly counter-factual statement.
And then, just to make things
worse, The Donald *proudly* mentions the failed attack against a Syrian air force base which had
nothing to do with a false flag fake chemical attack. Wow! For any other political leader
recalling such an event would be a burning embarrassment, but for The Donald it is something he
proudly mentions. The hubris, ignorance and stupidity of it all leaves me in total awe
Sovereignty is oppose of neoliberal globalization, so in a way this is an some kind of
affirmation of Trump election position. How serious it is is not clear. Probably not much as
Imperial faction now controls Trump, making him more of a marionette that a political leader of
the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He forgot to mention pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. ..."
"... The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in. ..."
"... There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you endanger yourself if you don't do as told". ..."
"... "The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in" ..."
"... The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005. The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had. ..."
"... He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the Libya invasion. ..."
"... Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to 2011. ..."
"... How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces. ..."
"... Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi gaining in economic, science and technology ..."
"... I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open. ..."
"... Trump - the Republican Obama ..."
"... "The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet to accept this new reality. ..."
"... The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well. Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the ship(s) materialize?" ..."
"... it seems to me with Trump an era of so-called globalization has come to its end. ..."
"... Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with sovereignty. They are ..."
"... baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking. ..."
"... In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. ..."
Today the President of the United States Donald Trump
spoke (rush transcript) to the United Nations General Assembly. The speech's main the me was sovereignty. The word occurs 18(!) times. It emphasized
Westphalian
principles .
[W]e do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties, to respect the
interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation
All leaders of countries should always put their countries first, he said, and "the nation
state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition ."
The Ratification of the Treaty of Münster, 15 May 1648 - bigger
Sovereignty was the core message of his speech. It rhymed well with his somewhat
isolationist emphasis of "America first" during his campaign. The second part of the speech the first by threatened the sovereignty of several countries
the U.S. ruling class traditionally dislikes. This year's "axis of evil"
included North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and Cuba:
The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or
its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket man is on a
suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able,
but hopefully this will not be necessary."
Many people will criticize that as an outrageous and irresponsible use of words. It is. But there is nothing new to it. In fact the U.S., acting on behalf of the UN, totally
destroyed Korea in the 1950s. The last U.S. president
made the same threat Trump made today:
President Barack Obama delivered a stern warning to North Korea on Tuesday, reminding its
"erratic" and "irresponsible" leader that America's nuclear arsenal could "destroy" his
country.
The South Korean military sounds equally belligerent :
A military source told the Yonhap news agency every part of Pyongyang "will be completely
destroyed by ballistic missiles and high-explosives shells". ... The city, the source said,
"will be reduced to ashes and removed from the map".
Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem
in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an
economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He
forgot to mention
pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act
that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump
mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. There was essentially nothing in Trump's threats than the claptrap the last two U.S.
presidents also delivered. Trump
may be crazy, but the speech today is not a sign of that.
The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump
indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in.
Posted by b on September 19, 2017 at 01:05 PM | Permalink
There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the
sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like
is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you
endanger yourself if you don't do as told".
If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must
fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent. We must protect our
nations, their interests and their futures. We must reject threats to sovereignty from the
Ukraine to the South China Sea. We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and
respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow.
And just as the founders of this body intended, we must work together and confront
together those who threatens us with chaos, turmoil, and terror. The score of our planet
today is small regimes that violate every principle that the United Nations is based. They
respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries. If the
righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph. When decent people
and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and
strength.
@2 somebody - yes, unaimed hostile prose from the speechwriter. Such is in the speech of
every U.S. president. But it is not the general theme of the Trump speech when one reads it
as one piece. The weight is put in the other direction (though the media will likely point to
the threats instead of reading the more extraordinary parts where Trump pushes national
sovereignty.)
"The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump
indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if
that it is something he genuinely believes in"
It appears that his generals are instructing him what to "believe in". At least, he
certainly doesn't seem to "believe in" most of his campaign promises, not unlike his recent
predecessors. The whole "democracy and freedom" thing in the US is just a charade, as far as
I am concerned.
The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN
Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005.
The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of
Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back
off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had.
I think this was a very good interview of Vijay Prashadby
by Chris Hedges
He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of
the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War
in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the
US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the
Libya invasion.
Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting
that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to
2011.
--------
The good news is that Syria is turning out much different than Libya. Would be great to see the US cooperate with the China/Russia etc economic goals rather
than stirring up trouble in the Phillippines, Myanmar etc. The first test will be to see if Trump can deliver single payer health care to the US. :)
ie start to back off on the anti socialism rhetoric
The "nation state" brought us the millions slaughtered in World War 1. The nation states
threatened by the internationalist communist ideology of the USSR (in its early days)
ultimately brought us World War 2. The hypertrophied nation state that is the United States
of America will bring us World War 3 in its drive to secure its total supremacy. Luckily for
us, there will be no World War 4.
How can a country A be "forced to defend itself" by a country B so weak comparatively to
country A it can actually be "totally destroyed" by country A?
How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the
nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is
rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less
taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces.
Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New
York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi
gaining in economic, science and technology
The United Nations is based upon the equal sovereignty of nations.
--from the UN Charter --
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act
in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its
Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from
membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with
the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner
that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations
Trump's speech seemed to represent an ignorant mouthy bully with a big stick who is
threatening any nation he is told to hate. I have to agree with Paveway IV that Trump is just
the announcer. The "national sovereignty" comments were just for internal consumption for his
base of supporters.
To a major extent Trump's focus on the "great leader" of countries opposed to the US helps
simplify the hate for the "little people" in the US. They have not noticed that the US (as in
most other Western countries) has many mini "great leaders" who work toward the same goals
while distracting the "little people" with political theatre.
I really don't know what the purpose of this rambling threat to the rest of the world was
supposed to accomplish.
Yes, it really was nothing new. The fundamental material of the speech was the very same
garbage written by the same Washington establishment of previous administrations -
essentially the nuclear armed US regime is 'special' and reserves the right to attack and
destroy any country it chooses to.
While the Trump speech is rightly being both ridiculed around the world, what is very
scary is the humiliated Trump base is seizing on it.
The Trump base is begging for their failed 'God Emperor' to attack someone to feel better
about their own humiliation.
Sovereignty is also an excuse for US intervention, get it? . . .Trump does....
America stands with every person living under a brutal regime. Our respect for sovereignty
is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety,
their interests, and their well-being, including their prosperity.
His speechwriters deserve to be fired and the text size on both teleprompters should have
been increased. Alternatively, he should wear glasses (along with a more suitably fitted
toupee). Sarah Palin would seem like Einstein at the side of this clown.
Trump's speech is Orwellian!
Not just generally-- it is arguably an elaboration of a close paraphase of an Orwell
quote, to wit: "All nations are sovereign, but some nations are more sovereign than others."
I have a strongly ambivalent reaction to Trump's UN appearance-- although I confess that I
can only stand to watch and listen to him for brief time periods. It's appalling and embarrassing to watch any of the US's seemingly inexhaustible supply of
lizard-brained degenerates at the UN. But part of me thinks it's better to have the quintessential Ugly Amerikan beating his
chest and engaging in rhetorical feces-flinging. At least the rest of the world won't be bamboozled, the way they might be by a smooth,
silver-tongued liar.
This is on the heels of Trump's threatening to exclude China from use of SWIFT (the USD)
and China's gold yuan oil futures contract coming mid October as opposed to USD. The
petro-yuan is a game changer; hitting the petro-dollar hegemony that keeps the dollar in
worldwide demand.
The toothless dog has only his bark. Are Americans prepared for hyper-inflation?
I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial
system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global
private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open.
The abuse of the term sovereignty by Trump is part of a crafted Big Lie message. Just like
Trump linking to the poster of him, with a rope over his shoulder, dragging a barge of
companies back to America......the internationalism genie will never go completely back into
the bottle and is counterproductive to all.
John Bolton and the moron, Sean Hannity, love the speech. That should be all anyone needs to
know. It was Orwellian, super-villain, double-speak.
If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.
Madman. How has Iran violated the U.N. charter? They were invited into Iraq and Syria by the UN
recognized govts. Okay, they make veiled threats against Israel, they get a demerit for that. Even if you
argue that they are 'predicting' rather can 'threatening to cause' Israel's demise, I'd take
that as a veiled threat. But Israel makes equally hostile comments towards Iran albeit, in a
passive / aggressive manner. Netanyahu, 'We recognize Iran's right to exist but truth be told
the planet, no wait, the entire universe itself would be better off if they disappeared'.
Well, it has finally arrived at the U.N. speech. Trump is showing his real colors, whether
they are forced or were originally his own. It doesn't matter. He is spouting the same
nonsenze as the neocons and the rest of them. He has crossed over - he maybe never knew the
way through, but was only parroting other's views. He is clearly a chameleon, willing to
change his stripes on a dime. The man is darkly lost in the woods, or is it the swamp?
While there have been hints that the Rohingya "rebels" are receiving funds from
expatriates in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is there anything concrete that connects the CIA to
the rebels?
Frankly Trump is a big mouth, but there's no evidence that he's more than that. If he wanted
war, we'd already be there. It's different from Saddam in the old days, who went to war
within a year of becoming leader, or the Saudi crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman, who
launched the war against Yemen.
59 Tomahawks, that's the style. I haven't seen different from then.
The advantage of having Trump around is that he seems to diffuse energy. He is not building a
case against N. Korea like Bush did with Iraq, but instead he is big on bluster. There is no
appeal to the emotions of people and their fears and as such he is not marketing it,
something he knows a lot about. In his own way I believe he is defusing the situation by
talking big but remebering Bannon's comments when he left. And as a consummate player at the
table of power (unlike the novice Obama) he has his status.
What interests me is Tillerson and the State Department and its attitude to Israel. Syria
is where Israel met its match and was soundly thrashed. The world will never be the same
again, And the State Department is recognizing this reality. I think there is a recognition
in certain powerful quarters that whole neocon-Zionist shit has got America nowhere. As
Talking Heads said, "We're on the road to nowhere."
The speech (it reminds me on movie The Kings Speech https://youtu.be/PPLIw64rLJc TERRIBLE MOVIE) is for
internal the US purpose, for Amerikkaans. Majority of them, according to the Gov. media
outlets, support military action against DPRK and mostly likely against Iran (the most hatred
nation by far) as well. Amerikkaans will support any crime anywhere and probably destruction
of whole planet Earth.
In the same time his words and deeds are the most irrelevant of any US presidents. I bet
he never heard of that word "sovereignty" before nor for "nation state". This morning when
Trump woke up some member of National Security Council put sheet of paper with the speech on
his desk and tell him "Read this!". Just as they did to Obama in many occasions, one of
example is this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/may/04/obama-drinks-flint-water-video
There some people in the US who knows what is going on:
For all the very considerable expense, however, the American military does not have a very
impressive record of achieving victory. It has won no wars since 1945!especially if victory
is defined as achieving an objective at acceptable cost!except against enemy forces that
essentially didn't exist.
@7 financial matters.. good comment and relevant.. i agree with you.. unipolar no more..
however, not quite multipolar yet either... we are still in a transitional place.. syria is
no libya fortunately.. but causing this kind of shit around the globe is what the usa is
known for.. they will continue to make war projects, especially if you believe as b notes a
couple of threads ago - trump is no longer calling the shots.. it is military guys full on..
I rather liked the film "The King's Speech because it was about speech. Your English is
fucking awful Chancey, not good enough for this forum. Get some lessons and come back.
"The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall
Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet
to accept this new reality.
The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well.
Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but
shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia
and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired
an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert
dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the
ship(s) materialize?"
For a Nazi.
A question, do you believe in science? Here is one. But does one need to be scientist to
figure this out?"The Rise of Incivility and Bullying in America"
Violating the sovereign sanctity of nations is what the Outlaw US Empire has done without
parallel since the United Nation's formation. One of those nations was Vietnam, and a
somewhat respected documentary film maker looks like he's going to try--again--to pull wool
over the eyes of his intended audience by trying to legitimate the Big Lie that provided the
rationale for the Outlaw US Empire's illegal war against Vietnam. The detailed argument
regarding Ken Burns's effort to "correct" the actual historical record can be read here,
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/19/getting-the-gulf-of-tonkin-wrong-are-ken-burns-and-lynn-novick-telling-stories-about-the-central-events-used-to-legitimize-the-us-attack-against-vietnam/
and it is probably the sort of history Trump would enjoy since he doesn't seem to know any
better.
How many nick/names do you have? You may hide under this and that stupid but your
associations are still here. You stay stupid. I know, I know the truth hurts. You Amerikkaans are not used to it. Go and watch a porn,
before de-dollarization is in full swing. Than you are going to stave to death, no more
credit cards and quantitative easing. That's is Trump's speech for.
Posted by: financial matters | Sep 19, 2017 2:22:58 PM | 7
Nice interview from a couple of years back. Prashad's worldview is worthy of reposting.
Enjoyable. Cheers.
US Americans might have proved themselves very adept at destroying both nation states and
the English language, though it will be Syria who restores true meaning to the word
'sovereign' - with some collective help of course.
The almost failed state will emerge from this steeled with a sense of identity, pride and
purpose. The minnow that refused to buckle.
The Don putting together some performances that finally warrant the unified, rabid
reaction from the press....
"But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in."
Are you serious? Everything coming out of DC is still the same - sanctions against other
sovereign countries who do not tow the line the US demands, cruise missiles for the little
guys, disavowing and de-legitimizing the JCPOA, unrelenting 'freedom of navigation' patrols,
threats to cut nations off from the SWIFT system, every word out of Nikki Haleys' mouth...
It's really easy to go on and on, and his first year isn't even done.
The amount of disrespect for other sovereign nations by the USA is mind boggling, and that
is only the official stuff. Throw in CIA ops and NGO ops and there you have an entire other
level of the failure to recognize sovereignty.
Can you send me some of what you are smoking? Because it obviously makes you oblivious to
the obvious, and that may help my mood...
Obviously, the UN has became an arena of the one country show and that country puppets.
Zionist PM, the West most "faithful ally" on Middle East, and his speech. Mix of infantilism,
rhetoric and implicit racism of "God Chosen People". And sea of self-congratulating lies.
Great comment re: Vietnam. The Ken Burns documentary is just one more fairy tale of the
U.S. involvement/war in Vietnam.
Among the many myths, foremost is that Ho Chi Minh was a communist; he most assuredly was
not. Yes, he was a member of the party in France, but it is irrelevent to history (Ho was a
nationalist).
Did you know he tried to engage FDR?
Below is a remarkable interview with John Pilger on the real history of the U.S. and Vietnam;
it ain't pretty. Even Mao tried to engage the U.S., which the U.S. duly ignored.
Why is everyone hating on Trump? Be realistic: sometimes you have to genocide 25 million
people to save them. We're the God damn hero here - you bastards should be thanking
the USA.
Well, I guess we're really not trying to save the North Koreans at all. But they refuse to
leave the buffer zone (all of North Korea) that is protecting the world from red Chinese
expansion south. Worse than that, the North Koreans insist on protecting themselves BY FORCE
from the US. How evil is that?
Reminds me of those evil Syrians and Iraqis who refuse to vacate the buffer zone
protecting Israel from Iran. The nerve!
Only US lapdog nations have the right to defend themselves - as long as its with US-made
weapons and they're protecting themselves from anybody except the US. And we get to
build US bases on their soil. Who wouldn't want that? Because the US is... what did Trump
say... RIGHTEOUS. You know:
Tell me which one of those synonyms DOES NOT apply to the US? I prefer 'angelic'.
The first thing psychopaths do when they attain any measure of power and control is to
redefine evil as anything that threatens their power and control. Then constantly
hammer that threat into the minds of the little people so the little people don't think too
hard about stringing them up from the lamp posts.
Everything the US has done in my lifetime has been about preserving and protecting the
US government no matter how corrupt, evil or immoral it acts. Protecting the people is
only given lip service when it can be used to justify further protections for the state.
Creation of the Department of Homeland Security Stazi is probably the end stage for
full-spectrum dominance over the little people - it is slowly morphing (as planned) into a
federal armed force to protect the US government FROM the little people. I guess the
FBI wasn't up to the task.
"The government you elect is the government you deserve" Thomas Jefferson, Founding
Terrorist.
Do you agree that to point of National Interest article seem to be that the US is not
capable of invading and controlling non-European countries?
I did find the Cato Institute author to be very poorly informed about the US invasions of
Granada and Panama, the Balkan wars, the Kosovo invasion and the Syrian war.
As for ISIS, the author does not know anything about the incubation of ISIS by the US
administrations and the Libyan war (Hillary/Obama/Sarkozy) connection . He also does not
discuss the billions in military hardware that the US allowed ISIS to capture in Iraq.
As for the US efforts they are more about preventing the formation of an integrated
economic sphere between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanese Republic. The war efforts by the US in
fighting ISIS are minimal compared to the Syrian and Russian efforts, yet he lies by omission
to pump up the US efforts. At least he didn't attempt to praise Turkey (sic) for their
efforts in cutting off aid to ISIS and Al Qaeda (under all its names).
Remember that the Cato Institute is another flavor of the NGO spider supporting the deep
state!
Please understand that this is not a personal attack as I am here to learn and share.
Canada's Trudeau will follow Trump at the UN on Thursday. Today he received an award from the
Atlantic Council: 'Worldwide the long established international order is being tested..' And
obviously the sexy northern selfie-king knows his place in it... https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kp49TFRMR8g
@ 49
Yes, to save the 25 million North Koreans the US must destroy them!
"No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the wellbeing of their own people
than the depraved regime in North Korea. It is responsible for the starvation deaths of
millions of North Koreans, and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of
countless more."
. ..but there are limits. . .
"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or
its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."
So give me that "no more contempt" line again, Donald?
(Personally, I can't imagine Hillary doing any less. So much for elections.)
"Why is everyone hating on Trump?"
Preposterous. You give him too much importance. He is rather the object of ridicule.
"The word occurs 18(!) times."
While the word Sovereignty
Sovereignty is actually main subject of the Russian president Putin and he never miss
opportunity to emphasize that. He put it so forcefully in this speech. https://youtu.be/Yumaa4pkxMU
Maybe by accident maybe not just conspicuous coincidence. But it seems to me with Trump an
era of so-called globalization has come to its end. With self-inflicted wounds ($20T Gov.
debt) and new president who is (initially) inward looking, it is time to talk about old
stuff. As if the US statehood has been in question for a moment. Old trick of capitalist
class.
Targeting Iran was never about nuclear weapons (the U.S. let Pakistan expand its nuclear
weapons program without interfering, despite knowing all about the AQ Khan network, because
Pakistan was cooperating with the U.S. agenda in Afghanistan and elsewhere), it was about the
Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline (during the GW Bush era) and the expansion of economic ties with
Syria (during the Obama era).
Now, with the easing of sanctions, Iran's pipeline deals have been revived, such as
Iran-Pakistan,
or Iran-India (undersea) , Iran-Europe, with China and Russia and Turkey as potential
partners. Meanwhile, the proposed TAPI pipeline backed by the Clinton, Bush & Obama State
Departments, as well as Chevron and Exxon, from Turkmenistan to the Indian Ocean, is still
held up due to instability in Afghanistan (i.e. the Taliban would immediately blow it up).
Obama's 30,000 troop surge to 100,000 couldn't solve that, and the recent Trump troop surge
(much smaller) will have little effect on that either. TAPI pipe dreams
continue, Sep 17 2017
There's no way Trump or Tillerson would ever be honest about this in an international
forum, any more than Obama and Clinton would, or Bush and Condi Rice, but it's the same old
"great game" for Central Asian oil and gas that's dominated U.S. regional foreign policy
since the end of the Cold War.
@ 54/55 Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with
sovereignty. They are subject to baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking.
It is foolish to consider the trumpet's lunatic ravings in isolation, according to that organ
of empire
foreign policy dot com , the amerikan airforce is ready and rearing to go and blast the
bejeezuz outta North Korea.
Sure it may be bluster when they come out with seeming tosh like:
""We're ready to fight tonight," Gen. Robin Rand, commander of the Air Force's Global
Strike Command, told reporters at an Air Force conference in Washington on Monday. "We
don't have to spin up, we're ready.""
Because everyone knows that a manned tactical airforce is on the way out, that bombing a
population has only ever served to strengthen resolve within that population, but the first
point that the airforce of jocks n fighters is verging on obsolescence, might just drive the
generals of middle management, concerned that their career is about to hit a brick wall, to
go for one last roll of the dice. Blow some shit up, create a few heroes and maybe the
inevitable can be staved off for long enough for their scum to rise to the surface, jag a
great gig with a contractor, then retire in luxury. I mean to say it's gotta be worth a shot
right? The alternative of layoffs and all the sexy fighting stuff being done by unsexy
drones, is just too awful to consider.
So what if Guam gets wasted, a good memorial at Arlington will balance that shit and when
it is all said and done, most of the people who will get nuked by DPRK aren't amerikans - but
here's the best bit, we can sell them to the idjits just like they were, while we build the
anger and bloodlust, then backpedal on that when it comes down to lawsuits, compensation or
whatever it is those whale-fuckers whine about - right?
A pre-emptive attack based on the possibility that DPRK hasn't yet developed nuke tech
sufficiently, but will do so "if we continue to sit on our asses" would be an easy sell to an
orange derp whose access to alternative points of view has been cut off.
The only real question is whether the rest of the military (the non-airforce parts) go for
it.
The navy likely will because they are in the same boat (pun intended) as the airforce when it
comes down to usefulness as a front line conflict agent and they too will
likely get a role to play in the destruction of North Korea - at the very least as a weapons
platform (just like with the mindless Syria aggression) and may even get to be the forward
C&C base since South Korea isn't mobile and may cop a fair amount of DPRK reaction.
Only the army for whom a pre emptive attack on the people of North Korea has little
upside, but lots of downside, may oppose this insane butchery. The army will be tasked with
neutralising a population whose innate loathing of all things amerikan has just been raised
by about ten notches. So soon after the Iraq debacle, they may see an attack as all negative
in that once again they will cop the blame and even worse the old enemies - the airforce and
navy - will come out smelling like roses. It is true that the bulk of the yellow monkey's
'advisors' are army types, so under normal circumstances they would obstruct any such
bullshit grabs for the brass ring by the navy & airforce upstarts - but there is a high
probability that the army leadership will do no such thing.
The reason for that is as old as humanity itself and I was sad to see that it copped little
mention in the last thread about the 'soft' coup at the whitehouse.
Many people were cheering the takeover by the military doubtless the same people who
imagine that "amerika could be great again - if only we go back to the way it was in the
1950's and 60's". What they miss is that everything is fluid; nothing is held in stasis as a
proof that perfection has been reached. The 'eisenhower/johnson years were merely steps on
the path, the world was never gonna stay in white bourgeois contentment no matter whether
unwhites kicked up or not. There are diverse reasons for that from ambitious careerism
forcing change so a lucky few can ascend one more rung on the ladder, to the reality that it
is impossible for all humans to be content all the time -some groups will be disadvantaged,
advertise that then be 'adopted' by careerists as an excuse for forcing change. That is
inevitable - as inevitable as the reality that once the military gained power, their next
move would be to consolidate it and to try ensure that they kept it for ever.
In other words the initial coup may have been largely bloodless (altho several million
dead mid easterners would strongly disagree if they could) but any study of human behavior
reveals that it is the need to hold on to power which is what really incites oppression
violence and mass murder.
The Pennsylvania Avenue generals understand that the simplest way of retaining control is
gonna be if the orange 'whipped* gains re-election. If the orange chunder is gonna win the
next one he needs to hit some home runs and have a lot less ties or outright defeats.
At this stage it doesn't matter what turkey kicked up the Korea bizzo, or even it it has
any moral dimension at all, what matters is that the trumpet has made it a major issue and if
he doesn't 'prevail' in the short-term, the odds of him retaining support much less gaining
more support, are gone - very likely for the duration of the tangerine prezdency. It's not as
if the ME situation offers the slightest chink of light at the end of the tunnel. Syria is
history now and that Iran thing has a good chance of dividing europe from amerika, just as
climate change has. I reckon that the junta who, individually & institutionally have a
big investment in Nato, will be looking to steer the orange nit away from inciting a
confrontation over the nuke deal. Korea could be the alternate shiny thing the junta draws
trumpet's attention to in order to distract the dingbat.
So even though it is a total cleft stick that the junta is in, I reckon it is extremely
probable that the army branch of the amerikan government will allow the airforce and possibly
the navy as well, their moment in the sun.
The way this fuckwittery is shaping up, people of Korea are more likely to be enduring
Predators up their jacksies than not, before the end of "the
summer of '18'
*anyone who doesn't see that the trumpet displays all the signs (boasting of alleged
performance, number of 'conquests' size of penis etc) of a man who is unable to have his
voice heard above the demands of the women around him, doesn't comprehend the nature of
inter-gender relationships (doncha love 'inter-gender' it sounds exactly like the type of
pallid word the identity-ists would use heheh).
The main problem I have with your post is China. You do not say anything about China.
The Chinese made it clear that if the U.S. pre-emptively attacks the DPRK; China will get
involved; and I should think Russia will be somehow involved as well.
Moon Jae-In has told the U.S. it (SK) will be the one to decide on an attack, as it
should.
But, I do get your drift; I just hope the U.S. will not act...for once.
That said; I do think the U.S. lost its tether decades ago...
There's one little factor about getting it on with DPRK, besides the ones mentioned, and that
is that SecDef Gates several years ago declared that Korea was safe enough to allow it to be
an accompanied tour, i.e. soldiers could have their families join them in the Land of the
Morning Calm. This coincided with the consolidation of US bases, with a ten billion dollar
expansion of Camp Humphreys about seventy miles south of the DMZ. So now we have high-rise
apartments with wives, kids, pets, etc. in this "safe" place, now 35,000 strong including
all. They practice evacuation. From a recent report --
The noncombatant evacuation operations, or NEO, are aimed at making sure everybody knows
their roles in the event of a noncombatant evacuation, which may be ordered in the event of
war, political or civil unrest, or a natural or man-made disaster. "I liken the NEO operation
to being a scaffolding. It's not a fully fleshed out plan because it's preparing for a
million different worst-case scenarios," 1st Lt. Katelyn Radack, a spokeswoman for the 2nd
Combat Aviation Brigade, told Stars and Stripes. ... Brandy Madrigal, 32, was participating
in her third NEO -- so she knew exactly what to pack when she got the call to report to the
Assembly Point at the main gym at Camp Humphreys on June 5. She ticked off the list -- clothes, food for the kids, documents, phone, toiletries
-- before driving with her two
children from their first-floor apartment to the base to be processed.
Imagine that -- all those people assembling in one place for "processing." They'd get
processed, all right. So the US Army won't be red-hot for the mighty US Air Force to (again)
conduct its aerial murder in North Korea, with their loved ones being in rocket range of a
counter-attack. That's in addition to any feelings people have for the ten million plus South
Koreans in Seoul, close to the border.
re: Ken Burns Viet Nam -- one only has to look at the sponsors. Burns will cleave to the
line only more so. Darling of the aristocratic charities. Somehow reaching the glory 50 years
later. Now that Agent Orange has nearly completed the harvest.
Action against Iran and NK, could it really be termed "war", anymore?
I deliberately left China outta the equation because the conflict with DPRK will be
engineered to be kicked off with a provocation allegedly committed by DRPK, amerika will
'respond' andthe war will quickly escalate. Yes PRC may become involved, but getting into a
war with amerika right now is not great for the PRC either, if the most vital concern is the
proximity of amerikan troops to the China border, amerika can give an agreement signed in
blood that amerikan military will pull back behind the 38th parallel once the 'regime has
been changed' and that only Korean men and equipment will remain.
Of course China would be smart to distrust that but sold correctly with incentives and maybe
even the use of some mutually trusted referee, China might decide that is a superior option
to kicking off ww3.
As for the enlisted mens families somehow I doubt that the military cares any more about them
than it does the men and women they have in their forces - so not very much - smart officer
class types will be considering the need to 'further their children's education back home'
right now, whether or not the trump decides to go for broke. As I pointed out before, the
plan will require that DRPK feels trapped into committing some type of really egregious
provocation, or false flagging such a provocation.
Imagine Guam got nuked and all initial evidence pointed to DRPK, China is in a tough spot
plus most amerikans will be of the opinion that protecting the families in South Korean
barracks comes second to vengeance. That would be an easy sell on fox and msnbc.
Amerika seemingly being attacked is also gonna end msnbc & the rest's potshots at the
orange derp, just as 911 halted just about all reference to the view shrub stole the election
from Gore in the MSM.
What scares me the most about the US regime's threats to attack and destroy North Korea is
I had naively assumed that all the talk was just the standard game theory back and forth.
There never was any real threat beyond the occasional minor incident like there have been in
the past few decades.
And I didn't understand why China would so openly and absolutely support North Korea with
any sort of attack by the US regime.
But then I read some of the neocon online postings or writings about North Korea and it
was a sickening shock to realize that I had been so foolish to believe the Korean crisis was
not about Korea, but China.
Getting the US regime's military directly on the Chinese border is something the
neocons are perfectly willing, and most likely gleefully happy, to trade millions to tens of
millions of North and South Korean lives for.
I can't imagine the revulsion and horror the rest of the world must be feeling towards the
United States right now.
The German philosopher and sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1855 – 1936)
distinguished between two types of social groupings. Gemeinschaft (often translated as
community or left untranslated) and Gesellschaft (often translated as society). Gemeinschaft
and Gesellschaft describe the crucial distinction between community and "Civil Society";
community being characterized by a dispensationalist consensus or a sacred communal consensus
on a dispensation sent down from on high, and the latter being characterized as a consensus
to "agree to disagree" and to agree that a consensus in any meaningful form can no longer be
reached, paving the way to a "conventional" polity (agreed to by secular-humanist
convention). This "agreement to disagree" which crystalized between the Peace of Augsburg
(1555) and the Peace of Westphalia (1644 – 1648) was, in effect, the West's long and
excruciating decision to throw out the baby of Community with the bathwater of the Church's
malfeasance in the revolutionary fervor of the Reformation and the "Enlightenment" that
followed in its wake. But whereas the integrality of church and state was lost with the Peace
of Westphalia circa 1648 whereat pre-Westphalian communities gave way to the Westphalian
order of "Civil Societies", the Islamic Revolution of 1979 restored community to the Moslem
nation of Iran.
I posted this comment over in the latest Syria summary thread but then thought that it
belongs here as an example of the craven duplicity of empire about Syria sovereignty.
The following is a link and article quote from China news that says Russia is accusing the
US of chickenshit (my term) tactics in Syria
"He said the advancing Syrian government troops supported by the Russian Air Force managed to
break the fierce resistance and liberate more than 60 square km of territory on the left bank of the Euphrates River in the last 24
hours.
But their advance was hampered by a sudden rise of the water level in the Euphrates and a
two-fold increase of the speed of its current after the government troops started crossing the river, Konashenkov said.
In the absence of precipitation, the only source of such changes in the water level could be
a man-made discharge of water at the dams north of the Euphrates, which are held by the opposition formations controlled by the
international coalition led by the United States, he said. "
What's worries me the most in Trumps speech, sounds actually ominously, is the phrases
"dead Poles, fighting [???!!!] French, strong[!] English" ... Is this what's planned
for the near future? I'm not liking it a bit.
Situation in the US is getting worse, seems that this Fall big changes are coming, and no
lies can hide the truth: LIES, LIES & OMG
MORE LIES Who is the enemy? Some names can be found here (and in a recent Eric Zuesse piece):
The Borg, the AngloZio pedo-satanic cabal of the City of London Crown Corporation, the web
of merchants of death and corporate oligarchy have been doing whatever possible to help her
stay relevant and expand information war, blame Russia:
Nice summary but I disagree with the dedollarization part. To me, ending the US dollar as
reserve Currency is just a part of the issue. If that occurs American paper money becomes
worthless as the article states. While this bankrupts the US, what will it do to the global
world of private finance, BIS, SWIFT, IMF, etc.? Does private finance, private property and
inheritance all get dealt with in this adjustment? How long will the adjustment period
take?
What is clear though now is that there are two factions that are moving in "opposite"
directions and the implications will lock up global commerce at some point....fairly soon
(weeks/months)......and hopefully adults from all sides will work things out peacefully.
these 16 years of bin laden wars constitute the most concerted assault on sovereignty
since time out of mind. conspicuously in the cradle of civilization...cultural harmonies
undermined and religious sects set at each others throats, tribes ripped from their roots,
their facilities and systems desecrated, their families ravaged by rack and ruin and
displacement, an alien scourge unleashed on their landscape.
but as someone upstream suggested, the window on these destructive incursions might be
closing, what with Russia and China being unconquerable and all.
of course there are other dark forces gnawing at sovereignty , possibly even more
stealthily treacherous ones...
On the one hand, Trump defended sovereignty as a universal ideal. On the other, he demanded
that America's enemies stop mistreating their people. The result was gobbledygook.
...
to make his incoherence even more explicit, Trump declared that "our respect for
sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their
safety, their interests and their well-being." That's like saying that my respect for your
right to do whatever you want in your garden should be a call to action for you to stop
growing weed.
...
For Trump, by contrast, sovereignty means both that no one can tell the United States what
to do inside its borders and that the United States can do exactly that to the countries it
doesn't like. That's not the liberal internationalism that Obama espoused. Nor is it the
realism of some of Obama's most trenchant critics. It is imperialism. General Pershing, in
the Philippines, would have approved.
In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the
planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and
made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come
to a virtual standstill. Sure, the Americans talk a lot, but at least they are doing
nothing. That paralysis, which is a direct consequence of the internal infighting, is a
blessing for the rest of the planet because it allows everybody else to get things done.
Pressure will be intense on U S business in east coast China to refrain from converting their
'yuan' profits into gold .
What a contradictory set of pressures much
"... Anyone could tell by that point that Assad isn't going to be overthrown. The aim now is to limit the Assad regime's territorial gains as much as possible, and the "rebels" proved they were useless at doing that when Shia militia reached the Iraqi border at al-Tanf, and cut them off from reaching Deir ez-Zor back in May (which was what one of the attacks mentioned above was about). ..."
@WJ
Outside of an almost symbolic launch of cruise missiles into Syria in April, how has Trump
been a warmonger?
I remember the debate between Pence and the hideous Tim Kaine where the Democrat vowed
that there would be No Fly Zone over Syria which would certainly have allowed the head
chopping rebels to gain a stronger foothold.
In addition to all that, Trump has also cut off aid to the Syrian rebels. His Afghanistan
policy /escalation is also symbolic. US troops won't be in direct combat and there will only
be 15000 there anyway.
Outside of an almost symbolic launch of cruise missiles into Syria in April, how has
Trump been a warmonger?
You haven't been paying attention. Since the initial strike in April, the Trump
administration has deliberately attacked regime or allied forces an additional five times. (
one ,
two ,
three , four ,
five ).
Including the Tomahawks in April, that's a total of 6 deliberate attacks on the Syrian
Arab Republic or its allies (so far), which is already 6 more than Obama carried out during
his entire presidency. And it's not like this is the end of Trump's tenure, either; it's the
9th goddamn month since he's been in office. I'm sure the war hawks in Wahington are quite
pleased with his progress, as they should be.
In addition to all that, Trump has also cut off aid to the Syrian rebels. His
Afghanistan policy /escalation is also symbolic.
Anyone could tell by that point that Assad isn't going to be overthrown. The aim now
is to limit the Assad regime's territorial gains as much as possible, and the "rebels" proved
they were useless at doing that when Shia militia reached the Iraqi border at al-Tanf, and
cut them off from reaching Deir ez-Zor back in May (which was what one of the attacks
mentioned above was about).
After that, the Trump administration put all its eggs in the "Syrian Democratic
Forces/People's Protection Units (SDF/YPG) basket, the mainly Kurdish (with some Arab
fighters) militia that the US has been using to fight ISIS since 2015 (it's also, ironically,
a hard left socialist organization. Think Kurdish Antifa. Though I doubt Trump knows or cares
or could do anything about it even if he did). Trump has given the SDF <a title=""
https://sputniknews.com/amp/middleeast/201709141057402885-america-weaponry-deir-ez-zor/"
;
https://sputniknews.com/amp/middleeast/201709141057402885-america-weaponry-deir-ez-zor/"
;heavy weaponry with the aim of confronting Assad and limiting his territorial gains. They've
also been pressuring the rebel groups they formerly supported to join the SDF.
I have sympathy for the SDF/YPG and the Syrian Kurds, and it made sense to support them
when they were under direct assault from ISIS (though US motives were hardly altruistic even
then). But ISIS is all but beaten now, and this is a dangerous game the US is playing, which
could readily lead to a military confrontation betweeen the US and Russia and/or Iran. In
fact, just a few days ago, the SDF seized part of Deir ez-Zor after SAA forces reached the
city, and the Pentagon is now accusing Russia (which has in the past at least had
good
relations with the SDF/YPG), of deliberately bombing SDF fighters, in close proximity to
American special forces.
US troops won't be in direct combat and there will only be 15000 there anyway.
Only 15,000! I guess you wouldn't mind, then, if they Taliban, or the Afghan Army
for that matter, or any other country, put 15,000 troops on American soil, as a "symbolic"
gesture.
Trump has also accelerated US collaboration in the sadistic torture of Yemen by the
Saudis, past the levels under even Obama, which was already shameful.
And again, we should also keep in mind that it's only been 9 months. For his next act,
Trump might be thinking about
ending the Iran deal in October.
"... Trump was seen as a presidential candidate who would possibly move towards a less interventionist foreign policy. That hope is gone. The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. ..."
"... The military has taken control of the White House process and it is now taking control of its policies. ..."
"... a president who arrived at the White House with no experience in the military or government and brought with him advisers deeply skeptical of what they labeled the "globalist" worldview. In coordinated efforts and quiet conversations, some of Trump's aides have worked for months to counter that view, hoping the president can be persuaded to maintain -- if not expand -- the American footprint and influence abroad ..."
"... It is indisputable that the generals are now ruling in Washington DC. They came to power over decades by shaping culture through their sponsorship of Hollywood, by manipulating the media through "embedded" reporting and by forming and maintaining the countries infrastructure through the Army Corps of Engineers. The military, through the NSA as well as through its purchasing power , controls the information flow on the internet. Until recently the military establishment only ruled from behind the scene. The other parts of the power triangle , the corporation executives and the political establishment, were more visible and significant. But during the 2016 election the military bet on Trump and is now, after he unexpectedly won, collecting its price. ..."
"... Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary" candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office. An intense media campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the White House. The anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law. ..."
"... It is no great surprise that Trump has been drawn into the foreign policy mainstream; the same happened to President Obama early in his presidency. More ominous is that Trump has turned much of his power over to generals. Worst of all, many Americans find this reassuring. They are so disgusted by the corruption and shortsightedness of our political class that they turn to soldiers as an alternative. It is a dangerous temptation. ..."
"... This is no longer a Coup Waiting to Happen The coup has happened with few noticing it and ever fewer concerned about it. Everything of importance now passes through the Junta's hands: ..."
"... Thus we get a continuation of a failed Afghanistan policy and will soon get a militarily aggressive policy towards Iran . ..."
"... Asked whether he was predicting war [with North Korea], [former defence minister of Japan, Satoshi] Morimoto said: "I think Washington has not decided ... The final decision-maker is [US Defence Secretary] Mr Mattis ... Not the president." ..."
"... Nationalistic indoctrination, already at abnormal heights in the U.S. society, will further increase. Military control will creep into ever extending fields of once staunchly civilian areas of policy. (Witness the increasing militarization of the police.) ..."
"... It is only way to sustain the empire. ..."
"... It is doubtful that Trump will be able to resist the policies imposed on him. Any flicker of resistance will be smashed. The outside insurgency which enabled his election is left without a figurehead, It will likely disperse. The system won. ..."
"... The U$A corporate empire is driven by, and according to, the dictates of the mega-corporate desires. The Generals dance to their tune. ..."
"... I would argue that Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, and their line reports don't represent "the US military", or even its generals per se. They represent themselves as people financially beholden to major investment banks for their retirement funds; people fearful of being blackmailed and destroyed by the NSA and CIA and Mossad; people who rose to senior posts during prior administrations because they were flunkies to the establishment . ..."
"... Trump's wealth (at least in the high hundreds of millions $) and his election victory say he's no moron. He probably knows what he is doing. He's either a guy who gave up the struggle after getting the proverbial political hell beaten out of him in the first months of his administration, or he willingly misled his electoral base when campaigning. Perhaps a little of both. He's known for being a BS merchant. Myself, I think he lied outright to the voters during his run for president. It's not a wild idea: so did Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Bigly. ..."
"... Trump made the decisions that we criticse so much. Trump decided to let the Obama holdovers stay in the administration. He decided to hire Goldman Sachs flunkies. He decided to send cruise missiles to strike Shayrat. He decided to approve US assistance to Saudi Arabia in Yemen. H decided to let his zionist son-in-law, who is indebted to George Soros, into the White House. He decided to fire Bannon almost as soon as Bannon came out publicly against war with North Korea. (Possibly a deliberate, desperate attempt at a 'spoiler' tactic on Bannon's part, to prevent conflict.) Trump decided to renege on his promises to the electorate about immigration. He decided to sign an unprecedented, unconstitutional law that bound his hands and imposed sanctions on Russia. He decided to go along with the Russian hacking lie by saying that Russia could, maybe, have hacked the DNC and HRC and whoever else (probably including Disney, the Shriners, and my mother). He decided to employ Sean Spicer and Reince Priebus, Scaramucchi and everyone else. He approved all of those things. ..."
"... It is not especially clear to me (being an outsider to US politics) which of the groups (or combination of groups) seems to have come out on top and have their guys as the gate-keeping, information-vetting guys doing the briefing of Trump. My feel of it is that the Pentagon has gained while JSOC, the black ops contractors, and black-on-black ops contractors have lost. The CIA seems to have broken even. Is this a fair read? ..."
"... Is the possibility of Trump as controlled opposition so far-fetched? Do you think the "power elite's political wing" only runs one candidate? Have you heard of "illusion of choice"? Do you think sheepdog Bernie was a real candidate? ..."
"... Obama and Trump both gained greater apparent legitimacy by: 1) beating the establishment candidate; and 2) being besieged by bat-shit crazy critics (birthers; anti-Russians & antifa). ..."
"... As soon as you choose a side, you are trapped. Two sides of the same coin. Minted in hell. ..."
Trump was seen as a presidential candidate who would possibly move towards a less interventionist
foreign policy. That hope is gone. The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a
counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful one).
The military has taken control of the White House process and it is now taking control of its policies.
It is schooling
Trump on globalism and its "indispensable" role in it. Trump was insufficiently supportive of
their desires and thus had to undergo reeducation:
When briefed on the diplomatic, military and intelligence posts, the new president would often
cast doubt on the need for all the resources. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson organized the July 20 session to lay out the case for maintaining far-flung outposts
-- and to present it, using charts and maps, in a way the businessman-turned-politician would appreciate
Trump was hauled into a Pentagon basement 'tank' and indoctrinated by the glittering four-star
generals he admired since he was a kid:
The session was, in effect, American Power 101 and the student was the man working the levers.
It was part of the ongoing education of a president who arrived at the White House with no experience
in the military or government and brought with him advisers deeply skeptical of what they labeled
the "globalist" worldview. In coordinated efforts and quiet conversations, some of Trump's aides
have worked for months to counter that view, hoping the president can be persuaded to maintain
-- if not expand -- the American footprint and influence abroad
Trump was sold the establishment policies he originally despised. No alternative view was presented
to him.
It is indisputable that the generals are
now ruling in Washington DC. They came to power over decades by
shaping
culture through their sponsorship of Hollywood, by manipulating the media through "embedded"
reporting and by forming and maintaining the countries infrastructure through the Army Corps of Engineers.
The military, through the NSA as well as through its
purchasing power , controls the information flow on the internet. Until recently the military
establishment only ruled from behind the scene. The other parts of the
power triangle , the corporation executives and the political establishment, were more visible
and significant. But during the 2016 election the military bet on Trump and is now, after he unexpectedly
won, collecting its price.
Trump's success as the
"Not-Hillary"
candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that insurgency,
Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office. An intense media
campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the White House. The anti-establishment
insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta
which nominally follows the rule of law.
Ultimate power to shape American foreign and security policy has fallen into the hands of three
military men [...]
...
Being ruled by generals seems preferable to the alternative. It isn't.
...
[It] leads toward a distorted set of national priorities, with military "needs" always rated more
important than domestic ones.
... It is no great surprise that Trump has been drawn into the foreign policy mainstream; the same
happened to President Obama early in his presidency. More ominous is that Trump has turned
much of his power over to generals. Worst of all, many Americans find this reassuring.
They are so disgusted by the corruption and shortsightedness of our political class that they
turn to soldiers as an alternative. It is a dangerous temptation.
The country has fallen to that temptation
even on social-economic issues:
In the wake of the deadly racial violence in Charlottesville this month, five of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff were hailed as moral authorities for condemning hate in less equivocal terms than the
commander in chief did.
...
On social policy, military leaders have been voices for moderation.
The junta is
bigger than its three well known leaders:
Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are not the only military figures serving at high levels in the Trump
administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy Secretary Rick
Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke each served in various branches of the military, and Trump
recently tapped former Army general Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
...
the National Security Council [..] counts two other generals on the senior staff.
This is no longer a
Coup Waiting
to Happen The coup has happened with few noticing it and ever fewer concerned about it. Everything
of importance now
passes through
the Junta's hands:
[Chief of staff John] Kelly initiated a new policymaking process in which just he and one
other aide [...] will review all documents that cross the Resolute desk.
...
The new system [..] is designed to ensure that the president won't see any external policy
documents, internal policy memos, agency reports and even news articles that haven't been vetted.
Staff who oppose [policy xyz] no longer have unfettered access to Trump, and nor do allies on
the outside [.. .] Kelly now has real control over the most important input: the flow
of human and paper advice into the Oval Office. For a man as obsessed about his self
image as Trump, a new flow of inputs can make the world of difference.
The Trump insurgency against the establishment was marked by a mostly informal information and
decision process. That has been
destroyed and replaced:
Worried that Trump would end existing US spending/policies (largely, still
geared to cold war priorities), the senior military staff running the Trump administration launched
a counter-insurgency against the insurgency.
...
General Kelly, Trump's Chief of Staff, has put Trump on a establishment-only media diet.
...
In short, by controlling Trump's information flow with social media/networks, the generals smashed
the insurgency's OODA loop (observe, orient, decide, act). Deprived of this connection,
Trump is now weathervaning to cater to the needs of the establishment ...
The Junta members dictate their policies to Trump by only proposing to him certain alternatives.
The one that is most preferable to them will be presented as the only desirable one. "There are no
alternatives," Trump will be told again and again.
Thus we get a
continuation of a failed Afghanistan policy and will soon get a militarily aggressive policy
towards Iran.
Other countries noticed how the game has changed. The real decisions are made by the generals,
Trump is
ignored as a mere figurehead:
Asked whether he was predicting war [with North Korea], [former defence minister of Japan,
Satoshi] Morimoto said: "I think Washington has not decided ... The final decision-maker is [US
Defence Secretary] Mr Mattis ... Not the president."
Climate change, its local catastrophes and the infrastructure problems it creates within the U.S.
will
further extend the military role in shaping domestic U.S. policy.
Nationalistic indoctrination, already at abnormal heights in the U.S. society, will further
increase. Military control will creep into ever extending fields of once staunchly civilian areas
of policy. (Witness the increasing militarization of the police.)
It is only way to sustain the empire.
It is doubtful that Trump will be able to resist the policies imposed on him. Any flicker
of resistance will be smashed. The outside insurgency which enabled his election is left without
a figurehead, It will likely disperse. The system won.
Posted by b on September 18, 2017 at 11:20 AM |
Permalink
Only good news: The mask has been torn off US elections. They simply don't matter. Waste of time
and money. US has become Saddam's Iraq, Sisi's Egypt, Mugabe's Zimbabwe etc....expect to see Trump
win 90% of vote in 2020....hahaha...
Hogwash - The SAA just crossed the Euphrates. If the neocons were really in control, WW3 would
start before dawn tomorrow. Otherwise, Assad will get his biggest oil field back from ISIS.
The Russians are hinting that the SDF isn't really fighting ISIS but just pretending to while
ISIS soldiers switch uniforms. If that's true, it means the neocons may still be in charge, but
what are they going to do about the Syrian Army blocking them now?
Interesting, and certainly a possible explanation of what's going on. Still, if the military is
running the show, why the growth of private mercenary businesses? (A new meaning for "corporate
warriors."). My own feeling, based on nothing except decades of experience working with the military,
is that the generals don't mind a few little wars, but they well know the risks of a big one.
For that reason, the military leadership seems to be trying to cool things down -- that the U.S.
didn't go to war with Iran, Russia, China or North Korea (yet) may be due to the influence of
the top brass.
b: It is doubtful that Trump will be able to resist the policies imposed on him.
hmmm...I'm not sure there's any pressure at all on Trump. Since Kennedy was removed the president
has little real power and is mostly to provide the trappings of democracy and keep the proles
entertained. Over 100 years ago T. Roosevelt noticed the lack of presidential freedom to act --
the bully pulpit and all that.
One of the main reasons I was pleased to see Trump get elected was that he wanted to get us out
of Syria. Somewhat amazingly I'd say, that has pretty much happened.
Russia, Iran and China have shown themselves to be responsible players and have the strength
to back that up.
So, I think in reality the US military will be forced by facts on the ground, as well as a
weakening of their propaganda, to go along with Trump's original more accommodating posture.
It's probably inevitable that the military would rule in the twilight of US world dominance.
Back in the true USA#1 days it was different. A couple of President Truman quotes: "It's the
fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they're gods in uniform that I plan to take
apart". . ."I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although
he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them
would be in jail."
The main problem with generals is that most (not all) of them got to where they are by sucking
up to higher authority, or "go along to get along." Then couple that with all the perks they get
including fine housing, enlisted servants and a fat $250K pension for full generals, and they
look at themselves in the mirror with all their fancy ribbons and medals and naturally adopt Harry
Truman's "gods in uniform" opinion of themselves, forgetting that they have become successful
in an isolated military milieu that favors appearance and disregards lack of accomplishment. And
the current crop of generals certainly lacks accomplishment.
"Nationalistic indoctrination, already at abnormal heights in the U.S. society, will further increase."
If that were true, why is the historic American nation being replaced by mystery meats from
the global south? The Washington machine certainly produces oodles of propaganda, but it is virulently
opposed to ethnocentrism at home and abroad, because that might lead to groups with the solidarity
to stand up to a degenerate empire.
The indoctrination taking place here is militaristic globalism. And everyone is invited.
b said:"Trump was seen as a presidential candidate who would possibly move towards a less interventionist
foreign policy."
Only by those who don't fully understand the TRUE American system, and those who dream of a
system that actually provides " truth, liberty and justice for all".
The better liar won the "election".
The swamp (sewer) in Washington getting muddier each day
I think the US is weak militarily for two deep and fundamental reasons, both of which have US
politicians to blame.
First, the US has not had able generals and admirals since WWII because politicians today[especially
since 9/11] cannot take criticism. Therefore men like MacArthur and Kimmel, who would tell them
a war can't be won like that or this strategy is a bad idea, no longer get the promotions. Yes-men
get promoted over more able men.
Second, this promotion of yes-men allows politicians to take over the planning of a war. Whereas
MacArthur would have shut the door on the neo-cons and told them he'll let him know when his plan
is ready, today politicians use political strategy to try and defeat the war strategy of an opponent.
For example, Rumsfeld should have been told that if he wanted to steal Iraq he'd need half a million
men - but the generals tried to do the impossible and steal Iraq with a third that number because
more was politically sensitive.
If politicians are going to have a war, leave it to able generals to plan it. Or lose.
There's no saving the Unipolar attempt to establish Full Spectrum Dominance -- not even nuclear
war -- and I think the generals and their minders actually know this, although they seem to be
keeping up appearances. Escobar's latest from last Friday details why this is so,
http://www.atimes.com/article/iran-turns-art-deal-upside/
Even the Brazilian regime change project is becoming a loser as the massive corruption scandal
is about to devour the neocon favorite Temer, while Lula is rising like the Phoenix. The latest
leak scandal over the meeting between Rohrabacher and Kelly regarding Russiagate and the status
of Julian Assange reveals more than the leak itself,
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47818.htm
Always follow the money. There is only so far a $1 will go. Shrinkflation. The USD, as reserve
currency, allowed the US to fund wars, everyday essentials and live high on the hog at the expense
of the rest of the world. This exceptional privilege is coming to an end.
When the US declared war; [excluded Iran from use of SWIFT/ the USD] that was the shot heard
far and wide. Putin and Xi noted, we could be next and put in place CHIPS.
Lately, Russia and then China has been threatened with sanctions; latest folly of Mnuchin,
U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. The petro-Yuan Exchange for gold was announced and less than 005%
of Americans realize the impact of bypassing the USD.
USA has met its comeuppance. Russia and China need not fire a shot. Prosperity of the exceptional
ones is an illusion built on hundreds of trillions of debt. We are kept diverted from de-dollarization
by the focus on unschooled Trump. Eight+ months after the selection, it's "Russiagate" – Putin
did it; are angels male or female? What happened?
Thus we get a continuation of a failed Afghanistan policy and will soon get a militarily aggressive
policy towards Iran.
As a candidate way before any junta was installed, Trump always vowed to rip up the Iran nuclear
deal. Now why on earth would North Korea trust that any nuclear agreement it made with the US
would not similarly be ripped up and shredded a couple years down the road?
If the handling of "local catastrophes" such as Harvey and Irma are any indication of the power
of this junta, then I am not very much worried. The FEMA folks, Red Cross and many others showed
their ineffectiveness in spades here in Houston. What's even more revealing is just how quickly
they dashed out of here to remain in the news when Irma hit Florida.
I met two ATF guys driving down here after Harvey - and they had no idea why they were coming
here. Couldn't articulate a thing to me except to say, repeatedly, "We are ATF and coming to assist."
They had ZERO specifics on what they were going to do to help anyone. But they were very much
enjoying wearing their ATF t-shirts and sporting their pistols on hip. But it's Texas, and that
just made me smile and shake my head. Made me realize that whatever happens here in America, DC
and the central government are so incredibly out of touch and living "in the bubble" that they
are of very limited use for locals (those outside the East Coast) in any way.
The Feds plan for national, not local catastrophes - and their primary issue is COG, period.
They are much more concerned about maintaining government and their own little fiefdoms than in
assisting people far away from the DC/NYC corridor.
Further, the math just doesn't work for the junta doing much more than controlling foreign
policy (who we next attack) - to try that same thing across America would result in rapid expulsion
and failure, as we outnumber them most significantly.
When the pain they cause becomes enough, then things will change. Unfortunately, it seems that
change via the national elections has now been abrogated. Something else is likely to ensue, eventually.
I just don't understand how people can fall for the line that "nationalism" somehow equates to
an undesirable movement akin to the rise of nazism. The media has been blitzing this as of late
and rallying cries around the antifa demonstrations have been taking this buzzword and running
with it, equating proponents of it to racist KKK members in some silly way or another. Even here,
b, you seem to be eating right out of the hands of these pagemasters who dictate what words mean.
I'm sorry, but there is a glaring doublestandard when you praise the policy of say Venezuela which
"nationalized" their oil industry and condemn all of us Americans who are begging to disassociate
from global mechanisms which are crippling fair-spending of tax dollars here in the state. It
is fair to assume that military junta historically use the energy of nationalism's lexicon to
promote their agenda, but in this case, as you point out, the junta and the status quo of globalism's
iron hand seem to fit together nicely. I read that as nationalism never even taking flight here.
I get your trepidation with this terminology considering the history of your country, but America
IS different and we deserve an attempt to put America first...shocking, I know.
B fell pray of partisan propaganda, Trump - the coup d'etat enabler DNC MANTRA.. So please inform
me when generals were not in executive charge of the US government. On behave of oligarchic ruling
elite ? Where were those civilian rulers during documented 250 conflicts or war US was engaged
during 228 years of existence
The first president was a general and since then US generals executed
basic US imperial economic model of aggression and exploitation, military land grab from Indians
and Mexicans to suppression of workers strikes by shelling their families at home in US as well
in its conquered colonies in CA and Caribbean we have proof thanks to Gen. Butler.
It was a Gen. Eisenhower who warned us the junta refused to disarm after WWII and constitutes
coear and present danger to even a facade of republican order.
Anybody who believe that imperial US is run by civilians is SIMPLY gullible since no emporia
were ever run by civilians by definition. Roman Empire was run over last 200 year explicitly by
generals COMMANDING armies of foreign mercenaries like US today in NATO and ASEAN .
What has changed is that veil of deceit has failed and with Trump those warmongering cockroaches
came out of WH woodwork to see a light and tookbopenly control f what they already controlled
clandestinely.
16
If you think US is different to nazi it might be worth reading saker's piece on it. If you think
US nationalism is any different to Nazi Germany in aggression then think again. The US population,
and much of the so called west, is swamped in propaganda while the US attacks country after country.
But once again, many here think that Europe is already one big vassal state of the global/US
empire. So if anything, we are all already under the jack boot of empire. To dislodge one piece
(US), indeed, the central piece, seems to me that the world would be in recovery mode from "the
global reich." Please correct if I'm wrong, but your logic does not compute. Furthermore, I don't
think a reeling US economy and population, freshly liberated, is going to be convinced any time
soon to wage wars abroad for precious metals and the like. "Helping" the world would probably
take a back seat.
...
"I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was,
but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be
in jail."
...
Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 12:06:26 PM | 5
And, despite the fact that Trump rubbed shoulders with dozens of these wannabe Generals at
Military Academy, and was exposed to the same claptrap, it seems safe to assume that he realised
that a Life spent in the US Military would be pointless, unimaginative and frustrating.
To be fair he did put an end to Timber Sycamore. The deep state wouldn't have pushed so hard
on the Russian angle if there weren't a real upheaval. IMO, it went beyond simply covering for
the DNC leaks. The whole establishment dog piled the Russian angle. It was for a time the principal
means of disrupting Trump's agenda. I think Trump's token strike on the Syrian airbase is evidence
of all of this. It was the absolute minimum he could have done in the face of a tidal wave of
internal war pressures. And, they certainly could have gotten away with way more of the "trump
is a Nazi angle," but they appear to have stopped after they got Bannon out.
Prescribing Trump, a monster though he is, as being at least the lesser war candidate holds
IMO. What his presidency has illuminated above all else is the wild degree to which US is first
and foremost of war. It is perhaps the most ubiquitous force that charges the US system.
That all said, we are going to find out real soon what the military is after. The SDF and SAA
meeting in Deir Ezor is going to tell us a lot. This is perhaps their last chance at balkanization
of Syria. A glimmer of hope still resides however in the supposed Pentagon revolt that took place
over Obama's red line in the sand, as reported by Sy Hersh and others. As evil as the US military
is, they dont seem to actually want war with Russia, unlike the intelligence complex. I, personally,
am still hopeful at least about Syria.
The Russian leader expressed confidence that "one of the key components of our self-consciousness,
one of the values and ideas is patriotism." Putin recalled the words of outstanding Soviet
Russian scholar Dmitry Likhachev that patriotism drastically differs from nationalism. "Nationalism
is hatred of other peoples, while patriotism is love for your motherland," Putin cited his
words.
Or more historical: "Patriotism" was coined in Europe by the French revolution, forming a common
state of citizens open to all who can identify with common values and culture. But
American
Patriots came before that and that is probably where the French got the word.
As a group, Patriots represented a wide array of social, economic and ethnic backgrounds.
"Nationalism" was a 19th century reaction to the export of the French revolution when European
kingdoms tried a legitimization of borders based on language and genetics. It was all war from
there to the Second World War and Auschwitz. If you want to sink the US in an internal Civil War
try nationalism.
I think there is some hyperventilating here. Was Trump 'turned'? Was his administration
'taken over' or was he always a figurehead? I decided several months ago that it was the latter:
well, the system cannot "win"... dialectics... every steps it takes to control and secure "things",
brings it closer to its end, and this, inevitably. no one wins, ever. no one looses even. the
only way to fight and defeat evil is a decisive progress in goodness, to ignore it... the reality
on the ground allows us to think that way, to set up concerts in the ruins, for good. thank you
russia (as for the us military, they need 5 or 6 years to just cath up with last year's stand...
but they still can agitate their little arms, so they do).
Location, location, location
I am in shock and awe of our Pentagon (and CIA)'s ability to market themselves. I am convinced
that this is their core area of competency as I read the slick consultant generated talking points
on how $600B equals a dilapidated military instead of one that needs a purge. If we really have
a readiness problem, heads should roll before they get more money but instead we cry for the incompetents.
The vaunted sea lanes and free trade
I used for fall for this nonsensical argument, that we needed 20 carrier groups to patrol the
oceans to ensure free trade. Really? All we need is an international system of Coast Guards augmented
by a few missile boats if there are some countries that don't have the budget for a coast guard
to prevent piracy. We don't need aircraft carriers for that. Why do we assume that we need 24x7
aircraft coverage in the Pacific, Persian Gulf and Mediterranean? I have a vague memory of the
80's where it was a big deal that we 'sent our fleet' to the Mediterranean for some occasions.
It wasn't assumed that we had a task force parked there 100% of the time.
I don't see why we can't get by with 6 or at most 8 carrier groups with the understanding that
we would never deploy more than 2 for special occasions so that they can rotate assignments.
"The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign
waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful one)"
The USA was on the winning side for the Boxer Rebellion, the 1899-1902 Philippine Insurrection,
and a lot of other counter-insurgency operations. Basic military history. Just wanted to mention
that to set the correct tone, because your blog post started out factually incorrect and carried
on that way until the end.
Basic reasoning test, b:
i) Do you think Trump has been defeated by 'the US military', or ii) do you think a small number
of senior military men have thwarted Trump? Because the two are very different things.
I would argue that Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, and their line reports don't represent "the
US military", or even its generals per se. They represent themselves as people financially beholden
to major investment banks for their retirement funds; people fearful of being blackmailed and
destroyed by the NSA and CIA and Mossad; people who rose to senior posts during prior administrations
because they were flunkies to the establishment .
Do you think Trump is a weak-minded cretin? Because that's what your theory requires. That
the guy can't remember his oft-repeated positions and statements after some briefings and a few
months. I say that nobody loses their wits that fast, and nobody does a 180 on so many core policies
without knowing that they're doing it.
Trump's wealth (at least in the high hundreds of millions $) and his election victory say
he's no moron. He probably knows what he is doing. He's either a guy who gave up the struggle
after getting the proverbial political hell beaten out of him in the first months of his administration,
or he willingly misled his electoral base when campaigning. Perhaps a little of both. He's known
for being a BS merchant. Myself, I think he lied outright to the voters during his run for president.
It's not a wild idea: so did Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Bigly.
Trump made the decisions that we criticse so much. Trump decided to let the Obama holdovers
stay in the administration. He decided to hire Goldman Sachs flunkies. He decided to send cruise
missiles to strike Shayrat. He decided to approve US assistance to Saudi Arabia in Yemen. H decided
to let his zionist son-in-law, who is indebted to George Soros, into the White House. He decided
to fire Bannon almost as soon as Bannon came out publicly against war with North Korea. (Possibly
a deliberate, desperate attempt at a 'spoiler' tactic on Bannon's part, to prevent conflict.)
Trump decided to renege on his promises to the electorate about immigration. He decided to sign
an unprecedented, unconstitutional law that bound his hands and imposed sanctions on Russia. He
decided to go along with the Russian hacking lie by saying that Russia could, maybe, have hacked
the DNC and HRC and whoever else (probably including Disney, the Shriners, and my mother). He
decided to employ Sean Spicer and Reince Priebus, Scaramucchi and everyone else. He approved all
of those things.
"It is indisputable that the generals are now ruling in Washington DC."
Yeah, nah. Pretty sure that's still the Wall St lobby, the Israel lobby, the CFR and the usual
mob. Generals are just hired thugs, as Smedley Butler put it. Or as Kissinger put it, the US military
is made up of "Military men" who "are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns."
What you've done, b, is to pull together some half-formed thoughts and mashed them all together.
It sounds badass as a righteously indignant blog post, and I bet the Huffpost crowd would love
it – but it fails as logic.
Nice play of semantics. But it still sounds like "patriotism" is a nice euphemism for nationalism.
Why else would Putin be the scourge of the west? Reminds me too of how Putin played nice all through
the Syrian War calling the US their "partner." Another euphemism. Seems like Putin likes to sound
like the better man (and he is) but part of his strategy has always been to underplay his hand
in the mix.
New carriers cost about $12B each, plus the cost of the 5,000 crew-members
and aircraft, plus the cost of the accompanying fleet that goes with every carrier. Carriers have
been mainly used in the last decade in the Gulf area to launch aircraft to bomb third world countries.
Most carriers are in port most of the time because they require a lot of maintenance, which adds
a lot more to expense. They are also used to sail near enemy countries, Washington believing that
they are useful to scare third world countries into thinking that they may be bombed, which might
make some sense except the results are questionable. As you indicate, the main threat to world
shipping is piracy for which carrier fleets are useless. The good thing about having a carrier
in the Persian Gulf much of the time is that it ensures that Iran would not be attacked; it would
be a sitting duck.
The current location of the eleven US carriers is below taken from
here . There is a new addition
to the fleet, CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford.
1 - Persian Gulf
1 - hurricane duty
1 - off Carolina coast
1- off Japan coast
7 - port
There are generals and then there are generals... Just which ones are taking over? The Neo-con
backed guys? The Pro-pentagon guys? The CIA/JSOC guys? The Black Ops Guys? or the Black on Black
Ops guys? The reason I ask is that at one time they were all fighting each other in N.Syria.
It is not especially clear to me (being an outsider to US politics) which of the groups (or
combination of groups) seems to have come out on top and have their guys as the gate-keeping,
information-vetting guys doing the briefing of Trump. My feel of it is that the Pentagon has gained
while JSOC, the black ops contractors, and black-on-black ops contractors have lost. The CIA seems
to have broken even. Is this a fair read?
If so... I think it is overall a good thing (the beso of an bunch of bad) because the Pentagon
have shown themselves to be a lot more sane when it comes to creating conflict zones. They tend
to be less covert, a lot more overt and a lot less likely to forment war for the sake of some
corporation or political subset of the ruling elite.
#29
You're wrong. It's obvious who's in charge in Washington currently. There is no doubt that, politically
speaking, the insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign
waged by the U.S. military. Generals Mattis, McMaster and Kelly are paramount in the new administration.
Mattis has been given decision power on war, which Trump had promised to curtail.
McMaster, with no diplomatic experience, is national security and Kelly manages Trump's office.
The whole administration has taken a new tack with these generals and their military cohorts
-- they do no stand alone, they are part of an institution -- managing US foreign policy. Concomitant
to this are other factors including the cut in the State Department budget, the appointment of
neophyte and hawkish Haley at the UN and Trump's romance with Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Politics is always complex and messy and no one ever "rules" in the way being assumed. The military
have always had a big say - how else did they get such a huge budget for years on end? CIA have
always played a big part, likewise FBI, NSA, Wall St., CFR, Fed, IMF and so on. Three, maybe six
, Generals now have a bigger influence. Bannon has gone, so less influence for the deplorables.
That is only a subtle change in the big scheme of things.
This is the just the death throes of an empire that is meeting the Limits to Growth. Expect
MUCH MUCH worse to come. I think it will be SO horrible, many people will take the suicide option.
Obviously any 1000 or so word article is going to woefully simplified compared to the decades
of historical and political research that will dissect the Trump presidency in the finest detail,
I will say that this article has one glaring flaw that significantly lessens its value. Trump
has rolled over for EVERYTHING and EVERYONE in Washington. There really is nothing special about
the military's ease with which they captured and neutered Trump.
I don't think there is a single
area of his campaign platform that he has given up on or flip-flopped on. I don't think there
is any other president who has been a comparable ACROSS THE BOARD FAILURE like Trump.
No one has ever been surprised that the wacky, inane, or divorced from reality promises presidents
made to get themselves elected never were followed through on. But every single president before
Trump at the very least had a core set of priorities they immediately set in motion.
The failure of the Trump presidency should for once and for all put to rest the silly and juvinille
dream of the lone super man heading off to Washington to FINALLY TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS and show
those sleazy career politicians who things are done in the real world.
Trump walked into the White House with absolutely no governing apparatus ready to go on day
one like every other presidential candidate has in the past.
Presidential candidates spend decades building up a vast network of people ready to hit the
ground running and know how Washington works from the moment the election is over.
One has to wonder if Trump really ever expected to win. Or just has a complete lack of interest
in the massive network o loyal and knowledgeable people needed to setup a brand new presidential
administration.
And there is no check on how badly the Trump administration can fail. His base appears to be
currled up in fetal position on Breitbart collectively chanting 'this is not happening, this is
not happening.'
I don't think I've ever felt more joy than seeing that ABSOLUTE FILTH Hillary Clinton get here
murderous and vile ass get handed to her by a TV personality.
Never in my dreams did I think Trump wouldn't accomplish ANYTHING.
So Trump fans, keep posting those MEMES and WINNING --
b's analysis rings true. The establishment has reined in Donald Trump. On their return from Florida,
it appeared that Melania Trump is well aware of the history of the House of Bourbon. One does
not become a Four-star General in the establishment today without an instinctive understanding
of the needs of the organ grinder. The end stage of an Empire is everybody for themselves. The
open source insurrection is over until it isn't anymore. Periodic combat takeoffs from Joint Base
Andrews are not reassuring. The desire to stay alive is the only brake on the rush to a nuclear
war with North Korea or the heating up of the Cold War with Russia.
A great follow-up article to an UNZ article early this year which stated:
During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all
political pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction.
In fact by capturing the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment,
Trump and the military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within
both the Democratic and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush
dynasties.
During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that
Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media
against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the
corporate media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.
I respectfully disagree with everyone. There is nobody in charge in Washington DC and hasn't
been for a long time.
There are psychopathic oligarchs, warlords, fiefdoms and secret cabals milking their power
and authority for a variety of self-serving interests with varying degrees of success and failure.
The entire government has mutated to an arena where the above powers spar for more control and
more money day after day. There is no real oversight. It's too complex and secretive for any one
person or group to be 'in charge'.
The announcer is not 'in charge'. He's just the announcer, nothing more. And the little people
are just spectators, nothing more.
Couldn't agree more re: Limits to Growth. And no prizes for guessing which major
economies have gone about insulating themselves against the pitfalls of cowboy economics... nothing
was fixed, repaired, refitted or replaced after 2008...crazy that any chance of sensible, sustainable
capitalism in the west might be lost to the cannibals need of rampant consumerism. I'll side with
the nations that keep an interest in public banking systems rather than the one's that encourage
it citizens ro eat the face off one another.
It's not all dark though, The Tale of The Don is really a romantic one... Of the wild west
never ending... Of the railroad tycoons that never really died.
Jackrabbit gets more right with every passing day... there is no such thing as an outsider
the moment you win.
@ 38
Yes, the power elite's military faction. Not: "I would argue that Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, and
their line reports don't represent "the US military", or even its generals per se. They represent
themselves as people financially beholden to major investment banks. . ."
Outsiders don't appreciate the power of the strengthening military-industrial complex that
Eisenhower cautioned about in his farewell address.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American
makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer
risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent
armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women
are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone
more than the net income of all United States corporations.
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new
in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt
in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative
need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our
toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence,
whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination
endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an
alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and
military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty
may prosper together.
from "The Hill": Overnight Defense: Senate passes $700B defense bill | 3,000 US troops heading
to Afghanistan | Two more Navy officials fired over ship collisions
A Chinese fire drill best describes what passes for the U.S.'s present level of policy. Most of
the world watches; aghast at the spectacle, while cowering with fear at the hubris...
But other commenters have also been critical, though less colorful.
@Madmen
Is the possibility of Trump as controlled opposition so far-fetched? Do you think the "power
elite's political wing" only runs one candidate? Have you heard of "illusion of choice"? Do you
think sheepdog Bernie was a real candidate?
Obama and Trump both gained greater apparent legitimacy by: 1) beating the establishment
candidate; and 2) being besieged by bat-shit crazy critics (birthers; anti-Russians & antifa).
As soon as you choose a side, you are trapped. Two sides of the same coin. Minted in hell.
Agreed. I had no problem with the substance, in fact I like the fact that there are diverse
opinions here and I learn a lot from the discussions. I just didn't need the gratuitous insults
to b given how much effort he puts in here.
Although he speaks about the USA being occupied, looks like Saker does not understand that that
the US empire is actually a global neoliberal empire where multinationals and financial oligarchy have
political control. And without a viable alternative it probably will not collapse, as any collapse presuppose
the withdrawal of support. The necessary level of isolation is possible only if a an alternative is
present
Now like in befor the World War Ii there is struggle for "spheres of influence", in which the USA
is gradually losing as both Germany and Japan restored their industrial potential and China is a new
powerful player on the world scene, which now is allied with Russia with its formidable nuclear deterrent
that now anti-missile defense can neutralize"
Also the USA venture into Ukraine means the completion of revision of the results of WWII, which
opened a new can of worms for the USA making Russia essentially a hostile power (which neocon admit
and try to exploit via the current neo-McCarthism witch hunt)
Notable quotes:
"... Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have a total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. ..."
"... In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables") the Neocons have had to show their true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people. ..."
"... And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse. ..."
"... Externally, the US foreign policy is basically "frozen" and in lieu of a foreign policy we now only have a long series of empty threats hurled at a list of demonized countries which are now promised "fire and brimstone" should they dare to disobey Uncle Sam. ..."
"... This bizarre, and illegal, form of a "vote of no-confidence" further hammers in the message that Trump is either a madman, a traitor, or both. ..."
"... Organizationally, it is clear that Trump is surrounded by enemies as illustrated by the absolutely outrageous fact that he can't even talk to a foreign head of state without having the transcript of his conversation leaked to the Ziomedia . ..."
"... I believe that these all are preparatory steps to trigger a major crisis and use it to remove Trump, either by a process of impeachment, or by force under the pretext of some crisis. Just look at the message which the Ziomedia has been hammeing into the brains of the US population. ..."
"... just imagine the reaction in South Korea and Japan if some crazy US strike on the DPRK results in Seoul and Tokyo being hit by missiles! ..."
"... when the cat is gone, the mice dance ..."
"... The mouse dreams dreams that would terrify the cat ..."
"... Third, for all the encouraging statistics about the Dow Jones, unemployment and growth, the reality is that the US society is rapidly transforming itself in a three-tired one: on top, a small number of obscenely rich people, under them, a certain amount of qualified professionals who service the filthy rich and who struggle to maintain a lifestyle which in the past was associated with the middle-class. And then the vast majority of Americans who basically are looking at making "minimal wage plus a little something" and who basically survive by not paying for health insurance, by typically working two jobs, by eating cheap and unhealthy "prolefeed" and by giving up on that which every American worker could enjoy in the 1950s and 1960s (have one parent at home, have paid holidays, a second vacation home, etc.). Americans are mostly hard workers and, so far, most of them are surviving, but they are mostly one paycheck away from seriously bad poverty. A lot of them only make ends meet because they get help from their parents and grand-parents (the same is true of southern Europe, by the way). A large segment of the US population now survives only because of Walmart and the Dollar Store. Once that fails, food stamps are the last option. That, or jail, of course. ..."
"... No wonder that when so many Americans heard Hillary's comment about the "basket of deplorables" they took that as declaration of war. ..."
"... Whatever may be the case, by their manic insistence, on one hand, to humiliate and crush Trump and, on the other, to repress millions of Americans the Neocons are committing a double mistake. First, they are showing their true face and, second, they are subverting the very institutions they are using to control and run this country. ..."
"... What makes the gradual collapse of the AngloZionist Empire so uniquely dangerous is that it is by far the biggest and most powerful empire in world history. No empire has ever had the quasi monopoly on power the USA enjoyed since WWII. By any measure, military, economic, political, social, the US came out of WWII as a giant and while there were ups and downs during the subsequent decades, the collapse of the USSR only reaffirmed what appeared to be the total victory of the United States. ..."
"... And if Obama was probably the most incompetent President in US history, Trump will be the first one to be openly lynched while in office. As a result, the AngloZionist Empire is now like a huge freight train which has lost its locomotive but still has an immense momentum pushing it forward even though there is nobody in control any more. The rest of the planet, with the irrelevant exception of the East Europeans, is now scrambling in horror to get out of the path of this out of control train. So far, the tracks (minimal common sense, political realities) are more or less holding, but a crash (political, economic or military) could happen at any moment. And that is very, very scary. ..."
"... The US has anywhere between 700 to 1000 military bases worldwide, the entire international financial system is deeply enmeshed with the US economy, the US Dollar is still the only real reserve currency, United States Treasury securities are held by all the key international players (including Russia and China), SWIFT is politically controlled by the US, the US is the only country in the world that can print as much money as it wants and, last but not least, the US has a huge nuclear arsenal. As a result, a US collapse would threaten everybody and that means that nobody would want to trigger one. The collapse of the Soviet Union threatened the rest of mankind only in one way: by its nuclear arsenal. In contrast, any collapse of the United States would threaten everybody in many different ways. ..."
"... This is the irony of our situation: even though the entire planet is sick and tried of the incompetent arrogance of the AngloZionists, nobody out there wants their Empire to catastrophically collapse. And yet, with the Neocons in power, such a collapse appears inevitable with potentially devastating consequences for everybody. ..."
"... This is really amazing, think of it: everybody hates the Neocons, not only a majority of the American people, but truly the entire planet. And yet that numerically small group of people has somehow managed to put everybody in danger, including themselves, due to their ugly vindictiveness, infinite arrogance and ideology-induced short-sightedness. That this could ever have happened, and at a planetary scale, is a dramatic testimony to the moral and spiritual decay of our civilization: how did we ever let things get that far?! ..."
"... My biggest hope with Trump was that he would be willing to sacrifice the Empire for the sake of the US (the opposite of what the Neocons are doing: they are willing to sacrifice the US for the sake of their Empire) and that he would manage a relatively safe and hopefully non-violent transition from Empire to "normal country" for the US. Clearly, this is ain't happening. Instead, the Neocons are threatening everybody: the Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans and the Venezuelans of course, but also the Europeans (economically), the entire Middle-East (via the "only democracy in the Middle-East"), all the developing countries and even the American people. Heck, they are even threatening the US President himself, and in not-so-subtle ways! ..."
"... my overwhelming sense is that Trump will be removed from office, either for "high crimes and misdemeanors" or for "medical reasons" (they will simply declare him insane and unfit to be the President). ..."
"... The evil hand of the "Russian KGB" (yes, I know, the KGB was dissolved in 1991) will be found everywhere, especially amongst US libertarians (who will probably the only ones with enough brains to understand what is taking place). The (pseudo-) "Left" will rejoice. ..."
"... Should this course of action result in an unexpected level or resistance, either regional or social, a 9-11 false flag followed by a war will the most likely scenario (why stray away from something which worked so well the first time around?!). ..."
"... in 1991 when the US sent the 82nd AB to Iraq there was nothing standing between this light infantry force and the Iraqi armored divisions. Had the Iraqis attacked the plan was to use tactical nuclear weapons. Then this was all quickly forgotten ..."
"... There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind the mayhem, especially when they are the ones who triggered the mayhem in the first place. This means that as long as the Neocons are anywhere near in power they will never, ever, allow peace to suddenly break out, lest the spotlight be suddenly shined directly upon them. Chaos, wars, crises – this is their natural habitat. Think of it as the by-product of their existence. Eventually, of course, they will be stopped and they will be defeated, like all their predecessors in history. But I shudder when I think of the price mankind will have to pay this time around. ..."
In October of last year a wrote an analysis I entitled
The USA are about to face the worst crisis of their history and how Putin's example might inspire
Trump and I think that this is a good time to revisit it now. I began the analysis by looking
at the calamities which would befall the United States if Hillary was elected. Since this did not
happen (thank God!), we can safely ignore that part and look at my prediction of what would happen
if Trump was elected. Here is what I wrote:
Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have a total, repeat total,
control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton
they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The
Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "
crazies in the basement "? Consider the vicious hate campaign which all these "personalities"
(from actors, to politicians to reporters) have unleashed against Trump – they have burned their
bridges, they know that they will lose it all if Trump wins (and, if he proves to be an easy pushover
his election will make no difference anyway). The Neocons have nothing to lose and they will fight
to the very last one.
What could Trump possibly do to get anything done if he is surrounded by Neocons and
their agents of influence? Bring in an entirely different team? How is he going to vet them? His
first choice was to take Pence as a VP – a disaster (he is already sabotaging Trump on Syria and
the elections outcome). I *dread* the hear whom Trump will appoint as a White House Chief of Staff
as I am afraid that just to appease the Neocons he will appoint some new version of the infamous
Rahm Emanuel And should Trump prove that he has both principles and courage, the Neocons can always
"Dallas" him and replace him with Pence. Et voilà !
Less than a month ago
I warned that a 'color revolution ' was taking place in the USA . My first element of proof
was the so-called "investigation" which the CIA, FBI, NSA and others were conducting against President
Trump's candidate to become National Security Advisor, General Flynn. Tonight, the plot to get
rid of Flynn has finally succeeded and
General Flynn had to
offer his resignation . Trump accepted it. Now let's immediately get one thing out of the
way: Flynn was hardly a saint or a perfect wise man who would single handedly saved the world.
That he was not. However, what Flynn was is the cornerstone of Trump's national security policy
. ( ) The Neocon run 'deep state' has now forced Flynn to resign under the idiotic pretext that
he had a telephone conversation, on an open, insecure and clearly monitored, line with the Russian
ambassador. And Trump accepted this resignation. Ever since Trump made it to the White House,
he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood
doubleplusgoodthinking "stars" and even from European politicians. And Trump took each
blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous "you are fired!" to be seen. But I still
had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope. But now Trump has betrayed us
all. Again, Flynn was not my hero. But he was, by all accounts, Trump's hero. And Trump betrayed
him. The consequences of this will be immense. For one thing, Trump is now clearly broken. It
took the 'deep state' only weeks to castrate Trump and to make him bow to the powers that be .
Those who would have stood behind Trump will now feel that he will not stand behind them and they
will all move back away from him. The Neocons will feel elated by the elimination of their worst
enemy and emboldened by this victory they will push on, doubling-down over and over and over again.
It's over, folks, the deep state has won.
I then concluded that the consequences of this victory would catastrophic for the United States:
In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables")
the Neocons have had to show their true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections,
by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first,
that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which
rules against the will of the American people. In other words, just like Israel, the USA
has no legitimacy left. And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their
enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the
Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse.
I think that what we are seeing today are the first signs of the impending collapse.
The symptoms of the agony
Externally, the US foreign policy is basically "frozen" and in lieu of a foreign policy we now
only have a long series of empty threats hurled at a list of demonized countries which are now promised
"fire and brimstone" should they dare to disobey Uncle Sam. While this makes for good headlines,
this does not qualify as a "policy" of any kind (I discussed this issue at length during
my recent interview
with SouthFront ). And then there is Congress which has basically
stripped Trump from his powers to conduct foreign policy . This bizarre, and illegal, form
of a "vote of no-confidence" further hammers in the message that Trump is either a madman, a traitor,
or both. Internally, the latest riots in Charlottesville now being blamed on Trump who, after
being a Putin agent is now further demonized as some kind of Nazi (see Paul Craig Roberts'
first and
second warnings about this dynamic)
Organizationally, it is clear that Trump is surrounded by enemies as illustrated by the absolutely
outrageous fact that he can't even talk to a foreign head of state without having the
transcript of his conversation leaked to the Ziomedia .
I believe that these all are preparatory steps to trigger a major crisis and use it to remove
Trump, either by a process of impeachment, or by force under the pretext of some crisis. Just look
at the message which the Ziomedia has been hammeing into the brains of the US population.
The psychological preparation for the forthcoming coup: scaring them all to death Here are three
very telling examples taken from Newsweek's front page:
... ... ...
Ask yourself, what is the message here? Trump is a traitor, he works for Putin, Putin wants to
destroy democracy in the United States and these two men together are the most dangerous men on the
planet . This is a " plot against America ", no less! Not bad, right? "They" are clearly out there
go get "us" and "we" are all in terrible danger: Kim Jong-un is about to declare nuclear war on the
US, Xi and Putin are threatening the world with their armies, and "our" own President came to power
courtesy of the "Russian KGB" and "Putin's hackers", he now works for the Russians, he is also clearly
a Nazi, a White supremacist, a racist and, possibly, a "
new Hitler " (
as is Putin , of course!).
And then, there are those truly scary Mooslims and Aye-rabs who apparently want only two things
in life: destroy "our way of life" and kill all the "infidels". This is why we need the TSA, 16 intelligence
agencies and militarized police SWAT teams everywhere: in case the terrorists come to get us where
we live.
Dangerous international consequences
This would all be rather funny if it was not also extremely dangerous. For one thing, the US is
really poking at a dangerous foe when it constantly tries to scare Kim Jong-un and the DPRK leadership.
No, not because of the North Korean nukes (which are probably not real nuclear capable ICBMs but
a not necessarily compatible combination of nuclear 'devices' and intermediate range ballistic missiles)
but because of the huge and hard to destroy conventional North Korean military. The real threat are
not missiles, but a deadly combination of conventional artillery and special forces which present
very little danger to the US or the US military, but which present a huge threat for the population
of Seoul and the northern section of South Korea. Nukes, in whatever form, are really only an added
problem, a toxic "icing" on an already very dangerous 'conventional cake'.
[Sidebar - a real life nightmare : Now, if you *really* want to terrify yourself and stay awake
all night then consider the following. While I personally believe that Kim Jong-un is not insane
and that the main objective of the North Korean leadership is to avoid a war at all costs, what if
I am wrong? What if those who say that the North Korean leaders are totally insane are right? Or,
which I think is much more likely, what if Kim Jong-un and the North Korean leaders came to the conclusion
that they have nothing to lose, that the Americans are going to kill them all, along with their families
and friends? What could they, in theory, do if truly desperate? Well, let me tell you: forget about
Guam; think Tokyo! Indeed, while the DPRK could devastate Seoul with old fashioned artillery systems,
DPRK missiles are probably capable of striking Tokyo or the
Keihanshin region encompassing
Kyoto, Osaka and Kobe including the key industries of the
Hanshin Industrial
Region . The Greater Tokyo area (Kanto region) and the Keihanshin region are very densely populated
(37 and 20 million people respectively) and contain an immense number of industries, many of which
would produce an ecological disaster of immense proportions if hit by missiles. Not only that, but
a strike on the key economic and financial nodes of Japan would probably result in a 9-11 kind of
international economic collapse. So if the North Koreans wanted to really, really hurt the Americans
what they could do is strike Seoul, and key cities in Japan resulting in a huge political crisis
for the entire planet. During the Cold War we used to study the consequences of a Soviet strike against
Japan and the conclusion was always the same: Japan cannot afford a war of any kind. The Japanese
landmass is too small, too densely populated, to rich in lucrative targets and a war lay waste to
the entire country. This is still true today, only more so. And just imagine the reaction in
South Korea and Japan if some crazy US strike on the DPRK results in Seoul and Tokyo being hit by
missiles!The
South Koreans have already made their position unambiguously clear , by the way. As for the Japanese,
they are officially
placing their hopes in missiles (as if technology could mitigate the consequences of insanity!).
So yeah, the DPRK is plenty dangerous and pushing them into their last resort is totally irresponsible
indeed, nukes or no nukes]
What we are observing now is positive feedback loop in which each move by the Neocons results
in a deeper and deeper destabilization of the entire system. Needless to say, this is extremely dangerous
and can only result in an eventual catastrophe/collapse. In fact, the signs that the US is totally
losing control are already all over the place, here are just a few headlines to illustrate this:
A French expression goes " when the cat is gone, the mice dance ", and this is exactly
what is happening now: the US is both very weak and basically absent. As for the Armenians, they
say " The mouse dreams dreams that would terrify the cat ". Well, the "mice" of the world
are dancing and dreaming and simply ignoring the "cat". Every move the cat makes only makes things
worse for him. The world is moving on, while the cat is busy destroying himself.
Dangerous domestic consequences
First on my list would be race riots. In fact, they are already happening all over the United
States, but they are rarely presented as such. And I am not talking about the "official" riots of
Black Lives Matter, which are bad enough, I am talking about the many mini-riots which the official
media is systematically trying to obfuscate. Those interested in this topic should read the book
here ). The simple truth is that no regime can survive for too long when it proactively supports
the exact opposite of what it officially is supposed to stand for. The result? I have yet to meet
an adult American who would sincerely believe that he/she lives in the "land of the free and the
home of the brave". Maybe infants still buy this stuff, but even teenagers know that this is a load
of bull.
Third, for all the encouraging statistics about the Dow Jones, unemployment and growth, the
reality is that the US society is rapidly transforming itself in a three-tired one: on top, a small
number of obscenely rich people, under them, a certain amount of qualified professionals who service
the filthy rich and who struggle to maintain a lifestyle which in the past was associated with the
middle-class. And then the vast majority of Americans who basically are looking at making "minimal
wage plus a little something" and who basically survive by not paying for health insurance, by typically
working two jobs, by eating cheap and unhealthy "prolefeed" and by giving up on that which every
American worker could enjoy in the 1950s and 1960s (have one parent at home, have paid holidays,
a second vacation home, etc.). Americans are mostly hard workers and, so far, most of them are surviving,
but they are mostly one paycheck away from seriously bad poverty. A lot of them only make ends meet
because they get help from their parents and grand-parents (the same is true of southern Europe,
by the way). A large segment of the US population now survives only because of Walmart and the Dollar
Store. Once that fails, food stamps are the last option. That, or jail, of course.
Combine all this and you get a potentially extremely explosive situation. No wonder that when
so many Americans heard Hillary's comment about the "basket of deplorables" they took that as declaration
of war.
And how do the Neocons plan to deal with all this? By cracking down on free speech and dissent,
of course! What else? Their only response – repression of course!
YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter – they are all cracking down on "bad" speech which includes
pretty much any topic a garden variety self-described 'liberal' frowns upon.
GoDaddy
and
Google are even going after domain names. Oh sure, nobody gets thrown in jail for, say, defending
the 2nd Amendment, but they get "demonetized" and their accounts simply closed. It's not the cops
cracking down on free speech, it's "Corporate America", but the effect is the same. Apparently, the
Neocons do not realize that censorship is not a viable strategy in the age of the Internet. Or maybe
they do, and they are deliberately trying to trigger a backlash?
Then there is the vilification campaign in the media: unless you are some kind of 'minority' you
are assumed to be nefarious by birth and guilty of all the evils on the planet. And your leader is
Trump, of course, or maybe even Putin himself, vide supra. Christian heterosexual White
males better run for cover
Whatever may be the case, by their manic insistence, on one hand, to humiliate and crush Trump
and, on the other, to repress millions of Americans the Neocons are committing a double mistake.
First, they are showing their true face and, second, they are subverting the very institutions they
are using to control and run this country. That, of course, only further weaken the Neocons
and the United States themselves and that further accelerates the positive feedback loop mentioned
above which now threatens the entire international system.
Us and Them
What makes the gradual collapse of the AngloZionist Empire so uniquely dangerous is that it
is by far the biggest and most powerful empire in world history. No empire has ever had the quasi
monopoly on power the USA enjoyed since WWII. By any measure, military, economic, political, social,
the US came out of WWII as a giant and while there were ups and downs during the subsequent decades,
the collapse of the USSR only reaffirmed what appeared to be the total victory of the United States.
In my admittedly subjective opinion, the last competent (no, I did not say 'good', I said 'competent')
US President was George Herbert Walker Bush who, unlike his successors, at least knew how to run
an Empire. After that, it is all downhill, faster and faster. And if Obama was probably the most
incompetent President in US history, Trump will be the first one to be openly lynched while in office.
As a result, the AngloZionist Empire is now like a huge freight train which has lost its locomotive
but still has an immense momentum pushing it forward even though there is nobody in control any more.
The rest of the planet, with the irrelevant exception of the East Europeans, is now scrambling in
horror to get out of the path of this out of control train. So far, the tracks (minimal common sense,
political realities) are more or less holding, but a crash (political, economic or military) could
happen at any moment. And that is very, very scary.
The US has anywhere between 700 to 1000 military bases worldwide, the entire international
financial system is deeply enmeshed with the US economy, the US Dollar is still the only real reserve
currency, United States Treasury securities are held by all the key international players (including
Russia and China), SWIFT is politically controlled by the US, the US is the only country in the world
that can print as much money as it wants and, last but not least, the US has a huge nuclear arsenal.
As a result, a US collapse would threaten everybody and that means that nobody would want to trigger
one. The collapse of the Soviet Union threatened the rest of mankind only in one way: by its nuclear
arsenal. In contrast, any collapse of the United States would threaten everybody in many different
ways.
So the real question now is this: can the rest of the planet prevent a catastrophic collapse of
the AngloZionist Empire?
This is the irony of our situation: even though the entire planet is sick and tried of the
incompetent arrogance of the AngloZionists, nobody out there wants their Empire to catastrophically
collapse. And yet, with the Neocons in power, such a collapse appears inevitable with potentially
devastating consequences for everybody.
This is really amazing, think of it: everybody hates the Neocons, not only a majority of the
American people, but truly the entire planet. And yet that numerically small group of people has
somehow managed to put everybody in danger, including themselves, due to their ugly vindictiveness,
infinite arrogance and ideology-induced short-sightedness. That this could ever have happened, and
at a planetary scale, is a dramatic testimony to the moral and spiritual decay of our civilization:
how did we ever let things get that far?!
And the next obvious question: can we still stop them?
I honestly don't know. I hope so, but I am not sure. My biggest hope with Trump was that he
would be willing to sacrifice the Empire for the sake of the US (the opposite of what the Neocons
are doing: they are willing to sacrifice the US for the sake of their Empire) and that he would manage
a relatively safe and hopefully non-violent transition from Empire to "normal country" for the US.
Clearly, this is ain't happening. Instead, the Neocons are threatening everybody: the Chinese, the
Russians, the North Koreans and the Venezuelans of course, but also the Europeans (economically),
the entire Middle-East (via the "only democracy in the Middle-East"), all the developing countries
and even the American people. Heck, they are even threatening the US President himself, and in not-so-subtle
ways!
So what's next?
Truly, I don't know. But my overwhelming sense is that Trump will be removed from office,
either for "high crimes and misdemeanors" or for "medical reasons" (they will simply declare him
insane and unfit to be the President). Seeing how weak and spineless Trump is, he might even
be "convinced" to resign. I don't see them simply murdering him simply because he is no Kennedy either.
After that, Pence comes to power and it will all be presented like a wonderful event, a group-hug
of the elites followed by an immediate and merciless crackdown on any form of political opposition
or dissent which will immediately be labeled as racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, terrorist, etc.
The evil hand of the "Russian KGB" (yes, I know, the KGB was dissolved in 1991) will be found
everywhere, especially amongst US libertarians (who will probably the only ones with enough brains
to understand what is taking place). The (pseudo-) "Left" will rejoice.
Should this course of action result in an unexpected level or resistance, either regional
or social, a 9-11 false flag followed by a war will the most likely scenario (why stray away from
something which worked so well the first time around?!). Unless the US decides to re-invade
Grenada or give Nauru a much deserved thrashing, any more or less real war will result in a catastrophic
failure for the US at which point the use of nukes by the Neocon crazies might become a very real
risk, especially if symbolic US targets such as aircraft carriers are hit ( in 1991 when the
US sent the 82nd AB to Iraq there was nothing standing between this light infantry force and the
Iraqi armored divisions. Had the Iraqis attacked the plan was to use tactical nuclear weapons. Then
this was all quickly forgotten ).
There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind
the mayhem, especially when they are the ones who triggered the mayhem in the first place. This means
that as long as the Neocons are anywhere near in power they will never, ever, allow peace to suddenly
break out, lest the spotlight be suddenly shined directly upon them. Chaos, wars, crises – this is
their natural habitat. Think of it as the by-product of their existence. Eventually, of course, they
will be stopped and they will be defeated, like all their predecessors in history. But I shudder
when I think of the price mankind will have to pay this time around.
"... Dr. Samuel Johnson said that "the road to hell is good intentions". Donald Trump's good intentions in respect of Russia have led not to a new kind of hell but to the status quo becoming more entrenched. ..."
"... When Donald Trump took office, he bravely embarked on what could rightly be called 'mission difficult'. Now, the American deep state/military industrial complex has revealed that in reality, it was always going to be mission impossible due to geo-strategic realities, uniquely American arrogance which is embedded into the thinking of even many Washington moderates and finally, because we have learnt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the President of the United States is only as powerful as those around him, allow him to be. ..."
"I hope that we do have good relations with Russia. I say it loud and clear, I've been saying
it for years: I think it's a good thing if we have great relationships, or at least good relationships
with Russia.
It's a big country, it's a nuclear country, it's a country that we should get along with, and
I think we will eventually get along with Russia".
In spite of Trump's stated wishes, the policies of his administration, irrespective of who is
actually authoring them, are in total opposition to Russia's stated geo-political goals and Russia's
geo-strategic interests.
The Trump administration's approach to Venezuela, Afghanistan (and South Asia as a whole) and
North Korea (and East Asia as a whole) and beyond is totally antithetical to the interests and stated
desires of Russia and Russia's closest partners.
Here are the key places where US policy under Trump and Russia's geo-political positions are in
total opposition
1. Venezuela
In Venezuela Trump has threatened war and implemented sanctions against the government of Nicolas
Maduro. Russia by contrast vehemently opposes sanctions and war.
2. Afghanistan
Trump's flagship policy of a troop surge in Afghanistan is opposed by Russia as is his policy
to effectively bomb the Taliban to the peace table.
Russia favours a process which would see moderate rebel elements of the Taliban invited to a peace
table in conjunction with a cease-fire in order to develop a lasting peace based on reconciliation
between the Taliban and the government in Kabul, something which in reality means a reconciliation
between Pashtun Afghans and the ethnic minorities who are in the current government.
Russia also takes exception to Trump's threats and criticisms against Pakistan, a country which
is rapidly becoming an important Russian partner in South Asia.
3. North Korea
Just this morning, Donald Trump once again threatened war on North Korea. By contrast, Russia
has said multiple times that war can never be considered an option on the Korean peninsula and has
called for the US to cease its delivery of THADD missile systems to South Korea and has also called
for a cessation of US-South Korea military drills. In each of these cases, the US has totally ignored
Russia and China's requests, in spite of the fact that both states border the Korean peninsula.
Russia like China also calls for direct talks between Washington and Pyongyang, something the
Trump administration is apparently not considering seriously at this time.
4. South China Sea
While Russia is not directly involved with the South China Sea dispute, America's provocative
stance on the region has infuriated Russia's most important partner, China. America's imperial actions
in the region, confusingly called 'freedom of navigation' by Washington, do not bode well for Moscow
which wants to see cooperation rather than confrontation in Asia.
The US has blatantly disregarded Turkish concerns about America's arming and funding of Kurdish
militants in Syria while Russia continues to show courtesy and countenance for Turkey's position
which is shared by Iran.
6. Europe
Russia has constantly called for NATO to de-escalate its presence in Europe, but under the Trump
administration, Obama's own European 'troop surge' has continued with no signs of stopping. Donald
Trump's recent speech
in Poland where he
quoted deeply Russophobic propaganda does not bode well for reconciliation between America's
EU allies and Russia.
7. Palestine/Israel
While the US approach to the conflict in the Levant is completely one-sided, Russia maintains
uniquely good relations with both Palestinian leaders and Israeli leaders in Tel Aviv. While Russia's
approach is clearly a conflict aversion tactic, if the US supported Israel in any aggression against
Syria, this would clearly end any attempts at fledgling cooperation between the US and Russia in
a Syrian conflict which is in any case, drawing to a close. Russia is carefully balancing the interests
of its Syrian partner with trying to contain the aggressive military posturing of the Israeli regime
with which Russia continues to do business.
Any US support of an Israeli strike against any Middle Eastern country would throw theSyrian de-escalation
zone which is jointly policed by America, Russia and Jordan, into disarray. To this end, the south
western Syrian de-escalation zone is thus far the only area where the Trump administration has made
any progress in respect of improving relations with Russia. Currently, it hangs by a thread for more
reasons than one.
8. Iran and the Persian Gulf
While Donald Trump's Tweets indicate a policy that is fully pro-Saudi, even as his own state department
emphases a US position of neutrality, as Qatar works to re-normalise relations with Iran, the US
could find itself increasingly at odds with its technical ally in Doha.
In respect of Iran itself, Donald Trump continues to advocate hostile policies against Tehran
which include threats to tear up the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal as well as false accusations of
Iran sponsoring terrorism.
Russia by contrast is an economic partner of Iran and is working with Iran to combat Salafist
terrorists in Syria. In the Persian Gulf, Russia has won respect from Qatar for adopting a genuine
andunambiguous position of neutrality. This has also allowed Russia to maintain healthy
relations with Saudi through out the conflict.
9. Libya
The US and the west more broadly seems to have no coherent strategy to deal with the Libyan failed
state, beyond propping up the fledgling Government of National Accord, which is competing with the
National Salvation Government as well as assorted militant groups for control of Tripoli.
By contrast, Russia continues to engage with Khalifa Haftar, the leader of Libya's only successful
and well organised military, the Libyan National Army. The LNA is also the only force in Libya that
has successfully liberated important cities from terrorist control, namely the eastern city of Benghazi.
Egypt continues to support Haftar and the Libyan House of Representatives from which he derives
political legitimacy. As Russia becomes ever closer to the government in Cairo, it would appear that
Russia's plan to help reconcile Haftar's forces with what's left of the UN backed government in Tripoli,
is the closest thing any non-Arab power has to a plan for Libya.
The US appears to have no plans at all, but one can count on the US opposing Russian involvement
in Libya, even though there is now little the US could conceivably do to stop Moscow and Cairo from
cooperating in a country the US first destroyed and later abandoned.
CONCLUSION
As I warned prior to Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's first meeting,
"With all the fuss over Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump meeting later this week
at the G20 summit, many have conspicuously failed to grasp that the monumental task ahead of both
leaders has little to do with their own period in government and even less to do with their personalities.
These things of course do matter, but their importance is dwarfed by larger historical and present
economic and geo-strategic concerns.
With that in mind, here are the giant obstacles that both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will
be faced with when they meet".
In the month and three quarters since the Trump-Putin meeting, this situation has merely intensified.
Differences in American and Russian geo-political interests have become ever more pronounced and
the Trump administration shows no signs of even attempting to meet Russia half way, let alone approach
the situation in a pragmatic manner. The ideological dogmas of the US continue as if Donald Trump
is the mere figurehead in foreign affairs that many believe him to literally be.
Donald Trump's personal respect for Russia seems genuine beyond any lingering doubts. He has no
reason to say he wants warm relations with Russia any longer but he still says he does.
The policies of his administration however, belie the supreme difficulty of implementing such
policies or even attempting to do so.
Dr. Samuel Johnson said that "the road to hell is good intentions". Donald Trump's good intentions
in respect of Russia have led not to a new kind of hell but to the status quo becoming more entrenched.
When Donald Trump took office, he bravely embarked on what could rightly be called 'mission
difficult'. Now, the American deep state/military industrial complex has revealed that in reality,
it was always going to be mission impossible due to geo-strategic realities, uniquely American arrogance
which is embedded into the thinking of even many Washington moderates and finally, because we have
learnt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the President of the United States is only as powerful as
those around him, allow him to be.
Buchanan demonstrates very superficial understanding of the result of the USSR collapse.
Afghan war was just one contributing factor. It was never the primary reason. Soviet
people understood pretty well that they actually faced the USA in Afghan war. Or more
correctly the combination of the USA has technological superiority, Saudi money and
political Islam. The fact that the USA supplied Stingers portable anti-aircraft rocket launchers.
Which later will shoot down some US helicopters. The fact the the USA fe-factor put
political Islam on front burner later will bite the USA several times.
Also Buchanan does not understand the role of neoliberal revolution (or coup d'état if you
wish, called quite coup) of 80th in the current US troubles. Trump was the first ever presidential
candidate, who companied and managed to win the elections on promises to tame neoliberal
globalization. The fact that he was crushed in six month of so is not surprising, as he
faced very well organize Trotskyite militants (aka deep state) - neoliberalism is actually
Trotskyism for rish. Russiagate witch hunt with its Special Prosecutor is a replica of
Stalin processes. As Marx used to say history repeats, first as tragedy, second as farce.
"I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the
British Empire," said Winston Churchill. and this is the essence of Trump betrual of his
election promises.
Notable quotes:
"... Is it now the turn of the Americans? Persuaded by his generals -- Mattis at Defense, McMasters on the National Security Council, Kelly as chief of staff -- President Trump is sending some 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to augment the 8,500 already there. Like Presidents Obama and Bush, he does not intend to preside over a U.S. defeat in its longest war. Nor do his generals. Yet how can we defeat the Taliban with 13,000 troops when we failed to do so with the 100,000 Obama sent? The new troops are to train the Afghan army to take over the war, to continue eradicating the terrorist elements like ISIS, and to prevent Kabul and other cities from falling to a Taliban now dominant in 40 percent of the country. ..."
"... Writes Bob Merry in the fall issue of The National interest: "War between Russia and the West seems nearly inevitable. No self-respecting nation facing inexorable encirclement by an alliance of hostile neighbors can allow such pressures and forces to continue indefinitely. Eventually (Russia) must protect its interests through military action." ..."
"... Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war that would set the Persian Gulf ablaze. ..."
"... Yet the country did not vote for confrontation or war. ..."
"... America voted for Trump's promise to improve ties with Russia, to make Europe shoulder more of the cost of its defense, to annihilate ISIS and extricate us from Mideast wars, to stay out of future wars. ..."
"... This agenda did exist and Trump used it to get elected. Once he pulled off that trick he tried to get together again (unsuccessfully) with his New York Plutocrat friends. It's that New York social background. It's always been difficult to see Trump fit together economically or socially with the America that elected him, and after he got elected he quickly weakened his ties with Middle America. So why should he complain about Fake News since he got elected on a Fake Agenda? ..."
"... Trump does not even remember what he was elected to do. A man who was determined to drain the swamp is deep, up to his neck, in that swamp. The neocons and the never-Trumpers are the main decision makers in the Trump administration. All the loyal supporters have been chased out of the Trump's inner circle. A man who built his empire with his brain and shrewdness can't seem to handle the Presidency. He is trying to appease the very same people who opposed him in the election. ..."
"... For a smart businessman, Donald Trump can't seem to make any friends. There is a very simple solution to these wars of choice. Mr. Trump swallow your pride and bring the boys home. You will save American lives and will also earn the gratitude of the families of these soldiers. You may even bring peace to many countries around the world and people who have been displaced by these wars can return home. You may even solve the refugee problem in the process. You might even save your presidency. Give peace a chance. ..."
"... I think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in the oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for him in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it won't be any consolation to some members of his base. ..."
"... Trump isn't going to keep his campaign promises. ..."
"... Continuing to maintain forces in South Korea continues to contribute to our bankruptcy. ..."
"... Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any campaign promises. ..."
"I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the
British Empire," said Winston Churchill to cheers at the Lord Mayor's luncheon in London in
November 1942. True to his word, the great man did not begin the liquidation. When his countrymen threw him out in July 1945, that role fell to Clement Attlee, who began
the liquidation. Churchill, during his second premiership from 1951-1955, would continue the
process, as would his successor, Harold Macmillan, until the greatest empire the world had ever
seen had vanished.
While its demise was inevitable, the death of the empire was hastened and made mo re
humiliating by the wars into which Churchill had helped to plunge Britain, wars that bled and
bankrupted his nation. At Yalta in 1945, Stalin and FDR treated the old imperialist with something approaching
bemused contempt. War is the health of the state, but the death of empires. The German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires all fell in World War I. World War
II ended the Japanese and Italian empires -- with the British and French following soon after.
The Soviet Empire collapsed in 1989. Afghanistan delivered the coup de grace.
Is it now the turn of the Americans? Persuaded by his generals -- Mattis at Defense, McMasters on the National Security Council,
Kelly as chief of staff -- President Trump is sending some 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan
to augment the 8,500 already there. Like Presidents Obama and Bush, he does not intend to preside over a U.S. defeat in its
longest war. Nor do his generals. Yet how can we defeat the Taliban with 13,000 troops when we
failed to do so with the 100,000 Obama sent? The new troops are to train the Afghan army to take over the war, to continue eradicating
the terrorist elements like ISIS, and to prevent Kabul and other cities from falling to a
Taliban now dominant in 40 percent of the country.
Yet what did the great general, whom Trump so admires, Douglas MacArthur, say of such a
strategy? "War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision." Is not "prolonged indecision" what the Trump strategy promises? Is not "prolonged
indecision" what the war policies of Obama and Bush produced in the last 17 years? Understandably, Americans feel they cannot walk away from this war. For there is the
certainty as to what will follow when we leave.
When the British left Delhi in 1947, millions of former subjects died during the partition
of the territory into Pakistan and India and the mutual slaughter of Muslims and Hindus. When the French departed Algeria in 1962, the "Harkis" they left behind paid the price of
being loyal to the Mother Country. When we abandoned our allies in South Vietnam, the result was mass murder in the streets,
concentration camps and hundreds of thousands of boat people in the South China Sea, a final
resting place for many. In Cambodia, it was a holocaust.
Trump, however, was elected to end America's involvement in Middle East wars. And if he has
been persuaded that he simply cannot liquidate these wars -- Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen,
Afghanistan -- he will likely end up sacrificing his presidency, trying to rescue the failures
of those who worked hardest to keep him out of the White House.
Consider the wars, active and potential, Trump faces.
Writes Bob Merry in the fall issue of The National interest: "War between Russia and the
West seems nearly inevitable. No self-respecting nation facing inexorable encirclement by an
alliance of hostile neighbors can allow such pressures and forces to continue indefinitely.
Eventually (Russia) must protect its interests through military action."
If Pyongyang tests another atom bomb or ICBM, some national security aides to Trump are not
ruling out preventive war.
Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead
inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war that
would set the Persian Gulf ablaze.
Yet the country did not vote for confrontation or war.
America voted for Trump's promise to improve ties with Russia, to make Europe shoulder
more of the cost of its defense, to annihilate ISIS and extricate us from Mideast wars, to stay
out of future wars.
America voted for economic nationalism and an end to the mammoth trade deficits with the
NAFTA nations, EU, Japan and China. America voted to halt the invasion across our Southern border and to reduce legal
immigration to
I think that the case of Korea is very different from all the others, but generally I
agree with Mr. Buchanan to the extent that I say: Pat Buchanan for President
Trump's populist-nationalist and America First agenda,
This agenda did exist and Trump used it to get elected. Once he pulled off that trick he
tried to get together again (unsuccessfully) with his New York Plutocrat friends. It's that New York social background. It's always been difficult to see Trump fit together
economically or socially with the America that elected him, and after he got elected he
quickly weakened his ties with Middle America. So why should he complain about Fake News since he got elected on a Fake Agenda?
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This quote is so
well-known that almost everyone knows it, except perhaps the politicians and the generals.
Afghanistan has been called the deathbed of empires. The two recent empires to go down are
the British and the Soviet. For almost 200 years the British tried to tame the Afghan tribes
but couldn't. The devastation they caused did not deter the natives. It is all there in the
history books for everyone to read. The Soviet empire didn't even last ten years. It cut its
losses and ran.
The lack of teaching of history and geography in American schools is quite evident when
one looks at the performance of American forces in Afghanistan after 17 years. Add the
arrogance of the Presidents and the generals to this lack of knowledge and one can understand
the disasterous results of the Afghan war. One other subject that is missing from the modern
presidency is diplomacy. War over diplomacy seems to be the order of the day.
Trump, however, was elected to end America's involvement in Middle East wars. And if he
has been persuaded that he simply cannot liquidate these wars -- Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen,
Afghanistan -- he will likely end up sacrificing his presidency, trying to rescue the
failures of those who worked hardest to keep him out of the White House.
Trump does not even remember what he was elected to do. A man who was determined to drain
the swamp is deep, up to his neck, in that swamp. The neocons and the never-Trumpers are the
main decision makers in the Trump administration. All the loyal supporters have been chased
out of the Trump's inner circle. A man who built his empire with his brain and shrewdness
can't seem to handle the Presidency. He is trying to appease the very same people who opposed
him in the election.
Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead
inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war
that would set the Persian Gulf ablaze.
It is never going to happen. Not only the Middle East would be set ablaze, but America
will lose its European allies as well. The relations with Russia are already confrontational
and heading fast towards an ultimate war. European allies are also confused about the US
foreign policy or lack thereof. Trade war is brewing with China. The only country which is
happy with this chaos is Israel.
For a smart businessman, Donald Trump can't seem to make any friends. There is a very
simple solution to these wars of choice. Mr. Trump swallow your pride and bring the boys
home. You will save American lives and will also earn the gratitude of the families of these
soldiers. You may even bring peace to many countries around the world and people who have
been displaced by these wars can return home. You may even solve the refugee problem in the
process. You might even save your presidency. Give peace a chance.
No one has ever been able to conquer Afghanistan why would America think it can? Likely
just throwing a bone to the neocons. As for Iran, Trump has been beating his chest all over
the World and doing nothing, again with the Neocon feeding, I don't think he has any intention
of getting into anything larger than a skirmish with anyone, he's a lot smarter than he looks
--
Well while Mr. Buchanan is not an expert in Balkans history, or politics, as I've argued
here, he is excellent in American history and politics. An article somewhat short, because he
is not connecting his sharp analysis to ongoing First Amendment disaster. It comes along,
obviously, but still an excellent piece.
To be copied and saved in my personal archives, anyway. I do not believe that even this site
will last long.
Greetings from Serbia, suicidal country controlled from that feudal fortress (US Embassy)
where our Scott-Pasha resides.
It was the eclipse that swept across America to change it forever.
We now know we are on our own, there is no political solution for this war.
The eclipse marks the end of a war, our war, we lost.
Trump extends Afghan swamp war on the very day.
Eclipse was conjunct Trumps Mars, he was castrated.
Doesn't mean we won't win, but it won't be via the rigged ballot box and the DC swamp.
I think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in
the oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for
him in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it
won't be any consolation to some members of his base.
Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by
a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while
Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any
campaign promises.
But if it prevents tens of thousands of knuckle dragging Afghans steeped in a culture of
violence, pedophilia and pederasty from entering America as refugees then I guess there's a
silver lining.
My original instinct was to pull out, and historically, I like following my instincts.
But all my life I've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk
in the Oval Office.
Trump isn't going to keep his campaign promises. That means he's not going to build a
beautiful wall on our southern border.
@KenH I
think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in the
oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for him
in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it
won't be any consolation to some members of his base.
Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by
a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while
Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any
campaign promises.
"... Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one. ..."
"... Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense. ..."
"... Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual. ..."
"... n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills. ..."
"... The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland. ..."
"... I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it. ..."
"... As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration. ..."
"... In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to know much about Bannon anyway. ..."
"... The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise. ..."
"... The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots. ..."
The announcement of the
'resignation' of White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon represents the culmination of a process which began with the equally
forced 'resignation' of President Trump's first National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn.
Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people
like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one.
Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican
conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands:
General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the
Secretary of Defense.
In the case of Bannon, it is his clear that his ousting was insisted on by General Kelly, who is
continuing to tighten
his control of the White House.
Bannon's removal – not coincidentally – has come at the same time that General H.R. McMaster is
completing his purge of
the remaining Flynn holdovers on the staff of the National Security Council.
Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior
official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual.
I n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be
no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than
rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated.
Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political
skills.
Bannon is sometimes credited as being the author of the President's two travel ban Executive Orders. I am sure this wrong. The
Executive Orders clearly originate with the wishes of the President himself. If Bannon did have any role in them – which is possible
– it would have been secondary to the President's own. I would add that in that case Bannon must take some of the blame for the disastrously
incompetent execution of the first of these two Executive Orders, which set the scene for the legal challenges that followed.
The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President
delivered during his recent trip to Poland.
I have already made known my views of this speech
. I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points,
and the President has derived no political benefit from it.
However it is the closest thing to an ideological statement the President has made since he took office, and Bannon is widely
believed – probably rightly – to have written it.
As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and
appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible
since the inauguration.
In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump
administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to
know much about Bannon anyway.
It is in a completely different respect – one wholly independent of President Trump's success or failure as President – that the
events of the last few weeks give cause for serious concern.
The events of the last year highlight the extent to which the US is in deep political crisis.
The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are
openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both
now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise.
All this is happening at the same time that there is growing criticism of the economic institutions of the US government, which
since the 2008 financial crisis have seemed to side with a wealthy and unprincipled minority against the interests of the majority.
The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure
of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots.
It is striking that the only officials President Trump can nominate to senior positions who do not immediately run into bitter
opposition have been – apart from General Flynn, who was a special case – senior soldiers.
Now the military in the persons of Kelly, McMaster and Mattis find themselves at the heart of the US government to an extent that
has never been true before in US history, even during the Presidencies of former military men like Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant
or Dwight Eisenhower.
The last time that happened in a major Western nation – that the civilian institutions of the state had become so dysfunctional
that the military as the only functioning institution left ended up dominating the nation's government and deciding the nation's
policies – was in Germany in the lead up to the First World War.
Time will show what the results will be this time, but the German example is hardly a reassuring one.
Bannon does not have a well defined economic policy. And he was a suspected leaker.
For a former military officer he also have pretty lose lips (which tend to sink ships) and penchant for self-promotion as we later
discovered from Wolff's book
Notable quotes:
"... Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired -- requested to resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/ ..."
"... US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity." ..."
"... We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow. ..."
"... Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera. ..."
"... Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality. ..."
"... The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes. ..."
"... Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times. ..."
Well, with Bannon gone who will have most influence over Trump now? Will the rest of the
Alt-Righters stay at the White House? Hhhmmm...
Meanwhile, while the MCM (mainstream corporate media) is unable to focus on more that one
or two things, Trump has signed an executive order which will have real work consequences as
sea levels rise. Under Obama, a rule was developed to require infrastructure projects to
consider the effects of global warming on flooding, effects of storms, etc. Now, developers
are free to build what and where they want, with no consideration for the possible damage
which might destroy those projects in the future.
Throw-away society on a grand --and expensive-- scale.
Presumably, Bannon's mouth (
American Prospect
interview) got him fired -- requested to
resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly
and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press
secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and
wish him the best.'"
https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/
When Trump got elected, I thought the best outcome would be total gridlock in DC; and
in some ways, that's what's occurred. Yet, as The Saker points out, something's afoot if the
propaganda published by Newsweek--which is owned by Bezos--is any indication.
It's Friday. The Syrian Army is making huge gains. Congress is in recess. And the
weather forecast for Monday's eclipse here on the Oregon coast is looking positive--no
fog!
Yeah jawbone, it's a good tool. I should've used it prior to my comment being grabbed by
the spambot. Al Gore's opined Trump should resign, indicating he favors Pence, which send s
what sort of message given the context Gore opined?
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/18/al-gore-has-just-one-small-bit-advice-trump-resign
As most barflys know, Pence is far worse on most things than Trump. Did Gore just out himself
as a previously closeted Neocon?
Mattis to back Kiev's claim to Crimea during Ukraine visit
US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government
in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon
said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's
sovereignty and territorial integrity."
@96, I view this as part of an effort to push back against anti Iran pro Israel hard liners.
First with Flynn, then McMaster forcing out Flynn allies, and now Bannon. Not that McMaster
and his people are not pro Israel or possess any redeeming qualities, but it is important to
understand that Bannon and those in his circle are NOT anti interventionists.
Thirdeye "The third eye is a mystical and esoteric concept of a speculative invisible eye
which provides perception beyond ordinary sight." Wikipedia ;)
This is a good read. Especially for Thirdeye blind.
Pardon Me!
High Crimes and Demeanors in the Age of Trump
By Tom Engelhardt
Let me try to get this straight: from the moment the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 until
recently just about every politician and mainstream pundit in America assured us that we were
the planet's indispensable nation, the only truly exceptional one on this small orb of
ours.
We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the
architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake
of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last
forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the
ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the
end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a
periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the
chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the
British in its shadow.
Who could doubt that this was now our world in a coming American century beyond
compare?
And then, of course, came the attacks of 9/11................ The rest below.
You couldnt be more wrong: Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the
other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also
why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera.
Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the
justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and
reality.
Nah...don't quite agree on this one.
The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't
forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily
what he believes.
Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated.
If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid
stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US
decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them.
But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's
crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times.
"... Expectations that Trump's ouster will restore normalcy ignore the very factors that first handed him the Republican nomination (with a slew of competitors wondering what hit them) and then put him in the Oval Office (with a vastly more seasoned and disciplined, if uninspiring, opponent left to bemoan the injustice of it all). ..."
"... Not all, but many of Trump's supporters voted for him for the same reason that people buy lottery tickets: Why not? In their estimation, they had little to lose. Their loathing of the status quo is such that they may well stick with Trump even as it becomes increasingly obvious that his promise of salvation -- an America made "great again" -- is not going to materialize. ..."
"... Yet those who imagine that Trump's removal will put things right are likewise deluding themselves. To persist in thinking that he defines the problem is to commit an error of the first order. Trump is not cause, but consequence. ..."
"... the election of 2016 constituted a de facto referendum on the course of recent American history. That referendum rendered a definitive judgment: the underlying consensus informing U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War has collapsed. Precepts that members of the policy elite have long treated as self-evident no longer command the backing or assent of the American people. Put simply: it's the ideas, stupid. ..."
"... "Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?" As the long twilight struggle was finally winding down, Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, novelist John Updike's late-twentieth-century Everyman , pondered that question. ..."
"... Unfettered neoliberalism plus the unencumbered self plus unabashed American assertiveness: these defined the elements of the post-Cold-War consensus that formed during the first half of the 1990s -- plus what enthusiasts called the information revolution. The miracle of that "revolution," gathering momentum just as the Soviet Union was going down for the count, provided the secret sauce that infused the emerging consensus with a sense of historical inevitability. ..."
"... The three presidents of the post-Cold-War era -- Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- put these several propositions to the test. Politics-as-theater requires us to pretend that our 42nd, 43rd, and 44th presidents differed in fundamental ways. In practice, however, their similarities greatly outweighed any of those differences. Taken together, the administrations over which they presided collaborated in pursuing a common agenda, each intent on proving that the post-Cold-War consensus could work in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. ..."
"... To be fair, it did work for some. "Globalization" made some people very rich indeed. In doing so, however, it greatly exacerbated inequality , while doing nothing to alleviate the condition of the American working class and underclass. ..."
"... I never liked Obama, but I don't think he has personal animus against Russia, Syria, Iran, Libya, or Palestinians. But given who was looking over his shoulder, he had to make things difficult for those nations, and that is why leaders of those nations and Obama came to hate one another. As for North Korea, much of the tensions wouldn't exist if US hadn't threatened or invaded 'axis of evil' nations and forced S. Korea to carry out joint exercises to prepare for invasion. ..."
"... Same with Trump. I seriously doubt if Trump has personal animus against Syrians, Russians, Iranians, Palestinians, and etc. But who is looking over his shoulder? So, he has to hate the same people that Obama had to hate. ..."
If we have, as innumerable commentators assert, embarked upon the Age of Trump, the defining feature
of that age might well be the single-minded determination of those horrified and intent on ensuring
its prompt termination. In 2016, TIME magazine chose Trump as its
person of the year
. In 2017, when it comes to dominating the news, that "person" might turn out to be a group -- all
those fixated on cleansing the White House of Trump's defiling presence.
Egged on and abetted in every way by Trump himself, the anti-Trump resistance has made itself
the Big Story. Lies, hate, collusion, conspiracy, fascism: rarely has the everyday vocabulary of
American politics been as ominous and forbidding as over the past six months. Take resistance rhetoric
at face value and you might conclude that Donald Trump is indeed the fifth horseman of
the Apocalypse
, his presence in the presidential saddle eclipsing all other concerns. Pestilence, War, Famine,
and Death will just have to wait.
The unspoken assumption of those most determined to banish him from public life appears to be
this: once he's gone, history will be returned to its intended path, humankind will breathe a collective
sigh of relief, and all will be well again. Yet such an assumption strikes me as remarkably wrongheaded -- and not merely because, should Trump prematurely depart from office, Mike Pence will succeed him.
Expectations that Trump's ouster will restore normalcy ignore the very factors that first handed
him the Republican nomination (with a slew of competitors wondering what hit them) and then put him
in the Oval Office (with a vastly more seasoned and disciplined, if uninspiring, opponent left to
bemoan the injustice of it all).
Not all, but many of Trump's supporters voted for him for the same reason that people buy
lottery tickets: Why not? In their estimation, they had little to lose. Their loathing of the status
quo is such that they may well stick with Trump even as it becomes increasingly obvious that his
promise of salvation -- an America made "great again" -- is not going to materialize.
Yet those who imagine that Trump's removal will put things right are likewise deluding themselves.
To persist in thinking that he defines the problem is to commit an error of the first order. Trump
is not cause, but consequence.
For too long, the cult of the presidency has provided an excuse for treating politics as a melodrama
staged at four-year intervals and centering on hopes of another Roosevelt or Kennedy or Reagan appearing
as the agent of American deliverance. Donald Trump's ascent to the office once inhabited by those
worthies should demolish such fantasies once and for all.
How is it that someone like Trump could become president in the first place? Blame sexism, Fox
News, James Comey, Russian meddling, and Hillary's failure to visit Wisconsin all you want, but a
more fundamental explanation is this: the election of 2016 constituted a de facto referendum
on the course of recent American history. That referendum rendered a definitive judgment: the underlying
consensus informing U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War has collapsed. Precepts that members
of the policy elite have long treated as self-evident no longer command the backing or assent of
the American people. Put simply: it's the ideas, stupid.
Rabbit Poses a Question
"Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?" As the long twilight struggle
was finally winding down, Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, novelist John Updike's late-twentieth-century
Everyman
, pondered that question. In short order, Rabbit got his answer. So, too, after only perfunctory
consultation, did his fellow citizens.
The passing of the Cold War offered cause for celebration. On that point all agreed. Yet, as it
turned out, it did not require reflection from the public at large. Policy elites professed to have
matters well in hand. The dawning era, they believed, summoned Americans not to think anew, but to
keep doing precisely what they were accustomed to doing, albeit without fretting further about Communist
takeovers or the risks of nuclear Armageddon. In a world where a "
single
superpower " was calling the shots, utopia was right around the corner. All that was needed was
for the United States to demonstrate the requisite confidence and resolve.
Three specific propositions made up the elite consensus that coalesced during the initial decade
of the post-Cold-War era. According to the first, the globalization of corporate capitalism held
the key to wealth creation on a hitherto unimaginable scale. According to the second, jettisoning
norms derived from Judeo-Christian religious traditions held the key to the further expansion of
personal freedom. According to the third, muscular global leadership exercised by the United States
held the key to promoting a stable and humane international order.
Unfettered neoliberalism plus the unencumbered self plus unabashed American assertiveness:
these defined the elements of the post-Cold-War consensus that formed during the first half of the
1990s -- plus what enthusiasts called the information revolution. The miracle of that "revolution,"
gathering momentum just as the Soviet Union was going down for the count, provided the secret sauce
that infused the emerging consensus with a sense of historical inevitability.
The Cold War itself had fostered notable improvements in computational speed and capacity, new
modes of communication, and techniques for storing, accessing, and manipulating information. Yet,
however impressive, such developments remained subsidiary to the larger East-West competition. Only
as the Cold War receded did they move from background to forefront. For true believers, information
technology came to serve a quasi-theological function, promising answers to life's ultimate questions.
Although God might be dead, Americans found in Bill Gates and Steve Jobs nerdy but compelling idols.
More immediately, in the eyes of the policy elite, the information revolution meshed with and
reinforced the policy consensus. For those focused on the political economy, it greased the wheels
of globalized capitalism, creating vast new opportunities for trade and investment. For those looking
to shed constraints on personal freedom, information promised empowerment, making identity itself
something to choose, discard, or modify. For members of the national security apparatus, the information
revolution seemed certain to endow the United States with seemingly unassailable military capabilities.
That these various enhancements would combine to improve the human condition was taken for granted;
that they would, in due course, align everybody -- from Afghans to Zimbabweans -- with American values
and the American way of life seemed more or less inevitable.
The three presidents of the post-Cold-War era -- Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- put these several propositions to the test. Politics-as-theater requires us to pretend that our
42nd, 43rd, and 44th presidents differed in fundamental ways. In practice, however, their similarities
greatly outweighed any of those differences. Taken together, the administrations over which they
presided collaborated in pursuing a common agenda, each intent on proving that the post-Cold-War
consensus could work in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
To be fair, it did work for some. "Globalization" made some people very rich indeed. In doing
so, however, it greatly
exacerbated inequality , while doing nothing to alleviate the condition of the American working
class and underclass.
The emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism improved the status of groups long subjected to
discrimination. Yet these advances have done remarkably little to reduce the alienation and despair
pervading a society suffering from epidemics of
chronic substance abuse ,
morbid obesity ,
teen suicide
, and similar afflictions. Throw in the world's
highest incarceration rate , a seemingly endless appetite for
porn
, urban school systems
mired in permanent crisis, and
mass shootings that occur with metronomic regularity, and what you have is something other than
the profile of a healthy society.
As for militarized American global leadership, it has indeed resulted in various bad actors meeting
richly deserved fates. Goodbye, Saddam. Good riddance, Osama. Yet it has also embroiled the United
States in a series of costly, senseless, unsuccessful, and ultimately counterproductive wars. As
for the vaunted information revolution, its impact has been
ambiguous
at best, even if those with eyeballs glued to their personal electronic devices can't tolerate being
offline long enough to assess the actual costs of being perpetually connected.
In November 2016, Americans who consider themselves ill served by the post-Cold-War consensus
signaled that they had had enough. Voters not persuaded that neoliberal economic policies, a culture
taking its
motto from the Outback steakhouse chain, and a national security strategy that employs the U.S.
military as a global police force were working to their benefit provided a crucial margin in the
election of Donald Trump.
The response of the political establishment to this extraordinary repudiation testifies to the
extent of its bankruptcy. The Republican Party still clings to the notion that reducing taxes, cutting
government red tape, restricting abortion, curbing immigration, prohibiting flag-burning, and increasing
military spending will alleviate all that ails the country. Meanwhile, to judge by the promises contained
in their recently unveiled (and
instantly forgotten ) program for a "Better Deal," Democrats believe that raising the minimum
wage, capping the cost of prescription drugs, and creating apprenticeship programs for the unemployed
will return their party to the good graces of the American electorate.
In both parties embarrassingly small-bore thinking prevails, with Republicans and Democrats equally
bereft of fresh ideas. Each party is led by aging hacks. Neither has devised an antidote to the crisis
in American politics signified by the nomination and election of Donald Trump.
First, abolish the Electoral College. Doing so will preclude any further occurrence of the
circumstances that twice in recent decades cast doubt on the outcome of national elections
and thereby did far more than any foreign interference to undermine the legitimacy of American
politics.
The November numbers indicate that for the time being without the Electoral College, California
and New York will elect our President well into the future.
If Bacevich had really balls, he would cut to the chase and say it like it is.
I think Trump the person doesn't want trouble with Iran, Syria, and Russia. He's a businessman
who wants to do business with the world while protecting US borders and sovereignty. Trump is
anti-Iran because of Jewish Lobby. His peace with Russia was destroyed by the Lobby and its purse-strings
and puppet-strings.
The undeniable fact of the US is it's not a democracy in terms of real power. It is a Jewish
Supremacist Oligarchy. To be sure, there are Jewish critics of Jewish power. Think of Philip Weiss
and others. Technically, US still has rule of law and due process. But in the end, the Power decides.
Look at the anti-BDS bill supported even by Republicans who make a big stink about liberty and
free speech.
California is said to be uber-'progressive', and many grassroots people there are supportive
of BDS. But California elites and whore politicians are anti-BDS and even passed laws against
it. What does that tell you?
Rule of Law is for little people. The Power has Rule of Rule. And if American People, along
with their politicians, seem to schizo, well, what does one expect? They get their info from J-Media
that feed that lies 24/7.
What is often called 'American' is processed mindset, like yellow American singles is bogus
processed 'cheese food'. Because handful of industries control all the media that beam same signals
to over 300 million TV sets in the US, 'Americanism' is processed mind-food. We need more organic
minds. Too many minds have been processed and re-processed by Great Mind Grinder of J-Media.
AB's 10 recommendations remind me of the beauty pageant contestant answering the question about
what she intended to do ."promote world peace".
Actually the beauty queen is being more sincere and realistic. AB's points are very nice sounding,
but he gives us no idea how realistically, he or anyone could achieve them and we are left with
the feeling that he is just grandstanding. Like the beauty queen, he knows that he will never
do much of anything concrete to further these goals, not even if his life or his son' life, depended
on it.
"Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?"
Well, Updike speaks from the position of a "universalist"? Did he ever consider that being
an American may not mean standing up for universal ideas, but simply caring for one's own children
and grandchildren? But even from a universalist position the answer seems simple now – not for
Bacevich, but for me. The United States are singled out and unique w.r.t. their First Amendment.
Whereas all other Western countries have succumbed to Bolshevist propaganda and have undermined
freedom of speech, the "Americans" are the only ones to stand up for it. Why, even Damore may
win a lawsuit against Google.
Whoops Colonel, you forgot to add slashing military spending to your list. The USA could cut
its military budget in half and still spend more than Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China combined.
Trump's insane push for more military spending undermines his effort at cutting domestic programs
to balance the budget. Yet Jimmy Dore explains that most Democrats voted boost the military budget
even more than Trump!
It is unfair to depict Trump as a bumpkin. He graduated from an excellent university and used
a few million dollars from Dad's seed money to become a billionaire. Moreover, he defied all odds
to become President of the USA. I challenge all his brilliant critics to run for President in
2020 to prove that is simple.
@Robert Magill The US Constitution would have to be amended to eliminate the Electoral College
by 3/4 of the states ratifying the amendment. The smaller states would never vote to eliminate
their role in electing the president. Nor should they. My respect for Bacevich is waning.
As for militarized American global leadership, it has indeed resulted in various bad actors
meeting richly deserved fates. Goodbye, Saddam. Good riddance, Osama.
Goodbye Saddam?? The implication being that all the death and destruction was somehow worth
it?? You scum, of the most evil *beep* nation on earth! A pox on all of you.
"First, abolish the Electoral College. Doing so will preclude any further occurrence of
the circumstances that twice in recent decades cast doubt on the outcome of national elections
and thereby did far more than any foreign interference to undermine the legitimacy of American
politics."
Yeah, let's trade the consensus of a nation of local communities for the tyranny of the (bi-coastal)
majority. I might give up the EC, however, if the system was replaced by gladiatorial combat to
the death for all who want the job, or, if we're sticking to a two-party system, the decision
can come by pistols at dawn (Good Morning America can't get the nod I hate that Roker chap, and
I don't think Megan Kelly should be anywhere near selection of a President). Real skin in the
game, so to say.
Yeah, bring back the draft. Military service only. We won't end senseless wars unless many
more of our young people actually experience them, and that's not going to happen if they are
picking up litter or emptying bed pans.
More money for public education? We've been doing that for years dude, and we get worse results
as we spend more. There's already too much money in public education. College for all is a mistake,
and in gen snowflake, tell me who isn't deserving. How about serious testing for results and beating
for those who do not achieve them?
Income equality sounds nice, but it's never been had anywhere by taxation. It takes a certain
societal moderation and modesty requiring our ruling elites to not want to be so conspicuous in
their consumption (this in the age of the Rich Kids of Instagram) and to share the wealth through
employment and good wages to their fellow citizens. Good luck with that ever gracing our shores.
Stop yakking about the pseudoscience nay the religion of climate change. Plant some more trees
and take a couple aspirin. Add the costs of global wars for resources to the cost of gas, which
will spike it to $6 per gallon and dissuade a lot of unnecessary driving.
Require all candidates for Federal elective office to be physically neutered, and forbid any
of their progeny for at least three generations as well as any immediate relations closer than
fourth cousin from holding any position of honor, elective office, or Federal employment whatsoever.
Trump or no Trump, things would be much saner without Jewish globalist pressure.
I never liked Obama, but I don't think he has personal animus against Russia, Syria, Iran,
Libya, or Palestinians. But given who was looking over his shoulder, he had to make things difficult
for those nations, and that is why leaders of those nations and Obama came to hate one another.
As for North Korea, much of the tensions wouldn't exist if US hadn't threatened or invaded 'axis
of evil' nations and forced S. Korea to carry out joint exercises to prepare for invasion.
Same with Trump. I seriously doubt if Trump has personal animus against Syrians, Russians,
Iranians, Palestinians, and etc. But who is looking over his shoulder? So, he has to hate the
same people that Obama had to hate.
In the US, politicians must hate according to Jewish neurosis. And that's the problem. We don't
have autonomy of likes and dislikes. Like dogs, we have to like or hate what our master likes
or hates. And Jewish Globalists are elites. The great evil of America is we are forced to HATE
whatever Jewish globalists Hate. It is a culture of Hate. Ironically, the biggest haters accuse
others of hate.
Most of Mr. Bacevich's piece was quite good. Then we got to the Ten-Point Program. A bold,
revolutionary program calling for more of how we got here. What the hell?
@LarryS The US Constitution would have to be amended to eliminate the Electoral College by
3/4 of the states ratifying the amendment. The smaller states would never vote to eliminate their
role in electing the president. Nor should they. My respect for Bacevich is waning. Yes, it is
interesting how smaller states in federations show that they understand and will hold on to their
leverage even when , as in Australia, the people themselves vote on constitutional change.
But why would eliminating the Electoral College allow presidentlal elections to be decided
by the popular vote in California and NY as someone suggested? Aren't the number of electoral
college votes adjusted quite promptly in proportion to population changes?
Here's an anti Imperial Presidency policy for the author to consider and perhaps endorse .
1. Move towards the constitutiobal monarchy or limited presidency parliamentary model by strengthening
the H of R and relying on ordinary human ambition to forward the project;
2. Specifically extend Congressional terms from 2 years to 4 (and perhaps provide lots of public
financing and free publicity to diminish thevcorruption by donors)
3. Enhance the role of Majority leader – indeed facilitate his forming his own Cabinet – and
restrict the amending of budget bills submitted (as the main ones would have to be) by the leader
of the majority – or his nominated Finance spokesperson..
@Wizard of Oz To some extent, but since each state has at least one Representative and two
Senators, there is a bias toward political geography that is difficult to overcome by population.
This is a good thing.
@Wizard of Oz Sorry, should have connected the dots each state's Electors total the same as
their Congressional delegations in House and Senate, and House is capped at 435.
@Wizard of Oz Only with respect to the EC votes corresponding to the number of House Representatives.
From Wikipedia:
"Each state chooses electors, totaling in number to that state's combined total of senators
and representatives."
Each state – irrespective of population – has two senators, so this protects citizens of less
populous states from those in, e.g., California. Part of the Constitutional bargain that makes
for a republic as opposed to a national democracy.
@The Alarmist Sorry, should have connected the dots ... each state's Electors total the same
as their Congressional delegations in House and Senate, and House is capped at 435. Yes, the effect
of adding in the senators is substantial. The two biggest (Democrat) states add just 4 out of
543 to their basic Congressional weighting while the 48 other states add 96/543. Thus 17.6 per
cent against just an extra 0.7 per cent.
Not even Texas would think of supporting the abolition of the Electoral College. A pity yhe excellent
author should be so sloppy as not at least to acknowledge which items on his wish list are pure
fantasy.
"Nominally, the Constitution assigns responsibilities and allocates prerogatives to three co-equal
branches of government."
Oh, dear, I do get tired of this meme.
No, the Constitution does not create "three co-equal branches of government," no matter how
often the phrase is repeated.
The Constitution establishes a legislative branch that, whenever it is sufficiently united
and desirous, has absolute power over the other two branches.
The Congress can remove any member of the other two branches from office, among other powers,
but the countervailing power of the other two branches over Congress, at least per the Constitution,
is very limited indeed.
In most republics and constitutional monarchies, the executive branch has a number of ways
to influence the legisilature, including calling new elections when desired. Our Constitution
has none of that.
Under the Constitution, the Congress is not co-equal. Its supreme.
@gustafus " as we import more and more of the LOW IQ 3rd world – education will be more about
the reasons we don't boink our children siblings and cousins"
Nahh, that would be imposing our Eurocentric values on their vibrant cultures.
@Robert Magill Any citizen of the USA and/or student of its history who writes in the same
essay both that he is a conservative and that he favors abolishing the Electoral College is either
a fool, an unprincipled knave, or most likely both.
@Robert Magill I came in to make the same point and will add that it would be effectively
only two metropolitan areas–LA and NYC.
Whoever would control those cities politically would control the nation politically, economically,
and socially the way Chicago's elites control much of Wisconsin (to use an example recently discussed
at iSteve).
The republic would be ripe for division into two coastal demesnes vying with each other for
power, resources, and serfs (both in the coastal hives and the "flyover states").
What is undermining the legitimacy of American politics isn't the United States Constitution.
It is the countless billions of dollars spend on election campaigning each year. That includes
all corollary expenditures, as on media buys and polling.
Not the kind of polling that involves voting. The kind of polling that Nate Silver does.
Election campaigns engineer infiltration of the public culture at every level–federal, state,
county, municipal, and local–by divisive discourse and methods. These originally were developed
so that merchants could differentiate and sell to the masses soap and junk food brands. Not even
the commodities themselves–but brands of them.
Political campaigning rolls up the worst elements of advertising, PR, propaganda, and opinion
research into one unending tsunami of hostility, division, manufactured conflict, false equivalencies,
forced choices, and sneering tearing-down of what others believe, want, or have built.
The people who create political campaigns for a living–with all the corollary products that
go with that, including the candidate himself/herself–are, like the people who communicate those,
among the biggest parasites in the republic. They literally create positions, opinions, and ideas,
then go out and create the demand for them by whatever means it takes. They produce nothing of
value. They siphon off value and resources and set the conditions where by organic excellence
is drowned in a sea of mass communications.
If the Electoral College were demolished tomorrow, they would have even more unfettered access
to more billions of dollars as Candidate Cool Ranch Dorito vied for an influential and lucrative
sinecure with Candidate Salty Crunchy Triangular Fried Corn Thing.
And thanks to Citizens United, money is free speech, and free speech means carefully
selected, constructed, massaged, spun, and polled speech.
Keeping the campaign-media-finance industrial complex operating is all that matters to these
people. Sounds like Bacevich is one of them. Members of the Pontificating Caste usually are. The
Constitution is a barrier to their aspirations.
The author did a decent job of describing the zeitgeist. But his list of 10 big government
solutions is a riot! The solution is a return to human liberty and acceptance of the reality that
all politics that matter to people is local. But our owners don't like local, they like global,
they like universal, they claim to be supporters of diversity but their diversity if they have
their way looks exactly the same everywhere you go – wow, how diverse. You can be in any major
metropolitan area in the US these days and you find it has the same chain store signage dominating
the landscape, the same stories in the newspapers, the same ideological megaphones spouting (((their)))
doctrines to the masses, the same conformity of expressed opinions (don't say what you really
think if you want to keep your job at xyz corp), the same. And unbeknownst to most Americans who
are quick to thank servicemen for "their service", their actual service is that when are elites
have finally won the entire world will be indistinguishable like US metropolitan areas are today.
There is not a big government solution to these issues, big xxx is the problem. The real question
at least in my mind is if our owners would allow pockets of American style, liberty based pockets
to emerge?
If we could find responsible enough men to do it, we could take back monetary sovereignty from
the federal reserve and start a Bank of America. We have our politicians beginning to sell off
the commons (highways for example) to investors. We can fund that by letting some money creation
occur by being earned into existence rather than loaned into existence. This is explicitly disallowed
in the FEDs charter, and it is not for certain we can find men responsible enough to handle this
task without problems nor is it certain that global finance would not retaliate. But we have a
lot of infrastructure that needs upgrading and maintenance. This would allow some level of exodus
from the metros back to Mayberry if there were jobs. We need a small effective government that
has a long term plan of how we are going to maintain our infrastructure. Presently the elected
children in Washington, short sighted immature bunch they are, put construction money for bridges
in the back of bills recognizing a particular day as "insert bullshit day here day" to make their
fellow child go along with the pork they put is some other garbage bill. This is an awful way
to run a country and the chickens have come home and are roosting. Let the metros continue their
present course of forced conformity via peer shaming and propaganda.
Alarm bells going off in the night? How about Bill Clinton? Robert Dole? Al Gore? George W
Bush? How about the stupendously unqualified mirage of Presidential gravitas, Barrack Obama? his
opponents, the snarling ignoramus from Arizona, John McCain? the leaden corporatist Mitt Romney.
Perhaps we are to understand these names that the Colonel leaves unmentioned as constituting the
"slouching:" But the reason we have arrived at Mar-a-Lago is that the terminally corrupt Democratic
Party chose as their candidate the terminally corrupt, stupendously unqualified former President's
wife. The foresight of our founding Father's saved us from that miserable fate, thank you US Constitution.
But lest we become too nostalgic for a time when our co-equal legislative branch had members who
could assert themselves against the stooge of the moment who the people had installed in the White
House, let us take a moment to ponder the stupendous stupidity of our current body that just recently,
with near unanimity, chose to lump Russia in with Iran and North Korea on its sanctions bill while
producing no evidence of any kind to justify its measure.
@Wizard of Oz Quite right. Though the whole thing started when the "real" job of the congressman
became re-election. Once that was internalized, the rest was pretty much inevitable. As long as
the government is heavily involved with businesses, determining not only their profit rate but
perhaps whether they even survive, they will continue efforts to influence government decisions.
Limiting contribution's primary effect, I suspect, would be to drive the influence-buying underground.
The solution, of course, is to get the government out of business and indeed everything else
to the extent possible.
"... This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power. Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the needless carnage. ..."
"... Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: ..."
"... Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency. ..."
"... The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing. We didn't vote for this. ..."
"... Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed. ..."
"... Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working. We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal. ..."
"... In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful. Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate in the foreign policy establishment. ..."
"... And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say, "Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite? ..."
"... Where is a Trumpian counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the NSC staffers. ..."
"... I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that will change. ..."
"... The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. ..."
Rex Tillerson, formidably accomplished in global business, was nevertheless as much a neophyte
as his boss when it came to navigating the policy terrain of the D.C. swamp. As is well known, in
building his team he relied on those two neocon avatars, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, who had
originally promoted his own candidacy for secretary of state. But Rice had been a vocal part of the
neocon Never Trump coalition. Her anti-Trump pronouncements included: "Donald Trump should not be
president .He doesn't have the dignity and stature to be president." The Washington Post greeted
her 2017 book, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom , as "a repudiation of Trump's
America First worldview."
Thus it wasn't surprising that Rice would introduce Elliott Abrams to Tillerson as an ideal candidate
for State's No. 2 position. This would have placed a dyed-in-the-wool neocon hardliner at the very
top of the State Department's hierarchy and given him the power to hire and fire all undersecretaries
across the vast foreign policy empire. Rice, one of the architects of George W. Bush's failed policies
of regime change and nation building, would have consolidated a direct line of influence into the
highest reaches of the Trump foreign policy apparatus.
Not only was Abrams' entire career a refutation of Trump's America First foreign policy, but he
had spent the previous eighteen months publicly bashing Trump in harsh terms. Cleverly, however,
he had not signed either of the two Never Trump letters co-signed by most of the other neocon foreign
policy elite. Abrams almost got the nod, except for a last-minute intervention by Trump adviser Steve
Bannon, who was armed with every disparaging anti-Trump statement Abrams had made. Examples: "This
is a question of character. He is not fit to sit in the chair of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln
.his absolute unwillingness to learn anything about foreign policy .Hillary would be better on foreign
policy. I'm not going to vote for Trump ."
But Abrams' rejection was the exception. As a high profile globalist-interventionist he could
not easily hide his antipathy toward the Trump doctrine. Others, whose track records and private
comments were more easily obscured, were waived in by gatekeepers whose mission it was (and remains)
to populate State, DoD, and national security agencies with establishment and neocon cadres, not
with proven Trump supporters and adherents to his foreign policy.
But how did the gatekeepers get in? Romney may have disappeared from the headlines, but he never
left the sidelines. His chess pieces were already on the board, occupying key squares and prepared
to move.
Once the president opened the door to RNC chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, to Rex
Tillerson at State, to James Mattis as defense secretary, and to H. R. McMaster at NSC, the neocons
just walked in. While each of these political and military luminaries may publicly support the president's
policies and in some instances may sincerely want to see them implemented, their entire careers have
been spent within the establishment and neocon elite. They don't know any other world view or any
other people.
Donald Trump ran on an America First foreign policy, repeatedly deriding George W. Bush for invading
Iraq in 2003. He criticized Clinton and Obama for their military interventions in Libya and their
support for regime change in Syria. He questioned the point of the endless Afghan war. He criticized
the Beltway's hostile obsession with Russia while it ignored China's military buildup and economic
threat to America.
Throughout the campaign Trump made abundantly clear his foreign policy ethos. If elected he would
stop the policy of perpetual war, strengthen America's military, take care of U.S. veterans, focus
particularly on annihilating the ISIS caliphate, protect the homeland from Islamist radicalism, and
promote a carefully calibrated America First policy.
But, despite this clear record, according to Politico and other Beltway journals, the president
has been entreated in numerous White House and Pentagon meetings to sign off on globalist foreign
policy goals, including escalating commitments to the war in Afghanistan. These presentations, conducted
by H.R. McMaster and others, were basically arguments to continue the global status quo; in other
words, a foreign policy that Clinton would have embraced. Brian Hook and Nadia Schadlow were two
of the lesser known policy wonks who participated in these meetings, determining vital issues of
war and peace.
Brian Hook, head of State Department policy planning, is an astute operative and member in good
standing of the neocon elite. He's also a onetime foreign policy adviser to Romney and remains in
close touch with him. Hook was one of the founders, along with Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman, of the
anti-Trump John Hay Initiative. Hook organized one of the Never Trump letters during the campaign,
and his views are well-known, in part through a May 2016 piece by Julia Hoffe in Politico Magazine.
A passage: "My wife said, 'never,'" said Brian Hook, looking pained and slicing the air with a long,
pale hand. .Even if you say you support him as the nominee," Hook says, "you go down the list of
his positions and you see you disagree on every one."
One might wonder how a man such as Hook could become the director of policy planning and a senior
adviser to Rex Tillerson, advising on all key foreign policy issues? The answer is: the Romney network.
Consider also the case of Margaret Peterlin, assigned as a Sherpa during the transition to guide
Tillerson through the confirmation process. Another experienced Beltway insider, Peterlin promptly
made herself indispensable to Tillerson and blocked anyone who wanted access to him, no matter how
senior. Peterlin then brought Brian Hook onboard, a buddy from their Romney days, to serve as the
brains for foreign policy while she was serving as the Gorgon-eyed chief of staff.
According to rumor, the two are now blocking White House personnel picks, particularly Trump loyalists,
from appointments at State. At the same time, they are bringing aboard neocons such as Kurt Volker,
executive director of the McCain Institute and notorious Russia hawk, and Wess Mitchell, president
of the neocon Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). As special representative for Ukraine negotiations,
Volker is making proclamations to inflame the conflict and further entangle the United States.
Meanwhile, Mitchell, another Romney alumnus and a Brian Hook buddy from the John Hay Initiative,
has been nominated as assistant secretary of state for European and Erurasian affairs. Brace yourself
for an unnecessary Cold War with Russia, if not a hot one. While Americans may not really care whether
ethnic Russians or ethnic Ukrainians dominate the Donbass, these guys do.
Then there's Nadia Schadlow, another prominent operative with impeccable neocon credentials. She
was the senior program officer at the Smith Richardson Foundation, where her main job was to underwrite
the neocon project by offering grants to the many think tanks in their network. For the better part
of a decade she pursued a PhD under the tutelage of Eliot Cohen, who has pronounced himself a "Never
Trumper" and has questioned the president's mental health. Cohen, along with H.R. McMaster, provided
editorial guidance to Schadlow for her book extolling nation-building and how we can do more of it.
Relationships beget jobs, which is how Schadlow became deputy assistant to the president, with
the task, given by her boss H.R. McMaster, of writing the administration's National Security Strategy.
Thus do we have a neocon stalwart who wrote the book on nation building now writing President Trump's
national security strategy.
How, we might ask, did these Never Trump activists get into such high positions in the Trump administration?
And what was their agenda at such important meetings with the President if not to thwart his America
First agenda? Put another way, how did Trump get saddled with nearly Mitt Romney's entire foreign
policy staff? After all, the American people did not elect Mitt Romney when they had the chance.
Trump is a smart guy. So is Barack Obama. But even Obama, Nobel Peace Prize in hand, could not
prevent the inexorable slide to violent regime change in Libya, which resulted in a semi-failed state,
tens of thousands killed, and a foothold for Al Queda and other radical Islamists in the Maghreb.
He also could not prevent the arming of Islamist rebels in Syria after he had the CIA provide lethal
arms strictly to "moderate rebels." Unable or unwilling to disengage from Afghanistan, Obama acquiesced
in a series of Pentagon strategies with fluctuating troop levels before bequeathing to his successor
an open ended, unresolved war.
Rumors floating through official Washington suggest the neocons now want to replace Tillerson
at State with Trump critic and Neocon darling Nikki Haley, currently pursuing a one-person bellicose
foreign policy from her exalted post at the United Nations. Not surprisingly, Haley and Romney go
way back. As a firm neocon partisan, she
endorsed his presidential bid in 2011 .
As UN ambassador, Haley has articulated a nearly incoherent jumble of statements that seem more
in line with her own neocon worldview than with Trump's America First policies. Some samples:
"I think that, you know, Russia is full of themselves. They've always been full of themselves.
But that's – its more of a façade that they try and show as opposed to anything else."
"What we are is serious. And you see us in action, so its not in personas. Its in actions and
its what we do."
"The United States calls for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a
part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over
the peninsula to Ukraine."
One must ask: Is Ambassador Haley speaking on behalf of the Trump administration when she says
it is official U.S. policy that Russia, having annexed Crimea, must return it to Ukraine? Is the
Russo-American geopolitical relationship to be held hostage indefinitely because in 2014 the people
of Crimea voted for their political reintegration into Russia, which they had been part of since
1776?
Since there is as much chance of Russia ceding Crimea back to Ukraine as there is of the United
States ceding Texas back to Mexico, does this mean there is no possibility of any meaningful cooperation
with Russia on anything else? Not even in fighting the common ominous threat from Islamist radicalism?
Has Haley committed the American people to this dead-end policy on her own or in consultation with
the President?
On July 14, the Washington Examiner wrote that "Haley's remarks set the tone for Trump's
reversal from the less interventionist, 'America First' foreign policy he campaigned on." Little
wonder, then, that in a little-noticed victory lap of her own, coinciding with the release of her
book, Condoleezza Rice acknowledged the near complete takeover of Trump's foreign policy team. "The
current national security team is terrific," she said. She even gave Trump her anointed blessing
following their recent White House meeting, during which the septuagenarian schoolboy received the
schoolmarm's pat on the head: " He was engaging," she said. "I found him on top of his brief .asking
really good questions." That's a far cry from her campaign-season comment about Trump that he "doesn't
have the dignity and stature to be president."
American foreign policy seems to be on auto-pilot, immune to elections and impervious to the will
of the people. It is perpetuated by an entrenched contingent of neocon and establishment zealots
and bureaucratic drones in both the public and private sector, whose careers, livelihoods, and very
raison d'etre depend on an unchallenged policy of military confrontation with the prestige,
power, and cash flow it generates. Those who play the game by establishment rules are waived in.
Those who would challenge the status quo are kept out. This is the so-called Deep State, thwarting
the will of President Trump and the people who voted for him.
This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power.
Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede
in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will
return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base
in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the
needless carnage.
Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: Gettysburg, Gods and
Generals, Copperhead.
This is all very convincing, but the point remains: Trump won and is the one responsible for allowing
all these neocons through the door. Had Pat Buchanan won the nomination and the Presidency back
in the nineties, does anyone believe he would make the same blunders, and not be equipped to find
the right traditional conservatives instead of the establishment DC neocons that try and swamp
every GOP Administration now since Reagan? Trump is simply too naive and doesn't have any feel
for the political ideologies of all of these people, being not much of a political animal himself.
And replacing Priebus with General Kelly isn't likely to change all that. He should be talking
to Ann Coulter and Buchanan as unofficial advisers or something.
Interesting argument, though you ignore other factors besides the conspiratorial-sounding "Romney
network" that account for American interventionist neo-conservatives finding their way back into
power: 1) that they are by far the largest group of people available to staff the government because
of a) the dominance of aggressive liberal internationalism over more restrained realism in graduate
schools which educate these foreign policy specialists; b) an inherent bias of these specialists
not to admit that America cannot influence world events (that would be like a social worker who
didn't believe s/he could usually mediate conflicts). Also, 2) Trump's alleged non-interventionist
beliefs are less well-formed than you imply, you just project on him what you wish to see; a)
you ignore his comments about taking the oil of other countries, an idea the neo-conservatives
had as a way to pay for operations in Iraq; and b) Beliefs closer to Trump's core: that others
not paying their fair share and that America is being taken advantage of, are not incompatible
with the American interventions you oppose.
You can't hijack an executive's policy unless the executive is either hopelessly weak or a faker.
Doesn't matter which.
The only good part is that the fake image of a somewhat less warlike "Trump", stirred up by
the media to destroy Trump, is actually DOING what a real non-interventionist Trump would have
done. EU is breaking away from US control, just as a real antiwar Trump would have ordered it
to do.
Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter
futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American
people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency.
It's good to see Ron Maxwell published in these pages. I watch Gettysburg at least once a year.
And don't think Virginians aren't grateful for Maxwell's role in helping put paid to Eric Cantor's
political career.
The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing.
We didn't vote for this. And we don't want it.
Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging
us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can
be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies
into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy
knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for
neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed.
Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working.
We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal.
"Trump is a smart guy" ..
??
If so; why does he not see this happening all around him? Except for his pompous, ignorant, hands-off
method of governing, that is . The Emperor has no clothes but doesn't seem to know, nor care that
he doesn't
Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security, Texas A&M at the American Conservative
Conference "Foreign Policy in America's Interest" (Nov 15 2016) said:
"In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making
American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful.
Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree
on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate
in the foreign policy establishment.
You see, debate is – basically goes from here to there [Dr. Layne puts his two index fingers
close together in front of his face], like from the 45-yard-line to the 45-yard-line. And why
does it stop there? Because people who try to go down towards the goal line have their union cards
taken away. They're kicked out of the establishment. They're not listened to. They're disrespected.
And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs
system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say,
"Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to
change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think
Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite?
Where is a Trumpian
counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary
and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the
NSC staffers.
I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who
are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign
policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that
will change.
Over time maybe a counter-elite will emerge. But in the short term I see very little prospect
for all the big changes that most of us are hoping to see, and so for me the challenge that we
face is really to find ways to develop this counter-elite than can staff an administration in
the future, that has at least what we think are the views that Donald Trump holds."
We're in a new period – a period of learning for President Trump and for those in the administration
who back his anti-establishment foreign policy view. And while it is true that (as Chris Layne
said) "in the short term I see very little prospect for all the big changes that most of us are
hoping to see," as we move into the medium and long term, many of us are hopeful that these big
Trumpian foreign policy changes can begin to be made.
A senior administration official familiar with the work of Nadia Schadlow, a national security
expert brought on to help draft the National Security Strategy, tells CR that she will attempt
to produce an NSS as "iconoclastic as our new commander in chief," adding, "the era of milquetoast
boilerplate is over."
The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. Neocons developed
their minds in the Cold war dealing with a western power, the USSR. The problem is that once one
enters the Middle East and Asia one is dealing with languages and cultures of which they [knew]
next to nothing. How many speak Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Urdu such that they understand every
nuance of what is said and unsaid?
When dealing with the arabs and many in Afghanistan everything is personnel and this can go
back 5 generations and includes hundreds if not thousands of people.
Trump has the common sense not to become involved in that he does not understand.
They come back in boxes while those who sent them to their deaths remain in the bags of the "America
Second" group which highjacked our Congress. It's no longer "God Bless America"; it's "God Help
America."
"... Everyone who has any hopes for Trump will be disappointed. He failed even to build a team to support his agenda and now he is basically all alone being drained. ..."
"... Basically I would love him to be American Gorbo-Yeltsin and considering USA top is as rotten to the core as Soviet was, I hope for similar results which would have been beneficial to the world. ..."
Everyone who has any hopes for Trump will be disappointed. He failed even to build a team to support his agenda and now
he is basically all alone being drained.
My only hope for his is being proverbial bull in china shop to ruin everything and expose USA for the whole world.
Basically I would love him to be American Gorbo-Yeltsin and considering USA top is as rotten to the core as Soviet was,
I hope for similar results which would have been beneficial to the world.
"... What you don't see in the above video is the Saudi-backed Hariri reacting/smirking when Trump was uttering the quote above (unfortunately, with my time restrictions, I only managed to find a static-camera vid of the event). ..."
While Hezbollah yesterday was literary burying its fallen fighters and simultaneously moving
fast towards victory over Al-Nusra terrorists in Arsal/Lebanon, Trump in DC, during a press
conference with visiting Lebanese PM, Hariri, said: "Hezbollah is a menace to the Lebanese
state, the Lebanese people and the entire region. The group continues to increase its
military arsenal which threatens to start yet another conflict with Israel. With the support
of Iran, the organization is also fueling humanitarian catastrophe in Syria."
What you don't see in the above video is the Saudi-backed Hariri reacting/smirking when
Trump was uttering the quote above (unfortunately, with my time restrictions, I only managed
to find a static-camera vid of the event).
Point is, the visual and context of the
Trump-Hariri statements did not quiet match the reality on the ground in Lebanon. Street
celebrations for the liberation of Arsal by Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army erupted yesterday
with plenty of fireworks and cheers throughout the Lebanonland.
Much praise was heaped on
Hezbollah by the eclectic Lebanese masses and media/social media for Hezbollah liberating yet
another chunk of Lebanon and killing/destroying copious numbers of wahabi terrorists.
Shia
Hezbollah was liberating Lebanese land and saving Lebanese Sunnis and Christians from wahabi
terrorists, while Trump, to Hariri's tickled delight, was calling Hezbollah a "menace to
Lebanon" before the media cameras of the world.
We're still living in the thick of political upsideownism.
And one more observation: it used to be that corruption in government was always rife and
the norm, with the rarest of rare occasion where 'treason' was involved. Nowadays, well, look
around and you will notice every other political now has become a shameless traitor too.
Corrupt traitors left and right and East and West - they're everywhere now - running the show
to the ground.
The administration of US President Donald Trump is run by Zionists and Qatar was singled out by the
White House in retaliation for refusing to engage in pro-Israeli policies, an investigative journalist
in Washington says.
"I certainly hope Secretary of State Rex Tillerson acts as an honest broker in trying to get the
Saudis and their Wahhabist friends in Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and their military dictator
friend in Egypt, general el-Sisi, to cease and desist with this economic blockade that they have
created for Qatar," said Wayne Madsen, an author and columnist specializing in intelligence and international
affairs.
The top US diplomat traveled to Qatar on Tuesday as part of his Persian Gulf tour to break the
five-week rift between Doha and several Arab states.
Tillerson will visit Saudi Arabia before leaving the Persian Gulf region on Thursday. He will
hold a meeting with the foreign ministers of the four countries involved in the dispute on Wednesday
in Riyadh.
Ahead of his Doha visit, Tillerson made a stop in Kuwait, which is still trying to mediate the
dispute.
The split among the Arab states erupted in May after Trump visited Saudi Arabia and then pointing
out that numerous Arab leaders had complained to him that Qatar is supporting terrorism.
"The issue is that President Trump, when he was visiting [Saudi Arabia] Trump went on to back
the Saudis in this unusual tirade that the Saudis are pushing that Qatar is financing terrorists,
when in fact there were no Qataris among the 9/11 hijackers, but there were Saudis among these hijackers,"
Madsen said during a phone interview with Press TV on Tuesday.
"So, I think what this boils down to is the fact that we now know that Trump's son in law, Jared
Kushner, tried to basically extort $500 million from Qatar to invest in his failed building in Manhattan,"
he added. "The Qataris turned him down and Jared Kushner, who is some sort of svengali over Trump,
this sort of vampire that shadows Trump at every move, was likely responsible for Trump siding with
the Saudis against Qatar because Qatar didn't fork over a half a billion dollars on Kushner's failed
real estate venture in Manhattan."
"This goes to show that with the Trump administration, with his ambassador to Israel [David] Friedman
and special envoy [Jason] Greenblatt and his other special envoy Jared Kushner, that this administration
is run by Zionists, for Zionists, for the interest of Israel and against the interest of any country
that refuses to engage in the criminal gangstarism of the Trump administration, and Qatar is actually
no different than many countries that have now been singled out for this type of retribution and
retaliation by the criminal gang that runs the White House. "
Trump means America first, after Israel , his money, his family, his lenders, and the evil eye
in London.
Howard Lewis 5 hours ago
I have found Wayne Madsen to be 1,000 times as cognizant of reality as Donald Trump and 10,000
times as cognizant as Killary Clinton or any other Bush criminal cabalist.
goldmorgs 22 hours ago
More exactly; talmudic pharisee, who obey the ruling bunch of talmudic finance pharisee goldmorgs
in New Yorkrael.
In the usa, uk, nl, since recent ukraine and france absolutely and to high extent also in germany
etc. the majority of the cabinet members, parliament members and CEO of the central banks, the
press, the tv-channels, the big computer and internet companies and the other large institutions
and companies are pharisee. Those pharisee obey and serve the goldmorgs instead of the people.
Two millenia ago Jesus has warned us with the temple cleansing and his death that the
finance pharisee must be removed and kept out of (finance) power and finance business.
Therefore the finance pharisee have instigated his execution.
J.J.'s_Zionist_Free_World > jsinton 20 hours ago
No, Alex Jones is a Joke, part of what they called the
"Controlled Opposition" in the Book "1984" by George Orwell. Where do you
live in Israel? Just Curious.
Ray at 17:49 the day before yesterday
Interesting article it's a shame that people continue in their brainwashed state and dispute
when it comes to support for Israel.
Chamberlain > john at 18:03 the day before yesterday
Of course, because lobbies being legal corruption flows through them with no judicial
problem.. And Zionist lobbies are the most economically powerful in US. This is how the so
called "capitalist democracy" works in its fullness. That is why many capitalist countries
that have not legalized lobbies, such as Brazil, for example, are at a dead-lock in their
political and electoral system.
This female lawyer probably can be characterized as anti-Russian lawyer. She is more probably MI6 asset then FSB asset ;-) (connection
with William F. Browder
).
But attempts to stir the pot of Purple Color Revolution ( aka Russiagate) will continue. Neocons are pretty tenacious.
Notable quotes:
"... That it was, yes, ethically promiscuous!but, worse, incredibly stupid. One recalls the line, often incorrectly attributed to Talleyrand, in response to a burgeoning scandal at the French court: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.'' ..."
"... But he didn't give up. At last week's G-20 Summit in Hamburg, in a long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump sought to get beyond the matter of Russia's U.S. political interference and take up other serious matters of mutual interest to the two countries, with a hope of easing tensions. It was an important development in a crucial area of U.S. foreign policy. Now the president is back on the defensive, his back to the wall, with his opponents positioned to immobilize him on his Russian policy. ..."
"... But, in terms of Trump's command of his policy toward Russia, it almost doesn't matter because the new revelations will constrict his range of action irrespective of what may lie behind them. The forces that have wanted to destroy the president, or at least destroy his ability to bring about a détente with Putin, are once again in the saddle. One has to wonder at, perhaps even marvel at, the timing in all this. ..."
During a post-dinner cigar session at his elegant Cleveland mansion, Hanna reported back to McKinley on the results of his mission.
Another participant recalled that the excited Hanna seemed "as keen as a razor blade.''
"Now, Major," said the political operative, addressing the governor by his Civil War title, "it's all over but the shouting. You
can get both New York and Pennsylvania, but there are certain conditions." He didn't show any discomfort with the conditions, but
McKinley was wary.
"What are they?" he asked. Hanna explained that Quay wanted control of all federal patronage in Pennsylvania, while others wanted
to dominate government jobs in New England and Maine. But Platt wanted a bigger prize!the job of secretary of the Treasury!and he
wanted a promise in writing.
McKinley stared ahead, puffing on his cigar. Then he rose from his chair, paced the room a few moments, and turned to Hanna.
"Mark," he said, "there are some things in this world that come too high. If I were to accept the nomination on those terms, the
place would be worth nothing to me, and less to the people. If those are the terms, I am out of it.''
Hanna was taken aback. "Not so fast," he protested, explaining that, while it would be "damned hard" to prevail over the powerful
bosses, who would surely not take kindly to a rebuff, Hanna thought it could be done and he welcomed the challenge. The men in the
room pondered the situation and came up with a slogan: "The People Against the Bosses.''
McKinley ultimately beat the bosses, stirring a Washington Post reporter to write that "the big three of the Republican
Party hoped to find McKinley as putty in their hands. When they failed, they vowed war on him." But now, said the reporter, their
war was sputtering. "And over in the Ohio city by the lake, one Mark Hanna is laughing in his sleeve.''
This little vignette from the mists of the political past comes to mind with the latest development in the ongoing saga involving
suspected Russian interference in last year's presidential campaign and the search for evidence that President Trump or his top campaign
officials "colluded" with Russians to influence the electoral outcome. Now it turns out that the president's son, Donald Jr., met
with a Russian lawyer, at the behest of a Russian friend, with an understanding beforehand that the lawyer could provide "official
documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and be very useful to your father."
For good measure, Donald Jr. took along his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, a top Trump adviser, and his father's campaign manager
at the time, Paul Manafort.
This is no small matter, and it is certain to roil the waters of the ongoing investigations. More significantly, it will roil
the political scene, contributing mightily to the deadlock crisis that has America in its grip. White House officials and Trump supporters
are defending young Trump with pronouncements that nothing was amiss here; every campaign collects dirt on opponents; nothing done
was against the law; we must get beyond these "gotcha" political witch hunts, etc., etc.
Meanwhile. Trump opponents see skulky tendencies, nefarious intent, moral turpitude, and likely illegality. Both sides are trotting
out criminal lawyers declaring, based on their prior political proclivities, that no laws were broken!or that laws were clearly broken.
The cable channels are crackling with competition over who can be more definitive and sanctimonious on the air!Lou Dobbs and Sean
Hannity at Fox in defending the president; or Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews in attacking him on MSNBC.
Meanwhile, the country will continue to struggle with the question of what all this Sturm und Drang actually means. What
to think? Whom to believe?
Let's stipulate, for purposes of analysis, that what we see is what there is, that what we know is not a harbinger of worse to
come. How should we assess what we know thus far? What should we make of that meeting with the Russian lawyer?
That it was, yes, ethically promiscuous!but, worse, incredibly stupid. One recalls the line, often incorrectly attributed
to Talleyrand, in response to a burgeoning scandal at the French court: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.''
Consider that, after months of investigation, with leaks all over the place from those conducting the probe, no serious evidence
emerged of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The collusion story was receding in the national consciousness,
and even in the Washington consciousness, with questions of "obstruction of justice" supplanting collusion as the more significant
avenue of inquiry. Now the question of collusion is once again in the air.
The fate of Donald Trump Jr. is a puny matter in the scheme of things, but the state of the union is a huge matter. And the young
man's stupidity of a year ago will have!indeed, is already having!a significant impact on the president's leadership. He campaigned
on a pledge to improve relations with Russia, with an implicit acknowledgment that the West was probably equally responsible, along
with Moscow, for the growing tensions between the two nations. He was right about that. Then came the evidence of Russian meddling
in the U.S. election and the allegations of collusion, and Trump's effort at improving relations was killed in the crib.
But he didn't give up. At last week's G-20 Summit in Hamburg, in a long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump
sought to get beyond the matter of Russia's U.S. political interference and take up other serious matters of mutual interest to the
two countries, with a hope of easing tensions. It was an important development in a crucial area of U.S. foreign policy. Now the
president is back on the defensive, his back to the wall, with his opponents positioned to immobilize him on his Russian policy.
Now let's set aside, for just a moment, the previous stipulation that what we see is all there is. It's possible, of course, that
this unfortunate meeting actually was part of a much bigger conspiracy that, if disclosed in full, could engulf the administration
in revelations of such magnitude as to bring down the president. It's possible, but not likely.
But, in terms of Trump's command of his policy toward Russia, it almost doesn't matter because the new revelations will constrict
his range of action irrespective of what may lie behind them. The forces that have wanted to destroy the president, or at least destroy
his ability to bring about a détente with Putin, are once again in the saddle. One has to wonder at, perhaps even marvel at, the
timing in all this.
Actions, even more than ideas, have consequences. That's what Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort ignored when they accepted an invitation
to meet with a Russian representative with "official documents" that could harm the candidacy of the Democratic contender.
And that's precisely what William McKinley had in mind when he said he wouldn't enter into unsavory bargains with the Eastern
bosses even if it meant giving up his presidential dream. Of course, McKinley was thinking in part about his own personal code of
conduct!his inability to live with a decision that was beneath his concept of rectitude. But note that he also invoked the American
people when he recoiled at the thought. He wouldn't take an action that he considered inconsistent with his duty to the electorate.
That was a long time ago!and a world away. Today we have the likes of the Trumps!and, for that matter, the Clintons, who leave
nearly everyone in their wake when it comes to moral and ethical laxity in matters of public policy. And so it must have seemed perfectly
normal for those three men, part of Donald Trump's inner circle of campaign confidantes, to accept the idea of sitting down with
someone from a foreign power and talk about how official documents from that power could help upend their opponent. Did Trump himself
know about all this as it was unfolding? We don't know, but probably. In any event, it probably wasn't a crime, but it was a hell
of a blunder.
... ... ...
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative.
His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , is due
out from Simon & Schuster in November.
"... As The Hill correctly pointed out, "Haley's description runs counter to the versions offered by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson , Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Trump himself ." ..."
"... But Hurricane Haley was not finished. She poured ice water on President Trump's agreement with President Putin to work together on cyber-security, telling CNN, "[w]e can't trust Russia, and we won't ever trust Russia. But you keep those that you don't trust closer so that you can always keep an eye on them and keep them in check." ..."
"... It is absolutely clear that hyper-neocon Nikki Haley has gone rogue and is actively undermining the foreign policy of her boss and President, Donald Trump. From her embarrassing, foaming-at-the-mouth tirades in the UN Security Council to this latest bizarre effort to sabotage President Trump's first attempt to fulfill his campaign pledge to find a way to get along better with Russia, President Trump's own Ambassador has become the biggest enemy of his foreign policy. ..."
Donald Trump came to the White House with a reputation as a top notch businessman. He built
an international real estate empire and is worth billions. He then went into reality
television, where his signature line as he dismissed incompetent potential employees was,
"you're fired!"
On Friday, President Trump held a long-awaited face-to-face meeting with his Russian
counterpart, Vladimir Putin. The meeting was scheduled to be a brief, 30 minute meet and greet,
but turned into a two-plus hour substantive session producing a ceasefire agreement for parts
of Syria and a plan to continue working together in the future. After the extended session,
which was cordial by all accounts, President Trump said the meeting was "tremendous."
President Trump indicated that the issue of Russian interference in the US elections came up
in conversation and that Putin vehemently denied it. It obviously was not a make or break issue
in the conversation. President Trump's latest statement on the issue is that "we don't know for
sure" who was behind any meddling.
Later on Friday, President Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson,
said
of the Syria agreement that, "I think this is our first indication of the U.S. and Russia being
able to work together in Syria."
On Sunday, President Trump
Tweeted
in praise of the
Syria ceasefire agreement, adding that, "now it is time to move forward in working
constructively with Russia!"
It suddenly appeared that the current reprise of a vintage 1950s US/Soviet face-off in
relations had turned the corner back to sanity. Perhaps we will be pulling back from the edge
of WWIII with thermonuclear weapons!
Then President Trump's Ambassador to the United Nations, the notorious neocon Nikki Haley,
showed up on the weekend talk shows.
To CNN's Dana Bash, she directly contradicted her boss, Donald Trump, and undermined his
official position regarding Russian involvement in the US election.
Said
Ambassador Haley of Trump's meeting with Putin:
One, he wanted to basically look him in the eye, let him know that, yes, we know you
meddled in our elections. Yes, we know you did it, cut it out. And I think President Putin
did exactly what we thought he would do, which is deny it. This is Russia trying to save
face. And they can't. They can't. Everybody knows that Russia meddled in our
elections.
But Hurricane Haley was not finished. She poured ice water on President Trump's
agreement with President Putin to work together on cyber-security, telling CNN, "[w]e can't
trust Russia, and we won't ever trust Russia. But you keep those that you don't trust closer so
that you can always keep an eye on them and keep them in check."
It is absolutely clear that hyper-neocon Nikki Haley has gone rogue and is actively
undermining the foreign policy of her boss and President, Donald Trump. From her embarrassing,
foaming-at-the-mouth tirades in the UN Security Council to this latest bizarre effort to
sabotage President Trump's first attempt to fulfill his campaign pledge to find a way to get
along better with Russia, President Trump's own Ambassador has become the biggest enemy of his
foreign policy.
Surely the President – who as an enormously successful businessman has hired and fired
thousands – can see the damage she is doing to his Administration by actively undermining
his foreign policy.
President Trump needs to reprise his signature television line. He needs to pick up the
phone, ask for Nikki, and shout "you're FIRED!" into the telephone.
"... He's threatened a preemptive strike against North Korea, considered a major escalation in Yemen, and turned loose his military commanders to bomb wherever, however, and with whatever they choose, weakening even further the already insufficient restrictions Obama had put in place to try to minimize civilian casualties. Deaths of civilians under both U.S. drones and conventional airstrikes have escalated. ..."
"... For those who thought that military restraint was part of Trumpian isolationism, think again. ..."
"... Not one of these actions was necessary. Not one will make people in this country -- let alone the Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, Somalis, or others -- any safer. Neither was any of these actions sanctioned by Congress: All violated the War Powers Act, and indeed the Constitution itself, which puts the power to declare war in the hands of the people's representatives. ..."
"... Furthermore, not one of them fulfilled the minimal United Nations Charter requirements for the legal use of military force -- either Security Council authorization or immediate self-defense. Thus they all violated international law. ..."
"... What we see in these attacks is not a strategy, but a new way of communicating raw power. ..."
"... Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism project at the Institute for Policy Studies. ..."
These
are awesome days for headline writers. So many global settings, such an abundance of weapons,
such a wealth of choices!
On the morning of April 14, the
New York Times
led with "A Giant U.S. Bomb Strikes
ISIS Caves in Afghanistan," matched by CNN's "US Drops 'Mother of All Bombs.'" The
Washington Post
chose Syria, where "Errant U.S. Strike Kills 18: Victims in Syria Were
Allied Forces." By mid-afternoon that same day, the Associated Press had shifted to the horn of
Africa, where the "U.S. Sends Dozens of Troops to Somalia, 1st Time in Decades."
And as the Friday rush hour began in Washington, Fox News opted to head to the north
Pacific, leading with an aircraft carrier: "The 'Powerful' USS Carl Vinson Steams Towards North
Korea."
A few days earlier the most popular choices were various versions of CNN's "U.S. Launches
Military Strike Against Syria." (That headline described something new only because the strike
officially targeted a Syrian government military site, while ignoring the not-so-new reality
that the U.S. has been attacking alleged ISIS targets in Syria with drones, bombing raids, and
special forces for almost three years.)
A couple of weeks before that, coverage of the Trump wars focused on a devastating U.S.
airstrike on Mosul, which a
Los Angeles Times
headline described as "One of the
Deadliest Attacks on Civilians in Recent Memory." And just before
that
, the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism highlighted "Nine Young Children Killed: The Full Details of Botched
U.S. Raid in Yemen." (No headlines, however, told the full story of the U.S. role in Yemen.
That one might've read "U.S.-Backed Saudi Bombing Has Killed Thousands, Worsened Famine Facing
Millions in Yemen.")
Around the globe, as these headlines testify, Donald Trump has been cavalierly deploying
troops and weapons, claiming such military actions are designed to send political messages.
He's threatened a preemptive strike against North Korea, considered a major escalation
in Yemen, and turned loose his military commanders to bomb wherever, however, and with whatever
they choose, weakening even further the already insufficient restrictions Obama had put in
place to try to minimize civilian casualties. Deaths of civilians under both U.S. drones and
conventional airstrikes have escalated.
For those who thought that military restraint was part of Trumpian isolationism, think
again.
Raw Power
Not one of these actions was necessary. Not one will make people in this country -- let
alone the Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, Somalis, or others -- any safer. Neither was any of
these actions sanctioned by Congress: All violated the War Powers Act, and indeed the
Constitution itself, which puts the power to declare war in the hands of the people's
representatives.
Furthermore, not one of them fulfilled the minimal United Nations Charter requirements
for the legal use of military force -- either Security Council authorization or immediate
self-defense. Thus they all violated international law.
And even beyond the illegality, not one could claim a strategic, legitimate, or moral
justification.
Of course, the U.S. has been at war in various combinations of Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya
and Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and beyond since George W. Bush declared the global war on terror
just after the 9/11 attacks of 2001. In some of these countries, the U.S. was at war even
before that. But Trump's actions represent major escalations in every one of those devastated
nations. According to the British human rights monitor AirWars, well over 1,000 civilians may
have been killed by U.S.-led forces just in Iraq and Syria in March alone, the highest monthly
total they've ever tracked.
What we see in these attacks is not a strategy, but a new way of communicating raw
power.
How does it work? Instead of sending diplomats to help get all warring parties involved in
negotiations, you drop the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used in combat on one of the world's
poorest countries. Instead of supporting UN efforts to create incremental ceasefires, you send
special forces. Instead of investing money, time, and high-level attention to help shift
regional conflicts from the battlefield to the negotiating table, you send armed drones to drop
more bombs.
And, of course, instead of increasing funding for diplomacy, you strip 29 percent of the
State Department budget, and nearly zero out humanitarian aid, and hand it all over to the
Pentagon as part of a $54 billion increase in military spending.
None of this is in service of any actual policy, just a unifying theme: War trumps
diplomacy. Bullies rule. It's a shock-and-awe attack -- many shock-and-awe attacks, actually -- to drive home a message aimed not only at troops on the ground or militants holed up in a cave,
but also at the populations as a whole, across Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, and
beyond. The goal seems to be ensuring that no question remains as to where and with whom the
ultimate power resides.
It's also a message to a domestic audience here in the United States, designed to shock if
not surprise: The bully in the White House is calling the shots.
Invigorating the Peace Movement
The question now isn't what Trump -- or the generals and billionaires filling his cabinet -- will do next. It's what will
we
do next, as opponents of these wars?
In short, we need to integrate opposition to these wars into the very core of the movements
already rising so powerfully against racism, for women's and LGBTQ rights, for climate and
economic justice, for Native rights, for immigrant rights and refugee protections, for
Palestinian rights, and much more.
