Global Research

The American online network “One America Network” committed the unpardonable sin for the mainstream media and actually went to the site of the alleged chemical attack in Syria which prompted the bomb and missile attack by France, the UK and USA.

They found no trace of chemicals.

They found no one suffering from chemical poisoning.

They found no one who thought there had been a chemical attack.

But they found many locals who accused the West of fabricating an attack with the help of the local rebel group and the “White Helmets” (the British and American funded “civil defence” which only reports from rebel held areas with dubious videos)

The network interviewed about 10 locals living within one and a half blocks of the alleged attack and none of them had seen or heard anything. They visited the former rebel HQ which was piled high with mortar shells and mortars. Then they saw a long queue of people waiting for food and water and randomly interviewed 30-40 people all of whom were residents of the area. All said that there was no chemical attack but that the fraud had been staged by the rebels who were under intense pressure and wanted to get the Syrian Government forces “off their back” so they could escape from Douma.

The US reporter asked the people what they thought of Assad. They said they loved him, were grateful for the relief of the town and that they thought there were “no moderate rebels”. They had suffered starvation and lack of medicines under the extremist group Jaysh al Islam and if anyone complained they were threatened with death.

“HYPOXIA – NOT A GAS ATTACK”

Agence France Presse (AFP) reported one medical student who witnessed the so called “aftermath” of the alleged attack. He reported on the victims as follows:

“Some of [the victims] suffered from asthma and pulmonary inflammation. They received routine treatment and some were even sent home, they showed no symptoms of a chemical attack.

But he had seen the fraudulent White Helmets with their video cameras hosing down children supposedly victims of chemical poisoning:

But some foreigners entered while we were in a state of chaos and sprinkled people with water, and some of them were even filming it.”:

It is worth remembering that if you are fabricating a poison gas attack then the best time is when an actual air raid or shelling is taking place, then shout “gas attack” and so more easily implicate the Syrian Government. The Independent’s Robert Fisk also actually went to Douma and talked to a Dr Rahaibani in his underground clinic near to where the alleged attack took place. The doctor said:

“I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred metres from here on the night but all the doctors know what happened. There was a lot of shelling [by government forces] and aircraft were always over Douma at night – but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived. People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss.

Then someone at the door, a “White Helmet”, shouted “Gas!”, and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypnoxia – not gas poisoning”

One of the children filmed being doused with water was 11 year old Hassan Diab who always looked more perturbed by the water than anything else. He was back home by the evening and is apparently fine with no health effects and his father told Russian journalists that his son was rewarded for his efforts with rice, dates and cookies!

The boy’s father heard that his family had been urged by rebel fighters to go to the hospital. He had been working and smoking in the street but had smelt no gas or chemicals. When he got to the hospital his family were safe and there was nothing wrong with them. You can watch the video of the father’s evidence here.

Journalists Found Boy Filmed In White Helmets’ Douma Chemial Attack Video. He Did It For Food

REBEL CHEMICAL WEAPONS STORE FOUND IN DOUMA

Freenations has presented past evidence about the possession of chemical substances and the means to deliver them by anti Assad groups. So it should be no surprise that Sputnik Radio quoted a “chemical defence specialist” Alexander Rodionov who reported that Russian troops had found

“……..substances, such as thiodiglycol and diethanolamine, which are necessary for the production of sulphur and nitrogen mustard gas. In addition, a cylinder with chlorine, similar to that used by militants for setting up the wide-spread fake story, was found in the warehouse.”

While the Russian objections to the OPCW report on the Scripal poisoning does not stack up (although there is still no direct evidence of Russian State involvement as Theresa May claims) the evidence on the ground in Douma is very much supportive of the Syrian and Russian denial that any chemical attack ever took place.

Since the result of the probable Douma fraud was a major military attack (firing some 100 missiles at Syria) by France, the UK and the USA, it is this alleged chemical attack which is the more serious.

Having resorted to extreme military force on the basis of social media and press speculation (with even today virtually no mainstream media on the ground in Douma) the blowback for the western leaders who took part in this unjustified attack could be – indeed should be – very serious.

*

This article was originally published on Freenations.

Featured image is from the author.

Global Research Publishers brings you a combined special offer on two important books. Order Tim Anderson’s “The Dirty War on Syria” and Michel Chossudovsky’s “The Globalization of War” at a discounted price. 

Click here to order

“The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance” by Tim Anderson

EXCERPT FROM PREFACE:

Dirty wars are not new. Cuban national hero Jose Martí predicted to a friend that Washington would try to intervene in Cuba’s independence struggle against the Spanish. ‘They want to provoke a war’, he wrote in 1889 ‘to have a pretext to intervene and, with the authority of being mediator and guarantor, to seize the country … There is no more cowardly thing in the annals of free people; nor such cold blooded evil’ (Martí 1975: 53). Nine years later, during the third independence war, an explosion in Havana Harbour destroyed the USS Maine, killing 258 US sailors and serving as a pretext for a US invasion.

The US launched dozens of interventions in Latin America over the subsequent century. A notable dirty war was led by CIA-backed, ‘freedom fighter’ mercenaries based in Honduras, who attacked the Sandinista Government and the people of Nicaragua in the 1980s. That conflict, in its modus operandi, was not so different to the war on Syria. In Nicaragua more than 30,000 people were killed. The International Court of Justice found the US guilty of a range of terrorist-style attacks on the little Central American country, and found that the US owed Nicaragua compensation (ICJ 1986). Washington ignored these rulings.

Image: click to order

With the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011 the big powers took advantage of a political foment by seizing the initiative to impose an ‘Islamist winter’, attacking the few remaining independent states of the region. Very quickly we saw the destruction of Libya, a small country with the highest standard of living in Africa. NATO bombing and a Special Forces campaign helped the al Qaeda groups on the ground. The basis for NATO’s intervention was lies told about actual and impending massacres, supposedly carried out or planned by the government of President Muammar Gaddafi. These claims led rapidly to a UN Security Council resolution said to protect civilians through a ‘no fly zone’. We know now that trust was betrayed, and that the NATO powers abused the limited UN authorisation to overthrow the Libyan Government (McKinney 2012).

Subsequently, no evidence emerged to prove that Gaddafi intended, carried out or threatened wholesale massacres, as was widely suggested (Forte 2012). Genevieve Garrigos of Amnesty International (France) admitted there was ‘no evidence’ to back her group’s earlier claims that Gaddafi had used ‘black mercenaries’ to commit massacres (Forte 2012; Edwards 2013).

… Two days before NATO bombed Libya another armed Islamist insurrection broke out in Daraa, Syria’s southernmost city. Yet because this insurrection was linked to the demonstrations of a political reform movement, its nature was disguised. Many did not see that those who were providing the guns – Qatar and Saudi Arabia – were also running fake news stories in their respective media channels, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. There were other reasons for the durable myths of this war. Many western audiences, liberals and leftists as well as the more conservative, seemed to like the idea of their own role as the saviours of a foreign people, speaking out strongly about a country of which they knew little, but joining what seemed to be a ‘good fight’ against this new ‘dictator’. With a mission and their proud self-image western audiences apparently forgot the lies of previous wars, and of their own colonial legacies.

I would go so far as to say that, in the Dirty War on Syria, western culture in general abandoned its better traditions: of reason, the maintenance of ethical principle and the search for independent evidence at times of conflict; in favour of its worst traditions: the ‘imperial prerogative’ for intervention, backed by deep racial prejudice and poor reflection on the histories of their own cultures. That weakness was reinforced by a ferocious campaign of war propaganda. After the demonisation of Syrian leader Bashar al Assad began, a virtual information blockade was constructed against anything which might undermine the wartime storyline. Very few sensible western perspectives on Syria emerged after 2011, as critical voices were effectively blacklisted.

In that context I came to write this book. It is a defence of Syria, not primarily addressed to those who are immersed the western myths but to others who engage with them. This is therefore a resource book and a contribution to the history of the Syrian conflict. The western stories have become self-indulgent and I believe it is wasteful to indulge them too much. Best, I think, to speak of current events as they are, then address the smokescreens later. I do not ignore the western myths, in fact this book documents many of them. But I lead with the reality of the war.

*SPECIAL OFFER: The Dirty War on Syria + The Globalization of War

List Price: $46.90

Special Price: $24.00

CLICK HERE TO ORDER

“The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity” by Michel Chossudovsky

EXCERPT FROM PREFACE:

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project.  Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

Under a global military agenda, the actions undertaken by the Western military alliance (U.S.-NATO-Israel) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Ukraine, Syria and Iraq are coordinated at the highest levels of the military hierarchy. We are not dealing with piecemeal military and intelligence operations. The July-August 2014 attack on Gaza by Israeli forces was undertaken in close consultation with the United States and NATO. The actions in Ukraine and their timing coincided with the onslaught of the attack on Gaza.

Image: click to order

In turn, military undertakings are closely coordinated with a process of economic warfare which consists not only in imposing sanctions on sovereign countries but also in deliberate acts of destabilization of financial and currencies markets, with a view to undermining the enemies’ national economies.

The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. As we go to press, U.S.and NATO forces have been deployed in Eastern Europe including Ukraine. U.S. military intervention under a humanitarian mandate is proceeding in sub-Saharan Africa. The U.S. and its allies are threatening China under President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”.

In turn, military maneuvers are being conducted at Russia’s doorstep which could potentially lead to escalation.

The U.S. airstrikes initiated in September 2014 directed against Iraq and Syria under the pretext of going after the Islamic State are part of a scenario of military escalation extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to Central and South Asia.

The Western military alliance is in an advanced state of readiness. And so is Russia.

Russia is heralded as the “Aggressor”. U.S.-NATO military confrontation with Russia is contemplated.

Enabling legislation in the U.S. Senate under “The Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA) has “set the U.S. on a path towards direct military conflict with Russia in Ukraine.”

“Any U.S.-Russian war is likely to quickly escalate into a nuclear war, since neither the U.S. nor Russia would be willing to admit defeat, both have many thousands of nuclear weapons ready for instant use, and both rely upon Counterforce military doctrine that tasks their military, in the event  of war, to pre-emptively destroy the nuclear forces of the enemy.”

The Russian Aggression Prevention Act (RAPA) is the culmination of more than twenty years of U.S.-NATO war preparations,which consist in the military encirclement of both Russia and China:

“From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. U.S. military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.”

*SPECIAL OFFER: The Dirty War on Syria + The Globalization of War

List Price: $46.90

Special Price: $24.00

CLICK HERE TO ORDER

The arguments between Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford before the Syrian air strikes, and between them and President Donald Trump and his ultra-hawk national security adviser, John Bolton, ended with “precision strikes” early Saturday morning in Damascus and near the city of Homs.

Some 103 tomahawks and other cruise missiles were launched from US navy vessels and British and American warplanes. Seventy-one of these were claimed by the Russian Ministry of Defense to have been shot down by Syrian air defense batteries. The more modern and effective Russian-manned S400 systems at their Tartus naval base and Khmeimim air base were not brought into play.

There was material damage to some Syrian military storage facilities and particularly to a research center, which the US-led coalition claimed was used for fabrication of chemical weapons. Employees at the site said they were producing antidotes to snake venom, not chemical weapons. No deaths were reported and only six people were injured. The targets were all well clear of known positions of Russian and Iranian personnel in Syria. And while the Pentagon denied Russia had been told the targets, there’s speculation that the missiles’ flight paths had been made known to Moscow.

‘Mission Accomplished?’

Mattis said the mission was over but the U.S. stood ready to strike again if Assad once more used chemical weapons, though whether he did last weekend in Duma, a Damascus suburb, has yet to be proven. The U.S.-led air strikes took place hours before a team of specialists from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were to begin its investigation at the site to determine if chemicals were used, and which chemicals they may been.

In his address to the nation when launching the attack, Trump used the same unproven allegations and maudlin, propagandistic evocation of the horrors of chemical weapons that his ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, had used earlier in the day Friday when responding to specific charges of violating international law and a possibly non-existent chemical attack,which the Russian ambassador, Vasily Nebenzya, had leveled against the U.S. in the UN Security Council chamber.

The narrowly focused and seemingly ineffectual nature of the strikes is unlikely to satisfy anyone in the U.S. political classes. Even those who have been encouraging Trump to stand tall in Syria and punish Damascus for the alleged, but unproven, use of chemical weapons, like New York Senator Chuck Schumer (D), gave him only tepid support for the action taken, complaining of no overall administration strategy for Syria or an end game.

Others posit that the timing of the attack was driven solely by Trump’s urgent need to deflect public attention from personal and political scandals, especially after the F.B.I. seizure earlier in the week of the papers and possibly his taped conversations in the offices of his lawyer, Michael Cohen.

For the Russians there could only be outrage. They were on the receiving end of what was a publicly administered slap in the face to President Vladimir Putin, who was named and supposedly shamed in Trump’s speech for providing support to the “animal” Assad. Putin had been calling upon the U.S. and its allies to show restraint and wait for the conclusion of the OPCW investigation in Duma.

Russia’s ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, repeated after the attacks Moscow’s prior warning that there would be “grave consequences” for the U.S. and its allies. These were not spelled out. But given Putin’s record of caution, it would be surprising if Moscow did anything to exacerbate the situation.

What comes next?

That caution left the U.S. exposed as an aggressor and violator of international law. Since we are in a New Cold War, habits from the first Cold War are resurfacing. But the roles are reversed today. Whereas in the past, it was Washington that complained to high heaven about the Soviet military intervention in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, today it is Russia that will go on the offensive to sound off about US aggression.

But is that all we may expect? I think not. Putin has a well-earned reputation as a master strategist who takes his time with every move. He also knows the old saying that revenge is a dish best served cold. He has frequently advocated “asymmetric” responses to Western moves against Russian interests. The question of counter moves had already been on his mind since the U.S. Treasury introduced new and potentially harsh economic sanctions on Russia with effect from April 6.

In fact, Russian legislators were busy preparing to introduce in the Duma on Monday a bill empowering the Russian president to issue counter-sanctions. These include an embargo on the sale of critical components to the U.S. aircraft industry which is 40 percent dependent on Russian-sourced titanium for production of both military and civilian planes. There is also the proposed cancellation of bilateral cooperation in space where the Russians supply rocket engines used for U.S. commercial and other satellite launches, as well as a total embargo on sales of U.S. wines, spirits and tobacco in the Russian Federation.

Aside from the withdrawal of titanium sales, these and other enumerated measures pale in significance to the damage done by the U.S. sanctions on the Rusal corporation, the world’s second largest producer and marketer of aluminum, which lost $12 billion in share value on the first day of sanctions. But that is to be expected, given that the United States is the world’s largest economy, measuring more than 10 times Russia’s. Accordingly its ability to cause economic damage to Russia far exceeds the ability of Russia to inflict damage in return.

The only logical outcome of further escalations of U.S. economic measures would be for Russia to respond in the one area where it has something approaching full equality with the United States: its force of arms. That is to say, at a certain point in time purely economic warfare could well become kinetic. This is a danger the U.S. political leadership should not underestimate.

Considering the just inflicted U.S. insult to Russia by its attack in Syria, Moscow may well choose to respond by hitting U.S. interests in a very different location, where it enjoys logistical superiority and also where the counter-strike may be less likely to escalate to direct crossing of swords and the unthinkable—possible nuclear war.

A number of places come to mind, starting in Ukraine where, in an extreme reaction, Russia has the option of removing the regime in Kiev within a 3-day campaign, putting in place a caretaker government until new elections were held. That would likely lead to armed resistance, however, and a Russian occupation, which Moscow neither wants nor can afford.

The Media Reacts

The media reaction to the air strikes has been distinct in the U.S. from Europe, and even more so, naturally, in Russia.

U.S. mainstream reaction, in particular in The New York Times, The Washington Post and the cable TV networks, has been an uncritical platform for the Pentagon view of what it achieved. Both papers barely made mention that the missiles rained down as the OPCW team was about to begin its work. Parading out their retired generals, often with unmentioned contracts as lobbyists for the military industry, the cable networks resumed their cheerleading for American war and materiel.

In France, Le Monde largely followed the Pentagon line in declaring the mission a success, while in Germany leading newspapers attempted a more independent line. Die Welt discussed how the U.S. and Europe used the mission to test the battleground effectiveness of some of their latest weaponry. The Frankfurter Allgemeine called the Pentagon “the last bastion of sense” in the Trump administration and reported that the Russians want to open a strategic dialogue with the U.S. over arms control.

A commentary in the British Guardian claimed that Mattis, and not Trump, “is calling the shots.” Another piece reported on Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s call for a “check on military intervention” by insisting that Parliament vote on a War Powers act.

The Times of London ran fewer articles on the Syria strike and instead led with a piece predicting that to punish the United Kingdom for its role in the Skripal case and in Syria, Moscow will unleash a barrage of hacked, damaging confidential materials relating to government ministers, members of Parliament and other elite British personalities. In response, May’s cabinet is said to be considering a cyber-attack against Russia.