We know that some approaches from earlier efforts are needed once again. Building ties with
and privileging the voices of people facing the consequences of U.S. actions, dying under the
bombs or reeling under brutal sanctions, remain crucial. Lifting up anti-war veterans provides
entre to important new audiences. Reminding people of how U.S. wars are too often fought for
resources -- as well as for the expansion of power, for military bases, for regional and global
domination, and how racism informs all of Washington's wars -- are all key to popular
education.
What we do know is that
everyone
-- from Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Somalis, and
Yemenis to those of us in this country -- needs diplomacy to win out over war. We've faced wars
for decades now, but we've also had some victories where negotiations triumphed over force -- in
Cuba, in Paris at the climate talks, and most especially in the Iran nuclear deal.
We know what diplomacy looks like, and we know how to fight for it.
We'll need new strategies, new tactics -- but we continue to stand on the shoulders of those
who have gone before us. Our country is waging war against peoples across the globe, indeed
waging war against the earth itself. But we are still here, challenging those wars alongside
those who guard the earth, who protect the water, who defend the rights of those most at
risk.
The great historian Howard Zinn reminds us of it all: Our country's history began in the
genocide of indigenous nations and the enslavement of Africans brought here in chains. But from
that beginning it also became a country of people's movements against genocide and slavery,
against racism and misogyny and Islamophobia, of movements for justice, for internationalism,
and yes, for peace.
Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism
project at the Institute for Policy Studies.
"... Former top military and intelligence officials – including many who warned against the faulty Iraq intelligence in advance of the Iraq war – have long said that the claims that Assad carried out the chemical weapons attacks was bunkum. ..."
"... Hersh than notes that Trump was determined to bomb Syria in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack that never occurred. America's top military and intelligence officials steered into him a less destructive bombing run. ..."
"... Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi confirms that American intelligence community insiders are furious that the Trump administration has twisted the intelligence so as to claim that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack. And see this ..."
"... Unfortunately, none of this is new The 2013 ..."
"... And a tape recording of top Turkish officials planning a false flag attack to be blamed on Syria as a justification for war was leaked and confirmed ..."
A top U.S. missile
and chemical weapons expert has
documented for months
that the Syrian government did not carry out a chemical weapons attack against civilians,
and that contrary claims by the
Trump White House
,
French intelligence services , the
New York Times ,
CNN and other "mainstream" sources are wrong and worthless propaganda.
Former top military and intelligence officials – including
many who warned against the faulty Iraq intelligence in advance of the Iraq war – have long said
that the claims that Assad carried out the chemical weapons attacks was bunkum.
Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh – who broke the stories of the Mai
Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Iraq prison torture scandals, which rightfully disgraced the Nixon
and Bush administrations' war-fighting tactics –
reported yesterday in the large German publication Weld that U.S. military officials tried to
tell Trump that a chemical weapons attack never occurred at all:
On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile
strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve
agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan
Sheikhoun. Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community
that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon .
The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site
on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives. Details
of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been provided by
the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose mission
is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.
Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's
determination to ignore the evidence . "None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues
upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack the Russians
are furious. Claiming we have the real intel and know the truth I guess it didn't matter whether
we elected Clinton or Trump."
***
In a series of interviews, I learned of the total disconnect between the president and many
of his military advisers and intelligence officials, as well as officers on the ground in the
region who had an entirely different understanding of the nature of Syria's attack on Khan Sheikhoun
. I was provided with evidence of that disconnect, in the form of transcripts of real-time communications,
immediately following the Syrian attack on April 4 [
Here's one of the transcripts]. In an important pre-strike process known as deconfliction,
U.S. and Russian officers routinely supply one another with advance details of planned flight
paths and target coordinates, to ensure that there is no risk of collision or accidental encounter
(the Russians speak on behalf of the Syrian military). This information is supplied daily to the
American AWACS surveillance planes that monitor the flights once airborne. Deconfliction's success
and importance can be measured by the fact that there has yet to be one collision, or even a near
miss, among the high-powered supersonic American, Allied, Russian and Syrian fighter bombers.
Russian and Syrian Air Force officers gave details of the carefully planned flight path to
and from Khan Shiekhoun on April 4 directly, in English, to the deconfliction monitors aboard
the AWACS plane, which was on patrol near the Turkish border, 60 miles or more to the north.
***
A high-level meeting of jihadist leaders was to take place in the building . Russian intelligence
depicted the cinder-block building as a command and control center .
***
A senior adviser to the American intelligence community, who has served in senior positions
in the Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency, told me [that] the basement was used
as storage for rockets, weapons and ammunition, as well as chlorine-based decontaminants for
cleansing the bodies of the dead before burial. The meeting place – a regional headquarters –
was on the floor above.
***
One reason for the Russian message to Washington about the intended target was to ensure that
any CIA asset or informant who had managed to work his way into the jihadist leadership was forewarned
not to attend the meeting. I was told that the Russians passed the warning directly to the CIA
"They were playing the game right," the senior adviser said. The Russian guidance noted that the
jihadist meeting was coming at a time of acute pressure for the insurgents: Presumably Jabhat
al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham were desperately seeking a path forward in the new political climate.
***
Russian and Syrian intelligence officials, who coordinate operations closely with the American
command posts, made it clear that the planned strike on Khan Sheikhoun was special because of
the high-value target. "It was a red-hot change. The mission was out of the ordinary – scrub the
sked," the senior adviser told me. "Every operations officer in the region" – in the Army, Marine
Corps, Air Force, CIA and NSA – "had to know there was something going on. The Russians gave the
Syrian Air Force a guided bomb and that was a rarity. They're skimpy with their guided bombs and
rarely share them with the Syrian Air Force. And the Syrians assigned their best pilot to the
mission, with the best wingman." The advance intelligence on the target, as supplied by the Russians,
was given the highest possible score inside the American community.
***
"This was not a chemical weapons strike," the adviser said. "That's a fairy tale. If so, everyone
involved in transferring, loading and arming the weapon – you've got to make it appear like a
regular 500-pound conventional bomb – would be wearing Hazmat protective clothing in case of a
leak. There would be very little chance of survival without such gear. Military grade sarin includes
additives designed to increase toxicity and lethality. Every batch that comes out is maximized
for death. That is why it is made. It is odorless and invisible and death can come within a minute.
No cloud. Why produce a weapon that people can run away from?"
The target was struck at 6:55 a.m. on April 4, just before midnight in Washington. A Bomb Damage
Assessment (BDA) by the U.S. military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound
Syrian bomb triggered a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic
cloud that began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants
and other goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped
the fumes close to the ground. According to intelligence estimates, the senior adviser said, the
strike itself killed up to four jihadist leaders, and an unknown number of drivers and security
aides . There is no confirmed count of the number of civilians killed by the poisonous gases that
were released by the secondary explosions, although opposition activists reported that there were
more than 80 dead, and outlets such as CNN have put the figure as high as 92. A team from Médecins
Sans Frontières, treating victims from Khan Sheikhoun at a clinic 60 miles to the north, reported
that "eight patients showed symptoms – including constricted pupils, muscle spasms and involuntary
defecation – which are consistent with exposure to a neurotoxic agent such as sarin gas or similar
compounds." MSF also visited other hospitals that had received victims and found that patients
there "smelled of bleach, suggesting that they had been exposed to chlorine." In other words,
evidence suggested that there was more than one chemical responsible for the symptoms observed,
which would not have been the case if the Syrian Air Force – as opposition activists insisted
– had dropped a sarin bomb, which has no percussive or ignition power to trigger secondary explosions.
The range of symptoms is, however, consistent with the release of a mixture of chemicals, including
chlorine and the organophosphates used in many fertilizers, which can cause neurotoxic effects
similar to those of sarin.
***
The adviser said "Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely. Do we have
intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not
say: 'We have a problem and let's look into it.' He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria."
***
"What doesn't occur to most Americans" the adviser said, "is if there had been a Syrian nerve
gas attack authorized by Bashar, the Russians would be 10 times as upset as anyone in the West.
Russia's strategy against ISIS, which involves getting American cooperation, would have been destroyed
and Bashar would be responsible for pissing off Russia, with unknown consequences for him. Bashar
would do that? When he's on the verge of winning the war? Are you kidding me?"
***
Within hours of viewing the photos, the adviser said, Trump instructed the national defense
apparatus to plan for retaliation against Syria. "He did this before he talked to anybody about
it. The planners then asked the CIA and DIA if there was any evidence that Syria had sarin stored
at a nearby airport or somewhere in the area. Their military had to have it somewhere in the area
in order to bomb with it." "The answer was, 'We have no evidence that Syria had sarin or used
it,' " the adviser said. " The CIA also told them that there was no residual delivery for sarin
at Sheyrat [the airfield from which the Syrian SU-24 bombers had taken off on April 4] and Assad
had no motive to commit political suicide." Everyone involved, except perhaps the president, also
understood that a highly skilled United Nations team had spent more than a year in the aftermath
of an alleged sarin attack in 2013 by Syria, removing what was said to be all chemical weapons
from a dozen Syrian chemical weapons depots.
At this point, the adviser said, the president's national security planners were more than
a little rattled : "No one knew the provenance of the photographs. We didn't know who the children
were or how they got hurt. Sarin actually is very easy to detect because it penetrates paint,
and all one would have to do is get a paint sample. We knew there was a cloud and we knew it hurt
people . But you cannot jump from there to certainty that Assad had hidden sarin from the UN because
he wanted to use it in Khan Sheikhoun." The intelligence made clear that a Syrian Air Force SU-24
fighter bomber had used a conventional weapon to hit its target: There had been no chemical warhead
.
Hersh than notes that Trump was determined to bomb Syria in retaliation for a chemical weapons
attack that never occurred. America's top military and intelligence officials steered into him a
less destructive bombing run.
Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi confirms that American intelligence community insiders are
furious that the Trump administration has twisted the intelligence so as to claim that the Syrian
government carried out a chemical weapons attack. And
see this.
Unfortunately, none of this is new The 2013 sarin attack in Syria, was also blamed by the U.S. on the Syrian government. However, the United Nations' report on the attack did
NOT blame the government, and the U.N.'s
human rights investigator
accused the rebels – rather than the Syrian government – of carrying out the attack.
Moreover,
high-level American and Turkish officials say that Turkey supplied Sarin gas to Syrian rebels
in 2013 in order to frame the Syrian government to provide an excuse for regime change.
And Seymour Hersh
reported that high-level American sources tell him that the
Turkish government carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.
'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official,
who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in
a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red
line threat.'
And a tape recording of top Turkish officials planning a false flag attack to be blamed on Syria
as a justification for war was
leaked and confirmed by Turkey as being authentic.
We know this with a degree of certainty, thanks to
award-winning investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh,
obtained perhaps the most naked evidence of hapless
government duplicity resulting in an unknowable number of
deaths and, astonishingly, even a preposterously harrowing
likelihood of world war.
Communications
between an active duty U.S. soldier and
a security adviser, both unnamed by Hersh, prove the
narrative proffered by corporate media and establishment
politicians for months - that Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad had carried out a horrific and deadly chemical
weapons attack against Syrian civilians in Khan Sheikhoun
- was a lie.
Should that not seem impactful enough, consider it was
the assertion of a gruesome chemical attack by Assad
against his own civilian populace which provided the
putative impetus for U.S. retaliation in the firing of 59
missiles into the sovereign nation of Syria near Khan
Sheikhoun, also resulting in a wholly unjustified number
of civilian casualties.
Ineffectively destroying parts of a mostly-dormant
airbase and killing innocents indeed, at the time, seemed
a peculiar mission accomplished as broadcast news belched
repetitively - and for good reason.
Beyond the determination Assad had not gassed his own,
the U.S. knew there had been no chemical weapons incident,
at all - and had been privy to cooperative intelligence
among the warring parties that an airstrike would be
carried out against a cache of weapons - characterized as
a "legitimate military target" by the active duty soldier
chat protocol with the adviser.
On April 6, 2017 -
Hersh reported
for German outlet,
Die Welt
-
the American soldier seemed near panic in a communiqué to
the security adviser, imploring,
"We got a fuckin' problem."
"What happened?" the adviser asks. "Is it the Trump
ignoring the Intel and going to try to hit the Syrians?
And that we're pissing on the Russians?"
Soldier:
"This is bad Things are spooling up."
Adviser: "You may not have seen trumps press conference
yesterday.
He's bought into the media story
without asking to see the Intel. We are likely to get our
asses kicked by the Russians. Fucking dangerous. Where are
the godamn adults?
The failure of the chain of
command to tell the President the truth, whether he wants
to hear it or not, will go down in history as one of our
worst moments."
Soldier: "I don't know. None of this makes any sense.
We KNOW that there was no chemical attack. The
Syrians struck a weapons cache (a legitimate military
target) and there was collateral damage.
That's
it.
They did not conduct any sort of a chemical
attack
[ ]
"And now we're shoving a shit load of TLAMs (tomahawks)
up their ass."
Adviser:
"There has been a hidden agenda all
along. This is about trying to ultimately go after Iran.
What the people around Trump do not understand is that the
Russians are not a paper tiger and that they have more
robust military capability than we do."
Soldier: "I don't know what the Russians are going to
do. They might hang back and let the Syrians defend their
own borders, or they might provide some sort of tepid
support, or they might blow us the fuck out of the
airspace and back into Iraq. I honestly don't know what to
expect right now. I feel like anything is possible. The
Russian air defense system is capable of taking out our
TLAMs. this is a big fucking deal we are still all
systems go
Adviser: "You are so right. Russia is not going to take
this lying down.
"Who is pushing this? Is it coming from [General Joseph
L. Votel, Commander of United States Central Command]?"
Soldier: "I don't know. It's from someone big though. .
. . This is a big fucking deal.
"It has to be POTUS.
"They [the Russians] are weighing their options.
Indications are they are going to be passive supporters
of Syria and not engage their systems unless their own
assets are threatened..in other words, the sky is fucking
blue.'"
***
In case you missed it, the unnamed security adviser
brazenly suggests feckless U.S. military aggression in
Syria pertains to a murky, but penultimate, goal with Iran
- that, and the altogether foreboding indication Russia, a
foe who should not be and the object of Western
provocation, would outperform American forces should
hostilities flare.
Communications between the pair of insiders continued
the following day, April 7:
Adviser: "What are the Russians doing or saying Am I
correct that we did little real damage to Russia or
Syria?"
Soldier: "We didn't hit a damn thing, thankfully. They
retrograded all their aircraft and personnel. We basically
gave them a very expensive fireworks display.
"They knew where ships were and watched the entire
strike from launch to end game.
"The Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real
Intel and know the truth about the weapons depot strike.
"They are correct.
"I guess it really didn't matter whether we elected
Clinton or Trump. Fuck.
"No one is talking about the entire reason we're in
Iraq and Syria in the first place. That mission is fucked
now."
Adviser: "Are any of your colleagues pissed or is
everyone going along with it and saying this is OK."
Soldier: "It's a mad house. . . .Hell we even told the
Russians an hour before impact."
Adviser:
"But they clearly knew it was coming."
Soldier:
"Oh of course.
"Now Fox is saying we chose to hit the Syrian
airfield because it is where the chemical attacks were
launched from. Wow. Can't make this shit up."
Adviser:
"They are. I mean, making it up."
Soldier: "It's so fuckin evil."
Adviser: "Amen!!!"
And, again, on April 8:
Soldier: "Russians are being extremely reasonable.
Despite what the news is reporting they are still trying
to deconflict and coordinate the air campaign."
Adviser: "I don't think the Russia yet understands how
crazy Trump is over this. And I don't think we appreciate
how much damage the Russians can do to us."
Adviser: "But I get the get the feeling are simply
trying this approach for as long as they feel it might
work. If we keep pushing this current aggressive stance
they're going to hit back."
***
Die Welt
ostensively withheld only information
considered sensitive, including details pertaining to
precise location and nature of operations - but,
considering Hersh' itinerant adherence to journalistic
principles, the report should be examined with more than a
grain of salt.
If, indeed, the communications prove true, the
documents could reveal more about censorship, a
possibly-rogue media establishment, and an undeniable
foolishness - and, more keenly, helplessness - in the
haphazard rush to many wars in the fulfillment of
anachronistic goals.
We don't need to be at war in Syria - nor should we be.
And these communications prove, above all, those of us
sounding the alarm for a year this addled Syrian conundrum
would befall the U.S. had not done so in alarm - rather,
in a growing awareness of the unscrupulous tactics
possessed by an imperialist State circling the drain.
Seymour Hersh, America's most famous investigative reporter, has become persona non grata in the
American Propaganda Ministry that poses as a news media but only serves to protect the US government's
war lies. Among his many triumphs Hersh exposed the American My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Abu
Ghraib torture prison run by the Americans in Iraq. Today his investigative reports have to be published
in the London Review of Books or in the German Media.
From Hersh's latest investigative report, we learn that President Trump makes war decisions by
watching staged propaganda on TV. The White Helmets, a propaganda organization for jihadists and
the "Syrian opposition," found a gullible reception from the Western media for photographs and videos
of alleged victims of a Syrian Army sarin gas attack on civilians in Khan Sheikhoun. Trump saw the
photos on TV and despite being assured by US intelligence that there was no Syrian sarin gas attack,
ordered the US military to strike a Syrian base with Tomahawk missiles. Under international law this
strike was a war crime, and it was the first direct aggression against Syria by the US which previously
committed aggression via proxies called "the Syrian opposition."
Reporting on his sources, Hersh writes: "In a series of interviews, I learned of the total disconnect
between the president and many of his military advisers and intelligence officials, as well as officers
on the ground in the region who had an entirely different understanding of the nature of Syria's
attack on Khan Sheikhoun. I was provided with evidence of that disconnect, in the form of transcripts
of real-time communications, immediately following the Syrian attack on April 4."
The belief that sarin gas was involved in the attack comes from what appears to be a gas cloud.
Hersh was informed by US military experts that sarin is oderless and invisible and makes no cloud.
What appears to have happened is that the explosion from the air attack on ISIS caused a series of
secondary explosions that produced a toxic cloud formed by fertilizers and chlorine disinfectants
that were stored in the building that was hit.
US officials spoke with Hersh, because they are distrubed that President Trump based a war decision
on TV propaganda and refused to listen to the detailed counter-assessments of his intelligence and
military services. A national security source told Hersh: "Everyone close to him knows his proclivity
for acting precipitously when he does not know the facts. He doesn't read anything and has no real
historical knowledge. He wants verbal briefings and photographs. He's a risk-taker. He can accept
the consequences of a bad decision in the business world; he will just lose money. But in our world,
lives will be lost and there will be long-term damage to our national security if he guesses wrong.
He was told we did not have evidence of Syrian involvement and yet Trump says: 'Do it."'
Concerns about Trump's purely emotional reaction to TV propaganda persist. Hersh reports that
a senior national security adviser told him: "The Salafists and jihadists got everything they wanted
out of their hyped-up Syrian nerve gas ploy" (the flare up of tensions between Syria, Russia and
America). The issue is, what if there's another false flag sarin attack credited to hated Syria?
Trump has upped the ante and painted himself into a corner with his decision to bomb. And do not
think these guys are not planning the next faked attack. Trump will have no choice but to bomb again,
and harder. He's incapable of saying he made a mistake."
I do not doubt Sy Hersh's integrity. I accept that he has accurately reported what he was told
by US officials. My suspicions about this story do not have to do with Hersh. They have to do with
what Hersh was told.
Hersh's report puts Trump in a very bad light, and it puts the military/security complex, which
we know has been trying to destroy Trump, in a very good light. Moreover, the story strikes me as
inconsistent with the subsequent attack on the Syrian fighter-bomber by the US military. If the Tomahawk
attack on the Syrian base was unjustified, what justified downing a Syrian war plane? Did Trump order
this attack as well? If not, who did? Why?
If national security advisers gave Trump such excellent information about the alleged sarin gas
attack, completely disproving any such attack, why was he given such bad advice about shooting down
a Syrian war plane, or was it done outside of channels? The effect of the shootdown is to raise the
chance of a confrontation with Russia, because Russia's response apparently has been to declare a
no-fly zone over the area of Russian and Syrian operations.
How do we know that what Hersh was told was true? What if Trump was encouraged to order the Tomahawk
strike as a way of interjecting the US directly into the conflict? Both the US and Israel have powerful
reasons for wanting to overthrow Assad. However, ISIS, sent to do the job, has been defeated by Russia
and Syria. Unless Washington can somehow get directly involved, the war is over.
The story Hersh was given also serves to damn Trump while absolving the intelligence services.
Trump takes the hit for injecting the US directly into the conflict.
Hersh's story reads well, but it easily could be a false story planted on him. I am not saying
that the story is false, but unless we learn more, it could be.
What we do know is that the story given to Hersh by national security officials is inconsistent
with the June 26 White House announcement that the US has "identified potential preparations for
another chemical attack by the Assad regime." The White House does not have the capability to conduct
its own foreign intelligence gathering. The White House is informed by the national security and
intelligence agencies.
In the story given to Hersh, these officials are emphatic that not only were chemical weapons
removed from Syria, but also that Assad would not use them or be permitted by the Russians to use
them even if he had them. Moreover, Hersh reports that he was told that Russia fully informed the
US of the Syrian attack on ISIS in advance. The weapon was a guided bomb that Russia had suppied
to Syria. Therefore, it could not have been a chemical weapon.
As US national security officials made it clear to Hersh that they do not believe Syria did or
would use any chemical weapons, what is the source for the White House's announcement that preparations
for another chemical attack by the Assad regime have been identified?
Who lined up UN ambassador Nikki Haley and the UK Defence Minister Michael Fallon to be ready
with statements in support of the White House announcement? Haley says: "Any further attacks done
to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing
his own people." Fallon says: "we will support" future US action in response to the use of chemical
weapons in Syria.
How clear does an orchestration have to be before people are capable of recognizing the orchestration?
The intelligence agencies put out the story via Hersh that there were no chemical attacks, so
what attacks is Niki Haley speaking about?
A reasonable conclusion is that Washington's plan to use ISIS to overthrow Syria and then start
on Iran was derailed by Russian and Syrian military success against ISIS. The US then tried to partition
Syria by occupying part of it, but were out-manuevered by the Russians and Syrians. This left direct
US involvement as the only alternative to defeat. This direct US military involvement began with
the US attack on the Syrian military base and was followed by shooting down a Syrian war plane. The
next stage will be a US-staged false flag chemical attack or alleged chemical attack, and this false
flag, as has already been announced, will be the excuse for larger scale US military action against
Syria, which, unless the Russians abandon Syria, means conflict with Russia, Iran, and perhaps China.
"... Russia -- Syria's most powerful ally in the six-year conflict -- described the OPCW report as politically motivated and grounded in "doubtful data obtained from opposition" and "notorious NGOs like the White Helmets." Moscow also criticized the watchdog's methodology for gathering samples and eyewitness statements in a "neighboring country" and "not at the site of the tragedy." ..."
International chemical weapons inspectors have confirmed that the nerve agent sarin
was used in April's deadly chemical attack in Syria's Idlib province.
...The OPCW report comes the same week the White House issued a public warning that
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would pay a "heavy price" for using chemical weapons.
....But
Russia -- Syria's most powerful ally in the six-year conflict -- described
the OPCW report as politically motivated and grounded in "doubtful data obtained from
opposition" and "notorious NGOs like the White Helmets." Moscow also criticized the
watchdog's methodology for gathering samples and eyewitness statements in a "neighboring
country" and "not at the site of the tragedy."
@4 chet... israel is now al nusra/al qaeda air force.. that is part of it..
opcw basis is thanks the white helmets... i guess the usa/uk want some results from all the
money they have given this lovely ngo who always seem imbedded with the moderate headchopper cult..
Paul Craig Roberts has an article titled 'Washington Has Been At War For 16 Years: Why?' -
Snippet -
"There are three reasons for Washington's war, not America's war as Washington is not America,
on Syria. The first reason has to do with the profits of the military/security complex."
"The military/security complex is a combination of powerful private and governmental interests
that need a threat to justify an annual budget that exceeds the GDP of many countries. War gives
this combination of private and governmental interests a justification for its massive budget,
a budget whose burden falls on American taxpayers whose real median family income has not risen
for a couple of decades while their debt burden to support their living standard has risen."
"The second reason has to do with the Neoconservative ideology of American world hegemony.
According to the Neoconservatives, who most certainly are not conservative of any description,
the collapse of communism and socialism means that History has chosen "Democratic Capitalism,"
which is neither democratic nor capitalist, as the World's Socio-Economic-Political system and
it is Washington's responsibility to impose Americanism on the entire world. Countries such as
Russia, China, Syria, and Iran, who reject American hegemony must be destabilized and desroyed
as they stand in the way of American unilateralism."
"The Third reason has to do with Israel's need for the water resources of Southern Lebanon.
Twice Israel has sent the vaunted Israeli Army to occupy Southern Lebanon, and twice the vaunted
Israeli Army was driven out by Hezbollah, a militia supported by Syria and Iran."
I'd add a couple of more reasons starting with OIL! Interesting read, however.
Of course the House Leadership is going to do whatever to stop such a move, but it's looking
more and more like some are readying for such a challenge.
For any who are sick to death of U.S. wars/proxy wars or CIA special ops wars, this includes
all who read this blog from abroad, I might suggest getting organized and to start a massive letter
writing campaign to the leadership in both the House and Senate. This presents a huge opening
for the citizenry of the world to allow their voices to be heard. It would be a truly beautiful,
hell, who am I kidding, it would be a truly MAGNIFICENT step made by the People of the World to
tell the U.S. Congress to Repeal the 2001 AUMF.
Yeah, I realize they want to replace it with some other God Awful authorization, but that can
be stopped if the masses of the world flood congress with letters and postcards. Emails won't
work for numerous reasons with most important being you can't 'SEE' stacks of emails but you can
'SEE' stacks and stacks and stacks of letters.
"... The target was struck at 6:55 a.m. on April 4, just before midnight in Washington. A Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA) by the U.S. military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound Syrian bomb triggered a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic cloud that began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants and other goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped the fumes close to the ground. ..."
"... e reference, as those in the American intelligence community understood, and many of the inexperienced aides and family members close to Trump may not have, was to a Russian-supplied bomb with its built-in guidance system. "If you've already decided it was a gas attack, you will then inevitably read the talk about a special weapon as involving a sarin bomb," the adviser said. "Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely. Do we have intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not say: 'We have a problem and let's look into it.' He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria." ..."
"... There was irony in America's rush to blame Syria and criticize Russia for its support of Syria's denial of any use of gas in Khan Sheikhoun, as Ambassador Haley and others in Washington did. "What doesn't occur to most Americans" the adviser said, "is if there had been a Syrian nerve gas attack authorized by Bashar, the Russians would be 10 times as upset as anyone in the West. Russia's strategy against ISIS, which involves getting American cooperation, would have been destroyed and Bashar would be responsible for pissing off Russia, with unknown consequences for him. Bashar would do that? When he's on the verge of winning the war? Are you kidding me?" ..."
"... Within hours of viewing the photos, the adviser said, Trump instructed the national defense apparatus to plan for retaliation against Syria. "He did this before he talked to anybody about it. The planners then asked the CIA and DIA if there was any evidence that Syria had sarin stored at a nearby airport or somewhere in the area. Their military had to have it somewhere in the area in order to bomb with it." "The answer was, 'We have no evidence that Syria had sarin or used it,'" the adviser said. "The CIA also told them that there was no residual delivery for sarin at Sheyrat [the airfield from which the Syrian SU-24 bombers had taken off on April 4] and Assad had no motive to commit political suicide." Everyone involved, except perhaps the president, also understood that a highly skilled United Nations team had spent more than a year in the aftermath of an alleged sarin attack in 2013 by Syria, removing what was said to be all chemical weapons from a dozen Syrian chemical weapons depots. ..."
"... The national security advisers understood their dilemma: Trump wanted to respond to the affront to humanity committed by Syria and he did not want to be dissuaded. They were dealing with a man they considered to be not unkind and not stupid, but his limitations when it came to national security decisions were severe. "Everyone close to him knows his proclivity for acting precipitously when he does not know the facts," the adviser said. "He doesn't read anything and has no real historical knowledge. He wants verbal briefings and photographs. He's a risk-taker. He can accept the consequences of a bad decision in the business world; he will just lose money. But in our world, lives will be lost and there will be long-term damage to our national security if he guesses wrong. He was told we did not have evidence of Syrian involvement and yet Trump says: 'Do it."' ..."
"... On April 6, Trump convened a meeting of national security officials at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. The meeting was not to decide what to do, but how best to do it – or, as some wanted, how to do the least and keep Trump happy. ..."
"... "It was a totally Trump show from beginning to end," the senior adviser said. "A few of the president's senior national security advisers viewed the mission as a minimized bad presidential decision, and one that they had an obligation to carry out. But I don't think our national security people are going to allow themselves to be hustled into a bad decision again. If Trump had gone for option three, there might have been some immediate resignations." ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... "The Salafists and jihadists got everything they wanted out of their hyped-up Syrian nerve gas ploy," the senior adviser to the U.S. intelligence community told me, referring to the flare up of tensions between Syria, Russia and America. ..."
"... The White House did not answer specific questions about the bombing of Khan Sheikhoun and the airport of Shayrat. These questions were send via e-mail to the White House on June 15 and never answered. ..."
President Donald Trump ignored important intelligence reports when he decided to attack Syria after
he saw pictures of dying children. Seymour M. Hersh investigated the case of the alleged Sarin gas
attack.
O n April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile
strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent
attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.
Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had
found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon.
The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site on
April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives. Details of the
attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been provided by the Russians
days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose mission is to coordinate
all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.
Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's
determination to ignore the evidence. "None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues
upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians
are furious. Claiming we have the real intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether
we elected Clinton or Trump."
Within hours of the April 4 bombing, the world's media was saturated with photographs and videos
from Khan Sheikhoun. Pictures of dead and dying victims, allegedly suffering from the symptoms of
nerve gas poisoning, were uploaded to social media by local activists, including the White Helmets,
a first responder group known for its close association with the Syrian opposition.
The provenance of the photos was not clear and no international observers have yet inspected the
site, but the immediate popular assumption worldwide was that this was a deliberate use of the nerve
agent sarin, authorized by President Bashar Assad of Syria. Trump endorsed that assumption by issuing
a statement within hours of the attack, describing Assad's "heinous actions" as being a consequence
of the Obama administration's "weakness and irresolution" in addressing what he said was Syria's
past use of chemical weapons.
To the dismay of many senior members of his national security team, Trump could not be swayed
over the next 48 hours of intense briefings and decision-making. In a series of interviews, I learned
of the total disconnect between the president and many of his military advisers and intelligence
officials, as well as officers on the ground in the region who had an entirely different understanding
of the nature of Syria's attack on Khan Sheikhoun. I was provided with evidence of that disconnect,
in the form of transcripts of real-time communications, immediately following the Syrian attack on
April 4. In an important pre-strike process known as deconfliction, U.S. and Russian officers routinely
supply one another with advance details of planned flight paths and target coordinates, to ensure
that there is no risk of collision or accidental encounter (the Russians speak on behalf of the Syrian
military). This information is supplied daily to the American AWACS surveillance planes that monitor
the flights once airborne. Deconfliction's success and importance can be measured by the fact that
there has yet to be one collision, or even a near miss, among the high-powered supersonic American,
Allied, Russian and Syrian fighter bombers.
Russian and Syrian Air Force officers gave details of the carefully planned flight path to and
from Khan Shiekhoun on April 4 directly, in English, to the deconfliction monitors aboard the AWACS
plane, which was on patrol near the Turkish border, 60 miles or more to the north.
The Syrian target at Khan Sheikhoun, as shared with the Americans at Doha, was depicted as a two-story
cinder-block building in the northern part of town. Russian intelligence, which is shared when necessary
with Syria and the U.S. as part of their joint fight against jihadist groups, had established that
a high-level meeting of jihadist leaders was to take place in the building, including representatives
of Ahrar al-Sham and the al-Qaida-affiliated group formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra. The two groups
had recently joined forces, and controlled the town and surrounding area. Russian intelligence depicted
the cinder-block building as a command and control center that housed a grocery and other commercial
premises on its ground floor with other essential shops nearby, including a fabric shop and an electronics
store.
"The rebels control the population by controlling the distribution of goods that people need to
live – food, water, cooking oil, propane gas, fertilizers for growing their crops, and insecticides
to protect the crops," a senior adviser to the American intelligence community, who has served in
senior positions in the Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency, told me. The basement
was used as storage for rockets, weapons and ammunition, as well as products that could be distributed
for free to the community, among them medicines and chlorine-based decontaminants for cleansing the
bodies of the dead before burial. The meeting place – a regional headquarters – was on the floor
above. "It was an established meeting place," the senior adviser said. "A long-time facility that
would have had security, weapons, communications, files and a map center." The Russians were intent
on confirming their intelligence and deployed a drone for days above the site to monitor communications
and develop what is known in the intelligence community as a POL – a pattern of life. The goal was
to take note of those going in and out of the building, and to track weapons being moved back and
forth, including rockets and ammunition.
One reason for the Russian message to Washington about the intended target was to ensure that
any CIA asset or informant who had managed to work his way into the jihadist leadership was forewarned
not to attend the meeting. I was told that the Russians passed the warning directly to the CIA "They
were playing the game right," the senior adviser said. The Russian guidance noted that the jihadist
meeting was coming at a time of acute pressure for the insurgents: Presumably Jabhat al-Nusra and
Ahrar al-Sham were desperately seeking a path forward in the new political climate. In the last few
days of March, Trump and two of his key national security aides – Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley – had made statements acknowledging that, as the New York Times
put it, the White House "has abandoned the goal" of pressuring Assad "to leave power, marking
a sharp departure from the Middle East policy that guided the Obama administration for more than
five years." White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told a press briefing on March 31 that "there
is a political reality that we have to accept," implying that Assad was there to stay.
Russian and Syrian intelligence officials, who coordinate operations closely with the American
command posts, made it clear that the planned strike on Khan Sheikhoun was special because of the
high-value target. "It was a red-hot change. The mission was out of the ordinary – scrub the sked,"
the senior adviser told me. "Every operations officer in the region" – in the Army, Marine Corps,
Air Force, CIA and NSA – "had to know there was something going on. The Russians gave the Syrian
Air Force a guided bomb and that was a rarity. They're skimpy with their guided bombs and rarely
share them with the Syrian Air Force. And the Syrians assigned their best pilot to the mission, with
the best wingman." The advance intelligence on the target, as supplied by the Russians, was given
the highest possible score inside the American community.
The Execute Order governing U.S. military operations in theater, which was issued by the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provide instructions that demarcate the relationship between the American
and Russian forces operating in Syria. "It's like an ops order – 'Here's what you are authorized
to do,'" the adviser said. "We do not share operational control with the Russians. We don't do combined
operations with them, or activities directly in support of one of their operations. But coordination
is permitted. We keep each other apprised of what's happening and within this package is the mutual
exchange of intelligence. If we get a hot tip that could help the Russians do their mission, that's
coordination; and the Russians do the same for us. When we get a hot tip about a command and control
facility," the adviser added, referring to the target in Khan Sheikhoun, "we do what we can to help
them act on it." "This was not a chemical weapons strike," the adviser said. "That's a fairy tale.
If so, everyone involved in transferring, loading and arming the weapon – you've got to make it appear
like a regular 500-pound conventional bomb – would be wearing Hazmat protective clothing in case
of a leak. There would be very little chance of survival without such gear. Military grade sarin
includes additives designed to increase toxicity and lethality. Every batch that comes out is maximized
for death. That is why it is made. It is odorless and invisible and death can come within a minute.
No cloud. Why produce a weapon that people can run away from?"
The target was struck at 6:55 a.m. on April 4, just before midnight in Washington. A Bomb
Damage Assessment (BDA) by the U.S. military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound
Syrian bomb triggered a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic cloud
that began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants and other
goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped the fumes
close to the ground.
According to intelligence estimates, the senior adviser said, the strike itself killed up to four
jihadist leaders, and an unknown number of drivers and security aides. There is no confirmed count
of the number of civilians killed by the poisonous gases that were released by the secondary explosions,
although opposition activists reported that there were more than 80 dead, and outlets such as CNN
have put the figure as high as 92.
A team from Médecins Sans Frontières, treating victims from Khan Sheikhoun at a clinic 60
miles to the north, reported that "eight patients showed symptoms – including constricted pupils,
muscle spasms and involuntary defecation – which are consistent with exposure to a neurotoxic agent
such as sarin gas or similar compounds." MSF also visited other hospitals that had received victims
and found that patients there "smelled of bleach, suggesting that they had been exposed to chlorine."
In other words, evidence suggested that there was more than one chemical responsible for the symptoms
observed, which would not have been the case if the Syrian Air Force – as opposition activists insisted
– had dropped a sarin bomb, which has no percussive or ignition power to trigger secondary explosions.
The range of symptoms is, however, consistent with the release of a mixture of chemicals, including
chlorine and the organophosphates used in many fertilizers, which can cause neurotoxic effects similar
to those of sarin.
The internet swung into action within hours, and gruesome photographs of the victims flooded television
networks and YouTube. U.S. intelligence was tasked with establishing what had happened. Among the
pieces of information received was an intercept of Syrian communications collected before the attack
by an allied nation. The intercept, which had a particularly strong effect on some of Trump's aides,
did not mention nerve gas or sarin, but it did quote a Syrian general discussing a "special" weapon
and the need for a highly skilled pilot to man the attack plane. The reference, as those
in the American intelligence community understood, and many of the inexperienced aides and family
members close to Trump may not have, was to a Russian-supplied bomb with its built-in guidance system.
"If you've already decided it was a gas attack, you will then inevitably read the talk about a special
weapon as involving a sarin bomb," the adviser said. "Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun?
Absolutely. Do we have intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the
president did not say: 'We have a problem and let's look into it.' He wanted to bomb the shit out
of Syria."
At the UN the next day, Ambassador Haley created a media sensation when she displayed photographs
of the dead and accused Russia of being complicit. "How many more children have to die before Russia
cares?" she asked. NBC News, in a typical report that day, quoted American officials as confirming
that nerve gas had been used and Haley tied the attack directly to Syrian President Assad. "We know
that yesterday's attack was a new low even for the barbaric Assad regime," she said. There was
irony in America's rush to blame Syria and criticize Russia for its support of Syria's denial of
any use of gas in Khan Sheikhoun, as Ambassador Haley and others in Washington did. "What doesn't
occur to most Americans" the adviser said, "is if there had been a Syrian nerve gas attack authorized
by Bashar, the Russians would be 10 times as upset as anyone in the West. Russia's strategy against
ISIS, which involves getting American cooperation, would have been destroyed and Bashar would be
responsible for pissing off Russia, with unknown consequences for him. Bashar would do that? When
he's on the verge of winning the war? Are you kidding me?"
Trump, a constant watcher of television news, said, while King Abdullah of Jordan was sitting
next to him in the Oval Office, that what had happened was "horrible, horrible" and a "terrible affront
to humanity." Asked if his administration would change its policy toward the Assad government, he
said: "You will see." He gave a hint of the response to come at the subsequent news conference with
King Abdullah: "When you kill innocent children, innocent babies – babies, little babies – with a
chemical gas that is so lethal ... that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line . ... That attack
on children yesterday had a big impact on me. Big impact ... It's very, very possible ... that my
attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."
Within hours of viewing the photos, the adviser said, Trump instructed the national defense
apparatus to plan for retaliation against Syria. "He did this before he talked to anybody about it.
The planners then asked the CIA and DIA if there was any evidence that Syria had sarin stored at
a nearby airport or somewhere in the area. Their military had to have it somewhere in the area in
order to bomb with it." "The answer was, 'We have no evidence that Syria had sarin or used it,'"
the adviser said. "The CIA also told them that there was no residual delivery for sarin at Sheyrat
[the airfield from which the Syrian SU-24 bombers had taken off on April 4] and Assad had no motive
to commit political suicide." Everyone involved, except perhaps the president, also understood that
a highly skilled United Nations team had spent more than a year in the aftermath of an alleged sarin
attack in 2013 by Syria, removing what was said to be all chemical weapons from a dozen Syrian chemical
weapons depots.
At this point, the adviser said, the president's national security planners were more than a little
rattled: "No one knew the provenance of the photographs. We didn't know who the children were or
how they got hurt. Sarin actually is very easy to detect because it penetrates paint, and all one
would have to do is get a paint sample. We knew there was a cloud and we knew it hurt people. But
you cannot jump from there to certainty that Assad had hidden sarin from the UN because he wanted
to use it in Khan Sheikhoun." The intelligence made clear that a Syrian Air Force SU-24 fighter bomber
had used a conventional weapon to hit its target: There had been no chemical warhead. And yet it
was impossible for the experts to persuade the president of this once he had made up his mind. "The
president saw the photographs of poisoned little girls and said it was an Assad atrocity," the senior
adviser said. "It's typical of human nature. You jump to the conclusion you want. Intelligence analysts
do not argue with a president. They're not going to tell the president, 'if you interpret the data
this way, I quit.'"
The national security advisers understood their dilemma: Trump wanted to respond to the affront
to humanity committed by Syria and he did not want to be dissuaded. They were dealing with a man
they considered to be not unkind and not stupid, but his limitations when it came to national security
decisions were severe. "Everyone close to him knows his proclivity for acting precipitously when
he does not know the facts," the adviser said. "He doesn't read anything and has no real historical
knowledge. He wants verbal briefings and photographs. He's a risk-taker. He can accept the consequences
of a bad decision in the business world; he will just lose money. But in our world, lives will be
lost and there will be long-term damage to our national security if he guesses wrong. He was told
we did not have evidence of Syrian involvement and yet Trump says: 'Do it."'
On April 6, Trump convened a meeting of national security officials at his Mar-a-Lago resort
in Florida. The meeting was not to decide what to do, but how best to do it – or, as some wanted,
how to do the least and keep Trump happy. "The boss knew before the meeting that they didn't
have the intelligence, but that was not the issue," the adviser said. "The meeting was about, 'Here's
what I'm going to do,' and then he gets the options."
The available intelligence was not relevant. The most experienced man at the table was Secretary
of Defense James Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general who had the president's respect and understood,
perhaps, how quickly that could evaporate. Mike Pompeo, the CIA director whose agency had consistently
reported that it had no evidence of a Syrian chemical bomb, was not present. Secretary of State Tillerson
was admired on the inside for his willingness to work long hours and his avid reading of diplomatic
cables and reports, but he knew little about waging war and the management of a bombing raid. Those
present were in a bind, the adviser said. "The president was emotionally energized by the disaster
and he wanted options." He got four of them, in order of extremity.
Option one was to do nothing. All involved, the adviser said, understood that was a
non-starter.
Option two was a slap on the wrist: to bomb an airfield in Syria, but only after alerting
the Russians and, through them, the Syrians, to avoid too many casualties. A few of the planners
called this the "gorilla option": America would glower and beat its chest to provoke fear and
demonstrate resolve, but cause little significant damage.
The third option was to adopt the strike package that had been presented to Obama in 2013,
and which he ultimately chose not to pursue. The plan called for the massive bombing of the main
Syrian airfields and command and control centers using B1 and B52 aircraft launched from their
bases in the U.S.
Option four was "decapitation": to remove Assad by bombing his palace in Damascus, as well
as his command and control network and all of the underground bunkers he could possibly retreat
to in a crisis.
"Trump ruled out option one off the bat," the senior adviser said, and the assassination of Assad
was never considered. "But he said, in essence: 'You're the military and I want military action.'"
The president was also initially opposed to the idea of giving the Russians advance warning before
the strike, but reluctantly accepted it. "We gave him the Goldilocks option – not too hot, not too
cold, but just right." The discussion had its bizarre moments. Tillerson wondered at the Mar-a-Lago
meeting why the president could not simply call in the B52 bombers and pulverize the air base. He
was told that B52s were very vulnerable to surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) in the area and using such
planes would require suppression fire that could kill some Russian defenders. "What is that?" Tillerson
asked. Well, sir, he was told, that means we would have to destroy the upgraded SAM sites along the
B52 flight path, and those are manned by Russians, and we possibly would be confronted with a much
more difficult situation. "The lesson here was: Thank God for the military men at the meeting," the
adviser said. "They did the best they could when confronted with a decision that had already been
made."
Fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles were fired from two U.S. Navy destroyers on duty in the Mediterranean,
the Ross and the Porter , at Shayrat Air Base near the government-controlled city
of Homs. The strike was as successful as hoped, in terms of doing minimal damage. The missiles have
a light payload – roughly 220 pounds of HBX, the military's modern version of TNT. The airfield's
gasoline storage tanks, a primary target, were pulverized, the senior adviser said, triggering a
huge fire and clouds of smoke that interfered with the guidance system of following missiles. As
many as 24 missiles missed their targets and only a few of the Tomahawks actually penetrated into
hangars, destroying nine Syrian aircraft, many fewer than claimed by the Trump administration. I
was told that none of the nine was operational: such damaged aircraft are what the Air Force calls
hangar queens. "They were sacrificial lambs," the senior adviser said. Most of the important personnel
and operational fighter planes had been flown to nearby bases hours before the raid began. The two
runways and parking places for aircraft, which had also been targeted, were repaired and back in
operation within eight hours or so. All in all, it was little more than an expensive fireworks display.
"It was a totally Trump show from beginning to end," the senior adviser said. "A few of the
president's senior national security advisers viewed the mission as a minimized bad presidential
decision, and one that they had an obligation to carry out. But I don't think our national security
people are going to allow themselves to be hustled into a bad decision again. If Trump had gone for
option three, there might have been some immediate resignations."
After the meeting, with the Tomahawks on their way, Trump spoke to the nation from Mar-a-Lago,
and accused Assad of using nerve gas to choke out "the lives of helpless men, women and children.
It was a slow and brutal death for so many ... No child of God should ever suffer such horror." The
next few days were his most successful as president. America rallied around its commander in chief,
as it always does in times of war. Trump, who had campaigned as someone who advocated making peace
with Assad, was bombing Syria 11 weeks after taking office, and was hailed for doing so by Republicans,
Democrats and the media alike.
One prominent TV anchorman, Brian Williams of MSNBC, used the word "beautiful" to describe the
images of the Tomahawks being launched at sea. Speaking on CNN, Fareed Zakaria said: "I think Donald
Trump became president of the United States." A review of the top 100 American newspapers showed
that 39 of them published editorials supporting the bombing in its aftermath, including the New
York Times , Washington Post and Wall Street Journal .
Five days later, the Trump administration gathered the national media for a background briefing
on the Syrian operation that was conducted by a senior White House official who was not to be identified.
The gist of the briefing was that Russia's heated and persistent denial of any sarin use in the Khan
Sheikhoun bombing was a lie because President Trump had said sarin had been used. That assertion,
which was not challenged or disputed by any of the reporters present, became the basis for a series
of further criticisms:
The continued lying by the Trump administration about Syria's use of sarin led to widespread
belief in the American media and public that Russia had chosen to be involved in a corrupt disinformation
and cover-up campaign on the part of Syria.
Russia's military forces had been co-located with Syria's at the Shayrat airfield (as they
are throughout Syria), raising the possibility that Russia had advance notice of Syria's determination
to use sarin at Khan Sheikhoun and did nothing to stop it.
Syria's use of sarin and Russia's defense of that use strongly suggested that Syria withheld
stocks of the nerve agent from the UN disarmament team that spent much of 2014 inspecting and
removing all declared chemical warfare agents from 12 Syrian chemical weapons depots, pursuant
to the agreement worked out by the Obama administration and Russia after Syria's alleged, but
still unproven, use of sarin the year before against a rebel redoubt in a suburb of Damascus.
The briefer, to his credit, was careful to use the words "think," "suggest" and "believe" at least
10 times during the 30-minute event. But he also said that his briefing was based on data that had
been declassified by "our colleagues in the intelligence community." What the briefer did not say,
and may not have known, was that much of the classified information in the community made the point
that Syria had not used sarin in the April 4 bombing attack.
The mainstream press responded the way the White House had hoped it would: Stories attacking Russia's
alleged cover-up of Syria's sarin use dominated the news and many media outlets ignored the briefer's
myriad caveats. There was a sense of renewed Cold War. The New York Times , for example
– America's leading newspaper – put the following headline on its account: "White House Accuses Russia
of Cover-Up in Syria Chemical Attack." The Times ' account did note a Russian denial, but
what was described by the briefer as "declassified information" suddenly became a "declassified intelligence
report." Yet there was no formal intelligence report stating that Syria had used sarin, merely a
"summary based on declassified information about the attacks," as the briefer referred to it.
The crisis slid into the background by the end of April, as Russia, Syria and the United States
remained focused on annihilating ISIS and the militias of al-Qaida. Some of those who had worked
through the crisis, however, were left with lingering concerns. "The Salafists and jihadists
got everything they wanted out of their hyped-up Syrian nerve gas ploy," the senior adviser to the
U.S. intelligence community told me, referring to the flare up of tensions between Syria, Russia
and America.
"The issue is, what if there's another false flag sarin attack credited to hated
Syria? Trump has upped the ante and painted himself into a corner with his decision to bomb. And
do not think these guys are not planning the next faked attack. Trump will have no choice but to
bomb again, and harder. He's incapable of saying he made a mistake."
The White House did not answer specific questions about the bombing of Khan Sheikhoun and
the airport of Shayrat. These questions were send via e-mail to the White House on June 15 and never
answered.
M. Hersh exposed the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam 1968. He uncovered the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison
in Iraq and many other stories about war and politics
Three-term Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a member of both the Armed Services and Foreign
Affairs committees,
has proposed legislation that would prohibit any U.S. assistance to terrorist organizations in
Syria as well as to any organization working directly with them. Equally important, it would prohibit
U.S. military sales and other forms of military cooperation with other countries that provide arms
or financing to those terrorists and their collaborators.
Gabbard's
"Stop Arming Terrorists Act" challenges for the first time in Congress a U.S. policy toward the
conflict in the Syrian civil war that should have set off alarm bells long ago: in 2012-13 the Obama
administration helped its Sunni allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar provide arms to Syrian and
non-Syrian armed groups to force President Bashar al-Assad out of power. And in 2013 the administration
began to provide arms to what the CIA judged to be "relatively moderate" anti-Assad groups-meaning
they incorporated various degrees of Islamic extremism.
That policy, ostensibly aimed at helping replace the Assad regime with a more democratic alternative,
has actually helped build up al Qaeda's Syrian franchise
al Nusra Front into the
dominant threat to Assad.
The supporters of this arms-supply policy believe it is necessary as pushback against Iranian
influence in Syria. But that argument skirts the real issue raised by the policy's history.
The Obama administration's Syria policy effectively sold out the U.S. interest that was supposed
to be the touchstone of the "Global War on Terrorism"-the eradication of al Qaeda and its terrorist
affiliates. The United States has instead subordinated that U.S. interest in counter-terrorism to
the interests of its Sunni allies. In doing so it has helped create a new terrorist threat in the
heart of the Middle East.
The policy of arming military groups committed to overthrowing the government of President Bashar
al-Assad began in September 2011, when President Barack Obama was pressed by his Sunni allies-Turkey,
Saudi Arabia and Qatar-to supply heavy weapons to a military opposition to Assad they were determined
to establish. Turkey and the Gulf regimes wanted the United States to provide anti-tank and anti-aircraft
weapons to the rebels,
according to a former Obama Administration official involved in Middle East issues.
Obama refused to provide arms to the opposition,
but he agreed to provide covert U.S. logistical help i n carrying out a campaign of military
assistance to arm opposition groups. CIA involvement in the arming of anti-Assad forces began with
arranging for the shipment of weapons from the stocks of the Gaddafi regime that had been stored
in Benghazi. CIA-controlled firms shipped the weapons from the military port of Benghazi to two small
ports in Syria using former U.S. military personnel to manage the logistics, as investigative reporter
Sy Hersh detailed in 2014 . The funding for the program came mainly from the Saudis.
A declassified October 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency report revealed that the shipment in
late August 2012 had included 500 sniper rifles, 100 RPG (rocket propelled grenade launchers) along
with 300 RPG rounds and 400 howitzers. Each arms shipment encompassed as many as ten shipping containers,
it reported, each of which held about 48,000 pounds of cargo. That suggests a total payload of up
to 250 tons of weapons per shipment. Even if the CIA had organized only one shipment per month, the
arms shipments would have totaled 2,750 tons of arms bound ultimately for Syria from October 2011
through August 2012. More likely it was a multiple of that figure.
The CIA's covert arms shipments from Libya came to an abrupt halt in September 2012 when Libyan
militants attacked and burned the embassy annex in Benghazi that had been used to support the operation.
By then, however, a much larger channel for arming anti-government forces was opening up. The CIA
put the Saudis in touch with a senior Croatian official
who had offered to sell large quantities of arms left over from the Balkan Wars of the 1990s.
And the CIA
helped them shop for weapons from arms dealers and governments in several other former Soviet
bloc countries.
Flush with weapons acquired from both the CIA Libya program and from the Croatians, the Saudis
and Qataris dramatically increased the number of flights by military cargo planes to Turkey in December
2012 and continued that intensive pace for the next two and a half months. The New York Times
reported a total 160 such flights through mid-March 2013. The most common cargo plane in use
in the Gulf, the Ilyushin
IL-76 , can carry roughly 50 tons of cargo on a flight, which would indicate that as much as
8,000 tons of weapons poured across the Turkish border into Syria just in late 2012 and in 2013.
One U.S. official called the new level of arms deliveries to Syrian rebels a "cataract of weaponry."
And a year-long investigation by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network and the Organized
Crime and Corruption Reporting Project revealed that the Saudis were intent on building up a powerful
conventional army in Syria. The "end-use certificate" for weapons purchased from an arms company
in Belgrade, Serbia, in May 2013
includes 500
Soviet-designed PG-7VR rocket launchers that can penetrate even heavily-armored tanks, along with
two million rounds; 50 Konkurs anti-tank missile launchers and 500 missiles, 50 anti-aircraft guns
mounted on armored vehicles, 10,000 fragmentation rounds for OG-7 rocket launchers capable of piercing
heavy body armor; four truck-mounted BM-21 GRAD multiple rocket launchers, each of which fires 40
rockets at a time with a range of 12 to 19 miles, along with 20,000 GRAD rockets.
The end user document for
another Saudi order
from the same Serbian company listed 300 tanks, 2,000 RPG launchers, and 16,500 other rocket
launchers, one million rounds for ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft guns, and 315 million cartridges for various
other guns.
Those two purchases were
only a fraction of the totality of the arms obtained by the Saudis over the next few years from
eight Balkan nations. Investigators found that the Saudis made their biggest arms deals with former
Soviet bloc states in 2015, and that the weapons included many that had just come off factory production
lines. Nearly 40 percent of the arms the Saudis purchased from those countries, moreover, still had
not been delivered by early 2017. So the Saudis had already contracted for enough weaponry to keep
a large-scale conventional war in Syria going for several more years.
By far the most consequential single Saudi arms purchase was not from the Balkans, however, but
from the United States. It was the December 2013
U.S. sale of 15,000 TOW anti-tank missiles to the Saudis at a cost of about $1 billion-the result
of Obama's decision earlier that year to reverse his ban on lethal assistance to anti-Assad armed
groups. The Saudis had agreed, moreover, that those anti-tank missiles would be doled out to Syrian
groups only at U.S. discretion. The TOW missiles began to arrive in Syria in 2014 and soon had
a major impact on the military balance.
This flood of weapons into Syria, along with the entry of 20,000 foreign fighters into the country-primarily
through Turkey-largely defined the nature of the conflict. These armaments helped make al Qaeda's
Syrian franchise, al Nusra Front (now renamed Tahrir al-Sham or Levant Liberation Organization) and
its close allies by far the most powerful anti-Assad forces in Syria-
and gave rise to the Islamic State .
By late 2012, it became clear to U.S. officials that the largest share of the arms that began
flowing into Syria early in the year were going to the rapidly growing al Qaeda presence in the country.
In October 2012, U.S.
officials acknowledged off the record for the first time to the New York Times that "most"
of the arms that had been shipped to armed opposition groups in Syria with U.S. logistical assistance
during the previous year had gone to "hardline Islamic jihadists"- obviously meaning al Qaeda's Syrian
franchise, al Nusra.
Al Nusra Front and its allies became the main recipients of the weapons because the Saudis, Turks,
and Qataris wanted the arms to go to the military units that were most successful in attacking government
targets. And by the summer of 2012, al Nusra Front, buttressed by the thousands of foreign jihadists
pouring into the country across the Turkish border, was already
taking the lead in attacks on the Syrian government in coordination with "Free Syrian Army" brigades.
In November and December 2012, al Nusra Front began establishing formal "joint operations rooms"
with those calling themselves "Free Syrian Army" on several battlefronts, as Charles Lister chronicles
in his book The Syrian Jihad . One such commander favored by Washington was Col. Abdul Jabbar al-Oqaidi, a former Syrian
army officer who headed something called the Aleppo Revolutionary Military Council. Ambassador Robert
Ford, who continued to hold that position even after he had been withdrawn from Syria,
publicly visited Oqaidi
in May 2013 to express U.S. support for him and the FSA.
But Oqaidi and his troops were junior partners in a coalition in Aleppo in which al Nusra was
by far the strongest element. That reality is clearly
reflected in a video in
which Oqaidi describes his good relations with officials of the "Islamic State" and is shown joining
the main jihadist commander in the Aleppo region celebrating the capture of the Syrian government's
Menagh Air Base in September 2013.
By early 2013, in fact, the "Free Syrian Army," which had never actually been a military organization
with any troops, had ceased to have any real significance in the Syria conflict. New anti-Assad armed
groups had stopped using the name even as a "brand" to identify themselves, as a leading specialist
on the
conflict
observed.
So, when weapons from Turkey arrived at the various battlefronts, it was understood by all the
non-jihadist groups that they would be shared with al Nusra Front and its close allies.
A report by McClatchy in early 2013, on a town in north central Syria, showed how the military
arrangements between al Nusra and those brigades calling themselves "Free Syrian Army" governed the
distribution of weapons. One of those units, the Victory Brigade, had participated in a "joint operations
room" with al Qaeda's most important military ally, Ahrar al Sham, in a successful attack on a strategic
town a few weeks earlier. A visiting reporter watched that brigade and Ahrar al Sham show off new
sophisticated weapons that included Russian-made RPG27 shoulder-fired rocket-propelled anti-tank
grenades and RG6 grenade launchers.
When asked if the Victory Brigade had shared its new weapons with Ahrar al Sham, the latter's
spokesman responded, "Of course they share their weapons with us. We fight together."
Turkey and Qatar consciously chose al Qaeda and its closest ally, Ahrar al Sham, as the recipients
of weapons systems. In late 2013 and early 2014, several truckloads of arms bound for the province
of Hatay, just south of the Turkish border, were intercepted by Turkish police. They had Turkish
intelligence personnel on board,
according to later Turkish police court testimony . The province was controlled by Ahrar al Sham.
In fact Turkey soon began to treat Ahrar al Sham as its primary client in Syria, according to
Faysal Itani , a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East.
A Qatari intelligence operative who had been involved in shipping arms to extremist groups in
Libya was a key figure in directing the flow of arms from Turkey into Syria. An Arab intelligence
source familiar with the discussions among the external suppliers near the Syrian border in Turkey
during those years told the Washington Post's
David Ignatius that when one of the participants warned that the outside powers were building
up the jihadists while the non-Islamist groups were withering away, the Qatari operative responded,
"I will send weapons to al Qaeda if it will help."
The Qataris did funnel arms to both al Nusra Front and Ahrar al Sham, according to a
Middle Eastern diplomatic source. The Obama administration's
National Security Council staff proposed in 2013 that the United States signal U.S. displeasure
with Qatar over its arming of extremists in both Syria and Libya by withdrawing a squadron of fighter
planes from the U.S. airbase at al-Udeid, Qatar. The Pentagon vetoed that mild form of pressure,
however, to protect its access to its base in Qatar.
President Obama himself confronted Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan over his government's support
for the jihadists at a private White House dinner in May 2013, as recounted by Hersh. "We know what
you're doing with the radicals in Syria," he quotes Obama as saying to Erdogan.
The administration addressed Turkey's cooperation with the al Nusra publicly, however, only fleetingly
in late 2014. Shortly after leaving Ankara, Francis Ricciardone, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey from
2011 through mid-2014,
told The Daily Telegraph of London that Turkey had "worked with groups, frankly, for a
period, including al Nusra."
The closest Washington came to a public reprimand of its allies over the arming of terrorists
in Syria was when Vice President Joe Biden criticized their role in October 2014.
In impromptu remarks at Harvard University's Kennedy School, Biden complained that "our biggest
problem is our allies." The forces they had supplied with arms, he said, were "al Nusra and al Qaeda
and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world."
Biden quickly apologized
for the remarks, explaining that he didn't mean that U.S. allies had deliberately helped the
jihadists. But Ambassador Ford confirmed his complaint,
telling BBC , "What
Biden said about the allies aggravating the problem of extremism is true."
In June 2013 Obama
approved the first direct U.S. lethal military aid to rebel brigades that had been vetted by
the CIA By spring 2014, the U.S.-made BGM-71E anti-tank missiles from the 15,000 transferred to
the Saudis
began to appear in the hands of selected anti-Assad groups. But the CIA imposed the condition
that the group receiving them would not cooperate with the al Nusra Front or its allies.
That condition implied that Washington was supplying military groups that were strong enough to
maintain their independence from al Nusra Front. But the groups on the CIA's list of vetted "relatively
moderate" armed groups were all highly vulnerable to takeover by the al Qaeda affiliate. In November
2014, al Nusra Front troops struck the two strongest CIA-supported armed groups, Harakat Hazm and
the Syrian Revolutionary Front on successive days and seized their heavy weapons, including both
TOW anti-tank missiles and GRAD rockets.
In early March 2015, the Harakat Hazm Aleppo branch dissolved itself, and al Nusra Front promptly
showed off photos of the TOW missiles and other equipment they had captured from it. And in March
2016, al Nusra Front troops
attacked the headquarters of the 13th Division in northwestern Idlib province and seized all
of its TOW missiles. Later that month, al Nusra Front
released a video of its troops using the TOW missiles it had captured.
But that wasn't the only way for al Nusra Front to benefit from the CIA's largesse. Along with
its close ally Ahrar al Sham, the terrorist organization
began planning
for a campaign to take complete control of Idlib province in the winter of 2014-15. Abandoning
any pretense of distance from al Qaeda, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar worked with al Nusra on the
creation of a new military formation for Idlib called the "Army of Conquest," consisting of the al
Qaeda affiliate and its closest allies. Saudi Arabia and Qatar
provided more weapons for the campaign, while Turkey
facilitated their passage . On March 28, just four days after launching the campaign, the Army
of Conquest successfully gained control of Idlib City.
The non-jihadist armed groups getting advanced weapons from the CIA assistance were not part of
the initial assault on Idlib City. After the capture of Idlib the U.S.-led operations room for Syria
in southern Turkey signaled to the CIA-supported groups in Idlib that they could now participate
in the campaign to consolidate control over the rest of the province.
According to Lister
, the British researcher on jihadists in Syria who maintains contacts with both jihadist and
other armed groups, recipients of CIA weapons, such as the Fursan al haq brigade and Division 13,
did join the Idlib campaign alongside al Nusra Front without any move by the CIA to cut them
off.
As the Idlib offensive began, the CIA-supported groups were getting TOW missiles in larger numbers,
and they now
used them with great effectiveness against the Syrian army tanks. That was the beginning of a
new phase of the war, in which U.S. policy was to support an alliance between "relatively moderate"
groups and the al Nusra Front.
The new alliance was carried over to Aleppo, where jihadist groups close to Nusra Front formed
a new command called Fateh Halab ("Aleppo Conquest") with nine armed groups in Aleppo province which
were getting CIA assistance. The CIA-supported groups could claim that they weren't cooperating with
al Nusra Front because the al Qaeda franchise was not officially on the list of participants in the
command. But as the report on the new command
clearly implied , this was merely a way of allowing the CIA to continue providing weapons to
its clients, despite their de facto alliance with al Qaeda.
The significance of all this is clear: by helping its Sunni allies provide weapons to al Nusra
Front and its allies and by funneling into the war zone sophisticated weapons that were bound to
fall into al Nusra hands or strengthen their overall military position, U.S. policy has been largely
responsible for having extended al Qaeda's power across a significant part of Syrian territory. The
CIA and the Pentagon appear to be ready to tolerate such a betrayal of America's stated counter-terrorism
mission. Unless either Congress or the White House confronts that betrayal explicitly, as Tulsi Gabbard's
legislation would force them to do, U.S. policy will continue to be complicit in the consolidation
of power by al Qaeda in Syria, even if the Islamic State is defeated there.
Gareth Porter is an independent journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism.
He is the author of numerous books, including Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran
Nuclear Scare (Just World Books, 2014).
America has been doing the same thing in Syria that it did in Afghanistan in the 80s when they
armed and trained Bin Laden and the Mujahideen to create Al Qaeda and look what that led to 9/11
only this time their criminal actions of arming Jihadists have led to terrorist attacks in Europe.
I think the largest problem with US Foreign Policy is we are rather ignorant of any aspect of
the Middle East or its politics even after all that time in Iraq. It is almost embarrassing the
fact we are a society that seem to reward and encourage ignorance at all levels of it. At one
point in time many politicians lacked formal education yet they were all highly self educated.
Lincoln was a self trained lawyer from a humble background. I
Ignorance is not a virtue unless you are Orwellian in thought.
"ostensibly aimed at helping replace the Assad regime with a more democratic alternative" – That
is the smartest insight of this story. US policy in the region strongly favors relatively secular
dictators. Democracy is seen as a total threat to "stability," brutal US-allied regimes. The US
should either stop meddling, or genuinely support democratic reform, but not lie to the American
people by meddling in the name of democracy.
Here is an excerpt from Tulsi Gabbard's Press release.
Why don't you publish it?
"Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda,
ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS,
we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly
supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups
with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.[i]
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, December 8, 2016,Press Release.
Could it get much worse? American wars in the Middle East have been a total disaster. For a while
it looked as if Trump might be the game changer, someone who would finally pull us out. Instead,
the situation is getting worse. ISIS is spreading like a cancer in Europe, with a flood of refugees
changing the character of Europe permanently perhaps. Meanwhile, the non-Islamist groups were
withering away" according to this article, because the US of all people are arming the terrorists.
Geez, I wonder if that makes the US a terrorist nation? (Sadly we recently had a choice of partnering
with Russia to wipe out ISIS, but we decided to play the sinister game of power politics instead.
Clearly the Turks, Saudis other Sunis have been aiding and abetting ISIS in various ways. We should
switch allegiance to Russia and Iran, IMO.)
So, the State Department's objective in the Middle East is to create a Sunnistan between the Tigris
and Euphrates rivers controlled by radical Sunni Islamists of whatever name they chose to call
themselves.
It seems Israel has signed off on this.
It also seems the Russians are saying "fine." But still the war goes on. Why?
Is it absolutely necessary that Syria be destroyed as well?
Why; is it because of Iran and it's puppets the rump of Iraq east of the Euphrates and Syria?
If this is the final outcome envisioned of what possible relevance is Afghanistan?
It would be wonderful to see some follow-on reporting by Gareth Porter. For example, on whether
there was any relation between Gen. Flynn's apparent opposition to this 'strategy' and the campaign
to get him out of the White House. Yeah, I know. He spoke with the Russian ambassador. Besides
that.
Every terrorist attack, every child that is killed in the UK and Europe, is just a case of terrorism
coming home, pigeons coming home to roost. What goes around comes around. It would be no more
than justice if London/ Paris/ Brussels, let alone Riyadh and Doha, one day looked like Damascus
does today. We have armed/ bankrolled/ trained this filth. They always bite the hand that feeds
them.
Yes. We know. The whole reason I voted for Trump, is because he looked as though he would end
this conflict. But it didn't happen. And what did I really expect? No morality, no promise is
solid.
We should have banned travel and withdrawn every US and NATO force from the area, down to the
last rifle. We are weakened from years of fighting and our enemies know it.
It's time we elected a non-rich, non-politician, common man to the office of President. Somebody
with outstanding morality and nothing to lose.
Trump doesn't seem to be delivering what I want. And he's not the leader I want.
I know what the leader I'm looking for is like. Wherever this man is, it's time he step forward.
If he doesn't, then I will, but chances are it will be too late by the time I am ready. So how
about one of millions of experienced adults show up for once. I'm tired of living my life, ruled
by lesser men. Give me somebody to support, for God's sake.
Among the Republican establishment, particularly the neoconservative wing, Pence has an impeccable
reputation. Many describe him as a "
hawk's hawk ." He was a strong proponent of the Iraq War, has vigorously stood up for a strong
military and "American values" and, as vice president, has taken on an informal role as an
emissary to NATO and other alliances. All of this contrasts starkly to what candidate Trump said
on the campaign trail.
Likewise, Pence's evangelical Christian faith is central to his identity. He has proudly built
up a reputation as one of the most
conservative lawmakers in the country and frequently
describes himself as "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." There is
a high probability that Pence would explicitly embed religious morals in U.S. foreign policy and
push an activist social conservative agenda.
For example, as the governor of Indiana, Pence signed one of the
strictest abortion provisions in the country and approved a controversial law intended to allow
businesses to
deny services to members of the LGBT community for religious reasons (only after intense blowback
did he backtrack). Translated into the foreign policy realm, it is not hard to imagine Pence defending
Christian minorities around the world, possibly to the exclusion of other religious groups.
He will undoubtedly continue Trump's expansion of the "
global gag rule ," and it is possible he may try to push a "
clash of civilizations
" strategy, primarily seeking alliances with countries that have a "Judeo-Christian" character.
But a Pence presidency could also mean re-adopting a "values agenda," with a greater emphasis
on human rights, democracy and development that would be closer in line with President George W.
Bush's policies. Under Bush, funding for development - particularly global health programs - expanded,
bringing together an unlikely coalition of secular development advocates and faith-based stakeholders.
It is not hard to envision a similar coalition coming together under Pence's watch. A Pence presidency
also may lead to a shoring-up of security and economic alliances. Just as Trump has cast the free-trade
regime into jeopardy, castigated NATO (at least before an
abrupt
about-face last month) and signaled massive funding cuts to the Bretton Woods Institutions, Pence
may reverse many of these pronouncements.
In the current configuration of the Trump administration, three separate groups tangle for foreign
policy primacy: the economic nationalists/populists led by Stephen Bannon, the
military pragmatists represented by Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor
H.R. McMaster and the
economic globalists fronted by National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary
Steve Mnuchin.
Under Pence, the Bannon wing would likely make a quick and graceless exit. The economic globalists
and the military pragmatists would stay entrenched in strong positions, but old groups would likely
return, such as the neoconservatives and religious faith leaders.
A Pence presidency would bring big style changes. Gone would be the late night tweets and blustery
rhetoric. More than likely, "America First" would gradually disappear, with a return to a more traditional
form of American exceptionalism. The impulsivity, erratic swings of policy and casual disregard for
intelligence and briefing material would also likely pass.
These changes alone would considerably ease fears about an accidental stumble into a major war
or nuclear confrontation. On the other hand, the divisive culture wars that have framed Pence's political
career would presumably return in a major way and likely spill over into the foreign policy arena.
"... Read Starikov... All these recent weapons deals, and many before is nothing more than what's called Reparations and Contributions. ..."
"... It's an old deal http://defense-update.com/20141222_qatari_patriots.html ..."
"... You know I am not a fan of the military industrial complex but you have to be in awe of these people. Trump sells 350 billion to SA which includes the best automatic self destruct fighter every engineered by the U.S. and then sells F15s to their obvious rivals in Quatar lol. ..."
Pentagon Agrees To Sell $12 Billion In F-15s To Qatar Tyler Durden Jun 14, 2017
4:35 PM 0 SHARES Remember when Trump called on
Qatar to stop funding terrorism, claiming credit for and endorsing the decision of Gulf nations to
isolate their small neighbor (where the most important US airbase in the middle east is located),even
as US Cabinet officials said their blockade is hurting the campaign against ISIS. You should: it
took place just 5 days ago.
"We had a decision to make," Trump said, describing conversations with Saudi Arabia and other
Gulf countries. "Do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action? We have
to stop the funding of terrorism." Also last week, Trump triumphantly announced on twitter that "during
my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology.
Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!"
Well, Qatar funding terrorism apparently is not a problem when it comes to Qatar funding the US
military industrial complex , because just two weeks after Trump signed a record, $110 billion weapons
deal with Saudi Arabia, moments ago
Bloomberg reported that Qatar will also buy up to 36 F-15 jets from the Pentagon for $12 billion
.... even as a political crisis in the Gulf leaves the Middle East nation isolated by its neighbors
and criticized by President Donald Trump for supporting terrorism, according to three people with
knowledge of the accord.
According to the Pentagon, the sale will give Qatar a "state of the art" capability, not to mention
the illusion that it can defend itself in a war with Saudi Arabia.
If nothing else, Uncle Sam sure is an equal-opportunity arms dealer, and best of all, with the
new fighter planes, Qatar will be able to at least put on a token fight when Saudi Arabia invades
in hopes of sending the price of oil surging now that every other "strategy" has failed.
To be sure, the sale comes at an opportune time: just days after Qatar put its military on the
highest state of alert,
and scrambled its tanks . All 16 of them. Maybe the world's wealthiest nation realized it's time
beef up its defensive capabilities?
Qatar's defense minister will meet with Pentagon chief Jim Mattis on Wednesday to seal the agreement,
Bloomberg reported citing people who spoke on condition of anonymity because the sale hasn't been
announced. Last year, congress approved the sale of up to 72 F-15s in an agreement valued at as much
as $21 billion but that deal took place before the recent political crisis in the region.
Oh c'mon y'all. This is nothing new. These are the same synchophants that (somehow, oops!)
created ISIS and then go in and bomb them. WTF did you expect? That they'd actually do what they
say?
A big shout out to Boeing Military. Hookers and blow tonight in the exec suite. BTW these planes
aren't sitting in inventory ready to be delivered. So any conflict in the next few years won't
have to worry about these planes.
That is unless the US or some other buyer agrees to step aside and allow Qatar to take their
place at the end of the assembly line.
That should about wrap it up on who is in charge of the Deep state. Backing both sides of a
potential conflict and making sure everyone has enough arms to blow each to smitherines. Sounds
like the old Red Shield tricks are still the best ones. Long live central bankers, after they
have been thrown into a burning pit of sulfer.
Absolutely. But, oh, these damned Iranians. They simply resisted the USA's boy Saddam and fought
back.
That failure to comply with OUR orders sealed his faith.
Weapons of mass destruction. Well, we delivered them to him. chemical weapons to kill all the
Iranians. So we KNEW they must have been there. We just didn't expect that he really used them
all up against Iran and later on (the remaining few) against the curds. What a bastard. After
all that WE did for Saddam, he didn't deliver. Fuck him.
Speaking of non-delivery, why has our newest boy, Poroshenko, not yet taken Moscow? So, fuck
him, too! And fuck the EU.
And speaking of that, where is Monica, when one needs her? And let's have some Pizza...
That could happen and did on many F-18 sales where we in the US in effect packed the parts
into glorified Heath kits and sent them to the buying countries who did their own labor. Also
sent them the testing equipment and every other thing they needed so all we got were a few spare
piece parts at a slightly lower price. The labor went to the purchasing country.
That right there is some wizard-level salesmanship. And I can assure you that these weapons
systems have "ALL" of the capabilities of the ones in our US arsenal, hahaha. And furthermore,
they cannot be messed with by remote control by the boys at the Pentagon, just in case things
get a little messy or embarassing. Nosiree. What you see is what you get. Yes, Lord.
Looks like Trump is just selling to whoever want to buy. What the hell, why not, he's shown
himself to be a sell out. Might as well be the best damn arms dealer you can buy.
You know I am not a fan of the military industrial complex but you have to be in awe of
these people. Trump sells 350 billion to SA which includes the best automatic self destruct fighter
every engineered by the U.S. and then sells F15s to their obvious rivals in Quatar lol.
I personally think the F15s will utterly destroy the f35s because all they have to do to down
an f35 is keep it flying, it will eventual blow up on its own.
Well like I said before, let the body count be super high... and let all the fucking crazy
suicide bombers head back home to kill themselves.
As Bernie, the man behind the man that shot up a bunch of congressmen said... Its going to
be HUUUUUGE... the war thats coming that is... I wonder how many oil tankers will be sunk?
Almost all the world's economic and political problems revolve around the hegemony of a global
corporate cartel, which is headquartered in the US because this is where their dominant military
force resides. The US Constitution is therefore the "kingpin" of an all-inclusive global financial
empire. These fictitious entities now own the USA and command its military infrastructure by virtue
of the Federal Reserve Corporation, regulatory capture, MSM propaganda, and congressional lobbying.
The Founders had to fight a bloody Revolutionary War to win our right to incorporate as a nation
– the USA. But then, for whatever reason, our Founders granted the greediest businessmen among
them unrestricted corporate charters with enough potential capital & power to compete with the
individual states, smaller sovereign nations, and eventually to buy out the USA itself. The only
way The People can regain our sovereignty as a constitutional republic now is to severely curtail
the privileges of any corporation doing business here. To remain sovereign we have to stop granting
corporate charters to just any "suit" that comes along without fulfilling a defined social value
in return. The "Divine Right Of Kings" should not apply to fictitious entities just because they
are "Too Big To Fail". We can't afford to privatize our Treasury to transnational banks anymore.
Government must be held responsible only to the electorate, not fictitious entities; and banks
must be held responsible to the government if we are ever to restore sanity, much less prosperity,
to the world.
It was a loophole in our Constitution that allowed corporate charters to be so easily obtained
that a swamp of corruption inevitably flooded our entire economic system. It is a swamp that can't
be drained at this point because the Constitution doesn't provide a drain. This 28 th
amendment is intended to install that drain so Congress can pull the plug ASAP. As a matter
of political practicality we must rely on the Article 5 option to do this, for which the electorate
will need overwhelming consensus beforehand. Seriously; an Article 5 Constitutional Convention
is rapidly becoming our only sensible option.
This is what I think it will take to save the world; and nobody gets hurt: 28 th
Amendment
28 th Amendment:
Corporations are not persons in any sense of the word and shall be granted only those rights
and privileges that Congress deems necessary for the well-being of the People. Congress shall
provide legislation defining the terms and conditions of corporate charters according to their
purpose; which shall include, but are not limited to:
1, prohibitions against any corporation; a, owning another corporation; b, becoming economically
indispensable or monopolistic; or c, otherwise distorting the general economy;
2, prohibitions against any form of interference in the affairs of; a, government, b, education,
c, news media; or d, healthcare, and
3, provisions for; a, the auditing of standardized, current, and transparent account books;
b, the establishment of state and municipal banking; and c, civil and criminal penalties to be
suffered by corporate executives for violation of the terms of a corporate charter.
"... As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: "Look at who Mueller's starting to hire. (T)hese are people that look to me like they're setting up to go after Trump including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. "This is going to be a witch hunt." ..."
"... Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War. The State Department was tasked with working out the details. Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received "panicky" calls of "Please, my God, can you stop this?" Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded. ..."
"... Trump will deal with it by bombing Iran and Syria thereby starting a war with Russia. It was always about the Democrats not being sure that Donald Trump had the vigor and enthusiasm to destroy Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran for Greater Israel. Honestly, why is Trump worth defending? ..."
"... since they've only found Reality Winner thus far either they are progressing slowly or the people in charge of the investigation are actively sabotaging it and protecting some of the leakers. ..."
"... Trump doesn't even have the good sense or guts to tell his air-head daughter to shut up and knit some mittens for her kids, or to have his shyster son in law get out of government, and mind his own business, which is apparently shady financial and real estate deals and supporting zion. Trump was useful to defeat Hillary, and now that he has served his purpose, the search for a real American patriot and nationalist leader needs to intensify. Trump was never that person. ..."
"... It is hard to believe how naive or stupid Trump has been. He should have fired Comey and hundreds of others in the deep state when he raised his hand from the bible. ..."
"... His involvement in world affairs is stupid and dangerous. He is belligerent and menacing to Russia, Iran, China and middle-eastern countries that Israel doesn't like. This country's existence is at stake and needs all the attention of this administration. Our entanglement in world affairs is not warranted. ..."
"... "Trump has had many accomplishments since his election." None of significance. ..."
"... I want him to stop tweeting and pay attention to the consequences of his actions. I don't think he had any idea that the country he was bragging about ostracizing is the host to the largest US military base in the Middle East. Rex Tillerson had to remind him of that. ..."
"... So far, Trump has not shown the requisite amount of intelligence or courage, necessary to take on, let alone defeat, the forces arrayed against him. ..."
"... His first 100 days may have sealed his fate. Rather than take the initiative, and launch investigations into Mrs. Clinton's criminal empire, keep all his promises on immigration i.e. end DACA and reinstitute internal immigration enforcement, begin building the wall, etc. He gave up all of his potential leverage and got nothing in return. So much for the Art of the Deal. ..."
"... Trump would have to be a canny, electrifying, compelling and savvy figure to have even a chance. He's not. We never thought he would be, mind you; we just knew he'd be better than Hillary. Meanwhile, the Empire Strikes Back. It's not going to be pretty. ..."
"... The people of the Swamp are hostage to the Devil. ..."
President Trump may be chief of state, head of government and commander in chief, but his administration
is shot through with disloyalists plotting to bring him down.
We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of the
sovereign and its own restoration.
Thus far, it is a nonviolent struggle, though street clashes between pro- and anti-Trump forces
are increasingly marked by fistfights and brawls. Police are having difficulty keeping people apart.
A few have been arrested carrying concealed weapons.
That the objective of this city is to bring Trump down via a deep state-media coup is no secret.
Few deny it.
Last week, fired Director of the FBI James Comey, a successor to J. Edgar Hoover, admitted under
oath that he used a cutout to leak to The New York Times an Oval Office conversation with the president.
Goal: have the Times story trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor to bring down the president.
Comey wanted a special prosecutor to target Trump, despite his knowledge, from his own FBI investigation,
that Trump was innocent of the pervasive charge that he colluded with the Kremlin in the hacking
of the DNC.
Comey's deceit was designed to enlist the police powers of the state to bring down his president.
And it worked. For the special counsel named, with broad powers to pursue Trump, is Comey's friend
and predecessor at the FBI, Robert Mueller.
As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: "Look at who Mueller's starting to hire. (T)hese are people that
look to me like they're setting up to go after Trump including people, by the way, who have
been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. "This is going to be a witch hunt."
Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia
after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War. The State
Department was tasked with working out the details. Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for
sanctions policy, he received "panicky" calls of "Please, my God, can you stop this?" Operatives
at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected,
collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded.
"It would have been a win-win for Moscow," said Tom Malinowski of State, who boasted last week
of his role in blocking a rapprochement with Russia. State employees sabotaged one of the principal
policies for which Americans had voted, and they substituted their own.
Not in memory have there been so many leaks to injure a president from within his own government,
and not just political leaks, but leaks of confidential, classified and secret documents. The leaks
are coming out of the supposedly secure investigative and intelligence agencies of the U.S. government.
The media, the beneficiaries of these leaks, are giving cover to those breaking the law. The real
criminal "collusion" in Washington is between Big Media and the deep state, colluding to destroy
a president they detest and to sink the policies they oppose.
Yet another example is the unfolding "unmasking" scandal.
While all the evidence is not yet in, it appears an abnormal number of conversations between Trump
associates and Russians were intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.
On orders higher up, the conversations were transcribed, and, contrary to law, the names of Trump
associates unmasked. Then those transcripts, with names revealed, were spread to all 16 agencies
of the intel community at the direction of Susan Rice, and with the possible knowledge of Barack
Obama, assuring some would be leaked after Trump became president. The leak of Gen. Michael Flynn's
conversation with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after Obama imposed sanctions on Russia
for the hacking of the DNC, may have been a product of the unmasking operation. The media hit on
Flynn cost him the National Security Council post.
... ... ...
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Comey wanted Mueller in there, and Mueller is doing what he will, because Mueller is there
primarily to PROTECT Obama and Clinton and their vast left wing cabal, just like Comey did before
he was canned.
Mucking up Trump's life and those of Trump's people in the process is merely a sweet bonus.
Not to mention the excellent distraction/diversion value that provides.
Trump needs to go after the deep state and quit attempting to mollify it with actions such
as support of Saudi terrorists. It is a fight to the finish and if the power structure wins, our
days are numbered.
Most people in this country don't know what is going on and wouldn't care if they did. Trump
and this country are experiencing democracy's waning time in action. And it ain't pretty.
Trump is surrounded by judases. His own hand-picked people are not loyal to him, including
his vice-president. Trump hasn't shown any cojones that every one expected from him. One little
crisis and he has surrendered himself to the neocons. Session is a weak man. He couldn't even
stand up to his old buddies who showed no respect to a fellow senator.
We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of
the sovereign and its own restoration.
We already have a civil war. It may be bloodless but it is a civil war which it appears Trump
is destined to lose unless he shows some courage and brains to turn the scale against the insurgents.
He should start by firing Rosenstein (sp) and Mueller and dare the congress to impeach him.
He should take his case to the voters that had elected him and urge them to call on congress,
especially, the Republicans to support him. He should go back to his pre-election agenda and start
pulling the US out of the Middle East and make friendly overtures towards Russia. He also needs
to rein in the intelligence commmunity and tell them to get off the Iran case and do some real
intelligence work. Stop supporting all insurgents in the Middle East no matter what their affiliation.
From the beginning I have posted on this site that Trump should cancel Obama's executive order
allowing NSA to share its intelligence with other agencies unless they officially request it.
I can't believe he hasn't done this.
Finally, I thought by now he should have learned that he cannot govern through the Tweeter.
He needs to get off of that binge and get serious. So far he does not have any coherent domestic
or foreign policy. Bowing down to Israel and Saudi Arabia and do their bidding does not make a
foreign policy. One is threatening him while the other is bribing him, neither is a true friend
to the US. Except for the supreme court justice position, Trump has nothing to show for his domestic
achievements. Republicans need to act as the majority party. They cannot let the Democrats run
the congressional business.
Trump will deal with it by bombing Iran and Syria thereby starting a war with Russia. It
was always about the Democrats not being sure that Donald Trump had the vigor and enthusiasm to
destroy Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran for Greater Israel. Honestly, why is Trump worth
defending?
Moreover Donald Trump is hellbent on using the Native Born White Working Class Teeanage Male
Population as canon fodder Greater Israel in the Middle East. Trump is a vile, evil creature who
will rot in hell for an eternity for doing this .
" will not relent until they see him impeached or resigning in disgrace."
As if they're going to stop there. Those breaches of WH security a while back were the Deep
State's warning shot, and you see how quickly Trump about-faced in the ME.
From the beginning I have posted on this site that Trump should cancel Obama's executive
order allowing NSA to share its intelligence with other agencies unless they officially request
it. I can't believe he hasn't done this.
I agree, but I believe he's kept the EO in place since it's easier to find the leakers this
way. But since they've only found Reality Winner thus far either they are progressing slowly
or the people in charge of the investigation are actively sabotaging it and protecting some of
the leakers.
Trump better cancel the EO if and when the find all the leakers and if he doesn't he'll unmask
himself as a fraud who's smitten by absolute government power. Defense of civil liberties has
never been his strong suit.
Kill Deep State by shutting off funding. Unclassify the whole intelligence budget. Then shut
it down. Move the civilian intelligence functions to the military. Return FBI to a domestic agency
covering federal crimes, not working closely with CIA or accompanying U.S. military in raids in
Afghanistan and Middle East.
Trump doesn't even have the good sense or guts to tell his air-head daughter to shut up
and knit some mittens for her kids, or to have his shyster son in law get out of government, and
mind his own business, which is apparently shady financial and real estate deals and supporting
zion. Trump was useful to defeat Hillary, and now that he has served his purpose, the search for
a real American patriot and nationalist leader needs to intensify. Trump was never that person.
I think the nation could come unglued, but I don't see the military joining in, at least not
on the side of nationalists against the government. The average American soldier seems to be a
PC brainwashed, globalist stooge, and the officer class appears to be made up of weak-minded careerists
and yes men, little different from the soldiers, so I don't see much help coming from them. Add
that to the fact that the government is trying to pass laws giving amnesty to illegals who will
join a U.S. military that already has many soldiers of foreign birth or roots, and I don't see
much help coming from the military, which seems to become more distant from the population as
time goes by.
It is hard to believe how naive or stupid Trump has been. He should have fired Comey and
hundreds of others in the deep state when he raised his hand from the bible.
He should have confronted those in his party that are out to destroy him Why did he waste his
time interviewing loser like Romney? Was he serious about their possible usefulness? Trump doesn't
seem to know that he is under assault. He needs to start some serious ass kicking.
His involvement in world affairs is stupid and dangerous. He is belligerent and menacing
to Russia, Iran, China and middle-eastern countries that Israel doesn't like. This country's existence
is at stake and needs all the attention of this administration. Our entanglement in world affairs
is not warranted.
"Trump has had many accomplishments since his election." None of significance.
@MEexpert If you think he has "nothing to show for his domestic achievements" and that he
"does not have any coherent domestic or foreign policy" it suggests to me that you're either a
Democratic troll, not paying attention, or just plain ignorant.
One example – by pulling out of the Paris "Accord" he has saved the US around $100 trillion
over the next 8o years, as well as at least one, if not more, percentage points in GDP growth
over those years. Not to speak of millions of jobs. In 10 years time, this will no doubt be recognized
as his signature achievement.
You can easily find the myriad of other domestic and foreign policy achievements if you really
want. But its clear you really don't want.
I find it amusing that you would side with the enemy in recommending he stop tweeting. How
many before you said he would never win the nomination, then he would never win the Presidency,
BECAUSE he couldn't stop tweeting. They ALL were just as wrong as you are now.
And of course your guessing or assuming when you really don't know war is hell so they say,
and we are masters at starting them killing little children, what was the count in Iraq 100,000
500,000 thousand and the masters said it was worth it the problem with the American people including
you is its alright as long as it happens in some other country but cry a river at the thoughts
it could happen here, now who's the idiot?
How many before you said he would never win the nomination, then he would never win the
Presidency,
I don't know, because I never said it. LOL. I voted for Trump. So much for your insight into
my motives.
One example – by pulling out of the Paris "Accord" he has saved the US around $100 trillion
over the next 8o years, as well as at least one, if not more, percentage points in GDP growth
over those years. Not to speak of millions of jobs. In 10 years time, this will no doubt be
recognized as his signature achievement.
All this is in the future and unknown. $100 trillions sounds great but who came up with this
outrageous number. I am talking about now. If he ends the war, the payoff will be immediate with
savings in material cost and lives.
I want him to stop tweeting and pay attention to the consequences of his actions. I don't
think he had any idea that the country he was bragging about ostracizing is the host to the largest
US military base in the Middle East. Rex Tillerson had to remind him of that.
So far, Trump has not shown the requisite amount of intelligence or courage, necessary
to take on, let alone defeat, the forces arrayed against him.
His first 100 days may have sealed his fate. Rather than take the initiative, and launch
investigations into Mrs. Clinton's criminal empire, keep all his promises on immigration i.e.
end DACA and reinstitute internal immigration enforcement, begin building the wall, etc. He gave
up all of his potential leverage and got nothing in return. So much for the Art of the Deal.
Trump created a vacuum by failing to keep his promises, and his enemies are now using it as
a snipers nest.
@Travis That's the essence of it. We can't and won't have a civil war because a civil war
requires at least two sides to fight it, and both political parties, all of the institutions,
government apparatus, mass media, corporations, and the ruling tribe are on the same side.
Opposing this is (or was) maybe half the population on a very good day, but what we're seeing
is that even half of the population is pretty much powerless in the face of the Empire's juggernaut.
In my view, the Republicans deserve our special ire because they were in a position to help
bring about real change, with this singular opportunity, and they wanted no part of it. Fortunately,
their party is toast and we'll enjoy a cataclysm before anyone takes their place. The Democrats?
We knew what to expect from them, and still do. They are wrecking this nation systematically.
Trump would have to be a canny, electrifying, compelling and savvy figure to have even
a chance. He's not. We never thought he would be, mind you; we just knew he'd be better than Hillary.
Meanwhile, the Empire Strikes Back. It's not going to be pretty.
@MEexpert " neither is a true friend to the US" You imply that the evil empire can actually
be a true friend to others which would be laughable, right? If not, how do you expect others
to be just that??
Trump's Blunders Fuel Mideast Conflicts
President Trump's simplistic siding with Saudi Arabia and
Israel – and his callous reaction to a terror attack on
Iran – are fueling new tensions in the Middle East,
including the Qatar crisis.
By Alastair Crooke
Have "MbS" and "MbZ" overreached themselves? It is
still early in the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar, but yes,
it seems so. And in so doing, the hubris of Mohammad bin
Salman (MbS), the Saudi defense minister and the powerful
son of Saudi King Salman, and Mohammed bin Zayed (MbZ),
the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and supreme commander of the
UAE Armed Forces, will change the region's geopolitical
architecture.
President's Trump's (flawed) base strategic premises
(and narratives) that Iran is the ultimate source of all
instability in the region, and that the smacking down of
Qatar, a major patron of Palestinian Hamas, per se, was a
good thing, and should be applauded, bear direct
responsibility for the direction in which regional
geopolitics will now flow.
President Trump returned from his first overseas trip
convinced that he had unified the United States' historic
Arab allies, and dealt a strong blow against terrorism. He
did neither. He has been badly informed.
The fissure between Qatar and Saudi Arabia is an old,
storied affair, which harks back to longstanding al-Saud
angst at the original British decision to empower the al-Thani
family in their Qatar foothold in an otherwise all-Saudi
fiefdom. But if we lay aside, for a moment, the airing of
the long list of Saudi and UAE contemporary complaints
against Qatar, which for most part, simply serve as
justification for recent action, we should return to the
two principles that fundamentally shape the al-Saud
mindset and strategy – and which lie at the heart of this
current spat with Qatar.
The Reactionary Saudis ....
[ What appears to be a reasonable explanation of the
dispute between Saudi Arabia and Qatar that President
Trump has encouraged and applauded. ]
US policy toward Iran has no strategic perspective outside
what is dictated by the House of Saud. That is it has no
moral foundation.
Iran is a source of instability only
in areas where Shiite majorities have no self
determination and are suppressed by Wahhabi interests.
Iran is not the source of instability in Yemen, where
the Saudi intrigued with the old colonizers since the 50's
to blunt Pan Arabism only recently abandoned the
'Imamate'.
Arabian peninsula instability has to do with self
determination and/or a different preference in Imam. The
kind of instability Jefferson would have supported.
The Houston Riyadh axis has no moral claim to
protection by the US republic.
While Qatar is a short flight from Iran, with near sea
lanes as well.
"... Still peddling the 4GW snake oil . . . Would there even be an ISIS without the support of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Turkey, Israel . . . or without the Bush administration having destroyed the Iraqi state? ..."
"... 4GW is a mantra used rather ineffectively to obscure the obvious reality of our own strategic dysfunctions . . . replacing the establishment leadership only takes care of part of the problem, and perhaps not even the worst part, which imo is conceptual . . . connected with having followed Mr. Lind and Martin van Creveld down the rabbit hole notion of the "Transformation of War" . . . ..."
"... I understand you have to generate content on a regular basis, and a conservative publication should at least try to find the silver linings in a Trump presidency, but you have provided me with very little foundation for why all of these (ostensibly good) things would come to pass because of President Donald J. Trump. ..."
"... Enjoy the dream while it lasts, Mr. Lind. But be prepared for a rude awakening. Anyone who thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance needs to have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced. ..."
"... Most Trump supporters hope for negative accomplishments, catharsis: firings and prosecutions of elite miscreants, ending immigration and deporting illegals, getting out of the Middle East, beating down the GOP establishment and, with it, great swathes of Leviathan. ..."
"... Both sides aren't seeing their candidate as being great. They just see the other side as an absolute disaster. ..."
Still peddling the 4GW snake oil . . . Would there even be an ISIS without the support of
Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Turkey, Israel . . . or without the Bush administration having
destroyed the Iraqi state?
4GW is a mantra used rather ineffectively to obscure the obvious reality of our own strategic
dysfunctions . . . replacing the establishment leadership only takes care of part of the problem,
and perhaps not even the worst part, which imo is conceptual . . . connected with having followed
Mr. Lind and Martin van Creveld down the rabbit hole notion of the "Transformation of War" . .
.
It's tempting to project your preferences onto Trump because there's so much blank space there
in terms of policy, but Trump has in no way committed to firing half of our general officers,
or a "housecleaning" that takes away enough money from the Pentagon to fund a major infrastructure
program in its own right, or cancelling any weapons system currently under development.
This is all wishful thinking, even without considering what Congress would do. I understand
you have to generate content on a regular basis, and a conservative publication should at least
try to find the silver linings in a Trump presidency, but you have provided me with very little
foundation for why all of these (ostensibly good) things would come to pass because of President
Donald J. Trump.
I wish it were as simple as waltzing about the Pentagon saying "You're Fired!" There's good reasoning
in the essay with which I agree; Trump seems to have the better instincts to deal with Pentagon
Inc, particularly when Option 2 is Hillary.
But. How does one reform an inherently unreformable institution? How to overcome a system
rigged with flag officers and SES bureaucrats that were groomed for their true-belief in the military-industrial
complex? Maybe I'm just the eternal pessimist, but knowing the Pentagon culture firsthand, I see
zero chance at a "businessman-led housecleaning of the U.S. military.
"4GW does not justify big-ticket programs such as the F-35 fighter/bomber and its trillion-dollar
price tag."
I would go further and say nothing justifies the F-35. Because of its expense, it is not mass
producible, and therefore not suitable for a conventional war either. The cost/aircraft would
come down with mass production, but it would still be too expensive and slow to mass produce in
an all-out conventional war. It would be kind of like an aerial tiger tank.
Enjoy the dream while it lasts, Mr. Lind. But be prepared for a rude awakening. Anyone who
thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance needs to
have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced.
William S. Lind contrasts Trump and Clinton with respect to Pentagon reform:
Trump: "Because Trump is anti-establishment, military reform would at least be a possibility
.Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not like wasting money. They want efficiency. They cut
bloated staffs, fire incompetent executives, and get rid of unnecessary contractors."
Clinton: On the other hand, "So long as the establishment is in power, it [reform ] is not
[possible]. In defense as in everything else, establishment leadership means more of the same.
In the case of Hillary Clinton that mean[s] more wasted money."
Lind also contrasts Trump and Clinton with respect to American interventionism:
Trump: "He has repeatedly questioned American interventionism. He roundly condemned the idiotic
and disastrous Iraq War, which suggests he would rather not repeat the experience. Of equal importance,
he has called for repairing our relationship with Russia."
Clinton: A Hillary Clinton presidency "means more wars, wars we will lose. Hillary is a wild-eyed
interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her
again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria."
However – on reading further in the Lind article – it becomes apparent that Lind's argument
is not so much with endless American military interventionism as it is with the targets of endless
American interventionism:
"The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states The establishment refuses to
compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war Might
a Trump administration see the need for an alliance of all states against non-state forces?"
In other words, Lind proposes to merely redirect the current endless American military interventions
away from existing nation states and towards non-state forces. Lind doesn't simply want to work
with other states on a case-by-case basis when it is in the US national interest to do so - rather
he wants a new "grand strategy" of an open-ended world-wide alliance with other states against
non-state forces. Lind doesn't want to put a stop to endless American military interventionism,
but instead to concentrate on a new kind of endless American interventionism.
An additional point of concern in the Lind article: In asking "Might a Trump administration
see the need for an alliance of all states against non-state forces?" Lind writes: "Here we have
a clue: Trump has chosen as a defense advisor-the rumor mill says shadow secretary of defense-retired
Army general Michael Flynn. It was an excellent choice."
Two reference articles show why Michael Flynn would not be an "excellent choice"at all: First,
in Flynn's own words on July 9th op-ed in The New York Post:
Wishful thinking, Mr. Lind even if Trump could with the election and try to make the changes you
envision. Truth be told, America is now govern by the "Deep State" of which the MIC is major part
of. Also, the MIC is not the least interested in ending any of these interventions wars as that
would negatively impact their "gravy train".
I agree that we may be projecting our wishful thinking on Trump, but what is the alternative?
Faced with a choice between a known bad apple and an apple that gives some vague hope, it is rational
to bet on the second. Especially given that it is hard to imagine an apple more rotten than HRC,
so our downside risk is limited too.
PS I was always willing to give pres. Obama a bit of a free pass because of his refusal to
implicate us any deeper in the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine. I figured the atrocity of Yemen
and blunders elsewhere (Iraq, Afghanistan, relationship with SA and Turkey, the lack of resolve
to draw an even clearer line in the sand on Syria, Libya, and Ukraine) were the norm given the
neocon-infested foreign policy apparatus, and at least he was putting up SOME resistance. Sadly,
that resounding endorsement of HRC blew it all up, he has fallen in line and we are in for some
more GW-Cheney-style insanity should she prevail. Whatever respect I had for him is now gone.
I was hoping he'd try to setup things so that the resistance to the neocon insanity and jingoism
would grow further, not fall back, as the choice of HRC clearly indicates.
"Anyone who thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance
needs to have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced."
"Positive influence" is all well and good, but we're in slow motion collapse, and it's beside
the point.
Most Trump supporters hope for negative accomplishments, catharsis: firings and prosecutions
of elite miscreants, ending immigration and deporting illegals, getting out of the Middle East,
beating down the GOP establishment and, with it, great swathes of Leviathan.
I have no idea what the Clinton supporters hope for. More abortions? More government jobs?
More immigrants? More gay weddings and transwhatever toilets? More dead Americans and Middle Easterners?
More Wall Street bailouts? More foreign dictators and more taxpayer money to put them on the US
payroll? They probably aren't thinking "more money and power for the Clintons", "more recklessness
and irresponsibility", or "more scandal and embarrassment", even though that's about all they'll
get.
While it's true this is wishful thinking, one just needs to remember the alternative. It is as
certain as anything can be in this life that with Clinton we will rush full speed ahead into more
of the same disasters. Trump is bad, but worse than the status quo? That's hard to imagine. Flynn,
though, seems to be another neocon nut, though I'm open to any contrary evidence.
I wish it were otherwise, but I don't even think that Trump is a serious candidate. He's done
nothing to encourage his supporters, taken little to no advantage of Clinton's obvious shortcomings,
and everything to provide ammunition to Clinton's legions of delusional 'liberal' fascists. This
is not a Donald who wants to win.
"Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not like wasting money. They want efficiency. They cut
bloated staffs, fire incompetent executives, and get rid of unnecessary contractors."
Nah.
Here's how Trump runs his businesses, he incurs enormous debts by grossly overpaying for whatever
new toy he wants. Then he incurs more debt to pay himself and his family large salaries or to
pay off his personal debts. He also wastes money on the gaudy, unnecessary and tasteless "improvements"
to his purchases(small e.g., gold plated fixtures in the Trump Shuttle bathrooms). Then, he doesn't
pay contractors for the work they performed. And, when it all goes belly-up he leaves his foolish
investors or the banks holding the bag (i.e., the enormous debt).
More simply, going by his business record Trump actually loves debt, incompetence, overspending
and obscene waste.
Trump dug his grave when he delved into xenophobia and ethnic chauvinism.His ranting about Mexicans
and Muslims and now his new Nixonian slogan of being a tough law and order president has given
enough ammunition to the Democrats to trounce him coming next election.
I think Lind is proof of the triumph of hope over reality here; either that or that there is a
sucker born every minute. I think some important facts about Flynn are missed here. Here is a
statement he made to Hugh Hewitt:
"Last, I'm going to just touch on Russia and Iran briefly. Both of these countries, I deal
with in my book, because these are allies of radical Islamism, and most people don't know how
they are interacting with each other. So I just wanted to touch on that."
Today, July 12th, his book with Michael Ledeen as co-author, Field of Fight, was released.
In Flynn's own words:
"Yet, the alliance exists, and we've already dithered for many years.
The war is on. We face a working coalition that extends from North Korea and China to Russia,
Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. We are under attack, not only from nation
states, but also from al Qaeda, Hezbollah, ISIS, and countless other terrorist groups. Suffice
to say, the same sort of cooperation binds together jihadis, Communists, and garden-variety
tyrants.
Flynn isn't an antidote to Hilary Clinton; they're equals in madness.
I wouldn't even now bet on Trump being the Republican nominee - the Republican establishment may
well prefer to be trounced rather than elect Trump. Look for them to give Trump the kind of "support"
a rope gives a hanged man, or to change the rules so they can select another nominee, or a combination
of both. Paul Ryan has been making noises about allowing delegates to vote their conscience on
the 1st ballot, allowing nervous Trump delegates to jump ship. All it would take is a meeting
of GOP Rules Committee, which happens just before the convention. And this is a senator who has
"endorsed" Trump, even if he has also called him a "racist."
from sglover:
"Maintaining a wobbly status quo. You'll see no grand visions of anything from HRC"
Sadly I think that IS what's expected. Similar to how Trump voters don't see him so much as
doing great things as much as "80% chance of failure is better than 100%", Hillary voters see
it as more "keeping the plane slightly tilted down being better than blowing the plane up with
dynamite."
Both sides aren't seeing their candidate as being great. They just see the other side as
an absolute disaster.
I'll be honest, given what the GOP was giving up as alternatives and assuming that Sanders
didn't have a chance in hades, Trump/Hillary was, to me, the best outcome out of the primaries.
I don't support Trump but I'd take him over Rubio or Bush.
Though note that at this point 8 years ago, I was saying "oh, Obama vs McCain. Either way,
I'm happy." Then the general election campaign kicked in and I stopped being happy over the latter
:/
Sort of worried I'll see the same here, and if the rumors about Trump's shift are true, then
I think that's exactly what I'll be seeing.
Dec 18, 2015 Donald Trump Is The Establishment Candidate
While his rise in the polls is attributed to his challenging the establishment and the political
status quo, let's look at the many ways Donald Trump, when it comes to his political positions,
represents that very same status quo. From the Fed, to war, to civil liberties, the "anti-establishment"?
Trump takes no positions not already endorsed by the establishment.
"... Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria. ..."
"... The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states. ..."
"... The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz." ..."
"In the case of Hillary Clinton, not only does that mean more wasted money, it means more
wars, wars we will lose.
Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been
fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria.
The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel
our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon
pretends its future is war against other states.
The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They
waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz."
There are several problems with Krugman both as an economist and as a political commentator.
First he does not understand that neoliberal system is inherency unstable and prone to periodic
bubbles and crashes. FED plays destabilizing role by attempting to save large banks. It essentially provided insurance
for reckless behaviour. This is very "Minsky" -- "stability is destabilizing". If we believe Jim Rogers, FED policies created a situation in which the next crash is a real possibility
and might happen within a year, or two:
Politically Krugman switched to neocon views and sometimes is undistinguishable from Wolfowitz
: " And consider his refusal to endorse the central principle of NATO, the obligation to come to
our allies' defense... What was that about? Nobody knows..."
NATO became obsolete with the dissolution of the USSR and now serves only as an instrument of
the US foreign policy -- a tool for expansion and maintenance of neoliberal empire and keeping our
European vassals in check.
He also got into Russiagate trap, which is a sign of weak intellect (dementia in cases of Hillary
and McCain), or of a neocon political hack. As Krugman does not have dementia, I suspect the latter.
The standards he tries to apply to Trump would put in jail all three previous presidents starting
from "change we can believe in" bait and switch artist.
In other words his column is highly partisan and as such represents interest only for Hillary
Bots and DemoRats (which are still plentiful and control MSM).
For people who try to find a real way out of the current difficult situation (a crisis of confidence
and, possibly, the start of revolt against neoliberal elite due to side effects of globalization)
the USA now have find itself, this is just a noise. Nothing constructive.
Trump position "get what you want with the brute force; f*ck diplomacy, UN and decency" is actually
an attempt to find a solution for the problems we face. Abhorrent as it is. Kind of highway robbery
policy.
The key problem is whether we should start dismantling neoliberalism before it is too late, and
what should be the alternative. Krugman is useless in attempts to answer those two key questions.
And it is unclear whether it is possible by peaceful means. Those neolib/neocon guys like Bolsheviks
in the past want to cling to power at all costs.
Another question is whether the maintenance of global neoliberal empire led by the USA is now
too costly for US taxpayers and need to be reconsidered. This is the same question British empire
faced in the past. Do we really need 500 or so foreign bases? Do we really need to spend half a trillion
dollars annually on military? Do we need all those never ending wars as in Orwellian "war is the
health of the state" quote (actually this quote is not from 1984, this is the subtitle of the essay
by Randolph Bourne (1918))
What is the real risk of WWIII with such policies? Because there is a chance that nor only the
modern civilization, but all higher forms of life of Earth in general seize to exists after it.
Concentrating of Trump "deficiencies" Krugman does not understand that Trump is just a Republican
Obama -- another "clean plate" offering to the US electorate, another "bait and switch" artist.
With just different fake slogan "Make America great again" instead of "Change we can believe in".
And as such any critique of Trump is an implicit critique of Obama presidency, which enabled Trump
election.
Teleprompter personally was a dangerous and unqualified political hack, not that different from
Trump (no foreign policy experience whatsoever; almost zero understanding of economics), who outsourced
foreign policy to the despicable neocon warmonger Clinton and got us into Libya, Ukraine and Syria
wars in addition to existing war in Afghanistan.
Continuing occupation of Afghanistan (which incorrectly called war) and illegal actions in Syria
(there was no UN resolution justifying the USA presence in Syria) are now becoming too costly.
Afghan people definitely want the USA out and will fight for their freedom. Taliban has supporters
in Pakistan and possibly in other Islamic countries.
In Syria the USA now clashed with Russian interests which make it a real power keg. Add to this
sociopaths in CIA like Mike "Kill-Russians" Morell and the fact that CIA is not under complete control
of federal government and actually represent "state within the state" force in this conflict, and
the situation looks really dangerous.
And please note that Russia protects a secular government, and the USA supports Islamic fundamentalists
in Syria, to make Israel even greater. Instead of "Making America great again". Such a betrayal of
elections promises... The same policy that Hillary would adopt if she sits on the throne.
So to say that Trump is idiot in foreign policy without saying that Obama was the same dangerous
idiot, who pursued the same neocon policies is hypocritical, because they are manipulated by the
same people in dark suits and are just marionettes, or, at best, minor players. Other people decide
for them what is good for America.
The US army is pretty much demoralized and even with advanced weapons and absolute air superiority
can't achieve much because solders understand that they are just cannon fodder and it is unclear
what they fighting for in Afghanistan.
Because in Syria the USA support the same Islamic fundamentalists it is fighting in Afghanistan.
Or even worse than those -- head choppers like guys from Al Nusra.
So we fight secular government in Syria supporting Sunni fundamentalists (often of worst kind
as KSA supported Wahhabi fighters) and simultaneously are trying to protect secular government in
Afghanistan against exactly the same (or even slightly more moderate) Islamic fundamentalist forces.
Is not this a definition of split personality?
Populism and the Politics of Health
MARCH 14, 2017 1:43 PM
by Paul Krugman
...
This ties in with an important recent piece by Zack Beauchamp on the striking degree to which
left-wing economics fails, in practice, to counter right-wing populism; basically, Sandersism has
failed everywhere it has been tried. Why?
The answer, presumably, is that what we call populism is really in large degree white identity
politics, which can't be addressed by promising universal benefits. Among other things, these "populist"
voters now live in a media bubble, getting their news from sources that play to their identity-politics
desires, which means that even if you offer them a better deal, they won't hear about it or believe
it if told. For sure many if not most of those who gained health coverage thanks to Obamacare have
no idea that's what happened.
That said, taking the benefits away would probably get their attention, and maybe even open their
eyes to the extent to which they are suffering to provide tax cuts to the rich.
In Europe, right-wing parties probably don't face the same dilemma; they're preaching herrenvolk
social democracy, a welfare state but only for people who look like you. In America, however, Trump_vs_deep_state
is faux populism that appeals to white identity but actually serves plutocrats. That fundamental
contradiction is now out in the open."
Reply
Friday, Christopher H. - ,
June 09, 2017 at 11:12 AM
There has been a silence from the center left during the Corbyn campaign and now after it is over.
Luckily they have Comey to talk about. I will be curious to hear from Chris Dillow.
"In Europe, right-wing parties probably don't face the same dilemma; they're preaching herrenvolk
social democracy, a welfare state but only for people who look like you. In America, however,
Trump_vs_deep_state is faux populism that appeals to white identity but actually serves plutocrats. That
fundamental contradiction is now out in the open"
"... This would have been a perfect opportunity for the United States to step into the breach and offer a helping hand towards conflict resolution, which is exactly what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson offered on Monday during a press conference. Regrettably, President Donald Trump's tweets congratulating the Gulf Arabs for isolating their Qatari neighbor-while taking credit for it-has likely closed the door on any leading mediation role for Washington. ..."
"... Trump failed to recognize that Washington had an opening to show its Arab partners that the United States-under a Trump administration-values diplomacy just as much military force. ..."
The measures that the Saudis and company are taking today are much more significant. In addition
to calling their diplomats home, the anti-Qatar reprisals include an order for Saudis, Bahraini and
Emirati citizens to leave Qatar in fourteen days, and for Qatari citizens to go back to their own
country over the same time period. Air, sea and land routes into the Qatari peninsula are blocked,
which means that the food imports that Doha relies on to feed its population will need to rely on
other seaports to unload their product. Qatar Airways, one of the region's major carriers,
is banned from using Gulf Arab airspace, causing multiple delays and forcing the airline to fly
more circuitous paths.
This would have been a perfect opportunity for the United States to step into the breach and offer
a helping hand towards conflict resolution, which is exactly what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
offered on Monday during a press conference. Regrettably, President Donald Trump's
tweets
congratulating the Gulf Arabs for isolating their Qatari neighbor-while taking credit for it-has
likely closed the door on any leading mediation role for Washington. It's tough to act as a mediating
party between two sides when the mediator is seen as taking sides. With a single tweet, Trump managed
to yet again undercut his own Secretary of State.
We could do the easy thing and bash Trump incessantly over yet one more unwise Twitter outburst.
And it would be justified: Trump failed to recognize that Washington had an opening to show its Arab
partners that the United States-under a Trump administration-values diplomacy just as much military
force. It would also reassure European governments that have been skittish over the last four months.
"... One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when they lose a close election. That will help the right wing more than anything they themselves can do. She is clearly not mature enough to take any leadership role anywhere. ..."
"... "neoliberal tears" about Hillary loss might create "dragon's teeth" effect... For example look at the Twit: "Fmr Kasich Supporter: Hostile Media Makes Me Support Trump " Chinese torture of Trump using well timed leaks also can have the same effect. ..."
"... sections of Trump voters and population in general now harbored "a uniform distrust of the national news media." ..."
"... There are still a lot of morons who voted for Trump and are sure he will do the part of his promises they listened to and believed. He is brilliant at the short con. That is how he made his money (or is it failed to loss his inheritance). He promises whatever he sense that the costumer want to hear and get a signature on the deal. Then as soon as the costumer have handed over their money (votes) he runs away from what he promised. ..."
"... That (short) con works in real estate where he really don't need to do another deal with people after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with the voters he conned in the first place, so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't try to do a new trick. ..."
One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when
they lose a close election. That will help the right wing more than anything they themselves can
do. She is clearly not mature enough to take any leadership role anywhere.
"One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when
they lose a close election"
That's a very good point. I would say more: "neoliberal tears" about Hillary loss might create
"dragon's teeth" effect... For example look at the Twit: "Fmr Kasich Supporter: Hostile Media Makes Me Support Trump " Chinese torture of Trump using well timed leaks also can have the same effect.
that all means that it's not only just former #NeverHillary types who still stand by the president. Other
sections of Trump voters and population in general now harbored "a uniform distrust of
the national news media."
There are still a lot of morons who voted for Trump and are sure he will do the part of his promises
they listened to and believed. He is brilliant at the short con. That is how he made his money
(or is it failed to loss his inheritance). He promises whatever he sense that the costumer want
to hear and get a signature on the deal. Then as soon as the costumer have handed over their money
(votes) he runs away from what he promised.
That (short) con works in real estate where he really
don't need to do another deal with people after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with
the voters he conned in the first place, so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will
realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't try to do a new trick.
But it will almost certainly take at least a year before a large number of the Trump voters
realize that they have been conned. It is very difficult for people to admit that they made a
stupid mistake - especially difficult for stupid people.
"But it will almost certainly take at least a year before a large number of the Trump voters realize
that they have been conned."
Not true. I know many who already "get it " ;-)
"That (short) con works in real estate where he really don't need to do another deal with people
after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with the voters he conned in the first place,
so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't
try to do a new trick."
But both Bush II an Barack Obama were reelected. So "bait and switch" game might not be that
fatal for politicians in the USA as it is in some other countries.
I agree that shortermism is the name of the game.
"It is very difficult for people to admit that they made a stupid mistake"
Large part of "alt-right" (anti war right) already abandoned Trump. Those did it first. Paleoconservatives
followed and now are one just step from open hostility mostly because of media attacks on Trump.
Libertarians, especially former Ron Paul supporters, now are openly hostile and their critique
is really biting.
Do not know about evangelicals and other fringe groups, but I doubt that any of them still
have illusions about Trump.
IMHO, the only factor that still allows Trump to maintain his base is unending attacks of neoliberal
media and this set of well coordinated leaks.
While you are looking over there, El Donaldo Trump is responsible for what the US continues
to try to do in Syria and Iraq. You have heard of the Yinon Plan? Will America Partition Syria?
Interesting questions ! But one can sleep soundly tonight safe in the knowledge that not even the pretense of a reply
to Bacevich's questions will be forthcoming for the US MSM.
Notable quotes:
"... Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry? ..."
"... How much damage Donald Trump's presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen. Yet he himself is a transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be that, as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so, finding the truth requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions. ..."
"... Declassified CIA leaks from the DNC indicate these trees actively made maple syrup for terrorists. This gives terrorists big muscles, like Popeye, and reduces urges to eat human organs. ..."
"... The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? ..."
"... Well, looks like I missed the war ending .but with the war ended, one would think we wouldn't have to be dropping the world's biggest bomb ..."
"... I'm thinking the bigMFing bomb was more a marketing theater driven initative rather than Afgan Strategic Theatre driven. ..."
"... Some great questions here. Recently I was at a Town Hall with my representative to Congress and asked him if our government, or even just the Democrats, had a long term strategy for peace in the Middle East. The answer was basically, No. ..."
"... Bacevitch needs to be a little more critical about all the claims about US energy. The US may be exporting some oil and oil products, but it is importing more. We have no prospect of "energy independence" in the forseeable future, unless there is a drastic cutback in consumption. When it comes to energy forecasting, top governmental agencies have had an abysmal record. Independent experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking and poor analysis of the economists at these agencies. ..."
"... Instead he invites us all to assume the Soviets were acting and the West was reacting. In my view this genuinely childish view of international relations is the template for American exceptionalism and, unless we break free of it, a logic of privileged exceptionalism will continually assert itself. The Trump era offers us a chance to raze this mythology and seriously confront how market-oriented imperatives, not devils and angels, drive international conflict. ..."
"... Is it because a self-perpetuating top-heavy military bureaucracy was never properly demobilized after the Second World War, and only promotes the sort of sociopathic, narcissistic, borderline personalities who are relentlessly able to bully the groveling toadies and wussies who make up our perpetually campaigning political-climber class? ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East. ..."
"... Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down. ..."
"... Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis. ..."
"... Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. ..."
"... Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today. ..."
If only it were so. How wonderful it would be if President Trump's ascendancy had coincided with
a revival of hard-hitting, deep-dive, no-holds-barred American journalism. Alas, that's hardly the
case. True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the ineptitude,
inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news, that are already
emerging as Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president has (again) uttered
a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position to which he
had previously sworn fealty requires something less than the sleuthing talents of a Sherlock Holmes.
As for beating up on poor Sean Spicer for his latest sequence of gaffes - well, that's more akin
to sadism than reporting.
Apart from a commendable determination to discomfit Trump and members of his inner circle (select
military figures excepted, at least for now), journalism remains pretty much what it was prior to
November 8th of last year: personalities built up only to be torn down; fads and novelties discovered,
celebrated, then mocked; "extraordinary" stories of ordinary people granted 15 seconds of fame only
to once again be consigned to oblivion - all served with a side dish of that day's quota of suffering,
devastation, and carnage. These remain journalism's stock-in-trade. As practiced in the United States,
with certain honorable (and hence unprofitable) exceptions, journalism remains superficial, voyeuristic,
and governed by the attention span of a two year old.
As a result, all those editors, reporters, columnists, and talking heads who characterize their
labors as "now more important than ever" ill-serve the public they profess to inform and enlighten.
Rather than clearing the air, they befog it further. If anything, the media's current obsession with
Donald Trump - his every utterance or tweet treated as "breaking news!" - just provides one additional
excuse for highlighting trivia, while slighting issues that deserve far more attention than they
currently receive.
To illustrate the point, let me cite some examples of national security issues that presently
receive short shrift or are ignored altogether by those parts of the Fourth Estate said to help set
the nation's political agenda. To put it another way: Hey, Big Media, here are two dozen matters
to which you're not giving faintly adequate thought and attention.
1. Accomplishing the "mission" : Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United
States has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S.
security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well. Under what circumstances can Americans
expect nations in these regions to assume responsibility for managing their own affairs? To put it
another way, when (if ever) might U.S. forces actually come home? And if it is incumbent upon the
United States to police vast swaths of the planet in perpetuity, how should momentous changes in
the international order - the rise of China, for example, or accelerating climate change - affect
the U.S. approach to doing so?
2 . American military supremacy : The United States military is undoubtedly the world's
finest. It's also far and away the
most generously funded , with policymakers offering U.S. troops no shortage of opportunities
to practice their craft. So why doesn't this great military ever win anything? Or put another way,
why in recent decades have those forces been unable to accomplish Washington's stated wartime objectives?
Why has the now 15-year-old war on terror failed to result in even a single real success anywhere
in the Greater Middle East? Could it be that we've taken the wrong approach? What should we be doing
differently?
3. America's empire of bases : The U.S. military today
garrisons the planet in a fashion without historical precedent. Successive administrations, regardless
of party, justify and perpetuate this policy by insisting that positioning U.S. forces in distant
lands fosters peace, stability, and security. In the present century, however, perpetuating this
practice has visibly had the opposite effect. In the eyes of many of those called upon to "host"
American bases, the permanent presence of such forces smacks of occupation. They resist. Why should
U.S. policymakers expect otherwise?
4. Supporting the troops : In present-day America, expressing reverence for those who serve
in uniform is something akin to a religious obligation. Everyone professes to
cherish America's "warriors." Yet such bountiful, if superficial, expressions of regard
camouflage a growing
gap between those who serve and those who applaud from the sidelines. Our present-day military system,
based on the misnamed All-Volunteer Force, is neither democratic nor effective. Why has discussion
and debate about its deficiencies not found a place among the nation's political priorities?
5. Prerogatives of the commander-in-chief : Are there any military actions that the president
of the United States may not order on his own authority? If so, what are they? Bit by bit, decade
by decade, Congress has
abdicated
its assigned role in authorizing war. Today, it merely rubberstamps what presidents decide to
do (or simply
stays mum ). Who does this deference to an imperial presidency benefit? Have U.S. policies thereby
become more prudent, enlightened, and successful?
6. Assassin-in-chief : A policy of assassination, secretly implemented under the aegis
of the CIA during the early Cold War, yielded few substantive successes. When the secrets were revealed,
however, the U.S. government suffered
considerable
embarrassment , so much so that presidents
foreswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington returned to the assassination
business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones. Today, the only secret is the sequence
of names on the current presidential
hit list , euphemistically
known as the White House "disposition matrix." But does assassination actually advance U.S. interests
(or does it merely recruit replacements for the terrorists it liquidates)? How can we measure its
costs, whether direct or indirect? What dangers and vulnerabilities does this practice invite?
7. The war formerly known as the "Global War on Terrorism" : What precisely is Washington's
present strategy for defeating violent jihadism? What sequence of planned actions or steps is expected
to yield success? If no such strategy exists, why is that the case? How is it that the absence of
strategy - not to mention an agreed upon definition of "success" - doesn't even qualify for discussion
here?
8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom : The conflict commonly referred
to as the Afghanistan War is now the
longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War
II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect
it to end? On what terms?
9. The Gulf : Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on
having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is
once more an
oil exporter . Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are
far greater than was
once believed . Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American
national security persists in Washington. Why?
10. Hyping terrorism : Each year
terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans than do
auto accidents
, drug overdoses , or even
lightning strikes
. Yet in the allocation of government resources, preventing terrorist attacks takes precedence
over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?
11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don't : Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful
of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill far larger
numbers of Arabs? A terrorist attack that kills citizens of France or Belgium elicits from the United
States heartfelt expressions of sympathy and solidarity. A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians
or Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the difference? To what extent does race provide the answer to that
question?
12. Israeli nukes : What purpose is served by indulging the
pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?
13. Peace in the Holy Land : What purpose is served by
indulging illusions that a "two-state solution" offers a plausible resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict? As remorselessly as white settlers once encroached upon territory inhabited by Native American
tribes, Israeli settlers
expand their presence in the occupied territories year by year. As they do, the likelihood of
creating a viable Palestinian state becomes ever more improbable. To pretend otherwise is the equivalent
of thinking that one day President Trump might prefer the rusticity of Camp David to the glitz of
Mar-a-Lago.
14. Merchandizing death : When it comes to arms sales, there is no need to Make America
Great Again. The U.S. ranks
number one by a comfortable margin, with long-time allies
Saudi Arabia and
Israel leading recipients of those arms. Each year, the Saudis (per capita gross domestic product
$20,000) purchase hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. weapons. Israel (per capita gross domestic
product $38,000) gets several billion dollars worth of such weaponry annually courtesy of the American
taxpayer. If the Saudis pay for U.S. arms, why shouldn't the Israelis? They can certainly afford
to do so.
15. Our friends the Saudis (I) : Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were
Saudis. What does that fact signify?
16. Our friends the Saudis (II) : If indeed Saudi Arabia and Iran are
competing to determine which nation will enjoy the upper hand in the Persian Gulf, why should
the United States favor Saudi Arabia? In what sense do Saudi values align more closely with American
values than do Iranian ones?
17. Our friends the Pakistanis : Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a
nuclear weapons proliferator . It
supports the Taliban. For years, it provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden. Yet U.S. policymakers
treat Pakistan as if it were an ally. Why? In what ways do U.S. and Pakistani interests or values
coincide? If there are none, why not say so?
18. Free-loading Europeans : Why can't Europe, "
whole and free ," its
population
and
economy considerably larger than Russia's, defend itself? It's altogether commendable that U.S.
policymakers should express support for Polish independence and root for the Baltic republics. But
how does it make sense for the United States to care more about the wellbeing of people living in
Eastern Europe than do people living in Western Europe?
19. The mother of all "special relationships" : The United States and the United Kingdom
have a "special relationship" dating from the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Apart
from keeping the Public Broadcasting Service supplied with costume dramas and stories featuring eccentric
detectives, what is the rationale for that partnership today? Why should U.S. relations with Great
Britain, a fading power, be any more "special" than its relations with a rising power like India?
Why should the bonds connecting Americans and Britons be any more intimate than those connecting
Americans and Mexicans? Why does a republic now approaching the 241st anniversary of its independence
still need a "mother country"?
20. The old nuclear disarmament razzmatazz : American presidents routinely cite their hope
for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces
on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar
modernization
of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear
war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other
nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects
for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry?
21. Double standards (I) : American policymakers take it for granted that their country's
sphere of influence is global, which, in turn, provides the rationale for the deployment of U.S.
military forces to
scores of countries. Yet when it comes to nations like China, Russia, or Iran, Washington takes
the position that spheres of influence are
obsolete
and a concept that should no longer be applicable to the practice of statecraft. So Chinese,
Russian, and Iranian forces should remain where they belong - in China, Russia, and Iran. To stray
beyond that constitutes a provocation, as well as a threat to global peace and order. Why should
these other nations play by American rules? Why shouldn't similar rules apply to the United States?
22. Double standards (II) : Washington claims that it supports and upholds international
law. Yet when international law gets in the way of what American policymakers want to do, they disregard
it. They start wars, violate the sovereignty of other nations, and authorize agents of the United
States to kidnap, imprison, torture, and kill. They do these things with impunity, only forced to
reverse their actions on the
rare occasions when
U.S. courts find them illegal. Why should other powers treat international norms as sacrosanct since
the United States does so only when convenient?
23. Double standards (III) : The United States condemns the indiscriminate killing of civilians
in wartime. Yet over the last three-quarters of a century, it killed civilians regularly and often
on a massive scale. By what logic, since the 1940s, has the
killing of Germans, Japanese,
Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and others by U.S. air power been any less reprehensible
than the Syrian government's use of "barrel bombs" to kill Syrians today? On what basis should Americans
accept Pentagon
claims that, when civilians are killed these days by U.S. forces, the acts are invariably accidental,
whereas Syrian forces kill civilians intentionally and out of malice? Why exclude incompetence or
the fog of war as explanations? And why, for instance, does the United States regularly gloss over
or ignore altogether the
noncombatants that Saudi forces (with
U.S. assistance ) are routinely killing in Yemen?
24. Moral obligations : When confronted with some egregious violation of human rights,
members of the chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to "do something."
Holocaust analogies sprout like dandelions. Newspaper columnists recycle copy first used when Cambodians
were slaughtering other Cambodians en masse or whenever Hutus and Tutsis went at it. Proponents of
action - typically advocating military intervention - argue that the United States has a moral obligation
to aid those victimized by injustice or cruelty anywhere on Earth. But what determines the pecking
order of such moral obligations? Which comes first, a responsibility to redress the crimes of others
or a responsibility to redress crimes committed by Americans? Who has a greater claim to U.S. assistance,
Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country shattered by the
U.S. invasion of 2003? Where do the Vietnamese fit into the queue? How about the Filipinos, brutally
denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an American empire as the nineteenth century ended?
Or African-Americans, whose ancestors were imported as slaves? Or, for that matter, dispossessed
and disinherited Native Americans? Is there a statute of limitations that applies to moral obligations?
And if not, shouldn't those who have waited longest for justice or reparations receive priority attention?
Let me suggest that any one of these two dozen issues - none seriously covered, discussed, or
debated in the American media or in the political mainstream - bears more directly on the wellbeing
of the United States and our prospects for avoiding global conflict than anything Donald Trump may
have said or done during his first 100 days as president. Collectively, they define the core of the
national security challenges that presently confront this country, even as they languish on the periphery
of American politics.
How much damage Donald Trump's presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen. Yet he himself
is a transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters
sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be that,
as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so, finding the truth
requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions.
Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow" has many of the answers to the questions about why the
MSM is the way it is. People are hard-wired to react to sound bites, especially potential pleasure
or terror. The MSM is very good at that. Populist politicians feed off of the same.
"What would be far more useful than a specialised list of inadequately reported topics would
be to analyze this MSM behaviour, explore how it comes about and how it has evolved, to reveal
some of the darker connections to power, and put up some strategies for slowly reversing it."
Sorry MoiAussie, but the analysis has already been done, unfortunately nobody really cares.
Propaganda and the Public Mind
Necessary Illusions
"What would be far more useful than a specialised list of inadequately reported topics would
be to analyze this MSM behaviour, explore how it comes about and how it has evolved, to reveal
some of the darker connections to power, and put up some strategies for slowly reversing it. In
a nutshell, how to foster thriving independent media with broad reach that expose MSM stenography
and resist censorship?"
Well, yes. Except the behaviour you are analysing is, presumably, among other things, the behaviour
involved in inadequately addressing these topics.
stop fighting about identity politics (i'm not holding my breath for either side)
elements of both sides want to return to a non-interventionist US foreign policy, except there
is always a fight about something else that serves as a distraction.. like cats and shiny toys.
The only thing one can do is persistently bring important issues forward to friends and colleagues.
In other words, become in many respects a social pariah. Challenging the status quo by definition
makes you an outsider.
The strategic effectiveness of this dissent becomes manifest when you actually change how you
live your life. You become an example for others to follow.
Any successful movement building must follow this path. The strategic plan is to live and think
like a socialist in a crumbling capitalist world. The rising levels of inequality must surely
bring this about, one way or another.
Socialism or Barbarism. How many working people could disagree with that? It needs to be repeated
over and over. That spirit needs to be reflected in individual life in order to survive.
" But it raises the question, what can individuals do to change the behavior of the media?"
We can continue to ignore them and opt for the following: Naked Capitalism, CounterPunch, ZeroHedge,
Liberty Blitzkreig, ContraCorner, Truthout, Consortium News, The Unz Review, Tom Dispatch, Democracy
Now, Pando Daily, The Intercept, etc, etc. That is the mainstream media's worst nightmare.
The only reason to check the NYT or Washington Post is to see what meme is being promoted by
the deep state; then you know what not to believe.
I find this whole debate about fake news to be somewhat laughable. Americans have been subject
to fake news for decades, they just didn't know it. Noam Chomsky has been writing about this for
40 years. His books: Propaganda and the Public Mind, Deterring Democracy, Manufacturing Consent
and Necessary Illusions are all excellent and contain extensive research and details to support
his claims. Of course part to the fake news strategy has been to ignore people like Chomsky. Instead
we get intellectual clowns like Tom Friedman telling us how the world works.
Now that we have some real news, the fake news mainstream media has gone into panic mode and
its strategy is to label the real new as fake news. Orwell and Huxley must be rolling in their
graves with laughter.
True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the
ineptitude, inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news,
that are already emerging as Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president
has (again) uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some
position to which he had previously sworn . "uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a
nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position.." a new development in POTUS behavior
ushered in by DTrump??
Ok, so the USG has 24 issues. Let's not be nit-picky.
On this one, we've had a bit of progress.
"8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom: The conflict commonly referred
to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil
War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict?
When might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?"
We dropped a $30 million BMF'ing bomb on an undefensible, open plain. Killed 67 trees and terrified
Afgan flora from border to border. Egyptian cotton kids refuse to migrate there on their little
parachute thingies because they are terrified --
Declassified CIA leaks from the DNC indicate these trees actively made maple syrup for
terrorists. This gives terrorists big muscles, like Popeye, and reduces urges to eat human organs.
This is appreciated by other terrorists in camp and they sleep better , too.
However, the Fava Beans and Olive Oil have been spilled. Unemployed tree hugger reporters report
that the BMF'ing bomb caused the tree sap to instantly turn to maple sugar candies and the candies
are now enclosed in a depleted uranium candy tins. Fake research scientists believe the bomb casing
was made of the depleted uranium. Could happen, opines Krugman, now minority owner of the NYT,
and seconded by Chelsea, whom did the secret HS science project back in the 90s in Yugoslavia.
She drew a cute picture of Daddy on the bomb's belly, but a lot of Very Serious Men In Black Suits
did everything else.
As to when the entire Afgan issue ends, we know the war becomes fiscally irresponsible when
the USG runs out of new trees to bomb and the maple sugar candies no longer can fund the onslaught.
Krugman is working on the macro analysis and will send the Noble Prize people an advanced copy
for editing, puffing up, and general focus grouping. One area of neglect is developing a universal
political correctness language – the semantics are daunting and definitions have to be dynamic,
yet synchronized with meanings according to domestic needs. That's a tough one.
Then people have to learn it, instead of lazily doing what they do now. Which I think may involve
much use of sign language.
An advance against the reward money is expected, and a pic of the statues with Kruggies name
on it would signal good faith and seal the deal. Bully to Trump!
"The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history
- having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the
Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end?"
Apparently, the Afghanistan war has ended. It makes me feel a little less stupid, although
I have a lot of excess stupid in reserve, to know others missed it as well ..
fresno dan
After dropping its largest conventional bomb ever used in combat in Afghanistan on 13 April,
the US military said the massive ordnance air blast, or Moab, was a "very clear message to Isis"
that they would be "annihilated".
Defence secretary Jim Mattis said the bomb was "necessary to break Isis". The Afghan government
claimed the bomb killed 94 Isis militants, while harming no civilians.
the military takes more and more "police actions" while the police use more and more military
equipment and tactics ..
Considering all the "surplus" stuff that goes to the police, how soon before the police drop the
biggest "anti-criminal suppression device" i.e., the mother of all bombs???
how soon before the police drop the biggest "anti-criminal suppression device" i.e., the
mother of all bombs???
low yield Neutron bomb.. don't damage what left of the domestic infrastructure, the REIT managers
would go crazy!
The backhanded criticism that the MFing bomb didn't do enough damage is related to where it
was used.
Try a barometric pressure bomb in a place like Manhattan and it would be a much different outcome
than say on the other end of the spectrum, at a latitude/longitude in Nevada where the before
and after pics would be identical.
A dark side of the media criticism of the MFing Bomb is that it may well goad the MIC/Pentagon
Product Managers into a do-over. Afterall, who likes their handiwork criticized?
DTrump told them I want something big and flashy while Xi is in town and that's what they came
up with..
"The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." Mao Zedong
The cool thing about guerilla warfare is it largely eliminates the concept of civilians since
anybody could be a soldier, even children. That is why civilian casualties are frequently so low,
because pretty much anybody over the age of 6 is a combatant. it also increases the enemy combatant
body count which makes it clear that the government forces are winning, as was so ably shown in
the Vietnam War.
I'm thinking the bigMFing bomb was more a marketing theater driven initative rather
than Afgan Strategic Theatre driven.
It was so DTrump could be at the breakfast table before the President of China and to greet
him with.. Wow, sorry I had to cut out before Dessert last night, had some things to take care
of, how was the Chocolate cake.. the Cake?" ( he like to repeat things)
I view the use of MOAB on ISIS as the equivalent of giving an antibiotic shot so that the in-country
Taliban immune system can wipe out the remaining ISIS bacteria. I don't think the Taliban wants
ISIS there since it focuses too much US attention on the area, so they may be willing to mop up
the remaining ISIS fighters.
Some great questions here. Recently I was at a Town Hall with my representative to Congress
and asked him if our government, or even just the Democrats, had a long term strategy for peace
in the Middle East. The answer was basically, No. A few weeks later I actually got a phone
call from his office on this very question, yet the answer was still basically No. He did say
that Kerry had sought a UN brokered regime change in Syria (opposed by Russia), after I suggested
something like this.
However Bacevitch needs to be a little more critical about all the claims about US energy.
The US may be exporting some oil and oil products, but it is importing more. We have no prospect
of "energy independence" in the forseeable future, unless there is a drastic cutback in consumption.
When it comes to energy forecasting, top governmental agencies have had an abysmal record. Independent
experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking and poor analysis
of the economists at these agencies.
"Independent experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking
and poor analysis of the economists at these agencies." Thanks for pointing this out.
It's great to see people from across the ideological spectrum who served in the military, intelligence
services and in various administrations, speaking out. Hindsight is 20/20as the cliche goes. Now
if only people who are currently serving in those institutions would step up to the plate
and speak truth to power. At what point does it become unconscionable for good people to do nothing?
Or, rather, when does critical mass kick in and make resisting the insanity that reigns in our
institutions more than just a flash in the pan and career suicide?
The past is not encouraging, war hero Eisenhower could only warn of the MIC as he was exiting.
The economic footprint of the MIC + think tanks + academia + security agencies is huge (maybe
a trillion/year)
A lot of people depend on the defense budget staying large as the MIC is a jobs program throughout
much of the USA,.
I remember CA Senator Boxer, one of the few senators who voted against the AUMF in Iraq, fighting
to keep the local (to me) Mare Island Naval Shipyard from closing in 1996.
The adjacent city, Vallejo, subsequently went through bankruptcy.
One illustrative MIC family is the Kagan-Nuland family,
Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs and seemed to be in charge of stirring up trouble in the Ukraine.
Her husband is noted neocon (he prefers "liberal interventionist") Robert Kagan of the Bookings
Institution, and his brother, Frederick, is at the American Enterprise institute.
Frederick's wife, Kimberly, heads up the "Institute for the Study of War" funded by Raytheon,
General Dynamics, DynCorp and others.
One might suggest this family gets meaning, purpose and income through USA military action.
One could posit there many other similar families.
It is difficult to be optimistic that much can be done.
These aren't independent issues (and, ultimately, there's no reason they have to be.)
Like, what's preventing the solution of #1 (expecting nations in these regions to assume responsibility
for managing their own affairs?) #17. When the Pakistanis have to deal with huge problems on the
other side of the invisible line, they aren't so reliable about sticking to the script. Especially
a script that has written out all the huge problems.
I guess that is the point. 45 seconds with this list pastes two items together and makes the
framework for a story. But the run of stories that appear are like Captain America saw a bad guy
and punched him in the face. Makes a good comic panel, and, when the press has been taught the
true meaning of "profitable", it makes a good newspaper page too. Right.
A working State Department could do interesting things with this list too, but - Captain America.
the US hasn't fought a peer nation since 1945-even then the USSR did a lot of the heavy lifting.
the US still hasnt beaten the Taliban.
US full spectrum dominance could be propaganda for all we know--with our vaunted carriers and
fighters sitting ducks to swarms of cheap first-world missiles.
in any fight with China or Russia, theyd only have to play defense. The US would be the ones
without home field advantage, likely in a war with limited domestic support as the fight probablyt
would not be about an existential issue to the US homeland
If a group like the Taliban has indigenous support, then you pretty much are left with destroying
the village in order to save it as the only military option. Putting a corrupt mafia in charge
of the country is not the appropriate alternate civilian political approach to win hearts and
minds.
In the 1990s nobody cared about the Taliban except when they were blowing up big Buddhas. Their
fatal error was allowing bin-Laden to launch major attacks against the US home soil. My guess
at this time is that the Taliban have been inoculated against spreading terror overseas. If the
US left Afghanistan, the Taliban would probably take many of the valleys back and kick ISIS out
so that they don't have to worry about the US coming back in to deal with 9/11 terrorists again.
Afghanistan would probably be fairly "peaceful" at that point in a fundamental Muslim way, kind
of like the fundamental Christian utopia that Mike Pence tried to create in Indiana.
Bacevich's indictment suffers from an inability to explain how this genuflecting celebration
of American intentions degenerated into what he goes on to elaborate.
Accomplishing the "mission": Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States
has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S.
security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well.
The beginning of the Cold War continues to be shrouded in assumptions about Soviet aggressiveness
and American and British benevolence. Otherwise critical thinkers become kool aid dispensers when
they are obliged to reference it. Bacevich skates over questions such as the division of Germany
- was it because the US wanted to allow Germany to quickly reindustrialize and the Soviets were
afraid of yet another invasion? - and whether city-destroying nuclear weapons would be internationally
controlled or remain a US monopoly.
Instead he invites us all to assume the Soviets were acting and the West was reacting.
In my view this genuinely childish view of international relations is the template for American
exceptionalism and, unless we break free of it, a logic of privileged exceptionalism will continually
assert itself. The Trump era offers us a chance to raze this mythology and seriously confront
how market-oriented imperatives, not devils and angels, drive international conflict.
I would like to see CNN or any other channel begin a series of TV presentations where each
one of these items is discussed by the relevant people. (When no officials show up for the program,
then the producers will know they are on the right track.) A great idea for a series of investigative
reports by journalists also.
However, would such a program make any difference in how things are done?
It's systemic. Journalism is a business of delivering eyeballs to advertisers. These important
issues don't sell. Get more flashy drama in the framing of the story and you might have a chance
exactly, it is "systemic"! Until one understands that the mainstream media's core business
is not news; it is selling audiences to advertisers, one will never properly understand the problem.
Could it be that our leadership in Washington has no idea why we are still in Afghanistan either?
Could it be that our allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, like the idea of the US military sitting
at the back door to Iran? Could it be that we are getting the best foreign policy Saudi and Israeli
money can buy? And the MIC is glad to oblige.
Well we can certainly speculate on 1 – 24. In almost every case there is an implied answer:
We aren't quite finished yet establishing and maintaining our control. Over finance and power.
And even though war is too expensive and we have resorted to a kind of high-tech guerrilla
warfare, we still need boots on the ground. That is because we live in a material world and goods
are manufactured, transported and trafficked.
An even more stubborn war is going on in international finance (Hudson) – that's the one I'd
like to see reporters understand. Colonel Wilkerson said it is all about finance and power and
we will be in Afghanistan for 50 years. What's going on right now really seems like never ending
pointlessness. So maybe we should discuss exactly what we want to achieve control for – what's
the plan? In detail. Starting with the health of the planet and sustainable civilization.
Andrew could have headed his piece " Analysis of an Empire ' and then added the sub-heading
' A Tale of Vested Interests ' because that is surely why these atrocities ( yes that's right
) continue ad infintum, ad nauseum . And these same interests are those that sell us soap, automobiles,
liquor etc, etc, maybe not directly, but the interconnections are now so complete as to make distinctions
irrelevant.
Is it because a self-perpetuating top-heavy military bureaucracy was never properly demobilized
after the Second World War, and only promotes the sort of sociopathic, narcissistic, borderline
personalities who are relentlessly able to bully the groveling toadies and wussies who make up
our perpetually campaigning political-climber class?
Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his
description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's
father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle
personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East.
Bashar Assad had planned to be a doctor, and he studied medicine for two years in the UK before
being ordered to return to Syria by his father after his elder brother died in an accident. Although
there were some excesses by the police in 2011, Bashar Assad quickly relaxed some old security
laws and pushed for a new democratic constitution, which was promulgated in 2012. Under that
new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against
two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election
he will step down.
Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the
US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique
that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis.
Although Assad is often called a butcher who gasses his own people, experts such as Theodore
Postol of MIT and others have shown that not a single allegation of gassing by the Syrian government
under Assad has ever been proven. In addition, many of the excesses by the Syrian police against
demonstrators in 2011 seem to have been initiated by armed members of the Muslim Brotherhood and
Al Qaeda in Syria, who quickly infiltrated the demonstrations.
There have even been allegations
that jihadi sharpshooters on rooftops shot demonstrators in false-flag attacks.
Similar tactics
were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were
seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police.
In the case of Syria:
"Syrian-based Father Frans van der Lugt was the Dutch priest murdered by a gunman in Homs .
His involvement in reconciliation and peace activities never stopped him from lobbing criticisms
at both sides in this conflict. But in the first year of the crisis, he penned some remarkable
observations about the violence – this one in January 2012:
"'From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed
demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often
the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.'
"In September 2011 he wrote: 'From the start there has been the problem of the armed groups,
which are also part of the opposition The opposition of the street is much stronger than any other
opposition. And this opposition is armed and frequently employs brutality and violence, only in
order then to blame the government.'"
For an objective overview of the context of the events of 2011 in Syria that led to the international
war against the elected Syrian government, see Stephen Gowans, "The Revolutionary Distemper in
Syria That Wasn't."
Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing
and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is
the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health
insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but
he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today.
"... One of Steve Sailer's many clever commenters has brilliantly named it WhateverGate-the frantic legalistic churning about who said what to whom in President Trump's circle, and whether the thing that was or was not said warrants impeachment. Or whatever. But impeachment. ..."
"... Instead of registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Flynn reported his income through the Lobbying Disclosure Act! ..."
"... There's a grain of truth in that. The Watergate affair was a media witch-hunt against a president the Establishment elites disliked. Nixon's offenses were of a kind the Main Stream Media had never bothered about, nor even reported, when done by Democrat presidents-like Lyndon Johnson's bugging of Barry Goldwater in 1964. ..."
"... It's pretty plain by now that the Republican Party Establishment is not going to forgive Donald Trump for humiliating them last year. They'll be just as happy as Democrats to see him go, if they can somehow help the Democrats force him out without showing too much outward enthusiasm. ..."
"... Sixty-three million Americans rejected establishment politics last November. They took a chance on an outsider. From a field of seventeen seasoned Republican politicians, GOP primary voters selected the one un-seasoned guy. Then sixty-three million of us voted for him in the general. ..."
"... The GOP leadership would like to go back anyway. They think if they can get rid of Trump, that will get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state. They yearn to get back to the futile wars, the free trade sucker economy, the open borders and multiculturalism. ..."
"... They really think that, the McCains and Grahams and McConnells and Ryans . Get rid of Trump, you get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state, they believe. Then we can all go back to what Orwell called "the dear old game of scratch-my-neighbor." Yep, this is the Stupid Party. ..."
"... But whether Donald Trump is actually the right person to give us Trump_vs_deep_state is more and more in doubt. ..."
"... Those are small mercies, though. Where's the really big, bold swamp -draining exercise, like the one I just described? Why are we still issuing work permits to illegal aliens? Why no federal legislation to slam a mandatory ten-year sentence on any illegal who, after being deported, comes back in ? Why no request to Congress on funding for the border Wall? For an end to the visa lottery and restrictions on chain migration? When do we start testing the constitutionality of birthright citizenship? Why are we still in NATO ? Why are we still at war with North Korea ( which technically we are , since there hasn't been a peace treaty, only an armistice)? ..."
"... I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the first three days we're driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But, says Ann , she's getting nervous. ..."
One of Steve Sailer's many clever commenters has brilliantly
named it WhateverGate-the frantic legalistic
churning about who said what to whom in President Trump's circle, and whether the thing that was or was not said warrants impeachment.
Or whatever. But impeachment.
Every week, I think things can't get any crazier-the hysteria has to burn itself out, the temperature can't get any higher, the
fever has to break-and every week it's worse. Boy, they really want to get this guy. That
just gives us more reasons to defend him.
I don't even bother much any more to focus on the actual thing that President Trump or one of his colleagues is supposed to have
said or done. Every time, when you look closely, it's basically nothing.
I've been reading news and memoirs about American presidents since the Kennedy administration. I swear that every
single damn thing Trump is accused of, warranting special counsels, congressional enquiries, impeachment-every single thing has
been done by other recent presidents, often to a much greater degree, with little or no comment.
Remember
Barack Obama's hot-mike blooper in the 2012 campaign, telling the Russian President that, quote, "After my election I have more
flexibility"? [ Obama tells Russia's
Medvedev more flexibility after election , Reuters, March 26, 2012] Can you imagine how today's media would react
if footage showed up of Trump doing that in last year's campaign? Can you imagine ? I can't.
We are a big, important country with big, important things that need doing-most important of all, halting the demographic transformation
that's tugging us out of the
Anglosphere
into the Latino-sphere and filling our country with low-skill workers just as robots are arriving to take their jobs.
Those big, important things aren't getting done. Instead, our news outlets are shrieking about high crimes and misdemeanors in
the new administration–things that, when you read about the actual details, look awful picayune.
Sample, from today's press, concerning
Michael Flynn , the
national security advisor President Trump fired for
supposedly lying to the Vice President
about a phone conversation he'd had with the Russian Ambassador last December. To the best of my understanding, the root issue was
just a difference of opinion over the parsing of what Flynn remembered having said, and the precise definition of the word "substantive,"
but Trump fired him anyway.
Well, here's Eli Lake at Bloomberg News on the latest tranche of investigations into Flynn's activities:
Flynn's legal troubles come from his failure to properly report foreign income. One source close to Flynn told me that the
Justice Department had opened an investigation into Flynn after the election in November for failing to register his work on behalf
of a Turkish businessman, pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Flynn had instead reported this income through the
more lax Lobbying Disclosure Act. After his resignation, Flynn registered as a foreign agent for Turkey.
Did you get that? Instead of registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Flynn reported his income through the
Lobbying Disclosure Act!
High crimes! Treason! Special Prosecutor! Congressional inquiry! The Republic is in danger! Suspend habeas corpus -- This
must not stand!
And then, the whole silly
Russia business. The Bloomberg guy has words about that, too:
Flynn also failed to report with the Pentagon his payment in 2015 from Russia's propaganda network, RT, for a speech in Moscow
at the network's annual gala. As I reported last month, Flynn did brief the Defense Intelligence Agency about that trip before
and after he attended the RT gala. The Pentagon also renewed his top-secret security clearance after that trip.
So obviously the rot goes deep into the Pentagon. They're covering for him! Let's have a purge of the military! Special
prosecutor!
Oh, we have a special prosecutor? Let's have another one!
You could make an argument, I suppose-I don't myself think it's much of an argument, but you could make it-that Russia's
a military threat to Europe.
Once
again , with feeling: Europe has a population three and a half times greater than Russia's and a GDP ten times greater.
Europe's two nuclear powers, Britain and France, have more than five hundred nuclear weapons between them. If the Euros can't defend
themselves against Russia, there's something very badly wrong over there, beyond any ability of ours to fix–even if you could show
me it's in our national interest to fix it, which you can't.
At this point, in fact, reading the news from Europe, I think a Russian invasion and occupation of the continent would be an improvement.
A Russian hegemony might at
least put up some resistance to the ongoing invasion of Europe from
Africa and the
Middle East . It doesn't look as though the Euros themselves are up to the job.
That aside, American citizens are free to visit Russia and talk to Russians, including Russian government employees, just as free
as we are to talk to Australians, Brazilians, or Cambodians. As the
Lion said on
his blog :
Do liberals who are making a big deal about the Trump-Russia thing really believe that no one involved in a presidential campaign
should have ever talked to anyone from another country? How would an administration ever conduct any foreign policy if no one
in the administration has ever left the United States or ever talked to a foreigner?
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, with whom Flynn had that December phone conversation, is, says the New York Post , "a
suspected Kremlin spy." [ Michael Flynn
won't honor subpoena to provide documents, By Bob Fredericks, May 18, 2017] Is he? Why should I care?
I bet ol' Sergey does all the spying he can. So, I'm sure, do the ambassadors of China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Botswana. That's
what ambassadors do. That's what we do in their countries. Does anyone not know this?
"A Kremlin spy"? What is this, 1957 ?
Russia's just a country . And as our own James Kirkpatrick has pointed out
here at VDARE.com , it's a country run by people who hate us-the American people- less than our own elites do.
As James also points out, if it's interference in our elections that bothers you, consider what Mexico's been doing for the last
forty years: encouraging mass immigration of its own underclass into the U.S.A., lobbying through its consulates and Spanish-language
TV channels for voter registration, using Mexican-owned outlets like the New York Times to demonize and discredit national
conservatives.
The founder of Christianity scoffed at those who strain at
a gnat but swallow a camel. In the matter of foreign interference in our elections, the gnat here is Russia; the camel is Mexico.
Our media and opinion elites have swallowed the camel.
Unless, of course, just down the road a few months, there's going to be a hysteria-storm about Mexican interference in our elections.
My advice would be: Don't hold your breath.
All the shouting and swooning is just the rage of a dispossessed class-our political class.
Our political and government class, I think I should say. There are tens of thousands of federal functionaries who have
never stood for election to anything, but whose loyalty is to the political Establishment. Great numbers of these people settled
in to their comfortable seats during the eight years of Barack Obama's administration; so to the degree that they care about party
affiliation, they prefer the Democratic Party.
Washington, D.C. voted 91 percent for Mrs.
Clinton last November.
Obama Holdovers,
Vacant Posts Still Plague Trump - Administration housecleaning is long overdue to get agenda in motion, end damaging leaks,
by Thomas Richard, LifeZette.com, May 18, 2017] Draining the swamp means getting rid of those people. They should be
fired -en masse, in their hundreds and thousands, and marched out the office door by security guards before they can trash files.
Still, a big majority of federal politicians are helping to drive the hysteria; and their rage against Trump is, as they say in
D.C., bipartisan. Senator John McCain
told CNN on Tuesday that President Trump's troubles are,
quote , "of Watergate size and
scale."
There's a grain of truth in that. The
Watergate affair was a
media witch-hunt against a president the Establishment
elites disliked. Nixon's offenses were of a kind the Main Stream Media had never bothered about, nor even reported, when done by
Democrat presidents-like Lyndon Johnson's
bugging of Barry Goldwater in 1964.
So yes: When the political and media establishment try to drive from office a president they dislike, it is kinda like Watergate.
It's pretty plain by now that the Republican Party Establishment is not going to forgive Donald Trump for humiliating them
last year. They'll be just as happy as Democrats to see him go, if they can somehow help the Democrats force him out without showing
too much outward enthusiasm.
Last August, after Trump had clinched the Republican nomination, I reproduced a remark Peggy Noonan made in
one of her columns.
Here's the remark again,
quote :
From what I've seen there has been zero reflection on the part of Republican leaders on how much the base's views differ from
theirs and what to do about it. The GOP is not at all refiguring its stands.
Has there been any reflection among GOP leaders in the nine months since, about the meaning of Trump's victory? Not much that
I can see.
Sixty-three million Americans rejected establishment politics last November. They took a chance on an outsider. From a field
of seventeen seasoned Republican politicians, GOP primary voters selected the one un-seasoned guy. Then sixty-three million of us
voted for him in the general.
Does the GOP get this? Have they learned anything from it? Not that I can see.
With some exceptions, of course. GOP elder statesman Pat Buchanan spelled it out in an interview with the Daily Caller
this week:
The GOP leadership would like to go back anyway. They think if they can get rid of Trump, that will get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state.
They yearn to get back to the futile wars, the free trade sucker economy,
the open borders and multiculturalism.
If they can just pull off an impeachment, the Republican party bosses believe, and install some donor-compliant drone in the White
House, then we sixty-three million Trump voters will smack our foreheads with our palms and say: "Jeez, we are so dumb! Why did we
let ourselves get led astray like that? Why didn't we vote for
Marco Rubio or
Jeb Bush in the primaries, as you wise elders wanted us to? We're sorry! We promise to follow your advice in future!"
Those are small mercies, though. Where's the really big, bold
swamp -draining exercise, like the one I just described? Why are we still issuing work permits to illegal aliens? Why no federal
legislation to slam a mandatory ten-year sentence on any illegal who, after being deported,
comes back in ? Why no request to
Congress on funding for the border Wall? For an end to the
visa lottery and
restrictions on chain migration?
When do we start testing the
constitutionality
of birthright citizenship? Why are we still in
NATO ? Why are we still at war
with North Korea ( which technically we are
, since there hasn't been a peace treaty, only an armistice)?
I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the
first three days we're driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But,
says Ann , she's
getting nervous.
"... In Riyadh, Mr. Trump is viewed as a refreshing change from President Barack Obama, who was viewed with disdain in the wake of the Iranian nuclear deal that Mr. Obama brokered in 2015. ... ..."
Trump Gets a Gold
Medal as Welcome From
Saudi King
https://nyti.ms/2rCfpc5
NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR
and PETER BAKER - MAY
20, 2017
... .. ...
Flanked by Saudi
military personnel
standing at attention
and alternating Saudi
and American flags,
Mr. Trump and the king
exchanged a brief
handshake and a few
pleasantries as
trumpets blared,
cannons boomed and
seven Saudi jets
streaked through the
sky, streaming red,
white and blue smoke.
"Very happy to see
you," the king said.
"It's a great honor,"
Mr. Trump replied,
before he was offered
a bouquet of flowers
from Saudi girls.
The two leaders
posed for photos while
seated in the Royal
Hall at the airport's
terminal before
getting into a
motorcade to head to a
series of meetings.
Aides said Mr. Trump
had spent most of the
flight from
Washington, which took
12 hours and 20
minutes, meeting with
staff, reading
newspapers and working
on his speech. He got
very little sleep,
they said.
In Riyadh, Mr.
Trump is viewed as a
refreshing change from
President Barack
Obama, who was viewed
with disdain in the
wake of the Iranian
nuclear deal that Mr.
Obama brokered in
2015. ...
Related:
With Harleys and
Hamburgers, Saudis
Salute US on Trump's
Visit
https://nyti.ms/2qF569M
NYT - BEN HUBBARD -
MAY 20, 2017
(cycle parade video
at link)
RIYADH, Saudi
Arabia - There was
neither beer, nor
tattoos nor women at
the biker rally in
Saudi Arabia's capital
on Friday night. But
among the hundreds of
men riding on roaring
Harley Davidsons and
sporting leather
vests, there was
overwhelming
excitement about the
incoming visitor:
President Trump. ...
Saudi Arabia
prepared an enormous
reception for Mr.
Trump, who landed in
the capital, Riyadh,
on Saturday morning on
the first foreign trip
of his presidency.
Billboards with his
face next to that of
King Salman, the Saudi
monarch, adorned
highways around the
capital, miles of
which were lined with
Saudi and American
flags.
The Saudis planned
such an opulent
greeting for Mr. Trump
to emphasize the depth
of their commitment to
the United States and
to persuade him to
deepen the partnership
to fight terrorism,
confront Iran and
enhance economic ties.
...
"... Today, in the era of Donald Trump, that confusion has returned with a vengeance. Trump for his part vows to "Make America Great Again," with greatness measured in quantitative terms: jobs, income, profits, stock prices, and trade balances. For those ordinary Americans left behind or dispossessed by the economic and social changes that have swept the United States in recent decades, the appeal of Trump's promise of greatness restored is understandable. Their resentment handed him the White House. ..."
"... Yet Trump's first hundred days in residence there offer precious little evidence that he will deliver on that promise. Neither he nor anyone else in the Republican leadership has demonstrated the requisite competence or political savvy. Furthermore, nothing that Trump has said or done since taking office suggests that he possesses the capacity or even the inclination to articulate a unifying conception of a common good . The real, although unarticulated slogan of his presidency, is one that looks to "Deepen American Divisions," with members of the fiercely anti-Trump Left, his ironic collaborators. On all sides, resentment grows. ..."
"... Trump assured his supporters that he was going to break the hold of the foreign-policy establishment. In fact, he has embraced the establishment's penchant for "using our power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment we do not like." ..."
"... To align foreign policy with American values and with "the realities of the world," Williams believed, offered a first step toward something even bigger. Williams understood the intimate linkage between the way the United States acts abroad and what it is at home-each expressing the other. To correct the defects in U.S. foreign policy, especially its misuse of force, could "generate the kind of changes that could transform America into a more humane and creative country." ..."
So the remarks that Williams made some fifty-two years ago included the following reflection, worth
pondering by present-day conservatives. "If we justify our intervention in Vietnam on the grounds
that it is crucial to our national security," he said, "we will soon be able to justify using our
power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment we do not like."
Furthermore, "That kind of moral arrogance-that kind of playing at being God-will destroy any chance
we have to construct a good society." Then Williams added:
Notice that I said good society. We already have a great society, and I think that may
be the source of much of the trouble with our leaders. For greatness has primarily to do with
size, strength, and power. But we citizens who are gathered here are primarily concerned with
quality, equity, and with honoring our potential for becoming more fully and truly human.
In 1965, confusion about the distinction between great and good found American leaders
"following the wrong rainbow." President Johnson was promising Americans a "Great Society." What
he was actually delivering was an unnecessary war destined to cost the country dearly and leave it
bitterly divided.
Today, in the era of Donald Trump, that confusion has returned with a vengeance. Trump for
his part vows to "Make America Great Again," with greatness measured in quantitative terms: jobs,
income, profits, stock prices, and trade balances. For those ordinary Americans left behind or dispossessed
by the economic and social changes that have swept the United States in recent decades, the appeal
of Trump's promise of greatness restored is understandable. Their resentment handed him the White
House.
Yet Trump's first hundred days in residence there offer precious little evidence that he will
deliver on that promise. Neither he nor anyone else in the Republican leadership has demonstrated
the requisite competence or political savvy. Furthermore, nothing that Trump has said or done since
taking office suggests that he possesses the capacity or even the inclination to articulate a unifying
conception of a common good . The real, although unarticulated slogan of his presidency, is
one that looks to "Deepen American Divisions," with members of the fiercely anti-Trump Left, his
ironic collaborators. On all sides, resentment grows.
Meanwhile, to judge by Trump's one-and-done missile attack on Syria and the fatuous deployment
of the "Mother of All Bombs" in Afghanistan, our president's approach to statecraft makes Lyndon
Johnson look circumspect by comparison. Trump assured his supporters that he was going to break
the hold of the foreign-policy establishment. In fact, he has embraced the establishment's penchant
for "using our power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment
we do not like." U.S. national-security policy has become monumentally incoherent, with the
man in charge apparently doing whatever his gut or his latest visitor at Mar-a-Lago tells him to
do.
This defines the nation's current predicament: Whatever agreement once existed on what it means
to be either great or good has pretty much disappeared from American political culture.
Our fragmented society pursues any number of illusory rainbows. Restoring some semblance of a common
culture thereby poses a daunting challenge, even larger today than back in the Sixties when everything
seemed to be coming apart at the seams. I will refrain from offering any glib advice for how to promote
that restoration.
If hardly less challenging, imparting a modicum of coherence to U.S. policy abroad may actually
qualify as more urgent. After all, the impetuous Trump appears more likely than Lyndon Johnson to
blow up the world.
In that regard, the views expressed by Professor Williams back in 1965 in explaining the rationale
for the "teach-ins" offer at least a place to begin. "We are trying to bring our Government back
into a dialogue with its own citizens," he explained.
We are trying to encourage Congress to meet its responsibilities and to function as a full
partner in governing the country. We are trying to change our foreign policy so that it will be
closer to the realities of the world and far more in keeping with our best traditions and highest
ideals-and thereby make it pragmatically more effective.
To align foreign policy with American values and with "the realities of the world," Williams
believed, offered a first step toward something even bigger. Williams understood the intimate linkage
between the way the United States acts abroad and what it is at home-each expressing the other. To
correct the defects in U.S. foreign policy, especially its misuse of force, could "generate the kind
of changes that could transform America into a more humane and creative country."
As a place to begin, it was good advice then. It remains good advice today.
"... More specifically, whether true or not, the Democrats are likely to use this move to claim that Comey was fired for digging too hard into Trump-Russia connections ..."
"... The official story is that attorney general Jeff Session and his deputy attorney general Rosenstein wanted Comey's head. And since the FBI does report to the Department of Justice, Sessions is within his rights to demand the firing of the head of the FBI and expect the President to respect his request. So if this proves to have been a reckless move, it will reflect Trump's poor judgment in selecting Sessions as his AG, who was a controversial pick from the outset. ..."
"... I support the firing of Comey, and would have supported it if done by Clinton, Obama, Sanders or Trump. His actions wrt "intent" in handling classified information, and his unilateral (in public at least) decision on leveling charges against Clinton (which was not his job) render him unfit for office. ..."
"... Both the Right and the Left are disinclined to believe in or care about any scandal involving Russia. And it was actually the Clinton partisans who demanded Comey's head in the first place–and we all know the Clinton history with independent prosecutors. So the Democrats who whine about this or call for an independent prosecutor just end up looking like the partisan hypocrites they are. ..."
"... What this does, after a few days, is get the Russian hacking investigation out of the news, so everyone can focus firmly on debating how many people need to lose their health care to satisfy the tax-cut gods. ..."
"... I'm already seeing Twitter Dems doubling down on the Russia stuff. The Russia hysteria is setting us up so that there will be absolutely no political incentive for future Presidents to be friendly with Russia. I wonder if they don't know (or just don't care) that they aren't going to be able to put this genie back in the bottle after Trump is gone. ..."
"... All it does is reinforce existing bias. Dems are even more convinced about Russian ties, Reps are even more concerned the wheels are off, TrumpNation is even more convinced there's an evil plot out to get their guy. And the media has a click frenzy to drive ad rates. ..."
"... being anti Russian is in the very DNA of the repubs. Would the repubs turn on Trump because Trump isn't fervently anti Russian enough? I very much think so .they have a good repub vice president that I am sure ALL of them much prefer .. ..."
"... Its important to remember the disdain the country has for Versailles in general. Trump became President despite universal support for Hillary and to a lesser extent Jeb on the shores of the Potomac.The Republican Id is dedicated to hating Democrats. Bill Clinton and Obama could play Weekend at Bernie's with Reagan corpse and kill Social Security, and Republicans would still hate them. ..."
"... Communists and other boogeymen of the past are secondary to this drive. The Versailles Republicans, a different breed, could never deliver Republican votes outside of Northern Virginia for one simple reason their base despises Democrats more than they might hate Stalin. They will never give credit to a Democrat. Remember the liberal whining about how Republicans never gave Obama credit for his right wing policy pushes. ..."
"... The other key point to the GOP voter relationship is Trump WON. He beat Jeb and his sheepdogs and then he beat Hillary (Hillary and the Dems lost). Trump is the their winner so to speak. As long as Trump is denounced by the usual suspects for bizarre reasons, Trump will maintain his hold. ..."
"... fbi sorta sat on gulen charter school investigation and it would certainly help emperor trompe and prince erdo relationship if Fethu found his old self on an express flight to Ankara considering the bean "kurd" thing recently added on the takeout menu ..."
"... People are fed up. Savings & Loan mess & Iran Contra & & & & yawn Wall Street destroys the economy & no one goes to jail, Medical Industrial Complex management bloodsuckers insure that sickness leads to penury ..."
"... I am no fan of Comey. I think his self-righteousness makes him a dangerous FBI Director and a loose cannon. However, people who think this is going to hurt Trump are likely wrong. If Trump knows there's nothing in the Russia story, but he continues to string out the Democrats with it, then they're the ones who are going to look foolish after having invested so much political capital in it. ..."
"... Since you can't prove a negative, the innuendo can continue ad nauseam. ..."
"... I suspect the Democrats are unaware they are indirectly insulting the Trump voters by the Russian influence story.. They are in effect saying Trump voters were played by the "evil" Russians into voting for Trump, despite the 1Billion spend by Clinton and her considerable support in the US media. I don't imagine the Trump voters like this message. ..."
"... If Trump indirectly destroys both the Democratic and Republican parties, he might rank as one of our more important Presidents, quite unintentionally. ..."
"... Why doesnt he fire the top 10 layers of CIA instead? They are wreaking havoc for real everywhere domestically and abroad. ..."
"... If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. ( ) ..."
Posted on May 9, 2017 by
Yves Smith Trump's sudden and unexpected firing of
FBI director James Comey is likely to damage Trump. The question is whether this move will simply serve as the basis for sowing further
doubts in the mainstream media against Trump, or will dent Trump's standing with Republicans.
Comey made an odd practice of making moves that were arguably procedurally improper in his handling of the Clinton e-mail investigation,
but some favored Clinton while others were damaging, given an impression of impartiality to the general public via getting both parties
riled with Comey at various points in time. And regardless of what one thinks of his political and legal judgment, Comey had a reputation
of being a straight shooter.
And more generally, the director of the FBI is perceived to be a role above the partisan fray. Firing him is fraught with danger;
it has the potential of turning into in a Nixonian Saturday Night Massacre, where the firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox
led the press and public to see Nixon as desperate to stymie an investigation into Watergate charges. It was the archetypal "the
coverup is worse than the crime".
To minimize risk, Trump's would have needed to have engaged in a whispering campaign against Comey, or least have notified some
key figures in Congress that this was about to happen and give the rationale for the turfing out. And it appears he did do that to
at least a degree, in that (as you will see below), Lindsay Graham, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made a statement
supporting the firing. But given the surprised reaction in the press, it looks like any ground-sowing for this move was minimal.
Caution and preparation don't rank high as Trump Administration priorities.
More specifically, whether true or not, the Democrats are likely to use this move to claim that Comey was fired for digging
too hard into Trump-Russia connections .
We'll know more in the coming hours and days. The official story is that attorney general Jeff Session and his deputy attorney
general Rosenstein wanted Comey's head. And since the FBI does report to the Department of Justice, Sessions is within his rights
to demand the firing of the head of the FBI and expect the President to respect his request. So if this proves to have been a reckless
move, it will reflect Trump's poor judgment in selecting Sessions as his AG, who was a controversial pick from the outset.
In a letter to Mr. Comey, the president wrote, "It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public
trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission."
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a statement thanked Mr. Comey for his years
of service to the country but said that a change in leadership at the bureau might be the best possible course of action.
"Given the recent controversies surrounding the director, I believe a fresh start will serve the FBI and the nation well. I
encourage the President to select the most qualified professional available who will serve our nation's interests," said Mr. Graham,
a South Carolina Republican.
Comey, who has led an investigation into Russia's meddling during the 2016 election and any possible links to Trump aides and
associates, is only the second FBI chief to have been fired. In 1993, President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno dismissed
William Sessions.
Trump's decision means that he will get to nominate Comey's successor while the agency is deep into the Russia inquiry. The
move quickly intensified Democratic calls for a special prosecutor.
Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Trump "has catastrophically
compromised the FBI's ongoing investigation of his own White House's ties to Russia. Not since Watergate have our legal systems
been so threatened, and our faith in the independence and integrity of those systems so shaken."
Mr Comey's sudden dismissal shocked Republicans and Democrats. Brendan Boyle, a Democratic congressman, said the "stunning"
action "shows why we must have a special prosecutor like our nation did in Watergate".
The proof of the pudding is whether Trump and Sessions will be able to ride out demands for a special prosecutor. Given how much
noise and how little signal there has been, I would have though it was possible for Trump to tough this out. With the Democrats having
peripheral figures like Carter Page as their supposed smoking guns, all they had was innuendo, amplified by the Mighty Wurlitzer
of the media. But that may have gotten enough to Trump and his team to distort their judgment. Stay tuned.
Update 5/10, 12:15 AM . The Hill reports
Dems ask Justice Dept, FBI to 'preserve any and all files' on Comey firing / Despite much howling for blood in the comments section,
some readers there were able to provide what I was looking for, which is whether Congress had any basis for getting the info. Here
are the two key remarks:
I support the firing of Comey, and would have supported it if done by Clinton, Obama, Sanders or Trump. His actions wrt
"intent" in handling classified information, and his unilateral (in public at least) decision on leveling charges against Clinton
(which was not his job) render him unfit for office.
Anyone opposing this firing should note they share opinions w/ John McCain, which ought to give any non-neocon pause
Both the Right and the Left are disinclined to believe in or care about any scandal involving Russia. And it was actually
the Clinton partisans who demanded Comey's head in the first place–and we all know the Clinton history with independent prosecutors.
So the Democrats who whine about this or call for an independent prosecutor just end up looking like the partisan hypocrites they
are.
What this does, after a few days, is get the Russian hacking investigation out of the news, so everyone can focus firmly
on debating how many people need to lose their health care to satisfy the tax-cut gods.
Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL) made the biggest impression, going to the Senate floor about an hour after the
announcement to clearly outline the stakes.
"Any attempt to stop or undermine this FBI investigation would raise grave constitutional issues," he told colleagues.
Interestingly, Fed directors have a term of ten years and since Hoover, there has been only one to make it the full term. That
would be Mr. Mueller who went twelve years as director directly following 911.
FBI Director is one of those jobs where if you do a good job you should suffer burnout regardless of who you are. A 10 year
term is bizarre if you expect a quality job. I would expect resignation and early retirement if the job is being taken seriously.
Then you have to consider the quality of staff and team work arrangements at any given time and how much workload a FBI Director
or Cabinet Secretary has to deal with.
I'm already seeing Twitter Dems doubling down on the Russia stuff. The Russia hysteria is setting us up so that there will
be absolutely no political incentive for future Presidents to be friendly with Russia. I wonder if they don't know (or just don't
care) that they aren't going to be able to put this genie back in the bottle after Trump is gone.
Thanks I love it and they just don't care and hoping the lame stream corp. owned media will carry their propaganda. Demodogs
message is we didn't fail but those looser didn't vote for us the party of corp. Amerika. Double down
@Matt – I don't think the Twitter Dems can conceive of the notion that there is a genie or even a bottle in this situation.
They are so caught up in the Russia!, Russia! hysteria that there is no room in their thinking for any kind of rational thought
or any consideration of consequences.
You're more hopeful that I am. I think the more militaristic among them are so cavalier about conflict with Russia because
of the Hitler-level delusions many of them have about the military capacity of Russia.
"Just kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will come down"
"We'll be greeted as liberators when we defeat the tyrant Putin!"
Just look at that SNL sketch that aired a few months ago. They think these people are frozen, ignorant peasants.
Personally I would be no good at power. My reading has led me to believe that you need a very strong stomach to endure what
you have to deal with, whether it be human gore, hypocrisy, or the dark side of any civilization. I don't have that stomach, and
if you take Comey's words at face value neither does he.
Nah, ask Obomber. Once you get past a little queasiness, getting "pretty good at killing folks" is a piece of cake. It's just
business as usual. Ask any Civil War or WW I general officer, or Bomber Harris, or Lemay or the young guy, farm boy from Iowa
who was a door gunner I knew on Vietnam. Just no problem killing gooks. His moral line was killing the water buffalo. "I know
how I'd feel if someone blew away my John Deere."
Re: The youg guy with the agricultural machinery sensibilities:
Although he was the manipulator of terrible power, I see him as a victim (in the scheme of things), not a member of the power-elite.
And the other military you mention, were they in the power-elite? Eisenhower should have been on your list, as he straddled the
divide.
I'm curious how this will be interpreted by people who get their news mostly via headlines. (I also wonder what proportion
of the voting population that is.)
The headlines I've seen so far, if they give a reason, just make reference to the Clinton email investigation. I sort of think
this will be interpreted by many mostly-headline news gatherers as meaning that Trump fired Comey because he did not, in fact,
lock her up. Indeed, even those who dig deeper may still believe that this is the real reason.
So, like so many things raged about in the media, I'm not sure this really hurts Trump amongst his voters. Probably helps,
really.
And for something completely different, Snowden is not a fan:
All it does is reinforce existing bias. Dems are even more convinced about Russian ties, Reps are even more concerned the
wheels are off, TrumpNation is even more convinced there's an evil plot out to get their guy. And the media has a click frenzy
to drive ad rates.
"Trump's sudden and unexpected firing of FBI director James Comey is likely to damage Trump."
How neutral or unconcerned with what the Establishment views as the requisite dogma regarding Russia is Trump? Articles about
Trump being unhappy about McMaster gives the impression that Trump still believe he (Trump) is the boss.
Yes, the dems have ridiculous notions about Russians as an excuse for Hillary. But being anti Russian is in the very DNA
of the repubs. Would the repubs turn on Trump because Trump isn't fervently anti Russian enough? I very much think so .they have
a good repub vice president that I am sure ALL of them much prefer ..
You're right, the red party is a virulently anti-red outfit. I can see the die hard GOPers turning on the Trumpster, but will
his base stand for it? The Trumpster does have a bit of a cult of personality going on in some circles.
Its important to remember the disdain the country has for Versailles in general. Trump became President despite universal
support for Hillary and to a lesser extent Jeb on the shores of the Potomac.The Republican Id is dedicated to hating Democrats.
Bill Clinton and Obama could play Weekend at Bernie's with Reagan corpse and kill Social Security, and Republicans would still
hate them.
Communists and other boogeymen of the past are secondary to this drive. The Versailles Republicans, a different breed,
could never deliver Republican votes outside of Northern Virginia for one simple reason their base despises Democrats more than
they might hate Stalin. They will never give credit to a Democrat. Remember the liberal whining about how Republicans never gave
Obama credit for his right wing policy pushes.
The other key point to the GOP voter relationship is Trump WON. He beat Jeb and his sheepdogs and then he beat Hillary
(Hillary and the Dems lost). Trump is the their winner so to speak. As long as Trump is denounced by the usual suspects for bizarre
reasons, Trump will maintain his hold.
They still have to have a case to make and there is none. Impeachment is just as much a fantasy as it was several months ago.
In fact they no longer even have the argument that Trump must be stifled and prevented from doing all his crazy promises since
they don't seem to be happening anyway.
Frankly I say good for Trump rather than letting Comey go all Janet Reno on him. If this country is going to be run by the
NYT and the WaPo and CNN then we are truly sunk. He had it right when he was attacking this bunch rather than kowtowing to them.
Although the Mighty Wurlitzer is going to take this firing and run with it, I wonder if anyone's really going to care outside
of folks that watch a ton of CNN and MSNBC. I think scalping him at this point in his administration is likely to generate more
protests and demonstrations than not scalping him.
Well don trumpioni may have stepped in it although, maybe this has less to do with russia perhaps fbi sorta sat on gulen
charter school investigation and it would certainly help emperor trompe and prince erdo relationship if Fethu found his old self
on an express flight to Ankara considering the bean "kurd" thing recently added on the takeout menu
Can easily imagine potus & his not ready for prime time players wanting to use the hoover building as a bludgeon against people
who dont fall in line the blob counterforce
comey the straight shooter methynx is a bit of a "legend" but even the most slick and corrupt have certain lines they wont
cross
Can easily imagine potus & his not ready for prime time players wanting to use the hoover building as a bludgeon against
people who dont fall in line the blob counterforce
The FBI would be the preferred outfit for this sort of thing due to their many decades of experience bludgeoning those who
don't fall in line.
"Will Trump's Firing of FBI Director James Comey Be His Saturday Night Massacre?'
It would be interesting to take a poll on what percentage of citizens know that "Saturday Night Massacre" is not a horror film.
I'd be willing to bet a beer that this kerfuffle will be confined to the Beltway media and Sunday talk shows and will fade
from the news cycle/Facebook feeds rather quickly.
People are tapped out mentally with political talk.
People are fed up. Savings & Loan mess & Iran Contra & & & & yawn Wall Street destroys the economy & no one goes to jail,
Medical Industrial Complex management bloodsuckers insure that sickness leads to penury
1973 was 28 years after 1945. 1973 was 44 years ago. The post WW2 psuedo consensus is looooooooong gone.
I thought we hated Comey cuz of what he did to HRC? Today we hate Trump cuz Comey was going after the Russians? Crap I hate
missing the 2 minute hate.
I am no fan of Comey. I think his self-righteousness makes him a dangerous FBI Director and a loose cannon. However, people
who think this is going to hurt Trump are likely wrong. If Trump knows there's nothing in the Russia story, but he continues to
string out the Democrats with it, then they're the ones who are going to look foolish after having invested so much political
capital in it. It may be the Russian story will be proven to be nonsense about October, 2018.
I suspect the Democrats are unaware they are indirectly insulting the Trump voters by the Russian influence story.. They
are in effect saying Trump voters were played by the "evil" Russians into voting for Trump, despite the 1Billion spend by Clinton
and her considerable support in the US media. I don't imagine the Trump voters like this message.
It is truly remarkable, the Russians spend about 10% of what the USA does on "Defense" and are able to influence a US electorate
that is largely unaware and unconcerned about world affairs.
I believe enough voters know that Clinton played fast and loose with the email server to avoid FOIA and the Clinton Foundation
pulled in a lot of money from foreign governments as payment in advance to President Hillary Clinton..
The harping on the "Russia influenced the election enough to elect Trump" will bite the Democrats as they avoid the jobs, medical
and economic issues that actually influenced the voters for Trump.
If Trump indirectly destroys both the Democratic and Republican parties, he might rank as one of our more important Presidents,
quite unintentionally.
I've taken to using doge speak in my comments on Yahoo articles and WaPo articles. I figure that's about as much intelligence
the publishers are investing into the articles and into the audience, that I therefore tune my intelligence accordingly.
If it has to do with the Russian electorial witch hunt stupidity, then yes, I think Comey ought to have been fired. For crying
out loud, enough already! Delicate matters are being attempted in the Middle East, and there is no sense in pursuing that craziness.
I don't understand why that shouldn't be a perfectly acceptable reason to change direction and start attending to real issues
with someone in the office who would support Trump's legitimate claim (and Putin's) that there was no there there.
I would imagine the CIA/Intel guys are way harder to get rid of. To quote the late, great Sen. Frank Church:
If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity
that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way
to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately
it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. ( )
Because people here are smart enough to be skeptical of hysterical MSM headlines with no real goods, you act as if you are
some sort of smart contrarian, when you are just echoing a Democratic party/media narrative?
You do not seem to recognize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The idea that billionaire, who was already
famous in the US by virtue (among other things) of having a TV show that ran for 14 years and got billions of free media coverage
during his campaign, is somehow owned by Putin, is astonishing on its face. Trump had to have been the focus of extensive Republican
and Democratic party opposition research while he was campaigning.
And perhaps most important, the night he won, Trump clearly did not expect to win. His longstanding friend Howard Stern stated
a view similar to ours, that Trump ran because it would be good PR and the whole thing developed a life of its own. And before
you try saying politics doesn't work that way, the UK is now on a path to Brexit for the same reasons.
All the Dems and the media have come up with are some kinda-sorta connections to Russia. Trump as a very rich man who also
has assembled a large team of political types in short order, would have people who knew people in all corners of the world. "X
has done business with Y" is hardly proof o of influence, particularly with a guy like Trump, who is now famous for telling people
what they want to hear in a meeting and backstabbing them the next day.
We've been looking at this for months. The best they can come up with is:
1. Manafort, who worked for Trump for all of four months and was fired. Plus his Russia connections are mainly through Ukraine.
Podesta has strong if not stronger Russia ties, is a much more central play to Clinton and no one is making a stink about that.
And that's before you get to the Clinton involvement in a yuuge uranium sale to Russia, which even the New York Times confirmed
(but wrote such a weedy story that you have to read carefully to see that).
2. Carter Page, who was even more peripheral
3. Flynn, again not a central player, plus it appears his bigger sin involved Turkey
4. The conversation with the Russian ambassador, which contrary to the screeching has plenty of precedent (in fact, Nixon and
Reagan did far more serious meddling)
5. The various allegations re Trump real estate and bank loans. Trump did have a really seedy Russian involved in a NYC development.
One should be more worried that the guy was a crook than that he was Russian. Third tier, not even remotely in the oligarch class.
There are also vague allegations re money laundering. The is crap because first, every NYC real estate player has dirty money
in high end projects (see the big expose by the New York Times on the Time Warner Center, developed by the Related Companies,
owned by Steve Ross). But second, the party responsible for checking where the money came from, unless it was wheelbarrows of
cash, is the bank, not the real estate owner. Since the NYT expose there have been efforts to make developers/owners responsible
too, but those aren't germane to Trump since they aren't/weren't in effect.
So please do not provide no value added speculation. If you have something concrete, that would be interesting, but I've been
looking and I've seen nothing of any substance.
Very few condos there are occupied for more than a few days per year, and most of the residents I encountered during my tenure
there were not US citizens.
We were all very entertained when the Times broke the story.
Just FYI, Ross does not own the TWC outright, he only has a stake in the place albeit a sizable one since aquiring TIme Warner's
office/studio unit.
Trump a crook, but not any other oligarchs? The old saying goes something like behind every great fortune is a great crime.
They clean up the image with a few rewrites and something like public office or foundations. The Presidency is Trump's ca-ching.
And the pauses on the promises and the falling in line (bombs away!). He'll be right in the club.
Mr Comey also made some statements recently about Clinton emails and Mr Wiener, statements that seemed to be in need of significant
reinterpretation. That might also have been the cause.
Corporate Government messaging has fallen apart. The description of Anthony Weiner's laptop went from "explosive" to "careless
but not criminal" to "just several" Clinton e-mails on it.
Democrats are generally supported by Wall Street, GOP by military contractors; but, together they are one war party. The new
Saturday Night Massacre shows that with Donald Trump's triumph, the government has split apart into nationalist and globalist
factions. No doubt the James Comey firing buries the Russian interference investigation. However, with the wars in Syria and Afghanistan
re-surging; this episode shows that nothing the government says or the media reports is near the truth.
Impeachment over his abuse of power in the Syrian airbase cruise missile attack?
"United to Protect Democracy (UPD) is an advocacy group whose introductory web page
describes it as a "nonpartisan nonprofit" organization established to hold the President of
the United States accountable "to the laws and longstanding practices that have protected our
democracy through both Democratic and Republican Administrations". The governing board of UPD
is made up of former Obama Administration attorneys led by legal director, Justin Florence.
They have just filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration demanding he cough up all
e-mails, memoranda, advisory opinions and/or anything which could be viewed as legal
argumentation justifying the April 7, 2017 attack on the Syrian Airbase at Al-Shu'ayraat
southeast of Homs City."
"... The Trump show is becoming interesting. A short time ago it looked like Trump was about to start wars everywhere. US establishment seemed to all agree that made him very presidential. A distraction for the establishment politicians and media while Tillerson and Trump get a few things done? ..."
i can never understand why politics has to be so complex, but it is.. it could be a lot more
simple.. so for those who want to understand why things happen, they have to go beyond the
surface..
this comey guy was dishonest.. why have someone like that around?
mccain - he has been a warmonger for forever.. why is he and so many others still around?
they sure aren't serving the public's need.. unfortunately trump isn't serving the publics
needs either..
i agree with @4 ftb.. now, just cause someone says trump is done, doesn't mean he stops
doing the crazy shit he is going continue to do.. but so far, none of it amounts to a hill of
beans.. i can't see him doing anything relevant at this point other then bringing more
trouble to the usa.. if he would step down prematurely, it wouldn't surprise me. he is out of
his league and needs to stick to twitter..
The Trump show is becoming interesting. A short time ago it looked like Trump was about
to start wars everywhere. US establishment seemed to all agree that made him very
presidential. A distraction for the establishment politicians and media while Tillerson and
Trump get a few things done?
In the last weeks there has been a meeting between Tillerson and Putin, Lavrov and Trump
will be meeting soon. Comey in charge of the Trump/Russia investigation has now been sacked.
In Syria, US has hardly moved towards Raqqa, agreed to the Russian de-escalation zones which
free up Syrian forces for a drive on Deir Ezzor and possibly Raqqa. The other thing that has
appeared in the news in the last couple of weeks is that the Trump white house has not
approved any pentagon requests to run their so called freedom of navigation exercises against
China.
Nice observation. Personally, I still hold off any judgment on who Trump is - there simply
isn't enough roller-coaster motion yet to judge where the trend lines belong.
A lot of the things I see him get blamed for are actually only theater, including Korea -
or else relatively minor actions that satisfy subordinate departments (such as the US Navy),
and that appear to make waves but that don't actually capsize the big picture. It's an
uncomfortable brinkmanship to watch if you believe it's real, but I'm not sure that Trump
believes it's anything more than pre-negotiation sand in the eyes.
And a lot of other things that actually do happen domestically are part of the Republican
and classical conservative agenda anyway. No organized force in the US exists anymore to
combat these things, certainly not the sold-out Democrats and their long co-opted unions.
Meanwhile, as you note, the realities on the geopolitical ground globally proceed in a
direction favorable to peace.
Tillerson may be the one to watch to see where the Trump roller coaster is heading? Trump
distracts attention allowing Tillerson to get on with what they want to do?
very said day indeed
indeed
for usa usa and when israel is mighty oded yinon.
comey was the last man standing a modern day kevin costner elliot ness in a sea of nazi and
evil doing al capones and ali akhbar oceans 11ish
we champions of anti semitismus and lgbt plus minus barbera lerner spector multiculralism
frankfurt school must fight for are man
and woman and all the gender fluids in between.
so what if comey has a 5 million dollar home in the hamptons.
so what if he has a dossier for safe keeping and insurance .
so what if hsbc invested in him and andrew mcabe making them future proof.
we in the upper golan israeli oil and gas have too support and protect are assets if they be
in the fbi or in the al nusra syriana.
mcabe will do a great job smashing more phones hammer tongs and bleachbit. stabilising this
situation be assured mcabae will not rest until the ratlines drugs,arms slave and live organ
trades are back up to peak bush obarmee levels.
"... The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly predictable fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal leaders signed off on some lousy trade deal, figuring that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were making what happened last November a little more likely. ..."
"... What we need is for the Democratic party and its media enablers to alter course. It's not enough to hear people's voices and feel their pain; the party actually needs to change. They need to understand that the enlightened Davos ideology they have embraced over the years has done material harm to millions of their own former constituents. The Democrats need to offer something different next time. And then they need to deliver. ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich offers 24 things that the media and their very knowledgeable talking heads could be talking about instead of obsessing about Trump 24/7: ..."
"... Our courtier press is worse than useless. The days of Walter Cronkite are but a distant memory. ..."
Vinyl records are back in vogue...apparently broken records are back, too, as Krugman reminds
us in virtually every one of his columns these days.
What Krugman could be writing about: "Another thing that is inexcusable from Democrats: surprise
at the economic disasters that have befallen the midwestern cities and states that they used to
represent.
The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly
predictable fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal leaders signed
off on some lousy trade deal, figuring that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they
were making what happened last November a little more likely.
Every time our liberal leaders deregulated banks and then turned around and told working-class
people that their misfortunes were all attributable to their poor education was a lot of student
loans and the right sort of college degree ... every time they did this they made the disaster
a little more inevitable.
Pretending to rediscover the exotic, newly red states of the Midwest, in the manner of the
New York Times, is not the answer to this problem. Listening to the voices of the good people
of Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan is not really the answer, either. Cursing those bad people for
the stupid way they voted is an even lousier idea.
What we need is for the Democratic party and its media enablers to alter course. It's not
enough to hear people's voices and feel their pain; the party actually needs to change. They need
to understand that the enlightened Davos ideology they have embraced over the years has done material
harm to millions of their own former constituents. The Democrats need to offer something different
next time. And then they need to deliver. "
"Andrew Bacevich offers 24 things that the media and their very knowledgeable talking heads
could be talking about instead of obsessing about Trump 24/7:"
"But hiring another prominent writer whose ideology hems close to that of the nation's elites
- in this case, fossil fuel corporations who are polluting the world and advocates of Western
military might - is hardly adding intellectual diversity to the pages of the Times."
So, the liberal elites are the Appalachian coal miners?
Trump won because he appealed to the NY Times elites?
"It could change that by hiring some of his prominent backers: philosopher Cornel West, Jacobin
editor Bhaskar Sunkara, civil rights scholar Michelle Alexander, labor organizer Jonathan Tasini,
and former Nevada Assemblywoman and organizer Lucy Flores could all make strong additions."
These people are effective because they have convinced voters to elect socialists across the
US, just like Bernie, easily defeating the right-wingers the NY Times has attacked, like Cruz,
Perry, Trump, et al?
"The Times could fix this by hiring some of the more thoughtful Trump backers, or at least
writers who have documented his appeal. For instance, there is Dilbert creator Scott Adams, who
admires Trump's powers of persuasion and correctly predicted that he would be elected."
So, if one admires the Chinese leadership for their economic policies of spreading the wealth
by creating hundreds of millions of jobs paying high wages (for China) paid for with high taxes
and high prices (for China), does that mean you want to live under Chinese rule?
I admire the Chinese authoritarians for embracing Keynes and FDR and Galbraith, something you
give lip service to, but actually oppose in policy.
You are just as free lunch as Cato and Heritage and AEI and the Kochs, just picking different
winners from unsustainable explosion of debt.
BTW, I like Bacevich, except he argues that Obama had as much power as the Chinese authoritarians,
and the Congress, the people, the Constitution are irrelevant.
He argued that Obama had the power to ignore all the laws passed by Congress, and had the power
to ignore all the voters, because Obama's problem was failing to do what the small number of elites
wanted, elites who can't get any one elected in even the liberal elite enclaves.
"The Times could break real ground by hiring talented millennial writers like the Washington
Post's Elizabeth Bruenig or Demos's Sean McElwee. The Times could also go even younger, including
the voices of Americans who are rarely heard: high-schoolers."
Hmm, so WaPo is now in touch with the masses?
What about NPR and PBS which has programs to train and give recording equipment to to kids
so they can do reporting, and then get their stories aired? Are public broadcasting really dominating
youth markets?
As a liberal, I automatically seek to falsify claims by anyone regardless of policy position.
I'm a Keynesian in the Galbraith mode, but I will criticize Keynesian arguments just like conservative
figured out how to do, but in reducio absurdim to illustrate the weak argument by the Keynesian
and logical fallacy of the conservative critique.
"They could hire, for instance, leading climatologist James Hansen or environmental lawyer
Erin Brockovich."
Again, to people who utterly failed to get anyone elected, local, State, or Federal, to get
anything done.
Hansen has been a disaster in that he helped speed Trump into the White House by being a Don
Quinto talking at oil pipelines, by inspiring tens of thousands of young people to drive gas guzzlers
to anti oil pipeline protests.
Hey, Hansen and Bernie promise the free lunch of no oil and gas wells and pipelines, but plenty
of cheap gasoline for cars and trucks and SUVs and cheap heating for homes.
The Ministry of Truth-Minitrue, in Newspeak [Newspeak was the official language of Oceania.
For an account of its structure and etymology see Appendix. * ]-was startlingly different from
any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete,
soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston Smith stood it
was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans
of the Party:
The Ministry of Truth contained, it was said, three thousand rooms above ground level, and
corresponding ramifications below. Scattered about London there were just three other buildings
of similar appearance and size. So completely did they dwarf the surrounding architecture that
from the roof of Victory Mansions you could see all four of them simultaneously. They were the
homes of the four Ministries between which the entire apparatus of government was divided. The
Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts.
The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war. The Ministry of Love, which maintained
law and order. And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs. Their names,
in Newspeak: Minitrue, Minipax, Miniluv, and Miniplenty....
The Ministry of Truth - Minitrue, in Newspeak [Newspeak was the official language of Oceania.
For an account of its structure and etymology see Appendix. * ]- was startlingly different from
any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete,
soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston stood it was just
possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the
Party:
...Once upon a time, Donald J. Trump, the New York City businessman-turned-president, berated then-President
Barack Obama back in September 2013 about the fallacy of an American military strike against Syria.
At that time, the United States was considering the use of force against Syria in response to allegations
(since largely disproven) that the regime of President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons
against civilians in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. Trump, via tweet, declared "to our very foolish
leader, do not attack Syria – if you do many very bad things will happen & from that fight the U.S.
gets nothing!"
...This new policy direction lasted barely five days. Sometime in the early afternoon of April 4,
2017, troubling images and video clips began to be transmitted out of the Syrian province of Idlib
by anti-government activists, including members of the so-called "White Helmets," a volunteer rescue
team whose work was captured in an eponymously-named Academy Award-winning documentary film. These
images showed victims in various stages of symptomatic distress, including death, from what the activists
said was exposure to chemical weapons dropped by the Syrian air force on the town of Khan Sheikhoun
that very morning.
Images of these tragic deaths were immediately broadcast on American media outlets, with pundits
decrying the horrific and heinous nature of the chemical attack, which was nearly unanimously attributed
to the Syrian government, even though the only evidence provided was the imagery and testimony of
the anti-Assad activists who, just days before, were decrying the shift in American policy regarding
regime change in Syria.
...Such a reversal in policy fundamentals and direction in such a short period of time is stunning;
Donald Trump didn't simply deviate slightly off course, but rather did a complete 180-degree turn.
The previous policy of avoiding entanglement in the internal affairs of Syria in favor of defeating
ISIS and improving relations with Russia had been replaced by a fervent embrace of regime change,
direct military engagement with the Syrian armed forces, and a confrontational stance vis-à-vis the
Russian military presence in Syria.
Normally, such major policy change could only be explained by a new reality driven by verifiable
facts. The alleged chemical weapons attack against Khan Sheikhoun was not a new reality; chemical
attacks had been occurring inside Syria on a regular basis, despite the international effort to disarm
Syria's chemical weapons capability undertaken in 2013 that played a central role in forestalling
American military action at that time. International investigations of these attacks produced mixed
results, with some being attributed to the Syrian government (something the Syrian government vehemently
denies), and the majority being attributed to anti-regime fighters, in particular those affiliated
with Al Nusra Front, an Al Qaeda affiliate.
...A critical piece of information that has largely escaped the reporting in the mainstream media
is that Khan Sheikhoun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the
anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until February 2017, Khan Sheikhoun was occupied by a
pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with its
competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under any name
functioning as Al Qaeda's arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the local population.
...In Aleppo, the Russians discovered crude weapons production laboratories that filled mortar shells
and landmines with a mix of chlorine gas and white phosphorus; after a thorough forensic investigation
was conducted by military specialists, the Russians turned over samples of these weapons, together
with soil samples from areas struck by weapons produced in these laboratories, to investigators from
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for further evaluation.
(
Collapse
)
Al Nusra has a long history of manufacturing and employing crude chemical weapons; the 2013 chemical
attack on Ghouta made use of low-grade Sarin nerve agent locally synthesized, while attacks in
and around Aleppo in 2016 made use of a chlorine/white phosphorous blend. If the Russians are
correct, and the building bombed in Khan Sheikhoun on the morning of April 4, 2017 was producing
and/or storing chemical weapons, the probability that viable agent and other toxic contaminants
were dispersed into the surrounding neighborhood, and further disseminated by the prevailing wind,
is high.
The counter-narrative offered by the Russians and Syrians, however, has been minimized, mocked
and ignored by both the American media and the Trump administration. So, too, has the very illogic
of the premise being put forward to answer the question of why President Assad would risk everything
by using chemical weapons against a target of zero military value, at a time when the strategic
balance of power had shifted strongly in his favor. Likewise, why would Russia, which had invested
considerable political capital in the disarmament of Syria's chemical weapons capability after
2013, stand by idly while the Syrian air force carried out such an attack, especially when their
was such a heavy Russian military presence at the base in question at the time of the attack?
Such analysis seems beyond the scope and comprehension of the American fourth estate. Instead,
media outlets like CNN embrace at face value anything they are told by official American sources,
including a particularly preposterous insinuation that Russia actually colluded in the chemical
weapons attack; the aforementioned presence of Russian officers at Al Shayrat air base has been
cited as evidence that Russia had to have known about Syria's chemical warfare capability, and
yet did nothing to prevent the attack.
To sustain this illogic, the American public and decision-makers make use of a sophisticated propaganda
campaign involving video images and narratives provided by forces opposed to the regime of Bashar
al-Assad, including organizations like the "White Helmets," the Syrian-American Medical Society,
the Aleppo Media Center, which have a history of providing slanted information designed to promote
an anti-Assad message.
...Even slick media training, however, cannot gloss over basic factual inconsistencies. Early
on, the anti-Assad opposition media outlets were labeling the Khan Sheikhoun incident as a "Sarin
nerve agent" attack; one doctor affiliated with Al Qaeda sent out images and commentary via social
media that documented symptoms, such as dilated pupils, that he diagnosed as stemming from exposure
to Sarin nerve agent. Sarin, however, is an odorless, colorless material, dispersed as either
a liquid or vapor; eyewitnesses speak of a "pungent odor" and "blue-yellow" clouds, more indicative
of chlorine gas.
And while American media outlets, such as CNN, have spoken of munitions "filled to the brim" with
Sarin nerve agent being used at Khan Sheikhoun, there is simply no evidence cited by any source
that can sustain such an account. Heartbreaking images of victims being treated by "White Helmet"
rescuers have been cited as proof of Sarin-like symptoms, the medical viability of these images
is in question; there are no images taken of victims at the scene of the attack. Instead, the
video provided by the "White Helmets" is of decontamination and treatment carried out at a "White
Helmet" base after the victims, either dead or injured, were transported there.
The lack of viable protective clothing worn by the "White Helmet" personnel while handling victims
is another indication that the chemical in question was not military grade Sarin; if it were,
the rescuers would themselves have become victims (some accounts speak of just this phenomena,
but this occurred at the site of the attack, where the rescuers were overcome by a "pungent smelling"
chemical – again, Sarin is odorless.)
...Moreover, if Al Nusra was replicating the type of low-grade Sarin it employed at Ghouta in
2013 at Khan Sheikhoun, it is highly likely that some of the victims in question would exhibit
Sarin-like symptoms. Blood samples taken from the victims could provide a more precise readout
of the specific chemical exposure involved; such samples have allegedly been collected by Al Nusra-affiliated
personnel, and turned over to international investigators (the notion that any serious investigatory
body would allow Al Nusra to provide forensic evidence in support of an investigation where it
is one of only two potential culprits is mindboggling, but that is precisely what has happened).
But the Trump administration chose to act before these samples could be processed, perhaps afraid
that their results would not sustain the underlying allegation of the employment of Sarin by the
Syrian air force.
Mainstream American media outlets have willingly and openly embraced a narrative provided by Al
Qaeda affiliates whose record of using chemical weapons in Syria and distorting and manufacturing
"evidence" to promote anti-Assad policies in the west, including regime change, is well documented.
These outlets have made a deliberate decision to endorse the view of Al Qaeda over a narrative
provided by Russian and Syrian government authorities without any effort to fact check either
position. These actions, however, do not seem to shock the conscience of the American public;
when it comes to Syria, the mainstream American media and its audience has long ago ceded the
narrative to Al Qaeda and other Islamist anti-regime elements.
The real culprits here are the Trump administration, and President Trump himself. The president's
record of placing more weight on what he sees on television than the intelligence briefings he
may or may not be getting, and his lack of intellectual curiosity and unfamiliarity with the nuances
and complexities of both foreign and national security policy, created the conditions where the
imagery of the Khan Sheikhoun victims that had been disseminated by pro-Al Nusra (i.e., Al Qaeda)
outlets could influence critical life-or-death decisions.
That President Trump could be susceptible to such obvious manipulation is not surprising, given
his predilection for counter-punching on Twitter for any perceived slight; that his national security
team allowed him to be manipulated thus, and did nothing to sway Trump's opinion or forestall
action pending a thorough review of the facts, is scandalous. History will show that Donald Trump,
his advisors and the American media were little more than willing dupes for Al Qaeda and its affiliates,
whose manipulation of the Syrian narrative resulted in a major policy shift that furthers their
objectives.
It is interesting to compare the dicussion in 2015 with the current situation...
Notable quotes:
"... While conservatism is by far the strongest predictor of support for the Tea Party movement, racial hostility also has a significant impact on support. ..."
"... In fact, today's Republicans and Tea Party are opposed to everything Republicans were for and did from 1860 to 1990, relabeling Republicans before 1970 as RINOs. Even Reagan is a RINO, requiring a history rewrite by conservatives which Bartlett has persisted in refuting. ..."
"... Dem hesitation to support Obomber on Iran means I DO NOT DO ANYTHING FOR DEMS in '16! ..."
"... The rise of TrumpW! over Jeb! would flame out as a third party. ..."
"... "Donald Trump cuts through the ideological haze of American politics and exposes its underlying truth, the truth of enjoyment. Where other candidates appeal to a fictitious unity or pretense of moral integrity, he displays the power of inequality. Money buys access -- why deny it?" ... "In a plutocracy, the plutocrats rule. The Republicans don't like Trump because he doesn't hide this point under flag and fetus. For him, flag and fetus are present, but incidental to his politics of truth. Those with money win. Those without it lose. Winners get to do whatever they want. Losers get done to. ... This is his politics of enjoyment." ..."
"... Trump supporters are mad at the system. Not that they have any ideas that will improve things. They simply want to protest. They are not happy with the way things are. ..."
"... Steve Schmidt said exactly the same thing on Maher. Our government is incompetent and people are mad. Course, no policies have as yet followed, although Trump actually said he would replace Obamacare with "something terrific"(actual quote). ..."
"... And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character." ..."
"... I guess it's poetic justice. When the Republican party sold its soul to the devil for Southern white voters, it not only got a whole bunch of racists but a whole bunch of Jacksonian democrats. Trump is talking like any number of Southern politicians who used to combine support for Jim Crow with populist talk and the distribution of goodies. There is, it turns out, a constituency for a left-wing way of being right wing, for adding a dollop of socialism to your nativism, which is why "keeping the government's hands off my Medicare" makes perfectly good political sense. No wonder Trump had nice things to say about single payer. ..."
"... I'd say both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are capitalizing on the electorate's disgust with establishment politics. Trump in particular is a comical larger-than-life figure. Heck, the Italians expressed their disgust by electing a porn star ("la ciccolina"). ..."
"... The electorate's beliefs are not that different than the establishments on several fronts. That is the dirty secret of modern day America. Huffing and puffing with little content. ..."
"... Trump uses Mexico as a cover for that most of the illegal immigration is coming from Asia right now (besides his clothing business........ah, people don't listen). Mexican illegal immigration is down more than the total decline since 2007 and will probably fall further. The "wall" is just a scam. I bet there are some people in Mexico who would love that wall. ..."
"... People forget FDR was influenced by Jacksonian democracy merged in with 100 more years of industrial capitalism's failings. So FDR took nativism and socialism=the new deal. In Germany they called it National Socialism. White's get a huge lift while blacks get left behind. The historical trend of unemployment was fairly similar up until then. Then after the New Deal, it separated. ..."
"... True, Truman integrated the national security establishment (army) right before he turned it into a huge trough (possibly by accident). ..."
"... I hate stupid, anachronistic comments about FDR. He was faced with an enormous crisis and to use his political capital the best he could. If he had gone all in abolishing Jim Crow he would have been a one term president and the depression would worsened. Communism would have been on the table. ..."
With Trump and Fox now on opposite sides and the Republican
establishment eager to quash his threat to run next year as a third party candidate, which would
virtually guarantee a Democratic victory, conservatives began to choose sides. Erick Erickson,
a paid Fox contributor who runs the politically powerful RedState website, publicly
disinvited Trump to an Atlanta
gathering at which most other Republican candidates appeared.
Of particular interest, I think, is that two of talk radio's most powerful voices,
Rush Limbaugh and
Mark Levin, quickly came to Trump's defense. I suspect this was as much a market-driven decision
as an honest personal one – talk radio has long catered to the more downscale, less educated wing
of conservatism, where
most Trump supporters dwell. Whatever else one thinks of Limbaugh and Levin, they are enormously
useful allies in the sort of fight Trump is waging.
It is too soon to know whether Trump is in this for the long haul, but I would not underestimate
his ego or willingness to spend freely from his vast fortune to secure the Republican nomination.
Early signs are that his support remains firm in post-debate polls and he is still leading
the pack. If the Republican field stays divided, preventing consolidation around the strongest
non-Trump candidate, one cannot dismiss his chances of success.
Of more importance to me is that if the forces for and against Trump play out as they have
so far, with Fox and Tea Party leaders siding with the GOP establishment while talk radio and
large numbers of the Tea Party grassroots are committed to Trump, we may see the crackup of the
Republican coalition that controls Congress, many state legislatures and governorships. The Tea
Party will go down in history as just another populist movement that lacked staying power and
Donald Trump will be its William Jennings Bryan.
Paul Krugman:
Tea and
Trump_vs_deep_state: Memo to pollsters: while I'm having as much fun as everyone else watching the unsinkable
Donald defy predictions of his assured collapse, what I really want to see at this point is a
profile of his supporters. What characteristics predispose someone to like this guy, as opposed
to accepting the establishment candidates? ...
OK, here's my guess: they look a lot like Tea
Party supporters. And we do know a fair bit about that group.
First of all, Tea Party supporters are for the most part not working-class, at least
in the senses that group is often defined. They're
relatively
affluent, and not especially lacking in college degrees.
While conservatism is by far the strongest predictor of support for the Tea Party movement,
racial hostility also has a significant impact on support.
So maybe Trump's base is angry, fairly affluent white racists - sort of like The Donald himself,
only not as rich? And maybe they're not being hoodwinked? ...
Again, this is just guesswork until we have a real profile of typical Trump supporter. But
for what it's worth, I think the Trump phenomenon is much more grounded in fundamentals than the
commentariat yet grasps.
I like Bruce Bartlett since he has the capacity to change his mind when confronted by facts,
but what is so appealing about conservatism...that people gravitate to?
"If they are not clinging to Jesus, then what are they clinging to?"
The promise of a free lunch. That is the thing Reagan and his economists sold America, the
promise of a free lunch. If we get rid of unions, they you will be paid more and get richer because
the union bosses will not be taking a big chunk of your paycheck to make themselves rich.
If we cut taxes, you will have more money in your pocket and you will also get more free services
once the private sector does what government does cheaper.
If we deregulate the banks then your mortgage interest rates will fall below the interest rate
cap imposed by the Fed and the banks will pay higher interest on your savings than the Fed allows
with the interest rate cap.
If we deregulate the banks and make loan sharking legal, you will be able to borrow money without
a job or assets to get rich.
If we eliminate capital gains taxes then the price on your house will increase to infinity
even if the roof caves in because capital always gain value if the government does not tax it.
If we get rid of the EPA, then everything will be cheaper and your getting richer from paying
less will mean less pollution because pollution falls with wealth.
If lazy incompetent government workers are fired, they will start new businesses and create
wealth by creating millions of jobs - just look at K Street.
The way to get rich is to go into debt.
The reason you are worse off under Republicans is because of liberals.
The reason you are worse off under Republicans is because of minorities.
The solution to every problem is more guns.
The solution to every problem is more prisons.
The solution to every problem is lower taxes.
The solution to every problem is less government and more prisons.
The solution to every problem is no accountability.
The solution to every problem is to drop more bombs or start another war. Fixed it.
bakho said...
Obama told the activists who elected him in 2008 to go home and leave politics to the elected.
The TeaParty has remained active. They are organized in opposition to Obama. The will remain in
protest against the RINOs. The religious right has social organizations in the megachurches. In
the Midwest, there has been infighting between mainstream GOP who run local govt and Tea Party
and Religious Right.
Mitch -> bakho...
"Obama told the activists who elected him in 2008 to go home and leave politics to the elected."
He did? Plus what more do you want from him, besides single payer?
Peter K. -> bakho...
"Obama told the activists who elected him in 2008 to go home and leave politics to the
elected."
I don't buy that. He regularly says if you want a President or Congress to do something, you
have to push him to do it. He absolves himself for not doing more by blaming his supporters for
not pushing him more.
Peter K. -> Peter K....
FDR and LBJ had large Democratic majorities and progressive movements pushing them.
Progressives pushed Republicans more than they did Democrats in the 60s of both centuries.
In fact, today's Republicans and Tea Party are opposed to everything Republicans were for
and did from 1860 to 1990, relabeling Republicans before 1970 as RINOs. Even Reagan is a RINO,
requiring a history rewrite by conservatives which Bartlett has persisted in refuting.
I grew up when the big evil agency was the Republican created ICC. Then once it was gone, it
was the Republican created EPA tasked with overseeing the Republican created EIS. We have the
Republican created gun control. The Republican created 14th amendment is the latest thing to come
under attack. And the Voting Rights Act that would never have passed without Republicans.
bakho -> Peter K....
This is why 2010 was such a disaster. The OFA was nowhere to be found when it came to backing
local candidates in local elections. Obama has not done party building. This is why he gets GOP
Congress to thwart his policy. It is a profound lack of effort in the off years of 2010 and 14.
DFA stuck around after 2004 and did a lot of candidate training and party building. Which is
why we saw gains in 06 and a Dem Congress.
EMichael -> bakho...
Or it could have been an off election year that favored a GOP incensed by a black man in the
White House.
Peter K. -> EMichael...
And/or it was the lamest recovery on record as Obama appointed Bernanke and Geither in a "unity"
government strategy.
The Fed hasn't hit their inflation ceiling target for 38 consecutive months.
As soon as growth returned, Geithner and company turned to deficit reduction and austerity.
The deficit went from 10 percent to around 2.3 percent or less now. That's austerity.
Shouldn't do that until we have full employment and rising wages.
There's no evidence we'd get behind the curve on inflation or that deficit reduction helps
much with growth.
Reduce the deficit and pay down the debt once the output gap is closed and inflation is above
target.
Obama screwed the pooch on macro policy and lost Congress because of it. Yeah the deficit and
inflation are way down.
Yeah Trump is leading the Republican primary as the voters are raging.
So, why haven't progressives rallied like the Tea Party and Red State to defeat the Republicans
in Congress and the State legislatures who are killing jobs left and right in attempts to create
a depression so Republicans can argue they need to be given the White House and supermajorities
in Congress to create wealth for all?
Where are the progressives in Kansas? On buses out of the State abandoning Kansas to the old
people soon to be on Social Security and Medicare?
What about Texas? Where are the progressives in Texas? Hoping for an Obama military coup to
send all the Republicans in Texas to gitmo?
Mike Sparrow -> The Rage...
Basically this. Lets note, Trump only looks good because of the insane amount of candidates
so far. It doesn't start to get real until NH. Once the number consolidates down and corporate
money finds homes, you will get a new lineup.
I can't see the zionist wing that Huckabee/Carson represent going with Trump despite his
best attempts to look like it.
Then we have Rubio/Christie who are Bush's cousins. Once their support flows into Bush,
but will be the nominee.
The Democrats themselves, don't have any real progressives much left. Sanders is the only real
one I see and he really isn't a Democrat. Everybody is waiting for Joe Biden to crash the Clinton
party. If she can't rally support, that crashing may come sooner than thought.
Eric377 -> EMichael...
Plenty of voters might have been incensed by a black man in the White House, yet that doesn't
mean the 2010 election favored them particularly. The district lines had not been redrawn for
that election and demographic trends that augmented the supposedly non-conservative population
continued operating. I don't know what happened exactly, but Obama was no blacker in 2010 or 2014
than in 2008 or 2012.
ilsm -> bakho...
OFA was a downer in '14. 19% of US voters who are tea baggers won the US house!
Dem hesitation to support Obomber on Iran means I DO NOT DO ANYTHING FOR DEMS in '16!
==== quote ====
It's official: When it comes to foreign policy, Barack Obama's first term is really George W.
Bush's third. Bill Kristol, son of the late neoconservative godfather Irving Kristol and editor
of the Weekly Standard, declared that Obama is "a born-again neocon" during a March 30 appearance
on the Fox News Channel's Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld. Kristol's remark came in the context of a discussion
of Obama's consultation with Kristol and other influential columnists prior to his March 28 address
to the nation about his military intervention in Libya. Gutfeld quizzed Kristol about the President's
asking him for "help" with his speech. Kristol denied that Obama had sought his help. Instead,
Kristol said,
In case anyone missed the significance of Kristol's comment, Gutfeld made it clear: "We've got
the drones. We've got military tribunals. We've got Gitmo. We're bombing Libya. People who voted
for Obama got four more years of Bush."
Kristol agreed, adding: "What's the joke - they told me if I voted for McCain, we'd be going
to war in a third Muslim country . I voted for McCain and we're doing it."
=== end of quote ===
In his economic policies he is a neoliberal. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/23/obamas-neoliberal-endgame/
=== quote ===
Of course, the acknowledged master of racialized triangulation is the misleader in chief, Barack
Obama whose service to elites was crucially enabled by liberals besotted by the prospect of an
African American presidency, enthusiastically projecting all manner of left identitarian fantasies
on to him-despite all evidence that he was committed to the corporate center right governance
which has been the hallmark of his administration.
Those who had warned of this materializing hoped that the TPA, provoking Obama's shameless
attacks on the Democratic labor base and sullenly dishonest smears of Elizabeth Warren, would
finally open the eyes of liberals to who they were dealing with.
No such luck. It's a safe bet that the President will have some of his waning moral authority
restored by Charleston. Demands from the black lives matter movement to "respect black leadership"
will be cynically exploited by a ruling elite which recognized from the very beginning the unique
value of cultivating multiculturally diverse spokespersons fronting for their neoliberal product
line.
The strategy was first deployed by New York City mayor David Dinkins who was able to sell his
candidacy to the establishment on the grounds that his left-liberal base, rather than rebel against
his treasonous embrace of neoliberalism, would "take it from me."
Let's hope Barack Obama's presidency will be seen as marking the zenith of this strategy.
=== end of quote ===
Second Best said...
'They [Tea Partiers} do not want a third party and say they usually or almost always vote Republican.
The percentage holding a favorable opinion of former President George W. Bush, at 57 percent,
almost exactly matches the percentage in the general public that holds an unfavorable view of
him.'
---
The rise of TrumpW! over Jeb! would flame out as a third party.
mulp -> Second Best...
Oh, I bet a lot of Tea Party people want a third party, but only if the third party wipes away
every sign of Obama, Clinton, LBJ, JFK, and FDR so they will be able to retire tax free on their
private Social Security and Medicare entitlements, free to enjoy their US private sector manufactured
computers, flat panel TVs, GPS, and cell phones.
Fred C. Dobbs -> e abrams...
(You won't be hearing from them, exactly.)
Donald Trump Defiantly Rallies a New
'Silent Majority' http://nyti.ms/1fySKYo
NYT - NICHOLAS FANDOS - JULY 11
PHOENIX - Donald Trump, the real estate mogul and reality television star who has taken center
stage in the race for the Republican presidential nomination this week, delivered a rambling monologue
on Saturday, dismissing a long list of critics - including Jeb Bush, Hillary Rodham Clinton and
Macy's - while rallying what he termed a new silent majority of voters.
Mr. Trump had less to say about immigration, the topic on which his comments have garnered
so much attention, than about those who have criticized him. For more than an hour, he ticked
through a list of businesses and candidates who have tried to censure him since his long-shot
campaign began three weeks ago, and made light of their practices and intelligence.
"How can I be tied with this guy?" Trump said of Mr. Bush, whom many consider the Republican
front-runner. "He's terrible. He's weak on immigration."
The speech had a distinctly celebratory air as Mr. Trump lauded the "massive" crowds he has
drawn and the attention he has brought to immigration and other issues that he said "weak" politicians
were afraid to address. ...
"Donald Trump cuts through the ideological haze of American politics and exposes its
underlying truth, the truth of enjoyment. Where other candidates appeal to a fictitious unity
or pretense of moral integrity, he displays the power of inequality. Money buys access -- why
deny it?" ... "In a plutocracy, the plutocrats rule. The Republicans don't like Trump because
he doesn't hide this point under flag and fetus. For him, flag and fetus are present, but incidental
to his politics of truth. Those with money win. Those without it lose. Winners get to do whatever
they want. Losers get done to. ... This is his politics of enjoyment."
Trump supporters are mad at the system. Not that they have any ideas that will improve
things. They simply want to protest. They are not happy with the way things are.
Trump gives them the, "I will fix the things that you are not happy with." He trashes the opposition.
He learned it all with the WWF smack down. No other GOP pol wants to go No Holds Barred with the
Donald. But the Donald's fans would love a good trash talk session.
EMichael said...
Steve Schmidt said exactly the same thing on Maher. Our government is incompetent and people
are mad. Course, no policies have as yet followed, although Trump actually said he would replace
Obamacare with "something terrific"(actual quote).
It is the same campaign(though up a notch) as the GOP has been running for decades, and it
was depicted accurately in "The American President" two decades ago:
" I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the
reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't
get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that
he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them.
And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least
bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you
afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you
win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember
with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character."
I guess it's poetic justice. When the Republican party sold its soul to the devil for Southern
white voters, it not only got a whole bunch of racists but a whole bunch of Jacksonian democrats.
Trump is talking like any number of Southern politicians who used to combine support for Jim Crow
with populist talk and the distribution of goodies. There is, it turns out, a constituency for
a left-wing way of being right wing, for adding a dollop of socialism to your nativism, which
is why "keeping the government's hands off my Medicare" makes perfectly good political sense.
No wonder Trump had nice things to say about single payer.
I'd say both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are capitalizing on the electorate's disgust
with establishment politics. Trump in particular is a comical larger-than-life figure. Heck, the
Italians expressed their disgust by electing a porn star ("la ciccolina").
The electorate's beliefs are not that different than the establishments on several fronts.
That is the dirty secret of modern day America. Huffing and puffing with little content.
Don't miss Part 2 of Sean Hannity's interview with Donald Trump tonight on 'Hannity' at 10
ET!
lower middle class -> Fred C. Dobbs...
Not only will Trump get Mexico to pay for the wall with cash (or tarrifs if necessary), but
he will also take our manufacturing jobs back from them because they need us.
I wonder what the tariff will be on oil imports from Mexico?
The Rage -> lower middle class...
Mexico has little of our "manufacturing".
The Rage -> Fred C. Dobbs...
Trump uses Mexico as a cover for that most of the illegal immigration is coming from Asia
right now (besides his clothing business........ah, people don't listen). Mexican illegal immigration
is down more than the total decline since 2007 and will probably fall further. The "wall" is just
a scam. I bet there are some people in Mexico who would love that wall.
Lets note Bernie Sanders has rejected visa programs for legal immigrants several times
on the cost reduction game they impose. Trump doesn't have that virtue.
The Rage said...
People forget FDR was influenced by Jacksonian democracy merged in with 100 more years
of industrial capitalism's failings. So FDR took nativism and socialism=the new deal. In Germany
they called it National Socialism. White's get a huge lift while blacks get left behind. The historical
trend of unemployment was fairly similar up until then. Then after the New Deal, it separated.
The progressive is more a linage from Mills with some socialism mixed in. National Socialism
is more a linage from Carlyle, Ruskin and Morris.
Mr. Bill said...
I proclaim that Bernie Sanders has established intellectual authority. The message he brings
is music to this FDR Democrat, progressive.
Mike Sparrow -> Mr. Bill...
Does Bernie support Jim Crow like FDR? Wilson was a "progressive" as well. The modern Democratic
party didn't start until Harry Truman.....who FDR didn't want as VP.
ilsm -> Mike Sparrow...
True, Truman integrated the national security establishment (army) right before he turned
it into a huge trough (possibly by accident).
David said...
I hate stupid, anachronistic comments about FDR. He was faced with an enormous crisis and
to use his political capital the best he could. If he had gone all in abolishing Jim Crow he would
have been a one term president and the depression would worsened. Communism would have been on
the table.
"... Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Rep. Adam Schiff of California sent a stern letter to the White House on Tuesday, warning that Trump could be setting a dangerous precedent for conducting pre-emptive strikes and risking war with major powers, while cutting Congress out of the picture. ..."
"... Kaine and Schiff wrote: "These assertions of authority do not provide Congress with the information it needs to exercise our constitutional responsibilities. Nor do they provide comfort to a public that fears deeper involvement in a horrific civil war at a time when the U.S. troop presence in the region is already increasing. The legal justification for an attack on the Syrian government is not an afterthought, but rather a first order consideration, and something that is vital for the American people to understand at the outset." ..."
"... The authors also expressed concern that the Trump administration might take pre-emptive strikes against North Korea without consulting Congress. ..."
"... But that explanation did not satisfy a number of legal scholars , who argued that Trump's strikes were illegal without authorization. "President Trump has no constitutional authority to unilaterally commit the nation to war against Syria, which is the effect of launching cruise missiles against Syria," wrote Louis Fisher, a scholar in residence at the Constitution Project. ..."
"... Back in 2013, when President Obama was considering strikes against Assad in retaliation for using chemical weapons, Trump tweeted that Obama "must get Congressional approval," and that it would be a "big mistake if he does not." ..."
"... Congress in 2001 passed a resolution allowing the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" that were involved in the 9/11 terror attacks. And since then, the legislative branch has consistently ceded its authority in deciding to go to war. Bush and Obama have used the 2001 resolution to justify mass surveillance, bombing campaigns from Somalia to Pakistan, and prison operations from Afghanistan to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. ..."
Nearly three weeks after ordering a cruise missile attack against one of Syrian President Bashar
Al-Assad's airfields, Donald Trump has yet to explain how that was legal without congressional authorization.
Two Democratic members of Congress are demanding that Trump offer some sort of legal justification
beyond off-the-cuff remarks from administration officials.
Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Rep. Adam Schiff of California sent a
stern letter to the White House on Tuesday, warning that Trump could be setting a dangerous precedent
for conducting pre-emptive strikes and risking war with major powers, while cutting Congress out
of the picture.
Two days after the missile strike, Trump sent Congress a notice that he had ordered it and that
he had the "constitutional authority" to do so.
Kaine and Schiff wrote: "These assertions of authority do not provide Congress with the information
it needs to exercise our constitutional responsibilities. Nor do they provide comfort to a public
that fears deeper involvement in a horrific civil war at a time when the U.S. troop presence in the
region is already increasing. The legal justification for an attack on the Syrian government is not
an afterthought, but rather a first order consideration, and something that is vital for the American
people to understand at the outset."
The authors also expressed concern that the Trump administration might take pre-emptive strikes
against North Korea without consulting Congress.
"While the President has the authority to use force to defend our service members and
allies from an imminent threat, a preemptive strikes could easily spiral into a full-fledged war
with a nuclear armed adversary," Kaine and Schiff wrote. "It is precisely because the decision to
go to war is such a momentous one for any nation that the Constitution provides Congress alone with
the power to declare war."
Several
administration officials have defended the Syria attack by saying that it is in U.S. interests
to deter future chemical weapons strikes. But that is not the same thing as saying the attack was
conducted in self-defense or in response to an imminent threat, which would at least resemble past
presidents' justifications for not consulting Congress.
Asked why Trump did not seek congressional authorization, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer
said that
"when it's in the national interest of the country the president has the full authority to act."
But that explanation did not satisfy a number of
legal scholars , who argued that Trump's strikes were illegal without authorization. "President
Trump has no constitutional authority to unilaterally commit the nation to war against Syria, which
is the effect of launching cruise missiles against Syria," wrote Louis Fisher, a scholar in residence
at the Constitution Project.
Back in 2013, when President Obama was considering strikes against Assad in retaliation for using
chemical weapons, Trump
tweeted
that Obama "must get Congressional approval," and that it would be a "big mistake if he does
not."
Obama did seek congressional authorization - and it was denied, although he consistently maintained
that he did not need it. At the time, Jack Goldsmith, the former head of the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration,
wrote that Obama's reasoning placed "no limit at all on the president's ability to use significant
military force unilaterally."
Congress in 2001 passed a resolution allowing the president to use "all necessary and appropriate
force against those nations, organizations, or persons" that were involved in the 9/11 terror attacks.
And since then, the legislative branch has consistently ceded its authority in deciding to go to
war. Bush and Obama have used the 2001 resolution to justify mass surveillance, bombing campaigns
from Somalia to Pakistan, and prison operations from Afghanistan to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
But their elections have one critical thing in common: They both came out of NOWHERE to become
president, with characteristics that previously would have throttled their chances before they delivered
their first speech in Iowa.
There's no need to recount everything from Trump's florid life and campaign that sensible people
were sure disqualified him. But we've forgotten how the sensible people at first saw Obama in much
the same way, and for reasons that went far beyond him being African American. He'd been a senator
for just two years when he started running and would have to beat the entire party establishment.
His father was Muslim. He wasn't just not named Henry Smith, his middle name was Hussein.
He'd even used cocaine, and openly admitted it.
Yet both Obama and Trump vaulted over everyone and everything into the White House. Tens of millions
of Americans were willing to place their lives in the hands of political anomalies whose central
pitch was that they would deliver profound change. The rise of Bernie Sanders, who's proven that
you can become the most popular politician in the country without owning a comb, demonstrates the
same thing.
What does this mean?
I'd say it means that something has gone incredibly wrong with this country's political
system, that large numbers of us are desperate, and are willing to hand over power to absolutely
anyone. That's brings us to the peculiar reality that it's not just Obama and Trump's elections that
had something significant in common, it's likely their presidencies.
Obama
said American healthcare was in crisis and that "plans that tinker and halfway measures now belong
to yesterday." Obama was also
outraged
by pharmaceutical companies gouging Medicare.
According to Trump , "People all across the country are devastated" by the healthcare system,
but
if we put him in charge , "Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken
care of now." Trump was also
infuriated
by Big Pharma and just like Obama vowed to crush them.
Yet Obama delivered a halfway measure that tinkered with the problem, and never went after drug
manufacturers. Trump is now poised to give America literally the same thing.
Obama called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake" in 2008. In 2016 Trump said NAFTA had caused
"devastation" and was "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed." But Obama didn't renegotiate NAFTA.
Trump
just announced he's not going to pull out of it, and it seems clear the odds of any real renegotiation
are slim.
Obama
attacked
Wall Street, and
so did Trump. Both then stocked their administrations with bankers.
And Obama and Trump both ran against the Iraq War, and both of their constituencies understood
them to mean they would rethink our entire policy toward the Middle East. Both Obama and Trump then
faithfully continued the Afghanistan War, bombed Syria, and helped Saudi Arabia starve Yemen.
... ... ...
"Now that we have vanquished the Dhimmicrats and cuckservatives," Steve Bannon proclaimed, "we
shall -" and then tripped on his shoelaces and fell down 97 flights of stairs.
Princess Ivanka is just part of a cosmopolitan global aristocracy. She can change her mind
anytime she likes and what are you going to do about it? Zip. Same with the Lady Chelsea.
"... The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize
"truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for genuine
free speech. ..."
"... the entire "Freedom Manifesto" employed by the United States and Britain
since World War II was never free at all, but a concoction of the CIA's Psychological
Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare program waged on friend
and foe alike. ..."
"... The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950
Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying the
CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals, but
for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans from their
own political culture in such a way they would never really know it. ..."
"... The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing
crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them.
..."
"... PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement, to: break down
world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion, doubt and loss
of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism
and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West." The goal was to
"predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners," while employing
local elites "would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it
appears to be a native development." ..."
"... Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document.
As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall also
took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which emphasized
the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel, Mussolini and
so on.' ..."
"... With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged
the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite. ..."
"... The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism,
whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its
covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging
Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda. ..."
"... Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the IRD
served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977. According
to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of " Britain's Secret Propaganda War ,"
"the vast IRD enterprise had one sole aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output
(i.e. a mixture of outright lies and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists
who worked for major agencies and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well
as every other available channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties
in Western Europe which might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means,
and at home to discredit the British Left." ..."
"... The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in
1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put out
stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist spy.
Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in his own
intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book above all others
that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think about politics." ..."
"... Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level
covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his Fourth International
experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage for rolling back the Soviet
Union. ..."
"... Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers"
as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired as
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives.
When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security Adviser
Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam in Afghanistan,
it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the Machiavellians without
anyone being the wiser. ..."
"... As George Orwell wrote in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What
Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic
society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is
of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force
and fraud. Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never
without fraud." ..."
Editor's note: This article is the last in a four-part series on Truthdig
called "Universal Empire" -- an examination of the current stage of the neocon
takeover of American policy that began after World War ll. Read
Part 1 ,
Part 2 and
Part 3 .
The recent
assertion by the Trump White House that Damascus and Moscow released "false
narratives" to mislead the world about the April 4 sarin gas attack in Khan
Shaykhun, Syria, is a dangerous next step in the "fake news" propaganda war
launched in the final days of the Obama administration. It is a step whose deep
roots in Communist Trotsky's Fourth International must be understood before
deciding whether American democracy can be reclaimed.
Muddying the waters of accountability in a way not seen since Sen. Joe McCarthy
at the height of the Red Scare in the 1950s, the "
Countering Disinformation
and Propaganda Act " signed into law without fanfare by Obama in December
2016 officially authorized a government censorship bureaucracy comparable only
to George Orwell's fictional Ministry of Truth in his novel "1984." Referred
to as " the Global Engagement
Center ," the official purpose of this new bureaucracy is to "recognize,
understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation
efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests." The
real purpose of
this Orwellian nightmare is to cook the books on anything that challenges
Washington's neoconservative pro-war narrative and to intimidate, harass or
jail anyone who tries. As has already been demonstrated by President Trump's
firing of Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian government airbase, it is a recipe for
a world war, and like it or not, that war has already begun.
This latest attack on Russia's supposed false narrative takes us right back
to 1953 and the beginnings of the cultural war between East and West. Its roots
are tied to the Congress for Cultural Freedom, to James Burnham's pivot from
Trotsky's Fourth International to right-wing conservatism and to the rise of
the neoconservative Machiavellians as a political force. As Burnham's "
The Struggle for the World " stressed, the Third World War had already begun
with the 1944 Communist-led Greek sailors' revolt.
In Burnham's Manichean thinking, the West was under siege. George Kennan's
Cold War policy of containment was no different than Neville Chamberlain's policy
of appeasement. Détente with the Soviet Union amounted to surrender. Peace was
only a disguise for war, and that war would be fought with politics, subversion,
terrorism and psychological warfare. Soviet influence had to be rolled back
wherever possible. That meant subverting the Soviet Union and its proxies and,
when necessary, subverting Western democracies as well.
The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize
"truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for
genuine free speech. The real irony is that the entire "Freedom Manifesto"
employed by the United States and Britain since World War II was never free
at all, but a concoction of the CIA's
Psychological Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare
program waged on friend and foe alike.
The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950
Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying
the CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals,
but for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans
from their own political culture in such a way they would never really know
it.
"The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing
crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal
with them. This propaganda, in order to be successful, demands the
cooperation of writers, teachers, and artists not as paid propagandists
or state-censored time-servers but as 'free' intellectuals capable of policing
their own jurisdictions and of enforcing acceptable standards of responsibility
within the various intellectual professions."
Key to turning these "free" intellectuals against their own interests was
the CIA's doctrinal program for Western cultural transformation contained in
the document
PSB D-33/2 . PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement,
to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion,
doubt and loss of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual
appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the
West." The goal was to "predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the
planners," while employing local elites "would help to disguise the American
origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development."
While declaring itself as an antidote to Communist totalitarianism, one internal
critic of the program, PSB officer Charles Burton Marshall, viewed PSB D-33/2
itself as frighteningly totalitarian, interposing "a wide doctrinal system"
that "accepts uniformity as a substitute for diversity," embracing "all fields
of human thought -- all fields of intellectual interests, from anthropology
and artistic creations to sociology and scientific methodology." He concluded:
"That is just about as totalitarian as one can get."
Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document.
As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall
also took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which
emphasized the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel,
Mussolini and so on.' Weren't these the models used by James Burnham in
his book the Machiavellians? Perhaps there was a copy usefully to hand when
PSB D-33/2 was being drafted. More likely, James Burnham himself was usefully
to hand."
Burnham was more than just at hand when it came to secretly implanting a
fascist philosophy of extreme elitism into America's Cold War orthodoxy.
With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old
Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite.
The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism,
whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere.
Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the
emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda.
Hard at work on that task since 1946 was the secret Information Research
Department of the British and Commonwealth Foreign Office known as the IRD.
Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the
IRD served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977.
According to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of "
Britain's Secret Propaganda War ," "the vast IRD enterprise had one sole
aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output (i.e. a mixture of outright lies
and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists who worked for major agencies
and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well as every other available
channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties in Western Europe which
might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means, and at home to discredit
the British Left."
IRD was to become a self-fulfilling disinformation machine for the far-right
wing of the international intelligence elite, at once offering fabricated and
distorted information to "independent" news outlets and then using the laundered
story as "proof" of the false story's validity. One such front enterprise established
with CIA money was Forum World Features, operated at one time by Burnham acolyte
Brian Rossiter
Crozier . Described by Burnham's biographer Daniel Kelly as a "British political
analyst," in reality, the legendary Brian Crozier functioned for over 50 years
as one of Britain's top
propagandists and secret agents .
If anyone today is shocked by the biased, one-sided, xenophobic rush to judgment
alleging Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election, they need look
no further than to Brian Crozier's closet for the blueprints. As we were told
outright by an American military officer during the first war in Afghanistan
in 1982, the U.S. didn't need "proof the Soviets used poison gas" and they don't
need proof against Russia now. Crozier might best be described as a daydream
believer, a dangerous imperialist who
acts out his dreams with open eyes. From the beginning of the Cold War until
his death in 2012, Crozier and his protégé
Robert Moss propagandized on behalf of military dictators Francisco Franco
and Augusto Pinochet, organized private intelligence organizations to destabilize
governments in the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Africa and worked to
delegitimize politicians in Europe and Britain viewed as insufficiently anti-Communist.
The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in
1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put
out stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist
spy. Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in
his own intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book
above all others that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think
about politics." The key to Crozier's thinking was Burnham's distinction
between the "formal" meaning of political speech and the "real," a concept which
was, of course, grasped only by elites. In a 1976 article, Crozier marveled
at how Burnham's understanding of politics had spanned 600 years and how the
use of "the formal" to conceal "the real" was no different today than when used
by Dante Alighieri's "presumably enlightened Medieval mind." "The point is as
valid now as it was in ancient times and in the Florentine Middle Ages, or in
1943. Overwhelmingly, political writers and speakers still use Dante's method.
Depending on the degree of obfuscation required (either by circumstances or
the person's character), the divorce between formal and real meaning is more
of less absolute."
But Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level
covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his
Fourth International experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage
for rolling back the Soviet Union.
In a secret meeting at a City of London bank in February 1977, he even patented
a private-sector operational intelligence organization known at the Sixth International
(6I) to pick up where Burnham left off: politicizing and privatizing many of
the dirty tricks the CIA and other intelligence services could no longer be
caught doing. As he explained in his memoir "Free Agent," the name 6I was chosen
"because the Fourth International split. The Fourth International was the Trotskyist
one, and when it split, this meant that, on paper, there were five Internationals.
In the numbers game, we would constitute the Sixth International, or '6I.' "
Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers"
as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired
as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives.
When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security
Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam
in Afghanistan, it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the
Machiavellians without anyone being the wiser.
As George Orwell wrote
in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What Burnham is mainly concerned
to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed
and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical,
and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud. Power can
sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud."
Today, Burnham's use of Dante's political treatise "De Monarchia" to explain
his medieval understanding of politics might best be swapped for Dante's "Divine
Comedy," a paranoid comedy of errors in which the door to Hell swings open to
one and all, including the elites regardless of their status. Or as they say
in Hell, " Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate ." Abandon hope all
ye who enter here.
This poart 4 of the series. For previous parts see
The new term is ZOC -- "AngloZionists occupied country."
Notable quotes:
"... Why did we invade Iraq ..."
"... For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda didn't matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence ..."
"... They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian campaign they will never outlive, that's why I have a problem with that thinking ..."
"... We invaded Iraq because a powerful group of pro-Israel ideologues - the neoconservatives - who had mustered forces in Washington over the previous two decades and at last had come into the White House were able to sell a vision of transforming the Middle East that was pure wishful hokum but that they believed: that if Arab countries were converted by force into democracies, the people would embrace the change and would also accept Israel as a great neighbor. ..."
"... all of whom would go into the Bush administration ..."
"... It is in the PNAC letter written to George W. Bush early in 2002 urging him to "accelerate plans for removign Saddam Hussein from power" for the sake of Israel. ..."
"... It is in Wolfowitz saying that the road to peace in the Middle East runs through Baghdad. (Possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the history of the world, including Douglas Feith.) ..."
"... of suicide bombers in Tel Aviv ..."
"... Many writers, including Joe Klein , Jacob Heilbrunn, and Alan Dershowitz , have said the obvious, that neoconservatism came out of the Jewish community. And I have long written that the Jewish community needs to come to terms with the degree to which it has harbored warmongering neoconservatives, for our own sake. ..."
"... But America needs to come to terms with the extent to which it allowed rightwing Zionists to dominate discussions of going to war. ..."
"... This matter is now at the heart of the Republican embrace of the war on Iran. There is simply no other constituency in our country for that war besides rightwing Zionists. They should be called out for this role, so that we don't make that terrible mistake again. ..."
The best thing about this political moment in the U.S. (if not for the good
people of Iraq) is that the rise of ISIS and the Republican candidates' embrace
of the Iraq war is posing that deep and permanent question to the American public,
Why did we invade Iraq ?
Last night Chris Matthews
asked that question
again and David Corn said it was about the neoconservative desire to protect
Israel. Both men deserve kudos for courage. Here's part of the exchange:
Matthews: Why were the people in the administration like [Paul]
Wolfowitz and the others talking about going into Iraq from the very beginning,
when they got into the white house long before there was a 911 long before
there was WMD. It seemed like there was a deeper reason. I don't get it.
It seemed like WMD was a cover story.
Corn: I can explain that. For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other
members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and
there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and
they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda
didn't matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence
Matthews: The reason I go back to that is there's a consistent
pattern: the people who wanted that war in the worst ways, neocons so called,
Wolfowitz, certainly Cheney.. it's the same crowd of people that want us
to overthrow Bashar Assad, .. it's the same group of people that don't want
to negotiate at all with the Iranians, don't want any kind of rapprochement
with the Iranians, they want to fight that war. They're willing to go in
there and bomb. They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war
on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian
campaign they will never outlive, that's why I have a problem with that
thinking . we've got to get to the bottom of it. Why did they take
us to Iraq, because that's the same reason they want to take us into Damascus
and why they want to have permanent war with Iran.
What a great exchange. And it shows up Paul Krugman, who mystifies this very
issue in the New York Times. ("
Errors and Lies ," which poses the same question that Matthews does but
concludes that Bush and Cheney "wanted a war," which is just a lie masquerading
as a tautology.)
Here are my two cents. We invaded Iraq because a powerful group of pro-Israel
ideologues - the neoconservatives - who had mustered forces in Washington over
the previous two decades and at last had come into the White House were able
to sell a vision of transforming the Middle East that was pure wishful hokum
but that they believed: that if Arab countries were converted by force into
democracies, the people would embrace the change and would also accept Israel
as a great neighbor. It's a variation on a neocolonialist theory that pro-Israel
ideologues have believed going back to the 1940s: that Palestinians would accept
a Jewish state if you got rid of their corrupt leadership and allowed the people
to share in Israel's modern economic miracle.
The evidence for this causation is at every hand.
It is in the Clean Break plan written for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
in 1996 by leading neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser -
all of whom would go into the Bush administration - calling for the
removal of Saddam Hussein and the export of the Palestinian political problem
to Jordan.
It is in the Project for a New American Century letters written to Clinton
in 1998
telling him that Saddam's WMD were a threat to Israel. (A letter surely
regretted by Francis Fukuyama, who later
accused the neocons of seeing everything through a pro-Israel lens.)
It is in the PNAC letter written to George W. Bush early
in 2002 urging him to "accelerate plans for removign Saddam Hussein from
power" for the sake of Israel.
the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets
of what you have correctly called an "Axis of Evil." Israel is targeted
in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of
liberal, democratic principles - American principles - in a sea of tyranny,
intolerance, and hatred.
It is in Netanyahu testifying
to Congress in 2002 t hat he promised there would be "enormous positive
reverberations" throughout the region if we only removed Saddam.
It is in Wolfowitz
saying that the road to peace in the Middle East runs through Baghdad. (Possibly
the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the history of the world, including
Douglas Feith.)
It is in all the neocon tracts, from Perle and Frum's An End to Evil, to
Kristol and Kaplan's The War Over Saddam, to Berman's Terror and Liberalism,
saying that Saddam's support for suicide bombers in Israel was a reason for
the U.S. to topple him.
It is in war-supporter Tom Friedman
saying that we needed to invade Iraq because of suicide bombers in Tel
Aviv - and the importance of conveying to Arabs they couldn't get away
with that.
It is in the head of the 9/11 Commission, former
Bush aide Philip Zelikow, saying Israel was the reason to take on Iraq back
in 2002 even though Iraq was no threat to us:
"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll
tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990
– it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University
of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002. "And this is the threat that dare not speak
its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will
tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard
on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."
It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war
the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September
11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war
that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I
could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within
a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert
island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.
For many in the current US administration, a major strategic consideration
was the need to destabilize and then reconfigure the Middle East in a manner
thought favorable to Israel.
And yes this goes back to rightwing Zionism. It goes back to
Norman
Podhoretz and Irving Kristol launching neoconservatism in the 1970s because
they said that the dovish policies of the Democratic Party were a direct threat
to Israel– an analysis continued in this day by Norman Braman, Marco Rubio's
leading supporter,
who says that the U.S. must be a military and economic power in order to
"sustain" Israel.
An
Economist blogger wrote several years ago that if you leave out the Zionism
you won't understand the Iraq war:
Yes, it would be ridiculous, and anti-semitic, to cast the Iraq war as a
conspiracy monocausally driven by a cabal of Jewish neocons and the Israeli
government. But it's entirely accurate to count neoconservative policy analyses
as among the important causes of the war, to point out that the pro-Israeli
sympathies of Jewish neoconservatives played a role in these analyses, and
to note the support of the Israeli government and public for the invasion.
In fact any analysis of the war's causes that didn't take these into account
would be deficient.
Many writers, including
Joe Klein , Jacob Heilbrunn, and
Alan Dershowitz , have said the obvious, that neoconservatism came out of
the Jewish community. And I have long written that the Jewish community needs
to come to terms with the degree to which it has harbored warmongering neoconservatives,
for our own sake.
But America needs to come to terms with the extent to which it allowed
rightwing Zionists to dominate discussions of going to war.
This matter is now at the heart of the Republican embrace of the war
on Iran. There is simply no other constituency in our country for that war besides
rightwing Zionists. They should be called out for this role, so that we don't
make that terrible mistake again. And yes: this issue is going to play
out frankly in the 2016 campaign, thanks in good measure to Matthews.
The ruling class is seriously rattled over its loss of control over the national political narrative-a
consequence of capitalism's terminal decay and U.S. imperialism's slipping grip on global hegemony.
When the Lords of Capital get rattled, their servants in the political class are tasked with rearranging
the picture and reframing the national conversation. In other words, Papa Imperialism needs a new
set of lies, or renewed respect for the old ones. Former president Barack Obama, the cool operator
who put the U.S. back on the multiple wars track after a forced lull in the wake of George Bush's
defeat in Iraq, has eagerly accepted his new assignment as Esteemed Guardian of Official Lies.
At this stage of his career, Obama must dedicate much of his time to the maintenance of Official
Lies, since they are central to his own "legacy." With the frenzied assistance of his first secretary
of state, Hillary Clinton, Obama launched a massive military offensive-a rush job to put the New
American Century back on schedule. Pivoting to all corners of the planet, and with the general aim
of isolating and intimidating Russia and China, the salient feature of Obama's offensive was the
naked deployment of Islamic jihadists as foot soldiers of U.S. imperialism in Libya and Syria. It
is a strategy that is morally and politically indefensible-unspeakable!-the truth of which would
shatter the prevailing order in the imperial heartland, itself.
Thus, from 2011 to when he left the White House for a Tahiti yachting vacation with music mogul
David Geffen and assorted movie and media celebrities, Obama orchestrated what the late Saddam Hussein
would have called "The Mother of All Lies": that the U.S. was not locked in an alliance with al-Qaida
and its terrorist offshoots in Syria, a relationship begun almost 40 years earlier in Afghanistan.
Advertisement Square, Site wide He had all the help he needed from a compliant corporate media, whose
loyalty to U.S. foreign policy can always be counted on in times of war. Since the U.S. is constantly
in a (self-proclaimed) state of war, corporate media collaboration is guaranteed. Outside the U.S.
and European corporate media bubble, the whole world was aware that al-Qaida and the U.S. were comrades
in arms. (According to a 2015 poll, 82 percent of Syrians and 85 percent of Iraqis believe the
U.S. created ISIS .) When Vladimir Putin told a session of the United Nations General Assembly
that satellites showed lines of ISIS tankers stretching from captured Syrian oil fields "to the horizon,"
bound for U.S.-allied Turkey, yet untouched by American bombers, the Obama administration had no
retort. Russian jets
destroyed 1,000 of the tankers , forcing the Americans to mount their own, smaller raids. But,
the moment soon passed into the corporate media's amnesia hole-another fact that must be shed in
order to avoid unspeakable conclusions.
Presidential candidate Donald Trump's flirtation with the idea of ending U.S. "regime change"
policy in Syria-and, thereby, scuttling the alliance with Islamic jihadists-struck panic in the ruling
class and in the imperial political structures that are called the Deep State, which includes the
corporate media. When Trump won the general election, the imperial political class went into meltdown,
blaming "The Russians"-first, for warlord Hillary Clinton's loss, and soon later for everything under
the sun. The latest lie is that Moscow is sending weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the country
where the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan spent billions of dollars to create the international jihadist
network. Which shows that imperialists have no sense of irony, or shame. (See BAR: "
The U.S., Not
Russia, Arms Jihadists Worldwide .")
After the election, lame duck President Obama was so consumed by the need to expunge all narratives
that ran counter to "The Russians Did It," he twice yammered about "
fake news " at a press conference in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Obama was upset,
he said, "Because in an age where there's so much active misinformation and its packaged very well
and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television. If everything
seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won't know what to protect."
Although now an ex-president, it is still Obama's job to protect the ruling class, and the Empire,
and his role in maintaining the Empire: his legacy. To do that, one must control the narrative-the
subject uppermost in his mind when he used Chicago area students as props, this week, for
his first public speech since leaving the
White House.
"It used to be that everybody kind of had the same information," said Obama, at the University
of Chicago affair. "We had different opinions about it, but there was a common base line of facts.
The internet has in some ways accelerated this sense of people having entirely separate conversations,
and this generation is getting its information through its phones. That you really don't have to
confront people who have different opinions or have a different experience or a different outlook."
Obama continued:
"If you're liberal, you're on MSNBC, or conservative, you're on Fox News. You're reading The Wall
Street Journal or you're reading The New York Times, or whatever your choices are. Or, maybe you're
just looking at cat videos [laughter].
"So, one question I have for all of you is, How do you guys get your information about the news
and what's happening out there, and are there ways in which you think we could do a better job of
creating a common conversation now that you've got 600 cable stations and you've got all these different
news opinions-and, if there are two sets of opinions, then they're just yelling at each other, so
you don't get a sense that there's an actual conversation going on. And the internet is worse. It's
become more polarized."
Obama's core concern is that there should be a "common base line of facts," which he claims used
to exist "20 or 30 years ago." The internet, unregulated and cheaply accessed, is the villain, and
the main source of "fake news" (from publications like BAR and the 12 other leftwing sites smeared
by the Washington Post, back in November, not long after Obama complained to Merkel about "fake news").
However, Obama tries to dress up his anti-internet "fake news" whine with a phony pitch for diversity
of opinions. Is he suggesting that MSNBC viewers also watch Fox News, and that New York Times readers
also peruse the Wall Street Journal? Is he saying that most people read a variety of daily newspapers
"back in the day"? It is true that, generations ago, there were far more newspapers available to
read, reflecting a somewhat wider ideological range of views. But most people read the ones that
were closest to their own politics, just as now. Obama is playing his usual game of diversion. Non-corporate
news is his target: "...the internet is worse. It's become more and more polarized."
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC and Fox News all share the "common base line of
facts" that Obama cherishes. By this, he means a common narrative, with American "exceptionalism"
and intrinsic goodness at the center, capitalism and democracy as synonymous, and unity in opposition
to the "common" enemy: Soviet Russians; then terrorists; now non-Soviet Russians, again.
Ayanna Watkins, a senior at Chicago's Kenwood Academy High School, clearly understood Obama's
emphasis, and eagerly agreed with his thrust. "When it comes to getting information about what's
going on in the world, it's way faster on social media than it is on newscasts," she said.
"But, on the other hand, it can be a downfall because, what if you're passing the wrong information,
or the information isn't presented the way it should be? So, that causes a clash in our generation,
and I think it should go back to the old school. I mean, phones, social media should be eliminated,"
Ms. Watkins blurted out, provoking laughter from the audience and causing the 18-year-old to "rephrase
myself."
What she really meant, she said, was that politicians should "go out to the community" so that
"the community will feel more welcome."
If she was trying to agree with Obama, Ms. Watkins had it right the first time: political counter-narratives
on the internet have to go, so that Americans can share a "common base line" of information. All
of it lies.
Black Agenda Report executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected].
"... Trump's national security and "defense" advisors are just as bad, and worse. Matthew McCaffrey at the Mises Institute explains how Trump's "economic worldview could only ever have led to militarism and conflict." So the new warmongering should be of no surprise. ..."
"... Although while he has suggested some hints of non-interventionist thought during the campaign, now we can see the kind of influence that his entourage of military generals can have on his "thinking." ..."
"... Reuters ..."
"... Guardian ..."
"... The American Conservative ..."
"... But, James Bovard noted in this article how during that first 1991 war the U.S. military went on to intentionally bomb Iraqi civilian water and sewage treatment centers. Those illicit actions were followed by the U.S. government's sanctions to prevent the Iraqis from rebuilding that infrastructure. That was for the stated purpose of disabling the society as a whole as well as subverting "civilian morale," as the Air Force Col. John Warden put it, who was quoted in that Bovard article ..."
"... The destruction of Iraqi water treatment centers and the sanctions during the 1990s led to high rates of cholera, typhoid and infant mortality, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands by the mid-1990s, from the U.S. government's first war on Iraq that then-President George H.W. Bush claimed would not be "another Vietnam." ..."
As I have
noted in response to the latest U.S. government aggressions in the Middle East, Donald Trump's
short-sighted military actions in Syria are not based on rational thought but on emotionalism, his
feeling terrible about the children and other innocent victims of the chemical attack in Syria this
week. But this is purely selective emotionalism, given that he doesn't seem so concerned about all
the innocent victims of his own drone bombings that he has been authorizing since he was sworn in
as President.
Trump is also not concerned for the probable long-term results of his warmongering now. History
indicates that the situation will only get worse from here, as we have seen with Iraq.
And there are other examples of Trump's selective emotionalism and concern for Syrians. For example,
where is Trump's concern for the innocent victims of the head-choppers and thousand-lashers in Saudi
Arabia? Should he bomb the Royal Saudi King's palace? What about the starving victims of Venezuela's
Maduro? Should Trump bomb Caracas? (But since when is U.S. foreign policy ever consistent?)
As with his terrible economic advisors who have been advising Trump to support
ObamaCare Lite and trillion-dollar infrastructure squandering, Trump's national security
and "defense" advisors are just as bad, and worse. Matthew McCaffrey at the Mises Institute
explains how
Trump's "economic worldview could only ever have led to militarism and conflict." So the new
warmongering should be of no surprise.
Although while he has suggested some hints of non-interventionist thought during the campaign,
now we can see the kind of influence that his entourage of military generals can have on his "thinking."
According to
Reuters , a " U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity ," said that
"[Syria's Bashar] Assad has repeatedly shown that he is willing to use whatever chemical weapons
he has retained or reconstituted to attack and terrorize his own people," even though those who have
made that assertion have not presented any evidence of it.
In a
statement rationalizing his military strikes on Syria, Trump said, "Using a deadly nerve agent,
Assad choked out the life of innocent men, women and children," as a matter of proven fact. Yet,
there has been no evidence provided by anyone. And the government groupies of the mainstream media
do not seem to be asking why Assad would intentionally gas his own people? What did he have to gain
from that? What proof has there been that Assad is the true culprit?
Although, there have been claims of evidence made mainly by the Islamist anti-Assad rebels as
pointed out by Justin Raimondo , who lists some of the hoaxes committed by those "rebels." So
really, there is no reliable evidence against Assad on this recent chemical weapons attack.
And what about the Trump drones terrorizing innocents in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere? According
to the U.K.
Guardian , the Tuaiman family in Yemen is typical of people in those areas who now experience
the terror of Trump's escalation of drones from once a week to every day, especially given Trump's
campaign threat to kill "terrorists" (in a total absence of due process), as well as their families.
Trump's bombs in Syria and Iraq have already resulted in a
huge increase in numbers of civilians murdered .
And speaking of chemical warfare, I guess Trump has not learned from, or perhaps doesn't even
know about all the terrible things that the U.S. military did to the people of Iraq over
these past 15 years, actually 26 years now,
since 1991 . As Eric Margolis
referred
to , the U.S. military used
white phosphorus in
its invasions and bombings in Iraq, especially Fallujah.
The people of Iraq have suffered not only from the U.S. military's use of chemical weapons but
from depleted uranium and other contaminants which have polluted the Iraqis' water supply since the
first U.S. government war on Iraq in 1991.
Kelley
Beaucar Vlahos wrote for The American Conservative of "babies born with two heads, one
eye in the middle of the face, missing limbs, too many limbs, brain damage, cardiac defects, abnormally
large heads, eyeless, missing genitalia, riddled with tumors," and a doubled rate of childhood leukemia.
The bombing during the 1991
first war on Iraq also
negatively affected U.S. soldiers , many of whom complain of health problems now as well.
In the current bombing of Syria that Donald Trump has initiated, the U.S. military claims that
their Tomahawk missiles,
profitably produced by Raytheon, have pinpoint precision, so that they will not harm civilians.
That precision bombing technology is what we witnessed from the proud warmongers of the U.S. government's
first war on Iraq in 1991:
But,
James Bovard noted in this article how during that first 1991 war the U.S. military went on to
intentionally bomb Iraqi civilian water and sewage treatment centers. Those illicit actions were
followed by the U.S. government's sanctions to prevent the Iraqis from rebuilding that infrastructure.
That was for the stated purpose of disabling the society as a whole as well as subverting "civilian
morale," as the Air Force Col. John Warden put it, who was quoted in that Bovard article.
The destruction of Iraqi water treatment centers and the sanctions during the 1990s led to
high rates of cholera, typhoid and infant mortality, and the deaths of
hundreds of thousands by
the mid-1990s, from the U.S. government's first war on Iraq that then-President George H.W. Bush
claimed would not be "another
Vietnam."
Scott Lazarowitz is a libertarian writer and commentator. Please visit
his blog .
So it looks we ended with the same neocons in Department of Defense and national security Council
that would be appointed by Hillary. Paul Wolfowitz friends no more, no less.
Which converted Trump slogan "make America great again" into standard neocons idea of "Full spectrum
domination".
Notable quotes:
"... We also know that the Russians used a "hotline" prior to the attack to alert the United States military that the strike would be taking place against what was apparently described as an arms depot. ..."
"... The White House also reversed itself regarding possible Syrian peace talks, declaring that Bashar al-Assad must be removed as a condition for any political settlement of the ongoing crisis. It also described Russia as complicit in protecting the Syrian president. Secretary of State Tillerson declared that bilateral relations with Moscow cannot improve as long as Russia is supporting al-Assad. The relationship with Russia is, according to President Trump , at an "all-time low." ..."
"... Bear in mind that nearly all the information and physical evidence available from the attack site in Syria has come from anti-Assad sources linked to al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra, which controls the area. This includes the so-called White Helmets, who are opposition surrogates . The established narrative derives from this material as well as from bipartisan assertions of Assad's "certain" guilt, even from normally liberal Democrats , which are being presented as fact. ..."
"... The four-page White House report is supplemented by commentary provided by McMaster and Secretary of Defense James Mattis (also a former general) on the day of the U.S. attack, as well as a more recent interview with CIA Director Mike Pompeo, which describes the decision-making process and the military options. Each official, as well as President Trump, took it as a given that Syria had carried out the attack. Regarding the motive for such an attack, the report claims that Damascus was seeking to halt a rebel advance. ..."
"... "Make America Great Again" == "Full Spectrum Dominance"? ..."
"... It does seem true that political survival demanded the about face. The only way to prove in our hysterical political climate engendered by the fury of the Clinton loss, that the President is not a Russian agent, demands a war with Russia. ..."
"... Maybe the North Vietnamese were responsible for whatever actually happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, eh? ..."
"... I was astonished by the speed of the US response given the fact that intel on the ground is notoriously complex. The White House coulda shoulda woulda waited two days to verify. It now may be a case of acute and toxic need to save face. ..."
"... Great analytical piece that puts the main stream journalists to shame. Let me add one instance of suspicious reports by Al-Qaedhe affiliate: the supposed attack happened at night or early morning, according to rebel reports. "when people slept" , it was repeatedly said. Then, there is talk of "we saw a bomb dropping", or "a mushroom cloud", etc. Obviously, these observations could not happen in dark. ..."
"... as noted in other thread (re: North Korea), this feels like Iraq v2.0, and we all know the 45th POTUS has no problem throwing the CIA and "the generals" under the bus. the phrase 'pressure from the white house' is particularly chilling. then again, when the Commander-in-Chief is a member of the Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame, and reality TV game show host, who tweets and yammers incessantly about "fake news" (the ultimate false flag operation), should we not expect him "value" fake intelligence and/or alternative "facts" when it comes to waging war? who could have imagined a person of this ilk would actually be a neocon in populist/anti-establishment clothing? or maybe he is just a patsy being handled deftly by "agents" of the Military-Industrial establishment? ..."
"... Remember WMD and Saddam? What did the top papers say after Colin Powell's speech to the UN "proving" that Iraq had WMD? ..."
"... "It does seem true that political survival demanded the about face. The only way to prove in our hysterical political climate engendered by the fury of the Clinton loss, that the President is not a Russian agent, demands a war with Russia." ..."
"... And it was a mistake. A deep mistake. He was winnning the Russia Manchurian candidate issue. The tide was turning even among democrats and it was beginning to sour faster each day. He should have fought it. The short term gain of turning the tables in this manner has now hemmed into the camp of interventionists. And what worse gained him but momentary praise unless he continues to bend. ..."
"... It's pressure not from the white house, but that band of interventionists that the current executive has surrounded himself with. And it may prove his undoing.A cadre of Mr. Wolfitzs and Vice Pres Cheneys. ..."
"... the safety of striking those munition storage bunkers without releasing sarin everywhere, why aren't they more specific about the weapon supposedly released from the aircraft? They say: ..."
"... People who can fight a conventional army with an air force to a standstill over a period of years might have been able to capture a few poison gas munitions along the way. Not saying this happened. I am saying that given our sources of info, most of the time we don't really know what is happening. ..."
"... ISIS and "the rebels" are rumored to be receiving chemical weapons from Turkey and perhaps Saudi Arabia. So their inability to manufacture Sarin or other chemical weapons doesn't vindicate them when they appear to have access to it via state actors. ..."
"... They have used various chemical agennts 52 times according to the NYT. ..."
"... Did Assad Order the Syrian Gas Attack? I really doubt. Chemical weapons are inefficient, indiscriminate, provocative ..."
"... the "White Helmets" are a known propaganda operation by the British foreign office. ..."
On the morning of April 4, a Syrian Air Force Russian-made Sukhoi-22 fighter bomber dropped or
fired something at a target in rebel-held Idlib Governorate. A cloud of some chemical substance subsequently
materialized and drifted to the adjacent inhabited village of Khan Shaykhun, where it killed between
50 and 100 people. We also know that the Russians
used a "hotline" prior to the attack to alert the United States military that the strike would
be taking place against what was apparently described as an arms depot.
We also know about what might be considered collateral damage. The deaths and alleged use of chemical
weapons
were described by President Donald Trump as a "vital national-security interest" and served as
the pretext for a strike by 59 U.S. cruise missiles two days later, which was directed against the
Syrian air base at al-Shayrat. The U.S. attack did little damage and the base was soon again operational.
The White House also reversed itself regarding possible Syrian peace talks, declaring that
Bashar al-Assad
must be removed as a condition for any political settlement of the ongoing crisis. It also described
Russia as complicit in protecting the Syrian president. Secretary of State Tillerson declared that
bilateral relations with Moscow
cannot improve as long as Russia is supporting al-Assad. The relationship with Russia is,
according to President Trump
, at an "all-time low."
The U.S. government, in support of its narrative justifying the cruise-missile attack, has issued
a
four-page assessment entitled "The Assad Regime's Use of Chemical Weapons on April 4, 2017."
The report was issued by the National Security Council, which is part of the White House, and was
authored by Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, the national-security advisor, rather than Director of National
Intelligence Dan Coats. The provenance suggests that it might not be what it is touted as, a "Summary
of the U.S. Intelligence Community's Assessment " It makes a number of claims, some of which might
be considered fact-based, while others seem questionable.
Bear in mind that nearly all the information and physical evidence available from the attack
site in Syria has come from anti-Assad sources linked to al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra, which controls
the area. This includes the so-called White Helmets, who are
opposition surrogates . The established narrative derives from this material as well as from
bipartisan assertions of Assad's "certain" guilt, even
from normally liberal Democrats , which are being presented as fact.
The four-page White House report is supplemented by
commentary provided by McMaster and Secretary of Defense James Mattis (also a former general)
on the day of the U.S. attack, as well as a more
recent interview with CIA Director Mike Pompeo, which describes the decision-making process and
the military options. Each official, as well as President Trump, took it as a given that Syria had
carried out the attack. Regarding the motive for such an attack, the report claims that Damascus
was seeking to halt a rebel advance. Others in the media have claimed that it was done to "test"
the United States or intimidate the Syrian population, but some other observers find those explanations
elusive. After all, Bashar al-Assad would have had no good reason to stage a chemical attack when
he was winning the war, while the rebels theoretically had plenty of motivation to stage a "false
flag" attack to alienate Damascus from Western Europe and the Americans.
There is considerable repetition in the White House report describing Syrian involvement, rebel
inability to mount a chemical attack, physical remains, and symptoms of the dead and injured. It
says that the U.S. government is "confident" that the Syrian government carried out a chemical attack
using "a neurotoxic agent like sarin against its own people" on the morning of April 4, and that
it would have been impossible for the rebels to fabricate the incident because it would be too complicated
for them to do so. The alleged U.S. intelligence relating to understanding the attack included Sigint,
geospatial monitoring, and physiological examination. Plus "Credible open source reporting tells
a clear and consistent story." This included commercial-satellite imagery, which shows the impact
sites of the weapons used, and opinions registered by civilian agencies like Medecins Sans Frontieres
and Amnesty International.
The U.S. government report also maintains that Syria has violated its international obligations
by retaining chemical-weapons capabilities even though it agreed to destroy all stocks in 2013. The
narrative also insists that the still highly controversial attack made on Ghouta in 2013 was, in
fact, carried out by Damascus. Syrian chemical-weapons experts were probably "involved in
planning the [current] attack." Symptoms of the victims were consistent with exposure to sarin.
Since the attack, per the report, the Russians and Syrians have been spinning out "false narratives"
employing "multiple, conflicting accounts [of what took place] in order to create confusion and sow
doubt within the international community."
As noted above, beyond the bare bones of the Syrian attack, the U.S. retaliation, and the casualties,
there is little in the incidents and the surrounding analysis that can be regarded as hard fact.
Little in the National Security Council report is unassailable, and one should note that almost none
of it is based on U.S. intelligence resources. The possibility that a Syrian chemical-weapons expert
was "probably" involved expresses uncertainty, suggesting that an intercepted telephone call is being
generously interpreted. And the geospatial monitoring is either a satellite (or even a drone) overhead,
or possibly an AWACS plane operating along the nearby Turkish border, which would register the flight
path of the Su-22 and the subsequent explosion(s), hardly conclusive evidence of anything beyond
what we already know to be true.
The thinness of the U.S. intelligence came through in an April 13 talk by CIA Director Mike Pompeo,
who
described the pressure from the White House to come up with an "assessment." As a bottom line,
he commented that "Everyone saw the open-source photos, so we had reality on our side." One might
observe that that reality was derived from Google satellite photography possibly adjusted by the
rebels and freely interpreted by the media, not from the $80 billion per year intelligence community.
Observers should also reexamine the assumption that rebels would be unable to either mount a chemical
attack or create a "false flag" operation. There have been numerous instances of ISIS and al-Nusra
use of chemicals both in Syria and Iraq, the
most recent
being just this past week in western Mosul. And the similar Ghouta "false flag" in 2013
almost succeeded
, apparently aided by
Turkish intelligence , stopped only when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper paid
a surprise visit to President Obama in the Oval Office to tell him that the case against Damascus
was not a "slam dunk."
And the physical evidence that the Syrians launched a chemical attack from the air has been challenged.
The only
eyewitness to surface , a 14-year-old, has described how she saw a bomb drop from an airplane
and hit a nearby building, which produced a mushroom cloud. It is just as the Russians and Syrians
described the incident and rules out sarin, which is colorless. And then there is the testimony of
Professor Theodore Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology, and national-security policy
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Postol has
examined the evidence in the photos and concluded that the toxin was fired from the ground, not
from the air, adding that no competent analyst would believe otherwise-suggesting that there was
a rush to judgment. Postol concluded that "it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does
not provide any evidence whatsoever that the U.S. government has concrete knowledge that the government
of Syria was the source of the chemical attack."
Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter has also
disputed the findings in the White House report, noting that what evidence there is points to
the use of conventional weapons by the Syrians. He also notes that the Su-22's available weapons
cannot deliver a chemical or gas attack from the air, something which Donald Trump and his advisers
might not have been aware of.
And then there are the victims. The
tests confirming the presence of sarin were carried out in Turkish hospitals and Ankara is far
from a neutral party, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
having demanded repeatedly that al-Assad be removed.
It is all too easy to forget that the rebels and their associates are killers, with little to
differentiate them from the crimes that are being laid at Bashar al-Assad's door. Two recent examples
of rebel brutality include
the beheading of a child and the
recent bombing of Syrian refugees waiting to cross into government-controlled territory. The
latter attack killed more people-including women, children, and babies-than the incident at Khan
Shaykhun, but it was not so much as mentioned by President Trump. It was only briefly reported in
the U.S. media before being dropped down the memory hole, presumably because it did not fit the prevailing
narrative.
Other videos and pictures of Khan Shaykhun victims cited by the White House show survivors
being assisted by alleged medical personnel, who appear not be wearing any protective garb. If
the chemical agent had actually been sarin, they too would have been affected. And the symptoms of
sarin are similar to the symptoms experienced with exposure to other toxins, including chlorine and
smoke munitions. One survivor noted a smell of rotten food and garlic. Sarin is, in addition to being
colorless, odorless.
And then there is the question of al-Assad's chemical-weapons supply. It is now being asserted
by the White House that the Syrians retained a significant capability, but that is not what Secretary
of State John Kerry said in July 2014, when he claimed
everything was destroyed : "We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons
out." The United States, working with Russia, was instrumental in destroying the Syrian chemical
stockpile.
It certainly appears that there was a rush to judgment on the part of the White House and the
top presidential advisors. It is possible that al-Assad did what he has been accused of, but the
Trump administration decided to assign guilt to the Syrians before they could have known with any
clarity what had happened. As in the case of Iraq, the available intelligence was made to fit the
preferred narrative. All that remained was to call a meeting of top advisors to determine exactly
how to punish Damascus. The truth about what occurred in Syria on April 4 remains to be discovered,
and is almost certainly possessed by many in the U.S. intelligence community. Perhaps someday, someone
who understands what happened will feel compelled to reveal what he or she knows.
Meanwhile, the fallout from the incident and the U.S. retaliation is severe and potentially catastrophic.
As Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen, America's leading expert on Russia,
put it recently :
I think this is the most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations, at least since the
Cuban missile crisis. And arguably, it's more dangerous, because it's more complex. So the question
arises, naturally: Why did Trump launch 50 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian Air Force base, when,
God help us, he did kill some people, but was of no military value whatsoever? Was this meant
to show 'I'm not a Kremlin agent?' Because, normally, a president would have done the following.
You would go to the United Nations and ask for an investigation about what happened with those
chemical weapons. And then you would decide what to do. But while having dinner at Mar-a-Lago
with the leader of China, who was deeply humiliated, because he's an ally of Russia, they rushed
off these Tomahawk missiles.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
"Make America Great Again" == "Full Spectrum Dominance"?
Another guy in the WH who prefers his "gut" and thereby believes he creates reality ex nihilo?
But
He was prescient some weeks back when he said he knew it wasn't to his political benefit to
get along with Russia and that people would applaud firing on a Russian ship off the east coast,
but that it wouldn't be great at all, but terrible.
It does seem true that political survival demanded the about face. The only way to prove
in our hysterical political climate engendered by the fury of the Clinton loss, that the President
is not a Russian agent, demands a war with Russia.
Since the applause for this is so great across the political spectrum, excluding present company,
that is what we will get.
When did US government lying to justify some action come to be seen as unusual? Maybe the Assad
government did carry out this chemical attack, but our record of being casual with the truth raises
doubts. Maybe the North Vietnamese were responsible for whatever actually happened in the
Gulf of Tonkin, eh?
This is a welcome contribution to the reportage of what appears to be a tragic rush to judgment.
Well done!
I was astonished by the speed of the US response given the fact that intel on the ground
is notoriously complex. The White House coulda shoulda woulda waited two days to verify. It now
may be a case of acute and toxic need to save face.
Great analytical piece that puts the main stream journalists to shame. Let me add one instance
of suspicious reports by Al-Qaedhe affiliate: the supposed attack happened at night or early morning,
according to rebel reports. "when people slept" , it was repeatedly said. Then, there is talk
of "we saw a bomb dropping", or "a mushroom cloud", etc. Obviously, these observations could not
happen in dark.
There is no hard proof one way or another, but the circumstantial arguments here for the false
flag theory aren't very strong.
1. Assad is winning, so why would he have done this? This is the exact same argument that was
repeatedly given after Ghouta attack, and yet the war goes on. The government won an important
victory in Aleppo, but most of Syria is outside its control. Its own forces are also weak and
often disloyal, so it depends on Russia, Hizbollah and Iran. These allies don't necessarily care
that much about total Assad victory.
2. Rebel chemical weapons. ISIS and apparently Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (ex-Nusra) have used chlorine
and mustard gas, yes. These are considerably easier to manufacture than nerve agents. In any case,
Guardian's Kareem Shaheen's on-ground report referred to meeting with Ahrar al-Sham's officials
there, and that's a different bunch of Islamists. They cooperate with other throat cutters, though.
3. Testimonies. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable (was there really a mushroom
cloud or just some billowing dust?). Postol's is more interesting, but also seems compatible with
air attack not using a dedicated chemical weapon dispersion device. Syrian air force's signature
weapon is the barrel bomb, so assuming the use of another improvised device here isn't illogical.
4. First responders not affected. Locals claim they were. AFAIK sarin degrades fast in heat
and sunlight, so by the time photos were taken later in the day, the danger would have been much
lower. This would have also been a reason to launch the attack in early morning – and the airstrike
did indeed happen at 6:30am.
5. Odorless sarin. In theory it is, yes. Impurities can impart strong smells to it, and binary
sarin mixed within delivery device doesn't necessarily mix perfectly.
6. Kerry's statement. Well, duh. Of course he said that. It was a somewhat embarrassing episode,
and the deal saved face, so of course it had to be 100% successful, even if it wasn't.
as noted in other thread (re: North Korea), this feels like Iraq v2.0, and we all know the
45th POTUS has no problem throwing the CIA and "the generals" under the bus. the phrase 'pressure
from the white house' is particularly chilling. then again, when the Commander-in-Chief is a member
of the Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame, and reality TV game show host, who tweets and yammers incessantly
about "fake news" (the ultimate false flag operation), should we not expect him "value" fake intelligence
and/or alternative "facts" when it comes to waging war? who could have imagined a person of this
ilk would actually be a neocon in populist/anti-establishment clothing? or maybe he is just a
patsy being handled deftly by "agents" of the Military-Industrial establishment?
Does this truth really matter in the Trump Presidency?
He got to his sugar bombing of empty fields next to airstrips that the Russian & Syrians knew
in advance of the bombing. Cable News got their fireworks show and Trump got be President. It
seemed like everybody benefited except Syria.
Remember WMD and Saddam? What did the top papers say after Colin Powell's speech to the UN
"proving" that Iraq had WMD?
New York Times: "[Powell's speech] may not have produced a 'smoking gun," but it left
little question that Mr. Hussein had tried hard to conceal one."
Wall Street Journal: "The Powell evidence will be persuasive to anyone who is still
persuadable. The only question remaining is whether the U.N. is going to have the courage of
Mr. Powell's convictions."
Washington Post: "To continue to say that the Bush administration has not made its case,
you must now believe that Colin Powell lied in the most serious statement he will ever make
"
Different year; different country, but for the msm in the USA, some things never change.
"It does seem true that political survival demanded the about face. The only way to prove
in our hysterical political climate engendered by the fury of the Clinton loss, that the President
is not a Russian agent, demands a war with Russia."
And it was a mistake. A deep mistake. He was winnning the Russia Manchurian candidate issue.
The tide was turning even among democrats and it was beginning to sour faster each day. He should
have fought it. The short term gain of turning the tables in this manner has now hemmed into the
camp of interventionists. And what worse gained him but momentary praise unless he continues to
bend.
Further it plays the other edge of that sword, that he is easily turned, cowed frightened and
more, he will betray those he befriends for support to so as to avoid criticism by noise makers.
The fact, that we should not be in Syria in the first place should have been his foundational
stance as it was during the campaign.
That he should have weighed evidence based on disinterested parties. Because what was presented
was dubious on its face. We have been down this road before and nothing about this charge made
any more sense than the previous attempt to bait US involvement. As for the nonsense about the
rebels not having the capabilities - excuse me - but if you have a chemical weapon on a canister
all one need do is open it - these arguments are, I agree familiar to the Iraq advances for war
- as if developed by a class of high school students. Photos of explosions – you have got to be
kidding.
I have some responses to the 6 counters presented.
a. The Syrian government is winning. And the reason there is still war is because the US and
others continue to foment and encourage the rebels, Known as terrorists by any other name.
b. Rebels and chem weapons, their availability is far wider than suggested. No they could have
easily released said chemicals and they didn't have to manufacture them - they were provided (a
brief history):
c. So the first respondents waited leaving people to die. I don't buy it. In addition, the
gas would have spread immediately, not later in the day. As reported in drifted into the communities
yet the impact is very slight.
The entire advance here gets thinner with each defense. Oddly no one is putting those blood
tests on the table. As for people choking since all bomb munitions are designed to cease life
function by direct hit or secondary reaction, I have no doubt that people experienced shortness
of breath.
But most importantly, no one is disputing the Russian claim. Because if they were they would
accuse Russia of using chemical weapons, after all, it was a Russian mission. That what this charge
ought to be, that Russia knowingly used a chemical compound forbidden by international law.
Make that charge and I might begin to take the advance as having some sincerity.
It's pressure not from the white house, but that band of interventionists that the current
executive has surrounded himself with. And it may prove his undoing.A cadre of Mr. Wolfitzs and
Vice Pres Cheneys.
1. The small crater in an asphalt road which you can find an image of online looks exactly like
the craters left by a very common, surface-to-surface (note – NOT air-to-surface) 122mm unguided
artillery rocket. 122mm debris is specifically mentioned in reports about the debris left in the
crater.
2. The US report makes no mention of the type of munition used while it claims to be certain
about the specific type of aircraft used. A 122mm rocket fired from the aircraft would have been
extremely obvious for many miles around. WHY no mention of the specific munition type used – rocket
or gravity (dumb) bomb? A 122m surface-to-surface artillery missile SOMEHOW fired from an aircraft
when a much simpler dumb bomb attack which would have been more appropriate is both unusual and
suspicious.
3. Only if the sarin weapon used was of the binary type would an attack on the airbase which
launched the supposedly guilty aircraft not released sarin when all of the munition storage bunkers
were destroyed as they were. If the US was that certain of even the specific sarin device type
used and, therefore, the safety of striking those munition storage bunkers without releasing
sarin everywhere, why aren't they more specific about the weapon supposedly released from the
aircraft? They say:
"A significant body of pro-opposition social media reports indicate that the chemical attack
began in Khan Shaykhun at 6:55 a.m. local time on 4 April. Our information indicates that the
chemical agent was delivered by regime Su-22 fixed-wing aircraft that took off from the regime-controlled
Shayrat Airfield. These aircraft were in the vicinity of Khan Shaykhun approximately 20 minutes
before reports of the chemical attack began and vacated the area shortly after the attack. Additionally,
our information indicates personnel historically associated with Syria's chemical weapons program
were at Shayrat Airfield in late March making preparations for an upcoming attack in Northern
Syria, and they were present at the airfield on the day of the attack."
Delivered HOW, by what kind of weapon? A 122mm rocket made only for surface-to-surface weapons
systems? If they are so certain about the chemical weapons personnel at the airbase how would
they not know at least that? Did the "pro-opposition" tell them about those personnel, the same
people who would be most likely to launch a false flag attack?
Daath–the point is not that we know it was a false flag attack. The point is or should be that
we don't know it wasn't. We don't know much of anything besides people dying. And some of your
claims are debatable anyway. Could sarin be stolen from an Assad stockpile? Why not? The rebels
have done amazingly well, killing at least 100,000 armed opponents (with an amazingly low civilian
death count according to the anti-Assad reporters, which as some have pointed out, means the Al
Qaeda forces are among the most humane fighters in history.) People who can fight a conventional
army with an air force to a standstill over a period of years might have been able to capture
a few poison gas munitions along the way. Not saying this happened. I am saying that given our
sources of info, most of the time we don't really know what is happening.
ISIS and "the rebels" are rumored to be receiving chemical weapons from Turkey and perhaps
Saudi Arabia. So their inability to manufacture Sarin or other chemical weapons doesn't vindicate
them when they appear to have access to it via state actors.
They have used various chemical agennts 52 times according to the NYT.
As always, a good question from Mr. Giraldi, but I would have looked at the event differently.
Did Assad Order the Syrian Gas Attack? I really doubt. Chemical weapons are inefficient, indiscriminate,
provocative
Let's look at the event in the context of other events of April 2017:
Another Russian American crew flew into space. The Exxon-Mobil oil company is negotiating with
Russian partners to explore oil reserves in the Black Sea.
The Russian national currency is rapidly strengthening. Finally, a group of Russian students
whom I know well get an American visa without obstacles with the program "work and travel."
For the US military there are more interesting contests with the Russians – those that are
90 percent close to real combat conditions.
A good excuse is already available. So 2 destroyers in the Mediterranean are ready to attack
the airfield. The US warns Russia 2 hours before the launch of cruise missiles. The first destroyer
fires 40 missiles and they fall unexploded in the Syrian deserts. Thus Russia demonstrates new
system of EW – "Lever".
Then the Russian military disconnects the device and allows 20 missiles from the 2nd destroyer
to hit hangars with decommissioned aircraft.
Why did Xi Jin Pinge smile so good-naturedly, tasting Donald Trump's gorgeous chocolate cake?
He probably anticipated that if the Russian EW facilities prove themselves well, then, at the
meeting with Putin in Moscow this summer, they will discuss a new multibillion-dollar military
order while trying Russian ice cream with tea.
"The White Helmets are among the only humanitarian workers who are able to operate in the region."
Unfortunately Amnesty International has become an advocacy group or the rebels. They are not
neutral. After Iraq, they have abandoned their neutrality for choosing sides.
"Assad used chemical weapons in 2013."
The rebels have been caught with their pants down on the use of chemical weapons. In fact,
Turkey arrested rebels with chemical weapons. The cases of 2013 have been thoroughly dissected,
fine tooth combed and it leaves advocates wanting and naked.
In the articles I noted its clear that death is no stranger to those who prefer Pres Assad
admin. Death camps, battle is always a death camp.
Just a reminder: should advocates desire less death perhaps that y should start by advocating
less unnecessary war.
Alex
April 25, 2017 at 5:35 pm
"Scott Ritter is wrong, Su-22 has B-13L rocket pod capable of delivering S-13 or similar 122mm
rockets including ones with chemical warheads."
Is that an intentional lie? No one ever heard about S-13 with chemical warhead. Not mentioning
that there were never any airplane-carried rockets with chemical warheads invented in the USSR
or for Soviet planes. And not mentioning that there are no B-13L on Syrian SU-22, they are equipped
only with UB-32 pods with 57mm S-5 rockets.
They are beautifully seen on many pictures including the ones from Khan Shaykhun: https://twitter.com/SyrianMilitary/status/830960348391948288
the "White Helmets" are a known propaganda operation by the British foreign office.
As for your attacks on the Syrian government – "Assad"- why do you repeat your own regime's
demonization propaganda ?
The use of poison gas is a characteristic of the American regime under Obama – check the news
items – and the Jihadist paramilitaries that work for it.
im pretty sure that its established that the tweets by the Jihadist " doctor"- thats the guy where
the case of kidnapping against him was stopped as witnesses had vanished-were made 19 hours BEFORE
the alleged attack case closed ..
Where i live i have personal knowledge of 2 people intimately involved 1) the Syrian Observatory
of Human Rights often used as a source!! by the BBC is one man who hasnt been to Syria for over
a decade for this reason alone anything he says should be treated with real suspicion 2) Rev Andrew
Ashdown travelled to Aleppo to see how he could help,and to comfort the ordinary people caught
up in this terror- his reports from there ( and he is a friend of the local bishop) show that
everything being pushed out by the mainstream media with a few occasional exceptions from Fisk
et al is more or less the opposite of what is reported,THAT INDEED SYRIANS support their army,have
great regard for Assad and his wife,were imprisoned in Aleppo, suffered great deprivation,torture,murder,
theft,rape, kidnapping etc etc from their terrorist captors and are deeply grateful to Russia
and Putin for coming to their rescue, and have never heard of the White Helmets who like the SOHR
are responsible for much of the propaganda
With such friends like Paul Wolfowitz Defense Secretary Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R.
McMaster belong to Hillary team. And Trump are strongly advised to perform sex change operation.
Notable quotes:
"... How to explain this sudden embrace of the neocon line on Syria and elsewhere? It might be telling that according to recent press reports the architect of the disastrous Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz, is lending advice on the Middle East to Defense Secretary Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster. They have all apparently been friends for years. More in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report: ..."
"... If you are interested, I wrote a very detailed blog post , in which I examine the evidence about the recent chemical attack and compare the situation with what happened after the chemical attack in Ghouta in August 2013 ..."
"... Wolfowitz? The same jackass who thought Iraq could be conquered by 10,000 troops in under one hour? One of the biggest reason why US foreign policy is so recalcitrant and feckless is that former F-ups are continually called upon to lend an opinion just because they have putative experience. ..."
"... If you do not think a concerted conspiracy is taking place, I suggest you visit the Atlantic Council website and others pushing almost identical stories -- And yes - they cover events in the Ukraine as well -- Conspiracy -- They just SUPPORT each other -- What's WRONG with that ? ..."
President Trump has yet to provide any credible evidence that the gas attack in Syria earlier
this month was carried out by Assad, and in the meantime very serious questions about the veracity
of White House claims are arising from very credible experts. Yet the Administration seems ever more
determined now that it has done a 180 degree turn and demanded regime change for Syria. Late last
week the White House announced sanctions on 271 Syrian scientists who Trump claims are working on
chemical weapons. The proof? None.
How to explain this sudden embrace of the neocon line on Syria and elsewhere? It might be
telling that according to recent press reports the architect of the disastrous Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz,
is lending advice on the Middle East to Defense Secretary Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R.
McMaster. They have all apparently been friends for years. More in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:
Virtually all those in USGov leadership roles are not interested in peace; MIC makes for favors
to dispense & $contributions for re-election. But wars can't be waged if few are willing to join
military & work for Dept of Defense (what a truth-twisted name!). Depopularize both military participation
& "support the troops" mania.
Take a day off from sanity and watch TV all day. The advertising for just about every commercial
product is being taken over by militarism. Toys, breakfast cereals, restaurants, cars, beer commercials,
good thing we don't have tobacco commercials anymore, or we'll have a campaign like Lucky Strike
GREEN is going to War! (the tobacco company changed the color on the packets because the red dye
had a lot of chromium in it and chromium was needed for aircraft parts) Rice Krispies cereal was
touted as "Shot from Guns!" (Let's get the kids involved!) That last one was courtesy of my Mom
and her sisters, they were kids at the time. The Recruiters are getting worse.
If you are interested, I wrote a very detailed
blog post , in which I examine the evidence about the recent chemical attack and compare the
situation with what happened after the chemical attack in Ghouta in August 2013.
I argue that, in the case of the attack in Ghouta, the media narrative had rapidly unravelled
and that, for that reason, we should be extremely prudent about the recent attack and not jump
to conclusions. Among other things, I discuss the ballistic analysis produced by Postol and Lloyd
at the time, which showed that both the much-touted NYT/HRW analysis and the US intelligence were
mistaken.
I also show that, despite the fact that a lot of evidence came out that undermined the official
narrative, the media never changed their stance and continued to talk as if there was no doubt
that Assad's regime was responsible for the attack.
It's more than 5,000 words long and I provide a source for every single factual claim I make.
The post has already been widely shared and some people have criticized it, so I will soon post
a follow-up where I reply to critics and say more about the evidence that bears on the attack
in Khan Sheikhoun.
Wolfowitz? The same jackass who thought Iraq could be conquered by 10,000 troops in under
one hour? One of the biggest reason why US foreign policy is so recalcitrant and feckless is that
former F-ups are continually called upon to lend an opinion just because they have putative experience.
The truth about the gas attack might take some time to wiggle to the surface, especially if
claims made by the administration turn out bankrupt. They will likely bury it as long as possible.
The media will likely be reticent to dig, having all thrown roses at Trump's feet for a little
"shock and awe". Never underestimate either the willful ignorance or the ignominious glorification
(by the media) of reckless bombing under the guise of humanitarian concerns. It seems they learned
not a damned thing from the debacle of Iraq. They have simply gone back to sleep since then.
Paul talks about "sensibility and a better policy". It seems he was yet another "believer"
who was duped by a man who tells lies faster than his lips can move. They had about 16 months
to watch Trump put truth in a dumpster fire, and yet they STILL believed that his election would
herald some utopian, isolationist, wet-dream fantasy-land where the MIC would fold up overnight
and bring all the boys back home. How's that working out for the "believers"? Trust a man with
no core at your own peril. The messiah complex (as a projection) really needs to die in this country...before
we do some REAL damage to ourselves.
Nice post. In defense of Paul, I never saw any statement of his that he was a supporter of
Trump. He did say he liked SOME of the things he was saying on the campaign trail (like bring
the troops home). Also, it didn't take him long to publicly criticize Trump. Contrast these critical/skeptical
statements to those of other public figures. I suspect Paul's attacks on Trump will accelerate
(they already have).
Also, Paul did cite "red flags" about Trump during the campaign. I saw him on one interview
criticize the proclivity of Trump to propose executive actions that seemed imperial in nature,
certainly outside of the confines of a president's Constitutional role.
Ron Paul's voice and views are more important than mine as they get heard and read by far more
people. Thank goodness he is still around to offer his contrarian views.
I'm sure Trump already doesn't like Ron Paul, and that Trump's antagonism for Paul will only
grow as events transpire.
For all those deluded conspiracy theorists out there -- The mainstream news almost without exception
supports accusations that Syria uses Sarin gas and that Assad kills his own citizens --
They all agree that the 'moderate' opposition, 'free speech' community service activists, with
only peaceful intentions, as they are deserve both our support and protection - but I am beginning
to wonder who it is doing the fighting ? Oh, sorry -- Assad -- Sorry for my foolish mistake !
If you do not think a concerted conspiracy is taking place, I suggest you visit the Atlantic
Council website and others pushing almost identical stories -- And yes - they cover events in the
Ukraine as well -- Conspiracy -- They just SUPPORT each other -- What's WRONG with that ? Just
pass the hymn-sheet around -- Please feel welcome to join in the singing --
"... As the 100-day mark of his presidency approaches, there's been no serious reassessment of America's endless wars or how to fight them (no less end them). Instead, there's been a recommitment to doing more of the familiar, more of what hasn't worked over the last decade and a half. ..."
"... Like those generals, he's a logical endpoint to a grim process, whether you're talking about the growth of inequality in America and the rise of plutocracy – without which a billionaire president and his billionaire cabinet would have been inconceivable – or the form that American war-making is taking under him. ..."
"... As the chameleon he is, he promptly took on the coloration of the militarized world he had entered and appointed "his" three generals to key security posts. Anything but the norm historically, such a decision may have seemed anomalous and out of the American tradition. That, however, was only because, unlike Donald Trump, most of the rest of us hadn't caught up with where that "tradition" had actually taken us. ..."
"... Hence, Steve Bannon, his dream strategist while on the campaign trail, is now reportedly on the ropes ..."
"... Think of Trump as a chameleon among presidents and much of this makes more sense. ..."
"... Donald Trump isn't either a politician or a trendsetter. If anything, he's a trend-senser. (In a similar fashion, he didn't create reality TV, nor was he at its origins. He simply perfected a form that was already in development.) ..."
"... What happens, then? What happens when the war honeymoon is over and the generals keep right on fighting their way? The last two presidents put up with permanent failing war, making the best they could of it. That's unlikely for Donald Trump. When the praise begins to die down, the criticism starts to rise, and questions are asked, watch out. ..."
Above all, President Trump did one thing decisively.
He empowered a set of generals or retired generals – James "Mad Dog" Mattis as secretary of defense,
H.R. McMaster as national security adviser, and John Kelly as secretary of homeland security – men
already deeply implicated in America's
failing wars across the Greater Middle East. Not being a details guy himself, he's then left
them to do their damnedest. "What I do is I authorize my military," he
told reporters recently. "We have given them total authorization and that's what they're doing
and, frankly, that's why they've been so successful lately."
As the 100-day mark of his presidency approaches, there's been no serious reassessment of
America's endless wars or how to fight them (no less end them). Instead, there's been a recommitment
to doing more of the familiar, more of what hasn't worked over the last decade and a half. No
one should be surprised by this, given the cast of characters – men who held command posts in those
unsuccessful wars and are clearly incapable of thinking about them in other terms than the ones that
have been indelibly engrained in the brains of the U.S. military high command since soon after 9/11.
That new ruling reality of our American world should, in turn, offer a hint about the nature of
Donald Trump's presidency. It should be a reminder that as strange okay, bizarre as his statements,
tweets, and acts may have been, as chaotic as his
all-in-the-family administration is proving to be, as little as he may resemble anyone we've
ever seen in the White House before, he's anything but an anomaly of history. Quite the opposite.
Like those generals, he's a logical endpoint to a grim process, whether you're talking about the
growth of inequality in America and the rise of plutocracy – without which a billionaire president
and his
billionaire cabinet would have been inconceivable – or the form that American war-making is taking
under him.
When it comes to war and the U.S. military, none of what's happened would have been conceivable
without the two previous presidencies. None of it would have been possible without Congress's willingness
to
pump endless piles of money into the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex in the post-9/11
years; without the building up of the national security state and its
17 (yes, 17!) major intelligence outfits into an
unofficial fourth branch of government; without the institutionalization of war as a permanent
(yet strangely distant) feature of American life and of wars across the Greater Middle East and parts
of Africa that evidently can't be won or lost but only carried on into eternity. None of this would
have been possible without the growing militarization of this country, including of police forces
increasingly
equipped with weaponry off America's distant battlefields and filled with
veterans of those same wars; without a media rife with retired generals and other former commanders
narrating and commenting on the acts of their successors and protégés; and without a political class
of Washington pundits and politicians taught to revere that military.
In other words, however original Donald Trump may look, he's the curious culmination of old news
and a changing country. Given his bravado and braggadocio, it's easy to forget the kinds of militarized
extremity that preceded him.
After all, it wasn't Donald Trump who had the hubris, in the wake of 9/11, to declare a "Global
War on Terror" against
60 countries (the "
swamp " of that moment). It wasn't Donald Trump who manufactured false intelligence on the weapons
of mass destruction Iraq's Saddam Hussein supposedly possessed or produced
bogus claims about that autocrat's connections to al-Qaeda, and then
used both to lead the United States into a war on and occupation of that country. It wasn't Donald
Trump who invaded Iraq (whether he was
for or against tht invasion at the time). It wasn't Donald Trump who donned a flight suit and
landed on an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego to personally declare that hostilities were
at an end in Iraq just as they were truly beginning, and to do so under an inane "
Mission Accomplished " banner prepared by the White House.
It wasn't Donald Trump who ordered the
CIA to
kidnap terror suspects (including
totally innocent individuals) off the streets of global cities as well as from the backlands
of the planet and transport them to foreign prisons or CIA "
black sites
" where they could be tortured. It wasn't Donald Trump who caused one terror suspect to experience
the sensation of drowning
83 times in a single month (even if he was inspired by such reports to
claim that he would bring torture back as president).
It wasn't Donald Trump who spent eight years in the Oval Office presiding over a global "
kill list ," running "
Terror
Tuesday " meetings, and personally helping choose individuals around the world for the CIA to
assassinate using what, in essence, was the president's own private drone force, while being
praised (or criticized) for his "caution."
It wasn't Donald Trump who presided over the creation of a
secret military of 70,000 elite troops cossetted inside the larger military, special-ops personnel
who, in recent years, have been dispatched on missions to a
large majority of the countries on the planet without the knowledge, no less the consent, of
the American people. Nor was it Donald Trump who managed to lift the Pentagon budget to $600 billion
and the overall national security budget to something like a
trillion dollars or more, even
as America's civilian infrastructure
aged and buckled .
It wasn't Donald Trump who lost an estimated
$60 billion to fraud and waste in the American "reconstruction" of Iraq and Afghanistan, or who
decided to
build highways to nowhere and a gas station in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan. It wasn't
Donald Trump who sent in the
warrior corporations to
squander more in that single country than was spent on the post-World War II Marshall Plan to
put all of Western Europe back on its feet. Nor did he instruct the U.S. military to dump at least
$25 billion into rebuilding, retraining, and rearming an Iraqi army that would
collapse in 2014 in the face of a relatively small number of ISIS militants, or at least
$65 billion into an Afghan army that would turn out to be filled with
ghost soldiers .
In its history, the United States has engaged in quite a remarkable range of wars and conflicts.
Nonetheless, in the last 15 years,
forever war has been institutionalized as a feature of everyday life in Washington, which, in
turn, has been transformed into a permanent war capital. When Donald Trump won the presidency and
inherited those wars and that capital, there was, in a sense, no one left in the remarkably bankrupt
political universe of Washington but those generals.
As the chameleon he is, he promptly took on the coloration of the militarized world he had
entered and appointed "his" three generals to key security posts. Anything but the norm historically,
such a decision may have seemed anomalous and out of the American tradition. That, however, was only
because, unlike Donald Trump, most of the rest of us hadn't caught up with where that "tradition"
had actually taken us.
The previous two presidents had
played the warrior regularly,
donning military
outfits – in his presidential years, George W. Bush often looked like a G.I. Joe doll – and
saluting the troops, while praising them to the skies, as the American people were also
trained to do. In the Trump era, however, it's the warriors (if you'll excuse the pun) who are
playing the president.
It's hardly news that Donald Trump is a man in love with what works. Hence, Steve Bannon,
his dream strategist while on the campaign trail, is now
reportedly on the ropes as his White House counselor because nothing he's done in the first
nearly 100 days of the new presidency has worked (except
promoting himself ).
Think of Trump as a chameleon among presidents and much of this makes more sense. A Republican
who had been a
Democrat for significant periods of his life, he conceivably could have run for president as
a more nativist version of Bernie Sanders on the Democratic ticket had the political cards been dealt
just a little differently. He's a man who has changed himself repeatedly to fit his circumstances
and he's doing so again in the Oval Office.
In the world of the media, it's stylish to be
shocked, shocked that the president who campaigned on one set of issues and came into office
still championing them is now supporting quite a different set – from China to taxes, NATO to the
Export-Import Bank. But this isn't faintly strange. Donald Trump isn't either a politician or
a trendsetter. If anything, he's a trend-senser. (In a similar fashion, he didn't create reality
TV, nor was he at its origins. He simply perfected a form that was already in development.)
If you want to know just where we are in an America that has been on the march toward a different
sort of society and governing system for a long time now, look at him. He's the originator of nothing,
but he tells you all you need to know. On war, too, think of him as a chameleon. Right now, war is
working for him domestically, whatever it may be doing in the actual world, so he loves it. For the
moment, those generals are indeed "his" and their wars his to embrace.
Honeymoon of the Generals
Normally, on entering the Oval Office, presidents receive what the media calls a "honeymoon" period.
Things go well. Praise is forthcoming. Approval ratings are heart-warming.
Donald Trump got none of this. His approval ratings quickly
headed for the honeymoon cellar or maybe the honeymoon
fallout shelter ; the media and he went to war; and one attempt after another to fulfill his
promises – from executive orders on deportation to repealing Obamacare and
building his wall – have come a cropper. His administration seems to be in eternal chaos, the
cast of characters changing by the week or tweet, and
few key secondary posts being filled.
In only one area has Donald Trump experienced that promised honeymoon. Think of it as the honeymoon
of the generals. He gave them that "total authorization," and the missiles left the ships, the drones
flew, and the giant bomb dropped. Even when the results were disappointing, if not disastrous (as
in a raid on Yemen in which a U.S. special operator was killed,
children slaughtered , and nothing of value recovered), he still somehow stumbled into highly
praised
"presidential" moments .
So far, in other words, the generals are the only ones who have delivered for him,
big-league . As a result, he's given them yet more authority to do whatever they want, while
hugging them tighter yet.
Here's the problem, though: there's a predictable element to all of this and it doesn't work in
Donald Trump's favor. America's forever wars have now been pursued by these generals and others like
them for more than 15 years across a vast swath of the planet – from Pakistan to Libya (and ever
deeper into Africa) – and the chaos of failing states, growing conflicts, and spreading terror
movements has been the result. There's no reason to believe that further military action will, a
decade and a half later, produce more positive results.
What happens, then? What happens when the war honeymoon is over and the generals keep right
on fighting their way? The last two presidents put up with permanent failing war, making the best
they could of it. That's unlikely for Donald Trump. When the praise begins to die down, the criticism
starts to rise, and questions are asked, watch out.
What then? In a world of plutocrats and generals, what coloration will Donald Trump take on next?
Who will be left, except Jared and Ivanka?
"Many intelligence officials have concluded that the White House is lying and concealing what it
knows." this is pretty damning statement which reminds of the Bush Ii administration Dick Cheney mafia
of neocons which conrolled Bush II almost completely. Actually key figures are Trump administration
such as Secretary of Defense and the head of national security council are friend of Paul Wolfowitz
Notable quotes:
"... Recently, with the cruise missile attacks on a Syrian airfield, there has been a considerable loosening of the normal restraints that employees exercise regarding their duties. Even more than the invasion of Iraq, which was viewed skeptically by many in the community, the decision by President Trump to retaliate with force against Damascus has been met with dismay among many of those closest to the action in the Middle East. ..."
"... The insiders note that no evidence has been produced to demonstrate convincingly that Syrian forces dropped a chemical bomb on a civilian area. ..."
"... Many intelligence officials have concluded that the White House is lying and concealing what it knows. ..."
"... Some employees have even expressed a desire that a whistleblower might step forward to demolish the administration's casus belli , though none has yet offered to do so. Most of all, those on the ground are alarmed over ongoing preparations for expanding the war, including seemingly active plans to establish no-fly zones and safe havens. The uncompromising demand that al-Assad must go will lead, in their opinion, to a rapid escalation of military activity that inevitably will result in conflict with Russia. ..."
Recently, with the cruise missile attacks on a Syrian airfield, there has been a considerable
loosening of the normal restraints that employees exercise regarding their duties. Even more than
the invasion of Iraq, which was viewed skeptically by many in the community, the decision by President
Trump to retaliate with force against Damascus has been met with dismay among many of those closest
to the action in the Middle East.
Many officers have expressed frustration and anger over what has taken place-not to challenge
national-security policy, which they leave up to the politicians, but because they are perceiving
a tissue of lies, as in Iraq. They have expressed their concerns in very specific ways to former
fellow officers and friends. For the first time, people on the inside of the process are really talking.
And we have been listening, astonished at the level of anger.
The insiders note that no evidence has been produced to demonstrate convincingly that Syrian
forces dropped a chemical bomb on a civilian area. U.S. monitors, who had been warned by the
Russians that an attack was coming, believe they saw from satellite images something close to the
Russian account of events, with a bomb hitting the targeted warehouse, which then produced a cloud
of gas. They also note that Syria had absolutely no motive for staging a chemical attack. In fact,
it was quite the contrary, as Washington had earlier that week backed off from the U.S. position
that President Bashar al-Assad should be removed from office. The so-called rebels, however, had
plenty of motive. Many intelligence officials have concluded that the White House is lying and
concealing what it knows.
Some employees have even expressed a desire that a whistleblower might step forward to demolish
the administration's casus belli , though none has yet offered to do so. Most of all, those
on the ground are alarmed over ongoing preparations for expanding the war, including seemingly active
plans to establish no-fly zones and safe havens. The uncompromising demand that al-Assad must go
will lead, in their opinion, to a rapid escalation of military activity that inevitably will result
in conflict with Russia.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
Students of international affairs who take the long view have for some time been worried about
the trajectory of U.S.-China relations. While in theory a cooperative relationship would be most
beneficial to both parties, in practice dominant powers and rising challengers rarely are able
to work out a fruitful accommodation. Instead, most often the two stumble into a conflict that
devastates both countries' interests.
Graham Allison calls the underlying
theory -
detailed in his new book - the Thucydides Trap. So long as both powers rationally assume that
the dominant power aims to maintain its supremacy, even accommodative policies will be interpreted
as a way to get the rising power to settle for less than it might achieve by revisionist agitations.
So if the dominant power is accommodative, the rising power will take advantage, provoking a reversal
by the dominant power and a confrontation. But if the dominant power is confrontational and tries
to encircle the rising power, it will provoke the rising power to break out - and in the meantime
the dominant power will exhaust its resources more quickly than the rising power does, accelerating
the power transition.
So how can war be avoided?
Allison's prescription is for robust communication along with a willingness on the part of
the dominant power to think big in terms of how the international order will have to change to
accommodate the rising power. Rather than try to prevent or limit the power transition, the dominant
power has to facilitate it, get the rising power to understand that this is in fact the policy,
and thereby forge a cooperative path through the transition that gives both powers an appropriate
role to their new relative power position. I've argued in this space before that
Korea would be a perfect place to try to
achieve those twin goals.
The Obama administration's much-touted but never-completed "pivot" to Asia could be understood
as an effort to preserve America's position within the context of partnership with China - or
as an effort to contain China and maintain American supremacy. Strengthened alliances with countries
like Australia and Vietnam were intended to discourage China from adventurism in its near-abroad,
while the Trans-Pacific Partnership was
designed to counter Chinese economic leadership in the region. On the other hand, the TPP
did not explicitly exclude China, and it is plausible to think that its ultimate purpose was more
to keep America in than to keep China out. Obama clearly saw a value in working with the Chinese
rather than merely against them, but he also recognized that China intended to challenge America's
interests in the western Pacific and aimed to counter it.
We'll never know whether the Obama strategy would have been a way out of the Thucydides Trap,
or whether it would have led us right into it. We'll never know because President Trump has trashed
the strategy entirely,
pulling out of the
TPP , musing about
abandoning the one-China policy , threatening unilateral
action in Korea , and calling for tariffs on Chinese manufacturers. His initial policy mix
looked like it was premised on the assumption that war was inevitable, so we might as well make
it happen on our terms.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the battlefield: The Chinese realized we were bluffing.
Our military options in Korea
aren't really viable , and Trump has proved that he knows they aren't by his eagerness to
get the Chinese to handle the problem - eagerness so overwhelming it has already led him to
abandon a core campaign theme, confronting the Chinese on trade . Trump has already reaffirmed
the one-China policy. And he has not only gratuitously insulted
key
allies , but demonstrated tactical
incompetence in his communications about the mission of
the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson . Watching Trump, America's Asian allies surely
are questioning our reliability and basic competence, while the Chinese surely are far less worried
that America will be able to restrain their rise even if we desire to do so.
Normally, this would provoke the rising power to be more confrontational. But if the Chinese
really understand Trump, they'll see that they could get far more by picking his pocket than by
mugging him. Trump is transparently eager for a deal - almost any deal. The Chinese could probably
ask for the moon and the stars - or control of the South China Sea - in exchange for minor promises
- to let their currency rise a bit (which has already happened), to build a few manufacturing
plants in Ohio, to get North Korea to restrain itself for a few months. Why wouldn't the Chinese
try to get what they want at the table rather than taking the risk of a confrontation?
Of course, normally a political leader would pay a gruesome price for cutting a terrible deal
with a key rival. If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had rolled over for the Chinese, the Republican
Party would go ballistic. But Donald Trump's brand is all about making America great again. His
most vocal liberal critics, meanwhile, are more concerned that he's going to stumble into World
War III than that he is going to be insufficiently firm in defending America's interests. While,
as with Syria, they may support any military actions he does take, they are unlikely to provoke
him into backing up his blustery threats with actual shows of force.
Paradoxically, Trump could achieve by sloth and incompetence what is very difficult for dominant
powers to accept: a transition out of that dominant position.
Oh Lord, it's happening–the remanufacture of Trump by the Establishment. During the campaign,
Trump and the Basilisk had nothing in common but their hair dye. Now, almost daily, he looks more
like her.
He gets embarrassing. Regarding the alleged gassing in Syria, quoth Donald:
"When you kill innocent children, innocent babies - babies, little babies - with a chemical gas
that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. And I will tell you, that attack on children
yesterday had a big impact on me my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."
God almighty. Who wrote this–a middle school girl with C's in English, or the President of the
United States? Did he retire to his bedroom for a good cry?
Apparently he ordered his missile strike without bothering to find out what happened. The usual
suspects are driving him like a sports car.
The election was a choice between fetor and a lunatic. We chose the lunatic. Whether this was
better than the alternative, we will never know, but Trump is going from bad to worse, or as the
Mexicans say, de Guatemala a Guatepeor.
Does he believe this stuff? Is he naive enough to think that there was something unusually
horrible about the attack? Horrible, yes, but not in the least unusual. Do you know what everyday,
boring artillery does to children? Five-hundred-pound bombs? Hellfire rockets? Daily Mr. Trump's
military and his allies daily drop shrapnel-producing explosives on people, cities, towns, adults,
children, weddings and goatherds in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Good draft-dodger that he
was, he probably has never seen any of this. Good psychopath that he may be, he may not care.
This whole gas-attack business smells to high heaven. It looks nicely calculated to force him
to attack Assad. Gas was important: Killing babies, little babies with explosives is so routine that
no one cares, but we have been programmed to shudder at the thought of Gas!
Actually artillery has killed several orders of magnitude more people, but never mind.
Targeting children was a nice touch. Definitely a PR bonus. So Donald goes into his Poor-widdle-fings
weep, while Americans weekly kill more children in three to seven countries, depending on the date.
Is the man consciously a liar? Hasn't got sense enough to think before operating his mouth? Actually
believes what he says when he says it?
Glance at a small part of the record and focus on his changing his tune, not on whether you agree
with a particular policy. Erratic, erratic, erratic. He was going to run out the illegals within
two years, absurd but he said it. Going to put high tariffs on Mexican goods. Didn't. On Chinese
goods. Isn't. Tear up the Iran treaty. Didn't. Declare China a currency-manipulator. Isn't. Ban Muslims.
Hasn't. Promote good relations with Russia. Isn't. Get the US out of Syria. Ha. Make NATO pay for
itself. Isn't. The man has the steely determination one associates with bean curd. You cannot trust
anything the man says.
Having been reprogrammed as a good neocon, bombing places he promised to get out of, looking for
a fight with Russia, he is now butting heads with Fat Thing in North Korea. He his said things closely
resembling, "We have run out of strategic patience with the North. If nobody else will take care
of it, we will." Grrrr. Bowwow. Woof.
The problem with growly ultimata made for television is that somebody has to back down–that is,
lose face and credibility. If Trump had quietly told Fat Thing, "If you crazy bastards scrap your
nuke program, we will drop the sanctions," it might have worked. But no. Negotiations would imply
weakness. Thus an ultimatum.
So now either (a) Fat Thing knuckles under, humiliating himself and possibly endangering his grasp
on power or (b) Trump blinks in a humiliating display of the Empire's impotence, possibly endangering
his grasp on power.
Kim Jong Il, or Il Sung Jong, or whatever the the hell the latest one of them is called, shows
not the slightest sign of backing down. So does the Donald start an utterly unpredictable war, as
usual in somebody else's country, or does he weasel off, muttering, and hope nobody notices?
Fred's Third Law of International Relations: Never butt heads with a country that has a missile
named the No Dong.
Many of us favored Trump, slightly daft though he was, because he wasn't yet Hillary, wasn't yet
a neocon robot, and didn't want war with every country he had heard of, apparently meaning a good
half dozen. At least he said he didn't, not yet having been told that he did. In particular, he didn't
want war with Russia. But when the neocons control the media and Congress, they can convince a naive
public of anything and, apparently, the President.
Why is the Hillarification of Trump important? The necessary prior question: What is the greatest
threat to the neocons' American Empire? Answer: The ongoing integration of Eurasia under Chinese
hegemony. The key countries in this are China, Iran, and Russia. (Isn't it curious that, apart from
the momentary distraction of North Korea, these countries have been the focus of New York's hostility?)
In particular if Russia and, through it, China develop large and very profitable trade with Europe,
there goes NATO and with it the Empire.
Oops.
Thus the eeeeeeeeeeek! furor about Russia as existential threat and so on. Thus sending
a few troops to Baltic countries to "deter" Russia. This was theater. The idea that a thousand garrison
troops can stop the Russian army, which hasn't gone silly as ours has, on its doorstep is loony.
Hillary was on board with the Russia hysteria and the globalization and the immigration and so
on. Trump could have screwed the whole pooch by getting along with Russia, so he had to be reconfigured.
And was. A work in progress, but going well.
ORDER
IT NOW
Too much is being asked of him. One man cannot overcome the combined hostility of the media, the
political establishment, the neocons, the myriad other special interests that he has threatened.
Mass immigration is a done deal. China develops and America, already developed, cannot keep up. The
country disintegrates socially. Washington, always depending on war and its threat, faces a new world
in which trade is the weapon, and doesn't know what to do. The culture courses. The world changes.
Yet if only Trump showed some sign of knowing what he is doing, and could remember from day to
day, if only he realized that wars are more easily started than predicted, if only he were not becoming
an unbalanced Hillary.
Yet, apparently, he is.
(Reprinted from
Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
On April 17th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined
"Trump has
lost control over the Pentagon", and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump
is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:
When George W. Bush and Dick Cheney launched their
forever wars - under the banner of a "Global War on Terror" - they unleashed an unholy trinity
of tactics. Torture, rendition, and indefinite detention became the order of the day. After a partial
suspension of these policies in the Obama years, they now appear poised for resurrection.
For eight years under President Obama, this country's forever wars continued, although his administration
retired the expression "war on terror," preferring to describe its war-making more vaguely as
an effort to "
degrade and destroy " violent jihadists like ISIS. Nevertheless, he made major efforts to suspend
Bush-era violations of U.S. and international law, signing executive orders to that effect on the
day he took office in 2009. Executive Order 13491, "Ensuring Lawful Interrogations," closed the CIA's
secret torture centers - the "black sites" - and ended permission for the agency to use what had
euphemistically become known as "enhanced interrogation techniques."
On that same day in 2009, Obama issued Executive Order 13492, designed - unsuccessfully, as it
turned out - to close the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, the site of apparently endless
detention without charges or trials. In 2015, Congress reinforced Obama's first order in a
clause for the
next year's National Defense Authorization Act that limited permissible interrogation techniques
to those described in the U.S. Army Field Manual section on "human intelligence collector operations."
All of that already seems like such ancient history, especially as the first hints of the Trump
era begin to appear, one in which torture, black sites, extraordinary rendition, and so much more
may well come roaring back.
... ... ...
Torture Redux
It should come as no surprise to anyone who paid minimal attention to the election campaign of
2016 that Donald Trump has a passionate desire to bring back torture. In fact, he campaigned on a
platform of committing war crimes of various kinds, occasionally even musing about whether the United
States could
use nukes against ISIS. He
promised to return waterboarding to its rightful place among twenty-first-century U.S. practices
and, as he so eloquently put it, "a hell of a lot worse."
There's no reason, then, to be shocked that he's been staffing his administration with people
who generally feel the same way (Secretary of Defense James "Mad Dog" Mattis
being an obvious exception).
The CIA was certainly not
the only outfit engaged in torture in the Bush years, but it's the one whose practices were most
thoroughly
examined and publicized . Despite his enthusiasm for torture, Trump's relationship with the agency
has, to say the least, been frosty. Days before his inauguration, he responded to revelations of
possible Russian influence on the U.S. election by accusing its operatives of behaving like Nazis,
tweeting: "Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to 'leak' into the public.
One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?"
He quickly appointed a new director of the CIA (as hasn't been true of quite a few other positions
in his administration). He chose former Congressman Mike Pompeo, whose advice about torture he has
also said he would consider seriously. A polite term for Pompeo's position on the issue might be:
ambiguous. During his confirmation hearings, he
maintained that he would "absolutely not" reinstate waterboarding or other "enhanced techniques,"
even if the president ordered him to. "Moreover," he added, "I can't imagine that I would be asked
that."
However, his written replies to the Senate Intelligence Committee told quite a different, far
less forthright tale. Specifically, as the British Independent
reported , he wrote that if a ban on waterboarding were shown to impede the "gathering of vital
intelligence," he would consider lifting it. He added that he would reopen the question of whether
interrogation techniques should be limited to those found in the Army Field Manual. ("If confirmed,
I will consult with experts at the Agency and at other organizations in the U.S. government on whether
the Army Field Manual uniform application is an impediment to gathering vital intelligence to protect
the country.")
In other words, as the Independent observed, if the law prohibits torture, then Pompeo
is prepared to work to alter the law. "If experts believed current law was an impediment to gathering
vital intelligence to protect the country," Pompeo wrote to the Senate committee, "I would want to
understand such impediments and whether any recommendations were appropriate for changing current
law."
Unfortunately for both the president and him, there are laws against torture that neither they
nor Congress have the power to change, including the U.N. Convention against Torture, and the Geneva
Conventions.
Nor is Mike Pompeo the only Trump nominee touched by the torture taint. Take, for instance, the
president's pick for the Supreme Court. From 2005 to 2006, Neil Gorsuch worked in the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Counsel, the wellspring for John Yoo's and Jay Bybee's infamous "
torture memos ."
Gorsuch also
assisted in drafting Bush's "signing statement" on the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act. That act
included an amendment introduced by Senator John McCain prohibiting the torture of detainees. As
the White House didn't want its favorite interrogation methods curtailed, Gorsuch recommended putting
down "a marker to the effect that McCain is best read as essentially codifying existing interrogation
policies."
In other words, the future Supreme Court nominee suggested that the McCain amendment would have
no real effect, because the administration had never engaged in torture in the first place. This
approach was the best strategy, he argued, to "help inoculate against the potential of having the
administration criticized sometime in the future for not making sufficient changes in interrogation
policy in light of the McCain portion of the amendment."
In his brief tenure at the Office of Legal Counsel, Gorsuch
provided further aid to the supporters of torture by, for example, working on government litigation
to prevent the exposure of further "Darby photos." These were the
shocking pictures from
Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison that came into the possession of U.S. Army Sergeant Joe Darby. He then passed
them up the chain of command, which eventually led to the public revelation of the abuses in that
U.S.-run torture palace.
Trump's new attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is also a torture enthusiast. He was one of only
nine senators to vote against the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act. The Act limited the military to the
use of those interrogation methods found in the Army Field Manual. In 2015, he joined just 20 other
senators in opposing an amendment to the next year's military appropriations bill, which extended
the Field Manual rules to all U.S. agencies involved in interrogation, not just the military.
Reviving the Black Sites?
So far, President Trump hasn't had the best of luck with his executive orders. His two travel
bans, meant to keep Muslims from entering the United States, are at present trapped in federal court,
but worse may be in the offing.
Trump promised during the campaign to reopen the CIA's notorious
black sites
and bring back torture. Shortly after the inauguration, a draft executive order
surfaced that was clearly intended to do just that. It rescinded President Obama's orders 13491
and 13492 and directed the secretary of defense and the attorney general, together with "other senior
national security officials," to review the interrogation policies in the Army Field Manual with
a view to making "modifications in, and additions to those, policies." That would mean an end run
around Congress, since it doesn't take an act of that body to rewrite part of a manual (and so reinstitute
torture policy).
It also called on the director of national intelligence, the CIA director, and the attorney general
to "recommend to the president whether to reinitiate a program of interrogation of high-value alien
terrorists to be operated outside the United States and whether such program should include the use
of detention facilities operated by the Central Intelligence Agency." In other words, they were to
consider reopening the black sites for another round of "enhanced interrogation techniques."
As in so many such documents, that draft order included a cover-your-ass clause, in this case
suggesting that "no person in the custody of the United States shall at any time be subjected to
torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, as proscribed by U.S. law." As we
learned in the Bush years, however, such statements have no real effect because, as in a
2002 memo produced
by John Yoo and Jay Bybee, "torture" can be redefined as whatever you need it to be. That memo certified
that, to qualify as torture, the pain experienced by a victim would have to be like that usually
associated with "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or
even death." In other words, if he didn't die or at least come close, you didn't torture him.
After the recent draft executive order on these subjects was leaked to the media and caused a
modest to-do, a later version
appeared to drop the references to black sites and torture. While no final version has yet emerged,
it's clear enough that the initial impulse behind the order was distinctly Trumpian and should be
taken seriously.
As soon as the draft order
surfaced in the press in late January, the White House disclaimed all knowledge of it and no
version of it appears on current lists of Trump executive actions since taking office. But keep in
mind that presidents can issue secret executive orders that the public may never hear about - unless
the news spills out from an administration whose powers of containment so far could be
compared to those of a sieve.
Déjà Vu, Rendition Edition
Notably, neither of Obama's Inauguration Day executive orders addressed extraordinary rendition.
In fact, this was a weapon he preferred to keep available.
What is extraordinary rendition? Ordinary rendition simply means transferring someone from one
legal jurisdiction to another, usually through legal extradition. Rendition becomes "extraordinary"
when it happens outside the law, as when a person is sent to a country with which the United States
does not have an extradition treaty, or when it is likely (or certain) that the rendered person will
be tortured in another country.
In the Bush years, the CIA ran an extraordinary
rendition machine , involving the
kidnapping of terror suspects (sometimes, as it turned out, quite
innocent people
) off the streets of global cities as well as in the backlands of the planet, and sending them
to those brutal CIA black sites or rendering them to torturing regimes around the world.
Rendition continued in a far more limited way during Obama's presidency. For example, a 2013
Washington Post story
described the rendition of three Europeans "with Somali roots" in the tiny African country of
Djibouti and of an Eritrean to Nigeria. The article suggested that, in part because of congressional
intransigence on closing Guantánamo and allowing the jailing and trial of suspected terrorists in
U.S courts, rendition represented "one of the few alternatives" to the more extreme option of simply
killing suspects outright , usually by drone.
Recently, there was news that a Trump associate might have been involved in planning a rendition
of his own. Former CIA Director
James Woolsey
told the Wall Street Journal that, last September, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn
discussed arranging an extralegal rendition with the son-in-law of Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu. At the time, he was serving as an adviser
to the Trump campaign. He later - briefly - served as President Trump's national security adviser.
The target of this potential rendition? Fethullah Gulen, an Islamic cleric who has lived for decades
in the United States. President Erdogan believes that Gulen was behind a 2016 coup attempt against
him and has asked the U.S. to extradite him to Turkey. The Obama administration temporized on the
subject, insisting on examining the actual evidence of Gulen's involvement.
Flynn's foray may have been an instance of potential rendition-for-profit, a plan to benefit one
of his consulting clients. At the time, Flynn's (now-defunct) consulting firm, the Flynn Intel Group,
was working for a Dutch corporation, Inovo, with ties to Erdogan. The client reviewed a draft op-ed
eventually
published in the Hill in which Flynn argued that Gulen should be extradited, because
he is a "radical cleric" and Turkey is "our friend." In addition to
lying about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the election campaign, it turns out
that Flynn was probably
working as an unregistered foreign agent for Turkish interests at that time.
Mike Pompeo also appears to be bullish on renditions. In his
written testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, he indicated that under him the CIA would
probably continue this practice. When asked how the agency would avoid sending prisoners to countries
known to engage in torture, his reply could have come straight from the Bush-Cheney playbook:
"I understand that assurances provided by other countries have been a valuable tool for ensuring
that detainees are treated humanely. In most cases other countries are likely to treat assurances
provided to the United States government as an important matter."
Asking for such assurances has in the past given the U.S. government cover for what was bound
to occur in the prisons of countries known for torture. (Just ask
Maher Arar rendered to Syria
or
Binyam Mohammed rendered to Morocco about what happened to them.)
We'll Always Have Guantánamo
"We'll always have Paris," Rick
reminds Ilsa during their
bittersweet goodbye in the classic film Casablanca . Our Guantánamo lease with Cuba (which
reads, "for use as coaling [refueling] or naval stations only, and for no other purpose") is a permanent
one. So it looks like we'll always have Guantánamo, with its memories of
torture and
murder , and its remaining
41 prisoners,
undoubtedly stranded there forever.
As it happens, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's fingerprints are all over the Bush administration's
Guantánamo policy, too. While at the Office on Legal Counsel, he helped the administration fight
a major legal challenge to that policy in
Hamdan v.
Rumsfeld . In that case , the government argued that detainees at Guantánamo
did not have the right of habeas corpus, that the president has the authority to decide
not to abide by the Geneva Conventions, and that detainees could be tried by military "commissions"
in Cuba rather than by U.S. courts. Given that history, it's unlikely he'd rule in favor of any future
challenge to whatever use President Trump made of the prison.
While on the campaign trail, Trump made it clear that he would keep Guantánamo eternally open.
In a November rally in Sparks, Nevada, he
told a cheering crowd:
"This morning, I watched President Obama talking about Gitmo, right, Guantánamo Bay, which by
the way, which by the way, we are keeping open. Which we are keeping open and we're gonna load it
up with some bad dudes, believe me, we're gonna load it up."
In mid-February, Trump Press Secretary Sean Spicer
reiterated his boss's affection for the prison, when he told the White House press corps that
the president believes it serves "a very, very healthy purpose in our national security, in making
sure we don't bring terrorists to our seas." Perhaps Spicer meant "our shores," but the point was
made. Trump remains eager to keep the whole Guantánamo prison system - including, we can assume,
indefinite detention - up and running as an alternative to bringing prisoners to the United States.
It seems that the head of the Pentagon agrees. In December 2016, retired Marine General (now Secretary
of Defense) James Mattis
told the Senate Armed Services Committee that any detainee who "has signed up with this enemy"
and is captured wherever "the president, the commander-in-chief, sends us" should know that he will
be a "prisoner until the war is over." Given that our post-9/11 military conflicts are truly forever
wars, in Mattis's view, pretty much anyone the U.S. captures in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia,
Yemen, or who knows where else will face at least the possibility of spending the rest of his life
in Guantánamo.
Reading the Tea Leaves
As far as we know, President Trump has yet to green-light his first case of torture or his first
extraordinary rendition, or even to add a single prisoner to the 41 still held at Guantánamo. All
we have for now are his ominous desires and promises - and those of his underlings.
These are enough, however, to give us a clear understanding of his intentions and those of his
appointees. If they can, they will resurrect the unholy trinity of torture, rendition, and indefinite
detention.
The future may not yet be inscribed in Trumpian gold anywhere, but on such matters we should believe
the autocrat.
West does not want to investigate incident in Idlib, Russian
diplomat says
Russian Politics & Diplomacy April 20, 8:28 UTC+3
"We guess that Americans probably have something to hide,
since they persistently want to take the Shayrat airport out
of the investigation," the diplomat said
THE HAGUE, April 20. /TASS/ Western countries do not want to
properly investigate the incident with the possible use of
chemical weapons in the Syrian province of Idlib, Alexander
Shulgin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation
to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
told TASS.
On Wednesday, the meeting of the OPCW Executive Council
took place. During that meeting Russia and Iran submitted a
revised draft proposal for the investigation of the incident
in the Syrian province of Idlib.
However, the United States opposed the visit of the Syrian
Chemical Weapons Detection Mission to the Shayrat airfield,
since it "has nothing to do with the situation," the diplomat
said.
The US delegation "spoke out against the involvement of any
national experts in the work of the mission, they accused
Russia of trying to "mix tracks and lead the investigation to
a dead end."
"But the connection between the incident in Idlib and the
airfield of Shayrat was established by the Americans
themselves, who stated that the Syrian planes had flown from
this airfield," the Permanent Representative stressed.
"Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to determine if sarin
or other chemical munitions were stored there or not," he
stressed.
"Our view is that the Western countries are acting
extremely inconsistently," the Russian diplomat said.
"We guess that Americans probably have something to hide,
since they persistently want to take the Shayrat airport out
of the investigation. Maybe they knew from the start there
was no chemical weapons there, and all this was used only as
an excuse?" he added.
On April 7, US President Donald Trump ordered a strike on
Syria's Shayrat military air base located in the Homs
Governorate. The attack, involving 59 Tomahawk Land Attack
Missiles (TLAM), came as a response to the alleged use of
chemical weapons in the Idlib Governorate on April 4. The US
authorities believe that the airstrike on Idlib was launched
from the Shayrat air base.
"The conclusion of this summary of
data is obvious – the nerve agent attack described in the WHR
did not occur as claimed. There may well have been mass
casualties from some kind of poisoning event, but that event
was not the one described by the WHR."
He is not saying attack did not occur. He is only saying
the way the White House reported it was not entirely
accurate. Yuuuge difference. Like Sean Spicer gets the
details right every time - not.
"This means that the allegedly "high confidence" White House
intelligence assessment issued on April 11 that led to the
conclusion that the Syrian government was responsible for the
attack is not correct.
For such a report to be so egregiously in error, it could
not possibly have followed the most simple and proven
intelligence methodologies to determine the veracity of its
findings.
Since the United States justified attacking a Syrian
airfield on April 7, four days before the flawed National
Security Council intelligence report was released to the
Congress and the public, the conclusion that follows is that
the United States took military actions without the
intelligence to support its decision."
NYT Mocks Skepticism on Syria-Sarin Claims
April 18, 2017
Exclusive: The New York Times and other major media have
ruled out any further skepticism toward the U.S. government's
claim that Syrian President Assad dropped a sarin bomb on a
town in Idlib province, reports Robert Parry.
................
Today, however, particularly on foreign policy issues, the
major U.S. news outlets, such as The New York Times and The
Washington Post, apparently believe there is only one side to
a story, the one espoused by the U.S. government or more
generically the Establishment.
.....................
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/18/nyt-mocks-skepticism-on-syria-sarin-claims/
"judgement is the form
sanctioned in the Revised Version of the Bible, & the OED
prefers the older & more reasonable spelling. Judgement is
therefore here recommended –Fowler p. 310."
The dominant narrative in Moscow is TASS. I guess you work
for them now. BTW - I was doubting the Saddam WMD tale back
in 2002. So take your usual lies somewhere else troll.
Question is, what facts in the Corbett Report were wrong?
Seems to me that they pretty much nailed the contradictions
and hypocrisy of the trumped up charges against Syria.
But that doesn't dissuade pgl from believing everything
that Trump the compulsive liar says! Until Trump bombed
Syria, libruls like pgl didn't believe a word Trump said. Now
they'll believe anything!!!
After a lifetime of watching the US start pointless and
futile wars under false pretenses (Vietnam, Iraq, Libya,
etc.), pgl has no hesitation about gulping down the kool aid
as fast as he can! In fact, libruls like pgl seem absolutely
delighted when money that could be used for socially useful
purposes like education and healthcare get diverted to fight
phantom enemies abroad.
"... The neocons, who have rarely met a slippery military slope they weren't tempted to roll down, embraced wholeheartedly both the strike and its justification. They view it as a first - but absolutely necessary - step toward a new phase of U.S. interventionism of precisely the kind that Bannon and his "nationalist" and Islamophobic allies abhor. ..."
"... During President Obama's two terms in office, he approved 542 such targeted strikes in 2,920 days - one every 5.4 days. From his inauguration through today, President Trump had approved at least 75 drone strikes or raids in 74 days - about one every day. ..."
"... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
It didn't take long for Donald Trump to discover that U.S. foreign policy is about as easy to turn
around as a warship in dry dock. Despite any number of promises to shake things up - during the election
and even in his first days as president - Trump is falling back on some very conventional approaches
to the world.
In the last week, for instance, Trump suddenly discovered that firing a few missiles at a much-hated
target - in this case, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces - can gain him plaudits from across
the political spectrum. Earlier, he said he'd focus American firepower on the Islamic State, not
Assad. He was cautious about intervening in the Syrian civil war.
Now the greenhorn president is heading down a well-worn path: see a problem, fire a missile at
it.
In so doing, Trump has scotched whatever remaining hopes his administration might have had about
negotiating some quick deals with Moscow. The relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin
had already been heading south - as I detailed a couple weeks back in
Shortest Reset Ever
- but now Trump has bloodied one of Russia's most important allies. Bye bye, bromance.
Also this week, after bashing China left and right during his campaign, Trump met with Chinese
Premier Xi Jinping and discovered that, hey, maybe the two countries can get along after all. Virtually
every president in recent memory has gone through a similar transformation. There are no political
costs in criticizing Beijing during an election campaign. But presidents soon discover the considerable
costs of not doing business with China once they occupy the Oval Office.
So much for Trump's promise to proclaim China a currency manipulator extraordinaire.
Meanwhile, some of the more ideological voices in the administration appear to be heading to the
sidelines. Strategic adviser Steve Bannon,
reportedly as a result of his clashes with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, has lost his seat
at the National Security Council and, it seems, even
the trust of the president . K.T. McFarland, once the number two under the disgraced former National
Security Adviser Michael Flynn, is also out, and probably on her way to Singapore. The generals and
the Wall Street execs seem now to have the upper hand.
But Bannon hasn't given up, and the war at the top is far from over. Bannon loves a good fight,
and he's the master of fighting dirty.
The remaking of Donald Trump into a more conventional - and thus, predictable - president is good
news in some quarters. No doubt the foreign policy establishment in Washington, which former president
Barack Obama and his advisers called The Blob, is rejoicing that the new president can be weaned
off his more fanatical delusions (and pumped full of The Blob's own fanatical delusions).
But the New Donald Trump, just like the much-hyped New Coke so many years ago, is just as bad
for our collective health as the old version. Don't be fooled by the ongoing Trump rebrand. The president
is just finding new ways to be toxic.
Striking Syria
Bombardiers have a tradition of writing slogans on the bombs they drop on their enemies. Donald
Trump might as well have scrawled "I'm Not Obama" on the 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles U.S. forces
directed at a Syrian airbase on Friday. The bombardment came in response to a chemical attack the
Assad government allegedly launched a few days earlier against a town in rebel-held Idlib province
that left 69 people dead.
Trump's desire for big wins has previously kept him out of the Syrian conflict and focused instead
on the Islamic State, which has been losing its grip over territory in recent months.
But Trump also wants to demonstrate that he's bigger and better than Barack Obama: He's more popular,
attracted more people to his inauguration, proposed a better health-care plan, has bigger hands,
and so on. Obama failed to attack Syria after a high-profile chemical attack in 2013. Here was an
opportunity for Trump to show his resolve. After sustaining non-stop attacks against his character,
his policies, and his advisers over the last several months, Trump has finally hit back with the
tools that, unfortunately, are now at his disposal.
Yet it was not much of a show of force. The airbase was not damaged enough to prevent the Syrian
government from
restoring it to full operational status within a couple days. And Syrian forces subsequently
re-bombed the very same town that had suffered the chemical attack. The Trump administration has
not followed up with any other demonstrations of power, nor does it seem likely to do so.
The problem isn't so much geopolitical, though the United States risks an outright confrontation
with Russia if it escalates. Rather, the problem for Trump is domestic.
Standard-issue hawks, like
John McCain
(R-AZ) and
Marco Rubio (R-FL), are urging Trump to go the next step toward regime change. So are the neocons,
as Jim Lobe
points out :
The neocons, who have rarely met a slippery military slope they weren't tempted to roll
down, embraced wholeheartedly both the strike and its justification. They view it as a first -
but absolutely necessary - step toward a new phase of U.S. interventionism of precisely the kind
that Bannon and his "nationalist" and Islamophobic allies abhor.
The nationalists and the libertarians have indeed reacted in horror. Richard Spencer, the darling
of the far-right, not only condemned the attack but even suggested that
he would support Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) in 2020 (presumably because she's sat down with both Assad
and Trump, a tyrannical twofer). Ron Paul
wrote that Trump's assertion that the missile attack was vital to U.S. national interests was
"nonsense."
Good luck trying to preserve such a fickle coalition. To do so, Trump will probably refocus his
military attention, as Rex Tillerson
has suggested , on the Islamic State. The limited missile strike accomplished its goal, which
wasn't to cripple Syrian forces in any serious way. Rather, the attack put distance between Trump
and Obama, reminded both Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un that Trump is trigger-happy when necessary, regained
some credit with European allies (France, Germany, and the president of the European Council all
pledged their support ), and did the minimum of damage to warn the Russians not to take Trump
for granted.
In this way, Trump is proving just as reluctant to engage in large-scale military adventures as
his predecessor. Before you rejoice that the wolf has revealed his inner fleece, however, remember
that the Trump administration has been in some ways more willing to use military force than the Obama
administration. As Micah Zenko
wrote at the CFR blog earlier this month:
During President Obama's two terms in office, he approved 542 such targeted strikes in
2,920 days - one every 5.4 days. From his inauguration through today, President Trump had approved
at least 75 drone strikes or raids in 74 days - about one every day.
Moreover, as Michael Klare
points out at The Nation , Trump has "stepped up the delegation of decision-making authority
to senior military officers, making it easier for them to initiate combat operations in a half-dozen
countries."
It's all a question of targets. Until he attacked Syria, Trump was "bombing the shit" out of non-state
actors, as he promised he would. Syria aside, he's not so interested in challenging actual states.
So far, at least.
Trump: What's Next?
As the 100-day mark approaches for the administration, Trump's staff is reportedly desperate for
a rebrand. The first months have been disastrous in so many different ways. RussiaGate remains a
dark cloud over the administration. The travel ban and the health-care substitute were both high-profile
disasters. The mainstream media has savaged Trump on a nearly daily basis.
"One hundred days is the marker, and we've got essentially 2 1/2 weeks to turn everything around,"
one White House official
told Politico . "This is going to be a monumental task."
According to the same article, the administration is divided between those who believe that the
Trump doctrine is "America First" and those who, like Communications Director Mike Dubke, argue that
there is no Trump doctrine.
When it comes to foreign policy, they're both right. The ostensible Trump doctrine is "America
First," but it's not a doctrine. It's an empty slogan. At one level, every administration has adhered
to some version of American exceptionalism and some effort at focusing on the U.S. economy. So, Trump's
special sauce is nothing new.
At another level, Trump has demonstrated that he will make the same concessions to international
realities as his predecessors. He'll negotiate with the Chinese. He'll poke the Russian bear. He'll
engage in showy military attacks. Maximum flexibility equals no doctrine.
The new Trump, then, is the worst of both worlds: blustery nationalism plus the conventional pieties
of the foreign policy establishment. It's certainly a relief that the United States won't go to war
with China any time soon and the U.S. president cares about the deaths of (some) children.
But as tensions escalate with North Korea and Trump's crude counter-terrorism campaign continues,
Mr. America First seems conceptually ill equipped and all-too-committed to business as usual to push
US foreign policy in a peaceful direction and make anyone sleep easy at night. John Feffer is
the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.
Those who blame the Syrian government for the allegedly chemical incident in Khan
Sheikhun are now pushing the analysis of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) to the front. But the results of the OPCW tests are inconsistent with the
observed technical and medical facts of the incident.
The OPCW Director General Ambassador Üzümcü, a Turk, yesterday
released
its first results of his organization:
The bio-medical samples collected from three victims during their autopsy were
analysed at two OPCW designated laboratories. The results of the analysis indicate that
the victims
were exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance
.
Bio-medical samples from seven individuals undergoing treatment at hospitals were also
analysed in two other OPCW designated laboratories. Similarly, the results of these
analyses
indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance
.
Director-General Üzümcü stated clearly: "The results of these analyses from four OPCW
designated laboratories
indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance
.
That's "Sarin or Sarin- like substance" three times a row. Sarin is also mentioned in
the headline. Someone is pushing that meme hard.
But the OPCW did not conclude that a chemical attack occurred in Khan Sheikhun. It
suggested nothing about the incident itself. Instead it talked about bio-medical samples -
nothing more, nothing less.
A "Sarin like substances" could be a different chemical weapon than sarin - soman is
possible. But many general insecticides belong to the same chemical class as sarin and
soman. They are organophosphorus compounds. (Sarin was originally developed as
insecticide). All of such compounds could be a source of the exposure found by by the OPCW.
These chemicals tend to degrade within hours or days. A forensic analysis will not find the
original substance but only decomposition products of some organophosporus compound. That
is the reason why the OPCW result is not fixed on sarin but also mentions "sarin like
substances".
The question is now where those samples come from? And what is the chain of evidence
that connects the samples to the incident in question. The OPCW has not send an
investigation team to Khan Sheikhun. No samples were taken by its own inspectors. While
Russia and Syria have asked for OPCW inspections on the ground, Tahrir al-Sham, the renamed
al-Qaeda in Syria which controls the area, has not asked for inspectors. Without its
agreement any investigation mission is simply too dangerous. None of the OPCW inspectors
are interested in literally losing their heads to those terrorists.
Immediately after the incident bodies of dead and wounded were brought to Turkey where
they were taken into hospital. Al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda aligned personal must have transported
these. It is a three hour trip from Khan Sheikhun to the Turkish border. Unless we trust
the words of al-Qaeda operatives we can not be sure that the corpses delivered were indeed
from Khan Sheikhun.
The incident happened on April 4. An immediate OPCW statement on April 4
referred
to chlorine, not sarin or similar:
The OPCW is investigating the incident in southern Idlib under the on-going mandate of
the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), which is "to establish facts surrounding allegations of
the use of toxic chemicals,
reportedly chlorine
, for hostile purposes
in the Syrian Arab Republic".
The UN Security Council convened on April 6 to discuss the incident. The Turkish
newspaper Hurriyet
reported
:
Turkey sent a report to the United Nations just before a U.N. Security Council meeting
to address accusations that the Syrian government staged a chemical weapons attack on
April 4,
stating that the gas used in the attack was chlorine gas
.
Turkey's Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear teams (KBRN) prepared an
initial report over the possible material of the alleged chemical attack, relying on the
symptoms of and tests conducted on the victims and their testimonies.
The report stated that the initial findings of the tests conducted on around 30
victims brought to Turkey for treatment
pointed to a chlorine gas attack
.
Thirty victims were immediately brought to Turkey after the incident. But the Turkish
doctors and CBRN specialist did not consider sarin, but chlorine gas -a much less potent
chemical- to be involved. (Chlorine is not designated a chemical weapon under the various
chemical warfare regulations. This fact is often obfuscated for pure propaganda reasons. )
The symptoms of chlorine ingestion and the effects of sarin exposure are quite different.
It is extremely unlikely that the emergency doctors and chemical weapon specialists have
misdiagnosed the issue when the patients arrived and were taken care of.
The 30
casualties arriving in Turkey were not the casualties of a sarin incident.
But the Turkish Health Ministry
told
a different story:
The poison used in the deadly chemical bomb attack in a rebel-held part of northern
Syria this week was the banned nerve agent sarin, the Turkish Health Ministry said in a
statement on Thursday.
...
"According to the results of preliminary tests," the statement said, "patients were
exposed to chemical material (Sarin)."
...
The Turkish statement
did not elaborate on how the sarin had been identified
in the assault on Tuesday, but it said some of the
telling symptoms
seen in the victims included "
lung edema
, increase in lung weight and
bleeding in lungs."
From the CDC Emergency Response Database:
At high exposure levels, irritation of the upper respiratory tract and accumulation of
fluid in the lungs (pulmonary edema)
contribute to a sensation of
choking.
The CDC entry
for Sarin
mentions "fluid accumulation in the airways" as one symptom among many more conspicuous
ones. It does not mention an edema of the lungs.
Contradicting the first Turkish reports the Turkish Health Ministry claimed
"sarin" (in parenthesis?!). But the symptom it described as proof was not of sarin but of
chlorine exposure.
The Turkish Justice Minister also
made
a statement but that did not mention sarin at all
Turkish Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag told reporters that "Autopsies were carried out on
three of the bodies after they were brought from Idlib. The results of the autopsy
confirms that chemical weapons were used," quoted by state-run Anadolu news agency.
"This scientific investigation also confirms that Assad used chemical weapons,"
Bozdag added, without giving further details.
...
Bozdag said autopsies were conducted with the "participation" of officials from the
World Health Organization (WHO) in the southern province of Adana together with
officials from Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
But WHO immediately countered Bozdag's claims
that it was involved
in the postmortem, saying the organisation did not conduct autopsies, adding: "It is not
our mandate."
...
[It] also stressed that no samples or swabs had been taken by WHO despite claims by the
Adana prosecutor that "examples" had been sent to the organisation and the OPCW.
The Justice Minister claimed that samples had been given to the WHO and OPCW from the
very first autopsies. But the WHO clearly denies that. I find no OPCW statement on this.
In 2013 a Turkish court, under Justice Minister Bozdag, set one suspected Ahrar al Sham
member
free
after he was caught with sarin precursors. The person was later sentenced in
absentia as he had fled back to Syria. Ahrar al Sham, while not in charge, has a presence
in Khan Sheikhun.
The neuroscientist and neuro-pharmacologist Denis O'Brien, a Ph.D. with a research and
teaching career in that field, analyzed the symtoms of the casualties that were depicted in
the various videos coming out of Khan Sheikhun. His diagnostics and chemical-biological
explanations are humorously titled
Top Ten Ways to Tell
When You're Being Spoofed by a False-Flag Sarin Attack
.
O'Brian notes the total absence of feces, urine, vomit and cyanosis (turning blue) in
the videos. Sarin exposure causes, according to
the CDC
database
"Nausea, vomiting (emesis), diarrhea, abdominal pain, and cramping." Sarin
effected patients would spontaneously shit, peed and vomited all over. But the casualties
in the videos, even the "dead" ones, have clean undies. The "clinic" in the videos has
clean floors. The patients show red skin color, not oxygen deprived blue. The patients in
the videos were not effected by sarin.
Medical personal and rescue workers in the videos (
example
)
and pictures also show none of the typical sarin symptoms. Sarin degrades relatively fast.
Half of the potency will be gone within five hours after release (depending on
environmental factors). But these rescue workers and medical personal were immediately
involved with the casualties. They do not wear any reasonable protection. They would have
been dead or at least effected if sarin would have been involved in any relevant
concentration.
The Turkish doctors and chemical weapon specialists who received the first patients
diagnosed chlorine exposure, not sarin. The first Turkish reports to the UN speak of
chlorine, not sarin. It is only the Turkish Health Minister who mentions sarin - in
parentheses, but then lists a symptom of severe chlorine exposure as one of sarin. Neither
the casualties nor the unprotected medical personal involved in the incident show any
effect of sarin exposure.
Fifteen days after the incident the OPCW say that samples it was given(!) "indicate
exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance".
Turkey has been the supply and support lifeline for Ahrar al Sham as well as for
al-Qaeda in Syria. The samples given to the OPCW were taken by Turkish personal in Turkey.
The current head of the OPCW is a Turkish citizen. It is in the interest of Turkey and its
terrorist clients in Syria to blame the Syrian government for chemical weapon use.
The medical and
technical evidence
is not consistent with a sarin attack by the Syrian government. All
of the videos and pictures of the incident were taken in al-Qaeda controlled territory. All
witnesses were under al-Qaeda control. How much of the incident was staged for videos (see
al-Qaeda doctor video linked above) or how many of the witnesses were told to lie is not
testable under current circumstance. The Syrian government insist that it has given up all
its chemical weapons. The Russian government also asserts that no chemical weapon attack
took place.
The OPCW analysis may well have found that samples it received indicated
organophosphorus exposure. But the chain of evidence for these samples is very dubious.
The observable facts of the incident on the ground
do not support
the conclusion that sarin
was present
in the Khan Sheikhun incident.
Note: Part of the above is based on the work and
tweets
of
Ali Ornek
Posted by b on April 20, 2017 at 03:26 PM |
Permalink
Nice report. Although facts didn't matter with the incubator babies, Benghazi black
mercenaries, WMD, ... it's good to set the record straight for those who are interested
in the truth. It also proves again and again that big party politicians and main stream
media are a bunch of whoring liars.
Oh I do believe the bodies will show sarin.. But they would be christian or alawite
bodies.. Just like the bodies shown in ghouta who were kidnapped victims of al queda.
Who is going to verify the bodies are actual people and who they say they are.. In many
decades of knowing multi racial couples I have never seen blonde white babies as shows
in al queda photos. No woman would be stupid enough to go live in such freedom loving
hell hole like idlib unlike kids who think screwing dozens of jihadis are actually fun.
The Swedish Doctors for Human Rights whose text and video were used at the UNSC
presentation on the topic report: "The response of Western media journalists have also
in occasions taken a bizarre, seemingly desperate character ... Le Figaro indulges in a
series of libellous statements ad-hominem against the messenger of the objective
research-conclusions they dislike," which is a sure sign the Doctors are correct,
http://theindicter.com/libellous-attack-by-mainstream-journalists-angered-by-swedhr-denounce-of-unethical-anti-syria-propaganda/
The Indicter
also published a witness account of the big refugee massacre
bombing, testifying that at least 4 Turkish ambulances were on-site prior to the
explosion, were filled with the children's bodies and took them away, probably for their
organs. Canthama at SyrPers observes: "There is a REAL RISK of children organ
trafficking, this has been a very common sad aspect of the war of aggression against the
Syrians, many children and adults (thousands) were kidnaped and had their organs removed
in Turkey and either for use inside Turkey or shipped to terrorist friendly UK, France,
Germany, US, KSA, Qatar and Israhell. The UN is well aware of this illegal trade and
crime, but as usual double standard is applied as if Syrians are no humans."
[sic]
Putin was right to publicly announce the "attack" to be a False Flag, and it looks
ever more likely the Turkish government played a role and is complicit in a number of
other Syria related crimes of the most vilest.
I wanted to post the Javad Zarif statement you posted at SyrPers because of
its strong condemnation of the Outlaw US Empire's alliance with terrorists, but it's not
yet listed at the Iranian Foreign Ministry's website. Perhaps you could post a link to
where you found it?
The white helmet actor that played the part of father of twins in the
bombing very quickly appeared for photo shoot with Erdogan. Also Bana the seven year old
tweeting from Aleppo, who miraculously escaped Aleppo and then appeared for photo shoot
with Erdogan.
It seems Turkey does play a very direct role, Erdogan personally, working directly with
AQ.
Not forgetting the direct links between Erdogan and the ISIS oil convoys.
the us election was hacked! => the russians are coming! => assad gasses his own people!
all have in common their shrill hysteria and faith-based appeal. they are diammetrically
opposed to reality. but the people who want us to believe this nonsense will not be
denied! the people who want us all to believe include all the western trans-national
corporate mainstream media and, of course, the minority neo-cons for whom they shill.
this shrill minority is bent on continuing their terrorism in syria, ukraine, libya
and elsewhere. the governments of the us/nato/eu and their gcc/il proxies comprise the
early 21st-century axis of evil. they will be defeated by the alliance of the rest of
the countries of the world free of their dominion as the 21st-century unfolds, but their
horrid reign of death, devastation, destruction, and deceit around the world, and in
ukraine and mena especially, will live on in infamy, just as has that of the third reich
and its axis.
thanks b, for articulating what the msm will not.. it doesn't serve there bosses agenda.
look, when someone is going for your jugular, it is a case of surviving however you
can.. the west is like a heroin addict looking for it's next fix. the fix is making war
openly, and if they can't do that - silently.. the msm is just a stooge for them at this
point..
as for the turk throwing this out - if he hasn't gotten a promotion from king erdogan
yet, i would be surprised.. what an embarrassment the turk establishment is at this
point.. that means they will be used more by the west and i do wonder what this means
for the turkey relationship with russia and iran at this point..
already looks questionable when there is no chain of custody, no samples taken from the
site, and no samples from the air force base that was attacked.
already looks questionable when there is no chain of custody, no samples taken from the
site, and no samples from the air force base that was attacked.
It may take awhile, but Erdogan and the Turks will experience blowback in
a big way when the SAA and allies push the terrorists back over the border into Turkey.
Hard to fathom what Putin and Lavrov think about Erdogan at this point as little is
being written or said, other than the MoD's statement on the OPCW report covered by the
TASS link above and Putin's call regarding the election victory on the 18th about which
little was said,
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54330
And unfortunately, the remarks by
Russia's OPCW rep are fully posted at the Foreign Affairs Ministry's website, although
they will sometime,
http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2732765
re: the "Blonde" babies, it looks like peroxide...or perhaps super-strong chlorine. Too
orange/yellow to be real. Also the "father" isn't one of those light-eyed Syrians iykwim.
What really clinched it for me though was the video of the already-dead children,
showing no signs of chemical poisoning, lined up in a row to be filmed. As the cell
phone camera panned over them, the guy realizes one of their heads is lolled to the
side, not facing the camera. Instead of simply repositioning the head, he slaps it into
place, very roughly.
These dead are not mourned by the living who were there to document the event.
Wikileaks posted an unclassified email to Hillary Clinton from her foreign policy advisor, Jake Sullivan
dated February 2012 saying, 'AQ is on our side in Syria'.
The other part of the email published
by
Wikileaks
read:
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05789138 Date: 10/30/2015
AL-ZAWAHIRI URGES MUSLIM SUPPORT FOR OPPOSITION (U) Al-Qaida leader al-Zawahiri called on Muslims
in Turkey and the Middle East to aid rebel forces in their fight against supporters of Syrian President
Asad in an interne video recording. Al-Zawahiri also urged the Syrian people not to rely on the AL,
Turkey, or the United States for assistance.Reuters)
Read the full chain of unclassified emails in that document published by Wikileaks
here
.
"... Will the UN hold U$, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK responsible for this attack which was carried out by their takfiri, jihadist terrorist clients in Syria? ..."
"... I agree. And if the OPCW refuses to do anything, have Bolivia, and other neutral third parties do the testing. Importantly, let's call those so-called White Helmet guys. Interview them and take the blood samples. ..."
"... Agree. It's about keeping the momentum going. The more the warmedia avoids the blatant truth, the more people are going to be turned off by their crap. This story among many, must never be buried. Cheers from New Zealand. ..."
"... Dead children shown only on white helmets videos, not one "rescuer" had correct protective clothing and nobody was affected by poison gas, so there was no gas? But children are dead? Assad was blamed immediately for what reason? The airport was back in use, one day after the attack. 23 Tomahawks hit the airport, 36 Tomahawks went missing? The US media was celebrating this attack which cost the lives of at least 6 people. Surrealistic psychopath behavior - That is the only real fact in this story. ..."
"... The US is allowed to rain down as many Tomahawks/ Hellfires as they want wherever they want as long as they can get away with it. It is called the law of the jungle. If you are weak don' t complain about it. Get nukes, a strong army and be happy about a favourable geography and maybe a strong ally next to you (as North Korea is/was). ..."
"... "It is called the law of the jungle". And it works out very satisfactorily as long as you are on top. Less so when someone else turns out to be more powerful, or unscrupulous, or sneaky. ..."
"... I just have ten fingers so I give up counting the nations the US is having war like actions with. But technically the US has not declared war so it must be at peace right now? ..."
In an another note: Will the UN and its so-called 'security council' condemn the horrific and
barbaric attack on that took the lives of 126 mainly women and children refugee being evacuated
from their villages?
Will the UN hold U$, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK responsible
for this attack which was carried out by their takfiri, jihadist terrorist clients in Syria?
I agree. And if the OPCW refuses to do anything, have Bolivia, and other neutral third parties
do the testing. Importantly, let's call those so-called White Helmet guys. Interview them and
take the blood samples.
Agree. It's about keeping the momentum going. The more the warmedia avoids the blatant truth,
the more people are going to be turned off by their crap. This story among many, must never be
buried.
Cheers from New Zealand.
Dead children shown only on white helmets videos, not one "rescuer" had correct protective
clothing and nobody was affected by poison gas, so there was no gas? But children are dead?
Assad was blamed immediately for what reason? The airport was back in use, one day after the attack.
23 Tomahawks hit the airport, 36 Tomahawks went missing? The US media was celebrating this attack
which cost the lives of at least 6 people. Surrealistic psychopath behavior - That is the only
real fact in this story.
The US is allowed to rain down as many Tomahawks/ Hellfires as they want wherever they want
as long as they can get away with it. It is called the law of the jungle. If you are weak don'
t complain about it. Get nukes, a strong army and be happy about a favourable geography and maybe
a strong ally next to you (as North Korea is/was).
If you let the NeoConNazis (or Israelis, if you are close by) take your nukes you are one step
closer to get disposed of (see Lybia, Syria, Iraq). From the 7 countries (as in 7 countries in
5 years) several ones have been already attacked but progress was kinda slow and we haven't seen
vibrant democracies yet:
-Iraq: broken apart into a US friendly Kurdish, an Iran friendly Shia and an ISIS territory
-Syria: Civial war being waged, divided into loyalist, AlQuaeda,ISIS and Kurdish part
-Lebanon: Civil war incited by Saudi Arabia, stopped by Hisbollah
-Libya: Complete clusterfuxx thanks to Hillary Clinton wanting to have a lasting moment as
US secretary of foreign affairs
-Somalia: Who put that on a list? It was already a complete mess in 2001
-Sudan: Friends of China as well as Saudi Arabia - are allowed to butcher whomever they want
as long as they are Christian
-Iran: Prevented attack by letting the US military bleed out in Iraq. Were already outflanked
in Iraq and Afghanistan. No need to take actions in Afghanistan, as Pakistan's ISI made sure the
US bleeds there too.
Ah, let' s start war in a different country, why not in North Korea. What are the odds it could
go south?
The North Koreans killed 55000 American soldiers and marines in that war without mercy.
McCain´s father was singing like a songbird but the rice eaters hanged him anyway because they
were against freedom.
55000 dead americans? Do you know that 55000 Americans are not a lot compared to a total of
more then 3 million deaths, most of them civilians? Most north korean cities were leveled by US
bomber attacks. There were many massacres with more then 10000 dead civilians - committed by South
Korean troops supported by the US. And also many atrocities committed directly by US soldiers.
Same thing was repeated in Vietnam, except that especially the northern part of Korea was well
industrialized so there was a stark contrast when the got bombed back to the stone age.
Have you ever been to Jeju-Do? It is a cute little island - many South Koreans have spent their
honeymoon their. In 1948 the South Korean strongmen president (who has been in exile in the US)
made sure that everybody with suspected communist ties went to a camp. And some of these internment
camps became death camps and about 20000 Koreans lost their life. Way to go! USA! USA! USA!
So you stupid racist pig, calling asians rice eaters and crying about 55000 souls while many
more people died by their hand: have a look at history and when maybe to think before supporting
any kind of stupid war that just benefits the MIC...
"It is called the law of the jungle". And it works out very satisfactorily as long as you are on top. Less so when someone else turns
out to be more powerful, or unscrupulous, or sneaky.
If a major US city were to disappear in a thermonuclear explosion, or to be immersed in a cloud
of poison gas or deadly virus, the USA would not have a leg to stand on in protest.
International law and the UN Charter unambiguously state that the only justified reasons for
attacking another country are a UN mandate to use force, or self-defence against a country that
has already attacked you. There are no exceptions.
So we must conclude that the USA is now at war with at least several dozen nations. Go on,
count the nations that the USA has attacked with military force since (let's say) 1945.
Any one (or more) of those nations has the right, under international law, to commit acts of
war against the USA. Including (now I come to think of it) North Korea, with whom the USA never
agreed a treaty of peace.
I just have ten fingers so I give up counting the nations the US is having war like actions
with. But technically the US has not declared war so it must be at peace right now?
The only wars fought I personally remember are the war on the middle class and the war against
Xmas. Maybe also the the war against free speech called political correctness, something I liked
about Trump... ;-)
But Trump succeeded to kill 4 children and 8 civilians in his Tomahawk attack on a Syrian Airport
and related village as revenge for a staged fake, while he was crying Assad is "an animal who
kill beautyful babies".
"... What has happened is one of two things as far is Trump is concerned. Either he walked into a trap prepared for him by the Deep state, willingly or unwillingly. If willingly he knew he was set up and accepted it because he has no choice. He could not disobey the military. They have their own agenda in Syria which they had been pursuing for a while, that is carving out American zone of occupation in eastern Syria with the help of Sunny states. ..."
"... Or Trump simply capitulated to the deep state as Obama did before him. ..."
"... Did people like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along? ..."
"... Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up, N Korea and then Iran? ..."
100 Words This whole chemical weapon attack by Assad sounds fishy from the beginning. From what I read Assad is winning the
civil war and things are turning for the better for him. What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian
populations? Things just doesn't add up. Check out this video:
Am I the only person who remembers news from a month ago? Trump ordered hundreds of regular American combat troops into Syria
BEFORE this event, with no explanation. This was covered on all major networks, including CNN.
100 Words I am forced to conclude that the neoconservatives and indeed all of Washington DC are eager to go to war. They are
just itching for any excuse to start yet another war in a nation of their choosing.
If there is no good reason, they will make one up. There is an eerie resemblance to what is happening now with Syria and what
happened leading up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
I think the paleoconservative community also needs to come to terms with the fact that Trump has sold them out and is increasingly
acting like a Washington insider neocon. Trump did to the paleoconservatives what Obama did to the left.
It seems Trump will not put "America First" nor make any attempts to restore the American Middle Class nor American manufacturing
to truly "Make American Great Again".
Tulsi Gabbard seems to be one of the few principled politicians in this case and for that she is marginalized for saying what
few others have the moral courage to say. Many on the left are hoping she will run in 2020 for President.
Coming from the left, I'd say that the Sanders and Trump base have a lot more in common than we admit. We are both deeply unhappy
with the way that Washington has handled things. They basically betrayed the American people and enriched themselves at public
expense.
The real question is, can the US be saved for the people or will it continue on its path to terminal decline?
100 Words Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened
there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people
on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole
analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people
who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media?
100 Words What is your view of David Kilcullen, what he knows about, and what his views are worth? No doubt "modified" or
" qualified" respect but it is the qualifications and the reasons for them that I am interested in. When I've got round tobfinishing
his article saying Assad is desperate and losing I'll probably be back.
The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then
had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty
was to the mafia.
It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.
And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.
600 Words Proof of the false-flag nature of the 'chemical attack' in Syria absurdly ascribed to Assad's forces -
Above all because of a very-censored explosive story – a distinguished group of Swedish doctors showed that the George Clooney
& Western-backed 'White Helmets' in fact made a snuff film actually murdering children of this 'chemical attack' anyone can invite
medical physicians they know to view this, to see the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are absolutely correct in their accusations:
(1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened – Tweet , "Tomorrow
a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"
(2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack
(3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack had occurred
(4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was taking interview requests instead
of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping
& torturing two British journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"
(5) The USA & CIA were previously documented as having approved a "plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria & blame it
on Assad's regime' A 2013 article on this is deleted from the UK Daily Mail website, but is saved at Web Archive, a screenshot
at Aangirfan's page above
(6) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown
up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping
sarin gas on orphanages videos shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."
(7) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi
backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos
in places like Egypt & Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".
(8) The 2013 gas attack in Syria killing over 1000 people, was also proven to be an operation by USA & allies, with admissions
to this effect by Turkish Members of Parliament The operation even involved the CIA's Google Inc monopoly search control internet
domination tool, via their subsidiary Google Idea Groups & Jared Cohen:
In 2014, the later-murdered journalist Serena Shim "stumbled upon a safehouse run by Jared Cohen & Google Idea Groups, a short
distance from a border crossing into Syria between Hatay, Turkey & Aleppo province in Syria. In the safehouse were three Ukrainian
secret service who had just buried a load of sarin gas shells from the Republic of Georgia. Chemical weapons used in the Ghouta
war crime were trucked through Turkey to Gaziantep then taken from there to Aleppo by NGOs, hidden in ambulances or in trucks
supposedly carrying relief aid. After Shim broke this story on PressTV the clumsily-staged 'accident' leading to her death only
a few days later."