The TV station Euronews, whose motto is “Euronews. All Views,” unusually for Western media, gave Russians equal time to set out their totally diametrically opposed positions: on whether any chemical attacks at all occurred in Duma, and on the U.S. violation of international law.

On Saturday Euronews exceptionally gave nearly complete live coverage to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as he spoke in Moscow to the 26^th Assembly of the Council of Foreign and Defense Policy. During this talk, Lavrov divulged the findings of the Swiss laboratory which had examined samples of the chemicals gathered in Salisbury in relation to the Skripal poisonings, findings which he said pointed not to Novichok, as was claimed by Boris Johnson, but to a nerve agent developed by the United States and produced also in Britain. Lavrov likened the faked attack in Salisbury to the faked chemical attack in Duma.

Letting the Russians deliver extensively their views on what happened in Syria without commentary by their own journalists might be considered extraordinary by Euronews or any other European broadcaster’s standards.

In Russia, the news channel Rossiya-1 on Saturday broadcast a special edition of the country’s leading political talk show hosted by Vladimir Solovyov. His panelists said that in Damascus, where the most modern air defenses are installed, including the latest BUK series, the Syrians shot down 100 percent of incoming missiles. This contradicts, however, the fact that a research facility in the center of Damascus was bombed. Elsewhere in the country, where there are older systems in place, fewer missiles were hit.

In the wake of the U.S.-led air strikes, Moscow has apparently now decided to supply the Syrian army their next to latest generation of air defense, the S300. It was reported earlier that because of the war, there was a great shortage of trained technicians on the Syrian side so that shipment of such equipment previously would have made no sense. However, now that the military situation of the Assad government has stabilized, the personnel problems are no longer so acute and the Russians can proceed with delivering materiel and training the Syrians to defend themselves. This will substantially change the equation with respect to Syrian defense capability should the U.S. and its allies think of returning.

Protests in the West

One must ask why there has been no anti-war protests in the West in reaction to the strike on Syria. That it lasted less than an hour may something to do with it. But the U.S. is at war in about seven nations and there is no sustained, anti-war movement. Part of the reason is the virtual collapse the anti-war Left in the West that fueled protests in America and Europe in the 1960s anti-Vietnam war movement and the 1980s protests against the deployment of cruise missiles in Europe to counter Soviet intermediate range SS20 missiles.

From the 1990s leftist political parties both in the U.S. and Europe have suffered terrible losses of voter support. What charismatic leaders emerge to challenge the centrist, global hegemony politicians have been almost uniformly categorized as extreme Right or populists. The peace movements have been nearly extinguished. So-called progressives are today notoriously anti-Russian and in step with the Neocons on what the legitimate world order should look like.

For these reasons, it is quite remarkable that early reactions to the US-led bombing in Syria have come from social media and internet portals that may be loosely categorized as establishment left or progressive. Dislike for Trump, for Bolton and for the crew of madmen who constitute the administration has finally outweighed hatred for Putin, “the authoritarian,” the Alpha male, the promoter of family and Orthodox Christian values and the so-called thief who stole the U.S. election. On-line petitions now being circulated, even by the Democratic Party-friendly MoveOn.org, reveal some comprehension that the world has moved closer to utter destruction due to the U.S.-Russia confrontation.

Another sign that the antiwar movement may be stirring out of its slumber and going beyond virtual protests, is that the Massachusetts Peace Action chapter, heirs to the SANE franchise, the country’s largest anti-nuclear weapons organization from the middle of the first Cold War, called on its members to rally in Cambridge (home to Harvard University and MIT) to protest the U.S. strikes in Syria. It also calls on Congress to reclaim its War Powers.

These are admittedly small steps with little political weight. But they are encouraging sparks of light in the darkness.

*

Gilbert Doctorow is an independent political analyst based in Brussels. His latest book, Does the United States Have a Future?was published on 12 October 2017. Both paperback and e-book versions are available for purchase on www.amazon.com and all affiliated Amazon websites worldwide.  

Throughout the 20th century, the US ability to project power and dominate global geopolitics was, to a large extent, based on the general perception that the US was the most powerful military force in the world. In most cases, the mere threat of this military prowess was enough to ‘get things done’ the American, or Western, way. The maintenance of the widespread belief in US military preeminence is therefore extremely important to the US establishment, and any event that might expose a different reality is to be avoided at all costs. When US/Western military might is physically demonstrated, a careful propaganda campaign and media management of the outcome is necessary, up to and including outright lies about the performance of the military tech used. No surprise there. 

In the first 1990 Gulf War, for example, the performance of US Patriot missiles in shooting down Iraqi Scud missiles fired at Israel, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait was lauded by Western powers and the media. A 95% success rate was claimed at the time, with then President George Bush claiming that the Patriot’s record was “near perfect”. Over the following year however, the US Army lowered this estimate to 79% over Saudi Arabian skies and 40% over Israel. A later report by the General Accounting Office concluded that Patriot missiles destroyed only 9% of the Scuds they attempted to engage. The Israeli Defense Force calculated the hit rate at just 2%.

On the night of Jan. 25, 1991 in Tel Aviv, three Patriots that were fired into the air fell back to earth and exploded. Two of them hit residential areas and the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv reported at the time that one Israeli was killed, 44 were wounded, and 4,156 apartments were destroyed. That incident and a few others like it led Ted Postol, an MIT weapons scientist, to testify before a congressional committee that,

“it is possible that if we had not attempted to defend against Scuds, the level of resulting damage would be no worse than actually occurred.”

In a documentary aired on Israeli television in 1993, Moshe Arens, who was Israel’s Defense Minister in the Gulf War, Gen. Dan Shomron, who was chief of staff of the Israel Defense Force during the war, and Haim Asa, a member of an Israeli technical team that worked with Patriots during the war, all dismissed the Patriot anti-missile system. General Shomron described accounts of the Patriot’s success as “a myth.” Mr. Asa called them “a joke.” All concurred with a 1991 report by the Israeli Air Force, which concluded that “there is no evidence of even a single successful intercept” although there is “circumstantial evidence for one possible intercept.”

The point being, the US has a track record of lying about the effectiveness of its missiles.

After 100+ cruise missiles or cruise missile variants were fired at targets in Syria early in the morning of April 14th, President Trump declared “mission accomplished” and tweeted that it was “a perfectly executed strike.” Pentagon officials said that none of the 105 allied missiles fired were hit by Syria’s Soviet-era anti-missile ground systems, that the raids were “precise and overwhelming,” and Syrian air defences remained “largely ineffective.”

An important point that seems to have gotten lost in the media propaganda offensive is that only 3 locations were targeted and hit. Or, at least, that’s the official story. Lieutenant-General Kenneth F. McKenzie told reporters on Saturday that the prime target of the operation was the Barzeh Research and Development Center in the greater Damascus area. A total of 76 missiles, including 57 Tomahawk missiles, were fired at the facility, he said. He also said that 22 missiles were fired against a ‘chemical weapons storage facility’ near Homs, and some seven missiles at another ‘chemical weapons bunker’ in the same area.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, confirmed that only those three targets were hit, including the Barzeh ‘scientific research centre’ in the greater Damascus area, which he claimed was used for research, development, production and testing of chemical weapons, a facility just west of Homs which the US claimed was a centre for sarin gas production, and a command post located near the first facility.

The Barzeh ‘scientific research center’ isn’t really a ‘scientific research center’. First and foremost, it is a University called the ‘Higher Institute for Applied Science and Technology’ (HIAST):

“HIAST was established in 1983. Its aim is to qualify personnel in order to conduct scientific and technological research in all applied sciences and technology fields, so they can participate in the scientific and economic process in Syria. HIAST provides opportunities to make progress in applied research fields by joining courses to be awarded the degree of engineering Diploma, Master and Doctorate.”

You can check out their website.

As part of their ‘reporting’ on the US government claim that this university housed a “chemical weapons facility”, the media reproduced satellite images showing the target area before and after the missile strike. These images were provided to the media by the US government.

HIAST campus before

HIAST Campus after

Maybe grainy satellite images are preferred by the media because it affords a measure of mystique and distance between the reader and the reality of what they are looking at, but I can’t understand why Western media hacks didn’t just go to Google Maps and check the HIAST campus out themselves.

Below is an image of the general area of the HIAST campus from Google Maps, where you can see that it’s located on the outer edge of the Barzeh district of Damascus. The “chemical weapons lab”, part of the campus that was targeted by US missiles, is circled in red.

And here’s a video of a bunch of people hanging out around the ruins of the “chemical weapons buildings” 24 hours after the alleged chemical weapons were hit with 76 cruise missiles. Note that there is not a hazmat suit in sight…

Look again at the area that the buildings occupied. 76 cruise missiles, each with a 1,000lb warhead, are said to have hit those 3 buildings, only partly demolishing them. That’s 35 tons of high-grade military explosives. For comparison, here’s a video of just 9 1,000lb bombs hitting a building that covers roughly the same surface area as the HIAST buildings:

The UK’s Independent reported on the cruise missile strikes in general with the headline, “Images show buildings turned to ruin and rubble by Syria air strikes,” but then proceeded to show 13 images of the same demolished HIAST buildings in the Barzeh suburb of Damascus. Is that perhaps because this is the only ‘impressive’ evidence they have for the dubious US government claims?

According to Saeed Saeed, head of the Institution for the Development of Pharmaceutical and Chemical Industries, the area of the HIAST campus that was bombed was previously used by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), but now works on pharmaceutical products.

“Since the Syria crisis broke out, the country has been short of all kinds of medicines due to the sanctions from Western countries. Foreign companies stopped exporting high-quality medicines to Syria, especially anti-cancer medicines. So we have been conducting researches on anti-cancer medicines here, and three cancer drugs have been developed,” he said.

Hang on a minute… something’s coming back to me… 1998, Sudan, Bill Clinton… cruise missiles… pharmaceutical factory!

The two other areas allegedly targeted by US cruise missiles were to the west of Homs. A “centre for sarin gas production” and a “command post” or a “bunker” (or something like that. It might have been a cow shed).

Now it’s time for some ‘before and after’, not very close up, grainy satellite photos, courtesy of the media (courtesy of the US government) of the two areas shown above. Here’s the “center of sarin gas production” site:

“Sarin gas production site” target. West of Homs. Before

And after

Now that’s some nice shooting there. I count maybe 4 or 5 impacts (small craters) on the ground there, and those 3 little buildings gone.

Let’s move on to the last of the 3 targeted sites. The “command post bunker” thingy, just a few miles up the road from the above image:

“Command post bunker”. West of Homs. Before

And after

Not so good on this one. Looks like a single impact to the left of the target. The “chemical weapons command post bunker” thingy is, sadly, intact.

So what’s our tally? Let’s be generous and give 9 x 1000lb cruise missiles to the HIAST campus buildings. Let’s give 5 more to the “sarin gas production site” west of Homs, and 1 more to that little shed thingy above. That’s 15 successful impacts in total, by the US government’s own statements and imagery on the 3 targeted sites.

But in the interest of impartiality and objectivity, I’ll include the reports that the Mezzeh military airbase just south of Damascus was also hit by cruise missiles, as reported by the Syrian government. Here’s a video clip published by Ruptly:

No damage is shown in the above video, but as a sign of good faith, we’ll assume that significant damage was done there too, somewhere off-camera. So let’s give 10 cruise missiles strikes to that airbase. That brings our tally up to 25. Heck, since I’m feeling generous today, I’ll throw in another 10 missiles that may have gone off course and hit some empty fields in the Homs or Damascus countryside. That’s 35 maximum impacts out of a total of 103 (or 105, or 118 depending on your sources). So the question is; what happened to the rest of Trump’s ‘nice new and smart’ missiles?

The Russians have an answer. According to their radar data on the event, 6 other airbases and airports were also targeted. Why didn’t the Pentagon include those in its report on the strikes?

• Duwali airbase – 4 missiles fired, 4 shot down
• Dumayr airbase – 12 missiles fired, 12 shot down
• Baley airbase – 18 missiles fired, 18 shot down
• Shayrat airbase – 12 missiles fired, 12 shot down
• Marj Ruhayyil airbase – 18 missiles fired, 18 shot down
• Damascus international airport – 4 missiles fired, 4 shot down

Assuming this information is true, and we have good reason to believe it is based on my analysis above, we’re left to ponder the distinct possibility that the US government initially targeted at least 10 locations with cruise missiles. After the missiles were launched however, (some of them taking 2 hours to reach their destination) many of them were shot down, forcing the US to dramatically down-size its planned report to the media about how many locations were targeted.

But this then posed another problem. How to distribute the 100+ missiles among only 3 locations? Should they divide them equally, 33 (or so) at the HIAST buildings and 33 each at the two Homs locations? But would the visible damage tally with the reported number of missiles? The two locations outside Homs were problematic because they were in open farmland and the buildings were far too small to plausibly cover up the missing impact craters. There was only one thing for it: the HIAST target, with its 3 sizable towerblocks, would have to take the lion’s share of the missing missiles. The outrageous number of 76, to be exact.

Apart from the shocking level of FUKUS lies and obfuscation around this most recent attack on Syria – all of which were nauseatingly repeated by the Western press – media hacks also neglected to note the obvious point that blowing up suspected chemical weapons production and storage facilities located in densely populated areas amounts to reckless endangerment of the local population, and possibly a war crime. Then again, maybe the Americans are lying (ya think?). Maybe they know very well that these targets housed no chemical weapons. Maybe they know that, as the US Dept. of State tweeted to John Kerry in 2014:

Maybe they also know that very few of their “nice new smart” missiles made it to their destinations, and on Friday morning, “shock and awe” came, not to Syria, but the halls of the Pentagon.

The conflict in Syria is but one part of a much broader geopolitical conflict between ‘East and West’ that portends nothing less than a radical restructuring of the global order. In that sense, it is an existential war for those that currently sit atop the pile and stand to lose their privileged and powerful positions. But if there’s one thing about any war that never changes, it’s the ‘racket’ aspect of it. To that end, there was only one real winner as a result of Friday morning’s events.

Syria Airstrikes Instantly Added Nearly $5 Billion to Missile-Makers’ Stock Value

Raytheon stock surged Friday morning, after 59 of the company’s Tomahawk missiles were used to strike Syria in Donald Trump’s first major military operation as President.

If it had been publicly revealed how well the Tomahawks really did, Raytheon stock would have lost a similar amount.

*

Joe Quinn is the co-author of 9/11: The Ultimate Truth (with Laura Knight-Jadczyk, 2006) and Manufactured Terror: The Boston Marathon Bombings, Sandy Hook, Aurora Shooting and Other False Flag Terror Attacks (with Niall Bradley, 2014), and the host of Sott.net’s The Sott Report Videos and co-host of the ‘Behind the Headlines’ radio show on the Sott Radio Network.

All images in this article are from the author.

The first even marginally trustworthy poll of American “registered voters” regarding the April 14th U.S.-and-allied missiles-invasion of Syria, shows an overwhelming 66% supporting the invasion (36% “Strongly” and 30% “Somewhat), and only 23% opposing (8% “Strongly” and 11% “Somewhat”). 

When the 1,995 U.S. registered voters were asked further, in this Morning Consult / Politico poll, “How confident are you that the airstrikes in Syria will prevent the Syrian government from using chemical or biological weapons again?” only 30% are “confident” (8% “Very” and 22% “Somewhat”) and 57% are not (21% not “at all” and 35% “not too”). Obviously, all of the 30% who are “confident” on that are also believing that the Syrian government has been “using chemical or biological weapons” and the 57% who aren’t “confident” are expecting the Syrian government to continue using such weapons; but the only other option that the pollster offered was “Don’t know / No opinion” and perhaps any respondents who disbelieved the U.S. government’s allegations that the Syrian government has been using such weapons would have to be among the 12% who said “Don’t know / No opinion” (or else such respondents would have quit answering at that point, which was 3 questions into a 7-question poll: the stupid polling organization excluded even the possibility that a respondent believed the Syrian government’s denials that it had used such weapons — that’s how little consideration was offered regarding even the merest possibility that this invasion had been punishment of a non-guilty nation by guilty invaders: zero).

This invasion, like the one a year earlier, occurred when the U.S. and its allies said that Syria was guilty but didn’t provide any evidence of that, and when Syria and its allies said that those charges were lies and that the ‘rebels’ whom the U.S. and its allies supported had actually set up the incident in order for the U.S. and its allies to invade and overthrow the government. These invasions were lawless — based upon no legal process other than brute accusations, like in any common lynching or other mob-‘justice’.