By way of motive – Destruction of Syria & Assad serves the long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to destroy
& dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel, in general service to the world oligarchs. Plus, there are major
US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria – Assad's fall is sought for changing from the Russia-supported pipeline
from Iran thru Iraq & Syria, to the USA-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria.
What has happened is one of two things as far is Trump is concerned. Either he walked into a trap prepared for him by
the Deep state, willingly or unwillingly. If willingly he knew he was set up and accepted it because he has no choice. He could
not disobey the military. They have their own agenda in Syria which they had been pursuing for a while, that is carving out American
zone of occupation in eastern Syria with the help of Sunny states.
Or Trump simply capitulated to the deep state as Obama did before him. If that is the case we know now how American
is governed, by the military industrial complex that dictates its policy. The sad part is that the Constitution is disregarded
once again, that the Liberals who used to be peaceniks, are now cheering for war, that the UN is marginalized, that Trump uses
it just as Bush did to justify an illegal war.
Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing.
Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the
village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use
the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the
stable door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling
as for the Assad regime having ordered it .
Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from
the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power
for the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the
country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]
But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon
has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as
it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year,
the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.
Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved
robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep
structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize
the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative
unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought
to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure
of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than
Lebanon.[...]
The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical
data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of
cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called
tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the
evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.
[...]
Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos,
and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form
of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy
to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the
harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms,
a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.
THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD
The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic
risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.
This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack
on Syria
A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"
Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why
he is in this position– he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad
perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors
have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.
I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media
know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well
and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the
Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence
facilities.
The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant
of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will
continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity
that has dogged the new administration.
For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a
real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision
making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched,
while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for
what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe.
@Carlton Meyer
Am I the only person who remembers news from a month ago? Trump ordered hundreds of regular American combat troops into Syria
BEFORE this event, with no explanation. This was covered on all major networks, including CNN.
Jewish AIPAC Israel firster Jared Kushner and his fellow Jewish AIPAC Israel first friends (like Reed Cordish who worked for
Israel Lobby lackey Dick Cheney as well) whom he brought into the White House more than likely influenced Trump to push the Israel
Lobby agenda vs Syria for regime change to weaken Iran:
More on Kushner and his fellow AIPAC Israel firster at the White House obviously influencing Trump to push the Israel Lobby
agenda like he did with Syria as I heard Netanyahu praised the Syriaattack and Pence personally telephoned to thank him:
@Sean Russia
was having too much success, they needed to understand that the US is not going to stand by any longer and wait to see. INORITE!
I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.
It certainly appears to have been a manufactured event. The media was ready and swung into action immediately with pictures
and a noisy campaign that the usual war-hawk politicians joined in with. The timing was just too good and seems to have been coordinated.
Syria was bombed without bothering to investigate based on Trump's claim that the evidence was ironclad.
Did people like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was
fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along?
Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up,
N Korea and then Iran?
No matter how one votes they end up getting the same thing. It's very disheartening.
The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then
had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty
was to the mafia.
It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.
And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.
So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.
Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel. Putin is the real weasel, and problem in Russia.
He's corrupt to his core and has his own vision for Russia which is quite destructive. His Soviet revanchism is a serious problem
for Russia and has set the country up for a serious fall. Read More LOL:
geokat62 Troll:
L.K ,
Rurik
@Brabantian
Proof of the false-flag nature of the 'chemical attack' in Syria absurdly ascribed to Assad's forces -
Above all because of a very-censored explosive story - a distinguished group of Swedish doctors showed that the George Clooney
& Western-backed 'White Helmets' in fact made a snuff film actually murdering children of this 'chemical attack' ... anyone can
invite medical physicians they know to view this, to see the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are absolutely correct in their
accusations:
(1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened - Tweet , "Tomorrow
a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"
(2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack
(3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack had occurred
(4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was taking interview requests instead
of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping
& torturing two British journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"
(5) The USA & CIA were previously documented as having approved a "plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria & blame it
on Assad's regime' ... A 2013 article on this is deleted from the UK Daily Mail website, but is saved at Web Archive, a screenshot
at Aangirfan's page above
(6) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown
up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama ... [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping
sarin gas on orphanages ... videos shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."
(7) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi
backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos
in places like Egypt & Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".
(8) The 2013 gas attack in Syria killing over 1000 people, was also proven to be an operation by USA & allies, with admissions
to this effect by Turkish Members of Parliament ... The operation even involved the CIA's Google Inc monopoly search control internet
domination tool, via their subsidiary Google Idea Groups & Jared Cohen:
In 2014, the later-murdered journalist Serena Shim "stumbled upon a safehouse run by Jared Cohen & Google Idea Groups, a short
distance from a border crossing into Syria between Hatay, Turkey & Aleppo province in Syria. In the safehouse were three Ukrainian
secret service who had just buried a load of sarin gas shells from the Republic of Georgia. Chemical weapons used in the Ghouta
war crime were trucked through Turkey to Gaziantep then taken from there to Aleppo by NGOs, hidden in ambulances or in trucks
supposedly carrying relief aid. After Shim broke this story on PressTV ... the clumsily-staged 'accident' leading to her death
only a few days later."
By way of motive - Destruction of Syria & Assad serves the long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to destroy
& dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel, in general service to the world oligarchs. Plus, there are major
US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria - Assad's fall is sought for changing from the Russia-supported pipeline
from Iran thru Iraq & Syria, to the USA-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria. Sarin is a nerve agent
and if that is what was used, gas masks are far less than what is needed to protect anyone.
Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority
like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:
There is no reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom.
However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al
Qaeda affiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately
lacking manpower.
Does PG subscribe to the popular contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't
hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack?
Is it possible that Trump and Putin cooked up this little show simply to give Trump more credibility in his approaching confrontation
with North Korea?
Z-man ,
April 18, 2017 at 2:53
pm GMT
@Anon Get
a load of this a**hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.
He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.
But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can posture as a 'voice of reason'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhyD-fPS0vs
And there is the other esteemed 'voice of reason', Thomas Friedman, who wants war in Syria to go on, even if ISIS kills more
innocents.
The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then
had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty
was to the mafia.
It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.
And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano
So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.
Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel. What's the common denominator to these two ??????
"Democratic Party liberal interventionists have also joined with Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Marco Rubio to
celebrate the cruise missile strike and hardening rhetoric."
@utu Why'd
there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up
by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground?
We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based
on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being
propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? " picture he found somewhere on social media."
If you check closely, I think you will find that Postol took that photo from the White House issued document presenting the
"evidence"(not!) of Syrian responsibility(not!) for the sarin(?) gas attack. Thus that photo represents the on-the-record official
story w/official "evidence".
Far from being some randomly acquired photo taken from social media and originating who knows where. And to take it one discrediting
step further, it turns out the photo was provided by the al Qaeda terrorists - the CIA's client anti-Assad terrorists - who control
that area.
Bottom line: From the first, this was an ***OBVIOUS*** false flag. The only question remaining is whether the CIA coordinated
with al Qaeda in planning this event.
100 Words Remember WMD and Saddam? What did the top papers say after Colin Powell's speech to the UN "proving" that Iraq had
WMD?
New York Times: "[Powell's speech] may not have produced a 'smoking gun," but it left little question that Mr. Hussein had
tried hard to conceal one."
Wall Street Journal: "The Powell evidence will be persuasive to anyone who is still persuadable. The only question remaining
is whether the U.N. is going to have the courage of Mr. Powell's convictions."
Washington Post: "To continue to say that the Bush administration has not made its case, you must now believe that Colin Powell
lied in the most serious statement he will ever make "
200 Words @Wizard
of Oz Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority
like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:
Thete is mo reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom.
However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al
Qaeda afiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately
lacking manpower.
Does PG subscrtobe to the populsr contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't
hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack? Hi Wiz,
I think it is quite clear, that with the assistance of the Russian military, the Syrian army has mounted multiple strategic
victories against ISIS over the past year and a half.
The entry of Russia into the fray, at the request of Syria, provided a very deep reservoir of enhanced military power which
has shown to be highly effective in degraded both Al Qaeda and ISIS on multiple fronts.
It seems as absurd now , as it did in 2013, that Assad would do the ONE THING that would force the hand of the US military
to enter the fray against him.
I also doubt the notion of the Syrian regimes "desperation" given the complete cooperation of Russia in providing any assistance
the Syrian army might need , to achieve victory against ISIS.
One could argue, however ,that Assad is truly "bonehead" stupid.
Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing.
Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the
village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the
gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable
door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for
the Assad regime having ordered it .
Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
Purchase Article
Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the
upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for
the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's
people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]...
But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon
has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as
it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year,
the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.
Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved
robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep
structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize
the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative
unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought
to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure
of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than
Lebanon.[...]
The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical
data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of
cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called
tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the
evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.
[...]
Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos,
and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form
of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy
to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the
harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms,
a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.
THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD
The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic
risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.
This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack
on Syria
A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"
Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why
he is in this position-- he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad
perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors
have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.
I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media
know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well
and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the
Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence
facilities.
The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant
of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will
continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity
that has dogged the new administration.
For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real
defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision
making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched,
while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for
what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe.
"The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while
Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what
they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe."
Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea,
ROW) have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted
up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. Then again, I live outside the US and am not blanketed
with the propaganda that spills out of its MSM house organs, so we have indeed observed two different worlds.
Read More
@utu Why'd
there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up
by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground?
We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based
on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being
propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? You won't find it by looking at CNN / ZNN.
100 Words NEW!
@Wizard of Oz
Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority
like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:
Thete is mo reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom.
However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al
Qaeda afiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately
lacking manpower.
Does PG subscrtobe to the populsr contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't
hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack? Kilcullen is well compensated by those who support the Establishment narrative on Syria
and everywhere else in the Middle East so he does indeed have an agenda. Most intel and military types that I have spoken to agree
that after the retaking of Aleppo al-Assad is winning and will eventually win. Did he nevertheless stage the chemical attack on
Idbil? I don't know. Let's see the evidence. Somebody obviously knows that happened.
Read More
@Quartermaster
Putin is the real weasel, and problem in Russia. He's corrupt to his core and has his own vision for Russia which is quite
destructive. His Soviet revanchism is a serious problem for Russia and has set the country up for a serious fall. Putin is so
bad for Russia that the Russians overwhelmingly support him.
600 Words @Jeff
Davis "...picture he found somewhere on social media."
If you check closely, I think you will find that Postol took that photo from the White House issued document presenting the
"evidence"(not!) of Syrian responsibility(not!) for the sarin(?) gas attack. Thus that photo represents the on-the-record official
story w/official "evidence".
Far from being some randomly acquired photo taken from social media and originating who knows where. And to take it one discrediting
step further, it turns out the photo was provided by the al Qaeda terrorists -- the CIA's client anti-Assad terrorists -- who
control that area.
After Pompeo's prepared remarks, Juan Zarate queried the director on the Syria attack/s, starting his questions with comment
on the rapidity with which "assessments were made." (Zarate is now at CSIS after proving his neoconservative bona fides as a charter member of Stuart Levey's Treasury Department
"guerrillas in grey suits" - the gang that deploys financial blackmail to coerce international banks and corporations to join
the US in constraining their commerce with states the USA does not like.)
Pompeo responded to Zarate's request for "behind the scenes" description of how the assessments were made:
"We were in short order able to deliver a high confidence assessment that it was the Syrian regime that had launched chemical
attacks against its own people. Not me, Our Team, not just the CIA, the entire intelligence community was good and fast and
we challenged ourselves. I can assure you we were challenged by the President and his team. We wanted to make sure we had it
right. There's not much like when the president looks at you and says, Are you sure? When you know he's contemplating an action
based on the analysis your organization has provided, and we got it right and I'm proud of the work that get to have the president
have the opportunity to make a good decision about what he ought to do in the face of the atrocity that took place. "
Zarate did not register dissatisfaction with this non-response; instead, he accepted the assessment as conclusive. Then he
escalated the discussion:
"What do you make of the Russian disputation of those conclusions? Bashar Al-Assad calling this a fabrication, the entire
event. It's a battle of legitimacy and proof. How do you deal with that?"
To which Pompeo delivered the money-quote:
They're challenges. There are things we were able to use to form the basis of our conclusion that we cannot reveal.
That is always tricky, but we've done our best and I think over time we can reveal a bit more. Everyone saw
the open source photos, so we had reality on our side. "
So apparently Pompeo and the "entire intelligence community" used the same photos that Dr. Postol examined exhaustively, but
reached a different conclusion; they believe that the photos reflect "reality" and support their interpretation of events as fingering
the Syrian government as perpetrators of the "red-line" "atrocity."
Pompeo spent the next few minutes derogating Russia and Putin, stating that "Russia is on its sixth or seventh version of the
story," and that "Putin is not a credible man . . . a man for whom veracity does not translate into English." (I think he meant
"into Russian . . . .")
Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing.
Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the
village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the
gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable
door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for
the Assad regime having ordered it .
Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
Purchase Article
Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the
upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for
the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's
people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]...
But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon
has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as
it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year,
the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.
Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved
robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep
structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize
the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative
unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought
to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure
of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than
Lebanon.[...]
The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical
data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of
cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called
tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the
evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.
[...]
Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos,
and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form
of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy
to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the
harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms,
a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.
THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD
The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic
risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.
This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack
on Syria
A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"
Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why
he is in this position-- he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad
perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors
have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.
I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media
know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well
and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the
Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence
facilities.
The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant
of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will
continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity
that has dogged the new administration.
For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real
defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision
making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched,
while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for
what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You don't source your quotes, and you're ideologically driven by a form of crypto anti-socialism revealed in you're basic premise
that centralized planning created the vulnerability that brought down Saddam and now threatens Assad.
Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert
and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist
control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country,
Oded Yinon regime change program.
The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the
Zionist criminal project. And you, are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist. Read
More Agree: Z-man
@utu Why'd
there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up
by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground?
We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based
on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being
propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? How do we know it wasn't YOU? Prove it. I want pictures, names.
Read More utu ,
April 18, 2017 at 6:43
pm GMT
200 Words @The
Anti-Gnostic How do we know it wasn't YOU? Prove it. I want pictures, names. It's not about proving things. It is about narrative
control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that
bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing
instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's
intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media
can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report. So what's going on there? Don't they want
to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey,
Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid guys you pay extra, right?
Read More Sean ,
April 18, 2017 at 6:49
pm GMT
"The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while
Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what
they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe."
Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea, ROW)
have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted
up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. Then again, I live outside the US and am not blanketed
with the propaganda that spills out of its MSM house organs, so we have indeed observed two different worlds.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/marines-raqqa-assault-syria/
Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in
the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
So far it's been a Big Media claim, too. To the point of at least one piece (in The Atlantic , IIRC) poo-pooing the
idea that the Big Media Narrative could be wrong.
even though Damascus had no motive to stage such an attack
I'm tired of reading this and seeing no explanation. I'd like to see that assertion supported. I'd like it to come from you,
Phil, because so far, in my experience, you seem to be the most reasonable US-skeptic writer at TUR.
It isn't self-explanatory. Chemical weapons have their uses, like clearing out heavily fortified urban areas that would be
costly to clear the old fashioned way. Weighed against Trump's ostensible goal to stay out of Syria and drop the insane "Assad
must go" rhetoric of the previous administration, it might've been tempting. Which is why I would like to know more about the
target area and circumstances. But nobody seems to give a shit. I suppose it might have a lot to do with the fact that there are
(or were, last I heard) no journalists in Syria. But if we simply don't know much about the target area, maybe we should stop
assuming hitting it with chemical weapons had no utility.
Principled and eminently sensible Democratic Congressman Tulsi Gabbard
Those principles being "don't invade the world, invite the world," I presume?
There have been two central documents relating to the alleged Syrian chemical weapon incidents in 2013 and 2017, both of
which read like press releases. Both refer to a consensus within the U.S. intelligence community (IC)and express "confidence"
and even "high confidence" regarding their conclusions but neither is actually a product of the office of the Director of National
Intelligence, which would be appropriate if the IC had actually come to a consensus. Neither the Director of National Intelligence
nor the Director of CIA were present in a photo showing the White House team deliberating over what to do about Syria. Both
documents supporting the U.S. cruise missile attack were, in fact, uncharacteristically put out by the White House, suggesting
that the arguments were stitched together in haste to support a political decision to use force that had already been made.
The American Security Apparatus can shove their consensus up their asses anyway. Why should the American public take their
word for anything?
Generally reliable journalist Robert Parry is reporting that the intelligence behind the White House claims comes largely
from satellite surveillance, though nothing has been released to back-up the conclusion that the Syrian government was behind
the attack, an odd omission as everyone knows about satellite capabilities and they are not generally considered to be a classified
source or method.
And there are huge, consistent gaps in satellite coverage (and always have been, last I heard) that everyone and their mother
knows about, meaning, it would be trivial for anyone to plan an attack when the satellites can't see. If Parry is right, then
it sounds like the administration has jack shit. "Satellite surveillance" is the last source I'd find persuasive or conclusive
in this context.
Parry also cites the fact that there are alternative theories on what took place and why, some of which appear to originate
with the intelligence and national security community, which was in part concerned over the rush to judgment by the White House.
So this really is shaping up to all be a bunch of "Wag The Dog/I bombed Serbia to distract from my kosher blowjob scandal"
bullshit. Great.
The al-Ansar terrorist group (affiliated with al-Qaeda) is in control of the area
Meaning, this "innocent civilians" mantra we've been hearing from Big Media is bullshit.
Read More
@utu It's
not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish
report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that
Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they have means,
right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications between Al
Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report.
So what's going on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's fight in
the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid
guys you pay extra, right? Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with a fence post. At least I found the the fence post
truthful, unlike you. I can't imagine you to be able to make humanitarian decisions based on your impatience and impudence.
Read More Z-man ,
April 18, 2017 at 7:12
pm GMT
100 Words @Jeff
Davis You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't source your quotes, and you're ideologically driven by a form
of crypto anti-socialism revealed in you're basic premise that centralized planning created the vulnerability that brought down
Saddam and now threatens Assad.
Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast -- what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad -- is US/Zionist
covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting
in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the
7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program.
The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the
Zionist criminal project. And you,... are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist.
What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert and
overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist
control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country,
Oded Yinon regime change program.
The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the
Zionist criminal project.
@bike-anarchist
Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with a fence post. At least I found the the fence post truthful, unlike you.
I can't imagine you to be able to make humanitarian decisions based on your impatience and impudence. You found it impudent for
me calling Russian media and Russia's propaganda machine inept and indolent? You must be one of those who drank Putin's Kool-Aid
and is now patiently awaiting his 2nd coming and saving us all from the grips of the NWO, right?
Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments Svigor ,
April 18, 2017 at 7:20
pm GMT
400 Words I think the take-home point for anyone who does his own thinking is that Trump acted so quickly (36 hours) that
the evidence should be overwhelming and incontrovertible. The evidence forthcoming has been shit. Ergo, it seems very clear that
Trump had no valid reason to act as he did.
What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian populations?
Either the area is full of innocent civilians, or it's an al-Qaeda stronghold.
Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there
backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people
on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole
analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people
who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media?
The Russians are going to need a lot more than counter-propaganda. I trust them even less than I trust western Big Media. Hard
evidence or go home.
Agent76, nobody who will trust globalresearch.ca needs to have their link cited, they'll know about it already, being Konspiracy
Kooks. Nobody else is gonna buy that junk.
Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port.
Illegal, schmellegal. It's perfectly legit realpolitik. If Ukraine didn't want Russia taking back what was hers, she shouldn't
have jumped into bed with hostile powers. Seriously, if you'd asked a Ukrainian on independence day what would happen in the current
circumstances, they could have painted you an accurate picture.
"We were in short order able to deliver a high confidence assessment that it was the Syrian regime that had launched chemical
attacks against its own people. Not me, Our Team, not just the CIA, the entire intelligence community was good and fast and
we challenged ourselves. I can assure you we were challenged by the President and his team. We wanted to make sure we had it
right. There's not much like when the president looks at you and says, Are you sure? When you know he's contemplating an action
based on the analysis your organization has provided, and we got it right and I'm proud of the work that get to have the president
have the opportunity to make a good decision about what he ought to do in the face of the atrocity that took place. "
Not withstanding our Presidents "rush to judgement" tomahawk strike against the Assad regime last week, there should be very
strong indications to our main stream media, that they are being abandoned by tens of millions of Americans across our country
who no longer accept the medias willingness to defraud us ,at nearly every turn.
I was an avid reader of the the NY Times, for over 25 years, and I watched the nightly news all the time.
When we were all told by these media outlets in the run up to the Iraq war, that Saddam had launched an anthrax attack against
our news rooms and our capitol I believed it completely 100%..without any reason in my own mind why I shouldn't .
Once the war began, and the attribution to Saddam of the anthrax attack quickly collapsed , I felt defrauded by those who I
had always trusted to be honest, most especially on issues of war and peace.
In 2013,when the Ghouta Sarin attack was attributed to Assad by these very same pundits, the memory of the phony Saddam anthrax
attribution reared its ugly head, and with good reason.
If they were lying then why aren't they lying now ?
I think our media has proven itself, scores of times, over the last fifteen years, to be, at best, disingenuous and at worst
complicit in acts of war fraud and terror fraud which have taken the lives of millions of innocent people and cost our country
tens of trillions of dollars.
There is no reason why I , nor any American, should be happy about this.
Whats worse is they have displayed such enormous contempt for all the tens of millions of innocent families who have suffered
on account of their deceits that they have lost an overwhelming amount of respect from me,as well as, I imagine, countless others.
Our Big Media can only cry "wolf" so many times before they are greeted by everyone with the middle finger.
100 Words President KUSHNER and his faithful toady Trump sure are busy these days. In between bites of chocolate cake, they
are arming the terrorists and bombing Syrian civilians.
Over 50 Civilians Killed, Injured in US-Led Coalition Airstrikes in Eastern Syria
There's one reason the USA is stuck in endless ME wars, with no end in sight. American troops are fighting and dying for
Apartheid Israel, and our wealth is being spent on the same.
"iffen," the eff'n Israeli disinfo troll, is always trying to slip one in. always trying to slip one in
Thanks to you RobinG I get a White House propaganda blurb "slipped" into my email every day or so. The decent thing for you
to have done would have been to warn me not to use my actual email address.
BTW. the commies have been trying to get a warm water port since the beginning of the Cold War.
Read More
There are three basic configurations in which these agents are stored. The first are self-contained munitions like projectiles,
cartridges, mines, and rockets; these can contain propellant and/or explosive components. The next form are aircraft-delivered
munitions. This form never has an explosive component.[41] Together they comprise the two forms that have been weaponized and
are ready for their intended use. The U.S. stockpile consisted of 39% of these weapon ready munitions. The final of the three
forms are raw agent housed in one-ton containers. The remaining 61%[41] of the stockpile was in this form.[56] Whereas these
chemicals exist in liquid form at normal room temperature,[41][57] the sulfur mustards H, and HD freeze in temperatures below
55 °F (12.8 °C). Mixing lewisite with distilled mustard lowers the freezing point to −13 °F (−25.0 °C).[48]
Higher temperatures are a bigger concern because the possibility of an explosion increases as the temperatures rise. A fire
at one of these facilities would endanger the surrounding community as well as the personnel at the installations.[58] Perhaps
more so for the community having much less access to protective equipment and specialized training.[59] The Oak Ridge National
Laboratory conducted a study to assess capabilities and costs for protecting civilian populations during related emergencies,[60]
and the effectiveness of expedient, in-place shelters.[61]
Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the
village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
So far it's been a Big Media claim, too. To the point of at least one piece (in The Atlantic , IIRC) poo-pooing the idea
that the Big Media Narrative could be wrong.
even though Damascus had no motive to stage such an attack
I'm tired of reading this and seeing no explanation. I'd like to see that assertion supported. I'd like it to come from you, Phil,
because so far, in my experience, you seem to be the most reasonable US-skeptic writer at TUR.
It isn't self-explanatory. Chemical weapons have their uses, like clearing out heavily fortified urban areas that would be
costly to clear the old fashioned way. Weighed against Trump's ostensible goal to stay out of Syria and drop the insane "Assad
must go" rhetoric of the previous administration, it might've been tempting. Which is why I would like to know more about the
target area and circumstances. But nobody seems to give a shit. I suppose it might have a lot to do with the fact that there are
(or were, last I heard) no journalists in Syria. But if we simply don't know much about the target area, maybe we should stop
assuming hitting it with chemical weapons had no utility.
Principled and eminently sensible Democratic Congressman Tulsi Gabbard
Those principles being "don't invade the world, invite the world," I presume?
There have been two central documents relating to the alleged Syrian chemical weapon incidents in 2013 and 2017, both of which
read like press releases. Both refer to a consensus within the U.S. intelligence community (IC)and express "confidence" and
even "high confidence" regarding their conclusions but neither is actually a product of the office of the Director of National
Intelligence, which would be appropriate if the IC had actually come to a consensus. Neither the Director of National Intelligence
nor the Director of CIA were present in a photo showing the White House team deliberating over what to do about Syria. Both
documents supporting the U.S. cruise missile attack were, in fact, uncharacteristically put out by the White House, suggesting
that the arguments were stitched together in haste to support a political decision to use force that had already been made.
The American Security Apparatus can shove their consensus up their asses anyway. Why should the American public take their word
for anything?
Generally reliable journalist Robert Parry is reporting that the intelligence behind the White House claims comes largely from
satellite surveillance, though nothing has been released to back-up the conclusion that the Syrian government was behind the
attack, an odd omission as everyone knows about satellite capabilities and they are not generally considered to be a classified
source or method.
And there are huge, consistent gaps in satellite coverage (and always have been, last I heard) that everyone and their mother
knows about, meaning, it would be trivial for anyone to plan an attack when the satellites can't see. If Parry is right, then
it sounds like the administration has jack shit. "Satellite surveillance" is the last source I'd find persuasive or conclusive
in this context.
Parry also cites the fact that there are alternative theories on what took place and why, some of which appear to originate
with the intelligence and national security community, which was in part concerned over the rush to judgment by the White House.
So this really is shaping up to all be a bunch of "Wag The Dog/I bombed Serbia to distract from my kosher blowjob scandal" bullshit.
Great.
The al-Ansar terrorist group (affiliated with al-Qaeda) is in control of the area
Meaning, this "innocent civilians" mantra we've been hearing from Big Media is bullshit. " like clearing out heavily fortified
urban areas.."
100 Words @DB
Cooper This whole chemical weapon attack by Assad sounds fishy from the beginning. From what I read Assad is winning the civil
war and things are turning for the better for him. What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian
populations? Things just doesn't add up. Check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M&t=22s It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera
before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible,
given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable
evidence that the filming was done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked.
Read More
200 Words @Anon
None of this would be an issue if the media did its job.
But it doesn't.
There is free media in the US, but Big Media is not free media. It is Bought Media and should be called as such. Right you
are! The Big, Bought and Biased Media must be RELENTLESSLY exposed and discredited.
Trump's airstrike was triggered by the latest Assad-Did-It-Again, "gassing his own people" story, that we first heard in 2013.
Once again evidence is lacking, and worse, there is a total lack of interest in finding evidence, or in asking the obvious questions
of motive, cui bono? In a replay of "Gulf of Tonkin," "WMDs in Iraq," and numerous other false provocations, the mainstream
media has once again rushed to judgment with no penetrating questions asked.
Since 2011, U.S. corporate media has acted as advocate for militant factions. Rather than reporting events as they occurred,
our "journalists" have repeated stories selected by anti-Assad "sources" such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, i.e.
Rami Abdul Rahman. Yes, the SOHR is one guy, an ex-pat member of the so-called "Syrian opposition" who operates out of his house
in Coventry, England. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
100 Words @anonymous
It certainly appears to have been a manufactured event. The media was ready and swung into action immediately with pictures
and a noisy campaign that the usual war-hawk politicians joined in with. The timing was just too good and seems to have been coordinated.
Syria was bombed without bothering to investigate based on Trump's claim that the evidence was ironclad. Did people like McMaster
think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was fake but pretended otherwise?
Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along? Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment
politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up, N Korea and then Iran?
No matter how one votes they end up getting the same thing. It's very disheartening. " . . . Trump has quickly shifted into being
an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. . . ."
Yeah, it looks like it.
I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed–I hoped!–that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits,
that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but
with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . . Read More
200 Words How does the lie work? It survives . It always survives . King is dead! Long live the king! It come back. People
ignore when they find it out . Same propel tweak the margins and support the new version to build another lie.
That's why we hear that "Saddam did not have nukes but they found weapons they found this they found that they found gas chemical"
I tell them " that is none of your and this Gov's Freaking business"
Now these guys are busy saying "Assad sent refugees he doesn't want this or that or he poured chem s or make attack it possible"
Mu answer is usually this " The Gov can go to war tomorrow because r the sky was not blue above the desert of Iran proving
they are not compliant and is busy destroying the climate . You will accept that logic as well or shrug it off but will vote him
or his surrogate next time " Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter Display All Comments
@Philip Giraldi
Kilcullen is well compensated by those who support the Establishment narrative on Syria and everywhere else in the Middle
East so he does indeed have an agenda. Most intel and military types that I have spoken to agree that after the retaking of Aleppo
al-Assad is winning and will eventually win. Did he nevertheless stage the chemical attack on Idbil? I don't know. Let's see the
evidence. Somebody obviously knows that happened. I assume that someone called "Wizard of Oz" might, like myself, be a resident
of Australia.
What is surprising, then, is that he/she gives any credibility to a Murdoch rag and the Australian at that. Its political positions
with respect to the Middle East in particular are well known. Read More SolontoCroesus ,
April 18, 2017 at 9:19
pm GMT
100 Words @utu
It's not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative.
One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this
report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they
have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications
between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor
report. So what's going on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's
fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for
being stupid guys you pay extra, right?
One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it
is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff.
According to newly minted director of CIA, that organization and the entire "intelligence community" relied on the "reality"
of those photos, in addition to other things that "can't be revealed right now, maybe later."
100 Words @Brewer
It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the
Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in
the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later
than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked. Hi Brewer,
Is there a link to the video ?
Moreover, if what you are saying is true, then it would seem to indicate the White Helmets, as well as ISIS were leaked information
as to the time of the Syrian strike so as to stage the chemical event well beforehand.
This means there is a big leak in the shared information between the White House and Moscow.
My understanding is Moscow shared advanced warning of the Syrian strike with D.C., as part of their non confrontation agreement.
Somebody leaked that information to ISIS and Al Qaeda .I wonder who ?
300 Words It should surprise none that Syria is simply a redux of Iraq 2002-03, minus Ahmed Chalabi or a reasonable facsimile.
A "slam dunk." It worked then. The media loved it. All the players got to write memoirs and collect royalties on the same bogus
narrative. OK, it was widened a bit to include how everyone, absolutely everyone had no doubt about the 'intelligence' and WMDs.
Honest.
GW Bush even did a clever PowerPoint mime for the Radio & Television Correspondent's Association Dinner 24 March 2004 in which
he said "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere! Nope, no weapons over there! Maybe under here?" while pretending
to look for WMD under his desk. Few (if any) objected. That's when it was pretty clear the soul of the press, if not the Republic,
was dead.
The media loves it now. Easy stories – sensational, complete with dead infant/kiddy pics. Second only to porn. Better in a
way, because you can inject moral indignation into the byline. Remember the Sabah's hawking 312 dead babies removed from incubators
by Saddam in Kuwait in '90? Worked then too. No need to look further.
Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow. It champions 'moderate rebels', despite
their kinship to the most extreme barbarism. If Iraq 2003 was bad, this is even worse. We don't even bother to suggest reasonable
succession or a viable alternative future. Too much effort?
True corruption. There are no excuses.
Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47, which codified the CIA and changed the "Department of War' to
the 'Department of Defense'?. We've waged war (clandestine and overt) ever since. If only for honesty, it should be changed back
to' Department of War.' Read More
100 Words @Brewer
It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the
Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in
the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later
than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked.
It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am.
200 Words @Orville
H. Larson " . . . Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless.
. . ."
Yeah, it looks like it.
I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed--I hoped!--that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits,
that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but
with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . .
With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. .
Israel has a well known deterrent referred to as the 'Samson option'.
I think it would be prudent, and I hope that the sane world has already made those in a position to force a major war between
the zio-West vs. Russia (for instance)..
.. that the first place to get glassed will be that shitty little country- as a kind of reverse Samson option
I would like to hope that even now, all sane nations.. (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, et al) who have nukes, have them all
trained at ground zero (T.A.) for the strife in the world.
and I suppose to be effective, they'd have to be aimed at some of the snake pits in the Western world as well- I really don't
think Rothschild, (Soros, Kristol, etc..) would care too much if most of Israel proper were glowing, so long as they and the diaspora
would be able to take control of what ever was left after the fallout dispersed.
the Fiend needs to know that he'd get it first, and there would be the peace
100 Words @Incitatus
It should surprise none that Syria is simply a redux of Iraq 2002-03, minus Ahmed Chalabi or a reasonable facsimile. A "slam
dunk." It worked then. The media loved it. All the players got to write memoirs and collect royalties on the same bogus narrative.
OK, it was widened a bit to include how everyone, absolutely everyone had no doubt about the 'intelligence' and WMDs. Honest.
GW Bush even did a clever PowerPoint mime for the Radio & Television Correspondent's Association Dinner 24 March 2004 in which
he said "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere!...Nope, no weapons over there!...Maybe under here?" while pretending
to look for WMD under his desk. Few (if any) objected. That's when it was pretty clear the soul of the press, if not the Republic,
was dead.
The media loves it now. Easy stories - sensational, complete with dead infant/kiddy pics. Second only to porn. Better in a
way, because you can inject moral indignation into the byline. Remember the Sabah's hawking 312 dead babies removed from incubators
by Saddam in Kuwait in '90? Worked then too. No need to look further.
Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow. It champions 'moderate rebels', despite
their kinship to the most extreme barbarism. If Iraq 2003 was bad, this is even worse. We don't even bother to suggest reasonable
succession or a viable alternative future. Too much effort?
True corruption. There are no excuses.
Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47, which codified the CIA and changed the "Department of War' to
the 'Department of Defense'?. We've waged war (clandestine and overt) ever since. If only for honesty, it should be changed back
to' Department of War.'
Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow.
that's not specifically true. They've come right out and said they prefer Al Nursa and the cannibals and crucifying head slicers
to a stable government with a viable middle class.
"We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were
backed by Iran,"
Israel wants in Syria what it got in Iraq and Libya.. a complete dystopian hell on earth. Old Testament vengeance and unimaginable
suffering. It is written.
They literally thrive on that shit
Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47
nope
it started in earnest with the Balfour Declaration and Wilson's war. A hundred years ago exactly to the day from Trump's attack
on Syria.
Thanks to you RobinG I get a White House propaganda blurb "slipped" into my email every day or so. The decent thing for you
to have done would have been to warn me not to use my actual email address.
BTW. the commies have been trying to get a warm water port since the beginning of the Cold War. Pretty sure the Commies had
Sevastopol at the start of the Cold War and all the way through it. Sevastopol doesn't really count as a warm water port in the
way you mean since you have to go through two straits controlled by NATO before you are in the real ocean.
"... Donald Trump's pivot to U.S. involvement in regime change in multiple countries, combined with military and diplomatic bluster, swagger, and chest-thumping can best be summed up as combining the unitary executive imperialistic foreign policy of George W. Bush with the regime change agenda of Barack Obama, or "Bush version 2.0/Obama version 1.5" ..."
"... During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump's supporters did not mind the real estate billionaire's swashbuckling attitude. After all, Trump said he would worry about "America First". Trump decried the role played by his predecessors as the "world's policeman". Trump said he would not be the "president of the world" but the president of the United States. Everything changed on April 7, 2016, when Trump ordered 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched on the Syrian air base. ..."
"... At the United Nations, Trump's ambassador, Nikki Haley, proclaimed that the U.S. would take additional actions against Syria and that the United States did not see a future for Assad as president of Syria. Haley told CNN : "there's not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime... regime change is something that we think is going to happen ". ..."
"... Haley also expanded America's goals in Syria by stating that Trump also sought to eliminate Iranian influence in Syria. The statement about Iran and Syria went far beyond anything ever suggested by the Obama administration. ..."
"... In 2013, Trump tweeted the following about calls for the U.S. to attack Syria: "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval." Trump sought no congressional approval for his action against Syria. In fact, Trump informed Chinese president Xi Jinping, while he was departing Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, about the attack on Syria before he informed members of Congress. Trump's attempt to impress President Xi had little impact. No sooner had Xi's plane departed Florida, the Chinese government news agency Xinhua stated: "It has been a typical tactic of the U.S. to send a strong political message by attacking other countries using advanced warplanes and cruise missiles". ..."
"... Trump had become what he decried earlier: an unaccountable world policeman who would, without U.S. constitutional or international legal authority, seek regime change through military means. ..."
"... All around the world, officials of the Trump administration re-adopted the regime change tactics of Obama. Trump's ambassador to Serbia, Kyle Scott, let it be known that Washington was not happy with the re-election on April 2 of Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic. Scott sent messages that Washington did not favor Vucic's continued close relations with Russia, encouraging anti-Vucic street protesters in the service of George Soros to stage anti-Vucic demonstrations. In neighboring Macedonia, Trump's ambassador Jess Baily continued to provide U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) support for Soros-backed protesters and opposition parties that were trying to replace the Macedonian government with one that favored integration with the European Union and a freeze in relations with Russia. ..."
"... At the end of March, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson gave Baily, who was visiting the State Department, a green light to continue the destabilization activities in Skopje that began under Obama. In Serbia and Macedonia, what appeared on the streets were the first signs of a concordat between Trump and Soros, something that was bound to enrage Trump's anti-globalization and anti-Soros erstwhile base of supporters. ..."
Donald Trump's pivot to U.S. involvement in regime change in multiple countries, combined
with military and diplomatic bluster, swagger, and chest-thumping can best be summed up as combining
the unitary executive imperialistic foreign policy of George W. Bush with the regime change agenda
of Barack Obama, or "Bush version 2.0/Obama version 1.5".
Trump's knee-jerk decision to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles against the Shayrat air base, a
forward operating base for Syrian and Russian military forces battling against Islamic State forces
in Palmyra and other locations, represents the type of reckless unilateralism employed by the Bush
administration in Iraq coupled with the "regime change" tactics of the Obama administration throughout
the Middle East and North Africa. However, even Barack Obama refused to be drawn into direct military
action against the Syrian government, preferring instead to use Syrian rebel factions backed by the
Turkish, Saudi, and Qatari governments and overseen by Central Intelligence Agency operatives to
launch attacks on Syrian government forces.
Trump's decision to attack Syria's forces was based on the shoddiest of video and photographic
"evidence" that was tainted with the fingerprints of the very dubious and terrorist-connected Syrian
"White Helmets" and the pathetic joke known as the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" in Coventry,
England. There was no wonder that Trump's cruise missile attack was celebrated wildly in the Islamic
State and Al Qaeda camps around the Middle East, by the government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, and in the royal courts of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These quarters had previously been worried
about Trump's campaign rhetoric to join with the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad and Russia
in defeating the jihadist scourge that swept across Syria as the result of Obama's "Arab Spring"
and regime change goals.
As the first Tomahawks were fired from the U.S. Navy destroyers USS Porter and
USS Ross , anxiety among the jihadist rebels in Syria, who were losing ground to Syrian and
allied forces, quickly turned to ecstasy. The Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam,
the Al Nusra Front, Liwa al-Haqq, and others had just been awarded by Trump their own high-tech military
force: the United States Navy.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump's supporters did not mind the real estate billionaire's
swashbuckling attitude. After all, Trump said he would worry about "America First". Trump decried
the role played by his predecessors as the "world's policeman". Trump said he would not be the "president
of the world" but the president of the United States. Everything changed on April 7, 2016, when Trump
ordered 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched on the Syrian air base.
At the United Nations, Trump's ambassador, Nikki Haley, proclaimed that the U.S. would take
additional actions against Syria and that the United States did not see a future for Assad as president
of Syria. Haley told CNN : "there's not any sort of option where a political solution is going
to happen with Assad at the head of the regime... regime change is something that we think is going
to happen ".
Haley also expanded America's goals in Syria by stating that Trump also sought to eliminate
Iranian influence in Syria. The statement about Iran and Syria went far beyond anything ever suggested
by the Obama administration.
There were reports that Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, a White House adviser without portfolio,
and her husband Jared Kushner, the senior White House presidential adviser, had convinced Trump to
attack Syria after being convinced of the authenticity of photos and videos showing Sarin victims,
including children, in the village of Khan Sheikoun. The sources of the "evidence" – the same sources
that originated previous dubious "evidence" of Syrian use of chemical weapons – were totally suspect.
In 2013, Trump tweeted the following about calls for the U.S. to attack Syria: "What will
we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional
approval." Trump sought no congressional approval for his action against Syria. In fact, Trump informed
Chinese president Xi Jinping, while he was departing Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, about
the attack on Syria before he informed members of Congress. Trump's attempt to impress President
Xi had little impact. No sooner had Xi's plane departed Florida, the Chinese government news agency
Xinhua stated: "It has been a typical tactic of the U.S. to send a strong political message by attacking
other countries using advanced warplanes and cruise missiles".
Trump had become what he decried earlier: an unaccountable world policeman who would, without
U.S. constitutional or international legal authority, seek regime change through military means.
Trump also decided to beef up U.S. air and naval forces in Northeast Asia in a show of force to
North Korea. In media leaks, Trump advisers let it be known that a nuclear attack on North Korea
or a U.S.-sanctioned assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jon Un, both with the goal of North
Korean regime change, were on the table as options. Trump's actions in Syria and on the Korean peninsula
demonstrated that he has gone "full neocon", much to the distress of his alt-right and "America First"
supporters. There were reports out of the White House that Trump's strategic policy adviser Stephen
Bannon had been kicked off the National Security Council in deference to the wishes of the neocons
who had effectively seized control of the White House's foreign policy apparatus.
All around the world, officials of the Trump administration re-adopted the regime change tactics
of Obama. Trump's ambassador to Serbia, Kyle Scott, let it be known that Washington was not happy
with the re-election on April 2 of Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic. Scott sent messages that Washington
did not favor Vucic's continued close relations with Russia, encouraging anti-Vucic street protesters
in the service of George Soros to stage anti-Vucic demonstrations. In neighboring Macedonia, Trump's
ambassador Jess Baily continued to provide U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) support
for Soros-backed protesters and opposition parties that were trying to replace the Macedonian government
with one that favored integration with the European Union and a freeze in relations with Russia.
At the end of March, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson gave Baily, who was visiting the State
Department, a green light to continue the destabilization activities in Skopje that began under Obama.
In Serbia and Macedonia, what appeared on the streets were the first signs of a concordat between
Trump and Soros, something that was bound to enrage Trump's anti-globalization and anti-Soros erstwhile
base of supporters.
In Latin America, Trump's envoys were backing the forces of reactionary proto-fascism. Washington
questioned the legitimacy of Ecuadorian leftist leader Lenin Moreno's presidential election victory
over a Wall Street-backed crony capitalist named Guillermo Lasso. In Argentina, U.S. embassy officials
rallied around Trump's billionaire friend, President Mauricio Macri, against labor and student leaders
protesting the Wall Street-directed austerity measures of the Argentine government.
While Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner prevailed on Trump to avenge the deaths of civilians in Khan
Sheikoun by launching a missile attack on Syria, neither of these two self-entitled products of crony
capitalism had much to say about the massacre of 43 Coptic Christians by the Islamic State while
attending Palm Sunday services at churches in Tanta and Alexandria in Egypt. Trump's vapid family
were silent in any call for retaliation against the actual financial and logistical supporters of
the Islamic State in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. Ivanka certainly would not want to jeopardize
her fashion line sales in the high-priced boutiques of Jeddah, Doha, and Istanbul.
"... "Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013," ..."
"... The Assad Regime's Use of Chemical Weapons on April 4, 2017 ..."
"... These academics are like mafia lawyers. The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia. It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob. ..."
"... So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates. They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob. ..."
"... Bottom line: From the first, this was an ***OBVIOUS*** false flag. The only question remaining is whether the CIA coordinated with al Qaeda in planning this event. ..."
"... Recall that in 2013 Diane Feinstein also engaged the "rapid turnaround" efforts of the CIA to produce a video presentation of gassed children, which she claimed implicated the Syrian government, in her bid to drive the Obama administration across the "red line." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/07/cia-authenticates-13-videos-showing-syrian-gas-attack-aftermath-official-says.html ..."
"... After extensive investigation by experts under the auspices of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon declared that it was "indisputable" that a chemical attack had occurred, but those responsible for the attack were not conclusively identified. Samantha Power, however, insisted that "it must have been Assad." http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/un-report-confirms-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-syria-a-922746.html ..."
"... Same lies, different liars. ..."
"... Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program. ..."
"... The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project. And you, are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist. ..."
"... Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea, ROW) have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. ..."
"... Trump didn't wait for the gas attack, he was already laying the ground for getting involved in Syria, which is not a vital interest of Russia. Russians want to do stuff like support Assad and crush rebels the US has expressed sympathy for. they surely didn't expect to be left alone. ..."
"... Not withstanding our Presidents "rush to judgement" tomahawk strike against the Assad regime last week, there should be very strong indications to our main stream media, that they are being abandoned by tens of millions of Americans across our country who no longer accept the medias willingness to defraud us ,at nearly every turn. ..."
"... In 2013,when the Ghouta Sarin attack was attributed to Assad by these very same pundits, the memory of the phony Saddam anthrax attribution reared its ugly head, and with good reason. ..."
"... I think our media has proven itself, scores of times, over the last fifteen years, to be, at best, disingenuous and at worst complicit in acts of war fraud and terror fraud which have taken the lives of millions of innocent people and cost our country tens of trillions of dollars. ..."
"... Our Big Media can only cry "wolf" so many times before they are greeted by everyone with the middle finger. ..."
"... It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked. ..."
"... There is free media in the US, but Big Media is not free media. It is Bought Media and should be called as such. Right you are! The Big, Bought and Biased Media must be RELENTLESSLY exposed and discredited. ..."
"... Trump's airstrike was triggered by the latest Assad-Did-It-Again, "gassing his own people" story, that we first heard in 2013. Once again evidence is lacking, and worse, there is a total lack of interest in finding evidence, or in asking the obvious questions of motive, cui bono? In a replay of "Gulf of Tonkin," "WMDs in Iraq," and numerous other false provocations, the mainstream media has once again rushed to judgment with no penetrating questions asked. ..."
"... Since 2011, U.S. corporate media has acted as advocate for militant factions. Rather than reporting events as they occurred, our "journalists" have repeated stories selected by anti-Assad "sources" such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, i.e. Rami Abdul Rahman. Yes, the SOHR is one guy, an ex-pat member of the so-called "Syrian opposition" who operates out of his house in Coventry, England. ..."
"... I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed–I hoped!–that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits, that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . ..."
"... According to newly minted director of CIA, that organization and the entire "intelligence community" relied on the "reality" of those photos, in addition to other things that "can't be revealed right now, maybe later." ..."
"... My understanding is Moscow shared advanced warning of the Syrian strike with D.C., as part of their non confrontation agreement. Somebody leaked that information to ISIS and Al Qaeda .I wonder who ? How else could ISIS obtain advanced knowledge about exactly when to plant their gas canister and stage the gas attack ? ..."
Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out
to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that
Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province
on April 4th. Shortly after the more recent incident, President Donald Trump, possibly deriving his
information from television news reports, abruptly stated that the government of President Bashar
al-Assad had ordered the attack. He also noted that the use of chemicals had "crossed many red lines"
and hinted that Damascus would be held accountable. Twenty-four hours later retribution came in the
form of the launch of 59 cruise missiles directed against the Syrian airbase at Sharyat. The number
of casualties, if any, remains unclear and the base itself sustained only minor damage amidst allegations
that many of the missiles had missed their target. The physical assault was followed by a verbal
onslaught, with the Trump Administration blaming Russia for shielding al-Assad and demanding that
Moscow end its alliance with Damascus if it wishes to reestablish good relations with Washington.
The media, led by the usual neoconservative cheerleaders, have applauded Trump's brand of
tough love with Syria, even though Damascus had no motive to stage such an attack while the so-called
rebels had plenty to gain. The escalation to a war footing also serves no U.S. interest and actually
damages prospects for eliminating ISIS any time soon. Democratic Party liberal interventionists have
also joined with Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Marco Rubio to celebrate the cruise missile
strike and hardening rhetoric. Principled and eminently sensible Democratic Congressman Tulsi Gabbard,
has demanded evidence of Syrian culpability, saying "It angers and saddens me that President
Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow
the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more
refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between
the United States and Russia-which could lead to nuclear war. This Administration has acted recklessly
without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without
waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning." For her pains,
she has been vilified by members of her own party, who have called for her resignation .
Other congressmen, including Senators Rand Paul and Tim Kaine, who have asked for a vote in
congress to authorize going to war, have likewise been ignored or deliberately marginalized. All
of which means that the United States has committed a war crime against a country with which it is
not at war and has done so by ignoring Article 2 of the Constitution, which grants to Congress the
sole power to declare war. It has also failed to establish a casus belli that Syria represents
some kind of threat to the United States.
What has become completely clear, as a result of the U.S. strike and its aftermath, is that
any general reset with Russia has now become unimaginable, meaning among other things that a peace
settlement for Syria is for now unattainable. It also has meant that the rebels against al-Assad's
regime will be empowered, possibly deliberately staging more chemical "incidents" and blaming the
Damascus government to shift international opinion farther in their direction. ISIS, which was reeling
prior to the attack and reprisal, has been given a reprieve by the same United States government
that pledged to eradicate it. And Donald Trump has reneged on his two campaign pledges to avoid deeper
involvement in Middle Eastern wars and mend fences with Moscow.
There have been two central documents relating to the alleged Syrian chemical weapon incidents
in 2013 and 2017, both of which read like press releases. Both refer to a consensus within the U.S.
intelligence community (IC)and express "confidence" and even "high confidence" regarding their conclusions
but neither is actually a product of the office of the Director of National Intelligence, which would
be appropriate if the IC had actually come to a consensus. Neither the Director of National Intelligence
nor the Director of CIA were present in a photo showing the White House team deliberating over what
to do about Syria. Both documents supporting the U.S. cruise missile attack were, in fact, uncharacteristically
put out by the White House, suggesting that the arguments were stitched together in haste to support
a political decision to use force that had already been made.
The two documents provide plenty of circumstantial information but little in the way of actual
evidence. The 2013
Obama version "Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on
August 21, 2013," was criticized almost immediately when it was determined that there were
alternative explanations
for the source of the chemical agents that might have killed more than a thousand people in and
around the town of Ghouta. The 2017
Trump version " The Assad Regime's Use of Chemical Weapons on April 4, 2017 ," is likewise
under fire from numerous quarters. Generally reliable journalist Robert Parry
is reporting that the intelligence behind the White House claims comes largely from satellite
surveillance, though nothing has been released to back-up the conclusion that the Syrian government
was behind the attack, an odd omission as everyone knows about satellite capabilities and they are
not generally considered to be a classified source or method. Parry also cites the fact that there
are alternative theories on what took place and why, some of which appear to originate with the intelligence
and national security community, which was in part concerned over the rush to judgment by the White
House. MIT Professor Theodore Postol, considered to be an expert on munitions,
has also questioned the government's account of what took place in Khan Sheikhoun through a detailed
analysis of the available evidence. He believes that the chemical agent was fired from the ground,
not from an airplane, suggesting that it was an attack initiated by the rebels made to appear as
if it was caused by the Syrian bomb.
In spite of the challenges, "Trust me," says Donald Trump. The Russians and Syrians are demanding
an international investigation of the alleged chemical weapons incident, but as time goes by the
ability to discern what took place diminishes. All that is indisputably known at this point is that
the Syrian Air Force attacked a target in Idlib and a cloud of toxic chemicals was somehow released.
The al-Ansar terrorist group (affiliated with al-Qaeda) is in control of the area and benefits greatly
from the prevailing narrative. If it was in fact the actual implementer of the attack, it is no doubt
cleaning and reconfiguring the site to support the account that it is promoting and which is being
uncritically accepted both by the mainstream media and by a number of governments. The United States
will also do its best to disrupt any inquiry that challenges the assumptions that it has already
come to. The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American
should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover
like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave of jingoism that
has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity that has dogged
the new administration.
• 100 Words This whole chemical weapon attack by Assad sounds fishy from the beginning. From
what I read Assad is winning the civil war and things are turning for the better for him. What
would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian populations? Things just
doesn't add up. Check out this video:
Read More •
Am I the only person who remembers news from a month ago? Trump ordered hundreds of regular
American combat troops into Syria BEFORE this event, with no explanation. This was covered on
all major networks, including CNN.
• 100 Words I am forced to conclude that the neoconservatives and indeed all of Washington
DC are eager to go to war. They are just itching for any excuse to start yet another war in a
nation of their choosing.
If there is no good reason, they will make one up. There is an eerie resemblance to what is
happening now with Syria and what happened leading up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
I think the paleoconservative community also needs to come to terms with the fact that Trump
has sold them out and is increasingly acting like a Washington insider neocon. Trump did to the
paleoconservatives what Obama did to the left.
It seems Trump will not put "America First" nor make any attempts to restore the American Middle
Class nor American manufacturing to truly "Make American Great Again".
Tulsi Gabbard seems to be one of the few principled politicians in this case and for that she
is marginalized for saying what few others have the moral courage to say. Many on the left are
hoping she will run in 2020 for President.
Coming from the left, I'd say that the Sanders and Trump base have a lot more in common than
we admit. We are both deeply unhappy with the way that Washington has handled things. They basically
betrayed the American people and enriched themselves at public expense.
The real question is, can the US be saved for the people or will it continue on its path to
terminal decline?
• 100 Words Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where
are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created
this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are
getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did
his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this
will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media?
Read More •
Wizard
of Oz ,
April 18, 2017 at 6:17 am GMT \n
These academics are like mafia lawyers. The mafia sent some of their guys to study law
or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then had those guys
serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but
their main loyalty was to the mafia.
It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.
And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.
• 600 Words Proof of the false-flag nature of the 'chemical attack' in Syria absurdly ascribed
to Assad's forces -
Above all because of a very-censored explosive story – a distinguished group of Swedish doctors
showed that the George Clooney & Western-backed 'White Helmets' in fact made a snuff film actually
murdering children of this 'chemical attack' anyone can invite medical physicians they know to
view this, to see the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are absolutely correct in their accusations:
(1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before
it happened – Tweet , "Tomorrow a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the
Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"
(2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack
(3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack
had occurred
(4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was
taking interview requests instead of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as
source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping & torturing two British
journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"
(5) The USA & CIA were previously documented as having approved a "plan to launch chemical
weapon attack on Syria & blame it on Assad's regime' A 2013 article on this is deleted from the
UK Daily Mail website, but is saved at Web Archive, a screenshot at Aangirfan's page above
(6) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment
run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian
army in Hama [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping sarin gas on orphanages videos
shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."
(7) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously
celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian
Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos in places like Egypt &
Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".
(8) The 2013 gas attack in Syria killing over 1000 people, was also proven to be an operation
by USA & allies, with admissions to this effect by Turkish Members of Parliament The operation
even involved the CIA's Google Inc monopoly search control internet domination tool, via their
subsidiary Google Idea Groups & Jared Cohen:
In 2014, the later-murdered journalist Serena Shim "stumbled upon a safehouse run by Jared
Cohen & Google Idea Groups, a short distance from a border crossing into Syria between Hatay,
Turkey & Aleppo province in Syria. In the safehouse were three Ukrainian secret service who had
just buried a load of sarin gas shells from the Republic of Georgia. Chemical weapons used in
the Ghouta war crime were trucked through Turkey to Gaziantep then taken from there to Aleppo
by NGOs, hidden in ambulances or in trucks supposedly carrying relief aid. After Shim broke this
story on PressTV the clumsily-staged 'accident' leading to her death only a few days later."
By way of motive – Destruction of Syria & Assad serves the long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli
Oded Yinon Plan to destroy & dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel, in
general service to the world oligarchs. Plus, there are major US-backed economics behind the campaign
to destroy Syria – Assad's fall is sought for changing from the Russia-supported pipeline from
Iran thru Iraq & Syria, to the USA-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria.
• 200 Words What has happened is one of two things as far is Trump is concerned. Either he
walked into a trap prepared for him by the Deep state, willingly or unwillingly. If willingly
he knew he was set up and accepted it because he has no choice. He could not disobey the military.
They have their own agenda in Syria which they had been pursuing for a while, that is carving
out American zone of occupation in eastern Syria with the help of Sunny states. Or Trump simply
capitulated to the deep state as Obama did before him. If that is the case we know now how American
is governed, by the military industrial complex that dictates its policy. The sad part is that
the Constitution is disregarded once again, that the Liberals who used to be peaceniks, are now
cheering for war, that the UN is marginalized, that Trump uses it just as Bush did to justify
an illegal war. Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments Sean
,
April 18, 2017 at 10:22 am GMT \n
• 1,100 Words
Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned
out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims
that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in
Idlib province on April 4th.
Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one
wonders why they did not use the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only
when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone
. So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as
for the Assad regime having ordered it .
Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
Purchase Article
Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad
in Syria appeared immune from the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade,
having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for the previous three decades.
Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the
country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]
But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting
for its very survival, whereas Lebanon has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the
other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as it may seem, the per
capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C.
That same year, the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.
Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil
Lebanon has so far proved robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting
only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's
chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize
the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's
small size as an administrative unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's
free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought to control economic variability,
replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure
of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much
more vulnerable to disruption than Lebanon.[...]
The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of
instability are found not in historical data but in underlying structural properties. Past
experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of cancer, crime, and
earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly
so-called tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but
enormously consequential. For those, the evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about
it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.
[...]
Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability,
volatility, stress, chaos, and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer.
A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form of shock. It wants peace and predictability,
something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy to the fragile.
What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans,
for example, the harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from
a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms, a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil
is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.
THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD
The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at
the price of increasing systemic risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.
This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences
of the United States attack on Syria
A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"
Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be
incredibly stupid, that is why he is in this position– he thought the people loved him, put up
the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad perhaps believes the US is scared
to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors
have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would
be involved.
I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about
and than Syria, Russia or US media know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one
might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well and truly up. Any price would
be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the
Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of
maintaining secret intelligence facilities.
The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American
should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will
discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave
of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity
that has dogged the new administration.
For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed
sympathy is quite definitely a real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes
Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision making ) . The Russians took
advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched,
while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have
it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening
to Europe.
@Carlton Meyer Am I the only person who remembers news from a month ago? Trump ordered hundreds
of regular American combat troops into Syria BEFORE this event, with no explanation. This was
covered on all major networks, including CNN.
And why? They've been trying to overthrow Assad since 2005:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pm8-vSo4Y4 Russia was having too much success, they needed
to understand that the US is not going to stand by any longer and wait to see.
Read More •
• 100 Words Jewish AIPAC Israel firster Jared Kushner and his fellow Jewish AIPAC Israel first
friends (like Reed Cordish who worked for Israel Lobby lackey Dick Cheney as well) whom he brought
into the White House more than likely influenced Trump to push the Israel Lobby agenda vs Syria
for regime change to weaken Iran:
More on Kushner and his fellow AIPAC Israel firster at the White House obviously influencing
Trump to push the Israel Lobby agenda like he did with Syria as I heard Netanyahu praised the
Syriaattack and Pence personally telephoned to thank him:
@Sean Russia was having too much success, they needed to understand that the US is not going
to stand by any longer and wait to see. INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military
to the very borders of NATO.
• 100 Words It certainly appears to have been a manufactured event. The media was ready and
swung into action immediately with pictures and a noisy campaign that the usual war-hawk politicians
joined in with. The timing was just too good and seems to have been coordinated. Syria was bombed
without bothering to investigate based on Trump's claim that the evidence was ironclad. Did people
like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they
know it was fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced
to play along? Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric
has been bellicose and reckless. Next up, N Korea and then Iran?
No matter how one votes they end up getting the same thing. It's very disheartening.
Read More •
Quartermaster
,
April 18, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT \n
@Anon Get a load of this a**hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.
He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.
But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can
posture as a 'voice of reason'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhyD-fPS0vs
And there is the other esteemed 'voice of reason', Thomas Friedman, who wants war in Syria
to go on, even if ISIS kills more innocents.
The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police,
church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability,
dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia.
It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.
And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano
So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.
Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel.
Putin is the real weasel, and problem in Russia. He's corrupt to his core and has his own vision
for Russia which is quite destructive. His Soviet revanchism is a serious problem for Russia and
has set the country up for a serious fall. Read More
• LOL:
geokat62 • Troll:
L.K ,
Rurik •
Quartermaster
,
April 18, 2017 at 1:11 pm GMT \n
• 100 Words
@Brabantian Proof of the false-flag nature of the 'chemical attack' in Syria absurdly ascribed
to Assad's forces -
Above all because of a very-censored explosive story - a distinguished group of Swedish doctors
showed that the George Clooney & Western-backed 'White Helmets' in fact made a snuff film actually
murdering children of this 'chemical attack' ... anyone can invite medical physicians they know
to view this, to see the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are absolutely correct in their accusations:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/06/swedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos/
For an overview of the many wider points making clear the false flag, Aangirfan does an excellent
job here as she very often does:
http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/trump-at-war-with-assad-and-putin.html
(1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before
it happened - Tweet , "Tomorrow a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the
Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"
(2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack
(3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack
had occurred
(4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was
taking interview requests instead of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as
source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping & torturing two British
journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"
(5) The USA & CIA were previously documented as having approved a "plan to launch chemical
weapon attack on Syria & blame it on Assad's regime' ... A 2013 article on this is deleted from
the UK Daily Mail website, but is saved at Web Archive, a screenshot at Aangirfan's page above
(6) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment
run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian
army in Hama ... [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping sarin gas on orphanages
... videos shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."
(7) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously
celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian
Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos in places like Egypt &
Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".
(8) The 2013 gas attack in Syria killing over 1000 people, was also proven to be an operation
by USA & allies, with admissions to this effect by Turkish Members of Parliament ... The operation
even involved the CIA's Google Inc monopoly search control internet domination tool, via their
subsidiary Google Idea Groups & Jared Cohen:
In 2014, the later-murdered journalist Serena Shim "stumbled upon a safehouse run by Jared
Cohen & Google Idea Groups, a short distance from a border crossing into Syria between Hatay,
Turkey & Aleppo province in Syria. In the safehouse were three Ukrainian secret service who had
just buried a load of sarin gas shells from the Republic of Georgia. Chemical weapons used in
the Ghouta war crime were trucked through Turkey to Gaziantep then taken from there to Aleppo
by NGOs, hidden in ambulances or in trucks supposedly carrying relief aid. After Shim broke this
story on PressTV ... the clumsily-staged 'accident' leading to her death only a few days later."
By way of motive - Destruction of Syria & Assad serves the long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli
Oded Yinon Plan to destroy & dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel, in
general service to the world oligarchs. Plus, there are major US-backed economics behind the campaign
to destroy Syria - Assad's fall is sought for changing from the Russia-supported pipeline from
Iran thru Iraq & Syria, to the USA-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria.
Sarin is a nerve agent and if that is what was used, gas masks are far less than what is needed
to protect anyone.
I don't see any motivation on Assad's part to stage such an attack. It simply was not in his
interest to do so. Trump's action was a knee jerk reaction and stupid.
• 100 Words Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it
he is a respectable analyst and authority like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:
Thete is mo reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack
actually occurred and by whom. However there seems to be an even more important division over
the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al Qaeda afiliate by whatever name
it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately
lacking manpower.
Does PG subscrtobe to the populsr contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all
rebels that he simply couldn't hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack?
The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police,
church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability,
dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia.
It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.
And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano
So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.
Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel.
"Democratic Party liberal interventionists have also joined with Senators John McCain,
Lindsay Graham and Marco Rubio to celebrate the cruise missile strike and hardening rhetoric."
• 100 Words
@utu Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are
their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this
false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting
nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole
analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause
a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? " picture he
found somewhere on social media."
If you check closely, I think you will find that Postol took that photo from the White House
issued document presenting the "evidence"(not!) of Syrian responsibility(not!) for the sarin(?)
gas attack. Thus that photo represents the on-the-record official story w/official "evidence".
Far from being some randomly acquired photo taken from social media and originating who knows
where. And to take it one discrediting step further, it turns out the photo was provided by the
al Qaeda terrorists - the CIA's client anti-Assad terrorists - who control that area.
Bottom line: From the first, this was an ***OBVIOUS*** false flag. The only question remaining
is whether the CIA coordinated with al Qaeda in planning this event.
• 100 Words Remember WMD and Saddam? What did the top papers say after Colin Powell's speech
to the UN "proving" that Iraq had WMD?
New York Times: "[Powell's speech] may not have produced a 'smoking gun," but it left little
question that Mr. Hussein had tried hard to conceal one."
Wall Street Journal: "The Powell evidence will be persuasive to anyone who is still persuadable.
The only question remaining is whether the U.N. is going to have the courage of Mr. Powell's convictions."
Washington Post: "To continue to say that the Bush administration has not made its case, you
must now believe that Colin Powell lied in the most serious statement he will ever make "
"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play."
Joseph Goebbels
• 200 Words
@Wizard of Oz Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of
it he is a respectable analyst and authority like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:
Thete is mo reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack
actually occurred and by whom. However there seems to be an even more important division over
the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al Qaeda afiliate by whatever name
it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately
lacking manpower.
Does PG subscrtobe to the populsr contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all
rebels that he simply couldn't hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack? Hi Wiz,
I think it is quite clear, that with the assistance of the Russian military, the Syrian army
has mounted multiple strategic victories against ISIS over the past year and a half.
The entry of Russia into the fray, at the request of Syria, provided a very deep reservoir
of enhanced military power which has shown to be highly effective in degraded both Al Qaeda and
ISIS on multiple fronts.
It seems as absurd now , as it did in 2013, that Assad would do the ONE THING that would force
the hand of the US military to enter the fray against him.
I also doubt the notion of the Syrian regimes "desperation" given the complete cooperation
of Russia in providing any assistance the Syrian army might need , to achieve victory against
ISIS.
One could argue, however ,that Assad is truly "bonehead" stupid.
You are certainly free to make that argument, Wiz , because, in this case, it seems to be the
one that would make the most sense.
Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned
out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims
that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in
Idlib province on April 4th.
Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one
wonders why they did not use the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only
when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone
. So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as
for the Assad regime having ordered it .
Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
Purchase Article
Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad
in Syria appeared immune from the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade,
having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for the previous three decades.
Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the
country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]...
But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting
for its very survival, whereas Lebanon has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the
other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as it may seem, the per
capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C.
That same year, the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.
Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil
Lebanon has so far proved robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting
only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's
chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize
the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's
small size as an administrative unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's
free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought to control economic variability,
replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure
of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much
more vulnerable to disruption than Lebanon.[...]
The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability
are found not in historical data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can
be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of cancer, crime, and earthquakes.
But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called
tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously
consequential. For those, the evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and
a more sophisticated approach is required.
[...]
Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability,
volatility, stress, chaos, and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer.
A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form of shock. It wants peace and predictability,
something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy to the fragile.
What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans,
for example, the harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from
a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms, a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil
is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.
THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD
The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at
the price of increasing systemic risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.
This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences
of the United States attack on Syria
A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"
Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be
incredibly stupid, that is why he is in this position-- he thought the people loved him, put up
the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad perhaps believes the US is scared
to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors
have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would
be involved.
I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about
and than Syria, Russia or US media know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one
might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well and truly up. Any price would
be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the
Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of
maintaining secret intelligence facilities.
The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American
should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will
discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave
of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity
that has dogged the new administration.
For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy
is quite definitely a real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is
Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision making ) . The Russians took advantage
of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while
Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their
own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening
to Europe.
"The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the
way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really
they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done
next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe."
Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres
(Syria, Ukraine, Korea, ROW) have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats
to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted up it military intervention pretty much
globally over the same period. Then again, I live outside the US and am not blanketed with the
propaganda that spills out of its MSM house organs, so we have indeed observed two different worlds.
@utu Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are
their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this
false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting
nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole
analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause
a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? You won't find
it by looking at CNN / ZNN.
• 600 Words
@Jeff Davis "...picture he found somewhere on social media."
If you check closely, I think you will find that Postol took that photo from the White House
issued document presenting the "evidence"(not!) of Syrian responsibility(not!) for the sarin(?)
gas attack. Thus that photo represents the on-the-record official story w/official "evidence".
Far from being some randomly acquired photo taken from social media and originating who knows
where. And to take it one discrediting step further, it turns out the photo was provided by the
al Qaeda terrorists -- the CIA's client anti-Assad terrorists -- who control that area.
Bottom line: From the first, this was an ***OBVIOUS*** false flag. The only question remaining
is whether the CIA coordinated with al Qaeda in planning this event.
After Pompeo's prepared remarks, Juan Zarate queried the director on the Syria attack/s, starting
his questions with comment on the rapidity with which "assessments were made." (Zarate is now at CSIS after proving his neoconservative bona fides as a charter member
of Stuart Levey's Treasury Department "guerrillas in grey suits" - the gang that deploys financial
blackmail to coerce international banks and corporations to join the US in constraining their
commerce with states the USA does not like.)
Pompeo responded to Zarate's request for "behind the scenes" description of how the assessments
were made:
"We were in short order able to deliver a high confidence assessment that it was the Syrian
regime that had launched chemical attacks against its own people. Not me, Our Team, not just
the CIA, the entire intelligence community was good and fast and we challenged ourselves. I
can assure you we were challenged by the President and his team. We wanted to make sure we
had it right. There's not much like when the president looks at you and says, Are you sure?
When you know he's contemplating an action based on the analysis your organization has provided,
and we got it right and I'm proud of the work that get to have the president have the opportunity
to make a good decision about what he ought to do in the face of the atrocity that took place.
"
Zarate did not register dissatisfaction with this non-response; instead, he accepted the assessment
as conclusive. Then he escalated the discussion:
"What do you make of the Russian disputation of those conclusions? Bashar Al-Assad calling
this a fabrication, the entire event. It's a battle of legitimacy and proof. How do you deal
with that?"
To which Pompeo delivered the money-quote:
They're challenges. There are things we were able to use to form the basis of our conclusion
that we cannot reveal. That is always tricky, but we've done our best and I think
over time we can reveal a bit more. Everyone saw the open source photos, so we had
reality on our side. "
So apparently Pompeo and the "entire intelligence community" used the same photos that Dr.
Postol examined exhaustively, but reached a different conclusion; they believe that the photos
reflect "reality" and support their interpretation of events as fingering the Syrian government
as perpetrators of the "red-line" "atrocity."
Pompeo spent the next few minutes derogating Russia and Putin, stating that "Russia is on its
sixth or seventh version of the story," and that "Putin is not a credible man . . . a man for
whom veracity does not translate into English." (I think he meant "into Russian . . . .")
Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned
out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims
that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in
Idlib province on April 4th.
Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one
wonders why they did not use the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only
when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone
. So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as
for the Assad regime having ordered it .
Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
Purchase Article
Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad
in Syria appeared immune from the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade,
having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for the previous three decades.
Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the
country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]...
But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting
for its very survival, whereas Lebanon has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the
other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as it may seem, the per
capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C.
That same year, the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.
Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil
Lebanon has so far proved robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting
only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's
chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize
the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's
small size as an administrative unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's
free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought to control economic variability,
replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure
of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much
more vulnerable to disruption than Lebanon.[...]
The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability
are found not in historical data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can
be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of cancer, crime, and earthquakes.
But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called
tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously
consequential. For those, the evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and
a more sophisticated approach is required.
[...]
Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability,
volatility, stress, chaos, and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer.
A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form of shock. It wants peace and predictability,
something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy to the fragile.
What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans,
for example, the harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from
a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms, a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil
is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.
THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD
The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at
the price of increasing systemic risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.
This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences
of the United States attack on Syria
A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"
Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be
incredibly stupid, that is why he is in this position-- he thought the people loved him, put up
the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad perhaps believes the US is scared
to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors
have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would
be involved.
I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about
and than Syria, Russia or US media know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one
might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well and truly up. Any price would
be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the
Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of
maintaining secret intelligence facilities.
The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American
should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will
discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave
of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity
that has dogged the new administration.
For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy
is quite definitely a real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is
Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision making ) . The Russians took advantage
of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while
Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their
own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening
to Europe. You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't source your quotes, and you're
ideologically driven by a form of crypto anti-socialism revealed in you're basic premise that
centralized planning created the vulnerability that brought down Saddam and now threatens Assad.
Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now
threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney
turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign
policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the
7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program.
The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary
personnel sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project. And you, are either a fool or an
Israeli propagandist.
"The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way
the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they
couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next
can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe."
Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several
theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea, ROW) have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite
clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted up it military intervention
pretty much globally over the same period. Then again, I live outside the US and am not blanketed
with the propaganda that spills out of its MSM house organs, so we have indeed observed two different
worlds.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/marines-raqqa-assault-syria/
Trump didn't wait for the gas attack, he was already laying the ground for getting involved
in Syria, which is not a vital interest of Russia. Russians want to do stuff like support Assad
and crush rebels the US has expressed sympathy for. they surely didn't expect to be left alone.
@utu It's not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it
Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that
bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media
like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think
they have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground
in Syria, intercepted communications between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't
come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report. So what's going
on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is
Russia's fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will
you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid guys you pay extra, right? Your comment
reminds me of a conversation I had with a fence post. At least I found the the fence post truthful,
unlike you. I can't imagine you to be able to make humanitarian decisions based on your impatience
and impudence. Read More •
Z-man
,
April 18, 2017 at 7:12 pm GMT \n
• 100 Words
@Jeff Davis You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't source your quotes, and
you're ideologically driven by a form of crypto anti-socialism revealed in you're basic premise
that centralized planning created the vulnerability that brought down Saddam and now threatens
Assad.
Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast -- what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens
Assad -- is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the
US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy and
its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country,
Oded Yinon regime change program.
The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel
sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project. And you,... are either a fool or an Israeli
propagandist.
What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens
Assad - is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned
the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy
and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country,
Oded Yinon regime change program.
The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel
sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project.
Not withstanding our Presidents "rush to judgement" tomahawk strike against the Assad regime
last week, there should be very strong indications to our main stream media, that they are being
abandoned by tens of millions of Americans across our country who no longer accept the medias
willingness to defraud us ,at nearly every turn.
I was an avid reader of the the NY Times, for over 25 years, and I watched the nightly news
all the time.
When we were all told by these media outlets in the run up to the Iraq war, that Saddam had
launched an anthrax attack against our news rooms and our capitol I believed it completely 100%..without
any reason in my own mind why I shouldn't .
Once the war began, and the attribution to Saddam of the anthrax attack quickly collapsed ,
I felt defrauded by those who I had always trusted to be honest, most especially on issues of
war and peace.
In 2013,when the Ghouta Sarin attack was attributed to Assad by these very same pundits,
the memory of the phony Saddam anthrax attribution reared its ugly head, and with good reason.
If they were lying then why aren't they lying now ?
I think our media has proven itself, scores of times, over the last fifteen years, to be,
at best, disingenuous and at worst complicit in acts of war fraud and terror fraud which have
taken the lives of millions of innocent people and cost our country tens of trillions of dollars.
There is no reason why I , nor any American, should be happy about this.
Whats worse is they have displayed such enormous contempt for all the tens of millions of innocent
families who have suffered on account of their deceits that they have lost an overwhelming amount
of respect from me,as well as, I imagine, countless others.
Our Big Media can only cry "wolf" so many times before they are greeted by everyone with
the middle finger.
This reality will not go away, but only get worse, until they start to shoot straight, and
have proven to their viewers, that they are not seeking to manipulate, or defraud us . into War.
• 100 Words President KUSHNER and his faithful toady Trump sure are busy these days. In between
bites of chocolate cake, they are arming the terrorists and bombing Syrian civilians.
Over 50 Civilians Killed, Injured in US-Led Coalition Airstrikes in Eastern Syria
There's one reason the USA is stuck in endless ME wars, with no end in sight. American troops
are fighting and dying for Apartheid Israel, and our wealth is being spent on the same.
When Syria is toast, the MSM will start attacking Iran, and they'll have plenty of friends
who think the same way in the WH and Congress.
@DB
Cooper This whole chemical weapon attack by Assad sounds fishy from the beginning. From what
I read Assad is winning the civil war and things are turning for the better for him. What would
he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian populations? Things just doesn't
add up. Check out this video:
It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before
8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and
12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that
film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was
done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked.
@Anon None of this would be an issue if the media did its job.
But it doesn't.
There is free media in the US, but Big Media is not free media. It is Bought Media and
should be called as such. Right you are! The Big, Bought and Biased Media must be RELENTLESSLY
exposed and discredited.
Trump's airstrike was triggered by the latest Assad-Did-It-Again, "gassing his own people"
story, that we first heard in 2013. Once again evidence is lacking, and worse, there is a total
lack of interest in finding evidence, or in asking the obvious questions of motive, cui bono?
In a replay of "Gulf of Tonkin," "WMDs in Iraq," and numerous other false provocations, the mainstream
media has once again rushed to judgment with no penetrating questions asked.
Since 2011, U.S. corporate media has acted as advocate for militant factions. Rather than
reporting events as they occurred, our "journalists" have repeated stories selected by anti-Assad
"sources" such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, i.e. Rami Abdul Rahman. Yes, the SOHR
is one guy, an ex-pat member of the so-called "Syrian opposition" who operates out of his house
in Coventry, England.
@anonymous It certainly appears to have been a manufactured event. The media was ready and
swung into action immediately with pictures and a noisy campaign that the usual war-hawk politicians
joined in with. The timing was just too good and seems to have been coordinated. Syria was bombed
without bothering to investigate based on Trump's claim that the evidence was ironclad. Did people
like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they
know it was fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced
to play along? Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric
has been bellicose and reckless.
Next up, N Korea and then Iran?
No matter how one votes they end up getting the same thing. It's very disheartening. " . .
. Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose
and reckless. . . ."
Yeah, it looks like it.
I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed–I hoped!–that Trump would
be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits, that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference
is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit
longer. . . .
How does the lie work? It survives . It always survives . King is dead! Long live the king!
It come back. People ignore when they find it out . Same propel tweak the margins and support
the new version to build another lie.
That's why we hear that "Saddam did not have nukes but they found weapons they found this they
found that they found gas chemical"
I tell them " that is none of your and this Gov's Freaking business"
Now these guys are busy saying "Assad sent refugees he doesn't want this or that or he poured
chem s or make attack it possible"
Mu answer is usually this " The Gov can go to war tomorrow because r the sky was not blue above
the desert of Iran proving they are not compliant and is busy destroying the climate . You will
accept that logic as well or shrug it off but will vote him or his surrogate next time "
@Philip Giraldi Kilcullen is well compensated by those who support the Establishment narrative
on Syria and everywhere else in the Middle East so he does indeed have an agenda.
Most intel
and military types that I have spoken to agree that after the retaking of Aleppo al-Assad is winning
and will eventually win.
Did he nevertheless stage the chemical attack on Idbil? I don't know. Let's see the evidence.
Somebody obviously knows that happened. I assume that someone called "Wizard of Oz" might, like
myself, be a resident of Australia.
What is surprising, then, is that he/she gives any credibility to a Murdoch rag and the Australian
at that. Its political positions with respect to the Middle East in particular are well known.
Read More •
@utu It's not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it
Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that
bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media
like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think
they have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground
in Syria, intercepted communications between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't
come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report. So what's going
on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is
Russia's fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will
you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid guys you pay extra, right?
One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture
won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing
instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff.
According to newly minted director of CIA, that organization and the entire "intelligence
community" relied on the "reality" of those photos, in addition to other things that "can't be
revealed right now, maybe later."
Maybe it will be revealed after Assad is safely dead or in exile in Moscow what the CIA's can't
be revealed methods were.
• 100 Words
@Brewer It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before
8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and
12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that
film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was
done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked. Hi Brewer,
Is there a link to the video ?
Moreover, if what you are saying is true, then it would seem to indicate the White Helmets,
as well as ISIS were leaked information as to the time of the Syrian strike so as to stage the
chemical event well beforehand.
This means there is a big leak in the shared information between the White House and Moscow.
My understanding is Moscow shared advanced warning of the Syrian strike with D.C., as part
of their non confrontation agreement. Somebody leaked that information to ISIS and Al Qaeda .I
wonder who ? How else could ISIS obtain advanced knowledge about exactly when to plant their gas
canister and stage the gas attack ?
It should surprise none that Syria is simply a redux of Iraq 2002-03, minus Ahmed Chalabi
or a reasonable facsimile. A "slam dunk." It worked then. The media loved it. All the players
got to write memoirs and collect royalties on the same bogus narrative. OK, it was widened a bit
to include how everyone, absolutely everyone had no doubt about the 'intelligence' and WMDs. Honest.
GW Bush even did a clever PowerPoint mime for the Radio & Television Correspondent's Association
Dinner 24 March 2004 in which he said "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere! Nope,
no weapons over there! Maybe under here?" while pretending to look for WMD under his desk. Few
(if any) objected. That's when it was pretty clear the soul of the press, if not the Republic,
was dead.
The media loves it now. Easy stories – sensational, complete with dead infant/kiddy pics. Second
only to porn. Better in a way, because you can inject moral indignation into the byline. Remember
the Sabah's hawking 312 dead babies removed from incubators by Saddam in Kuwait in '90? Worked
then too. No need to look further.
Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow. It champions
'moderate rebels', despite their kinship to the most extreme barbarism. If Iraq 2003 was bad,
this is even worse. We don't even bother to suggest reasonable succession or a viable alternative
future. Too much effort?
True corruption. There are no excuses.
Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47, which codified the CIA and changed
the "Department of War' to the 'Department of Defense'?. We've waged war (clandestine and overt)
ever since. If only for honesty, it should be changed back to' Department of War.'
• 200 Words
@Orville H. Larson " . . . Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician
whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. . . ."
Yeah, it looks like it.
I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed--I hoped!--that Trump would
be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits, that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference
is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take
a bit longer. . . .
With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit
longer. .
Israel has a well known deterrent referred to as the 'Samson option'.
I think it would be prudent, and I hope that the sane world has already made those in a position
to force a major war between the zio-West vs. Russia (for instance)..
.. that the first place to get glassed will be that shitty little country- as a kind of reverse
Samson option
I would like to hope that even now, all sane nations.. (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, et
al) who have nukes, have them all trained at ground zero (T.A.) for the strife in the world.
and I suppose to be effective, they'd have to be aimed at some of the snake pits in the Western
world as well- I really don't think Rothschild, (Soros, Kristol, etc..) would care too much if
most of Israel proper were glowing, so long as they and the diaspora would be able to take control
of what ever was left after the fallout dispersed.
the Fiend needs to know that he'd get it first, and there would be the peace
@Incitatus It should surprise none that Syria is simply a redux of Iraq 2002-03, minus Ahmed
Chalabi or a reasonable facsimile. A "slam dunk." It worked then. The media loved it. All the
players got to write memoirs and collect royalties on the same bogus narrative. OK, it was widened
a bit to include how everyone, absolutely everyone had no doubt about the 'intelligence' and WMDs.
Honest.
GW Bush even did a clever PowerPoint mime for the Radio & Television Correspondent's Association
Dinner 24 March 2004 in which he said "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere!...Nope,
no weapons over there!...Maybe under here?" while pretending to look for WMD under his desk. Few
(if any) objected. That's when it was pretty clear the soul of the press, if not the Republic,
was dead.
The media loves it now. Easy stories - sensational, complete with dead infant/kiddy pics. Second
only to porn. Better in a way, because you can inject moral indignation into the byline. Remember
the Sabah's hawking 312 dead babies removed from incubators by Saddam in Kuwait in '90? Worked
then too. No need to look further.
Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow. It champions
'moderate rebels', despite their kinship to the most extreme barbarism. If Iraq 2003 was bad,
this is even worse. We don't even bother to suggest reasonable succession or a viable alternative
future. Too much effort?
True corruption. There are no excuses.
Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47, which codified the CIA and changed
the "Department of War' to the 'Department of Defense'?. We've waged war (clandestine and overt)
ever since. If only for honesty, it should be changed back to' Department of War.'
Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow.
that's not specifically true. They've come right out and said they prefer Al Nursa and the
cannibals and crucifying head slicers to a stable government with a viable middle class.
"We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed
by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran,"
Israel wants in Syria what it got in Iraq and Libya.. a complete dystopian hell on earth. Old
Testament vengeance and unimaginable suffering. It is written.
They literally thrive on that shit
Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47
nope
it started in earnest with the Balfour Declaration and Wilson's war. A hundred years ago exactly
to the day from Trump's attack on Syria.
The attack on Syria on that notorious anniversary was sort of like a modern day Passover, when
the kings of Europe slaughtered the new born of Europa, and the chosen were blessed with a country
of their own out of the smoking ashes of Christendom
Thanks to you RobinG I get a White House propaganda blurb "slipped" into my email every day
or so. The decent thing for you to have done would have been to warn me not to use my actual email
address.
BTW. the commies have been trying to get a warm water port since the beginning of the Cold
War.
Pretty sure the Commies had Sevastopol at the start of the Cold War and all the way through it.
Sevastopol doesn't really count as a warm water port in the way you mean since you have to go
through two straits controlled by NATO before you are in the real ocean.
Ok, dunno the official Naked Capitalism stance on Mike Cernovich. So if all links to him are verboten,
no probs . (from April 8)
Given that above link citing a McMaster aide, throwing out this Cernovich article on his observation
on how the NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists (aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers) versus the
Flynn/Bannon camp (aka pragmatic-realists).
McMaster was called Petraeus' golden child by some commenters, noting the strong influence
Petraeus had over McMaster. Petraeus was considered for the position of NSA, but withdrew his
name from consideration once McMaster's name was included on the short-list. McMaster's appointment
allowed Petraeus to maintain control over the NSC without bringing his considerable baggage to
the position ."
oho, I used to look at a lot of right wing stuff and be very skeptical of it. Than my skepticism
of "mainstream" has gone up to be equivalent to my skepticism of the right wing stuff.
You just have to read the stuff and decide for yourself if it is credible AND relevant. I have
found very few "reporters" really are even trying to be objective. I carry no water for Trump
or for Obama – its a very lonely place other than at NC .
EXAMPLE: Napolitano of Fox is suspended because of the article about Obama admin using foreign
intelligence sources.
Now the mediamatters article I link below is critical of Napolitano. I link to it specifically
to distinguish between facts in an article and spin. In my view the article is trying to "spin"
(or emphasize – I'm really not trying to "spin" my comment) the story as to it being about discredited
"wiretapping" and that foreign surveillance was specifically ORDERED by the Obama admin – now,
I AGREE that is a very, very important point that Obama did not order specifically foreign searches
(at least that we know of now) and that as far as that is concerned, the mediamatters point appears
CORRECT.
But in my view, it is NOT THE ONLY POINT. The real point to me is that surveillance on US citizens
can occur without a warrant when it happens overseas, that this is happening constantly, and apparently
this information can come back to the US, again, apparently without any safegrards***. I leave
it to people's own sense of skepticism if this arrangement is ever used to circumvent getting
a warrant on a US citizen (HECK, I leave it to people's skepticism if the FISA court is nothing
but a circumlocution of the US constitution)
The FACT is that there are FACTS out there, and certain people have FACTS they want to emphasize,
and other FACTS they want to de-emphasize ..
***does anyone know when the British have surveillance of US citizens and they send it to the
US, what procedures or constraints on those conversations are???
I believe the controlling law is section 702 of the Patriot Act and Executive Order 16333.
To be sure you should check out Emptywheel's website because she has done a thorough analysis
of all of this and it is all archived in her website.
Unfortunately you are probably right. And a certain portion of the so-called liberal intelligentsia
aka Clinton wing I am exposed to, loves them some General Petraeus. Scary, I know.
Chernovich is considered by NC to be a very reliable source, I think. And his analysis of McMaster's
push for more troops is accurate. I didn't like the article because I felt it failed to account
for the difference in Mattis and McMaster in any coherent way. And Trump just gave the Pentagon
the ability to make its best decisions and follow through on them. (this was reported after Chernovich's
article). Amazing really. But that puts Mattis in charge and he would rather work with the other
interests fighting in Syria than unilaterally. McMaster, it was implied by Chernovich, was all
for sending 150,000 troops in to finish the job. So there is a huge leeway of possibilities according
to Chernovich. Maybe the military is softening up the public to accept what seems to be an attitude
of having had enough and wanting to just go in and take care of business. They all seem to agree
on that.
Also today's link from Reuters re McMaster getting down to business with Russia. McMaster wants
to have the tough talks to sort it all out. Because "Syria's government has got to go." OK, and
McMaster thought Tillerson's trip to Moscow and his meeting with Lavrov was a good start because
relations are so bad right now that there's "nowhere to go but up." I think my compass is pointing
to an agreement with the Russians to remove Assad. But they will never say it. If I were Assad,
I'd want to get out – Syria is rubble, there's not much left to govern; even if his enemies would
leave him alone. They're all just positioning themselves for the best deal they can get. And the
threat of 150K troops on the ground is saying loud and clear that we will be the ones to decide
the new direction for Syria. To my thinking.
You may be right. But that will be the end of Syria. The country is still filled with foreign
backed jihadis who really want to establish an islamic state. The US may think it can take someone
currently residing in France or the US and install them. But there is no one available with any
popular support that I know of. Things almost definitely will get worse for Syria – the carnage
will continue.
And Putin must realize that those insisting that Assad must go also want Putin out as well.
Surely, he sees that he has to draw a line somewhere.
maybe, but I've come to suspect that we like and want Putin there, but we don't want Russian
nationalists to know it it's so convoluted you can almost read anything into it so the best way
to grok it is to imagine the most useful and beneficial solutions. Which are few.
IMHO, you could not be more wrong. Russians went into Syria in Sept. 2015 – after notifying
the whole world via a UN speech. The decision must have taken months to complete. What makes you
think that after all the work and effort this took, Russians would suddenly reverse course? If
they were to give up on Assad so quickly, why go in in the first place? Remember – they have a
VERY LONG-TERM VIEW (just like the Chinese). The problem with demonising Assad (and anyone, for
that matter) is that the US public ends up with a totally unrealistic view of the subject at hand
(and not just a negative one). Just like with Putin – the story is not just about one man. There
is a large power structure connected to each man. Neither one makes decisions in a vacuum. Russians
and Iranians understand that if they give up on a unified Syria- which is what Assad represents
– they would be next (Chechnya war, anyone?). One must assess these things from the perspective
of the other – not from what the US would like.
The army is scattered to the four winds. Can McMaster render up 150,000 soldiers? 150 k means
450,000. one third in the field, one third recovering, and one third on stand by according to
the Shinseki ratio.
"... Given that above link citing a McMaster aide, throwing out this Cernovich article on his observation on how the NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists (aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers) versus the Flynn/Bannon camp (aka pragmatic-realists). ..."
"... "Petraeus' influence in the NSC remains strong. McMaster was called Petraeus' golden child by some commenters, noting the strong influence Petraeus had over McMaster. Petraeus was considered for the position of NSA, but withdrew his name from consideration once McMaster's name was included on the short-list. McMaster's appointment allowed Petraeus to maintain control over the NSC without bringing his considerable baggage to the position . ..."
"... maybe, but I've come to suspect that we like and want Putin there, but we don't want Russian nationalists to know it. It's so convoluted you can almost read anything into it so the best way to grok it is to imagine the most useful and beneficial solutions. Which are few. ..."
"... In 2017 Putin has become the reliable constant in international affairs, especially next to the idiots who've been doing U.S. foreign policy. People will miss him when he's gone. ..."
"... The problem with demonising Assad (and anyone, for that matter) is that the US public ends up with a totally unrealistic view of the subject at hand (and not just a negative one). Just like with Putin – the story is not just about one man. ..."
"... The army is scattered to the four winds. Can McMaster render up 150,000 soldiers? 150k means 450,000. one third in the field, one third recovering, and one third on stand by according to the Shinseki ratio. ..."
Ok, dunno the official Naked Capitalism stance on Mike Cernovich. So if all links to him are verboten,
no probs . (from April 8)
Given that above link citing a McMaster aide, throwing out this Cernovich article on his observation
on how the NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists (aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers) versus the Flynn/Bannon
camp (aka pragmatic-realists).
"Petraeus' influence in the NSC remains strong. McMaster was called Petraeus' golden child
by some commenters, noting the strong influence Petraeus had over McMaster. Petraeus was considered
for the position of NSA, but withdrew his name from consideration once McMaster's name was included
on the short-list. McMaster's appointment allowed Petraeus to maintain control over the NSC without
bringing his considerable baggage to the position ."
oho, I used to look at a lot of right wing stuff and be very skeptical of it. Than my skepticism
of "mainstream" has gone up to be equivalent to my skepticism of the right wing stuff.
You just have to read the stuff and decide for yourself if it is credible AND relevant. I have
found very few "reporters" really are even trying to be objective. I carry no water for Trump
or for Obama – its a very lonely place other than at NC .
EXAMPLE: Napolitano of Fox is suspended because of the article about Obama admin using foreign
intelligence sources.
Now the mediamatters article I link below is critical of Napolitano. I link to it specifically
to distinguish between facts in an article and spin. In my view the article is trying to "spin"
(or emphasize – I'm really not trying to "spin" my comment) the story as to it being about discredited
"wiretapping" and that foreign surveillance was specifically ORDERED by the Obama admin – now,
I AGREE that is a very, very important point that Obama did not order specifically foreign searches
(at least that we know of now) and that as far as that is concerned, the mediamatters point appears
CORRECT.
But in my view, it is NOT THE ONLY POINT. The real point to me is that surveillance on US citizens
can occur without a warrant when it happens overseas, that this is happening constantly, and apparently
this information can come back to the US, again, apparently without any safegrards***. I leave
it to people's own sense of skepticism if this arrangement is ever used to circumvent getting
a warrant on a US citizen (HECK, I leave it to people's skepticism if the FISA court is nothing
but a circumlocution of the US constitution)
The FACT is that there are FACTS out there, and certain people have FACTS they want to emphasize,
and other FACTS they want to de-emphasize ..
***does anyone know when the British have surveillance of US citizens and they send it to the
US, what procedures or constraints on those conversations are???
I believe the controlling law is section 702 of the Patriot Act and Executive Order 16333.
To be sure you should check out Emptywheel's website because she has done a thorough analysis
of all of this and it is all archived in her website.
Unfortunately you are probably right. And a certain portion of the so-called liberal intelligentsia
aka Clinton wing I am exposed to, loves them some General Petraeus. Scary, I know.
Chernovich is considered by NC to be a very reliable source, I think. And his analysis of McMaster's
push for more troops is accurate. I didn't like the article because I felt it failed to account
for the difference in Mattis and McMaster in any coherent way. And Trump just gave the Pentagon
the ability to make its best decisions and follow through on them. (this was reported after Chernovich's
article). Amazing really. But that puts Mattis in charge and he would rather work with the other
interests fighting in Syria than unilaterally. McMaster, it was implied by Chernovich, was all
for sending 150,000 troops in to finish the job. So there is a huge leeway of possibilities according
to Chernovich. Maybe the military is softening up the public to accept what seems to be an attitude
of having had enough and wanting to just go in and take care of business. They all seem to agree
on that.
Also today's link from Reuters re McMaster getting down to business with Russia. McMaster wants
to have the tough talks to sort it all out. Because "Syria's government has got to go." OK, and
McMaster thought Tillerson's trip to Moscow and his meeting with Lavrov was a good start because
relations are so bad right now that there's "nowhere to go but up." I think my compass is pointing
to an agreement with the Russians to remove Assad. But they will never say it. If I were Assad,
I'd want to get out – Syria is rubble, there's not much left to govern; even if his enemies would
leave him alone. They're all just positioning themselves for the best deal they can get. And the
threat of 150K troops on the ground is saying loud and clear that we will be the ones to decide
the new direction for Syria. To my thinking.
You may be right. But that will be the end of Syria. The country is still filled with foreign
backed jihadis who really want to establish an islamic state. The US may think it can take someone
currently residing in France or the US and install them. But there is no one available with any
popular support that I know of. Things almost definitely will get worse for Syria – the carnage
will continue.
And Putin must realize that those insisting that Assad must go also want Putin out as well.
Surely, he sees that he has to draw a line somewhere.
maybe, but I've come to suspect that we like and want Putin there, but we don't want Russian
nationalists to know it. It's so convoluted you can almost read anything into it so the best way
to grok it is to imagine the most useful and beneficial solutions. Which are few.
In 2017 Putin has become the reliable constant in international affairs, especially next
to the idiots who've been doing U.S. foreign policy. People will miss him when he's gone.
IMHO, you could not be more wrong. Russians went into Syria in Sept. 2015 – after notifying
the whole world via a UN speech. The decision must have taken months to complete.
What makes you think that after all the work and effort this took, Russians would suddenly
reverse course? If they were to give up on Assad so quickly, why go in in the first place? Remember
– they have a VERY LONG-TERM VIEW (just like the Chinese).
The problem with demonising Assad (and anyone, for that matter) is that the US public ends
up with a totally unrealistic view of the subject at hand (and not just a negative one). Just
like with Putin – the story is not just about one man. There is a large power structure connected
to each man. Neither one makes decisions in a vacuum. Russians and Iranians understand that if
they give up on a unified Syria- which is what Assad represents – they would be next (Chechnya
war, anyone?). One must assess these things from the perspective of the other – not from what
the US would like.
The army is scattered to the four winds. Can McMaster render up 150,000 soldiers? 150k
means 450,000. one third in the field, one third recovering, and one third on stand by according
to the Shinseki ratio.
"... Thus far, the only video of the alleged attack's aftermath have been provided by the White Helmets, an organisation widely exposed as fraudulent , comprising known and open supporters of al-Qaeda factions in Syria. ..."
"... "The impact zone in Khan Shaykhun, from where locals had to be evacuated, has not been identified. The town is living its life. Neither locals nor pseudo-rescuers have even asked for medicines, antidotes, (nor) decontaminants. ..."
"... It is clear that, as in Iraq and Libya, there are simply no plans to carry out a qualified investigation in Khan Shaykhun by the current 'schemers' of the chemical attack". ..."
A puzzling new development has emerged in the aftermath of the alleged chemical weapons incident
in Syria's Idlib Governorate from the 4th of April.
Since the incident, apparently no one in the Khan Shaykhun area in question has asked for any
antidotes for exposure to toxic sarin gas, the chemical allegedly deployed on the 4th of April.
Many have consequently questioned whether the images presented of sarin gas victims were entirely
inauthentic.
Thus far, the only video of the alleged attack's aftermath have been provided by the White
Helmets, an organisation widely exposed as
fraudulent , comprising known and open supporters of al-Qaeda factions in Syria.
Russian Defence Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov has
described the rather strange and incongruous developments at the location of the alleged attack
over the last weeks,
"The impact zone in Khan Shaykhun, from where locals had to be evacuated, has not been identified.
The town is living its life. Neither locals nor pseudo-rescuers have even asked for medicines,
antidotes, (nor) decontaminants.
It is clear that, as in Iraq and Libya, there are simply no plans to carry out a qualified
investigation in Khan Shaykhun by the current 'schemers' of the chemical attack".
Konashenkov continued,
"It has been exactly two weeks after the incident with the alleged use of chemical weapons
in Khan Shaykhun. However, the only 'proof' of the use of chemical weapons remain only two
White Helmets videos".
The Russian Defence Ministry spokesman also stated,
"At the same time, every day the number of unbiased experts grows, especially in Western
countries, who ask these evident questions. These specialists, who have the knowledge and experience,
cannot explain how these representatives of the White Helmets could work in the contamination
zone for so long remaining alive without any gas masks and special uniform".
These revelations may indicated that the incident was more than even a false flag, it may have
been a false attack in totality.
April 18, 2017 "
Information
Clearing House
" -
Beirut - As the US Tomahawk missiles were raining on Syria, the entire
Middle East was shaken to its core. Here, even the name itself – Syria –
triggers extremely complex and often contradictory sets of emotions. To
some, Syria is synonymous
with pride and a determined struggle against Western imperialism, while
others see it as an uncomfortable reminder of how low their own rulers
and societies have managed to sink, serving foreign interests and various
neo-colonialist designs.
Many people are hiding their
heads in the sand, obediently repeating the official Western narrative,
while others are gradually resorting to the alternative sources of
information that are coming from outlets such as RT Arabic,
Al-Mayadeen
and Press TV.
Here in the Middle East and, in
fact, all over the entire Arab world, feelings towards the Syrian
President Bashar Al-Assad are always 'strong'; no one appears to be
'neutral'. But even the divisions are often 'pre-defined', carved along
pan-Arab versus pro-Western, or Sunni versus Shi'a lines. It is rarely
being mentioned that the Syrian state is constructed mainly on secular
and socialist principles.
The recent opportunistic
statements by certain badly informed and biased Western 'progressive'
intellectuals, calling the Syrian system "disgraceful" has confused
things even further.
*****
Overall, in the countries
encircling Syria, there is very little support among the general
population as well as among the intellectuals, for the Western assaults
on the country, conducted directly, and indirectly by proxies.
Pro-Western regimes and governments are currently governing Jordan,
Lebanon and Turkey, and all of them are officially supporting the Western
military actions. So is, naturally, Israel. The leaders of both Turkey
and Israel would actually like to see more military actions, and more
attacks against one of the last Arab countries, which is still upholds
its independence.
But ask the thinkers from all
over the region, and the reaction is near unanimously against the
assaults that are being conducted by the West.
Ms
Zeinab Al-Saffar (Photo: Andre Vltchek)
An Iraqi educationalist,
prominent journalist and researcher, Ms Zeinab Al-Saffar explained:
I believe that the attacks
against Syria that we are now witnessing, are a pre-orchestrated
flagrant imperialist violation of a sovereign state, a flexing of
muscles which is supposed to prove that the US is still the global
power. Why on earth would the Syrian government perform a chemical
attack knowing that the fingers would be immediately pointed at it,
consequently thwarting an ongoing political process? Only fools could
buy such narratives that are reminiscent of the 2003 US-led aggression
to destroy the WMDs in Iraq, which only resulted in the devastation of
Iraq, in the ruining of its people, and wiping out of its culture.
After the US missile assault on
Syria, the Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations, Sacha Llorenti,
lashed out at Trump's decision, which he defined as, "an extremely
serious violation of international law."
Llorenti reminded the Council of
February 5th, 2003, when the then US secretary of State Colin
Powell, "came to this room to present to us, according to his own words,
convincing proof that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
Incirlik NATO air base in Turkey near Syria (Photo: Andre Vltchek)
Such views are not held in Iraq
only; I encountered fairly similar logic and recollection of the events
even in Turkey, from where a well-known columnist Feryal Çeviköz wrote to
me:
The real question is: "who
orchestrated that chemical attack?" It seems that only the US could
benefit from this chemical assault. The US had finally found the
'reason', the pretext for its direct attack against Syria. There were
already many similar incidents in the region and in other parts of the
world, and the screenplay is always the same. It seems that only the
players, the actors keep changing.
In Latin America, Russia, China,
much of Africa and, of course, in the neighboring Iran, people are
beginning to see clearly both the pattern and predictability of the
Western foreign policy.
A young prominent Iranian
researcher, columnist and filmmaker, Hamed Ghashghavi, gave me his
opinion on the recent developments:
It seems to me that the US
behaves like an injured wolf that is close to its death, but before
vanishing is trying to hurt others. The more aggressively the US
behaves, the closer, it appears to be at its end. The recent attack
against Syria, whatever the reasons and consequences, has symbolically
proven how and why the so-called US Empire is declining. What the US
did is also sending a strong signal to Iran and its project of the
military base near the Syrian town of Khmeimim, but it is also a
message to an anti-Trump wing of neocons who have been accusing him of
being too much 'pro-Putin' and 'pro-Assad'.
What is now clearly detectable
in the region is not just a condemnation of the US and Western actions,
it is also a deep fatigue of having to endure the same type aggression
which brings absolutely nothing except misery to the people of the Middle
East and the world.
In Syria, the sentiments are
clear. My friend, a Syrian educator Ms. Fida Bashour summarized it all, I
believe:
I feel sad and worried. I
want this war to finally stop, no blood any more, I want peace and to
have my safe existence. I don't want others to interfere in our life.
Why doesn't Trump let us live as we want to; why is he doing this to
us?
Andre Vltchek is a
philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has
covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest
books are revolutionary novel
"Aurora"
and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: "
Exposing
Lies Of The Empire
"
and "
Fighting
Against Western Imperialism
"
.
View his other books
here
.
Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch
Rwanda Gambit
,
his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having
lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in
East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He
can be reached through his
website
and his
Twitter
.
At a Tuesday press conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed last
week's chemical weapons attack in the Idlib province of Syria was a "false flag" –
a phony operation staged by enemies of Russia and Syria to discredit them. He said
more such false flag operations were on the way.
"We have reports from
multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call it otherwise –
are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of
Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government
of an attack," said Putin, as reported by Russia's
RT.com
.
"President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me
strongly of the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN
Security Council session the presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq," Putin
continued, referring to Italian President Sergio Mattarella, who appeared with him
at the press conference in Moscow.
"The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the
devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance
of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," Putin declared.
According to RT.com, the Russian General Staff has prepared a report that
claims "militants" among the Syrian rebellion are "transporting toxic agents into
several parts of Syria."
"These actions are aimed at creating a new pretext for accusing the government
of Syria of more chemical weapons attacks and provoking more strikes by the US,"
said Colonel-General Sergey Rudskoy, head of operations for the General Staff.
The
Associated Press
reports that Russia's General Staff has expressed a
willingness to allow international inspectors to examine the Sharyat airbase in
Syria for traces of chemical weapons, and offered to provide military security for
the inspectors. Putin said he would appeal to the United Nations to investigate
the incident.
The
UK
Independent
reports
that Putin more specifically accused the United States of planning to drop
chemical weapons on Damascus and then blame the incident on Assad, although it
does not provide a translation of the Russian president's precise words to that
effect.
On Monday, Russia and Iran
declared
the United States "crossed red lines" by attacking Sharyat airbase,
borrowing a phrase made infamous by former President Barack Obama. U.S. Secretary
of State Rex Tillerson has
accused
the Russians of either being "complicit" in the Syrian chemical
weapons deployment, or "incompetent" for allowing it to happen. The Pentagon is
investigating
the possibility that Russia actually participated in the
chemical weapons attack, and/or the bombing of a hospital where victims were
receiving treatment afterward.
"... Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack Kills 100+ Children, Women ..."
"... An MoA commentor reports that the group Nour al Din al Zenki which is is financed, armed and promoted by NATO, is responsible for this latest atrocity in Syria. IOW, another NATO war crime. ..."
"... Apparently, we only care when "beautiful, beautiful babies" are killed. Quick, do an air lift of American cosmetics so that we can extend our concern / sarc ..."
Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack Kills 100+ Children, Women
An MoA commentor reports that the group
Nour al Din al Zenki
which is is financed, armed and promoted by NATO, is responsible for this
latest atrocity in Syria. IOW, another NATO war crime.
Apparently, we only care when "beautiful, beautiful babies" are killed.
Quick, do an air lift of American cosmetics so that we can extend our
concern / sarc
They can get 'em on Overstock.com now! Just package 'em up on the
pallets stacked with $100 bills and air drop them wherever we know
there are friendly terrorists. It'll all work out. Helicopter money
always does.
By championing Mr. Assad and condemning American "aggression," President Vladimir V. Putin of
Russia seemed to be burying the idea that he could somehow cooperate with the Trump administration
to end the conflict on his terms.
The solidarity with Damascus is likely to cause problems for Russia in the long run, analysts
said, although Mr. Putin probably cannot be persuaded to loosen his embrace any time soon.
The Russian government often takes its time to react to major world events, but the Kremlin issued
a prompt statement early Friday castigating the United States for the missile strike on Al Shayrat
airfield in retaliation for Syria's chemical weapons attack.
The Russian Ministry of Defense vowed to strengthen Syria's air defense systems, sent a frigate
on a port call and froze an agreement with the United States to coordinate activity in Syrian air
space.
"... As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right wormhole. ..."
"... On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr. Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm. ..."
"... One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." ..."
"... RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag. ..."
"... As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S." ..."
"... The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") - but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT. ..."
"... The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion. ..."
"... Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the preferred outcome for the US media. ..."
"... The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. ..."
Mr. Trump had just ordered a Tomahawk strike against Syria's Shayrat air base, from which,
the United States said, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria had launched the chemical weapons attack
that killed more than 80 and sickened hundreds.
As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right
wormhole.
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad had indeed been responsible
for the chemical strike. There was some "reportage" from sources like the conspiracy theorist
and radio host Alex Jones - best known for suggesting that the Sandy Hook school massacre was
staged - that the chemical attack was a "false flag" operation by terrorist rebel groups to goad
the United States into attacking Mr. Assad. But that was a view from the fringe.
Here in Russia, it was the dominant theme throughout the overwhelmingly state-controlled mainstream
media.
On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned
how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government
had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr.
Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm.
One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing
the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the
test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
That teed up Mr. Putin to suggest in nationally televised comments a couple of days later that
perhaps the attack was an intentional "provocation" by the rebels to goad the United States into
attacking Mr. Assad. RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated
Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag." The full Alex Jones was complete.
When Trump administration officials tried to counter Russia's "false narratives" by releasing
to reporters a declassified report detailing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles - and suggesting
to The Associated Press without proof that Russia knew of Mr. Assad's plans to use chemical weapons
in advance - the Russians had a ready answer borrowed from Mr. Trump himself.
As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald
Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S."
It was the best evidence I've seen of the folly of Mr. Trump's anti-press approach. You can't
spend more than a year attacking the credibility of the "dishonest media" and then expect to use
its journalism as support for your position during an international crisis - at least not with
any success.
While Mr. Trump and his supporters may think that undermining the news media serves their larger
interests, in this great information war it serves Mr. Putin's interests more. It means playing
on his turf, where he excels.
Integral to Mr. Putin's governing style has been a pliant press that makes his government the
main arbiter of truth.
While talking to the beaten but unbowed members of the real journalism community here, I heard
eerie hints of Trumpian proclamations in their war stories.
Take Mr. Trump's implicit threat to the owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, during the
election campaign. In case you've forgotten, while calling The Post's coverage of him "horrible
and false," Mr. Trump warned that if he won the presidency Mr. Bezos's other business, Amazon,
would have "such problems." (The Post was undaunted, and the issue hasn't come up again.)
300 Words
Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying
seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by
the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.
To put it mildly, anyone
with half a brain would be willing to accept that it was far more likely
that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the not-so-moderate rebels,
rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing to gain, and everything
to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still had chemical weapons,
which even the US previously admitted was no longer the case). That those
fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical weapons is no secret.
Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from
Newsweek
today (April
17) via Yahoo News:
ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi
Troops
The author tells us that
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr.
Assad had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to
the effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream
media.
The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative
were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks
at a non-alt right site like
https://consortiumnews.com/
can easily confirm. And of course a highly
respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two
notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about
the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") -
but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.
I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate
alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine
(US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only
about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria
(and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
400 Words
@for-the-record
Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying
seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by
the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.
To put it mildly, anyone with half a brain would be willing to accept that
it was far more likely that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the
not-so-moderate rebels, rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing
to gain, and everything to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still
had chemical weapons, which even the US previously admitted was no longer
the case). That those fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical
weapons is no secret. Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from
Newsweek
today (April 17) via Yahoo News:
ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi Troops
The author tells us that
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad
had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to the
effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream
media.
The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were
only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a
non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And
of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published
not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence
Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and
amateurish") -- but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.
I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate
alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine
(US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only
about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria
(and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the
official story, not only about this incident but the general story about
what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years
that anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to
be getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points
harder than most US outlets.
Don't
ever
trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a
months long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing
exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about
what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how
horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure
to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I
looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative
from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this
simply can't be said for mainstream media)
I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der
Speigel daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama
handled the US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to
explain that US unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is
is met with a dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.
I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq
and the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted
to the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the
deal with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis
and the important motivations and differences between them that colour their
commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that
what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately
obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM
looks like InfoWars and is scary.
It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned
helplessness like this.
many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the
official story, not only about this incident but the general story about
what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years that
anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to be
getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points
harder than most US outlets.
Don't
ever
trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a months
long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing
exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about
what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how
horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure
to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I
looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative
from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this
simply can't be said for mainstream media)
I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der Speigel
daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama handled the
US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to explain that US
unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is is met with a
dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.
I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq and
the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted to
the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the deal
with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis and
the important motivations and differences between them that colour their
commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that
what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately
obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM
looks like InfoWars and is scary.
It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned
helplessness like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok
Nice short film. However, I cannot agree that people are in some kind of "oh
dear" mindset. On the contrary, they are easily instrumented into supporting
any random "something must be (militarily) done" call for action. Maybe a
direct consequence of post-Gulf War 1 triumphalism, when the US was great
again and apparently had left behind of trauma of Vietnam for good (that was
an actual talking point, believe it or not!). With the Soviet Union no more,
poised to rework the world in its own image, the US was!
It all went south
of course. We got the Yougoslavia catastrophe. Taking sides along with
Europeans acting according to reflexes harking back to 1914 and dropping
bombs didn't go all that well. When bombing started, Serbia was as
MSM-tarred as Syria is today. We got 10 years of suppressing Mr. Hussein.
Something was happening in Russia and maybe Chechnya and Georgia but no-one
was all too certain what or why. We got the surprise Hutu-on-Tutsi massacre
after which liberventionists were clamoring that "something should have been
done". There was some "cruise missile diplomacy" (i.e. Clinton bombs Sudan).
There were noises from Afghanistan with military commanders in particular
Ahmad Shah Massoud fighting someone called "Taliban" but nobody cared about
that. There was the marginally interesting Israel-Palestinian conflict with
neverending talks and the Israelis starting to behave like jerks after the
assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. We got first "hard" terrorism hits: A
bombing in the WTC basement, a sarin gas attack in Tokyo, a diplomatic
mission in Africa and of course the OKC bombing. Well, I guess those years
of practically pre-Internet chaos were when "liberventionism" gelled.
The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still
hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in
humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American
people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one
knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in
Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war
profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries
to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion.
Also VIPS had
American intelligence contacts in the Middle East who said the Syrians hit
something that had chemicals in it. Everyone has their anonymous
intelligence sources. Assad isn't going anywhere there could have been a
proper investigation. The US media salivated at the bombing of Syria. The US
media is the American Empire's id. It tells it to do stupid stuff that is
going to get it killed. The US media loves to play nuclear chicken with
Russia. I suppose psychopaths need a lot of stimulation and what could be
more stimulating than a risk of nuclear war.
If the US media was doing its job it would not just be after Trump's
relationship with Russia. It would be after the whole American
establishments cozy relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia. They've
turned the US into a banana empire. Of course the US media is tied to
weapons producers and Israel gets a welfare check to buy American arms and
Saudi Arabia buys American arms. Also Israel no matter what it does is
protected because of guilt (which will be its undoing because its bad
behavior is not being checked). If Russia bought American arms I bet the US
media would love Putin. The US media then would take it upon themselves to
support Putin against his enemies.
Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian
proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the
preferred outcome for the US media. Its irrational unless you realize who
its working for. Its not the American people. Its not even working to keep
the US Empire in a position of strength. It demands obedience to the whims
of the Empire's global subjects and its domestic war industry. That is what
this Russian crap was about Trump. Maybe they tried to interfere. People
were going to vote the way they voted anyway because Trump struck an
emotional cord with his larger than life personality and the Democrats
conspired against the candidate that could have beaten him (Bernie) while
making sure no one that could win would run for the Democrat nomination.
Also the Israelis are right wing and they get away with stuff the Alt-right
could never get away with in the US (and I hope wouldn't want to engage in).
What they do to the Palestinians is straight out of Nazi Germany before the
holocaust (which is coming for the Palestinians). They loved Trump and voted
for him. US media doesn't make a big deal about this. Any reporter who did
would risk losing their job.
The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put
behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even
bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the
line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied
to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. By being
whores for war profiteers and their global allies the US media makes Russian
government controlled media seem great in comparison. There is no reason why
the US should be a whore for unsavory governments and organizations across
the world. Its 20 trillion in debt and the US media uses verbal abuse and
praise to manipulate the President into making war, while framing the war
into simplistic and cartoonish terms. There are some that are extremely
wealthy. The Europeans could handle their own security but manipulating the
US to do it is easy because of the US media and easily malleable
politicians.
How about the US media find some poor defenseless country and harp up a
war and bleed the US Empire dry of its wealth in a fruitless quagmire and
call it a day? Some of us do have a self preservation instinct and fighting
Russia for the mess in Syria is stupid. If it was me I'd try to get the
defense companies to focus on space and space mining. Whoever controls outer
space will control humanity's destiny. But go ahead bleed the US dry on
these short sided money grabbing crusades so other countries can take over
outer space instead.
"... "I think it is clear to all of us that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end, but the question of how that ends, and the transition itself, could be very important, in our view, to the durability, the stability inside of a unified Syria. We are not presupposing how that occurs," the more measured Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted by The Washington Post as saying in Italy before he flew to Russia. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/12/trump-is-escalating-foreign-conflicts/ ..."
So we're not going into Syria, but neither are we going to tolerate the tactics Assad has been
using for six years. Where exactly is the "red line" in Syria? The president's spokesman, Sean
Spicer, further muddied the waters, making similar statements about barrel bombs.
This kind of confusion doesn't help American allies or even our foes like Syria, Russia and Iran
who are trying to navigate this conflict. Trump needs to take a page from the book of his cabinet
members who have been talking with more clarity about Syria and Russia.
"I think it is clear to all of us that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end, but
the question of how that ends, and the transition itself, could be very important, in our view,
to the durability, the stability inside of a unified Syria. We are not presupposing how that
occurs," the more measured Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted by The Washington Post
as saying in Italy before he flew to Russia.
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/12/trump-is-escalating-foreign-conflicts/
"... This is the 100% true story of the #SyriaStrikes, and if you support sites like The Corbett Report that question it in any way you are a moonbeam fake news tyrant-loving hippy pinko Russian agent and should commit ritual suicide immediately. ..."
On the morning of April 4th 2017, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, on the verge of a military
victory against the terrorist insurgency in his country and on the eve of peace talks that would
secure his position as president, decided to use chemical weapons
he didn't have against a target of no military significance in front of as many cameras as
possible to cross the one red line that would insure his own government's downfall.
Without presenting a shred of evidence, President Donald Trump boldly launched a military strike
against Shayrat airfield because "national security interest," promising to help the "beautiful
children" (*offer does not apply to babies in
Gaza ,
Yemen ,
Pakistan , or basically anywhere else).
Throughout the world people rejoice as a horrible secular regime in the Middle East is replaced
by yet another peace-loving band of ragtag human rights campaigners and
child
beheaders motivated by a desire to subdue the armies of Rome in an apocalyptic confrontation
in Dabiq. (*
actual ISIS belief )
The chemicals for the previous "red line" attack in Syria have since been proven to
come from Libya with US approval , but that's probably not relevant to this case.
The CIA has released
declassified report after
declassified report showing that the plan to topple Syria's government has been in the works
for decades, but this just shows that they were right all along.
The mainstream media
unquestioningly asserts that the story is true because the US government says so, but that's
OK because we all know the msm is full of unbiased truthtellers and dig hard to get the raw facts
on every story. (" beauty
of our weapons ")
Even members of congress think the story is
a load of hogwash ,
but that's OK because they're probably crazy.
Meanwhile the White House has released
a report on its intelligence about the chemical attack that
refutes its own version of the story , but that's OK because when has the White House ever
lied people into war?
This man doesn't exist,
and if you think he does you're an enemy of humanity who should apologize for having been born.
Likewise him ,
her ,
her ,
him and
him . And him and
her .
This is the 100% true story of the #SyriaStrikes, and if you support sites like The Corbett
Report that question it in any way you are a moonbeam fake news tyrant-loving hippy pinko Russian
agent and should commit ritual suicide immediately.
If you love your country and/or liberty, NASCAR, supermodels, TV, water slides or your mother
you will not question this story in any way. Ever.
"... "Regarding the US cruise missile strike against the Shirat airbase, the USS Ross was at its forward base, Rota, southern Spain on April 3. The launch area for the cruise missile attack was some 4000 km away at the far east end of the Mediterranean. Even steaming at top speed for 24 hours a day, it would have taken the Ross 3 days to get to the launch area. ..."
"... For it to have travelled at top speed from the get go, it suggests a specific time-critical mission was planned from before it sailed. If the ship had travelled at a lower cruising speed, it would have taken say 4.5 days to get there, ie sometime between midday 7th (for an early departure on the 3rd) to midday on the 8th (for a late departure at the end of the 3rd). ..."
Although somewhat OT to this thread's topic, the following info just shared relates to the planning
and prepositioning of assets prior to an attack, albeit on a small scale. Re, the USS Ross's participation
in the supposedly off-the-cuff retaliatory attack for the Idlib False Flag courtesy of Anonymous
at SyrPers:
"Regarding the US cruise missile strike against the Shirat airbase, the USS Ross was at
its forward base, Rota, southern Spain on April 3. The launch area for the cruise missile attack
was some 4000 km away at the far east end of the Mediterranean. Even steaming at top speed for
24 hours a day, it would have taken the Ross 3 days to get to the launch area.
For it to have travelled at top speed from the get go, it suggests a specific time-critical
mission was planned from before it sailed. If the ship had travelled at a lower cruising speed,
it would have taken say 4.5 days to get there, ie sometime between midday 7th (for an early departure
on the 3rd) to midday on the 8th (for a late departure at the end of the 3rd).
Even if the Ross departed at cruise and received an attack order in route, there would have
been a narrow window where it was possible to get there with a combination of cruise and full
speed.
"... overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort). ..."
No one has forgotten the near genocide and no one in Korea, north or south, wants to repeat
the experience.
Meanwhile, overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton
with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees
from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood.
Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first
class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort).
"... Bannon is anti-intervention, so Trump had to kick him out of the NSA planning room. General Kushner is now in charge. Love to send General Kushner to the Syrian front lines, where he could dazzle us all with his acts of supreme bravery. ..."
"... The key in that conflict with the Soviets was giving AQ shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles , Stingers, which were needed to enable freedom of movement against the Hind attack helicopters. That worked great. ..."
"... If they're talking about giving what, MANPADS? to the Al Nusras or ISIS holy fuck that's stupid. But it worked before, remember? That's how they'll think. ..."
"... I believe we have to go back to some of the first Big Lies told to the worldwide populace and their subsequent success, (at least as viewed by the purveyors of those Big Lies) and then we can understand why this metric is not changing. ..."
"... "The American way of life is not negotiable", Dick Cheney. The dye is already cast for WWIII, and the timetable is set by the construction of the Sino Russian energy pipelines. By its recent actions the USA is now viewed by it enemies as a non rational player in the game of MAD (mutually Assured Destruction,just in case you went to a US public School). ..."
"... For the threat of MAD to deter, each player must be convinced of the rationality of the other players, if they're not, a first strike makes the only logical move. Its better to give than recieve it IOW.. The USA has become a suicidal death cult. ..."
"... I am afraid we have squandered, so much money on defense, that our civilian economy is permanently damaged. ..."
"... Fool the White House again? No, you moron. ... The White House, CIA AND ISIS fooled (or attempted to fool) the USSA tax payers............AGAIN! ..."
"... No actual "American" - the true and prophesied "Chosen of God," the "El-ectorate" - is a "caretaker of truth" until JFK's and MLK's known assassins and their satanic ruling false-elite "Deep State" faction are brought to Justice ..."
"... Everybody knew it was a false flag, but they spun it as Assad. Now they've painted themselves into a corner and can never walk it back. ..."
Bannon is anti-intervention, so Trump had to kick him out of
the NSA planning room. General Kushner is now in charge. Love
to send General Kushner to the Syrian front lines, where he
could dazzle us all with his acts of supreme bravery.
Well, blame Reagan, because that's when we built Al Qaida in Afghanistan.
The key in that conflict with the Soviets was
giving AQ
shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles
, Stingers, which were
needed to enable freedom of movement against the Hind attack helicopters.
That worked great.
If they're talking about giving what, MANPADS? to the Al Nusras or
ISIS holy fuck that's stupid. But it worked before, remember? That's how
they'll think.
Precisely, if you want evidence, it's out there. And if you want a balanced
position, you ought to examine every possibility to determine which one
ultimately makes more more sense.
Additionally, we live in an age where
obtaining and studying evidence is streamlined and one could find a killer who
committed a crime 20 years ago just by studying some residue of his hair on
victim's shoulder [exageration obviously, but not that far fetched]. However,
manufacturing evidence progressed as well and it is easier to do it given a
certain [geo]political momentum.
I believe we have to go back to some of the first Big Lies told to the worldwide
populace and their subsequent success, (at least as viewed by the purveyors of
those Big Lies) and then we can understand why this metric is not changing.
IOW...
They got away with it before, they are sure they will get away with it again.
Business as usual boys and girls, business as usual.
"The American way of life is not negotiable", Dick Cheney.
The dye is already
cast for WWIII, and the timetable is set by the construction of the Sino Russian energy pipelines. By its recent actions the USA is now viewed by it enemies as
a non rational player in the
game of MAD (mutually Assured Destruction,just in case you went to a US public
School).
For the threat of MAD to deter, each player must be convinced of the
rationality of the other players,
if they're not, a first strike makes the only logical move.
Its better to give than recieve it IOW.. The USA has become a suicidal death cult.
Fool the White House again?
No, you moron. ... The White House, CIA AND ISIS
fooled (or attempted to fool) the USSA tax payers............AGAIN!
What fucking planet do hail from, Spanky? ... Did you just wake up from your
little nap? ... You sound like you received a big dose of colorless, odorless
stupid in your sleep.
Live Hard, The Press Is STUXNET On Burnt Toast And Smoking Up The Room, Die
Free
No actual "American" - the true and prophesied "Chosen of God," the "El-ectorate"
- is a "caretaker of truth" until JFK's and MLK's known assassins and their
satanic ruling false-elite "Deep State" faction are brought to Justice
Parry is great - but
he will never point out the heavy role of Zionist Jews in the media and
government in advocating for war on Syria and Iran, using naked lies and a
Jewish dominated media to control the narrative - and all to benefit Israel.
Goldberg is a Jewish Supremacist Zionist, and about as dishonest a person as
Bill Kristol and Alan Pedo Dershowitz.
It is not 'the Jews' nor are all or even most of DC's warmongers Jewish.
But the Goldbergs and Friedmans, and on and on, are Israel Firster Jews, and
they are motivated by Israel, and they play a major, and perhaps predominant
role in both the lies/propaganda and the political impetus.
You sure are trying real hard to vilify Iran even using Orwellian reversals of
the facts and naked lies - as hasbara trolls do.
The problem is your claims
have no real support, while evidence to the contrary is abundant and
essentially incontrovertible re the hostility of the Zionists ergo Deep State
to a free and independent Iran which can support the Lebanese resistance, sell
oil for gold, have its own central bank, etc.
Instead, Official Washington's propaganda bubble will stay
firmly in place allowing its inhabitants to go happily about their business
believing that they are the caretakers of "truth."
mc888 smoked Robert Parry when he wrote:
most entertaining is the mainstream US-cum-Soviet media spinning out of
control about the chemical attacks.
Everybody knew it was a false flag, but they spun it as Assad. Now they've
painted themselves into a corner and can never walk it back.
"... After the USSR collapsed Russia is as good as an ally to have as any like UK or Australia for US as a nation. But lets face it, this is bank wars, not political wars, just like the other world wars were. This is Putin vs. Goldman Sachs and nothing less. And gullible fools like Trump just love being the pawn if you use the code word "child" for some reason. Wow. ..."
"... Politics in banking means hundreds of millions dead last century. Could well be billions of dead this century. All Putin really has to say is this: "My message to Goldman Sach's is that your bank will be in rubble if you stop getting Trump to side with terrorists. We won't talk to Trump as he is not in power any more." Free advice to Putin there, no charge. ..."
"... All I've seen from Assad is him doing battle with the Sunni rebels who are from Al Qaeda their ISIS allies. Assad is the only leader not perpetrating genocide against non-Muslim or different Muslim sects currently in Syria. ..."
"... End-game in Syria? Same as the end-game in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Libya: US Global Hegemony engineered by complete annihilation throughout the whole region... complete chaos is the plan ..."
"... Scarborough's utterings are just a desperate attempt to maintain his fantasy. He is in a panic because the façade of American Exceptionalism ® is falling from his eyes. His words are the braggadocio of a coward. ..."
After the USSR collapsed Russia is as good as an ally to have as any like UK or
Australia for US as a nation. But lets face it, this is bank wars, not
political wars, just like the other world wars were. This is Putin vs. Goldman
Sachs and nothing less. And gullible fools like Trump just love being the pawn
if you use the code word "child" for some reason. Wow.
Politics in banking
means hundreds of millions dead last century. Could well be billions of dead
this century. All Putin really has to say is this: "My message to Goldman
Sach's is that your bank will be in rubble if you stop getting Trump to side
with terrorists. We won't talk to Trump as he is not in power any more." Free
advice to Putin there, no charge.
Was Trump really pretending to be on the side of common sense or was that a
charade he was playing to get in power?
"you go into these places that you're not going to face a show of
force"
Um; "people in glass houses" much? Places like what? Grenada?
Panama (remember Manuel Noriega?*) Iraq? Afghanistan? 15
years
of the
mightiest armed force in the world fighting "cavemen" and the "JV Team" retakes
half of that territory in a few months (in tennis shoes and Toyota pickups.)
*Should also watch out for the precedents you set, invading a foreign nation
in order to kidnap their leader and put him on trial for violating the
provincial laws of 'your' nation just might not have been such a brilliant
idea; especially when charges of "war crimes" start floating around.
Everybody is giddy over going to war and destroying Syria and the bad guy.
What exactly is the end solution? Put one of the nice Islamist ex-Al Qaeda
rebel leaders in charge? Chances are anybody we can find will be a Sunni
Islamist who will finish killing other sects of Muslims and all Christians in
the area. A slaughter worse than anything we've seen so far.
All I've seen from Assad is him doing battle with the Sunni rebels who are
from Al Qaeda their ISIS allies. Assad is the only leader not perpetrating
genocide against non-Muslim or different Muslim sects currently in Syria.
Personally I think we are witnessing the decline and fall of the American
Empire.
End-game in Syria? Same as the end-game in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and
Libya: US Global Hegemony engineered by complete annihilation throughout the
whole region... complete chaos is the plan
Between the media, the intelligence services, and the cheap self serving
politicians the US is a basket case. With a faltering industrial base, dying
financial system, and withering energy sector the Russians only have to wait
for the clowns in charge to complete its destruction. The only reason that
Scarborough believes that this is funny is because he hasn't figured out yet
that the joke is on him.
As shown by Scarborough and the yapping poodle Brzezinski, US citizenism
rewards well propagandists and fantasists. But they are becoming fearful.
Propaganda is losing in quality because the level of reality that propagandists
use to back their propaganda is growing more and more adverse to them.
Scarborough's utterings are just a desperate attempt to maintain his fantasy.
He is in a panic because the façade of
American Exceptionalism
® is
falling from his eyes. His words are the braggadocio of a coward.
With Trump's inauguration, policy in Syria has begun to take a different direction. After having
failed at regime-change, with the Syrian insurgency badly defeated, on the defensive and
fighting amongst themselves , it appeared the rebels' international sponsors had realized the
futility of their efforts and started
to discontinue their support.
The Trump administration
reportedly ended the CIA's train-and-equip program. This represents a
long-standing
feud between the Pentagon and the CIA The Pentagon had vehemently opposed the CIA's rebel program
on the grounds that it was empowering radical extremists which would eventually turn their guns toward
Americans, and if successful would turn Syria into a country of chaos ruled by warring factions of
jihadists, similar to Libya.
However, the sectors of power that Obama represented largely centered around the financial institutions
and the intelligence apparatus, and therefore the CIA won the tug-of-war and the rebel program continued.
Under Trump, the program was ended and the CIA's control over foreign policy
was
diminished , while the generals and military officials were largely
granted discretion to conduct overseas operations with little oversight from the chief executive.
The interests steering foreign policy are largely those of the weapons and defense contractors and
the profit incentives of the military industrial complex as a whole.
Given this, instead of covertly funneling aid to al-Qaeda, Trump began increasing the coalition's
bombing of the group and adopted a different regional strategy. This increased bombing only materialized,
however, after al-Qaeda
had been routed on
the battlefield .
The purpose of the U.S.-led "anti-ISIS" campaign had up to this point been to project the image
that the U.S. was fighting the group while simultaneously allowing them to prosper and militarily
bleed out Iran and Russia. In this way, the presence of ISIS was redirected into a useful pretext
which legitimized an illegal military presence in Syria which otherwise would not have been possible.
The universally despised attitude toward ISIS could conveniently be transformed into a mandate for
annexing and occupying Syrian territory. The strategy could shift from "Assad must go" to "defeating
ISIS."
Signaling this shift, the Trump administration had
announced that it "accepts" the "political reality with respect to Assad," and that "foremost
among its priorities" from here on out would be "the defeat of ISIS."
Concurrent with this was an agreement reached between Trump and the Saudi king after their meeting
in mid-March, where it was decided that the Gulf would reopen supply channels to their proxies and
occupy Russia on the battlefield, allowing the U.S. to concentrate on dividing northern Syria and
establishing their occupation.
Within this environment,
it appeared that some kind of negotiated settlement might have materialized, wherein Russia would
agree to the U.S. annexation in return for certain concessions. Powerful factions within the U.S.
were vehemently opposed to this, however, and were determined to reverse it.
The chemical weapons incident in Khan Sheikhoun effectively accomplished that and upended all
previous hopes for a settlement.
After the horrendous attack, killing upwards of 70 people, procedures were underway for a thorough
UN investigation to determine culpability. Without having completed that process, and
without any
evidence presented, the Trump administration launched a barrage of cruise missiles and attacked
a Syrian military installation which was
being used to fight ISIS . The timing of the attack prevented the investigation from going forward.
This was a clear
violation of international law and a blatant act of unjustified aggression against another state,
which according to the Nuremberg Tribunals represents the "supreme international crime." The pain
and suffering of the victims was cynically exploited as a pretext for such an aggression, unsurprisingly
to the high moral acclaim of Western officials and media personalities. The attack, hailed as a "
beautiful " display of our weapons, which revealed the "
heart " and compassion of President Trump, reportedly murdered
half a dozen Syrian
soldiers , as well as
four children .
Who cares? It was our moral duty to punish Assad for killing children, by killing other children,
albeit through the justified and morally honorable way, with U.S. bombs.
Even more egregious, the attack was almost certainly carried out by the rebels, dominated by al-Qaeda
and a rabble of other sectarian extremists. Washington would have you believe that Assad, having
given up all of his chemical weapons in 2013 and barely escaping a Libya-style overthrow, after now
having devastated the rebels on the battlefield, would on the eve of important international congregations
aimed at ending the war launch a militarily insignificant attack with the kind of weapons that are
literally the one thing that could endanger his rule and lead to a U.S. invasion. Assad may be a
brutal autocrat, but he has never displayed any signs of
being insane .
The opposition, however, has everything to gain from this. Desperate, staring at defeat and a
reduction in supplies, along with a U.S. administration abandoning its former "Assad must go" policy,
the last recourse they had was for a "red-line" to be crossed which could justify a U.S. invasion.
It has also been
widely
reported that they, in fact,
have access
to chemical weapons and
have utilized them
in the past.
Not surprisingly then, the U.S. intelligence community largely holds the Russian explanation,
that Assad's forces
bombed a rebel storage facility containing chemical weapons,
to be true , and the official U.S. line to be false.
Sources
from the CIA have stated that it was their belief that "Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was
likely not responsible for the lethal poison gas incident in northern Syria."
One intelligence
source said "the most likely scenario" was "a staged event by the rebels intended to force Trump
to reverse a policy that the U.S. government would no longer seek 'regime change' in Syria."
War is a Racket
In the aftermath of the attack, it has become apparent that the entire motivation behind the Democratic
Party's antagonism toward Trump, along with the CIA, the neocons and the rest of the liberal interventionists,
had absolutely nothing to do with opposition towards Trump's racism, xenophobia, attacks against
civil rights, or even any connection with Putin, the accusations of course lacking any foundation
in evidence. Instead, these were pretexts used to wage an all-out campaign of manipulation with a
single goal in mind: pressuring him to continue carrying out the previous administration's strategy
of overthrowing the Syrian government and maintaining a war-footing against Russia.
This is why the liberal resentment was solely focused on undermining the one aspect of his platform
which was actually worth pursuing , cooperation with Russia and a détente of the increasingly
dangerous confrontation that had been festering between the two nuclear powers. By portraying Trump
as nothing more than a spy for Putin, the liberal establishment was able to guarantee that business-as-usual
against Russia would be resumed, under threat that their efforts would be directed toward undermining
the presidency if it did not.
Explaining the situation , the Wall Street Journal reported that "in Washington, probes by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and Congress into possible connections between Mr. Trump's associates
and Russia have restricted the new administration's ability to cut deals seen as conciliatory to
the Kremlin in the near term without provoking an outcry from both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol
Hill."
Exposing this antagonism for the opportunistic warmongering that it was, following Trump's attack,
in reality a war-crime
for which Trump should be impeached and tried, all of his most forceful opponents of only a few
days prior are now simply fawning in praise at their "great commander-in-chief." The pressure has
effectively been called off, though Trump will realize why that is and will remember again in the
future when it is reapplied. After having found such an effective mechanism for ensuring that the
proper course is maintained, it will continue to be utilized.
In addition to having mitigated domestic opposition, the attack will likely remedy the problem
of
Trump's approval ratings , which were below that of any comparable president. Nothing more effectively
rallies a country around their leader like a war. In this sense, being a celebrity personality whose
foremost concerns are seemingly how others view him, the incident was
largely orchestrated around boosting the president's national image. Trump will now be seen as
the "strong" leader who attacked the evil Assad and wasn't afraid of Russian threats, while Obama
was the "weak" president who wouldn't do the same even without Russia protecting him. It
appears that such a reckless attack was largely the result of one man's ego.
However, it also represented the increased power and influence of the military, Trump having vowed
to listen to his generals in the same way that Obama did not. When it comes to military officials,
every solution resembles a nail, and are "solved" through military means such as missile strikes.
The power of the military-industrial base to secure profit-making interests through state policy
was also on display. Most notably the defense contractor Raytheon, who manufactures the missiles
that were used in the attack, and thereby stands to gain when the government resupplies its arsenal.
Their stock
instantly surged following the incident, adding nearly five billion dollars to its overall market
value. Even more to the point are
the
reports which suggest that Trump
still holds
shares in Raytheon , and therefore will directly profit from this and from similar decisions
in the future.
Oil stocks
as well have
precipitously increased .
History, it seems, is repeating itself, with Smedley Butler's classic "
War is a Racket " coming to mind.
The attack is also related to the Trump administration's strong ties with Israel and the AIPAC
lobby. Shortly before the chemical incident took place, Israeli jets had interfered on the side of
the Islamic State and
targeted Syrian army positions . Syria
shot at the jets violating their airspace and forced them to retreat. The
same airbase
that Trump attacked was the one from which the Israeli jets were targeted, Trump giving his friend
Bibi
a gift in the form of retribution.
In a similar vein, the order was given during Trump's dinner with the President of China, and
comes with a message in mind. The message is that "my threats aren't hollow," and carry force behind
them, referring to recent bellicose statements directed towards China if it refuses to "solve" the
situation in North Korea. This, unsurprisingly, has only
further
encouraged North Korea and others to continue acquiring nuclear capabilities to deter American
aggression. After all, this is what the North Korean nuclear program
is all about , at least according to
US military intelligence .
Nevertheless, Trump now has immense incentives to continue pursuing confrontation with Russia
and Syria.
For what it was worth though, the actual attack represents a small-scale and largely symbolic
accomplishment. It did not greatly damage Syria's military capabilities, the airbase reportedly already
being back in operation. It does, however, carry with it extraordinarily dangerous and potentially
unforeseeable consequences.
A Lifeline for the Jihadists
The situation in Syria was already extremely precarious. For the first time in the modern period
fighter jets of two nuclear powers were circling each other within the bounds of a single state in
defense of opposing ground forces; one false move could've potentially sparked a WWIII scenario.
Trump's careless actions have only further hurdled the world toward possible catastrophe, further
strengthening the opinion of
the world's population that the U.S. is by far
the greatest threat to world peace , with constantly-invoked official adversaries trailing far
behind.
Directly after the attack, Russia severed the communication channels between itself and the US
military. The agreed upon "deconfliction" precautions have been abandoned while the
memorandum of understanding used to prevent military confrontations and air accidents
has been tabled . US jets are now operating
in Syria under constant threat of being targeted by the Russian air force and the Syrian army. Given
this, former members of the US-led coalition have
suspended their involvement and evacuated their aircraft, saying it is no longer safe to remain.
Others are likely to follow. One false move could bring us to the brink of a cataclysmic confrontation.
Wasn't this decision just wonderful?
On top of all this, the maneuver has greatly damaged Russia's credibility. The US effectively
called the Russian narrative a lie and exposed Putin's "protection" of his allies to be hollow. The
Russian military has been discredited and their already strained relations with Syria and Iran have
only further been maligned. Unsurprisingly the Russian's
are furious .
Importantly, however, it seems likely that some kind of an agreement was reached when the US
notified the Russians and warned them of the attack. Important military equipment and personnel
were evacuated from the site. The question, however, is what concession Russia received in return
for allowing Trump to save face after his "red line" comments and what will be the Russian response.
Already
a Russian warship is steaming toward the Mediterranean while
further steps are being taken to increase Syria's air defenses.
The other direct consequence was the strengthening of ISIS and al-Qaeda, who unsurprisingly exploited
the attack to launch their own offenses. The military installation that was hit was one of the main
bases from which
attacks against ISIS were carried out. It was instrumental in keeping nearby ISIS militants at
bay and protected the surrounding inhabitants from an ISIS attack. Following the incident
residents say they now fear an assault, stating that "women and children have already started
to leave Shayrat to go to Homs city. We're not afraid of airstrikes. Our fear is the [ISIS] attack
from the east." For the residents, all these airstrikes amount to is "proof that the U.S. helps Daesh."
Perhaps this is what the New York Times meant when
they said , "It was hard not to feel some sense of emotional satisfaction, and justice done,
when American cruise missiles struck an airfield in Syria on Thursday."
Furthermore, the implicit message that Trump has sent to the jihadists is that the international
media and the US administration will not attempt to deliberate over evidence and demonstrate factual
culpability, but instead will automatically blame Assad for any chemical weapons attacks. This effectively
gives them a mechanism by which to call in US airstrikes should they ever need to improve their battlefield
positions or gain the support of foreign intervention. Far from deterring dangerous weapon use, this
provides an overwhelming
incentive for chemical weapons to continue to be deployed, especially in terms of the Gulf monarchies
should they ever need to redirect Trump towards an explicit "Assad must go" policy.
Leaked memos from Saudi
Arabia say that Assad must be overthrown at all costs, because if he is not then Syria's primary
goal will be "taking revenge on the countries that stood against it, with the Kingdom coming at
the top of the list," which represents "a high degree of danger for the Kingdom." The Saudi rulers
make clear their view that the main stumbling block in the way of achieving this is the "lack of
'desire' and not a lack of 'capability' to take firm steps" on the part of the United States, and
therefore they "must seek by all means available and all possible ways to overthrow the current regime
in Syria." (emphasis added)
Isn't it wonderful how we taught Assad a lesson?
Given all of this, the pressures leading towards war and destruction will continue, as will the
strategy of occupying northern Syria while denying the Syrian government from controlling the totality
of its former territories. Rebel jihadi supply lines through Turkey will continue fueling the conflict,
and with it the innocent deaths, while the money and weapons from the Gulf will continue to be forthcoming
in an attempt to sink Russia down into the Syrian quagmire. This course of action, based on motivations
of regional dominance, will continue to be
the largest stumbling block towards peace that will further prolong the already 6-year long conflict.
Obstacles to Peace
Russia still has a fresh memory of the debacle in Afghanistan during the 1980s and desperately
fears another repeat in Syria, especially given the newfound influence they have now been able to
establish with the buildup of their military presence around the Mediterranean. The conflict in Syria
provided them the opportunity to accomplish this. It is therefore
within their interests for a quick political settlement to be reached and for a termination of
the conflict, along with a cleanup of the Russian-nationals fighting in the ranks of the jihadists,
and to further consolidate and exploit its newfound position as an influencer in regional Middle
Eastern affairs. This comes into stark conflict with their Iranian and Syrian partners who are urging
Russia to continue the offensive and reclaim the totality of Syrian territory.
Because of this, Russia would likely be willing to exert the pressure necessary to force its allies
to accept a settlement which includes extraordinary concessions. For this reason, too, Russia will
likely acquiesce to the US-backed balkanization effort in some form in order to freeze the conflict.
At the same time, the Americans and Europeans
desperately want to see Russia get bogged down in another Afghanistan scenario, not the least
of which because Russia was instrumental in preventing their regime-change efforts. It is for this
reason that the US and the EU do not have a coherent plan to end the conflict, but do have
a strategy of partitioning Syrian territory which will likely result in an all-out corporate
resource-grab afterwards, allowing Western investors access to exploit the area and obtain the rebuilding
contracts that will then be signed. This being paramount in their calculations, the reactionary al-Qaeda
forces on the ground again become a useful asset rather than an enemy to be destroyed, while the
ISIS pretext justifies the annexations.
Following the completion of partition, the strategy will shift directly back toward regime change,
only with newly acquired territories and levers of pressure from which to exert such demands. The
eventual goal is a complete eviction of Russia from the Mediterranean and from its ability to frustrate
Western ambitions for regional hegemony.
Fueling this is the embedded and institutional nature of an American policy of regime change toward
all non-compliant states, euphemistically referred to as the "axis of evil." These policies are not
at all related to the changing personalities which happen to occupy the White House from time to
time. This is because government policy is representative of the very narrow class interests of those
which dominate the socio-economic hierarchy. That is, the dominant plutocracy made up of the individuals
and interests who own the private economy and enjoy control over vast consolidations of wealth and
resources. It is from this dominant business-class that the top level positions within the executive
are filled, and from these interests that policy is crafted and legislated. This has been shown in
prominent political science studies which explain "economic elites and organized groups representing
business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based
interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence." Or, in other words,
"the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically
non-significant impact upon public policy," while decision-making is confined almost exclusively
to the top 1%.
This is why
prominent political analysts have
concluded since the 1950s that "at every level of the administration of the American state, domestically
and internationally, business serves as the fount of critical assumptions or goals and strategically
placed personnel." Policy, therefore, stemming from "the most powerful class interests" which inform
the "nature and objectives of American power at home and abroad." It is the "ideology and the interest
and material power of the physical resources of the ruling class of American capitalism" which determine
courses of action, "the latter [the material power of their physical resources] being sufficient
should consensus break down." This "economic ruling elite" being "the final arbiter and beneficiary
of the existing structure of American politics and of United States power in the world."
This the reason why US policy towards Syria has remained consistent for nearly a century. The
CIA has been attempting, since its inception, to overthrow the Syrian government
since the middle
of the 20th century , through countless administrations and countless fluctuations between Democrats
and Republicans. The core policy remains the same, so it should be no wonder that the current incumbent
would opportunistically seize upon an opportunity to attack the Syrian state. These actions cannot
solely be laid at the feat of the liberals nor domestic political concerns.
Instead, the overthrow of non-compliant regimes is a staple of US policy because doing so secures
the economic and material interests of the dominant ruling class within America. It is within their
interests for governments to allow their economies to be penetrated by Western corporations seeking
to exploit their markets, and to denationalize state assets and coveted resources for the exploitation
of foreign investors. Furthermore, these interests are further secured through regional support for
US military aggressions and occupations. This is why so much emphasis was put upon
securing
control over Iraqi oil and the establishment of US military bases in Iraq, and why similar aggressions
are not pursued against client states which comply with these developments. Syria, although it began
to allow Western economic penetration, has on the whole frustrated attempts for greater access. In
addition, Syria has opposed US military aggression in the region, such as
their attempts to undermine the occupation of Iraq.
The Logic of Imperialism
The other major issue is
the
pipeline war between
the US and Russia over
the natural gas field
which bisects Iranian and Qatari territory, the largest in the world. Qatar's attempts to connect
their holdings directly to European markets was denied by Assad, while an Iranian and Russian-backed
pipeline was put into motion. It is only after the ball began rolling for the Russian-Iranian-Syria
pipeline that the insurgency was fostered against Assad.
This is why Trump has used this opportunity to further aggress upon the Syrian state, now writing
up
a new batch of sanctions to apply under the pretext of chemical weapons use. The sanctions, after
all, are an economic siege against the entirety of the country, and are fueling much of the suffering
and the fleeing of refugees. These new ones will continue a tactic of brutalization of the civilian
population with little effect against the government, the strategy being to force massive economic
suffering as a means to pressure the current regime. This is also why the US again
is demanding Assad's ouster , saying "There's not any sort of option where a political solution
is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime."
As self-righteous pundits, officials, and intellectuals who should know better wax poetically
and bask in their own self-righteousness over how moral and justified this immoral act of aggression
was, it is not hard to see why the world considers the US the leading threat to peace and a leading
terrorist rogue state.
The US and its clients,
who have all
hailed Trump's belligerent attacks on moralistic grounds, are the only states rampaging through
the region attacking countries at will while destroying any that stand in their way. The US now,
and the British before them, have consistently opposed and overthrown any truly progressive, democratic,
and secular movement or government that has emerged in the Middle East while at the same time propping
up the forces of extremist-Islam and fueling the spread of violent jihadism throughout the region.
This is because the US has, since the 1950s, pursued an agenda of global domination and has insisted
on securing its ambitions through
tyranny and oppression .
Imagine, for an instance, that Syria manufactured a false claim and said the US military used
chemical weapons against them, and used that pretext to launch a cruise missile assault on an American
base in American territory, murdering the innocent civilians living nearby, including four children.
Now imagine that on top of that, the officials and intellectuals from Syria didn't apologize, but
instead hailed the intolerable injustice as being a display of "
justice done ," something that was "
beautiful ," which elicited a "sense of emotional satisfaction" and was righteous and good, showing
how
heartfelt and compassionate they are.
How malicious and sociopathic would we view those officials?
Yet we all carry on, blind and drunk off the desire to dominate and control.
"... Holding up an enlarged photo of Colin Powell's "weapons of mass destruction" speech, Llorenti made an impassioned plea to hold the U.S. to account for Thursday's unprovoked attack on Syria, noting the U.S. history of imperialist interventions in other nations, including Latin America. ..."
"... "Now the United States believe that they are investigators, they are attorneys, judges and they are the executioners. That's not what international law is about ..."
"... "I believe it's vital for us to remember what history teaches us and on this occasion (in 2003), the United States did affirm, they affirmed that they had all the proof necessary to show that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but they were never found never were they found," the Bolivian envoy told the emergency Security Council meeting on Friday ..."
"... On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary Powell presented fabricated "proof" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, including deadly nerve agents. The presentation has since been widely discredited, as no evidence of a weapons program was ever discovered. Powell himself expressing regret over what he termed "a great intelligence failure" - a failure that originated in his own exaggerated and doctored interpretation of intercepted Iraqi communications ..."
"... Arguing that the U.S. acted unilaterally and in flagrant violation of the U.N. charter, the Bolivian envoy called for a closed-door meeting of the U.N. Security Council ..."
"... United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley denied the request. The U.S. holds the presidency of the Security Council this month. ..."
"I believe it's vital for us to remember what history teaches us," the Bolivian envoy told
the U.N. Security Council. | Photo: United Nations
"Now the U.S. believe that they are investigators, they are attorneys, judges and they are the
executioners," the Bolivian ambassador said.
Lambasting the United States' aggression against Syria, Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations
Sacha Llorenti compared the basis for the unilateral move to former U.S. Secretary of State Colin
Powell's infamous 2003 presentation to the body, when fraudulent evidence of an alleged Iraqi weapons
program was presented to justify the U.S. war on Iraq.
Holding up an enlarged photo of Colin Powell's "weapons of mass destruction" speech, Llorenti
made an impassioned plea to hold the U.S. to account for Thursday's unprovoked attack on Syria, noting
the U.S. history of imperialist interventions in other nations, including Latin America.
"Now the United States believe that they are investigators, they are attorneys, judges and
they are the executioners. That's not what international law is about."
The Andean nation currently holds a non-permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.
"I believe it's vital for us to remember what history teaches us and on this occasion (in
2003), the United States did affirm, they affirmed that they had all the proof necessary to show
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but they were never found never were they found," the
Bolivian envoy told the emergency Security Council meeting on Friday.
On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary Powell presented fabricated "proof" that Saddam Hussein's government
in Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, including deadly nerve agents. The presentation
has since been widely discredited, as no evidence of a weapons program was ever discovered. Powell
himself expressing regret over what he termed "a great intelligence failure" - a failure that originated
in his own exaggerated and doctored interpretation of intercepted Iraqi communications.
The U.S. launched dozens of tomahawk cruise missiles at the Shayrat air base in Homs Thursday
night. The Russian Defense Ministry claims that only 23 of 59 missiles reached the intended target,
with the remainder landing in nearby villages. Syrian media sources are reporting that nine civilians
died in the attack, four children.
The attack was a response to an alleged Sarin gas attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.
The incident claimed 89 lives, including 33 children and 18 women, according to local opposition
authorities.
Syrian government representatives have denied that it would use such weapons, stating that the
alleged proof of a Syrian military role is, in fact, propaganda fabricated by opposition groups like
Jabhat al-Nusra. Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that Putin considers
the strikes to be "aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law, and under
a false pretext."
Arguing that the U.S. acted unilaterally and in flagrant violation of the U.N. charter, the
Bolivian envoy called for a closed-door meeting of the U.N. Security Council.
"The United States was preparing once again and carried out a unilateral attack," Llorenti said.
"The missile attack, of course, is a unilateral action. They represent a serious threat to international
peace and security."
United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley denied the request. The U.S. holds
the presidency of the Security Council this month.
I
am responding to your distribution of what I understand is a White House
statement claiming intelligence findings about the nerve agent attack on
April 4, 2017 in Khan Shaykhun, Syria. My understanding from your note is
that this White House intelligence summary was released to you sometime on
April 11, 2017.
I have reviewed the document carefully,
and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not
provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete
knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack
in Khan Shaykhun, Syria at roughly 6 to 7 a.m. on April 4, 2017.
In fact, a main piece of evidence that is
cited in the document points to an attack that was executed by individuals
on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of April 4.
This conclusion is based on an assumption
made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and
the photographs of that source. My own assessment, is that the source was
very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made
from the photographs cited by the White House.
However, if one assumes, as does the White
House, that the source of the sarin was from this location and that the
location was not tampered with, the most plausible conclusion is that the
sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122 mm
section of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides.
The only undisputable facts stated in the
White House report is the claim that a chemical attack using nerve agent
occurred in Khan Shaykhun, Syria on that morning. Although the White House
statement repeats this point in many places within its report, the report
contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a
munition being dropped from an aircraft. In fact, the report contains
absolutely no evidence that would indicate who was the perpetrator of this
atrocity.
The report instead repeats observations of
physical effects suffered by victims that with very little doubt indicate
nerve agent poisoning.
The only source the document cites as
evidence that the attack was by the Syrian government is the crater it
claims to have identified on a road in the North of Khan Shaykhun.
I have located this crater using Google
Earth and there is absolutely no evidence that the crater was created by a
munition designed to disperse sarin after it is dropped from an aircraft.
The Google Earth map shown in
Figure 1
at the end of this text section shows the location of that
crater on the road in the north of Khan Shaykhun, as described in the White
House statement.
The data cited by the White House is more
consistent with the possibility that the munition was placed on the ground
rather than dropped from a plane. This conclusion assumes that the crater
was not tampered with prior to the photographs. However, by referring to the
munition in this crater, the White House is indicating that this is the
erroneous source of the data it used to conclude that the munition came from
a Syrian aircraft.
Analysis of the debris as shown in the
photographs cited by the White House clearly indicates that the munition was
almost certainly placed on the ground with an external detonating explosive
on top of it that crushed the container so as to disperse the alleged load
of sarin.
Since time appears to be of the essence
here, I have put together the summary of the evidence I have that the White
House report contains false and misleading conclusions in a series of
figures that follow this discussion. Each of the figures has a description
below it, but I will summarize these figures next and wait for further
inquiries about the basis of the conclusions I am putting forward herein.
Figure 1
shows a Google
Earth image of the northeast corner of Khan Shaykhun where the crater
identified as the source of the sarin attack and referred to in the White
House intelligence report is located.
Also shown in the Google Earth image is
the direction of the wind from the crater. At 3 AM the wind was going
directly to the south at a speed of roughly 1.5 to 2.5 m/s. By 6 AM the wind
was moving to the southeast at 1 to 2 m/s. The temperature was also low, 50
to 55°F near the ground. These conditions are absolutely ideal for a nerve
agent attack.
When the temperature near the ground is
low, and there is no sun and very slow winds, the dense cool air stays close
to the ground and there is almost no upward motion of the air. This
condition causes any particles, droplets, or clouds of dispersed gas to stay
close to the ground as the surrounding air moves over the ground. We
perceive this motion as a gentle breeze on a calm morning before sunrise.
One can think of a cloud of sarin as much
like a cloud of ink generated by an escaping octopus. The ink cloud sits in
the water and as the water slowly moves, so does the cloud. As the cloud is
moved along by the water, it will slowly spread in all directions as it
moves. If the layer of water where the ink is embedded moves so as to stay
close to the ocean floor, the cloud will cover objects as it moves with the
water.
This is the situation that occurs on a
cool night before sunrise when the winds move only gently.
Figures 5 and 6
show
tables that summarize the weather at 3 hour intervals in Khan Shaykun on the
day of the attack, April 4, the day before the attack, April 3, and the day
after the attack, April 5. The striking feature of the weather is that there
were relatively high winds in the morning hours on both April 3 and April 5.
If the gas attack were executed either the day before or the day after in
the early morning, the attack would have been highly ineffective. The much
higher winds would have dispersed the cloud of nerve agent and the mixing of
winds from higher altitudes would have caused the nerve agent to be carried
aloft from the ground. It is therefore absolutely clear that the time and
day of the attack was carefully chosen and was no accident.
Figure 2
shows a high
quality photograph of the crater identified in the White House report as the
source of the sarin attack. Assuming that there was no tampering of evidence
at the crater, one can see what the White House is claiming as a dispenser
of the nerve agent.
The dispenser looks like a 122 mm pipe
like that used in the manufacture of artillery rockets.
As shown in the close-up of the pipe in
the crater in
Figure 3
, the pipe looks like it was
originally sealed at the front end and the back end. Also of note is that
the pipe is flattened into the crater, and also has a fractured seam that
was created by the brittle failure of the metal skin when the pipe was
suddenly crushed inward from above.
Figure 4
shows the
possible configuration of an improvised sarin dispersal device that could
have been used to create the crater and the crushed carcass of what was
originally a cylindrical pipe. A good guess of how this dispersal mechanism
worked (again, assuming that the crater and carcass were not staged, as
assumed in the White House report) was that a slab of high explosive was
placed over one end of the sarin-filled pipe and detonated.
The explosive acted on the pipe as a blunt
crushing mallet. It drove the pipe into the ground while at the same time
creating the crater. Since the pipe was filled with sarin, which is an
incompressible fluid, as the pipe was flattened the sarin acted on the walls
and ends of the pipe causing a crack along the length of the pipe and also
the failure of the cap on the back end. This mechanism of dispersal is
essentially the same as hitting a toothpaste tube with a large mallet, which
then results in the tube failing and the toothpaste being blown in many
directions depending on the exact way the toothpaste skin ruptures.
If this is in fact the mechanism used to
disperse the sarin, this indicates that the sarin tube was placed on the
ground by individuals on the ground and not dropped from an airplane.
Figure 8
shows the
improvised sarin dispenser along with a typical 122 mm artillery rocket and
the modified artillery rocket used in the sarin attack of August 21, 2013 in
Damascus.
At that time (August 30, 2013) the Obama
White House also issued an intelligence report containing obvious
inaccuracies. For example, that report stated without equivocation that the
sarin carrying artillery rocket used in Damascus had been fired from Syrian
government controlled areas. As it turned out, the particular munition used
in that attack could not go further than roughly 2 km, very far short of any
boundary controlled by the Syrian government at that time. The White House
report at that time also contained other critical and important errors that
might properly be described as amateurish. For example, the report claimed
that the locations of the launch and impact of points of the artillery
rockets were observed by US satellites. This claim was absolutely false and
any competent intelligence analyst would have known that. The rockets could
be seen from the Space-Based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) but the satellite
could absolutely not see the impact locations because the impact locations
were not accompanied by explosions. These errors were clear indicators that
the White House intelligence report had in part been fabricated and had not
been vetted by competent intelligence experts.
This same situation appears to be the case
with the current White House intelligence report. No competent analyst would
assume that the crater cited as the source of the sarin attack was
unambiguously an indication that the munition came from an aircraft. No
competent analyst would assume that the photograph of the carcass of the
sarin canister was in fact a sarin canister. Any competent analyst would
have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or
real. No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin
canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a
munition within it. All of these highly amateurish mistakes indicate that
this White House report, like the earlier Obama White House Report, was not
properly vetted by the intelligence community as claimed.
I have worked with the intelligence
community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicization of
intelligence that seems to be occurring with more frequency in recent times
– but I know that the intelligence community has highly capable analysts in
it. And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the
White House document they would have not approved the document going
forward.
I am available to expand on these comments
substantially. I have only had a few hours to quickly review the alleged
White House intelligence report. But a quick perusal shows without a lot of
analysis that this report cannot be correct, and it also appears that this
report was not properly vetted by the intelligence community.
This is a very serious matter.
President Obama was initially misinformed
about supposed intelligence evidence that Syria was the perpetrator of the
August 21, 2013 nerve agent attack in Damascus. This is a matter of public
record. President Obama stated that his initially false understanding was
that the intelligence clearly showed that Syria was the source of the nerve
agent attack. This false information was corrected when the then Director of
National Intelligence, James Clapper, interrupted the President while he was
in an intelligence briefing. According to President Obama, Mr. Clapper told
the President that the intelligence that Syria was the perpetrator of the
attack was "not a slamdunk."
The question that needs to be answered by
our nation is how was the president initially misled about such a profoundly
important intelligence finding? A second equally important question is how
did the White House produce an intelligence report that was obviously flawed
and amateurish that was then released to the public and never corrected? The
same false information in the intelligence report issued by the White House
on August 30, 2013 was emphatically provided by Secretary of State John
Kerry in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee!
We again have a situation where the White
House has issued an obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence
report.
The Congress and the public have been
given reports in the name of the intelligence community about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq, technical evidence supposedly collected by
satellite systems that any competent scientists would know is false, and now
from photographs of the crater that any analyst who has any competent at all
would not trust as evidence.
It is late in the evening for me, so I
will end my discussion here.
I stand ready to provide the country with
any analysis and help that is within my power to supply. What I can say for
sure herein is that what the country is now being told by the White House
cannot be true
and the fact that this information has been
provided in this format raises the most serious questions about the handling
of our national security.
Sincerely yours,
Theodore A. Postol
Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology,
and National Security Policy
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Email: [email protected]
Cell Phone: 617 543-7646
... ... ... ...
A lot of interesting and detailed information omitted
200 Words
I was really hoping that Prof. Postol would share his thoughts about the
attack in Khan Sheikhoun. If you are interested, I wrote a very detailed
blog post
, in which I examine the evidence about the recent chemical
attack and compare the situation with what happened after the chemical
attack in Ghouta in August 2013. I argue that, in the case of the attack
in Ghouta, the media narrative had rapidly unravelled and that, for that
reason, we should be extremely prudent about the recent attack and not
jump to conclusions. Among other things, I discuss the ballistic analysis
produced by Postol and Lloyd at the time, which showed that both the
much-touted NYT/HRW analysis and the US intelligence were mistaken. I
also show that, despite the fact that a lot of evidence came out that
undermined the official narrative, the media never changed their stance
and continued to talk as if there was no doubt that Assad's regime was
responsible for the attack. It's more than 5,000 words long and I provide
a source for every single factual claim I make. The post has already been
widely shared and some people have criticized it, so I will soon post a
follow-up where I reply to critics and say more about the evidence that
bears on the attack in Khan Sheikhoun.
100 Words
This just gets weirder and weirder. Is the position of the Trump
Administration and the intelligence community that the Syrian Air Force
went through all the trouble to launch an aerial attack and drop
one
bomb? Handling chemical munitions is inherently dangerous. Syrian Air
Force personnel loading the nerve agent into the bomb and then fitting it
on the plane would have to wear protective clothing and receive special
training, and might even then suffer some exposure casualties. And my
recollection is that chemical weapons, even nerve gas, generally have to
be used in massive quantities to achieve any military result.
The
chances that the gassing was as a result of a Syrian Air Force attack are
vanishingly small. Other forces are in play here. The American people are
being deceived.
Read
More
100 Words
Technical stuff is interesting, but from the layman's perspective it's
really straightforward: means, motive, opportunity.
Opportunity: yes.
Means: seems doubtful, due to the 2013-14 OPCW cleanup of the
government-controlled territory.
Motive: not just absent, but manifestly counterproductive, under the
circumstances.
There's also ample evidence of the government desperately trying to
avoid antagonizing the population. In the territories they they liberate,
they routinely – and that's a fact – transport anti-government militants
and their families, and even with their light weapons, into
rebel-controlled territories, that same Idlib province. In
government-supplied buses. Even though they could easily kill them all,
right on the spot. How does it square with with the supposed
indiscriminate gassing?
Read
More
Anon
,
April 13, 2017 at 8:39 am GMT \n
100 Words
Much "evidence" can be faked. This is just an example of that fact.
Looking at that tube, it is obvious that it did not explode. If it is
very difficult to determine if evidence is real or faked, then one must
be very careful reaching conclusions based on said evidence. At that
point, motives must be taken into consideration.
The argument that the Syrian government had any motive whatsoever to
carry out this attack is very,very weak. Also, I have heard the claim
that the US government believes only one chemical weapon was used.
Assuming that the Syrian government carried out the attack, which I do
not believe, why would they use just one chemical weapon?
So what we have here is very weak evidence, very weak motive, and an
illogical and inefficient proposed mechanism. This does not pass the
smell test at all.
Avery
,
April 13, 2017 at 12:37 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Mao Cheng Ji
Technical stuff is interesting, but from the layman's perspective it's
really straightforward: means, motive, opportunity.
Opportunity: yes.
Means: seems doubtful, due to the 2013-14 OPCW cleanup of the
government-controlled territory.
Motive: not just absent, but manifestly counterproductive, under the
circumstances.
There's also ample evidence of the government desperately trying to avoid
antagonizing the population. In the territories they they liberate, they
routinely - and that's a fact - transport anti-government militants and
their families, and even with their light weapons, into rebel-controlled
territories, that same Idlib province. In government-supplied buses. Even
though they could easily kill them all, right on the spot. How does it
square with with the supposed indiscriminate gassing?
You make good points.
{How does it square with with the supposed indiscriminate gassing?}
It doesn't.
Particularly a chemical attack, to kill, what, 100 people?
Assad knows very well what that would mean: even Russia would not let it
slide.
As you said, SAA could easily kill hundreds of terrorists and their
sympathizers with conventional bombs if they wanted to kill
indiscriminately.
On the other hand it squares 100% with enemies of Syria.
SAA is winning, albeit at a very slow pace, and Neocons clearly are
panicking and desperate to prevent the breakout of peace in Syria at any
cost.
200 Words
I was a demo guy in the Marine Corps, so I am
familiar with the effect of explosive charges.
There is no question that the photo, if accurate,
is consistent with a charge placed above rather
than within. There may be other explanations for
the compression but definitely not an internal
charge. I would note that the diagram in the
article suggests some sort of "pipe bomb" type
charge on top, but I do not see any sort of
fragments from that type of device. If it was a
charge on top it would have needed to be a simple
explosive charge, probably tamped with dirt or
sand. In any case, there would be explosive
residue on the outside of the pipe which could
easily be identified. Obviously, if this pipe was
source of the agent someone should have preserved
this evidence and turned it over to the UN or
whoever.
Ivan
,
April 13, 2017 at 2:04 pm GMT \n
@Diversity Heretic
This just gets weirder and weirder. Is the position of the Trump
Administration and the intelligence community that the Syrian Air Force
went through all the trouble to launch an aerial attack and drop
one
bomb? Handling chemical munitions is inherently dangerous. Syrian Air
Force personnel loading the nerve agent into the bomb and then fitting it
on the plane would have to wear protective clothing and receive special
training, and might even then suffer some exposure casualties. And my
recollection is that chemical weapons, even nerve gas, generally have to
be used in massive quantities to achieve any military result.
The chances that the gassing was as a result of a Syrian Air Force attack
are vanishingly small. Other forces are in play here. The American people
are being deceived.
Gilad Atzmon had another question: if the US really did believe that air
force base had chemical weapons stores then launching a Tomahawk strike
would in all likelihood release those same gases . Duh.
El Dato
,
April 13, 2017 at 3:07 pm GMT \n
@Ivan
Gilad Atzmon had another question: if the US really did believe that air
force base had chemical weapons stores then launching a Tomahawk strike
would in all likelihood release those same gases . Duh.
Which is why
Does this mean that Abe Lincoln was a ruthless thug responsible for
the deaths of a half a million Americans during our civil war?
Yes
Who is worse, Assad or Lincoln?
Lincoln wins that race in a blowout. Lincoln was one of the most evil
monsters to ever walk the earth.
Well, President Asad is trying to prevent the destruction of his nation,
the probable partitioning of it, the crushing of any institutions
reflecting the Arab consensus that has always bound the nation together
and made its institutions work, as well as preventing openly genocidal
barbarians from achieving victory, erasing Earth's oldest Christian
communities and other religious minorities. President Lincoln was facing
a foe that just wanted slavery and separatism. The Confederates were not
genocidal, although the cruelties of the slave trade and the plantation
system often reached the same level of inhumanity. So, overall, from the
perspective of a CNN/MSNBC believer, or a Trumpian nouveau-neocon, Asad
is much worse worse than Hitler, in fact, as Sean Spicer was trying to
say. Here's a tip: Keep it simple, Sean. Don't bring up the Holocaust,
just say he's worse than Hitler. Some will question that, but those who
matter will let it slide.
Agent76
,
April 13, 2017 at 3:29 pm GMT \n
April 07, 2017 Pentagon Trained Syria's Al Qaeda "Rebels" in the Use of
Chemical Weapons
500 Words
Where is Russia's propaganda machine? 71 years old, retired American
professors does amateurish analysis using one pict obtained from social
media and Sputnik and Russia Today will publish it, right? But where are
the Russians? What did they do to support the belief that the gas attack
was a false flag? Apparently nothing. Lavrov calls of UN investigation.
That's about all. But what about the assets they have in Syria? Couldn't
they release some information pointing to the real culprits?
Inept,
indolent losers!
Why Russia's media are so pathetically weak?
For some years
already I follow some Russian media outfits and I am amazed why they
are so inept and indolent. Their approach is totally inadequate when
targeted with Anglo-Zio media aggressive anti-Russia narratives.
This time when Russia and Putin were smacked in the face in Syria
the best Russia came up with was to claim that it did not hurt that
much, that only 23 out of 59 missiles reached the target and that the
damage to the airport was minimal. And next day they doubled down on
it by having planes taking off from the airport. Whether the claims
are factual or not it does not matter. The opposite approach should
have be used: exaggerate the pain and loss you have suffered. Keep
showing dead bodies and damage even if invented. Do not pretend that
it rains when they are spitting in your face. Show your hurt, your
weakness. Be more like Anglo-Zio propaganda that will accuse every
drop a real rain of aggressive intent or even of being anti-semitic.
Be proactive not reactive.
So why Russia's propaganda machine is so weak? Is it because
Russians are proud people or that their journalists and propagandists
have moral scruples and won't engage in lies and manipulations?
Obviously not. They just do not know because they are conditioned by
the working of propaganda in the authoritarian regime just like during
Tsars and Bolsheviks. In the authoritarian regime the chief objective
of propaganda is to convince the subjects of the regime that the
regime knows what it is doing and that it is strong. The propaganda is
not really directed for the foreign enemies but for the domestic
friends. For this reason any setbacks or losses will be hidden from
the populace or minimized. No disasters and no catastrophes ever
happened in the Soviet Union if you just read Pravda or Izvestia.
Towards the end of WWII Goebbels was disappointed with inability of
German propaganda to produce sympathy around the world for Germans
suffering due to American and British bombing of German civilian
population that was killing children women, and elders. But this was a
consequence of years of hiding these losses from German population
because the regime wanted to project its strengths. And that was a
mistake. So if Russia wants to confront Anglo-Zio media they must
shape up and change the approach. So far they are failing though I am
sure they are doing a wonderful job for people like Smoothie (if you
ask him) and other clumsy and ineffective agents of influence on
behalf of Russia.
100 Words
@reiner Tor
Thanks, that's useful to know.
Are you sure it's true of sarin? I read that about sarin specifically.
It seems creating the sarin generates either hydrochloric acid or
hydrofluoric acid as byproduct (especially the latter is Very Not Good),
so keeping sarin even in glass bottles is bound to be fraught with
difficulties over the long run (instant expert via
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin
)
100 Words
What was the date of the image from Google Earth showing the supposed
bomb crater? Google Earth is not a real time satellite reconnaissance
system. You can get the date of the image from the display options, and
they are usually months or years old.
Is it possible that this crater was already there prior to the gas
attack?
Read
More
MarkinLA
,
April 13, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT \n
100 Words
And on CNN this morning there was a claim that the US intercepted Syrian
military people interacting with chemical weapons specialists or some
garbage like that. Just when the story is about to explode in the US's
face, out comes a convenient claim that doesn't make any sense to people
with IQs above room level. I am sure if there was such a dubious
communication it was created by Mossad or Saudi secret services.
@Carlton Meyer
Let me add that Jimmy Dore made a great point in that video. Many blame
Assad for the half million Syrians who have died in this civil war; yet
it was mostly caused by an invasion of outside Islamic mercs paid for by
the Saudis and Qatar.
Does this mean that Abe Lincoln was a ruthless thug responsible for the
deaths of a half a million Americans during our civil war? The
confederate rebels weren't even trying to conquer the north, they just
wanted to be left to run their own affairs.
100 Words
Everybody has Sarin Fever, soon there will be Sarin Pokemons, Sarin with
your ice cream, Sarin pillows, a George Lucas movie called "Sarin!" and
voucher for Sarin holidays I'm sure:
"North Korea may be able to arm missiles with sarin, Japan PM says
Abe did not provide any evidence why he felt North Korea had the
capability to equip missiles with chemical weapons. "
100 Words
@Alfa158
What was the date of the image from Google Earth showing the supposed
bomb crater? Google Earth is not a real time satellite reconnaissance
system. You can get the date of the image from the display options, and
they are usually months or years old.
Is it possible that this crater was already there prior to the gas
attack?
It's just to show the location:
The Google Earth map shown in Figure 1 at the end of this text
section shows the location of that crater on the road in the north of
Khan Shaykhun, as described in the White House statement.
100 Words
Sadly, the way these things work, the evidence as it stands will
henceforth be irrelevant. Now that the Trump administration has staked
its reputation on a cruise missile attack to punish Assad for using
chemical warfare, they will NEVER admit they were wrong. Just like Obama
will never admit he royally screwed up Libya and his amateurish
machinations got a U.S. ambassador dragged through the streets like a
dead cat. We seem to live in a world where truth no longer matters. What
matters is whether you can get the idiots in the media to buy your
version of events rather than your political enemy's version of events.
Personally, I never thought Assad was responsible for this atrocity. Why
risk something like that when everybody agreed he was finally winning
this thing?
El Dato
,
April 13, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT \n
300 Words
Olive branch extension and face-saving in progress?
Russia 'horrified at chemical attacks' in Syria, says former UK
ambassador to Moscow
Russia has been badly mishandled by Western powers, which fail to
realize the Kremlin is not fond of the Syrian leadership and is
horrified at recent chemical attacks, former British diplomat Tony
Brenton has told the BBC.
Speaking to the BBC 'Today' program on Thursday, Brenton, who
served as ambassador to Moscow from 2004 to 2008, said it is important
to understand Syria from the Russian perspective.
"The Russian view of the situation in Syria is very clear. They
don't much like [Syrian President Bashar] Assad and they must be
horrified at the chemical weapons attack last week.
But the question they ask themselves is, 'if we get rid of Assad,
what comes after?'" Brenton said.
"Their answer to that question is that 'we get some of Islamic
fundamentalism which is worse for us than Assad' so we put up with
the nasty dictator that we've got rather than admitting fundamentalism
which is a direct threat to us."
Asked if the Russians need "help" to move away from Assad, Brenton
said: "I think that is exactly it. I think if we can get together with
the Russians they have a real interest in moving away from Assad as
well."
Understanding the domestic political situation in Russia is also
vital in order to grapple with the question of how the country
operates in the world, he said.
"They are dealing with a population which doesn't really understand
why they are in Syria at all.
"If we could move towards an after-Assad regime in Syria which
guaranteed the non-intervention of Islamic fundamentalism, [Russia]
would be delighted to work in that direction."
100 Words
@Carlton Meyer
A Congressman and Iraq war vet suggests an investigation and the Dems
denounce her:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1oECQ6r6do
This is what the Bankster puppet's do when they have been outed!
Dec 8, 2016 Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Bill to Stop Arming
Terrorists
December 08, 2016 Bipartisan Bill Would Forbid US Funding ISIS,
al-Qaeda Affiliates
Gabbert-Rohrabacher Bill Would Effectively End CIA Program Arming
Syrian Rebels. The Stop Arming Terrorists Act (SATA) has been introduced
today in the House of Representatives by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D – HI).
100 Words
The Jew keep their eye on the price – a busted up Syria. They have the
Kushner White House, all the rest of Stockholm DC, and their MSM all
pumping out the "Assad did it" lie.
The world's two major nuke powers are at loggerheads – but what the
hell – Israel is happy and getting its way.
You Stockholmers must never forget what the Jew terrorists tell you –
"Jews are the eternal victims" – so suck it up you 7,000,000,000 fools –
you must always defer to us!
100 Words
@Ivan
Gilad Atzmon had another question: if the US really did believe that air
force base had chemical weapons stores then launching a Tomahawk strike
would in all likelihood release those same gases . Duh.
Gilad's whole argument is flawed. The US has not said that chem. weapons
were stored there. [If anyone has official statement to contrary, please
correct me.] The US only claimed that chem. attacks were launched from
there.
Then, as to targeting, US said it was targeting below-ground
fuel storage, perhaps munitions also, but not chem. Again, anyone have
better info? Official, not MSM who will say anything.
anon
,
April 13, 2017 at 8:33 pm GMT \n
100 Words
the Wall Street Journal's right wing neocon-in-residence Brett Stephens
loudly called for "regime change" in North Korea two weeks ago.
And
then there's Iran, which the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol is once again
saying is the ultimate "prize" for regime change, now that Trump is
directly bombing Assad's forces.
100 Words
@Carlton Meyer
Let me add that Jimmy Dore made a great point in that video. Many blame
Assad for the half million Syrians who have died in this civil war; yet
it was mostly caused by an invasion of outside Islamic mercs paid for by
the Saudis and Qatar.
Does this mean that Abe Lincoln was a ruthless thug responsible for the
deaths of a half a million Americans during our civil war? The
confederate rebels weren't even trying to conquer the north, they just
wanted to be left to run their own affairs.
Who is worse, Assad or Lincoln?
I like Dore, but if he said that he's almost surely wrong.
Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much of
a factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria from
2011 to 2014. For all of that time his bombing was the primary driver of
the refugee crisis. It is impossible to say how many refugees Assad is
responsible for, but it's likely he has caused the lion's share.
Read
More
anon
,
April 13, 2017 at 8:45 pm GMT \n
100 Words
do not ignore these guys -
"Susannah Sirkin from the Soros-funded
Physicians for Human Rights claimed, "We know that sarin has been used
before by the Assad regime." But that has NOT been confirmed by any
credible organization. On the contrary, the most thorough investigations
point to sarin being used by the armed opposition, NOT the Syrian
government.
The other guest was Andrew Tabler from the neoconservative
Israeli-associated Washington Institute for Near East Policy. His
editorial from last fall makes clear what he wants: "The case for
(finally) bombing Assad." So, the viewers of the publicly funded network
got one of their usual doses of "Assad must go" propaganda"
100 Words
Higher intelligence individuals, moral integrity, ethical overview,
physical courage.
Since even the detailed and easy language above analysis leaves the
world at large clueless, the few with necessary perception within the
public, having no trouble understanding as outsiders what is meant, speak
about what is the quality of the Washington power structures.
The harnessed 'elites', including universities, are corrupted, cater
to superficial riches, the short term, in equivalents of family and clan.
Washington is a dump, where high quality individuals that by definition
need less structure have no place.
100 Words
@Steve Rendall
I like Dore, but if he said that he's almost surely wrong.
Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much of a
factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria from 2011
to 2014. For all of that time his bombing was the primary driver of the
refugee crisis. It is impossible to say how many refugees Assad is
responsible for, but it's likely he has caused the lion's share.
Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much
of a factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria
from 2011 to 2014.
You have a rather unrealistically late idea of when foreign groups
started backing the terrorists in Syria.
Qatar, to name just one, is on the record as having actively supported
the rebels militarily since at least April 2012, and the FT reported in
May 2013 it had already spent $1-3 billion backing the rebels:
Turkey started providing support to the "Free Syria Army" in 2011, and
jihadist groups such as Al Qaeda were openly calling for volunteers to
fight in Syria by February 2012.
100 Words
@RobinG
Gilad's whole argument is flawed. The US has not said that chem. weapons
were stored there. [If anyone has official statement to contrary, please
correct me.] The US only claimed that chem. attacks were launched from
there.
Then, as to targeting, US said it was targeting below-ground fuel
storage, perhaps munitions also, but not chem. Again, anyone have better
info? Official, not MSM who will say anything.
I think you are right about US claims but they really don't make any
sense if the aim was to punish someone using chemical weapons. At least
Bush pretended to be looking for the WMD even though he likely knew they
didn't exist.