The fact that this poll did not show close to 100% contempt by the American people regarding what the U.S. government and its two allies, UK and France, had just done, indicates not only that the American people are astoundingly ignorant that the U.S. and its allies are international outlaws and warmongers (which makes sense for a nation that invaded and destroyed Iraq 2003, Libya 2011 and has been trying to do it since 2011 in Syria), but that they are also astoundingly misinformed as to which side in this war is guilty, and which side is not. (Hint: It’s certainly not Assad, who is simply defending Syrian sovereignty over Syrian territory.) According to the standards that were set in place by the Nuremberg Tribunals following World War II, in which invasions for any other purpose than national self-defense are war-crimes, it’s not only the lie-based invasion and destruction of Iraq 2003, and the 2011 invasion and destruction of Libya, that constitute international war-crimes — there’s simply no power that’s enforcing international law: not policing, not prosecuting, not judging, and not legislating, at all, any such thing. The international outlaw regimes, U.S. and its allies, are simply international gangsters, and the American public overwhelmingly are bored about the whole thing, don’t really care whether they are the Nazis of today (and the U.S. government is even proud to be it, not only under Trump, but under Obama before him — all accepted, not resisted in any way, by the American public).

Poll-findings like this implicate the American public, and not only the American government, in such mega-crimes. Even the clear-cut national experience of having been lied into Iraq 2003 hasn’t taught the American people that we live in a gangster-regime. And now this regime has destroyed even the last vestiges of the authority that the U.N. once had.

Ironically, the core voter-base for the war-criminal U.S. President Trump seem to have strongly opposed the latest invasion. But, to judge from this latest actual poll in the matter, the American public strongly supports that invasion. Apparently, Americans can’t learn from even the most blatant experiences, such as having been lied into destroying Iraq in 2003 — a country that, like Syria, and like Libya, had never attacked, nor even threatened to attack, the U.S. 

*

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

On Monday, the US and British intelligence agencies released a joint report charging Moscow with unspecified “cyber warfare” against the West. The American media was filled with hysterical warnings that Russia may have hacked “millions” of personal devices as well as critical infrastructure.

The tenor of the media coverage was epitomized by the New York Times, which labelled the intelligence agencies’ report a “computer-age version of a Cold War air raid drill, but asking citizens to upgrade their password rather than duck and cover.”

The coordinated campaign comes amid the unravelling of the official pretext for Friday night’s illegal US-British-French bombing of Russia’s ally Syria—the claim that the Assad government carried out a chemical weapons attack in eastern Ghouta on April 7.

On Sunday, the Independent published an on-the-spot report by well-known veteran journalist Robert Fisk, an expert on Middle East policy, who visited Douma, the town in Ghouta where a gas attack supposedly occurred.

Fisk spoke with Dr. Assim Rahaibani, who works at the medical clinic where the widely publicized videos were filmed showing children being hosed down with water, ostensibly to relieve poison gas inhalation. He quotes Rahaibani as follows:

“I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred metres from here on the night, but all the doctors know what happened. There was a lot of [government] shelling and aircraft were always over Douma at night—but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived.

“People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a ‘White Helmet,’ shouted ‘Gas!,’ and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia, not gas poisoning.”

This account is in line with statements by Russian authorities, who have charged that the White Helmets, the anti-Assad “rebel” organization funded by Britain, staged the gas attack under orders from UK intelligence to provide its Western sponsors with a pretext for intervention. Fisk notes that by the time he arrived in Douma, the White Helmets had already left to join fighters of the Islamic fundamentalist group Jaysh-al Islam, who fled Douma for Idlib under an agreement brokered with Russia.

Fisk’s report is a devastating exposure of the lies of the governments of France, Britain and the US, which have provided no evidence to substantiate their charges against the Assad regime. The imperialist governments’ narrative was immediately disseminated by a corrupt media that functions shamelessly as a propaganda arm of the state.

As the World Socialist Web Site insisted from the outset, the incident was a CIA-organized provocation to provide a pretext for imperialist intervention, continuing the seven-year-long US regime-change operation against Russia’s ally Assad, during which time Washington has armed and funded right-wing Islamist proxies.

Fisk’s report is at the same time a damning indictment of the corporate media, along with various pseudo-left organizations, such as the International Socialist Organization, which regurgitated all of the governments’ lying pretexts and made no effort to investigate them. The media has responded to Fisk’s report by burying it. In the 24 hours since its publication, neither the Washington Post nor the New York Times, which in 2005 called Fisk “probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain,” has reported on Fisk’s on-the-spot story.

The US government responds to each exposure of its lies by concocting new ones. The chemical weapons charge followed directly after the collapse of the unsubstantiated British and US claims that Russia carried out the attempted assassination on British soil of its former agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, using a nerve agent. Both Yulia and Sergei are now on their way to a full recovery despite having supposedly been poisoned with the most fatal military-grade agent in existence.

Yesterday’s report by the FBI and the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), “Advisory: Russian State-Sponsored Cyber Actors Targeting Network Infrastructure Devices,” is no more credible. Like previous charges levelled by the intelligence agencies against Moscow, there is not a single piece of evidence contained in the document to back them up.

Out of its 21 pages, approximately 15 provide generic information about computer network security flaws commonly exploited by what the report refers to as “cyber actors.” They give generic advice for users and network administrators to improve digital security. These include not using “the same password across multiple devices,” avoiding unencrypted communication protocols, and replacing outdated hardware and security software.

The first six pages include the only references to Russia, but provide no details, much less evidence, of any specific activities. Every one of the charges against Moscow begin with phrases such as: “FBI and NCSC have high confidence that”; “the US and UK governments assess that”; they “have received information from multiple sources that…,” etc.

None of this has prevented the media in both the US and UK from dutifully amplifying the latest charges. A front-page article published by the New York Times, “US-UK Warning on Cyberattacks Includes Private Homes,” cites the comments of Rob Joyce, a special assistant to the president and cybersecurity coordinator for the National Security Council, declaring that Russians are “seeking to exploit the increasing popularity of Internet-connected devices” that “you and I have in our homes.”

Revealing more than it intended, the article states that the government document “had been in the works for a long period” and was “not a response to any recent events.” In other words, the intelligence agencies were awaiting the opportune moment to publish it. Its release serves several purposes.

First, to create a mood of panic in the population so as to facilitate a major escalation of the confrontation with Russia. Second, to counter the popular distrust in the media and disbelief of what is widely seen as the latest pretext for yet another war against a Middle Eastern nation, and, third, to suppress anti-war sentiment and legitimize the crackdown on democratic rights and censorship of the Internet, under the banner of combating Russian cyber warfare and “fake news.”

The connection between the drive to war and Internet censorship was made clear by the statements of Pentagon officials following the attack on Syria. US Defence Secretary James Mattis warned Friday that there would be a rise in Russian “disinformation” in response to the US and allied strikes. Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White stated that Russian claims that Syrian air defence missiles had shot down 71 of the 105 missiles fired on Syria were part of a disinformation campaign “that has already begun.” She said there had been a “2,000 percent increase in Russian trolls” over 24 hours.

These claims are aimed at identifying any statements that contradict the official narrative of the US government and military as foreign “disinformation” and essentially treasonous.

The FBI report is no doubt also aimed at fuelling the ongoing campaign by the intelligence agencies and the Democratic Party demanding that Trump further escalate the confrontation with Russia. The Times and the other Democratic Party-aligned media denounced the Trump administration’s announcement yesterday that the US will not at this time impose further sanctions on Russia, contradicting the statements of Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, over the weekend.

The Times quoted Democrat Eliot Engel of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who said,

“I am outraged that President Trump pulled back sanctions on Russia for its support of the Assad regime.”

Times columnist Nikolas Kristof, who has made his career promoting imperialist wars in the name of “human rights,” praised the arch-reactionary Haley against Trump in an appearance on MSNBC, declaring that she was “much better regarded than almost any other member of the administration in foreign policy.”

In their book Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky distinguished between two kinds of victims:  the worthy victims and the unworthy victims.  The “worthy victims” are the victims (real and alleged) of leaders on the U.S. enemies list, such as Bashar al-Assad.  The “unworthy victims” are those of the U.S. and its client states, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. led cabal calling itself the “international community” is outraged when there are worthy victims.  For example the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley holds up pictures of dead Syrian babies for the world to see. Worthy victims are granted human rights, and Assad deserves our outrage.

Unworthy victims for example are the 50,000 Yemeni children who have died of starvation because of Saudi Arabia’s total blockade of Yemen, including blockading food, water and medicine.  Unworthy victims are blamed for being victims and ignored by the international community and the mainstream media.  Unworthy victims have no human rights. Yemen is a humanitarian disaster that is ignored, because Saudi Arabia is a friend of the U.S.A.

There is no outrage from the U.S. when Saudi Arabia’s Mohammad bin Salman (MsB) is dropping U.S. manufactured bombs from U.S. manufactured airplanes and indiscriminately slaughtering Yemeni men, women and children.  MsB is the new darling of the neocons, and Thomas Friedman writes words of praise as if it is really cool to be an absolute monarch in the 21^st century.  The late Robert Parry described Friedman and the neocons as being “disconnected from reality”.

For weeks now, tens of thousands of Gazans have been legally protesting for their right to return to their homes in Palestine.  There is no outrage when Netanyahu and his regime orders Israeli soldiers to massacre them. Hundreds of Palestinians were gunned down on Land Day and during demonstrations for the Right to Return. Netanyahu has the full support of the U.S. so there is no outrage and he will not pay for his crimes.  Netanyahu has every reason to believe that the U.S. will protect him, as the U.S. has many times in the past.  Nikki Haley is not going to hold up pictures of dead Palestinian children.  Instead she will shield Netanyahu from criticism, and accuse his critics of being anti-Semitic. Netanyahu’s victims are unworthy victims.

The Palestinians that were massacred in Gaza were inside the Israeli enclosure that has been their prison for over a decade.  They were on Palestinian land.  They presented no danger to the Israeli soldiers that were on the Israeli side of the barricade.  The soldiers had telescopic sights on their rifles and fired from a distance of over 100 yards away.  Hundreds of Palestinians were shot with illegal fragmentation bullets that have been banned by the 1899 Hague Declaration.  Netanyahu’s orders were illegal and the soldiers committed war crimes by following illegal orders.  The Nuremberg Trials of Nazis after World War Two declared that “just following orders” is not a defense against war crimes.

Two million Palestinian refugees have been trapped in Gaza for over a decade.  Gaza has been turned into an inhumane open-air concentration camp.  The people in Gaza have been cut off from the outside world.  They are living under a blockade and Israel controls everything and anything that goes in or out of the Gaza Strip.  What goes in is barely enough food for Gazans to survive.  Netanyahu jokes that he has put Gaza on a diet.  The sick, wounded and dying are not allowed to get out of Gaza to go to a hospital for medical treatment without Israeli permission.  Netanyahu rarely gives that permission.  Netanyahu’s victims are unworthy victims and are blamed for being victims.

In 2006 Israel tightened the noose around Gaza’s neck by imposing a total blockade by air, land and sea of Palestinians living in Gaza.  The supposed crime for which Israel imposed an illegal collective punishment on Gazans is that they democratically elected the wrong government, against Israel’s wishes.  Instead of electing the Israeli controlled Palestinian National Liberation Movement, known as Fatah, Gazans elected the Islamic Resistance Movement, known as Hamas.  Israel used to consider Fatah a terrorist organization, but now it does not because they are collaborators.  Instead Israel, which secretly backed the formation of Hamas in a divide and conquer strategy, now considers Hamas a terrorist organization. Netanyahu falsely accuses that the demonstrators are Hamas terrorists.

Protest in Gaza (Source: The Unz Review)

Netanyahu has killed and wounded journalist reporting from Gaza. They are unworthy victims so there is no outcry from the mainstream media about killing journalists.  The mainstream media repeatedly accuses Russia’s president Vladimir Putin of (allegedly) killing journalists, and there is an outcry because they are worthy victims.  The U.S. has imposed economic sanctions on Russia.  Israel gets billions of dollars in U.S. financial aid every year, regardless of what crimes Netanyahu commits.  Putin’s supposed crimes are that Russia has given aid to the breakaway region of Ukraine after a U.S. sponsored fascist regime change in Kiev. Putin is accused of invading Crimea when the Crimeans voted in a referendum to rejoin their historical attachment to Russia.  Putin is vilified for (allegedly) meddling in U.S. politics.  Netanyahu gets standing ovations from the U.S. Congress.

Netanyahu has been illegally occupying the West Bank of Palestine, and he is building illegal Israeli settlements there.  Netanyahu thumbs his nose at international law.  The U.S. has vetoed 43 U.N. resolutions against Israel.  Nikki Haley says that Putin is an obstructionist for vetoing a U.N. resolution condemning Assad for an alleged chemical weapons attack, without any evidence.  The U.S. tried to block an investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) of the alleged chemical weapon attack site in Syria.  The OPCW says it will investigate anyway.

President Trump’s order to attack Syria based on an alleged use of chemical weapons is a violation of international law.  The U.S. is not the international policeman, judge and executioner.  Article 2, section 4 of the U.N. Charter states:

“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.”

The only legal uses of force according to the U.N. Charter are for self-defense and when force is authorized by the U.N. Security Council.  Violations of the U.N. Charter are also a violation of the U.S. Constitution under Article VI which states:

“…all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.”

The U.N. Charter is a treaty that was signed by the President of the United States and ratified by the U.S. Senate.  Under the U.S. Constitution the U.N. Charter is the “supreme law of the land” in the U.S., as well as internationally.

Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights everyone has a presumption of innocence until proven guilty before a court of law.  The U.S. does not have the right to declare a sentence before there is a trial and verdict.  Article 66 of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entitles those accused of crimes the “presumption of innocence” and further says:

“The onus is on the Prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused.  In order to convict the accused, the Court must be convinced of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”

We do not even know if a crime has been committed. There has been no investigation yet.  There is considerable reason for doubt.  Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh and others (Robert Fisk, Ron Paul, Jeffrey Sachs, former U.K. ambassador to Syria Peter Ford, Fox News Tucker Carlson, Larry Wilkerson, etc.) have raised serious doubts about the alleged chemical weapons attack by Assad. There are no known facts about the latest alleged chemical weapon attack, or the past alleged attacks either.

The unproven allegation of chemical weapons comes from U.S. backed terrorists that have been waging a war against the Syrian people for over 7 years.  It has been widely reported and documented that the alleged chemical weapon attacks, supposedly perpetrated by Assad, have been false flags and faked.  The terrorists have been reported to have chemical weapons in their arsenal.  If chemical weapons were used in any of the attacks they could have come from the terrorists themselves.

It is well known that the U.S. has been behind the war against Assad, and that the U.S. admittedly is backing terrorists in a U.S. regime change projects.  The dead and wounded of U.S. aggression during the 21^st century number in the millions of people in over half a dozen countries.  The mainstream media ignores the magnitude of the wars of U.S. aggression, and the U.S. people mainly go about their day to day activities as if nothing is happening.  Since the U.S. is allegedly a democracy and has freedom of the press, then U.S. citizens and the U.S. mainstream media are responsible for the actions of their government.  Ignorance of the law about what their government is doing is not an excuse.

Under international law the Palestinians have a right to resist the illegal military occupation of Palestine that has been going on since 1967.  But Israel does not have the right to impose collective punishment, deny refugees the right to return home, to confiscate land, impose indefinite detention, torture prisoners and restrict the free movement of civilians; nor to confine them in inhumane living conditions in Gaza.  Israel is acting no different than the Nazis did against the Jews in 1939 when they enclosed Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.  Just like the Warsaw Ghetto, Gaza is unlivable, the people are starving, the water is contaminated, disease is rampant, and Israel has systematically destroyed their homes and civilian infrastructure.

Israel routinely shoots to kill anyone or anything entering a “no man’s land” buffer zone inside Gaza.  It even has remote controlled machine guns and other indiscriminant instruments of death within the buffer zone. When tens of thousands of unarmed demonstrators approached the buffer zone, the Israeli military snipers were prepared to massacre them.  Netanyahu says that Israel has the most moral army in the world.  Massacring unarmed civilians is immoral.

The demonstrations in commemoration of Land Day and protests for the Right to Return have been announced in advance.  Israel opened fire and massacred demonstrators, killing and critically wounding hundreds of Palestinians, including clearly identified journalist, such as Yasser Murtaja. The massacre of unarmed civilians who are demonstrating on their own land is a clear violation of international law, and a crime against humanity.  On April 3^rd the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem called on Israeli soldiers to refuse illegal orders to shoot unarmed civilians saying:

“The use of live ammunition against unarmed persons who pose no danger to anyone is unlawful. It is even more blatantly unlawful in the case of soldiers firing from a great distance at demonstrators located on the other side of the fence that separates Israel from the Gaza Strip. In addition, it is impermissible to order soldiers to fire live ammunition at individuals for approaching the fence, damaging it, or attempting to cross it.”

Under international law commanders giving the orders to shoot unarmed civilians and individual soldiers who do so could be charged with wars crimes by the International Criminal Court.  That is not likely to happen anytime soon because the U.S. protects Israel and allows Netanyahu to literally get away with murder.  Netanyahu’s victims are unworthy.

*

This article was originally published on The Greanville Post.

David is a progressive columnist writing on economic, political and social issues. His articles have been published by OpEdNews, The Greanville Post, The Real News Network, Truth Out, Consortium News, Global Research, and many other publications.   David is active in social issues relating to peace, race relations and religious freedom, homelessness and equal justice. David is a member of Veterans for Peace, Saint Pete for Peace, CodePink, and International Solidarity Movement.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

At age-86, Raul Castro is stepping down as Cuba’s leader, serving as its president since February 2008.

Meeting on Wednesday, Cuba’s National Assembly reportedly is poised to choose Miguel Mario Diaz-Canel Bermudez as Castro’s successor – an official announcement not expected until Thursday.

Diaz-Canel was the only name proposed to assume the nation’s top post as State Council chairman (president of the state).

National Assembly President since 2013, Esteban Lazo Hernandez will continue as parliament speaker.

Diaz-Canel will be age-58 on April 20. Since 2013, he served as First Vice President of the Council of State and Council of Ministers, Cuba’s top position after its leadership.

He’s been a Communist Party of Cuba Politburo member since 2003, from 2009 – 2013 serving as Minister of Higher Education.

An electronics engineer by training, he earlier served in the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces – in the 1980s, teaching at his Central University of Las Villas alma mater.

In 1993, he became politically active, the following year elected Villa Carta Province Provincial Party Committee First Secretary.

He’s the first political figure other than Fidel and Raul Castro to lead Cuba since its 1959 revolution.

In February 2013, Raul said his just begun five-year term as Cuban president, ending in 2018, would be his last.

At the time, Diaz-Canel was seen as his likely successor, Castro selecting him as his top vice president, making him Cuba’s likely leader when Raul stepped down, saying at the time:

Diaz-Canel’s appointment as first in the line of succession “represent(ed) a definitive step in the configuration of the future leadership of the nation,” a moment of “historic transcendence.”

Aged-86 at the time, Fidel was present for the announcement, making a rare public appearance since stepping down as Cuba’s longtime leader because of his near-fatal illness.

He survived, recovered, passing away on November 25, 2016 at age-90.

Diaz-Canel is seen as a competent official, loyal to the system Fidel established. He appeared often on Cuban television, playing an increasingly important role in political affairs.

Older generation freedom-fighters greatly aged or passed. Diaz-Canel’s ascension to power likely represents a combination of revolutionary continuity with changes he’ll pursue.

It’ll be a while to see the course he intends to follow.

Cuba’s National Assembly asked for social media comments under #SomosContinuidad (We are continuity).

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

Interviewer: “If it is proven that the British allegations about Russia poisoning the Skripals are not true, should the Prime Minister resign? 

Craig Murray: Certainly. And Boris Johnson should resign, the whole Cabinet should resign, and we should have a general election ….. “[from: Portonblimp Down Episode 2 – A Tale By Boris Johnson 501  8 Apr, 2018]

The Skripal Affair is the final nail in the coffin of the Western media.  – Paul Craig Roberts

On March 4th, just after 1 pm, two people were found convulsing on a park bench in Salisbury, England.  It turned out to be a former Russian spy, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, who had arrived the previous day from Moscow.  They went to a cemetery on the morning of March 4th, then at some point went on to the Mill Pub, then Zizzi’s Pizzeria, near the bench where they were found.

Two days later, British Prime Minister Theresa May and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson staked their reputations — both nationally and internationally — on brazen and unsubstantiated claims that Russia was responsible for the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter.  They claimed that Russia alone could have used the toxic agent that they called “Novichok” although it was known that the US had also developed the A-234 agent (sometimes referred to as “Novichok”), the UK lab at Porton Down possessed it, and the OPCW (Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Warfare) had certified in September 2017 that all Russian chemical weapons had been destroyed. (1) 

To dramatize their claims, the UK government threw out Russian diplomatic staff and pressured the US and  numerous other western countries to follow suit.  The lack of any Russian motive was largely ignored despite the unlikely timing. As former Ambassador Craig Murray put it:

From Putin’s point of view, to assassinate Skripal now seems to have very little motivation. If the Russians have waited eight years to do this, they could have waited until after their World Cup. The Russians have never killed a swapped spy before. Just as diplomats, British and otherwise, are the most ardent upholders of the principle of diplomatic immunity, so security service personnel everywhere are the least likely to wish to destroy a system which can be a key aspect of their own personal security; quite literally spy swaps are their “Get Out of Jail Free” card. You don’t undermine that system – probably terminally – without very good reason. (2)

Despite the loud claims that the UK government had identified the toxic agent, it clearly had no clue where it came from; the stories changed from the park bench to Skripal’s car, to his house, or to the pub and restaurant they had visited beforehand.  Supposedly to be on the safe side, the government (a month and a half later!) is now cordoning off many of these areas to the public with the theatrical help of 190 biowarfare- suited specialist military personnel from the Army and RAF who are installing “semi- permanent” barriers around Salisbury.  (3)

Along with the UK government’s initial refusal to provide any evidence, questions started to arise:

•  Investigators noticed that the Skripals’ cell phones were turned off and did not register their GPS locations for four hours before they were found. (4)
• There were apparently no CCTV recordings of their activities that morning despite the presence of cameras in that popular area. (5)
• The pair was taken to a local “District” hospital.  Despite the continued government’s claims that they were expected to die, the Skripals were not taken to the larger teaching hospital in Salisbury that would have been better equipped to save their lives. (6) In fact, it appears that they were meant to die.
• On March 8th, the story of the “first responder” Police Detective Nick Bailey came out.  While this was first spun as the policeman who found the Skripals, it was later admitted that he had been told to go to the Skripal home on March 8th, four days after the Skripals’ poisoning.  The actual first responders were apparently fine! It is not known what Bailey’s symptoms were, or whether they resembled those of the Skripals.  There is only one photo of Bailey, apparently before his illness.  Police claimed that 18 other police were possibly affected; it appears they were simply checked out with blood and urine tests. (7)
• The Russian government, after being contacted by the Skripal family in Russia, notified the UK government that the Skripals had pets — a fact that should have been evident when police visited the Skripal home on March 8th.  The Russians were soon informed that the pets had been euthanized, and their bodies incinerated — reportedly at the Porton Down chemical lab.  Britain claimed that the two guinea pigs were found “dehydrated” and dead and a Persian cat “in distress”; it destroyed any evidence the pets might have provided. One cat is reportedly missing.
• The contentions that no laboratory had reported any finding that Novichok had been used on Skripal and his daughter and that the British government had provided no evidence of any nerve agent was supported by a letter to The London Times in which a “Steven Davies – Consultant in emergency medicine, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust” wrote:  Sir, Further to your report “Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment“, Mar 14, may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only been ever been three patients with significant poisoning.  (8)

After a month, Britain sent “evidence” to OPCW labs

One full month after the alleged poisoning, the OPCW told the UK government that in order to identify what substance had been used in the Skripal attack, it needed to get the original substance rather than the chemical residue found in the Skripals’ blood samples. (9)

Journalist Julie Hyland wrote on the OPCW report:

The full text is classified and has been made available only to “state parties.”  The summary is extremely vague. The OPCW does not mention Russia. Nor does it use the term novichok …

The only time the OPCW uses the term “nerve agent” it is prefaced with the caveat “allegedly.” The description throughout is of a “toxic chemical” being deployed on March 4 against the Skripals. The OPCW does not name the chemical, nor does it identify its origins. On both counts, this fails to substantiate the claims that were at the centre of the British government’s misinformation.

All the OPCW summary does is “confirm the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity [not the origins] of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury and severely injured three people.”

Oddly, the OPCW states that the toxic chemical involved was of “high purity” with an “almost complete absence” of any impurities. … … and highly diluted.. even if those properties directly contradict each other. (10)

But the results from Switzerland’s Spiez Laboratory, one of the five centers permanently authorized by the OPCW, were explosive.  As journalist Ben Birchall reported: 

• “The experts of the Institute discovered traces of toxic chemical called ‘BZ’ and its precursors. It is a Schedule 2 substance under the Chemical Weapons Convention.” “BZ” is a chemical agent, used to temporary [sic] incapacitate people due to its psychotoxic effect which is reached in 30-60 minutes after the agent’s application and lasts up to four days.  “According to the information the Russian Federation possesses, this agent was used in the armed forces of the USA, United Kingdom and several others NATO member states. No stocks of such substance ever existed either in the Soviet Union or in the Russian Federation,” the officer pointed out.
• the Swiss experts also “discovered strong concentration of traces of the nerve agent of A-234 type in its initial states as well as its decomposition products.” “In view of the experts, such concentration of the A-234 agent would result in inevitable fatal outcome of its administration.
• Moreover, considering its high volatility, the detection of this substance in its initial state (pure form and high concentration) is extremely suspicious as the samples have been taken several weeks since the poisoning,”  [emphases added by KB] (11)

This Swiss finding implies that the Skripals were not poisoned by the Novichok/A-234, and that the sample it was given appeared to be fraudulent. The report supported the contentions of many observers that the British government’s claims were not to be trusted.

Yulia Skripal makes a phone call

As soon as Yulia Skripal (image on the left) was released from the hospital (with some articles claiming that she had already died!) police placed her in what they called “a secure location”. Yulia was able to borrow a cell phone, however, and quickly called her cousin Viktoria Skripal in Russia. Luckily for Yulia, her cousin’s phone recorded all calls and the conversation was recorded and broadcast on Russia’s Rossiya 1.  Yulia was quoted in the brief call as saying that; 

“[e]verything is fine, everything is solvable, everyone is recovering and everyone is alive.”  

When the cousin told her she planned to visit London to see her soon, Yulia replied, 

“They are not going to give you a visa, Vik.”  

Yulia said that her father was “resting now, sleeping,”  and “slightly choked up”, she added that

“everyone’s health is normal and there are no irreversible things.”

She then said good bye. Victoria said she knew she had been speaking to Yulia and that she sounded “healthy and normal”. (12)

Less then an hour after the recording aired in Russia, UK police published what it claimed was a statement by Yulia Skripal, in which she asked that no one contact her.  The language used in the stilted police statement sounded like a script from a British bureaucrat (“At the moment I do not wish to avail myself of their services”) and it contradicted Yulia’s obvious desire to connect with her cousin. (13)

Russian embassy officials have not been able to meet Yulia Skripal and the UK’s Home Office rejected Viktoria Skripal’s visa application “because it did not comply with the Immigration Rules.” 

The cause for alarm

Theresa May and her government cannot survive an uncovering of their Novichok fraud.  A UK election in response to the truth will not only bring down the government, it should give Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour Party a healthy majority. Given Corbyn’s anti-establishment positions on many issues — including the Mideast — and his skepticism about this fraud, the British “deep state” will find that possibility unacceptable.  A couple of Russian lives do not matter in this scenario.

The Skripals are in grave danger. They were supposed to die before the UK was forced to present the evidence that would expose the anti-Russian fraud.  With no family in Britain beside Sergei and Yulia Skripal, and the Russian embassy barred from meeting with them, there is no one who can stand up to protect the lives of the Skripals.

It is clear that while the Skripals could make a fortune going to the media, the British government will never allow them to tell their story. According to the Sunday Times, there are plans to send the Skripals to the US where they “will be offered new identities and a new life.”  (14)

Really? If the Russian poisoning story were true, the Skripals should be happy to return to their respective homes and make money from their stories.

In fact, their faces have been so publicized that they would be recognized anywhere in the world.  And why would they choose to erase their past lives?

The message behind the “relocation” story is, don’t look for the Skripals again, because you will never find them.

The British government must not be allowed to erase them.  Jeremy Corbyn must demand that the Skripals meet with a Parliamentary committee and be seen in public; if there is no demand to insure that the Skripals have their freedom, they may well face the same fate as their pets.

*

Karin Brothers is a freelance writer.

Notes

1. Ahmed, Nafeez. “The UK Government is Manufacturing its Nerve Agent Case for ‘Action’ on Russia”. March 14, 2018.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48952.htm

2. Murray, Craig. “Russian to Judgement”. 13 Mar, 2018. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/page/2/

3. Dearden, Lizzie. “Salisbury poisoning latest: Police to place high security barriers around key locations for months to come”. Tuesday 17 April 2018.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/salisbury-polisoning-latest-police-security-barriers-cordons-sergei-skripal-nerve-agent-a8308456.html

4. Nicholls, Peter. “Missing Hours: Skripals’ Cell phones Reportedly Turned Off on Day of Attack”.    REUTERS. 12 March, 2018.https://sputniknews.com/military/201803261062902960-skripals-cellphones-gps/

5. “Was Salisbury’s CCTV on’ at time of ‘nerve agent’ attack?”  SpireFM. 13 March, 2018. https://www.spirefm.co.uk/news/local-news/2526330/was-salisburys-cctv-on-at-time-of-nerve-agent-attack/

6. Unpublished letter to Guardian on April 7, 2018 from Dr. Ken Ranney:Now that the Skripals are improving, it seems reasonable to question what happened after they were found seriously poisoned.  Why were they taken to, and kept in, a 455-bed hospital with an incomplete roster of specialists, the Salisbury District Hospital, when a tertiary specialist centre teaching hospital with 1100 beds, the Southampton General Hospital, was 24 miles away?

7.   “Sergei Skripal: 21 people have been treated following Russia spy poisoning, police say”. The Independent. 8 March 2018. Accessed 15 April, 2018:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sergei-skripal-how-many-people-treated-ill-poison-russian-spy-police-salisbury-a8246566.html

8. Moon Of Alabama. “No Patients Have Experienced Symptoms Of Nerve Agent Poisoning In Salisbury” 19 March 2018.www.informationclearinghouse.info/49030.htm

9. Dejong, Peter. “OPCW Needs Intact Substance to Identify Skripal Poison”. Sputnik International. 4 April 2018.  https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201804041063216559-opcw-identify-substance-skripal-poison/ 

10. Hyland, Julie. “UN agency fails to substantiate claims of Russian use of “military grade nerve agent” in Skripal poisoning”. World Socialist Web Site: 13 April 2018.  http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/04/13/opcw-a13.html

11. Birchall, Ben. “Russian Embassy in UK Doubts OPCW Skripal Probe as Swiss Lab Cites BZ Agent”. Sputnik International. 15 April 2018.https://sputniknews.com/europe/201804151063576783-skripal-case-bz-agent-opcw/

12. “The curious case of Yulia Skripal’s recorded phone call”. DW. http://www.dw.com/en/the-curious-case-of-yulia-skripals-recorded-phone-call/a-43287554

13.  Murray, Craig. “Yulia Skripal Is Plainly Under Duress 775”. 11 Apr, 2018.   https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

14. Hyland, Julie. “UN agency fails to substantiate claims of Russian use of “military grade nerve agent” in Skripal poisoning”. World Socialist Web Site. 13 April 2018. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/04/13/opcw-a13.html

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party won a 2/3 supermajority in parliament.

This stunning victory proves that the Soros-led anti-government campaign was woefully ineffective and may have actually been counterproductive by strengthening Orban’s appeal by reinforcing the country’s developing “siege mentality”. Hungarians already feel under threat from the world at large ever since the Migrant Crisis, while they’ve come to view Brussel’s hostility to the national sovereignty policies that they’ve implemented in response as a sign of regional aggression. The “internal siege” by pro-Western NGOs and foundations might have pushed some on-the-fence voters to side with Orban out of fear that anything less than his party’s decisive victory could endanger their national and cultural security.

The end result is that Hungary has defended its reputation as a bastion of EuroRealism and made it impossible for the EU to sanction its ideological ally Poland because of the bloc’s inability to reach the necessary unanimous decision in this regard given that Orban has remained in office and is firmly opposed to this.

Therefore, the Polish-Hungarian “Three Seas” axis will only tighten in the future and continue to expand its appeal in Central and Eastern Europe after proving that it’s possible to stand up to the EU’s liberal-globalist elite and succeed so long as leaders have the public’s sincere support like Orban does. He’s been able to accomplish this through the ironically masterful employment of interwar Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci’s theory of “cultural hegemony” which essentially asserts that cultural change must always precede profound political change in any society. The New York Times recently talked about how Orban pulled this off in an article titled “How Viktor Orban Bends Hungarian Society to His Will”, which despite its negative angle makes for an instructive read if objectively assessed.

The outlet describes how Orban has inserted his EuroRealist ideology into civil society, the arts, grade school textbooks, universities, and the media in order to make Hungarian culture an instrument for advancing and sustaining his revolutionary ideals. It should be remembered that left-wing and violent organizations don’t have a “monopoly” on “revolutions”, which can be generalized as just being the change from one organizational system to another, so it’s entirely accurate to describe the Hungarian leader as a political and cultural revolutionary (or counter-revolutionary, depending on ones’ perspective) in liberating his society from Brussels’ liberal-globalist yoke and returning it to its conservative-nationalist roots.

The previous weekend’s election can therefore be interpreted as a popular referendum on the revolution, which Orban won with flying colors in proving that the vast majority of people are firmly behind him every step of the way.