Where else would they be stored unless you think Assad
has a secret stash someplace and pulls them out, now and then, to do some
gassing. If that was the case, wouldn't it make more sense to bomb the
stash and prove to the rest of the world Assad had them rather than just
bomb an airfield and leave yourself open to the kind of criticism Trump
is getting? The idea that we can track everything the Syrian military
does but they have a secret chemical weapons store that Mossad, Turkey,
the CIA, FSB, and Saudi intelligence agencies don't know about seems
incredible.
Read
More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
D Trump
,
April 13, 2017 at 10:33 pm GMT \n
@Steve Rendall
I like Dore, but if he said that he's almost surely wrong.
Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much of a
factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria from 2011
to 2014. For all of that time his bombing was the primary driver of the
refugee crisis. It is impossible to say how many refugees Assad is
responsible for, but it's likely he has caused the lion's share.
"It's likely covert interference started long before that." Yes, Randal.
About 2006.
300 Words
Considering everything that's been happening recently, I think there is a
strong possibility that this was either a false flag or they were simply
waiting for an excuse to attack Syria – anything would do. In fact,
Mattis had cooked up a plan to illegally board Iranian ships in
international waters as a kind of Gulf of Tonkin provocation. The plan
was only scrapped because it was leaked. Now, these maniacs are sending
more troops to Afghanistan, concealing the numbers of troops they are
deploying to the Middle East, dropping MOABs to scare other nations into
submission, and threatening to attack North Korea.
"Weeks ago, Trump's
defense secretary James Mattis was reportedly planning a brazen and
incredibly dangerous operation to board Iranian ships in international
waters. This would have effectively been an act of war. Apparently, the
only reason the Trump administration didn't carry it out was because the
plan leaked and they were forced to scuttle it – at least temporarily.
But that hasn't stopped the ratcheting up of tensions towards Iran ever
since he took office
On top of all this madness, 16 years after America's longest war in
history started, a top general has already testified to Congress that the
military wants more troops in Afghanistan to break the "stalemate" there.
Well before the end of the Trump administration, there will be troops
fighting and dying in Afghanistan who weren't even born when the 9/11
attacks occurred.
To further shield the public from these decisions, the Trump
administration indicated a couple weeks ago they have stopped disclosing
even the amount of additional troops that they are sending overseas to
fight. The numbers were already being downplayed by the Obama
administration and received little attention as the numbers continually
creeped up over the last two years. Now, the public will have virtually
no insight into what its military is doing in those countries."
Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much of
a factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria from
2011 to 2014.
You have a rather unrealistically late idea of when foreign groups
started backing the terrorists in Syria.
Qatar, to name just one, is on the record as having actively supported
the rebels militarily since at least April 2012, and the FT reported in
May 2013 it had already spent $1-3 billion backing the rebels:
Turkey started providing support to the "Free Syria Army" in 2011, and
jihadist groups such as Al Qaeda were openly calling for volunteers to
fight in Syria by February 2012.
This is all information in the public domain. It's likely covert
interference started long before that.
Anon does not reposed to my argument. Early on, Jihadi fighters were not
much of a factor in driving the flight of refugees. And long term covert
machinations, which I agree there was plenty of, don't matter if those it
supports are not terrorizing people to leave the country. See how that
works?
See how Assad sacked major parts of Homs, with artillery, tanks, and
an Air Force, while opposition had little more than mortars to fight back
with.
100 Words
Dear Mr.Postol,
What I did miss in your excellent analysis are comments on White Helmets
and other rescuers handling sarin contaminated victims with bare hands
and no protective clothing. As you know sarin is a highly toxis chemical,
targeting the muscles and nervous system. Rescuers would have been
contaminated themselves and died probably within hours.
It's my take that these images were staged and filmed already before the
"attack". Could you please comment on this aspect?
Also listening to a chemical expert on Rt he stated that delivering sarin
or chlorine from the air would be totally ineffective. Could you possibly
elaborate on this as well?
Tom Van Meurs
New Zealand
I will pubish your article on my Facebook
Read
More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
Display All Comments
anon
,
April 14, 2017 at 12:09 am GMT \n
200 Words
@Steve Rendall
Anon does not reposed to my argument. Early on, Jihadi fighters were not
much of a factor in driving the flight of refugees. And long term covert
machinations, which I agree there was plenty of, don't matter if those it
supports are not terrorizing people to leave the country. See how that
works?
See how Assad sacked major parts of Homs, with artillery, tanks, and an
Air Force, while opposition had little more than mortars to fight back
with.
I dare you to find me an independent Syria expert who says the rebels are
responsible for most of the refugee problem.
Refugees s been pouring in Jordan and Turkey before moving to EU.
Refugees eas expected by saudi They put barbed wire I think to stop.
Syria initially saw a peaceful demonstration and before government
started using arms or ammunition , demonstration got violent with
assassination and killing of government forces Soon UK and USA were
demanding that Assad needed to surrender. Assad started using air force
to stem the tide of the violence .Assad offered amnesty and
reconciliation s All were discarded at the behest of Western ad Saudi and
Turkey Before that the 'Rat line" from Libya flooded the country with
weapons Long before that French FM exposed the plans of destabilizing
Syria . in 2007 Cheney was planning with Rice to start a civil war in
Syria and western Iraq. Arms were in plenty already
Assad had no choice but use all powers he had .
Why did refugees go to EU?
100 Words
@Alfa158
What was the date of the image from Google Earth showing the supposed
bomb crater? Google Earth is not a real time satellite reconnaissance
system. You can get the date of the image from the display options, and
they are usually months or years old.
Is it possible that this crater was already there prior to the gas
attack?
There is a glaring anomaly in that there appears to be a 5-hour time
difference between the gas release and the Syrian air attack – the former
at around 6am, the latter at 11am. This should be easy enough to
ascertain if one has the proper resources. If so it clears the SAA of
responsibility.
Xander USMC
,
April 14, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT \n
200 Words
White House Explanation of Alleged Syrian Strategy is Utter Nonsense.
I
have not really seen much comment on the White House explanation for why
the Syrians supposedly did this. The Paper discussed claims that the
Syrian government did this attack in "southern Idlib province" in
response to a threat "in response to an opposition offensive in northern
Hamah province that threatened key infrastructure." This explanation is
utterly nonsensical. If key infrastructure is being threatened in one
part of the country why did the government have an airstrike in another
area of the country–much less an entirely insignificant single rocket
attack that does not appear to have accomplished anything militarily. If
they were going to use gas why didn't they use it in Hamah where the "key
infrastructure" was allegedly being threatened?
Of course, there may be times when you can strike your enemies' supply
lines, (like MacArthur wanted to take out the bridge over the Yalu River)
but in any event I wish someone would ask the White House to explain this
statement. No one has yet to offer any coherent explanation for the
alleged actions of the Syrian government.
Read
More
Xander USMC
,
April 14, 2017 at 1:29 pm GMT \n
200 Words
@Brewer
There is a glaring anomaly in that there appears to be a 5-hour time
difference between the gas release and the Syrian air attack - the former
at around 6am, the latter at 11am. This should be easy enough to
ascertain if one has the proper resources. If so it clears the SAA of
responsibility.
If there is a time gap that merely is evidence that it was someone on the
ground. The U.S. claims a Syrian Sukoi-22 (an airplane so old the
Russians don't use it anymore) dropped ordinance (the alleged chemicals)
at the time of the attack. So if there was an airstrike by an Su-22 using
high explosives that could well have damaged chemicals on the ground.
There are also many possible explanations for a delay–we don't really
know very much so its is pure speculation, but for example, if a
warehouse storing chemical weapons by the rebels was damaged they may
have tried to remove the chemicals from the warehouse hours after the
attack and it was the attempt to move the damaged containers that
resulted in an "accident." It is also consistent with a set-up as it
would take time for rebels after the airstrike to engineer a chemical
attack.
Read
More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
alexander
,
April 14, 2017 at 3:00 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Xander USMC
White House Explanation of Alleged Syrian Strategy is Utter Nonsense.
I have not really seen much comment on the White House explanation for
why the Syrians supposedly did this. The Paper discussed claims that the
Syrian government did this attack in "southern Idlib province" in
response to a threat "in response to an opposition offensive in northern
Hamah province that threatened key infrastructure." This explanation is
utterly nonsensical. If key infrastructure is being threatened in one
part of the country why did the government have an airstrike in another
area of the country--much less an entirely insignificant single rocket
attack that does not appear to have accomplished anything militarily. If
they were going to use gas why didn't they use it in Hamah where the "key
infrastructure" was allegedly being threatened?
Of course, there may be times when you can strike your enemies' supply
lines, (like MacArthur wanted to take out the bridge over the Yalu River)
but in any event I wish someone would ask the White House to explain this
statement. No one has yet to offer any coherent explanation for the
alleged actions of the Syrian government.
Xander,
Let us assume, for arguments sake, you are President Assad.
Over the past year, with the assistance of Russian forces, you have
been able to mount decisive, significant victories against ISIS using
conventional weapons, and you are on the verge of reclaiming your country
from the assorted Jihadist's who are fragmenting it and destroying it.
If you are well aware the ONE action you could take, which might force
the hand of the most powerful military on the planet to descend upon
you Wouldn't you avoid it like the plague ?
Is there any strategic or tactical value for you to attempt it ?
200 Words
@Steve Rendall
Anon does not reposed to my argument. Early on, Jihadi fighters were not
much of a factor in driving the flight of refugees. And long term covert
machinations, which I agree there was plenty of, don't matter if those it
supports are not terrorizing people to leave the country. See how that
works?
See how Assad sacked major parts of Homs, with artillery, tanks, and an
Air Force, while opposition had little more than mortars to fight back
with.
I dare you to find me an independent Syria expert who says the rebels are
responsible for most of the refugee problem.
Anon does not reposed to my argument. Early on, Jihadi fighters
were not much of a factor in driving the flight of refugees.
The comment to which you responded referred to deaths, not refugees.
But with regard to refugees, the UNHCR figures show that the number of
registered Syrian refugees was still below 1m at the end of March 2013
(it's now over 5 million), whereas as I pointed out above, the external
backing for the rebels that prevented the government restoring order and
really ratcheted up the fighting had markedly increased during 2012.
The blame for the devastation in Syria belongs with those who have
perpetuated the rebellion and prevented the Syrian government restoring
order, as Assad's father restored order following the uprising in 1982.
Primarily with the US as the global hegemon, and with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey and Israel who have directly or indirectly interfered to
seek regime change in Syria regardless of the human cost.
Those who have a genuine humanitarian concern and are not motivated by
ulterior strategic or political interests, should direct their criticism
and their pressure appropriately.
Read
More
bluedog
,
April 14, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT \n
@Steve Rendall
Anon does not reposed to my argument. Early on, Jihadi fighters were not
much of a factor in driving the flight of refugees. And long term covert
machinations, which I agree there was plenty of, don't matter if those it
supports are not terrorizing people to leave the country. See how that
works?
See how Assad sacked major parts of Homs, with artillery, tanks, and an
Air Force, while opposition had little more than mortars to fight back
with.
I dare you to find me an independent Syria expert who says the rebels are
responsible for most of the refugee problem.
Well one would think it would be who ever started the dance not what
happened after the lights went out..
Xander USMC
,
April 14, 2017 at 8:48 pm GMT \n
Let us assume, for arguments sake, you are
President Assad.
Over the past year, with the assistance of
Russian forces, you have been able to mount
decisive, significant victories against ISIS
using conventional weapons, and you are on the
verge of reclaiming your country from the
assorted Jihadist's who are fragmenting it and
destroying it.
If you are well aware the ONE action you could
take, which might force the hand of the most
powerful military on the planet to descend upon
you...Wouldn't you avoid it like the plague ?
Is there any strategic or tactical value for you
to attempt it ?
If there is....What is it ?
Right, but that is the strategic lack of sense,
but I'm pointing out the strike would make no
sense tactically either. If something was being
threatened arguably it would make tactical sense
to gas the area under attack–but not a minor
attack 50 miles away that does not appear to have
any relation to the alleged threat elsewhere. I
haven't even seen any confirmation of any threat
to "key infrastructure." Not to mention Syria
retook Aleppo without the need for
chemicals–wasn't that a lot more key than this
unidentified "key infrastructure"?
alexander
,
April 14, 2017 at 10:28 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Xander USMC
Right, but that is the strategic lack of sense, but I'm pointing out the
strike would make no sense tactically either. If something was being
threatened arguably it would make tactical sense to gas the area under
attack--but not a minor attack 50 miles away that does not appear to have
any relation to the alleged threat elsewhere. I haven't even seen any
confirmation of any threat to "key infrastructure." Not to mention Syria
retook Aleppo without the need for chemicals--wasn't that a lot more key
than this unidentified "key infrastructure"?
Yes ,
It would make the most sense were one to use chemical weapons as
a TACTIC, to use them in areas and situations where (as you suggest) one
would get the most "bang for their buck".
It is very clear to you,based on its location, this chemical attack
was almost meaningless tactically.
Right ?
So if this chemical assault was tactically absurd and strategically
suicidal, then what would be Assad's thinking by attempting it ?
200 Words
@Steve Rendall
I like Dore, but if he said that he's almost surely wrong.
Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much of a
factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria from 2011
to 2014. For all of that time his bombing was the primary driver of the
refugee crisis. It is impossible to say how many refugees Assad is
responsible for, but it's likely he has caused the lion's share.
Everything you wrote is pure BS. But I guess that is your purpose here.
Even Robert Fisk admitted there were Salafi jihadis involved from day
one. Al-Ciada in Iraq was involved from day one, etc.
There were and there are NO moderate 'rebels'. This ain't fucking star
wars.
Since early 2012, the Al-Nusra Front & co have been the main fighting
force trying to topple the Syrian government
. They are actually a
more serious threat to Syria than Daesh/is.
Increasingly from 2012 the Jihadis have been ever more heavily armed.
The key Jihadi groups all have armored forces, artillery, ATGMs, the only
thing they don't have is an air-force. Robert Fisk reported from the
front lines in 2013/14/15 re how oftentimes the Syrian army faced
militants that were as well armed and, in some cases, even better armed.
Armored Assault by Al-Nusra in Aleppo, Caught on Nusra Drone Camera
L.K
,
April 14, 2017 at 11:05 pm GMT \n
200 Words
@El Dato
Syria may be an autocratic shithole where women must know their place and
you better kowtow to the friendly state employee (or face a guided tour
of a dungeon) with the Assad family in power (indeed we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Hama_massacre
under daddy already) but
I dare you to find me an independent Syria expert who says the rebels
are responsible for most of the refugee problem.
This is just jumping the shark.
People just don't like to stay in warzones and flattened cities, yes.
Your view of Syria is a grotesque caricature. Here's what former US
marine, Brad Hoff, found in Syria before the war:
DURING MY FIRST WEEKS in Damascus, I was pleasantly shocked. My
preconceived notions were shattered: I expected to find a society full
of veiled women, mosques on every street corner, religious police
looking over shoulders, rabid anti-American sentiment preached to
angry crowds, persecuted Christians and crumbling hidden churches,
prudish separation of the sexes, and so on. I quickly realized during
my first few days and nights in Damascus, that Syria was a far cry
from my previous imaginings, which were probably more reflective of
Saudi Arabian life and culture. What I actually encountered were
mostly unveiled women wearing European fashions and sporting bright
makeup - many of them wearing blue jeans and tight fitting clothes
that would be commonplace in American shopping malls on a summer day.
I saw groups of teenage boys and girls mingling in trendy cafes late
into the night, displaying expensive cell phones. There were plenty of
mosques, but almost every neighborhood had a large church or two with
crosses figured prominently in the Damascus skyline.
"... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
contacts in the area have told us this is not
what happened. There was no Syrian 'chemical weapons attack.' Instead, a
Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned
out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the
chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently
died ..This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more
important –what they appear to believe happened."
- Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity, 20 former members of the US Intelligence Community (names
below)
You don't have to be a genius to figure
out that the case against Syrian President Bashar al Assad is extremely
weak. The chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun, has produced no smoking
gun, no damning evidence, in fact, no evidence at all. Similar to the Russia
hacking fiasco, (not a shred of evidence so far) the western media and the
entire political class has made the case for attacking a sovereign country
on the thin gruel of a few videos of an incident that took place in a
location that is currently under the control of militant groups connected to
al Qaida. That's pretty shaky grounds for a conviction, don't you think?
And it's not up to Assad to prove his
innocence either. That's baloney. The burden of proof rests with the
prosecution. If Trump and his lieutenants have evidence that the Syrian
President used chemical weapons, then– by all means– let's see it and be
done with it. If not, we have to assume that Assad is innocent, not because
we like Assad, but because these are the legal precedents that one follows
to establish the truth. And that's what we want, we want to know what really
happened.
Neither Trump nor the media care about the
truth, what they care about is regime change, which is the driving force
behind Washington's six year-long war on Syria. The fact that Washington has
concealed its support by secretly arming-and-training Sunni militias, does
not absolve it from responsibility. The US is totally responsible for the
mess in Syria. Without Washington's support none of this would have
happened. 7 million Syrians wouldn't have fled their homes, 400,000 Syrians
wouldn't have been killed, and the country would not be the anarchic
wastelands it is today. The United States is entirely is responsible for the
death and destruction of Syria. These are Washington's killing fields.
As we said earlier, there is no evidence
that Assad used chemical weapons against his people nor has there been any
investigation to substantiate the claims. The Trump administration launched
its Tomahawk missile barrage before consulting with the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons which essentially preempted the organization
from doing its job. The administration's rejection of the normal
investigative procedures and rush to judgement reinforces the belief that
they know they have no case and are just peddling pro-war BS in the mad
pursuit of their geopolitical objectives.
Since we don't have an organization like
the OPCW to conduct an investigation, we should at least consider the
informed opinions of professionals who have some background in intelligence.
This doesn't provide us with iron-clad proof one way or another, but at
least it gives us an idea of some probable scenarios. Here's a quote from
former CIA officer and Director of the Council for the National Interest,
Philip Giraldi, who stated last week on the Scott Horton show:
"I am hearing from sources on the
ground, in the Middle East, the people who are intimately familiar with
the intelligence available are saying that the essential narrative we are
all hearing about the Syrian government or the Russians using chemical
weapons on innocent civilians is a sham. The intelligence confirms pretty
much the account the Russians have been giving since last night which is
that they hit a warehouse where al Qaida rebels were storing chemicals of
their own and it basically caused an explosion that resulted in the
casualties. Apparently the intelligence on this is very clear, and people
both in the Agency and in the military who are aware of the intelligence
are freaking out about this because essentially Trump completely
misrepresented what he should already have known - but maybe didn't–and
they're afraid this is moving towards a situation that could easily turn
into an armed conflict." (The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and
Russia, Counterpunch)
We hear a very similar account from
retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was former chief of Staff to General
Colin Powell. Here's what he said in a recent interview on the Real News
Network:
"I personally think the provocation was
a Tonkin Gulf incident .. Most of my sources are telling me, including
members of the team that monitors global chemical weapons –including
people in Syria, including people in the US Intelligence Community–that
what most likely happened was that they hit a warehouse that they had
intended to hit and this warehouse was alleged to have to ISIS supplies
in it, and some of those supplies were precursors for chemicals ..
conventional bombs hit the warehouse, and due to a strong wind, and the
explosive power of the bombs, they dispersed these ingredients and killed
some people." ("
Lawrence
Wilkerson: Trump Attack on Syria Driven by Domestic Politics
", Real
News Network)
Finally, we have the collective judgement
of 20 former members of the US Intelligence Community (names below) the
so-called Steering Group of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity. Here's what they say:
"Our U.S. Army contacts in the area
have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian "chemical
weapons attack." Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria
ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a
strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where
many consequently died ..This is what the Russians and Syrians have been
saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened."
So, why is the administration so eager to
jump to conclusions? Why do they want to use such a sketchy incident to
justify an attack on sovereign nation that poses no threat to US national
security? What's really going on here?
ORDER IT NOW
To answer tha, we need to review an
interview with President Trump's new National Security Advisor, Lt. General
H.R. McMaster, that took on place on Sunday on Fox News. McMaster– you may
recall– recently replaced General Michael Flynn at the same position.
Flynn's failing was that he wanted to "normalize" relations with Russia
which the behind-the-scenes powerbrokers rejected out-of-hand and worked to
have him replaced with far-right wing militarist-neocon McMaster. Now,
McMaster is part of the one-two combo that decides US foreign policy around
the world. Trump has essentially dumped Syria in the laps of his two
favorite generals, McMaster and James "Mad Dog" Mattis who have decided to
deepen Washington's military commitment in Syria and intensify the conflict
even if it means a direct confrontation with Russia.
In the Fox interview, McMaster was asked a
number of questions about Trump's missile attack. Here's part of what he
said:
"The objective (of the strikes) was to
send a very strong political message to Assad. And this is very
significant because . this is the first time the United States has acted
directly against the Assad regime, and that should be a strong message to
Assad and to his sponsors .
He added,
"Russia should ask themselves, what are
we doing here? Why are we supporting this murderous regime that is
committing mass murder of its own population and using the most heinous
weapons available .Right now, I think everyone in the world sees Russia
as part of the problem." (Fox News with Chris Wallace)
Can you see what's going on? Trump's
missile attack was not retaliatory, not really. It was a message to Putin.
McMaster was saying as clearly as possible, that 'the US military is coming
for Assad, and you'd better stay out of the way if you know what's good for
you.' That's the message. It has nothing to do with chemical weapons or the
suffering of innocent people. McMaster was delivering a threat. He was
putting Putin 'on notice'.
Like McMaster said, "this is the first
time the United States has acted directly against the Assad regime, and that
should be a strong message to Assad and to his sponsors ."
In other words, McMaster wants Putin to
know that he's prepared to attack the Syrian government and its assets
directly and, that, if Putin continues to defend Assad, Russian forces will
be targeted as well.
There was some confusion about this in the
media because UN ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
got their talking-points mixed up and botched their interviews. But the
Washington Post clarified the policy the next day by stating bluntly:
"Officials in the Trump administration
on Sunday demanded that Russia stop supporting the Syrian government or
face a further deterioration in its relations with the United States."
Bingo. That's the policy in a nutshell.
The issue isn't chemical weapons. The issue is Russia's support for Assad,
the leader who remains the target of US regime change plans. We are seeing a
fundamental shift in the policy from mainly covert support for CIA-backed
Sunni militias to overt military intervention. This is just the first volley
in that new war.
The media wants the American people to
believe that President Trump impulsively ordered the missile attacks in
response to the use of chemical weapons. But there's reason to suspect that
the attacks had been planned for some time in advance. As one blogger
pointed out:
"In the weeks before the missile
strikes, Trump met with the Saudis, the president of Egypt, and the King
of Jordan, while Secretary of State met with Turkish President Erdogan.
In other words, the administration met with the entire Middle East 'Sunni
alliance' just days before ordering the missile strikes. Coincidence?
Probably not. They were probably tipped
off and asked for their continued support.
Also, Trump waited until the evening that
he was having dinner with President Xi Jinping to launch the attacks. How's
that for timing?
Do you think that the announcement that
Trump just attacked Syria would have an impact on the two leaders'
conversation about North Korea? Do you think Xi might have seen the
announcement as a not-so-subtle threat of violence against the North unless
China forces its ally to make concessions?
Of course, he did. The man wasn't born
yesterday.
It seems unlikely that Trump's attack was
a snap decision made by an impulsive man. Instead, it looks like there was a
significant amount of planning that went on beforehand, including the
deploying of 400 additional Special Ops to Syria and 2,500 combat troops to
nearby Kuwait. It appears as though Washington had been building up its
troop-strength for some time before it settled on the right pretext for
taking things to the next level. As journalist Bill Van Auken noted at the
World Socialist Web Site:
"We have been here so many times before
that it is hardly worth wasting the time required to refute the official
story. It is now 14 years since the US launched its invasion of Iraq over
similar lies about weapons of mass destruction, setting into motion a
vast slaughter that has claimed the lives of over one million people and
turned millions more into refugees ..
Once again, as in the air war against
Serbia in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, and
the attack on Libya in 2011, the United States has concocted a pretext to
justify the violation of another country's sovereignty " ("The Bombing of
Syria, Bill Van Auken, World Socialist Web Site)
I have no way of knowing whether Assad
used chemical weapons or not, but I found Russian President Vladimir Putin's
analysis particularly interesting. Reporters asked Putin - "What is your
view about the use of chemical weapons in Syria?"
Putin answered-:
"You all know that the Syrian
government has repeatedly asked the international community to come and
inspect the sites where the rebels used chemical weapons. But they always
ignored those requests. The only time the international community has
responded, was to this last incident. So, what do I think?
I think we can figure out what's going
on by just using a little common sense. The Syrian army was winning the
war, in some places they had the rebels completely surrounded. For them
to throw it all away and give their trump card to the people who have
been calling for regime change is, frankly, a crock of shit.". (
Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
)
Putin's response to Trump's missile attack
has been subdued to say the least. He did issue a perfunctory presidential
press statement on the incident, but the tone of the statement was neither
incendiary or belligerent. If anything, it sounded like he found the whole
matter irritating, like the man who sits down to a picnic lunch and finds he
has to deal with pesky mosquito before he can eat. But, of course, this is
the way that Putin handles most matters. He's a master of understatement who
is not easily given to emotional outbursts or displays of rage. He's more
apt to scratch himself, roll his eyes and give a shrug of the shoulders,
than wave his fist and issue threats.
But from a strategic point of view,
Putin's measured response makes perfect sense, after all, the real battle
isn't going to be won or lost in Syria. It's much bigger than that. Putin is
challenging the present world order in which a disproportionate amount of
political and economic power has accrued to one unipolar center of
authority, a global hegemon that imposes its economic model wherever it goes
and topples sovereign states with a wave of the hand. Putin's task is to
build resistance among the vassals, form new alliances, and strengthen the
collective resolve for a different world where national sovereignty and
borders are guaranteed under an impartial set of international laws that
protect the weak as well as the strong.
That's Putin's real objective, to rebuild
the system of global security based on a solid foundation of respect for the
vital interests of each and every country. To accomplish that, Putin must
seem like a reasonable and trustworthy ally who honors his commitments and
stands by his friends even when they are under attack. That's why Putin
won't abandon Assad. It's because he can't.
Syria is the battlefield where competing
visions of the future meet head on. It's where the rubber meets the road.
Can you see what's going on? Trump's missile attack was not
retaliatory, not really. It was a message to Putin. McMaster was saying
as clearly as possible, that 'the US military is coming for Assad, and
you'd better stay out of the way if you know what's good for you.' That's
the message.
It's not only that. He adds that
everyone else in the world
sees
it that way.
That's an essential element to bully speak, and it's never missing from it.
They love to receive validation from their serfs (you could consider this
the "alpha's dessert", from a certain anthropological perspective, to be
tasted after every meal).
After the missile barrage, European "leaders" all took part in a bowing
down competition. The good general's expectations about them didn't go
unrealized.
Trump attacked Syria because he wants to rule the world by force of arms. He
pretended to prefer peace to war in order to get elected. He is not Hitler.
He is Dubya and Kushner is his Cheney.
FKA Max
,
April 13, 2017 at 4:06 am GMT \n
You don't have to be a genius to figure out that the case against
Syrian President Bashar al Assad is extremely weak.
Probably not. [Sunni/Wahabbi/Army of Conquest actors] were probably
tipped off and asked for their continued support.
In which case the "accidental release of warehoused chemicals" makes only
sense if it was a "lucky strike". Seeing how this went down, so totally
perfectly, I would say "fully engineered 'incident' with actors on the
ground" is the likely explanation. See also
http://www.unz.com/author/theodore-a-postol/
of course.
It's just a matter of degree but the US went from
not-too-deadly-to-civilians false flags (some 60′s CIA "communist bombings"
in South Vietnam notwithstanding) to do-not-care-about-civilians false
flags, and I would say that happened under Obama.
> The US is totally responsible for the mess in Syria
darn, those jolly
peaceful people in Syria got pushed off-course of a history of thousands of
years without a single internal conflict . by the Americans. Everything by
the Americans.
> waited until the evening that he was having dinner with President Xi
Jinping to launch the attacks. How's that for timing?
200 Words
I saw a red flag when Trump & the Pentagon inserted troops into Syria
without asking for permission from Bashar Al Assad. It seemed to me that the
regime change writing was on the wall and it was only a matter of time
before they found the right pretext or created a false flag (or fell for one
staged by the "rebels"). And lo and behold they found one straight out of a
Hollywood movie script where a real life Dr. Evil type dictator "gasses"
innocent women and children.
Then it was the usual faux outrage by the president, his cabinet members,
Congress and the fake, lapdog media while repeating unfounded allegations
24/7 as established truths.
"In the weeks before the missile strikes, Trump met with the Saudis,
the president of Egypt, and the King of Jordan, while Secretary of State
met with Turkish President Erdogan.
Those are all the wrong people to consult with since they are Sunni and
Assad is a member of the Alawite sect of Shia Islam. Of course they'd like
to see Assad deposed and a pliant Sunni stooge in his stead.
As for Israel, they prefer the bad guys not backed by Iran which would be
ISIS and other Wahabi cutthroats and who we now seem to be supporting given
Trump's radical shift on Syria.
100 Words
Really a very good article putting beyond doubt that Syria is being set up
for "Regime Change" and the Russians are being warned to keep out.
.. To accomplish that, Putin must seem like a reasonable and
trustworthy ally who honors his commitments and stands by his friends
even when they are under attack. That's why Putin won't abandon Assad.
It's because he can't.
Well, maybe he could, rather than risk was WWIII. And at least the US
public would know for sure that their "No More ME Wars" candidate had
defected to the Neo-cons, with the American Establishment being the War
Party rather than the Russians.
Read More
Robert Magill
,
April 13, 2017 at 1:48 pm GMT \n
100 Words
My scenario is a little different. I cannot believe that Donald Trump who
has demonstrated such spot on political instincts has suddenly lost his
touch. Consider: Premier Xi comes to visit. Deals are done. Russia and Syria
are notified during lunch the number of missiles and their intended
destination. This is all a show for Xi and Putin. After lunch the missiles
go off and about half reach the target.
Main runway undamaged, Syrian
planes resume flights next day. Mission accomplished! Target practice for
the Russians. Now we know and they know how many missiles they can scratch
in a cluster.
War hawks salivate. Everybody else has the vapors. Xi goes to Alaska for the
next big thing. Train service from the old world to the new.
200 Words
The world must attack the criminal China by serving the interest of the
imperialism/Zionism and the Trump regime for few petty bones.
China
abstained from the UN vote on Syria, where Trump regime bombed Syrian people
and frame Assad for the chemical attack where CIA trained terrorists in
Syria staged.
{President Donald Trump has praised China for its decision to abstain
from voting on a UN Security Council resolution condemning last week's
chemical attack on civilians in Syria, terming it an honour for the US.}
China is a criminal state a petty colony. Its leaders are cowards and
cannot be trusted. They are traitors to humanity. Everyone and every country
must BOYCOTT anything Chinese.
You don't want to help petty people.
Long live Russia for time being. China and Russia SOLD Libya and open the
road for the criminal West into Syria. China bears very big responsibility
for the survival of evil for
petty concessions.
Down with China, Down with its petty 'leaders' with mafia hear style. Shame
on China.
100 Words
@Karl
> The US is totally responsible for the mess in Syria
darn, those jolly
peaceful people in Syria got pushed off-course of a history of thousands of
years without a single internal conflict.... by the Americans. Everything by
the Americans.
> waited until the evening that he was having dinner with President Xi
Jinping to launch the attacks. How's that for timing?
whatever it takes to make sure that Arabella gets good reviews in the
Beijing papers
darn, those jolly peaceful people in Syria got pushed off-course of a
history of thousands of years without a single internal conflict . by the
Americans. Everything by the Americans.
@Miro23
Really a very good article putting beyond doubt that Syria is being set up
for "Regime Change" and the Russians are being warned to keep out.
..... To accomplish that, Putin must seem like a reasonable and
trustworthy ally who honors his commitments and stands by his friends
even when they are under attack. That's why Putin won't abandon Assad.
It's because he can't.
100 Words
If the Americans intend to attack Syria, and attack the Russians if they
defend Syria, the Americans are going to get a bloody nose (and perhaps a
broken jaw).
What really annoys me is that the fatuous stuffed shirts in
Washington get off scot-free every time their ludicrous adventures go
haywire.
Wouldn't it be nice if Congress could pass a law requiring that, whenever
an American military aggression fails, all those responsible must commit
seppuku in the traditional Japanese way?
Read More
Agent76
,
April 13, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Tom Welsh
If the Americans intend to attack Syria, and attack the Russians if they
defend Syria, the Americans are going to get a bloody nose (and perhaps a
broken jaw).
What really annoys me is that the fatuous stuffed shirts in Washington get
off scot-free every time their ludicrous adventures go haywire.
Wouldn't it be nice if Congress could pass a law requiring that, whenever an
American military aggression fails, all those responsible must commit
seppuku in the traditional Japanese way?
It would be better if most of the world knew this instead. *All Wars Are
Bankers' Wars*
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how
many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central
banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand
why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign
nations. There is ample precedent for this.
Can you see what's going on? Trump's missile attack was not
retaliatory, not really. It was a message to Putin. McMaster was saying
as clearly as possible, that 'the US military is coming for Assad, and
you'd better stay out of the way if you know what's good for you.' That's
the message. It has nothing to do with chemical weapons or the suffering
of innocent people. McMaster was delivering a threat. He was putting
Putin 'on notice'.
100 Words
@Eustace Tilley (not)
How he yearns for Imperial Dawn,
Our doubleplusgood-speaking Sean!
He bleats
and
he chatters
Of "kindly" cruel matters
While playing the Government pawn.
You are much too high minded for this world of filth and worms and lies. But
never mind–
[MORE]
Evil wings in ether beating;
Vultures at the spirit eating;
Things unseen forever fleeting
Black against the leering sky.
Ghastly shades of bygone gladness,
Clawing fiends of future sadness,
Mingle in a cloud of madness
Ever on the soul to lie.
Thus the living, lone and sobbing,
In the throes of anguish throbbing,
With the loathsome Furies robbing
Night and noon of peace and rest.
But beyond the groans and grating
Of abhorrent Life, is waiting
Sweet Oblivion, culminating
All the years of fruitless quest.
Probably not. [Sunni/Wahabbi/Army of Conquest actors] were probably
tipped off and asked for their continued support.
In which case the "accidental release of warehoused chemicals" makes only
sense if it was a "lucky strike". Seeing how this went down, so totally
perfectly, I would say "fully engineered 'incident' with actors on the
ground" is the likely explanation. See also
http://www.unz.com/author/theodore-a-postol/ of course.
It's just a matter of degree but the US went from
not-too-deadly-to-civilians false flags (some 60's CIA "communist bombings"
in South Vietnam notwithstanding) to do-not-care-about-civilians false
flags, and I would say that happened under Obama.
In the long run. these people are all dead of course, but it's still a
hardening of the veins.
EXACTLY. From Postol:
"This mechanism of dispersal is essentially the same
as hitting a toothpaste tube with a large mallet, which then results in the
tube failing and the toothpaste being blown in many directions depending on
the exact way the toothpaste skin ruptures.
If this is in fact the mechanism used to disperse the sarin,
this
indicates that the sarin tube was placed on the ground by individuals on the
ground and not dropped from an airplane
."
Read More
utu
,
April 13, 2017 at 8:39 pm GMT \n
"This mechanism of dispersal is essentially the same as hitting a toothpaste
tube with a large mallet, which then results in the tube failing and the
toothpaste being blown in many directions depending on the exact way the
toothpaste skin ruptures.
If this is in fact the mechanism used to disperse the sarin,
this
indicates that the sarin tube was placed on the ground by individuals on the
ground and not dropped from an airplane
."
Publishing Postol's article may serves a disinfo purpose that people will
start endless discussion how sarin was dispersed and start arguing about
wind direction and humidity on that day. The picture of the alleged shell on
which Postol's bases his whole analysis has no credibility whatsoever. Is he
that naive and stupid not too think about it or is he a tool of those who do
not want us think of other alternatives?
Shouldn't we ask ourselves what
the head choppers and their sponsors (CIA, MOSSAD, Saudi Arabia, Qatar) are
really capable of? Can they kill some civilians they rounded up somewhere by
gas or whatever? Sure they can? Do they have priors? Sure they have. Are
they media savvy and know how to create the event and report it? Sure they
do.
200 Words
Syria is the battlefield where competing visions of the future meet head on.
It's where the rubber meets the road.
actually syria is now the
battlefield where the american neocon vision of the future is dying for all
to see irrespective what trump wants or doesn't want.
the war there is, strategically speaking, over, all that remains are the
tactical battles needed to finish off whatever the rebels calls themselves
this week.
washington/israels neocon vision of the middle east is finished.
the russians do not want a war with the usa but i wager they are
preparing for one at all levels as i write this. washington likes to fight
but mostly against those who can not fight back and is wholly unprepared to
battle a russian enemy every bit as technically advanced as the us military.
the 'real' us military knows fighting russia is suicide and a fools
errand and is surely counseling trump on this fact. if he doesn't listen he
potentially ends most life on earth or if he stops short of that the us
military suffers a humiliating defeat for all the world to see.
his presidency ends forthwith and the integrity of the nation is at risk.
@paraglider
Syria is the battlefield where competing visions of the future meet head on.
It's where the rubber meets the road.
actually syria is now the
battlefield where the american neocon vision of the future is dying for all
to see irrespective what trump wants or doesn't want.
the war there is, strategically speaking, over, all that remains are the
tactical battles needed to finish off whatever the rebels calls themselves
this week.
washington/israels neocon vision of the middle east is finished.
the russians do not want a war with the usa but i wager they are
preparing for one at all levels as i write this. washington likes to fight
but mostly against those who can not fight back and is wholly unprepared to
battle a russian enemy every bit as technically advanced as the us military.
the 'real' us military knows fighting russia is suicide and a fools
errand and is surely counseling trump on this fact. if he doesn't listen he
potentially ends most life on earth or if he stops short of that the us
military suffers a humiliating defeat for all the world to see.
his presidency ends forthwith and the integrity of the nation is at risk.
700 Words
So funny, as Israeli ass licking as Bannon was, it wasn't even an
afterthought to have this nuisance removed from Trump's inner circle by
Kushner. I feel bad for those of you Americans who thought that your Savior
was gonna really pursue some sort of populist agenda once he was elected to
the White House. I know the Breitbart types figured that achieving something
akin to what Israel has achieved for Jews could happen here for white
Americans but the reality is that the Jews who run your country end up not
respecting you for letting them do it, and hoping that they might let you
have a seat at what should be your table is pathetic lol, these people are
your enemies .
"Also, of interest was the ouster of controversial Trump
strategist Steve Bannon from the National Security Council (NSC), taking
place only days before the administration's dramatic reversal on Syria.
Incidentally, Bannon's fall from grace – which has only accelerated in the
week since his removal from the NSC – was due to his in-fighting with
Kushner, proving that Kushner's influence in his father-in-law's
administration is much more powerful than previously thought. While it
remains unknown exactly why Kushner and Bannon were fighting, the drastic
policy change in "national security" days later seems to speak volumes.
While Bannon is hardly anti-war or anti-Israel, it seems that Kushner's
commitment to radical Zionism and neo-conservative ideas put him at odds
with Bannon – who considers himself a "populist" and is a long-time
conservative, unlike Kushner. Indeed, Kushner – until 2012 – was a key
supporter of Democrats, much like his father, the notoriously corrupt
Charles Kushner, and donated thousands to Democrats like Hillary Clinton and
Charles Schumer.
Israel First
White House Senior Adviser Jared Kushner, takes his seat to watch Vice
President Mike Pence administer the oath of office to U.S. Ambassador to
Israel David M. Friedman, March 29, 2017. (AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
However, Kushner had no problem changing parties as his political leanings
have been shown to only change in regard to one issue – Israel. In 2012, it
was Kushner's stalwart support for Israel, particularly Israel's far-right,
that ultimately led him to reject the Democrat Party and support Mitt
Romney's candidacy. "Rather than strengthen the nation's relationship with
Israel as the Arab world imploded, Mr. Obama treated Jerusalem as less a
friend than a burden," said the Kushner-owned New York Observer's
endorsement, summing up Kushner's view on the matter in language that Trump
would later echo.
Kushner's unwavering support for Israel is obvious as any cursory
examination of his background reveals. Kushner was raised in a wealthy
Zionist family and met powerful Israeli politicians including now Israeli PM
Benjamin Netanyahu in his teenage years. As an adult, Kushner has overseen
the finances of his family's "charitable" foundation which has donated
thousands to illegal Israeli settlements as well as thousands more to the
Israeli Defense Force (IDF).
This Oct. 24, 2016 photo, shows part of the Israeli settlement of Beit
El, near the West Bank city of Ramallah. Tax records show the family of U.S.
president-elect Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has donated tens
of thousands of dollars to Israeli settlement institutions in the West Bank
in recent years. (AP/Nasser Nasser)
Of particular interest among these donations was the $20,000 donation in
2013 to American Friends of Beit El Yeshiva, which supports one of the more
extremist illegal settlements in the West Bank. The chairman of this
organization, David Friedman, has been Trump's real estate lawyer for the
past 15 years and was selected by the Trump administration to serve as the
U.S. ambassador to Israel. Friedman is noticeable for being against the
two-state solution, a position that Kushner also shares according to
journalist Robert Parry and others.
With Kushner's "Israel first" mentality clear and his commitment to Zionism
obvious, it is hardly surprising that Kushner, and his wife Ivanka, would
push for a different approach to Syria than that promised by Trump during
the 2016 election."
200 Words
@paraglider
Syria is the battlefield where competing visions of the future meet head on.
It's where the rubber meets the road.
actually syria is now the
battlefield where the american neocon vision of the future is dying for all
to see irrespective what trump wants or doesn't want.
the war there is, strategically speaking, over, all that remains are the
tactical battles needed to finish off whatever the rebels calls themselves
this week.
washington/israels neocon vision of the middle east is finished.
the russians do not want a war with the usa but i wager they are
preparing for one at all levels as i write this. washington likes to fight
but mostly against those who can not fight back and is wholly unprepared to
battle a russian enemy every bit as technically advanced as the us military.
the 'real' us military knows fighting russia is suicide and a fools
errand and is surely counseling trump on this fact. if he doesn't listen he
potentially ends most life on earth or if he stops short of that the us
military suffers a humiliating defeat for all the world to see.
his presidency ends forthwith and the integrity of the nation is at risk.
i will wager the syrian showdown between dc and russia goes no further.
Some really good points here, paraglider.
I believe a nations army will
always fight hardest to defend itself against an aggressive invasion An
entire nation (every man ,woman and child) will rally to the call when an
existential threat is upon them
They will make every sacrifice to survive ..
When its balls to the walls do or die .Ordinary people have shown a
mountain of courage where none would expect it.
When an aggressor army enter the fray, under false or dubious claims, no
matter how well disciplined its soldiers are, the integrity of rationale, or
lack there of, impinges on the hearts and minds of its warriors.
How can it not ?
We are human beings, after all ?
Cannot any of us imagine how potent and deadly a warrior Pat Tillman
might have been, defending OUR country..from an attacking invader ?
One deadly , vicious , Motherf#cker I can tell you that now .God rest his
soul.
There is nothing WORSE for a nation than to engage in aggressive war
under false or bogus pretenses..
Nothing WORSE --
It undermines the fighting spirit.. because deep down, every soldier
doesn't REALLY believe they have the RIGHT to win ..
ANN COULTER FULL ONE-ON-ONE EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW WITH TUCKER CARLSON
(4/12/2017)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45c408-s58A
It would be so nice if Ann Coulter stopped tossing her hair around and
bobbing her head generally, and Smiling all the time .of course, girlie
behavior can be forgiven since she is a girl, but
arguably she could be
more effective if the skin factor was reduced not necessarily eliminated and
she was better prepared with a few facts, numbers, etc. Carlson is great
given the need to keep his job, not for his money, but for Fox viewers who
are subject to Hannity and O'Reilly emotionalism. The other guy, is not as
bad, but he too starts to dance a bit Lou Dobbs.
Thank god for Tucker, his brilliance, his limits-pushing, his skepticism
right now about Syria Story per the Usuals. Evidence! he keeps on
saying .Yup.
400 Words
Eric Bolling is filling in for the great O'Reilly and interviewing the wise
Sebastian Gorka on the Syrian and N. Korea situation. Based on this and
other interviews and coverage over the last week by the neocon smart set
I've learned the following:
1) Assad is evil, almost indescribably so, and he periodically uses
chemical weapons against innocent people for pure sport. Don't challenge
this or you are condoning evil, stupid, a liberal pussy, or not a true
patriot. Besides, our intelligence agencies are second to none and wouldn't
lie or mislead us and how dare you question the narrative.
2) Assad and his allies are quaking in their boots. Iran and Russia
better think long and hard about supporting Assad. We may use additional
force. We may not. We like to keep people guessing and our options open.
It's all part of Trump's unpredictability and brilliance.
3) The use of WMD's will not be tolerated by this administration unless
we're the ones using them since we are exceptional. If we use them then we
have a right to and are killing really evil people who threaten innocent
people, Israel and the change of seasons on earth.
4) The Chinese premier thought the tomahawk missile strike before dessert
was cool and scary at the same time. Xi Jinpeng was so impressed by Trump's
"resolve" and the dessert was so delectable that he will probably invade or
nuke N. Korea for us. That's the art of the deal!
5) Our actions are legal and moral even though nobody can say where we
derive the power to bomb nations we are not at war with or who don't pose an
imminent threat. Trump, Tillerson, Nikki Haley, Israel, CNN, FOX and Rush
Limbaugh think we have this power and that's all that matters. If you
disagree then you are a traitor or phony patriot and should leave the
exceptional American nation NOW (yes, you alt-right, Tulsi Gabbard and Rand
Paul).
6) The only thing preventing John McCainiac's permanent man crush on
Trump is the latter's unwillingness to commit 500,000 troops for a ground
invasion. He should also consider invading Iran while we're in the
neighborhood since Assad's evil is only matched by the mullahs. Of course,
if Trump follows through with McCain's wish then Lindsay Graham will fall in
love, too and have a hard on for the ages.
Read More
Ivy
,
April 14, 2017 at 2:02 am GMT \n
"This mechanism of dispersal is essentially the same as hitting a toothpaste
tube with a large mallet, which then results in the tube failing and the
toothpaste being blown in many directions depending on the exact way the
toothpaste skin ruptures.
@KenH
Eric Bolling is filling in for the great O'Reilly and interviewing the wise
Sebastian Gorka on the Syrian and N. Korea situation. Based on this and
other interviews and coverage over the last week by the neocon smart set
I've learned the following:
1) Assad is evil, almost indescribably so, and he periodically uses
chemical weapons against innocent people for pure sport. Don't challenge
this or you are condoning evil, stupid, a liberal pussy, or not a true
patriot. Besides, our intelligence agencies are second to none and wouldn't
lie or mislead us and how dare you question the narrative.
2) Assad and his allies are quaking in their boots. Iran and Russia
better think long and hard about supporting Assad. We may use additional
force. We may not. We like to keep people guessing and our options open.
It's all part of Trump's unpredictability and brilliance.
3) The use of WMD's will not be tolerated by this administration unless
we're the ones using them since we are exceptional. If we use them then we
have a right to and are killing really evil people who threaten innocent
people, Israel and the change of seasons on earth.
4) The Chinese premier thought the tomahawk missile strike before dessert
was cool and scary at the same time. Xi Jinpeng was so impressed by Trump's
"resolve" and the dessert was so delectable that he will probably invade or
nuke N. Korea for us. That's the art of the deal!
5) Our actions are legal and moral even though nobody can say where we
derive the power to bomb nations we are not at war with or who don't pose an
imminent threat. Trump, Tillerson, Nikki Haley, Israel, CNN, FOX and Rush
Limbaugh think we have this power and that's all that matters. If you
disagree then you are a traitor or phony patriot and should leave the
exceptional American nation NOW (yes, you alt-right, Tulsi Gabbard and Rand
Paul).
@KenH
Eric Bolling is filling in for the great O'Reilly and interviewing the wise
Sebastian Gorka on the Syrian and N. Korea situation. Based on this and
other interviews and coverage over the last week by the neocon smart set
I've learned the following:
1) Assad is evil, almost indescribably so, and he periodically uses
chemical weapons against innocent people for pure sport. Don't challenge
this or you are condoning evil, stupid, a liberal pussy, or not a true
patriot. Besides, our intelligence agencies are second to none and wouldn't
lie or mislead us and how dare you question the narrative.
2) Assad and his allies are quaking in their boots. Iran and Russia
better think long and hard about supporting Assad. We may use additional
force. We may not. We like to keep people guessing and our options open.
It's all part of Trump's unpredictability and brilliance.
3) The use of WMD's will not be tolerated by this administration unless
we're the ones using them since we are exceptional. If we use them then we
have a right to and are killing really evil people who threaten innocent
people, Israel and the change of seasons on earth.
4) The Chinese premier thought the tomahawk missile strike before dessert
was cool and scary at the same time. Xi Jinpeng was so impressed by Trump's
"resolve" and the dessert was so delectable that he will probably invade or
nuke N. Korea for us. That's the art of the deal!
5) Our actions are legal and moral even though nobody can say where we
derive the power to bomb nations we are not at war with or who don't pose an
imminent threat. Trump, Tillerson, Nikki Haley, Israel, CNN, FOX and Rush
Limbaugh think we have this power and that's all that matters. If you
disagree then you are a traitor or phony patriot and should leave the
exceptional American nation NOW (yes, you alt-right, Tulsi Gabbard and Rand
Paul).
6) The only thing preventing John McCainiac's permanent man crush on
Trump is the latter's unwillingness to commit 500,000 troops for a ground
invasion. He should also consider invading Iran while we're in the
neighborhood since Assad's evil is only matched by the mullahs. Of course,
if Trump follows through with McCain's wish then Lindsay Graham will fall in
love, too and have a hard on for the ages.
Eric Bolling called Assad "the butcher of Damascus"
100 Words
April 14, 2017 The Trump/Syria conundrum Will Trump deliver Deep State's
world war?
In appearance, Trump's April 6, 2017, missile attack on Syria
is the first step towards a regime change, a massive regional conquest, and
World War 3. In appearance, the event marked a point of no return for
Trump's presidency.
@KenH
Eric Bolling is filling in for the great O'Reilly and interviewing the wise
Sebastian Gorka on the Syrian and N. Korea situation. Based on this and
other interviews and coverage over the last week by the neocon smart set
I've learned the following:
1) Assad is evil, almost indescribably so, and he periodically uses
chemical weapons against innocent people for pure sport. Don't challenge
this or you are condoning evil, stupid, a liberal pussy, or not a true
patriot. Besides, our intelligence agencies are second to none and wouldn't
lie or mislead us and how dare you question the narrative.
2) Assad and his allies are quaking in their boots. Iran and Russia
better think long and hard about supporting Assad. We may use additional
force. We may not. We like to keep people guessing and our options open.
It's all part of Trump's unpredictability and brilliance.
3) The use of WMD's will not be tolerated by this administration unless
we're the ones using them since we are exceptional. If we use them then we
have a right to and are killing really evil people who threaten innocent
people, Israel and the change of seasons on earth.
4) The Chinese premier thought the tomahawk missile strike before dessert
was cool and scary at the same time. Xi Jinpeng was so impressed by Trump's
"resolve" and the dessert was so delectable that he will probably invade or
nuke N. Korea for us. That's the art of the deal!
5) Our actions are legal and moral even though nobody can say where we
derive the power to bomb nations we are not at war with or who don't pose an
imminent threat. Trump, Tillerson, Nikki Haley, Israel, CNN, FOX and Rush
Limbaugh think we have this power and that's all that matters. If you
disagree then you are a traitor or phony patriot and should leave the
exceptional American nation NOW (yes, you alt-right, Tulsi Gabbard and Rand
Paul).
@Rurik
Eric Bolling called Assad "the butcher of Damascus"
can't get more 'Hitler of the month' than that
Well, Assad Jr. used to run a halal meat shop when he was not busy learning
the basics of totalitarian governance. It was rather famous throughout
Damascus.
Read More
MEexpert
,
April 14, 2017 at 7:00 pm GMT \n
100 Words
Since the neocons are so interested in partitioning every other country, we
should give them a partitioned country right here. We should break up the
United States into several countries. California and Texas already want to
secede. We should make New York as a separate country for the neocons and
the MSM. They can run it to ground anyway they like.
Read More
Miro23
,
April 14, 2017 at 10:01 pm GMT \n
@MEexpert
Since the neocons are so interested in partitioning every other country, we
should give them a partitioned country right here. We should break up the
United States into several countries. California and Texas already want to
secede. We should make New York as a separate country for the neocons and
the MSM. They can run it to ground anyway they like.
Wait a second I live in N.Y. AND WE DON'T WANT THE BASTARDS HERE EITHER.
Read More
MEexpert
,
April 15, 2017 at 12:21 am GMT \n
@bluedog
Wait a second I live in N.Y. AND WE DON'T WANT THE BASTARDS HERE EITHER.
I feel sorry for you. You are going to have hard time getting rid of those
cockroaches.
Arnaldo Claudio, a retired senior US Military Police officer, discusses his 2005 investigation
of human rights abuses of detainees in Tal Afar, in a camp commanded by then-Colonel H.R. McMaster,
whom Claudio threatened to arrest. According to Claudio, detainees were kept in overcrowded conditions,
handcuffed, deprived of food and water, and soiled by their own urine and feces. A so-called "good
behavior program" was implemented by McMaster, that held detainees indefinitely (beyond a rule
requiring release after 2 weeks) unless they provided "actionable intelligence."
"... The World Economic Forum has called for "reimagining" and "reforming" capitalism. To what extent is this need for reform the result of disruption brought by technological change, globalization, and immigration and to what extent is it the effect of rent-seeking and regulatory capture? ..."
"... "Martin Hellwig and I discuss "global competitiveness" and THE PARTICULARLY HARMFUL SYMBIOSIS BETWEEN BANKS AND GOVERNMENTS in our book The Bankers' New Clothes: What's Wrong with Banking and What to Do about It." ..."
"... Private/public arrangements are often a way for private parties to bleed wealth from society. Our current banking system is the most egregious example of this. ..."
"... With the same idea that the "vanguard" recruited mainly from "Intelligentsia" will drive sheeple to the "bright future of all mankind" using bullets for encouragement, if needed. And this "bright future of all mankind" is the global neoliberal empire led by the USA. ..."
"... Including full scale use of three letter agencies. Also like Bolshevism before, neoliberalism created its own "nomenklatura" -- the privileged class which exists outside the domain of capital owners, which along with high levels management and professionals include neoclassical economists. They are integral and important part of neoliberal nomenklatura and are remunerated accordingly. ..."
"... Because you can't be half-pregnant -- it is difficult to try anything else when neoliberalism still dominates globally and try to enforce its will via global financial institutions. They do not hesitate to punish detractors for Washington consensus. ..."
"... It is difficult to survive trying to find alternatives to neoliberalism on the continent with Uncle Sam and his extremely well financed three letter agencies which operate with impunity. And it does not cost too much money to implement more moderate variant of Chile Pinochet coup model -- create economic difficulties and then bring neoliberals back to power on the wave of dissatisfaction with the current government due to economic difficulties. ..."
"... Difficulties of finding the right balance avoid sliding into opposite extreme -- "over-regulating" the economy. In view of sabotage experienced (and encouraged), which produces natural (and damaging) counteraction, this is almost impossible. Looks like a real trap -- the efforts of the USA to undermine the economy of countries with left wing governments produce a counteraction which helps to undermine the economy and pave the way for restoration of neoliberal regime ..."
"... In this sense Trump is just Obama II -- neoliberal "bait and switch" artist, who capitalized on pre-existing discontent using fake slogans and then betrayed the electorate. ..."
"... "Class dictatorship. Raw or refined" ..."
"... My interpretation is that it's a class project, now masked by a lot of rhetoric about individual freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, privatisation and the free market. ..."
"... That rhetoric was a means towards the restoration and consolidation of class power, and that neoliberal project has been fairly successful ..."
... Q: The World Economic Forum has called for "reimagining" and
"reforming" capitalism. To what extent is this need for reform the
result of disruption brought by technological change,
globalization, and immigration and to what extent is it the effect
of rent-seeking and regulatory capture?
Acemoglu and
Robinson argued in Why
Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty
that "man-made political and economic institutions underlie
economic success (or lack of it)." Technological developments have
highlighted the immense power associated with controlling
information. The business of investigative reporting is in a
crisis. Corporations often play off governments, shopping
jurisdictions and making bargains. For capitalism to work, the
relevant institutions must work effectively and avoid excessive
rent extraction. The governance challenge of the global economy is
daunting.
RGC said...
"Martin Hellwig and I discuss "global competitiveness" and THE PARTICULARLY HARMFUL
SYMBIOSIS BETWEEN BANKS AND GOVERNMENTS in our book The Bankers' New Clothes: What's Wrong
with Banking and What to Do about It."
[Private/public arrangements are often a way for private parties to bleed wealth from
society. Our current banking system is the most egregious example of this.]
"Acemoglu and Robinson argued in Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and
Poverty that "man-made political and economic institutions underlie economic success (or lack
of it)."
Neoliberalism is the second after Marxism social system that was "invented" by a group of intellectuals
(although there was no any single dominant individual among them) and implemented via coup d'état.
From above. Much like Bolshevism.
Looks like it is more resilient then Marxism based economic systems and it demonstrated staying
power even after 2008 -- when the ideology itself was completely discredited and became a joke.
Neoliberalism survived the demise of neoliberal ideology and entered zombie stage. Much like
many sects with discredited predictions like the Second Coming.
Neoliberalism borrowed quite a lot from Marxism. Actually analogies with Marxism are too numerous
to list. But one is very important: neoliberalism replaced "Dictatorship of proletariat" with
the dictatorship of "free markets" and proletariat itself with so called "creative class".
With the same idea that the "vanguard" recruited mainly from "Intelligentsia" will drive
sheeple to the "bright future of all mankind" using bullets for encouragement, if needed. And
this "bright future of all mankind" is the global neoliberal empire led by the USA.
They also demonstrated the same ruthlessness in the best style of "end justifies means". Killed
are mainly "brown people" (is we do not count ten thousand Ukrainians)
In short, neoliberalism is a kind of "Trotskyism for rich." Gore Vidal once famously said that
the neoliberal economic system is "free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich." As
unforgettable Bush II said "I'm a free market guy. But I'm not gonna let this economy crater in
order to preserve the free market system" – George W. Bush, December 17, 2008, William Simon,
President Nixon's Treasury Secretary, once famously observed of those who preach free markets
typically are simultaneously rushing to the public treasury: "I watched with incredulity as businessmen
ran to the government in every crisis, whining for handouts or protection from the very competition
that has made this system so productive always, such gentlemen proclaimed their devotion to free
enterprise and their opposition to the arbitrary intervention into our economic life by the state.
Except, of course, for their own case, which was always unique and which was justified by their
immense concern for the public interest."
And neoliberalism uses the same repressive tactics including dominance in MSM and the control
of the university education to get and stay in power, which were invented by Bolsheviks/Trotskyites.
Including full scale use of three letter agencies. Also like Bolshevism before, neoliberalism
created its own "nomenklatura" -- the privileged class which exists outside the domain of capital
owners, which along with high levels management and professionals include neoclassical economists.
They are integral and important part of neoliberal nomenklatura and are remunerated accordingly.
That fact the deification of markets is a "fools gold" was know from the Great Recession (and
Karl Polanyi famous book), but when 50 years passed and generation changed they manage to shove
it down throat. Because the generation which experienced horrors of the Great Depression at this
point was gone (and that include cadre of higher level management which still have some level
of solidarity with workers against capital owners). The new generation switched camps and allied
with capital owners against the working class.
Both treat the country the same way as bacteria treat a squirrel carcass.
Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason-the
powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market
governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit-and, most of the time,
genteel-oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are
the controlling shareholders. When a country like Indonesia or South Korea or Russia grows,
so do the ambitions of its captains of industry. As masters of their mini-universe, these people
make some investments that clearly benefit the broader economy, but they also start making
bigger and riskier bets. They reckon-correctly, in most cases-that their political connections
will allow them to push onto the government any substantial problems that arise.
As Paine noted neoliberalism in zombie state (which it entered after 2008) remains dangerous
and is able to counterattack -- the US sponsored efforts of replacement of left regimes in LA
with right wing neoliberal regimes were by-and-large successful.
Among them are two key LA countries -- Brazil and Argentina. That happened despite that this
phase of neoliberal era has been marked by slower growth, greater trade imbalances, and deteriorating
social conditions. In Latin America the average growth rate was lower by 3 percent per annum in
the 1990s than in the 1970s, while trade deficits as a proportion of GDP are much the same.
Contrary to neoliberal propaganda the past 25 years (1980–2005) have also characterized by
slower rate of improvement of key social indicators for the vast majority of low- and middle-income
population of LA countries [compared with the prior two decades ]
In an effort to keep growing trade and current account deficits manageable, third world
states, often pressured by the IMF and World Bank, used austerity measures (especially draconian
cuts in social programs) to slow economic growth (and imports). They also deregulated capital
markets, privatized economic activity, and relaxed foreign investment regulatory regimes in
an effort to attract the financing needed to offset the existing deficits. While devastating
to working people and national development possibilities, these policies were, as intended,
responsive to the interests of transnational capital in general and a small but influential
sector of third world capital. This is the reality of neoliberalism.
As for the question "Why?" there might be several reasons.
Because you can't be half-pregnant -- it is difficult to try anything else when neoliberalism
still dominates globally and try to enforce its will via global financial institutions. They
do not hesitate to punish detractors for Washington consensus.
This is LA specific part. It is difficult to survive trying to find alternatives to neoliberalism
on the continent with Uncle Sam and his extremely well financed three letter agencies which
operate with impunity. And it does not cost too much money to implement more moderate variant
of Chile Pinochet coup model -- create economic difficulties and then bring neoliberals back
to power on the wave of dissatisfaction with the current government due to economic difficulties.
Difficulties of finding the right balance avoid sliding into opposite extreme -- "over-regulating"
the economy. In view of sabotage experienced (and encouraged), which produces natural (and
damaging) counteraction, this is almost impossible. Looks like a real trap -- the efforts of
the USA to undermine the economy of countries with left wing governments produce a counteraction
which helps to undermine the economy and pave the way for restoration of neoliberal regime.
My impression is that before the next oil crisis (defined as oil price crossing $150 mark or
so) attempts to displace financial oligarchy are bound to fail.
So, in some "mutated" form, like Trump's "bastard neoliberalism" ( aka neoliberalism without globalization,
limited to a single country) it will stay put.
In this sense Trump is just Obama II -- neoliberal "bait and switch" artist, who capitalized
on pre-existing discontent using fake slogans and then betrayed the electorate.
"Does this crisis signal the end of neoliberalism? My answer is that it depends what you
mean by neoliberalism. My interpretation is that it's a class project, now masked by a
lot of rhetoric about individual freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, privatisation and
the free market.
That rhetoric was a means towards the restoration and consolidation of class power, and that
neoliberal project has been fairly successful."
Proof that the alleged Syrian Government chemical weapons attack on April 5 was staged,
and that the White House either did not care for a professional intelligence check on
their draft for the White House Intelligence
Report issued on April 11 consciously use false claims for justifying a war of
aggression act against Syria supporting ISIS:
The fact that the crater is on the road is another indicator that the attack was staged. as in
this case it looks like it was Syrian rebels who provided artillery shell with sarin (or other toxic
agent) and explosives to create the gas cloud.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. hasn't shown evidence that Assad was responsible for the April 4 attack in Idlib, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Friday in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, where Putin was attending a collective-defense meeting of former Soviet republics. ..."
"... Russia says Syrian forces struck a building where terrorists kept the internationally banned chemical. The U.S. says it has images proving the bomb left a crater in a road rather than hitting a building. ..."
U.S. actions in Syria seek regime change, Lavrov says
Foreign ministers of Russia, Iran, Syria meet in Moscow
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said a chemical-weapons attack in Syria that provoked U.S.
missile strikes on the Middle Eastern country may have been orchestrated.
"There's growing evidence that this was staged," Lavrov said at a Moscow news conference with
his Iranian and Syrian counterparts on Friday. Publications including in the U.S. and the U.K. have
highlighted "many inconsistencies" in the version of events in Syria's Idlib province that was used
to justify the American airstrikes, he said.
Russia, Iran and Syria want an independent investigation and those opposed to the call "don't
have a clear conscience," Lavrov said. Russia
vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution on Wednesday that demanded the Syrian government
cooperate with an inquiry into the suspected sarin-gas attack that killed dozens of people.
U.S. President Donald Trump ordered cruise-missile strikes on an airbase in Syria last week after
his administration accused Russia of trying to cover up Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's role in the
chemical-weapons attack. Russia contends the chemicals belonged to terrorists. Lavrov called on the
U.S. not to repeat the airstrikes, which he said were part of efforts to oust Assad that won't succeed.
'Nerve Agent'
The crisis
dominated Moscow talks between U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Russian President Vladimir
Putin on Wednesday as the Kremlin rebuffed demands to abandon its ally Assad. Putin's military backing
of Assad has been crucial in keeping the regime in power after six years of civil war.
The U.S. hasn't shown evidence that Assad was responsible for the April 4 attack in Idlib, Kremlin
spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Friday in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, where Putin was attending a
collective-defense meeting of former Soviet republics.
The U.S. "is confident that the Syrian regime conducted a chemical weapons attack, using the nerve
agent sarin, against its own people," according to a four-page document published by officials in
Washington on Tuesday that contained evidence including satellite images, reports from the scene
and details of exposure gathered from victims.
Russia says Syrian forces struck a building where terrorists kept the internationally banned chemical.
The U.S. says it has images proving the bomb left a crater in a road rather than hitting a building.
... >>> "US Kills Hundreds in
Chemical Strike on Der Ezzor or US Bombs
Hit Chemical Warehouse, Will Russia Hit
US Base, Ask Questions Later?"
... ... [VT]"Editor's note: Without
a video done by the White Helmets
distributed by Qatar's intelligence
agency and their al Jazeera
organization, the cheerleaders of ISIS,
Ivanka Trump is silent though hundreds
lie dead, most of them children.
Without White Helmets to murder the
babies on camera, jabbing them with
cardiac needles and digging around until
their hearts are torn to shreds and
their eyes go dim, the satanic witch
queen, Ivanka, will not be ordering
military retaliation and pushing for
Armageddon."
This story can't be true. The
bastions of truth, CNN, MSNBC and FOX
all have breaking news coverage of
the UAL lawyers press conference. No
mention of gas bombings. They must
know what's fake news or sumpin.
Still holding out hope for the Trump, I see. The
change was so bizarre, I am too, a tiny bit.
Maybe .01%. Would be happy to see it. It isn't
going to happen. Something happened that you and
I are never going to know about. It was bad,
really bad. And Trump changed.
Also, too much
pivot is it's own problem.
We are not getting the same guy tweeting,
self-absorbed, doing his own thing, any more.
Hope only serves to prolong suffering. Hegel
identified with fear, he thought it was the
agent that drove progress toward self
knowledge.
Actually, I've come to realize that the
limit placed upon self knowledge is the
absence of virtue, namely the absence of
Courage. It takes courage to deal with
Reality. To see it for what it is, in its
naked form.
The System Result is extinction which is
quite clear to see. Either you change the
System or you'll be killed by it. And since
the entire System has now been modeled, the
central question becomes whether it can be
changed and then whether it would be
worthwhile doing so.
I don't think change is possible, Marx gave
it his level best and he failed. It's the lack
of courage that keeps everyone in the cave and
I can't see that changing. It's to do with how
the Mind forms.
We are not fascist, simply. USA became fascist with Clinton in
stealth mode, and publicly with baby Bush who advertised
neoconservatism. Neocon is simply a euphemism for fascist. Sadly a
simple name change is enough to satisfy most people that you're not a
fucking NAZI from Strangelove's bunker
neocon is not, imo, simply a euphemism for fascist pure and
simple. as daddy bush said to baby bush, when the latter asked
what neoconservatism was, "israel".
google is becoming more and more neocon and is making finding
things that don't cast israel in the best light (true things not
wild anti-jew ravings) harder and harder.
that might make an interesting story zh, especially since
they translate between languages (but can't translate english
into english).
try googling most dangerous jewish organizations then compare
it to most dangerous white organizations (even given the
inaccuracies that invites).
Exactly. People seem to forget that isis is fighting with U.S.
weapon systems.... that they "stole" from Iraq.... that they appear
to be able to "steal" ammunition for on a regular basis.. and the
MIC is NOT making a single dolla on!
"This is old news, the
Turks delivered the sarin, read Seymour Hersch's "The Red Line and
the Rat Line," which was published in the London Review. No
publisher in USA would touch it, so much for free press in America.
A gas attack is a war crime and the 2011 sarin attack was a red
flag operation. One thing have to give to Obummer, he didn't fall
for this when they tried to blame it on Asad. "
Looks like the US had previous knowledge of the strike that was blamed on
Syria as a gas attack. Looks like the US either planted gas at the site
or the site was a chemical storage facility of some type, not sarin gas
though.
"
ANALYSIS by retired Col. Patrick LANG
Donald Trump's decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian
Air Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days the American
people will learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not
drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is
what happened.
The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target.
This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a
dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and
deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting
at each other) the upcoming operation.
The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was
a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a
weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.
The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons.
All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That
did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing
from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site
to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals
included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind
and killed civilians.
There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was
driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.
We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called
"first responders" handled the victims without gloves. If this had
been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you.
How do I know? I went through "Live Agent" training at Fort
McClellan in Alabama.
There are members of the U.S. military who were aware this strike
would occur and it was recorded. There is a film record. At least the
Defense Intelligence Agency knows that this was not a chemical weapon
attack. In fact, Syrian military chemical weapons were destroyed with
the help of Russia.
This is Gulf of Tonkin 2. How ironic. Donald Trump correctly
castigated George W. Bush for launching an unprovoked, unjustified
attack on Iraq in 2003. Now we have President Donald Trump doing the
same damn thing. Worse in fact. Because the intelligence community had
information showing that there was no chemical weapon launched by the
Syrian Air Force.
Here's the good news. The Russians and Syrians were informed, or at
least were aware, that the attack was coming. They were able to remove
a large number of their assets. The base the United States hit was
something of a backwater. Donald Trump gets to pretend that he is a
tough guy. He is not. He is a fool.
This attack was violation of international law. Donald Trump
authorized an unjustified attack on a sovereign country. What is even
more disturbing is that people like Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis,
CIA Director Mike Pompeo and NSA Director General McMaster went along
with this charade. Front line troops know the truth. These facts will
eventually come out. Donald Trump will most likely not finish his term
as President. He will be impeached, I believe, once Congress is
presented with irrefutable proof that he ignored and rejected
intelligence that did not support the myth that Syria attacked with
chemical weapons.
It should also alarm American taxpayers that we launched $100
million dollars of missiles to blow up sand and camel shit. The
Russians were aware that a strike was coming. I'm hoping that they and
the Syrians withdrew their forces and aircraft from the base. Whatever
hope I had that Donald Trump would be a new kind of President, that
hope is extinguished. He is a child and a moron. He committed an act
of war without justification. But the fault is not his alone. Those
who sit atop the NSC, the DOD, the CIA, the Department of State should
have resigned in protest. They did not. They are complicit in a war
crime."
Thats the problem with the way our MSM works. It prints info tha turns
out to be false on the front page, in huge letters, with dramatic photos.
The TV media reports on it breathlessly. Later, when the story is proven
to be false, like the 2013 nonsense, a retraction might be printed in a
tiny column at the back of the paper, if at all. But, years later, they
still talk about it as if thats how it happened, since it 'fits that
pattern'. Most people don't see anything other than the big 'breaking
news' story, so thats their new reality.
You know, kinda like the 'wiretappped data used in inquiry of trump
aids' being a headline ON ELECTION DAY and then a few months later, the
author of that same story says trump is a crazy person for claiming obama
had his 'wires tapped'.
Both sides Russian and American are spewing out propoganda that shouldnt be
listened too or at least taken with a grain of salt. Don't trust the intel
from either party as it pertains to this mess. We need to get the hell out of
Syria now unfortunately Donald fucked that up with his damn hard on for the
Tomohawk waroom. We couldve gotten concessions on the way out had he choose
his detente that he campaigned on but now he has nothing to gain politically
from backing out because Russia will not tolerate concecssions.
The tragedy of it is that the Russians and the U.S. made a
deal to cover up the embarrassment for the U.S. military and it's "head
chopper" proxies without Syria invited to that "PARTY"!
NOT a very good way to dispose of chemical weapons... But hey?... They ain't
Russian or Americans right?!!!
If I were Assad I'd be raising a "MIDDLE DIGIT" in Putin's direction along
with the Iranians!!!
If most of the Trumptards on here had half an ass and applied their brains
to a study of the balance of Freedom, Liberty and Inalienable Rights, and
started with the premise "Pursue whatever until and unless you encroach upon
the Rights and Freedom of others, or the Law subjugating you both" we
wouldn't have to ask "Why don't Americans...mind their own business".
We
could have a long discussion about the "
War
Powers Resolution
", but don't you think 535 people involved would SLOW
DOWN the hasty actions to just send ~$100 million worth of missiles to a
remote air field? Don't you think being able to pull the lever to initiate
non-nuclear launch sequence of attacks, without deliberation, violates some
basic principle of logical sanity?
If Congress had to vote to declare war on Syria to then authorize the
lame-ass attack, don't you think we would have had a different outcome?
Aside from all of that, on principle alone:
a) The US is deliberately pushing for regime change, and we have funded
the opposition to and the overthrow of the currently-elected President of
Syria. This, alone, is reason enough to not be involved. We are
encroaching upon their Freedoms, their Liberty, and their Rights to
self-govern and self-efficacy. To this, I say we are the war criminals,
the guilty party, the treasonous-bitch, unwelcome outsiders.
b) Syria asked Russia for help. Syria has not asked us for help. We
are unwelcome. If you are in a town, and the asshole "window washer" comes
up and just starts spraying and scrubbing, expecting something in
return...you're starting to get the feeling.
Now, say asshole window washer comes brandishing an AR-15, he's strapped
with ballistic helmet and plate carrier, and you know he wants your shit,
but all you have is a t-shirt, some sunglasses and a pocket knife? You
wanna fight, but the prospect of running that red light looks best, while
calling for backup.
The US is the loaded, asshole window washer going to steal Syria's stuff.
They sped off and got help from Russia, and the US is still in the dust,
firing helplessly at the shit that's getting away.
c) Common sense and decency says that if one sovereign nation wants
access to another sovereign nation's resources, the seeking nation proposes
terms to enter into agreement with the possessing nation. They both respect
each others' right to self-govern, and their right to deal with whomever on
whatever terms are agreeable. The US has fucked this up beyond belief. I'm
not sure any people in the State Department or at the decision-making levels
abides by, believes and/or lets that simple maxim drive the way they
approach the world.
On principle alone, the US should be chained up, set in the corner, and
given a detox of whatever megalomaniac-influencing drugs and thoughtforms it
has been consuming...24/7 classical music, readings from classic texts, a
diet of bread, water and occasional soup, and a comforting, fluffy blanket,
so as not to be too harsh. =)
US coalition denies airstrikes in area of alleged chemical leak in Syria
The US-led coalition against Islamic State on Thursday denied a Syrian army
report it had carried out an airstrike that had hit poison gas supplies
belonging to IS and caused the deaths of hundreds of people.
"The coalition
conducted no strikes in that area at that time. The Syrian claim is incorrect
and likely intentional misinformation,"
US Air Force Colonel John Dorrian,
a coalition spokesman, told Reuters.
But it did not. Even if it did, where does it say in the UN charter that
if any country violates war crime laws, of which the US is by far the
most guilty of doing, that it is up to the US to bomb them? International
law also prohibits countries from ousting leaders of countries. It is why
George HW Bush did not remove Sadaam houssein in desert storm. He
specifically stated that too.
British reporter in Syria says that the Syrian army attacked al nousra
chemical plant in Syria. The US countinues to lie about Assad -- The only
Americans telling the truth are Rand Paul Tulsi Gabbard and who the dnc
establishment has demonized!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xjOSZ6QgGgY
A constant theme in the way the US fights is to use "shock n awe"; aka massive
overkill.
As a result the collateral damage is just beyond belief; nothing
pin pointed about it. Witness Nam, Laos and now Afghan and Iraq etc. etc. etc.
In Iraq 1-- Desert Storm-- the Italians and Brits lost a lot of their
personnel against friendly fire by the US troops.
The frogs played safe; Mitterrand ordered his troops to keep a perimeter of
45 km minimun from the advancing US army on its march to Basra and Baghdad.
Result : No collateral damage to the frog regiments.
Why should anything be different in Syria and Mosul today ?
Apart from operation "trojan horse" type false flag scams; which is standard
CIA/special ops. pratice.
Yes, yes, they can fabricate any signals intercepts they want. ....... If
I know the Langley crowd they will even screw up that air tight psyop
with sloppy execution.
Let's give it about 48 hours and see if I'm
right.
Duff is a little 'out there' BUT about this he is dead on the money at
300 yds.
If there is proven evidence of this fuckup can we expect appologies en-masse
from the UK's UN representative, one two faced little shit called Matthew
Rycroft.
I get the urge to throw something very heavy at the TV every time he
starts spouting his propaganda BS.
Me too, and the British media has the bare arsed cheek to accuse the Russian
envoy who shouted at Matt (the Brat with a face begging to be slapped)
Rycroft of "unprofessional" behaviour; unlike the Anti-Russian rantings of
Boris the bumbling buffoon, he`s really professional, he`s the best Foreign
Secretary and top Diplomat any country has had
since Ulrich
Friedrich Wilhelm Joachim von Ribbentrop graced the corridors of the
Reichstagg in Berlin during the reign of dear old Adolph. #realdonaldtrump
What ever happened to real war correspondents and fearless camera crews?
I
want to see the gas victims writhing around on the ground in agony, damn it!
If I'm going to pay for all of this CIA gas and distress I want to see how
my tax dollars are being spent.
Live Hard, Let's Bring All The War Refugees We Just Bombed And Gassed Back
To Have A Block Party And Cook Out. Maybe Get In A Few Games Of Softball,
Horseshoes Or Corn Hole And Drink Some Near Beer With Mohammad And His Six Or
Seven Wives, Die Free
War correspondents and fearless camera crews... Why do we need them? Is this
not the job of the White Helmets? I have no doubt they are en route to
rescue children covered in talcom powder and ketchup? Right? any moment now.
"Update 1:
Russia has reportedly dispatched drones to the area
to confirm Syria's reports. The
Russian military said that it has no
information confirming the reports of death as a result of the US-led
coalition's strike."
"The Russian Defense Ministry does not possess
information confirming reports of deaths and the type of the destriction as a
result of the US-led coalition's bombing near Deir ez-Zor."
"Unmanned aerial vehicles have been sent to the area to monuitor the
situation,"
the ministry added.
What ?, go and investigate ?, why ?, come on Putin, get with the program, do
what Donny would do, NUKE EVERYBODY. #realdonaldtrump
Media doesn't care. They exist not to play to moral outrage but to lull
viewers to sleep. Local news full of blood and guts. National and
international news void of all realities on the ground. No bloody stumps of
baby carcases shown there. Unnamed sources only. Their mission: bury the
magnitude of crimes by power and wealth. But Hynduai is pen Easter Sunday.
Free hot dogs and ballons for the kids! Get a gas guzzling cn't see around
one Bulgemobile for only $189/mo. Comes with inside TV while you drive! No
credit? Bad credit? No prblem. Habla Espanol.
Agree. Wouldn't watch CNN, if they paid me. Fox is right leaning,but way
better than the majors or CNN.
Bottom line is these days almost no media is impartial, they are all
spinning. The only outlet that's impartial, is Consortium News. So you
have to read them all with a jaundiced eye, and try and divine the truth
from the fog.
Not saying Sputnik shouldn't be read, but it, like all the others, has
its own spin.
It is sad to witness the controlled media and lack of free speech even amount
the best media sites. It's not actually their fault sometimes. It is self
preservation. They don't want to be crucified for speaking the unspeakable.
Visitors from Russia and China often say that in Russia people blurt out their
opinions now days. politically correct or not. Point: Tucker Carlson, a decent
fellow and probably agrees with me, has to navigate the direction of the
discussion with guests that agree with me (and Tucker almost certainly) about
the nature of the Syrian problem.
Tucker was discussing with some Russian expert about what is the cause of the
left wanting war with Russia so much.
Well Tucker has to feign wonderment about why, and he asks the expert, who also
has to orbit around the truth without speaking the words. Why the animosity -
hostility, and belligerence towards Russia and Syria? Tucker has to ask out
loud- He and his guest and most of the viewers know the answer which can't be
articulated by anyone on the air.
The secret---- unveiled for Tucker----
Israel hates Hezbollah, Syria, and Russia because their position in Syria
interferes with their local Hegemony in Lebanon in particular, in 2006.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/10/13/how-hezbollah-defeated-israel-2/
This is a proxy war fought to support Israeli regional supremacy, and their
ability to strike Syria and Assad and Hezbollah at will, any time and anywhere
they like, in the Golan Heights or in Damascus, or anywhere in Lebanon they
choose. The American neocons and the left for the most part is in bed with
these guys, and will cause the US to go to war if they have to, and even with
Russia if they have to go that far, because Russia is the power behind this
triumvirate. This is why Israel supports el Nusra (ISIS) and their stooge John
McCain has no trouble with that.These are they guys with the Sarin, and the
lack of scruples to use it to blame Assad. This is the only picture that makes
any sense from the Syrian point of view. Somehow, poor Tucker can't blurt out
the truth. He must stand there in his shoes and wonder outloud, why do the Left
and necons want a war with Russia. Very very sad state of view for free speech
in the US. It's gone.
I think you're waaay off the mark. Yes, Isreal is obviously a factor in
region, and they have their hands in the pie, no question.
This, however,
is first and foremost about pipelines. Russia has an iron grip on the petro
market in Europe. Syria is key to maintaining that monopoly simply because
they are the land-route for fast, cheap, pipelines from the middle east.
The Saudis, Qatari's, and their US, er, ally, need to control Syria to
build those pipelines. With Assad in power, that will never happen. That is
why the Saudi's/Qatari's backed the various opposition groups in the area
(including ISIS), and that is why they simply will not let this one go.
It is, as is often the case, all about petro dollars.
Last paragraph of a Seymour Hersh article published in the London Review of
Books on December 19, 2013:
"The UN resolution, which was adopted on 27
September by the Security Council dealt indirectly with the notion that rebel
forces such as an-Nusra would also be obliged to disarm .No group was cited by
name. While the Syrian regime continues the process of eliminating its
chemical arsenal, the irony is that, after Assad's stockpile of precursor
agents is destroyed, al-Nusra and its Islamist allies could end up as the only
faction inside Syria with access to the ingredients that can create sarin, a
strategic weapon that would be unlike any other in the war zone."
These deaths of beautiful babies are lost in the chemical fog of war because
the White Helmets and a film crew were not ready on scene to record the event
for US media.
Remember that after bombing Libya chemical weapons where transferred to Syria.
It was Hillbilly that did it with Trumps help. When will they learn that there
is no "winning" anything in this morass.
Deir ez-Zor is the location where "coalition" airstrikes killed and wounded a
couple hundred Syrian soldiers last September. The US claims that they were
mistaken for ISIS. Before the airstrike, the Syrian army was winning the
battle for control of the area. This strike, and another phony incident in the
western part of the country days later, blamed on the Assad government,
resulted in derailing the ceasefire that had been negotiated between Kerry and
Lavrov.
RT.com reports the issue as: "US-led coalition airstrike mistakenly killed 18
SDF ally fighters in Syria on April 11 – Pentagon" Yup. Just like the US
mistakenly murdered Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, one million+ in Iraq, and Viet
Nam. A nation you can really believe in.
Evidently, even in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary, the US
will be playing this "ISIS is our enemy" psyop to the bitter fucking end. It
seems ISIS would be easy to eliminate, using both military and financial
methods. But we focus on getting rid of Assad and when we kill his supporters
we claim it was just an accident. I don't think these people in DC and their
allies realize how many people around the globe are not falling for their lies.
I wonder how mossads isis got
the gas away from the Syrian airport?
I'm thinking they (mossad/cia/pentagram/mi6/etc.) had the whole tomahawk
thing planned weeks in advance and made the gas thing up with clumsier
counterpart mossad isis (soon to be deadmen) that just killed some kids and
waited for the next air strike then made a movie and gave it to jew boy
kushners crying fool wife and the rest is now jew history of murders (to be
proud I'm sure). News Flash: You jew perverts are losing more everyday and soon
will be destroyed forever.
"Deir ez-Zor is perhaps best known for its oilfields, and previously much of
the fighting around the city involved fighting for control over these
strategically important objectives. As the oilfields used to provide much of
the fuel for the Syrian Arab Army, the Republican Guard, the National Defence
Force and Suqur al-Sahara (Desert Falcons), their takeover about a year ago was
a serious blow to all forces loyal to Assad and endangered the fuel supply
badly needed to mount new offensives."
Unfortunately you're the I'll informed lunatic. Dr Assad was a medical Dr
based in London prior to the death of his father. He is totally secular and
has a British wife. His country has been set upon by terrorist fighters
trained and funded by the USA, Qatar and Saudi Arabia (ISIS) the reason for
the assault on Syria and the devastation on the country is that the USA
wants to pump Qatari natural gas through Syrian territory to Europe in order
to break the Russian stranglehold on European gas supplies. Syria is a long
standing Russia partner and ally and has resisted the construction of the
pipeline. This entire mess is entirely the fault of the western oil majors
pulling strings in Washington and London. We have no right to be there, we
have no right to be funding terrorism and we have caused the decimation of
the Coptic Christian community in Syria as the jihadi conscripts in ISIS
have committed horrific slaughter on all of these communities under cover of
the US military umbrella. Please stop talking shit.
The US and its allies, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar,
started this war in Syria in a disastrous attempt to get rid of Assad and snake
an oil pipeline through the country. They funneled massive numbers of
armaments to Sunni groups with direct affiliations to Al Quada. In the power
vacuum they created ISIS and the ensuring refugee crisis. Ask Angela Merkel,
she agrees! The Russians, Iran and Assad won the Syrian civil war. But these
same clowns, US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are doing whatever they can
through their FAKE news media outlets to stir the pot one more time. Pathetic.
It is amazing that we do not learn from our very large and very recent
mistakes in the Middle East......if we actually succeed in getting Assad
removed there will be a power vacuum which will then be filled by some crazy
extremist religious fanatic who will then proceed to further de-stabilize the
region, thus requiring our further efforts to corral the problem.
We should get out now.....let Russia and Assad deal with ISIS.
While we are diverting our resources and energy to the ME, we do not take
care of our own citizens here at home. The Mexican drug cartels are far more of
a threat to us than ISIS or its ilk have ever been. Our infrastructure is
crumbling, our inner cities are more dangerous than ME war zones, and our
deficits are out of control.
I really believed that Trump would put America first.....now it appears we
are putting Syria first. Just the same old shit.
Same for DPRK. Events in the past thaught us the vacuum can't be controlled.
Meet the new boss. Even more insane than the previous.
It is very obvious
there is no consensus within the Trump administration just like there is no
solid forgein policy. Other than the lame old shit they do not admit to. The
chilrun!
Good news. More instability and the "status quo" under review. Good!
Nothing last forever and every empire crumbles eventually. Lets review
western alliances as well. Genie is out the bottle anyway.
Coalition Strikes Daesh Depot With
Chemical Weapons in Deir ez-Zor
The Syrian General Staff said
that
the US-led coalition struck a Daesh depot storing chemical weapons in Deir
ez-Zor on Wednesday. The Syrian military said that this fact proves that
terrorists possess chemical weapons.
"The jets of the so-called US-led coalition
launched a strike at about 17:30-17:50
Download Video
on a Daesh warehouse where many foreign fighters were
present. First a white cloud and then a yellow one appeared at the site of the
strike, which points at the presence of a large number of poisonous substances.
A fire at the site continued until 22:30 [19:30 GMT]," the Syrian army's
command statement obtained by Sputnik said.
If true, looks like New yawk Don's Wild Wild West tomahawk show merely got
Assad an upgrade for his airforce;
Syria gains more upgraded Su-24M2 bombers
Posted 13 April 2017 ·
"The Syrian Arab Armed Forces are receiving 10 examples of the
Sukhoi Su-24M2 'Fencer-D' attack aircraft from Russia, augmenting an unknown
number of existing 'Fencers'. Jon Lake reports."
The chemical weapons had plenty of time to get to those warehouses during the
Obama era. They probably came in through the Jarablus Corridor. It is possible
that ISIS recently moved them to that warehouse and then made sure the US got
the message they were there. ISIS made sure they were placed near a vulnerable
population where many children would be killed. The blame will be placed on
Assad once again. Sure sounds like a neocon plot.
Trump is way out of his
depth and should probably just resign. He should have thought twice about this
obviously contrived setup. I hope for his sake and the sake of his family he
quits. No job is worth having innocent blood on your hands. I pity the guy.
Everything is going to hell for him.
If it turns out Jared leaned on him to do this deed, things are even worse.
Using his kids as his advisors shows that he really is not fit to be president.
The fact that he is better than Hillary and that if he leaves, some evil neocon
will replace him is not enough of a reason for him to stay. He is being bled
like a stuck pig by the neocons and should think about saving himself and his
family.
Technically the russkies can send a squadron of SU-24 bombers flanked by some
Mig-35s or even Sukhoi T-50s, and kill every last US trooper in a convoy of
assumed ..cough...ISIS scumbags, on the M4 road in Syria that goes all the way
into Iraq.
If Trump starts complaining over dead American soldiers through
his sidekick Spicer, he has to explain what they were doing there without
congressional approval (which he won´t, unless he is completely insane).
Putin can further, through his faithful mouthpiece Lavrov, declare that we
have the official blessings from the sovereign state of Syria to bomb any
invading enemy or said state if we find proof of such invasion...and so on...
This is a game of chess between war crazy neocons that want to see how far
they can push their war agenda until the Russians and Chinese starts killing
off American soldiers and navy men on live TV for all to see what happens when
a war-mad puppet in the WH starts believing he can take on the entire world
without repercussions.
I bet ISIS has warehouses full of sarin gas all over western Europe. Read
Samuel Laurent's book, Al Qaida en France. He actually visited, several years
ago, one of their warehouses in France, though at the time, even though they
had many advanced weapons, no mention was made of chemical and biological
weapons. But you know the probability is 100% that they now have ample stocks
of those weapons, which they will definitely use for acts of terror when they
decide the time is right for bringing Europe to its knees.
Al Qaida actually
wants people to know of their capabilities, which is why they granted a weapons
depot tour to Laurent. They made sure that he would never know the location of
the depot.
Needless to say, the vast majority of Europeans are insouciant.
The US/Israel usually keeps a pretty tight leash on the gas it supplies to
al Qaeda, I guess they are scared that the moozies might bite the hand that
feeds them.
"... "Yesterday's chemical attack in Syria [was] against innocent people including women, small children and even beautiful little babies. Their deaths was an affront to humanity. These heinous actions by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much." ..."
"... "The only plausible scenario that fits the evidence is an attack by opposition forces." ..."
"... Faulty intelligence could have led to an unjustified US military action." ..."
"... Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." ..."
"... What the U.S. government is doing in Syria is tantamount to a war of aggression, which, according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, is the worst possible crime a State can commit against another State." ..."
"... Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist. He lives in the SF Bay Area and can be contacted at [email protected] ..."
International law has been undermined and replaced by "humanitarian
law,"contributing to the current disastrous situation whereby a war is
being waged under a humanitarian pretext.
On Tuesday, April 4, there were reports of children and other civilians
killed by chemical poisoning in the town of Khan Sheikhoun, Syria. There
were contradictory reports, some saying they smelled the gas; others
claiming it caused immediate death like odorless sarin.
On Wednesday, April 5, President Trump blamed the Syrian government
despite conflicting reports and contradictory information and
accusations. He said,
"Yesterday's chemical attack in Syria [was]
against innocent people including women, small children and even
beautiful little babies. Their deaths was an affront to humanity. These
heinous actions by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated my attitude
toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."
On Thursday, April 6, Trump ordered a 'targeted military strike' on
Syria with 50 tomahawk missiles attacking the primary Syrian air base
near Homs. This base is used to support the combat with ISIS in eastern
Syria and Nusra / al Qaida in Idlib province.
As I will show below, it is likely the deaths in Khan Sheikhoun were
caused by an armed opposition faction, not the Syrian government. The
goal was precisely what has happened: a media firestorm leading to direct
U.S. aggression against Syria.Syria.
What Happened and How?
On April 4 news broke of a 'chemical weapon' attack in Syria. Western
media and governments quickly blamed the Syrian government. Just as
quickly, neoconservatives such as Sen. John McCain recalled the 2013
crisis when Pres Obama ultimately decided not to attack Syria. Israeli PM
Netanyahu chimed in with a not-too-subtle renewed call for war on Syria.
He tweeted that it's time for the international community to "fulfill its
obligations from 2013."
Basic facts include:
- On March 22, the government-controlled town of Khattab was over-run
by militants with some civilians
kidnapped
and taken to the nearby opposition-controlled town of Khan
Sheikhoun.
- On April 4, up to 80 persons, including many children, died at Khan
Sheikhoun. Some showed signs of chemical poisoning. Photographs, videos,
analyses and other sources are documented at
"A Closer Look At Syria"
.
- one of the videos features the UK born and raised
Dr. Shajul Islam
. He received his UK medical license in 2012 but had
the license
suspended
due to reports he was involved in the kidnapping in Syria
of journalist John Cantlie.
- Many of the video scenes depict an area set into a limestone quarry
with apparent caves and storage depots. There are flatbed trucks with
bodies scattered on the ground in this semi-industrial area. Other video
show scenes in a medical clinic.
- Photographs show "White Helmet" individuals handling bodies without
gloves which is very strange if they died or were dying from chemical
poison.
Who is responsible?
There are three theories about what happened:
- The western government narrative is that the Syrian "regime" is
responsible. They fired illegal chemical weapons into the town, primarily
killing innocent civilians and many children.
- The Syrian army acknowledges firing air strikes but denies using
chemical weapons at this or anytime. This area was the base for militant
attacks against government areas in Hama province in the preceding weeks.
The Russian Ministry of Defense says that militants had a weapons
production factory including chemical weapon ingredients, and that may
have been hit and caused the chemical weapon deaths.
- A third theory is the kidnapped civilians from Khattab were killed
or poisoned by the militants as part of a staged event.
Evidence Pointing to the Militants
Looking at the facts, history and overall circumstances, it is far
more likely the armed opposition is responsible for this event. Here is
why:
(1) The incident and publicity help the opposition and hurt
the government.
Crime investigations usually begin with the question: Who has a
motive? In this case, it's strikingly clear that the armed opposition and
their supporters benefit from this event. They have used the story to
further demonize the Assad government and make renewed calls for the
United States and "the world" to intervene.
The Syrian government is making steady advances in many parts of the
country. They have no reason to use chemical weapons; they have every
reason to NOT use chemical weapons. They know very well that the armed
opposition has immediate access to major media.
Accusations that the Syrian government intentionally attacks civilians
is contradicted by their policies and actions. As demonstrated last
Decembers in Aleppo, civilians are welcomed from opposition areas into
government controlled areas. Even Syrian militants are welcomed after
they sign an agreement to lay down arms.
It is also relevant to consider timing. There is a pattern of
sensational events helpful to the armed opposition occurring
simultaneously with critical international meetings or actions. In this
case, the events in Khan Sheikhoun occurred the day before an important
conference on Syria in Brussels. The conference titled "Supporting the
future of Syria and the region" has been effectively sidetracked by news
about the chemical weapons attack and the Syrian government being blamed.
(2) Extremists were responsible for the August 2013 Chemical
Weapon attack in Damascus.
Western supporters of the armed opposition were quick to blame the
Syrian government for the chemical attack in Ghouta on August 21, 2013.
However, subsequent investigations by the most credible investigative
journalists and researchers concluded the Syrian government was probably
NOT responsible.
Seymour Hersh
and
Robert Parry
concluded the attack was most likely carried out by
militants with support from Turkey. The in-depth examination titled
WhoGhouta
concluded
,
"The only plausible scenario that fits the evidence is
an attack by opposition forces."
An
MIT study
made a detailed trajectory analysis, concluded that the
missile could not have been fired from government territory and warned: "
Faulty
intelligence could have led to an unjustified US military action."
(3) Armed Opposition Groups have a history of Staging
Incidents
From the start, the Syrian conflict has included an information war.
Hillary Clinton boasted of "training for more than a thousand activists,
students and independent journalists." In December 2012, NBC journalist
Richard Engel was reportedly kidnapped and abused by "shabiha" supporters
of the Syrian government. Engel and his film crew were "liberated" by
Free Syrian Army rebels after a gunfight with the Assad supporting
kidnappers. In reality, the entire episode from kidnapping to rescue was
a hoax designed to demonize Assad supporters and glorify the "rebels".
The true story emerged years later after the actual events were leaked.
When it was going to be made public, Engel finally admitted the truth.
(4) Supporters of the armed opposition have a history of
fabricating stories which demonize the Syrian Government.
In February 2014, it was announced that a defecting Syrian military
photographer, who was anonymous but code-named "Caesar", had 55,000
photos showing the torture and murder of 11,000 innocent Syrian
civilians. This news received sensational media attention with live
interviews on CNN and front page coverage throughout the western world.
The news relied on the judgment of legal prosecutors who "verified" the
story and produced a "Caesar Report". This was released the day before
the start of Geneva negotiations. It effectively disrupted the talks and
facilitated the "rebels" refusal to negotiate and walk away. In reality,
the "verification" and report was commissioned by the government of Qatar
which has been a major funder of the armed opposition. Since then it has
been discovered that nearly half the 55,000 photos show the opposite of
what was claimed: they show dead Syrian soldiers and victims of
explosions NOT tortured civilians. That is just one of the findings
confirming the fraud involved in this sensational story. A concise expose
of "Caesar" is
here
.
How the Public has been Misinformed on Syria
Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has
said
, "
Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of
the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press."
Here are a few examples showing the bias, half-truths and outright false
statements regarding the events at Khan Sheikhoun:
- The PBS Newshour typically features two guests who are questioned by
the host. The problem is that their guests consistently share the same
basic viewpoint. On April 4, one guest was from the Soros-funded
Physicians for Human Rights. She claimed, "We know that sarin has been
used before by the Assad regime." In fact, that has NOT been confirmed by
any credible organization. On the contrary, the most thorough
investigations point to sarin being used by the armed opposition NOT the
Syrian government. The other guest was Andrew Tabler from the
neoconservative Israeli associated "Washington Institute". His editorial
from last Fall makes clear what he wants: "
The
case for (finally) bombing Assad
." The discussion on Syria at PBS
Newshour is consistently biased.
- The New York Times feature story on April 4 was "
Worst
Chemical Attack in Years in Syria; U.S. Blames Assad"
. One of the
authors, Michael Gordon, was an influential proponent for "weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq" that justified the 2003 invasion. But that has
apparently not hurt his career. In this story on Syria, he and co-author
Anne Barnard claim that "American intelligence agencies concluded" the
2013 attack was carried out by the Syrian government. That is false. The
intelligence agencies did NOT agree and the "assessment" came from the
White House not the intelligence agencies. It is astounding that they
either do not know this or they are intentionally misleading the public.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity explained the significance
in their memorandum
"A Call for Syria - Sarin Proof"
.
- DemocracyNow is a popular television/radio show. It is widely
considered to be "progressive" but is also highly biased in its
presentation on Syria. It almost solely promotes the perspective of those
who support the armed opposition and/or western intervention in Syria. On
April 5, they interviewed Dr. Rola Hallam. She is
infamous
for being the
key player in the documentary "Saving Syria's Children" which purports to
show a chemical weapon attack in Aleppo but was actually
staged
.
The "documentary" was then broadcast at a critical time trying to
influence the 2013 vote in British parliament for an attack on Syria. On
April 6, DemocracyNow interviewed another "Syrian" who lives in the West
and promotes western intervention: Lina Sergie Attar. Viewers of
DemocracyNow have no idea that the majority of Syrians support the
government and especially the national Army in their struggle against
invasion and terrorism.
Public understanding about what's happening in Syria has been
seriously confused by the bad analysis of prominent analysts. Some have
suggested that Israel was content to live with Assad. Former Israeli
Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren clarified the truth as he
said
"we always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the
bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to those who were backed by Iran." In
short, Israel prefers al Qaida or ISIS or, better yet, the conflict to
continue so that both sides are destroyed.
Before the conflict began, in 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
made demands to Damascus that all revolved around Israeli interests. She
wanted Syria to end its alliance with Hezbollah, to reduce its
interactions with Iran and to come to an agreement with Israel. In
contrast to what some analysts have said, Israeli interests have been a
major factor driving and maintaining the conflict. With the liberation of
Aleppo and prospect of a victory by Syria and allies, Israeli demands to
escalate the war have probably increased.
Some of the world's most famed political analysts have contributed to
the confusion and lack of resistance as the war on Syria has continued.
For example, Noam Chomsky on DemocracyNow two days ago said "The Assad
regime is a moral disgrace, the Russians with them." Evidently, he
believes all or most of the accusations which have said about the
'regime'. In sharp contrast with Chomsky's assessment, it's remarkable
that Syria has held together as well as it has in the face of attack by
some of the most powerful and rich countries on earth. Over 100,000
Syrians have given their lives defending their country against the
onslaught. Russia has supported their ally in compliance with
international law, continually trying to work with the U.S. coalition as
a "partner" against terrorism. Evidently, Chomsky is unaware or does not
believe the extent of lies that have been created around Syria.
Evidently, he does not recognize the distorted and shameful media
coverage mentioned by Kinzer. Everyone makes mistakes but Chomsky's poor
analysis here is a whopper. If he was to visit Syria and talk with real
Syrians I think his perception would be dramatically changed just as
described by the PBS Frontline crew
here
. With
consummate hypocrisy, both Syrian and Russian governments are now
demonized by western neoconservatives and liberals who have done little
or nothing to stop their own government's collusion with terrorists
raining havoc and destruction in Syria.
The need to restore International Law
International law has been undermined and replaced by "humanitarian
law". This has contributed to the current disastrous situation whereby
the U.S. and NATO are waging aggression under a humanitarian pretext.
International law regarding attacks on sovereign states is clear: it
is illegal unless authorized by the UN Security Council or in legitimate
self-defense. It is clear that Syria poses no threat to any of its
neighbors or any other nation. It is also clear that Syria has been the
victim for six long years of aggression by foreign states which have
funded and promoted a proxy army of fanatics and mercenaries from around
the world.
As the former Nicaraguan Foreign Minister and President of the UN
General Assembly, Father Miguel D'Escoto, has said: "
What the U.S.
government is doing in Syria is tantamount to a war of aggression, which,
according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, is the worst possible crime a State
can commit against another State."
There has been a sustained attempt to derail Trump's campaign pledge
to stop the US "regime change" policy. This has been accompanied by a
semi-hysterical demonization of Syria's ally Russia. Liberals have been
willing accomplices in this campaign which serves the interests of the
U.S. military-security complex, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
It looks like the foreign policy hawks and neocons have succeeded.
Yesterday's attacks on Syria mark an escalation in the war of aggression
and violation of international law against Syria. This could lead to WW3
unless there is sufficient outcry and opposition.
Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist. He lives in the SF
Bay Area and can be contacted at
[email protected]
"... Trump is throwing the haters a bone to gnaw on while he completes the rest of his agenda. Then he'll get back to the likely fake news of chemical weapons use and debunk it. ..."
"... Fake news. Fake. news. You think this was fake news? Not only that, but you think it was fake news and that the only person able to determine reality is Donald Trump? Good lord. ..."
"... It is not an accident that chemical poisoning happened a day after Trump decided not to remove Assad. Rebel-terrorists supported by the West want Assad removed, they arranged that chemical spill ... and not for the first time. ..."
Trump is throwing the haters a bone to gnaw on while he
completes the rest of his agenda. Then he'll get back to
the likely fake news of chemical weapons use and debunk
it.
Fake news. Fake. news. You think this was fake news?
Not only that, but you think it was fake news and that
the only person able to determine reality is Donald
Trump? Good lord.
I know, right? Check out comments on any Brietbart news
story, though, and you'll how typical of a select
minority of Americans that kind of thinking represents
(suggest you wear earphones to block out the cacophony
of thousands of bleeting sheep).
It is not an accident that chemical poisoning happened a
day after Trump decided not to remove Assad.
Rebel-terrorists supported by the West want Assad removed,
they arranged that chemical spill ... and not for the
first time.
johnbonn ,
2h ago
Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise
the US will soon attempt to render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel
factions it decides to install.
... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive in
the halls of the Pentagon.
.... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the West
has already inflicted on the innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design that has
ever been conceived by the war college or any other war commander.
...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.
......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the US?
Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of
family owned country KSA or why not another family owned enterprises called UAE.
The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it
and did it in secret, now they are all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered
anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia. The amazing thing is Tillerson said
Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison said
how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want." These are
the same people who elected Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president.
The result may end up better.
> Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and
Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse still,
more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally
displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.
Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton,
who armed "moderate rebels" and supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change?
And Syria is not the only country were this happened.
Will there ever any responsibility taken for their actions by the US and NATO?
First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living
local people to pick up the pieces.
Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of
jihadists and jihadists themselves have some responsibility as well?
A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women
can wear what they like in public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a
career.
B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where
women are denied education, made virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in
their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they do go out in public.
It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.
"A source told me that Pompeo had personally briefed Trump on April 6
about the CIA's belief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not
responsible for the lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria two days
earlier - and thus Pompeo was excluded from the larger meeting as Trump
reached a contrary decision."
Robert Parry – Consortium News
Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern
Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern explains what he has learned from his
sources about how the Syrian "chemical attack" actually went down.
Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY
The Facts
On 4 April 2017, the town of Khan Shaykhun in the Idlib Governorate of
Syria, was struck by a heavy airstrike followed by massive civilian chemical
poisoning.
At the time of the attack the town was under the control of Tahrir
al-Sham,formerly known as the al-Nusra Front.
The President of the United States, Donald Trump, as well as the UK
Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, blamed the attack on the forces of Syrian
President Bashar Assad, while the Russian and Syrian governments said it was
caused by the Syrian Air Force's destruction of a nearby rebel-operated
chemical weapons warehouse.
In response, the United States launched 59 cruise missiles at Shayrat Air
Base, which U.S. Intelligence believed was the source of the attack.
Ray McGovern
According to the former CIA Analyst:
"Syrian aircraft 'knew' there was a weapons cache in this particular
rebel-held area. That was correct, and the Syrian aircraft bombed it.
What seems
not
to
have been known was the existence nearby of a large storage facility for
chemicals. That too was damaged, releasing a cloud of chemicals that the
wind blew south and poisoned those villagers."
The most likely
scenario
As I reported recently, here
is what most likely happened:
The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a
process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone
line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and
Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.
The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target
in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons and explosives depot for
Islamic rebels.
The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All
involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen.
Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out
that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that
were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they
followed the wind and killed civilians.
There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a
nearby village and caused casualties.
We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called "first
responders" handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they
would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you.
As President Trump was launching his missile strike against Syria, CIA
Director Pompeo and other intelligence officials were nowhere in sight.
Back row from left: Deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin, senior adviser Jared
Kushner, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross,
Sean Spicer, President Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, chief
strategist Steve Bannon, senior adviser Stephen Miller, national security
official Michael Anton. Front from left: Chief of staff Reince Priebus,
national security adviser HR McMaster, chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, deputy
national security adviser Dina Powell.
According to Spicer's tweet, the people present are looking at a screen
showing Vice-President Mike Pence, Defence Secretary James Mattis and Joseph
Dunford, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Robert Parry - from Consortium News - reports the following:
"Before the photo was released on Friday (April 7 2017), a source told me
that Pompeo had personally briefed Trump on April 6 about the CIA's belief
that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the
lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria two days earlier - and thus
Pompeo was excluded from the larger meeting as Trump reached a contrary
decision."
"You don't see Pompeo or Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats or
any other intelligence official. Even The New York Times noted the oddity in
its Saturday editions, writing: "If there were CIA and other intelligence
briefers around, they are not in the picture." [Robert Parry – Consortium
News]
Ray McGovern served as a CIA analyst from the administration of John Kennedy
to that of George H.W. Bush, and prepared the President's Daily Brief for
Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
"In the coming days the American people will learn that the [US]Intelligence
Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on
innocent civilians in Idlib."
Patrick Lang - a former DIA Colonel - does not mince words about the US
attacks on Syria. Lang claims that Donald Trump's decision to launch cruise
missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie.
Follow
us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY
Patrick Lang is truly a top expert on the Middle-East. The former DIA
Colonel is highly respected for his deep knowledge and absolute honesty.
[NOTE: Many years ago, Lang helped me to understand a very 'murky' dossier
regarding Libya. I trust his analysis 100%. Last week - knowing full well that
'the shit was going to hit the fan' - I asked him permission to reproduce his
posts on my blog. Colonel Lang kindly agreed.]
Donald Trump's decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air
Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days the American people will
learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military
chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is what happened.
The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This
is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated
phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent
US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming
operation.
The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a
target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot
for Islamic rebels.
The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All
involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not
happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It
turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not
sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and
chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.
There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to
a nearby village and caused casualties.
We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called "first
responders" handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin
they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I
went through "Live Agent" training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.
There are members of the U.S. military who were aware this strike would
occur and it was recorded. There is a film record. At least the Defense
Intelligence Agency knows that this was not a chemical weapon attack. In
fact, Syrian military chemical weapons were destroyed with the help of
Russia.
This is Gulf of Tonkin 2. How ironic. Donald Trump correctly castigated
George W. Bush for launching an unprovoked, unjustified attack on Iraq in
2003. Now we have President Donald Trump doing the same damn thing. Worse in
fact. Because the intelligence community had information showing that there
was no chemical weapon launched by the Syrian Air Force.
Here's the good news. The Russians and Syrians were informed, or at least
were aware, that the attack was coming. They were able to remove a large
number of their assets. The base the United States hit was something of a
backwater. Donald Trump gets to pretend that he is a tough guy. He is not.
He is a fool.
This attack was violation of international law. Donald Trump authorized
an unjustified attack on a sovereign country. What is even more disturbing
is that people like Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, CIA Director Mike
Pompeo and NSA Director General McMaster went along with this charade. Front
line troops know the truth. These facts will eventually come out. Donald
Trump will most likely not finish his term as President. He will be
impeached, I believe, once Congress is presented with irrefutable proof that
he ignored and rejected intelligence that did not support the myth that
Syria attacked with chemical weapons.
It should also alarm American taxpayers that we launched $100 million
dollars of missiles to blow up sand and camel shit. The Russians were aware
that a strike was coming. I'm hoping that they and the Syrians withdrew
their forces and aircraft from the base. Whatever hope I had that Donald
Trump would be a new kind of President, that hope is extinguished. He is a
child and a moron. He committed an act of war without justification. But the
fault is not his alone. Those who sit atop the NSC, the DOD, the CIA, the
Department of State should have resigned in protest. They did not. They are
complicit in a war crime.
About Patrick Lang
Walter Patrick "Pat" Lang, Jr. (born May 31, 1940) is a commentator on
the Middle East, a retired US Army officer and private intelligence analyst,
and an author. After leaving uniformed military service as a Colonel, he
held high-level posts in military intelligence as a civilian. He led
intelligence analysis of the Middle East and South Asia for the Defense
Department and world-wide HUMINT activities in a high-level equivalent to
the rank of a lieutenant general. [
WIKIPEDIA
]
The problem for Russia is that Trump secured China neutrality in voting in Security council beforehand.
Notable quotes:
"... The individual sources may each have to be taken with a grain of salt, but a number of different outlets, including Robert Parry, seem to collaborate each other. Namely, U. S. intelligence analysts knew that Russia's account of the matter was accurate, and that it was also a false flag. ..."
"... I was confused by the fact that Syria and Russia are sticking to their statement that it was a conventional Syrian airstrike on a rebel warehouse, which, unknown to the SAA or the Russians, contained chemical substances. It didn't seemed to mesh with the numerous and obvious signs of the entire incident being a prearranged false flag. The Saker, too, in his analysis, felt that this version of the events would require one to "believe in coincidence". However, it doesn't have to be coincidence at all, considering what one source claims: ..."
"... There US and its coalition of lap dogs were supposedly fighting ISIL/Daesh but missed the massive convoys of oil to Turkey that propped them up. ..."
"... In short, the US is exceptional and no-one is going to succeed bringing it the International Criminal Court because it is not a member and no-one would dare (not even those fearsome fighters for humanitarian law, the Spanish – sic, how are you dealing with Franco's widespread crimes?). The US will continue to ignore anything it doesn't like, but for everyone else particularly in Europe, nope. Even the Brits would be a lot more cautious. ..."
"... Even if it were true – so what? The United States has intervened any number of times to keep leaders in power in various countries, against the demonstrated will of their populations, so long as it suited American interests. My favourite example is Hosni Mubarak; the Egyptian people loved him so much that they tried to assassinate him six times to show their adoration. ..."
"... The group which benefited most immediately and strongly was the Muslim Brotherhood, and look what a peaceful and prosperous western-leaning market democracy Egypt is now . ..."
"... I don't buy for a minute that Russia's primary motive is to keep Assad in power – my take is that Russia's focus is on stopping the United States from carrying out another of its regime-change colour revolutions. It so happens that keeping Assad in power accomplishes that endeavour, and he remains the choice of the majority in Syria. That's where Russian 'intervention' and American meddling differ – Washington does not care if the leader it wants is popular with the people or not. ..."
Just as Tillerson sat down for talks, a senior Russian official assailed the "primitiveness
and loutishness" of U.S. rhetoric, part of a volley of statements that appeared timed to maximize
the awkwardness during the first visit by a member of Trump's cabinet.
"One could say that the level of trust on a working level, especially on the military level,
has not improved but has rather deteriorated," Putin said in an interview broadcast on Russian
television moments after Tillerson sat down with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in an
ornate hall .
Moments earlier, Lavrov greeted Tillerson with unusually icy remarks, denouncing the missile
strike on Syria as illegal and accusing Washington of behaving unpredictably.
"I won't hide the fact that we have a lot of questions, taking into account the extremely ambiguous
and sometimes contradictory ideas which have been expressed in Washington across the whole spectrum
of bilateral and multilateral affairs," Lavrov said.
"And of course, that's not to mention that apart from the statements, we observed very recently
the extremely worrying actions, when an illegal attack against Syria was undertaken."
Lavrov also noted that many key State Department posts remain vacant since the new administration
took office - a point of sensitivity in Washington.
One of Lavrov's deputies was even more undiplomatic.
"In general, primitiveness and loutishness are very characteristic of the current rhetoric
coming out of Washington. We'll hope that this doesn't become the substance of American policy,"
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told Russia's state-owned RIA news agency.
"As a whole, the administration's stance with regards to Syria remains a mystery. Inconsistency
is what comes to mind first of all."
####
I don't see the point of Trump firing TLAMS only to play nicey-nicey with Moscow in public.
So in short, are the public and private messages the same? As for Russia, their message should
be clear (and it is) " No more 'fun' or WE are done ". The only role the West can play
is that of a spoiler , particularly in Syria. They have absolutely nothing to gain even
if their tame media claims they do. Everyone should keep their pants on and not be rude – including
you NS!
Trump seems to have reasoned that all he had to do was release the dreaded American cruise missiles
and Putin would roll over submissively and expose his belly. He has a hell of a lot to learn about
foreign policy, and I don't think he's going to have the time to learn it.
Her impudence pales into insignificance when compared with that of Tillerson, who has flown to
Russia in order to issue an ultimatum to the Russians on their own territory.
When he finished his speech, Lavrov politely said in English to the impolite United States
journalist : "You may shout now".
It was reported in Russian that he said to her: "Теперь можете кричать, если хотите", which
literally translates as "Now you can shout if you want to", which in English sounds less polite
(it does to me, anyway) than what he actually said politely but with irony, in that he politely
invited someone to continue to act in an uncultured fashion.
I am pretty sure Mr. Lavrov is aware of the adage that Americans "don't do irony".
The problem with handing an ultimatum, is what will the US do when Russia rejects and ignores
the ultimatum? More harsh words? More name calling? More sanctions. I think Russia is prepared
for any eventuality.
As regards the impudent US hack that was shouting; I think she is your typical loud, ignorant
and obnoxious US hack.
A Department of Defense spokesman discounted an Associated Press report that claimed Russia
knew in advance about the chemical weapons attack in Syria last week that left more than 80 people
dead.
"I've seen nothing that corroborates this definitive statement," Major Jamie Davis told the
Daily Caller in a statement Monday. "We continue to review the available intelligence surrounding
this incident."
Though Davis noted that the DOD is continuing to assess the details of the situation, he noted
they have found nothing so far that could verify the AP story .
A senior administration official in the White House also cast doubt on the AP report.
####
So unlike the anonymous intelligence source that did not have ' authorization to speak to
the media ' quoted by AP, here we have an official sources calling BS. Does that make the
AP piece Fake News or 'in the interests of the American public'? F/tards.
I think it is fairly clear that sensationalist leaking is part of the strategy balanced by
later rowing back or dismissing, knowing that the Pork Pie News Networks cannot resist it. It's
a balance of sorts that is aimed to keep the PPNN and others off-balance. Again, these are just
words, not actions. We also see the same method over the earlier reports that a USN CVBG was steaming
towards North Korea, now we are being told that it is not and is just in the general area. It's
a pattern:
Secretary of Defense James Mattis sought to downplay the situation, however, saying that
he was certain the situation "will not spiral out of control,"* a belief he appeared to rest on
the idea that Russia wouldn't dare retaliate against further US attacks against Syria, as they
have threatened to.
"I'm confident the Russians will act in their own best interests," Mattis insisted. Yet
he also threatened further US strikes on Syria, and Russia has made clear in recent days that
they would respond with force to any additional such US strikes .
Administration officials are trying to manufacture one, with an unnamed "senior official"
today delivering a briefing* to the media claiming that the Syrian military was afraid of a rebel
offensive in the Hama Province, and launched the attack against the rebels' rear support areas
for operational purposes
On top of this, the US narrative's initial premise is faulty, as the Hama offensive had
already ground to a halt two weeks prior to the putative Syrian attack, and Syrian forces appeared
well on their way to recovering lost territory from the rebels
####
I'm surprise they even bothered with a new narrative. The PPNN had it already well covered
with their numerous conspiracy theories so the Administration has only unnecessarily muddied the
waters here.
Interesting collection of reports on what happened with the chemical weapons attack on April 4,
including Robert Perry, citing sources within U. S. intelligence and military:
The individual sources may each have to be taken with a grain of salt, but a number of different
outlets, including Robert Parry, seem to collaborate each other. Namely, U. S. intelligence analysts
knew that Russia's account of the matter was accurate, and that it was also a false flag.
I was confused by the fact that Syria and Russia are sticking to their statement that it was
a conventional Syrian airstrike on a rebel warehouse, which, unknown to the SAA or the Russians,
contained chemical substances. It didn't seemed to mesh with the numerous and obvious signs of
the entire incident being a prearranged false flag. The Saker, too, in his analysis, felt that
this version of the events would require one to "believe in coincidence". However, it doesn't
have to be coincidence at all, considering what one source claims:
1. The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started
more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and
deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming
operation.
2. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that
the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.
The dedicated phone line would have been part of the deconfliction agreement between Russia
and the U. S., started soon after the Russian began military intervention in fall 2015. If it
is true that the U. S. knew about the planned target long ahead of time, then the fact that McCain
took a secret trip to Syria recently becomes even more sinister.
Whatever chemicals (not sarin)
were used were planted at the warehouse, or simply released nearby at the time of the airstrike.
As for the photos and videos from the White Helmets, etc., those were probably produced ahead
of time, on a Saudi or Qatari or Turkish production stage, for all we know.
This theory would give another dimension to the fact that Russia suspended the deconfliction
agreement immediately after the Tomahawk attack.
This is what I'm inclined to think – that some element(s) within the Trump Administration ensured
those charming basket-weaving, flowers-in-the-hair-wearing, kumbaya-singing 'moderate' rebells
knew an air-strike was planned and left it to them to arrange the chemical exposure.
Exactly. There US and its coalition of lap dogs were supposedly fighting ISIL/Daesh but missed
the massive convoys of oil to Turkey that propped them up.
In fact, the US was bombing to disrupt SAA operations and really protecting ISIL. I do not know why Russia agreed to share any such operational
details. This looks like an epic fail by Russia. They just needed real time coordination to prevent
collisions in the air.
The US has called its attack on an airbase in Syria "a strong signal" for the Assad regime.
Legal experts, however, criticized the action. In an interview with DW, international law expert
Stefan Talmon explains why.
####
More at the link.
In short, the US is exceptional and no-one is going to succeed bringing it the International
Criminal Court because it is not a member and no-one would dare (not even those fearsome fighters
for humanitarian law, the Spanish – sic, how are you dealing with Franco's widespread crimes?).
The US will continue to ignore anything it doesn't like, but for everyone else particularly in
Europe, nope. Even the Brits would be a lot more cautious.
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asked his European counterparts on Tuesday why American
voters should care about the conflict in Ukraine, France's foreign minister said .
French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said Tillerson had openly questioned why "American
taxpayers" should be concerned about Ukraine, which has been racked by a separatist conflict for
the last three years
####
Another PR stunt designed for domestic consumption.
If God had any sort of a sense of humour at all, G7 leaders would break out in painful boils every
time one of them used the phrase 'rules-based international order' in a manner which implied the
G7 nations give a flying fuck about obeying international rules which do not permit them to act
as they please.
I just made the mistake of watching 'BBC World News'. There was a report by their Moscow Correspondent
Steve Rosenberg who said "Russia intervened in Syria to keep Assad in power". No nuance, no other
details such as I-rack, Libya etc. descending into chaos and spreading terrorists, weapons & refugees
in to Europe, let alone Chechen and other terrorists who would head back to Russia fully trained
or that the IS/ISIS/ISIL/DAESH was allowed to grow on the West watch and Russia intervened long
after Syria descended in to hell.
That the BBC continues to employ a tabloid correspondent like
Rosenberg all these years shows how seriously they take their reporting of Russia. Very poorly,
very poorly indeed. He's the Luke Harding of the broadcasting news. A f/kwit. And f/k the BBC
too.
Even if it were true – so what? The United States has intervened any number of times to keep leaders
in power in various countries, against the demonstrated will of their populations, so long as
it suited American interests. My favourite example is Hosni Mubarak; the Egyptian people loved
him so much that they tried to assassinate him six times to show their adoration.
Yet the USA
propped him up over and over, and no attempts to unseat him enjoyed any kind of success until
Washington decided he was no longer useful. Then suddenly the winds of (regime) change began to
blow, and *poof*, we had the 'Arab Spring', and all American politicians of whatever stripe suddenly
became conscious that the dictator they had propped up for 30 years 'must step down'.
The group
which benefited most immediately and strongly was the Muslim Brotherhood, and look what a peaceful
and prosperous western-leaning market democracy
Egypt is now .
I don't buy for a minute that Russia's primary motive is to keep Assad in power – my take is
that Russia's focus is on stopping the United States from carrying out another of its regime-change
colour revolutions. It so happens that keeping Assad in power accomplishes that endeavour, and
he remains the choice of the majority in Syria. That's where Russian 'intervention' and American
meddling differ – Washington does not care if the leader it wants is popular with the people or
not.
He also confirmed that President Trump's decision to bomb a Syrian airbase to punish President
Bashar al-Assad for a nerve gas attack last week was influenced by the reaction of his sister
Ivanka, who said she was "heartbroken and outraged" by the atrocity.
"... is a journalist based in Madison, WI whose work focuses on the Middle East. He can be reached via Twitter @paulgottinger or email: [email protected] ..."
Almost immediately after video of the alleged chemical weapons attack in Idlib hit Western media,
Assad was declared guilty by US news networks and political commentators. The front page of the New
York Times on April 5 th showed a
heartbreaking image of a child wounded in the alleged chemical attack with a headline claiming
Assad was responsible.
By the afternoon of April 7, a US attack seemed inevitable as both Rex Tillerson and Trump said
action would be taken.
Between Democrats and Republicans, a bipartisan consensus emerged, rare in the Trump presidency,
whereby Assad was deemed guilty and Trump was goaded on to attack. The few voices of dissent seemed
mostly concerned with the lack of constitutional approval for the strike
The night of the strike, US media snapped into DPRK-style, state media mode. TV pundits fell into
a trance while expressing the "
beauty " of American power being unleashed on a country already destroyed by 6 years of war.
Pundits described the attack as "surgical" despite the pentagon quietly
admitting one of the missiles missed its target and they don't know where it landed. My questions
to both CENTCOM and the Secretary of Defense Office on the missing cruise missile have thus far gone
unanswered. However, Syrian sources
claim
civilians were killed in the missile strike.
Trump justified the attack by invoking religiously themed buzzwords and unconvincing blather on
the "beautiful babies" murdered in the chemical attack.
Following the attack, Trump officials' statements indicated there was a shift towards regime change.
UN ambassador Nikki Haley
said Sunday that removing Assad is now a priority.
The Neocon sharks have started circling too. Bill Kristol
tweeted that
these strikes should be used to move towards regime change in Iran. Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham,
and John McCain have all joined in too, their mouths watering at the thought of ousting Assad.
But was Assad really responsible for the attack?
To ask such a question is to be deemed an "Assadist" by pundits and discourse police across the
political spectrum.
Neither the lack of an independent investigation, nor the fact that nearly all the information
on the alleged attack has come from rebel sources, who stand to benefit from a US response, is deemed
sufficient cause for skepticism.
In a civilized society an actor is be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If guilt is
determined, a legally justified course of action is taken. In the US however, if the accused is a
US enemy, no evidence is needed, and even deranged conspiracies are given play in mainstream media
coverage.
The best recent example of this is the US media's conspiracy about Russia stealing the US election
and working for Trump. The US media has stooped so low as to even push bizarre conspiracies by
Louise Mensch . She recently
claimed
the 2014 uprising in Ferguson was a Russian plot.
In the case of the alleged attack on Khan Sheikhun, US officials and pro-war experts immediately
declared Assad's guilty and then cheered on an illegal use of force. This is all very reminiscent
of the lead up to the Iraq war.
In an eerie coincidence, Michael R. Gordon, who with Judith Miller helped sell the
Iraq WMD story to Americans,
coauthored the New York Times April 4th article on Assad's alleged sarin attack at Khan Sheikhun.
To help sell the sarin narrative, the US media brought on a doctor to describe the alleged attack
that has been
accused of helping kidnap journalists in his work with extremists.
When the US investigated its own airstrike in Mosul this March, it took a number of days before
it admitted it had killed hundreds of civilians. Yet, guilt was immediately assigned in the Khan
Sheikhun attack.
In 2013, the US media also rushed to the conclusion Assad used sarin in a horrific incident in
Ghouta. The US was on the verge of attacking Assad then, but Obama decided against it. Obama
claimed he held off because US intelligence voiced skepticism about Assad's guilt.
The UN investigation on the Ghouta attack took almost a month and even its conclusions have been
disputed.
In December of 2013, Seymour Hersh published a lengthy investigation into the 2013 attack in Ghouta
and found reason to doubt Assad's responsibility for attack. He was forced to publish it in the London
Review of Books after the New York Times and the Washington Post refused to run it.
He reported
that classified US reports claimed that Syria's al Qaeda affiliate had "mastered the mechanics
of creating sarin".
A month after Hersh's piece appeared, a MIT
study cast further doubt on the US government's story by demonstrating that the rockets used
in the Ghouta attack couldn't have flown as far as the US government claimed.
Ted Postol, one of the authors of the study said, "We were within a whisker of war based on egregious
errors."
In this latest alleged gas attack, a few individuals have dared question the state narrative.
The journalist Robert Parry has recently
claimed
there is much to be made of the fact that Mike Pompeo, the CIA Director, wasn't among those helping
sell this latest sarin story to the American people. He believes it indicates doubt in the CIA over
Assad's involvement.
Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, has raised
skepticism over Assad's involvement. He says rebels have had chemical weapons facilities in Syria
and some of the witnesses' statements describe a strong smell during the attack, which indicates
something other than sarin was used.
The Canadian government originally
called for an investigation and stopped short of blaming Assad at the UN, but then later championed
Trump's strikes.
Groups like Organizations for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and Human Rights Watch are still
investigating the alleged attack in Khan Sheikhun.
Whether these groups or others will be able to conduct an independent investigation is not known.
But in usual fashion, the US had no interest in investigating facts, which may provide the wrong
answers.
It's possible that Assad carried out the attack, but just because he's a reprehensible figure
doesn't mean there is no need to present evidence and conduct an independent investigation.
What's clear now is that the US attack
benefitted jihadi groups, has made further US military action more likely, and has increased
the chances of a direct military confrontation with Russia. All of these results are very dangerous.
Future US military action in Syria should be resisted with popular pressure. History shows we
can't count on the media or pundits to act as the voice of reason.
Join the
debate on Facebook
Paul Gottinger is a journalist based in Madison, WI whose work focuses on the Middle
East. He can be reached via Twitter @paulgottinger
or email: [email protected]
"... Oldtimers from the 1980 remember reading China, Russia and Iran were the great enemies of USA and to keep boss Israel safe her neighbors had to be splintered into mini statelets. Warring is a racket and lunacy obfuscates the racket; makes for good profits. So "sanity" will not be restored. ..."
"... Jane Meyer wrote in the New Yorker recently about the wealthy hedge funder, Robert Mercer, and his daughter Rebekah, who are big sponsors of Breitbart. They backed Cruz in the Primary, but once he lost to Trump, they began to back Trump with lots of money. For their "donations," they more or less demanded that Trump take on Bannon as an advisor. Meyer posits that it's largely due to the Mercers and Bannon that Trump won. They started working with Trump in August when Trump was seriously lagging in the poles. Although many criticized and/or jeered Trump's hiring of Bannon, the rest, as they say, is history. It is believed that Bannon and the Mercer's are largely behind and responsible for his success. ..."
"... I have read somewhere that Bannon always said he'd be out within a year. I don't believe that Trump had much loyalty to Bannon beyond whatever "good" Bannon did for him on any given day. So it's not all that surprising that Bannon is out, as are most of Trump's other initial picks as his "inside" advisors. ..."
"... Clearly and quite simply, it can't unless something majorly serious happens. We all had some slim hope that Trump could be the disrupter who made at least some levels of serious change. Clearly, that ain't gonna happen. ..."
"... Syria's just some sort of side show distraction. US citizens - at least a certain siginificant percentage of them - can be relied on to rally 'round the Flag, boys, just one more time if the tomahawks are flying at brown people "over there." ..."
"... Frankly ALL of the media here, as everyone knows, is insanely corrupt and complete and ridiculous propaganda 24/7/365. Otherwise reasonably "sane" friends of mine knee-jerked into saluting the flag and frothing at the mouth about the horrors of Assad - about whom they know bupkiss - because they listened to propaganda about it. It's pretty frightening - really - at how George Orwell it all is. I definitely keep FAR AWAY from any tvs and radios when this crap is happening. I listened to about 3 sentences that some propagandist on NPR was spewing out. It was so over the top evident that they were propagandizing the listeners that I had to turn it off immediately. It's pretty appalling. ..."
quote
----
Goodwin says he asked Trump if he still has confidence in Bannon, who is reportedly feuding with
Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner. And Trump didn't exactly disabuse Goodwin
of the idea that Bannon is embattled. In fact, he did quite the opposite.
"I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,"
Trump said. "I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know Steve.
I'm my own strategist, and it wasn't like I was going to change strategies because I was facing
crooked Hillary."
Thanks b, Lunacy has truly taken over the White House but even more so the U.S. media. How can sanity
be brought back to town?
Oldtimers from the 1980 remember reading China, Russia and Iran were the great enemies
of USA and to keep boss Israel safe her neighbors had to be splintered into mini statelets.
Warring is a racket and lunacy obfuscates the racket; makes for good profits. So "sanity" will
not be restored.
I am reading the release of an ex see-i-aye officer that McCain, McMaster, Brennan are in a
huddle and Bannon is out. Somewhat confirming Where is Trump's loyalty? I was winning before
he rescued me:
In an interview with Michael Goodwin of NYPOST
Trump won't definitively say he still backs Bannon
"I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,"
Trump said. "I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know
Steve. I'm my own strategist and it wasn't like I was going to change strategies because I
was facing crooked Hillary."
He ended by saying, "Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will."
~ ~ ~ ~
My take is Trump has given too much of his presidential responsibility to Jared. Israel and Family
are always First.
Vis Trump and Bannon in terms of Bannon apparently being tossed out:
Jane Meyer wrote in the New Yorker recently about the wealthy hedge funder, Robert Mercer,
and his daughter Rebekah, who are big sponsors of Breitbart. They backed Cruz in the Primary,
but once he lost to Trump, they began to back Trump with lots of money. For their "donations,"
they more or less demanded that Trump take on Bannon as an advisor. Meyer posits that it's largely
due to the Mercers and Bannon that Trump won. They started working with Trump in August when Trump
was seriously lagging in the poles. Although many criticized and/or jeered Trump's hiring of Bannon,
the rest, as they say, is history. It is believed that Bannon and the Mercer's are largely behind
and responsible for his success.
I have read somewhere that Bannon always said he'd be out within a year. I don't believe
that Trump had much loyalty to Bannon beyond whatever "good" Bannon did for him on any given day.
So it's not all that surprising that Bannon is out, as are most of Trump's other initial picks
as his "inside" advisors.
With Bannon and Kushner not getting along, well, it's a slam dunk that Bannon's out.
"How can sanity be brought to town?"
Clearly and quite simply, it can't unless something majorly serious happens. We all had
some slim hope that Trump could be the disrupter who made at least some levels of serious change.
Clearly, that ain't gonna happen.
Syria's just some sort of side show distraction. US citizens - at least a certain siginificant
percentage of them - can be relied on to rally 'round the Flag, boys, just one more time if the
tomahawks are flying at brown people "over there."
Frankly ALL of the media here, as everyone knows, is insanely corrupt and complete and
ridiculous propaganda 24/7/365. Otherwise reasonably "sane" friends of mine knee-jerked into saluting
the flag and frothing at the mouth about the horrors of Assad - about whom they know bupkiss -
because they listened to propaganda about it. It's pretty frightening - really - at how George
Orwell it all is. I definitely keep FAR AWAY from any tvs and radios when this crap is happening.
I listened to about 3 sentences that some propagandist on NPR was spewing out. It was so over
the top evident that they were propagandizing the listeners that I had to turn it off immediately.
It's pretty appalling.
How will this end? No doubt, not well, especially if you're brown skinned in the ME. The dog
help us all.
"... Several of the released video were introduced and commented by "Dr. Shajul Islam" who has been removed from the British medical registry and had been indicted in the UK for his role in kidnapping "western" journalists in Syria. He fled back to Syria. ..."
"... Other videos and photos are by the White Helmets "rescuers", a U.S./UK financed propaganda prop , which is so neutral that it works with ISIS (vid) and al-Qaeda but not in government held areas where the actual Syrian population lives. ..."
"... The Hama offensive by the "opposition" was personally planned and directed by the head of al-Qaeda in Syria al-Joliani. Photos of the planing sessions were published by "opposition" agencies and widely distributed. ..."
"... How can there be an "intelligence assessment" (and reporting about it) that does not note that the incident in question took place in an area where AL-QAEDA rules and that the allegedly related (but defeated) offensive was launched by AL-QAEDA. Is AL-QAEDA now officially the "Syrian opposition" the U.S. supports? The neocon former General Petraeus lobbied for a U.S. alliance with al-Qaeda since 2015. The new National Security Advisor to Trump, General McMaster, is a Petraeus protege. He, together with Petraeus, screwed up Iraq . Is the Petraeus alliance now in place= ..."
"... Postol finds nothing in the White House assessment that lets him believe the incident was from an air attack. He finds signs that the incident that was launched on the ground by intentional exploding the container of 122mm ammunition with some other explosives. ..."
"... He calls the White House assessment amateurish and not properly vetted by competent intelligence analysts who, Postol says, would not have signed off on it in is current form (just as I said above.) ..."
"... Postol presumes that the incident was with Sarin. He makes no analysis of that White House claim (it is not his field). I don't agree with the Sarin claim. Many other organophosphate substances (pesticides) would be "consistent with" the symptoms displayed or played in the videos and pictures. Some symptoms expected with Sarin, for example heavy cramps, spontaneous defecation, are no visible in any of the videos or pictures. ..."
"... "A critical piece of information that has largely escaped the reporting in the mainstream media is that Khan Sheikhoun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until February 2017, Khan Sheikhoun was occupied by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with its competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under any name functioning as Al Qaeda's arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the local population." ..."
"... To sum this bunch of crap up - in less than 48 hours we are to believe the DOD's use of friggin social GD media proved beyond reasonable doubt that Assad chemed his own people in a town that is known worldwide as 'ground zero' for jihadi's, filmed by a doc who was brought to trial on terror charges (lest we forget about the UK/US financed White Helmets at $100M playing pretend propaganda chit) with the bad ass retired general now in charge of all of the militaries toys and humans stating as fact, FACT, this violation of U.S. law and international law was a one time deal b/c Assad is bad, bad, bad - I looked at the evidence and was convinced beyond doubt blah, blah blah F'ing bullshit! ..."
"... It's just worthless verbage , unclassified, unattributed, unaddressed, unstructured, unprofessional, unreferenced, unformatted (re standards), etc, etc, nebulous raw text. So now some staffer in the WH does their childish version of the puerile #Fake 'Dossier', the 'Intelligence Report' on Trump, that never was ? Fucking surreal. Amateur hour at the WH, the, 'Executive' arm of government. This insanity is apparently only going to get worse. Might have to strap in for this ride and consider taking up alcohol again. FFS! :( ..."
"... To quote b, "Well, maybe because, you know, that mujahedeen thing worked out so well that nearly forty years later the U.S. is mulling again to send additional troops to Afghanistan to defeat them." ..."
"... It worked just great. More military expenditure, without even talking about the poppy fields guarded by US and NATO troops in Afghanistan. The USA wouldn't want to lose such a golden business, would it? Not right when they have an amazing, fantastic heroin epidemic that lines so many pockets back at home... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heroin-use-in-u-s-reaches-alarming-20-year-high/ ..."
"... The whole things reeks doesn't it? So amateurish. And those BGMs had to have gone somewhere, this is a terrible failure rate or the number launched was a lie. Either way it doesn't bode well that the 'stand off' weapons are less than 50% effective. Also, We never found out how many failed in the Gulf War because the media was locked in. This and the failure of the Trident. ..."
"... The west is already allied-using al-Qaida isis so any acknowledgement would just be an official declaration, most likely with another name change for their proxy forces. This has been a active tactic since the west began using Islamic fundamentalists in the aftermath of WW II and to effect in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan, destroying the progressive government then there because is was not in the orbit or under the control of the western fascists. The west thought they had it all in the bag with the collapse of the Soviet Union until an old cold war warrior saved the Russian culture and people from complete devastation at the hands of the western globalists....and here we are today. ..."
"... friedman and the nyt - suggesting they align with isis to take down assad was essentially what obama openly stated previously.. someone had this script written down some time ago.. nyt is just the servant to all the propaganda that is fit to print. isis is a creation of the war party, as is the divide and conquer strategy of creating a sunni/shite conflict and all the rest of the madness that continues to unfold from all of the madness... ..."
"... The hegemon won't recognise a multipolar world until the multipolar world talks to it in the only language it has grown to understand: Violence ..."
"... "How can sanity be brought back to town?" Is That Armageddon Over The Horizon? http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/04/12/is-that-armageddon-over-the-horizon/ ..."
White House "Intelligence Assessment" Is No-Such-Thing - Shows Support for Al-Qaeda
UPDATED
at the end of the post
The Trump White House published three and a half pages of accusations against the
governments of Syria and Russia. These are simple white pages with no header or footer,
no date, no classification or declassification marks, no issuing agency and no
signatures. It is indiscernible who has written them.
It starts with "The United States is confident that the Syrian government conducted a
chemical weapon attack, ..."
The U.S. "is confident", it does not "know", it does not have "proof" - it is just
"confident".
The whole paper contains only seven paragraphs that are allegedly a "Summary of the
U.S. intelligence community assessment" on the issue. The seven paragraphs are followed
by eight(!) paragraphs that try to refute the Russian and Syrian statements on the
issue. Some political fluff makes up the sorry rest.
That "intelligence community assessment" chapter title is likely already a false
claim. Even a fast tracked, preliminary National Intelligence Assessment, for which all
seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies must be heard,
takes at least
two to three weeks
to create. A "long track" full assessment takes two month or
more. These are official documents issued by the Director of National Intelligence. The
summary assessment the White House releases has no such heritage. It is likely a well
massaged fast write up of some flunky in the National Security Council.
The claimed assessment starts with a definitely false claim: "We assess that Damascus
launched this chemical attack in response to an opposition offensive in Hama province
that threatened key infrastructure."
The Hama offensive had failed two weeks ago. Since then the Syrian army has regained
all areas the al-Qaeda "opposition" had captured during the first few days. Key
infrastructure had never been seriously threatened by it. Over 2,000 al-Qaeda fighters
were killed in the endeavor.
Peto Lucem, a well known and reliable source for accurate maps of the war on Syria,
posted
on March 31
,
four days before the chemical incident:
Peto Lucem @PetoLucem
NEW MAP: "Rebel" frontline in #Hama is collapsing, #SAA reverses most #AlQaeda
gains made in first days of their failed offensive. #Syria
The attack in Hama had already failed days before the chemical incident in Khan
Shaykhun happened. Khan Shaykhun is far from the front line. The incident and the failed
al-Qaeda attack in Hama can not possibly be related. It would make no sense at all to
launch a militarily useless incident in a place far away "in response" to a defeat of
the enemy elsewhere. (The Defense Intelligence Agency likely never signed off on such an
objectively false claim.)
The following paragraphs of the released paper reveal that the assessment is largely
based on a "significant body" of "open source reporting" which "indicates" something.
This means that the White House relied on pictures and videos posted by people who are
allowed to operate freely in the al-Qaeda ruled Khan Shaykhun. (The town had been in the
hands of an Islamic State associated group Liwa Al-Aqsa
until mid February
. The group moved out after fighting al-Qaeda and killing some 150
of
its fighters
.)
Several of the released video were introduced and commented by "Dr. Shajul Islam" who
has been removed from the British medical registry and had been
indicted
in the UK for his role in kidnapping "western" journalists in Syria. He
fled back to Syria. The videos he distribute of "rescue" of casualties of the chemical
incidents were
not of real
emergencies
but staged. One of the journalists kidnapped with the help of Dr. Shajul
Islam, James Foley, was later murdered on camera by the Islamic State.
Other videos and photos are by the White Helmets "rescuers", a U.S./UK financed
propaganda
prop
, which is so neutral that it works with
ISIS
(vid) and al-Qaeda but not in government held areas where the actual Syrian population
lives.
The Hama offensive by the "opposition" was personally planned and directed by the
head of al-Qaeda in Syria al-Joliani.
Photos
of the
planing sessions were published by "opposition" agencies and widely distributed.
How can there be an "intelligence assessment" (and reporting about it) that does not
note that the incident in question took place in an area where AL-QAEDA rules and that
the allegedly related (but defeated) offensive was launched by AL-QAEDA. Is AL-QAEDA now
officially the "Syrian opposition" the U.S. supports? The neocon former General Petraeus
lobbied for
a U.S. alliance with al-Qaeda since 2015. The new National Security
Advisor to Trump, General McMaster, is a Petraeus protege. He, together with Petraeus,
screwed up Iraq
.
Is the Petraeus alliance now in place=
The next step then will be for the U.S. to ally with the Islamic State. The New York
Times columnist Thomas Friedman is already
arguing for that
:
We could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a
problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. After all, they're the ones
overextended in Syria, not us. Make them fight a two-front war - the moderate rebels
on one side and ISIS on the other. If we defeat territorial ISIS in Syria now, we
will only reduce the pressure on Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah and enable them to
devote all their resources to crushing the last moderate rebels in Idlib, not sharing
power with them.
The U.S., Friedman says, should let ISIS run free so it can help al-Qaeda which is
ruling in Idleb governate. Friedman talks of "moderate rebels in Idleb" but these are
unicorns. They do not exist. There is al-Qaeda and there is Ahrar al Sham which
compares itself with the Taliban
. All other opposition fighters in Idleb have joined
these two or are now dead.
But why not use these gangs of sectarian mass murderers against the Syrian government
and others? Hey, Israel
wants us to do just that
. And why don't we hand out anti-air missiles to them,
Friedman asks, and lend them air-support at the same time. Surely the combination will
do well.
In Syria, Trump should let ISIS be Assad's, Iran's, Hezbollah's and Russia's headache
- the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan.
Well, maybe because, you know, that mujahedeen thing worked out so well that nearly
forty years later the U.S. is mulling again to
send
additional troops to Afghanistan
to defeat them.
Lunacy has truly taken over the White House but even more so the U.S. media. How can
sanity be brought back to town?
UPDATE:
Professor emeritus at MIT Theodor Postol, a former science adviser to U.S. Navy
command and missile expert, has analyzed the "evidence" the White House presented. The
short, preliminary report is
available here
.
Postol finds nothing in the White House assessment that lets him believe the incident
was from an air attack. He finds signs that the incident that was launched on the ground
by intentional exploding the container of 122mm ammunition with some other explosives.
He calls the White House assessment amateurish and not properly vetted by competent
intelligence analysts who, Postol says, would not have signed off on it in is current
form (just as I said above.)
Postol presumes that the incident was with Sarin. He makes no analysis of that White
House claim (it is not his field). I don't agree with the Sarin claim. Many other
organophosphate substances (pesticides) would be "consistent with" the symptoms
displayed or played in the videos and pictures. Some symptoms expected with Sarin, for
example heavy cramps, spontaneous defecation, are no visible in any of the videos or
pictures.
I do not concur with Postol on the picture of the alleged impact crater of the
"attack". I have seen several "versions" of the impact crater on social nets with
different metal parts, or none, placed in it. Postol seems to have only seen one
version. His conclusions from that version seem right. But the crater "evidence" is
tainted and to make overall conclusions from it is not easy. I concur though that the
crater is not from an air impact but from a ground event. I am not sure though that it
is related to the incident at all.
"How can sanity be brought back to town?"
Sadly, only a very strong punch in the
face can stop a bully. It's a very hard and dangerous thing to do but one is amazed
how quickly it works.
Sanity has nothing to do with this. Remember what countries General Wesley Clark was
told at the Pentagon after 9/11 were going to be destroyed. The plan will not stop,
no matter what. Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote the most banned book in the world, " 200
Years Together ".
Monsters who are responsible for the death of millions in Iraq are trying to teach
others about human rights? Syria was peaceful country before US started flooding the
country with arms and money to their proxy armies. Assad's Syria is a shelter to near
two million Palestinians that fled from Israeli "democracy". Iraq, Libya, Syria,
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan... You know, seems that people from the US
lost touch with reality. You are the real monsters, not Assad.
b - I posted this yesterday which mirrors many of the details in your post. There is
one factoid missing, that is Mattis stated at his press conference yesterday (link
below) the bombing at Shayrat air base was a 'supposed' one time military campaign
and not a part of the U.S. overall strategy regarding the ISIS campaign. He also
stated way more loss at Shayrat than Syria/Russia has offered.
WH Lays Out Evidence that Syria was behind deadly attack...
"A senior administration official laid out evidence that the Syrian regime was
behind the chemical attack in the country that killed at least 80 people last week."
"The official said intelligence gathered from social media accounts, open source
videos, reporting, imagery, and geospatial intelligence showed that the chemical
attack was a regime attack."
"I don't think there's evidence to the contrary at all," an official who briefed
reporters on background Tuesday said."
FUNNY THAT...
Intelligence and Military Sources Who Warned About Weapons Lies Before Iraq War
Now Say that Assad Did NOT Launch Chemical Weapon Attack
"A critical piece of information that has largely escaped the reporting in the
mainstream media is that Khan Sheikhoun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who
have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until
February 2017, Khan Sheikhoun was occupied by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa
that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with its competitor organization,
Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under any name
functioning as Al Qaeda's arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among
the local population."
FUNNIER THAT, NOT AS IN A HAHA, BUT RATHER IRONY -
UK-trained doctor hailed a hero for treating gas attack victims in Syria stood
trial on terror offences 'and belonged to the group that kidnapped British reporter
John Cantlie'
"Dr Shajul Islam, from East London, published a video of the patients on his
Twitter account after the attack. He said his hospital took care of three victims all
with narrow, pinpoint pupils that did not respond to light."
"The University of London graduate was arrested and charged with kidnapping two
journalists - Mr Cantlie and Dutch reporter Jeroen Oerlemans - in 2012 but was
released after the trial collapsed when neither of the prosecution's witnesses were
able to give evidence."
THIS WOULDN'T BE COMPLETE WITHOUT MAD DOG'S LOUSY TWO CENTS -
"The goal right now in Syria and the military campaign is focused on accomplishing
that is breaking ISIS, destroying ISIS in Syria. This was a separate issue that arose
in the midst of that campaign. The use by the Assad regime of chemical weapons and we
addressed that militarily but the rest of the campaign stays on track"...
To sum this bunch of crap up - in less than 48 hours we are to believe the DOD's
use of friggin social GD media proved beyond reasonable doubt that Assad chemed his
own people in a town that is known worldwide as 'ground zero' for jihadi's, filmed by
a doc who was brought to trial on terror charges (lest we forget about the UK/US
financed White Helmets at $100M playing pretend propaganda chit) with the bad ass
retired general now in charge of all of the militaries toys and humans stating as
fact, FACT, this violation of U.S. law and international law was a one time deal b/c
Assad is bad, bad, bad - I looked at the evidence and was convinced beyond doubt
blah, blah blah F'ing bullshit!
Sick of it. Just sick and tired of all of it! I loathe being lied to and that SOB
lied today. LIED LIED LIED.
It's staggering that western MSM is trying to play everyone again with a WMD false
flag and an agenda that hasn't wavered since 2011. They want to partition these areas
of northern Syria and create 'safe zones'. We all rebuked Hillary Clinton's call for
'no-fly-zones' and Americans voted Trump with a hope that things would be different.
Fat Chance! The drip dripping US troops into Syria and the taking of airfields shows
that they have no intention of leaving anytime soon. They want that conduit up the
Euphrates. Trump, Clinton same difference.
The big question is when the inevitable
happens and it will, probably before summer, what will Russia do? Go along with the
break up of the country or maintain the entirety of the country under rule from
Damascus?
catastrophic failure of the maniacs'
'plans'. they've been at it for 15+ years and are just a mad as ever. they won't stop
until they're forced to stop.
If russia can bring syria's air defenses up to par, if, for instance, tee-rump
lets the cruise missiles fly at north korea and china sinks his fleet ... then sanity
may return. nothing short of a catastrophic us defeat will do it, in my estimation.
my fellow americans will remain catatonic, on their couches, until something happens
that they didn't expect. endless us wars - and endless us 'victories' - are their
expectation. and their paychecks depend on it. when did it finally occur to the
germans that it wasn't
exactly
the way der führer said it was.
It's just
worthless verbage
, unclassified, unattributed,
unaddressed, unstructured, unprofessional, unreferenced, unformatted (re standards),
etc, etc, nebulous raw text. So now some staffer in the WH does their childish
version of the puerile #Fake 'Dossier', the 'Intelligence Report' on Trump, that
never was ? Fucking surreal. Amateur hour at the WH, the, 'Executive' arm of
government. This insanity is apparently only going to get worse. Might have to strap
in for this ride and consider taking up alcohol again. FFS! :(
To quote b,
"Well, maybe because, you know, that mujahedeen thing worked out so
well that nearly forty years later the U.S. is mulling again to send additional
troops to Afghanistan to defeat them."
It worked just great. More military
expenditure, without even talking about the poppy fields guarded by US and NATO
troops in Afghanistan.
The USA wouldn't want to lose such a golden business, would it? Not right when they
have an amazing, fantastic heroin epidemic that lines so many pockets back at home...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heroin-use-in-u-s-reaches-alarming-20-year-high/
The whole things reeks doesn't it? So amateurish. And those BGMs had to have
gone somewhere, this is a terrible failure rate or the number launched was a lie. Either way it doesn't bode well that the 'stand off' weapons are less than 50%
effective.
Also, We never found out how many failed in the Gulf War because the media was
locked in. This and the failure of the Trident.
The west is already allied-using al-Qaida isis so any acknowledgement would just be an
official declaration, most likely with another name change for their proxy forces.
This has been a active tactic since the west began using Islamic fundamentalists in
the aftermath of WW II and to effect in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan,
destroying the progressive government then there because is was not in the orbit or
under the control of the western fascists. The west thought they had it all in the
bag with the collapse of the Soviet Union until an old cold war warrior saved the
Russian culture and people from complete devastation at the hands of the western
globalists....and here we are today.
friedman and the nyt - suggesting they align with isis to take down assad was
essentially what obama openly stated previously.. someone had this script written
down some time ago.. nyt is just the servant to all the propaganda that is fit to
print. isis is a creation of the war party, as is the divide and conquer strategy of
creating a sunni/shite conflict and all the rest of the madness that continues to
unfold from all of the madness...
russia can't back down, even though it is facing a rabid mad dog here.. i am sure
they know this. it's embarrassing the amount of propaganda being paid for on all this
with my dupe prime minister trudeau falling in line with it all.. sad times..
@ WG who I want to thank for writing: "Only one thing will stop this. The dollar
losing its status as world reserve currency."
Only one thing will stop this. The
dollar losing its status as world reserve currency.
Only one thing will stop this. The dollar losing its status as world reserve
currency.
Only one thing will stop this. The dollar losing its status as world reserve
currency.
Only one thing will stop this. The dollar losing its status as world reserve
currency.
This is all about the power and control that owning private finance brings.
Eliminate private finance and you kill the God of Mammon and the evil social
incentives that are attendant to it.
The coming humiliating defeathe may ring
a few bells. And as stated above, the failure of the dollar. The empire is based more
on the dollar as global reserve than on military might.
Thanks for coming back to your senses, b, I would've missed your precious reports!
Regarding your last Q, there are 2 solutions to the issue - either the US electorate
grows a pair and throws the crooks out of public office or we all get to kill each
other a-la Hobbes until blood fatigue sets in and we call a time-out for the next
60-80 years (2 generations is all the time needed for a
society to forget the horrors of war and destruction
)
A diplomat recently was saying on a radio programme that there is no one to talk to
at the State Department, because the Trump team is not even complete, with hundreds
of jobs not filled!
Today in Le Monde, Hollande gave a big interview about Syria.
He has a general strike going on in French Guyana (no internet! only at Kourou
spatial base) and a movement in the 200% overpopulated prisons (1 guard for 100
prisonners in Fleury-Merogis) but it's easier to bomb Syria.
Today in Le Monde, Hollande gave a big interview about Syria.
He has a general strike going on in French Guyana (no internet! only at Kourou
spatial base) and a movement in the 200% overpopulated prisons (1 guard for 100
prisonners in Fleury-Merogis) but it's easier to bomb Syria.
I agree with Former 11B, firing squads might do the trick.
The discussion of how to
reform Washington kind of reminds me of Chapter 5 in Huckleberry Finn, when Huck's
father was taken in by the new judge in town, in an attempt to reform him:
"When he got out the new judge said he was agoing to make a man of him. So he took
him to his own house, and dressed him up clean and nice, and had him to breakfast and
dinner and supper with the family, and was just old pie to him, so to speak. And
after supper he talked to him about temperance and such things till the old man
cried, and said he'd been a fool, and fooled away his life; but now he was agoing to
turn over a new leaf and be a man nobody wouldn't be ashamed of, and he hoped the
judge would help him and not look down on him. The judge said he could hug him for
them words; so he cried, and his wife she cried again; pap said he'd been a man that
had always been misunderstood before, and the judge said he believed it. The old man
said that what a man wanted that was down, was sympathy; and the judge said it was
so; so they cried again. And when it was bedtime, the old man rose up and held out
his hand, and says:
"Look at it, gentlemen and ladies all; take ahold of it; shake it. There's a hand
that was the hand of a hog; but it ain't so no more; it's the hand of a man that's
started in on a new life, and 'll die before he'll go back. You mark them words-
don't forget I said them. It's a clean hand now; shake it- don't be afeard."
So they shook it, one after the other, all around, and cried. The judge's wife she
kissed it. Then the old man he signed a pledge- made his mark. The judge said it was
the holiest time on record, or something like that. Then they tucked the old man into
a beautiful room, which was the spare room, and in the night sometime he got powerful
thirsty and clumb out onto the porch-roof and slid down a stanchion and traded his
new coat for a jug of forty-rod, and clumb back again and had a good old time; and
towards daylight he crawled out again, drunk as a fiddler, and rolled off the porch
and broke his left arm in two places and was most froze to death when somebody found
him after sun-up. And when they come to look at that spare room, they had to take
soundings before they could navigate it.
The judge he felt kind of sore. He said he reckoned a body could reform the ole
man with a shot-gun, maybe, but he didn't know no other way."
It sounds like some, if not many, in the intelligence community won't stand behind
it. It either came out of the White House or the Pentagon. Given the publicly
available news reporting entirely sourced from the government-funded pro-opposition
media entities, anyone with a search engine and a heavily slanted viewpoint could've
produced the essay.
Here's what I think; my honest opinion so don't jump all over me as I've been calling
it like I see it from day one.
Trump is a fraud and an opportunist. Trump will
always do what benefits him and the family dynastic ambitions first and foremost.
Look at the pattern; you canot ignore or dismiss a pattern of behavior. Example,
Trump will throw anyone under the bus who he imagines has become or will become a
liability for his interests.
Here's the pattern on this: After Carter Page was dismissed from the campaign; to
paraphrase: I hardly knew Carter Page, Carter Page was never part of the campaign;
after Manafort was dismissed; Manafort was with the campaign for a very short time;
after Flynn was dismissed; Flynn made false statements to Pence and couldn't remember
what he spoke about with the Russian Ambassador, just the fact that he couldn't
remember is not good for someone in his position; now today we got the excuse for
Bannon;
I like Steve, BUT you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign
until very late. I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I
didn't know Steve. I'm my own strategist.
And of course, there was Christie and Lewandowski - all thrown under the bus.
After the comment he just made regarding Bannon, which borders on an indignity
considering the level of Bannon's support; I'd say Bannon's days are numbered.
Let's face it, Jared Kushner has been the real Campaign Manager, the real
Vice-President and even acting President here, wearing several hats. Jared Kushner, a
Zionist, is running the Trump show and Bannon is the next head to roll and stay
tuned, there will be more.
Jared Kushner is being groomed to be the first Zionist President, no doubt about
it, and he's probably influencing policy. This is a very ambitious agenda. Trump was
merely the stepping stone in all this and he's a willing participant.
Policy is morphing as was planned all along. Trump fleeced the dumb sheeple;
that's all that mattered.
Because there is yet no transparency regarding the Syria file; after the strike,
some people around here were STILL apologizing for Trump endlessly on yesterdays
thread when the writing on the wall couldn't be clearer at this stage.
Endless bullshit has been coming out of this White House, and this intelligence
assessment is par for the course.
It's just a continuation of the previous administration, and in some cases, word
for word.
Look there is only one way; either the only honest politicians left in Washington
that aren't Zionist bribed and co-opted start a serious third party option OR the
people must storm the Washington palace and drag the traitors on both sides out of
there.
I hope Putin is reading Tillerson the riot act. There is no doubt, there is
conclusive evidence, there is a criminal pattern that proves that the Empire has
committed war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and assisted in their commission in
Lebannon, Palestine and Yemen.
Syria, as Tulsi Gabbard had the guts to state forthrightly, was a proxy war
started by operatives from the U.S., Israel, and mercenaries supported by the latter
and the KSA and Turkey. These countries are solely responsible for the massive
humanitarian tragedy that has unfolded from their murderous complicity on Syria and
failed attempt at regime change. The U.S. under Zionist foreign policy direction has
committed a multitude of WAR CRIMES all over the Middle East and should be condemned
for these crimes by people everywhere in all parts of the globe. Period. There is no
more to see here. Every tragedy suffered by the people of Syria can be laid at the
feet of the Zio-Anglo Empire!
It's time for the U.N. to condemn the fabrications that brought about this
monumental crime against humanity in the Middle East and haul all criminals
responsible for Yinon=Clean Break=PNAC before a Nuremburg-calibre court. It's time
for the Empire to pay for all its crimes!
Dollar role as key reserve currenvy depends heavily on perceptions of US
military strength. If a US carrier was sunk or severely damaged while attacking
someone, dollar and stock market would CRASH.
For a better understanding of the narrative being sold by the Iraqi OG (2011) rebels,
the second half of new Intercepted podcast, Murtaza Hussain lays it out more clearly
than I have heard/read elsewhere. Claiming, among other things that ISIS's
role/threat has been exaggerated (but not discussing the Salafi jihadists who
violently wrenched control from the nationalist rebels back in ~2012-13). He suggests
-- which I doubt -- that Syria might have used chemical weapons to drive a wedge
between impending American/Russian coordination.
I'm going to have to re-listen, take notes and do homework because I think the
cohesion of and future political strength the non-jihadi rebels is being overstated
and, as a refutation of some derided "enemy of my enemy" assumed support for Assad
(because he is the USA's crosshairs), I understand some folks "buying" into this
narrative (particular if, as has become common, expressing support for an Assad
mediated "peace" is labeled condoning and abetting war crimes and war criminals).
There's a bit of "everything you know is wrong" to the second half that's annoying.
Dennis Kuchinch is in the first half, ably explaining his "support" for allowing
an Assad mediated peace.
No one talks -- as usual -- about the Rebels refusing to be seated at the
negotiating table "as long as Assad is in power" ... which has been an "evergreen"
demand even as the Rebels have lost territory and momentum.
I have no insight into what "the Syrian people" want and with more than half the
population either internally displaced or out-of-country in refugee camps, I'm
doubtful "polls" can be meaningfully conducted until a meaningful ceasefire has been
in place ... good luck with that.
I'm not endorsing the contents, but I understand better how and why these people
keep being given airtime/page-space that to me has seemed to be disproportionate and
an effort to justify "a seat" at some future negotiating table. (i.e. "we're still
players in this conflict")
I wonder when b finally has his mental breakdown trying to use reason to explain
behavior of murderous mental patients, delusional psychopaths in the US government
lusting for money and fame.
The true power of Deep State finally completely
detached itself from politics, politicians and all the facade of any governance,
democratic or not, concocted for show and to herding the American sheeple to their
appropriate real and political slaughterhouses in calm and order of condemned
convicts.
Before, the so-called facade of governmentality (WH, Congress, SCOTUS, MEDIA) and
its puppets were at least told what to do and somewhat consulted about how to lie to
the sheeple about it so riots would not immediately ensue. Now it is no longer done
which is turning all of this political spectacle from a simple lowbrow farce to an
Ionesco Theater of Absurd.
In fact the US so-called government is not told what actually is going on but
scrambles to explaining something they are totally ignorant about, knowing no more
than oblivious media and fake terrorist reality show on YT let them "know" leaving
them in a role of clueless apologists for whatever Deep State is doing or they
suspect or guess is doing or trying to do.
WH, Congress, SCOTUS, MEDIA by loosing a lot of its manipulative influence on the
American sheeple, now struggling for their own relevance in eyes of Deep State,
showing their utter stupidity and abhorrent opportunism and political hubris thinking
that their privileges were safe even if they lost the ability to effectively lie and
induce people attitudes and acts.
What we are observing are chaotic desperate rants of screaming maggots from Media
to WH and Congress pleading for mercy before being fed to the birds of pray of Depp
State that no longer needs them.
>> It's staggering that western MSM
>> is trying to play everyone again
>> with a WMD false flag and an agenda
>> that hasn't wavered since 2011.
Yes.. Oh, whoa. Since "2011"? The Wolfowitz Doctrine was in the early 90's. All of
Oceania's aggression in the ME should at least be seen with the early 90's as the
"latest possible choice of 'starting point'", because the idea of "colonize all of
it" was articulated by then.
I'd entertain much earlier starting points, going back to before the nation's
"founding".
I just want to add to my 32: The War Crimes of the Empire have been committed with
total impunity not with any
benevolent
motive/end justifying the cruel,
destructive and murderous means, but to spread a culture enslaved by the almighty
U.S. Dollar and to expand control over the region benefitting Zionism/Zionists
exclusively, because all this was done with the pretense of benefitting the American
people when nothing could be further from the truth.
I agree ... this is one of those
post-events rationales where Putin failing to disown Assad is shown as some vast
expression of support ... and the objective "all along"
While I completely understand the remnants of the original pre-Jihadi rebels
(y'know the ones likely "encouraged" into some sort of Arab Spring/Color Revolution
by the CIA, etc) wanting a place at the table ... "who wouldn't?" ... their inability
-- for example -- to force "rebels" to share the food in besieged "rebel held
territory" while apparently being the "voices from the crisis" on BBC speaks of a
certain self-serving theatricality, particularly in the absence (AFAICT) of the sort
of ex-pat Syrian centers, a potential locus of some new COHERENT post-Assad political
power (like what the Iraqis and others achieved, even if that turned our really
badly) -- but have no fear, I suspect we will see "just that" aided and funded by the
usual forces ... will they be in Paris and London, per usual?
1) Thanks for the precious insights & analysis, especially regarding the real "who is
who"
2) It doesn't make a difference, but even so: I don't think Khan Shaykhun is
actually far from the front-line. It's roughly 15 kms inland from government
territory. Still, there couldn't have been any benefit for the SAA from using
chemical weapons there (or anywhere else in their own country, for that matter).
Maybe the guys in Khan Shaykhun were just mistaken, anticipating their losing the
town to government forces any time soon, and decided to make use of the chemicals
facility there (whatever shape or purpose it had) in a deranged way before having to
abandon it eventually.
3) Unfortunately I don't see the SAA making any headway on the ground, despite the
fact that Russian and Syrian air forces are attacking anything that's potentially a
target. Nowhere on the map, not near the border crossing to Jordan, not outside of
Damascus, not around Homs and certainly not north of Hama, which is where Khan
Shaykhun is situated. The only exception seems to be their fight against ISIS in the
Palmyra pocket. Sure, they do have the initiative, but are they really gaining
anything for the future instead of just managing to keep FSA forces down? I believe
the legitimate Syrian government re-establishing control over as much of Syrian
territory as possible is really the only way to bring this gang-rape victim of a
country back to peace and normalcy. But they seem to lack manpower very, very much.
Interest statement attached to video link I post @41
Published on Apr 10, 2017
"From Robert Steele - We do now know (I did not know this at the time the below
video was recorded and I have no link for this, it comes to me from an inside source)
that former CIA Director John Brennan plotted this false flag attack, which may have
involved some real sarin allegedly destroyed during the Obama Administration, with
Senator John McCain and National Security Advisor Herbert McMaster. Brennan got the
Saudis to pay half and McCain got Israel to pay half. They blind-sided – this is
clearly treason – not only the Director of the CIA, but the President, the Secretary
of State, and the Secretary of Defense. In my personal view, both John McCain and
Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be impeached by their respective
legislative bodies. Whether true or not I cannot certify – it is consistent with my
evaluation of each of these people, and a good starting point for an international
investigation. I have long felt that John Brennan should be standing before the
International Court of Justice as a war criminal, not least because of the CIA's
drone assassination program that I recently denounced in a book review article for
Intelligence and National Security."
Niece piece b. I wasn't even aware that MSM presstitutes are so open in calling for
cooperation with terrorists who they used to justify the military presensence in all
these countries and take away all our liberties, all in the name of fighting
terrorism. With the Al Qaeda rescue workers White Helmets they at least pretend but
here not even that.
"if russia can bring syria's air defenses up to par, if, for instance, tee-rump
lets the cruise missiles fly at north korea and china sinks his fleet ... then sanity
may return. nothing short of a catastrophic us defeat will do it, in my estimation."
It's definitely attractive, obvious problem with this line of thought is limits of
escalation can be too high. nuclear strikes back and forth kind of thing. Let it burn
instad this bullshit can be attractive but egoistically because everything what is
going on is not realy nessesary.
The agenda that is a part of was of course is there, Wolfowitz doctrine >>
contain Russia and Iran, do not allow Russia to rise to status again. We can see that
with Nato encircling Russia. I was pointing out that since the 'uprising' in 2011 in
Damascus the US policy hasn't changed, they've just worded if differently and given
the actors new names. They want a puppet in there answerable to Washington. I know
the agenda is nothing new and goes back decades.
Live Zio Jazeera broadcast of press conference after Tillerson/Lavrov talks....
US/Russia couldn't be further apart. Tillerson is lying his ass off about Assad.
Lavrov says Assad is irrelevant and Syrians will choose their own president. Lavrov
listed Christian Colonial (NATO) crimes against numerous countries commencing with
Yugoslavia and pointing out that in every case these R2P interventions produced the
opposite result from the pre-intervention promises.
I think Russia's patience with
US-NATO is on the threshold of expiry.
In the case of the April 4 chemical-weapons incident in the town of Khan
Sheikhoun, which reportedly killed scores of people including young children, I
was told that initially the U.S. analysts couldn't see any warplanes over the area
in Idlib province at the suspected time of the poison gas attack but later they
detected a drone that they thought might have delivered the bomb.
According to a source, the analysts struggled to identify whose drone it was
and where it originated. Despite some technical difficulties in tracing its flight
path, analysts eventually came to believe that
the flight was launched in
Jordan from a Saudi-Israeli special operations base for supporting Syrian rebels
,
the source said, adding that the suspected reason for the poison gas was to create
an incident that would reverse the Trump administration's announcement in late
March that it was no longer seeking the removal of President Bashar al-Assad.
Sanity? Not going to happen except from within from a critical mass of Americans
woken up and mad about the agenda. And that's not going to happen either.
"We assess." CIA said that about Russian hacking. And yet they did not talk to the
guy who hosted the server. "Open source?" What open source? Or are we talking about
White Helmets? It sounds like the CIA is backing the White House in a
lying/propaganda campaign just like Tenet did with Cheney/Bush.
"We are certain that the opposition could not have fabricated all of the videos and
other reporting of chemical attacks. Doing so would have required a highly organized
campaign to deceive multiple media outlets and human rights organizations while
evading detection."
Really? But you're depending on them and have been for a while. And did Doctors
Without Borders and Amnesty International do a full analysis of the bombs, where they
struck, etc or just check out the patients.
@20 wg quote "Only one thing will stop this. The dollar losing its status as world
reserve currency."
yeah, but that will be the end result and it is going to take a
while to get their, unless as someone else pointed out some major event happens to
shift perception of the military supremacy of the usa.. even then, it won't happen
quickly.. in the meantime it will be business as usual... all the poodles and lapdogs
for the continuation of this system, will continue to be poodles and lapdogs for the
continuation of what we have.. wish it could happen sooner and we didn't have to go
thru hell to get their, but the planet will go thru hell on the way..
White House claims on Syria chemical attack
'obviously false' 12 Apr, 2017
[.]
"I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any
evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the
government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun," wrote
Postol.
A chemical attack with a nerve agent did occur, he said, but the available
evidence does not support the US government's conclusions.
[/]
"Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the
crater was staged or real," he wrote.
"No competent analyst would miss the fact
that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than
exploded by a munition within it."
Instead, "the most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an
improvised dispersal device made from a 122mm section of rocket tube filled with
sarin and capped on both sides."
We again have a situation where the White House has issued an obviously false,
misleading and amateurish intelligence report," he concluded, recalling the 2013
situation when the Obama administration claimed Assad had used chemical weapons
against the rebels in Ghouta, near Damascus.
"What the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true," Postol
wrote, "and the fact that this information has been provided in this format raises
the most serious questions about the handling of our national security."
Curious bubbling: why US would reject the OPCW investigating the alleged attack.
FF, yesterday listened to an interview with a clip of Gen. Mattis confirming
his intelligence on the event was supported by what he read on social media.
Honestly, searching for the clip did not dream this.
Social media!! where is Lucy and Charlie Brown?
"Russia's allegations fit with a pattern of deflecting blame from the regime and
attempting to undermine the credibility of its opponents."
That sounds very familiar.
State Department Employee Arrested and Charged With Concealing Extensive Contacts
With Foreign Agents
A federal complaint was unsealed today charging Candace Marie
Claiborne, 60, of Washington, D.C., and an employee of the U.S. Department of State,
with obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements to the FBI, both
felony offenses, for allegedly concealing numerous contacts that she had over a
period of years with foreign intelligence agents.
The charges were announced by Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary B. McCord for
National Security, U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips of the District of Columbia and
Assistant Director in Charge Andrew W. Vale of the FBI's Washington Field Office.
The reliance on "open-source" pictures and video and circumstantial presumption -
i.e. regime planes were in the area so they must be responsible - is very similar to
MH-17. I don't know that many persons outside of those whose job depends on believing
these reports, actually believes these reports.
One claim made during the "unnamed senior official" backgrounder yesterday was
that the "rebels" do not have access to sarin (which was later qualified as "rebels
in that area" do not have access). That does not seem factual. Has there not been
connections established between rebels and sarin, and beyond what was reported by
Hersch?
I know of at least a dozen such that provide evidence-backed analysis
proving the Outlaw US Empire's assertions to be 100% false, and one of the more
important sites owners/contributors have been issued death threats,
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201704121052568643-white-helmets-video-fabricated-noli-swedhr/
And that source--
The Indicter
--used the same open sources to arrive at its
verdict because it actually watched with critical eyes.
Maybe the people in Washington act insane because -- like HAL 9000 -- they can't
mentally personally reconcile conflicting overall goals, marching orders, propaganda,
and whatever morsel of morality they might still possess.
If Washington's choices
are shaped at least in part on behalf of planners in Jerusalem, then perhaps Putin
primarily should negotiate (with carrot and stick) directly with Bibi and skip the
confused middlemen.
It's worth trying. Indeed, well prior to Israel seemingly acquiring a "controlling
stake" in American influence, America was quite genocidal and untrustworthy (like all
other empires, I imagine). Negotiating more with Israel has a better chance of
peaceful outcome as any. Try that and hope Israel really does -- as some Israelis
have noted -- control American policy.
Just brainstorming some ideas for a peace plan:
- Give Israel the Golan Heights. (We know they're not going to give it up anyway.)
- Combined US/Russian/Chinese troop presence in the region, for stability. (We
know those powers or outsiders won't stop meddling until they dot the region with
bases anyway. Any semblance of "independent" Syria or Kurdistan or Jordan is pure
pretense.)
- Cut the MIC in order for the US to make multi-trillion war reparation payouts --
not "loans" or earmarks for NATZO contractors -- to Syria and to any Palestinians
willing to resettle out of apartheid Israel (helps Israel remain a reservation /
homeland for a frequently persecuted group and also help them return to being an
actual democracy) into neighboring Syria.
- US pays war reparations to Libya, too.
- KSA should pay huge war reparations, too, and be forced to hold elections.
"Royal" family wealth should be repatriated to the new democratic state.
If you offer Israel the Golan and to remove Palestinians by enticing the victims
to resettle with huge financial incentives (instead of "persuading" them with bullets
and starvation), could we finally see peace in the region?
Alternatively, if America isn't and can't be controlled, then really there's no
hope but war or surrender for Assad and, eventually, everyone.
I believe recent events indicate the initial stages of a US invasion of eastern
Syria. The US is moving troops into eastern Syria from Iraq and Jordan and increasing
troop numbers in Afghanistan. Another telltale is Erdogan flipping again back to the
US camp.
Other reports may be related. Allegedly, significant amounts of military equipment
were offloaded in Lebanon. Also, Israel appears to be in final stages of preparation
for an incursion into Lebanon. Likely, Israel hopes to capture at least the Litani
River region in Lebanon, openly claimed by Israel as Israeli water since before the
Iraq invasion of 2003.
I believe McCain and Graham control US foreign policy and probably have done so
since the Trump inauguration. In this respect, the Trump presidency was dead on
arrival. The current plan for Syria is the original neocon plan, the McCain and
Graham plan. Israel heartily approves.
Most likely, the contrived chemical weapon "event" in Khan Sheikhoun was ordered by
McCain and Graham in order to send a message via a missile strike on Shu'ayraat
Airbase.
The message is this: the US is serious about taking control of eastern Syria, and
will not be deterred by Russia or China.
The strike was intentionally weak and avoided killing Russians in order to allow
Russia an opportunity to "get on board." I no longer believe there was any other
deal. If correct, Tillerson probably delivered another message today to Lavrov that
effectively states: we will not stop; you can work with us, you get out of the way,
or you can get run over. Most likely, Trump delivered the same message to Xi while in
Florida. The timing was not coincidental.
Reports of Chinese troops operating in the border region of Afghanistan as of
several weeks ago have been posted. The additional US troops requested now for
Afghanistan may be intended to discourage any further Chinese advance.
All of this is quintessential McCain and Graham. Essentially, McCain and Graham
are betting the farm that Russia (and China) will accede to US demands for Syria. As
of March 28, 2017, political analyst A. Korybko seems to concur:
"It's very rare for any war nowadays (key word) to be concluded without some
degree of compromises, concessions, and trade-offs taking place between all sides,
and in a very complicated and quagmire-prone situation where Russia has wisely opted
to seek a political – and not military – solution to the conflict (just as all sides
have officially done, at least), it's clear that Moscow lacks the will to commit
itself to advancing Damascus' preferred outcome of retaining the country's unity."
The US has no intention of reversing course. Therefore, Russia's reply to
Tillerson will determine whether the strike on Shu'ayraat marks the beginning of
WWIII or the dismemberment of Syria.
Tillerson says: "We both believe in a stable and unified Syria," which presumably
means no partitioning. But as jas commented, Tillerson's just repeating talking
points while Lavrov is trying to deal with real issues. I didn't read much that would
persuade me to be reassured, particularly sine the Assad must go cannard is still
point #1: "We [US and Vassals]think its important that Assad's departure is done in
an orderly way ... the final outcome in our view does not provide a role for Assad or
the Assad family. We will not accept that, we don't believe the world will accept
that," except that the world already does accept Assad as Syria's legitimate leader.
I believe McCain and Graham control US foreign policy and probably have
done so since the Trump inauguration. In this respect, the Trump presidency was dead
on arrival. The current plan for Syria is the original neocon plan, the McCain and
Graham plan. Israel heartily approves.
I agree that it at least
seems like
McCain & Graham control US foreign
policy and possibly have done so since Trump was inaugurated. They certainly had a
hand in US foreign policy during ObamaCo - at least they really tried hard to have
power, sway & influence and probably did.
Never forget when McCain ran for POTUS in 2008 he sang about "Bomb bomb bombing
Iran." A word to the wise... no doubt that old demented fool has that back on his
radar. McCain's never forgiven or forgotten that he lost to "that one," the darkie,
and has had revenge fantasies ever since.
b, I just want to note again that the video you link supposedly showing White Helmets
wandering freely in ISIS controlled territory was taken in East Aleppo. ISIS never
had much presence there. It seems more likely that it's just further evidence of them
working with/being Al-Qaeda, and the person who runs that YouTube channel doesn't
understand, or can't be bothered with, the difference between AQ and ISIS.
A proper peace plan would provide justice for regional events since 1945, which
would entail the defanging of the Zionist Entity and establishemnt of a single state:
Palestine. Something would need to be done about Saudi/GCC/Turkish terrorist
sponsoring as well as Outlaw US Empire/NATO for same. Personally, I'd prefer the
establishment of a multiethnic state comprising the territories of Lebanon, Syria,
Jordan, Iraq, and Kurdish zones, with Turkey ceding most of its Kurdish lands as
punishment for its support of terrorism. Essentially, taking Yinon and turning it
inside-out.
When it comes to recognize their mistakes that cost human lives, the American
presidents are deaf and dumb.
There is no other reply to persistent bullying than violence. When it reaches the
USA, no one should be surprised.
Russia vetos UN resolution clearly designed to use force.
""The result of the vote
is as follows: ten votes in favor, two votes against, three abstentions. The draft
resolution has not been adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent member of
Council," US Ambassador and current Security Council President Nikki Haley stated."
Are we certain Assad personally ordered a gas attack on civilians?
For it makes no sense. Why would Assad, who is winning the war and had been
told America was no longer demanding his removal, order a nerve gas attack on
children, certain to ignite America's rage, for no military gain?
Like the gas attack in 2013, this has the marks of a false flag operation to
stampede America into Syria's civil war.
Indeed, thats what I have been saying too here past week, China is naive, they
will sell out North Korea too, I didnt expect this but it seems China got great trade
deals by Trump and now becoming a puppet to the neocon agenda on Syria, North Korea
and sooner or later China itself.
the attack on Syria was to warn Assad not to reach Idlib. Because in Idlib there are
many westerners, western paid proffesional killers.
so trump wants to give time to
the western paid killers to escape from Syria and not to change sides, because this
will be a desaster for the picture the USa has painted untill now.
Russia was correct to use its veto at the UNSC. The purpose of the Resolution was to
use chapter 7 in the event of the Resolution not being implemented the way the US
wanted. Remember the way Resolution 1441 was used against Iraq, which only said Iraq
would face 'consequences' if it did not disarm, similarly a Resolution not vetoed by
Russia and China for a limited no fly zone over Libya was used for regime change by
the West, to the fury of Russia and China [they were conned].The West are not going
to give up its regime change machinations, anyone including Lavrov who think they can
do a deal with the US are delusional. Russia, Iran and Hezbollah need to prosecute
the war to its conclusion on their own, and expect the US to interfere at every turn.
An earlier poster said the army did not have the manpower, if that's the case Iran
has a huge army and reserves, surely they could make up any shortfall, even if only
taking up defensive duties, thereby relieving the Syrian army to concentrate on more
offensive duties elswhere.
"... In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down. ..."
"... Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies. ..."
"... I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery. ..."
"... Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on. ..."
"... If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher. ..."
"... Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay. ..."
"... Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran. ..."
"... Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces. ..."
"... Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country. ..."
Instead, the western powers have followed the example cited by Machiavelli: "in order to prove
their liberality, they allowed Pistoia to be destroyed."
In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting
Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason
for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible
for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down.
That surely ought to make us at least ask evidence-seeking questions about the Idlib gas attack
before yet again demanding regime change.
Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about
collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks
under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been
engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army,
and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using
chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly
prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies.
I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went
on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the
guts to point out to Trump his own butchery.
Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible
for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't
think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed
hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting
in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I
could go on.
If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the
real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher.
...Indeed, Richard Spencer last week protested outside the White House against the airstrikes
on the regime airbase carrying a sign that read "No more wars 4 Israel."