*

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

Over the past two months the news has been dominated by two bizarre but related events:

1) the alleged nerve agent poisoning of the exchanged Russian dual-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, England; and

2) the supposed gas poisoning of Syrian civilians by the Assad government, leading to the “retaliatory” April 13-14 missile attack against the Syrian nation by the U.S. and Great Britain as ordered by President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Theresa May.

This attack was an act of war against a sovereign nation carried out without approval of the U.N. Security Council or the U.S. Congress or British Parliament and were cheered on by French president Emmanuel Macron.

Mounting evidence shows that both the Skripal and Syrian incidents were actually false-flag provocations, likely carried out by or with the connivance of Western intelligence services. The target of both provocations was, without question, the Russian state and its president Vladimir Putin. Of course Syria has also long been on the “hit list” of Middle Eastern nations targeted for “regime change” by the U.S. neocons after 9/11, with Israel a key beneficiary.

Numerous news sources are documenting the false-flag nature of these incidents that will not be repeated here. Note, however, that it has been the British that have been whining the loudest in both cases, though, if Theresa May and her cronies, along with France’s Macron, do succeed in starting a war with Russia, it will be the U.S. military that does the heavy lifting: the same as the U.S. did in World Wars I and II in Britain’s epic geopolitical campaign to take down its greatest continental rival, Germany.

Few commentators have noted strongly enough that a key nation driving the current war agenda against Russia is in fact Britain, not just the U.S.

Regarding Israel, that nation owes its origin to its status as a British proxy, supported as an Asian beachhead to control Middle Eastern oil. Modern Israel is a British project as much, if not more so, than it is of the U.S.

Zionism actually originated in Britain in the early 19^th century. Its leading financial supporters were the British Rothschilds. The 1917 Balfour Declaration stated Britain’s support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. The declaration was contained in a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Baron Lionel Walter Rothschild, then a private citizen but heir to the fortune left to him by his father Nathan Rothschild.

And where does Theresa May get her orders? Again, few, if any, commentators have noted that she gets them through the U.K. Privy Council, to which she has belonged since 2002.

Members of the Privy Council take an oath that was released publicly in 1998 by the Tony Blair government and appears in Wikipedia:

“You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto the Queen’s Majesty, as one of Her Majesty’s Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty’s Person, Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same….You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God.^”

Also from Wikipedia, new Privy Council appointees undergo an initiation ceremony that “is held in private and typically requires kneeling on a stool before the sovereign and then kissing hands. According to The Royal Encyclopaedia:

‘The new privy counsellor or minister will extend his or her right hand, palm upwards, and, taking the Queen’s hand lightly, will kiss it with no more than a touch of the lips.’”

The Privy Council consists of the leaders of the major British institutions that rule the U.K. and the British Commonwealth, including the extended royal family (part of a Europe-wide matrix of old nobility), the British political parties, both houses of Parliament, multiple governmental departments, political leaders from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and elsewhere in the Commonwealth, and the top bishops of the Church of England.

The Privy Council is in fact the managing directorate of the British oligarchy.

So much for where Theresa May gets her direction and whose hand she kisses. The key to understanding all this is that the British Empire is very much alive in 2018, though it doesn’t use that name any more and largely takes cover behind the American military fist.

The empire today is heavily financial, organized around the banking and other financial institutions housed in the City of London and replicated in financial centers worldwide, particularly New York, Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, Tokyo, Hong Kong, etc. One reason Britain’s role in world affairs is not as well publicized as that of the U.S. is the deep secrecy surrounding the workings of the Privy Council, where utterance of the truth may be high treason.

I have pointed out elsewhere how Cecil Rhodes and his Round Table, toward the end of the 19^th century, vowed to recapture the U.S. for the Empire. Nathan Rothschild was a key member of the Round Table, after having financed Rhodes’ gold and diamond operations in South Africa. All this was documented by American scholar Carroll Quigley in several books, including Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time.

The British succeeded in regaining control of the U.S. They did so by instigating the creation of the Federal Reserve System on the model of the Bank of England, taking charge of leading American newspapers to put forth pro-British propaganda, dragging the U.S. into World War I to defeat Kaiser Wilhelm, and setting up the Council on Foreign Relations on the model of the British Royal Institute of International Affairs.

The U.S. fought World War II on Britain’s behalf to defeat Hitler. After the war, President Harry Truman chartered the National Security Agency and CIA on British models. According to a confidential source, the NSA in particular is an asset of British intelligence.

The U.S. national security advisor, in charge of advising the president of the United States on all security issues, actually reports to internationalists headquartered in London and New York. The leading such figure in the U.S. is Dr. Henry Kissinger.

The cat was let out of the bag in a speech by Major General James Jones at the February 8, 2009, Munich Conference on Security Policy, where he said,

“As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.”

Britain is now dragging the U.S. toward World War III against Russia, which is the continental European power that succeeded Germany through the unexpected and shocking victory won by the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front in 1944-45. It was shocking because the British and Americans were hoping Hitler and Stalin would finish each other off. But that didn’t happen.

It was also likely the British that took part in actions to arm the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons to balance American power after World War II. Experts agreed there was no way the Soviets could have acquired atomic weapons so quickly without help. If the British really were involved, were they playing off the two main victors of that war against each other through instigating the Cold War?

Screengrab from Smithsonian

It may still be the British plan to induce the U.S. and Russia to reduce each other to rubble, or at least so to distract each other so that British financial hegemony can proceed unhindered. We are seeing Cold War II unfold as we speak, even though no sane person in the U.S., Russia, or Russia’s ally China, really wants it.

But Britain obviously does, along with its imperial brethren imbedded within the U.S. “Deep State.” These brethren are currently engaged in their own war against the Donald Trump administration to undermine any predilection Trump may have to seek a cooperative relationship with Russia instead of pushing toward the conflict they desire.

The people and government of the U.S. are too blind and ill-educated to see any of this. They are laughingly easy to manipulate through the mass media, as the British figured out via the research conducted at the Tavistock Institute decades ago. British author George Orwell warned of this in his book 1984. It’s all being played out today according to script.

Another prophet of our time was 19^th century Scottish author Robert Lewis Stevenson. In his short story “When the Devil Was Well,” he wrote of the evils of the Machiavellian politics of the Italian Renaissance. In today’s London, New York, and Washington, “The Devil is Well.” Lies are Truth. War is Peace. Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron certainly agree. And their American Deep State allies are waging a daily campaign to get Trump to go along.

Theresa May in particular must be gloating. Her husband, Philip May, is an executive for Capital Group, the largest shareholder in arms manufacturer BAE and the second largest in Lockheed Martin. Stock values for both companies reportedly have soared since the latest attacks on Syria.

Along these lines, I would like to address a question to the Archbishop of Canterbury, His Grace Mr. Justin Welby, also a member of the Privy Council, as well as to all Anglican church ministers, and to the religious leaders of the U.S.

I won’t include France, because the French seem to be mostly hedonistic atheists, so why should any of this matter to them?

Archbishop Welby is author of a book entitled Reimagining Britain: Foundations for Hope. He writes on the official Archbishop of Canterbury website:

 “In writing Reimagining Britain, I’ve tried to make a personal contribution to the challenge I believe lies before us: reimagining our future at this critical time in the life of our country. It’s my belief that the values we find in our Christian heritage – compassion, generosity and solidarity, to name a few – offer a source of hope and wisdom for Britain in the 21st century, even as we rightly embrace who we are becoming as a multi-faith and multi-cultural society.”

My question is, wasn’t there a time in British history when the Archbishop of Canterbury stood up to the king and uttered words of truth to power? Didn’t T.S. Eliot write a play about it entitled Murder in the Cathedral?

The archbishop was Thomas à Becket, who was killed by knights loyal to King Henry II in 1170 for opposing the will of the crown through actions that violated Christian ethics. Yes, Thomas à Becket paid the ultimate price, but he didn’t back down, because that was the Christian thing to do.

What modern clergyman would do this? Today the clergy in England and America seem to be either really nice people who wouldn’t hurt a fly, or raging lunatics who foam at the mouth as their imagined Armageddon approaches through escalation of war in the Middle East, leading, they hope, to… “Rapture”?

When is His Grace Mr. Welby going to tell Theresa May that she’s lying about the Skripal and Syria affairs and to cut it out? Or maybe his oath to the queen, along with his kneeling and kissing the queen’s hand via his membership on the Privy Council, wouldn’t allow it. Would Thomas à Becket have signed that oath?

Karl Barth had these people figured out. Barth was a Swiss German-speaking theologian who rewrote the principles of the Protestant Reformation during the first half of the 20^th century. Barth also stood up to Hitler by telling us that it was Jesus Christ who conveyed the Word of God for our redemption and salvation, not the almighty Nazi state.

The teachings of Christ, Barth made clear, begins with the “baptism of repentance.” It starts with realization of our sinful nature and teaches us how to resist it and discover instead our Living God as a presence within ourselves. When this happens, our behavior toward other people changes.

We can then begin to love our neighbor as ourselves and act according to Christian precepts in all our affairs. This likely does not include bombing other people under false pretenses in order to boost stock prices.

Barth traveled to England in the 1930s and said to them something really interesting. He told them, “You are all Pelagians.” (Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1994, p. 204)

According to Wikipedia,

“Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid. This theological theory is named after the British monk Pelagius (354–420 or 440)…Pelagius taught that the human will, as created with its abilities by God, was sufficient to live a sinless life, although he believed that God’s grace assisted every good work. Pelagianism has come to be identified with the view (whether taught by Pelagius or not) that human beings can earn salvation by their own efforts.”

The tendency toward Pelagianism has been recognized by all branches of the Christian religion as one of the fundamental heresies, as it denies the need for the baptism of repentance brought to mankind by Jesus.

Pelagianism asserts as fundamental that, “I’m ok.” This leads to the idea, “I’m okay just as I am. Nothing about me needs to change. If it does, I’ll easily take care of it.”

Psychology teaches us, however, that the human individual lacks discernment as to where within himself his impulses are coming from. It thus becomes likely, if not inevitable, that he turns to self-interest, as such impulses are fed to his consciousness by his animal self.

Pelagianism devolves into the dual philosophy of egotism combined with the pleasure principle—I, me, my, and mine; and, if it feels good, do it. Politically, Pelagianism ends with imperialism and oppression of the weak. Economically, it turns into unbridled capitalism and the pursuit of profit at all costs. Throw in Machiavelli, and we’ve arrived at where we are in the world today.

It is instructive in light of Barth’s views on the British predilection toward Pelagianism to compare the Protestant Reformation as it played out in Europe vs. what took place in England. In Europe, Luther and Calvin began with the idea taught by Jesus that every human being born on earth needs redemption and can find it through the Divine Word, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the sacraments.

In England, by contrast, the Reformation was brought about by King Henry VIII, who wanted to shake off the influence of the Church so that he could be free to murder any of his wives who crossed him and seize monastic property. Henry VIII appears to have been an exemplar of British Pelagianism.

Since then, the Church of England has been largely the tool of secular power, even though its liturgy and sacraments, as they appear in the Book of Common Prayer, still contain much of original Christian teaching. In its Thirty-Nine Article of Religion, Anglicanism also specifically renounces Pelagianism.

Nevertheless, the Anglican clergy are beholden to the British state for their salaries. Perhaps that’s one reason they are always so nice to those in charge.

The British are indeed “nice” people. They enjoy life. They are “comfortable” in the world. They adore their “royals.” They understand that real democracy is rather unclean—not really for them. That’s why they still have a queen.

The British are subjects, not citizens. So are the Canadians, the Australians, the New Zealanders, and many others in Commonwealth countries where the queen is the head of state.

British Pelagianism leads to what German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “cheap grace,” “where no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin.” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, Touchstone Edition 1995, p. 43) Essentially you consider yourself justified simply by being polite. If you want, you can spend £45 having High Tea at Highclere Castle, ancestral home of a genuine British earl. That’s as polite as it gets.

Meanwhile, in Britain, you have a government of manipulators and assassins working in the dark behind the scenes with a population absorbed by BBC comedies, murder mysteries, historical dramas—and by “Brexit.”

British Pelagianism and its psycho-spiritual equivalents open the door to abuses of every kind. They open the door to the decadent lifestyles of the rich and famous among the British upper crust, the American “one-percent,” and oligarchs everywhere.

They also open the door to conquest of other countries. They open the door to U.S. fantasies about being the “exceptional nation.” They open the door to the destruction of the environment with pesticides, herbicides, and greenhouse gases so the petroleum and chemical industries, and the capital funds that own them, can reap endless profits from all that too. The same with her husband’s armaments industries that are doing so well thanks to Theresa May’s stellar decision-making.

Finally, they open the door to endless war propelled by a stream of false-flag incidents so transparent that even intelligent high school students are now seeing through them.

*

Richard C. Cook is a retired federal government analyst. He is author of “Challenger Revealed: How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age,” “We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform,” and numerous print and internet articles on public policy issues. Mr. Cook may be reached at [email protected].

Featured image is from Strategic Culture Foundation.

With foresight, this incisive and carefully researched article by Award winning author Mahdi Nazemroaya first published by Global Research in December 2011 provides a historical understanding of Washington’s broader Middle East military agenda.

*

The encirclement of Syria and Lebanon has long been in the works. Since 2001, Washington and NATO have started the process of cordoning off Lebanon and Syria. The permanent NATO presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Syrian Accountability Act are part of this initiative. It appears that this roadmap is based on a 1996 Israeli document aimed at controlling Syria. The document’s name is A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.

The 1996 Israeli document, which included prominent U.S. policy figures as authors, calls for “rolling back Syria” in 2000 or afterward. The roadmap outlines pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon, diverting the attention of Damascus by using an anti-Syrian opposition in Lebanon, and then destabilizing Syria with the help of both Jordan and Turkey. This has all respectively occurred from 2005 to 2011. This is also why the anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) were created in Lebanon.

As a first step towards all this the 1996 document even calls for the removal of President Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad and even alludes to the balkanization of Iraq and forging a strategic regional alliance against Damascus that includes a Sunni Muslim Arab “Central Iraq.” The sectarian nature of this project is very obvious as are its ties to opposing a so-called “Shiite Crescent.” The roadmap seeks to foment sectarian divisions as a means of conquering Syria and creating a Shiite-Sunni rift that will oppose Iran and keep the Arab monarchs in power.

The U.S. has now initiated a naval build-up off the Syrian and Lebanese coasts. This is part of Washington’s standard scare tactics that it has used as a form of intimidation and psychological warfare against Iran, Syria, and the Resistance Bloc. While Washington is engaged in its naval build-up, the mainstream media networks controlled by the Saudis and Arab clients of the U.S. are focusing on the deployment of Russian naval vessels to Syria, which can be seen as a counter-move to NATO.

Al-Ramtha in Jordan is being used to launch attacks into Daraa and Syrian territory. The Jordanian Minister of State for Media Affairs and Communications, Rakan Al-Majali, has even publicly admitted this and dismissed it as weapons smuggling. For years, Jordanian forces have successfully prevented weapons from reaching the Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank from Jordanian territory. In reality, Amman is sending weapons into Syria and working to destabilize Syria. Jordanian forces work as a frontline to protect Israel and the Jordanian intelligence services are an extension of the C.I.A. and Mossad.

According to the Turkish media, France has sent its military trainers into Turkey and Lebanon to prepare conscripts against Syria. The Lebanese media also suggests the same. The so-called Free Syrian Army and other NATO-GCC front organizations are also using Turkish and Jordanian territory to stage raids into Syria. Lebanon is also being used to smuggle weapon shipments into Syria. Many of these weapons were actually arms that the Pentagon had secretly re-directed into Lebanon from Anglo-American occupied Iraq during the George W. Bush Jr. presidency.

The French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppé, has promised the Syrian National Council, that a so-called “humanitarian corridor” will be imposed on Syria. Once again, the Syrian National Council is not an independent entity and therefore Juppé did not really make a promise; he really made a declaration.

While foreign companies like Suncor Energy were forced to leave Libya, they have not left Syria. The reason that these companies have stayed has been presented as being humanitarian, because they provide domestic local services in Syria. For example, Suncor Energy helped produce oil for export from Libya, but in Syria produces energy for local consumption. In reality, hostile governments are letting these companies stay, because they siphon money out of Syria. They want to prevent any money from going in, while they want to also drain the local economy as a catalyst to internal implosion in Syria.

Along with the U.S. and its NATO allies, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is imposing sanctions that include an end to all flights to Syria. The GCC states and Turkey have joined the foreign ministries of NATO states in asking their citizens to leave Syria. Since the U.N. Security Council is no longer a viable route against Syria, the GCC may also try to impose a no-fly zone over Syria through the Arab League.

Turkey: NATO’s Trojan Horse and Gateway into the Middle East

Turkey was present at the Arab League meeting in Morocco, which demanded regime change in Damascus. Ankara has been playing a dirty game. Initially, during the start of NATO’s war against Libya, Ankara pretended to be neutral while it was helping the Transitional Council in Benghazi. The Turkish government does not care about the Syrian population. On the contrary, the demands that Turkish officials have made to the Syrians spell out that realpolitik is at play. In tune with the GCC, Turkey has demanded that Damascus re-orient its foreign policy and submit to Washington’s demands as a new satellite. Through a NATO initiative, the Turks have also been responsible for recruiting fighters against the Libyan and Syrian governments.

For several years Ankara has been silently trying to de-link Syria from Iran and to displace Iranian influence in the Middle East. Turkey has been working to promote itself and its image amongst the Arabs, but all along it has been a key component of the plans of Washington and NATO. At the same time, it has been upgrading its military capabilities in the Black Sea and on its borders with Iran and Syria. Its military research and development body, TUBITAK-SAGE, has also announced that Ankara will also start mass-production of cruise-missiles in 2012 that will be fitted for its navy and forthcoming deliveries of U.S. military jets that could be used in future regional wars. Turkey and NATO have also agreed to upgrade Turkish bases for NATO troops.

In September 2011, Ankara joined Washington’s missile shield project, which upset both Moscow and Tehran. The Kremlin has reserved the right to attack NATO’s missile shield facilities in Eastern Europe, while Tehran has reserved the right to attack NATO’s missile shield facilities in Turkey or in the case of a regional war. There have also been discussions about the Kremlin deploying Iskander missiles to Syria.

Since June 2011, Ankara has been talking about invading Syria. It has presented the invasion plans as a humanitarian mission to establish a “buffer zone” and “humanitarian corridor” under R2P, while it has also claimed that the protests in Syria are a regional issue and not a domestic issue. In July 2011, despite the close Irano-Turkish economic ties, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard made it clear that Tehran would support the Syrians and choose Damascus over Ankara. In August 2011, Ankara started deploying retired soldiers and its military reserve units to the Turkish-Syrian border. It is in this context, that the Russian military presence has also been beefing up in the port of Tartus.

From Damascus to Tehran

It is also no mere coincidence that Senator Joseph Lieberman started demanding at the start of 2011 that the Pentagon and NATO attack Syria and Iran. Nor is it a coincidence that Tehran has been included in the recent Obama Administration sanctions imposed against Damascus. Damascus is being targeted as a means of targeting Iran and, in broader terms, weakening Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing in the struggle for control over the Eurasian landmass. The U.S. and its remaining allies are about to reduce their forces in Iraq, but they do not want to leave the region or allow Iran to create a bridge between itself and the Eastern Mediterranean using Iraq.

Once the U.S. leaves Iraq, there will be a direct corridor between Lebanon and Syria with Iran. This will be a nightmare for Washington and Tel Aviv. It will entrench Iranian regional dominance and cement the Resistance Bloc, which will pin Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinians together. Israel and the U.S. will both be struck with major strategic blows.

The pressure on Syria is directly tied to this American withdrawal from Iraq and Washington’s efforts to block Tehran from making any further geo-political gains. By removing Damascus from the equation, Washington and its allies are hoping to create a geo-strategic setback for Iran.

Everything that Washington is doing is in preparation for the new geo-political reality and an attempt to preserve its regional standing. U.S. military forces from Iraq will actually be redeployed to the GCC countries in the Persian Gulf. Kuwait will host new combat units that have been designated to re-enter Iraq should security collapse, such as in the case of a regional war, or to confront Iran and its allies in a future conflict. The U.S. is now activating the so-called “Coalition of the Moderate” that it created under George W. Bush Jr. and directing it against Iran, Syria, and their regional allies.

On November 23, 2011 the Turks signed a military agreement with Britain to establish a strategic partnership and closer Anglo-Turkish military ties. During an important state visit by Abdullah Gül to London, the agreement was signed by Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond and the Deputy Chief of the Turkish General Staff, Hulusi Akar. The Anglo-Turkish agreement comes into play within the framework of the meetings that the British Chief of Defence Staff, General David Richards, and Liam Fox, the former scandal-ridden British defence minister, had with Israeli officials in Tel Aviv. After the visit of General Richards to Israel, Ehud Barak would visit Britain and later Canada for talks concerning Syria and its strategic ally Iran. Within this timeframe the British and Canadian governments would declare that they were prepared for war with both Syria and Iran.

London has announced that military plans were also drawn for war with Syria and Iran. On the other side of the Atlantic, Canada’s Defence Minister, Peter MacKay, created shockwaves in Canada when he made belligerent announcements about war with Syria and Iran. He also announced that Canada was buying a new series of military jets through a major arms purchase. Days later, both Canada and Britain would also cut their banking and financial ties with Iran. In reality, these steps have largely been symbolic, because Tehran was deliberately curbing it ties with Britain and Canada. For months the Iranians have also openly been evaluating cutting their ties with Britain and several other E.U. members.

The events surrounding Syria have much more to do with the geo-politics of the Middle East than just Syria alone. In the Israeli Knesset, the events in Syria were naturally tied to reducing Iranian power in the Middle East. Tel Aviv has been preparing itself for a major conflict for several years. This includes its long distance military flights to Greece that simulated an attack on Iran and its deployment of nuclear-armed submarines to the Persian Gulf. It has also conducted the “Turning Point” exercises, which seek to insure the continuation of the Israeli government through the evacuation and relocation of the Israeli cabinet and officials, including the Israeli finance ministry, to secret bunkers in the case of a war.

For half a decade Washington has been directing a military arms build-up in the Middle East aimed at Iran and the Resistance Bloc. It has sent massive arms shipments to Saudi Arabia. It has sent deliveries of bunker busters to the U.A.E. and Israel, amongst others, while it has upgraded its own deadly arsenal. U.S. officials have also started to openly discuss murdering Iranian leaders and military officials through covert operations. What the world is facing is a pathway towards possible military escalation that could go far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East and suck in Russia, China, and their allies. The Revolutionary Guard have also made it clear that if conflict is ignited with Iran that Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinians would all be drawn in as Iranian allies.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author based in Ottawa. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He was a witness to the “Arab Spring” in action in North Africa. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign, he reported out of Tripoli for several media outlets. He was Special Correspondent for Global Research and Pacifica’s investigative program Flashpoints, broadcast out of Berkeley, California. His writings have been published in more than ten languages.

Towards a World War III Scenario

by Michel Chossudovsky

 

A survey by FAIR of the top 100 papers in the US by circulation found not a single editorial board opposed to Trump’s April 13 airstrikes on Syria. Twenty supported the strikes, while six were ambiguous as to whether or not the bombing was advisable. The remaining 74 issued no opinion about Trump’s latest escalation of the Syrian war.

This is fairly consistent with editorial support for Trump’s April 2017 airstrikes against the Syrian government, which saw only one editorial out of 47 oppose the bombing (FAIR.org, 4/11/17). The single paper of dissent from last year, the Houston Chronicle, didn’t publish an editorial on last week’s bombing.

Seven of the top 10 newspapers by circulation—USA Today,Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, New York Post,Chicago Tribune, Newsday and Washington Post—supported the airstrikes. The New York Daily News and San Jose Mercury News offered no opinion, while the New York Times (4/13/18) was ambiguous—mostly lamenting the lack of congressional approval, but not saying that this meant the strikes were illegal or unwise. “Legislation should…set limits on a president’s ability to wage war against states like Syria,” is the Times’ conclusion. A complete list of editorials on the airstrikes can be viewed here.

Almost every editorial spoke in the same Official, Serious tone that demanded “action” be taken and “international norms” be “enforced.” Some, such as theWall Street Journal (4/16/18), went further, insisting on a wider war against the Syrian regime, Iran and/or Russia in vague but menacing terms.

“Only…with the departure of the Assad regime, will it be possible to ensure that Syrians do not suffer more atrocities,” the Washington Post (4/14/18) editorialized.

“Barack Obama dealt Mr. Trump a bad hand by letting Russia, Iran and China believe they could advance their goals of regional domination without US resistance,” the Journal insisted. “In Syria as elsewhere, Mr. Trump has to decide if he wants to ratify that American retreat or develop a strategy to stop it.”

The mid-market Toledo Blade (4/15/18) punched above its weight class and delivered the most bellicose and jingoistic editorial of them all with “The West Stands Up”:

Make no mistake, this was a warning to Vladimir Putin as well as Bashar al-Assad.

The United States and its two longtime allies redrew the red line that had been obliterated by a failure of nerve by the US and the West generally: There will be cost for your barbarities….

But in the larger sense, the West did what it should have done a long time ago. It stood up for decency and international law. It stood up for those who are defenseless. It stood up for itself, and for simple humanity, and redeemed some self-respect.

If Assad regime officials find themselves catching up on news from the greater Northwest Ohio region, they will surely take heed.

None of the top 100 newspapers questioned the US’s legal or moral right to bomb Syria, and all accepted US government claims to be neutral arbiters of “international law.” Many editorials handwrung about  a “lack of strategy” or absence of congressional approval, but none so much that they opposed the bombing. Strategy and legal sanction are add-on features—nice but, by all accounts, not essential.

The total lack of editorial board dissent is consistent with major papers’ tradition of uniform acceptance of US military action. The most influential paper in the country, the New York Times, has not opposed a single US war—from the Persian Gulf to Bosnia, to Kosovo to Iraq to Libya to the forever war on ISIS—in the past 30 years.

The scope of debate among major editorial boards is not if Trump should bomb the Syrian regime, but how much bombing he should undertake—and when, roughly speaking, he should maybe get around to letting Congress know.

*

Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org.

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” – Mark Twain

“…most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.” – From the British Medical Journal editor, Peter Doshi, MD

“71 people would need to be treated with the flu vaccine to prevent one case. In other words, the flu vaccine did nothing for 70 out of 71 who received it. That means this study found the flu vaccine failed 99% (70/71).” — Dr David Brownstein

“Under ideal conditions (when the vaccine actually matches the main viruses circulating that season) you need to vaccinate 33 healthy adults to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. 33 is what is called the NNV (Number Needed to Vaccinate).” – Dr Tom Jefferson of the Cochrane Collaboration (Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018. Feb. 1,2:CD001269)

“…influenza virus often mutates to adapt to being grown in chicken eggs, which can influence antigenicity and hence vaccine effectiveness.” — Ian A. Wilson, MD, et al from: “A Structural Explanation for the Low Effectiveness of the Seasonal Influenza H3N2 Vaccine“

“Between 33 and 100 people are needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of flu symptoms.” – Alan Cassals, author of Selling Sickness: Medical Screening and the Misguided Hunt for Disease

“Normally, the flu vaccine is between 50 to 60 percent effective.” — Dr. Tom Frieden, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

***

Last year, the well-propagandized talking heads on TV and radio repeated over and over again how important it was to be fully vaccinated with the newest untried and unproven-for-effectiveness influenza vaccine, whose ingredients had been chosen 6 months earlier (in the spring of 2017) by industry “experts” who were forced to guess which 3 or 4 influenza viruses from the southern hemisphere (out of hundreds of potential viruses) that were most likely to be circulating in the northern hemisphere by the next “flu season”, ie, the fall of 2017.

Six months is the minimum amount of time that it takes multinational vaccine corporations to grow enough of the viruses in fertilized chicken eggs to fulfill the anticipated demand for flu vaccines six months later.

Such a guesswork process is actually a crapshoot and the choices made are highly unlikely to match the new viral culprits that may or may not be circulating up north next fall. I suppose the vaccine industries in the southern hemisphere look at America’s flu statistics when they choose their vaccine ingredients for their next flu season.

Wild Influenza Viruses can Mutate Into Ineffective Components Before they get into the Vaccines

Well, the flu season of 2017 was another bust, but you wouldn’t know it from the CDC’s Tom Frieden, the broadcast media and other industry promotions that tried to convince us it was a grand success and worth the risks and expense. The guesswork had failed again; and there were essentially no viral matches between the viral antigens chosen and the several flu viruses commonly circulating in the population. The H3N2 influenza virus component, for example, had apparently mutated into ineffectiveness by the time enough of them had been grown in the egg cultures. (See above Ian A. Wilson reference.)

Only about 1% of Americans that submitted to flu shots in 2017 received any benefit from the shots, but 100% of them risked suffering the many potential side effects of the vaccinations.

Most important among the adverse effects were those often unrecognized toxicity from the neurotoxic, immunotoxic and kidney toxic mercury preservative (thimerosal) that is still in the multidose vials. What happens to patients who simultaneously received their pneumovax shots (that contains aluminum, which is neurotoxic, blood-brain barrier toxic and immunotoxic) will never be investigated in the US because there is a 1986 Reagan-era federal law that forbids lawsuits to be filed against vaccine manufacturers. Hence there is no impetus to find out about such inconvenient facts.

So, since there was a vague suspicion on the part of the public about the failed flu shot campaign, the CDC and Big Pharma statisticians felt that they had to do something to convince the duped masses that they hadn’t wasted their time, mind, money and health by submitting to the vaccine. In a profit-minded nation such as the US, where the stock market is king and the public health is secondary, the highly profitable annual flu vaccination campaigns have to be perpetuated or else the share prices (and the honor) of the involved pharma and medical companies might suffer.

And so the entities that profit from America’s over-vaccination agendas tried to save face by retrospectively claiming that there was a “60% effectiveness rate” for flu shot recipients.

Claiming a 60% Effectiveness Rate for Last Year’s Flu Shot Qualifies as one of Mark Twain’s “Damn Lies”

The big problem is that “60% effectiveness” is a relative risk reduction (RRR) statistic, which is a “damn lie”. The actual “effectiveness rate” for flu shots in 2017 was closer to 1% when one calculates the absolute risk reduction (ARR)

Exposing again the truth of Twain’s “lies, damn lies and statistics”, last year’s flu shots actually failed to protect 99% of vaccine recipients. In other words, the ARR for those who took the flu shot last year was 1%, a pretty dismal figure.

Both the CDC and Big Pharma are notorious for using deceptive statistics which drastically over-emphasize meager benefits and simultaneously under-report (or even fail to report) serious adverse effects or serious lack of effectiveness. What they are doing is bamboozlement at its most sophisticated – and diabolical.

The differences between the deceptive “60% effectiveness” (RRR) figure and the more truthful ARR can be best exposed by the following example:

If 100 unvaccinated people are exposed to the influenza virus, and, for example, of them 5 get the flu, that is an incidence of 5% among the unvaccinated. (Of course, 95% did not get the flu despite not having been vaccinated, which is very realistic.)

If another group of 100 people get the flu shot and 3 of them still get the flu that is an incidence of 3%. Following the statistical rules for RRR, one divides the 3% incidence by 5% and gets a relative effective rate of 60%.

But of course to calculate the absolute risk reduction, one divides 95% by 97% and obtains an ARR of 1%, which means that the number to treat (NNT – or number to vaccinate, NNV, which is the inverse of AAR) is 100. An NNT of 100 means that 100 people will have to be treated for one to benefit from the treatment.

A good example of the relationship between RRR, ARR and NNT comes from a WikiPedia page at: :

Consider a hypothetical drug (or screening program) which reduces the the relative risk of colon cancer by 50% (the RRR) over five years. Even without the drug, colon cancer is fairly rare, maybe 1 in 3,000 in every five-year period. The rate of colon cancer for a five-year treatment with the drug is therefore 1/6,000, (the ARR) as by treating 6,000 people with the drug (the NNT), one can expect to reduce the number of colon cancer cases from 2 to 1.

One can see how easy it is to deceive readers by inflating the “success” of a drug or vaccine treatment by only mentioning the RRR of 50% when in absolute terms the “success” is actually a useless 1%. Which is a damned lie.

As usual, no calculation is applied to the side effects or adverse reactions, which may be substantial. One of the world’s experts on the risks and follies of America’s over-vaccination agenda is board-certified nephrologist Dr Suzanne Humphries. Dr Humphries personally treated three previously healthy adult patients who nearly simultaneously developed kidney failure soon after receiving their mercury-containing flu shots. Two of the three patients needed dialysis, one of them had a kidney transplant and one died.

Dr Humphries was actually ostracized and censored by her hospital’s staff leadership when she pointed out the obvious connections and soon thereafter left her nephrology practice to thoroughly research the history and (pseudo)science of the world’s increasingly over-vaccination agendas. Dr Humphries’ first and most important book on the subject is titled “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History”. Her co-author was Roman Bystrianyk.

Dr Humphries lectures widely on the subject (check out her many informative YouTube lectures), and her testimony has been featured on many important videos, including “VAXXED From Cover-up to Catastrophe”; “Bought: The Hidden Story Behind Vaccines, Big Pharma and Your Food”; “Trace Amounts: Mercury and the Hidden Truth”; “The Greater Good”; and “The Truth About Vaccines”.

The following excerpts are from several other authors who have been studying the flaws in America’s over-vaccination programs for far longer than I. They likewise have been essentially ostracized and censored by authorities that tolerate no exposures of truths that might derail their Big Pharma and Big Business gravy trains.