Latest update : 2016-04-17
Syria's ruling Baath party and its allies won a majority of seats in parliamentary elections
last week across government-held parts of the country, the national electoral commission announced
late Saturday.
Who are the rebels supported by Washington and Westminster?
And we're going to learn a lot more about the "rebels" whom we in the West – the US, Britain
and our head-chopping mates in the Gulf – have been supporting.
They did, after all, include al-Qaeda (alias Jabhat al-Nusra, alias Jabhat Fateh al-Sham),
the "folk" – as George W Bush called them – who committed the crimes against humanity in New
York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. Remember the War on Terror? Remember
the "pure evil" of al-Qaeda. Remember all the warnings from our beloved security services in
the UK about how al-Qaeda can still strike terror in London?
Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it
crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west
to dodge and duck, yay.
I agree that Bashar al-Assad is not a "good person". It is impossible to be an authoritarian leader,
struggling to maintain the unity, or even existence, of a nation state, and at the same time be
a kind and gentle person. However, I do not believe him to be the psychopathic monster that he
is portrayed as being, either. He is almost certainly not personally responsible for the chemical
attack in Idlib province.
Presidents do not normally make detailed decisions on what sort of weapons should be used on
every airstrike made by their aircraft. He may be a dictator, but he is not a complete imbecile.
Even the dimmest of politicians could have foreseen that this chemical attack would end up being
a massive own-goal. Nobody as cynically calculating as Assad is supposed to be, would be that
stupid. My own hunch, (and that is all it is) is that sarin was used due to a blunder by a low
or medium ranking Syrian airforce officer.
Yes, of course Assad bears responsibility for overall strategy in this vicious war of survival,
and as such, has blood on his hands. But, so does Trump, so does Obama, so does Putin so does
Erdogan, so does May, and so do all the leaders who have supplied the numerous rebel groups with
billions of pounds worth of weapons, and have therefore kept the pot boiling.
Last year, Theresa May stood up in parliament and proudly proclaimed her willingness to commit
mass indiscriminate murder on a scale that would make Syria look like a pinprick. She declared
her willingness to press the nuclear button and therefore slaughter hundreds of thousands, perhaps
millions of completely innocent men, women, children and babies. She not only has blood on her
hands, she is proud of it. Perhaps we should remember that, when she comes out with one of her
sanctimonious, nauseatingly hypocritical statements about Syria.
Assad was democratically elected more than once so he must be doing something right. (OK, so they're
democracy might not be our democracy but 'our' democracy has brought us Trump, Brexit and the
like so its really six to one, a half dozen to the other). Syria until we started messing with
it -- creating, supporting and even arming opposition groups -- was stable, wasn't messing with
its neighbors and had significant religious and cultural freedoms compared to other countries
in the area. (Our actions might suggest that we really don't want stable, peaceful, countries
in that region, we need them to be weak and riven by internal factions.)
Anyway, given our outstanding track record of success with regime change in that part of the
world we should probably adopt a hands-off approach -- all we seem to do is make an unsatisfactory
situation dire. Hardly the way to win friends and influence people.
Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main
protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran.
Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian
Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government
and armed forces.
Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the
military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government
and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet
another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country.
The whole which has visited terrible and incalculable suffering, on the Syrian people.
Syria was a paradise before the British and US did their usual work. The journalists, government
and security services in Britain who have wrought this mess , I'm sure will not escape the consequences
of their actions. One hopes they experience a 1000 times of the hell they have visited on Syria.
These actions are truly despicable acts of cowardice and absolute wickedness.
Syria was a paradise for those who rule Syria........ the Assad regime brutally repressed any
opposition to their rule. In 1982 Assad´s father killed probably more than 30,000 in the siege
of Hama. As well as sheltering a number of terrorist organisations who have their headquarters
in Damascus....... he also armed and supported the fledgling Al-Quaeda resistance to the coalition
in Iraq, giving them asylum in Syria........now the IS ....... I can think of Paradise in different
ways......
The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed
at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have
been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.
Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with
Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting
"collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."
More guff from the guardian/ Mr Williams, with just a little realistic sense, but who can replace
Assad and in Syria he remains very popular, despite the western media like lies!
Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise
the US will soon attempt to render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel
factions it decides to install.
... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive
in the halls of the Pentagon.
.... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the
West has already inflicted on the innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design
that has ever been conceived by the war college or any other war commander.
...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.
......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the, US?
Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of family
owned country KSA or why not another family owned enterprises called UAE.
History tells us replacing Assad would be a bad idea. We should have learned the lesson with Hussain
and Iraq, but didn't. We would go on to replace Gaddafi of Libya and boom, it trigged ISIS.
The hard lesson here is that for some reason Muslim majority countries have a strong central
authoritarian leader. No matter if that leaders is called president, king, prime minister, or
whatever. When that strong leaders is deposed, chaos ensues.
The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it
and did it in secret, now they are all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered
anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia. The amazing thing is Tillerson said
Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison said
how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want."
These are
the same people who elected Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president.
The result may end up better.
> Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs
and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse
still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have
been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.
Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton,
who armed "moderate rebels" and supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change? And Syria
is not the only country were this happened. Will there ever any responsibility taken for their
actions by the US and NATO?
First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living
local people to pick up the pieces.
Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of
jihadists and jihadists themselves have some responsibility as well?
A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women
can wear what they like in public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a
career.
B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where
women are denied education, made virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in
their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they do go out in public.
It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.
Also worth remembering that under Assad people are allowed religious freedom. I know two Syrian
Christians who are terrified of what will happen if the rebels take control of their country.
Choice B also includes Sharia law, full extermination of other faiths and death sentence for rejection
of Islam. Basically Choice B is another Saudi Arabia, but a lot of people will have to die first.
Assad would stand a good chance of winning a fair and honest election,
Still waiting for evidence by forensic experts over the chemical weapons , who did what and where.
Until proof is given hat prove otherwise the rebels are the most likly suspects.
-->
normankirk
, 12 Apr
2017 15:35
The world's biggest superpower is willing to risk a nuclear war with mass destruction of billions
and possible extinction of life on earth on an unproven assertion made by Al Qaeda sympathisers
that the Syrian government bombed them with sarin? OBL must be laughing in his grave.
1. Who is threatening a nuclear war? The Russians? I haven't heard them threaten that. Probably
because no-one would seriously believe them.
2. An intellectually honest person should not describe young children as terrorist sympathisers.
Let alone imply they somehow deserve to be deliberately targeted by nerve gas as a result.
An intellectually honest person should question the veracity of a report that is unverified by
a terrorist organisation. The children were never described by me as 'terrorist sympathisers'
so you make a dishonest accusation, the terrorist sympathisers are those who produced the report
on which the whole story is based. It is not about the death of the children which is of course
a crime, but they are being used by the terrorists for thier purposes.
An intellectually honest person would also show outrage about the mass murder of civilians, including
children in Mosul and by a US bombing in Syria that seem to not arouse the same outrage.
Regime change by US has been used at least three times against democracies, in Chili, in Iran
and in Ukraine. Attempted regime change has also been used often in South America to oust populist
rulers because of US interests. Although the above analysis raises the very good point that change
has to come from the bottom up, it starts with the same fallacies of assuming that all of the
death and destruction in Syria comes from one person which is an extremely flawed point to start
from. The point that is to be made is that there is no military solution to the conflict except
in an anti terrorist capacity. The problem is that all of those against the Syrian government
in the current conflict are either outright terrorists or those who collaborate heavily with terrorists
making it difficult to have a conventional peace process.
America engaged in regime changes to suit American interests during the cold war and the New world
order drive. The fact that they supported dictatorships worldwide and helped them overthrow democratically
elected governments tells clearly that imposing democracy forcibly was not their intention. Intervention
in global conflicts is mainly for controlling pathways for resources and gaining ground for business
opportunities for their multinational giant corporations.
The West's narrative has fallen apart, nobody believes that the Syrian rebels are peace loving
democrats. We have ample evidence that they are infinitely worse than Assad.
We also have plenty of evidence that the Western deep state, not the public, wants another
regime change in the middle east and will stop at nothing to achieve its end including false flag
gas attacks. This article goes into detail.
False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad
Evidence suggests a false flag chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people was initiated
by Syrian rebels with the help of the United States in order to justify Thursday night's U.S.
Military attack on a Syrian base.
The Left is very opposed to war in Syria, the Libertarian right is very opposed to war in Syria
but a hugely powerful Deep State will stop at nothing to achieve its ends.
"Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million
have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad. "
well, you cannot put the blame on Assad only. He never asked for that war for a start and a
lot of the refugees you're talking about may very well be pro-Assad.
Finally an article which still sticks to logical thinking when it comes to Syria. Assad is a terrible
leader but atleast with him, most of the factions within the country can be sorted. The West's
obsession with stuffing democracy down the throats of every oil producing country in the Middle
East has resulted in the Mad Max wasteland i.e. Libya and the unsolvable puzzle i.e. Iraq. Both
Gaddafi and Saddam were terrible human beings but removing them left a vacuum which has cost the
lives of thousands and displaced millions. The West must make its peace with Assad for now, stop
supporting the rebels and try to find common ground with Russia against the real enemy - ISIS.
The west - as the US/UK like to themselves, couldn't give a damn about democracy . They want compliance
, not democracy. A good(brutal) dictator is better than a 'difficult' democratically elected leader
, look at events in Egypt for example.
Our own democracies are pretty ropey, certainly not up there with the Scandinavian best practice.
You're kidding right? The West stuffing democracy down the throats of the Gulf countries. More
like defending them against the threat of democracy by arming them to the teeth and stationing
troops there. Have you heard of Bahrain?
The only plausible solution to this conflict is partition assuming of course the imminent defeat
of Isis.
While getting rid of Assad would create a dangerous power vacuum and is in any case perhaps
impossible given Russias backing, the sheer scale of the killing he's done and destruction he's
unleashed on his own people - of a totally different scale to Saddam Hussein and even his father,
from whom he seems to have inherited his psychopathic tendencies -renders the idea that he could
continue to rule a "united" Syria or even the majority of it, laughable.
If you get rid of Assad, whoever replaces him is going to have a very difficult task. How on Earth
do you enforce any sort of civilized law and order in a country which has some of the worst terrorist
organizations the world has ever known. With organizations like ISIS around, a government is gong
to need to take a firm hand somewhere. It's not as if you can send Jihadists on community service
and expect them to come back as reformed characters.
Fact is that Assad still enjoys considerable support among Syrians. In particular among those
who have no problem with a woman going to the beach in a bikini and driving a car to work. He
is not giong anywhere soon. And if he did, the situation would be worse. As in the case of the
butcher Saddam Hussein and the crazy dictator Khadaffi, who also were supposedly removed in an
attempt to bring "freedom and democracy to the people."
Syria was one of the few countries in the ME where you could drink alcohol. Does anyone
believe whoever follows Assad be it someone picked by the US/Israel/KSA/Qatar will be quite so
tolerant?
Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity? Is it not about
time that they are compelled to comply with international law and for the United Nations Assembly
to make them so by enforceable resolutions passed by a majority vote?
Assad is a tyrant who should be removed from office and held accountable for his crimes against
humanity. Syrians should be entitled to a government that is respectful of their human rights.
The UN should take responsibility for enforcing a permanent ceasefire and brokering talks to
secure Syria's future. It should require as a condition of UN membership compliance with and adherence
to international law protecting human rights. Non compliance should be met with expulsion and
the economic isolation of the country concerned from the rest of the world.
There is no shortcut to lasting peace. As uncomfortable as it is, the best that western
governments can do is provide aid and assistance to those in distress, while pressuring those
countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.
You are absolutely right.
Such a pity then that the western governments in question, the UK, America and to a lesser
extent, France, are in fact the same entities, via their surrogate power in the middle east, Saudi
Arabia, who are the ones providing the weapons and money.
Just as they did in Iraq and Libya, and always for the same reason, to achieve regime change
against the Middle Eastern leaders who were threatening their control of the oil market.
This situation is nothing new, these Western Powers have been attacking various parts of the
Middle East for nigh on a century. Winston Churchill was responsible for bombing Iraq in the 1920's.
That also was to achieve regime change.
All of the deaths and the destruction in the Middle East can ultimately be laid at the door
of the 'Western Powers' and their willingness to do anything to protect their oil interests.
One of the most despicable thing about the West's attempts to bribe, entice and force Russia into
abandoning the Syrian Government, so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in,
like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal, is how patronising they have been towards the Russians
and Iranians. Granted that their racism towards the Russians might not be what it is towards the
Syrian state, which they want to deny a voice and disrespect to the extent of talking to the Russians,
and ignoring the Syrian government.
Yes, the West is behaving towards the Syrian state as if it is just something for it to manipulate,
as it does with the global economy. Not having made any progress in manipulating the Syrian proxy
conflict into the outcomes it wants, the West has now resorted to making merciless and unjustified
attacks on Russian and the Iranians. Despite the fact that it is Russia and the Syrian government
forces and their Hezbollah allies who have broken the impasse in this terrible war.
It is scurrilous that there should now be this coordinated media and political campaign to make
Russia out to be 'the bad guy', the 'devil', as it were.
As for 'the liberals', well, guess what, if you want to do something constructive. Then stop blaming
Russia and demonising the Russians, the Syrian Government and their allies. Look closer to home,
to America, To Britain, to France and Saudi Arabia. There you will find more demons disguised
as 'humanitarians' and 'angels' than probably in all of Russia and Syria.
The guys in the West who are posturing as angels are no less culpable than the Syrian government.
Of course the West should not destroy the Syrian state and government. But, since when has logic
prevented this cartel from exercising its destructive force? As Libya, Iraq and Yemen have proven?
The liberals need to grow up and stop being allied to the right.
so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off
a wounded animal
Your point is of great importance.
Now that Russia has done the dirty work at great cost, pushing them out of the way.........................
That will not happen, Rex was told by Sergei.
robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.
Is meant to be the joke of the month.
What did they ever fix ? Just look what the Korean war has lead to.
Vietnam, where the Americans were defeated, is now a united and peaceful country.
On the other hand, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other regime change candidates have been reduced
to failed states.
In Syria, the fate of the Alwites will be the same of that of women and children cowering in
St Sophia in 1453.
Utter slaughter!
Firstly, we have yet to see the results of any impartial investigation checking out the Syrian/Russian
version of events about the gas in Idlib province, which could be true. Nobody that I can see
is 'supporting' the use of gas against civilians, but it is known that the bigger terrorist organisations
such as ISIS and al Qaeda do have stocks of poison gas. Secondly,so many uninformed commentators
have not understood that Syria's 6 year war has been and remains a religious war! Asad's Shiite/
Alawite/Christian/ Druse/ Ismaili communities and other minorities supported by Iran and Lebanon's
Shiites, fighting for their very survival against Saudi/ Qatari/Gulf States' extremist Wahhabi
fighters, who via ISIS ,Al Qaeda and similar Islamists, want to wipe them off the face of the
earth (with Turkey playing a double game). At this very moment people are condemning Assad for
bombing civilians, whilst the US-led coalition including our own RAF, is doing exactly the same
thing in the ISIS held city of Mosul -for the same reasons. The rebels take over and then surround
themselves in cities, with civilians, hoping that these horrors will raise western public opinion
against the government forces trying to defeat them. The 'half- informed' public opinion is now
behaving in exactly this predictable way against the Syrian government, trying to deal with its
own religious extremist rebels, many of whom are not even Syrians. It was always a war that the
west should stay out of -other peoples religious wars are incomprehensible to non-believers in
that particular faith. To talk now of replacing Asad is juvenile and mischievous - maybe that's
why Boris is so engaged?
There is an equality of evil between Assad and ISIS. That said, Assad's forces and their Shia
allies have slaughtered the vast majority of the victims.
Both Assad and ISIS will lose eventually. How many Syrians are slaughtered in the meantime
is anyone's guess.
Why murderous dictators are so popular btl is a mystery.
Syria is finished.
According to Wikipedia Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist
groups, vary between 321,358 and 470,000.
On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000
that had died in the war.
Also,according to Wikipedia I n 2016, the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians
requiring humanitarian assistance, of which more than 6 million are internally displaced within
Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria. In January 2017, UNHCR counted 4,863,684
registered refugees.
Turkey is the largest host country of registered refugees with over 2.7 million Syrian refugees.
Before the troubles,Syria had a population of 23 million.
No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.
That's because politics is heartlessly, ruthlessly, compassionlessly pragmatic. If having a pet
local petty king in the area keeps it stable and does not a politically costly military operation,
everything else is seen as "acceptable collateral damage".
It's funny but western foreign policy is fundamentally the same in the methods, just different
in goals. If the goal of regime change is achieved and political points collected, everything
else is completely irrelevant. Opposition can become "moderately islamist", "democratic" rebels
may implement sharia law, "precision strikes" may cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties,
but it's all for the greater good.
Every time the West especially the Anglo west of the USA and Britain intervene in another countries
affairs, the end product is a disaster so for that reason alone these two societies which can
only communicate in English should leave this to the Russians.
This almost manages to achieve sense, and it's good to see an article not promoting regime change
for once, but it still falls short of stating the truth that the correct policy in Syria is to
help Assad win the war, and then impose conditions on his conduct in the peace.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's
Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged.
I must now begrudgingly thank the Trump Administration for causing me to realize a profound and
universal truth. History doesn't rhyme at all; it parodies.
The build up to our inevitable Syria invasion is essentially an SNL parody of our Iraq invasion.
All the way down to allegations of to "hidden stockpiles of WMDs", "gassing own citizens", "violation
of no WMD agreement", "weapons inspectors not doing job", and most recently "Assad/Saddam is Hitler".
All that's left is the final piece of evidence to tip public opinion in...the holy grail, "yellowcake
uranium".
I'm not sure exactly what comes next (presumably Trump declaring an "Axis of Evil" consisting
of Syria, ISIS, Iran, N.Korea...and perhaps Russia and/or China or both...thus setting the stage
for a hilarious parody of WWII).
Perhaps dear Boris should have had more talks with the British government to find out what is
the political position of the conservative government over Syria, and more importantly with Russia.
So far the American have by the look of things, telling the British Government in what they want,
not bothering to ask what Britain thinks what is important.
There is actually no point in swapping one master the EU, to handcuff ourselves to the a far more
right wing America.
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with are people that want
to oust a tyrannical and unelected leader who clearly has nothing but disdain for his people (groups
of at least).
Those rebels (or freedom fighters) are being seen as the bad guys it seems to me...?
The only reason I can see for this is that they have slight support from the United States.
Had the boot been on the other foot and the US we're supporting Assad and Russia,the rebels
(freedom fighters) I'm quite sure public opinion (Guardian readers at least) would be quite different.
So what do the Syrian rebels who are looking to overthrow a dictator have to do to be put on
a pedestal of righteousness as Castro was for effectively trying to achieve the same end goal....
Oh, that's right, Castro was trying to stick it to the Yanks.... now I get it.
I think there's a definite strain of anti-Americanism on display however cautiously we have to
view their actions after Iraq and give their closeness to the Gulf States. A quarter of the country
has fled Assad, some 10 million internally displaced not to mention the incredible numbers of
dead and wounded.
And yet there's a close minded reflex to say that things will be better off with him in charge
ignoring even the possibility of partition, which strikes me as the most plausible option. The
idea that Assad can now after all he's done rule a united country indefinitely putting a lid on
refugees and terrorism strikes me as utterly preposterous.
My sentiments entirely and it shocks me that there are a considerable number of Assad apologists
commenting on here as he is clearly seen as a better 'devil' than Trump...
I'm just very pleased I don't live in Syria and I think the run of the mill Syrian dying in
their droves due to gas, bombs or simply drowning in the Med would be horrified to read a large
number of comments on here in relation to this article and how Assad 'isn't such a bad old stick!'
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with
what you are left is nothing. This was the big point since 2013, when Nusra began taking over
the last remnants of the FSA. Since then Cameron (or was it Hammond) had to coin the term "relatively
hardline islamists" to make some of the jihadi groups somewhat acceptable.
In its latest iteration, Nusra (now rebranded yet againTahrir al-Sham) has formally absorbed
several other "rebel" group, including the Nour al-Din al-Zenki, who were in the past equipped
by the US, and were quoted by various agencies (including this paper) as "opposition" during the
recapture of Aleppo.
Ah, yes, you also have the Kurds, who are building their own state. But if there is something
all the local powers agree on (Russia, US, Turkey, Syria, Iraq...) is that they don't want an
independent Kurdish state.
President Obama was heavily criticized for not doing more in Syria, but he made a difficult
decision that was in many ways the right on.
Obama required cover from the British Parliament. Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with
the UK public from right to left. David Miliband listened to the public and stopped the bombing
of Syria. Nobody expected a Labour politician to dare to oppose the US war machine, it took them
all by surprise.
Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the US public and the European public, Miliband
saved us from ISIS and Al Nusra both al Qaeda franchises running Syria.
The BBC routinely portrays the Libertarian right wing in the USA as Isolationists but if you
hear it from them they are anti-war. The American working class understands what war is like in
the middle east because many of them have experienced it. They are clearly anti another war in
the middle east. proof:
You could argue this isn't about regime change per se but prosecuting a dictator for targeting
and massacring civilians. And surely the same rationale can be used against Isis. In other words
you don't allow mass murderers to take. Over but prosecute them as well.
Good article. Hits the nail on the head. Regime change may be required for Syria the G7 and Arab
countries must come together to carefully plan what happens afterwards.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
'Monster' Assad was courted by western leaders: Remember the Assads pictured taking tea at Buckingham
Palace with the Queen(google it) , Blair all smiles in Damascus. The Kerry family pictured in
Damascus enjoying a late evening supper with the Assads(google it).
But Bashar al-Assad is a stubborn man , he wouldn't distance himself from Iran and their proxies
such as Hezbollah, thus his fate was sealed.
Well it's all tied in . People talk about Israel wanting the Golan Heights permanently in part
due to oil interests, they talk about Qatar and the gas pipeline to Europe Assad refuses. They
talk about the KSA being unnerved by Iran's growing influence in the region after the Iraq war,
and how it would suit KSA , Israel and the US for Sunni leadership to emerge in Syria to rebalance
the region.
I think it's all of the above . Which isn't what US/UK populations are being told.
A regime changing in Syria?
Can someone here try and convince me that the State of Syria still exists?
And change it from what to what?From a Murderouscracy to a Oppressionocracy?
The West learns nothing from its mistakes. Can't we understand that our real enemy is ISIS and
that springs directly from our disastrous invasion of Iraq? Assad may be pretty awful but surely
we should be able to comprehend that he is an ally in the fight against ISIS just as the far more
horrible Stalin was an ally against the Nazis.
Just because Trump suddenly talks about "beautiful babies", we all go mad again.
Syria is going to need serious amounts of aid and foreign investment to recover when peace starts
to take hold. But Assad cannot travel internationally because he will be subject to arrest. At
least in any civilised country. So he will be gone one way or antithetical. Putin has backed the
wrong horse. It's too handicapped to run.
Until the Saudis, US & UK decide that enough is enough, then this idiocy will continue. Assad
is a better leader for Syria than Isis, Al Qaeda, or the other Saudi-backed groups would be.
Syria was secular and religiously tolerant under Assad. It won't be either of those things
if Assad is deposed. More than likely, it would end up as a Saudi-style Islamic theocracy with
the harshest head-chopping, hand-chopping version of sharia law.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked
by rebels sponsored by foreign groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and
allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given that you're arguing that a regime
change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the
rebels and those who sponsor them for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful
country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK,
whilst in some case toppling Dictators, has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the
Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make
the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress
because after six years we cannot think of an alternative. Great.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked
by rebels sponsored by foreign groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and
allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given that you're arguing that a regime
change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the
rebels and those who sponsor them for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful
country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK,
whilst in some case toppling Dictators, has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the
Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make
the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress
because after six years we cannot think of an alternative. Great.
Absolutely no... it will be a colossal disaster... and would explode the entire region affecting
not only all ME countries including Israel, but will extend to Europe and NA, You can't keep it
all "Over There"
Regime change, evidently the US has n't learned from the past experience. Look at Iraq, Lybia,
regime change has resulted in complete chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict. Syrian population
is strictly divided on sectarian line - Sunnis, Shias, Christians, Kurds. Who is going to make
a cohesive government capable of running the affairs of the state? Bashar Assaad's father, Hafiz
Assaad ruled Syria with an iron grip, he understood Syrian sectarian divide.
If any country needs regime change, it is Saudi Arabia. All important positions are controlled
by hundreds of Royals of Al Saud, even honest criticism of royals brings you closer to the back
swing of executioner .
My newsagent loves Assad. Why because he's a Syrian Christian. Assad is the only hope for the
minority's in Syria. All of the opposition groups are some variation on Islamic nationalists.
They will all happily slaughter anyone not of their faith. Assad is a murdering bastard but he
kills those that threaten him. In Middle Eastern terms he's a liberal.
Quite right. What the people of Syria need is stability and an end to the fighting. All else is
secondary. In particular, the greatest crime that the West has committed in recent decades is
the attempt to foist democracy on countries like Syria and Iraq, where it simply does not work.
Even now, Western liberals dream of sitting Sunni, Shia, Alevi, Kurds, secularists and Islamic
militants around a table to talk through to a democratic and mutually acceptable future for Syria.
This is a fantasy - as democracy always is in heavily tribalised societies. It can only end in
renewed civil war and inevitable dictatorship. I often wonder whether the West is just naive in
these attempts at liberal cultural imperialism, or whether they are in fact a cynical front to
mask the equally egregious aim of checkmating Russian influence in the region. Either way, shame
on us.
Now to be fair, no one knows really what the president is thinking, not even apparently his chief
diplomat or his UN envoy, who have sent conflicting messages. But let's cut to the chase – this
is a very, very bad idea.
WW3 is definately a very very bad idea.
The idea that the US can change the government of another country for the better is born of US
arrogance and lying manipulation.
It's a bit funny that we just casually mention that the country harping on about the respect of
the international rule book sinc 2014 vaiolate one of the core UN charter principles 72 times
and is openly speaking of braking it the 73th time.
Jsut picture China saying openly their goal is to change the Abe regime in Tokio or Russia
to change the regime in Kiev. They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass
interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around the world changing who's in
charge of countries.
> They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and
we just feel like it's A OK to go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.
There are two main choices... Regime change... which hasn't worked out well where it's been attempted
or just let the despots get on with it...
There are no easy answers but perhaps the only way is to let dictators crush and annihilate
their opposition, utilise death squads to make dissenters disappear in the dead of night and,
outwardly at least pretend everything is rosey....
If we, as a civilised society are able to 'look the other way' then that might be the simple
answer... just hope everyone can sleep well at night and be grateful that, however much you hate
our present government they aren't out gassing (allegedly) Guardian readers.
Not gassing people no, but still killing plenty of "innocent little babies" bombing hospitals
and helping the Saudis cluster bomb fishing villages. Why don't we see pictures on TV of Yemeni
kids mutilated by American bombs? How do we sleep with that?
Well, we saw the aftermath of a deliberate attack by Saudis planes on a clearly demarcated Yemeni
hospital on the BBC last year. The first rocket hit an arriving ambulance with civilian casualties
and a doctor on board. The response of the Saudi shills in the Commons - what is it about the
British upper class and the Arabs, I wonder - was to demand forcefully that the Saudis set up
an inquiry to examine the evidence of a war crime.
It should have been sadly obvious from the get-go that we had to back Assad before he attempted
to beat his father's record for murder and repression, the whole family's fucking insane, but
it's long past too late now. He's soiled goods and Tillerson's untutored idea of elections is
surely farcical.
Fair article, although ISI and rebels actively participated in the destruction of Syria. If Assad
falls, anarchy due to vacuum will follow, guaranteed. Agree with the last paragraph in particular
and still wondering why they (the West) don't do it especially pressuring the countries that feed
the rebels, and they are not so moderate, with money and weapon. Unless this is because of the
infamous pipeline. Tragic state of affair indeed.
Decade after decade, the west has interfered or overthrown government after governemnt , all over
the world , mainly for the benefit of capitalist puppeteers . America has been the worst , one
only has to look at the CIA's track record in South America when legitimately elected governments
were ousted by force so that "American business" interest were looked after.
This same vested self interest has been the driving force over the last few years. The interventions
in Iraq , Libya, Afghanistan have all been total disasters fro the regions and resulted in more
deaths than any tin pot dictator could have achieved. Backing so called "moderate" terrorists
seems to be the excuse to get involved.
More moral achievement and good could have been achieved by widespread dropping of food around
the world , or even the cost of the military hegemony being given as cash handouts to poor people
, but this simplistic altruism does not allow for the geopolitical control games that is the true
beating heart of western aggression.
We are all Brexiteers now. I voted remain, but accept the democratic will of the people. Blame
David Cameron and get on with the job of making a success of it, rather than whining about it....
I'm just saying people making the case for the West to back off would probably be saying the opposite
in that case if the white minority were massacring black people on the scale of Syria. Isn't that
hypocrisy?
The successful regime changes mentioned in the article such as Poland and the rest of the Eastern
bloc were initiated by the people themselves, rather than the the "help" of a foreign power.
The people did it all by themselves did they? So nothing to do with the economic collapse of the
Soviet Union caused by an arms race ramped up by President Reagan. Nothing to do with a very costly
war in Afghanistan?
Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary.
Such thinking has a long pedigree in the United States, where there is a robust belief in a supposed
American ability to fix what is wrong.
Would you have said the same thing in 1917 and 1940. Would you have said the same thing in the
duration of the cold war. If US did not have a bigger penis then you would not be around to comment
about it.
Long live the US penis and may it grow longer and stronger.
WW2 was won principally by the USSR, who suffered many more casualties than the western alliances.
The cold war would not have happened if not for the USA.
Sorry, the USA is more of a threat to the planet than any country, and Trump is unintelligent,
a real threat to the world.
If the US wants Assad ousted, they should support a UN investigation to find out WHO was at fault.
Shoot first questions later? Hollywood Wild West thinking. The US has zero credibility. You simply
cannot blame someone without having the facts independently checked out. Yet they didn't wait
and decided to break interantional law instead.
There seems to be a crucial component of reality lacking in this opinion piece: rather than bombing
and droning and etc, why does the 'world order' not stop the manufacture and distribution of weapons
of mass destruction like barrel bombs, nuclear warheads etc etc -- where profits are made by arms
manufacturers and their investors--oh, could that be the reason?
Quite. Assad is awful, but he is less awful that the Islamist alternatives, which are the only
realistic alternatives. We should stop posturing and accept this unpalatable reality.
Much more level reporting, but still is framing the narrative as a brutal gas attack and is still
a rush to judgement when the case is that bombs were dropped on a supply of toxic gas, most likely
Phosgene.
At last, some common sense. like Saddam and Gaddafi, Assad is a ruthless tyrant. What the West,
including the petulant Boris Johnson need to realise is that Syria ISN'T the West. Don't impose
your values on a country that isn't ready for them. The sickening hypocrisy of the British government
would look very foolish if Putin pulled out and allowed Syria to fall to isis. Would Boris and
Theresa put British troops on the ground to keep the extremists out of Turkey?
Why isn't Syria ready for Western values? After what the country has been through the people would
probably leap at the chance of free elections. Prior to the conflict Syria was a multi-ethnic
patchwork. Whatever happens to the country needs to be decided by the Syrians themselves.
The geopolitical status quo in the Middle East is unstable, and tribal affiliations/religious/
ethnic allegiances need to be carefully balanced and controlled. Something Lebanon, Libya, Syria
and Iraq achieved reasonably peacefully for many years before all the US led interventions.
There is no evidence that the terrorists are fighting for democracy, although if westerners
ask them that is what they will likely say.
So Trump is unfit to govern because of his locker room humour and possible antics, but gas a few
thousand people and hey presto! A darling of the left.
You're talking about this rag. Take a look at what's coming out of Howard Dean's mouth, or Bernie
Sanders's, or practically any Democrat in Washington not named Tulsi Gabbard.
Or, if you have a really strong stomach, take a look at Daily Kos.
They're what passes for "left" in America, unfortunately, because the number of SWP and Green
Party members is statistically insignificant.
Regime change is illegal under international law, except to the rogues of course found in western
capitals, and their Gulf vassals. These are the only group of people in the entire planet who
talk openly about overthrowing sovereign governments of other countries.
The unfortunate truth is that, along with the ongoing decline of western civilization, one 'by-product'
is that International Law is continually disdained. The USA, having lack of insightful leadership,
does as it wants, when it wants .. the result is that perpetual wars seem to be a given .. meanwhile,
Asia continues to rise and is growing real and genuine wealth by producing and exporting the goods
the rest of the world consumes and is doing it very well..
President Trump didn't do enough (yet) by bombing an air base at night. The people of Syria need
weapons, tanks, missiles, air support, etc. from a country like the USA that stands for freedom
and human rights. Assad, who lives by the sword should also die by the sword. For the U.S. to
stand by and watch these atrocities unchallenged would simply be not who we are. I don't agree
with President Trump on a lot of things, but on this point he is right. I have changed from not
liking him at all to liking him just a bit more.
"The logic is that by removing and replacing an undesirable leader, the political situation in
the country will change. "
Absolute tosh.
The logic behind nearly all attempts at cold war regime change was to replace a regime which
aligned itself with the USSR with one that aligned itself with the USA.
The internal situation, politically or otherwise was of no concern
Good piece. Regime change has been such a resounding success, you only have to look at Iraq and
Libya to see that. Nor does a country which has a history of using napalm and carcinogenic defoliants
any room to take the moral high ground.
If Assad, is so bad, how come most of the civilian population prefer his areas to those of the
rebels? The one certainty in all of this is that the MSM has sold its credibility. Most of what
I see is vested interest propaganda.
Isn't the main reason that people prefer Assad's areas because he doesn't bomb them.
There is no love of Assad anywhere.
If the US were to limit itself to punishing strikes against Assad whenever his forces committed
war crimes – bombing hospitals using poison gas etc then a minor at the level of civilisation
creeps back into the equation.
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime
change into a proxy war, as Russia and Iran are likely to do.
A proxy war between the United States and Russia is the thing we all have to fear. In Trump
and Putin you have two leaders who use brinkmanship to get what they want and who will never back
down from any position no matter what the consequences. They'd rather pursue a misguided policy
rathen than lose face. I'd like to think the recent war of words between the two countries is
just bluster, but as each day goes by I'm no longer sure anymore.
Regime change should work if all parties believe in democracy and respect each other. That does
not seem likely in the middle east. We have seen what that means forcing that idea in Iraq, Egypt
and Libya. A secular SOB is better than somebody who believes in laws of yesteryears.
Another way: reducing accidental use of chemical weapons?
Always drop 2 bombs; one from each side of ammunition dump. That way, one of such unmarked
ordinance is likely to be conventional explosives. The latter would further disperse, and dilute
(reduce density) of the chemical gas; hence lessening lethality.
So we agree on the final result (need for regime change which by the way the article conflicts
with its own title), but we disagree on the method. Many bottoms-up revolutions would not have
been successful without outside help. The French helped America achieve freedom although their
reason was somewhat revengeful. The people of Syria have no chance against an army and tanks ruled
by a ruthless evil dictator like Assad without outside assistance. If you think they are not shedding
enough blood for their freedom, then you are living in a hole in the ground.
In the latest iteration for 2016, the bottom ten places in the Index, reserved for the least
peaceful countries on earth, include Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya: four countries where
"regime change" has been brought about – or, in Syria's case, where there is arguably an ongoing
attempt to bring it about – by the use of military force.
The evidence so far is that the use of force to topple regimes does not make things better, even
when the behaviour of those regimes is/was objectionable in many ways.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's
Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged.
Nope. Most of Homs and Aleppo are intact. The areas occupied by foreign Jihadists using the
local populace as human shields were heavily bombed but now they have been liberated.
Who was it who destroyed these heritage sites? Not the SAA. The Jihadists even filmed themselves
doing it and posted the videos online for goodness sake.
Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo
to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco World Heritage sites have been damaged.
So thousands of mostly foreign jihadists occupying parts of those cities had nothing to do
with it? Did the US led forces in now n Mosul, or before that in Fallujah find the way to dislodge
terrorists from urban strongholds without devastation of the city? Also for all world heritage
sites in Syria, they were defended by Syrian troops, and everything that could be moved was moved
to safe place. It was exclusively jihadists that were destroying temples, churches, shrines, even
muslim graveyards when they found the funeral momunent "too tall". In all of these efforts to
save the history of the humanity, syrian govermnent got no help nor acknowledgment. To add insult
to injury, the western "cultural" response was touring 3D model of Palmyra gates through western
capitals but while Daesh was methodically blowing it up under clear desert skies, there was interestingly
not a single american drone to be found anywhere. It was syrian, iranian and russian blood spilled
to liberate it twice from the death cult.
Yep. There isn't a solution to this problem, but the one thing I'm 99.999% convinved will not
work is 'the west' dusting off it's world policeman uniform and bombing the heck out of Syria.
This is precisely why the west has largely stayed out of the Syrian conflict; despite having a
policy favouring the removal of Assad there hasn't been an attempt (or even the suggestion of
an attempt at a policy level) at regime change.
One does wonder, though, at what point the conflict becomes so abhorrent and the civilian casualties
so grotesque that our intervention could scarcely make things any worse
The US?
Syria?
Regime change?
Moi?
It seems that Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, whilst putting all his cerebral energy
into attempting to apologise for his jaw-droppingly ignorant statement that Hitler never used
chemical weapons on his own people, failed to stop his mouth making yet another gaffe;
"I needed to make sure that I clarified, and was not in any shape or form any more of a
distraction from the president's decisive action in Syria and the attempts that he is making
to destabilise the region and root out ISIS out of Syria."
(my emphasis)
Spicer speaks about the president's attempts to destabilise the region in a CNN television
interview too.
As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?
It bothers me that Trump is suddenly showing such concern toward innocent Syrians. Yet, at the
same time he wants a ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria.
Don't you think the timing here is - for Trump - rather convenient? Just when he is under pressure
for being a Russian patsy, something happens to allow him to portray himself as 'standing up to
Putin'.
Right. Also, the question should be...if Putin is sleazy enough to be complicit with Syria, then
why wouldn't they be sleazy enough to be involved in trying to swing the American election?
In essence there must be incremental change in the political climate and culture of a state
amongst the masses before it culminates in regime change at the top.
The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone
who could have formed a credible oppostion to his regime; opposition activitsts, aid workers,
doctors and nurses, journalists - all have either been killed, have fled to Europe, or are currently
being tortured in one of his detention centres. There is no one left to rise up against him.
The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government whose legitimacy
is reduced through the participation of an outside government. Soon the new regime is considered
a 'puppet' and its own existence is questioned by the people.
This is indeed true. However backing Assad also has its costs; where is the legitimacy of someone
who is now merely a "puppet" for Russia and Iran's ambitions in the region?
As uncomfortable as it is the best western governments can do is to provide aid and assistance
to those in distress, whilst pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons
to the combatants to change their positions.
As reasonable as this sounds, I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking.
"The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who
could have formed a credible oppostion to his regime;"
There is a credible position inside Syria which has been largely ignored by the western MSM
and governments, because it does not support the uprisisng or the violent overthrow of the Syrian
government. It was refused participation when the first peace talks were arranged.
Wow, a Guardian article I can finally wholeheartedly agree with. Does this Professor chap have
a hotline to Trump and the rest of the Western leaders itching for a fight with Assad?
Why do I get the feeling this is just another one of those "Now that Trump is in charge, we shouldn't
do regime change" pieces? I note that the author nowhere comes out against fighting an eternal
war in Syria -- he just doesn't want Trump doing the "regime change."
Yeah, he blabbers on about "aid and assistance" and "pressuring those countries that continue
to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions" -- obviously choosing to
ignore how several western governments provide money and weapons to the combatants (should they
be "pressuring" themselves?) But the pinnacle of his cluelessness -- or his agenda -- is reached
with this whopper:
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime
change into a proxy war, as Russia and Iran are likely to do.
--as if this hadn't been a proxy war for years already, one in which his own country has been
quite actively engaged.
Trump told him over some cake?
This idiot has got to go, he is not rational. He clearly has not an inkling of the gravity of
his actions. Nor does he care. How did we get to this? We always thought that a rogue state would
be the end of us all. We were wrong. This moron is doing it all by himself. Some one needs to
step in, take back control. This is frightening stuff.
terests, Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria,
it would be controlled by warlords backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of
refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will mean more refugees in
Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries.
Russia would also be far from pleased and if the conflict erupted into a confrontation between
NATO affiliated forces in Syria against Russia, the Eastern European front will become a lot
more precarious (at a time when Britain is cutting back on military spending and very few European
countries adequately contribute towards NATO). Do we really want a repeat of tensions from
the pre-1991 era? I don't think so, especially with the combined threat of domestic Islamic
terrorism throughout Europe and with the continental debt crisis that cannot afford more wars
that are not in its interests. Russia will quickly mobilise its forces into the non-Russian
caucuses, already closely aligned with Armenia and potentially link up with Iran territoriality.
And what about Turkey? They cannot be relied upon.
So what benefit exactly is it to create anarchy in Syria for Britain's immediate and long-term
interests? The destruction of Libya has created nothing but chaos and a stream of migrants
from across Africa. Why Boris Johnson is waltzing around the world demanding hard action against
Russia when we are cutting back on our armed forces is startling. A better question would be
in whose immediate economic and geopolitical interests is the destruction of Assad beneficial?
Well... there's two countries in the Middle East which come to mind... not hard to guess.
That's fair enough but what if Assad stays in power? Will the refugees, who mainly fled him, return?
Will anyone invest in rebuilding the country? WIll anyone deal with the country other than Russia
or Iran? Above all will the hatred of Assad, terrorism or indeed the conflict as a whole recede?
They didn't flee him... they fled the war. Most people, in any country, are apolitical. I expect
the refugees in the Middle East and Anatolia will return to Syria and those in the West must be
forced to return back.
The problem with Syria now is that it has become such a hot plate. If the West concedes to
Russia and allows Syria to survive under the rule of Assad then we will lose face internationally...
and it would be domestically embarrassing. No doubt Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Gulf monarchies
would be less than pleased, and we depend on them for a lot of our oil.
It's a difficult question but what we do know is that there are no other credible groups that
can rule Syria at the moment, other than Assad's Alawite minority. If we decide to nation-build,
that will cost billions, possibly even trillions with no concrete result as our attempt in Iraq
shows and we have no idea who we would put in charge. The Christians have about as much legitimacy
as the Alawites. Perhaps the only conceivable outcome would be the breakup of Syria. The Christian
and Alawite regions go towards Lebanon, the Kurdish regions are given independence and the Sunni
areas are also given an independent state. But of course, the Sunni and Christian areas are intertwined
and many Sunni's support Assad, or at least do not oppose him. And Turkey, as well as Iran, would
never allow an independent Kurdistan. Iran would be less than pleased with the breakup of Syria
as well.
I want to see a post-Assad plan. We all know what happens to non-Sunni minorities when a secular
Arab leader is toppled. No one has yet to provide a coherent post-Assad state-structure. Unless
of course they want Turkey to territoriality expand... we want to preserve the post-Ottoman borders
and state-system yet at the same time we're waging war against the forces actively preserving
it.
There is no simple answer. Assad is a pawn of Russia and Iran, yet the other options are either
Turkish expansion (which, the last time they did that, they had sizeable European territories)
or Saudi expansion (which I hope everyone agrees is less than desirable). We have no friends in
the Middle East, other than Jordan, Egypt and Israel. But they all have their own interests and
I suspect their friendships are determined upon those interests. I think our aim is to maintain
the balance of power. Perhaps only the growth of Israel could act as a counter-weight to Sunni
and Shia interests.
Would you support another leader from perhaps the same party taking over as an interim measure
whilst different factions are brought together to defeat ISIS?
In an ideal world, I would love to see this happening, along with a form of truth and reconciliation
commission, and a commitment from the international community and other bodies independent of
the Syrian government to assist in tackling issues such as warlordism and corruption. The dogmatic
belief that there can be no leader other than Assad is one that might have ultimately cost millions
of lives and it would be wrong to use the old dictator's mantra of 'me or chaos'. And to be fair,
Assad does not have a great track record in Syria.
And a final question - do you believe Russia should be doing more to put pressure on Assad
or do you think it will be happy to put its international credibility on the line for him? (There
is something pathological I believe in Putin's willingness to support other dictators)
How can one call for 'peaceful transition to a new society' when the original opposition to Assad
was sponsored by multifarious power-hungry foreign actors? They exploited the Arab Spring pro-democracy
utopianism then messed up their insurrectional strategy disastrously. The country now needs to
be made a protectorate of an international peace-keeping force until a representative transitional
government is agreed upon.
No, that sounds like the pseudo-leftist neo-colonial discourse that Obama was so fond of.
The counter-argument to regime change is more that by now Assad controls most cities again, the
opposition are awful sectarians who should be let nowhere near power and it may still be possible
to contain IS to a manageable extent while Assad maintains a dictatorship indefinitely.
Not quite sure what you mean. Just saying that the "man on the street" would more likely than
not understand "protectorate" pretty much the same as e.g. the Moroccans did.
One day spent in assad's syria and Michael williams would be calling for regime change as well.
Idiots thousands of miles living in comfortable lives have no idea the horror the syrian people
have been going through for the last 7 years under this cruel barbaric regime of assad.
Assad has killed more arabs than israel in only three years
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
"He uses indiscriminate weapons such as 'barrel bombs' and chlorine gas on a regular basis against
his own citizens."
Not to mention the thousands tortured to death in his prisons, the use of starvation as a weapon,
the denial of aid and the deliberate targeting of hospitals and medical staff. All carefully documented.
Yet, strangely, he has no shortage of apologists prepared to deny his crimes.
Regime change in Syria was being talked directly since 9/11 and it never stopped. It's on the
record. So is john Kerry, on record on TV, stating gulf states offered to cover part of the costs
of a US invasion in Syria at least twice way before the so called ''civil war'' even started.
They prepared it for years but the poor taste Iraq/Libya left on the US public meant the US pulled
out of the deal (all because of the planed gas pipelines from Qatar to Europe that has to go through
Syria).
The Saudis along with Qatar, Turkey and Israel believed they could force the hand of the US and
acted alone initiating the takeover. This is why despite the intel, organisation and provision
of what is estimated to be 300k(german estimates) foreign jihadists eventually came to a standstill
without direct US support.
The Jihadists then prematurely jumped the gun fragmented creating ISIS (something meant to take
place behind the scenes after they defeated Assad)
The point is of course...it's all about oil...nothing about democracy or Gas or any of that
crap
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in
the countries it attempts to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong
damn party or person to support in said vacuum. A stunning misreading and proof of the failure
of American foreign policy "experts" and CIA strategists to grasp the realities on the ground.
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum
in the countries it attempts to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the
wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum.
Like in Japan. Just that Japan is ... Shinto. Or something. Not M.........
I'm sure its fair to say that for many instability, disorder, mayhem and the like are entirely
desirable. Witness Kissinger who out-and-out advocated/advocates looking after US long-term interests
through war, disease and starvation.
'The on-going devastation in Syria cries out for a response, 'do something' is the inherent plea.'
Might I suggest sending generous quantities of bubble wrap to each of the 'something must be
done' brigade. Popping those bubbles is relaxing and calming. They will otherwise impatiently
agitate for some ineffective, or more likely counter-productive measure that makes things drastically
worse.
Not very sensible, actually -- see the comment by capatriot above (or below, if you do "newest
first"). Rather appalling that someone with academic credentials would (1) engage in a comic book-style
analysis of world politics (big bad nearly omnipotent supervillain!) and (2) put all the blame
for the carnage and destruction on one side.
We tried to change the leader in Iraq. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism
and incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. We tried to change the leader in Libya. It
didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and ineffectual
government. I guess we could try to change the leader in Syria, if we really, really want.
Eventually Assad will lose. He started a sectarian bloodbath he simply can't win. The Russians
and the Iranian-backed Shia jihadists will only delay the inevitable outcome.
If Assad is lucky, he and his family may escape with their lives.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble.
What, he, personally? What is he, superman? And I wonder why he'd choose to do that to his
own nation's cities?
But wait, you mean that there was a rebellion against the recognized government which developed
into a civil war, aided and abetted by sectarian outsiders and terrorists and the United States/West,
with political and religious/ethnic overtones? And that later, as it looked like the recognized
govt was going to fail, other interested outsiders like Russia and Iran intervened to help it?
Gosh, I wonder what the least worst outcome for the people of Syria actually is here ... perhaps
we should leave it to them?
It's actually a very serious question. How much control does Assad have over his government, let
alone his armed forces? He's a trained dentist, ferchrissakes, and his older brother was the one
groomed for the <strike>throne</strike> presidency. It makes sense to assume that his powers over
an entrenched nomenklatura, to say nothing of all of the different armed factions nominally serving
him, aren't limitless.
"... If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next. Russia absolutely cannot afford to have Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next. Everybody in Russia understands that. But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast. ..."
"... So here is my central thesis: You don't want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means as this places the survival of of mankind at risk. ..."
"... I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only works with rational actors . Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran. And if Russia is not the world's policeman, neither is she the world savior. The rest of mankind also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something! ..."
"... Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. ..."
"... So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind. This is very nice and very prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources. ..."
"... The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not. The Russians are ready for war. The Americans are not. ..."
"... The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the West as a sign of weakness. ..."
"... This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations. ..."
"... Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one. And she is very much alone. European are cowards. Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA. India hopes to play both sides. Japan and the ROK are US colonies. Australia and New Zealand belong to the ECHELON / FIVE EYES gang. Russia has plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks. It would be totally unfair to ask the Iranians to do more. The only actor out there who can do something in China. If there is any hopes to avoid four more years of "Obama-style nightmare" it is for China to step in and tell the US to cool it. ..."
"... Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise. If Mike Pence becomes President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won't have to prove that they are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things? Could President Pence be better than President Trump? I am afraid that it might. Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA. ..."
But the two countries which really need to step up to the plate are Russia and China. So far,
it has been Russia who did all the hard work and, paradoxically, it has been Russia which has been
the object of the dumbest and most ungrateful lack of gratitude (especially from armchair warriors).
This needs to change. China has many more means to pressure the USA back into some semi-sane mental
state than Russia. All Russia has are superb military capabilities. China, in contrast, has the ability
to hurt the USA where it really matters: money. Russia is in a pickle: she cannot abandon Syria to
the Takfiri crazies, but neither can she go to nuclear war with the USA over Syria. The problem is
not Assad. The problem is that he is the only person capable, at least at this point in time, to
protect Syria against Daesh.
If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next. Russia absolutely cannot afford to have
Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next. Everybody in Russia understands
that. But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations
which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast.
So here is my central thesis: You don't want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means
as this places the survival of of mankind at risk.
I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only
works with rational actors . Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran.
And if Russia is not the world's policeman, neither is she the world savior. The rest of mankind
also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something!
Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs
to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. That
is especially true since the Americans show even less fear of China than of Russia.
[Sidebar: the Chinese military is still far behind the kind of capabilities Russia has, but
the Chinese are catching up really, really fast. Just 30 years ago the Chinese military used to
be outdated and primitive. This is not the case today. The Chinese have done some tremendous progress
in a record time and their military is now a totally different beast than what it used to be.
I have no doubt at all that the US cannot win a war with China either, especially not anywhere
near the Chinese mainland. Furthermore, I expect the Chinese to go full steam ahead with a very
energetic military modernization program which will allow them to close the gap with the USA and
Russia in record time.
So any notions of the USA using force against China, be it over Taiwan or the DPRK, is an absolutely
terrible idea, sheer madness. However, and maybe because the Americans believe their own propaganda,
it seems to me like the folks in DC think that we are in the 1950s or 1960 and that they can terrify
the "Chinese communist peasants" with their carrier battle groups.
What the fail to realize is that with every nautical mile the US carriers make towards China,
the bigger and easier target they make for a military which has specialized in US carrier destruction
operatons. The Americans ought to ask themselves a simple question: what will they do if the Chinese
either sink or severely damage one (or several) US Navy carriers?
Go to nuclear war with a nuclear China well capable of turning many US cities into nuclear
wastelands? Really? You would trade New York or San Francisco for the Carl Vinson Strike Group?
Think again.]
So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind. This is very nice and very
prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources. If there was a sane man in the White
House, one who would never ever do something which might result in war with Russia, that would not
be a problem. Alas, just like Obama before him, Trump seems to think that he can win a game of nuclear
chicken against Russia. But he can't. Let me be clear he: if pushed into a corner the Russian will
fight, even if that means nuclear war. I have said this over and over again, there are two differences
between the Americans and the Russians
The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not. The Russians are ready for war. The Americans
are not.
The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate
the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the
West as a sign of weakness.
This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting
and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations.
[Sidebar. The profound cultural differences between the USA and Russia are perfectly illustrated
with the polar difference the two countries have towards their most advanced weapons systems.
As soon as the Americans declassify one of their weapon systems they engage into a huge marketing
campaign to describe it as the "bestest of the bestest" "in the world" (always, "in the world"
as if somebody bothered to research this or even compare). They explain at length how awesome
their technology is and how invincible it makes them. The perfect illustration is all the (now,
in retrospect, rather ridiculous) propaganda about stealth and stealth aircraft. The Russians
do the exact opposite. First, they try to classify it all. But then, when eventually they declassify
a weapons system, they strenuously under-report its real capabilities even when it is quite clear
that the entire planet already knows the truth!
There have been any instances when Soviet disarmament negotiators knew less about the real
Soviet capabilities than their American counterparts!
Finally, when the Russian export their weapons systems, they always strongly degrade the export
model, at least that was the model until the Russians sold the SU-30MKI to India which included
thrust vectoring while the Russian SU-30 only acquired later with the SU-30SM model, so this might
be changing.
Ask yourself: did you ever hear about the Russian Kalibr cruise missile before their first
use in Syria? Or did you know that Russia has had
nuclear underwater missiles
since the late 1970 s capable of "flying under water" as speeds exceeding 230 miles per hour?]
Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one. And she is very much alone. European
are cowards. Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA. India hopes
to play both sides. Japan and the ROK are US colonies. Australia and New Zealand belong to the
ECHELON /
FIVE EYES gang. Russia has
plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran
has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks. It would be totally
unfair to ask the Iranians to do more. The only actor out there who can do something in China. If
there is any hopes to avoid four more years of "Obama-style nightmare" it is for China to step in
and tell the US to cool it.
In the meantime Russia will walk a very fine like between various bad options. Her best hope,
and the best hope of the rest of mankind, is that the US elites become so involved into fighting
each other that this will leave very little time to do any foreign policy. Alas, it appears that
Trump has "figured out" that one way to be smart (or so he thinks) in internal politics is to do
something dumb in external politics (like attack Syria). That won't work.
Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise. If Mike Pence becomes
President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won't have to prove that they
are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things? Could President Pence be better than President Trump?
I am afraid that it might. Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA.
"... Your long explanation of current reality in Europe, which seemingly contradicts Saker's sentence you quoted, says exactly the same. There is no dignity. What you listed are excuses. None of the European countries condemned the obvious aggression on Syria in UN. Where is dignity in that? Nowhere and is it a shame. I am from EU and I find the EU's position shameful as well. ..."
"... Bolivia mercilessly trolls US over Iraq WMD lie in front of UN Security Council (VIDEO) https://www.rt.com/viral/383979-bolivia-un-syria-us-wmd/ ..."
"... Exactly rigth, well said. There is nothing to admire about EU, but plenty to despise. From its Russophobic mentality to spineless following of orders from their masters in Washington. ..."
"... Not a single one of these puppets have criticised obvious crime of aggression by US against sovereign state of Syria. Not a single one. But they all bark at Russia and follow lies and spread fake news. Like a pack of hyenas. ..."
Some countries, however, are showing an absolutely amazing level of courage. Look at what the
Bolivian representative at the UNSC dared to do:
Bolivia: a profile in courage
And what a shame for Europe: a small and poor country like Bolivia showed more dignity that
the entire European continent. No wonder the Russians have no respect for the EU whatsoever.
Your long explanation of current reality in Europe, which seemingly contradicts Saker's sentence
you quoted, says exactly the same. There is no dignity. What you listed are excuses. None of the
European countries condemned the obvious aggression on Syria in UN. Where is dignity in that?
Nowhere and is it a shame. I am from EU and I find the EU's position shameful as well.
Bolivia clearly condemned the strikes. Speaking at the emergency meeting to discuss the United
States' missile strikes against Syria on Thursday, Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations,
Sacha Llorenti, criticized the Trump's decision to take unilateral action against Syria, which
he described as being "an extremely serious violation of international law."
Exactly rigth, well said. There is nothing to admire about EU, but plenty to despise. From
its Russophobic mentality to spineless following of orders from their masters in Washington.
Not a single one of these puppets have criticised obvious crime of aggression by US against
sovereign state of Syria. Not a single one. But they all bark at Russia and follow lies and spread
fake news. Like a pack of hyenas.
US Threatens Further Attacks on Syria
Despite Threats, Mattis Insists US Policy 'Unchanged'
by Jason Ditz, April 11, 2017
Print This | Share This
With the region still reeling after last week's US missile attacks on Syria, top administration
officials continue to threaten further attacks against the Syrian military, with the White House
saying President Trump retains the option to attack Syria whenever he thinks it's "in the national
interest."
Defense Secretary James Mattis concurred, adding that any use of chemical weapons would draw US
attacks against the Syrian government. The US claimed last week's attacks were a response to an
accused Syrian "gas attack" against rebel-held Idlib.
Since then, US officials have repeatedly talked up thew idea of further missile attacks against
Syria, though at the same thing Mattis once again insisted today that US military policy in Syria
is totally unchanged in the wake of the attacks.
That's demonstrably untrue, of course, as Pentagon officials have confirmed changes inside Syria
designed to protect US ground troops from potential retaliation, and have confirmed that US airstrikes
against ISIS targets have decreased significantly since the attack, again fearing Syrian air defense
will target the US warplanes as potential hostiles.
Officials have sent conflicting messages on their exact position on Syria since then, insisting
that ISIS remains their "priority," but continuing to pick fights with the Syrian government,
and needle Russia in such a way as to greatly diminish the US ability to operate against ISIS.
"... "contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft," ..."
"... "I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun," ..."
"... "I have only had a few hours to quickly review the alleged White House intelligence report. But a quick perusal shows without a lot of analysis that this report cannot be correct," ..."
"... "very clear who planned this attack, who authorized this attack and who conducted this attack itself," ..."
"... "doubting the entire international reporting crew documenting this." ..."
"... "a wide body of open-source material" ..."
"... "social media accounts" ..."
"... "Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real," ..."
"... "No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it." ..."
"... "the most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122mm section of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides." ..."
"... "We again have a situation where the White House has issued an obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence report," ..."
"... "What the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true," ..."
"... "and the fact that this information has been provided in this format raises the most serious questions about the handling of our national security." ..."
A professor who challenged the 2013 claims of a chemical attack in
Syria is now questioning the Trump administration's narrative blaming
the Assad government for the April 4 attack in the Idlib province town
of Khan Shaykhun.
On Tuesday, the White House released a declassified intelligence brief
accusing Syrian President Bashar Assad of ordering and organizing the
attack, in which Syrian planes allegedly dropped chemical ordnance on
civilians in the rebel-held town.
The report
"contains
absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition
being dropped from an aircraft,"
wrote Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) Professor Theodore Postol, who reviewed it and put
together a 14-page assessment, which he provided to RT on Wednesday.
Leading CW expert Theodor Postol of MIT
just published a 14-page document questioning WH claims that
Sarin was dropped from
#Syrian
AF plane
pic.twitter.com/kMJgxwsN8Z
"I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document
does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has
concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the
chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun,"
wrote Postol.
A chemical attack with a nerve agent did occur, he said, but the
available evidence does not support the US government's conclusions.
"I have only had a few hours to quickly review the alleged
White House intelligence report. But a quick perusal shows without a
lot of analysis that this report cannot be correct,"
Postol
wrote.
It is
"very clear who planned this attack, who authorized this
attack and who conducted this attack itself,"
Defense Secretary
James Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday.
Earlier in the day, White House spokesman Sean Spicer also said
that doubting the evidence would be
"doubting the entire
international reporting crew documenting this."
The report
offered by the White House
, however, cited
"a wide body of
open-source material"
and
"social media accounts"
from
the rebel-held area, including footage provided by the White Helmets
rescue group documented to have ties with jihadist rebels, Western and
Gulf Arab governments.
Postol was not convinced by such evidence.
"Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether
the debris in the crater was staged or real,"
he wrote.
"No
competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister
was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition
within it."
Instead,
"the most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was
dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122mm section
of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides."
"We again have a situation where the White House has issued an
obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence report,"
he concluded, recalling the
2013 situation
when the Obama administration claimed Assad had
used chemical weapons against the rebels in Ghouta, near Damascus.
"What the country is now being told by the White House cannot
be true,"
Postol wrote,
"and the fact that this information
has been provided in this format raises the most serious questions
about the handling of our national security."
"... is a journalist based in Madison, WI whose work focuses on the Middle East. He can be reached via Twitter @paulgottinger or email: [email protected] ..."
Almost immediately after video of the alleged chemical weapons attack in Idlib hit Western media,
Assad was declared guilty by US news networks and political commentators. The front page of the New
York Times on April 5 th showed a
heartbreaking image of a child wounded in the alleged chemical attack with a headline claiming
Assad was responsible.
By the afternoon of April 7, a US attack seemed inevitable as both Rex Tillerson and Trump said
action would be taken.
Between Democrats and Republicans, a bipartisan consensus emerged, rare in the Trump presidency,
whereby Assad was deemed guilty and Trump was goaded on to attack. The few voices of dissent seemed
mostly concerned with the lack of constitutional approval for the strike
The night of the strike, US media snapped into DPRK-style, state media mode. TV pundits fell into
a trance while expressing the "
beauty " of American power being unleashed on a country already destroyed by 6 years of war.
Pundits described the attack as "surgical" despite the pentagon quietly
admitting one of the missiles missed its target and they don't know where it landed. My questions
to both CENTCOM and the Secretary of Defense Office on the missing cruise missile have thus far gone
unanswered. However, Syrian sources
claim
civilians were killed in the missile strike.
Trump justified the attack by invoking religiously themed buzzwords and unconvincing blather on
the "beautiful babies" murdered in the chemical attack.
Following the attack, Trump officials' statements indicated there was a shift towards regime change.
UN ambassador Nikki Haley
said Sunday that removing Assad is now a priority.
The Neocon sharks have started circling too. Bill Kristol
tweeted that
these strikes should be used to move towards regime change in Iran. Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham,
and John McCain have all joined in too, their mouths watering at the thought of ousting Assad.
But was Assad really responsible for the attack?
To ask such a question is to be deemed an "Assadist" by pundits and discourse police across the
political spectrum.
Neither the lack of an independent investigation, nor the fact that nearly all the information
on the alleged attack has come from rebel sources, who stand to benefit from a US response, is deemed
sufficient cause for skepticism.
In a civilized society an actor is be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If guilt is
determined, a legally justified course of action is taken. In the US however, if the accused is a
US enemy, no evidence is needed, and even deranged conspiracies are given play in mainstream media
coverage.
The best recent example of this is the US media's conspiracy about Russia stealing the US election
and working for Trump. The US media has stooped so low as to even push bizarre conspiracies by
Louise Mensch . She recently
claimed
the 2014 uprising in Ferguson was a Russian plot.
In the case of the alleged attack on Khan Sheikhun, US officials and pro-war experts immediately
declared Assad's guilty and then cheered on an illegal use of force. This is all very reminiscent
of the lead up to the Iraq war.
In an eerie coincidence, Michael R. Gordon, who with Judith Miller helped sell the
Iraq WMD story to Americans,
coauthored the New York Times April 4th article on Assad's alleged sarin attack at Khan Sheikhun.
To help sell the sarin narrative, the US media brought on a doctor to describe the alleged attack
that has been
accused of helping kidnap journalists in his work with extremists.
When the US investigated its own airstrike in Mosul this March, it took a number of days before
it admitted it had killed hundreds of civilians. Yet, guilt was immediately assigned in the Khan
Sheikhun attack.
In 2013, the US media also rushed to the conclusion Assad used sarin in a horrific incident in
Ghouta. The US was on the verge of attacking Assad then, but Obama decided against it. Obama
claimed he held off because US intelligence voiced skepticism about Assad's guilt.
The UN investigation on the Ghouta attack took almost a month and even its conclusions have been
disputed.
In December of 2013, Seymour Hersh published a lengthy investigation into the 2013 attack in Ghouta
and found reason to doubt Assad's responsibility for attack. He was forced to publish it in the London
Review of Books after the New York Times and the Washington Post refused to run it.
He reported
that classified US reports claimed that Syria's al Qaeda affiliate had "mastered the mechanics
of creating sarin".
A month after Hersh's piece appeared, a MIT
study cast further doubt on the US government's story by demonstrating that the rockets used
in the Ghouta attack couldn't have flown as far as the US government claimed.
Ted Postol, one of the authors of the study said, "We were within a whisker of war based on egregious
errors."
In this latest alleged gas attack, a few individuals have dared question the state narrative.
The journalist Robert Parry has recently
claimed
there is much to be made of the fact that Mike Pompeo, the CIA Director, wasn't among those helping
sell this latest sarin story to the American people. He believes it indicates doubt in the CIA over
Assad's involvement.
Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, has raised
skepticism over Assad's involvement. He says rebels have had chemical weapons facilities in Syria
and some of the witnesses' statements describe a strong smell during the attack, which indicates
something other than sarin was used.
The Canadian government originally
called for an investigation and stopped short of blaming Assad at the UN, but then later championed
Trump's strikes.
Groups like Organizations for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and Human Rights Watch are still
investigating the alleged attack in Khan Sheikhun.
Whether these groups or others will be able to conduct an independent investigation is not known.
But in usual fashion, the US had no interest in investigating facts, which may provide the wrong
answers.
It's possible that Assad carried out the attack, but just because he's a reprehensible figure
doesn't mean there is no need to present evidence and conduct an independent investigation.
What's clear now is that the US attack
benefitted jihadi groups, has made further US military action more likely, and has increased
the chances of a direct military confrontation with Russia. All of these results are very dangerous.
Future US military action in Syria should be resisted with popular pressure. History shows we
can't count on the media or pundits to act as the voice of reason.
Join the
debate on Facebook
Paul Gottinger is a journalist based in Madison, WI whose work focuses on the Middle
East. He can be reached via Twitter @paulgottinger
or email: [email protected]
"... Once again reiterating the policy confusion over Syria, Tillerson said at the weekend that the defeat of Islamic State remained the U.S. priority, while the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said that "regime change" in Syria was also a priority for Trump. ..."
"... "The Americans say they agree, but there's nothing to show for it behind (the scenes). They are absent from this and are navigating aimlessly in the dark," said a senior European diplomat, who declined to be named. ..."
"... They will also discuss Libya. Italy is hoping for vocal support for a United Nations-backed government in Tripoli which has struggled to establish its authority even in the city, let alone in the rest of the violence-plagued north African country. ..."
While the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson seem unable
to agree on what the right policy is regarding Syria and specifically Assad, with the former saying
a top priority of Trump is to oust Assad, while the latter claimed over the weekend that the Islamic
State is the key concern while Assad's fate and that the
people of Syria should
decide Assad's fate, Russia is not waiting for clarification.
On Monday morning, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that U.S. Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson was not due to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin when he visits
Moscow later this week. He will meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov however, Peskov said.
"So far there is no meeting with Tillerson on the president's schedule," Peskov told reporters
in a phone call. "We never announce such meetings, whether they will take place or not – we won't
announce it."
The Kremlin spokesman assured reporters though that if there is such a plan, media would be "properly
notified."
Commenting on U.S. missile strikes against Syria last week, Peskov said the action had shown Washington's
total unwillingness to cooperate on Syria. He said renewed calls for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
to step down would not help to resolve the crisis.
"The US side thus has demonstrated a complete unwillingness to somehow cooperate on Syria and
take into account each others' interests and concerns," Peskov said, while commenting on the suspension
of the Memorandum on Air Safety in the aftermath of the US missile strike on Syrian military airfield
overnight on Thursday.
"There is no other alternative," to peace talks in Geneva and Astana, Peskov said.
Meanwhile Tillerson, who on Monday was in Italy for a meeting of G7 foreign ministers in Tuscany,
said the United States will hold responsible anyone who commits crimes against humanity,
just days after the U.S. military unexpectedly attacked Syria. We assume US drone operators, whose
actions have caused thousands of innocents deaths over the past decade, will be exempts from this
"responsibility."
While prior to the April 7 missile strikes President Donald Trump had indicated he would be less
interventionist than his predecessors and willing to overlook human rights abuses if it was in U.S.
interests, Tillerson said the United States would not let such crimes go unchallenged. "We rededicate
ourselves to holding to account any and all who commit crimes against the innocents anywhere in the
world," he told reporters while commemorating a 1944 German Nazi massacre in Sant'Anna di Stazzema.
As Reuters adds,
European ministers are eager to hear whether Washington is now committed to overthrowing Assad, who
is backed by Russia. They also want the United States to put pressure on Moscow to distance itself
from Assad.
Once again reiterating the policy confusion over Syria, Tillerson said at the
weekend that the defeat of Islamic State remained the U.S. priority, while the U.S. Ambassador to
the United Nations Nikki Haley said that "regime change" in Syria was also a priority for Trump.
The mixed messages have confused and frustrated European allies, who are eager for full U.S. support
for a political solution based on a transfer of power in Damascus.
"The Americans say they agree, but there's nothing to show for it behind (the scenes). They
are absent from this and are navigating aimlessly in the dark," said a senior European diplomat,
who declined to be named.
Italy, Germany, France and Britain have invited foreign ministers from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, United
Arab Emirates, Jordan and Qatar to sit down with the G7 group on Tuesday morning to discuss Syria.
All oppose Assad's rule.
The foreign ministers' discussions in Tuscany will prepare the way for a leaders' summit in Sicily
at the end of May where foreign ministers will also talk about growing tensions with North Korea,
as the United States moves a navy strike group near the Korean peninsula amid concerns over Pyongyang's
nuclear ambitions.
They will also discuss Libya. Italy is hoping for vocal support for a United Nations-backed government
in Tripoli which has struggled to establish its authority even in the city, let alone in the rest
of the violence-plagued north African country. The Trump administration has not yet defined a clear
policy and Rome fears Washington may fall into step with Egypt and Russia, which support general Khalifa Haftar, a powerful figure in eastern Libya.
Arnaldo Claudio, a retired senior US Military Police officer, discusses his
2005 investigation of human rights abuses of detainees in Tal Afar, in a camp commanded by then-Colonel
H.R. McMaster, whom Claudio threatened to arrest.
According to Claudio, detainees were kept in overcrowded conditions, handcuffed, deprived of food
and water, and soiled by their own urine and feces.
A so-called "good behavior program" was implemented by McMaster, that held detainees indefinitely
(beyond a rule requiring release after 2 weeks) unless they provided "actionable intelligence."
It is hard to underestimate the paucity of objective information coming from Syria.
Wars always have their propaganda machine feeding media sources, from the Israeli Army's largely
false assertions that Hamas used human shields during the 2014 Gaza War to Robert McNamara's claim
that American campaigns were leading to success in Vietnam. But rarely has the public been fed and
believed information from a rebel opposition dominated by terrorist groups, as is the case in the
Syrian Civil War. The lack of the civil war's neutral information may be the case in the recent images
we saw from apparent chemical attacks in Khan Sheikhoun, Idlib province, Syria, where Al-Nusra is
the most powerful opposition group.
The Syrian opposition has been trying to get the US to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
since the beginning of the conflict. After the US's "leading from behind" in the NATO-led overthrow
of Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi, the Syrian opposition assumed that Assad's head would be next on
the US's chopping block. But this would not come to pass.
It should be remembered that these initial anti-Assad protests were certainly legitimate acts
of dissent and the Assad regime overreacted with disproportionate violence. In response, protesters
grew in number and the regime increased its violence, leading to the development of an armed opposition,
shortly after which the US, Europe and Gulf States called for Assad to step down. Though receiving
arms and funding from its international supporters, the rebel opposition had trouble coalescing and
remained highly disorganized, during which time terrorist groups, such as al-Nusra, ISIS and Ahrar
al Sham, established themselves in Syria. These terrorist groups were far more organized and effective
at fighting than the discombobulated opposition and soon became the principal anti-regime actors
in Syria. Thousands of disaffected fighters from the "moderate" opposition joined these terrorist
groups, as they proved to be the most effective fighting forces against Assad.
This brings us back to the informational vacuum that is the Syrian Civil War. On the one hand,
Russian, Syrian and Iranian state news continuously depicting Assad's war on "terrorists," which
is not entirely true – the opposition is not fully composed of jihadists. Interestingly, Assad and
his supporters used the same "terrorist" designation early in the conflict, when there were few terrorist
groups involved, as there are now. On the other side, there is rebel media, consisting of White Helmets
(pro-Assad media shows members of the White Helmets holding weapons next to ISIS members and the
White Helmets cinematographer had been previously barred from entering the United States under Obama)
and other partisans supporting the ouster of Assad.
While some non-mainstream Western journalists are occasionally based with the Assad regime, it
suffices to say that they usually only present one side of the story – the pro-regime one – and tend
to already be partial towards the regime. In opposition-held territory, journalists rarely, if ever,
dare to venture. This is due to safety concerns of reporting from regions where "moderate" opposition
groups often ally and commingle with more powerful terrorist groups. The result is an absence of
verifiable, unbiased information emerging from the Syrian conflict.
Rather than acknowledging this complexity and the difficulty of discerning the veracity of information
emerging from Syria, the Western media often plays footage it receives from the opposition; an opposition
that even US government officials have long acknowledged is terrorist-dominated.
This level of gullibility that the Western media has towards rebel footage is quite astounding.
For instance, it would be like relying on propaganda footage taken by Bin Laden and spreading it
as though it were factual.
With the recent chemical weapons attack footage, there is a significant chance that we're being
played by al-Nusra, or even by the "moderate" opposition. Then again, reality could be closer to
what we are told/shown: a brutal chemical attack by the Syrian regime was orchestrated on the people
of Khan Sheikhoun.
Even if the latter were true, brutal as this maybe, it is far less harrowing than the totality
of the Syrian Civil War that has killed approximately a half million people. The goal should be stopping
the war, rather reacting to what amounts to less than a pinprick that took less than 100 lives.
It should also make us question how we respond to digital information that we receive today, amidst
a cacophony of news images. How does it affect us?
If one recalls, the events which seemed to push the West into beginning the campaign against ISIS
in September 2014, were the horrible images fed to the media by terrorists (again?) showing the decapitation
of journalist James Foley and other Americans. Should video recordings that are designed to incite
us, the viewer, have their intended effect? Obama's airstrikes seemed to serve ISIS's purpose, increasing
their popularity and allure for young disaffected Muslim men, who were often marginalized in Western
societies.
This has happened against in April 2017, after President Donald Trump viewed images from the Khan
Sheikhoun attack and immediately reversed his more realistic policy of not supporting regime change,
through launching 59 Tomahawk missiles at the Syrian government airbase of Shayrat. Should we reflexively
react to images that emotionally move us? Or would a clear, concise strategy towards terrorism and
peacebuilding in the region serve us better?
Trump's strike on Syria government forces also makes us consider how American politicians and
the public react to military strikes – worryingly, it is with utmost reverence. While Democrats and
even some Republicans have compulsively criticized Trump for alleged Russia ties and seeking US-Russia
rapprochement; orchestrating a military strike receives support from an overwhelming majority.
Whether this is a "one-off" strike against the Syrian government or may escalate into further
conflict with Syria, and potentially Russia, remains to be seen. One thing is for certain, it has
temporarily increased the popularity of a failing administration, helped coalesce a fractured Republican
Party and neutered the hostile Democratic opposition.
The question of whether this Tomahawk strike will prove to be a kind of Gulf of Tonkin event,
leading the US to a path of embroiled long-term conflict in Syria – that question remains open.
Whatever the future may hold, we should try to remember this simple fact: when there are no independent
observers on the ground in a conflict, one should be wary of the information presented.
Peter Crowley is a recent graduate from the Northeastern University Global Studies' Conflict Resolution
MS program. He works as a
Workflow Coordinator for a prominent library science company. His writings
can be found in Boston Literary Magazine, Mint Press News, (several publications in) Wilderness House
Literary Review, Mondoweiss, Green Fuse Press, Inquiries Journal, and a periodical publication of
the Brookline, MA Historical Society.
While it wouldn't be unusual for Syria to bomb targets belonging to al-Qaeda's Nusra Front in
the Idlib Province with airstrikes, a big hole in the US-backed allegations of a "chemical weapons
attack" by the Syrian military is that there was no reason for such a strike.
Administration officials are trying to manufacture one, with an unnamed "senior official" today
delivering a briefing to the media claiming that the Syrian military was afraid of a rebel offensive
in the Hama Province, and launched the attack against the rebels' rear support areas for operational
purposes.
This new narrative, that the strike was done for operational reasons,, seemingly contradicts previous
claims that Syria attacked civilians with chemical weapons for no reason at all, and when pressed
by reporters, the US official was clearly shaken, insisting the attacks were for operational purposes,
but not against militarily significant targets, which of course wouldn't make sense.
On top of this, the US narrative's initial premise is faulty, as the Hama offensive had already
ground to a halt two weeks prior to the putative Syrian attack, and Syrian forces appeared well on
their way to recovering lost territory from the rebels.
Small tit-for-tat offensives and counteroffensives on the frontier between government and rebel
forces are common enough at any rate, that the losing a handful of villages in northern Hama would
not have sparked such an act of desperation, meaning the US claim is not credible.
If anything, the underlying assumptions make Russia's own narrative of conventional attacks against
al-Qaeda's Nusra Front make even more sense, since the US apparently assessed the area targeted as
having operational significance to the jihadist rebels.
The tone of the conference was polite, with both sides emphasizing current
problems with bilateral relati ons and the need to improve on the current "low
point," but in addressing questions from reporters, the answers almost exclusively
needled the other side, underscoring how deeply divided the nations are.
Tillerson continued to hype accusations of a Syrian "gas attack" last week, though
he admitted when pressed that his repeated accusations of Russian involvement or
at least complicity in the incident weren't based on any "firm" information that
the US possesses.
On top of that, Tillerson complained of Syria's use of cluster bombs in the
civil war, arguing they are "designed to maim." The US, of course, also has
rejected the global cluster munition ban, and has routinely used them in their
various wars.
But the most tense moment was likely the talk of interference in the 2016 US
elections, with Tillerson insisting that Russia had done so, and that more
sanctions might be warranted. Lavrov fired back that the allegations were
slanderous, and pushed for actual evidence.
The demand for evidence of US accusations was a big talking point for Lavrov,
who urged an impartial, international investigation into the putative gas attack,
instead of just drawing conclusions and reacting before the information is all in.
Lavrov went on to criticize the US impulse to impose regime change in general,
citing a long list of US failures dating back to Serbia, the 2003 invasion of
Iraq, the NATO regime change in Libya, and culminating with the establishment of,
and virtually immediate collapse of, South Sudan.
"... However, it is now quite obvious that "a number of intelligence sources have made contradictory assessments, saying the preponderance of evidence suggests that Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels were at fault, either by orchestrating an intentional release of a chemical agent as a provocation or by possessing containers of poison gas that ruptured during a conventional bombing raid." [Robert Parry - Trump's 'Wag the Dog' Moment ] ..."
"... According to Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson's well informed sources, the explanation presented by the Russians is the most likely scenario. ..."
"... I would probably have missed the meaning of these few words if it was not for the fact that a well informed source has told me last night that the US will indeed seek a no-fly zone on the entire part of Syria West of the Euphrates. ..."
"Assad's military has gained a decisive advantage over the rebels and he had just scored a major
diplomatic victory with the Trump administration's announcement that the U.S. was no longer seeking
'regime change' in Syria. The savvy Assad would know that a chemical weapon attack now would likely
result in U.S. retaliation and jeopardize the gains that his military has achieved with Russian and
Iranian help. ( ) But logic and respect for facts no longer prevail inside Official Washington, nor
inside the mainstream U.S. news media."
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson - Former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell - does not believe the official
narrative of the 'Syrian chemical attack'. Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi agrees and describes
the story as nothing short of a "sham". Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY
Last Thursday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson claimed the U.S. Intelligence Community had assessed
with a "high degree of confidence" that the Syrian government forces had unleashed a toxic chemical
bomb against innocent civilians in Khan Sheikhoun in Syria's Idlib Governate.
However, it is now quite obvious that "a number of intelligence sources have made contradictory
assessments, saying the preponderance of evidence suggests that Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels were at
fault, either by orchestrating an intentional release of a chemical agent as a provocation or by
possessing containers of poison gas that ruptured during a conventional bombing raid." [Robert Parry
- Trump's
'Wag the Dog' Moment ]
According to Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson's well informed sources, the explanation presented by
the Russians is the most likely scenario. Wilkerson also confirmed that the intelligence on this
ISIS depot had been shared prior to the strike with both US and Russian Military.
"In fact most of my sources are telling me - including members of the team that monitor global
chemical weapons, including people in Syria, including people in the US Intelligence community
- that what most likely happened (and this intelligence was shared with the US by Russia in accordance
with the de-conflicting agreement) is that they hit a warehouse that they intended to hit and
had told both sides, Russia and the US, that they were going to hit. This is a serious air force,
of course. And this warehouse was alleged to have ISIS supply in it and indeed it probably did.
And some of these supplies were precursors for chemicals (or possibly an alternative they were
phosphates for fertilizing) Conventional bombs hit the warehouse and the wind dispersed these
ingredients and killed some people."
"I'm hearing from sources on the ground in the Middle East, people who are intimately familiar
with the intelligence that is available who are saying that the essential narrative that we're
all hearing about the Syrian government or the Russians using chemical weapons on innocent civilians
is a sham."
"The intelligence confirms pretty much the account that the Russians have been giving which
is that they hit a warehouse where the rebels – now these are rebels that are, of course, connected
with Al Qaeda – where the rebels were storing chemicals of their own and it basically caused an
explosion that resulted in the casualties. Apparently the intelligence on this is very clear."
Yesterday, the former DIA officer posted the following analysis:
"The American media and many American political leaders, Republicans and Democrats, are a complete
disgrace as they have cheered Donald Trump's illegal and unjustified order to launch of cruise
missiles against a backwater Syrian Air Force outpost. The American public are being sold a profound
and dangerous lie via a massive propaganda campaign that, without one shred of empirical evidence,
insists that the Air Force of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dropped a chemical weapon for the
express purpose of killing civilians. That did not happen. There is no intelligence supporting
this claim by the Trump Administration." [
Where Are the Heroes?]
A cryptic statement around the 5′ mark, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson drops a strange comment:
"Assad has a number of ways to achieve this - Including artillery - which by the way a no-fly
zone would not stop "
I would probably have missed the meaning of these few words if it was not for the fact that a
well informed source has told me last night that the US will indeed seek a no-fly zone on the entire
part of Syria West of the Euphrates.
About Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson
Lawrence B. "Larry" Wilkerson (born 15 June 1945) is a retired United States Army Colonel and
former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wilkerson has criticized
many aspects of the Iraq War, including his own preparation of Powell's presentation to the UN.
"My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional
life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United
Nations Security Council."
"... "The perspective from the US is supported by facts we have that are conclusive that the chemical attack was planned and directed and executed by Syrian regime forces," Tillerson said, adding that the "reign of the Assad family is coming to an end" and "Russia perhaps has the best means of helping the Assad regime recognise this reality". ..."
"The perspective from the US is supported by facts we have that
are conclusive that the chemical attack was planned and directed and executed by Syrian regime
forces," Tillerson said, adding that the "reign of the Assad family is coming to an end" and
"Russia perhaps has the best means of helping the Assad regime recognise this reality".
a classical US-executed false flag a Syrian strike on a location which happened to be storing some
kind of gas, possibly chlorine, but most definitely not sarin. This option requires you to believe
in coincidences. I don't. Unless, the US fed bad intelligence to the Syrians and got them to bomb
a location where the US knew that toxic gas was stored.
What is evident is that the Syrians did not drop chemical weapons from their aircraft and that
no chemical gas was ever stored at the al-Shayrat airbase. There is no footage showing any munitions
or containers which would have delivered the toxic gas. As for US and other radar recordings, all
they can show is that an aircraft was in the sky, its heading, altitude and speed. There is no way
to distinguish a chemical munition or a chemical attack by means of radar.
Whatever option you chose, the Syrian government is obviously and self-evidently innocent of the
accusation of having used chemical weapons. This is most likely a false flag attack.
Also, and just for the record, the US had been considering exactly such a false flag attack in
the past. You can read everything about this plan
here and
here .
The attack:
American and Russian sources both agree on the following facts: 2 USN ships launched 59 Tomahawk
cruise missiles at the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria. The US did not consult with the Russians on
a political level, but through military channels the US gave Russia 2 hours advance warning. At this
point the accounts begin to differ.
The Americans say that all missiles hit their targets. The Russians say that only 23 cruise missiles
hit the airfield. The others are "unaccounted for". Here I think that it is indisputable that the
Americans are lying and the Russians are saying the truth: the main runway is intact (the Russian
reporters provided footage proving this) and only one taxiway was hit. Furthermore, the Syrian Air
Force resumed its operations within 24 hours. 36 cruise missiles have not reached their intended
target. That is a fact.
It is also indisputable that there were no chemical munitions at this base as nobody, neither
the Syrians nor the Russian reporters, had to wear any protective gear.
The missiles used in the attack, the Tomahawk, can use any combination of three guidance systems:
GPS, inertial navigation and terrain mapping. There is no evidence and even no reports that the Russians
shot even a single air-defense missile. In fact, the Russians had signed a memorandum with the USA
which specifically comitting Russia NOT to interfere with any US overflights, manned or not, over
Syria (and vice versa). While the Tomahawk cruise missile was developed in the 1980s, there is no
reason to believe that the missiles used had exceeded their shelf live and
there is even evidence that they were built in 2014 . The Tomahawk is known to be accurate and
reliable. There is absolutely no basis to suspect that over half of the missiles fired simply spontaneously
malfunctioned. I therefore see only two possible explanations for what happened to the 36 missing
cruise missiles:
Explanation A: Trump never intended to really hit the Syrians hard and this entire attack was
just "for show" and the USN deliberately destroyed these missiles over the Mediterranean. That would
make it possible for Trump to appear tough while not inflicting the kind of damage which would truly
wreck his plans to collaborate with Russia. I do not believe in this explanation and I will explain
why in the political analysis below.
Explanation B: The Russians could not legally shoot down the US missiles. Furthermore, it is incorrect
to assume that these cruise missiles flew a direct course from the Mediterranean to their target
(thereby almost overflying the Russian radar positions). Tomahawk were specifically built to be able
to fly tangential courses around some radar types and they also have a very low RCS (radar visibility),
especially in the frontal sector. Some of these missiles were probably flying low enough not to be
seen by Russian radars, unless the Russians had an AWACS in the air (I don't know if they did). However,
since the Russians were warned about the attack they had plenty of time to prepare their electronic
warfare stations to "fry" and otherwise disable at least part of the cruise missiles. I do believe
that this is the correct explanation. I do not know whether the Russian were technically unable to
destroy and confuse the 23 missiles which reached the base or whether a political decision was taken
to let less than half of the cruise missiles through in order to disguise the Russian role in the
destruction of 36 missiles.
"... It appears that US foreign policy is in turmoil and no longer well managed. The key goal has been to keep the US dollar as a reserve currency and every state in-line with their privately owned central bank. ..."
"... The petrol dollar is no longer working and debts are out-of-control. Libya and Operation Odyssey Dawn helped bring down a functional government but remember the first thing they did was establish a new private central bank and get rid of an independent one. Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan still have an independent bank and people at the top don't like that. What a coincidence that having an independent central bank and being an enemy of America are the same. ..."
"... everybody's fed up with the neocons... the prospect of war with Russia makes americans sick to their stomachs, jared and ivanka have three little kids and they probably love them ..."
"... world leaders are fed up, including xi ..."
"... what makes you so sure Trump isn't Stupid? He is way over his head, he has no idea of policy, process nor much else. Our one hope was that he was isolationist, but I think that ship has sailed... ..."
"... I think at least part of this is because some of the things he naively thought were problems are actually dilemmas. Problems can be worked out or smoothed over by methods he's familiar with and comfortable with; dilemmas, not so much. ..."
"... As I see it little of the Syria policy has much to do with Syria policy. We see a naked struggle for power in Washington. This struggle has been brewing at least since the Syria operation started came out more in the open, more or less, in the 2013 false flag gas attack. ..."
"... You saw there the marriage of both Democrats and Republicans in pushing for War. ..."
"... This was the first time I've seen such an open and obvious soft coup within the National Security State and Obama was stripped of his power. Part of why Carter did this is because everyone knew that Trump could not win so Clinton would hit the ground running and go into full-tilt war. Washington was held by the War Party and when Trump entered Washington he entered a town bent on War! Inc. all the way every day. ..."
"... I'm guessing that the War Party made Trump an offer he could not refuse and he complied ..."
"... The office of the President does not grant you automatic rule over the Washington establishment as many people falsely believe--that power must be seized and few Presidents have been able to do that. ..."
"... Just so you know--by "Washington" I mean the entire apparatus of the Deep State which includes major corporations, foreign oligarchs, and governments like Saudi Arabia, Israel and the EU all who favor the War Party. This way they can utterly ignore the interests and prefernces of the American people whose interests are of no account in Washington. ..."
"... The current US foreign policy depends on who last spoke to the president? Oh wait, wasn't that Ronnie 'Shoot first, ask questions later' Raygun? ..."
"... Or Trump was just another Obama: a tabula rasa on which a frustrated American public could project their desires, but who in reality was just another sell-out. ..."
"... A bipartisan group called the war party now has control of the presidency and executive powers. The major flip flops in policy recently is the outward signs of the coup. Policy will soon steady to that of a tafiri suicide bomber. ..."
"... On further thoughts, it is clear that there is no coherent persistent US foreign policy. Therefore Russia cannot trust a word the US says, especially in relation to issues concerning Russia's national security. ..."
"... If the rumored deal is serious, it shows the west has either no concept of what Russia has been saying for years or they believe all leaders can be bought off for the right price. ..."
"... Would Russia trade Assad for the removal of the supposed 'missile defense' (actually nuke-capable first strike) systems in Poland and Romania? I doubt it as those systems can be dealt with in other ways without compromising the prime mission of defeating the terrorists in Syria. ..."
"... There is nothing the US can say now. It has totally destroyed its negotiating credibility in the eyes of Russia. All it can do is act. It either really supports the removal of all terrorists in Syria (no chance now?) or it tries to prevent Russia and allies destroying them. And that will mean military intervention. ..."
"... US is pushing to launch strikes against Syrian gov. Much propaganda build up now in prep for next chemical false flag attacks. These nuts are ready to go to war against Syria Air strikes, missile strikes) to destroy the Syrian government even with Russia in Syria. ..."
"... I suggest there are multiple agenda with one over-riding (or perhaps underwriting) theme that joins them all -- follow the money and it leads to the Saudi Regime (and other related gas stations in the region) ..."
"... Media: silence when necessary -- 9/11; Yemen, little prince-lings delivering ISIS 'go' drugs in private jets via Lebanon; the weekly beheading and hand removal medieval style -- noise when necessary, "Assad Must Go!" at EVERY opportunity etc. I suggest it highly likely that all globalist politicians get a $kickback for the words sprouted in accord with the main themes. Easy to test the theory: just nuke Riyadh and see how quickly the ex-goat herders from the 11th century STFU. The war on Syria (and Islamic modernity) would end over night. ..."
"... Neocons and enough rope: there may be a bit of that as well, but I suggest it is 3rd to the previous listed. What does the U.S. administration want with regards to Syria? -- Whatever the $money wants, and with an Economic Depression underway, the money wants distraction most of all. Bread and circus. ..."
"... In ancient Rome they crowded the Colosseum to watch the blood sports -- now they just tune in on CNN & Co for their daily dose of fact-less Hollywood narrative. Syrian kid gassed, and it's the end of the world snowflake sobbing stupor; Yemen, Gaza, Iraqi, Afghani, (and the list goes on) and it's the big yawn if it even gets a mention between the sponsor's adverts. ..."
"... Nations don't exist anymore, in practical terms -- as George Carlin said... the owners ... https://youtu.be/rsL6mKxtOlQ ..."
"... Trumps rush to judgment instead of attacking fake news, as he has in the past, shows that the 'fix is in'. In that light, Trump's business dealings with Qataris, Turks, etc. are suspect. ..."
"... b, "Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan." Everone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" [ ..."
"... All your answers can be found in Oded Yinon's 1982 plan to bust up the ME so Israel would be the only remaining dominant influence, and make it easier for that Apartheid nightmare to steal more land. ..."
"... The US policy is to install a pro-Western leader in Syria. An impossibility IMO but they won't stop trying. Tillerson is going to Moscow to deliver an ultimatum. ..."
"... Difficult to guess, what is rolling inside Trumps brains. Author William Engdhal thinks, that " Trumps´s Job is to Prepare America for War ." ..."
"... I'll elaborate later why I "hate the game, not the players". But, thanks to reading strategic policy plans (Yinon Plan, Wolfowitz Doctrine, PNAC policy document) and the "news" cohesively (rather than as unrelated events the way Big Brother Media frames them), the grand story arc in the ME seems to be unfolding in a manner consistent with Yinon's vision. Is the consistency due to (a) causation or (b) correlation? ..."
"... I'm afraid Trumps commitment to a non-interventionist agenda was only superficial. As a businessman he saw a niche in the political market (the interests of working class people, so against illegal immigration, offshoring jobs and neocon interventions) and he played it for what it's worth. An additional benefit is that it was contra Obama who he hates. ..."
"... Now that Bannon is downsized too, there is only the same neoliberal-neocon administration left that we had with Obama, Bush and Clinton. ..."
"... It looks like there is no deep strategy behind the sudden switch concerning Syria. Trump just wants to look good and he saw an opportunity to get it in an easy way. ..."
"... I've never thought that Trump was capable of formulating his own plans. I thought it was clear from the campaign that he didn't have mastery of the details of any of his businesses or government policies to fend off attacks. He appeared to be the type of executive who left the details and the decision-making to his VP's. If you can surround him with the right people on his staff, they would essentially run the ship. ..."
"... Was Obama 'forced' to give up his populist progressive agenda? No. He proved to be a servant of TPTB. His progressiveness was a shame. Obama barely tried to fight back, but his adoring fans made excuses for him at every turn. 11-dimension chess became a joke. ..."
"... Trump has now proven to be the Republican Obama. He wasn't 'forced' to abandon 'America First'. That is a canard. And he is/will reap financial benefits from serving wealthy ME interests. ..."
"... The plan is to throw the neocon controlled media off their track. The momentum against Trump was strong - led partly hysteria around the Russia election meddling propaganda. Even Flynn had to be sacrificed. For Trump to survive, he knows he has to throw the media off its track and being the master of media manipulation that he is, he has just managed that. Look at the headlines in NYT or WaPo or the other neocon controlled media in the last few days. The round the clock negative coverage of Trump has been stopped in its tracks. In fact, in WaPo Robert Kagan recently wrote a post praising Trump and saying more is needed. Of course, he wants more bloodshed in the mideast. ..."
"... In my opinion, there will be no escalation from here on. Trump has been silent on Syria. His various officials will go off in different directions and everyone (especially the neocons) will believe what they want to - just look at that Kagan article - it's so dripping with hope. That gives him the time to consolidate and carry on his own strategy. He just needs time and with this gambit, he has got it. ..."
"... Greg Bacon - I agree with you 100% (the Yinon Plan is the key). The Zionist influence in the US is scary ... I recently watched a video (youtube) / watch?v=hUJHA9VhUZE where Roger Mattson talked about his book "Stealing the Bomb" - how Israel acquired the knowledge and material to build their nuclear arsenal in the US ... what I found extremely disturbing is the fact, that after the AEC, found that 94 kg of HEU (highly enriched uranium) was "missing" in 1965, what happened? Nothing. ..."
"... In 1968, the Tel Aviv CIA-station chief collected some samples outside Dimona and sent them to a forensic lab. Result: definitely of US origin, they could even tell from which plant because the unusual enrichment level (97,7%) did exactly match. So finally, the FBI starts to investigate .. (meanwhile Israel is producing plenty of plutionium...)and finds clear evidence of who did it and why ... ..."
"... LBJ pretended it did not happen (he also knew what the Zionists had done to the USS Liberty but ordered it a "state secret" after the Zionists told him, if he spilled the beans, Jewish money would dry up for the Dems).. the relevant documents were classified for 50 yrs ..all this "frustrates US democracy" says Mattson ... (you bet) ..."
"... So the Zionists did exactly what they accuse Iran of ... they do this all the time and then play the moral outrage card ... Zionism is a perfidious form of fascism ... the "Neo-cons" are all Zionists (or supporters of Zionism) so in reality fascism is driving US foreign policy ... (Allan Dulles did not bring all these Nazi-war criminals to the US for nothing ....) ..."
"Trump was grab by is pussy by the deep state, now we are in a deep shit :)"
What does the U.S. administration want with regards to Syria?
The elements were clear just a few days ago. The U.S. would split off the east and set up a Kurdish
enclave which it would then occupy with the help of proxy forces. It would use the leverage to push
for political regime change in western Syria. Israel would occupy another piece of the Golan.
While that looked somewhat favorable for the U.S. in the short term it was bad long term strategy.
U.S. forces in the east would be surrounded by hostiles, cut off from the sea and under permanent
guerilla attack from various opposing forces. But it looked at least like a viable short term way
forward.
The new strategy, which may not be one at all, and the new U.S. commitment is
all over the place :
As various officials have described it, the United States will intervene only when chemical weapons
are used - or any time innocents are killed. It will push for the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad
of Syria - or pursue that only after defeating the Islamic State. America's national interest
in Syria is to fight terrorism. Or to ease the humanitarian crisis there. Or to restore stability.
I don't get it. The cacophony of the last days does not make any sense. There is no viable endgame
I see here that would be advantageous for Trump or general U.S. borg policy - neither internationally
nor domestically - neither short term nor long term. Trump is now losing the "America First" followers
he will need to win another election.
Due to the anti-Russian panic Trump
surrendered to the neocons . Suddenly the borg is lauding him for a senseless escalation. The
neocons want chaos but chaos is not a plan. There seems to be no plan that will help any cause.
There is no chance that the U.S. can split Syria from its allies, Hizbullah, Iran and Russia.
While Russia is under pressure in Kaliningrad, Crimea and Syria it has lived through way worse situation
and these have always increased its determination. I don't see how or why it would fold now.
Trump had an intelligent strategy when he won against Clinton. He deftly use his advantages. There
are few advantages that he has and can play with regards to Middle East policy. Use pure military
force? That's not a strategy, just tactical game play. Though the generals who run his cabinet may
not be capable to see that. If he destroys Syrian then Lebanon and Jordan will also fall to radicals.
Other countries will follow. Iraq would again throw out all U.S. troops. Would the U.S., or Israel,
want that? Why?
Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan.
Help me out. What are his thoughts behind this. Or are there really none at all.
It's the only viable explanation, it also appears Trumps lost his twitter password. Lost the
offhand style and is now being managed.
His plan is survive, i think that's as far as it gets now, he cannot control US foreign policy
under any circumstances.
Touched on it somewhat in the open thread discussions, b.
The administrations motivations appear to be purely domestic political, defensive, under siege,
and extremely short term reactionary.
The leaders of the Empires various vassal States openly declare they're just as confused, too.
Should this incoherent non doctrine, of ' Make it up as you go along from day-to-day
', be formally christened, the 'Trump Doctrine', perhaps ?
Ah, we're the world's sole remaining superpower, supposedly, displaying our true colors, deep
omnipotence and thorough deliberative forward planning, for all the world to see ... /snark
b, 'Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan. Help
me out. What are his thoughts behind this. Or are there really none at all.'
tee-rump is stupid. he has no plan. he's reacting. everyone who thinks he/she has
a plan is pushing it as tee-rump's plan. tee-rump lets them all go forward - probably isn't even
aware of them all - will 'fire' those that fail, 'adopt' any that might not, that at least give
him 'topical relief'.
the fools - the evil clowns - are in power in ac/dc.
It appears that US foreign policy is in turmoil and no longer well managed. The key goal has
been to keep the US dollar as a reserve currency and every state in-line with their privately
owned central bank.
The petrol dollar is no longer working and debts are out-of-control. Libya and Operation
Odyssey Dawn helped bring down a functional government but remember the first thing they did was
establish a new private central bank and get rid of an independent one. Cuba, North Korea, Syria,
and Sudan still have an independent bank and people at the top don't like that. What a coincidence
that having an independent central bank and being an enemy of America are the same.
In any case, it looks like the US is just winging it in Syria; anything to stop Russia, Iran,
and Syria working together in peace. And make sure that central bank ownership is changed. Chaos
may not be great, but it seems to generate profits and achieve goals for people at the top of
the food chain. I do not hear much complaining about Libya. Why not the same for Syria?
Whether or not Trump has a plan, he does have a trump card, Nuclear. After all, the Congress used
it with the conformation process the other day. They might be similar in name only, but the fact
1/2 was used - i.e. the congress - means the U.S. might use the other 1/2. One has to wonder,
just whose side are the pooh-baas really on?
G7 in Italy today; French FM says it is just the calendar chance, but they spoke mainly about
Syria (Tillerson was there before he flies to Moscow). Ayrault says they are 100 percent in agreement
on the plan for Syria with ARAB and TURKISH allies...
i.e. they saved the Merkel-Turkey deal about the million Syrians in Turkey. No question about
Erdogan's policies will be taken. Business as usual.
"Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan."
Absolutely, a "very stupid plan"....... Or he had a plan and that plan was blown away by the
Deep Forces that Trump, obviously ,will not dare to challenge . So much for the "Good All USA
Swamp Cleaning"
So, where is everybody now? On the streets? No, watching TV and eating Burritos.
I don't see this plan working. The question is at what point does Trump give up and try something
else, hopefully before igniting WWIII. Trump is in a real jam. He doesn't really have any ideas/solutions
of his own, his advisors lack any real solutions, and he lacks institutional or public support.
Will he end up surrendering to the borg? He may want to resign. He will try to blame others.
The US attack on Sha'riat airbase turned out to be much less than it was portrayed by the corporate
presstitutes. As we know already, 23 of the 59 Tomahawk missiles reached their targets. Of the
others, about 5 or 6 might have gone astray and the rest could have been intercepted and redirected
by Russian forces near Latakia. The missiles fell around the perimeter of Sha'riat airbase, the
main runway was not damaged and Syrian jets were using it not long after the attack. Russia was
pre-warned of the US attack and managed to evacuate most personnel (as did the Syrians). The Russians
also knew the US attack had been pre-planned even before the Syrian airforce dropped a conventional
bomb on the terrorist warehouse storing sarin gas and chlorine gas components in Idlib.
The whole incident may have been staged in part to buy Trump time and to trick the neocon establishment
on Capitol Hill into believing it has Trump by the short and curlies. Trump has a good opportunity
to gauge the loyalty or treachery of his cabinet and administration, and of Congress, by observing
how they react to the Tomahawk attack.
Also, is it necessarily a given that after the Sha'riat airbase attack, the US will engage
in further attacks on Syrian territory? There's been some news that since the attack, US bombing
flights over Syria have decreased. Perhaps there was some deal-making that we don't know about.
... looks like the US is just winging it in Syria; anything to stop Russia, Iran, and Syria
working together in peace.
Though the actual effect appears to actually be very much the opposite, as well as disrupting
vassal State cohesion/alignment and stiffening resolve among the non-aligned States re blatant,
outright, 'Rogue' conduct.
"trump and putin are setting a trap for the neocons"
the logic runs like this...
everybody's fed up with the neocons... the prospect of war with Russia makes americans
sick to their stomachs, jared and ivanka have three little kids and they probably love them
world leaders are fed up, including xi
so putin and trump will terrorize americans into doing some thinking, and xi is in on the gag
McCain and graham will go down in flames, along with the main media
that is admittedly the bright side... the dark side is: Richard Perle has the negative of trump
and that burro
Given the RF promptly cancelled the de-confliction MOU and communication channel, that means
any US/coalition aircraft in flight over Syria within ~250Km+ of Latakia or Tartus (S400/300+
complexes) are at extreme risk.
This is because those aircraft fly at mid to high altitudes to avoid possible engagement by
numerous Syrian AD SAM/Gun systems captured and in known use by ISIS/AQ & various moderate head-choppers
...
if true US/Coalition have ceased overflights, may not necessarily indicate anything more than
that for now, simple force protection measure in the interim, perhaps.
It is all about who will be the hegemon in the middle east, Apartheid Israeli expansionism in
the West Bank, Golan Heights and beyond, not forgetting Israels claims on the Litani river. Plus
Israels ability to influence the US electoral process through bundlers like Sheldon Adelson and
Haim Saban etc, plus the almost 100% support of Israel in Congress, winning US elections is what
it is all about. Saudi Arabia also has good friends in Congress, just so long as they continue
to use the petro dollar and continue purchasing 100's of billions of dollars on US arms.
Both countries are coming together in their fear of Iran, thinking that Israels military power
and Saudi money will fix everything is delusional. US thinking has it that the 'arc of resistance'
must be defeated and that Syria 'the low hanging fruit' of that coalition shall be the first to
fall, followed by Hezbollah then Iran.
The US realize their hegemony in the region is at stake, that is why they are thrashing about
with futile gestures accusing Syria and Russia in turn of war crimes. In my opinion the 'arc'
will prevail, such is the existential nature of the struggle, the US, Israel/Saudi Arabia and
the head choppers are on the wrong side of history.
what makes you so sure Trump isn't Stupid? He is way over his head, he has no idea of policy,
process nor much else. Our one hope was that he was isolationist, but I think that ship has sailed...
Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan.
I think at least part of this is because some of the things he naively thought were problems
are actually dilemmas. Problems can be worked out or smoothed over by methods he's familiar with
and comfortable with; dilemmas, not so much.
As I see it little of the Syria policy has much to do with Syria policy. We see a naked struggle
for power in Washington. This struggle has been brewing at least since the Syria operation started
came out more in the open, more or less, in the 2013 false flag gas attack.
You saw there the marriage of both Democrats and Republicans in pushing for War.
Against this newly united faction realists in the military and other national security agencies
opposed drastic military action and for three years there was a back and force--sometimes the
War Party held some advantage and sometimes the realists dragged their feet.
In late September of 2016 the realists seemed to have some momentum and the Kerry/Lavrov agreement
was signed. With stunning swiftness the agreement was condemned by the War mongers and SecDef
Carter mutinied and scuttled the agreement within a week.
This was the first time I've seen such an open and obvious soft coup within the National
Security State and Obama was stripped of his power. Part of why Carter did this is because everyone
knew that Trump could not win so Clinton would hit the ground running and go into full-tilt war.
Washington was held by the War Party and when Trump entered Washington he entered a town bent
on War! Inc. all the way every day.
I'm guessing that the War Party made Trump an offer he could not refuse and he complied
and probably convinced himself that he was doing the right thing--what else could he do? The
office of the President does not grant you automatic rule over the Washington establishment as
many people falsely believe--that power must be seized and few Presidents have been able to do
that.
I have no idea if Trump is playing possum and waiting to fight another day or if he is merely
content in being Head of State and letting the bureaucracy (Deep State) run the government without
interference.
Just so you know--by "Washington" I mean the entire apparatus of the Deep State which includes
major corporations, foreign oligarchs, and governments like Saudi Arabia, Israel and the EU all
who favor the War Party. This way they can utterly ignore the interests and prefernces of the
American people whose interests are of no account in Washington.
The current US foreign policy depends on who last spoke to the president? Oh wait, wasn't
that Ronnie 'Shoot first, ask questions later' Raygun?
Given the scary way things are going, so light relief may be in order, so here is a link I
came across of Russian press call in which Lavrov expertly trolls Tillerson.
I think Trump (Bannon) gave a piece of rope to neocon guys in his house and they used it to make
this current mess. Bannon excused himself so other guys can hang themselves without him being
burn. They wanted a fire, they got one.
DS is not stupid enough to really start WW3 and fireplaying guys will ultimately burn at some
moment this whole Bannon stratagem plays out. It looks risky as hell, but given precision of other
guys strategic arms nobody is crazy enough to play too far.
Other side knows this, and just makes fire hotter an hotter - while helping SAA to became more
and more of A and many other steps all around the world. Once this plays out somebody will pay
and I think Trump will not be one paying. He will get out of this a winner, an empathic and wise
leader. And Putin will still be smiling one.
I really have no idea. It does look as if he was finally beaten down by the so-called 'deep
state' (more properly, the oligarchy).
Or Trump was just another Obama: a tabula rasa on which a frustrated American public could
project their desires, but who in reality was just another sell-out.
You are assuming that anyone elected to office has the power to do anything. Politics is merely
a sideshow.
Take Europe as a typical case in point. In the past 40 years, Europe has experienced all manners
of political ideology. From the Marxists and the military in Portugal and Greece to the Fascists
in Spain and all manner of "Democrats" elsewhere.
Yet, the result is exactly the same across the board. We have stagnating wages, a sky rocketing
cost of living, decrepit infrastructure that all result in increasing fiscal and legislative pressure.
Clearly, politics has absolutely no bearing on our quality of life.
Marxists, Fascists and Democrats all subscribe to a policy of perpetual fiscal deficits. No
exception.
Regardless the underlying condition of the economy, Western governments run fiscal deficits
and rack up sovereign debt perpetually.
But in a closed system where there is an entity that has been anointed as the owner of the
currency and where the unit of account is imposed under penalty of law, perpetual deficits have
arithmetical ramifications.
The ramification is the migration of profit towards the owner of the currency.
As profit migrates, so does title and political power.
Essentially, the central bank has been allowed to draw a boundary around society. The central
bank doesn't care what happens within the boundary because their sole role is to push credit into
the system.
Central banks have no other role.
In this regard, the central bank has the most to gain when the economy is faltering.
In this regard too, the roles of the World Bank, the IMF or the UN should become clearer. Hence
the reason, for example, that the UN always, always, alway disburses funds even when corruption
has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the reason that despite subsequent damning reports
by SIGAR, USAid still spends hundreds of millions on white elephants in war zones.
Syria is but a side show. As is Yemen, Iraq, Libya and many other theatres prior.
The end game the transfer of title.
Title is transferred by precipitating chaos.
As you precipitate chaos, the fiscal strain compels the political construct to tighten the
fiscal and legislative screws on people.
In a first instance, this monetary system can only result in the political construct having
to, eventually, fight against the people.
Shortly after that, the political construct will have to fight against the owners of the currency
too. This arrangement however, also builds up and nourishes an increasingly necessary security
apparatus to ensure its own survival.
As the fiscal situation worsens however, the Praetorians will, though gradually, inevitably
take over. The Praetorian Guard has now taken over. That is what is happening in Syria
A bipartisan group called the war party now has control of the presidency and executive powers.
The major flip flops in policy recently is the outward signs of the coup. Policy will soon steady
to that of a tafiri suicide bomber.
I am thinking that the Putin plan of a stalemate is going well ...Most plebs in the west want
the US out of the ME and most in the ME want the US out so its looking like a win win . >)
On further thoughts, it is clear that there is no coherent persistent US foreign policy. Therefore
Russia cannot trust a word the US says, especially in relation to issues concerning Russia's national
security.
There are rumors in the British press that Tillerson is going to make Russia an offer, presumably
one seen by the US as something Russia cannot possibly refuse. The deal in question - give up
Assad in favor of returning to the G7.
This is totally laughable for several reasons.
i) The G7 probably has zero merit to the Russian government. At best, sanctions will be
lifted, but they are actually of benefit to Russia.
ii) Assad per se is not important to Russia. The west really doesn't get that - they are
so trapped in their own made-up world. The Russians are in Syria to kill the terrorists so
they can't be used against Russia sometime later and to preserve the concept of the primacy
of national territorial integrity / self-determination. However, it Assad was replaced before
the terrorists are rmeoved, the possible pro-west replacement could kick Russia out of Syria
before the key part is done. So in that sense, Russia's default is Assad stays.
If the rumored deal is serious, it shows the west has either no concept of what Russia
has been saying for years or they believe all leaders can be bought off for the right price.
Would Russia trade Assad for the removal of the supposed 'missile defense' (actually nuke-capable
first strike) systems in Poland and Romania? I doubt it as those systems can be dealt with in
other ways without compromising the prime mission of defeating the terrorists in Syria.
There is nothing the US can say now. It has totally destroyed its negotiating credibility
in the eyes of Russia. All it can do is act. It either really supports the removal of all terrorists
in Syria (no chance now?) or it tries to prevent Russia and allies destroying them. And that will
mean military intervention.
(Putin)..."We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot
call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs
of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack,"...
..."President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of
the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session
the presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in
Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and
the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," ....
...A separate report of a potential false flag operation in Syria came from the Russian General
Staff, which said militants were transporting toxic agents into several parts of Syria...
US is pushing to launch strikes against Syrian gov. Much propaganda build up now in prep
for next chemical false flag attacks. These nuts are ready to go to war against Syria Air strikes,
missile strikes) to destroy the Syrian government even with Russia in Syria.
"Help me out. What are his thoughts behind this. Or are there really none at all."
---
I suggest there are multiple agenda with one over-riding (or perhaps underwriting) theme
that joins them all -- follow the money and it leads to the Saudi Regime (and other related gas
stations in the region).
Media: silence when necessary -- 9/11; Yemen, little prince-lings delivering ISIS
'go' drugs in private jets via Lebanon; the weekly beheading and hand removal medieval style --
noise when necessary, "Assad Must Go!" at EVERY opportunity etc. I suggest it highly likely that
all globalist politicians get a $kickback for the words sprouted in accord with the main themes.
Easy to test the theory: just nuke Riyadh and see how quickly the ex-goat herders from the 11th
century STFU. The war on Syria (and Islamic modernity) would end over night.
Trump: he looks bored already. Suggest he's just pressed the whiz button on the DC food
processor -- Republicans are acting like they won the election. Wrong, Trump and Bannon and Flynn
won the election. Payback will be the mid-term in 2018 where all 435 seats in the United States
House of Representatives and 34 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate will be contested.
He's moving to hand these parasites back to 'the people' in one fine mess.
Neocons and enough rope: there may be a bit of that as well, but I suggest it is 3rd to
the previous listed. What does the U.S. administration want with regards to Syria? -- Whatever
the $money wants, and with an Economic Depression underway, the money wants distraction most of
all. Bread and circus.
In ancient Rome they crowded the Colosseum to watch the blood sports -- now they just tune
in on CNN & Co for their daily dose of fact-less Hollywood narrative. Syrian kid gassed, and it's
the end of the world snowflake sobbing stupor; Yemen, Gaza, Iraqi, Afghani, (and the list goes
on) and it's the big yawn if it even gets a mention between the sponsor's adverts.
The only way this system of systemic corruption and abomination is going to stop is if/when
the Russians/Chinese and any others simply target their "10,000" nukes on the GPS readings of
the 0.01% cohort of individuals and start the countdown.
Nations don't exist anymore, in practical terms -- as George Carlin said... the owners
... https://youtu.be/rsL6mKxtOlQ
An interesting blog. Brandon seems like someone willing to look beyond normal stereotypes and
has a unique take on current affairs. I'd suggest checking-out some of his other blog post about
the election. He also has information on making a ghillie suit which defeats thermal imaging (FLIR)
– I'm sure this is something all MoA folks will be wearing come summer (snark).
Thanks to the patrons and especially b for keeping this place open and interesting. As a side
note I prefer the commenters who comment on news and not bash each other.
I've been reading aleksandr solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago, but I find I can't finish
it. Too stark and too many moments that make me think the folks in the USA are about to experience
the book first hand. Sigh.
Trumps rush to judgment instead of attacking fake news, as he has in the past, shows that
the 'fix is in'. In that light, Trump's business dealings with Qataris, Turks, etc. are suspect.
Trump's NY-sized ego forces him to seek to dominate. In Trump's world, that means $$$$$. By
servicing wealthy ME interests, he can leverage his business to make billions.
Obama only got a $60m book deal. Trump's 'take' will rival the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play
scheme.
The weak attack on Shayrat was a 'shot across the bow'. Trump sent a signal that further R+6 advances
will not be tolerated. It is a 'one off' only if Putin agrees to a deal.
@34 thanks for the blog recommendation - looks interesting at a first glance.
And I wholeheartedly agree with your statement: "Thanks to the patrons and especially b for
keeping this place open and interesting. As a side note I prefer the commenters who comment on
news and not bash each other."
I don't really see this one unified front when it comes to US foreign policy, one might view this
administration, going forward, as schizophrenic as the last one.
Which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, after all, the US is considered to be
an oligarchy , there are too many influental people, corporations and institutions pulling
the strings of the empire.
The question is, how does one deal with the US considering its mental health issues?
... ... ...
2. Trump controls nothing and never will. When Peter Dale Scott began talking about the Deep State
many years ago he made it clear that the term derived from the Turkish "Donmeh". The donmeh has
always been strpngly crypto Jewish and was the decisive force behind Kemal Attaturk that put the
secular Turkish government in place. The donmeh includes Turkish, Israeli, and Saudi power factions
with differing but allied agendas. The Syria situation is confused because the Turks are deeply
confused about what would be acceptable to them.
... ... ...
36
The deal is, Putin pulls support of Syria totally. No weapons, no ammunition into Syria, no support
whatsoever so AQ can get the upper hand.
Though I doubt the strike is a one off. The decision has already been made to hit Syria, Russia
or no Russia.
b, "Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan."
Everone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" [Mike Tyson ]
That punch...
The Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah's acceptance of the Syrian invitation to help them defeat the
headchoppers.Game set and match to Syria.
All your answers can be found in Oded Yinon's 1982 plan to bust up the ME so Israel would
be the only remaining dominant influence, and make it easier for that Apartheid nightmare to steal
more land.
The US policy is to install a pro-Western leader in Syria. An impossibility IMO but they won't
stop trying. Tillerson is going to Moscow to deliver an ultimatum.
The BBC's Steve Rosenberg in Moscow says experience shows that Russia does not take well to
threats or ultimatums. If Mr Tillerson thinks he can weaken Moscow's support for President Assad,
he may need to re-think, our correspondent says, adding that ...
Tillerson Gives Russia Ultimatum: Side With The US Or Iran
International Business Times - 25 minutes ago
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was scheduled to meet with Russian diplomats this week to
discuss Russia's obligation to drain Syria of chemical weapons under a 2013 agreement. Tillerson
gave Russia an ultimatum Tuesday to side with the U.S ...
Difficult to guess, what is rolling inside Trumps brains. Author William Engdhal thinks,
that " Trumps´s Job is to Prepare America for War ."
But maybe we should better ask Kissinger, who once said: "No one knows, what he (Trump) is going to do. So we can make of him anything we want to.
He is what we want to make him .
Guess that was the big, somehow erratic plan right from the beginning - I am afraid.
Anyway, most likely its a waste of time trying to find out, what big plans Trumps will be pulling
out of the wizards hat.
On the other hand, it could be live saving to start to thing about the plan WE should come up
to get us out of this mess.
I'll elaborate later why I "hate the game, not the players". But, thanks to reading strategic
policy plans (Yinon Plan, Wolfowitz Doctrine, PNAC policy document) and the "news" cohesively
(rather than as unrelated events the way Big Brother Media frames them), the grand story arc in
the ME seems to be unfolding in a manner consistent with Yinon's vision. Is the consistency due
to (a) causation or (b) correlation?
(a) If "causation", then the US will likely keep increasing its activities and presence until
Syria is partitioned and the US has permanent bases.
For us peaceniks, potential upside is to mitigate militant Israeli rulers lack of confidence
in their long-term survivability:
Permanent US bases in southern Syria place a buffer between Israel and Muslim countries.
US would more directly guarantee Israel's security.
With Israel's newest land grab, they'll secure substantial long-term energy supplies.
Once they feel substantially less threatened, then maybe a later generation of people living
in the region will not know war so intimately.
(Still on their "to do" list is "relocate the Palestinians somewhere". Maybe relocate the Palestinians
to a re-partitioned Syria or Libya, now that part of those populations has been sent to Europe
as refugees?? Again, gotta wonder about causation versus correlation.)
About "hate the game, not the players", I understand why Israeli militant rulers feel the way
they do. If they choose not to play brutal geopolitcal games, others will. Indeed, when you observe
the ease with which they and others successfully excited Christian sheeple into becoming attack
dogs, you can see they have no choice but to do so, because other irrational rulers could and
would eventually come along and turn those same sheeple against them. The world is cruel and you
cannot safely "choose not to play".
(If most self-professed "Christians" weren't so easily goaded into supporting killing people,
then maybe they wouldn't need to be "wagged". But, I don't see that day coming. Especially with
the way history is (not) taught.)
(b) It could simply be "correlation". After all, imperialist but self-professed "Christian"
hordes have been killing each other, Muslims, and Jews with abandon for millenia. (What's that
about "religion of peace"?? In recent memory, "Christianity as practiced" is far less a "religion
of peace" than Islam.) What we see in the ME could simply be more ordinary US/UK/Western European
imperialism, like the kind we've seen historically and continuing to present day everywhere else
around the world.
The "light at the end of the tunnel" is that general artificial intelligence is coming soon.
If it doesn't kill us, there's some "hope" the hegemon that emerges within 10 years will use its
omniscience and omnipotence to impose/guarantee safety to all of us in the panopticon.
>> Clearly, politics has absolutely no bearing on our quality of life.
Not true. Capitalist colonies that transformed from capitalist to Marxist experiences giant
improvements in literacy and longevity within just a few years. That in spite of a constant state
of war imposed on them by their former and future masters.
Compare Cuba people's fortunes with any and every other tiny nation in Oceania's direct shadow.
Heck, Cuba's biggest export was doctors. Better than "the world's greatest purveyor of violence"
by a long shot.
I'm afraid Trumps commitment to a non-interventionist agenda was only superficial. As a businessman
he saw a niche in the political market (the interests of working class people, so against illegal
immigration, offshoring jobs and neocon interventions) and he played it for what it's worth. An
additional benefit is that it was contra Obama who he hates.
So when Obama starts wars all over the Middle East, Trump claimed to want peace. When Obama
struck a deal with Iran, Trump wanted to nuke it. Same with TPP, Obama care etc. In the same way
I suspect that Trumps hatred for Mexico comes from several botched businessdeals in Mexico that
cost him a lot of money.
Now that Trump has what he wants (the White House and giving Obama the finger), he is only
interested in 'winning'. So when the Bannon-Flynn wing couldn't give him victories, he started
to go with the Kushner-Cohn wing. Trump seems to be very opportunistic without any commitment
to a principled policy. And with people he acts the same: anyone remember how he dropped Christy
and Gingrich after they campaigned for him? Same with Flynn: he dropped him for no good reason.
Now that Bannon is downsized too, there is only the same neoliberal-neocon administration
left that we had with Obama, Bush and Clinton.
It looks like there is no deep strategy behind the sudden switch concerning Syria. Trump
just wants to look good and he saw an opportunity to get it in an easy way. And he did get
it: the MSM is suddenly loving him, the Trump-is-Putin-meme has all but disappeared, his approval
rate just bumped up and the Israel-lobby is elated. It is not even that Trump sold out his voter-base.
He was never committed to them in the first place and now they're in for a rude awakening - how
sad!
Trump buckling under to these policies (from neocon Robert Kagan Washington Post, Sunday, April
9)reported by Consortium News:
"The testing of Trump's resolve actually begins now. If the United States backs down in the
face of these challenges, the missile strike, though a worthy action in itself, may end up reinforcing
the world's impression that the United States does not have the stomach for confrontation."
"Instead of being a one time event, the missile strike needs to be the opening move in a comprehensive
political, diplomatic and military strategy to re-balance the situation in Syria in America's
favor."
"Thursday's action needs to be just the opening salvo in a broader campaign not only to protect
the Syrian people from the brutality of the Assad regime but also to reverse the downward spiral
of US power and influence in the Middle East and throughout the world. A single missile strike
unfortunately cannot undo the damage done by the Obama administration over the past six years."
"The United States' commitment to such a course will have to be clear enough to deter the Russians
from attempting to disrupt it. This in turn will require moving sufficient assets to the region
so that neither Russia nor Iran will be tempted to escalate the conflict to a crisis, and be sure
that the American forces will be ready if they do . . ."
"Let's hope that the Trump administration is prepared for the next move. If it is, then there
is a real chance of reversing the course of global retreat that Obama began. A strong response
in Syria will make it clear to the likes of Putin, Xi Jinping, Ayatollah Khamenei and Kim Jong
Un that the days of American passivity are over."
What Trump hasn't seen but Putin does see is that in order to become a leader recognized by history
as great and ultimately able himself to face himself, one has to stand by what he has told the
people he will do. In that illusory state of blindness he resembles Obama greatly and resides
within a bubble of immediate, transitory acclaim. Our hope was that, in his later years now, he
would have realized, with our support, what a sham that attitude has been - Obama has yet to realize
it, but he eventually will, and his declining years will face him with that reality. It's a huge
shame for both men that they seem unable to appreciate that they both had the potential to be
great and have both shunned the prospect.
Putin will now turn away. Not belligerently, but with great sadness. Tillerson is taking, RT
says, an ultimatum from the G7 which Putin will not accept. If he, Tillerson, presents this, he
will quickly be shown the door. Politely, but quickly. Russia will not, cannot, accept any 'deal'.
The best we can hope for is that they will ignore us and concentrate on the real tragedies of
people under siege and lives lost. The best we can hope for is that our blustering 'leader' will
find some other distraction that doesn't get in the way, for whatever sort of time he still wants
to spend pretending to be president. Because that he is not. If Russia can manage without us,
they will have to do so, and I really don't know how the US is going to be able to manage.
Movies and tv shows maybe. Movies and tv shows. And blue jeans. We could go back to making
blue jeans; we were good at that.
I've never thought that Trump was capable of formulating his own plans. I thought it was clear
from the campaign that he didn't have mastery of the details of any of his businesses or government
policies to fend off attacks. He appeared to be the type of executive who left the details and
the decision-making to his VP's. If you can surround him with the right people on his staff, they
would essentially run the ship.
Was Obama 'forced' to give up his populist progressive agenda? No. He proved to be a servant
of TPTB. His progressiveness was a shame. Obama barely tried to fight back, but his adoring fans
made excuses for him at every turn. 11-dimension chess became a joke.
We are failing to learn from that history.
Trump has now proven to be the Republican Obama. He wasn't 'forced' to abandon 'America
First'. That is a canard. And he is/will reap financial benefits from serving wealthy ME interests.
"Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan."
The plan is to throw the neocon controlled media off their track. The momentum against
Trump was strong - led partly hysteria around the Russia election meddling propaganda. Even Flynn
had to be sacrificed. For Trump to survive, he knows he has to throw the media off its track and
being the master of media manipulation that he is, he has just managed that. Look at the headlines
in NYT or WaPo or the other neocon controlled media in the last few days. The round the clock
negative coverage of Trump has been stopped in its tracks. In fact, in WaPo Robert Kagan recently
wrote a post praising Trump and saying more is needed. Of course, he wants more bloodshed in the
mideast.
Is it a wonder that in the age of fake news the master media manipulator won the elections??
In my opinion, there will be no escalation from here on. Trump has been silent on Syria.
His various officials will go off in different directions and everyone (especially the neocons)
will believe what they want to - just look at that Kagan article - it's so dripping with hope.
That gives him the time to consolidate and carry on his own strategy. He just needs time and with
this gambit, he has got it.
Also, with the war crazy neocons flocking to his banner, they have proved that they are neither
republicans nor are they democrats. they just support whoever seems ablest to sow more war and
chaos. A blight on their houses!
Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan
well, if he's not stupid the idea that he's been 'captured' doesn't really hold up. unless,
of course, the man with no name put the old luger to his temple and talked to him softly about
the well-being of his beautiful wife and children.
after all these years, decades really, the aggregate of lies, betrayals, and deceptions, criminality
of the vilest nature, has sucked all the oxygen out of strategic thinking . off-the-cuff
accusations of gas attacks without a shred of evidence, or even a sham investigation, followed
hours later by a cruise missile bombardment pretty much confirms this. now it looks like raw imperialism
on steroids.
of course the only viable plan would be to pack up and go home, start a political reconciliation
process, and pay a massive reparations bill.
Greg Bacon - I agree with you 100% (the Yinon Plan is the key). The Zionist influence in the
US is scary ... I recently watched a video (youtube) / watch?v=hUJHA9VhUZE where Roger Mattson
talked about his book "Stealing the Bomb" - how Israel acquired the knowledge and material to
build their nuclear arsenal in the US ... what I found extremely disturbing is the fact, that
after the AEC, found that 94 kg of HEU (highly enriched uranium) was "missing" in 1965, what happened?
Nothing.
In 1968, the Tel Aviv CIA-station chief collected some samples outside Dimona and sent
them to a forensic lab. Result: definitely of US origin, they could even tell from which plant
because the unusual enrichment level (97,7%) did exactly match. So finally, the FBI starts to
investigate .. (meanwhile Israel is producing plenty of plutionium...)and finds clear evidence
of who did it and why ...
End result: huge cover-up .... according to Mattson:
"CIA-information withheld from NRC and FBI" ... "FBI did not look until too late" .. "FBI &
CIA feared Israel's pushback" (!)
LBJ pretended it did not happen (he also knew what the Zionists had done to the USS Liberty
but ordered it a "state secret" after the Zionists told him, if he spilled the beans, Jewish money
would dry up for the Dems).. the relevant documents were classified for 50 yrs ..all this "frustrates
US democracy" says Mattson ... (you bet)
So the Zionists did exactly what they accuse Iran of ... they do this all the time and
then play the moral outrage card ... Zionism is a perfidious form of fascism ... the "Neo-cons"
are all Zionists (or supporters of Zionism) so in reality fascism is driving US foreign policy
... (Allan Dulles did not bring all these Nazi-war criminals to the US for nothing ....)
Trump undoubtedly has a plan, such as it is, but the competing plans from the many different major
actors make it difficult to discern or execute. Imagine a football game where a dozen teams are
all playing one another at the same time. Obama's plan was to kinda sorta do something, hoping
nobody would notice the dearth of morality or coherence, and Trump may be falling into the same
trap.
Ockham: every appearance points to no plan, ergo, until evidence directs otherwise, the hypothesis
that there is no plan best explains the circumstances. Trump, like our past 3 Presidents, appears
to be over his head, unable to reconcile streams of advice into a coherent policy, and close to
flailing. He has thrown away his cover on the intelligent right; he has defaulted into cover from
the borg where he is despised. If/when evidence is presented that the Syria 'gas attack' was a
false flag, he is through. Better lucky than smart, but it sure looks time has run out on Trump
with respect to both.
Still funny how so many people fall for the "Trump is an idiot" scheme, go on underestimating
him, that's what he wants.
Personally I think it's important to look at the "military action" he took. Sending a bunch of
tomahawks on an unimportant target, all with a prior warning, is hardly a heavy retaliation, which
makes sense since Assad did nothing worthy of retaliation, and Trump most certainly knew that.
But look what happend, everyone is loosing their shit, complaining about how Trump will start
WW3, and all the while, the warhawks flook to trump and endorse his actions, actions that the
majority of the population condems because they're either pro-Trump, and hold him to his campaign
promise of "america first", or are against Trump, and therefore condem absolutly everything he
does. Imagine Hilary doing the same thing, her followers would have hailed her as a hero for fighting
this Evil-Monster-Assad™. We will have to see how this situation plays out, but to toss in my
two cents, I suspect that the war tension will get seriously hyped up by the media and Trump will
play his part in that aswell, either by remaining silent or by resorting to vague politically
meaningless statements. Once the public is outraged and people are frigthend enough Trump can
handle syria without appearing weak or being attacked as a russian ploy. Afterall Trump has nothing
to win by starting a war in syria, it wouldn't make sense for him to suddenly outobama Obama,
for what reason? Money? Power? Sure the deepstate could blackmail him, but I'm honestly sure that
after all these baseless attacks they could have a video of him in full SS-Garb shooting a bunch
of puppies and the public wouldn't give a shit.
Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid.
He must have some kind of plan.
Welcome to the club.
Given his inaugural drain the swamp declaration, and the inherent hazards and complexities, there
was no chance at all that His presidency would be anything other than a perpetual guessing game.
Imo, Trump seems to be the first POTUS in modern times to fully comprehend, and exploit, the outer
limits of the power and respect that the position confers on the incumbent. Everyone who matters
on the World Stage is obliged to listen when POTUS speaks, and at least pretend to take him seriously,
whether they agree or not.
----------------------
As Outraged has alluded to above, the G8-1 wank-fest was as anti-climactic as Xi's meeting with
Trump. Perhaps someone stayed sober enough to suggest they all take a cold shower and stop talking
a load of drivel that even they, themselves, were having trouble pretending to believe.
Howzat?!
Putin won, in absentia!
Trump's "plan" seems to be to rush the net and provoke a sense of crisis, "danger" (to whom by
what?) and "chaos" (no coherent storyboard or "message discipline" as many have mentioned).
No, I don't think Trump is "smart" ... pre-inauguration (even) he was described as a person
whose opinion is most formed by the person he last spoke to ... and he appears to be an easily
distracted, never-shuts-up (talking about himself), poor listener. He may not be "stupid" but
he's not smart or disciplined either. He's impressed by his own mythology wrt flying by the seat
of his pants through crisis after crisis, with multiple spinning plates ... he's a plate-spinner
of some skill.
The G7 has declined to impose additional sanctions on Putin -- OR -- Syria, meaning, I hope,
they recognize how overblown and opportunistically exploited this alleged use of chemical weapons
incident has become.
Guardian .
The US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, had hoped to underscore the US position with a unified
message from the G7, which condemned the chemical attack at a summit in Italy on Tuesday. However,
G7 foreign ministers were divided over possible next steps and refused to back a UK call for
fresh sanctions.
(It's likely not of much too much significance, but does represent at least detour or delay
as opposed to an Anti-Putin and Anti-Assad rubber stamp)
Is R2P even part of Trump's vocabulary? Yes, sentence first, trial after (if anyone can be
forced to remember the incident is disputed and the investigation is incomplete)
I have to agree with these comments. In 2002 the Bush admin had a plan for Iraq. We all know
what that was. The problem for Bush was that he started losing the resulting war. After 2004 just
about every decision was some ad hoc fix and compromise after another to avert a more obvious
defeat. Obama inherited that situation and his policies, if they can be called that, were unchanged.
The only initiative Obama has shown was to extend Bush's plan to Libya and Syria but without massive
use of US troops on the ground. This has resulted in the destruction of the Libyan state and the
Syrian War. Again Obama's wars have failed just as Bush's. Like Bush, Obama resorted to ad hoc
fixes and compromises that led directly to the incoherent policies pursued by Kerry.
What Trump has added is a quantitative change, not qualitative. The frequency of incoherent
and contradictory moves has just increased. Even the open split in current policy where Nikki
openly contradicts Tillerson was seen in the Obama admin when Ash Carter shot down Kerry's efforts
at a Syrian deal.
It is pointless to try to define a policy from this mess. It should be obvious that the incoherence
is the result of some serious divisions inside the deep state and what is likely stirring the
current crisis in US policy is an effort by part of the deep state to overthrow or neuter the
Trump admin. Identifying the competing factions is not that difficult. Assessing the relative
power of those factions and what policies those faction's prefer are more difficult.
So many folks breathlessly anticipating mushroom clouds in our future, I fear we are being manipulated
into gratitude and relief at anything less ... which also seems to have become a recognizable
Trump (and MSM) tactic ...
Team Trump has apparently failed to "normally" and effectively stage-manage the annual White
House Easter Egg hunt -- a logistical nightmare that a hotelier and beauty pageant magnate and
staff might have been expected to ace... diminished expectations ... many fewer participants,
military bands rather than A-list acts (Bieber apparently was a past entertainer 2010 to an onsite
audience of 30,000 mentioned). Commemorative "eggs" ordered late, local schools still have not
received their invitations. Apparently, they have only half the "normal" number of volunteers
to staff the event
Washington-area public schools that normally receive blocks of tickets for as many as 4,000
children have yet to hear from the White House, according to representatives for school systems
in the District of Columbia; Arlington, Va.; and Alexandria, Va. Several groups representing
military families, who have accounted for as many as 3,000 guests in recent years, also said
they had yet to be contacted.
Look what's happened with Trumps initial moves in the whitehouse in some detail:
-Appoints Michael Flynn
-Flynn appoints Ezra-Cohn Watnik to senior director of intelligence at National Security Council
-Flynn alters national security council January 28
-removes director national intelligence
-removes chairman of joint chiefs of staff
-removes director of the CIA
-removes US chief representative to the UN (state department?)
-removes secretary of energy (nuclear weapons complex)
-adds chief strategist to the president (Bannon)
-Flynn gets removed by Vice President leaking that Flynn lied to him about Russia, Trump asks
for Flynn resignation.
-Ezra-Cohn Watnik discovers who unmasked Flynn during Obama admin, leaks info to Nunes.
-NYT reveals Watnik is the leaker
-McMaster tries to transfer Watnik out of NSC, Trump and Jared intervene.
-April 4 McMaster succeeds in altering National Security Council back to original pre Trump configuration,
removing Bannon's position and reinstating all of the others.
-within days of that move, events unfold in Syria and US policy shifts 180 degrees, both in Syria
and apparently in North Korea.
-----
It's clear that Flynn's departure was the beginning of the end, it's just taken a little bit of
time. Bannon, Watnik and Nunes were working to try and maintain control however they've clearly
been crippled as Bannon's now off of NSC and Nunes recused himself from the probe into Russia.
There is no Trump master plan in motion, the people who he originally hired to enact his vision
are either sidelined or fired.
Some have suggested that Trump is practicing "Mad Dog" diplomacy, wherein an appearance of being
dangerously unpredictable can be useful in getting your way.
Perhaps.
I do point out, however, that to be long-term effective "Mad Dog" diplomacy requires that one
not actually BE a mad dog.
Quote, "In the past 40 years, Europe has experienced all manners of political ideology.
From the Marxists and the military in Portugal and Greece to the Fascists in Spain and all manner
of "Democrats" elsewhere.
Yet, the result is exactly the same across the board. We have stagnating wages, a sky rocketing
cost of living, decrepit infrastructure that all result in increasing fiscal and legislative pressure.
Clearly, politics has absolutely no bearing on our quality of life. "
I am not sure things are like that because of some sort of natural decline. I have a link that
tells a whole different story, one of occupation of Europe by the USA since right after WW2.
That US occupation came most at the same time as the end of the European colonies (pushed by the
USA with the Atlantic Charter). Unable to carry on plundering its colonies, the post-war, destroyed
and impoverished Europe was left well-nigh totally dependent on US investments.
The US occupation of Europe (and Japan) was economic, military and cultural. And we are still
ruled by the USA swamp creatures (I am French). http://www.entelekheia.fr/how-did-europe-become-an-american-turf/
Trump's plan is to stay in the presidential seat and try to deliver on at least 1 of his promises
which he will so desperately cling to just like Obama clung so desperately to 1 of his promises,
health care, that eventually became an abomination. Trump has no power over the chain of events
occurring in Syria or beyond and is just there to give it legitimacy, to keep the illusion allive
as if the pursued policy is being led by someone people voted for. It's like in Europe when NATO
first bombed Libya and then the parliaments voted for the military action giving their approval
while it should have been the other way round so it was just to give the impression that there
is some democratic veneer to the pursued policies.
The policy of the US deep state/borg is chaos and fragmentation like Yugoslavia, Libya, Somalia,
... resulting in weak meaningless pliable statelets.
Lest you forget, propaganda is still legal in the US of A, courtesy of the Patriot Act. You
too must have noticed the Trump administration's decision to double down on their predecessors'
efforts in spreading the 'fog of war' far and wide, by disseminating contradictory reports and
opinions by .gov officials, "anonymous sources" and various psy-ops projects. Simultaneously Trump
decides to black out all info regarding US troops deployment in the ME (as opposed to Obama's
most.transparent.administration.ever. that at least reported some 'numbers') and send more boots
on the ground in Jordan and with the Kurds.
Now all we have to do is just sit back, relax and wait for the next "barrel bombing by Assad's
regime" to (not) take place and be "reported" by zionist presstitutes, the rest is a question
of simple math...
"Trump is now losing the "America First" followers he will need to win another election. "...
Neither Trump nor his minders have need nor great desire for "must have" a 2nd-Pres. term.
The deed is already done and more deeds are works in progress.
The DeepState, SecretTeam, DarkSide, 5thColumn and other clichés for CovertActions are the
continuation of plans at least going back to Federal Reserve creation 1913 [which arguably involved
blackmail-control of Woodrow Wilson via his alleged, late-stage syphilis].
So a 2nd pres term is a distraction.
When considering global movers-and-shakers, understand that old-wealth families have the privileges
of generation-to-generation , continuous communication networks and accumulated implanted agents
and mutual benefits that are vital to continuing their wealth status, with its growing control
networks that span generations.
Any "new money" lacks such time-honed privileges. BTW, "they" know all about assassination;
there is no tech that rivals assassination when it becomes necessary to maintain old-wealth status.
The removal of the Russian Czar system and its 300-year old Romanov family reign, threatened and
terrified all other old-wealth families and established an all-out war to maintain the status
of the remaining "families". If you were looking for the real movers-and-shakers, you might start
here.
" Why not up through US controlled Iraq and into Turkey? "
Well maybe because the US does not control Iraq (at least to the level to secure a pipeline)
and probably does not control Turkey either.
These pipeline stories as an explanation for every twist and turn in US actions in the ME are
becoming tedious. Oil and gas are not the drivers of US policy in the ME. Maybe it was in the
1950s but it is not today. A much simpler explanation is the infiltration of the neocons (i.e.
Zionist) into US foreign policy circles.
Netanyahu visits Trump; IsraHell bombs Syria; Netanyahu demands buffer zones into the Golan
Heights; Tillerson says Assad can stay; 'Sarin gas' (fake news) explodes in Idlib; The Jew-owned
media blames Assad sans any proof; War criminals Mattis and McMaster concur and Trump buys the
JEW LIE; Tillerson caves; Trump BOMBS Syria; Tillerson reverses and says Assad must go and Russia
is complicit; Jews applaud!
Add to WG's list that Trump now has a fully legal impeachment hanging over his head.
For the past twelve months or so, US has been building up forces on Russia's borders. Not enough
for any sort of attack - apart from Kaliningrad perhaps - but enough that Russia must maintain
sufficient forces in place to face that threat. The build up of US forces in Europe seems to have
begun some time after Russia moved into Syria for the purpose of tying up Russian forces.
Russian MoD
http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12118216@egNews
...Moreover, according to the information, insurgents are delivering toxic substances to the areas
of Khan Sheikhoun, Jira airport, East Ghouta and to the west from the Aleppo city.
The purpose of these actions is making another reason to accuse Syrian government of chemical
weapons use and provocation of new US attacks.
The Russian party warns against making such steps.
Russia are now beefing up Syrian air defences and apparently other measures.
Has the decision to attack Syria already been made?
Was the Tomahawk attack a warning for Russia to get out before the main attack comes?
his "base" is beginning to turn against him.
all of a sudden, the Dems and Liberals are cock-a whoop for him
while those who actually supported him are turning against him.
i think he's probably lost it.
I would say the bombing of the Syrian airfield served the function of a valve - opened to relieve
pressure. The pressure was the intense hysteria in the USA media and political culture over the
"chemical attack" with the additional context of alleged Russian meddling in favour of the new
administration.
As to the end of the de-confliction communications, I suspect this will be reinstated at some
point. Based on statements by Russian military soon after the "chemical attack" - to the effect
that the flight plan of the plane, which conducted a mission in the area at the same time as the
alleged attack, had been shared with the Americans ahead of time, as routine, and the Russians
assume this information was passed to the rebel groups who staged the attack so the theatrical
presentation could be timed to coincide with the presence of that plane.
"Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan."
His plan is to survive as Potus. That's all. He has pretty strong fascistoid beliefs, but of course
surviving is more important. So the nihilistic neocons are on the march again.
Could we all just grab a clue please? Mr. Trump, in the role of Reagan, is nothing more than a
salesperson selling whatever the corporate giants have to sell. He is here to sell his brand,
and by way of that, the empire's goals also. Global hegemony is the game for the empire/NATO.
This modern empire will not tolerate competition of any kind. So regime change is in store for
any nation that will not comply.
Mr. Trump is a spoiled rich brat, but is is a superb "snake oil salesman". Like Reagan, perfect
for the empire's needs.
TG@74 We already have a mad dog on the Trump team 'Mad dog Mattis. here are some of his quotes.
"The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some
assholes in the world that just need to be shot."
(Business Insider)
3. "I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes:
If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all."
(San Diego Union Tribune)
4. "Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one
of them until they're so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact."
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
Perhaps we should take a deep breath and exhale slowly ... a short take on the G8-1 love-in:
After two days of the usual, a supplementary joint position/statement was sought, the primary
driver being Perfidious Albion, UK, with US, Tillerson in support, the response of the Foreign
Ministers of Italy, France, Germany, Canada & Japan, whilst diplomatic observers of Saudi Arabia,
United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar & Turkey stand around looking on sternly:
1. We should all agree to launch action against Russkies to teach 'em a lesson: No.
2. Well what about agreeing to take action against Syria and that demon-head Assad: No.
3. Alright, lets agree to new sanctions against Russia then: No.
4. Can we at least agree to new sanctions against Evil Assads Syria: No.
5. What about we agree the chemical incident was a bad bad thing and it should be thoroughly investigated:
Yes.
Righy-O then, says Tillerson, with that unanimous ringing endorsement and steadfast explicit
backing & support I'm off to Moscow to present my credentials and on arrival immediately thereafter
issue an Ultimatum to Evil Beelzebubic(sic) Putin and put him in his place --
Meanwhile Putin and the President of Italy are meeting and declare the reported chemical incident
should be thoroughly investigated ...
The corporate owned MSM is hyping all this to the max and beyond ... meanwhile, later this
week the foreign ministers of Syria and Iran will meet in Moscow ...
Exactly! Trump has traded threatened impeachment over groundless accusations for the threat
of impeachment (if he doesn't play along) over legitimate impeachable offences. Seems at best
a decision made in panic to buy time, and at worst an acknowledgement of capitulation.
I fear they've already decided to attack they're just not sure when. Perhaps they're just going
to keep pushing until US soldiers are killed and then there will be the congressional vote for
war.
Something is brewing. For Putin to publicly call the Americans out today during a press conference
with the Italian President by stating US plans to bomb Damascus, is exceptional.
@82, Brother Nate is here! Not all "Jews applaud", Bro Nate. Neturei Karta for one.
http://www.nkusa.org/
Love your videos, you got a fire under you, and it shows. But your suggestion that Jews are born
evil contradicts science AND Jesus whom you claim to venerate.
Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 1:16:12 PM | 83
"Has the decision to attack Syria already been made?
Was the Tomahawk attack a warning for Russia to get out before the main attack comes?"
The US never had the power to do this - see Cuban missile crisis. Both militaries are careful
not to get involved in any tit for tat that would finally lead to nuclear war. So Ukrainians and
Syrians have to go to a proxy war against each other with outside support. It was better in the
cold war when lines were drawn who was allowed to support which government.
The G7 countries have just refused further sanctions for Russia and are asking for proof.
The truth will come out, probably via Turkey, especially if Erdogan loses the referendum.
Peace would be easy if everybody took regime change from the table - the US, Iran, Saudi.
Trump means the end of US influence if he combines an aggressive foreign policy with a trade
war. Countries just have no reason left to ally with the US.
David 34
Thanks for the interesting link. The US banking holiday of 1933, the Cyprus haircut of 2013, the
Indian demonetization of 2017. There are precendents for the banking systems to take dramatic/drastic
steps either as the result of economic change or precipitously/preemptively. Will TPTBs do such
a thing to the US? Hopefully not anytime soon. But it does fit in with their stated overall game
plan.
jayc 85
Perhaps Trump released the valve. It's sad that that's the best we can hope for. Meanwhile, Trump
can now relish that - like his predecessors going back for decades - he is officially a wartime
president.(with the associated madness that entails) http://theweek.com/articles/691356/dcs-war-madness
Unfortunately for everyone, the United States is utterly opposed to "peace" ... couldn't find
it in the dictionary, much less the encyclopedia, much less draw a picture of it, except maybe
one that has a tripartite Syria to match the tripartite several times proposed and rejected for
Iraq and now apparently also to Libya. Balkanization or Bosnification appears to be one unifying
"plan" under the pretense of dividing the pie "fairly" -- but, at least as proposed for Iraq,
was absurdly unfair, in addition to having (IIRC) zero popular support and hitting the re-set
button when it comes to reducing governmental legitimacy back to near-zero.
89 outraged
French journalists are on another (qatari) planet. They report that evryone stand with the us,
no mention ofthe Italian president talking with putin and give as a fact that the Turks have published
the results of the analysis. Well yesterday they were convinced that the us strike had destroyed
"20% of syrian aviation".
Former prez of msf ( doctors without borders) stated that use of chlorine in bombing is not forbidden...
and that even if the bombed chemicals belonged to the rebels it is a warcrime to bomb that knowingly!
he might not be stupid but i don't think he's particularly intelligent either. a few things that
lined up:
- professional dumb hick nikki haley (who, by the way, is actually indian and from a sikh family
so who knows if ingrained islamophobia is part of her "deal") and dick cheney's idiot brother
tillerson started off the confusion. maybe hanging out with the saudis and israelis at UN HQ made
her want to sit at the cool kids' table. tillerson is just an oil tard...but maybe he has other
agendas. just doesn't seem that sharp to me.
- chief of meritocracy jared kushner took some time off from being the jewish patrick bateman
to run around the globe with the same kind of psycho generals that are currently badgering his
dad-in-law into stupid decisions. they went to iraq and israel and all the fun places that make
you wish the US would just collapse already.
that and his public feud with bannon line up nicely and it seems obvious the globalists further
infected his tiny little yuppie mind with nonsense and shiny weapons and tales of anecdotal tragedies
that could have been averted if only the people had been bombed by us instead of shot by syrians.
trump for some reason thinks this kid has a mind of his own ("well, he did score my hot daughter...noice!")
and will definitely choose him over bannon cementing not only his closet globalism but his increasing
tendency to crap on anyone who got him elected, even the mercers with their piles of cash and
love of bannon's politics.
- the neocons/israel-firsters have lost patience now that the russians and syrians and their
allies have started to reach a plainly visible victory. not only did they stage (probably with
help from turkey) a blatantly fake attack and then had their media lackeys turn the Screech Factor
to 11, but they've seen how easy it was and simply cannot help themselves. i guess they haven't
gotten it out of their system with a full scale slaughter of gazans lately so they need to let
off steam by grabbing golan and any other territory they can grasp in their slimy claws (and people
thought west bank settlements were cheeky).
- "veterans today" is a bit of an odd site but they claim to have actually gone to the area
and confirmed the (possibly chlorine but definitely not sarin) attack was a turkey/al nusra joint.
they also claim that another is being filmed and planned with the white helmets and even a few
guys from reuters nearby. if they're not full of it (the article had no pictures or video and
was a bit rushed looking) then the next one will be the true "never again" moment that leads to
boots on the ground.
- speaking of which, sure it's a TOTAL coincidence that flynn was sacked for his pro-diplomacy
outlook vis a vis russia only to be replaced by an obvious lunatic like mcmaster. word on the
street is he's blatantly cooking intelligence before showing it to trump and wants 150k troops
on the ground by june for a full scale invasion. he's a real "jack d. ripper" type and looks like
he loves the taste of netanyahu's bum. watch out for this psycho.
so tl;dr = lots of moving parts and it would resemble keystone cops if it wasn't so terrifying.
thanks b.. good question and many interesting responses to your question.
i think the empire is coming apart personally.. trump will be the fall guy, but it will probably
hang in their for longer then his term, if he makes his term. the usa approach at this point seems
very chaotic at best.. unfortunately all hell could break lose at any moment, thanks the war party
that continues to guide the world into a ditch..
i don't believe trump and putin have got together to hatch a brilliant plan...that just doesn't
ring true to me. i do believe we continue to be in trouble on the planet and this is just the
latest installment we have to work thru. so much can go wrong, but one thing for sure - many folks
are going to wake up fast, if at all..
As long as b ignores central role of Israel in the Syrian War, he will continue to be lost in
seemingly chaotic developments, which to his defense is a bread and butter of MENA politics of
global proxies.
What if chaos was the real goal of this war?
Already Israel is safe from Syria and Egypt and even of war ends will be safe for decades.
If this war last another decade Iran will be exhausted, substantially weakened.
Of course this assumes US imperial dominance to continue while this is the biggest risk in
the entire mess, what makes Bibi a drunken gambler with the fate of Israeli nation which may not
even see celebration of 70.
Trump has entered political survival mode. From here on I'd expect an erdogan style play all sides
strategy. That means some concessions will be made to neocons.
ToivoS@81 - "Oil and gas are not the drivers of US policy in the ME. Maybe it was in the 1950s
but it is not today. A much simpler explanation is the infiltration of the neocons (i.e. Zionist)
into US foreign policy circles."
Your second sentence contradicts your first one if I'm reading that right. I agree, there is
little direct benefit to the US regarding access to oil and gas. But I would disagree the direct
interests of the US in the Middle East have any bearing here. Everything happening in the Middle
East (at least the view from under my tin-foil visor) seems to benefit Israel and Saudi Arabia
(and Gulf cronies). Even the laughable claims of trying to "fight Islamic extremism" are not a
rational goal when Islamic extremists are being funded IN ORDER TO keep the US there. Israeli
and Saudi interests have an inordinate amount of influence on my government's foreign policy.
I like to throw around the word 'treason' but that's just useless. When the US population is brainwashed
into thinking Israeli and Saudi/GCC interests ARE US interests, then it seems like we (the US)
are somehow vaguely serving our own interests there when in reality we have - or should have -
none.
When some power-drunk delusional bastards think they're the world's cop, then you can manipulate
them with little effort by providing a suitable evil criminal gang that must be eliminated. You
know what suckers Americans are for demonization - it's almost cartoonish in it's effect.
Peter AU@76 - "Why not up through US controlled Iraq and into Turkey?"
I think that was the plan at one time, but the Saudis/Qataris are pretty much hated by Iraq
today - something about funding head-choppers. I think they would have a much better luck running
it up through Syrian head-chopperistan and whatever Rojava is called today. That's why I keep
harping about the entire purpose of any 'government' in partitioned east Syria must have the authority
to sign oil and pipeline contracts that supersedes the authority of the Syrian government. If
that is not explicitly obtained, then the US. will simply assume it's there (like in Barzanistan)
and have their fake partition governments sign anyway. And since the Saudis already have a gas
pipeline and compressor stations nearly all the way to Jordan, it will be cheapier/easier to run
it up through Syria. That also benefits Israel - they do not want to pay for an underwater Leviathan
pipeline and want Leviathan gas intermingled with Qatari gas as far back in the pipeline as possible
(BDS and all). Jordan will support both - it will enjoy cheap, plentiful gas either way. Jordan
needs it for power generation.
Outlaw US Empire Imperial Policy hasn't changed; the clue is to look at the rest of the world
situation, and there it's easy to see that Full Spectrum Dominance is still the #1 policy goal.
By very openly declaring the Idlib incident to be a false flag with more expected, Putin torpedoed
anything Tillerson might have said of substance, while Iran and Russia escalate their military
efforts.
The US "strategy" reminds me of the fire bases they set up deep in VC territory and serviced
via UH-1s & CH-47s that proved to be a total failure. The Empire lacks the required number of
boots to properly occupy/pacify Syraq and eventually will be forced to completely withdraw; as
with Vietnam, it's just a matter of time. But will US military openly stand and fight with Daesh
and al-Ciada, or will such a choice provoke mutiny?
sTrumpet reminds me of W, but lacking the boots needed to fulfill the same policy goal mapped
out decades ago--Yinon. IMO, at the moment, the real, dangerous, conflict point is Korea. And
the wild card still remains China.
Suspect US warmongering may tone down quite a bit if military starts to take significant casualties.
neocons seem to implicitly assume that US losses will always be trivial.
Yet again the United States will be playing catch-up with the Russians and Syrians yet again.
The Syrians are removing the last block to an offensive against Idlib - the populations of Al-Fou'aa
and Kafraya are being exchanged for the populations of Madaya and Al-Zabadani, and rebel prisoners
currently in SAG prisons. Once the exchange is complete, there'll be no reason for the SAA not
to attack the rebels in Idlib.
The first batch of buses sent by the Syrian Government have arrived in besieged Madaya and
Al-Zabadani, Damascus Now reported this afternoon.
The buses are prepared to transport more than 2,500 residents and militants from the besieged
towns in rural Damascus to the Idlib Governorate, as part of the deal set forth by the Qatari
and Iranian governments.
In exchange for the 2,500 residents of Madaya and Al-Zabadani, more than 1,500 civilians
from besieged Al-Fou'aa and Kafraya will be transported from their villages to Damascus.
Once this exchange is made, the second phase of the agreement will reportedly begin with
the release of rebels from the Syrian government's prisons and the transportation of another
1,500 residents of Al-Fou'aa and Kafraya from jihadist-held territory.
The first phase of this agreement is expected to commence in the coming hours, a government
source told Al-Masdar
Maybe Trump's policy for Syria just became irrelevant.
Trump is used to having brainstorming sessions to run his business and he welcomes many different
opinions. However, he allows these people to speak to the press and they give a wildly varying
position for the Administration.
He has allowed himself to be persuaded to have a strike on Syria but now it remains to be seen
how he will deal with other gas attacks because you know there will be many. He has painted himself
into a corner.
for the time being, I'm sticking to the theory that trump,
putin and xi are working together to discredit the neocons
what would force trump, putin and xi to cooperate?
...the realization that the neocons are the worst thing to come
down the pike since the Nazis?
that theory is intolerable --and very scary-- to our resident
kommissars... but in terms of human survival, it makes sense,
and that scares our kommissars even more
.
what can our kommissars do to eliminate the possibility that
trump, putin and xi are cooperating?
...keeping in mind that it ought to be something that is televised
live, like the second impact at the twin towers
"for the time being, I'm sticking to the theory that trump,
putin and xi are working together to discredit the neocons"
I don't see how that is even possible.
Where and how would this coordination have taken place? Every single bit of communication by
Trump has been monitored by the US intellegence agencies. If there was anything remotely close
to some sort of behind the scenes coordination with China and/or Russia Trump would be sititng
in jail with wackjob Hillary in the Oval Office.
The much simpler explanation is:
1. Trump, like anyone who knows nothing about Syria, sees reports of the US funding and aiding
jihadist terror groups. He makes completely reasonable comments about stopping those types of
activities with his administration
2. Trump being a political outsider lacks the army of political lackeys presidential cannidates
have when they take office
3. This lack of support has left Trump completley vunerable to the long time Washington players.
4. The neocons have relentless taken out Trumps political amateurs one by one to the point
we are now where he is almost entirely surrounded by them
5. The neocons are now feeding him a continuous stream of fake intel about Syria and other
hotspots around the world
I don't think it is because Trump is dumb. He simply is completely out of his leage in his
ability to take on the long time Washington powers. Previous administrations have come in with
an army of lackeys to defend the president and enforce the president's will upon the so called
deep state.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-11/what-reset-white-house-to-call-out-russia-s-fake-news-on-syria
"The Syrian regime and its primary backer, Russia, have sought to confuse the world community
about who is responsible for using chemical weapons against the Syrian people in this and earlier
attacks," the dossier says. Another passage says Moscow's response to the April 4 incident "follows
a familiar pattern of Russia's response to egregious actions; it spins out multiple, conflicting
accounts in order to create confusion and sow doubt within the international community." The dossier
also derided a "drumbeat of nonsensical claims" from Syria and its allies, a clear reference to
Russia....
Since everyone is throwing their hat into the ring, here is my take:
US military has a thing about initiating conflict when world leaders are in close proximity.
If you recall, at the start of the Georgia-Russia conflict, world leaders (including Bush and
Putin) were gathered in China for the summer Olympics. Putin immediately left and returned to
Moscow to administer to the engagement while Bush stayed behind to get in close with the women's
beach volleyball team.
The decision to initiate combat was not made by Saakashvili alone. He was operating under the
umbrella of the world's only super power, i.e., with US blessing. Putin knew that Bush knew, but
put an overwhelming stop to all that. Never the less, combat was commenced at the time when world
leaders were gathered together in China.
Now we have a situation in which the Chinese leader is visiting with Trump (all off the record)
with the hope of coming to some kind of understanding perhaps, and US military initiates attack
against Syria. There is a message US is sending here with regard to US intensions. The timing
is not coincidental but intentional. I haven't put my finger on it.
And I don't believe Trump (at this time) is thinking about re-election. He's too busy hoping
to make it through this first year.
Syria claims they were monitoring a warehouse thought to belong to ISIS. It observed increase
in amount of traffic coming and going, into and out of said facility. It decides to attack and
explodes CW being stored there.
But there was some thing else going on there important enough that the US thought it had to
retaliate. I don't believe it was CW alone nor do I believe it was pics of innocent children.
It's not the act but the message it sends that one must discern with care. From what I've read,
US intelligence is lacking in the ME in that much of what gets reported as classified is not much
more that paper clippings. Little in the way of person-to-person contacts.
I don't know where I'm going with all of this but it appears that increased chaos is indeed
the end game.
The people crying out for more strikes are delusional.
Syria will be partitioned, it's simply not a viable country anymore, given Arabs' clannishness,
susceptibility to foreign intrigue and the existing animosity between the various groups. Now
is the time for the West to insert 50k soldiers into the ISIS country (the mooted 150 000 US soldiers
is a pie in the sky - America doesn't have those) and start bleeding - and negotiating the contours
of the partition. Russians already got what they came for, and now they wait the rest of the gang
to stake their claims. People in the West should listen to what the King of Jordan - a very good
personal friend of Putin - had said recently, namely that in Moscow's mind the issue of Syria
is inextricably linked to the issue of Crimea and the Ukraine. He knows how it works. And Trump
did 180 on Syria during his visit. The West will resist Syria-Ukraine linkage, but it can't do
it forever. Russia simply won't agree to anything until that's achieved. What's good for the goose
(Syria) must be good for the gander (Ukraine). The issues are similar, whatever others may say.
As for Trump, he wants to put his soldiers into the Syrian desert (Latakia, Tartus and Damascus
are in the Russian domain), but can't because US public opinion is hostile to the idea. The latter
can be gradually molded by the mounting hysteria, which is exactly what's happening.
I think the plan is to up the ante on what was proposed in backchannels during the transition/flynn
debacle - supposedly they were trying to make a deal of good relations with Russia and sanctions
removal in exchange for russia abandoning support for Syria and Iran. Of course, that failed.
So now I think the chem weapons pretense is like some face-saving 'opportunity', or politial excuse
for putin to back out from supporting assad, and at the same time a thinly veiled threat, that
more sanctions could come "if" its determined Russia facilitated or had some foreknowledge since
they were "responsible" for ensuring that Assad's stockpiles were destroyed. They've been careful
not to vindicate or blame Russia, to keep the door open, they are waiting for their next move.
Thats entirely ludicrous of course, but from the mirrored exceptionalist bubble that the US
establishment operates out of, I'm sure its 'the dealmaker's most brilliant idea ever.
It seems they have more false flag attacks like this scheduled to occur as Putin stated, and
as one could almost read from Mathis' nervous lips during his press conference today.
"Help me out. What are his thoughts behind this. Or are there really none at all."
The common theme with Trump, Tillerson, Haley is that the US is prepared to act bilaterally.
Self appointed sheriff. Above the UN.
President TrumpVerified account @POTUS 7h7 hours ago
More
North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we
will solve the problem without them! U.S.A.
Tillerson.. "Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Monday that the U.S. will stand up to
anyone who commits crimes against innocent people"
Haley .. "When the U.N. consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times
in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action,"
I think Trump works on hunches. I think he goes to bed with a question and wakes up with an
answer. Israel Shamir wrote about the hunch aspect of Trump. Nothing is thought out logically.
It is the opposite of the academic approach and appears to have yielded much success for him in
his business and TV life. But international politics and economics is vast and requires years
of study. There is no easy way. The people who really control things have covered up their moves
and each one has to be uncovered through much research. Trump relies on people rather than books.
He relied on Bannon for election strategy and was smack on. But now he is up against masters like
Putin, Netanyahu and Xi Jinping and he is lost. So he goes back to ratings; what gets good ratings
as a sort of feel-good factor like a drinker with his bottle, like a baby with its milk.
One thing that stuck in my mind about FDR was a long period of illness in the 1920s and how
he devoured books, the better to prepare him for the massive changes he was about to bring in.
Trump allows the neocons to advise hime to strike and to celebrate the strike.
Slowly, the world comes to realise the Syrians did not have the chemicals and did not use them
against their own people.
As this slowly is being realised, various others who are against Trump on the inside are exposed.
Then Trump can get up and say he was misinformed and the various traitors and mis-informers will
have to go.
This would include a massive re-alignment of intelligence agencies (abolish the CIA).
It would also expose the media who have been complicit in their support of the strife for many
decades.
All pre-organised with Russian help to identify a airbase that had no significant assets ...
The reality is that God Emporer master 5d chess player is nothing more than an experienced
businessman who is completely out of his element in Washington politics and is in the process
of being eaten alive by the neocon establisment.
Trump's failure and capture by the Washington establishment is a perfect example of the folly
of populists screaming for term limits. You get politcal amateurs who get chewed up and spit out
by the unelected state actors who have had decades of experience.
Trump seems to be keen on taking Intelligence away from civilians like Susan Rice, and letting
those who know what a battlefield looks like advise him. He is essentially depriving foreign banks
and multinational corporations to use the US for their Nation Building, i.e. to have us pay for
it with our taxes, and use our soldiers as cannon fodder.
So he made a bold stroke. Some chats with the presidents of Russia, China, Syria, and the King
of Jordan, for instance, but not our so-called allies in NATO. It also allows him to smoke out
the snakes here and elsewhere. Of course for the trick to work, various leaders had to talk tough
and condemn Trump's action.
@95 sb, 'Trump means the end of US influence if he combines an aggressive foreign policy with
a trade war. Countries just have no reason left to ally with the US.'
we've all said that for some time now ... but if the g7 meeting means that the countries ...
other than the poodles in the uk, of course ... are seeing themselves as the accomplices of the
usofa in the crytal ball, and not liking it at all, then maybe 'Countries [have really, finally
come to understand that they] just have no reason left to ally with the US'.
can you establish benevolent global hegemony by killing anyone who resists?
so far, the neocon project has wrecked country after country, caused hundreds of thousands
of needless deaths, and millions of refugees
where's the benevolence in that?
.
and don't people like Russians and Chinese have a right to
be alarmed? ...especially in light of the US's nuclear primacy policy, which is based on nuke
first strikes so
overwhelming that Russia and china are unable to retaliate
it's no wonder, considering the neocpns' ambitions, performance and policies, that world leaders
would cooperate to rid the world of neocons, is it?
BARTIROMO: You redirected navy ships to go toward the Korean Peninsula. What we are doing right
now in terms of North Korea?
TRUMP: You never know, do you? You never know.
BARTIROMO: That's all (INAUDIBLE)...
TRUMP: You know I don't think about the military.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
TRUMP: I'm not like Obama, where they talk about in four months we're waiting -- we're going
to hit Mosul.
BARTIROMO: Right.
TRUMP: And in the meantime, they get ready and like you've never seen -- look, they're still
fighting. Mosul was supposed to last for a week and now they've been fighting it for many months
and so many more people died. I don't want to talk about it. We are sending an armada, very powerful.
We have submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier, that I can tell
you. And we have the best military people on Earth. And I will say this. He is doing the wrong
thing. He is doing the wrong thing.
BARTIROMO: Do you...
TRUMP: He's making a big mistake.
BARTIROMO: -- do you think he's mentally fit?
TRUMP: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know him. But he's doing the wrong thing.
Ie, why was the go-ahead given on the CW False Flag in terms of it's timing.
It could be as simple as trying to swing the French Election.
Pro NATO (Macron & Fillon) against Anti-NATO (Le Pen & Melenchon).
If either of the Anti-NATO candidates were to become President there's absolutely no doubt
they would split NATO at the first sign of conflict with Russia - which could be imminent.
What better way to tie their hands than attack Syria until there is a forceful Russian military
response, Article 5 is invoked, and Hollande goes along with it full boar as one of his last acts.
The hands of the next French President are essentially tied at that point - even better (from
that point of view) if some French soldiers are inserted into the conflict and perhaps killed).
How could a new President possibly climb down from that policy position? How could Le Pen or
Melenchon argue that France should not go along with the invoking of Article 5?
Would this really play well with the French voting public to be seen as "abandoning" long-held
NATO allies in their time of need?
Surely it would torpedo their candidatures - unless of course they are the two in the run-off
- which is possible.
Speaking to young French voters recently (in their early 20s) - they do not like Macron - they
see him as a fake, a phony, a creep. They won't be voting for him - and they're from Paris.
@122 telescope.. some of what you say i agree with and some not!
@ 124 peter au.. i think what you point out is all a given.. the exceptional warmongering nation
will not be deterred regardless just how effective the propaganda machine is... this is why i
believe we are in a more dangerous place now then ever before. even when the propaganda is breaking
apart, all parties opposed to the war party will have to remain fully prepared for more war..lousy
actors playing a bad hand with the 'exceptional warmongering' status on shaky ground..
@132 jfl... those poodles are looking into something more like a crystal meth ball, then an
actual crystal ball.. if they weren't so hooked on the crack, they would have been calling it
quits on their bad habit of aligning with the exceptional warmongering nation, but alas - they
are too addicted to the crack..
@106 alaric, 'From here on I'd expect an erdogan style play all sides strategy.'
i think viewing tee-rump as an american erdogan is quite apt. except that he's not as smart
as erodogan, certainly not as observant or well-studied.
@127 swmel
that's quite an agile acrobatic performance. i think you're right as far as tee-rump's letting
his 'apprentices' try 'their' plans and then blaming and firing those whose efforts don't work
out. but trump works on the
31st floor . and he
very well knows there are people at work on the floors above him - the bankers, in his business
career - whom he must please in order to be allowed to continue. and his plan is to continue.
business career, political career ... same thing.
The mainstream media more or less gave us an explanation of what the US cruise missile attack
on Syria was all about - to be regarded as a 'player' in the Syrian theatre. That may seem trivial
& petty on the surface, but think again, things are often not what they appear. The attack was
a demonstration effect, which many US bombing attack often are, they are sending a message that
the US deployment with the Kurds (YPG/SDF) in the North is the beginning of Syria's partition.
This will be backed up by more heavy US military engagement, hence the cruise missile attack.
That's why Russia responded so vociferously, they know this was not for show as Thierry Meyssan
& others have suggested, it was just made to look that way because for starters the US has chosen
not to escalate, but to warn. That is why they have followed up with threats of further attacks,
because the first was just a taste, but the next will be more strategic & will target the SAA
&/or vital state infrastructure. Partition of Syria is key, because at the heart of all of this
is the dissolution of all Middle Eastern states so as to facilitate Israeli expansion.
Trump has told Fox that he's not going into Syria in an interview that airs in the morning. I
hope that Tillerson got the memo before he talks to Lavrov.
Putin has publicly made the case for a false flag. The G7 boys have denied Tillerson the kind
of wholehearted support he was hoping for by wanting an investigation before any punitive actions
are taken against Syria or Russia. It's been put out there while the world is totally focused
on events so there's no chance the MSM can ignore it. There will be no UN sanctioned attack on
Syria or Assad without doing the dance. Unless Trump goes rogue.
The response to the Tomahawks was mostly positive in the West. Trump finally got some positive
press and Russiagate was like it never happened. I think even Putin was perfectly happy to let
him have one kick at the cat so he didn't look like a pussy. But the followup babel of tweets
and sound bytes about everything from Russian involvement to the necessity of removing Assad was
sure to up the ante. I think the Tillerson-Lavrov meeting is critical. I hope that Putin finds
time to meet with Tillerson.
The business on the Korean Peninsula is the more worrisome of the two crises. Now there's two
unpredictable leaders fixin' to kick ass and take names. There can't be any winners over there.
It blows my mind that these vaunted generals have allowed Trump and the US to find themselves
at loggerheads with so many enemies at once. I thought these fucking clowns went to West Point.
It's been a hell of a ride from non-intervention to taking on half the world. And we only just
got started.
There used to be a pool of seasoned diplomats to try to see if there were ways to avoid sabre-rattling
and confrontation. But they're all gone. All that's left is generals and CEOs. And the generals
seem to be in the catbird seat.
There's some that are still carrying water for Trump. They say the deep state has him snookered.
Well, Trump is the deep state or trying very hard to be part of it. He owns this debacle. Lets
hope he's not the fucking antichrist, I'm not up for getting raptured.
I'll help you out. Syria doesn't matter. Whatever happened with the gas and its aftermath doesn't
matter. Forget Syria.
Instead think about Iran. Trump is going to destroy Iran and in so doing will put an end to
China's New Silk Road and will also take out a large marginal supplier of oil to the world market
and so oil prices will recover. Now if Trump is thinking in such strategic terms I have no clue.
It matters not.
the talk of 'submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier' on their
way towards north korea is interesting. the
Syrian Tomahawk Strike review had an interesting line ...
This should also tell us how useful (or useless, as the case may be) our Virginia class submarines
that carry only 12 Tomahawks will be – not very. It would have required five subs to carry
out this attack and this was only a partial attack against a small airfield. Those who believe
that our subs will constitute a significant land strike capability are mistaken. The subs are
more likely to be used as snipers, taking out smaller, undefended targets. The retirement without
replacement of our four SSGNs which each carried 154 Tomahawks may come to be viewed as a mistake.
... i wonder if those 'four SSGNs' (
Ohio, Michigan, Florida,
and Georgia ?) is a done deal, or whether one or more might be sailing beneath waves toward
north korea?
fresh from his 'triumph' and accompanying great reviews from his syrian cruise missle performance,
is he about the try an encore, on a much larger scale, in north korea?
silly to point out that it's irrational. the play's the thing! think of the curtain calls for
this one!
WH Lays Out Evidence that Syria was behind deadly attack...
"A senior administration official laid out evidence that the Syrian regime was behind the chemical
attack in the country that killed at least 80 people last week."
"The official said intelligence gathered from social media accounts, open source videos, reporting,
imagery, and geospatial intelligence showed that the chemical attack was a regime attack."
"I don't think there's evidence to the contrary at all," an official who briefed reporters
on background Tuesday said."
FUNNY THAT...
Intelligence and Military Sources Who Warned About Weapons Lies Before Iraq War Now Say that
Assad Did NOT Launch Chemical Weapon Attack
"A critical piece of information that has largely escaped the reporting in the mainstream media
is that Khan Sheikhoun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of
the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until February 2017, Khan Sheikhoun was occupied
by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with
its competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under
any name functioning as Al Qaeda's arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the
local population."
FUNNIER THAT, NOT AS IN A HAHA, BUT RATHER IRONY -
UK-trained doctor hailed a hero for treating gas attack victims in Syria stood trial on terror
offences 'and belonged to the group that kidnapped British reporter John Cantlie'
"Dr Shajul Islam, from East London, published a video of the patients on his Twitter account
after the attack. He said his hospital took care of three victims all with narrow, pinpoint pupils
that did not respond to light."
"The University of London graduate was arrested and charged with kidnapping two journalists
- Mr Cantlie and Dutch reporter Jeroen Oerlemans - in 2012 but was released after the trial collapsed
when neither of the prosecution's witnesses were able to give evidence."
THIS WOULDN'T BE COMPLETE WITHOUT MAD DOG'S LOUSY TWO CENTS -
"The goal right now in Syria and the military campaign is focused on accomplishing that is
breaking ISIS, destroying ISIS in Syria. This was a separate issue that arose in the midst of
that campaign. The use by the Assad regime of chemical weapons and we addressed that militarily
but the rest of the campaign stays on track"...
To sum this bunch of crap up - in less than 48 hours we are to believe the DOD's use of friggin
social GD media proved beyond reasonable doubt that Assad chemed his own people in a town that
is known worldwide as 'ground zero' for jihadi's, filmed by a doc who was brought to trial on
terror charges (lest we forget about the UK/US financed White Helmets at $100M playing pretend
propaganda chit) with the bad ass retired general now in charge of all of the militaries toys
and humans stating as fact, FACT, this violation of U.S. law and international law was a one time
deal b/c Assad is bad, bad, bad - I looked at the evidence and was convinced beyond doubt blah,
blah blah F'ing bullshit!
Sick of it. Just sick and tired of all of it! I loathe being lied to and that SOB lied today.
LIED LIED LIED.
@141 "I hope that Putin finds time to meet with Tillerson."
Putin will certainly be able to find the time. It depends what message Tillerson has come to
deliver. Putin will need to know that before he agrees to any meeting. Tillerson must first have
a friendly chat with Lavrov. Putin will probably be listening in.
No, there isn't a new policy in place. The target has been the Iranian hegemonic ambition, not
Assad. It's the same policy as before. The plan is the same: break up Syria (and Iraq). The break-up
takes places in stages and all the players attempt to force each other's hand, hence the ever-expanding
chaos. The north of Syria is going to be a part of the future Kurdistan, the east is going to
be part of an independent Sunni state. Finally, the west was destined to shape the new Syria,
which would include most of the country's territory, but this plan was botched after the rise
of Daesh and the Russian intervention in Assad's favor. What I describe is a slight amendment
on the borders proposed
here ; the
blue-colored "Sunni Iraq" state between Baghdad and the (still current) Syrian border and the
Kurds will have more Syrian territory than the map depicts. As you will notice, the map is American-made.
That's the plan, broadly speaking and Trump's bombing of Assad's airfield is another move in the
framework defined by this plan.
Trump has chosen to use the opportunity offered by the sad event of last week, the actual origin
of which is hotly debated, to unleash a warning strike to Iran. Israel is the only US ally which
is not openly opposed to the plan I describe above, because it will guarantee to a large extent
its security. In fact Israel wants an independent Kurdistan; such a country will provide strategic
depth to Israel. The Turks don't like it for obvious reasons, as well as the Saudis. The Iranians
will be affected too by an independent Kurdistan, but they have not shied from the opportunity
to extend their sphere of influence to Iraq and to cement and broaden their pre-existent influence
in the Mediterranean.
A relevant digression: The reason the Saudis invaded Yemen is that they want to foil the Iranian
attempt to establish strategic maritime connection between Iran and its Mediterranean proxies
by controlling the entrance to the Red Sea. Remember that the plan is to have a Sunni state and
Kurdistan between Shiite-controlled Iraq and Assad's territories and Lebanon, so land is a no-go
for the Iranians at this point.
The Israelis do not want Iran to have so much influence that the obstacles placed deliberately
in its path will not foil its hegemonic tendencies. Of course, the Israelis need any Sunni hegemonic
tendencies to be in check, too. Remember, the map provides for territorial interruption to the
perpendicular Sunni axis starting from Turkey and ending at the Gulf of Aden (which is Kurdistan),
as well as for an interruption of the horizontal Shia axis of the region (the Sunni state and
Kurdistan). Apparently the Persians have been doing rather well for themselves in Syria and Trump
was in all probability advised to grasp the opportunity to remind them that the reality that is
taking shape in that part of the world will have to follow the provisions of the mentioned map.
This account also explains why the Israelis were fast to declare that it was Assad's Syrian Arab
Republic which was behind the attacks with chemical weapons: the Israelis want to see the American
plan implemented, not foiled. It also explains Russia's gift to Israel: it was a message of the
type "we respect your concerns, but keep out of this". You see, if Israel accepted the Russian
gift, it would de facto enter the current Syrian fray (as a beneficiary); this is not what Israel
should want and this is also not what the US have planned for Israel (in order to keep it safe).
For the US Israel and Palestine are a different matter. This is depicted in the map of the new
Middle East as no radical border changes; by accepting Russia's gift the Israelis would show themselves
to be rather short-sighted, something which would cause the US to discipline it.
So there is no new policy, just a different way of moving the pieces on the chessboard - Obama's
way was far subtler.
There is no fundamental change in Syria or the Middle East. The basic plan is to break everyone
up into small competing pieces. Divide and Rule. The essense of the Odin Plan and the long proven
tactic of British Colonialism.
Trumps a puppet. Compromised and controlled asset of the neocon faction of the Deep State.
He may have been forced to run or face losing all to the Rico Act due to his many mob connections.
Surveillance in the 21st century means pretty much anyone is vulnerable, but Trump especially.
Russians call it Kompromat,
In any case, we cant say his turn around is real or not. Perhaps just scripted. Said what he
needed to say to get elected with help from Comey. Needed a valid reason to explain the turnaround
other than gross deception which was anticipated , so we had this Putin connection which was manufactured
and engineered by the Deep State , and Trump willingly went along calling for Putin to help get
the emails and appointing some pro-russian cabinet members who would be sacrificed. All a sham.
He does have Russian connections but its the Russian Mafia and not Putin. Some of these guys deal
with Putin out of self preservation but all want him gone. Many are Isreali as well or have ties
to Israel.
US is strongly allied with British and Israeli interests in the region. This alliance is so
strong one may consider the trio as one entity. Its been that way since 1917 when we went to War
for the British and the future Israel.
Now how does the script read for Syria in coming years?. Perhaps only Hollywood knows. In the
long term Syria, Lebanon, Iran will be carved up with regime changes in Egypt and Turkey. Outside
the region conflict with China over North Korea and Russia over Ukraine/Crimea is possible but
I doubt anyone is foolish enough to allow escalation to WWIII
And obviously there are many more false flags to come since people refuse to believe in them
unless MSM spells it out for them, and they won't.
Theory 1: Obama deftly played the CIA/State and DoD against each other, limiting their lust for
bloodshed and chaos in Syria by putting their proxies at odds with each other. Trump, in his clumsiness
thought giving the DoD a free hand would speed up the Defeat of ISIS and make him look good.
But the CIA and Neocons kept pushing the Russia angle, and he's too petty a person to sweat
out the false accusations, so he "does something."
Theory 2: The US has gone full North Korea, "rabid dog" mode where they just lash out violently
at random to make it appear as if they have more power and control of a situation, when in truth
they are at the mercy of many layers of facts and realities.
We know little about the relationship between actors moving in the shadows and anything revealed
is increasingly cartoonish and staged for public consumption. That Assad would use WMD at this
point is as ridiculous as the damage caused by the supposed launch of 59 tomahawks. In that sense
it looks like this is a wag the dog moment to distract from domestic issues. But there are also
likely connections with recent events in Syria. IDF jets have been bombing Syria more lately for
some reason and one or more jets may have been downed a few weeks ago. The progress against ISIS
in eastern Allepo seems to have unnerved Assad's opponents who have been doing everything possible
to draw key resources like Tiger Forces away from this front and down to Hama. Russian Kalibr
cruise missiles were launched with little fanfare and no announced targets a couple of weeks ago
(I think I have my timing right). The Russians never scream about their targets or successes with
these cruise missile attacks, but it seems they reserve these for serious targets. If this weeks
events were not a wag the dog distraction then something valuable certainly seems to have been
lost or about to be lost to set off this reaction. Connecting sparse dots is difficult but the
dots are there to be connected.