The following excerpts come from Alan Cassals, a Canadian drug policy researcher at the University of Victoria, Canada and co-author (with Ray Moynihan) of the powerful Big Medicine/Big Pharma expose that was titled Selling Sickness: Medical Screening and the Misguided Hunt for Disease. Cassals confirms much of what I have written about above.

---

Important References

This Flu Season, Let’s Immunize Ourselves from the Annual Infection of Exaggerating Relative Risk Reductions

By Alan Cassels

Excerpts below were taken from an article that was written by Cassels. It can be accessed here. Also check out the following Alan Cassels lecture here.

How Effective is the Flu Shot?

That’s an important question that generates many headlines across North America every fall as the public health community starts ramping up its fall flu campaigns. Problem is, the media tends to generate a lot of noise around that 60% number, but provide very little clarity.

Influenza stories this time of year swirl around similar themes, often with the CDC taking center stage (featuring the platitudinous photo-op of the CDC director rolling up his sleeve for the shot), including the importance of the flu shot, the need for general hand hygiene and the expected effectiveness of the vaccine this year.

The number that arrives as predictably as the fall flu campaign is “60” as in the story that repeats the mantra: “Flu shots normally prevent 60% to 65% of infections serious enough for people to see a doctor.” Across North America, public health officers will stress that the flu vaccine “reduces the risk by 60%!”

Sixty sounds good, but ultimately is as meaningless as a used car salesman with big bright signs of “60% off” plastered on every car on the lot, without ever telling you what the regular prices are. Despite the potential for a huge bargain on that purchase, the reality is that you’re in for a much smaller deal than you think you are. MUCH smaller.

And so it goes with the flu shot. When people hear “60% reduction,” I believe this is what happens inside their thought bubble: “If my risk of getting the flu this winter is 100%, the shot will reduce that to 40%. So instead of 100 people getting the flu, only 40 would get it. Hmmm. This 60% reduction sounds like great odds.”

Even when the flu vaccine seems less effective, like in the story that said that “last year the flu shot, by the CDC’s own numbers, was 23% effective,” people might think it’s a good deal. 23% off that Chevy Impala in the back lot might be a great bargain. But what does the 23% or 60% really mean?

Since they are relative numbers, they demand us to ask “23% of what?” or “60% of what?” As we’ve made abundantly clear at HealthNewsReview.org, using relative numbers on their own are a statistical no-no because, to quote ourselves, “we think the relative risk number tends to inflate the impression of how much impact the drug [or vaccine] has.” (For a quick refresher on relative numbers check out our review criteria here.

I find the 60 or the 23 percent numbers irritating, not to mention epically misleading, and I’m not alone. One commentator looking at a flu study reporting a “23% risk reduction” called it Cockamamie propaganda. Colorful but true.

To get some perspective I talked to Dr. Tom Jefferson in Rome who has reviewed hundreds of flu vaccine studies as part of the Cochrane Collaboration. Dr. Jefferson gives me a quick tutorial on the 60% which he calls “CDC/Big Pharma spin of the worst kind.”

He reminded me that every flu season there are over 200 viruses that can cause influenza and influenza-like illness, all perfectly capable of making you headachy and feverish. (3 or 4 of the 200 viruses must be prematurely chosen in the spring 6 months before the winter flu season comes around so that enough vaccine product can be manufactured in time to accommodate the demand.)

Most people get through the flu just fine and, thankfully, the risk of death or serious illness in otherwise healthy people is rare. In a good year the vaccine might (or might not) protect against influenza A and B, which might make up a small percentage of all circulating viruses.

The best way to assess flu trials is to look at those that compared vaccinated people with unvaccinated people.

The All-Important NNV (Number Needed to Vaccinate)

When Jefferson and his colleagues published their February 1, 2018 review at www.cochrane.org, they found that under ideal conditions (when the vaccine actually matches [which rarely happens] the main viruses circulating that season) you need to vaccinate 33 healthy adults to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. This is what we’d call the NNV (Number Needed to Vaccinate) of 33. When the vaccine match isn’t so good as it was last year, the NNV is about 100. Therefore, of 100 people vaccinated, 99 will have no benefit and one person will perhaps avoid one set of influenza symptoms. Vaccination did not seem to reduce the number of people hospitalised or who lost working days.

Almost half (15 of the 36 trials they examined) were funded by vaccine companies and four had no funding declaration. His team cautioned that even these numbers may represent an “optimistic estimate” because “company-sponsored influenza vaccine trials tend to produce results favorable to their products.”

***

The excerpts immediately below are from Dr David Brownstein, who publishes a newsletter that is titled Dr Brownstein’s Natural Way to Health. (Check it out here.)

For over 20 years, I have been writing and lecturing about how the flu vaccine fails nearly all who get it. I have written about the failure of the flu vaccine in past blog posts

The Cochrane Collaboration is a global independent network of researchers in more than 130 countries who strive to produce credible, accessible health information that is free from commercial sponsorship and other conflicts of illness. They do not take Big Pharma money. Therefore, their studies deserve attention when they are released.

On February 1, 2018, the Cochrane group released its latest findings on the flu vaccine. (1) The scientists studied randomized, controlled trials comparing the flu vaccine with placebo or no intervention. They included 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 people assessing the safety and effectiveness of flu vaccines in healthy adults. The studies were conducted between 1969 and 2009.

The authors found that flu vaccines probably reduced influenzas in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% with.

That means that the difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated is 1.4% or 0.014. Therefore, 71 people would need to be treated with the flu vaccine to prevent one case (1/1.4%). In other words, the flu vaccine did nothing for 70 out of 71 who received it. That means this study found the flu vaccine failed 99% (70/71).

There was more bad news for the flu vaccine in this study. The flu vaccine is touted as decreasing the risk of hospitalizations from the flu. I’m not sure how that happens since the vaccine has never been shown to be very effective against preventing the flu. In this study they found the risk of hospitalization in those that received the flu vaccine declined from 14.7% to 14.1%. That is a 0.6% decline. That means the flu vaccine fails over 99% (165/166) in preventing hospitalizations. Furthermore, the independent researchers found the flu vaccine “…may lead to little or no reduction in days off work.” To make matter worse, the flu vaccine was shown to cause an increase in fever from 1.5% to 2.3%. Oy vey.

Why would anyone get a flu vaccine when it fails 99% who receive it?

Why would any physician prescribe a therapy, which is associated with serious adverse effects, that fails 99% who receive it?

Why are health care workers forced to receive a flu vaccine when it is consistently shown to fail nearly 99% who get them? And, there is not a single well-done study showing that vaccinating health care workers with the flu vaccine protects against the spread of flu.

Folks, the flu vaccine is a disaster…I cannot understand why anyone would allow themselves to be injected with a failed flu vaccine.

Note

(1) Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018. Feb. 1,2:CD001269

*

This article was originally published on Duluth Reader.

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. He writes a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, the area’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s psychiatric drugging and over-vaccination regimens, and other movements that threaten the environment, prosperity, democracy, civility and the health and longevity of the planet and the populace. Many of his columns are archived at

http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls;

http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2; or at

https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

With rare exceptions, virtually everything reported by major Western media about Syria follows the falsified official narrative – concealing US-led aggression on a sovereign independent state threatening no one.

Yet Syria was attacked and invaded (by US-supported terrorists and Pentagon forces) as maliciously and illegally as Hitler’s aggression during WW II. The same goes for all US wars since the early 1950s.

No nation in world history has been responsible for more ruthless mass slaughter and destruction than America since its 1776 creation, none inflicting more human misery, none more lawless, none more disdainful of human life, rights and welfare, none more risking humanity’s demise by its disdain for rule of law principles – by its rage to rule the world, risking its destruction.

Big Lies unjustifiably justify all US wars of aggression. None are waged for responsibility to protect, humanitarian intervention, or any other officially stated reasons.

They’re all about advancing America’s imperium, its quest for unchallenged global dominance, its rage to replace all sovereign independent governments with pro-Western puppet regimes.

War in Syria isn’t “civil.” So-called “rebels” are US-created and supported terrorists.

The presence of US and allied forces in the country is flagrantly illegal.

Overnight Friday US-led aggression targeted Syrian military bases – foiled by its air defenses.

Tass revealed the “true targets,” aiming to inflict a major blow to Syrian military capabilities, notably by striking its airbases.

Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman General Igor Konashenkov explained the attack’s objective, far more sweeping than official reports.

“The true targets of the strike(s) delivered by the US, the UK and France on April 14 were both facilities in Barzeh and Jaramani and Syrian military facilities, including airfields,” he explained.

Most of the 103 or more cruise and air-to-surface missiles fired aimed at Syrian military facilities.

Konasenkov: After-action photos of Barzeh showed damage “caused by the missile strike does not correspond to the scale of destruction from the use of three dozen cruise missiles.”

Source: The Nation

Other military facilities targeted “revealed neither this number of ammunition fragments nor the corresponding number of craters” – meaning targets aimed at weren’t struck, incoming missiles destroyed in flight before reaching them.

Syria’s military fired 112 surface-to-air missiles to repel strikes on its facilities, Konashenkov explained, adding:

“Twenty-nine missiles were fired from the Buk system, with 24 of them hitting targets. Eleven missiles were fired from the Osa system. Five of them hit the targets.”

“Thirteen missiles were fired from the S-125 system. Five hit the targets. Five missiles were fired from the Strela-10 system. Three hit the targets.”

“Twenty-one missiles were fired from the Kvadrat system. Eleven hit the targets. Eight missiles were fired from the S-200 systems. None hit the targets.”

The S-200 was designed to strike aircraft, not missiles, the reason for its poor performance, Konashenkov explained, stressing:

Syrian military facilities protected by air defense systems suffered practically no damage.

“All…four missiles fired at the Dumayr aerodrome were shot down; 18 missiles were fired at the Blei airfield. All were shot down.”

“Twelve missiles were fired at the Shairat aerodrome. All were shot down. Two missiles were fired at the T-4 aerodrome. All were shot down.”

“Five of the nine missiles fired at the Mezze airfield were shot down; 13 out of the 16 missiles fired at the Homs aerodrome were shot down.”

Only five of 30 missiles fired at Barze and Djaramani facilities were downed.

Of 103 US, UK and French missiles fired, 71 were destroyed in flight. The Pentagon called its failed mission successful.

What lesson can be drawn from US-led aggression on multiple Syrian targets, mainly military ones?

Failure to achieve the mission’s objective virtually assures further US-led aggressive attacks to come.

Overnight Friday wasn’t a one-off. It was likely prelude for much more to come. The Pentagon put a brave face on failure – likely well into the planning stage for its next move.

Washington didn’t launch naked aggression on Syria in March 2011 to quit. Endless war continues.

Russia’s good faith diplomatic conflict resolution efforts since 2012 failed. Nothing suggests Moscow can turn failure into success ahead. Just the opposite – escalated US-led aggression, not stepping back from the brink.

Syria needs the most effective air defense systems possible – either Russia’s S-300s or preferably its S-400s to defend the nation against virtually certain further US-led aggressive attacks to come.

Delivery of these systems to Syria’s military should be expedited, getting them in place as soon as possible – ahead of more US-led aggression surely coming.

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

As a columnist I must get to the point on key events that have shaped our future as a republic. Let it be known that what I am about to share with you, my readers, are things I cannot prove, yet strongly believe to be true. Sometimes we need to compare the stories told to us by this empire and its minions in the media and political realm with those of the ‘outside researchers and investigators’  that work independently. Having seen and read the many films and books in contradiction of  what I call ‘ Fake News from Fake Amerika’, this writer sticks to his beliefs, contrary to what many from this empire like to label as Conspiracy theories.

Robert Stinnett wrote his book Day of Deceit ( 1999) to suggest that the FDR administration knew of the upcoming attack by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen. Stinnett’s  rationale, from his extensive research, was that FDR needed to get us into WW2 and was facing much opposition here at home. Dusko Popov, a Serbian double agent during the war, wrote his autobiography Spy/Counterspy ( 1974) whereupon he stated that around March of 1941, he personally met with J Edgar Hoover. At that meeting he passed along  information, obtained by him directly from the German Abwehr, of the planned Japanese attack at one of our Pacific naval bases, most likely Pearl Harbor, set for around the end of the year.

Former New Orleans prosecutor and judge Jim Garrison wrote his 1988 book On the trail of the Assassins, which Oliver Stone based his 1991 blockbuster film JFK on. Both the book and the film make a compelling case that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT the killer, and may not even have been involved in the conspiracy, except as a set up patsy. Garrison and Stone both felt that JFK’s assassination was literally a ‘coup d’etat’ orchestrated by factions deep within our own government. At least 21 witnesses to the assassination turned up dead during the few years afterwards. That alone would give anyone pause to consider that the 1964 Warren Commission Report was full of holes.

 On August 2nd of 1964 the destroyer USS Maddox was said to have been attacked by the North Vietnamese. This (so called ) incident gave President Johnson the impetus to urge the Senate to pass the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that legalized LBJ’s plans to get involved in a war there. History and lots of fine investigations have more or less proven that the whole event was faked by our government.

William Pepper wrote the most spellbinding book Orders to Kill: The Truth behind the Murder of Martin Luther King (1995). Pepper researched this case for years and points the finger at various agencies and NOT at James Earl Ray, for the plot and execution of King’s murder. The interesting thing about King being murdered in April of ’68 was that it was exactly one year after he gave his chilling speech at the Riverside Church, coming out publicly for the first time against the war in Vietnam. He made sure to call our country the ‘ Greatest purveyor of evil…’ On top of that, in April of ’68 he was in Memphis to offer solidarity to the mostly black Memphis sanitation workers who were on strike. This was a far cry from the MLK who spent most of his activism marching and speaking out for civil rights.

The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy by Dan Moldea has just been re-released for the 50th anniversary of RFK’s murder. In the book Moldea covers lots of details concerning  who may have been involved and why. Once again, he, along with countless other investigators, throw out the assertion that Sirhan Sirhan was the gunman. Interesting point here: Before the trial of Sirhan, the government had psychiatrist  Dr. Jolyon West examine him. Dr. West had an extensive background working for covert operations spanning back to the Korean War. He had Jack Ruby as a patient after Ruby was imprisoned for killing Lee Harvey Oswald. The real interesting fact is that later on, after the Sirhan case, Dr. West worked in a program run at Vacaville Prison’s Medical Facility and had none other than inmate Donald DeFreeze as a patient in some program to treat ‘violent offenders’. DeFreeze, a few years later, became the leader (Field Marshall Cinque) of the obtuse home grown terrorist group calling itself The Symbionese Liberation Army, which kidnapped Patty Hearst… who Dr. West also treated after her capture/liberation… and of course DeFreeze was killed during that event. There have been suggestions by other researchers over the years that DeFreeze was both a police informant AND agent provocateur.

In the Spring of 1990 Saddam Hussein of Iraq was angry with Kuwait for basically two major reasons:

A) He had to loan money from them for his decade long war with Iran, and felt they should erase his country’s debt because Iraq did all the fighting and dying;

B) Hussein felt that Kuwait was angle drilling (underwater) Iraqi oil in violation of their sovereign right for it.

Things got testy and Bush Sr. sent US Ambassador April Glaspie to meet with Hussein… who was, at that time, one of our cherished allies in that region.

Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. – July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)

July 25, 1990 – Presidential Palace – Baghdad

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship – not confrontation – regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait’s borders?

Saddam Hussein – As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein – If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab – our strategic goal in our war with Iran – we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States’ opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960’s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

We know the rest: Hussein attacked and occupied Kuwait and became Public Enemy #1 to the USA. Bush Sr. referred to him as another Hitler, and you know the rest.

A mere 10 years later, in September of 2001, the Twin Towers were taken down like pancakes and this set off our ‘never ending’ War on Terror. David Ray Griffin, in 2008 wrote 9/11 The New Pearl Harbor, his investigation into what really may have gone down that tragic day… and the why along with the how of it. Once again, his book refutes the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report that it was a small band of terrorists, lead by Osama bin Laden, that did the heinous act on their own… without any aid from other covert agencies (of our government?).

In the aftermath of the 9/11 horror, many sources have shown that the Bush/Cheney cabal always had their sites on Iraq. In July of 2002, the inner circle of the British government met to discuss the Iraq situation. This is directly from Wikipedia:

The most controversial paragraph is a report of a recent visit to Washington by head of the Secret Intelligence Service Sir Richard Dearlove (known in official terminology as ‘C’):

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The British analysis of US policy is also stated elsewhere in the minutes:

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

We all know what transpired afterwards, as the country that we true patriots love, along with our British stooges, had committed a most heinous action, worse than even the Vietnam debacle. The ‘Fake News’ empire was working on steroids… and it still is with our illegal and immoral dabbling in other Middle Eastern affairs. Isn’t it time for the majority of our fellow citizens to stop believing in the lies and disinformation that passes as truthful news?

*

Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn , NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 300 of his work posted on sites like Consortium News, Information Clearing House,  Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Counterpunch, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust., whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘ It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected]

Instead of considering Fisk’s account, said to have been ‘seized on by opponents of western military action in Syria’, the Times’ focus was on damaging Fisk’s reputation; though winner of several international wards and seven times Press Awards Foreign Reporter of the Year.