"... Putin said Russia had information that the US was planning to launch new missile strikes on Syria , and that there were plans to fake chemical attacks there. ..."
"... "We have information that a similar provocation is being prepared in other parts of Syria, including in the southern Damascus suburbs where they are planning to again plant some substance and accuse the Syrian authorities of using [chemical weapons]," ..."
"... In his remarks Putin said Russia would ask the UN to carry out an investigation into the attack, and accused unnamed western countries of supporting the US strikes in a bid to curry favour with Donald Trump. ..."
Vladimir Putin
has deepened his support of the Syrian regime, claiming its opponents planned false-flag chemical
weapon attacks to justify further US missile strikes.
The Russian president's predictions on Tuesday of an escalation in the Syrian war involving more
use of chemical weapons came as US officials provided further details of what they insist was a sarin
attack by Bashar al-Assad's forces against civilians on 4 April, and accused Moscow of a cover-up
and possible complicity.
The hardening of the Kremlin's position, and its denial of Assad's responsibility, accelerated
a tailspin in US-Russian relations, just as the US secretary of state,
Rex Tillerson , arrived
in Moscow for direct talks.
Tillerson had hoped to underscore the US position with a unified message from the G7, which condemned
the chemical attack at a summit in Italy on Tuesday. However,
G7 foreign ministers were divided
over possible next steps and refused to back a British call for fresh sanctions.
Putin said western and Turkish accusations that Syria's government dropped the nerve agent that
killed dozens of civilians in Idlib earlier this month were comparable to the now-discredited claim
that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"It reminds me of the events in 2003 when US envoys to the security council were demonstrating
what they said were chemical weapons found in Iraq," the president told reporters on Tuesday. "We
have seen it all already."
Putin said Russia had information that the US was planning to launch new missile strikes on
Syria , and that there were
plans to fake chemical attacks there.
He insisted that Assad was not behind the alleged sarin attack in Khan Sheikhun, saying Moscow
had information "from different sources" that it was carried out by rebel groups intent on dragging
the US into the conflict.
"We have information that a similar provocation is being prepared in other parts of Syria,
including in the southern Damascus suburbs where they are planning to again plant some substance
and accuse the Syrian authorities of using [chemical weapons],"
he said, without offering any proof for the assertion. Putin predicted such fake attacks would
be used to justify further US missile strikes on the regime, like the attack on Shayrat air force
base on Friday.
Senior White House officials said that Syrian military officers involved in the regime's chemical
weapons programme were at the Shayrat base ahead of and on the day of the Khan Sheikhun attack, which
they claimed was carried out by a Syrian air force Su-22 warplane, dropping at least one munition
containing sarin nerve agent.
One official said that there was "no consensus based on the information we have" of direct Russian
complicity, but pointed out that the Russian and Syrian military had a long history of close cooperation
and that Russian troops were at Shayrat base at the time of the attack.
In his remarks Putin said Russia would ask the UN to carry out an investigation into the attack,
and accused unnamed western countries of supporting the US strikes in a bid to curry favour with
Donald Trump.
"... From the moment the chemical attack was blamed on Assad, however, I expressed my doubts about the claims. It simply makes no sense for Assad to attack civilians with a chemical weapon just as he is winning his war against ISIS and al-Qaeda and has been told by the US that it no longer seeks regime change. On the verge of victory, he commits a suicidal act to no strategic or tactical military advantage? More likely the gas attack was a false flag by the rebels -- or perhaps even by our CIA -- as a last ditch effort to forestall a rebel defeat in the six year war. ..."
"... The gas attack, which took some 70 civilian lives, was horrible and must be condemned. But we must also remember that US bombs in Syria have killed hundreds of civilians. Just recently, US bombs killed 300 Iraqi civilians in one strike! Does it really make a difference if you are killed by poison gas or by a US missile? ..."
"... Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows no interest in reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any US escalation and must demand that our Representatives prohibit it. If there ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding an end to US military action in Syria, it is now! ..."
Thursday's US missile attack on Syria must represent the quickest foreign policy U-turn in history.
Less than a week after the White House gave Assad permission to stay on as president of his own country,
President Trump decided that the US had to attack Syria and demand Assad's ouster after a chemical
attack earlier in the week. Trump blamed Assad for the attack, stated that "something's going to
happen" in retaliation, and less than two days later he launched a volley of 59 Tomahawk missiles
(at a cost of $1.5 million each) onto a military airfield near where the chemical attack took place.
President Trump said it is in the "vital national security interest of the United States" to attack
Syria over the use of poison gas. That is nonsense. Even if what Trump claims about the gas attack
is true – and we've seen no evidence that it is – there is nothing about an isolated incident of
inhuman cruelty thousands of miles from our borders that is in our "vital national security interest."
Even if Assad gassed his own people last week it hardly means he will launch chemical attacks on
the United States even if he had the ability, which he does not.
From the moment the chemical attack was blamed on Assad, however, I expressed my doubts about
the claims. It simply makes no sense for Assad to attack civilians with a chemical weapon just as
he is winning his war against ISIS and al-Qaeda and has been told by the US that it no longer seeks
regime change. On the verge of victory, he commits a suicidal act to no strategic or tactical military
advantage? More likely the gas attack was a false flag by the rebels -- or perhaps even by our CIA
-- as a last ditch effort to forestall a rebel defeat in the six year war.
Would the neocons and the mainstream media lie to us about what happened last week in Syria? Of
course they would. They lied us into attacking Iraq, they lied us into attacking Gaddafi, they lied
us into seeking regime change in Syria in the first place. We should always assume they are lying.
Who benefits from the US attack on Syria? ISIS, which immediately after the attack began a ground
offensive. Does President Trump really want the US to act as ISIS's air force?
The gas attack, which took some 70 civilian lives, was horrible and must be condemned. But
we must also remember that US bombs in Syria have killed hundreds of civilians. Just recently, US
bombs killed 300 Iraqi civilians in one strike! Does it really make a difference if you are killed
by poison gas or by a US missile?
What's next for President Trump in Syria? Russia has not backed down from its claim that the poison
gas leaked as a result of a conventional Syrian bomb on an ISIS chemical weapons factory. Moscow
claims it is determined to defend its ally, Syria. Will Trump unilaterally declare a no fly zone
in parts of Syria and attempt to prevent Russian air traffic? Some suggest this is his next move.
It is one that carries a great danger of igniting World War Three.
Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows no interest in
reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any US escalation and must demand that our
Representatives prohibit it. If there ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding
an end to US military action in Syria, it is now!
"... "We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack," ..."
"... "President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," ..."
"... "The sight of people being gassed and blown away by barrel bombs ensures that if we see this kind of action again, we hold open the possibility of future action," ..."
"... "We are planning to address the corresponding UN structure in The Hague and call on the international community to thoroughly investigate all those reports and take appropriate action based on the results of such a probe," ..."
"... "These actions are aimed at creating a new pretext for accusing the government of Syria of more chemical weapons attacks and provoking more strikes by the US," ..."
Russia has information of a potential incident similar to the alleged chemical attack in Idlib province,
possibly targeting a Damascus suburb, President Vladimir Putin said. The goal is to discredit the
government of Syrian President Assad, he added. https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FRTvids%2Fvideos%2F1533173910026190%2F&show_text=0&width=560"
name="I1">
"We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call
it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus.
They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack," he said
at a joint press conference with Italian President Sergio Mattarella in Moscow.
Damascus denied the allegations, noting that the targeted area may have been hosting chemical
weapons stockpiles belonging to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) or Al-Nusra Front jihadists.
The incident has not been properly investigated as yet, but the US fired dozens of cruise missiles
at a Syrian airbase in a demonstration of force over what it labeled a chemical attack by Damascus.
"President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of
the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the
presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq
and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance
of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," he added.
It was the first time the US had targeted Syrian troops deliberately. The White House says it
will repeat military action in response to any possible new chemical weapon attacks.
"The sight of people being gassed and blown away by barrel bombs ensures that if we see this
kind of action again, we hold open the possibility of future action," spokesman Sean Spicer
said Monday.
Putin reiterated the call to properly investigate what happened in Khan Sheikhoun, saying that
the alleged use of chemical weapons demands one.
"We are planning to address the corresponding UN structure in The Hague and call on the international
community to thoroughly investigate all those reports and take appropriate action based on the results
of such a probe," he said.
A separate report of a potential false flag operation in Syria came from the Russian General Staff,
which said militants were transporting toxic agents into several parts of Syria, including Eastern
Ghouta, the site of the 2013 chemical weapons incident.
"These actions are aimed at creating a new pretext for accusing the government of Syria of
more chemical weapons attacks and provoking more strikes by the US," said Colonel General Sergey
Rudskoy, the head of Operations.
YOU CAN SEE JOHN MCCAIN, BUT ALL YOU HEAR IS ISRAEL AND ZIONISM. McCain
should be rotting in a jail cell waiting for execution by SAWED OFF SHOTGUN FIRING SQUAD. This
jew owned whore deserves nothing less than to have his fucking head blown off by an American appointed
execution squad supported by the American people and put in place to deter : 1.) LOYALTY TO ISRAEL
OVER AMERICA. 2.) THE ENRICHMENT OF PRIVATE WAR PORTFOLIOS. 3.) THE WARMONGERING AND DESTABILIZATION
OF THE MIDDLE EAST.
The American people know that this is nothing more than a war for ISRAEL.
NOTHING BUT ISRAEL.
From Robert Steele - We do now know (I did not know this at the time the below video was recorded
and I have no link for this, it comes to me from an inside source) that former CIA Director John
Brennan plotted this false flag attack, which may have involved some real sarin allegedly destroyed
during the Obama Administration, with Senator John McCain and National Security Advisor Herbert McMaster.
Brennan got the Saudis to pay half and McCain got Israel to pay half. They blind-sided – this
is clearly treason – not only the Director of the CIA, but the President, the Secretary of State,
and the Secretary of Defense. In my personal view, both John McCain and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu should be impeached by their respective legislative bodies.
Whether true or not I cannot certify – it is consistent with my evaluation of each of these people,
and a good starting point for an international investigation. I have long felt that John Brennan
should be standing before the International Court of Justice as a war criminal, not least because
of the CIA's drone assassination program that I recently denounced in a book review article for Intelligence
and National Security.
If you appreciate what we do here at VL, consider supporting us on Patreon.. Thank you :-)
These ZioNeoConFascist have crossed The American Patriots "Red Line."
These Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Deep State Psychopaths have been & are "Going All In."
This is Irrefutably, Absolutely the Last chance of Peacefully, Diplomatically walking away
from a Situational Inter National Crises of which the CIA / Deep State Dept is Gulty of causing.
The Global Criminal Oligarch Cabal Bankster Intelligence Crime Syndicate has been exposed for
all the World to See.
The Emperor is Stark Naked & the World doesn't seen to Care.
The Deception that was once "Hidden in plain view" is now Globally Tyrannically Lawlessly open
for all the World to See.
Proof that the dysfunctional element is the controlling element . But don't assume the other
players will not turn dysfunctional. They know the endgame goes all the way to Iran. They will
have to draw a line sooner or later.
War [leaving Syria to 9/11 terrorists who want to do what they were not doing in Iraq in 2002,
that is build a terror states to compete with Libya and Afghanistan] is the life of the US state
in the 'American Century'.
If US succeeds in regime change future bands of terrorists attacking the infidel will be trained
in Aleppo!
It was supposed to be different with Trump. Dozens of times as candidate and even early on as
president, he stated that it would be a big mistake to go into Syria. He also finally cancelled Obama's
"Assad must go" policy. Then came reports of a gas attack in Syria which was blamed on Assad with
no evidence given. Suddenly missiles are flying, US boots are on the ground, and again we hear "Assad
must go."
Is it our role to determine who can and cannot rule foreign countries? We are joined in-studio
today by Mises Institute founder Lew Rockwell to discuss:
The president has just swaggered his way into the single most complex civil war in living
memory – and he does so with little credibility or legitimacy
It may be hard to believe, but Donald Trump is even more simplistic than George W Bush in matters
of war. George W Bush enjoyed all the certainty of a very simple man: you were either with us or
against us, good or evil, marching for democracy or plotting terrorist attacks.
Yet Donald Trump manages to make Bush look like Baron von Metternich. He just launched military strikes
against a brutal Syrian regime he used to describe as "NOT our problem".
Yes, Donald Trump is a great big bag of contradictions and he just swaggered his way into the
single most complex civil war in living memory – a war that is even more complicated than raising
a high-rise hotel in a foreign capital.
At least Bush took more than a year after 9/11 before he invaded Iraq. Trump hasn't reached the 100-day
mark and he's already walking into his own quagmire.
Going from dangerous to lethal - he's graduated to blindly lobbing bombs at foreign countries
for reasons he doesn't fully understand and causing consequences he'll never comprehend.
Helping to further destabilise one of the most dangerous regions in terms of international terrorism
is a good thing? If Assad is toppled today the people placed to fill the vacuum are some of the
most abhorrent Wahhabist nutters you could imagine. The secular rebels such as they were have
either been killed or surpassed in power and influence, several years ago by now. Atrocities committed
by Assad need to be dealt with by international courts following the managed conclusion of the
war.
What Trump did was totally illegal, and you won't find anyone to tell him so. All the ones that
hated him before are at his feet now for further collaboration in destroying Syria and thus prolonging
the suffering of the Syrian people.
I am still troubled by the Guardian editorial line and journalists unquestioningly concluding
that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical attacks in question. I of course cannot
say it is not, but I have also not been presented with any evidence anywhere that it was. I certainly
haven't seen any convincing evidence presented in the Guardian. Most troubling for me is that
I haven't seen any Guardian journalists asking what benefit the Assad regime thought it would
gain from carrying out these chemical attacks (if it did). Who is to benefit from these attacks?
That is what I would be asking as that is a long way to discovering who is guilty. Share
"... I am a Chinese American, I voted for trump. I feel betray after the missile strike. Trump seems just like another puppet by the Zionist Jew to eliminate Syria then Iran ..."
I am a Chinese American, I voted for trump. I feel betray after the missile strike. Trump
seems just like another puppet by the Zionist Jew to eliminate Syria then Iran
so trump clearly has no choice in things it's soo clear. everything that happens is decided
by the zionists. so let me get this straight, the CIA provide chemical weapons like sarin gas
to terrorists groups and when the Syrian army bombs the factory it explodes the gas killing the
civilians in the area, America proceeds to Launch 60 tomahawk missiles(and only half land) at
a Syrian air base and terrorist groups just happen to launch a quick offensive soon after.
didn't the trump administration say getting rid of assad is no longer on the agenda?
"But the liberal Democrat, who was one of then-Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' few supporters in Congress last
year, explained she wanted to engage in dialogue with Assad."
If you support peace, you work for Russia. McCarthyism.
McCarthyism is indeed a bad thing, but the only ones I see complaining about it recently are useful idiots, and useful idiocy
is also a bad thing.
So I'm left only to despair at the state of political thought in the United States today.
"McCarthyism is indeed a bad thing, but the only ones I see complaining about it recently are useful idiots, and useful idiocy
is also a bad thing."
Nothing is worse then being McCarthyist. Nothing. That's the bottom: they are real intellectual bottom feeders. Think about
this.
Even being useless "neoliberal idiot", essentially a shill of financial oligarchy, the role that you played before in this
forum, is much, much better.
And please stop treating ilsm as if he is subpar to you just because you are "politically correct".
Please understand that your post pretty well attest that you are just a typical narrow-minded, provincial neocon chichenhawk.
Brainwashed by propaganda to the extent that you lost any ability to think independently and skeptically. Capable only regurgitating
CNN.
You should to go in to that area in north Syria where the chemical attack/false flag was staged, ask for hard evidence and see
how long you live.
The propaganda is "Assad is a brute", jihadi shell loyal sections of Syria every day but no one run pictures of those casualties,
just like none from Sanaa or Gaza.
The guys who were going to replace Qaddafi? Where are the liberals?
Sure, because inability to investigate a war zone without danger indicates it all MUST be false flag operations. That's very logical
... for me to poop on.
Looks like in addition to having zero knowledge of physics, you have zero knowledge of chemistry. Congratulations. Looks like
you might seek the job as MSM political commentator.
But now a little bit chemistry:
== quote ==
Sarin, or GB (G-series, 'B'), is a colorless, odorless liquid,[5] used as a chemical weapon due to its extreme potency as a nerve
agent.
... ... ...
People who absorb a non-lethal dose, but do not receive immediate medical treatment, may suffer permanent neurological damage.
== end of quote ==
Syrian revels were already producing sarin in 2013 and injured several US solders with it in Iraq (using artillery shell delivery
system).
This is a really diabolic substance which is probably 10 to 100 times more dangerous then cyanide. Poor man weapon of mass
destruction, if you wish. BTW that's why Assad had have it -- to counterbalance Israeli nuclear weapons as such bombs/rockets
would wipe out country population. Not so much because he was such an evil dictator who enjoys collecting dangerous staff.
Lethal concentration is so low that if a person touches the victim with bare hands he/she essentially touches dispersed cyanide
power. And has reasonably high chances to absorb a non-lethal doze to be injured for life, if this was a military grade sarin.
This was not the case. And that raises a very important question: what if this was not a military grade sarin. And the most
plausible answer is: no it was not. Oops...
What was is the most plausible source of not military grade sarin with primitive systems of delivery (artillery shells). Right.
Rebels. Such product is an amateur product typical for rebel's underground labs. So if you shell the territory that is bombed
by Assad forces with your shell with sarin warhead you get what? Right. A very potent false flag with no witnesses and difficulties
to find the truth.
If one compare how Japanese dealt with sarin attack in the subway with the way first responders in Syria treated victims the
hypothesis that it was military grade chemical weapon promoted by the MSM instantly becomes much less convincing and their level
of indignation start looking somewhat phony.
Some even suggest that this was phosgene -- a much easier synthesized (phosgene can be produced by passing purified carbon
monoxide and chlorine gas through a bed of porous activated carbon, which serves as a catalyst -- undertaking simple enough for
any rebel group) or it was sarin, but in "amateur concentration" with simplistic warhead: less lethal then "military grade" with
sophisticated dispersion via bomblets
Again sarin is a really diabolical substance even in comparison with phosgene -- that is very important to understand.
"Phosgene is the chemical compound with the formula COCl2. This colorless gas gained infamy as a chemical weapon during World
War I where it was responsible for about 85% of the 100,000 deaths caused by chemical weapons. It is also a valued industrial
reagent and building block in synthesis of pharmaceuticals and other organic compounds. In low concentrations, its odor resembles
freshly cut hay or grass"
After some research, this incident to me looks more and more like a successful repetition of previous false flag operation
conducted in the same province in 2013 with the same explicit goal: to implicate Assad and provoke the USA for invasion of the
country with the goal of regime change.
With the same players and the same suspiciously hysterical reaction of neocon dominated MSM -- the reaction which occurred
before any investigation.
Which means this is a propaganda campaign, not a natural reaction for the tragedy.
And Trump reaction in the best cowboy style increased my suspicions even more: that means that he folded: "Russian links" neo-McCarthyism
smear got him (it is incorrectly to call it McCarthysim as "classic" ten year campaign was about communists as a political movement,
not only about a particular country -- the USSR ).
Now anti-war right is typically blamed with anti-Semitism, which is less potent weapon. Anti-Russian smear was the invention
of Hillary Clinton campaign staff.
And "last but not least." Nikki Haley is a pretty clever, fast learning politician, so when she imitates Colin Powell in the
UN (suicidal, career limiting move), condemning Assad, Russia and Iran before any investigation of chemical attack in Syria (
'They defied the conscience of the world' ) additional questions arise about the USA motives and the level of cooperation with
the al Nusra rebels on the level of government agencies.
She got "all in" without any second thought. Politicians don't do that unless forced or convinced that this is "slam dunk".
To me her behavior was a real red flag -- the smell of Iraqi WDMs -- the smell of government operation -- the signal that something
is really fishy here: after listening to her I assumed "false attack" as the primary hypothesis.
Because of cuo bono principle.
And started looking at those sites which the provide alternative hypothesis and information, mainly British. I now wonder if
all victims were locals, or some of them were hostages, "human shields" and did people died exactly from air attack and subsequent
release of chemicals ("Russian hypotheses") or the area was shelled in parallel with the air attack with shells that carry chemical
warheads.
Another unanswered but troubling question: Why such a disproportional number of children ? Was this staged to increase the
level of anger against Assad government (which worked) ?
But I am a skeptic by nature, so your mileage may vary.
My impression is that CNN is good enough for your intellectual level, so you can continue in your typical, already well learned,
standard brainwashed way. I do not see any desire to dig in the substance in your political-related posts. You just regurgitate
CNN and happy about it.
Which has a definite advantage of being always "politically correct".
And what is important is that you seems to enjoy this position so much that you just can't stop from reminding me about this
your advantage on each and every occasion, especially if you have no valid arguments ;-).
Five major US newspapers-the New York Times, Washington Post,
USA Today, Wall Street Journal and New York Daily
News-offered no opinion space to anyone opposed to Donald
Trump's Thursday night airstrikes.
By contrast, the five papers ran a total of 18 op-eds,
columns or "news analysis" articles (dressed-up opinion
pieces) that either praised the strikes or criticized them
for not being harsh enough:
A pair of veteran leaders on the left, former Democratic
National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Center for
American Progress President Neera Tanden, called on Hawaiians
to vote Rep. Tulsi Gabbard out of office after the Democrat
questioned whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was
responsible for last week's chemical attack.
"A pair of veteran leaders on the left, former Democratic
National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Center for
American Progress President Neera Tanden, called on Hawaiians
to vote Rep. Tulsi Gabbard out of office after the Democrat
questioned whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was
responsible for last week's chemical attack."
[
Astonishing, Neera Tanden and Howard Dean are wildly
intolerant of dissent by Democrats from the dictates of the
Clintons but I would not have imagined they were this
intolerant. Tulsi Gabbard is an elected official of
conscience, but evidently conscience is intolerable for the
likes of Tanden and Dean.
The point I suppose is for "leading" Democrats to clear
the party of those who are not suitably dogma intimidated. ]
The US should have supported a through UN investigation
and international law in regard to the gas attacks in Syria.
3:39 PM - 7 Apr 2017
[ Such a statement strikes me as completely reasonable,
and for any prominent Democrat to find the statement
intolerable is to me lacking in tolerance and judiciousness.
Then again, the implied or lightly veiled criticism of
President Obama for failing to intervene forcefully enough in
Syria has startled me. ]
"... The main accomplishment of bombing Syria was the sabotage of Trumps stated goal of corporation
with Russia. I wonder which of his advisers convinced Trump to fock himself? Peter K. -> pgl... , April
10, 2017 at 11:44 AM As Krugman points out it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Trump has no long-term
strategy. A one-off of destroying some planes and a Syrian janitor wouldn't matter in the long run.
It's like Bill Clinton's strategy with Iraq. Launch some missiles at them to distract attention. ..."
"... Of course there is a long term strategy, it is to use Saudis and the GCC to keep permanent
war going. ..."
"... How could shooting insanely from the hip further weaken US 'credibility'? How can continuously
repeating unsubstantiated allegations as fact be any different than Goebbels' propaganda? ..."
"... The US is defender of Sunni terror, you know the kind behind 9/11/01, against Shiite Muslims
and Middle East Christians living in places controlled by US' oil sheiks or their jihadi clients! ..."
"... To 96% of the people in the world the US is either a conscienceless, heavily armed thug or
a dog with half the world's war spending to be unleashed by any thug with resources or banks. ..."
"... Defeating ISIS is priority to no one. The Saudis, Turkey, etc like ISIS exactly where they
are. ..."
"... While the staged "fight" for Raqqah is malarkey, an excuse to deliver heavy weapons to jihadists.
The US' jihadis moved south to 'grab the dam', so that ISIS' logistics road from turkey was not cut!
How ISIS has not been starved out in Mosul and Raqqa is beyond imagining. ..."
War [leaving Syria to 9/11 terrorists who want to do what they were not doing in Iraq in 2002,
that is build a terror states to compete with Libya and Afghanistan] is the life of the US state
in the 'American Century'.
If US succeeds in regime change future bands of terrorists attacking the infidel will be trained
in Aleppo!
This series of laments and explanations are remarkably interesting, and I am grateful for them.
I have found these last days discouraging, though foolishly so no doubt. So the laments help and
can be most informative even though outlines.
The main accomplishment of bombing Syria was the sabotage of Trumps stated goal of corporation
with Russia. I wonder which of his advisers convinced Trump to fock himself?
As Krugman points out it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Trump has no long-term strategy. A one-off
of destroying some planes and a Syrian janitor wouldn't matter in the long run. It's like
Bill Clinton's strategy with Iraq. Launch some missiles at them to distract attention.
Of course there is a long term strategy, it is to use Saudis and the GCC to keep permanent war going.
" .and weaken American credibility .."
How could shooting insanely from the hip further weaken US 'credibility'? How can continuously
repeating unsubstantiated allegations as fact be any different than Goebbels' propaganda?
The US is defender of Sunni terror, you know the kind behind 9/11/01, against Shiite Muslims
and Middle East Christians living in places controlled by US' oil sheiks or their jihadi clients!
To 96% of the people in the world the US is either a conscienceless, heavily armed thug
or a dog with half the world's war spending to be unleashed by any thug with resources or banks.
Defeating ISIS is priority to no one. The Saudis, Turkey, etc like ISIS exactly where they
are.
While the staged "fight" for Raqqah is malarkey, an excuse to deliver heavy weapons to
jihadists. The US' jihadis moved south to 'grab the dam', so that ISIS' logistics road from turkey
was not cut! How ISIS has not been starved out in Mosul and Raqqa is beyond imagining.
The Russian Defense Ministry wrote a
Facebook post to that effect: "According to the objective monitoring data, yesterday, from 11:30
a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (local time) the Syrian aviation made a strike on a large terrorist ammunition
depot and a concentration of military hardware in the eastern outskirts of the Khan Sheikhun town.
On the territory of the depot, there were workshops, which produced chemical warfare munitions.Terrorists
had been transporting chemical munitions from this largest arsenal to the territory of Iraq. Both
international organizations and the authorities of the country had repeatedly proved their usage
by terrorists." FedUpWithWelfareStates
•
2 days ago I tend to go with the 'Logical' Russian version of the incident...
ONE, Syria had NO reason to throw away all of the gains made.
TWO, the Pentagon & State Department has LIED so much to the American people, that they are NO
longer believable...
There are no "denials" of the warehouse explanation that would even remotely make sense.
Also, there is not only no evidence of the use of chemical weapons by Syrian air force, but there
is no even a motive. Assad is expanding the control of his territory, he is winning almost everywhere.
Why he would all of sudden decide to use chemical weapons (which he does not even have as the
UN inspection got full access to any and all facilities that stored them or could manufacture,
and certified that all of the chemical weapons were destroyed).
The "evidence" comes from Al-Qaeda that controls the city, and from one of its doctors who as
tweeting all day during the "emergency" on how he will receive videocalls and interviews. The
doctor has been implicated in kidnapping of UK citizens, and was disbarred.
Way more sane evidence has been to very well in a YouTube video called "Evidence Suggests S-Y-R-I-A
G-A-S ATTACK Is False Flag".
"... In fact there are already reports that ISIS has launched an offensive in the Homs region sure in the knowledge that the Syrian regime has lost its air cover in that region. Consequently do US actions like this help ISIS? ..."
"... Why did Al Qaeda attack Homs at the same time as the US strikes? ..."
"... And what about Turkey now riling up everybody and wanting to invade Syria and asking for more strikes from the US? ..."
"... American people: never forget the pretext that put you into this mess in Iraq in the first place! Be critical of your government. Don't jump to conclusions based on photos from sources that can't prove their authenticity! Don't be the sheep! ..."
"... The world does not need another full scale war! ..."
"... This last bombing is very much in line with Trump steaks and Trump vodka, just a hell of a lot uglier. ..."
"... And so we see once again that it does not matter who the American president is, what he/she wants or plans for their foreign policy - when the real masters whistle, the interchangeable White House puppet rolls over and bombs anyone who endangers the corporate profits*. ..."
"... Where's the actual proof that Assad did this?. The whole thing stinks of another Gulf of Tonkin incident. ..."
"... Just goes to show, how dangerous Trump actually is. We need to be given the 'clear' evidence, that Trump vindicated his action on. ..."
"... Unless, 'experts' can investigate the bombed area, there is, as yet, no unequivocal evidence, that Syrian forces we're responsible, and Assad's and Russian explanations, could be just as valid. ..."
"... Let's face it, the only one's to benefit from this, is Isis and the other extreme Islamist rebel factions, and Trump himself, who could be attempting to shore up his failing presidency at home. ..."
"... Trump is doing exactly what the Establishment has told him to do. ..."
"... I can't be the only person who's thinking false flag here. Something doesn't add up. Clearly there has been a chemical attack - it just doesn't make any sense why the Syria regime are behind it. How do they benefit? ..."
"... I too can't believe that Assad would shot himself in the foot by using chemical weapons. The most plausible explanation is the one being advanced by the Russians. ..."
"... But whatever the truth, and no one seems to know, unless you swallow the false-news regularly advanced by this newspaper, everybody as seized on the news to advance their own agenda. ..."
"... And the the Guardian and BBC jump to use it as propaganda to steer the UK government to a foreign policy of which the Guardian and BBC approve. ..."
"... We are fed, lie, after lie, after lie, and they expect us to swallow it - it is insulting. ..."
"... The US is above international law. Plus they have just destroyed the crime scene. ..."
"... In a single day, we've gone from Assad's air force being 'suspected' of the war crime, to an air base 'believed to be' that from which the attack was launched, to both being established facts, reported as such by the media - with no investigation or proof in between. ..."
"... But if Trump has decided to get Assad out, who is the US going to put in to replace him? ..."
"... Loathed though I am to contemplate it on this occasion it is possible that Assad has been framed. Only evidence can clear this up. ..."
"... The absolute worst aspect of all, and we do know this for sure, is that the bastard claims god is his guide. ..."
"... As he escalates on behalf of the Military Industrial Complex, which is desperately in need of profit and growth. ..."
"... Liberals want the Wahhabis to be in charge. ..."
"... Dec 2016 - Erdogan confirms Turkey has evidence that the US coalition is supporting ISIS and rebels in Syria ..."
"... It almost seems too perfect doesn't it? Could be another false flag.. ..."
"... America is simply showing it stays one step or 10 ahead and can and will act with impunity - anywhere. ..."
"... It's not even proved that Assad used gas. In fact it's not proved what gas it was...Thanks to media and political spin its a cert is was Sarin. So, the US launches yet another military intervention without evidence or legality. ..."
"... There is no deliberation in Syria, there is only violence. An uprising has morphed into a major proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran based on sectarian lines, with Turkey tilting the scales a bit for the Saudis and Russian the same for the Iran-backed side. ..."
"... A similar situation in Germany 400 years ago has become labelled 'the 30 years war', although with modern munitions that seems unlikely. ..."
"... Meanwhile Syrian children will continue to be murdered by all comers. None of the international parties taking an "interest" in Syria is innocent or guileless in this respect. We don't know for certain yet who carried out the chemical attack - it could well have been ISIS or other "rebels", or it could have been the "regime". But let's remember that Trump has said publicly that America created ISIS. ..."
"... Trump's recent action doesn't just reveal a lack of understanding about what's going on in Syria. (And let's face it, which of us really knows what is going on there? There is no news source whose credibility is beyond question concerning that conflict). No, far more worryingly, Trump's recent action reveals a cynical willingness to act regardless of his understanding of the situation in order to refute a critical narrative (against himself) or promote a more favourable narrative (towards himself). In other words, not that different than any other politician has been regarding acts of war in the past few decades. ..."
"... An interesting year ahead. We will see soon what Putin really has in his Trump file. We might see one or the other interesting picture or video this year. ..."
"... Who's warmonger now? ..."
"... A UK ex-Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, describes how Jihadi opposition in Syria were storing chemical weapons in schools, and that Western journalists saw this. ..."
"... With no evidence that the Syrian military actually has dropped chemical munitions on people, the rush to attack the Syrian installation speaks volumes. ..."
"... According to the Guardian headline, after the gas attack killed 70, "'The dead were wherever you looked': ..In the botched US airstrike 230 were killed ( 'ours' are just collateral damage)... ..."
"... Tomahawk diplomacy ..."
"... IMO there are only two options now. ..."
"... Trump and his neolibcons plan to escalate this to the brink of WWIII, and possibly over the brink, or ..."
"... He has been blackmailed with the lives of his nearest ones, so winning the 2020 doesn't feel that important anymore ..."
"... The man's a total fool. He's taken Syria down the same road as his predecessors did with Libya and Iraq. Remove the leaders, just contend with hordes of warring tribals. By that time the incumbent President of the USA has moved on, leaving his mess for others to clean up. ..."
"... Along with the fact that ONLY THE SYRIAN GOV COULD POSSIBLY LOSE BY SUCH AN ATTACK -- and would have ZERO to gain , is a compelling reason for investigation : NOT blanket repetition of what ISIS say -- according to the Guardian itself . ..."
"... Anyway, the least actions of US in Syria, which can be qualified as an agression against a sovereign state from any point of view, shows that US, as a drunk cowboy, firing at bottles in a saloon, understand only a policy of superior force and is negotiable only when you put a colt to his head. ..."
"... BTW: 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at $1,590,000 each [Wiki] is $93,810,000. Or the annual income of 4,690 people making $10/hr spent within a few minutes... to send a message to a vacated airbase? If 80 people killed in Syria is senseless, then what is 210 people shot in America on the first day of 2017? Should we send 2.5 times as many Tomahawk cruise missiles to ORD and LAX? Will the NRA get the "message"? Rattel , 7 Apr 2017 09:48 So the answer to the question 'Cui bono' appears to be Donald Trump. ..."
"... Last time I saw the guardian posting pic of the vehicles carrying humanitarian aid that were allegedly attacked by syrian planes...and they were full of visible small arms bullet holles with is impossible to come from planes. The scenes had been staged! ..."
"... Further escalation of this mess is terrifying - especially now we've seen how easy Trump is to manipulate. ..."
"... "Hitting one airbase is not enough, there are 26 airbases that target civilians," a key figure in the Army of Islam faction, Mohamed Alloush, said on his Twitter account. "The whole world should save the Syrian people from the clutches of the killer Bashar (al-Assad) and his aides." Siding with a group called the Army of Islam - what could possibly go wrong? beren56 , 7 Apr 2017 09:50 Sadam and Gadaffi were removed from power and it only created a vacuum. Getting rid of Assad will likely do the same. The dictators kept radical Islam in check. It's not like they will thank America if they did get rid of Assad-they would still hate America ..."
"... As soon as the current Assad regime fall, it will bring chaos, instability and death to Syria and indeed the ME on a unprecedented scale. The West should should be very careful. Assad is many times more preferable than a post Assad situation with various religious nutters wielding power. ..."
"... ''Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.'' Donald Trump on Twitter, 9 October 2012. ..."
"... "Meanwhile, the heart of the problem is that the United States seems always to have only one solution to war: make more war. " ..."
"... In my youth a frequent moniker said "fighting for peace is like fu.king for virginity" - it hasn't changed ..."
You would hope that our "independent" media might ask some important questions, rather than
simply swallow the narrative our government's feed them...
For instance, where is the evidence that the Syrian regime did this? Only on Wednesday the
UN stated that it could not say with any certainty that the chemicals were delivered by air.
Indeed the UN investigation has barely started, so if the US have information that Assad did
this surely they should present it?
What about motive, why would Assad who everyone agrees is on the brink of winning this war
give the US a reason to intervene against him? Besides didn't we also oversee the distruction
of his chemical weapons stockpile 4 years ago?
We know ISIS have chemical weapons because our ally Turkey has let them import them over their
border.
Also, even if we ignore the legality of last night's strike, what has it done to help the situation
in Syria?
In fact there are already reports that ISIS has launched an offensive in the Homs region
sure in the knowledge that the Syrian regime has lost its air cover in that region. Consequently
do US actions like this help ISIS?
I don't know about anyone else but it is pretty standard for me that when someone is accused
of something I look for the evidence and motives. It seems unfortunately that our media have long
stopped asking any difficult questions, as we sleepwalk into yet another middle eastern war...
The number of countries not bombed by the USA grows smaller all the time. It is a foreign policy
based on high explosives - mindless, cruel and bound to create more enemies.
What the hell exactly is the message? Don't use chemical weapons on the beautiful babies, stick
to blowing them to pieces and mutilating them with conventional weapons like civilized people?
Asking again: where is the toxic chemical cloud from the airbase the US attacked overnight that
was allegedly the base from where chemical air raids were launched and thus presumably where the
toxic material was in storage?
Why did Al Qaeda attack Homs at the same time as the US strikes?
There is simply NO REASON at all that Assad would go out of his way to gas 100 people including
children KNOWING the backlash that would follow right after. Assad does not strike me as an idiot.
Specially being so close to end this mess once and for all.
Doesn't the UN has a organisation that was in charge of the inspection and removal of all chemical
weapons from Syria back in 2013/14 ?
And what about Turkey now riling up everybody and wanting to invade Syria and asking for
more strikes from the US?
Something fundamental changed on the ground in this past days to make so many heads of states
turn 180 on this issue. Fishy at best!
American people: never forget the pretext that put you into this mess in Iraq in the first
place! Be critical of your government. Don't jump to conclusions based on photos from sources
that can't prove their authenticity! Don't be the sheep!
And so we see once again that it does not matter who the American president is, what he/she
wants or plans for their foreign policy - when the real masters whistle, the interchangeable White
House puppet rolls over and bombs anyone who endangers the corporate profits*.
International laws are ignored, pretexts hastily fabricated (did you notice they don't pay
so much attention to detail anymore?) and people die to be used as an excuse for yet another war
crime in the perpetual quest for more and more and more money.
*If they refuse, they are shown the footage of Kennedy assassination taken from a yet unseen
angle (RIP Bill Hicks).
Islamic state takes advantage of US attack on government to storm western Palmyra
BEIRUT, LEBANON (9:40 A.M.) – Not long after the U.S. attacked the Shayrat Airbase in eastern
Homs, the Islamic State (ISIL) launched two separate attacks on the Syrian Arab Army's (SAA) defenses
in the Palmyra.
I struggle to see why bombs are almost universally accepted way of solving foreign problems, even
by most of the left.
It might seem like standing by and doing nothing in the face of appalling horrors, but enlightenment
and revolution has to come naturally and from the people, and dropping foreign bombs is just going
to confuse the issue.
There are so many non-violent, more effective options that we never seem to use. Why not open
borders to allow show refugees compassion and that the rest of the world is not like their home
country? Why not charter warships to peacefully collect those seeking refuge, removing them from
the conflict rather than raining down more conflict on them? Why not do low fast flybys as a show
of not only vast force, but restraint, responsibility, compassion? Why not remove military force
peacefully, by cutting off arms trade? Why not drop thousands of flowers? Why not drop information?
Food? Teddy bears?
Well the liberal elite finally got what they wanted. A shooting war in the Middle East. I hope
The Guardian, BBC and Vauxhall Cross are all very proud of themselves this morning.
Russia has suspended the memorandum of understanding on flight safety in Syria with the
United States amid the US missile strike on Syria's Shayrat military airfield, according to
the Russian Foreign Ministry's statement.
And there is more to come. Now, US (and UK) aircrafts can be freely knocked down from the sky.
Where's the actual proof that Assad did this?. The whole thing stinks of another Gulf of Tonkin
incident.
Also whenever the media just blindly report something as fact without any concrete evidence,
without any critical thought, investigation & examination etc then I'm always highly suspicious
(just like tthe last chemical attack, where they were eagerly stating that Assad did it, there
was video footage etc etc yet it turned out that it was the "Rebels" who were behind the attack
all along.
Of course the media never told us that, as soon as it became apparent that Assad did not do
it they dropped the story so fast, swept under the rug never to be reported ever again).
I mean it really doesn't add up as Assad has no reason to use chemical weapons (he's winning
the war(and would've won along time ago if it wasn't for the West proping up the supposed "Rebels
& Moderates" more like Isis and AQ), he benifets in no way, and only brings about international
scorn) risking the advantage he has), the whole thing comes across as very fishy.
All too convenient & very contrived. I think we're being had by the powers that be, and unfortunately
too many people aren't smart enough, don't possess the critical thinking to see that and will
fall for it hook, line and sinker, will take it all at face value.
Just goes to show, how dangerous Trump actually is. We need to be given the 'clear' evidence,
that Trump vindicated his action on.
So far, the information available, is not irrefutable i.e. that Assad's forces were involved
in a deliberate gas attack, and in fact he would be mad to do so, knowing it couldn't be concealed,
and the consequences are what we're seeing now.
At the moment, we are told that planes took off from that airfield, were logged on US radar
to the town, on which explosives were dropped, and that the military base, might have had stocks
of chemical weapons, in 2013.
Unless, 'experts' can investigate the bombed area, there is, as yet, no unequivocal evidence,
that Syrian forces we're responsible, and Assad's and Russian explanations, could be just as valid.
Let's face it, the only one's to benefit from this, is Isis and the other extreme Islamist
rebel factions, and Trump himself, who could be attempting to shore up his failing presidency
at home.
Of course, if Assad is directly to blame, and that can be demonstrated without doubt, then
by all means, retaliate, and very hard, but until then, a more measured and circumspect appraisal
is now necessary.
I think we in the west need to be very careful and set an example by respecting international
law, for one day the Anglo world might not be the world's dominant military powers. There needed
to be a proper investigation before any action. Working with Russia to find out exactly
what happened.
How would we like to be struck at will with a total inability to respond by a militarily superior
foe wherever & whenever that foe feels like it? It could be a superior Chinese military floating
off our coast one day , with us screaming about international law.
I can't be the only person who's thinking false flag here. Something doesn't add up. Clearly
there has been a chemical attack - it just doesn't make any sense why the Syria regime are behind
it. How do they benefit?
Why use chemical weapons when the US said it was the "line"? Who does benefit from this? Have
false flag operations happened before (with proof)? It's extremely dangerous to believe what has
been said in the US and UK since this attack, and not answered these questions as well. Something
clearly is amiss here.
I too can't believe that Assad would shot himself in the foot by using chemical weapons. The
most plausible explanation is the one being advanced by the Russians.
But whatever the truth, and no one seems to know, unless you swallow the false-news regularly
advanced by this newspaper, everybody as seized on the news to advance their own agenda.
For the Trump administration it was a great moment to show China and North Korea that the USA
is capable of delivering a knock-out blow to the North Koreans nuclear ambitions.
And the the Guardian and BBC jump to use it as propaganda to steer the UK government to
a foreign policy of which the Guardian and BBC approve.
We are fed, lie, after lie, after lie, and they expect us to swallow it - it is insulting.
This seems so coordinated - alleged chemical attack, universal condemnation of Assad, US missile
strike and then within hours ISIS are attacking Syrian army bases.
Shame so little condemnation here when US killed 100s if not 100s recently in Iraq, but seems
most here are now disgusting Trump supporters so no surprise.
It's all a convenient set up - ever since Trump announced he was pulling back from confronting
Assad - the war machine went into overdrive - and sucked Don in.
Another knee jerk reaction from the USA. Next thing we know the west can add Syria to its list
of disastrous military campaigns that will sink another country into even bigger chaos. Greater
loss of life and like Libya, a breeding ground for Daesh.
But still, think of the profit for the manufacturer of Cruise missiles. Another twenty six and
a half million dollars of missiles to be replaced. One wonders if top brass are on a commission
from the arms manufacturers?
Don't get me wrong, I loathe Assad. But I don't get why he would have launched a chemical attack
now. He's winning. He knows he loses by doing something like that. Are we sure he did it? If he
goes who's next? Are they worse? Why aren't we airlifting kids out of these areas, we could do
that. We moved kids during WW2, and we didn't have the technology we have now. If we can use a
drone to drop a missille, why can't it drop food and medications on people who need it. We are
morally bankrupt. In the face of all this immorality we sit here and order another Starbucks and
type with impotent rage. How can we get this to stop?
This is frightening: policy replaced by a knee-jerk reaction based on Trump's moods. The atrocity
was unspeakable, Assad is a vicious despot, Russia's backing for him is purblind. But..
In a single day, we've gone from Assad's air force being 'suspected' of the war crime,
to an air base 'believed to be' that from which the attack was launched, to both being established
facts, reported as such by the media - with no investigation or proof in between.
And still US policy on Syria is a mystery, not to say non-existent: the strike raises more
questions than it answers. If this was limited action, was it anything more than gesture politics?
But if Trump has decided to get Assad out, who is the US going to put in to replace him?
Good comment - as mentioned elsewhere today Trump seems to be rapidly reversing his policy on
Syria - re Assad and refugees allowed entry to America etc. Might this airstrike action usefully
get him off the hook with regard to the Puppet of Russia accusations and define him in a "good"
light with his home audience in juxtaposition to Obama's reluctance to strike?
The Americans have surveillance that should be able to prove Assad was guilty. Time to show it.
Or maybe the Russians are right and Trump has been played by the jihadists who are quite capable
of gassing civilians to provoke a response against Assad.
Loathed though I am to contemplate it on this occasion it is possible that Assad has been
framed. Only evidence can clear this up.
The worrying issue to me is that Trump seems to be capable of knee-jerk reactions with very little
diplomacy or forethought as to the inevitable consequences. The chemical raids were undoubtedly
a ghastly act by whoever perpetrated them, but in this particular conflict, like so many in that
troubled part of the world, it is virtually impossible to distinguish the good guys from the bad.
Now Trump wades in with unilateral air strikes - gunboat diplomacy at its worst that could spark
wider conflict. Now where did I put those instructions on how to build my nuclear shelter?
So many people want Assad gone. Who will be put in his place? The result of removing brutal dictators
from the Middle East is all too clear to see, not only across the Middle East, but across Europe
and across the world.
Where is the proof that it was Assad?
A year back Saudi smuggled weapons to Turkey supposedly in relation to the Syrian conflict,
but which the Turks would have used against the Kurds.
There is too much that isn't known in this instance to take action. I can't see Russia and
Assad now backing away. North Korea might even offer them a helping hand (whether that hand would
be taken might be unlikely, but backed into a corner - who knows).
There is simply NO REASON at all that Assad would go out of his way to gas 100 people including
children KNOWING the backlash that would follow right after. Assad does not strike me as an idiot.
Specially being so close to end this mess once and for all.
Doesn't the UN has a organisation that was in charge of the inspection and removal of all chemical
weapons from Syria back in 2013/14 ?
And what about Turkey now riling up everybody and wanting to invade Syria and asking for more
strikes from the US?
Something fundamental changed on the ground in this past days to make so many heads of states
turn 180 on this issue. Fishy at best!
American people: never forget the pretext that put you into this mess in Iraq in the first
place! Be critical of your government. Don't jump to conclusions based on photos from sources
that can't prove their authenticity! Don't be the sheep!
Wasn't a week ago US decided change policy on removing Assad..the Turks and the terrorists couldn't
have that so they made up this gas attack because its a red line, some of those filming those
horrific pictures were terrorists..the hawks used it and Trump fell for it.
The West wants to topple Syria in order to get closer to Iran and do the same thing there ( send
in and supply the murderous cut throats to collapse it from the inside) therefore anything about
Assad being this and the Syrian Government being that, as per the Western Media , is just Bull
....as far as I am concerned.
Personality related impulsive behaviour? Seems Trump feels a need for power without reflection
of the consequences of his actions and consultation with the leaders of other nations. abuse of
his position of power? If he makes these decisions what else will follow?
Trump is not capable of reflection or even forethought. He acts in the way he speaks, i.e. whatever
is passing through his head is the next thing to do/say. He is the most clueless US president
I've heard of, and that includes Reagan.
Orwell predicted a machine that would churn out garbage music to satisfy the proles. Does the
Guardian have such a machine simply attach a name before publishing?
6 years of hand-wringing? Let's have some more of that.
Amazing how many people, on both sides of the argument, are ready with hard and fast opinions
so rapidly. Might be an idea to wait until a few more facts are in, and the ramifications begin
to reveal themselves. But I guess that's not how the internet (or commentary) works.
Regime change of Syria was on Wesley Clarke's list 16 years ago after 9/11.
Assad had only just come to power, so it's clearly an orchestrated exercise and the US is frankly
running out of time and excuses not to get in and get the job done, ironically for the Swamp creatures
that Donald said he wanted to get rid of, what a complete numskull.
I thought Trump wasn't the warmonger and would focus on the USA, which would only concern itself
with other countries if there was something to gain from it. First he doesn't care and now that
he has seen dead children it is suddenly different? How rash and unpredictable.
It appears that the Guardian doesn't think it necessary to wait for the conclusion of any investigation
into the chemical attack before pronouncing Assad responsible. I take it this approach is an example
of what the Guardian considers to be "quality journalism". Most people would consider quality
journalism to rely upon evidence, rather than an editorial agenda.
FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG The only thing which could derail Assad's total victory in Syria
is if he uses chemical weapons. Then he uses chemical weapons. Whatever you think of Assad he
isn't mad. This is clearly a con and Trump has fallen for it. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Donald Trump, the man who just over a month ago wanted to bar entry of all Syrian refugees
into the United States, now wants us to think that he cares deeply about Syrian children. I
don't believe it
Neither do I. I think he is trying to save his job. With Trump if you can't baffle them with
brains baffle them with BS. This attack is a distraction from the Russian/Flynn investigation.
What it achieves for Trump is the following:
1. Makes him look anti Russian. This is important because of the investigation into his cronies
connections with Russia.
2. Proves he has given up on Ukraine, so no removal of sanctions and therefore no big oil deal
with Russia.
3. Encourages ISIS and Al-Quaeda.
4. Has committed an act of war against Syria so America is now at war with Syria. A war with no
strategy like Iraq, Libya.
5. Makes Trump look like a leader.
6. Has probably alienated many of his supporters.
Most of all he thinks this action will save his job.
I see the international context as secondary to the US-domestic one. Since taking office Trump
has been made to look a twat by judges, demonstrators and his own legislature. And so the Syrian
chemical attacks previded him with a wonderful opportunity to do something military which is always
the fall-back of poor leaders. He can now say he is strong, America is strong, we'll take on the
bad guys, etc etc.
To be honest nobody really cares much about Assad (I doubt even the Russians do beyond his country's
strategic usefulness) so it was a target that while championed at home was always going to win
approval abroad (even if muttered under the breath).
It also allowed Trump to do the hard-man/big-swinging-dick act right in the Chinese leader's face
- again a 'win' for him.
I think he is calculating that he has just saved his presidency. Given the lunacy of US politics
at the moment he is probably right.
If there is anyone out there who would really think that Assad would be stupid enough to use chemical
weapons, he/she (Trump/May) must be, well, stupid.
Mr Trump admitted that US had done "bad things". This is just another example. What he has
done plays wholly into the hands of some very questionable regimes and IS.
The tomahawk was an offensive weapon. What is offensive about white USA adopting it to name
its modern killer is that the original carriers, defending their land, were mown down using the
latest weapon of the time - the Gatling gun.
America is simply showing it stays one step or 10 ahead and can and will act with impunity
- anywhere.
It's not even proved that Assad used gas. In fact it's not proved what gas it was...Thanks
to media and political spin its a cert is was Sarin. So, the US launches yet another military
intervention without evidence or legality.
There is no deliberation in Syria, there is only violence. An uprising has morphed into a
major proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran based on sectarian lines, with Turkey tilting the
scales a bit for the Saudis and Russian the same for the Iran-backed side.
Civil wars come to end either with defeat of one party or all sides becoming exhausted of violence.
The proxy backers ensure that defeat for their side is impossible, and the sectarian aspect makes
exhaustion a far off prospect since each side fears genocide should it lose. Nonetheless, it might
be over by now if Russia has not intervened to prop up Assad, reducing his need to compromise.
A similar situation in Germany 400 years ago has become labelled 'the 30 years war', although
with modern munitions that seems unlikely.
As for the American air strike, a negative spin would be it made no difference (but the Russian
reaction suggest that is not the case) while a positive spin was that it tilted the balance back
towards a compromise ending (since Assad can no longer assume the Russian presence gives him immunity
from serious harm).
Isn't this exactly the kind of action that The Guardian and CNN etc have been goading Trump towards
since he took office? With every article accusing Trump of being a Russian stooge or a Manchurian
candidate, the "liberal" media has pushed him ever closer to sending this message .
The "message" isn't intended for Assad, and it's quite clearly marked with sheepish apologies
to Russia - which aren't going to wash, as Trump possibly guesses, but he had more urgent priorities
than Russia, such as proving that he isn't their "man" to domestic critics. This was all
done for the benefit of US and European audiences. Those in the media who clamored for it, must
have lost all sense of irony, not to say integrity, to come out with umbrage now that Trump as
reacted precisely as should have been predictable in order to defend his reputation against their
jibes.
The only redeeming feature of Trump's campaign was that he didn't seem to want to keep America
(and with it so much of the globe) embroiled in endless war. That broad instinct for a bit less
less war, if translated into actual policy, was the one Trump offering that you'd think the "liberal"
media could get behind.
But no. Trump was working for "the Russians", don't you know, and now he's prepared to push
us all one step closer to war with them just to disprove the playground taunts.
Meanwhile Syrian children will continue to be murdered by all comers. None of the international
parties taking an "interest" in Syria is innocent or guileless in this respect. We don't know
for certain yet who carried out the chemical attack - it could well have been ISIS or other "rebels",
or it could have been the "regime". But let's remember that Trump has said publicly that America
created ISIS.
Trump's recent action doesn't just reveal a lack of understanding about what's going on
in Syria. (And let's face it, which of us really knows what is going on there? There is no news
source whose credibility is beyond question concerning that conflict). No, far more worryingly,
Trump's recent action reveals a cynical willingness to act regardless of his understanding of
the situation in order to refute a critical narrative (against himself) or promote a more favourable
narrative (towards himself). In other words, not that different than any other politician has
been regarding acts of war in the past few decades.
When will the media accept the role they play in this? It is frankly grueling to read these
"outraged" reports while none of that goes acknowledged.
An interesting year ahead. We will see soon what Putin really has in his Trump file. We might
see one or the other interesting picture or video this year.
Trump tweet 2013 - What will we get from bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term
conflict. Do not attack Syria. Very many bad things will happen and US gets nothing!
I remember sitting in front of my TV watching the horror of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade
Centre. Fast forward 16 years and leader of the so called free world has bombed Syria on the say
so of Al-Qaeda while liberals cheer! What's going on?
This is a smokescreen, it has more to do with Trump giving a message to Xi face to face. He (Trump)
is telling Xi that if he doesn't deal with North Korea this is what he is capable of. Now watch
this drive.
I utterly despise how the narrative has just moved on and no one seems concerned with seeing any
proof of whether Assad is actually responsible for these attacks.
Assad probably had nothing to do with the attacks in 2013, and he has literally zero motive
for these attacks. Yet a vast majority of people just accept it because they trust the media to
do their job instead of act as a mouthpiece for warmongering assholes.
Shame on you Guardian, shame on all the journalists not questioning and demanding facts.
Clearly the chemical weapons attack was horrendous, not something we ever want to see repeated.
But i fear what we have done here, by jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions, is ensured that
the real perpetrator of these attacks is now emboldened and considering the whole thing a great
success. You'll note it is Al Qaeda (Al Nusra) and ISIS who are celebrating these US led attacks
on Syria. Think about that for a second. Are you really convinced they didn't carry out the chemical
attacks, in territory they held? They had everything to gain by doing so and casting the blame
on Assad, and given their defeat is currently almost certain, they had everything to gain.
Their ability to use such weapons is well documented in US intelligence reports.
Why are we so quick to jump to conclusions, when our chosen suspect has literally ZERO motive
for doing something like this.
Think people. Your journalists won't do it for you unfortunately.
In an interview conducted on April 5, 2017, Damian Walker, a former army bomb disposal officer,
made these observations: When I initially read that sarin nerve agent had been used in an attack
on Idlib, I was surprised that the chemical warfare agent had been identified so quickly. On watching
the video of the incident, I quickly concluded that it was unlikely a sarin attack. If it was
the first responders would also have been killed, and the victims' symptoms appeared to be the
result of a "choking agent", and not a military grade agent.
"largely ineffective bombing does little but make US lawmakers feel good".
Grateful for this insight. I think your last line covers what Trump actually intended. To look
to his own people, that he is acting decisively and those that supported him will see this action
as doing that. I think he intends no more than the appearance of looking like a decisive leader.
That can only be short lived as the reality impinges on his projected image to his supporters.
We have to vane men at the head of large countries - what could go wrong?!
We knew this new regime wanted war, Syria being it's first target, who knows north Korea and the
Russia.
The yanks need war to fuel and feed it's inhabitants, it simply can't resist without it.
Scary times to be a living in a world with mad yanks and that man controlling them.
God bless the people that suffer daily in Syria at the hands of American funded terror.
I'm quite suspicious that it happened at all. Syria denies responsibility and it seems logical
to question why they'd do the "chemical massacre" when it could only harm their own position.
May was in Saudi Arabia pretty quickly after Brexit was triggered to talk "trade" etc. It seems
that everybody hates Iran. Support for Trump's "targeted" attack is being quickly announced by
the apparent current alliance states, have there actually been any pictures released of the "chemical
massacre" of dead bodies? Just graves being dug, and graves already filled in with neatly placed
headstones - tidy. And, yes, children with oxygen masks on, but isn't sarin gas pretty quick acting,
being "26 times more deadly than cyanide" and leading to death by losing your insides to the outside,
basically.
A UK ex-Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, describes how Jihadi opposition in Syria were storing
chemical weapons in schools, and that Western journalists saw this.
With no evidence that the Syrian military actually has dropped chemical munitions on people,
the rush to attack the Syrian installation speaks volumes.
*If* there was actual evidence that Syria committed that crime, do you who favour military
action in Syria not think that most people would back attacking them with full force?
The rush to attack with no evidence says it all - it says there is none, the same MO as before.
Even the NY Times hardly a fan of Assad has backed down on the endless repeated assertions that
it was Assad forces that caused the 2O13 Ghouta chemical attack.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/06/nyt-retreats-on-2013-syria-sarin-claims/that the BBC
does not even seem to question. This is the notorious Red line case that Obama allegedly fudged.
The reason was the evidence pointed clearly to it being a Rebel False Flag as Seymour Hersh the
guy who broke the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam first opined to near universal silence .
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
On this much every Guardian reader needs to at least assess the evidence and they won't get much
help from the MSN
But who needs evidence? And don't think for one moment Intelligence services not capable of doing
this. We all know about the WMD claims that were enough, despite being completely baseless, to
launch a war while the State Dept scrambled desperately to prove a non existent connection between
Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
This is the Age of The Big Lie... the technique so ably initiated by Goebbels. Better than repeat
opinions at least research the evidence.
According to the Guardian headline, after the gas attack killed 70, "'The dead were wherever
you looked': ..In the botched US airstrike 230 were killed ( 'ours' are just collateral damage)...
Can someone/ anyone explain why, when he is winning on all fronts, Assad would use chemical
weapons?
When the other bad guys...isis twist of as a reaction...hope Trump will take them to court. Of
course such does not apply to USA...them not having signed up to ICC. An alleged isis in your
back garden gives them licence to bomb you. Happy days...for American arms industry
The issues in Syria are due to both uk and usa acting like mercenary in the first place, i see
it that obama is guilty of war crimes all due to been a puppet of saudi.
Its when we look at the bigger picture we can begin to realise what is causing all this..... The
UK is the world's second biggest arms exporter with a market share of about 20% and directly employs
350,000 people spread over 11,000 firms, with as many as 1.2 million people relying on it for
a living, now at the same time, then we must look back to when 2013, Wahhabism was identified
by the European Parliament in Strasbourg as the main source of global terrorism, we must ask ourselves
as to why the UK is still selling weapons to saudi...as for Assad, the Syrian government of Assad
supports a secular regime and lifestyle while Saudi Arabia supports a conservative and religious
world view. The rebels supported by the Saudi Arabian government are religious extremists. In
this fight, UK and the usa are supporting the side of religious extremism against a secular state
for financial gain. Disgraceful really,
Trump saw some pictures of the victims of this chemical attack so he launches. The same people
have been killed in their hundreds of thousands with reports of same coming in regularly. The
written reports have no impact on him as he doesn't /can't read but the pictures..
A clear demonstration of how easily he could be manipulated.
I think Trump just lost 50 million votes. And he knows it.
IMO there are only two options now.
1) Trump and his neolibcons plan to escalate this to the brink of WWIII, and possibly over
the brink, or
2) He has been blackmailed with the lives of his nearest ones, so winning the 2020 doesn't
feel that important anymore
The man's a total fool. He's taken Syria down the same road as his predecessors did with Libya
and Iraq. Remove the leaders, just contend with hordes of warring tribals. By that time the incumbent
President of the USA has moved on, leaving his mess for others to clean up.
There is as per , no investigation in the Guardian's coverage . The ultimate in unethical journalism
being the quoting of ' sources ' and "' the Syrian opposition ' ( ISIS ) say ......"
The credibility of the Syrian Gov. s claim that :
a) It was bombing ' opposition ' ( ISIS ) occupied enclave and
b) The chemicals were contained on the ground there and were released only by bombing the fact
of Syrian bombing :
Is not even mentioned let alone investigated . Yet it is an infinitely logical , credible and
likely claim .
Along with the fact that ONLY THE SYRIAN GOV COULD POSSIBLY LOSE BY SUCH AN ATTACK -- and
would have ZERO to gain , is a compelling reason for investigation : NOT blanket repetition of
what ISIS say -- according to the Guardian itself .
It'll be interesting to see how the media reacts when Al Qaeda launch their next chemical attack
on civilians and blame it on the 'Regime' (Or 'government', if we're using correct terminology):
will they still insist it's the regime doing it, even now it's clear that using chemical weapons
will bring immediate retaliation from the USA? Yes, they probably will.
This whole thing stinks. Assad is a wanker but he is not stupid, there's no way he'd deliberately
lose a war he's currently certain to win, by doing the only thing that could possibly result in
western interference.
The only way I can see the chemical attack having been the work of Assad would be if the whole
Trump/Russia business goes deeper than we realise, and this whole episode has been premeditated,
I.E. Assad used chemical weapons with the express agreement of Trump, who could then be seen as
standing up for civilised values and in defiance of Russia by launching retaliatory strikes, after
which no more chemical attacks occur, making Trump look like the good guy and taking some of the
heat off him regarding his links to Russia, with Assad losing a couple of planes and a handful
of soldiers - no great loss in the grand scheme of things.
Other than that slightly far-fetched conspiracy theory, I can think of no reason of any sort
why Assad would seek to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The US attack was carried out in retaliation for what they believe was a chemical attack initiated
by Assad's forces. The US has not waited for a thorough and unbiased investigation.
Inevitably this means that blame for any subsequent incidents involving chemical weapons will
automatically be ascribed to Assad - not to do so would call into question the justification of
the US action carried out overnight. The rebels have a Trump card. If hard pressed they can manufacture
a chemical atrocity and call in the cavalry. Haley won't even have to hold up pictures of wounded
children.
While the western powers seem to have made up their mind that Assad was guilty of the poison gas
attack, serious doubts must remain. The explanation of the Assad government and Russia seem credible
to me. The dismissal of those explanations is very lightweight indeed. This amounts to two arguments.
1. Bombing a sarin gas chemical weapons store would not release the gas. Really? That defies
logic.
2. The rebels do not possess sarin gas? How do we know that?
Apart from the lack of a credible motive for the use of chemical weapons, Assad, like Sadam
Hussein before him claims he does not possess such weapons. As in 2003 this has not prevented
a US missile attack on a foreign state. Back in 2003, Sadam Hussein was eventually proved right
and we all know what happened after that.
What is the evidence that Assad's air force carried out this attack? This seems to rely on
the fact of the gas poisoning (which no-one is disputing) and witness statements from the area
under attack from the Syrian air force. This is Idlib, to where the allegedly murderous Assad
allowed free passage to armed jihadist terrorists humanely ejected (rather than killed or taken
prisoner) from other parts of Syria including East Aleppo, from where skilled propaganda outlets
fed the appetites of Western media including the disgraceful Ch4 News, which has again been agitating
for military action against the Syrian government.
It will clearly be very hard to find independent witnesses amongst such a population, heavily
controlled by Jihadist fighters well used to targeting civilian areas of government controlled
Syria.
This development is sinister indeed. That Trump has shown such willingness to take such extreme
action so quickly, without firm evidence, should make us all very, very afraid.
The Guardian reports "Syrian rebels have welcomed the attack" but want more. Job done and it was
so easy for them. They also have a, UN proven, history of setting off chemical weapons in order
to get the US etc involved.
Trimp's actions show that US policy never changes. It is defined not by US President, but by US
establishment. It can change it's forms but never cnages in essence. Republicans and Demoсrats
in US are two wings of one bird.
It seems, that Trump, had he had noble intensions to change it's policy for the good was swallowed
by establishment the same as it happened with any US president, from Kennedy to Nixon. Otherwise,
it again shows that he is a talanted populist which perfectly played at protest spirits against
messiah tensions and nepotism in US (the Clinton and Bush dynasties).
Anyway, the least actions of US in Syria, which can be qualified as an agression against
a sovereign state from any point of view, shows that US, as a drunk cowboy, firing at bottles
in a saloon, understand only a policy of superior force and is negotiable only when you put a
colt to his head.
And even in this case, you should beware of a shot in back when you put this colt off. This
is how the world now feels the US.
one Tomahawk costing 1,59 milion $ , so the US last night spend around 100 million $ .....Enjoying
the world s reserve currency and print as much as you want of it is comfy innit ? Attacking yet
another nation without irrefutable justification reminds me of the Iraq debacle and its WMD, the
US of course can get away with similar acts of war being the world s "stabilizer", diverting at
the same time the attention from the civilian bloodshed in Mosul and Yemen. Thank you US of A,
the world is happy to have you around the world.
BTW: 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at $1,590,000 each [Wiki] is $93,810,000. Or the annual income
of 4,690 people making $10/hr spent within a few minutes... to send a message to a vacated airbase?
If 80 people killed in Syria is senseless, then what is 210 people shot in America on
the first day of 2017? Should we send 2.5 times as many Tomahawk cruise missiles to ORD and LAX?
Will the NRA get the "message"?
Its not bloody Trump that is the problem, is it? He didn't want to attack Syria, we did. All these
fucking news agencies spouting propaganda coming straight from Al Qaida and their supporters.
The Guardian like all the others have completely forgotten the fake evidence of WMDs in Iraq and
are actually egging on for war. First they say Trump is dangerous to get into war and then the
same bloody people are demanding Trump to attack Syria!
This whole gas attack is the clearest red flag attack ever and every god damn main steam reporter
goes along with it, no questions asked.
Just look every single time an attack like this has occured just happens to be in what would
be the most illogical time for the Syrian government. Are you seriously saying that they are so
stupidly insane to think killing 100 people with gas is worth the diplomatic losses and military
wrath of the west? They could kill 1000 with conventional weapons, it makes zero sense.
Where is the god damn basic logic of looking at the beneficiaries to deduce the real motive
in what look like a murky issue.
The guardian quoting 'experts' saying a facility creating and stockpiling chemicals would not
leaked if bombed? Are you kidding me? You need incendiary napalm to burn the gas, but napalm is
porhibited and was NOT used in the alleged attack. Jeasus, use your god damn brain for once.
Last time I saw the guardian posting pic of the vehicles carrying humanitarian aid that
were allegedly attacked by syrian planes...and they were full of visible small arms bullet holles
with is impossible to come from planes. The scenes had been staged! Go back and look at them.
There are cars that look crumpled up, not burned and without any glass at all. That is impossible
to be as part of an attack by planes
Recruiting now! Western Dictator to run oil rich country in the Middle East. No experience necessary,
but must have a basic knowledge of civilian oppression, creating vacuums to religious extremists
and oil sales.
Why would Assad use chemical weapons on civilians when:
A) It's almost sure to provoke a reaction from Trump, an unpredictable and untested US President.
B) Assad has almost won the war using conventional weapons.
C) It increases pressure from the World community to displace him.
D) It will piss of his major ally Russia, who just had to effectively run from American missiles
and have zero will for direct conflict with the US. This is a proxy war.
It makes zero sense. None whatsoever and I'm sorry I'm having a hard time believing it.
I'm no fan of Assad - his barrel bombs are disgusting enough. I'm no fan of Putin or the USA/Trump/the
Jihadi rebel extremists they've armed: So I'm taking no sides other than to say that this stinks
and looks exactly as if it was designed to escalate the conflict and get what a lot of people
want - US involvement in toppling Assad and sending a message to Russia and Iran.
Further escalation of this mess is terrifying - especially now we've seen how easy Trump
is to manipulate.
"Hitting one airbase is not enough, there are 26 airbases that target civilians," a key figure
in the Army of Islam faction, Mohamed Alloush, said on his Twitter account.
"The whole world should save the Syrian people from the clutches of the killer Bashar
(al-Assad) and his aides."
Siding with a group called the Army of Islam - what could possibly go wrong?
Sadam and Gadaffi were removed from power and it only created a vacuum. Getting rid of Assad
will likely do the same. The dictators kept radical Islam in check. It's not like they will thank
America if they did get rid of Assad-they would still hate America
As soon as the current Assad regime fall, it will bring chaos, instability and death to Syria
and indeed the ME on a unprecedented scale. The West should should be very careful. Assad is many
times more preferable than a post Assad situation with various religious nutters wielding power.
''Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike in Libya
or Iran. He is desperate.'' Donald Trump on Twitter, 9 October 2012.
A purely political act by Trump to show that he's not beholden to Putin in the face of mounting
concern about his campaign and the election. Red meat for the rednecks who backed him. Doesn't
bode well for the future - in flagrant breach of international law.
...
"There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations
under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and ignored the urging of the UN security council," Trump
said on Thursday night.
The challenge for this all-new season of Trump is that his first and biggest test is credibility.
The world needs to trust the United States: that these bombing targets are legitimate, that the
Syrian regime is indeed responsible, and that the president has the legal authority and political
support of the international community and Congress.
The strikes were senseless in that there is no proof of Syrian involvement in the chemical
attacks beyond information coming from Al Quaeda controlled territory.
Motive is important and Assad is no fool. Why on earth would he risk it all for no gain in using
chemical weapons when the war is all but won.
Trumps been hoodwinked by the neocons and war hungry establishment
Sarin is combustible. The agent may burn but does not ignite readily. Fire may produce
irritating, corrosive, and/or toxic gases. If a tank, rail car, or tank truck is involved in
a fire, isolate it for 0.5 mi (800 m) in all directions; also, consider initial evacuation
for 0.5 mi (800 m) in all directions.
Small spills (involving the release of approximately 52.83 gallons (200 liters) or less),
when sarin (GB) is used as a weapon.
Well, definitely an act of aggression and hence illegal under the UN Charter - now, who
will bring a condemning Resolution in the Security Council ? And who will vote against it,
or even veto it ?
I see the UK Government has already mindlessly agreed with the aggressive act.
But what will the US's military strike – a barrage of at least 59 (offensively named) Tomahawk
cruise missiles aimed at a lone airfield – really accomplish?
It's pretty clear that this is Trump just being the lunatic amateur that he is, you know the one
we all worried because he had his finger on the button. He authorised the fatally flawed Yemen
raid only days after assuming office. This is Dr Trumplove in action, there's nothing the public
and his sycophantic fans would enjoy more than a reprise of the missiles down elevator chutes
that lit up our televisions in '92. This time the war will not be televised...it will be on twitter.
Share
Interesting that America claims to care about Arab children, while it recently killed over 150
civilians in Iraq.
Having said that, I find it difficult not to support a targeted strike at Assad's military
bases. I would never however support an invasion or occupation of another Arab country as we all
know that would be a huge mistake; the tens of thousands of Arabs that would die, Western military
personnel put at risk and financial cost.
Assad must be stopped, but only the Syrians themselves must take the lead in forming a new
government without continued interference from the outside. Formation of a new government at any
point must be home-grown alone.
Why must Assad be stopped he is fighting the same demented loonies who have done attacks all over
Europe, including the UK. Are you saying its ok for us to kill these loonies but not Syria.Get
real.
Using gas was a terrorist attack, not a military one.
In that case, why on earth would Assad do it. It weakens his case in all respects and strengthens
his enemies.
But of course such an argument flies in the face of hawks worldwide.
The whole thing is a sad sorry affair. I'm not sure I can trust anything any side is saying. One
thing is certain is this proxy wars between Russia and the US will continue in all shapes and
form first the next 20 years at least.
One question though. Those US air strikes that killed over 100 civilians last week. Why have they
not got the same coverage as the chemical weapons? Isn't killing, killing?
Well, the deep state always wins. The idea that assad used chemical weapons (which the country
was declared free of a fee years ago) immediately after trump declared a policy of non regime
change beggars belief.
This article is calling for the grounding of Russian and syrian planes. The first action could
cause WWIII. The second would allow isis to invade Damascus.
I suppose the use of chemical weapons in 2013 in Syria was doen to the CIA and Obama? You are
probably yet another conspiracy "nut" who thinks that the gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq
by Assad's chum Saddam was Fake News. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Are we sure it wasn't the so called rebels? It would make no sense for Assad to do this now. Who
financed the whole coup in the first place arming the 'rebels'? They are responsible for the whole
mess.
According to a poll this morning between 41% and 51% of British voters would support an escalation
even if it meant conflict with Russia. We're being turned into a country of gurning imbeciles
and if I die because of all this bollocks I'll be really pissed off.
The chances are that there will be no response of any kind. Will this drive a President, having
an unhealthy mix of behavioral problems and frustrated by failure in his domestic policy, to take
further dramatic action in order to attract attention in the style of his spoilt brat counterpart
in North Korea, Kim Jong-un? Share
Facebook
Twitter
This is a set up by the criminal regime in Washington and their servile allies in London. I don't
believe their propaganda claims about this chemical attack, and in any case they are not interested
in waiting for any evidence. They must be made to pay a heavy price for this criminal act. Share
Facebook
Twitter
No, certainly not. I would never advocate terrorist acts against anybody. But this action will
do the US and the Western alliance no good at all and will diminish their standing in the world.
The US/UK population must hold their leaders to account over this nonsense, and demand proof of
the dubious claims over the supposed chemical attack.
I actually feel that Trump may have got this just about right. If we actually believe that a plane
from this airbase delivered a Sarin attack, then it was necessary to prevent a repetition. But
equally it was necessary to avoid the US being dragged into a war against Assad, which so many
are desperate to see happen, and it was necessary to avoid World War 3 by avoiding killing Russians.
If the Russians, as they probably did, warned the Syrians and few people were actually killed
by this strike, then maybe it will all calm down now, the Syrian air force won't ever use Sarin
again and can concentrate on defeating the rebels instead which, like it or not, is probably the
quickest route to peace.
I have to question whether or not it was actually Assad who committed the attack, why would he
risk retaliation from the US when he is currently winning the Syrian Civil war
Agreed the main thing it shows is a kneejerk reaction. Incredibly dangerous from a US president
but perhaps not unexpected.
Even if Assad needs to be removed the idea as well that Trump has a post regime plan to do
that is laughable.
We have seen what happened in Iraq and Libya when bad dictators were overthrown and a bad situation
ended up much worse in terms of a replacement by militant Islamist groups.
Unfortunately what we have here is ISIS 1 (Trump o.g), Commonsense and sanity 0
But if the alleged planes carrying chemical weapons came from Homs that just got 59 bombs, where
was the topic cloud? Weren't they suppose to have a chemical stock in this airbase ? Strange that
no chemical in sight.
1. Susan Rice – mother lode for all the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories via her unmasking
of names and wide dispersal of same, but "nothing to see here".
I would have posted this comment below said title but, of course, no comments are possible,
just as they aren't below most of, for example, David Smith's execrable anti-Trump 'output'.
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get
these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid
yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"
Trump said.
Now:
"I will tell you that attack on children had a big, big impact on me," he said. "That was
a horrible, horrible thing."
Assad has absolutely no motive to order this attack. His forces, with Russia's assistance have
gained the upper hand in the protracted conflict with US and UK backed terrorists. Why on earth
would he do something that he knows would bring international condemnation and likely military
action from the US?
Stinks to high heaven of a false flag- the fact that global MSM had solved the crime and broadcast
the perpertrators all over global media within an hour is enough proof for me - the stories would
have had to have been pre-packaged.
Perhaps you could tell that to the Guardian writers (the "liberal interventionists") who have
been beating the war drums for years, failing to learn any lessons from Iraq and Libya. I see
no plan for the aftermath, and I see no real consideration given to the threat of a further decline
in relations with Russia.
And, do these people seriously want Trump overseeing a regime change? It would be more chaotic
than when Bush tried it in Iraq.
There are at likely two parties that are very happy about the USA attack on Syrian airfield. They
are Syrian al-Qaeda which governs Idlib province where the alleged chemical attack happened and
ISIS.
Both can count that alleging Assad for chemical attacks may get Donald Trump´s USA to become
their air force. If there is a red line, cross it and blame Assad. I think that may be how al-Qaeda
and ISIS leaders are interpreting the events.
a barrage of at least 59 (offensively named) Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at a lone airfield
– really accomplish?
That's $70 million down the drain JUST on missiles.
.
Made a certain group of shareholders owning a certain military company trading in NYSE slightly
wealthier.
.
Also, a participatory certificate for participating in a virility contest.
I thought Russian air defences were supposed to be able to shoot down tomahawk missiles. They
don't travel all that fast. Perhaps they wanted to put pressure on Assad and let them pass.
Well, definitely an act of aggression and hence illegal under the UN Charter - now, who will
bring a condemning Resolution in the Security Council ? And who will vote against it, or even
veto it ?
I see the UK Government has already mindlessly agreed with the aggressive act.
But what will the US's military strike – a barrage of at least 59 (offensively named) Tomahawk
cruise missiles aimed at a lone airfield – really accomplish?
It's pretty clear that this is Trump just being the lunatic amateur that he is, you know the one
we all worried because he had his finger on the button. He authorised the fatally flawed Yemen raid
only days after assuming office. This is Dr Trumplove in action, there's nothing the public and his
sycophantic fans would enjoy more than a reprise of the missiles down elevator chutes that lit up
our televisions in '92. This time the war will not be televised...it will be on twitter. Share
Interesting that America claims to care about Arab children, while it recently killed over 150 civilians
in Iraq.
Having said that, I find it difficult not to support a targeted strike at Assad's military bases.
I would never however support an invasion or occupation of another Arab country as we all know that
would be a huge mistake; the tens of thousands of Arabs that would die, Western military personnel
put at risk and financial cost.
Assad must be stopped, but only the Syrians themselves must take the lead in forming a new government
without continued interference from the outside. Formation of a new government at any point must
be home-grown alone.
Why must Assad be stopped he is fighting the same demented loonies who have done attacks all over
Europe, including the UK. Are you saying its ok for us to kill these loonies but not Syria.Get real.
Using gas was a terrorist attack, not a military one.
In that case, why on earth would Assad do it. It weakens his case in all respects and strengthens
his enemies.
But of course such an argument flies in the face of hawks worldwide.
The whole thing is a sad sorry affair. I'm not sure I can trust anything any side is saying. One
thing is certain is this proxy wars between Russia and the US will continue in all shapes and form
first the next 20 years at least.
One question though. Those US air strikes that killed over 100 civilians last week. Why have they
not got the same coverage as the chemical weapons? Isn't killing, killing?
Well, the deep state always wins. The idea that assad used chemical weapons (which the country was
declared free of a fee years ago) immediately after trump declared a policy of non regime change
beggars belief.
This article is calling for the grounding of Russian and syrian planes. The first action could
cause WWIII. The second would allow isis to invade Damascus.
I suppose the use of chemical weapons in 2013 in Syria was doen to the CIA and Obama? You are probably
yet another conspiracy "nut" who thinks that the gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq by Assad's
chum Saddam was Fake News. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Are we sure it wasn't the so called rebels? It would make no sense for Assad to do this now. Who
financed the whole coup in the first place arming the 'rebels'? They are responsible for the whole
mess.
According to a poll this morning between 41% and 51% of British voters would support an escalation
even if it meant conflict with Russia. We're being turned into a country of gurning imbeciles and
if I die because of all this bollocks I'll be really pissed off.
The chances are that there will be no response of any kind. Will this drive a President, having
an unhealthy mix of behavioral problems and frustrated by failure in his domestic policy, to take
further dramatic action in order to attract attention in the style of his spoilt brat counterpart
in North Korea, Kim Jong-un? Share
Facebook
Twitter
This is a set up by the criminal regime in Washington and their servile allies in London. I don't
believe their propaganda claims about this chemical attack, and in any case they are not interested
in waiting for any evidence. They must be made to pay a heavy price for this criminal act. Share
Facebook
Twitter
No, certainly not. I would never advocate terrorist acts against anybody. But this action will do
the US and the Western alliance no good at all and will diminish their standing in the world. The
US/UK population must hold their leaders to account over this nonsense, and demand proof of the dubious
claims over the supposed chemical attack.
I actually feel that Trump may have got this just about right. If we actually believe that a plane
from this airbase delivered a Sarin attack, then it was necessary to prevent a repetition. But equally
it was necessary to avoid the US being dragged into a war against Assad, which so many are desperate
to see happen, and it was necessary to avoid World War 3 by avoiding killing Russians.
If the Russians, as they probably did, warned the Syrians and few people were actually killed
by this strike, then maybe it will all calm down now, the Syrian air force won't ever use Sarin again
and can concentrate on defeating the rebels instead which, like it or not, is probably the quickest
route to peace.
I have to question whether or not it was actually Assad who committed the attack, why would he risk
retaliation from the US when he is currently winning the Syrian Civil war
Agreed the main thing it shows is a kneejerk reaction. Incredibly dangerous from a US president but
perhaps not unexpected.
Even if Assad needs to be removed the idea as well that Trump has a post regime plan to do that
is laughable.
We have seen what happened in Iraq and Libya when bad dictators were overthrown and a bad situation
ended up much worse in terms of a replacement by militant Islamist groups.
Unfortunately what we have here is ISIS 1 (Trump o.g), Commonsense and sanity 0
But if the alleged planes carrying chemical weapons came from Homs that just got 59 bombs, where
was the topic cloud? Weren't they suppose to have a chemical stock in this airbase ? Strange that
no chemical in sight.
1. Susan Rice – mother lode for all the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories via her unmasking of
names and wide dispersal of same, but "nothing to see here".
I would have posted this comment below said title but, of course, no comments are possible, just
as they aren't below most of, for example, David Smith's execrable anti-Trump 'output'.
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these
terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself.
When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," Trump said.
Now:
"I will tell you that attack on children had a big, big impact on me," he said. "That was a
horrible, horrible thing."
Assad has absolutely no motive to order this attack. His forces, with Russia's assistance have gained
the upper hand in the protracted conflict with US and UK backed terrorists. Why on earth would he
do something that he knows would bring international condemnation and likely military action from
the US?
Stinks to high heaven of a false flag- the fact that global MSM had solved the crime and broadcast
the perpertrators all over global media within an hour is enough proof for me - the stories would
have had to have been pre-packaged.
Perhaps you could tell that to the Guardian writers (the "liberal interventionists") who have
been beating the war drums for years, failing to learn any lessons from Iraq and Libya. I see no
plan for the aftermath, and I see no real consideration given to the threat of a further decline
in relations with Russia.
And, do these people seriously want Trump overseeing a regime change? It would be more chaotic
than when Bush tried it in Iraq.
There are at likely two parties that are very happy about the USA attack on Syrian airfield. They
are Syrian al-Qaeda which governs Idlib province where the alleged chemical attack happened and ISIS.
Both can count that alleging Assad for chemical attacks may get Donald Trump´s USA to become their
air force. If there is a red line, cross it and blame Assad. I think that may be how al-Qaeda and
ISIS leaders are interpreting the events.
a barrage of at least 59 (offensively named) Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at a lone airfield
– really accomplish?
That's $70 million down the drain JUST on missiles.
.
Made a certain group of shareholders owning a certain military company trading in NYSE slightly wealthier.
.
Also, a participatory certificate for participating in a virility contest.
I thought Russian air defences were supposed to be able to shoot down tomahawk missiles. They don't
travel all that fast. Perhaps they wanted to put pressure on Assad and let them pass.
As the missile strike have already happened ('justice' before investigation) so will there be an
independent investigation about what was the cause of the gas leakage ?
The usual suspects, those actually responsible for false flag unleashing chemical weapons, have apparently
achieved only a limited response from el trumpo... and one unlikely to satisfy their lust ultimately
to bring down the Syrian government. This action designed as a stage to that end to uncouple trumpo
and putin...
Trump bowed to NeoCon pressure. He was supposed to be different. But then so was Obama. 300,000 people
have died! Were those killed by bombs any less tragic? Who is funding, arming and supporting ISIS?
It's not about these children it's about anti Assad/Iran/Russia influence in the region. Again, 300,000
have died already!
As the missile strike have already happened ('justice' before investigation) so will there be
an independent investigation about what was the cause of the gas leakage ?
The usual suspects, those actually responsible for false flag unleashing chemical weapons, have
apparently achieved only a limited response from el trumpo... and one unlikely to satisfy their
lust ultimately to bring down the Syrian government. This action designed as a stage to that end
to uncouple trumpo and putin...
Trump bowed to NeoCon pressure. He was supposed to be different. But then so was Obama. 300,000
people have died! Were those killed by bombs any less tragic? Who is funding, arming and supporting
ISIS? It's not about these children it's about anti Assad/Iran/Russia influence in the region.
Again, 300,000 have died already!
At the moment there's a big fat Chinese elephant in the room. All this goes on as he hosts the
Chinese delegation in Florida. I wonder how much Trumps decision to bomb Syria was to do with
showing the Chinese he means business. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Interesting timing as Trump first says hands off Syria, then suddenly a sarin gas attack by Assad,
the world goes omg he must go, Hillary gives a speech we must bomb their airfields, and whammy
some 30 minutes later we hear the missiles went flying. Talk about a set up.
Trump in trouble at home and resorts to a pointless military gesture in Syria... The Guardian,
which spends most of it's editorial time blaming Assad for Syria's problems, and demanding action,
will now bemoan the deaths at the airfield...
All some prankster needs to do to unleash armageddon is to photoshop a nuclear bomb going off
over California and post it to Trump's twitter feed with a fake @VladPutin account and we'd all
better hide under a table, tuck our heads between our legs and kiss our asses goodbye.
This could be a comment section on the daily mail, such is the vitriolic posts, there is not one
shred of evidence that these weapons were used by forces loyal to Assad, and Turkey acting as
a go between Russia and Syria against the rebels and western forces stinks of the highest hypocrisy,
as for sending China a message over Korea this will just reinforce the ties between China and
Russia and who wants to take them on, thank fuck we're leaving hopefully after we've left our
politicians wont be so gung ho in the future when it comes to foreign policy and sticking our
noses in every conflict going
Assad knows the Americans are watching every move he is making and he knows chemical weapons are
a red line for them. He may be bad enough to carry out such an attack but is he mad enough? I
seriously doubt it, either way Trump is now acting as the air-force for ISIS
Trump showing how easy he is to manipulate. We've seem false intelligence reports and outright
doctored fake attacks/incidents, often alleging gas/chemical weapons, used time and again to justify
acts of aggression
The Guardian has always pushed for war, War in Iraq based on lies, war in Libya based on lies
and now war in Syria. We will see a massive effort to stop any proper investigation of the chemical
attack.
Trump appeared to be for ramping down tensions, he was mercilessly attacked by the Guardian
(and the entire mainstream media. Now Trump has caved in, a unilateral attack with no proper investigation.
The word of the Syrian terrorists, the very same people who attack us on our streets, has been
taken as truth.
Assad was winning the war against opposition forces. He has the backing of the most ruthlessly
efficient fighting force in existence. Why was he so stupid as to use chemical weapons?
Putin is helping Syria, because a dictator wants to help another dictator........
By that logic why are the NATO countries supporting and arming Saudi Arabia?
Why have the Americans and their NATO lapdogs been supporting Al Nusra in Syria?
What is the evidence that Assad was using chemical weapons? Numerous parties in the Middle East
have access to sarin. And as many have said, there is no motive for Assad to used chemical weapons
- he was winning the war. I know, people construct a motive, but really, it's a case of cui bono
- and it's not Assad.
Mission accomplished for the Pentagon hawks. Trump was minded to wind down the mission on Iraq
and end the vilification of Russia. One unverified "chemical attack", in the mould of Chemical
Ali and the glove puppet Trump turns full circle. Russia will be drawn into this, so it's two
birds with one stone. US regime change in Syria can continue as can the pressure on oil and gas
rich Russia.
Is it proven that it was the syrian air force which carried out the attack in the first place?
Or is this another WMD lie that we are supposed to act upon?! How many times did we watch videos
of murdered children only to find out that they were made and staged and paid for by the western-backed
rebels.
I simply don't buy any of this manipulation anymore.
Very bad mistake to wipe out the base and many of its occupants on an unproven assumption that
the Syrian armed air force dropped the chemical weapons. To discount the fact that ISIS (who use
chemical attacks) may have set off the chemical attacks after/during the air strike is plain stupid.
Now USA has has given ISIS an assist and deeply damaged relations with Russia...
Recently in Washington there has been a clear shift away from the non globalist Bannon to the
mainstream McMaster/Mathhis orbit of influence. The writer has missed the point of the strike.
It was meant for Putin not Assad.
Sorry, there is no evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, yes someone did and it could have
been IS or anyone else who wants to get rid of Saddam. Many including IS have drones, and they
could possible have dropped the chemical weapons, they could also have made the chemical weapons
- whose to say there is no chemist in such groups? All the chemical weapons in Syria were removed
by the UN. The west, and particularly the US, which loves war, has over the years been quick to
condemn people, and countries without having any evidence. It about time people got back to finding
out the facts, before making statements.
A lot of so called factual information coming out of Syria is by the Syrian Observatory for Human
Rights, which turns out to be a guy who lives in Coventry, who is funded by a certain EU country.
Unfortunately Trump's action was a total success from his point of view: it will play very well
with his domestic ratings, it appears to have surgically executed, he has received immediate affirmation
from key western allies and the Russians were shown 'consideration', he broken international law
and done his own thing the one time he could get away with it, it does not matter to him that
he has no after plan.
Of course the danger is what happens if the stakes escalate ...
I hate to say and I regret that he had an opportunity to thrive.
This is a tragic situation with no obvious easy solutions, but, it seems as far as this paper
is concerned, Trump is screwed whatever he does.
Also, small point, why is it offensive to call a missile " tomahawk? What difference does it make,
its a weapon ffs.
The article basically agrees with the MSM that Syria is guilty. Why would Syria use chemical weapons
when it winning the war against the heart eating demented lunatics. The west has a history of
framing up countries it does not like. And why is ok for Saudi arabia to bomb children in Yemen
on a daily basis.
I don't really understand all the fuss about chemical weapons. Killing is killing. The numbers
matter more than the methods. The United States Empire has been racking up a pretty high score
in the last decade. Trump said he was going to work with Russia and pacify the situation in Syria.
Sadly it looks like he going down the same tragic route as his predecessors.
I absolutely hate Trump. But I think for once he listened to some experts, because this doesn't
seem that bad a response to me. As the author says, it was actually very limited - won't significantly
degrade Assad's capabilities and for obvious reasons they avoided hitting the Russians.
That said, it will probably be a big enough deterrent to stop Assad using chemical weapons on
civilians again in the near future - which is obviously a good thing. Share
It violates both US and International Law. There's many a precedent in the ME already showing
that the locals don't like it when we in the West try to influence their politics.
It makes no sense - Assad has almost cleaned out Isis - knowing full well that a gas attack would
incur the wrath of the US. Why would he do this now? Under Obama it was too blatant to intervene,
as they'd been caught doing this. Total set up. Neo-cons now salivating at the prospect that they
can bully Trump into this.
Syria was a moderate Muslim country - before funded Isis moved in. Turkey have a plan for this
too, and will flood Europe with the proceeds of these 'interventions'
It is difficult to see what benefit Assad hoped to gain from a small-scale (compared to what
is possible with these weapons) chemical-weapon attack on civilians in rebel-held territory.
Conclusions regarding the gas attack have been made and military action has been taken before
an exhaustive investigation by credible independent and responsible authorities. At best, this
is unwise.
Assad is horrendous, but is not the only monster in Syria. And some of those other monsters
might indeed be well-served by a chemical-weapons attack that could lead to US military action
against Assad.
And the bigger question is just what are US objectives here? What, exactly, have those 59 cruise
missiles achieved, other than getting Trump some more air-time?
Indeed, without the stomach for a much wider and bloody engagement with Syria, with US troops
in the line of fire, what contribution can the US actually make to this terrible conflict?
And at the end of the day, who would be the monster that would replace Assad?
Why would Assad launch a chemical attack in a war he is winning? Why would Russia want him to?
He doesn't stand to benefit from it.
Regardless, if Assad didn't launch the strikes I wonder if such a precipitate attack without
investigation isn't an attempt to improve domestic support by Trump.
These missiles cost nearly 1.5 million USD each.
Wouldn't this money be better spent helping the displaced and refugee civilian population.
Unfortunately the "defense and arms" industry are very good at lobbying......
Trump was talking about 'beautiful little babies' , are kids in Yemen and Mosul in Iraq not beautiful
enough or something? And why no graphic images from those places in the aftermath of our strikes?
Do our MS media even realise how much they are being manipulated by warmongers? Do they care?
60 tomahawks vs S400. Were any shot down or did they all reach the target? If none were shot down,
and if no S400 were fired, that puts an interesting spin on things presuming Russia still has
operational control over those systems. US/Russia teaming up to put Assad back in his box? Share
Facebook
Twitter
The US notified the Russians first of the attack, I would guess at pretty short notice, however
it would still enable russians to take out a good proportion of tomahawks.
They, seemingly, did not attempt to try.
At best, I think the actions could be interpreted as - we will back you Assad, but within reason.
I doubt Putin really gives a shit about using chemical weapons but he is smart enough to know
he has to play the game in front of an international audience.
When a crime has been committed , one has to look at who has the motive as well as means and opportunity.
The Syrian Rebels stand to gain hugely from US air support, Assad stands to lose. He was already
winning the civil war, why would he need to use chemical weapons?
The US Hawks have been itching for an excuse to indulge in yet another regime change which
would result in the same mess as Libya and Iraq. The hopes for an end to this awful civil war
have just been dealt a huge blow by the US.
It has nothing to do with Assad. Trump is in trouble at home and he desperately needed a diversion.
Whether Assad actually provided Trump with that opportunity with this chemical attack or 'this
attack' is another of the Iraq WMD type of lie we will never know.
One thing is clear that America has just proved again it is a rogue State.
The main issue for me, and many others including the ex-UK ambassador to Syria (just interviewed
on BBC), is that there is absolutely no evidence that Assad committed this chemical atrocity.
He also (the ex-ambassoary) added that the Jihadi groups would be jubilant that the USA has
lined up with them and that women and minority groups in Syria will be terrified. However evil
Assad is he has protected the rights of women and minorities.
This knee-jerk attack from Trump has echoes of Blair and the dodgy dossier and of course the
way we messed up Lybia.
Trump is an imbecile.
Neocons never left office in the US
I feel sorry for those still in the UK- your government is just as bad and it will be civilians
who end up paying the price.
Cameron attempted to rush war against Syria through Parliament and that was stopped in its tracks.
Subsequently, fake news and inaccurate reporting presented a story that Assad used chemical weapons
and that transpired to be false and the UN investigation concurs it was not Assad. We've now had
Boris Johnson and American counterparts cranking up the rhetoric against Syria all week leading
up to this new chemical attack of which there is no evidence that it was Assad but, America strikes
without proper investigation. This seems to be a reaction that can only cause tensions and flame
anti-west sentiment.
Iraq 2.0 was inevitable. There has never been a US President in my lifetime that has not started
a war on the assumption of chemical weapons. The US and UK Foreign Secretaries have both been
asked to clarify evidence and both have failed to produce.
Remember "Catch 22"?
Usarian drops his bombs in the sea rather than bomb an Italian town.
The military have a big problem and do what the often do in such a situation rather than court
marshalling Usarian they give him a medal for dropping a perfect square pattern in the sea.
Lets hope this attack is a Usarian moment from Trump, a perfect square pattern on the Homs
run way.
The West can now walk away or go for a potential fight with a nuclear power based on evidence
from Al Nusra front, a branch of al Qaeda.
Syrian rebels will be emboldened to start full scale war again. If Trump wishes to remove Assad
would he support Isis. Could Isis and the rebels form an anti Assad alliance. This is probably
the level of thinking going on at the Pentagon.
Trump's inviting the law of the jungle in that case. You can just go around settling scores militarily
with anyone who you feel has 'taunted' you. Any more than you can go around town punching anyone
you believe has looked at you in a strange way.
The rebels will now have an incentive to fake another chemical attack and bring the US fully
into the war with Syria and Russia. Syria will then be left to the warring factions to fight it
out just like Libya and Iraq.
Innocent children have to die just to further US destabilisation policy.
Don´t you think there could be somebody else´s fingerprints involved too. Third parties, who never
abandoned their goal of toppling Assad for "a noble cause, that justifies any means".
More US bombastic looney-ness. This is nothing to do with the US. All it does is spread dissatisfaction
to the US and Europe endangering lives in those countries. This has absolutely nothing to do with
US security, it is Trump trying to show what a great warmongering guy he is to satisfy the US
gun-lobby and those who voted for him. Clearly it is better for the US to kill "women, children
and beautiful babies" with bombs than for Syria to kill them with gas.
Trump risks now losing widely of his voter support, because the presidential campaign promised
less military interference in ME.. Many voters are outraged now and feel cheated. Another thing
will be, is he now going gain enough lib neocon support the compensate his lost credibility. If
he does not, he is just done, judging to an angry tune in many media reader´s comments.
It comes from the same sources that claimed Iraqi soldiers killed babies in incubators during
the first Gulf war and same sources again that claimed the Iraqi's had mountain's of weapons of
mass destruction.
You are most probably right, although, in his haste to respond to this alleged chemical attack
by the Syria government, Donald Trump and his EU allies will not have properly consider the implications.
We have seen that from Bush and Blair in the Iraq debacle, and now we are seeing it from Donald
Trump. Bomb first and ask questions later, is their guiding principle.
Of course Daesh/ISIS stands to gain most from this emerging disaster. The lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan
have still not been learnt, and, sadly, as far as western imperialism is concerned, never will!
Who stands to gain from using chemical weapons in Syria? Assad, whose forces were winning the
war & who previously Trump was sympathetic to? Or CIA-backed extremists who needed to drag US
forces into the conflict?
Unfortunately, we have an incompetent, mentally unbalanced fake in the White House, who, whenever
he fails to deliver on his bluster of pie-in-the-sky promises on the home front, seems likely
to only escalate global conflict.
US & indeed most military action invariably has ulterior motives. Here it suits the extreme
right-wing Trump administration & Steve Bannon well as it also distracts the masses from the series
of embarrassments surrounding Trump's presidency so far. Probably NK gets bombed later, which
will only provoke China & so on. We live in dangerous times.
Michael Fallon was just on LBC.
Presenter: So what's the solution
Fallon: So, we would like to see a situation develop like Iraq where it is now a democracy where
sunni and Shia can come together. The Iraqi government is slowing rebuilding the country with
our help.
Presenter: So Iraq is the blueprint?
Fallon: No
What a crock of shit. First of all well done to the presenter for saying straight after the
interview "the defence secretary says that Iraq is the blueprint for Syria" ha ha.
Seriously though how can Fallon he say that with a straight face. 100 Civilians including 10s
of children were killed last week by US strikes. They just ignore these facts and pursue their
own narrative.
I was listening to R4 on the way to work and they had the ex British ambassador to Syria on, He
quickly stated that he believed that it was not Assad explaining what would Assad expect to achieve
by using chemical weapons etc, as soon as the BBC interviewer realised that the Ambassador was
not giving the usual Anti Assad lines they quickly pulled the interview.
Trump's motives for bombing Syria may well be questionable, to say the least, but if the result
is to make any power think twice about using chemical weapons as a legitimate form of war then
that is surely a good thing.Chemical agents cannot be uninvented but their use can be if those
contemplating their deployment are in no doubt that they will not go unpunished.There has to be
a point at which barbarism has to be declared unacceptable. Share
No big fan of Donald Trump. But the question you have to ask yourself is "should the international
community accept the use of chemical weapons against civilians?"
The rest is just hair-splitting. Share
Facebook
Twitter
There's a law against chemical weapons use. It's a war crime, yes. But at the same time, no country
is allowed to attack another without getting UN approval.
And there it is. But . The guy unleashed 50 m worth of ordinance to impress the Chinese
and people here think it is something to do with saving Syrias children..we are finished as a
species...
so whilst Trump's just attacked Syria, he also continues to obliterate Yemen; in doing so he continues
a fine tradition upheld by successive US President's: "we can and will bomb who ever we choose,
with impunity".
some recent headlines:
New Evidence Contradicts Pentagon's Account of Yemen Raid, But General Closes the Case
.
Aid Officials Beg Congress to Help Yemen, While Trump Sends More Bombs
.
U.S. Launched More Airstrikes in Yemen Last Month Than in All of 2016
.
Media Silent As Saudi Arabia Devastates Yemen Into Famine
.
The Last 5 Presidents Have This One Thing in Common
There are still and video records of the so called white hats handling alleged sarin gas victims
BARE HANDED and wearing paper masks. The "doctor" in the "hospital" is on video sending tweets
and taking video calls while supposedly overwhelmed with victims. This "doctor" has been struck
off the British medical register and is sought by British police in relation to extremist links.
That town and that part of
Idlib is completely under the control of heart eating head choppers. The US has stated that terrorists
in Iraq have carried out chemical weapons attacks. The party line on the august 13 attack in Ghouta
has long since fallen apart. The NYT published a " missile vector " proving the missiles came
from SAA positions 9km away- unfortunately the missile with traces of sarin had a maximum range
of 2km. UN inspector Carla del Ponte stated that the attack was probably carried out by the terrorists.
The US and its toadys including Australia have no people in that area- unless the are "embedded"
with the terrorists- so how is it they immediately concluded it was an aerial attack? Have bomb
fragments been tested for sarin? Having fired a barrage of cruise missiles in "retaliation" is
there any prospect that conclusive proof that EITHER a govt or terrorist act has occurred when
the conclusion has been reached before a credible inquiry?
I have half a feeling that one day this will turn out to be a false flag event in order to bring
the USA into the conflict against the Syrian regime.
Trump might have played it well though. A pre warned attack against a Syrian airfield causing
very little damage and no Russian casualties while telling Putin what he was up to for his own
domestic media needs.
Or it could have been an act of sheer madness by Assad's regime. Who knows the truth these
days.
When Seymour Hersh's original report
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line is ignored and
when the subsequent research on this
http://whoghouta.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00Z&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00Z&max-results=7
is also ignored and the idea of False Flag operations is not even mentioned on the BBC while
all the mouthpieces line up to repeat non evidence or dubious assertions as Certain Facts, despite
the known history of lies going back to the notorious WMD charade which was enough to launch a
war shows that its not False News that is the major problem but Lies of Omission.
On the BBC ex UK ambassador Peter Ford gets 3mins to counteract the Deluge of " Certainty" that
it was the Regime responsible. None with new or real evidence of the standard that destroyed the
WMD lie.
It nearly worked in Ghouta in 2O13... it was inevitable to be tried again and Trump jumps straight
in. The Deep State in the US is back in business
Has the situation w.r.t. access to and use of chemical weapons by the various agents in Syria,
or the US political use of intelligence in this area, changed since Obama in 2013?
During this war against Daesh, an Arab country, Syria, formed for the first time a strong and
effective army, which will be a threat to Israel after the war. Visibly, in Tel Aviv as in Washington
it was decided to quickly destroy it ...
I'm also a bit skeptical of the explanation of why Assad would do such a thing, particularly at
this time. What on earth could he hope to gain?
That 'he's a madman' or 'he's just evil' have never struck me as anything but mindlessly simplistic
responses. I've watched interviews with the man, and he struck me as neither hopelessly daft or
completely bonkers. Evil, perhaps. But stupidly impulsive? I'm not so easily persuaded, especially
by such one dimensional -- and stereotypical -- characterizations.
Frankly, much as I hate to say it, I find the Russian explanation to be the most plausible.
And it's a sad day for Western media when the Russians look like the grown-ups in the room.
Getting rid of Assad will solve the problem?, I can remember being told getting rid of someone
called Saddam would solve the problem. But it only made it worse, very much worse, for the little
people in that part of the world that is, who are now considered a threat in their abject destitution.
Perhaps if the death and destruction had happened across the US, Russia or Europe we'd be rid
of the macho men and have someone who put little people before politics.
The strike seems to be more symbolic, rather than of any practical significance. It violated international
law, of course, and dealt a blow to the US-Russia relations, but Trump had found himself in a
sort of zugzwang and he had to make his choice after weighing it out. So he shows that America
is back in the ME game, he proves himself not being Putin's agent silensing critics a bit and
easing the pressure on him, he shows he is not Obama, he gets approval from the Nato allies who
are praising him for the first time ever, he does a bit of muscle flexing bearing in mind his
meeting with Putin. On the down side are the violation of international law (has never been an
obstacle for the US), fuelling tentions with Russia once again (no big deal though), sparking
the reaction from Iran (no big deal either). But long-term effect seems not to be on the table.
What if Russia scraps the air security memorandum in Syria?
We don't know who is responsible for the sarin attack.
Based on accusations and allegations from "activists" the Syrian government are blamed once
again for the use of chemical weapons.
No evidence - not a shred - no independent enquiry or investigation - nothing.
The Syrian forces together with the Kurds in the East and Russia in the West were attacking
and crippling the capability of daesh.
The illegal missile attack by US weakens the Syrians so that both daesh and the so-called "moderate
rebels" (insurgents) will have an advantage.
What was Syria's motive to use gas?
They are winning.
They knew that the use of gas would provoke outrage and a military response by US
On the other hand the insurgents are losing.
They have everything to gain by involving the US to weaken Assad
There are documented cases where the insurgents have bought sarin gas
The insurgents overran and looted government ammunition depots
They knew that the use of gas would provoke outrage and a military response by US
It makes perfect sence that Assad used chemical bombs (that he doesn't even have) just a couple
of days after Trump said removing Assad is not a priority any more, just to destroy a village
he could have more effectively destroy with ordinary bombs, doesn't it?
Back in 2013 when Assad actually had chemical weapons the US made a mistake. They accused him
of having what he actually had thus giving him a chance to give it in. More reliable scenario
is to accuse someone of having what he doesn't have, like with Saddam in 2003. He probably would
be happy to give in the WMD but he didn't have it. Today we see the same old scenario is being
played.
The problem is that the Russians will not let it go that way anymore. We are as close to the WWIII
as never before.
The only reason that Trump bombed Assad was to try to show that he was not elected by Putin and
other Russians.But for that,the most he would have done was say a few bad things about Assad and
even say he was happy if some of the victims were members of ISIS.
By the way what happened about his promise to deal with ISIS from day one,and all the other promises
he made.It even took that idiot GOP senator to invoke the NUCLEAR option to get his Supreme Court
nominee approved.Trump does love that WORD.
You would think a country that has caused nothing but disaster in the ME, nothing but more deaths
and sufferings, a country whose army got their arses kicked in Iraq, and still now in Afghanistan,
a country that gave us ISIS would have learned by now to stop interfering in ME
Well, not quite; it does accomplish the fruits of stupidity. Which is disaster.
Never have I seen the leaders of nations which consider themselves to be civilise, be so insistent
on goading themselves and others to go to war. A senseless war, professedly with the intention
of killing hundreds, if not thousands, and destroying their livelihoods, under the premis of seeking
revenge for the deaths of a hundred people, purportedly by a chemical attack by the Syrian government.
It is absolute madness. So, who will protect the people from the folly and madness of their
leaders, who refuse to make peace, choosing war instead?
It is all so predictable. All the terrorist rebels have got to do from now on is release gas during
any air strike by Russian or Syrian forces, kill as many children as possible, photograph the
result and sit back and wait for the US missiles to be launched in 'retaliation'.
Rather than saving lives, Trump has condemned more to die.
Russian radar data show that the Tomahawk missiles were fired from the US destroyers Porter
and Ross in the Mediterranean between 03:42 and 03:56 Moscow time, the general said.
The Syrian army's air defense system will be reinforced in the near future to protect the most
important infrastructure facilities, Konashenkov assured.
In 2016, several batteries of Russia's air defense system S-300 were moved to the naval logistic
facility at Tartus to provide protection for the base and Russian ships off Syria's shores. Russian
Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said a multi-tier defense system had been created around Tartus
and the Hmeymim air base. At the end of November the newest air defense system S-400 was delivered
to Syria after a Turkish F-18 fighter shot down Russia's Sukhoi-24 bomber.
Pantsir systems protect Russian military facilities from low-flying aircraft and missiles. Also,
the defense of Russian facilities incorporates the system Bastion, capable of hitting naval and
ground targets 350-450 kilometers away. Russia has helped Syria to restore the operation of its
S-200 air defense systems that protect Russian bases from potential attacks from the east. Also,
the Syrian army uses air defense systems Buk.
The chemical attack
The US missile strike in Syria had been planned in advance, while the chemical weapons incident
was used just as a pretext, Konashenkov has noted.
"It is nakedly clear that the attack on a Syrian air base with US cruise missiles had been
planned well beforehand," he said.
"For any specialist it is clear that the decision to conduct the missile strike on Syria had been
made in Washington long before the events at Khan Shaykhun, which were used a far-fetched pretext.
The show of military muscle stemmed exclusively from internal political reasons," the ministry's
spokesman added.
Cooperation with Pentagon
The Russian Defense Ministry has suspended cooperation with Pentagon on prevention of incidents
in Syria.
"We consider these steps taken by the United States to be a blatant violation of the 2015 Memorandum
on preventing military incidents and ensuring security during operations in Syria's air space,"
the ministry's spokesman said.
"The Russian Defense Ministry is suspending cooperation with Pentagon aimed at the implementation
of the memorandum."
"To protect the most sensitive facilities of the Syrian infrastructure, a set of measures will
be taken in the immediate future to reinforce and raise the effectiveness of the Syrian armed
forces' air defense system," he added.
Syria' losses
US strikes on military airfield in Homs province leave six dead - Syrian armed forces.
"According to the air base command, two Syrian servicemen went missing, while four were killed
and six sustained burn injuries while combating the fire," Konashenkov said.
At the same time, according to the Syrian army command, the attack killed six people.
According to the Russian Defense Ministry, six Mikoyan MiG-23 fighter jets, a radar station and
other equipment have been destroyed.
"The strike destroyed a logistics warehouse, a training building, a canteen, six MiG-23 planes
in the repair hangars and also a radar station."
"The runway, taxiways and parked planes of the Syrian Air Force have not been damaged," the spokesman
said.
Trump admits he issued order for missile strike on Syrian airbase
On Thursday night, at the direction of US President Donald Trump, the US forces fired 59 Tomahawk
Land Attack Missiles on a Syrian military air base located in the Homs Governorate. The attack
came as a response to the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Idlib Governorate on April 4.
The US authorities believe that the airstrike on Idlib was launched from that air base.
The Syrian military denies using chemical weapons. Their international backer, Russia, claims
that the Syrian military did drop bombs in the affected area but that the chemical effect was
not in the bombs dropped but rather from the explosion of an alleged chemical warehouse under
the control of unnamed rebel forces. The same report by the United Nations and the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that found Syrian government responsibility for chlorine
attacks also found that ISIS had used another chemical weapon, mustard gas, and investigated at
least three other chemical weapons attacks whose perpetrators could not be identified. So that
could be possible as well.
For a variety of reasons, some of these possibilities don�'t hold up so well if the chemical
used this week was the sarin nerve agent � but we don�'t know yet what it was.
There are some other, perhaps even more important things, that we do know. We know that in
2013, at the time of an earlier, even more deadly chemical weapon attack, similar accusations
against the Syrian regime were widely made, assumed to be true, and used as the basis for calls
for direct US military intervention in the civil war. And we know those accusations were never
proved, and that it remains uncertain even now, almost four years later, who was actually responsible.
And we know that the bombing of Syria in 2013 was averted, despite President Obama�'s �red
line� being crossed, because an enormous US and global campaign against such a disastrous escalation
made it politically too costly to launch a new US war. This was a president willing but not eager,
or driven, to go to war. When Obama turned decision-making over to Congress, hundreds of thousands
of people across the United States called and wrote and emailed their representatives, urging
them to prevent a new war. In some offices calls were running six or seven hundred to one against
a new bombing campaign.
And we know that President Obama turned it over to Congress in the first place because the
British parliament, facing massive public opposition, made clear that the UK would not join its
US ally in going to war against Syria. And eventually, when Congressional opposition became undeniable,
Russia provided the US with a way out, arranging for international collection and destruction
of Syria�s chemical weapons arsenal. Chlorine was not included, and it is certainly possible that
Syria didn�'t declare all of its weapons, or perhaps the precursor chemicals to make them, and
but that claim was never proven. Ultimately, though, a US attack was averted.
What Trump did was totally illegal, and you won't find anyone to tell him so. All the ones that
hated him before are at his feet now for further collaboration in destroying Syria and thus prolonging
the suffering of the Syrian people. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Yes, you're right. It was 'unconstitutional' for a start in that he didn't get Congressional
approval, he didn't get the approval of the UN and he committed an act of war against a sovereign
nation (also a UN member).
Is anyone going to hazard a guess as to what happened to the 36 cruise missiles that didn't
find their target?
I am still troubled by the Guardian editorial line and journalists unquestioningly concluding
that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical attacks in question. I of course cannot
say it is not, but I have also not been presented with any evidence anywhere that it was. I certainly
haven't seen any convincing evidence presented in the Guardian. Most troubling for me is that
I haven't seen any Guardian journalists asking what benefit the Assad regime thought it would
gain from carrying out these chemical attacks (if it did). Who is to benefit from these attacks?
That is what I would be asking as that is a long way to discovering who is guilty. Share
"Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread".
His impetuosity makes me fear, that should he fail to convince China to put pressure on North
Korea, he will carry out his threats to take matters into his own hands.
The major evil is the Americans arming and supporting the Jihadsists since day one of the civil
war and using their propaganda machine to demonize Assad. Russia and Iran are the only 2 countries
legally in Syria at it's request. America is an invader and shows absolutely no regard for international
law. After all who would enforce it? Without America's intervention this civil war would have
been over 6 months after it started, 400,000 more people would be alive and there would be 7 million
less refugees million what gives the US the right to do this in Syria, never mind Afghanistan,
Iraq, Lybia, Yemen, Ukraine?
What if this was rebel jihadists who set off the chemical attack? Or the bombs fell on to a rebel
chemical storage site?
The US has jumped to a very dangerous conclusion here - it took them 6 days to confirm that US
bombs had dropped in Mosul but 1 day to confirm a Syrian government aircraft had specifically
dropped a chemical bomb!?
I'm just going to repeat the comment, as no-one has brought it up in this thread...
They wrote an article about it. They sent "journalists" to the town. According to the journalists
and photos that they took, the 'warehouse' was empty and the gas had radiated from a canister
that was dropped from the air:
Trump should not repeat the mistakes of the previous administrations and drag the USA into
even more prolonged conflict; even more so in view of the fact that we know the so-called 'opposition'
to be a motley of Islamist terror groups
General Wesley Clark just asked what is Trump's policy towards Assad. As in is it OK for Assad
to kill his own people the regular way just so he does not use chemical weapons. Harsh commentary
but the key question.
I like how MSM honchos picked up sarin story this time. As if somebody kicked them in the butt.
BTW both Turkey and KSA had bet all cards on Syrian insurgency. In the past Turkey's intelligence
service MIT was supporting not only the Free Syrian Army but also Al-Nusra, which produced sarin
from components bought in Turkey.
Delivering sarin requires low to no explosive type cluster munitions. Cannot be done from barrel
bomb!
There would be many dozens of UXB 'containers' and shells of the ones that worked.
If there were any evidence the propagandists would not use pix of supposedly decontaminated
casualties with "rescue workers" unprotected. And using garden hoses when a solvent is needed
to neutralize sarin.
Yeah. It's not that I don't think some kind of 'false flag' or falsehood in general is possible
here. I certainly wouldn't put it past them. I simply don't know. It's just that I see so many
loudly proclaiming that they know for SURE that it definitely IS a false flag, while providing
only the flimsiest evidence, if any.
People who are doing that are doing the same thing 'they' are when they say they know for SURE
that Assad is behind the attack. I don't trust either side, and I don't recommend anyone else
does either. There's a lot of agendas flying around, both personal and interpersonal.
PALM BEACH, Fla. - The United States is vowing to keep up
the pressure on Syria after the intense nighttime wave of
missile strikes from U.S. ships, despite the prospect of
escalating Russian ill will that could further inflame one of
the world's most vexing conflicts.
Standing firm, the Trump administration on Friday signaled
new sanctions would soon follow the missile attack, and the
Pentagon was even probing whether Russia itself was involved
in the chemical weapons assault that compelled President
Donald Trump to action. The attack against a Syrian air base
was the first U.S. assault against the government of
President Bashar Assad.
Much of the international community rallied behind Trump's
decision to fire the cruise missiles in reaction to this
week's chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of men,
women and children in Syria. But a spokesman for Russian
President Vladimir Putin warned that the strikes dealt ''a
significant blow'' to relations between Moscow and
Washington.
A key test of whether the relationship can be salvaged
comes next week when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson becomes
the first Trump Cabinet member to visit Russia.
British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson also had planned to
visit Russia this coming week, but decided Saturday to cancel
the trip because of the fast moving events in Syria. Johnson,
who condemned Moscow's continued defense of Assad, said
Tillerson will be able to give a ''clear and coordinated
message to the Russians.''
At the United Nations on Friday, Russia's deputy ambassador,
Vladimir Safronkov, strongly criticized what he called the
U.S. ''flagrant violation of international law and an act of
aggression'' whose ''consequences for regional and
international security could be extremely serious.'' He
called the Assad government a main force against terrorism
and said it deserved the presumption of innocence in the
chemical weapons attack.
The U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, said the
world is waiting for the Russian government ''to act
responsibly in Syria'' and ''to reconsider its misplaced
alliance with Bashar Assad.'' ...
"The U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, said the world
is waiting for the Russian government ''to act responsibly in
Syria'' and ''to reconsider its misplaced alliance with
Bashar Assad.'' ..."
Summary: "This is Colin Powell's justification for Iraq
war all over again"
In two years or so most of the evidence will probably be
discredited. But what is done is done. Shoot first and ask
questions later is the most noble tradition in the USA
foreign policy.
The USA now gave rebels and their allies such as Turkey
and KSA a huge incentive to fake another chemical attack in
order to bring the US ground troops into Syria.
Syria will then be left to the warring Islamist factions
to fight it out just like in Libya and Iraq."
An interesting feature of comments in WaPo -- only one suggest the possibility of false flag attack.
all other take "Assad gassed people" at face value. Acouple of comments suggest that was "Monica-style"
bombing: "Wow. So Trump is willing to kill to get the discussion off of him being a Russian puppet.".
Hey, Bill. I'm a liberal and I am not "all over this." I absolutely hate it.
What Bashir Assad does in the country he heads is not our responsibility. Atroticities happen
all over the world nearly every day, particularly in Africa, and we don't police their actions.
StreetPhD, 9:15 AM EDT [Edited]
Very predictable. When political popularity is in desperate need of a fix, blowing stuff up
is a routine fallback ploy. The trick is tuning and timing the roll out script:
> Video: innocent victims of Evil Boogeyman's barbarism
> Video: Avenging Angel strikes back with thrilling nighttime missile launch
> Reaction: Drooling media does back flips; polls might improve
> Recharge & Repeat: Loop launch video on Jumbotron as pop singer screeches Anthem at televised
sport events - audience gets big dose of sticky britches - loves diversion from real concerns
> Outcome: Over inflated right wing sends eagle into tailspin.
hereandnow100, 8:41 AM EDT
Red lines??? We just crossed one. And talk about shooting from the hip!! The little man said
it himself: I don't think, or read. Little trump has got, what was it, gut instinct? Will he just
trust his gut all the way to armageddon? He just might.
maverick13, 8:37 AM EDT
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York called it "the right thing to do." Sen. Dianne
Feinstein of California called the military response "a limited, and I think an important strike,
and it accomplished its purpose and sent a message."
Rex Block, 8:36 AM EDT [Edited]
Brian Williams is an idiot. Without that pretty-boy face, he is nothing.
Lurker_no_Longer, 8:44 AM EDT
I really can't believe that NBC put that liar back on the air. Trust of him was gone long ago,
and I have to change the channel whenever I see him.
garythomaszeman 8:32 AM EDT
Another nice little war. The CIA, raising hell around the world since 1948. "Democracy Dies in
Darkness."
ReasonableDiscourse 8:35 AM EDT
Col Jack Jacobs on the strike "What are we trying to accomplish?"
We seem to have no thoughtful answer to that question. Only talking points and and cliched
babble about being "presidential".
Dr--Bob 7:54 AM EDT
Kilgore: Smell that? You smell that?
Lance: What?
Kilgore: Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that.
[kneels]
Kilgore: I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like
[sniffing, pondering]
Kilgore: victory. Someday this war's gonna end...
[suddenly walks off]
-----Apocalypse Now (1979)
KingJethro 7:54 AM EDT
Hey, now! Nobody does wag-the-dog better than the U.S. This is why we are so exceptional!!!
rabrophy 7:43 AM EDT
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
Trump wanted to distract the Media and it worked! Wolf Blitzer got wood
for the first time in years.
And this keeps happening over and over - Some empty military gesture that has no effect or
another Savior-General who will make all thing right ( are we at Savior 15 or 16 now?) All we
need next is an Op Ed in the Times by Hillary commending Trump's stupid trick.
alfa67 7:51 AM EDT
Wolf Blitzer thought the illegal US attack was great because he ALWAYS stays on script with AIPAC.
You people DO know that Blitzer used to work for AIPAC don't you? See my comment below and give
it some thought. It's pretty obvious really.
alfa67 7:38 AM EDT
I think that there is a pretty good chance that the Israelis used the poison gas in Syria.
The Israelis have been trying for at least 30 years to get the US to do a regime change in
Iraq.
The Israelis have hinted on a number of occasions that that they have stockpiles of the full
range of chemical and biological weapons. The Israelis have shown before (for example in Iraq
and Libya) that they can pressure/manipulate (using AIPAC et al) a US president into conducting
regime change against someone the Israelis don't like. Conversely why would Assad do something
stupid like killing some civilians with poison gas? It's not going to win anything for him and
would bring down the wrath of the world on him. This use of poison gas reeks of an Israeli operation
to get the US involved in getting rid of Assad. Remember the USS Liberty affair where the Israelis
shot up an American ship (killing and wounding dozens of Americans) and tried to blame it on the
Egyptians in order to get the Americans into their war? And what about the "Lavon affair" where
the Israelis blew up an American library and information center in Cairo and tried to blame it
on the Egyptians in order to get the US into a war with Egypt? And, of course, the Israelis easily
get ALL of the US media to jump in with both feet saying what a horrible thing Assad has done
and the US has to start bombing and sending in troops RIGHT NOW! You need to do some reading and
thinking , folks, and not let the Israelis railroad us into YET ANOTHER DISASTER!
17B 7:47 AM EDT
Brian Williams had his Iraq, Hillary had her Bosnia, and Trump had 'My Vietnam' in the form of
sexual promiscuity in the 60s (his Howard Stern interview).
There's a pattern here. Perhaps Fox can have Ollie North have all three on his War Stories
show.
trytobenice 7:28 AM EDT
The easily swayed television media, without scruples, is why we have trump in the white house.
They promoted his campaign and now this. Everything for ratings. Disgusting.
Javalin2016 7:26 AM EDT
Why is Brian Williams even considered a journalist and why is he still on air?
As for the other comments, we went down this rabbit hole before with W., and look where it
got us.
The media hasn't learned a thing in 16 years, so don't expect anything different when the Punk
in Chief attacks a country that didn't attack us. Sounds familiar?
edbyronadams 7:25 AM EDT
The liberals sat on their hands when Obama ordered the firing of more than one hundred cruise
missiles at Libya with less justification. They haven't got the credibility to complain now. Holding
the "other party" accountable while ignoring the transgressions of your own won't carry much weight.
michaelanncb 6:59 AM EDT
Comp[letely agree. Anybody remember weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And why should Trump
be so sympathetic to those poor children but he won;t let them in the U.S. and cuts foreign aid
which will affect refugee camps? What were the media thinking to jump on this bandwagon? Can't
ANYBODY be trusted?
LeonDeZurich 6:19 AM EDT
Who would have thought that all Trump needed to do to convince his critics was to throw some bombs
around? What's Brian Williams going to call it if Trump uses nukes - a spectacular show? Count
me among the disgusted.
broaddusromu 3:13 AM EDT
Sick, sick, and sicker. The United States is run by a sick and bloodthirsty collection of imbeciles
who can only get their kicks by attacking and killing people who have done nothing to this country.
Look at Iraq, and look at Libya. And their bloodthirsty dumbed-down constituents robotically cheer
them on.
This is what this land of liberty is truly about. My country, 'tis of thee.
Eilis Nic Ionmhain 3:32 AM EDT
It's not just the U.S. The international media and politicians are pleased with President Trump
for the first time since he took office -or was even elected. "Getting along with people" or negotiating
solutions, obviously didn't appeal to them. It seems that risking conflict with Russia, or plunging
Syria into further difficulty, is a better deal.
RT are the only source of criticism I've encountered, but that's from Moscow.
If a show of strength is needed to extract a better settlement for the Syrian people, that's
fine, but the comfortable reaction of President Trump's opponents creates worry as to what really
drives them, and how that will impact in the Middle East, or in relations with Russia.
51fordf2 1:49 AM EDT
@Outofshape: Chemical weapons are not "outlawed" but are banned by an international treaty. But
this treaty is only binding on the nations that ratify it. Three nations have not ratified and
one has signed but not ratified. The treat took effect in 1997, not 100 years ago. This augments
the Geneva Protocol which took effect in 1925, also not 100 years ago.
Get real people, 4/8/2017 10:17 PM EDT [Edited]
Trump succeeded AGAIN. The discussion of his ties to Russia have been pushed off the front page.
Wow. So Trump is willing to kill to get the discussion off of him being a Russian puppet.
Who will need to die when the Senate hearings get back underway?
Mark Sparkman 4/8/2017 9:40 PM EDT
The MSM is reliving the attacks on Baghdad - when the world and the American public was transfixed
on the bombing and the anti-aircraft counters that night. They - the MSM - can't get over the
drama of the night and the visual impact it had. They are continuously looking for a repeat performance.
Andromeda5 4/8/2017 9:33 PM EDT [Edited]
This strike was three-quarters distraction from the Russian collusion story and one quarter little
man/baby itching to play with his big toys. Yeah, inching towards war, just what so many people
feared when this moron got into power. I hope all the other morons who voted him into power will
be happy with the US going to war all over the place and dragging everyone else into it ... yeah,
the world thanks you *sarcasm* for those moron voters because you probably missed it being the
morons that you are.
DoNotEnterYourDisplayName 4/8/2017 10:04 PM EDT
And yet the liberals are soiling themselves in delight over this bombing. In fact, Hillary Clinton
has done several speeches/interviews in the last 48 hours calling for a full-scale bombing campaign
against all Syrian military targets, even the ones embedded in civilian neighborhoods. Maybe stop
shilling for a moment and realize that the MIC has its money sunk deep in the pockets of warmongers
in both parties. Recognize that the problem transcends party. And, when you realize the scope
of the problem, be glad that Trump isn't as trigger-happy as the rest of these clowns.
President Trump earned neocon applause for his hasty decision to attack Syria and kill about a
dozen Syrians, but his rash act has all the earmarks of a "wag the dog" moment.
Just two days after news broke of an alleged poison-gas attack in northern Syria, President Trump
brushed aside advice from some U.S. intelligence analysts doubting the Syrian regime's guilt and
launched a lethal retaliatory missile strike against a Syrian airfield.
Trump immediately won plaudits from Official Washington, especially from neoconservatives who
have been trying to wrestle control of his foreign policy away from his nationalist and personal
advisers since the days after his surprise victory on Nov. 8.
There is also an internal dispute over the intelligence. On Thursday night, Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson said the U.S. intelligence community assessed with a "high degree of confidence" that
the Syrian government had dropped a poison gas bomb on civilians in Idlib province.
But a number of intelligence sources have made contradictory assessments, saying the preponderance
of evidence suggests that Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels were at fault, either by orchestrating an intentional
release of a chemical agent as a provocation or by possessing containers of poison gas that ruptured
during a conventional bombing raid.
One intelligence source told me that the most likely scenario was a staged event by the rebels
intended to force Trump to reverse a policy, announced only days earlier, that the U.S. government
would no longer seek "regime change" in Syria and would focus on attacking the common enemy, Islamic
terror groups that represent the core of the rebel forces.
The source said the Trump national security team split between the President's close personal
advisers, such as nationalist firebrand Steve Bannon and son-in-law Jared Kushner, on one side and
old-line neocons who have regrouped under National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, an Army general
who was a protégé of neocon favorite Gen. David Petraeus.
White House Infighting
In this telling, the earlier ouster of retired Gen. Michael Flynn as national security adviser
and this week's removal of Bannon from the National Security Council were key steps in the reassertion
of neocon influence inside the Trump presidency. The strange personalities and ideological extremism
of Flynn and Bannon made their ousters easier, but they were obstacles that the neocons wanted removed.
Though Bannon and Kushner are often presented as rivals, the source said, they shared the belief
that Trump should tell the truth about Syria, revealing the Obama administration's CIA analysis that
a fatal sarin gas attack in 2013 was a "false-flag" operation intended to sucker President Obama
into fully joining the Syrian war on the side of the rebels - and the intelligence analysts' similar
beliefs about Tuesday's incident.
Instead, Trump went along with the idea of embracing
the initial rush to judgment blaming Assad for the Idlib poison-gas event. The source added that
Trump saw Thursday night's missile assault as a way to change the conversation in Washington, where
his administration has been under fierce attack from Democrats claiming that his election resulted
from
a Russian covert operation .
If changing the narrative was Trump's goal, it achieved some initial success with several of Trump's
fiercest neocon critics, such as neocon Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, praising the missile
strike, as did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The
neocons
and Israel have long sought "regime change" in Damascus even if the ouster of Assad might lead
to a victory by Islamic extremists associated with Al Qaeda and/or the Islamic State.
Wagging the Dog
Trump employing a "wag the dog" strategy, in which he highlights his leadership on an international
crisis to divert attention from domestic political problems, is reminiscent of President Bill Clinton's
decision to attack Serbia in 1999 as impeachment clouds were building around his sexual relationship
with intern Monica Lewinsky.
President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at joint press conference
on Feb. 15. 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)
Trump's advisers, in briefing the press on Thursday night, went to great lengths to highlight
Trump's compassion toward the victims of the poison gas and his decisiveness in bombing Assad's military
in contrast to Obama's willingness to allow the intelligence community to conduct a serious review
of the evidence surrounding the 2013 sarin-gas case.
Ultimately, Obama listened to his intelligence advisers who told him there was
no "slam-dunk" evidence implicating Assad's regime and he pulled back from a military strike
at the last minute – while
publicly maintaining the fiction that the U.S. government was certain of Assad's guilt.
In both cases – 2013 and 2017 – there were strong reasons to doubt Assad's responsibility. In
2013, he had
just invited United Nations inspectors into Syria to investigate cases of alleged rebel use of
chemical weapons and thus it made no sense that he would launch a sarin attack in the Damascus suburbs,
guaranteeing that the U.N. inspectors would be diverted to that case.
Similarly, now, Assad's military has gained a decisive advantage over the rebels and he had just
scored a major diplomatic victory with the Trump administration's announcement that the U.S. was
no longer seeking "regime change" in Syria. The savvy Assad would know that a chemical weapon attack
now would likely result in U.S. retaliation and jeopardize the gains that his military has achieved
with Russian and Iranian help.
The counter-argument to this logic – made by The New York Times and other neocon-oriented news
outlets – essentially maintains that Assad is a crazed barbarian who was testing out his newfound
position of strength by baiting President Trump. Of course, if that were the case, it would have
made sense that Assad would have boasted of his act, rather than deny it.
But logic and respect for facts no longer prevail inside Official Washington, nor inside the mainstream
U.S. news media.
Intelligence Uprising
Alarm within the U.S. intelligence community about Trump's hasty decision to attack Syria reverberated
from the Middle East back to Washington, where former CIA officer Philip Giraldi reported hearing
from his intelligence contacts in the field that they were shocked at how the new poison-gas story
was being distorted by Trump and the mainstream U.S. news media.
Giraldi told
Scott Horton's Webcast : "I'm hearing from sources on the ground in the Middle East, people who
are intimately familiar with the intelligence that is available who are saying that the essential
narrative that we're all hearing about the Syrian government or the Russians using chemical weapons
on innocent civilians is a sham."
Giraldi said his sources were more in line with an analysis postulating an accidental release
of the poison gas after an Al Qaeda arms depot was hit by a Russian airstrike.
"The intelligence confirms pretty much the account that the Russians have been giving which
is that they hit a warehouse where the rebels – now these are rebels that are, of course, connected
with Al Qaeda – where the rebels were storing chemicals of their own and it basically caused an explosion
that resulted in the casualties. Apparently the intelligence on this is very clear."
Giraldi said the anger within the intelligence community over the distortion of intelligence to
justify Trump's military retaliation was so great that some covert officers were considering going
public.
"People in both the agency [the CIA] and in the military who are aware of the intelligence are
freaking out about this because essentially Trump completely misrepresented what he already should
have known – but maybe he didn't – and they're afraid that this is moving toward a situation that
could easily turn into an armed conflict," Giraldi said before Thursday night's missile strike. "They
are astonished by how this is being played by the administration and by the U.S. media."
One-Sided Coverage
The mainstream U.S. media has presented the current crisis with the same profound neocon bias
that has infected the coverage of Syria and the larger Middle East for decades. For instance, The
New York Times on Friday
published a lead story by Michael R. Gordon and Michael D. Shear that treated the Syrian government's
responsibility for the poison-gas incident as flat-fact. The lengthy story did not even deign to
include the denials from Syria and Russia that they were responsible for any intentional deployment
of poison gas.
The article also fit with Trump's desire that he be portrayed as a decisive and forceful leader.
He is depicted as presiding over intense deliberations of war or peace and displaying a deep humanitarianism
regarding the poison-gas victims, one of the rare moments when the Times, which has become a reliable
neocon propaganda sheet, has written anything favorable about Trump at all.
According to Syrian reports on Friday, the U.S. attack killed 13 people, including five soldiers
at the airbase.
Gordon, whose service to the neocon cause is notorious, was
the lead author with Judith Miller of the Times' bogus "aluminum tube" story in 2002 which falsely
claimed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was reconstituting a nuclear-weapons program, an article
that was then cited by President George W. Bush's aides as a key argument for invading Iraq in 2003.
Regarding this week's events, Trump's desperation to reverse his negative media coverage and the
dubious evidence blaming Assad for the Idlib incident could fit with the "Wag the Dog" movie from
1997 in which an embattled president creates a phony foreign crisis in Albania.
A fake war scene in the dark 1997 comedy "Wag the Dog," which showed a girl and her cat fleeing
a bombardment in Albania.
In the movie, the White House operation is a
cynical psychological operation to convince the American people that innocent Albanian children,
including an attractive girl carrying a cat, are in danger when, In reality, the girl was an actor
posing before a green screen that allowed scenes of fiery ruins to be inserted as background.
Today, because Trump and his administration are now committed to convincing Americans that Assad
really was responsible for Tuesday's poison-gas tragedy, the prospects for a full and open investigation
are effectively ended. We may never know if there is truth to those allegations or whether we are
being manipulated by another "wag the dog" psyop.
A thorough and impartial investigation must be launched following the
alleged chemical attack in Idlib, which the US cited as the reason for
its missile strike, Lavrov told the American official.
The US attack
ordered by President Trump only played into terrorists' hands,
Russia's top diplomat told Tillerson.
Earlier Saturday, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson
canceled
his planned trip to Moscow. Citing the recent events in
Syria, the UK official pulled out of the Russia trip just hours before
he was supposed to depart. Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman has
described the cancellation as
"absurd."
"... This shit makes no sense and I am certain in years to come we will find out that this attack was instigated by the supposed allies of the US. ..."
"... Where have all the little orange Trumpsters that were calling Clinton " Killary" and Obama warmonger gone now? ..."
No, the USA is just being mindlessly violent. It has spent years supporting terrorist groups
in Syria (both directly and via Saudi Arabia) - it is just a demonstration of US aggression and
hypocrisy.
finally there is a US president that doesn't ignore his own red lines.
That's laughable. Trump crossed his own red line about not intervening in foreign wars. Also
read this:
Even more confounding was Trump's declaration that the Idlib gas attack crossed "many, many
lines – beyond a red line". The comment came only hours after the president had lambasted Barack
Obama for laying down the original red line on Assad's use of chemical weapons in 2012 and then
not attacking when the line was crossed in August 2013.
The US were never bombing ISIL in all seriousness. If they were, they would have joined forces
with Assad and Russia and ISIS would have been vaporized. The truth is rather more complex. ISIL
is funded, supported and directed in its operations by Israeli, Saudi, Qatari and US assets on
the ground in Syria. This was discovered after Aleppo fell. 18 members of the command structure
of Al Nusra/ISIL were discovered in a bunker in East Aleppo while the Syrian army were evacuating
the town. The 'rebels' to whom they gave safe passage - teamed up with those in Idlib and were
responsible for another false flag operation to draw international outrage and US direct attacks
on the Syrian armed forces.
The only people laughing this morning are the head-chopping fascists, that the West hypocritically
claims we must defeat. If anyone can't see that this chemical attack only benefitted Al Nusra
they are either lying or stupid.
I get the feeling he's only done it to say "Look, see, I'm not in bed with Russia". To devert
the attention from the ongoing Russian links investigation.
Assad was finally at the point where he was ready to make his peace with the international community
and continue ruling with their support.
But he somehow managed to snatch failure from the jaws of success.
No wonder the bumbling fool has left his nation in such disarray. Share
Facebook
Twitter
care to explain why he would launch an attack which has not brought the US into direct involvement
in the conflict? Ah yes, he's a "bumbling fool"....that must be it.
This shit makes no sense and I am certain in years to come we will find out that this attack
was instigated by the supposed allies of the US.
But this has been the policy of the US and UK for the last 25 years. Perpetual war in middle
east. Surely we cannot blame trump. Trump did not even want to be involved there. But it must
be difficult to be the POTUS and having dozens of lobbyists, advisors, generals all day remidning
you that bombs is the only solution, you end up getting convinced
According to himself he didn't. There's a 2013 tweet where Trump told Obama to "save his powder"
and not get involved in Syria over chemical weapons. Of course now he has the gall to criticize
Obama for leaving a mess when Obama just did what Trump said. Consistently and clearness isn't
exactly Trump's strong suit.
Where have all the little orange Trumpsters that were calling Clinton " Killary" and Obama
warmonger gone now?
A passenger plane is shot down by someone, before the last piece hits the ground Russia is hit
with the sanctions - evidence of the crime substituted by orchestrated media shrieks. Someone
uses poisonous gas on civilians and Russian ally is attacked with cruise missiles - evidence of
the crime is substituted by statements given by the only people who were caught using chemical
weapons in Syria and yet another media lynch mob.
We are pushed into war by a bunch of greedy murderous liars. None of them give two fucks about
the Syrians or their children, they want their pipeline through Syria and it will be built even
if it takes a murder of thousands of people. Do you realize what kind of monsters we allow to
rule our lives?
Trump's meeting the Chinese premiere this week, so no doubt he thinks this will send the message
that he's not to be messed with, a man of action etc. Of course the Chinese will be thinking things
like 'idiotic, hasty, premature,' etc. But yes, guided cruise missiles cost a few million a pop,
so spunking a 59 on a dusty Syrian airfield full of (mostly inoperative) ancient rusting Migs
will do the arms suppliers no harm.
"... I can't verify the symptoms of sarin, but if you watch the videos posted you will note the people walking among the victims and those picking up and carrying victims are not wearing any protective gear. No gas masks, no protective suits, no protective footwear, and no gloves. ..."
"... I'd say this pretty well rules out sarin, because sarin can be absorbed through the skin. ..."
This best way to see immediately that the victims have not died from sarin intoxication is
that in almost every case their skin is red/pink. Sarin turns people blue - always. Sarin makes
people puke on themselves, urinate on themselves, shit themselves. Show me the evidence of sarin.
Scores and scores of "sarin victims," not a single one has the constellation of symptoms produced
by sarin. Not a single one.
The red/pink color of the victims in the vids suggests the people were executed with cyanide
or carbon monoxide, which, in turn, suggests these scenes are staged after the executions. The
evidence for KS is just now being collected. The evidence for Ghouta is very, very strong: those
people were gassed by the terrorists using, probably, CO.
Please quit spreading the lie that these are sarin victims and sarin attacks. They are false
flags and now that there is a moron in the WH we see how effective those false flags will be unless
the public understands what is going on biologically.
My PhD is in pharmacology, specializing in neuropharmacology, University of Virginia. My postdoc
was at Harvard in neurosciences. I am a lawyer. I know bullshit when I smell it. This sarin bullshit
has to stop. " (Posted by: Denis | Apr 7, 2017 8:09:40 AM | 47)
I can't verify the symptoms of sarin, but if you watch the videos posted you will note the
people walking among the victims and those picking up and carrying victims are not wearing any
protective gear. No gas masks, no protective suits, no protective footwear, and no gloves.
I'd
say this pretty well rules out sarin, because sarin can be absorbed through the skin.
If you thought
someone was the victim of sarin you would not want to expose your bare skin to possible residue.
I say this based on the CBR training I got in the Army thirty years ago. Maybe current doctrine
is different.
President Vladimir Putin's spokesman said the risk of confrontation between aerial assets of the
U.S.-led coalition and Russia has "significantly increased" after President Trump ordered the launch
of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian air base in retaliation for a chemical attack that killed
scores of civilians.
Later Friday, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that it has officially informed the United
States that it is suspending its obligations under the memorandum at midnight.
Under the pact, the two countries have traded information about flights by a U.S.-led coalition
targeting the Islamic State and Russian planes operating in Syria in support of the Assad government.
Moscow was taking its action, the Defense Ministry said, because it sees the U.S. strike "as a grave
violation of the memorandum."
During a special U.N. Security Council session on the airstrikes Friday, Russia's United Nations
envoy condemned what he called an "illegitimate action by the United States."
"The consequences of this for regional and international stability could be extremely serious,"
Deputy Ambassador Vladimir Safronkov said. "The U.S. has often talked about the need to combat international
terrorism," he said, yet it attacked the Syrian air force, which he claimed is leading that fight
in Syria.
"It's not difficult to imagine how much the spirits of terrorists have been raised by this action
from the United States," Safronkov said.
... ... ...
The council has set aside for now a separate discussion of whether to condemn the Assad government
for Tuesday's chemical attack. Russia is expected to veto a resolution supported by the United States,
Britain and France.
Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, earlier claimed that the Syrian government had no chemical weapons
and dismissed the Trump administration's explanation as an excuse to enter the conflict.
"President Putin considers the American strikes against Syria an aggression against a sovereign
government in violations of the norms of international law, and under a far-fetched pretext," Peskov
told reporters. "This step by Washington is causing significant damage to Russian-American relations,
which are already in a deplorable state."
... ... ..
Konashenkov said the attack destroyed a warehouse, classrooms, a cafeteria, six Mig-23 fighter
jets that were being repaired and a radar station. The runway and other aircraft were not affected,
he said.
... ... ...
Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for Russia's Foreign Ministry, also dismissed the U.S. assertion
that the attacks were a response to this week's chemical weapon attack in northern Syria, which left
scores dead in a village in Idlib province - one of the last strongholds of anti-Assad factions.
"It is obvious that the strike by U.S. cruise missiles was prepared well in advance," Zakharova
said on Russian state television. "It is clear to any specialist that the decision to deliver the
strikes was made in Washington before the Idlib events, which were simply used as a pretext for demonstrating
force."
Putin's spokesman said the Russian president considered the attack an attempt to distract attention
from the heavy civilian casualties caused by a U.S.-backed offensive to capture the northern Iraqi
city of Mosul from the Islamic State group.
Dan Lamothe and David Nakamura in Washington and Andrew Roth in Moscow contributed to this
report.
Jeff Black, 4/8/2017 3:46 AM EDT [Edited]
You Liberals lost the election because you had a failed candidate. This led you to your safe
rooms where you thumb sucked and did your bed wetting while playing with your tinker toys and
dreamed of a Russian conspiracy between Putin and Trump. Got any evidence on the Russian deal?
I didn't think so.
3August, 4/7/2017 9:52 PM EDT
For a British diplomatic official to call Assada a war criminal is beyond reason. He is a duly
elected leader of a sovereign country who is fighting not only opposition rebels but also international
terrorist within his country. He is not attacking other countries as is the West. Who has destroyed
Yemen with the help of the US, Saudia Arabia. They are the true war criminals!
georgex9 4/7/2017 9:31 PM EDT
The U.S. policy of trying change dictatorships has not been working in the Middle East. And, yet,
here we are in Syria trying to oust this brutal dictator who now has support from Russia. Our
objective in Syria ought to be limited to defeating radical religious fanatics like ISIS. If Assad
is replaced who knows what subsequent turmoil will follow. Of course, the warmongers in Congress
are happy with this missile attack in Syria. This means more profits for the makers of the cruise
weapons.
whatthe---- 4/7/2017 10:39 PM EDT
What's to complain about, more jobs now available in the munitions industry.
ezpaddler, 4/7/2017 8:18 PM EDT [Edited]
The President is prohibited from starting a war without the approval of Congress unless we
are under the threat of impending attack. This of course is not the case.
Once again Trump ignores the Constitution.
NS Bingo, 4/7/2017 8:32 PM EDT
Just like Bill Clinton bombed an Aspirin factory without approval from congress.
ezpaddler, 4/7/2017 8:50 PM EDT
Why do neocons always try to defend the crimes of NOW by referencing the past?
Weak, pathetic, Sad.
BostonCommon, 4/7/2017 7:43 PM EDT
Why not Trump in front of the Hague for crimes against humanity? With 3 military actions he
has killed over 150 children.. Mosul 300 civilians, mostly children.. Syria attack last night
6 children... And the Navy Seal engagement a few days after his Inaugural.. 7 children.
And he hasnt even been office 100 days..
supermoe88, 4/7/2017 7:38 PM EDT
While the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent and should be condemned, since when was the
U.S. the globally elected policeman of the world? No country has the right to attack another sovereign
country, which has not initiated an attack on it, without an approved UN resolution. This is an
illegal act and a blatant violation of international law, as Putin rightly states. If Trump is
so concerned by the killing of babies then why has he not condemned the killing of babies by the
U.S. bombing of innocent civilians and babies in Iraq last week?? What a double standard!
Vladdie Luvs Donnie, 4/7/2017 7:39 PM EDT
We're the biggest Suckers.
BostonCommon, 4/7/2017 7:23 PM EDT
biggest winners today? ISIS.. That airfield launched bombing raids on them, as well.
AMR56 4/7/2017 6:53 PM EDT
I've been watching "Platoon" and "Full Metal Jacket" recently. It's clear to me that history is
repeating itself in East Ukraine and Syria.
America is the world's most powerful country. It needs to make the right decisions about which
side to back...otherwise defeat beckons. Again.
sasha59 4/7/2017 6:44 PM EDT
So MAGA hat wearing Trump lovers, are you or your kids ready to take off that hat, put on a helmet
and some Kevlar, and go fight in Donny's new war if this escalates?
The Syrian regime may not have had a compelling motive, believes Günther Meyer, the director of
the Research Center for the Arab World at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz. "Only armed
opposition groups could profit from an attack with chemical weapons," he told DW. "With their backs
against the wall, they have next to no chance of opposing the regime militarily. As President [Donald]
Trump's recent statements show, such actions make it possible for anti-Assad groups to receive further
support."
Former President Barack Obama famously drew a "red line" in 2012. "We have been very clear to
the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing
a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus,"
he said at the time. Meyer views the statement as an "invitation for Assad's opponents to use chemical
weapons and make the Assad regime responsible for it."
Rebels' chemical weapons
In 2014, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported on opposition forces' ability to use
chemical weapons. In an article for the "London Review of Books," Hersh obtained documents from the
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Pentagon's own spy organization. They suggested that the Nusra
Front, a Syrian offshoot of al Qaeda, had access to the sarin nerve agent. A chemical weapons attack
on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta in August 2013, which was blamed on Assad, was carried out by rebels,
according to Hersh's article. They wanted Washington to presume Assad had crossed Obama's "red line"
and draw the US into a war.
There are doubts over whether the suspected chemical weapons strike in Ghouta came from Assad's
forces
The Ghouta attack
Obama's Director of National Intelligence at the time, James Clapper, was able to dissuade Obama
from ordering a cruise missile strike, according to a newly-published book by Mideast expert Michael
Lüders. Presumably, a deciding factor was an analysis of the chemical weapons used in Ghouta, conducted
by a British military lab, which found the gas to be of a different composition than the Syrian army
possessed.
The attack took place while UN weapons inspectors were in the country, on Assad's invitation,
said Meyer. Assad had asked them to investigate a chemical weapons attack from March 2013 outside
Aleppo, which killed Syrian soldiers.
"It makes no sense that the regime would carry out an attack with inspectors in the country,"
he said.
Was Trump's Syria Strike Illegal? Explaining
Presidential War Powers https://nyti.ms/2oaFfoB
NYT - CHARLIE SAVAGE -mAPRIL 7, 2017
WASHINGTON - President Trump ordered the military on Thursday to carry out a missile attack
on Syrian forces for using chemical weapons against civilians. The unilateral attack lacked authorization
from Congress or from the United Nations Security Council, raising the question of whether he
had legal authority to commit the act of war.
Mr. Trump and top members of his administration initially justified the operation as a punishment
for Syria's violating the ban on chemical weapons and an attempt at deterrence. But they did not
make clear whether that was a legal argument or just a policy rationale.
The strike raises two sets of legal issues. One involves international law and when it is lawful
for any nation to attack another. The other involves domestic law and who gets to decide - the
president or Congress - whether the United States should attack another country.
Did Trump have clear authority under international law to attack Syria?
No. The United Nations Charter, a treaty the United States has ratified, recognizes two justifications
for using force on another country's soil without its consent: the permission of the Security
Council or a self-defense claim. In the case of Syria, the United Nations did not approve the
strike, and the Defense Department justified it as "intended to deter the regime from using chemical
weapons again," which is not self-defense.
Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, in a briefing with reporters, invoked Syria's violation
of the Chemical Weapons Convention and a related Security Council resolution from 2013, saying,
"The use of prohibited chemical weapons, which violates a number of international norms and violates
existing agreements, called for this type of a response, which is a kinetic military response."
However, while the resolution said the Security Council would impose "measures" if anyone used
chemical weapons in Syria in the future, it did not directly authorize force. The chemical weapons
treaty does not provide an enforcement mechanism authorizing other parties to attack violators
as punishment.
Mr. Trump's attack was different from the United States' bombings targeting the Islamic State
in rebel-held areas of Syria. The United States has justified those airstrikes as part of the
collective self-defense of Iraq, which asked for help against the group. But Syria did not use
its chemical weapons against the United States or an ally like Iraq.
Could the strike be justified as a humanitarian intervention?
Some human rights advocates have argued that customary international law, which develops from
the practices of states, also permits using force to stop an atrocity. Others worry that accepting
such a doctrine could create a loophole that would be subject to misuse, eroding important constraints
on war. The United States has not taken the position that humanitarian interventions are lawful
absent Security Council authorization.
Still, in 1999, the United States participated in NATO's air war to stop the Serbian ethnic-cleansing
campaign in Kosovo, even though the operation lacked a Security Council authorization. The Clinton
administration never offered a clear explanation for why that operation complied with international
law. Instead, it cited a list of "factors" - like the threat to peace and stability and the danger
of a humanitarian disaster - without offering a theory for why those factors made that war lawful.
In a seeming acknowledgment that this was dubious, the administration said the Kosovo intervention
should not serve as a precedent.
Did Trump have domestic legal authority to attack Syria?
The answer is murky because of a split between the apparent intent of the Constitution and
how the country has been governed in practice. Most legal scholars agree that the founders wanted
Congress to decide whether to go to war, except when the country is under an attack. But presidents
of both parties have a long history of carrying out military operations without authorization
from Congress, especially since the end of World War II, when the United States maintained a large
standing army instead of demobilizing.
In the modern era, executive branch lawyers have argued that the president, as commander in
chief, may use military force unilaterally if he decides a strike would be in the national interest,
at least when its anticipated nature, scope and duration fall short of "a 'war' in the constitutional
sense," as a Clinton administration lawyer wrote in the context of a contemplated intervention
in Haiti. ...
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act)
(50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United
States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted
in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President
can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory
authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States,
its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing
armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days,
with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military
force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds
of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. ... (Wikipedia)
(That is, IN THE SHORT TERM, the President
can do 'as necessary', i.e., as he pleases,
with US armed forces, overseas at least.)
'The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who
is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory," wrote Sun Tzu in his book
"The Art of War."
That's good advice - and advice that the author of "The Art of the Deal" should take to heart
when thinking about the act of war that he unilaterally ordered this week against the Syrian regime.
A cruise missile fusillade is an efficient way to wreck an airbase. But it is only a military
tactic, not a strategy for victory.
To be sure, there won't be any victors in the years-long human tragedy unfolding in Syria.
The poison gas used against civilians there is a stark reminder of man's capacity for indiscriminate
cruelty as well as the international community's inability or unwillingness to restrain it.
Restraint is important when it comes to waging war. It is the reason our constitution prevents
the president from launching one alone. Congress restrains the executive by approving or rejecting
war. Donald Trump certainly thought so when he tweeted, on August 30, 2013: "The President must
get congressional approval before attacking Syria - big mistake if he does not!" Just so. Congress
considered military action in Syria after a poison gas attack and opposed it.
Trump must seek immediate congressional approval for continued conflict in Syria. The idea
that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks is
somehow applicable here is farcical. The Assad regime is not Al Qaeda.
One of the first questions that legislators will - or should - ask, and which the president must
explain, is this: What are US goals in Syria, and how will these particular military actions help
achieve them? There may indeed be answers to those questions, but they have yet to be brought
before the American people, in whose name those missiles are being fired.
Articulating a coherent strategy and the way that strategy will be implemented is critical,
because it forces a unity of effort between military, diplomatic, humanitarian, and intelligence
efforts, which have often been at cross purposes.
The Trump administration is coming late to the war in Syria. Yet it seems keen to fight first
and afterwards look for a victory. What they should also be looking for is an exit strategy from
one of the world's bloodiest quagmires.
(Indeed, given that there ARE US troops on the
ground in Syria, and have been for some time,
an AUMF would seem to be necessary.)
Unless I see evidence of ordnance that delivered the volatile liquefied sarin, and there would
be plenty, I will not accept the unsubstantiated fake news from NYT.
To say Assad had nothing to lose is mind reading.
US will bomb away toward regime change and another Yemen for less truth than this.
And passing jihadi propaganda as reason for becoming their air support is insane.
... Victims of a suspected chemical attack in Syria appeared to show symptoms consistent with
reaction to a nerve agent, the World Health Organization said on Wednesday.
"Some cases appear to show additional signs consistent with exposure to organophosphorus chemicals,
a category of chemicals that includes nerve agents," WHO said in a statement, putting the death
toll at at least 70.
The United States has said the deaths were caused by sarin nerve gas dropped by Syrian aircraft.
Russia has said it believes poison gas had leaked from a rebel chemical weapons depot struck by
Syrian bombs.
Syria attack symptoms consistent with nerve agent
use: WHO http://reut.rs/2nWTdZo via @Reuters
(It is the Trump admin that says Assad is to blame.)
"... "I don't think the evidence is there, at least it hasn't been presented, and they need a so-called excuse, they worked real hard, our government and their coalition." ..."
"... "If any of this was true, I don't know why they couldn't wait and take a look at it. In 2013, there were similar stories that didn't go anywhere, because with a little bit of a pause, there was a resistance to it built in our Congress and in the American people. They thought that it was a fraud and nothing like that was happening, and right now, I just can't think of how it could conceivably be what they claim, because it's helping ISIS, because it's helping Al-Qaeda." ..."
"... "From my point of view, there was no need to rush. There was no threat to national security. They have to give a reason to do these things," ..."
"... The Syrian situation now is "a victory for neo-conservatives, who've been looking for Assad to go," ..."
"... "I don't believe that our people or the American government should be the policemen of the world, it makes no sense, it causes us more trouble and more grief, it causes us more financial problems, and it's hardly a way that we could defend our constitutional liberty." ..."
"... "The peace talks have ended now. They're terrified that peace was going to break out! Al-Qaeda was on the run, peace talks were happening, and all of a sudden, they had to change, and this changes things dramatically! I don't expect peace talks anytime soon or in the distant future." ..."
"A victory of neo-conservatives" – that's how Ron Paul, a former member of the US House of Representatives
and three-time presidential candidate, described the US strike on Syria, adding that he does not
expect peace talks to resume any time soon. Speaking to RT, Ron Paul said that there is no proof
of Damascus' guilt that could trigger such a rash and violent response from the US.
"I don't think the evidence is there, at least it hasn't been presented, and they need a so-called
excuse, they worked real hard, our government and their coalition."
This is not the first time something like this has happened in Syria or elsewhere, Paul said,
but now it is convenient to pay attention and react immediately.
"If any of this was true, I don't know why they couldn't wait and take a look at it. In 2013,
there were similar stories that didn't go anywhere, because with a little bit of a pause, there was
a resistance to it built in our Congress and in the American people. They thought that it was a fraud
and nothing like that was happening, and right now, I just can't think of how it could conceivably
be what they claim, because it's helping ISIS, because it's helping Al-Qaeda."
"From my point of view, there was no need to rush. There was no threat to national security.
They have to give a reason to do these things," Paul added.
A factor that contributed to the speedy reaction was of course the US president, the politician
told RT.
"I have no idea what his purpose was. Maybe he just didn't want to hear the debate, because
the last time they debated it, they lost. And this time, it was necessary for them to jump onto this,
before people came to know what was really going on."
The Syrian situation now is "a victory for neo-conservatives, who've been looking for Assad
to go," Paul said.
"They want to get rid of him, and you have to look for who is involved in that. Unfortunately,
they are the ones who are winning out on this, and the radicals, too! There is a bit of hypocrisy
going on here, because at one minute we say, well, maybe Assad has to stay, the next day he has to
go, and we're there fighting ISIS and Al-Qaeda. At the same time, what we end up doing is we actually
strengthen them! It is a mess.
"I don't believe that our people or the American government should be the policemen of the
world, it makes no sense, it causes us more trouble and more grief, it causes us more financial problems,
and it's hardly a way that we could defend our constitutional liberty."
This policy clearly does not lead to peace, Paul told RT.
"The peace talks have ended now. They're terrified that peace was going to break out! Al-Qaeda
was on the run, peace talks were happening, and all of a sudden, they had to change, and this changes
things dramatically! I don't expect peace talks anytime soon or in the distant future."
Last but not least, the politician spoke out about the deeper reasons – and potential disastrous
consequences – of the latest attack's timing.
"I was wondering about the fact that the announcement came when Trump was talking to Xi [Jinping,
the Chinese president]. And of course, [North] Korea's high on the list of targets for our president
and our administration. It might be a warning: this is what's going to happen to you if you don't
do what we tell you. I just don't like us being involved in so many countries, in their internal
affairs; I think it's so detrimental."
We could have Hillary in the oval office. Trump applied Obama
doctrine of 'unjust peace has to be stopped by just cruise
missiles aiding terrorists'.
Soviet cluster munitions (CBUs)in
Afghanistan were evil. Saudi cluster munitions killing Shi'a
kids in Yemen are "leadership". CBU's artillery shells
dispensing bomblets and land mines are banned by other
treaties the US does not follow.
Pix of dead kids only matter in Syria. US double standard.
US just flew tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM) support
for al Qaeda!
"... Trump supporters aka the "deplorables" are flipping out and feel incredibly betrayed. Bipartisanship at last–ex-the neocons. ..."
"... The Deplorables are mostly against the war. They are probably the only real anti-war faction in the US, as the anti-war Left tends to dissappear whenever a Democrat is in power. Deplorables actually are angry at Trump for this. ..."
"... According to Wikipedia, the last country the USA declared war on was Hungary (during WW2). ..."
"... With Flynn gone and Bannon marginalized, Trump has suddenly transformed into another GW Bush!!!! ..."
"... This attack seems to be sending a very clear US message to Syria: We will not let you defeat our rebels and our terrorists. We will intervene every time you get close and ensure the conflict continues. We need no justification for our actions, we can create one whenever required (thanks Turkey). Do not stand in the way of our interests. ..."
"... I was thinking the same thing. Just like Hill/Bill bombing Yugoslavia without Congressional approval in order to direct attention from Monica among other reasons. ..."
"... If memory serves me correct Bill Clinton launched a volley of cruise missiles at targets in Iraq the night before his Congressional impeachment vote. Dan Rather was on the scene in Baghdad to report the attack "LIVE!" so there was a great deal of coordination and preplanning that took place with the media. ABC had to interrupt their specially scheduled programing for the evening to report on the attack. A television special on John F Kennedy who was portrayed as the nation's greatest president who incidentally was a serial philander that just couldn't keep his d*%k in his pants- what a coincidence! Remind you of anybody you know America? (Nudge, nudge, wink) Wow look at those pretty explosions. Serious manly-man stuff right there. Pretty darn grown-up and Presidential eh? ..."
"... I highly doubt this was Trump's call. I believe the powers that be done got to old Donnie and helped him get his mind right. ..."
"... My initial take on Trump was that he would be taken into a room and shown something needed to bring him around. Where that is remains to be seen. Obama, W and others likely got a similar treatment. How else would nonsensical 180s be explained, even by DC standards? ..."
"... Who is pulling all those strings? ..."
"... It could be he's being manipulated but maybe he and his team are taking a page from Clinton's triangulation playbook, especially with Clinton having called for the exact same strike just yesterday. ..."
"... In the longer term, it could serve his purposes for the Russians and Chinese and North Koreans and Iranians to think they are dealing with a man capable of any impulsive lunacy ..."
"... Introduced by McDonnell Douglas in the 1970s, it was initially designed as a medium to long-range, low-altitude missile that could be launched from a surface platform. It has been improved several times, and after corporate divestitures and acquisitions , is now made by Raytheon . Some Tomahawks were also manufactured by General Dynamics (now Boeing Defense, Space & Security) ..."
"... So that's what, another $150 or $200 million out the launch tubes, to do what again, to "make America safe?" ..."
"... . I think that Trump's Presidency will be a disaster, because he was not the man that he campaigned to be. ..."
"... It's interesting to note that the Paleoconservatives have broken ranks. ..."
"... I think it's more complicated than that. You ignore that the utter hysteria of the "evil Rooskies" campaign has revealed how deeply committed the military industrial complex has been about getting its Russian war. ..."
"... It is now looking like Eisenhower was right, the military industrial complex could and has usurped democracy. A better President might have been able to check and contain it on its Russia campaign. Maybe a great President could have figured out how to stymie them but name names as to who we have now who could have done that. ..."
"... In his book The Brothers ..."
"... I guess breakdown in command is always a possibility, but Assad would be wacko beyond belief to sacrifice whatever ties he has with Putin to kill 100 – even if they all were ISIS. I hate false flag arguments, but it sure seems to fit here. Plus it worked on the trigger happy target, if it indeed was one. ..."
"... Trump thinks he's staged a propaganda coup against the Clintonites and to some degree he has. But by acting out their plans in a wild man format he's showing how crazy and vicious they all are. There's going to be a drive to play their hand out, and there will be scads of opportunities to overreact. How is this going to effect Russian support for US efforts in Afghanistan, for example? ..."
"... The entire group of voters who figured his rhetoric (scam/con) was proof that he was the lesser of the evils is frustratingly naive. ..."
"... It certainly was an argument that was repeated ad nauseam around here by certain individuals (not necessarily the majority) as a pat answer to any question of the correctness of voting Trump. Unwarranted optimism about Trump's motives, plans, and/or capabilities will continue to look more and more absurd as we go forward, I predict. ..."
"... Hillary was out today, before the missiles, advocating for EXACTLY what Trump did. The only consistent, morale choice between Hillary and Trump was NOT VOTING FOR EITHER ONE. ..."
"... I still think it was reasonable to vote for Trump as the lesser evil, in order to stop Hillary. Trump was a wild card. Hillary had both the record of interventionism and the rhetoric. Trump talked out of both sides of his mouth, but he was at least pretty consistent in opposing hostility toward Russia. And he hadn't been intimately involved in planning or supporting the invasion and destruction of multiple countries. Of course, that might just be because he had no record as a public official at all. ..."
"... The USA is a rogue nation in the world community. Dying Empires are at their most dangerous when they begin to loose control of events. ..."
"... Anyone with a functioning brain cell can immediately identify the sequence of recent events in Syria as a false flag attack staged to provide the pretext for an unconstitutional act of war. ..."
"... In previous administrations false flag attacks have been orchestrated by brilliant Machiavellians like Cheney, who was able to sell an illogical fabrication like the Official 911 Report to a gullible public. ..."
"... congratulations, america, you are once again al-qaeda's airforce. make america gullible again! ..."
"... Trump is such an interesting and frightening phenomenon because he is ultimately the continuation of the status quo but puts such a naked face on the bullshit that has always been there. ..."
"... The way he spoke when decrying the horrors of the gas attacks, about all the babies that died, in his perversely hilarious cold and off-putting way, the US always does this type of crocodile tears, but with Trump it is incredibly on the nose. ..."
"... Channeling my inner Scott Adams: "What's the best way for Trump to prove that he isn't a Russian stooge ? To attack Russia !" ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard: "It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia-which could lead to nuclear war. ..."
"... "This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder." ..."
Posted on
April 6, 2017
by
Yves Smith
So the military/surveillance state got its war against Russia after all. My,
that was fast. Merely implementing a no-fly zone was widely seen as tantamount
to instigating a war with Russia, and this move is far more provocative.
Perhaps the US thinks it can engage in a show of muscle and stop there. But as
Lambert has pointed out, some things can't be unsaid. Even if this attack was
meant as an over-the-top message to Russia regarding its support of Assad, some
things can't be undone either.
Another line of thought is that this airstrike was meant as a warning shot
to Xi Jinping regarding North Korea, that the US is willing to take aggressive,
precipitous actions. Unlike Syria, North Korea would be a bona fide threat to
the US if it succeeds in its efforts to build long-range missiles.
... ... ...
Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post points out via an e-mailed alert that:
Donald Trump does not have the legal authority to launch airstrikes
against Syria, yet he has done so tonight, multiple news outlets are
reporting, and confirmed by an intelligence community source
The U.S. military launched a series of strikes against a Syrian air base
Friday, a response to mounting calls for a display of force in the wake of
this week's suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria.
U.S. lawmakers had urged Mr. Trump to strike the Assad regime. There is a
growing consensus that the regime used banned chemical weapons in the
attack, which killed at least 85 people, including 27 children, and injured
about 550.
CNN reports that Trump will address the nation shortly.
If you see the press pictures of the runway damage of the Syrian
airfields, the amount of damage is so minimal they'll be back in operation
in under a week. IOW, it was just a very expensive fireworks demonstration.
Had Hair Furor really wanted to send a message, they would have had to
actually destroy the runway with a bombing mission-that's a very high-risk
move, but would have sent a far more serious message that we're not fucking
around.
This may be giving Team Trump way more credit than is due. However, any
action against Syria, even if Trump was sold on the idea that this was a
warning shot disguised as an apparent act of war, it is first very risk and
second has the effect of committing Trump psychologically against Assad, when
before he was pretty indifferent.
"There is a growing consensus ."
God speaks in quite whispers to the faithful ..
So now we get the calls to depose Bad Guy Assad. Our good guys are
Al-Qaeda and ISIS, so I guess they take the helm, then. Jolly good,
olde chaps. I'm glad I don't have to explain that to Putin.
Yes, it is the evil that invokes God's name to justify acts of violent
aggression. It is the worldwide religion of warmongering and profiteering
that rules the hearts of our leaders. The exact sort of evil the Bible
warns about. Think: who did Jesus condemn while on earth? The self
righteous Jewish religious elders. And summarily they fought for his
execution.
Isn't it evident? God does not have to move world events. The evil in
human hearts, throughout history, has slowly but steadily led us to the
brink of total annihilation. That is the price of free will.
The question then is: does it stop there? Or is there a God that will
redeem the earth at the end of it all?
Personally I believe the Bible, the principle of resurrection bringing
eternal life out of death, and the promise that we will be judged by our
works, not merely our "religious" "faith."
I hope that we can all find some sliver of hope to keep our heads up
in these times, whatever that means for you personally, because despair
is a bottomless pit.
I just tried calling my so-called Congressional representatives. I can't
even leave a message after business hours. I am so angry right now I am seeing
red! Who are these people that think they can declare war on a sovereign
nation–with a legally elected government–when we haven't been attacked or
threatened? We've just experienced a military coup if Congress no longer has
the right to declare war. Insanity!
Thanks for the out-of-cycle post, Yves. NC continues to be my first source
for real, accurate news.
their candidate certainly proved deplorable enough. Bunch of dead
Syrians killed by U.S. missiles, are they deplorable or just dead? Yea the
deplorables that aren't lucky enough to live in the U.S. get murdered
outright and not slowly either.
And then Trump won't even allow the refugees this war will create into
this country. F the man.
The Deplorables are mostly against the war. They are probably the
only real anti-war faction in the US, as the anti-war Left tends to
dissappear whenever a Democrat is in power. Deplorables actually are
angry at Trump for this.
Not even then, as it was characterized by Truman as merely a
"police action". Sure it was, Harry. Oh, and thanks for authorizing
the Security State, too.
Funny how there's always money for lobbing endless flights of Tomahawk
missles at countries on the other side of the world, but never enough to
fund things at home like healthcare, education, environmental protection
and infrastructure. I guess you go with the priorities you have, not the
ones you wish you had.
This isn't a game of bluff ffs A major war affects everyone on the planet.
How f'ing selfish and blind to the destruction and the killing of human beings.
This is not (yet) a major war. In fact, it's less than I expected, which
was a US/Israeli attack on Damascus to try to take out Assad. It's not the
first direct US attack on Syrian forces, and it won't be the last. There
have been plenty of US boots on the ground for some time now. You can start
worrying when coalition forces try to take out Syria's air defenses.
This attack seems to be sending a very clear US message to Syria:
We will not let you defeat our rebels and our terrorists.
We will
intervene every time you get close and ensure the conflict continues. We
need no justification for our actions, we can create one whenever required
(thanks Turkey).
Do not stand in the way of our interests.
The message can be seen as a direct response to Assad's statement,
reported yesterday
, that there is no "option except victory" in the
country's civil war.
"If we do not win this war, it means that Syria will be deleted
from the map. We have no choice in facing this war, and that's why we
are confident, we are persistent and we are determined."
"Hillary Clinton calls on the US to take out Syrian leader Bashar
al-Assad's air fields"
(Tweet links to a CNN story too, but too slow to load.)
Apparently Neera hadn't heard the speech:
Neera TandenVerified account @neeratanden
I'm not saying we should have a year long debate on use of force but
perhaps more than 24 hrs btwn Trump doing a 180 on an issue and bombing
Many. Millions. This is exactly what the Clintonite Shitocrat Scum were
voting FOR when they voted FOR Clinton. They must be surprised and delighted
to get the Assad Must Go from Trump that they thought only their preciousss
Mommy Wokest would have delivered unto them.
Not all of them. I haven't been on for a couple of hours, but I saw
quite a few trying to say this proves Trump was always the real warmonger
and Hillary is the dove of peace.
The standard view for most good "liberals" regarding Hillary's
militarism was that it was merely a cynical ploy in currying favor
with the MIC in her attempt to gain the Presidency. After entry to the
White House she would be a good little diplomatic internationalist and
dial back the iron-lady persona. So why is she calling for air-strikes
NOW when she has NO CHANCE IN HELL of ever gaining any real power in
the few remaining years she has left on this sorry planet? What does
it matter to her now and who does she need to please? Also doesn't
this kinda neutralize any anti-Trump / anti-war push by Team Blue.
I was thinking the same thing. Just like Hill/Bill bombing Yugoslavia
without Congressional approval in order to direct attention from Monica
among other reasons.
If memory serves me correct Bill Clinton launched a volley of cruise
missiles at targets in Iraq the night before his Congressional
impeachment vote. Dan Rather was on the scene in Baghdad to report the
attack "LIVE!" so there was a great deal of coordination and preplanning
that took place with the media. ABC had to interrupt their specially
scheduled programing for the evening to report on the attack. A
television
special on John F Kennedy who was portrayed as the nation's greatest
president who incidentally was a serial philander that just couldn't keep
his d*%k in his pants- what a coincidence! Remind you of anybody you know
America? (Nudge, nudge, wink) Wow look at those pretty explosions.
Serious manly-man stuff right there. Pretty darn grown-up and
Presidential eh?
The more things change in Washington the more they stay the same. I
hope this little cruise missile stunt blows over without a major
escalation of the Syrian proxy war, but given the recent glimpses of
behind-the-scenes crazy emanating from the power struggle in Washington I
have a bad feeling about this. Who the hell is driving the ship at the
moment?
I think the TPP zombie is still out there, unkilled. But Trump slowed all this down. If Hillary had been elected,
drafting women would already be law, and we'd already be on the
Russian front.
We did throw a wrench in, but if the machinery is strong enough,
it will still grind that wrench down. We need a nice acid bath, or
maybe a pool of molten lead. Isn't that what finally took out that
last piece of the Terminator?
Maybe someone with an ego like he has is just easily manipulated. All
you have to do is push the right buttons, in the right order. We all
signed up to find out what was under the smirk, and now we are finding
out. Fun times ahead.
Oh, it was his call. He got up and made a speech. He's got too much
ego to do anything like that if he wasn't on board.
But what this says is the people around him are increasingly figuring
out how to manipulate him. Even if they can only drive him in a direction
for a short vector of action, as in make isolated decisions, that's
enough for them. A series of short vectors in the direction they want
will get them to their destination, even if the path is herky-jerky.
My initial take on Trump was that he would be taken into a room
and shown something needed to bring him around. Where that is
remains to be seen. Obama, W and others likely got a similar
treatment. How else would nonsensical 180s be explained, even by DC
standards?
It could be he's being manipulated but maybe he and his team are
taking a page from Clinton's triangulation playbook, especially with
Clinton having called for the exact same strike just yesterday. It
puts approving establishment Dems in the awkward position of having to
"normalize" Trump for carrying out the same neocon agenda Clinton
campaigned on – the worst possible thing for their version of the
party's future. And I bet that if someone who has his confidence
explained it to him that way he'd have signed on in a heartbeat.
Now, the dems also know there are Trump voters who believed his
campaign's pro-detente, anti-regime change rhetoric but they aren't
going to morph into a peace party just to win back a few misguided old
hippies. Most dems* will ultimately have to support, in some way,
Trump's action at the same time they're kissing goodbye all the
establishment GOP and neocon endorsements Hillary got. The Dems will
never get those again. Trump may have just coopted the bellicose
center/right space that Clintonism aspired to.
I bet his approval ratings go up.
Meanwhile, the doomsday clock inches ever closer to armageddon.
*I will be particularly interested to read what Gabbard and Sanders
have to say
Only time will tell, but I've been wondering the last week or so
if Trump has decided to take the Kissenger line on Vietnam, as in
'don't do anything, Nixon is crazy enough to do something stupid'.
In the longer term, it could serve his purposes for the Russians
and Chinese and North Koreans and Iranians to think they are
dealing with a man capable of any impulsive lunacy. In the mind of
Trump and his crew, they may feel this gives them cover for
achieving broader aims. For a man obsessed with 'the deal', playing
the crazy card while someone else (Kushner?), plays the good guy
would make a lot of sense. Trump is not intelligent in the
conventional sense, but I think he has some grasp of his
limitations, long term diplomacy and strategy being one of them.
If he thinks some missile strikes are going to get the anti-Russia fanatics
off his back, he's mistaken. They won't be satisfied until the U.S. starts
killing Russian soldiers.
But McCain's not worried
https://twitter.com/LoopEmma/status/850097784816586752
McCain, even inside his protective bubble, is a lot closer to "passing
on" from natural causes than the people who are going to have to try to make
their way, on a screwed-up planet, and in a screwed-up political economy.
Tillerson says "we know Assad did it." Really? Proof? How Fooking dumb do
he and the rest think we all are? Wait, wait, don't tell me
I've written before about a sci-fi story from 1962, originally titled "A
Sense of Obligation," re-titled "Planet of the Damned" to boost sales. The
framing is that the rulers of a hot desert planet are planning to launch
nuclear weapons at a larger, cooler world, regardless of the ability of the
people of the other planet being able to destroy the desert world if they
try. Turns out the desert planet's rulers, the "magter," actually have a
brain symbiote/parasite that's turned them all "neocon," so they do not give
a sh!t about the consequences, and apparently do not even understand why
they are going ahead with the attack, other than something like the Dalek's
motivational chant: "KILL! KILL! KILL!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWED5zcgnxM&ytbChannel=MrHarrisonChase
Here's the whole book, read it for free:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35204?msg=welcome_stranger
Here's the
wiki article, for a short version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Damned
We naked apes on Planet Earth don't, unfortunately, have a wise,
honorable, fortuitous hero and his fortuitous native sidekick in place, able
to take action and stop the MADness All the institutions and incentives and
rewards and shibboleths and hair triggers are in place, just waiting for the
magters (the epitome of credentialed monomaniacs) to start the dance of
death . Part of what it's about: "more than 50" Tomahawk Land Attack
Missiles [have to include the obligatory, "I'm in the know" acronym,
(TLAM)], 1,000 pounds, 550 mph, range 1,500 miles, warhead W-80
thermonuclear ("retired" – what does that mean?), or 1,000 lb high
explosive, or "submunition dispense,r" or PBX (see this for detail,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer-bonded_explosive
). And most
important, to "our" political economy,
Introduced by McDonnell Douglas in the 1970s, it was initially
designed as a medium to long-range, low-altitude missile that could be
launched from a surface platform. It has been improved several times, and
after corporate divestitures and acquisitions
, is now made
by
Raytheon
. Some Tomahawks were also manufactured by
General Dynamics (now Boeing Defense, Space & Security)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)
And the most important subset consideration is that, per "FY 2017
currently budgeted", each TLAM (not including the launch platform, a billion
dollar "destroyer" or many-billion submarine) costs the political economy
$2,981,000 each.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)
So that's what,
another $150 or $200 million
out the
launch tubes, to do what again, to "make America safe?"
Will there be special medals handed out to the Navy crews and contractors
who ran this attack? Maybe the kinds of gold stars handed out to kids who
graduate from pre-K to K? "Participation awards," "earned" from far out to
sea, beyond the range of anticipated Syrian defenses and counterattacks (in
the hope that "the Russians," who do have the ready means to "reach out and
touch them," will continue to "exercise restraint" since we gave them a
phone call warning the attack was on the way?
I got the sinking feeling that tonight I'm going to have one of those
horrific recurring dreams I mostly have mislaid, hangovers from the war
thing I was dumb enough to enlist in
We who participate here at NC can jaw and perceive and understand and
parse all we want - too bad that does nothing, can apparently do nothing, to
stop those "magters" from launching this set of missiles, and going ahead
with all the other stuff they have in hand, to complete the Fokking up of
the planet
@JTMcPhee – Thanks for that. Your analysis is spot on, and the details
on the Tomahawk are quite interesting.
I'm not sure they think we're dumb, however. I think they either
believe that we are too busy trying to live our oppressed lives to pay
attention, or they don't think about it at all and just do what they damn
well please and Fokk the rest of the world.
There's likely layers to it, their lies do keep the propagandized
and poorly informed on board (yes everyone is propagandized to a
degree but it really is a matter of degree, I mean the folks that
never woke up from the American dream and American exceptionalism).
Meanwhile those who see right through the ever repeating BS, well what
can they really DO about it anyway? And yes survival keeps people
poorly informed and even when not it keeps them too busy.
If I was conspiratorial, I'd almost say this is why we can't have
nice things, like really basic things like the rest of the world has,
because a more secure population might actually oppose the empire that
purports to represent them.
Anyway at least TWICE they have already LIED about Assad being
behind gassings, and now we are supposed to believe them. Yes indeed
what rubbish.
This is a very serious mistake. I think that Trump's Presidency will be a
disaster, because he was not the man that he campaigned to be. If he were remotely serious, he would end the wars abroad, bring the US
troops home and then use the money on rebuilding America's infrastructure.
This could easily spill over into other nations, lead to a large refugee
crisis, and get a lot of people killed needlessly.
It's interesting to note that the Paleoconservatives have broken ranks.
No U.S. interests are threatened by the Syrian government, and at present
the Syrian government's patrons are to some degree on the same side as our
government in their hostility to ISIS. Attacking the Syrian government would
be a boon to jihadists, the start of a new and unnecessary war for the U.S.,
possible direct confrontation with Iran and its proxies in Iraq and Syria,
and a potentially disastrous provocation of a nuclear-armed major power.
Trump is always emphasizing how the U.S. gets nothing from its foreign wars,
so it bears repeating that the U.S. would most certainly get nothing from
picking another fight in the region except increased costs and new enemies.
If Trump were half the realist or even the 'Jacksonian' that some of his
supporters have claimed him to be, this intervention would not be under
consideration, but then Trump is first and foremost a militarist and seems
inclined to favor military options to the exclusion of everything else. If
Trump were remotely serious about his "America first" rhetoric, the obvious
lack of any threat to American interests would ensure that there would be no
U.S. military action taken against Syria's government, but his use of that
phrase has always been opportunistic and it has never meant that he is
interested in staying out of foreign wars or minding our own business.
Deeper intervention in Syria seemed to be something that Trump was
unlikely to do as president based on what he said during the campaign, but
he could never be trusted to do what he said and his foreign policy views
have always been unformed (and uninformed) and can be easily changed.
Trump's lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge make him much more
susceptible to bad advice, and his lack of any firm convictions means that
he is more likely than most to yield to demands that he "do something" in
response to an ongoing conflict.
I think that ideologically the left has more in common with the
Paleoconservatives these days than we do with the Clinton Liberal faction,
which also wanted to go to war. They are pretty much neoconservatives.
We disagree with the Paleocons on social issues and they are a lot more free
market oriented, but when push comes to shove, they seem to be a lot more
ideologically honest than the rest of the political spectrum. They also seem to
be pro-middle class.
We should also pay a very close eye on which Democrats choose to vote for
this war. Who is going to play bad cop this time around? Everyone knows that
like Iraq, this is going to be a disaster. Washington seems determined to not
learn from its past mistakes perhaps to make the military industrial complex
very rich.
I'm thinking that in 2020, if there is a Sanders like President, they could
criticize this decision and go from there.
So did you believe Trump during the campaign then? That he was for
curtailing the Empire and its maneuvers? One of the most frustrating parts
of this entire debacle has been smart minded folk deciding Trump was the
lesser evil based on what he said. As if what he said meant anything at all
or was related to what he might do. Ever.
I thought there was a 90% chance that he would screw up and a 100%
chance Clinton would. I guess we lose nothing since Clinton clearly was
itching to go to war.
Some things he might do are good, but some things will be bad. If he
actually makes a serious attempt at trying to crackdown the H1B, that's
step forward in my book. So is any attempt to rebuild infrastructure and
manufacturing. That said, some things are awful like his selling of
private surfing data.
I think it's more complicated than that.
You ignore that the utter hysteria of the "evil Rooskies" campaign has
revealed how deeply committed the military industrial complex has been
about getting its Russian war.
Trump was pretty consistent on not wanting to escalate in the Middle
East, although he seemed to believe you could fight Muslim terrorists we
had helped create surgically and that was naive.
But he knows even less about foreign affairs than he does about
domestic policy, and because he was such an outsider, his team has lots
of people from various fringes because either no one would join even
after he won and some marginal types were willing to sign on early and
Trump felt he owed them. So his team never embodied a consistent view,
even on the issues where Trump kinda sorta had them.
And the the Borg went really hard to get out the folks who were not
fully on board with neocon orthodoxy and get more warmogers in.
Put it another way: Trump is obviously over his head in DC. I've been
stunned at the willingness of the CIA to attempt openly to unseat a
President. Even if he were deeply committed to not escalating in the
Middle East and/or versus Russia, how long do you think he could have
held out even if he were seriously committed, a seasoned bureaucratic
infighter and had a loyal, aligned core team?
It is now looking like Eisenhower was right, the military industrial
complex could and has usurped democracy. A better President might have
been able to check and contain it on its Russia campaign. Maybe a great
President could have figured out how to stymie them but name names as to
who we have now who could have done that.
Eisenhower. But that was a long time ago. (Actually, I think he
presided over the initial growth of the CIA and the National Security
State. But even I was a kid then, so I'm not real sure.)
And he had been the Commander in Chief of the Allies in Europe
WWII. He could have stared anyone down.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk did in a more limited way in the
Cuban missile crisis. JFK had ordered a naval blockage and Rusk
asked the Chief Admiral what would happen as Khrushchev 's ships
approached. The Admiral said first they'd make a warning shot. Rusk
then asked what would happen if they didn't change course. The
naval officer gets angry and starts to tell Rusk the Navy has been
running blockades since 1812.
Rusk cut him off and berated him along these lines:
This is not about your pettifogging Navy traditions. This is
a communication between the President and Khrushchev. You will
not take a single action unless it has been explicitly
authorized. Have I made myself clear?
You made me dig up my book Humanity, which is based on
extensive archival research, by Jonathan Glover, and it was
indeed McNamara. However, that scene takes a lot of artistic
liberties. The Navy was leashed and collared before the
blockade was put in place.
I might as well write up the exchange as recounted by
McNamara:
"We'll send a shot across the bow," he said.
"Then what, if that doesn't work?"
"Then we'll fire into the rudder," he said, by now
clearly very annoyed.
"What kind of ship is it?" I asked.
"A tanker, Mr. Secretary," he said.
"You're not going to fire anything without my express
permission, is that clear?" I said. That's when he made
his famous remark about how the Navy had been running
blockades since the days of John Paul Jones and if I would
leave them alone they would run this one successfully as
well. I rose from my chair and said this was not a
blockade but a means of communication between Kennedy and
Khruschchev; no force would be applied without my
permission; and that would not be given without discussion
with the President. "Was that understood?" I said. The
tightlipped response was, "Yes."
In his book
The Brothers
, Stephen Kinzer asserts that John
Foster and Allen Dulles coordinated with each other beforehand
to present a united front during meetings on national security
issues with Ike, and this usually crowded out other viewpoints
on whatever was being discussed.
I'm aware of healthcare, although I had been hoping that Trump would
have the guts to actually fight or not have his ego pushed around.
As for healthcare well I"m in Canada so I do know about how terrible
US healthcare is (lived in the USA for 5 years). We need universal dental
care, but yeah American healthcare looks to be in even worse shape!
President Kennedy fired the Deep State's godfather in 1961, after
the Bay of Pigs calamity and Dulles's never-acknowledged support for a
failed coup against de Gaulle (believe it, the French president).
Taking this to the ultimate, Talbot, who founded Salon 20-odd years
ago, makes a persuasive case that Dulles retreated to Georgetown,
gathered his loyalists, and probably architected JFK's assassination
two years later. Talbot's book does not include this incident, but I
have it from a former spook of great integrity, now noted for blowing
whistles: A few years into Barack Obama's presidency supporters asked
at a fundraiser, "Where's our progressive foreign policy, Mr.
President?" Obama's reply: "Do you want me to end up another JFK?"
Yeah something is going on behind closed doors for sure that we need
to know about.
Has NC linked to this interview with Seymour Hersh regarding his story on
the first Sarin attacks in Syria? It has implications regarding what is
happening now.
The NYT is floating a story from unnamed intelligence officials about how
the Russians connived to elect Trump. It is terribly disturbing to watch the
manipulation of the mechanisms of thought control contrive the grounds for yet
another war.
So far the US missiles seem to be landing on Syrian air bases and not
Russian targets but a very dangerous game. It must be hoped that the Russians,
who seem to be the rational actors, will seek to avoid confrontation with the
US war machine.
"A constitutional referendum will be held in Turkey on Sunday, 16 April 2017.[1] Voters will vote
on a set of 18 proposed amendments to the Constitution of Turkey."
This is all about Turkey. The photo they released of Turkish soldiers running with a litter,
dressed in full heavy haz mat suits, within Turkey proper, is over the top.
Yes, Bob, thanks for pointing this out. Turkey! Who let arms and men
cross into Syria unobstructed from their territory for years? Turkey.
Where did the endless lines of oil tankers travel to from Isis
held-territory. Turkey. Which country wants to put an end to any Kurdish
political aspirations. Turkey. Which country demanded Assad's removal on
basically religious grounds Turkey. And on and on. Erdogan will win his
referendum by hook or by crook. Donald Trump could never get this in a
thousand years. Most people could't, so I can't fault him for being
especially thick. Turkey is NATO's heartthrob who has taken over the
place. And Turkey receives 'victims of the chemical attack' to public
acclaim, proving its case against Syria. Long live the nostalgia for the
Ottoman Empire. Long live the utter stupidity and callousness of the US
government towards its own people and the world.
I still await a shred of credible evidence that it was in fact the regime
which used said weapons.
But the neocons talking heads on the TeeVee sure like it! All we need is
another Hillaryesque 'we came, we saw, he died [chortle, smirk]' soundbite.
Watching the coverage on RT right now to get the taste of paid MIC shills
like George Stephanopopopopopopoulos out of my mouth seems the admin. called
the Rooskies to give them advance notice, and strikes were on just 1 airfield.
The wild-eyed optimist in me hopes this was a staged 'show of force' to assuage
the domestic-side warmongers, but said optimist is currently being roundly
shouted down by the 'this is nuts!' voices.
Putin and Xi have domestic audiences too. The Kennedy boys acted
aggressively because they believed the Russians would know the were only
kidding. The Politburo had to react to the street as much as any government,
and the street hated how the US treated Cuba. Obama didn't understand this
either.
It was ludicrous when Democrats claimed Obama played 853rd dimensional
chess, and it's ludicrous when people try to make excuses for Trump.
both parties, rotten to the core. i thought there was a possibility
trump meant it when he repudiated the iraq war. or maybe he just meant it
at that minute.
the maine and the tonkin gulf and iraqi wmd's, and now this shit. i never
really got why it was necessary to risk ww3 in cuba; still less here.
from my POV, literally no one in the rank-and-file deplorable crowd is
happy. At the very best, people are confused and tow the "maybe he knows
something we don't" line.
I've been reading the comments on Sic Semper Tyrannis. Lots of
speculation and not too much consensus, but a few things seem clear:
1. It wasn't sarin that was used (lack of hazmat suits/protective
precautions from medical personnel in the videos, who were not falling
down/dying in consequence)
2. It would have been extremely counterproductive for Assad to order this
and give the US an excuse to intervene, given the current political/military
situation.
Point #2 doesn't rule out him having done it as a big middle finger to
the US if he thought he could get away with it, but I don't find that idea
particularly credible.
At this point I think all Syrian sources should be regarded as highly
suspect pending verification and evidence. Alternatively you could just pass
on the whole evidence thing and just conclude that if it's bad then Assad
done it. This seems to be the line the US government is taking (I've yet to
even see an acknowledgement from them that evidence is needed, much less
that they have any).
One wonders what Republican Congressman Massie thinks about his statements
on CNN that he thought it very unlikely Assad authorized any gas attack. Will
he stick to his opinion, or fall in line and follow the money. Anyone, are
there any component makers for Drones/Cruise Missiles in Kentucky?
CNN's Bolduan, visibly taken aback by what the man is saying - as though
it were inconceivable a U.S. lawmaker might have an original opinion on
matters - fumbled for words a few moments before managing a simple: "Who do
you think is behind it?"
Massie began to answer, but Bolduan cut him off. Unsurprisingly, she
asked him directly if he was saying he believes what the Russians are saying
- that Assad had nothing to do with the attack that killed dozens in Syria
on Tuesday. Reuters reported Wednesday that the attack has sparked renewed
calls to oust the country's president.
I saw some news stating the gas attack area was "in rebel held
territory". But Syrian military stated it was a civilian part. So I would
think someone should check the bodies for guns first then there was the baby
pictures.
I guess breakdown in command is always a possibility, but Assad would be
wacko beyond belief to sacrifice whatever ties he has with Putin to kill 100
– even if they all were ISIS.
I hate false flag arguments, but it sure seems to fit here. Plus it
worked on the trigger happy target, if it indeed was one.
in reality Trump lost a lot of goodwill today. I'll even dare say, solidly
on the path to Jimmy Carter status. as Yves predicted.
all in less than 100 days!
Are you sure about Carter? WW1 and WW2 are representative of European
core attacking the European periphery, but the current World War is about
U.S. hegemony.
Both Seven Years Wars and the Napoleonic Wars were world wars.
yes, reagan did far more to arm the middle east, and push the cause
of us hegemony. giving saddam wmd's in the first place, after giving
iran weapons for holding the hostages till inauguration day. the roots
of us hegemony seeking in the middle east go back at least to ike.
carter wove one strand in a large rug, but there was pushback against
the us in the form of hijacked planes well before carter, and because
of our interference in the middle east in the 50's and our support of
israel in the 40's, 50's and 60's. jfk almost got us into ww3, and
johnson of course may have been even more militaristic than kennedy.
as I don't watch cable news I can't verify this tweet but sounds like MSNBC
is doing a great job as the voice of the "Resistance" (gallows humour sarcasm)
Sam Sacks
@SamSacks
49m
Guest after guest is gushing. From MSNBC to CNN, Trump is receiving his best
night of press so far. And all he had to do was start a war.
There was an emergency meeting of UN Security Council to address Syria chem
weapons. Looks like it was US, UK, and France on one side vs Russia and Syria
in the meeting. After the the meeting ended without a vote the US took military
action.
I don't think Maddow et al. quite know what their position ought to be. Like
that moment in
1984
when the speaker switches the war from Eurasia to
Eastasia. The bought courtier press is confused. Based on about 25 minutes on
MSNBC, I noticed:
- Maddow sounded her first cautious, not-hysterically-Russophobic notes in
months. If Trump's for war, she will once more become "anti-war" as she was
when first climbing the greasy pole. (Rachel, those of us actually opposed to
war and empire notice you're only against it when it's not your Party doing
it). Then as the evening goes on it seems she may be warming up to the idea.
- Matthews is stuck in Cold War mode. Makes numerous references to "the
Soviets." Seems to worry about intervention on the one hand, worry about
failing confidence in us by our client states (al-Sisi he mentions) if we don't
do something, on the other;
- Brian Williams references "The American President", seems to think we are
in an Aaron Sorkin script.
- Not on MSNBC, but on NBC Nightly News tonight, Hallie Jackson intones
breathlessly about "the ULTimate test of a Commander in Chief", is clearly
dazzled by the prospect of a war nobody she knows will have to fight.
Sisi huh? Not that anyone here doesn't know but the USPTB/MSM are truly
the worst kid of shitbirds. On 14 August 2013 Egyptian security forces
raided two camps of protesters in Cairo: one at al-Nahda Square and a larger
one at Rabaa al-Adawiya Square. The two sites had been occupied by
supporters of ousted President Mohamed Morsi, who had been removed from
office by the military a month earlier, following mass street protests
against him. The camps were raided after initiatives to end the six week
sit-ins failed and as a result of the raids the camps were cleared out
within hours.The raids were described by Human Rights Watch as "one of the
world's largest killings of demonstrators in a single day in recent
history". According to Human Rights Watch, a minimum of 817 people and more
likely at least 1,000 were killed in Rabaa Square on August 14
With further sleepless thought, I'm also reminded of Truman at Potsdam.
Xi is in town, and Trump is doing a war dance. This can only have the result
of driving the Russians and Chinese closer together. Let's throw in Iran as
well.
Trump thinks he's staged a propaganda coup against the Clintonites and to
some degree he has. But by acting out their plans in a wild man format he's
showing how crazy and vicious they all are. There's going to be a drive to
play their hand out, and there will be scads of opportunities to overreact.
How is this going to effect Russian support for US efforts in Afghanistan,
for example?
I'm through giving leeway to the Trump apologists who said during the
campaign that he was less likely to start a war or drop the big one and that
this alone was reason enough to not support his opponent. Totally absurd.
Nothing he said meant anything in the real world. He will do what he wants in
the moment and that is all. The entire group of voters who figured his rhetoric
(scam/con) was proof that he was the lesser of the evils is frustratingly
naive.
It certainly was an argument that was repeated ad nauseam around here by
certain individuals (not necessarily the majority) as a pat answer to any
question of the correctness of voting Trump. Unwarranted optimism about
Trump's motives, plans, and/or capabilities will continue to look more and
more absurd as we go forward, I predict.
On the other hand, I don't think he's really doing what he wants either.
More like he's along for the ride at this point, as are we all. It's
possible that Trump still thinks otherwise.
Hillary was out today, before the missiles, advocating for EXACTLY what
Trump did.
The only consistent, morale choice between Hillary and Trump was NOT
VOTING FOR EITHER ONE.
Right. And let's not forget that the media as well as the Clinton and
Obama people have been doing everything in their power to scandal Trump
into
not
changing course on foreign policy. Clearly they've
succeeded and now say look, toldja, just the same.
Yves probably sized up Trump best at the very beginning–all hat, no
cattle. There's yet to be any indication that he knows what he's doing
and I strongly believe he never expected to win in the first place.
Election night he seemed a bit stunned.
But for Clinton supporters you can't say aha Trump doesn't know what
he is doing when he has just done what she recommended that he do.
I still think it was reasonable to vote for Trump as the lesser evil, in
order to stop Hillary. Trump was a wild card. Hillary had both the record of
interventionism and the rhetoric. Trump talked out of both sides of his
mouth, but he was at least pretty consistent in opposing hostility toward
Russia. And he hadn't been intimately involved in planning or supporting the
invasion and destruction of multiple countries. Of course, that might just
be because he had no record as a public official at all.
Now that I'm getting my head around this .there's a couple of minor rays of
hope .
1) When I heard "tomahawk cruise missiles", I flashed back to the plans that
Obama drew up in 2013 to basically destroy the ability of Syria to function as
a state. They were going to take out bridges, airfields, fueling stations, and
tons of important infrastructure. It would have had the potential to provoke a
Libyan-style collapse.
Thankfully, this is NOT that plan. Just a limited attack on one airbase and
surrounding infrastructure.
2) At least they gave the Russians a heads up.
Beyond that, this is a complete nightmare. Iran's going to be bullshit mad,
Russians are going to be bullshit mad. Chinese won't be happy, either. Egypt
will run straight into the arms of the Russians and the Chinese. They all know
Assad is the only thing standing between them and the jihadi head-choppers.
As far as Yves' comparison with Clinton's stated views. I could easily
envision her doing something similar after a staged chemical incident like
this.
The USA is a rogue nation in the world community. Dying Empires are at their
most dangerous when they begin to loose control of events.
Anyone with a functioning brain cell can immediately identify the sequence
of recent events in Syria as a false flag attack staged to provide the pretext
for an unconstitutional act of war. The one participant with the strongest
motive to not stage a poison gas attack was Assad-but the MSM immediately
started a coordinated chorus of blame, the "intelligence" agency warmongers
called to the Presidential briefing room read from a script prepared during the
Obama administration, and our Idiot-in-Chief started searching his desk for the
cruise missile launch codes
In previous administrations false flag attacks have been orchestrated by
brilliant Machiavellians like Cheney, who was able to sell an illogical
fabrication like the Official 911 Report to a gullible public. After a success
like that, the deep state Overlords have obviously concluded that they don't
even need to try to cover their tracks. As well they might, having acquired
full control of propaganda organizations like the Washington Post, NY Times,
and Google News. And now they have as a front man an individual so mentally
deficient that he can believe almost anything as long as he thinks it is his
own idea.
Some voters concluded that placing an egotist like Trump in the Presidency
was preferable to having a wholly-owned Neo-Con like Clinton at the helm of the
Defcon button, but it hasn't taken long to prove them wrong. Trump has shown
himself to be nothing but a bloated ego with a delusional pea sized brain
hiding under a rag of fake hair.
So the immediate fate of the world rests upon the diplomatic skills of
Russia's chief oligarch, Vladimir Putin. One can only pray that there is a way
to escape from the rush toward the cliff of Nuclear war.
One of these days we will lose our perceived/real impunity to retaliation to
those ships of ours who conduct these cruise missile attacks .then all hell
will break loose.
I can't imagine anyone believing that this president, or possibly any other
will slow down the march to Armageddon that we are on and willing to provoke to
achieve, "Full Spectrum Dominance" of the world, especially of the ME.
We are becoming crazier and crazier by the minute.
I'm not. Are you? Is the American, Russian, or Syrian man on the street,
just making their way through life, on a crazy train to murder and
Armageddon? It's just a handful of people, a minuscule minority, who cannot
be content until they have everything. ALL of the wealth. ALL of the power.
They stand and point around to everyone else on Earth and say "You all owe
us! Bow down to us, or else.." They're afraid. They know there is an
awakening going on. They know we're coming, so they have to immanetize the
echaton, push things over the edge. Push everyone into hating and fighting
each other, and those who won't? There are plans for them too, I'm sure.
CNN's Don Lemon and Fareed Zakaria are singing Trump's praises, it's
obnoxious. Cruise missile launch video is on a loop. Not sure how much I can take .
Make American great was always BS, I want to make America good FOR THE
FIRST TIME. Although clearly it just gets more and more evil. I suppose it
is just in the nature of empire.
Depending on what happens going forward this could also turn out to be one
of those "gotta look resolute" nothingburgers. We gave the Russians some degree
of advance notice through the "deconfliction" channels, knowing they'd pass
that on to the Syrians, which probably minimized casualties at the airfield.
And if this is a one-off, whose main purpose is to make the Donald look
resolute, his people could be aiming to just go back to the track they were on.
If not well, we have people on the ground in known locations all over the
place, and "accidents" do happen.
Provocative in the truest sense of the word. our best hope is his tipoff to
the Russians is seen as an olive branch of some strange kind.
Trump is not deep and plays things how he sees them in tit for tat
increments. The big concern is standard diplomacy does not view things that
way. Diplomacy must adapt or we are doomed.
Well I wrote in Bernie so I can't say I regret my vote. I figured Trump
would be hooking up his business buddies and gutting worker interests, but at
the same time I had hope he could resurrect some old style business-first
isolationism - the former would have been a price I would gladly pay for the
latter.
I could care less about Russia or being friends or enemies of Russia.
Chemical attacks in a far region of the world are not my concern - no matter
how cruel that statement is. That war is a regional concern, not my concern.
Trump, America First indeed. What a piece of %$#!.
Day 77: the neocons fear Trump, NAFTA is scrapped, ISIS has been destroyed,
the swamp has been drained, repealed Obamacare, Mexico made to pay for the
wall, Muslims banned, wiretapping evidence presented, nobody lied, nobody
seeking immunity, nobody recused themselves, no FBI winning streak continues
Swarms of drones, suicide speed boats, subs and mines will sink the whole US
Navy. Just check the pathetic war gaming exercises since 2002 all structured to
make the empire appear victorious.
Karma gonna come a calling to the US of A and it ain't gonna be pretty.
Trump is such an interesting and frightening phenomenon because he is
ultimately the continuation of the status quo but puts such a naked face on the
bullshit that has always been there.
The way he spoke when decrying the horrors
of the gas attacks, about all the babies that died, in his perversely hilarious
cold and off-putting way, the US always does this type of crocodile tears, but
with Trump it is incredibly on the nose. I have to say I am surprised at the
speed at which this unfolded but of course in retrospect in makes sense I
suppose. Some think this may be a one-off show of strength, a position I
sympathize with but I am much more of a pessimist.
One of the few things I truly credited Obama in a positive way with was the
fact that he avoided direct "boots on the ground" involvement in Syria (thanks
in part of course to Russia), how swiftly and brutally it was undone.
He is totally in thrall to Ivanka who tweets before he does. He donated in the past to Schumer and McCain and Clinton.
He was a Democrat. His daughter and President-elect Kushner are both
Democrats. Kushner was funded by Soros to the tune of $250 million
> Some think this may be a one-off show of strength, a position I
sympathize with
Trump may think that, or have been sold on the idea –giving the Russians
a heads-up, for example - but that doesn't mean it will turn out that way.
We're getting volatility, alright. Just internationally!
Those who voted Trump ( I was not one of them) have been vindicated tonight.
Trump one way or another delayed the neocon war with Syria for at least two
months.
Only after being blackmailed by CIA he was put on leash and submitted. And all those on the phony left, touchy feely peace loving snowflakes who
hate Bannon as reincarnated evil have been fatally discredited since it seems
that Flynn and Bannon were the very few who opposed open war with Syria and
Russia.
The air base in Homs that was attacked was also Russian training and Repair
base for Syria aircraft, first causalities reported.
Are those first shots of WWIII?
Let's hope we see the same anti-war sentiment as we did popularly with the
first gas attacks, which, we should all keep in mind was shown by Seymour Hersh
to be essentially a false flag operation mainly conducted by Turkey with the
Syrian opposition:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
Anti-war is the most important thing right now, and can be a rallying cry to
unite leftists, liberal progressives, blacks, browns, white Trump voters (such
as this one,
https://mobile.twitter.com/undefined/status/850070150594351105/video/1
).
There is no hope if we insist on dividing amongst each other. There's the rich
and there's the rest of us. That's it. The only thing that can unite us is a
common struggle, anti-war can be a site of that common struggle, given that
class politics in the Marxist sense won't ever
really
catch on in the
United States.
Oh I get caring about war as an issue, even one's primary issue (though I
would probably say caring about the survival of the biosphere is mine). I
get that emotionally and even intellectually entirely, and am in great
sympathy.
However I do think we can DO more about economic and even environmental
issues than we can about the issues of empire (locally if nowhere else, but
also even nationally). It's not just about what plays in Peoria to the
masses, but about what the masses actually CAN influence. And I don't put
the empire itself high on that list. They are never ever going to let us
have a say in that! And the masses being united and having no power doesn't
accomplish much unless it then shifts it's focus to somewhere it might have
some power. Basically what bones we can get even though we are ruled by
sadists.
I certainly agree with you that much can be done with popular
organization with regards to economy and the environment, and I also
agree of course that the planet is the most pressing threat to human
life, but I think you underestimate the possibilities of anti-war
movements and their central importance. The military-industrial complex
is constitutively tied to capitalist expansion and environmental
destruction, and therefore must be fought with the same virulence. This
is why Bernie, even in the bizarro world where he was elected, would have
ultimately fallen into line just as Trump did. There was a large anti-war
voice back in 2013 when the mainstream media was beating the war drums,
and thankfully we avoided intervention. Now though paradoxically Trump is
able to do this unilaterally. Paradoxical because one would think the
mainstream liberal center-"left" could be anti-war again given all the
Trump hate, but on the contrary this will be great PR for Trump with the
likes of CNN, as this is precisely what Hillary would have done back in
february.
President Assad and his regime were WINNING the civil war - there is no
reason that they would launch a gas attack against a non-strategic target when
they have more than sufficient conventional force directed against armed
fighters. This alleged "gas attack" only makes logical sense as some sort of
false flag incident intended to provoke a reaction from the thin-skinned
ignoramus in the White House.
"It is noteworthy that in the hours before Trump ordered military strikes
on Syria,
Hillary Clinton
emerged back into the public
spotlight to demand that Trump carry out military strikes against Syria.
Again,
following a tried and true script,
U.S.
imperialist military actions against an independent, sovereign Middle
Eastern government takes place under the pretext of protecting civilians
from weapons of mass destruction."
Channeling my inner Scott Adams: "What's the best way for Trump to prove
that he isn't a Russian stooge ? To attack Russia !"
Anyway, I'm taking confort in the fact that it seemed the mildest things he
could do: bomb an airfield with missiles after having warned the other side
(pretty sure the US has already intervened much more decisively in Syria, even
if it wasn't official ). The Blob will be so pleased he could almost make a
deal with Assad now. Of course, I'm just trying to convince myself that the
Hair is not crazy.
Yes. So far, nothing substantial, just "perpetual war as usual". The
question is what happens next, in any of Syria, DPRK, Iran, the Baltics, and
Ukraine.
I'm agreeing with you, not being sarcastic. See my comment
here
upthread.
The big unknown is of course, does it escalate? It won't stop, in the
sense of cease completely.
Ah yes. If I read you correctly, you say this attack is a message
to Assad. That's where I don't agree. This is way too public and
ineffective so it looks more like a PR operation aiming at a domestic
audience (based on the fragments of info we have, so this is very
speculative). Trump needed to kill the gas attack story and he did.
I'm sure Putin would understand.
On the other hand, I agree that it creates very bad incentives. If
I'm a Syrian "rebel", I know what I have to do now The best case
scenario is that escalation (fake or not) creates finally the
conditions for a settlement. Worst case well
President of China visits USA and President Kushner causes huge
embarrassment to him with Chinese Military elites. That is major disrespect.
The US has used nuclear weapons on Asians and now deploys THAAD radar solely on
the approval of a Korean President now under arrest who sought no Cabinet
approval, a radar that offers Seoul no protection whatsoever.
China and Russia and Iran know there can be NO agreements with USA that will
last more than hours. the ABM treaty was torn up just like Hitler's
German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 24. Aug 1939.
Russia knows war is coming from the USA. China is planning a 500 ship Navy
and clearly needs more submarines and more bases near the equator. The US has
chosen the path of global war and permanent warfare
It is not the USA deep state. It is a Western 'blob'. The USA just happens
to have the biggest stick and so they use it when they see fit. The European
states add the "moral" texture for US actions when they condone or ignore the
use of the stick, as they have consistently done for the last few decades. (The
UK, god bless, sends out a few ill-equipped soldiers and does the annoying
yapping noises. Le Monde went into neo-liberal reporting mode before the attack
[Assad is evil] and has basically sanctioned the actions since then.)
Obama (the hallow man) was horrible but he had one "virtue". He knew how to
analyse a situation, and he knew that every situation has an upside and
downside potential. (Of course, he only did this analysis on how it affected
his view of himself and what others might think of him – ego analysis, if you
like.) He decide Syria wasn't giving enough upside to provide a good PR
opportunity – probably too many unknowns and too many variables.
Trump seems to have a sales rep type of personality. The only goal is to
close the deal. These rep types know, at some level, that the deal might have
negative consequences but they ignore these in order to get the deal done. They
hope to collect their commission now and that a dodgy deal derails at some far
off date. (Trump often reminds me of the Crazy Eddie[?] TV commercials I
watched in NYC in the 80s.) Therefore, when confronted with a situation, the
main focus becomes on the immediate action.
Trump is not evil incarnate. He's just basically does what a sales rep does,
imho.
Couple of PSs – did the neoliberals of the USA and the EU do an inventory of
Russian resources during their tenure in the 1990s? Is the allure of easy
Russian resource lucre just too much of a temptation? Will the Chinese see the
USA's actions as a slap in the diplomatic face – launching the attack when
their Premier is in the USA? Did the USA/EU just cement the ties between
Russian and China?
Trump did us a favor by breaking the Clinton and Bush dynastic ambitions.
And disrupting the real ruler's electoral illusions. But they're fast
reasserting their power.
Tossed out the TPP after it was a dead letter anyway and "saved" a couple
hundred air conditioner jobs in Indiana–until they get un-saved.
That's about it.
Anyone imagining he would be transformational, in a good way, was
delusional. I hope you're over it.
All he just did was prove–again–the executive can attack sovereign nations
without a shred of legality or authorization from Congress or the UN. They'll
give their own emasculation a standing ovation at the next possible
opportunity. Not sure if they'll bow or bob for apples. Sanders and Warren will
try to lay low, but when pushed will support it. Their scribblers are working
on it right now.
Tweaking Russia and supporting our terrist twoops in Al Nusra is always a
bonus. McCain must have wet his diapers.
Trump's out of his depth, with a thin bench of Kushner and Ivanka, and will
do what the spooks tell him. He might even believe all the posturing about the
"babies."
Trump's problem always was, and is, his ego and the related thin skin. I
wonder how much was this 180 driven by the constant "worst approval ever"
messaging by the media, which now are gushing over Trump left right and centre,
an ego massage he hasn't got for a while. He's now also disocvering the old
truism that solving domestic problems is hard, and failyure
TBH, what I'm really surprised on, is that no-one bombed one of "Trump
hotels", as that I suspect would lead him around very nicely thank you very
much. Personally, I think it's only a matter of time..
Matt Stoller
@matthewstoller
"That awkward moment when Trump notifies Russia he's about to strike Syria, but
not the US Congress." pic.twitter.com/mRwX7ESZgg
11:10 PM – 6 Apr 2017
I wonder how the United States Navy feels about becoming the tactical
support group for Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria? Are their fellow Americans to
thank them for that particular 'service' when they eventually come back home?
Gaacchhh!
If Trump thinks that he has gotten the Deep State off his back by fulfilling
one of their wishes, he is much mistaken. All this means is that the Deep State
has found that all they have to do is pile on the pressure and Trump will fold
like a lawn-deck chair and give them what they want. Trump has just paid his
first installment of Danegeld.
Actually I thought the 'man on the ground' military would be most
confused by Trump changing course in Syria and working with the Russians
counter to what has been going on for several years.
Other than some top brass it seems that most of the military are also
subjectable to the onslaught of the neocon mainstream media.
Tulsi Gabbard: "It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war
hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian
government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead
civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists,
and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia-which could
lead to nuclear war.
"This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of
the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for
the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If
President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent
civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the
International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this
investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a
successful prosecution will be much harder."
There are so many problems with the propaganda campaign against
Assad getting unrolled now.
(1)
You can't treat exposure to sarin with your bare hands without falling ill/dead
yourself, as the White Helmets
were apparently doing
in the aftermath of the Idlib attack.
(2) As Syrian war reporter @Partisangirl noticed, some journalists
were apparently discussing
a chlorine sarin attack before it actually
happened.
(3) It is eerily reminescent of the aftermath of the 2013 Gouta
attacks, in which the Western media and neocon and neocon-in-all-but-name
politicians and punditry parroted the official line that Assad's troops were
responsible even though consequent journalistic work by
Sermour Hersh
and
MIT
raised serious doubts over the veracity of that allegation.
(5) Unlike in 2013, Assad is now winning. Why on Earth now, of all
times, would he resort to poison gas – one of the few things he can do to that
is capable of provoking a strong Western reaction –
just to kill all of 75 civilians
?
It just makes no sense.
So one can't help but treat Nikky Haley's
melodramatic performance
at the UN with skepticism. The idea that the
poisoning was due to a bomb hitting a chemical weapons manufactory seems more
plausible.
Trump's initial non-interventionist rhetoric on assuming the
Presidency was encouraging, as was his promotion of other anti-war figures such
as
Tulsi Gabbard
. However, the latest response of the US administration,
including Trump himself, is not giving any cause for optimism:
I will tell you that attack on children yesterday had a big
impact on me, big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing. And I've been
watching it, and seeing it, and it doesn't get any worse than that And I
will tell you it's already happened, that my attitude toward Syria and Assad
has changed very much.
To be sure, one might view this as a merely ritualistic expression
of outrage, but also coming on as it does on the eve of Steve Bannon's
dismissal from the National Security Council one can't help but start having
dark thoughts on whether the deep state might be triumphing after all.
On Trump – the less he intends to do, the more strongly he positions
himself.
So one way to interpret his remarks is that he is occupying a position that
fully takes advantage of anti-Assad sentiment, but with no intent to act on
it at all.
100 Words
NEW!
@Chuck
So Trump the hard-headed America Firster morphs into weepy bleeding heart
interventionist?
The Empire needs better writers.
I've been
pretty
solid
in my Trump support, despite occasional "zradas"
(defeats/betrayals).
This is the first time however that I am genuinely
questioning his intentions and goodwill.
If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon
warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration
speech will die as well. Very sad!
El Dato
,
April 6, 2017 at 12:57 am GMT \n
100 Words
Gee, I wonder who could be behind this offensively low-brow and loud theater
performance to give a "casus belli" and a "reason for responsibility to
protect".
100% repeat of Obama's "redline" performance. Maybe it will go through
now, it depends on the levels of sellout.
The always-reliable yuropeans are onboard, same as with the Lybian
"Ghadaffi is distributing Viagra to rape his own people" somewhat-liberating
free-for-all. Clearly the cheques have arrived.
Meanwhile, the bombing of Yemen on behalf of the Saudis, which in a sane
world would result in US military personnel and politicians getting
acquainted with the wrong end of firing squads, is merrily ongoing.
Felix Keverich
,
April 6, 2017 at 1:02 am GMT \n
100 Words
Well, let's see: Tillerson makes a statement that overthrowing Assad is no
longer a priority. Neocons disagree. And within days this "chemical attack"
happens, the biggest chemical attack in Syria – we are told – since 2013.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
I think it's possible that chemical attack did happen, and it was the CIA
or its terrorist buddies that arranged to poison these children. Unlike
Assad, these actually have a plausible motive – manipulating Trump and
influencing his policy.
Backwoods Bob
,
April 6, 2017 at 1:34 am GMT \n
This is the first time however that I am genuinely questioning his
intentions and goodwill.
If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon
warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration
speech will die as well. Very sad!
I have become disheartened.
Hillary was the end of America as we knew it. But Trump is far too much
of an Empire First, not America First president at the moment.
El Dato
,
April 6, 2017 at 1:44 am GMT \n
200 Words
It's WMD and false flag attacks all over again. How short is the public's
memory? I suppose Trump is caught in a pincer movement here, false flag or
provocation carried out by the 'deep state' or parts of the so-called
'intelligence community' on the one hand, coordinated with the mass media on
the other who publicize it and beat the drums demanding that something must
be done, it's a crisis, etc. They're trying to force his hand. It'll be
interesting to see how he handles this. On the face of it, for a person
who's shown a healthy level of skepticism he's coming across as a bit too
credulous. The UN ambassador Haley is a really embarrassing idiot who is
undermining the very person that gave her this wonderful platform for her to
be a star of. People gave her adulating coverage in the past as an
up-and-coming talent but has been revealed to be merely a blabbering
airhead. The pool of talent for Trump to pick from is apparently quite thin
so finding some good people is looking to shape up as a major challenge.
Yevardian
,
April 6, 2017 at 3:01 am GMT \n
This is the first time however that I am genuinely questioning his
intentions and goodwill.
If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon
warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration
speech will die as well. Very sad!
As I thought at the time, and Ron Unz also noted here, Trump was either an
utter moron or completely indifferent to actual policy to promote a
facelesss POS like Mike Pence to VP.
I think it should be increasingly obvious that he's a gauche blowhard who's
merely a weathervein for whomever advised him last.
jimbojones
,
April 6, 2017 at 3:30 am GMT \n
100 Words
Trump should watch out. He was voted in exactly because people were
profoundly disgusted by the Obama/Clinton Libyan monstrosity, and because
people wanted Washington to stop funding terrorists to topple the legitimate
government of Syria.
Assad didn't gas civilians. The very idea is moronic.
He has won the war. Trump can use Assad as an ally in the fight against
everybody's common enemy ISIS. Or Trump can betray his electorate and ruin
his presidency by doing something stupid in Syria.
This is the first time however that I am genuinely questioning his
intentions and goodwill.
If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon
warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration
speech will die as well. Very sad!
This betrayal is for real and final. Stop projecting your wishful thinking
on Trump. He never was the man many of us were imagining. This were just our
projections. Projections of people who wanted to have some hope. The most
important is that Bannon is out or on his way out. W/o Bannon there is
nobody else. Just your usual dumb and vile republicans are all what is left
plus some soft hearted libs in Ivanka faction. That's all. It's over!
Besides what a great opportunity for Trump. Just do the Syria and everything
will be forgiven and forgotten. Including Susan Rice, OK? We will not have
to impeach you and replace with Pence.
Not sure about this guy but he claimed 2 days ago:
Published on Apr 3, 2017
Is the US Preparing to Invade Damascus?
As absurd as this may sound the evidence seems to stack up in favor of
this scenario of a US led invasion of Damascus, Syria. The movement of US
desert Camo military equipment was done in a way to avoid detection by
Russia. First to Germany to make it appear as a buildup on Russia's
border, then to Poland final to a port in Romania, then reloaded at set
sail to Beirut Lebanon where Damascus comes into view. All the while
Israeli US Italian and UAE military work in Greece to overcome Russia
s300 air defense system. Israel moves their forces into the Golan for
supposed drills. All troops in position Damascus to be hit next.
If so, the staged gas attack is just a part of a much bigger scheme that was planned months
ago with Trump knowledge. No more talking about hat the Deep Sate is boxing Trump in. No, Trump
is on it.
200 Words
If there were 3 million parallel universes out there, then I guess maybe
in one of them Assad would have been responsible for the chemical attack
on the Syrian civilians, but even then I doubt it. For the sake of
argument, let's say he did it and as a result almost a hundred people
died. So then I guess it's justifiable to go in and kill thousands and
thousands of civilians to punish Assad for killing less than a hundred of
them.
When "dictator" like Assad kills people, he does it in an undemocratic
way – with chemical weapons, which is inhumane. When the greatest
democracy does it – it's ok, because it's for a just cause and with
weapons approved by the Geneva Convention. And if at the end of the
carnage awaits the prospect of democracy – then no price in civilian
lives is too high. Something that Madeleine Albright would call a price
worth paying.
When a democracy kills people – it doesn't use chemical weapons, it
uses bombs, bullets and rockets and that's what really makes a
difference. I think most people would find it very objectionable to be
killed by chemical weapons, but with bullets – it's almost a breeze, and
then when you factor in that you are possibly dying in order to bring
democracy to your country, I am surprised that they actually don't
volunteer for such an honor.
Seraphim
,
April 6, 2017 at 5:20 am GMT \n
This is the first time however that I am genuinely questioning his
intentions and goodwill.
If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon
warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration
speech will die as well. Very sad!
Not everyone was fooled by the supposed intentions and goodwill of Trump.
F. William Engdahl, "The Dangerous Deception Called The Trump Presidency"
The exact repetition of Colin Powell's vial of anthrax performance
shows that nobody gives a hoot about 'making sense'. Assad must go! Nah,
hang. And those who 'back' him and 'would not escape responsibility for
this'. Be concerned, very concerned. The Petersburg attack just missed
the 'real culprit'.
Seamus Padraig
,
April 6, 2017 at 5:21 am GMT \n
Well, people, it's all over. I had a bad feeling back when Trump let go
of Gen. Flynn. Now my worst suspicions have been confirmed: the deep
state has won. The Trump we elected is no more ..
Seraphim
,
April 6, 2017 at 7:09 am GMT \n
300 Words
It is known that the apparition of Haley's Comet presage wars. Do we have
it? No, but we have Nikki Haley.
U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Feb. 16, 2017:
""I just put out to the members of the Seucrity Council to help me
understand: When we have so much going on in the world, why is it that
every single month we're going to sit down and have a hearing where all
they do is obsess over Israel?
The Security Council is supposed to discuss how to maintain international
peace and security. But at our meeting on the Middle East, the discussion
was not about Hizballah's illegal build-up of rockets in Lebanon. It was
not about the money and weapons Iran provides to terrorists. It was not
about how we defeat ISIS. It was not about how we hold Bashar al-Assad
accountable for the slaughter of hundreds and thousands of civilians. No,
instead, the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true
democracy in the Middle East. I am new around here, but I understand
that's how the Council has operated, month after month, for decades.
I'm here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye to this
anymore. I am here to underscore the ironclad support of the United
States for Israel. I'm here to emphasize the United States is determined
to stand up to the UN's anti-Israel bias. We will never repeat the
terrible mistake of Resolution 2334 and allow one-sided Security Council
resolutions to condemn Israel. Instead, we will push for action on the
real threats we face in the Middle East
It is the UN's anti-Israel bias that is long overdue for change. The
United States will not hesitate to speak out against these biases in
defense of our friend and ally, Israel".
100 Words
Always check the timing. Now Globalists did realize that they cannot
impeach Trump.
So?????????????????
They decided with this false flag to reeducate him.
Some people claim that US wars in Levant are for israel.
I am not sure of anything.
But I do think that real power is hiding behind of the curtain.
Dana Thompson
,
April 6, 2017 at 7:25 am GMT \n
100 Words
On every occasion like this when a chemical weapons atrocity causes a
stir, discussion always neglects the question I find most interesting,
which is: we all know that traditional methods, like bullets that make
heads explode like overripe melons, and shrapnel that flings entrails
into picturesque sausage-like festoons are licit and acceptable to
enlightened humanity, but use of chemicals is outside the pale of
decency. But why is that? I think this article contains clues to the
answer, but I can't seem to follow the exact line of reasoning:
J.B.S. Haldane on chemical warfare
German_reader
,
April 6, 2017 at 7:38 am GMT \n
100 Words
I don't know, maybe Assad/his government felt they could now get away
with it and could use chemical weapons to terrorize and punish the
opposition. But even if Assad's military is responsible, how does this
incident really change anything? Tbh I don't care if Assad's military
gasses a few dozen children, and no remotely sane person would regard
this as legitimate reason for intervention. And the outrage is absurdly
hypocritical given what's going on in Yemen with direct US support.
Really disappointing how Trump seems to be preparing an intervention,
total madness.
Sergey Krieger
,
April 6, 2017 at 8:22 am GMT \n
This is the first time however that I am genuinely questioning his
intentions and goodwill.
If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon
warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration
speech will die as well. Very sad!
He had vision? Doubtfully. Just wanted to win elections and thus was
pressing all right buttons.
I had no doubt for a second it was all for show.
American history starting with Indian treaties is one of broken promises
and lies.
karl1haushofer
,
April 6, 2017 at 9:55 am GMT \n
100 Words
@JL
The difference between now and 2013 is that Russia is in Syria. So,
attacking the Assad regime now would be tantamount to war with Russia.
Similarly, going after North Korea, where the US has also been saber
rattling recently, would be very bloody and could very well go nuclear. I
think the first comment on this thread maybe had it right, this is the
opposite of "talk soft and carry a big stick". If I'm wrong, well, it's
been a good run for humanity and sorry to everyone with children and
hopes and plans for the future.
AK, maybe it's time to dust off and update your nuclear war post?
"The difference between now and 2013 is that Russia is in Syria. So,
attacking the Assad regime now would be tantamount to war with Russia. "
The problem is that there have been too many cases where Russia has not
responded accordingly to an aggression against it. Many people think –
whether justified or unjustified – that if Russian military, or a close
Russian ally, is attacked Russia will not respond.
Hopefully there are people in deciding roles in the Russian military
and political circles who have the guts to act if it ever gets to this. I
mean, those US bases in the Middle East are within the distance of
Russian cruise missiles from Caspian and Black Sea
animalogic
,
April 6, 2017 at 10:00 am GMT \n
100 Words
@jimbojones
Trump should watch out. He was voted in exactly because people were
profoundly disgusted by the Obama/Clinton Libyan monstrosity, and because
people wanted Washington to stop funding terrorists to topple the
legitimate government of Syria.
Assad didn't gas civilians. The very idea is moronic. He has won the war.
Trump can use Assad as an ally in the fight against everybody's common
enemy ISIS. Or Trump can betray his electorate and ruin his presidency by
doing something stupid in Syria.
The choice is his.
Will this be the final test of trump. ? If he follows the neo-con's into
this minefield can anyone doubt - WHATEVER the EXACT reasons why - that
his independence from the deep state is basically neglible ?
I feel sorry for those who "believed" (they did have good reason to
believe, given the putrid alternative .)
If my fears are realized, I just hope that the millions who supported him
reject BOTH of the major (sides of the same business) party.
SOMETHING has to push Americans out of the unholy rut they have been in
for decades now .
animalogic
,
April 6, 2017 at 10:08 am GMT \n
@Cyrano
If there were 3 million parallel universes out there, then I guess
maybe in one of them Assad would have been responsible for the
chemical attack on the Syrian civilians, but even then I doubt it. For
the sake of argument, let's say he did it and as a result almost a
hundred people died. So then I guess it's justifiable to go in and
kill thousands and thousands of civilians to punish Assad for killing
less than a hundred of them.
When "dictator" like Assad kills people, he does it in an undemocratic
way – with chemical weapons, which is inhumane. When the greatest
democracy does it – it's ok, because it's for a just cause and with
weapons approved by the Geneva Convention. And if at the end of the
carnage awaits the prospect of democracy – then no price in civilian
lives is too high. Something that Madeleine Albright would call a
price worth paying.
When a democracy kills people – it doesn't use chemical weapons, it
uses bombs, bullets and rockets and that's what really makes a
difference. I think most people would find it very objectionable to be
killed by chemical weapons, but with bullets – it's almost a breeze,
and then when you factor in that you are possibly dying in order to
bring democracy to your country, I am surprised that they actually
don't volunteer for such an honor.
Excellent response. Don't forget though, depleted uranium, cluster bombs,
napham & Daisy cutters are also symbols of our humanity & love of
democracy.
It just makes you feel so warm, even gooey, inside, doesn't it ?
Diversity Heretic
,
April 6, 2017 at 10:31 am GMT \n
100 Words
Whether or not the attack was a false flag, that picture of Nikki Haley
with the photo of the dead child ought to be very high on the list of
"Why Women Should Not Be Allowed Anywhere Near Diplomacy." First, Angela
Merkel consents to the massive invasion of her country because of a dead
Syrian child. Now Nikki Haley wants Americans to be put at risk to kill
more Syrians because of another dead Syrian child. Otto von Bismarck was
right, women's roles should be confined to children (their own), the
church and the kitchen.
annamaria
,
April 6, 2017 at 10:31 am GMT \n
100 Words
@Ram
Reminiscent of the bombing of Deir Az Zohr by the US in support of ISIS
when Kerry stepped out of the path laid out for him by the NeoCons.
" the path laid out for him by the NeoCons."
Agree.
Paul Craig Roberts' invective against ziocons: "The entire
history of the 21st century is the history of Washington's wars
instigated by Zionist neoconservatives and the state of Israel against
Muslim countries. So far Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, and
parts of Syria and Pakistan, have been destroyed by gratuitous military
attacks that are, without any doubt, war crimes under the Nuremberg
Standard established by the United States. The hoax "war on terror" has
not only murdered and dislocated millions of peoples, producing waves of
Muslim immigration over the Western World, but also destroyed Western
civil liberty."
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/04/05/germany-rip/
Mrs. Haley and other non-Jewish warriors like McCain and Lindsey
Graham are indeed the whores in service of the "chosen" and mega war
profiteers, from weaponry peddlers to the financial "great vampire squid
wrapped around the face of humanity:"
annamaria
,
April 6, 2017 at 10:37 am GMT \n
@karl1haushofer
"The difference between now and 2013 is that Russia is in Syria. So,
attacking the Assad regime now would be tantamount to war with Russia. "
The problem is that there have been too many cases where Russia has not
responded accordingly to an aggression against it. Many people think -
whether justified or unjustified - that if Russian military, or a close
Russian ally, is attacked Russia will not respond.
Hopefully there are people in deciding roles in the Russian military and
political circles who have the guts to act if it ever gets to this. I
mean, those US bases in the Middle East are within the distance of
Russian cruise missiles from Caspian and Black Sea...
Russian federation has been trying to avoid a full-blown military
conflict that the ziocons have been provoking with the vicious audacity.
The lying, thieving, criminal congress, run by the CIA /Mossad, is not an
honest partner. Russia is cornered.
Joe Wong
,
April 6, 2017 at 10:46 am GMT \n
100 Words
@michael dr
On Trump - the less he intends to do, the more strongly he positions
himself.
So one way to interpret his remarks is that he is occupying a position
that fully takes advantage of anti-Assad sentiment, but with no intent to
act on it at all.
The only guy used chemical weapons in wars against civilians on record is
the USA during the Vietnam War; Agent Orange, Agent White and Agent
Rainbow are still wrecking havoc in Vietnam. The only guy conduct false
flag ops to blame the victims for violating human rights via its NED
sponsored NGOs then wage reckless wars against the victims on the moral
high ground is the USA and its NATO partners.
This poisonous gas attack on Syria civilians bears too many
similarities to the past records of the USA and its NATO partners'
behaviour.
JL
,
April 6, 2017 at 10:48 am GMT \n
100 Words
@karl1haushofer
"The difference between now and 2013 is that Russia is in Syria. So,
attacking the Assad regime now would be tantamount to war with Russia. "
The problem is that there have been too many cases where Russia has not
responded accordingly to an aggression against it. Many people think -
whether justified or unjustified - that if Russian military, or a close
Russian ally, is attacked Russia will not respond.
Hopefully there are people in deciding roles in the Russian military and
political circles who have the guts to act if it ever gets to this. I
mean, those US bases in the Middle East are within the distance of
Russian cruise missiles from Caspian and Black Sea...
You realize you're talking about nuclear war, right? Why any rational
person would hope for that truly escapes me. No, the only thing we can
hope for is that there are people in deciding roles in the American
military and political circles who still remember about the concept of
MAD.
100 Words
NEW!
@JL
The difference between now and 2013 is that Russia is in Syria. So,
attacking the Assad regime now would be tantamount to war with Russia.
Similarly, going after North Korea, where the US has also been saber
rattling recently, would be very bloody and could very well go nuclear. I
think the first comment on this thread maybe had it right, this is the
opposite of "talk soft and carry a big stick". If I'm wrong, well, it's been
a good run for humanity and sorry to everyone with children and hopes and
plans for the future.
AK, maybe it's time to dust off and update your nuclear war post?
Heh.
I had an outline of a post in my drafts on how a US-Russian clash in
Syria might escalate, which I expected to write if HRC won. I might brush
that
off.
I disagree that attacking Syria automatically means war, at least so long
as the Russian military isn't directly targetted. Russia doesn't have any
formal military alliances with Syria, so a lack of retaliation in Syria
proper will be justifiable – and well-advised, considering massive American
aeronaval dominance in the region.
400 Words
Key items showing false-flag nature of the Syrian gas attack absurdly
attributed to Assad
(1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about
the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened – Tweet , "Tomorrow
a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama
countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"
(2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack
(3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if
severely-toxic gas attack had occurred, as Anatoly Karlin notes above
(4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at
the time of attack was taking interview requests instead of helping injured
flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite
facing terror charges for kidnapping & torturing two British journalists in
Syria & being struck off the medical register"
(5) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A
chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown up] before it
can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama [this story] has
turned into Syrian aircraft dropping sarin gas on orphanages videos shot
in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."
(6) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White
Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi backed 'Al
Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets
"have been caught filming their fake videos in places like Egypt & Morocco,
using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".
–
Very regrettably, Russia & its potentially powerful media, are playing
their traditional Israeli-serving role of being inexcusably timid in
denouncing blatant false-flag deception & fraud Just as Russia signed off
on killing Qaddafi & hurling Libya into mass death & chaos
Destruction of Syria & Assad serves long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli
Oded Yinon Plan to destroy & dismember all major countries surrounding mafia
state Israel
Also, major US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria -
Map of pipeline alternatives thru Syria:
(a) Russia-supported pipeline from Iran thru Iraq & Syria
(b) US-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria
I had an outline of a post in my drafts on how a US-Russian clash in Syria
might escalate, which I expected to write if HRC won. I might brush
that
off.
I disagree that attacking Syria automatically means war, at least so long as
the Russian military isn't directly targetted. Russia doesn't have any
formal military alliances with Syria, so a lack of retaliation in Syria
proper will be justifiable - and well-advised, considering massive American
aeronaval dominance in the region.
Of course this would be a humiliation for Putin on at least the order of
Euromaidan if not greater, so he will probably be forced to respond somehow,
somewhere.
Please bear in mind, O our host, that Gen. Dunford, chairman of the JCS,
said (in October?) that for the US to set up no fly zones in Syria would
mean that we are at war with Syria and Russia. The next day in a NBC radio
interview Lady MacBeth once more advocated for such no fly zones.
Unlike
the Obama administration, I somehow think the Trump administration will
actually listen to military men like Dunford, Kelly and Mattis. For the last
generation, the US has stalked more or less unopposed on the world stage,
throwing its weight around as it pleases. No one, we think, can oppose us!
Well, that's nice and all, but I haven't forgotten the Cold War and the
threat of nuclear confrontation with the USSR/Russia, and I'll bet you a
meal of shashlik, lepeshki and vodka that Mattis, Dunford and Kelly haven't
either.
400 Words
Gordian Knot time. I don't know for sure what it is about politics that
turns knowledgeable people of different stripes into Revusky's Hi IQ Idiots.
They have done controlled tests on this phenomena with brain wiring and
visual stimuli to show that an emotional element interferes with (or
dominates) logical thinking when political themes or visuals are invoked.
The big boys must have known this through other wisdom when they allowed for
universal suffrage but that is an argument for another day.
Just as the
leftist intellectuals were urinating with glee onto their Birkenstocks when
Buckwheat won in 2008, so did the intellectual right over their Red Wings
when Drumpf prevailed. Emotions.
I hold ALL politicians in extreme contempt and thereby reflexively limit
my exposure to the reality show charade of elections. Needless to say, no
emotions invoked. Then inevitably I get to roll my eyes when real and honest
intellectuals on the left gnashed their teeth when the Nobel Peace prize
laureate doubled up on foreign wars and reneged on domestic issues and
likewise get do so when otherwise intelligent writers such as Mr. Karlin
reveal surprise and disappointment with Trump.
It is all so painfully obvious that a system which has been hijacked and
has steadily degenerated for over 200 years cannot be fixed through the same
(but negatively expanded) rules by simply producing new personality.
Einstein's definition of insanity fully displayed.
When asked what I think of Trump from election day +1 until the present,
my answer remains the same. The upside is that his success did a monumental
job in exposing 'professional' politicians of all stripes as being corrupt
and worthless beyond words and that he exposed the media as being bought and
paid for whores who walk in lockstep from the highest perch of the 'gray
lady'
right down to the local community papers even in foreign countries.
The downside is that he will inevitably deflate and disappoint those
people who arguably might have made a difference. Apathy and cynicism will
ensue, resulting in a reversion to the status quo. It has always been the
mob's destiny when the mob supposedly gets to decide. So after some possibly
honest Trumpian burps it will be business as usual (Syria as just one
example).
@JL
You realize you're talking about nuclear war, right? Why any rational person
would hope for that truly escapes me. No, the only thing we can hope for is
that there are people in deciding roles in the American military and
political circles who still remember about the concept of MAD.
Are you saying that Russia should allow its forces in Syria to be attacked
or bombed without retribution?
Read More
The Scalpel
,
Website
April 6, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT \n
100 Words
@The Scalpel
Trump is losing the plot
It is quite possible that this ENTIRE incident is a staged production. Film
and special effects people are certainly capable of it. Assuming any of this
is credible before seeing objective evidence only reinforces the narrative.
On the surface of things, it seems illogical and obviously self-defeating
and unnecessary for the Syrian government to have done this. One should
withold any judgement until the facts are in
Jim Christian
,
April 6, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT \n
300 Words
@Seamus Padraig
Well, people, it's all over. I had a bad feeling back when Trump let go of
Gen. Flynn. Now my worst suspicions have been confirmed: the deep state has
won. The Trump we elected is no more ..
Either that, or there's "real estate" at Arlington Trump has been offered,
say a 6′LX4′WX6′D up there on that hill above the Shining City in Arlington
Cemetery. Up there next to Jack and Bob Kennedy who, whatever ELSE you think
of them were the last two to say No to a bullshit war.
Real estate in Arlington is what those who oppose wars earn for
themselves. You may have silver and gold or you may have lead. Pick one. And
so he has.
Rule #1 is, war for profit goes on. Or else.
Rule #2 is, Presidents (or candidates as we saw with RFK) will never change
Rule #1 and survive the attempt. This is our country for the past century
and a half. I'm sure the armorers made themselves a pretty penny during the
civil war. Ok, ok, so half a million died, millions maimed, all White
Americans (don't want to hear about the Black squads, sorry). but cannon
balls and black powder makes good money. Nothing has changed since. And
they'll risk lots of casualties toying with a nuclear confrontation without
blinking an eye. Lots of money in rebuilding cities, too.
I really hate our ruling classes these days. If they do this with Syria,
start in on Russia with skirmishes and outright war, we'll know we're ruled
by evil. There's no need for any of it. We "won". We leveled the Middle East
in response to 9/11. You'd think it's enough from looking at the carnage and
destruction we've wrought on them. But it's never enough, not anymore.
JL
,
April 6, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@karl1haushofer
Are you saying that Russia should allow its forces in Syria to be attacked
or bombed without retribution?
What I'm saying is that I can't envision a scenario whereby an American
attack on Russian forces in Syria doesn't lead to all out nuclear war and I
sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. Otherwise, we can continue this
discussion in the afterlife. Mr. Karlin seems to have different ideas and I
would very much like to read the post on various escalation scenarios that
he had worked up in case of a Clinton victory. As it is and even before any
escalations, US and Russian forces operating in such close vicinity seems to
me extremely dangerous.
karl1haushofer
,
April 6, 2017 at 12:34 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@JL
What I'm saying is that I can't envision a scenario whereby an American
attack on Russian forces in Syria doesn't lead to all out nuclear war and I
sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. Otherwise, we can continue this
discussion in the afterlife. Mr. Karlin seems to have different ideas and I
would very much like to read the post on various escalation scenarios that
he had worked up in case of a Clinton victory. As it is and even before any
escalations, US and Russian forces operating in such close vicinity seems to
me extremely dangerous.
But don't you realize that this type of thinking gives America a leeway to
attack Russia whenever it pleases?
Your way of thinking goes something
like this: "America can attack Russia because it knows that Russia cannot
retaliate because it would start WW3″.
You could write a book about deception based on those four words alone.
"Persons with knowledge" is a phrase calculated to inspire envy and respect
in the great unwashed, who of course have no knowledge. But wait a moment!
Who are those "persons with knowledge"? They seem to be unnamed and
undefined – could that be deliberate?
And then we learn that those "persons with knowledge"
*believe*
something. But wait a moment! If they have knowledge, why would they be
reduced to "believing"? Wouldn't they actually, well,
*know*
?
So the tweet tells us that some undefined people, who may or may not
exist, know something and believe presumably, something else that they
don't know about.
100 Words
When ignoramuses like Morell (a pampered villain) get power over resources
of an empire like the US, the whole humanity becomes endangered. The
greatest danger is a rule of the opportunistic incompetent. It is doubtful
that the all-powerful CIA has any knowledgeable and principled persons left
among its rank anymore, after the years of careful selection for
opportunists/profiteers. At least there is no way the ziocons, war
profiteers and their families will be able to survive the next world war.
Psychopaths are anti-life by definition.
JL
,
April 6, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT \n
300 Words
@karl1haushofer
But don't you realize that this type of thinking gives America a leeway to
attack Russia whenever it pleases?
Your way of thinking goes something
like this: "America can attack Russia because it knows that Russia cannot
retaliate because it would start WW3".
May I ask that why shouldn't America worry about starting WW3 if it
attacks Russia?
Ah, I see the misunderstanding here. My point was simply that any discussion
of how Russia would respond to an attack on its forces by the US is moot
because it will respond in kind, and the whole thing will go nuclear in
3,2,1. Specifically, it very much is the US that should be worrying about
starting WW3 in this case, not Russia.
During the Cold War, both sides realized the ramifications of direct
military conflict and acted accordingly. The US is behaving as if something
has changed in that respect and I find it terrifying. What is different now
is that there is a huge asymmetry in forces that perhaps has instilled
unwarranted confidence in the Americans that they can win a war with Russia.
I think you maybe overestimate Russia's strength, in somewhat the same
way as the US may be underestimating it. I noticed in another conversation
you thought that Russia should have vetoed the UN resolution allowing the US
to go into Afghanistan. To me, this is a complete misjudgment of Russia's
situation at that moment in time, while ignoring, or forgetting, the resolve
of the US immediately following September 11. Not to mention, there was
probably a geopolitical calculation that having the US bogged down in
Afghanistan, something the Russians could envision all too well, would allow
Russia some breathing room to get back on its feet and claw back some
influence in the near abroad.
100 Words
@annamaria
Russian federation has been trying to avoid a full-blown military conflict
that the ziocons have been provoking with the vicious audacity. The lying,
thieving, criminal congress, run by the CIA /Mossad, is not an honest
partner. Russia is cornered.
Russia is cornered.
I think it is exactly the other way around. Russia has options, US
doesn't, apart from the fact that it lost all international subjectivity and
is now nothing more than Israel's "subsidiary". Russia is not desperate, US
establishment is and that is why it is so desperate to start "war" with
Russia, whatever that means. Russia will always avoid war–it is her MO for
decades. US desperation for this "war" with Russia has very logical
explanations, granted that some of the factors in all this US insanity are,
indeed, irrational (and hysterical) and metaphysical in nature.
DanFromCt
,
April 6, 2017 at 1:55 pm GMT \n
200 Words
@Felix Keverich
Well, let's see: Tillerson makes a statement that overthrowing Assad is no
longer a priority. Neocons disagree. And within days this "chemical attack"
happens, the biggest chemical attack in Syria - we are told - since 2013.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
I think it's possible that chemical attack did happen, and it was the CIA or
its terrorist buddies that arranged to poison these children. Unlike Assad,
these actually have a plausible motive - manipulating Trump and influencing
his policy.
The timing is more than suspicious so I tuned in Fox News for straight up
false flag narrative, and sure enough there was Sen. Bob Corker saying Assad
was a monster gassing his people and cutting off their genitals, with Corker
calling for Putin to repudiate Assad to the thanks of Bill Hemmer–end of
script. Incidentally, has anyone else noticed that Corker more resembles
that stuttering, court-appointed lawyer in My Cousin Vinny than any
statesman?
The entire history of the development of the rules of evidence in law,
science, and politics, a signature achievement of Western Civilization, is
being thrown away and hardly anyone notices or cares. Today a canned,
identical, and obviously pre-scripted narrative available within minutes of
these events goes unquestioned, even when, as in this latest theater, at
least one announcement was made before the event.
I'm also sickened by the concurrent Wounded Warriors theater at the White
House because this empty jingoistic stunt may signal that our military may
become active on the ground over there and therefore Trump's neo handlers
are already selling the inevitable loss of limbs as a sign of our
righteousness instead of the reality, which is that our soldiers lose their
lives and limbs so good Isrseli boys need not.
cali
,
April 6, 2017 at 2:03 pm GMT \n
600 Words
Clearly the false flag committed by none other than the Deep State not only
against Assad but also against the boogeyman for all that is wrong – the
Putin government – continues.
Here are a couple of facts unknown to many since the US Pravda the outlet
for the Deep State to report only approved 'news' is hard at work to frame
Assad.
During HRC term as SOS she licensed Marc Turi the arms dealer to funnel
weapons into Syria via Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Marc Turi also stated that
she funneled Sarin gas from the Ghaddafi arsenal after his assassination to
the US sponsored rebels Al Nusra and others making up ISIS into Syria as a
means to overthrow, accuse and frame Assad as the culprit using Sarin gas
against his own people to stay in power.
HRC and Obama et al attempted to railroad Marc Turi after his services ended
as a means to silence him. The out-of-the-blue charges against him via the
Loretta Lynch DOJ accusing him of being an arms smuggler without license
nearly put him in prison ergo Turi threaten Hillary and Obama to expose
their treacherous actions in Benghazi that was used to set up the overthrow
of Assad in Syria. His threats of exposure of the arming of ISIS in Syria as
well as the Sarin gas provided to ISIS murdering Syrian civilians while
plasing the blame on Assad ended the prosecution and charges against him by
the DOJ who suddenly and without explanation dropped all charges against
him.
The saber rattling against Assad and Putin continues unabated as we see
here.
Nicki Haley – member of the #NeverTrump 'performs' her role as planned
namely to continue the anti-Assad and anti-Putin agenda. I'm sure traitor
McCain the Soros and CFR stooge is whispering into her ear.
Trump made a big mistake when appointing her into this position simply
because her agenda as part of Trump's republican enemies within while
placing trust in her she has not earned and is contrary to the DT agenda.
On a sidenote: In October 2016 the UK Parliament published their final
investigative report of Hillary and her actions in Libya/Benghazi accusing
her of war crimes. The US Pravda did not inform American voters about this
investigation.
Shortly after that the Syrian president Assad and Vladimir Putin submitted a
dossier to the ICC that described the Deep State and its agents Obama and
HRC about their war crimes in Syria detailing all the findings including the
use of Sarin gas provided to ISIS to be used on innocent civilians while
blaming it on Assad. The ICC studied this dossier and accepted said dossier
for a future trial against HRC and Obama et al among others having
participated in the attempt to overthrow his government and the slaughter of
over 250,000+ Syrians as a means to justify their coup.
Lastly – the recent report of the Russian government spokesperson with
reporters in regard to Tillerson's planned visit to Russia included this
statement: "If the disinformation, accusations and lies in the US via the
Deep State propaganda media continues accusing Russia having hacked the
election etc the Russian president may expose Obama about various issues and
actions that her begged Vladimir Putin to keep secret. All bets are off!"
Assad was not the one ordering the use of Sarin gas to attack his own
citizens but the Deep State and it's agents like Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
McCain, HRC and Obama et al using Ghaddafi's chemical weapons after his
assassination.
Anatoly Karlin
,
Website
April 6, 2017 at 2:06 pm GMT \n
What is different now is that there is a huge asymmetry in forces that
perhaps has instilled unwarranted confidence in the Americans that they
can win a war with Russia.
It is not as huge as you might think. In fact, one of the reasons for a
hysteria is precisely a sense (and very rarely--a rational understanding) of
the fact of a complete failure in forecasting what Russia is both
economically and militarily. Considering an atrocious incompetence of
American so called "Russia expertdom" there is nothing surprising here.
I think you maybe overestimate Russia's strength, in somewhat the same
way as the US may be underestimating it. I noticed in another
conversation you thought that Russia should have vetoed the UN resolution
allowing the US to go into Afghanistan.
1. Russia of early 2000s and Russia of 2017 are two very different countries
in every single respect.
2. Some people in US military are beginning to understand that US can not
win conventional conflict with Russia in Russia's immediate vicinity, it
will be defeated and will sustain casualties which will make Vietnam look
like a week at the spa.
My view on things is informed by two key assumptions/observations:
(1) The
US can wipe the floor with Russia in Syria or anywhere in the Middle East.
(2) Russia can wipe the floor with NATO east and north of the Suwalki
gap.
If things really go south in Syria – as in, actual Russian forces coming
under sustained attack from the USAF – I would expect either:
(a) If they decide on a military response –> it will be either in Ukraine
(e.g. ranging from recognition of the LDNR to resurrection of the
Novorossiya project) or even the Baltics;
(b) If they decide on a negotiated surrender-in-all-but-name in Syria
with the US allowing Russia its forces intact in exchange for abandoning
Assad –> a domestic clampdown to contain the mass outrage that this
humiliation will doubtless elicit.
annamaria
,
April 6, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT \n
I think it is exactly the other way around. Russia has options, US doesn't,
apart from the fact that it lost all international subjectivity and is now
nothing more than Israel's "subsidiary". Russia is not desperate, US
establishment is and that is why it is so desperate to start "war" with
Russia, whatever that means. Russia will always avoid war--it is her MO for
decades. US desperation for this "war" with Russia has very logical
explanations, granted that some of the factors in all this US insanity are,
indeed, irrational (and hysterical) and metaphysical in nature.
"Russia is not desperate, US establishment is and that is why it is so
desperate to start "war" with Russia, whatever that means. Russia will
always avoid war–it is her MO for decades. "
Agree. You are right. Russia
will always try to avoid the war. But the US needs desperately a war, both
to patch the enormous holes in economy (the $20 trillion debt and counting,
crumbling welfare system, loss of manufacture and such), and create new
sources of mineral riches from newly subdued countries. Instead of revamping
the internal system (a painful and highly strenuous process for a society),
the US wants to solve the problem by the old ways, externally. Since the US
is unable to reform (do you see any signs, any hope for the internal
reforms? – I do not), the deciders will go, most likely, for the jugular
against Russia. Only in this respect Russia is cornered.
The RF government has a task of politely (but painfully) reminding the
"deciders" that Russia will not capitulate to the "chosen," fed reserve, and
mega-war profiteers (all of them are most likely under a total surveillance
and "guidance" by the CIA). In the absence of the painful aspect of
reminding, the deciders are not able to come to their senses. Barring an
internal coup d'etat led by American patriots, the US is rolling towards
US-made global catastrophe.
Randal
,
April 6, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Hunsdon
Please bear in mind, O our host, that Gen. Dunford, chairman of the JCS,
said (in October?) that for the US to set up no fly zones in Syria would
mean that we are at war with Syria and Russia. The next day in a NBC radio
interview Lady MacBeth once more advocated for such no fly zones.
Unlike the Obama administration, I somehow think the Trump administration
will actually listen to military men like Dunford, Kelly and Mattis. For the
last generation, the US has stalked more or less unopposed on the world
stage, throwing its weight around as it pleases. No one, we think, can
oppose us! Well, that's nice and all, but I haven't forgotten the Cold War
and the threat of nuclear confrontation with the USSR/Russia, and I'll bet
you a meal of shashlik, lepeshki and vodka that Mattis, Dunford and Kelly
haven't either.
Maybe my faith is naive, we'll have to wait and see.
Unlike the Obama administration, I somehow think the Trump
administration will actually listen to military men like Dunford, Kelly
and Mattis.
Being military is certainly no guarantee against making misjudgements of
this kind.
"
Some of the retired military people whom McMaster inherited on the
NSC staff think that of the US intervenes against the Syrian government,
Russia will back away from, us. I do not agree with this.
"
100 Words
Tell me how this works , how it happens. Carl Bidt says same thing NYT says
before any investigation . So does Hailey at UN . Max Boot on MSNBC ,and GOP
Representative from Oklhaoma on FOX . Is there an universal subsonic dog
whistle that brings the howling out of the rabid mad poisonous vipers from
the hidden pit ? How do they start slithering out of the rock together?
I
guess I should include Bob Corker as well .
How does the other wailing from Israel that Iran is more dangerous than ISIS
synch with this dog whistle ?
Randal
,
April 6, 2017 at 2:43 pm GMT \n
200 Words
@JL
Ah, I see the misunderstanding here. My point was simply that any discussion
of how Russia would respond to an attack on its forces by the US is moot
because it will respond in kind, and the whole thing will go nuclear in
3,2,1. Specifically, it very much is the US that should be worrying about
starting WW3 in this case, not Russia.
During the Cold War, both sides realized the ramifications of direct
military conflict and acted accordingly. The US is behaving as if something
has changed in that respect and I find it terrifying. What is different now
is that there is a huge asymmetry in forces that perhaps has instilled
unwarranted confidence in the Americans that they can win a war with Russia.
I think you maybe overestimate Russia's strength, in somewhat the same way
as the US may be underestimating it. I noticed in another conversation you
thought that Russia should have vetoed the UN resolution allowing the US to
go into Afghanistan. To me, this is a complete misjudgment of Russia's
situation at that moment in time, while ignoring, or forgetting, the resolve
of the US immediately following September 11. Not to mention, there was
probably a geopolitical calculation that having the US bogged down in
Afghanistan, something the Russians could envision all too well, would allow
Russia some breathing room to get back on its feet and claw back some
influence in the near abroad.
Look, I'm all for Russia's resistance to the empire, I'd just like it to
happen without WW3.
I noticed in another conversation you thought that Russia should have
vetoed the UN resolution allowing the US to go into Afghanistan.
There was no UN resolution allowing the US attack on Afghanistan, which
was another deliberately lawless act by the US regime.
The Bush regime probably could have got one if it had felt it needed it,
given the almost universally supportive climate immediately after 9/11.
Instead it chose to rely on a shamelessly spurious and wilfully dishonest
mis-application of the supposed right of self defence after 9/11, knowing
that nobody important was going to question it. That produced a much more
useful precedent for the US regime than meekly complying with the law and
the US's treaty obligations would have.
Likewise, the Bush regime probably could have had Bin laden produced for
trial somewhere by the Taliban if it had wanted that, but the political and
brute power needs of the moment required the US regime to be seen to be
kicking some foreign butt aggressively and promptly.
Verymuchalive
,
April 6, 2017 at 3:22 pm GMT \n
200 Words
@Anatoly Karlin
My view on things is informed by two key assumptions/observations:
(1) The US can wipe the floor with Russia in Syria or anywhere in the Middle
East.
(2) Russia can wipe the floor with NATO east and north of the Suwalki gap.
If things really go south in Syria - as in, actual Russian forces coming
under sustained attack from the USAF - I would expect either:
(a) If they decide on a military response --> it will be either in Ukraine
(e.g. ranging from recognition of the LDNR to resurrection of the
Novorossiya project) or even the Baltics;
(b) If they decide on a negotiated surrender-in-all-but-name in Syria with
the US allowing Russia its forces intact in exchange for abandoning Assad
--> a domestic clampdown to contain the mass outrage that this humiliation
will doubtless elicit.
The safest way to defang America lies in any future economic collapse. Faced
with an imploding economy and a choice between minimal social welfare
measures or a grotesquely expanded military, the choice is obvious. I still
think it will happen later this decade, if there is any humanity left to
witness it.
The Neocons and the other warmongers seem to realise this, too, hence their
increasing recklessness in seeking ever more dangerous wars. As if one more
country to loot will somehow stave off the inevitable.
I have felt for some years now that other major powers ( Russia, China )
should have precipitated this collapse, since the longer they remain in
power – and both Houses are still overwhelmingly Neocon – the more dangerous
they become.
Philip Giraldi occasionally mentions a choke point near Dhahran where over
60% of Saudi Arabia's oil is processed. He regards it as the World's biggest
engineering weak spot. I suggest Mr Putin arranges a nasty accident there
ASAP, thereby preventing production for months and months. The panic alone
should be enough to trigger the collapse.
Anonymous
,
April 6, 2017 at 3:23 pm GMT \n
300 Words
Does anyone know if parathion (E-605) and other similar organophosphate
pesticides are still being used in Syrian agriculture or are still present
in some form there? This class of chemicals are typically incredibly toxic
to people and they used to be widespread in Africa and the Middle East up
until very recently, and there were reports of tons of annual deaths from
accidental exposure in for example Syria.
The reason I'm asking is because
according to some of the geolocation efforts, the alleged bomb impacts
occured in and around an old agricultural facility with large buildings and
rows of silos, and several of the reported properties of the alleged
chemical match those of parathion and similar pesticides.
Parathion smells horrible, like steaming sewage slush, and it causes
acute respiratory difficulties, constricted pupils, horrifying convulsions
and ultimately death. Many symptoms are somewhat similar to those of
weaponized nerve agents such as Sarin and VX (they're also organophosphates)
but unlike the pesticides these lack any noticeable odor and they don't form
visible clouds.
Now, from what I can see Damascus decided to get rid of these things
after a parliamentary decision in 1999. This basically meant just burying it
in the ground or in some locked basement somewhere. Later on, the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) set off to help Syria
actually destroy these giant stashes and a program to this end was initiated
about ten years ago. They dug up close to a thousand tons of it from all
over the country, but it seems like the civil war got in the way before they
were finished, and who knows what the jihadist "authorities" are up to in
regards to that.
Just one possible theory among many, I suppose. I do think it's a tad far
fetched myself, but it was just something that popped into my head
immediately upon reading about this.
SmoothieX12
,
Website
April 6, 2017 at 3:34 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@annamaria
"Russia is not desperate, US establishment is and that is why it is so
desperate to start "war" with Russia, whatever that means. Russia will
always avoid war–it is her MO for decades. "
Agree. You are right. Russia
will always try to avoid the war. But the US needs desperately a war, both
to patch the enormous holes in economy (the $20 trillion debt and counting,
crumbling welfare system, loss of manufacture and such), and create new
sources of mineral riches from newly subdued countries. Instead of revamping
the internal system (a painful and highly strenuous process for a society),
the US wants to solve the problem by the old ways, externally. Since the US
is unable to reform (do you see any signs, any hope for the internal
reforms? - I do not), the deciders will go, most likely, for the jugular
against Russia. Only in this respect Russia is cornered.
The RF government has a task of politely (but painfully) reminding the
"deciders" that Russia will not capitulate to the "chosen," fed reserve, and
mega-war profiteers (all of them are most likely under a total surveillance
and "guidance" by the CIA). In the absence of the painful aspect of
reminding, the deciders are not able to come to their senses. Barring an
internal coup d'etat led by American patriots, the US is rolling towards
US-made global catastrophe.
Instead of revamping the internal system (a painful and highly
strenuous process for a society), the US wants to solve the problem by
the old ways, externally. Since the US is unable to reform (do you see
any signs, any hope for the internal reforms? – I do not), the deciders
will go, most likely, for the jugular against Russia. Only in this
respect Russia is cornered.
Current US "elites" across the whole spectrum of state's activity–from
economic, to military, to intelligence, to diplomacy are simply not
competent to deal with global realities. In terms of statesmen–US does not
produce statesmen anymore, times of FDR, Ike or even Nixon are long gone. US
"elite" production are mostly Ivy League boys and girls who are only
conditioned for navigating system, which gets out only politicians who only
know how to get elected.
AP
,
April 6, 2017 at 3:42 pm GMT \n
300 Words
@JL
Ah, I see the misunderstanding here. My point was simply that any discussion
of how Russia would respond to an attack on its forces by the US is moot
because it will respond in kind, and the whole thing will go nuclear in
3,2,1. Specifically, it very much is the US that should be worrying about
starting WW3 in this case, not Russia.
During the Cold War, both sides realized the ramifications of direct
military conflict and acted accordingly. The US is behaving as if something
has changed in that respect and I find it terrifying. What is different now
is that there is a huge asymmetry in forces that perhaps has instilled
unwarranted confidence in the Americans that they can win a war with Russia.
I think you maybe overestimate Russia's strength, in somewhat the same way
as the US may be underestimating it. I noticed in another conversation you
thought that Russia should have vetoed the UN resolution allowing the US to
go into Afghanistan. To me, this is a complete misjudgment of Russia's
situation at that moment in time, while ignoring, or forgetting, the resolve
of the US immediately following September 11. Not to mention, there was
probably a geopolitical calculation that having the US bogged down in
Afghanistan, something the Russians could envision all too well, would allow
Russia some breathing room to get back on its feet and claw back some
influence in the near abroad.
Look, I'm all for Russia's resistance to the empire, I'd just like it to
happen without WW3.
My point was simply that any discussion of how Russia would respond to
an attack on its forces by the US is moot because it will respond in
kind, and the whole thing will go nuclear in 3,2,1.
I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the extremely
unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would be even more
unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both civilizations and
annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that it's even possible.
Let's look at (remotely) plausible scenarios. Would Russia want to wipe
its own civilization off the face of the Earth over getting its troops
killed in Syria? Would America do the same because a few thousand of its
troops were killed in the Baltics, or Poland? Not going to happen. In fact,
I would put the odds of a nuclear response to American troops installing a
puppet government and occupying Moscow at below 50%. Because as in the case
of Napoleon's or the Polish occupation, Russia can come back from that. It's
never coming back from a nuclear war.
I agree with Karlin that the USA taking out Russian troops in Syria
(really doubt this would happen) will result in a high likelihood of Russia
occupying the Baltics (taking out American troops in the process) and parts
of Ukraine. Russia likes to reciprocate. That's not going to lead to nuclear
war, though I imagine Russia would be out of swift and total sanctions would
be imposed.
AP
,
April 6, 2017 at 3:53 pm GMT \n
100 Words
If we are going to make wild speculations, perhaps it's a Russian operation
designed to get America sucked into a Syrian quagmire as Russia exits, so
Russia can do more in its backyard while the USA is preoccupied in the
Middle East. Georgia happened while the USA was in Iraq.
I think there is
basically a zero chance of Assad having ordered this. It may be a US
false-flag operation, Which would be stupid and unlikely. Given how heavily
Russia is involved there, this could be probably uncovered rather easily
given the competence of Russian intelligence.
Most likely – some local commander acting for who knows what reason or
local resistence doing a false flag operation withot American orders.
Assad's forces are apparently not very centralized. Incompetence by Assad's
forces or desperation by resistence makes more sense than does a conspiracy.
SmoothieX12
,
Website
April 6, 2017 at 3:58 pm GMT \n
I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the
extremely unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would
be even more unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both
civilizations and annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that
it's even possible.
US "needs" any kind of military success after de facto lost wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. US military record of the last 70 years is rather
unimpressive–not a single war with first rate opponent, only extolled ad
nauseam "victory" over third rate Saddam forces. A lot of psychology comes
into this. Not only many US generals sleep and dream how to fight Russia,
they desperately crave it. In conventional war with Russia this will be US,
not Russia, who will initiate nuclear exchange. The reasons for that are
numerous, including massive reputational military losses – from losing one
or two aircraft carriers, to sustaining (which is highly likely) massive
casualties which will lead to impossibility of attaining any political
objectives.
Russia is also completely capable of conventionally striking US proper.
By about 2021-2023 this capability will grow exponentially, including the
ability (which US currently doesn't have and most likely will not have) to
field missile and other technologies which completely zero-down US military
potential. Pentagon knows this.
utu
,
April 6, 2017 at 4:04 pm GMT \n
Just few years ago:
BBC News Caught Staging FAKE Chemical Attack In Syria
300 Words
Maybe all this is about putting Obama and Trump through exactly the same "do
as we say or else" deep state scenario? Remember that Obama knew that the
case for blaming Assad for Ghouta was at best not certain.
Seymour M. Hersh · Whose sarin? · LRB 19 December 2013
. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies
produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal
Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion –
citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with
al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of
manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should
have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to
justify a strike against Assad .
There was a lot of very loud rhetoric from Obama, but no direct attack in
response. One might almost say that Obama and Putin "cooperated" to allow
the situation to defuse. That was heavily criticized by the strongest
ZionCon fanatics in the US government and media.
Now we have an almost identical repeat of the very same scenario and
Trump must know that real intelligence suggests the same situation Obama
faced. Trump´s choices seem to be three-fold: (1) denounce the deep state
treason in the US government, (2) kowtow to the deep state and have the US
military directly attack Syria, or (3) do the same as Obama and let the
situation defuse with time (w/wo help from Putin).
I would guess Trump will choose option (3) just like Obama. The real
question is whether the ZionCon control of the US government includes both
the Pentagon and the CIA or whether the US military still resists the
country being ruled by a foreign sect. The media is clearly 100% ZionCon and
this restricts Trump's freedom to choose option (1).
utu
,
April 6, 2017 at 4:19 pm GMT \n
The movement of US desert Camo military equipment was done in a way to
avoid detection by Russia. First to Germany to make it appear as a
buildup on Russia's border, then to Poland final to a port in Romania,
then reloaded at set sail to Beirut Lebanon where Damascus comes into
view.
Yeah, sure--you know, those stupid Russians who are still using spyglasses
and arithmometers in their intelligence efforts, how can they possibly
notice the movement of a brigade size units.
"Yeah, sure–you know, those stupid Russians who are still using
spyglasses and arithmometers in their intelligence efforts, how can they
possibly notice the movement of a brigade size units."
I do not know how is the mighty Russia military intelligence after the
major shakeups by Putin and Shoygu in 2010/11 doing? Where is your mighty
all knowing GRU? They did not not know that something is being cooked up and
the chemical weapon provocation was being prepared? Just few years in proper
places few days ago could avert it. But nothing happened. Did bombing in St.
Petersburg divert their attention?
At least in 2013 there was a leak that apparently stopped Obama from
going all the way:
Remember WHY Obama Didn't Act on the Red Line Violation? Leaked Document
Suggested Obama Greenlighted Chemical Weapon False Flag Attack
My point was simply that any discussion of how Russia would respond to an
attack on its forces by the US is moot because it will respond in kind,
and the whole thing will go nuclear in 3,2,1.
I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the extremely
unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would be even more
unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both civilizations and
annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that it's even possible.
Let's look at (remotely) plausible scenarios. Would Russia want to wipe its
own civilization off the face of the Earth over getting its troops killed in
Syria? Would America do the same because a few thousand of its troops were
killed in the Baltics, or Poland? Not going to happen. In fact, I would put
the odds of a nuclear response to American troops installing a puppet
government and occupying Moscow at below 50%. Because as in the case of
Napoleon's or the Polish occupation, Russia can come back from that. It's
never coming back from a nuclear war.
I agree with Karlin that the USA taking out Russian troops in Syria (really
doubt this would happen) will result in a high likelihood of Russia
occupying the Baltics (taking out American troops in the process) and parts
of Ukraine. Russia likes to reciprocate. That's not going to lead to nuclear
war, though I imagine Russia would be out of swift and total sanctions would
be imposed.
I agree with Karlin that the USA taking out Russian troops in Syria
(really doubt this would happen) will result in a high likelihood of
Russia occupying the Baltics (taking out American troops in the process)
and parts of Ukraine.
I could definitely foresee more involvement in Ukrainian affairs, but
Baltic aggression seems over the top to me. By invading any of the Baltic
countries, Russia will provoke the ire of European countries, especially
those within NATO, and a likely counterattack. A war against the US in Syria
and one against NATO in the Balts is way too much to envision. Things in
Ukraine would undoubtedly unwind too. Wars on three fronts for Russia would
be suicide. I think that what Karlin states here makes sense, and would
preempt this sort of a scenario from occuring:
I disagree that attacking Syria automatically means war, at least so
long as the Russian military isn't directly targetted. Russia doesn't
have any formal military alliances with Syria, so a lack of retaliation
in Syria proper will be justifiable – and well-advised, considering
massive American aeronaval dominance in the region
"Yeah, sure–you know, those stupid Russians who are still using
spyglasses and arithmometers in their intelligence efforts, how can they
possibly notice the movement of a brigade size units."
I do not know how is the mighty Russia military intelligence after the major
shakeups by Putin and Shoygu in 2010/11 doing? Where is your mighty all
knowing GRU? They did not not know that something is being cooked up and the
chemical weapon provocation was being prepared? Just few years in proper
places few days ago could avert it. But nothing happened. Did bombing in St.
Petersburg divert their attention?
At least in 2013 there was a leak that apparently stopped Obama from going
all the way:
Remember WHY Obama Didn't Act on the Red Line Violation? Leaked Document
Suggested Obama Greenlighted Chemical Weapon False Flag Attack
https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2017/04/06/remember-why-obama-didnt-act-on-the-red-line-violation-leaked-document-suggested-obama-greenlighted-chemical-weapon-false-flag-attack/
However you spin it does not look good. Russia is outplayed on every turn.
However you spin it does not look good.
My spin on it is for you to take some kind of calming medicine (try
Valerian Root) and start learning about real world outside. Stopping
projecting your (very wrong) perceptions of how complex
military-intelligence machines work onto something which needs more than
just reading a bunch of media outlets, may also help.
US most enjoyable hobby always was to beat up small South American
countries.
Jooz only redirected this valuable US passion to Middle East.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Randal
,
April 6, 2017 at 4:46 pm GMT \n
My point was simply that any discussion of how Russia would respond to an
attack on its forces by the US is moot because it will respond in kind,
and the whole thing will go nuclear in 3,2,1.
I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the extremely
unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would be even more
unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both civilizations and
annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that it's even possible.
Let's look at (remotely) plausible scenarios. Would Russia want to wipe its
own civilization off the face of the Earth over getting its troops killed in
Syria? Would America do the same because a few thousand of its troops were
killed in the Baltics, or Poland? Not going to happen. In fact, I would put
the odds of a nuclear response to American troops installing a puppet
government and occupying Moscow at below 50%. Because as in the case of
Napoleon's or the Polish occupation, Russia can come back from that. It's
never coming back from a nuclear war.
I agree with Karlin that the USA taking out Russian troops in Syria (really
doubt this would happen) will result in a high likelihood of Russia
occupying the Baltics (taking out American troops in the process) and parts
of Ukraine. Russia likes to reciprocate. That's not going to lead to nuclear
war, though I imagine Russia would be out of swift and total sanctions would
be imposed.
I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the
extremely unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would
be even more unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both
civilizations and annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that
it's even possible ..In fact, I would put the odds of a nuclear response
to American troops installing a puppet government and occupying Moscow at
below 50%. Because as in the case of Napoleon's or the Polish occupation,
Russia can come back from that. It's never coming back from a nuclear
war.
That's not how anybody really expects a superpower confrontation to lead
to nuclear war, though.
Most escalation scenarios since mutually assured destruction became
generally accepted involve a repeated series of escalations, each assuming
the other side will step back from the brink in response, or a loss of
command and control giving rise to uncontrolled or mistaken releases, until
at some point one side is faced, or thinks it is faced, with a stark "use it
or lose it" choice with only a few minutes to decide.
It's not that likely that even open war would lead to an uncontrolled
nuclear exchange. but how much risk are you prepared to accept when the
consequences are that serious?
The real concern today, though, is that there might be American
politicians and military men who actually believe that their first strike
counterforce capabilities combined with missile defences to mop up surviving
attacks actually could limit damage to the continental US to acceptable
levels.
Anatoly Karlin
,
Website
April 6, 2017 at 4:47 pm GMT \n
200 Words
NEW!
@AP
If we are going to make wild speculations, perhaps it's a Russian operation
designed to get America sucked into a Syrian quagmire as Russia exits, so
Russia can do more in its backyard while the USA is preoccupied in the
Middle East. Georgia happened while the USA was in Iraq.
I think there is
basically a zero chance of Assad having ordered this. It may be a US
false-flag operation, Which would be stupid and unlikely. Given how heavily
Russia is involved there, this could be probably uncovered rather easily
given the competence of Russian intelligence.
Most likely - some local commander acting for who knows what reason or
local resistence doing a false flag operation withot American orders.
Assad's forces are apparently not very centralized. Incompetence by Assad's
forces or desperation by resistence makes more sense than does a conspiracy.
Incompetence by Assad's forces or desperation by resistence makes more
sense than does a conspiracy.
>implying Arabs are competent enough to keep strict tabs on all their
chemical warfare agents
> implying they can tell the difference between a regular bomb and a gas
bomb when they load them up in their planes
> implying Arabs haven't used nerve agents as recently as 1988 in warfare
> implying there is a strategic ammo dump full of sarin that they bombed
despite literally no evidence pointing to any such thing
> implying even if they did bomb this imaginary depot full of sarin
agents that the agents don't dissipate quickly enough due to sarin's high
evaporation rate which is sped up intensely by the dry Syrian desert
It certainly could have also been a rogue element within the Syrian
military. It's not exactly a secret there are too many Islamist sympathizers
within it, which partly explains why it has such low effectiveness.
I agree that one or the other of these is probably likelier than a
specifically American inspired false flag, which in turn is likelier than
Assad having ordered it directly.
Anonymous
,
April 6, 2017 at 5:10 pm GMT \n
200 Words
The purpose of this False Flag chemical attack by the CIA trained terrorists
who are called 'rebel' by the illiterate zionist salesman, is to create No
Fly Zone, modified a 'save zone' by the illiterate 'president' to partition
Syria and Iraq to erect kurdistan. Kurds are trained CIA terrorists spying
for Israel and US. The axis of evil US – Israel- Britain CANNOT topple
Assad, so the illiterate 'president' is trying the false flag operation to
establish NFZ, the US/Hillary project with the help of the YOUNG zionist
Kushner in the business of illegal settlements.
The illiterate zionist
salesman in the business of escort and hotel with a help of his escort at
the UN is trying to fool the ignorant American people AGAIN to commit more
crimes against humanity to help his son in law. Shame on America that goes
sooooooooooo low to implement Zionist policy.
The people of the region NEVER allow a second Israel in Syria or Iraq.
YOU, the criminal mass murderers must get lost from Syria and the region
NOW.
Down with China and Russia if they sell another country to mass
murderers, like Libya, for two bones called concessions. Shame on China if
betrays humanity AGAIN.
bjondo
,
April 6, 2017 at 5:31 pm GMT \n
300 Words
@reiner Tor
To be honest, I can't even imagine how this apparent complete U-turn could
happen without him being blackmailed.
"without him being blackmailed" – One resorts to blackmail with people who
have integrity and stand for some higher principles. Trump is an
opportunist. He will do whatever. He is not the man of your own projections
that you casted on him. This commenter I think got him right
Trump has balls but he's no political philosopher. He's not coherent
on anything.
"I love Wikileaks! I'm being surveilled!/Edward Snowden is a traitor!"
"Iraq was a mistake. Libya was a mistake. America First!/We're gonna
get rid of Isis! Assad's gas attack changes things."
"Drain the swamp!/ Get behind the establishment's healthcare bill!"
"Build the wall and have Mexico pay for it/Mitt Romney lost because
his self deportation comment was mean and it lost him the Latino vote"
The guy watches Fox and Friends and Judge Jeanine-two of the most mind
numbingly stupid shows on cable news and seems to genuinely enjoy them.
The guy has a few good instincts but he doesn't have a coherent worldview
and you can bet the people whispering in his ear who can actually get
stuff done in Washington do. Problem is, they tend to be Bill Kristol.
Rand "hey let's actually talk about this before we commit ourselves to
more wars" Paul is a lonely "wacko bird." Trump is beyond ideology. He
wants results. He want accomplishments. He wants his ego flattered. And
there are plenty of rats ready to exploit that situation and play Iago to
his Othello.
Who has access to his ear now counts. It ain't Bannon anymore who helped
to save his campaign by doubling down on the original Trump message that
Trump was ready to dilute or even discard. It will be Ivanka, Kushner and
many Iagos. Art at #114 above put it really well in terms of Steve the
Baptist metaphor. W/o Bannon it's over.
utu
,
April 6, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT \n
"I agree with Karlin that the USA taking out Russian troops in Syria
(really doubt this would happen) will result in a high likelihood of
Russia occupying the Baltics (taking out American troops in the process)
and parts of Ukraine. "
I could definitely foresee more involvement in Ukrainian affairs, but
Baltic aggression seems over the top to me. By invading any of the Baltic
countries, Russia will provoke the ire of European countries, especially
those within NATO, and a likely counterattack.
In my comment I assumed not some Russians killed as collateral damage by the
USA assaulting Assad, but a US direct attack on and destruction of Russian
military forces in Syria such as the naval base at Tartus. I think the odds
of this happening are basically zero, but if the USA did this I suspect
Russia would retaliate by taking out the nearest and most convenient
American bases, which would be in the Baltics (Russia couldn't really
retaliate in the Middle East). This would save face at home, demonstrate to
the world that Russia does retaliate and that attacks on Russia have
consequences, and perhaps end NATO, because the Western powers, as in 1939,
would probably not want to really fight for the sake of some eastern
European countries.
"I suspect Russia would retaliate by taking out the nearest and most
convenient American bases, which would be in the Baltics (Russia couldn't
really retaliate in the Middle East). "
Russia has no conventional means of retaliating in the Middle East. All
Russian forces in Middle East can be swarmed and overwhelmed by USA, Turkey
and Israel within few hours. Russia will not go nuclear for the sake of
Syria. In the end it is all about saving face. Funny, isn't it? There is
nothing tangible there. Saving face for Russian people sake only because
beyond Russia nobody really cares about Russia's face which in the West they
think is beyond salvaging anyway. The end of it will be a coup d'etat in
Russia by those who think that Russia's face was not saved enough or by
those who think that saving Russia's face may lead to Russia's destruction.
It will be the latter who pretend to be the former for the people's sake.
SmoothieX12
,
Website
April 6, 2017 at 6:17 pm GMT \n
500 Words
@AP
I agree with most of what you say, and can't dispute your military
assessment because it is beyond my expertise. But -
In conventional war with Russia this will be US, not Russia, who will
initiate nuclear exchange. The reasons for that are numerous, including
massive reputational military losses–from losing one or two aircraft
carriers, to sustaining (which is highly likely) massive casualties which
will lead to impossibility of attaining any political objectives.
I find the idea of America's military/political leaders choosing to commit
national suicide under such a scenario (Russia destroying America's military
capability and ability to project power outside the USA through conventional
means) to be extremely unlikely. Leader may be foolish or short-sighted, but
I really doubt they have a Nazi-like or Islamic-like mentality of preferring
total national destruction if they don't have their way. I doubt even the
fanatic neocons would feel this way.
I find the idea of America's military/political leaders choosing to
commit national suicide under such a scenario (Russia destroying
America's military capability and ability to project power outside the
USA through conventional means) to be extremely unlikely.
I don't. Without going deep into, now firmly established,
dysfunctionality of the US State, which is horrendously dangerous in itself,
the war, and I am not being original here, has the mind of its own once it
starts. The war with Russia, if it happens either in Syria or, let alone, in
and around Ukraine, will have a very different military and political logic.
1. Casualties sustained will be massive in a very short period of time.
2. US will have a major political crisis at home.
3. Reputational losses will be huge.
4. Geopolitical dynamics will change drastically and in a very short time
5. This point is for US further internal US contingencies and here one can
only imagine what it may be and what political forces may emerge.
Military-intelligence coup? Easily.
6.
So,
Leader may be foolish or short-sighted, but I really doubt they have a
Nazi-like or Islamic-like mentality of preferring total national
destruction if they don't have their way.
But this is a defining feature of, at least, most neocon cabal. But let's
forget about Korea, where MacArthur was forced by Truman out of his position
because he wanted to use nukes, same goes for Vietnam, where nuking it was
considered. US is a no stranger to this kind of military thinking. What
happens if Russia destroys a single Carrier Battle Group, and probability of
this is not a zero at all? Do you know what the loss of even single carrier
means for US as a whole, forget US Navy. Do not listen to me, read what
Admiral Elmo Zumwalt thought about it during and after his tenure as CNO. We
can only imagine what pressures will arise. While it is true that neocons
are cowards, it is also true that we really do not know what is their
threshold of rationality. You have to understand, for decades now US
political and military "elite" was formed by this ad nauseam mantra of
American exceptionalism in everything. Are you ready to predict the results
of this "parting syndrome"? I am not. I can only discuss contingencies and
one of them, and I guarantee you–it is being considered in Russia, is
precisely of US "top" going completely rogue and insane, not that it is not
happening as I type this. This contingency can not and must not be excluded
from serious elaborations.
P.S. Lowlife Albright's desire to sacrifice 500,000 Iraqi children for
"democracy" was not an accidental misspeak–this is how many in D.C. think
and live. In the end, if not for courageous British General Sir. Jackson,
Wesley Clark would start killing Russian paratroopers at Slatina airfield.
He issued the orders. Since then things only got worse.
El Dato
,
April 6, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@anon
Trump got burned on the Yemen raid.
Why is the military going along with
this one? The last one didn't happen because no one wanted to sign off on
it. That is, Obama drew the line (stupidly). But then decided to make
Congress vote for it. Everyone wanted someone else to be the designated
'leader'.
Syria is no less a loser today. Does Congress want to vote for this? The
only thing that is utterly predictable about Trump is he doesn't want to
lose. But even more so, he doesn't want to be blamed.
He was quite convincing today as the sucker.
But really?
The military and public mostly seem OK with bombing. So maybe we bomb
some stuff. It's disgusting but its just killing military on one side or
another along with a lot of collateral damage, dead women and children, etc.
But no boots on the ground.
I'd like to think that he won't do it. Like how could he be so stupid?
But it hasn't stopped anyone sine the 2000 election.
So maybe we bomb some stuff.
That's going to be quite interesting.
- Nusra Front will rebound.
- ISIS will be back (remember them?)
- USA will lose a few planes to S-300 anti-air.
- There will be dead Russians. This won't go down well.
- There will be dead Iranian cleaner teams, and thus angry Iranians.
Hardcore Mullahs will be happy (sounds like feature because a War on Iran is
exactly what the satanic union of Saudi-Arabia and you-know-who wants.)
- Turkey will flow into the "bombed stuff" area to attack Kurds.
I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the extremely
unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would be even
more unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both
civilizations and annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that
it's even possible.
US "needs" any kind of military success after de facto lost wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. US military record of the last 70 years is rather
unimpressive--not a single war with first rate opponent, only extolled ad
nauseam "victory" over third rate Saddam forces. A lot of psychology comes
into this. Not only many US generals sleep and dream how to fight Russia,
they desperately crave it. In conventional war with Russia this will be US,
not Russia, who will initiate nuclear exchange. The reasons for that are
numerous, including massive reputational military losses--from losing one or
two aircraft carriers, to sustaining (which is highly likely) massive
casualties which will lead to impossibility of attaining any political
objectives. Russia is also completely capable of conventionally striking US
proper. By about 2021-2023 this capability will grow exponentially,
including the ability (which US currently doesn't have and most likely will
not have) to field missile and other technologies which completely zero-down
US military potential. Pentagon knows this.
US military record of the last 70 years is rather unimpressive
Right, no way that they match Soviet/Russia's impressive list of successes
like ripping those Afghans a new one for example.
Art
,
April 6, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT \n
100 Words
Just cannot believe that Assad is that stupid as to do a gas attack at this
time. It is beyond comprehension, after staying in power for five years of
vicious civil war, and about ready to declare victory, he would never
knowingly do this.
This was either a tragic unintended error or a false
flag by another party – most likely Israel.
Whatever, the globalist Jews are going to use this tragedy to achieve
their long-held goal of breaking up Syria.
200 Words
@iffen
US military record of the last 70 years is rather unimpressive
Right, no way that they match Soviet/Russia's impressive list of successes
like ripping those Afghans a new one for example.
"There is a literature and a common perception that the Soviets were
defeated and driven from Afghanistan. This is not true. When the Soviets
left Afghanistan in 1989, they did so in a coordinated, deliberate,
professional manner, leaving behind a functioning government, an improved
military and an advisory and economic effort insuring the continued
viability of the government. The withdrawal was based on a coordinated
diplomatic, economic and military plan permitting Soviet forces to withdraw
in good order and the Afghan government to survive. The Democratic Republic
of Afghanistan (DRA)managed to hold on despite the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991. Only then, with the loss of Soviet support and the increased
efforts by the Mujahideen (holy warriors) and Pakistan, did the DRA slide
toward defeat in April 1992. The Soviet effort to withdraw in good order was
well executed and can serve as a model for other disengagements from similar
nations."
100 Words
@iffen
US military record of the last 70 years is rather unimpressive
Right, no way that they match Soviet/Russia's impressive list of successes
like ripping those Afghans a new one for example.
Compared to Vietnam, the Soviet record in Afghanistan wasn't really that bad
(and at least the Soviets realized early on that they needed to get out and
left behind a friendly regime that lasted some time, and might have lasted
longer if not for the dissolution of the Soviet Union – what has NATO
achieved so far in Afghanistan, after 15 years?).
And I'd actually go farther than Smoothie, US triumphalism is way overdone
even in regard to the 2nd world war, at least concerning the European
theatre.
jconsley
,
April 6, 2017 at 7:40 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Seraphim
It is known that the apparition of Haley's Comet presage wars. Do we have
it? No, but we have Nikki Haley.
U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Feb. 16, 2017:
""I just put out to the members of the Seucrity Council to help me
understand: When we have so much going on in the world, why is it that every
single month we're going to sit down and have a hearing where all they do is
obsess over Israel?...
The Security Council is supposed to discuss how to maintain international
peace and security. But at our meeting on the Middle East, the discussion
was not about Hizballah's illegal build-up of rockets in Lebanon. It was not
about the money and weapons Iran provides to terrorists. It was not about
how we defeat ISIS. It was not about how we hold Bashar al-Assad accountable
for the slaughter of hundreds and thousands of civilians. No, instead, the
meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle
East. I am new around here, but I understand that's how the Council has
operated, month after month, for decades.
I'm here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye to this anymore.
I am here to underscore the ironclad support of the United States for
Israel. I'm here to emphasize the United States is determined to stand up to
the UN's anti-Israel bias. We will never repeat the terrible mistake of
Resolution 2334 and allow one-sided Security Council resolutions to condemn
Israel. Instead, we will push for action on the real threats we face in the
Middle East...
It is the UN's anti-Israel bias that is long overdue for change. The United
States will not hesitate to speak out against these biases in defense of our
friend and ally, Israel".
What are the 'real threats'? Assad, Russia, Iran, Sarin gas. Understood?
Poor Nikki - what about Resolution 242? Is it now 69 U.N. Resolutions that
Israel has ignored along with all international law? Does the United States
recognize international law Nikki?
Thus far, your comments and
representation display you total lack of knowledge. At least consider the
pros and cons of situations before forming an opinion. It seems you are
regurgitating whatever lies you are told.
Perhaps Trump selected you because you only watch TV and never read
books, magazines, etc. You no doubt make Trump feel comfortable with your TV
knowledge. It may help to read some State Department cables and emails to
learn about United States' policies. Try not to be discouraged by the fact
that most policies are hypocritical where Israel is involved.
John Gruskos
,
April 6, 2017 at 7:48 pm GMT \n
@Tulip
Why would Assad do it, assuming he is winning the civil war?
First, Assad
requires political backers to stay in power, and if his backers dessert, he
will fall.
Second, during the civil war, his political backers have no choice but to
back Assad, or otherwise their faction could fall from power.
Third, after the civil war, his political backers could very well
consider new leadership.
Fourth, by using poison gas, a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions,
Assad and his backers are now international war criminals.
Fifth, if his backers move against Assad, they could all end up in front
of the Hague.
Sixth, its a nice FU to Donald Trump and America, as Assad doesn't need
their support.
Seventh, it either brings the Donald into an unwinnable quagmire,
weakening America, or Donald looks more like Ronald (McDonald).
If it looks like he is going to win the war, and Russia and Iran have his
back (in terms of money and arms), gassing these people helps cement the
support of his backers, at the expense of pissing off some nations he
neither needs nor likes.
This theory doesn't hold up. Assad and his backers
already
have blood
on their hands. He doesn't need a new atrocity to cement their loyalty.
"... Donald Trump – and/or the alphabet soup of US intelligence agencies, with no detailed investigation – are convinced that the Russian Ministry of Defense is simply lying. ..."
"... Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov, stressing "fully objective and verified" information, identified a Syrian Air Force strike launched against a "moderate rebel" warehouse east of the town of Khan Sheikhoun used to both produce and store shells containing toxic gas. ..."
"... Konashenkov added the same chemicals had been used by "rebels" in Aleppo late last year, according to samples collected by Russian military experts. ..."
"... And Western public opinion conveniently forgot that before Barack Obama's theoretically trespassed red line on chemical weapons, a secret US intelligence report had made it clear that Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, had mastered the sarin gas-making cycle and was capable of producing it in quantity. ..."
"... So those toxic weapons that "disappeared" – en masse - from Gaddafi's arsenals in 2011 ended up upgrading al-Qaeda in Syria (not the Islamic Stare/Daesh), re-baptized Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and widely described across the Beltway as "moderate rebels". ..."
"... Trump's ambassador to the UN, Heritage Foundation asset Nikki Haley, predictably went ballistic, monopolizing the whole Western news cycle. Lost in oblivion, also predictably, was Russia's deputy UN ambassador Vladimir Safronkov shattering to bits the West's "obsession with regime change" in Syria, which is "what hinders this Security Council." ..."
"... Idlib Chemical Attack: West Blames Assad Even Before Probe Launched Safronkov stressed the chemical attack in Idlib was based on "falsified reports from the White Helmets", an organization that has been "discredited long ago". Indeed; but now the Helmets are Oscar winners , and this pop culture badge of honor renders them unassailable – not to mention immune to the effects of sarin gas. ..."
"... The dead "children of Syria" are now pawns in a much larger, perverse game. The US government may have killed a million men, women and children in Iraq – and there was no serious outcry among the "elites" across the NATO spectrum. A war criminal still at large admitted , on the record, that the snuffing out, directly and indirectly, of 500,000 Iraqi children was "justified." ..."
"... For his part, Nobel Peace Prize Barack Obama instrumentalized the House of Saud to fund – and weaponize - some 40 outfits "vetted" by the CIA in Syria. Several of these outfits had in fact already merged with, or were absorbed by, Jabhat al-Nusra, now Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. And they all engaged in their own massacres of civilians. ..."
"... The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik. ..."
"These heinous acts by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated." Thus spoke the President of
the United States.
Instant translation;
Donald Trump – and/or the alphabet soup of US intelligence agencies, with no
detailed investigation – are convinced that the Russian Ministry of Defense is simply lying.
Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov, stressing
"fully objective and verified" information,
identified a Syrian Air Force strike launched against a "moderate rebel" warehouse east of the
town of Khan Sheikhoun used to both produce and store shells containing toxic gas.
Konashenkov added the same chemicals had been used by "rebels" in Aleppo late last year, according
to samples collected by Russian military experts.
Still, Trump felt compelled to telegraph what is now his own red line in Syria; "Militarily, I
don't like to say when I'm going and what I'm doing. I'm not saying I won't do anything one way or
another, but I certainly won't be telling you [the media]."
By his side at the White House lawn, the pathetic King Playstation of Jordan praised Trump's "realistic
approach to the challenges in the region." This might pass as a Monty Python sketch. Unfortunately, it's reality.
And Western public opinion conveniently forgot that before Barack Obama's theoretically trespassed
red line on chemical weapons, a secret US
intelligence
report had made it clear that Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, had mastered the sarin
gas-making cycle and was capable of producing it in quantity.
Not to mention that the Obama administration and its allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar had
made a secret pact in 2012 to set up a sarin gas attack and blame Damascus, setting the scene for
a Shock and Awe replay. Funding for the project came from the NATO-GCC connection coupled with a
CIA-MI6 connection, a.k.a.
rat line , of transferring all manner of weapons from Libya to Salafi-jihadis in Syria.
So those toxic weapons that "disappeared" – en masse - from Gaddafi's arsenals in 2011 ended up
upgrading al-Qaeda in Syria (not the Islamic Stare/Daesh), re-baptized Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and widely
described across the Beltway as "moderate rebels".
'Red Line' Revisited? What's Behind Trump Accusing Damascus of Reported Chemical Attack in Syria
Cornered in Idlib province, these "rebels" are now the top target of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA)
and the Russian Air Force. Damascus and Moscow, unlike Washington, are bent on smashing the whole
Salafi-jihadi galaxy, not only Daesh. If the SAA continues to advance, and if these "rebels" lose
Idlib, it's game over.
So the offensive by Damascus had to be smeared, no holds barred, in full view of global public
opinion.
Yet it does not make any sense whatsoever that only two days before another international conference
on Syria, and immediately after the White House was forced to admit that "the Syrian people should
choose their destiny" and "Assad must go" is over and done with, Damascus should launch a counterproductive
gas attack antagonizing the whole NATO universe.
This walks – and talks - more like the tsunami of lies that predated Shock and Awe on Iraq in
2003, and certainly walks and talks like the renewed turbo-charging of an "al-CIAda" campaign. Jabhat
al-Nusra never ceased to be the CIA's babies in the preferred Syrian regime change scenario.
Your kids are not toxic enough
Trump's ambassador to the UN, Heritage Foundation asset Nikki Haley, predictably went ballistic,
monopolizing the whole Western news cycle. Lost in oblivion, also predictably, was Russia's deputy
UN ambassador Vladimir Safronkov shattering to bits the West's "obsession with regime change" in
Syria, which is "what hinders this Security Council."
Whatever Trump and the Pentagon may eventually come up with an independent US intel analyst, averse
to groupthink, is adamant; "Any air attack on Syria would require coordination with Russia, and Russia
will not allow any air attack against Assad to take place. Russia has the defensive missiles there
that can block the attack. This will be negotiated out. There will be no attack as an attack can
precipitate a nuclear war."
The dead "children of Syria" are now pawns in a much larger, perverse game. The US government
may have killed a million men, women and children in Iraq – and there was no serious outcry among
the "elites" across the NATO spectrum. A war criminal still at
large admitted , on the
record, that the snuffing out, directly and indirectly, of 500,000 Iraqi children was "justified."
For his part, Nobel Peace Prize Barack Obama instrumentalized the House of Saud to fund –
and weaponize - some 40 outfits "vetted" by the CIA in Syria. Several of these outfits had in fact
already merged with, or were absorbed by, Jabhat al-Nusra, now Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. And they all
engaged in their own massacres of civilians.
Meanwhile, the
UK keeps merrily weaponizing the House of Saud in its quest to reduce Yemen to a vast famine
wasteland pinpointed by "collateral damage" graveyards. The NATO spectrum is certainly not crying
for those dead Yemeni children. They are not toxic enough.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the official position of Sputnik.
The first question to be asked in such cases is "
Cue bono " "Commonly the phrase
is used to suggest that the person or people
guilty of committing a
crime may be found among those who
have something to gain, chiefly with an eye toward financial gain. The party that benefits may not always
be obvious or may have successfully diverted attention to a
scapegoat , for example."
Notable quotes:
"... According to former Congressman Ron Paul, the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun that killed 30 children and has led to calls for the Trump administration to intervene in Syria could have been a false flag attack. ..."
"... "It's the neo-conservatives who are benefiting tremendously from this because it's derailed the progress that has already been made moving toward a more peaceful settlement in Syria," said Paul. ..."
"... Many have questioned why Assad would be so strategically stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack and incite the wrath of the world given that he is closer than ever to winning the war against ISIS and jihadist rebels. ..."
"... Just five days before the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, "The longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people," implying a definite shift in U.S. foreign policy away from regime change in Syria. ..."
"... Why would Assad put such assurances in jeopardy by launching a horrific chemical attack, allowing establishment news outlets like CNN to once against use children as props to push for yet another massive war in the Middle East? ..."
"... The propaganda is so prevalent, the indoctrinated so blinded, there is no way at this point for the populace to have any idea of "what is truth?". ..."
"... Trump is too sharp not to sense something smells fishy. It's a deliberate ignorance. ..."
"... You mean like lacing ammunition with depleted Uranium, U.S. style? Or showing up, undeclared, and initiating aggressive war in other countries, violating international law, U.S. style? Or gunning down civilians and children rendering aid, U.S. style like that Manning/Collateral Murder video showed, exclaiming, "Well, the kids shouldn't be in a war zone." Everyone within earshot, muttering, "Yep." ..."
"... Let's not forget using DU weapons in populated areas. Also no problem. Babies getting incinerated by thermobarics? No problem either. Illegal use of the double tap, targeting first responders using the specious argument that if you dig the body parts out of a building or attempt to help those unlucky enough to be in the blast radius of one of our thermobarics? Nope, no problem. ..."
"... If it was sarin, these White Helmet fraudsters would be dead: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/jumping-conclusions-something-not-a... ..."
"... Japanese first responders dealing with a real sarin attack in Tokyo. Those handling the victims are wearing positive-pressure hazmat suits. The White Helmets? Sneakers, no gloves and a generic gas mask. http://jto.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/n-sarin-b-2015032... ..."
"... Like the US government has no clue about what is going on here in the US, regarding to politics, IRS Scandals, Clinton scandals, Trump scandals, Obamacare, Obama scandals.... but some how, some way, they always know everything that was happening in Syria and always confirm everything within 24 hours and telling the world what really went on in Syria... ..."
"... So 'follow the money', who wins from this chemical attack - US deep state, neocons, MIC and media lapdogs. ..."
"... Deep state and their legacy media pawns are using Syria to manipulate and get control of Trump. With media all parroting 'Assad did it' Trump has played to their tune and deep state sucks Trump deeper into their swamp. ..."
"... No bomb blast kids. No burned kids. No adults. I guess the kids were in a field of clover, wearing orange vests and pilots were just flying crop dusters, wearing full nerv agent proof suits and sprayed them. ..."
"... Looking deeper, Israel has been pushing this hard. Putin to Netanyahu: Unacceptable to Make 'Groundless Accusations' on Syria Chemical Attack http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.782007 ..."
Ron Paul: "Zero Chance" Assad Behind Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria; Likely A False Flag
According to former Congressman Ron Paul, the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun that
killed 30 children and has led to calls for the Trump administration to intervene in Syria could
have been a false flag attack.
As Paul Joseph Watson details, pointing out that the prospect of peace in Syria was moving closer
before the attack , with ISIS and Al-Qaeda on the run, Paul said the attack made no sense.
"It looks like maybe somebody didn't like that so there had to be an episode," said Paul, asking,
"who benefits?"
" It doesn't make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gases
– I think there's zero chance he would have done this deliberately, " said Paul.
The former Congressman went on to explain how the incident was clearly being exploited by neo-cons
and the deep state to enlist support for war.
"It's the neo-conservatives who are benefiting tremendously from this because it's derailed
the progress that has already been made moving toward a more peaceful settlement in Syria," said
Paul.
Many have questioned why Assad would be so strategically stupid as to order a chemical weapons
attack and incite the wrath of the world given that he is closer than ever to winning the war against
ISIS and jihadist rebels.
Just five days before the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, "The longer-term
status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people," implying a definite shift in U.S.
foreign policy away from regime change in Syria.
Why would Assad put such assurances in jeopardy by launching a horrific chemical attack, allowing
establishment news outlets like CNN to once against use children as props to push for yet another
massive war in the Middle East?
Manthong -> auricle •Apr 6, 2017 11:07 AM
If President Trump does not fire and publicly humiliate any of those who told him that the
Syrians attacked civilians with chemical weapons, he will lose a lot of respect from those of
us who know better.
Mr. Universe -> Manthong •Apr 6, 2017 12:10 PM
Tulsi Gabbard's Twitter is ablaze with "shame on you Tulsi, you know who is responsible as
you met with him a few months ago. "
The propaganda is so prevalent, the indoctrinated so blinded, there is no way at this point
for the populace to have any idea of "what is truth?".
You mean like lacing ammunition with depleted Uranium, U.S. style? Or showing up, undeclared,
and initiating aggressive war in other countries, violating international law, U.S. style? Or
gunning down civilians and children rendering aid, U.S. style like that Manning/Collateral Murder
video showed, exclaiming, "Well, the kids shouldn't be in a war zone." Everyone within earshot,
muttering, "Yep."
So I guess Assad should just utter, "Kids shouldn't have been in a war zone," and the rest
of the world would go, "Oh, yeah, that's how it works because that is what the U.S. explained
to us about those kids riddled with .50 calibers during the slaughter of those Reuters reporters
went. Everything's OK then."
Or they should have had more responsible father's, like the 16 year old Awlaki kid. That works
too, because that's how the U.S. rolls.
Besides, Assad could also just tell us how it's all worth it, kids dying, because that is another
acceptable rationalization per Albright.
In essence, there is a laundry list of 'acceptable' excuses Assad could use, because the U.S.
uses them all the time. Would save him a lot of trouble and this recent fakery wouldn't even have
to be denied.
Let's not forget using DU weapons in populated areas. Also no problem. Babies getting incinerated
by thermobarics? No problem either. Illegal use of the double tap, targeting first responders
using the specious argument that if you dig the body parts out of a building or attempt to help
those unlucky enough to be in the blast radius of one of our thermobarics? Nope, no problem.
lets say we give most of the government their war they seem to want so desperately. How many
babies will we kill when we invade Syria? Children killed by our bombs are just as dead as babies
killed by gas.
You can't stockpile what kind of gas? I haven't heard anything specific regarding even the
cause of death of the victimized stage props used in this Made-For-TV drama.
Army: Disposal Of
Sarin Containers To Begin Next Spring When was that? What did the ASS press say? Sarin is
very soluble in water whereas other nerve agents are more sparingly soluble. VX has the unexpected
property of being soluble in cold water but sparingly soluble in warm water (>9.5 °C). What did
we see this morning? People in warm weather spraying down children without real protection from
Sarin.
Thanks Ron for pointing out the obvious! But you are the only MAN brave enough to say it.
Like the US government has no clue about what is going on here in the US, regarding to
politics, IRS Scandals, Clinton scandals, Trump scandals, Obamacare, Obama scandals.... but some
how, some way, they always know everything that was happening in Syria and always confirm everything
within 24 hours and telling the world what really went on in Syria...
So 'follow the money', who wins from this chemical attack - US deep state, neocons, MIC
and media lapdogs. So CIA set their terrorist buddies to release chems in the vacinity of
a syrian bombing - easy to plan and do and then feed the brain dead media and Trump is ambushed
- textbook CIA
Deep state and their legacy media pawns are using Syria to manipulate and get control of
Trump. With media all parroting 'Assad did it' Trump has played to their tune and deep state sucks
Trump deeper into their swamp.
Gee, the Syrian do one, single nerve agent bomb.....and they just hit kids. How accurate.
My fking ass. No bomb blast kids. No burned kids. No adults. I guess the kids were in a
field of clover, wearing orange vests and pilots were just flying crop dusters, wearing full nerv
agent proof suits and sprayed them. Do the kids look like those Palestinian kids that are
supposedly shot, then get up and run away.
Of course the poor saps that we support would never stage a fake attack. ?
Looking deeper, Israel has been pushing this hard. Putin to Netanyahu: Unacceptable to
Make 'Groundless Accusations' on Syria Chemical Attack
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.782007
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. 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.
[ to Neo who is choosing the red pill ] Remember... all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing
more.
Trump jumped like a trained dog when he answered the reporter's question about Syria yesterday.
Someone like Ron Paul has to help this man and by all means lets keep the laser pointers away
from him!! GEESCH!!
Looks like it took only 100 days for Trump to metamorphose into Hillary Clinton in foreign policy
area.
Ron Paul Institute thinks that ground invasion of Syria is imminent. More dead and more destruction
in already war torn country. Will Damascus be captured without a fight or not ? This is one of
oldest cities in the world.
This rush to military actions reminds me Colin Powell performance in the UN. A million or more
Iraqis are dead now.
Aside from legality (and Trump does not care about legality as long it is not directed against
him) there are some common sense questions to neocons who successfully captured Trump administration
and manipulated Trump into action (on April 5th Bannon was removed from National Security Council):
1. Gassed by whom? Was there any investigation? What type of gas was used ? ""It's hard to know
exactly what's happening in Syria right now. I'd like to know specifically how that release of
chemical gas, if it did occur - and it looks like it did - how that occurred," Representative
Thomas Massie told CNN's Kate Bolduan."
2. Was the gas released by weapons from airplanes (but there is no bomblets on the scene) or
as a result of the attack on chemical munitions factory producing shells with chemical warheads?
3. Is there a possibility that attack was staged specifically to get USA actions ("false flag
operation")
4. Cue Bono ? "Ahrar Al-Sham, Tahrir Al-Sham (#AlQaeda) and #ISIS private Telegram channels
praising #UnitedStates attack tonight..." as Representative Thomas Massie told CNN's Kate Bolduan.
"Because frankly, I don't think Assad would have done that. It does not serve his interests. It
would tend to draw us into that civil war even further."... "I don't think it would've served
Assad's purposes to do a chemical attack on his people It's hard for me to understand why he would
do that - if he did."
Essentially the USA verdict was instant -- Assad needs to go. But no information was shared
with public.
"Trump unleashes military strikes against Assad airbase in Syria"
"PALM BEACH, Fla. - The U.S. military launched cruise missile strikes ordered by President
Donald Trump against a Syrian airbase controlled by President Bashar al-Assad's forces in response
to a deadly chemical attack in a rebel-held area, a U.S. official said on Thursday."
VIX was being crushed and stocks were leaking higher just as planned, until Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson hit the tape beating war drums and announcing a new US policy on Syria, just a week after
he said the US had no interest in removing the Syrian president.
Specifically, Tillerson said that steps are underway to remove Syrian President Bashar al- Assad,
and that the U.S. is considering an "appropriate response" to the Syrian government's alleged use
of chemical weapons.
"The process by which Assad would leave is something that requires an international community
effort both to first defeat ISIS within Syria, to stabilize the Syrian country to avoid further civil
war and then to work collectively with our partners around the world through a political process
that would lead to Assad leaving," Tillerson said at the news conference in Palm Beach, Fla.
Tillerson on Assad: "Clearly with the acts that he has taken it would seem there would be no role
for him to govern the Syrian people." pic.twitter.com/Nr5BcHJmz1
Tillerson also called into question Assad's future in Syria, saying there would be "no role" for
authoritarian ruler in Syria, and said that there is no doubt the Assad regime was reponsible for
the Syria attack.
As a result, Tillerson said that "Assad's role in the future is uncertain clearly, and with the
acts that he has taken it would seem that there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people"
Acknowledging that a conflict with Syria would involve Russia, Tillerson said that " it's very
important that the Russian government consider carefully their continued support of the Assad regime."
All of which was a quick U-turn from last Thursday's comments when Tillerson said that "I think
the longer term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people," a statement which
as we reported
infuriated John McCain .
voted for Trump in no small part for his promised detente while simultaneously voting against
neocon Hitlery criminal muderding sociopathic warmonger and now we're still pushing into WW3.
just another BTFD opportunity off the thermonuclear war (rumor)... .. . ..
You guys have really gone full retard. Step one is to remove ISIS. Step two is to stabilize
Syria. Only after that is finished would they turn to removing Assad, ie years from now when everyone
has forgotten all about this incident and he can just not do it and no-one will care.
Big question here: why does the ZH comment section hate Trump with such a vengence? Many, if
not most here seem to have wanted him to fail from the start, or for him to suddenly turn evil
for some reason, and every time there is a new bit of data to feed that confirmation bias, they
are screaming "I told you so's" from the rooftops, and after the "scandal" dies down, everyone
else still likes Trump and they are back looking for the next sign of the coming of the anti-Christ.
Is it just the doomboner crowd having withdrawals, or what?
Greasy Whore Nimrata Randhawa Threatens Invasion of Syria US Ambassador to the United Nations
Nikki Haley strongly condemned Russia and the Syrian government Wednesday over the chemical weapons
attack on civilians, suggesting that the US is open to using military action to solve the country's
ongoing civil war."
Soros backed Trump son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in real estate venture with $259 MILLION: George
Soros was the man who provided Cadre with a $259 million line of credit. "Soros has had a long
and productive relationship with the Kushner family."
Dr. Duke had British author and activist Mark Collett as his guest for the hour. They talked
about the prominent role being played in the Trump administration by first son-in-law Jared Kushner,
who is being put "in charge" of everything from reinventing the government to bringing peace to
the Middle East. Dr. Duke points out that Kushner, who is an orthodox Jew, has a close association
with the Chabad Lubavich movement, which embraces a theology that elevates Jews to divine status
while denigrating the goyim as beasts.
Kushner's family has given large sums of money to Chabad Lubavich, and has been very active
in its events. They also discussed the bombing incident in St. Petersburg, which is more evidence
of the cultural enrichment white countries are benefiting from, among other benefits of vibrant
multiculturalism.
AUDIO April
3, 2017
Photo: Kushner- Zarchi
But if we consider such things from the standpoint of the race, not from the standpoint of
the individual Jew who battens on us, is it not likely that the material profit counts for much
less than the spiritual satisfaction? And if we consider some of the Jews' work, I cannot see
how it could conceivably yield a net profit. What monetary gain can they have obtained, or intended
to obtain, by spending vast sums to incite the (blacks) to rape, murder, and arson? What profit
from destroying civilization in Rhodesia and making that land again a land of savages? What can
the Jews in South Africa gain in material terms from their present intensive effort to destroy
the white population and make of that country another Rhodesia? Is it not obvious that they could
squeeze much more money out of the White population by peaceful parasitism and without inciting
the racial hatreds that disrupt the economy and could conceivably bring retribution upon themselves?
The only explanation, it seems to me, is that with their race as a whole spiritual considerations
are paramount, paramount over profit and even over self-preservation. One can foresee the logical
end in a future that may not be too distant: one can see the last Jews dying with exultation on
the surface of a planet from which they have exterminated all other human beings, all animals,
all vegetation, all life -- a planet of which they have made "a desolation of desolations."
THE YELLOW PERIL (1983) Revilo P. Oliver, late Professor of the Classics, University of Illinois
at Urbana
It is absolutely time for a regime change in DC. I was watching a video on this and the announcer
had the best summary of this:
"Summing up the events in few sentences, the whole story pushed to the public looks this way:
The bloody Assad regime took back Aleppo city and wide areas in its countryside, the Western Ghouta
region, the Wadi Barada region, once again recaptured Palmyra from ISIS, and repelled a powerful
rebel advance in northern Hama. The US even declared that the toppling of Assad was no longer
the main priority in Syria.
Then, the military leadership of the regime decided that was not enough and ordered a Su-22 warplane
to use chemical weapons against people in Khan Sheikhoun. Some kind of small Soviet unguided rockets
hit a road in the village and inflicted mass poisoning of civilians in the nearby areas. Fortunately,
members of the Syrian Civil Defense and local journalists nearby were equipped with dust respirators.
They filmed the incident and saved some people."---Harold Hoover
Trump never had a grip. He has been a tool of the deep state from the beginning. His purpose
is to act as a lightning rod and distract attention from the real owners of this country while
they continue to rape and pillage in the back ground. He also gave the red team faith that the
system still works so they can continue the charade a little while longer.
Remember, this could be a negotiation tactic. We have not done anything to remove Assad...yet.
I agree with Ron Paul. It makes no sense for Assad to use chemical weapons.
Same with NK. We have not done ANYTHING but threaten a military option.
We could pull bring the troops home from S.Korea too. We're not wanted their by half the population.
Understandably so, we've been there for 70 fucking years. How much did that shit cost us?
Before everyone plays armchair general, let's see what ACTUALLY happens.
Nothing has changed even with the election of Trump. Tillerson's aim is to ensure control of
oil/gas resources and pipeline routes in the middle east. As a CEO of Exxon what does anyone expect.
As soon as he was elected, Trump opened the WH doors to let in the slime of the swamp and he
is now drowning in their crarp.
WASHINGTON –President Trump has ordered cruise missile strikes against a Syrian regime military
airbase, a defense official said late Thursday.
A U.S. official said "more than 50" Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched at the airbase, located
in Western Syria. That base, called Shayrat, was where the U.S. believes the Assad regime carried
out a chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians this week that killed at least 70 people.
The strikes were carried out from two U.S. destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea, the official said.
The attack occurred between 8 and 9 p.m. ET, according to CNN.
Trump had hinted on Wednesday that he would take action against the chemical weapons attack during
a Rose Garden briefing with the King of Jordan.
The U.S. military has not yet completed a battle damage assessment, the official said.
He said the attack had crossed "many, many lines, beyond a red line - many, many lines."
"That attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. Big impact," Trump had said. "That
was a horrible, horrible thing, and I've been watching it and seeing it, and it doesn't get any worse
than that."
It was reported earlier in the day that Trump was considering military options against the Syrian
regime.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called on the president to come to Congress to obtain congressional authorization
for military action in Syria.
"While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the US was not attacked," he said in a statement.
"The President needs congressional authorization for military action and I call on him to come
to Congress for a proper debate on our role. Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing
to make us safer and Syria will be no different. – Senator Rand Paul
Meanwhile, Republican defense hawks praised the airstrikes.
"Unlike the previous administration, President Trump confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and
took action," said Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
"I think it was an important step," Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said on CNN. "This was not some symbolic
measure."
In a statement, President Trump explained the urgency behind the strikes:
My fellow Americans, on Tuesday, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical
weapons attack on innocent civilians. Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of
helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many, even beautiful babies
were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.
Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where a chemical
attack was launched. It is in the vital, national security interest of the United States to prevent
and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. There can be no dispute that Syria used
banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the chemical weapons convention and ignored
the urging of the U.N. Security Council.
Years of previous attempts at changing Assad's behavior have all failed, and failed very dramatically.
As a result, the refugee crisis continues to deepen and the region continues to destabilize, threatening
the United States and its allies. Tonight I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking
to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types.
We ask for God's wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world. We pray for the
lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed and we hope that as long as America
stands for justice, that peace and harmony will, in the end, prevail. Good night and God bless
America and the entire world. Thank you.
"... Trump is no longer the dove it seems. But he is an incompetent hawk. ..."
"... Incompetent hawks are awful. We can at least take some comfort that Schumer and Pelosi called out Trump for acting recklessly... Oh, wait, that was in an alternate reality where they did that. @#$%. If it weren't for incompetence and belligerence we would have any foreign policy at all. ..."
"... "an uneasy alliance of foreign-funded jihadists, Western intelligence, and NGOs like Doctors Without Borders" is a fact in Syria too. ..."
"... Another good read is Sy Hersh story of the previous "false flag" sarin poisoning operation during Obama term: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS5DOg-_XXE ..."
"... I like how MSM honchos picked up sarin story this time. As if somebody kicked them in the butt. ..."
"... BTW both Turkey and KSA had bet all cards on Syrian insurgency. In the past Turkey's intelligence service MIT was supporting not only the Free Syrian Army but also Al-Nusra, which produced sarin from components bought in Turkey. ..."
Missile strike demonstrates
American leadership. Always
bipartisan support for that.
Death chemical warfare agents
unacceptable so must do
something. Didn't I read a
Syrian quoted the other day "I
buried my family today. If they
had been killed by barrel bombs
I could have given Assad a pass
but death by chemical weapons
is unacceptable."? Did I not
read that? That aside, clearly
there are acceptable and
unacceptable ways to kill
civilians. Assad crossed that
line and we had to do
something.
PS Real men don't consult
Congress before ordering
missile strikes on sovereign
nations. It'd be un-American to
question the wisdom of bombing
a butcher like Assad. What
downside could there be?
Trump is no longer the dove
it seems. But he is an
incompetent hawk.
He told
Russia ahead of time. And of
course Russia tipped off Syria.
Which is why most of their
planes got away.
Incompetent hawks are
awful. We can at least take
some comfort that Schumer and
Pelosi called out Trump for
acting recklessly... Oh, wait,
that was in an alternate
reality where they did that.
@#$%. If it weren't for
incompetence and belligerence
we would have any foreign
policy at all.
Consider political interests
and potential outcomes before
deciding whether or not to
engage. Choosing to act based
on emotional reactions does not
set the stage for good
outcomes.
I like how MSM honchos
picked up sarin story this
time. As if somebody kicked
them in the butt.
BTW both Turkey and KSA
had bet all cards on Syrian
insurgency. In the past
Turkey's intelligence service
MIT was supporting not only the
Free Syrian Army but also Al-Nusra,
which produced sarin from
components bought in Turkey.
"... So finally Trump got slapped in the face and started to regurgitate psychotic delusions of his MIC and Wall Street masters.Now he is ready for war with Russia while his face stil sours. ..."
"... Here I found a prophetic post about Trump from just a week before his election 2016. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/us-elections-a-farcical-spectacle-of-blood-and-imperial-hubris/ ..."
"... Standard operating procedure of right-wing politicians: When you don't get anything accomplished domestically, distract with some foreign policy 'adventure'/ escalation and watch them rally around the flag. Trump's yielding to Neocon interventionist demands was just a matter of time, as it was obvious that he wouldn't be able to 'deliver' on economic issues etc. ..."
Pic: April 5 2017 - U.S. Ambassador to the UN
Nikki Haley
during an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council
Nikki
Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, on Wednesday strongly
condemned the Syrian government in the wake of an alleged chemical weapons attack
perpetrated on its own civilians this week. "When the UN consistently fails in its
duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states that we are compelled
to take our own action," Haley said. She added that if the UN doesn't take collective
action, "we may."
Hacked emails from a British
mercenary company were posted online, leading to claims Washington was backing a
dirty war against Syria in which a chemical attack on Syria could be blamed on the
Syrian regime, thereby strengthening the case for immediate intervention on the part
of the United States military.
One of the hacked emails that has resulted in the most embarrassment for the U.S.
government concerned Syria. The email reads as follows:
Phil, we've got a new offer. It's about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive
deal and swear that the idea is approved in Washington. We'll have to deliver a CW
to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell [sic] from Libya similar to those that Assad
should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak
Russian and make a video record. Frankly, I don't think it is a good idea but the
sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?
So finally Trump got slapped in the face and started to regurgitate psychotic
delusions of his MIC and Wall Street masters.Now he is ready for war with Russia
while his face stil sours.
If dead children are paraded in front of
cameras, it does not show a chemical weapons attack. It is proof of murder, someone
massacred these children and their families.
To
claim a gas attack
, you have to show photos and videos of the attack site; dead
families in or outside their homes. Dead animals. Rescue workers breaking into houses
and discovering the bodies.
The Western press is buying the hoax narrative. I have heard hysterical screaming
on the radio all day. No one ever asked or answered the essential questions: When and
where did the attack happen? How was the chemical delivered? What neighborhoods were
affected? Where was the wind blowing from? How were the victims taken to the place
where they were first filmed? Who did the rescue work? Where where the White Helmets
and their camera crews when this happened?
The
White Helmets
did not exist in 2013. Today they are an Oscar-winning film crew,
with GoPro action cams attached to their signature helmets. They film each and every
real and fake rescue operation they take part in. So why no video of the Khan
Sheikhoun rescue and recovery work?
This is just another staged hoax, like the
Ghouta chemical massacre
of August 2013. Hostages were kept in cellars and then
gassed with chlorine when the time came to make propaganda videos and call for a
No-Fly Zone.
The Stephen Miller Band | Apr 5, 2017 2:45:01 PM |
13
Actually, if Trump really does sneak attack Damascus and take on Putin if he tries to
intervene it would prove his Russian connections are meaningless and he's not a
quisling afterall, therefore, the news spectacle surrounding this issue and the
investigation by the Senate can be dropped even though there will be no one left to
set the record straight except a few cockroaches and last time I checked they don't
have opposable thumbs so therefore they aren't up to the task if they were so
inclined.
Over the last days I recall reading the UN-OPCW had taken ALL Syria's chemical weapon
on ship out to sea for destruction. Was I dreaming?
Here is a report for you
4 September 2014
Ninety-six percent of Syria's declared chemical weapons destroyed – UN-OPCW
mission chief
UN Link
The Special Coordinator for the Joint Mission of the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations (OPCW-UN) told the Security
Council today that 96 percent of Syria's declared stockpile, including the most
dangerous chemicals, had been destroyed and preparation were underway to destroy
the remaining 12 production facilities.
"This is a chemical weapons disarmament process, it's been unique," said Sigrid
Kaag after her final briefing to the Security Council in her capacity as the head
of the joint mission dealing with Syria's chemical weapons, which is winding up
its work at the end of September.
"At the same time, we reiterate our strong hope that if this is achieved, that
conditions for peace and security and the political process will be centre stage
for the benefit of the people of Syria and that of the region, particularly in
these days of profound crisis."
Ms. Kaag told a press conference at UN Headquarters following her closed-door
briefing to the Council that the mission had overseen that destruction of 100
percent of "priority chemicals" and 96 percent of Syria's chemical weapons
stockpile, but the good offices of the UN Secretary-General on this issue,
discussions on monitoring verification, and accurate reporting to the Council will
be continued [.]
See..I did not dream that ship, it's real AND it was a U.S. vessel
"UN chief welcomes destruction of Syrian chemical weapons aboard U.S. vessel"
UN Link
The Secretary-General welcomes the destruction of the declared chemical weapons
material on board the United States Maritime Vessel Cape Ray. This marks a
significant achievement in the international community's efforts to eliminate the
chemical weapons programme of the Syrian Arab Republic following the framework
agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States of America.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The USUKEU should stop throwing sh**T. Propaganda Fatigue has taken root. There is
the Net for instant recall. As b observed, if it was sarin, how is it those timely
"rescuers" were not affected?
Every time Assad is winning, we have a chemical attack or humanitarian trajedy. Oh
sure, I believe it. The propaganda and false flags will continue until the SAA
finally wins. Putin best have his EW and S-400s ready and both Russia and Iran need
to send more troops to help Assad win already.
The Syrian opposition has stated their motive for the attack. Suspicions of who's
responsible lies strongly with the opposition.
A suspected Syrian government
chemical attack in Syria was a "direct consequence" of recent U.S. statements that it
was not now focused on making Syrian President Bashar al-Assad leave power, a Syrian
opposition member said on Tuesday.
"The first reaction from Syrians is that this is a direct consequence of American
statements about Assad not being a priority and giving him time and allowing him to
stay in power," Basma Kodmani told Reuters in Washington.
Just checked comments & likes in a major conservative European newspaper: Roughly 5%
seem to believe that Assad is to blame.
Nikki Haley is as Neocon as Samantha Power,
now who would've guessed. As I've been saying for a year: Even if Trump has a
different foreign policy agenda (which I doubt), he's far too weak to stand up to
them. In times of crisis, a country needs a strong president, not a narcissist
showmaster.
"Jesus, these people are insane, why on earth do Trump that have
spoken out against useless war put this stupid woman in the UN?"
Well , I think this is Tronalds way out of the pressure he's under. Start a war, then
they will unite behind their Führer.
I fear you may be right. Neo-cons on a roll again. This chemical farce
is clearly designed to put pressure on Trump to see which way he turns. Looks like he
may move away from his 'America First' isolationist rhetoric in a desperate bid to
say something meaningful. Loads of Neo-cons on his back to push for more mayhem in
the Middle East. Things aren't the way they were in 2003 tho', so probably won't go
for the invasion. Cantonisation of Syria is probably what the neo-cons are after.
Shit crazy.
If Trump is going all teary eyed over this unclear, suspect, plausibly 'WMD' false
flag, he is a child, an ignoramus, or too near the raw onions; or he is being fed
hogwash. If he is posturing 'tactically' to justify making more war, he is a fiend
and war criminal. One might hope that this was merely a random neural-tweet-impulse
by force of habit, signifying nothing much.
"Well , I think this is Tronalds way out of the pressure he's under. Start a war,
then they will unite behind their Führer." 23
Yep. that's what it feels like to me.
The abject snivel of his response serves that purpose absolutely. God. How STUPID
people can be! Kidnap then murder then staging with the dead..fcking white helmets
necrophilia ..
ere's an alarming "hey, batter, batter" heckling "what'za matta, you chicken??"
quality to the media war drums. I can't tell if people actually want Trump to "do
something" (as they are demanding) or hoping that he punts or walks, this time at
bat. It's (presidenting) "harder than it looks" has been a popular refrain for weeks
and the still insulted Obama crowd seems more interested in seeing Trump shamed, than
that anything be "done" about Assad or Syria ... coming within two weeks of our 200
dead in Mosul, Trump's self-proclaimed change of heart wrt Assad (of course
undefined) seems right out of PT Barnum ... The timing really couldn't be better for
something showy, given China's Xi Jinping's imminent arrival at Mar-A-Lago ... want's
to top the theatrical show they he put-on Abe of Japan (on the event ot a Korean
missle launch) ... I am and have been nauseated with anxiety
These photos and videos that we saw of Khan Sheikhoun, some of them showed a site
with white rock in the background and sleazy white mud on the ground (like here:
https://youtu.be/fGPa0k3J4vI).
Some have described it as a rebel dugout.
Maybe it was hit by the Syrian Airforce, though almost certainly not with any
chemical ammunitions. I think that the hit on said site could be in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYOMEDK_uVs
- third impact on the right, where
much brighter dust is rising, but much slower than from the other impact sites, plus
the height and shape of the cloud is very different.
I'm saying "maybe" it was hit by the Syrian Airforce because to me, it seems equally
likely that something was set off on the ground there - by rebels, in that case. It
would explain the strikingly different appearance of this one cloud that I mentioned
(and there
has
to be an explanation for it).
This whitish rock background that I mentioned in the beginning looks very much like
limestone or chalk to my eyes. Maybe it's a limestone quarry turned rebel hideout.
Anyway, for any makeshift Sarin production or storage facility a limestone/chalk
surrounding would be the perfect setting. Short of a state-of-the-art chemical plant,
you couldn't make up any better location, and there's two reasons for that.
One concerns possible manufacturing of Sarin. Whatever process you use, there will be
leftover acids in your end product. You have to get rid of those in order for your
product to have an acceptable shelf life. Even the most masterfully created Sarin
will be usable for only about 5 years. This time is strongly reduced if you don't
purify it by eliminating the excess acids in the product. This can only be done with
a nice base or alkaline substance, and limestone/chalk is the perfect raw material to
create such an alkaline (namely lye or brine or whatever you want to call it), large
scale.
The other reason a limestone surrounding such as seen in Khan Sheikhoun is a perfect
match for Sarin has to do with safeguarding against the obvious hazards of dealing
with Sarin – accidental spilling and poisoning. For decontamination and neutralizing
purposes any strong and simple alkaline is, again, the go-to substance. While Sarin
victims need to have atropine injected asap to even have the slightest chance for
survival, their clothes and the body have to be thoroughly rinsed with an alkaline
solution, too.
And even if you don't use the limestone for anything at all, just moving in a "limy"
environment when having to deal with Sarin release will help, and would have helped
the White Helmets in this case. This might help to explain why so many of them were
able to "do their thing" there and then without wearing any protective gear. As it
happens, limestone/chalk will also help with destroying any Sarin-related evidence.
We could also see some kind of tanker truck in the pictures. People were sprayed with
liquid coming from this truck. It's not just water that comes to mind here, it could
also have been ready-made lye solution in that tank.
But whatever had been going on in this place prior to the incident, I'm also
wondering what all those children and young people were doing there. Why would they
gather (or be gathered)
right there
, of all places? I know this will sound
gross, but some of the bodies I saw didn't look so "recently deceased" either.
This whole thing, it's just All the BS we're getting from western politicians and
the MSM right now - nothing adds up, nothing makes sense here, and yet it's cheered
as a pretext for more war?
"It's very, very possible, and I will tell you it has already happened, that my
attitude toward Syria and Assad, has changed very much," Mr. Trump said
"If Trump is going all teary eyed over this unclear, suspect, plausibly 'WMD' false
flag, he is a child, an ignoramus, or too near the raw onions; or he is being fed
hogwash. If he is posturing 'tactically' to justify making more war, he is a fiend
and war criminal. One might hope that this was merely a random neural-tweet-impulse
by force of habit, signifying nothing much."
Posted by: canuck | Apr 5, 2017
4:54:07 PM | 29
While I agree with your sentiment, war crimes are not defined by the perpetrators'
states of minds. Threatening the UNSC to go with the US 'or else' is a war crime
already, full stop. I'm sure many thought launching a war of aggression on Iraq and
Afghanistan was the 'right' or 'moral' position at the time (however deluded that may
be), but they are still war criminals.
I think many of us need to separate any actions in question from intent and
reasons when it comes to war crimes. It's like the US saying "well we bombed a
hospital by accident sorry but we thought we were striking a weapons cache. Terrible
tragedy and it won't happen again" - even if every they said was true it doesn't make
it any less of a war crime. Maybe easier for us as individuals to sympathise with but
that should be another question as a whole.
I think people would be well served to read a little about the subject (not
directing this at you cancuck so don't get me wrong). There's a lot of misconceptions
I see held by many, including here and other similar forums.
Regardless of all that, to threaten the security council to do what they want -
coming only hours after initial reports and with no confirmation for much of the
official western state sanctioned story - it doesn't look good. I follow developments
in Syria awful closely and I really am blown away and would never have expected such
a development. Really came out of no where. I had few if any hopes for change from
Trump re foreign policy but goddamn I def didn't expect this. I really hope its just
further bluster and big talk, but i doubt it would do that job effectively. Just
seems counterproductive towards western goals (unless goal is overt aggression and
occupation). Crazy day.
I implore everyone here to keep Syria and its people in your thoughts and/or
prayers these coming days. I suppose that goes for basically the entire MENA region
the way it'd go up like tinder if another US occupation force entered.
I may be biased, but Powell's performance at UN is a tough act to follow. Steady
delivery, deep baritone, and the gaze so straight that it could drill brain of any
doubter. That said, Tony Blair was a clear champion in the tenor class. While Powell
was all experience of a principled elder, Blair was in his own words "passionate",
like a 9 year old boy describing how he was personally instructed by Our Lady of
Fatima (together with two pre-teen girls, now we have 100-th anniversary*). Which
gives pointers to soprano section.
Condoleeza Rice was a total miscast in that
role. Shifty eyes, unsteady diction, twitching head. Perhaps I will check a video of
Nikki Halley.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me go to a clip from the 2013 BBC documentary Saving Syria's
Children, where the filmmakers traveled with you, Dr. Rola Hallam, inside Syria to
reveal how children are impacted by the war. This is Dr. Hallam describing the
aftermath of an airstrike at a school playground, as patients pour into a hospital
in Aleppo.
The US doesnt want a military conflict with Russia over the Syria Crisis. Trumps
stance has changed towards Assad. Therefore expect a US response to events (as aluded
to at the UNSC). The only way to achieve all three of the above is a precision strike
against Assad personally.
SYRIAN AVIATION AIRSTRIKE IN IDLIB TARGETED CHEMICAL ARMS LAB - RUSSIAN DEFENSE
MINISTRY -
"MOSCOW, April 5. /TASS/. A Syrian aviation airstrike on the eastern outskirts of
Khan Sheikhun on Tuesday targeted workshops to produce chemical-laden projectiles, a
spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry said Wednesday.
"According to Russian airspace monitoring systems, yesterday between 11.30 and
12.30 local time the Syrian aviation carried out an airstrike on the eastern
outskirts of Khan Sheikhun, targeting a major ammunition storage facility of
terrorists and a cluster of military hardware. The territory of this storage facility
housed workshops to produce projectiles stuffed with toxic agents," Maj. Gen. Igor
Konashenkov said.
"From this major arsenal, chemical-laden weapons were delivered by militants to
Iraq. Their use by terrorists was confirmed on numerous occasions by international
organizations and official authorities of the country," he said.
The spokesman added that these projectiles were similar to those used by militants
in Syria's Aleppo, where their use was recorded by Russian military specialists.
Of course Trump knows this. No question. If he takes any kind of military action
whatsoever in Syria against sovereign troops, over a really lame propaganda campaign
all of us can see through, well, that's about as dumb as it gets. If I know this, a
lowly news aggregator blogger, you can damn well be sure Trump knows this.
Anyone and everyone who can read or talk or see knows for a fact that the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA'S military has not been invited into Syria by Syria nor has the
U.S. Congress passed a WAR RESOLUTION. Thus, if the U.S. Military takes aim at Syria
and her government it will be under the extremely nimble CIA article whatever for
covert action. And no lawyer worth chit can, not even Gonzalez, twist the law into
the pretzel necessary to take 'legal' covert military action.
If I'm wrong please feel free to inform me with the facts. I'm happy to be
wrong...
And I will tell you, it's already happened that my attitude toward Syria and
Assad has changed very much.
[notice he says:
it already happened
therefore the plan for Syria was already in the works and the chemical attack was
like 9/11 for justifying the plan]
Syrian chemical attack crossed a lot of
lines for me...beyond a red line.
I now have responsibility.
[translation: I now have the excuse, cover to expand this war]
That
responsibility could be made a lot easier if it was handled years ago.
[don't
blame me for what I'm about to unleash; blame the other guy who hesitated to put
boots on the ground and kicked the can to me.]
I'm not saying I'm doing anything one way or another, but I'm certainly not
going to be telling you.
[sneaky, opaque agenda]
Trump Neocon-speak in italics.
Sigh...if only Obama had put boots on the ground and expanded this war, then Trump
man-god wouldn't have to burst the bubble of his adoring followers here and we could
all keep on pretending we don't see the Emperor's naked ass and keep blaming Obama
for all Trump's screw-ups. Trump and Mattis met with the Saudi Defense Minister and
blacked-out the press on that meeting, but we're supposed to believe that a plan
wasn't in the works and that Trump is moved solely to defend the innocent in Syria,
while he helps the Saudis slaughter children on the brink of starvation in Yemen.
In the Various Issues thread, 'maningi' at #101 points out that young children don't
usually stray far from their mothers. This makes images depicting lots of dead young
children, but no dead mothers, smell a bit fishy.
Translation: both healthcare and tax reform are now indefinitely dead, which means
that a suddenly pivoting Trump, who earlier today said he had "changed his mind" on
Syria, may have no choice but to begin war with Assad to distract from everything
else that is going on in the US.
Cream rises till its sours. Trump looks really out of his league atm.
The only woman I've seen in any of the MSM's 'news' was alive and purported to be
recovering in a hospital in Turkey which, imo, could be any hospital, anywhere, on
the planet.
Tillerson to meet Lavrov in Moscow next week
By MADELINE CONWAY 04/05/17 11:09 AM EDT
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will
travel to Moscow next Wednesday for a meeting with Russian officials, including the
Kremlin's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov.
Tillerson plans to discuss issues including Ukraine, North Korea, Syria, and
counterterrorism with the officials while in Moscow, according to the State
Department.
The "trip is part of our effort to maintain direct lines of communication with
senior Russian officials and to ensure U.S. views are clearly conveyed, including on
next steps in Minsk implementation," the department said in a statement.
Matthew Rycroft
, the barking UK UN representative, once worked with NATO and also
Tony Blair. He was the author of the infamous secret memo about the lead up to the
Iraq war in which he said words to the effect that 'facts' and 'intelligence' were
being fixed to comply with policy. Nothing has changed. 'Facts' and 'intelligence'
are still being fixed to policy.
Nice to see you Taxi. This mass hysteria from Western Politicians and MSM against
Assad 'Sentance first, verdict afterwards' should only serve to instruct Putin and
Assad that regime change [by any means necessary] are the ultimate goals of the West,
and formulate their policies accordingly. Many in the West like neo con John McCain
think US aggression against Assad will not receive push back from Russia. Now might
be the right time for Putin to quietly disabuse the US of that notion.
Standard operating procedure of right-wing politicians: When you
don't get anything accomplished domestically, distract with some foreign policy
'adventure'/ escalation and watch them rally around the flag. Trump's yielding to
Neocon interventionist demands was just a matter of time, as it was obvious that he
wouldn't be able to 'deliver' on economic issues etc.
There won't be a 'full-scale' invasion like 2003, but an increased use of SF
embedded with the regional (or foreign jihadi) allies. To make sure the war goes on
for as long as possible, hopefully get Russia and Iran drawn deeper into that
quagmire, or at least prevent them from securing their positions.
There's no international support whatsoever (apart from the GCC), but Trump is not
the one who'd care. So it seems the only thing that could stop this would be the US
running out of money...
Turkey sent a report to the United Nations just before a U.N. Security Council
meeting to address accusations that the Syrian government staged a chemical weapons
attack on April 4, stating that the gas used in the attack was chlorine gas.
The significant fact is that they say chlorine gas, not sarin. Chlorine gas
is dual use, easy to obtain and manufacture, and the "rebels" are known for using it.
It was not on the list of chemical weapons Syria was supposed to destroy.
The Russian version of hitting a warehouse where chlorine gas was stored is very
likely depending on how the wind blows. There are
accidents with chlorine gas
all over the world.
It is industrally used and produced - as simple as that.
Actually first reporting in German media was chlorine gas, I was surprised to hear
it was switched to sarin.
Turkish medics seem to have diagnozed "gas poisoning" - they keep it as unspecific
as that.
It is absorbed through skin, one drop is enough to kill.
If that was indeed sarin attack, there would be scores of dead people, dogs, cats,
rats, sheep, cows, chicken and white helmets littered all around in all kinds of
contorted positions.
Oxygen masks on vicims are pointless. The affected are in neural shock, muscles
twitching and spasming over all body. There is no coughing, because coughing
reflex is disrupted.
Only treatment is atropine injection straight to the muscle. You need gas mask and
full hazmat overall and gloves to enter the contaminated zone. Surgical mask over
face will help you nil.
You're spot-on.
Skin, any mucous membrane, Sarin will enter the body even through the eyeballs.
And even if you had full protective gear, you'd have to thoroughly decontaminate
that
before you could even think about taking it off again.
To think that hordes of college-educated, well paid, experienced people in
politics, in the media everywhere should be impressed by such a cheap stunt by the
White Helmet freaks, who are effectively using corpses for props - it just makes me
scream inside.
One might wonder what Trump actually understood when he declared ISIS the great
enemy:
Was he aware that ISIS was a PTB creature, and that his beloved Israel's IDF have
been low profile participants in ISIS?
For example: www.globalresearch.ca/israel-supports-isis/5492807
"Dec. 2, 2015 – Israel Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon admitted Israel support for
ISIS"
A number of victims of the April 4 attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun were
brought to the hospital, located about 60 miles to the north, near the Turkish
border. Eight people who were examined by MSF staff displayed symptoms consistent
with exposure to an agent such as sarin gas or similar compounds, including
constricted pupils, muscle spasms and involuntary defecation.
The MSF team provided drugs and antidotes to treat patients, and distributed
protective clothing to medical staff in the hospital's emergency room.
MSF medical teams also visited other hospitals treating victims of the attack,
and reported that they smelled of bleach, indicative of possible exposure to
chlorine.
These reports strongly suggest that victims of the attack on Khan Sheikhoun
were exposed to at least two different chemical agents.
Nikki Haley barks very loudly and may be getting on Trump's nerves. He must regret
not having chosen Bolton at the UN. At least he was predictable and would have
submitted to Trump's authority.
Nikki is a wild goose.
Posted by: virgile | Apr 5, 2017 2:57:47 PM | 16
Nikki is the front for The Heritage Foundation. Trump seems to have outsourced US
foreign policy (along with most of domestic policy) the Heritage.
There was an interesting post on Zero Hedge:
""A day prior to the attack, Gulf-based Orient TV announced "Tomorrow we are
launching a media campaign to cover the airstrikes on Hama country side including the
usage of chemical warfare against civilians." This shows clear foreknowledge that the
rebels were going to stage an attack by Orient TV."
As Taxi 105 noted, If Trump attacks Syria he will lose the Independents and Dems that
rejected HC et al and voted for him. But more than losing them he may turn them
against him and they may well support the current Dem's Impeach Him effort. People
are tired of being lied to, they will not take much more IMO, from either side.
I agree with you. Trump always say that he will not reveal what he intends to do
and when.
In this case he will watch the current. There already voices in the congress
doubting that the Syrian president actually ordered a chemical attack that goes
against his interests. Why would the Syrian army be interested to randomly kill
dozens of civilians when it has to fight ten of thousands of well armed Islamist
terrorists.
Trump will come to his senses and do nothing. The neocons will certainly come up
with something else because they only want an Israel-friendly Sunni leader in Syria,
not an Iran-friendly leader.
Trump has a VERY tough fight against the Dems and the Neocons. It will be bloody
and the USA will weaken even further in the next 4 years.
Nunes taking himself off the investigation (presumably under White House orders) is
another sign that the Trump administration is surrendering to the Russophobes.
By
the sTrumpet's own criteria, every nation on the planet has 100% justification to
attack his Outlaw US Empire anywhere and everywhere until it's completely devastated.
Erdogan stating in an interview this evening that Trump should put his words into
action and that Turkey is willing to do anything it takes to support the US
militarily in Syria AND Iraq!! "Let's pull together all the strength of the coalition
with the US at its head..."
Erdogan also stated that he had spoken to Putin, but
that Putin was still questioning whether Assad had done it or not ...
This looks very much like Turkey seeing how far it can push Trump.
Southfront has posted an article first published by
Veterans Today
(yes, I
know about its unreliable nature) that is essentially an attempt to provide wider
distribution of a very damning report about the White Helmet terrorists by the
Swedish Doctors for Human Rights organization: "The doctors found that the videos
were counterfeit, where even Arabic stage directions were overheard, and that the
alleged "Rescue" in actuality is a murder."
https://southfront.org/swedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos/
Just caught Deutche Welle news on PBS World channel. They interviewed Abdullah with
White Helmets. The announcer said the Syrian government claimed it had hit a base
with illegal weapons. Then he asked Abdullah about this. HA HA HA!. Right! As if the
ones reporting the incident would ever reverse themselves. So Mr. White Helmet
reiterated the earlier strikes and govt denial and then said who would have such
weapons. Geeeeee, maybe those opposed to Assad who have a lot of outside help?
The United States tried to launch a war of
aggression against Syria in August 2013, following the #ChemicalHoax massacre in
Ghouta. It was prevented from doing so by the Russian Navy, which had taken control
of the Eastern Mediterranean.
The plan in 2013 was to coordinate the missile strike with al-Qaeda forces, so
that Islamist would quickly overrun the government bases and capture Damascus. I
believed at the time that Russia would respond to the attack, the secret orders to
the fleet were to sink any U.S. ship launching an illegal attack.
Will Russia respond this time? (Or has it already retaliated?) I do not think so.
The difference is that the Syrian government is no longer in a mortal danger. The
missiles are mainly symbolic. There is no al-Nusra army waiting for the signal to
launch their coordinated attack.
The United States launched a military strike on Syrian government targets in
retaliation for their chemical weapon attack on civilians earlier in the week, CNN
is told.
On President Donald Trump's orders, US warships launched 50 Tomahawk cruise
missiles.
The strikes are the first direct military action the US has taken against the
leadership of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the country's six-year civil war
and represent a substantial escalation of the US' military campaign in the region,
which could be interpreted by the Syrian government as an act of war. The US began
launching airstrikes in Syria in September 2014 under President Barack Obama as
part of its coalition campaign against ISIS, but has only targeted the terrorist
group and not Syrian government forces.
This cruise missile attack isn't totally pointless. It makes Trump look tough and
shuts the war party up temporarily. Syria loses a few planes and runways.
The
question is will Assad retaliate? If he lets it pass it's just a question of time
until the next 'gas attack'.
It is interesting that Trump et. al. executed an attack on Syria within hours of the
Xi/Trump meeting.
If we don't go the nuclear extinction route out of this I suspect
the China and Russia can take the US to the UN and see what happens. If nothing else
it may build a coalition to stop funding further war crimes by buying more US
Treasuries.
That is the high road that I think that China/Russia and ??? will take.
Sigh! May you live in interesting times. Call it a curse or a blessing, either
way, live this interesting time honorably.
"... I find revealing is that the United States Ambassador to the UN should decide in effect to dictate to the UN. Diplomacy and belligerency differ, Ambassador Haley does not appear to care. ..."
What the outcome may be I have no idea, but what I find revealing is that the United States
Ambassador to the UN should decide in effect to dictate to the UN. Diplomacy and belligerency
differ, Ambassador Haley does not appear to care.
"... The Israeli Minister of Internal Affairs, Aryeh Deri, also responded to the rumours of the jihadists and the associated images, by saying "Israel, the only superpower and democracy in the region, must lead the world to put an end to the horrible massacres in Syria. " ..."
This
post was originally published on this site
April 4th, 2017 – Fort Russ News – – Breakingnews.sy – – translated by Samer Hussein –
According to the unverified rumours, spreading in the corporate press, a a poisonous gas attack
was carried out in the Syrian village of Khan Sheikhoun, located in Idleb province. Dozens of civilians
are said to be killed, with Syrian and Russian air force units being named as the main suspects,
despite no evidence. The affected area is otherwise under complete control of the terrorist groups
whose positions are occasionally being targeted by the Russian and Syrian Air Force.
The news of the incident were allegedly forwarded by the controversial White Helmets and the Syrian
Observatory for Human Right.
Both NGOs are notorious for their association with the terrorist groups. Meanwhile, the unconfirmed
reports have already triggered international response. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
commented on the news, peddled by representatives of the jihadist groups on Twitter, by saying "the
shocking images that are being shared on social networks must shake the conscience of every human
being", adding that "Israel strongly condemns the use of chemical weapons, especially against civilians."
The Israeli Minister of Internal Affairs, Aryeh Deri, also responded to the rumours of the
jihadists and the associated images, by saying "Israel, the only superpower and democracy in the
region, must lead the world to put an end to the horrible massacres in Syria. "
The correspondent of the TV channel Orient News, known for being associated with the terrorist
groups, Al Nusra Front including, yesterday announced on this Twitter page that "Tomorrow is the
start of a new media campaign to cover the intensified number of air strikes, launched in the northern
countryside of Hama, and the use of poisonous chlorine gas against civilians. "
The village of Khan Shaikhoun itself is located on the administrative border between the provinces
of Hama and Idlib.
The notorious organisation White Helmets published photo and video material, claiming that gas
attack caused deaths of more than 50 civilians, mostly adolescents due to suffocation from chemical
substances that were "fired from the air", while blaming the Russian and Syrian Air Force. However,
it failed to provide evidence that the gas attack was the result of an aerial bombardment. In the
meantime, the Turkish government closed the Bab Al Hama border crossing, thus refusing ambulances,
coming from the direction of Khan Sheikhoun, to enter Turkish territory.
The Russian government has since denied the accusations of being involved in Khan Sheikhoun gas
attack, saying no Russian fighter jets, carrying chemical agents, participated in assaults on Khan
Sheikoun.
The controversial rumours, surrounding the events in Khan Sheikhoun, come right in time when the
Syrian Army is achieving significant victories against the terrorists in the Northern countryside
of Hama, namely Al Nusra Front which started its large-scale offensive right after the beginning
of the fifth round of talks in Geneva on settlement of the Syrian crisis in the last week of March.
Recently, we
had a look at the ways President Trump's Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, is making her
predecessor, "humanitarian bomber" Samantha Power, look like a model diplomat by comparison. It
turns out Haley's ghastly performance at the UN thus far is no fluke. Each time she opens her
mouth she spews not the kind of foreign policy that President Trump campaigned on, but
rather the boot-in-the-face know-nothingness that we have grown accustomed to in recent years.
In the latest "Haley Alert," the Ambassador is furious over a Russia-threatened veto of a UN
Security Council resolution offered by the US, UK, and France to impose new sanctions on the Syrian
government over unproven allegations that Syria used chemical weapons against its own population.
Yes, under Ambassador Haley we have entered a time machine back to 2013, where the US is ready
to deploy its entire diplomatic (and perhaps military) arsenal against the one government in the
Middle East actually fighting President Trump's sworn enemies: ISIS and al-Qaeda.
President Trump, in one of his first interviews after the November election,
starkly contrasted his position with those both of the outgoing Obama Administration and his
defeated opponent, Hillary Clinton:
I've had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria. ...My attitude was you're fighting
Syria, Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS. Russia is now totally aligned
with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with
Syria... Now we're backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are.
His employee, the US Ambassador to the UN, clearly does not share her boss's "opposite view" on
Syria. And she is not afraid to contradict her boss's position on a regular basis. Today the US
Mission to the UN released Ambassador Haley's
remarks condemning the threatened
Russian veto of new sanctions against Syria, and her comments do not in any way suggest a diplomat
remotely well-informed about the complex matters at hand:
I think what we saw in there was pretty amazing, because you had unity in the fact that we
needed to be concerned about chemical weapons being used in Syria. You had an overwhelming
vote to say we need an investigative mechanism that would prove that these chemical weapons
were being done by the Syrian regime. Now you've got the results that have come out, and people
don't like what the results are. It is ridiculous. How much longer is Russia going to continue
to babysit and make excuses for the Syrian regime? People have died by being suffocated to
death. That's barbaric.
So what we're going to do is – we were given all these reasons on why we shouldn't propose
the resolution. We were given all these reasons on why the timing was wrong. That is exactly
why the timing is right. That is exactly why this resolution needs to happen. Whether people
are going to veto it or not, you are either for chemical weapons or you're against it. People
died because of this, and the United States isn't going to be quiet. Thank you.
Let's unpack this head-scratcher of a statement. First off, "we need an investigative mechanism
that would prove that these chemical weapons were being done by the Syrian regime." So she is
stating that there must be an investigation to prove what she has pre-determined to be true before
the investigation took place? Does that sound like "innocent until proven guilty"? Or does it
sound like Hoxha-era revolutionary justice? "We must have a trial to prove comrade X guilty so
we can execute him!"
And this from Haley: "How much longer is Russia going to continue to babysit and make excuses
for the Syrian regime?"
Ms. Ambassador: Do you mean the regime that just liberated Aleppo from its murderous occupation
by al-Qaeda? You know, those guys who attacked the US on 9/11?
If Assad is using chemical weapons against his own people (Why? Presumably for fun?) then why
once Aleppo was cleansed of the al-Qaeda occupiers have former residents
flocked to return to an Aleppo under Assad's control? Do they enjoy being gassed?
US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley is an absolute train wreck. She embodies the worst traits
of her predecessors with a much lower level of understanding of foreign affairs or diplomacy.
Will President Trump recognize his mistake in appointing her to represent the US at the UN and
replace her with someone who will actually carry out his foreign policy? Or was he simply lying
when he said he had an "opposite view" from the conventional Washington wisdom on Syria (and Russia
as well)?
"... The trees, the forest and pretty much the entire landscape are screaming 2000 and 2004 didn't matter a damn. ..."
"... All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another 'monster' before he destroys all the peace and stability we bring to the region. ..."
"... This time, of course, there's no Bush/Cheney in charge. But no matter, the decisions and the rationale are identical. Democracy will flower in the region once America and the UK kill enough of the bad guys and install their own puppets (I mean 'good guys') ..."
"... Hillary and the democrats are in charge of the killing, so all the death must be both necessary and humanitarian. The possibility that more death and more wars and more invasions and more regime change is pretty much built into the 'solution' is unthinkable. ..."
"... Watching all the cheering for 'victory in Mosul' and over the 'hold-outs' in Libya has actually driven me to turn off the nets ..."
"... Violent regime-change is 'unavoidable' regardless of which party is in power. And the current war is always better, safer, and less prone to blow-back than all those other earlier stupid wars ..."
Reading thru the link, my favorite part was the stated purpose of the cocktail party for elite
NY reporters: "Give reporters their first thoughts . . ."
@244 Good eye, Bruce. The trees, the forest and pretty much the entire landscape are screaming
2000 and 2004 didn't matter a damn.
All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are
now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another 'monster' before he destroys all
the peace and stability we bring to the region.
This time, of course, there's no Bush/Cheney in charge. But no matter, the decisions and
the rationale are identical. Democracy will flower in the region once America and the UK kill
enough of the bad guys and install their own puppets (I mean 'good guys') .
Hillary and the democrats are in charge of the killing, so all the death must be both necessary
and humanitarian. The possibility that more death and more wars and more invasions and more regime
change is pretty much built into the 'solution' is unthinkable.
Watching all the cheering for 'victory in Mosul' and over the 'hold-outs' in Libya has
actually driven me to turn off the nets .
Violent regime-change is 'unavoidable' regardless of which party is in power. And the current
war is always better, safer, and less prone to blow-back than all those other earlier stupid wars
.
I learned that reading the pro-Hillary 'liberal' press.
"... Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul penned a scathing piece in the Washington Post accusing the Kremlin of intervening in the American election, based solely on the evidence of a harsh article regarding Clinton published by Sputnik News. Boy, was he wrong! ..."
"... On Wednesday night, Michael McFaul took to the Washington Post to opine that the article was part of a Kremlin-led conspiracy to subvert the American election, referring to the person running the Sputnik Twitter account (that particular day being me) as a "Russian official," before warning (threatening) that we "might want to think about what we plan to do" if Clinton becomes president. ..."
"... Pursuant to 18 US Code Chapter 115, I'd be writing this article to you from prison, if not awaiting a death sentence, if I were writing content ordered down to me by the Kremlin with a view towards subverting the American election. I am instead writing this piece from my favorite coffeeshop in downtown DC. I am not a Russian official. Our staff members are not Russian officials. We are not Kremlin controlled. We do not speak with Vladimir Putin over our morning coffee. ..."
"... In fact, the Atlantic Council's Ben Nimmo leveled a completely different view on Friday morning, calling our coverage "uncharacteristically balanced," but arguing that, because we report generally negative stories on both candidates, our real target is American democracy itself. ..."
"... It may surprise Mr. McFaul and Mr. Nimmo to learn that, in my previous work on political campaigns, I actually helped fundraise for Hillary Clinton - the candidate whose inner circle is now labelling my colleagues and I as foreign saboteurs. It is neither my fault nor Sputnik's fault that Secretary Clinton's campaign has devolved into one predicated upon fear and conspiracy, where the two primary lines are "the Russians did it" and that she is not Trump. ..."
"... The fact that more than 50% of the country dislikes both presidential candidates is not a Kremlin conspiracy. Would it be appropriate for us to present to our readers an alternate universe a la MSNBC, which defended Clinton's trustworthiness by saying she only perjured herself three times? ..."
"... Returning to the substance of the article to which Mr. McFaul took exception. This piece was written because it was newsworthy - it informed our readers and forced them to think. The provocative headline of the story was based on a statement by Trump that is a bit of a stretch (notice the air quotes on the title), but which highlights a major policy decision made by this administration that has not been properly scrutinized by the mainstream media. In the article, for those who actually read it, I refer to the 2012 DNI report that correctly calculated that Obama's policy in Syria would lead to the development of a Salafist entity controlling territory and that this outcome was "wanted." Hence, the title. ..."
"... Today, the Obama Administration grapples with a similar debate over whether to continue to support the "moderate rebels" in Syria, despite the fact that they have now melded with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate until they rebranded), under the banner of the Army of Conquest in Syria. ..."
Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul penned a scathing piece in the Washington Post
accusing the Kremlin of intervening in the American election, based solely on the evidence of a harsh
article regarding Clinton published by Sputnik News. Boy, was he wrong!
My name is Bill Moran. A native Arizonan, I have worked on dozens of Democratic Party campaigns,
and am more recently a proud writer for Sputnik's Washington, DC bureau.
It also seems, as of Thursday morning, that I am the source of controversy between the United
States and Russia - something I never quite could have imagined - for writing an article that was
critical of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a stinging headline and a harsh hashtag.
So, what is this controversy all about? This weekend I published a piece with the headline, "Secret
File Confirms Trump Claim: Obama, Hillary 'Founded ISIS' to Oust Assad." I also tweeted out this
story from our platform with the hashtag #CrookedHillary. Guilty as charged.
On Wednesday night,
Michael McFaul took to the Washington Post to opine that the article was part of a Kremlin-led
conspiracy to subvert the American election, referring to the person running the Sputnik Twitter
account (that particular day being me) as a "Russian official," before warning (threatening) that
we "might want to think about what we plan to do" if Clinton becomes president.
I feel it is necessary to pause, here, before having a substantive argument about the article's
merits and purpose within the public discourse, to address the severity of the accusation leveled
against me and Sputnik's staff (not by name until now), and its disturbing implications on freedom
of speech, dissent, and American democracy - implications that I hope Mr. McFaul, other public proponents
of the Hillary campaign, and the cadre of Russian critics consider.
Pursuant to 18 US Code Chapter 115, I'd be writing this article to you from prison, if not
awaiting a death sentence, if I were writing content ordered down to me by the Kremlin with a view
towards subverting the American election. I am instead writing this piece from my favorite coffeeshop
in downtown DC. I am not a Russian official. Our staff members are not Russian officials. We are
not Kremlin controlled. We do not speak with Vladimir Putin over our morning coffee.
Mr. McFaul worked side-by-side with the former Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, and
his routine accusations that Trump supporters are siding with Putin leaves me to imagine that he
is a Clinton insider if not a direct campaign surrogate. That such a public official would suggest
reprisals against those with differing viewpoints in the event that she wins is disturbing.
Our
outlet does not endorse or support any particular US presidential candidate, but rather reports news
and views for the day in as diligent a manner as we possibly can. This is evident in our very harsh
headlines on Trump, which Mr. McFaul failed to review before making his attack.
In fact, the Atlantic Council's Ben Nimmo leveled a completely different view on Friday morning,
calling our coverage "uncharacteristically balanced," but arguing that, because we report generally
negative stories on both candidates, our real target is American democracy itself.
It may surprise Mr. McFaul and Mr. Nimmo to learn that, in my previous work on political campaigns,
I actually helped fundraise for Hillary Clinton - the candidate whose inner circle is now labelling
my colleagues and I as foreign saboteurs. It is neither my fault nor Sputnik's fault that Secretary
Clinton's campaign has devolved into one predicated upon fear and conspiracy, where the two primary
lines are "the Russians did it" and that she is not Trump.
Donald Trump has the lowest approval rating since presidential polling began. Until recently,
Clinton had the second lowest approval rating since presidential polling began. Their numbers are
worse than even Barry Goldwater and George Wallace, in fact.
The fact that more than 50% of the country dislikes both presidential candidates is not a
Kremlin conspiracy. Would it be appropriate for us to present to our readers an alternate universe
a la MSNBC, which defended Clinton's trustworthiness by saying she only perjured herself three times?
There is a reason why both presidential candidates have received less than fawning coverage from
our outlet: they have not done anything to warrant positive coverage. My colleagues, also Americans,
like so many others in this country, wish they would.
Returning to the substance of the article to which Mr. McFaul took exception. This piece was
written because it was newsworthy - it informed our readers and forced them to think.
The provocative headline of the story was based on a statement by Trump that is a bit of a stretch
(notice the air quotes on the title), but which highlights a major policy decision made by this administration
that has not been properly scrutinized by the mainstream media.
In the article, for those who actually read it, I refer to the 2012 DNI report that correctly calculated
that Obama's policy in Syria would lead to the development of a Salafist entity controlling territory
and that this outcome was "wanted." Hence, the title.
Today, the Obama Administration
grapples with a similar debate over whether to continue to support the "moderate rebels" in Syria,
despite the fact that they have now melded with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate until they rebranded),
under the banner of the Army of Conquest in Syria.
We do not pretend that these decisions exist in a vacuum with a clear right and wrong answer upon
which no two intelligent people differ, but this is a matter worthy of public discourse.
And what about that hashtag? Why would I use #CrookedHillary? I mean, I could have put #Imwithher,
but I wasn't trying to be ironic. When a hashtag is featured at the end of a sentence, its purpose
is for cataloging. Some people, usually non-millennials, use hashtags as text to convey a particular
opinion. I was not doing that. I also used #NeverTrump in a separate article.
But Mr. McFaul lazily cherry-picked, and then labeled (maybe unwittingly) Sputnik's American writers
traitors to this country.
The Rebels backed by the United States are associated with terrorist activity: There is a growing body of evidence
that the opposition groups are a criminal environment populated by gangs, kidnappers and killers. Other elements of the opposition are
even openly allied with Al Qaeda according to the New York Times. This has raised the prospect that a U.S. intervention in Syria could
inadvertently strengthen Islamic extremists and criminal activity. Read more about it in the article below:
History of America's Role in Syrian Violence: Even though we have not gotten directly involved with military action
yet, there is plenty of evidence that our decision to support the rebels by supplying fighters and weapons has contributed to massive
violence and prolonged bloodshed in the Syrian civil war. Before the U.S. got involved, this was a war with casualties in the 1,000's.
Yet now around 150,000 people have died and much of the world's cultural and archaeological treasures have been destroyed. The U.S.
has inflamed a conflict that may have been ended quickly by the Syrian government, had we not chosen to get involved. The other fact
is that a majority of Syrians (55%) support Assad. Is it right for the U.S. to oppose the will of the Syrian people? Jeffrey Sachs
discusses this more in an article below:
Saudi Arabia's Role in Syrian Violence: Saudi Arabia has had a role in sending weapons to the rebel forces. The
Saudi king Abdullah was the first Arab leader to condemn the Assad regime in 2011. While both countries share an Arab Nationalist and
Islamic identity, the Syrian government of Assad supports a secular regime and lifestyle while Saudi Arabia supports a conservative
and religious world view. The rebels supported by the Saudi Arabian government are religious extremists. In this fight, America is supporting
the side of religious extremism against a secular state.
Violence throughout the Middle East: It is likely that the results of this war will spill out into other Middle
Eastern countries in the region. We're talking about violence in Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Israel. The article below gives further details
for how this violence could spread.
Military Action in Syria Has Very Low Approval Ratings: It is fortunate that America did not intervene directly
in Syria. Such an action would have had very low approval ratings. As well as lacking interest in the international community, there
was very little support for this war at home here in America - apparently only 9% of Americans approved of striking Syria (according
to a Reuters/Ipsos Poll)! America is tired of war. Obama was elected as the president that would get America out of Iraq - not into
another "Iraq" with a bloodier cost.
A violation of international law: The United Nations charter mandates that "all members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." There are two exceptions
to this rule: (1) self-defense, and (2) force authorized by the UN Security Council. Neither of these exceptions apply to the United
States' intentions in Syria. Any proposed bombing would have lacked legal justification.
The U.N. Security Council Needs to have the Final Say: If the United States plans to invade any other countries
in the future, The U.N. Security Council needs to have the final say. The United States should not and cannot afford to rush into action
without approval from the United Nations. Such an action would be a direct violation of International Law.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE IN 2013
Back when the White House was making chemical weapons allegations against the Syrian Regime, there was serious evidence that
both the Syrian government and the rebels may have used chemical weapons.
Inconsistent Statements from Kerry and Obama Team: The Obama Administration's case for attacking Syria was riddled
with inconsistencies. The case Secretary
of State John Kerry laid out on August 30th contained statements that were disputed by the United Nations, conflicted with details
of British and French intelligence and lacked transparency. The Obama team dismissed the value of a U.N. inspection team's work by saying
that the inspectors arrived too late for the findings to be credible. Yet U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq countered this statement by saying
that such chemicals can be detected months after use. There are also drastically different numbers on the death toll being thrown around.
The United States has claimed over a thousand deaths while France has stated that there were only 281 fatalities.
Hillary Comes Out as the War Party
Candidate On June 2, a few days before the California primary, Hillary Clinton gave up trying to compete with Bernie Sanders
on domestic policy. Instead, she zeroed in on the ...
The Making of a Disaster - The
New York Times The Making of a Disaster. Roger Cohen AUG. 25, 2014. ... the next you're running around Syria with a machine gun,"
said Ghaffar Hussain, ...
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
with pride and a determined struggle against Western imperialism, while others see it as an uncomfortable reminder of how low their own rulers and societies have managed to sink, serving foreign interests and various neo-colonialist designs.
U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Porter conducts strike operations against Syria while in the Mediterranean Sea. | Photo: Reuters
-
International law has been undermined and replaced by "humanitarian law,"contributing to the current disastrous situation whereby a war is being waged under a humanitarian pretext. On Tuesday, April 4, there were reports of children and other civilians killed by chemical poisoning in the town of Khan Sheikhoun, Syria. There were contradictory reports, some saying they smelled the gas; others claiming it caused immediate death like odorless sarin.