Pearson Sharp, an experienced American journalist with OAN, gained access to Douma, where the US, France and UK alleged that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against civilians.

Like Fisk, he found no evidence of such attacks. See the video here. 

MSM has now thankfully seized on the ill-treatment of the Windrush generation and the Commonwealth summit to detract attention from this debunked ’atrocity’.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

The chemical weapons watchdog is notoriously pro-Western. Its year ago fact-finding mission on the alleged Khan Sheikhoun CW incident falsified results.

Will its Douma analysis produce similar “findings” to please Washington and its imperial allies? Its credibility long ago was lost.

No Douma CW incident occurred – confirmed by area medical personnel and Russian toxic weapons experts. Will the OPCW refute them, further tarnishing its credibility as an impartial body?

Washington’s dirty hands pressured the organization to confirm its falsified Douma accusations.

On Monday, the Trump administration’s OPCW envoy Kenneth Ward addressed the organization’s executive council in the Hague, turning truth on its head, saying:

“On April 7…the Syrian city of Douma came under an intense chemical weapons attack which killed dozens of innocent civilians and injured hundreds more.”

“Initial reports indicate the attack in Douma could result in a similar level of civilian casualties as experienced by the town of Khan Shaykhun last year.”

Fact: No evidence suggests a CW attack occurred in either location – no victims identified, no one killed or ill from CW exposure, no toxic residues found.

Ward lied claiming otherwise!

“After years of repeated and systematic use of chemical weapons, the chemical weapons attack in Douma represents yet another escalation of (Assad’s) barbaric chemical weapons attacks on its own people,” he roared, adding:

Assad “continues to terrorize (his) own citizens despite international condemnation for (the) use of chemical weapons.”

“This use has been confirmed by the independent and impartial OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism.”

“It remains undeniable that the Syrian Government is in flagrant, indeed contemptuous, violation of international law, including the Chemical Weapons Convention and United Nations Security Council resolutions.”

Fact: All of the above are flagrant, malicious, despicable bald-faced lies. Cold hard facts refute Ward’s contempt for truth-telling – practically instructing the OPCW to support the official falsified Douma narrative.

Ward:

“(I)t is our understanding the Russian Federation may have visited the attack site. We are concerned they may have tampered with it with the intent of thwarting the efforts of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission to conduct an effective investigation. This raises serious questions about the ability of the FFM to do its job.”

Fact: The above remarks represent further strong-arm pressure on the OPCW to support phony US Douma incident accusations.

Ward:

“On 13 April, US, French, and British forces undertook military operations…were focused on degrading Syria’s chemical weapons capabilities and deterring further use…”

Fact: US-led aggression had nothing to do with targeting alleged Syrian CW facilities which don’t exist – everything to do with escalating regime change efforts, mainly by targeting Syrian military sites.

Fact: A same-day article explained the true targets aimed at – foiled by Syrian air defense systems, practically assuring a repeat of what happened overnight Friday.

Ward:

“The military strikes by the United States of America and our allies were legitimate, proportionate, and justified.”

Fact: The strikes constituted US-led naked aggression against a sovereign state – the highest of high crimes.

Ward:

“The United States of America has tried repeatedly to use diplomatic, economic, and political tools to stop the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons.”

Fact: A bald-faced lie! No evidence suggests Syrian CW use at any time during years of war – these toxins only used by US-supported terrorists.

Fact: Washington is a serial aggressor, rejecting diplomacy, targeting sovereign governments it wants eliminated, naked aggression its favored strategy.

Ward:

“(T)he Russian Federation has stood in the way of every effort the United States of America and our partners have taken to address this unacceptable situation.”

“The Russian Federation has repeatedly undermined efforts at the OPCW to pressure the regime to surrender its remaining chemical weapons stockpiles and completely dismantle its program.”

“The Russian Federation has also used its veto power six times over the past year to block United Nations Security Council resolutions and prevent (Syria) from being held accountable for its continuous use of chemical weapons.”

Fact: All of the above are bald-faced lies. Russia vetoed SC resolutions certain to result in escalated aggression, maybe all-out war, if adopted.

Ward:

“(T)he Russian Federation took away the world’s ability to attribute the chemical weapons attacks in Syria by vetoing the renewal of the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) – an impartial, independent technical body mandated to investigate responsibility for chemical weapons use in Syria.”

Fact: Another bald-faced lie! Last November, Russia and Washington vetoed each other’s SC resolutions on extending the JIM.

Moscow proposed 12 months until May 2018. Washington wanted another 24 months.

Its diabolical text included a provision for invoking the UN Charter’s Chapter VII, authorizing “action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Russia responsibly vetoed a resolution assuring escalated aggression if adopted.

JIM conclusions on last April’s Khan Sheikhoun incident were biased, distorted and one-sided. OPCW inspectors never visited sites requiring examination.

Russia called its report sloppy and “amateurish,” based on “a layman’s methodology,” lacking credibility. Moscow’s draft SC resolution called for revising JIM’s conclusions.

OPCW work failed to conform to international standards – likely on order from Washington. Its analysis was based on phony evidence supplied by anti-Syrian sources, including the al-Qaeda-linked White Helmets.

Ward’s remarks to the OPCW executive council sounded like a script prepared for Nikki Haley – despicable beginning-to-end bald-faced lies!

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

The dramatic events of the past weeks and days, which came to a head with the criminal NATO bombing of Syria during the early hours of Saturday 14^th April (so as not to create unwanted disturbances in the stock market!), are very likely to have major consequences on the international stage. Furthermore, they were also aimed at the ‘populist’ movements, as the elites call the movements for national and economic sovereignty which are presently spreading rapidly throughout Europe and beyond.[1] Therefore, the relatively narrow extent of the bombing is not the real issue, as the mouthpieces of the Transnational Elite (TE) claim in order to minimize its importance. It is the fact that the TE now assert that might is right and that they can therefore bomb Syria at will (on the pretext of false flag attacks), until they have enforced their own participation in negotiations on its future, so as to secure its full integration into the New World Order.

The NATO criminals have struck again, exactly as they did in Iraq 15 years ago[2] (minus France back then, which was not yet another offshoot of NATO) — ignoring not only the UN and the International Law which they have had the nerve to invoke, but even the very people whom they supposedly represent. This was made clear through a poll on the eve of the Syria bombings, which showed that less than a quarter of British people approved of this action,[3] while neither of the three ridiculous ‘leaders’ of the campaign dared to request the opinion of their own parliamentary/Congressional bodies. In other words they have deliberately acted before the OPCW could reach Syria, thus ignoring the very UN committee which they themselves sent there and which was due to begin its investigation on the same day. This had been to establish whether Assad’s alleged chemical attack had indeed taken place, as the international mass media under the TE’s complete control have been parroting. The immediate aim behind NATO’s attack was most likely to pre-empt any decision of the UN body not to their liking, if not to obstruct the OPCW’s fact-finding mission, as the Russians accused them of doing.[4] And of course the supposed attempted murder of the double agent Sergei Skripal by Russian spies had already been staged in Britain, based on “evidence” that a Russian nerve agent had been used. In fact, according to Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, the toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.[5]

These events have finally made it clear that the UN Security Council has become a disreputable propaganda machine for the NATO criminals who have destroyed at least four countries in the last 15 years or so (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria). In fact, it is only the historical “anachronism” of the Council’s permanent-membership structure — still reflecting the final events of WWII — that prevents the TE from fully controlling it, with Western calls to expel Russia and China from it on the grounds that they are ‘irresponsible’ powers recently multiplying! Barring this UNSC structure, the TE would now have absolute power over it — as it already has over the General Assembly and has had ever since 1991 when, with the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization going full steam ahead, it reversed the 1975 decision which rightly determined that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.”[6] No wonder that Israel has now become a pure criminal state, shooting unarmed protesters in cold blood just because of their mass resistance to the seizure of their land by the occupiers — a form of resistance which has always been the unquestionable right of an occupied people. In fact it was a similar mass resistance by the Soviet, Greek, Serb and other peoples, who were also the victims of Nazis but who (unlike Zionist themselves!), were engaged also in a fierce mass resistance against them that led to the defeat of Nazism, as well as the creation of this criminal Zionist state, whose Minister of Defence did not have any qualms about praising the cowardly killer of an unarmed protester![7]

The above events, which may well result in a new Armageddon in the near future, are neither coincidental nor merely the outcome of certain conspiracies or geostrategic games, as suggested by the ‘analysts’ of the TE in the mass media controlled by the same elites. Actually, these events simply mark perhaps the final stage of an evolutionary process that began when transnational corporations emerged about a quarter of a century ago, a fact which coincided with the fall of “actually existing Socialism.” This was when the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization was established (the NWO), which is managed by the network of interwoven economic, political, cultural and ideological elites that I have defined as the Transnational Elite[8] — i.e. the executive council of the major transnational corporations.

The process mentioned involves the use of both economic and military violence to subordinate people and countries which have not yet been fully integrated into the NWO, and which insist on preserving a degree of national and economic sovereignty — something which is incompatible with the economic levelling imposed by the “4 freedoms.” That is, the economic levelling imposed by the opening and liberalization of markets for capital, labour, goods and services and the consequent loss of economic and, therefore, national sovereignty. The same general opening and liberalization of markets involves an ideological and cultural levelling which is the direct result of mass migration from South to North, and the promotion of identity politics and the human rights culture. In other words, the kind of politics which aim to turn citizens into simple individualist beings who, once appropriately conditioned by the mass media, are only out for themselves and are chiefly predetermined by their sex, their sexual preferences and other such criteria.

As far as economic violence is concerned, this is the form of violence mainly used by the European Union — the TE’s most subservient organ — which also functions as the model for full globalization. The peoples of the EU have in effect been condemned to lose every trace of economic and therefore national sovereignty, within the context of a distorted “internationalism” which certain “Left” con artists — such as those manning the SYRIZA government in Greece — advocate. It is distorted because, of course, true internationalism was founded upon the national and economic sovereignty of peoples whose unity was based on the ideals of peace, brotherhood and solidarity. It was obviously not founded upon the pseudo-internationalism of the EU whereby a bureaucracy, essentially appointed by the TE, simply carries out its orders while the people no longer have control over their economy, their borders, their national sovereignty or even their culture to any significant degree. The main example of this process is Greece, which clearly became a protectorate of the TE at the beginning of its crisis, as I emphasized in my book which was, naturally, ignored (directly or indirectly) by the “Left” which has been integrated into the NWO.[9]

However these peoples did not sit idly by, leaving their fate to the TE. This is why, in the last few years, the movements for national and economic sovereignty have been flourishing in Europe.[10] From Britain, where Brexit ignited a huge popular movement which spread to France (but was boycotted by a “Left” similar to the Greek one — that of Mélenchon), to Austria, Poland and recently Italy but also Hungary. There the sovereignty movement has just triumphed, while something similar has happened even in Germany — the metropolis of the EU — where the AfD party is currently leading the opposition in the Bundestag. Obviously these parties (which the integrated “Left” calls “extreme right” and “populist,” if not “racist” and “fascist”), do not necessarily express the low-income social strata which have turned against the NWO, and there is no doubt that some of these parties have been infiltrated by (or always consisted of) far-right or even neo-Nazi tendencies. However, these tendencies have always been an extreme minority among their supporters, otherwise their huge rise could not, of course, be explained once globalization started to grow exponentially, creating millions of unemployed and under-employed people with no access to social welfare, which has gradually been eroded within the NWO etc. In other words, it was the inexorable separation of citizens into victims of globalization and those benefitting from it (who are always a minority), which brought about the huge and sudden meteoric rise of these movements and parties.

At the same time, for those peoples who resisted the process of globalization and the loss of their national and economic sovereignty, the TE held in store the most extreme form of criminal military violence. The main example of this was the hecatomb of the one million lives lost so that the Iraqi branch of Ba’athism could be destroyed through the use of similar sordid lies over Saddam’s supposed terrifying weapons of mass destruction. This, on top of the ongoing total destruction of Afghanistan and Libya, in the latter case resulting in the complete dismantlement of the most highly developed social welfare state in Africa! Then, the criminal war against the Syrian branch of Ba’athism was launched by the same TE and its allies in the Arab world (i.e. the despicable protectorates of Saudi Arabia — currently busy massacring the people of Yemen, Qatar etc.) with the aim of wiping Ba’athism, a movement for national sovereignty, off the Middle Eastern map. The declared aim was, of course, to ‘liberate’ the Syrian people from the tyranny of Assad — a “tyranny” which did not prevent its people from fighting a heroic struggle for over seven years now, with half a million lives lost to the paid-up ‘terrorists’ who in fact started the insurrection, with the massive financial and military help of the Gulf states as well as that of the TE.[11]

However, in all these cases in the Middle East — as opposed to Yugoslavia, for example, where the TE inaugurated their campaign and succeeded in partitioning the country completely[12] — apart from the TE, the criminal Zionist elite have also played a decisive role. In fact, this Zionist elite have special interests that go beyond the satisfaction of the TE’s general interests — which are of course both indirectly and exclusively economic in the Middle East (oil etc.) — and they mainly concern the creation of a series of protectorates in the region (even in Greece and Cyprus) so as to secure not only the eternal reproduction of the blatantly racist regime of Israel, but also the exploitation of the region’s natural resources which this elite basically seized from the Arabs. Part of this process was also the ‘might is right’ seizure of Jerusalem, which was carried out with the approval of the indescribable leader of the “free” world who was elected by the low-income social strata and victims of globalization in the US on a very different mandate. In practice, he has proved himself to be an unscrupulous power freak who has now shown that he is perfectly capable of causing carnage across the planet to satisfy the interests of the TE and, especially, the Zionist elite, rather than risk losing the power which the TE allowed him to keep on condition that he obeyed them completely. In fact, Trump now plays exactly the same dirty role in the world that Hillary Clinton would have played had she been elected instead!

Naturally, the TE not only turn against all those peoples and countries that expressly fight for their national and economic sovereignty, but also indirectly against Putin’s Russia. This is because, although Russia was formally incorporated into the NWO through its association with the World Trade Organization (the WTO), it never accepted the role of subordinate member of the TE (which at the state level is chiefly expressed through the G7). In fact, given the Russian people’s high level of political consciousness as expressed through their desire to develop self-reliance and economic and national sovereignty, it is very likely that the present crisis will lead the country essentially to break ties with the TE and, instead, to develop ties with other countries in the Eurasian Union, which constitutes a confederation of countries defending their national sovereignty. Besides, it is no coincidence that the excuse for the present crisis in relations between the TE and Russia — which began with a dirty propaganda war as well as an economic war of increasingly stricter sanctions against the latter — was that Putin dared (very cautiously) to resist the TE’s coup in Ukraine by recognizing Crimea as an integral part of Russia, as demanded unanimously by the Crimean people in the referendum that took place. In fact, Putin did not proceed to deny recognition of the illegal regime in Ukraine — which was set up only thanks to the massive help of the TE — presumably to avoid a direct clash with the West, only to discover that it is the Western elites who will readily proceed to an open conflict with Russia to impose their global dominance through the NWO. This is why the present conflict in Syria is in danger of becoming a military conflict with unpredictable consequences for humanity, having begun with an escalating campaign of dirty lies set in motion by the supposed attempted murder of a Russian spy in Britain and culminating today in Assad’s supposed chemical weapons (which are just as real as Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction!).

Thus Russia now finds itself at a historic crossroads: it will have to choose between reacting, even militarily, to the attacks aimed at overthrowing the remaining national liberation regimes in the Middle East (Syria and Iran) — which both the TE and the Zionist Elite ardently seek to do — or accepting some sort of ‘compromise,’ initiated by the TE-controlled UN. Such a compromise would involve Syria’s partition so as to enable the creation of a “2^nd Israel,” that is, a Kurdistan east of the Euphrates where the Kurds already occupy more than a quarter of Syria’s soil and are setting up a network of pseudo-libertarian local communities, supposedly based on Murray Boockhin’s project of confederal (libertarian) municipalism. Of course all those, like myself, who have studied this project in the past and even taken part in some of the related activities for its promotion are well aware of the fact that such a libertarian form of social organization is unthinkable within the framework of the NWO, as its success would depend on its full integration into neoliberal globalization, with open and liberalized markets that are completely incompatible with any libertarian form of organization![13] If we add to this the fact that, in the Kurdish case, this ‘libertarian’ form of organization could only survive through the military backing of the Americans today and the Israelis tomorrow, then we realize that all this propaganda (promoted heavily by the globalist “Left” and its mass media, such as The Guardian, the New York Times, etc but even by academics in Western universities[14]) is just a myth to justify the TE’s plan for the division of Syria, and the effective end of its status as a sovereign nation. Needless to add that this will also mark the formal end of the Kurdish movement as a revolutionary anti-imperialist movement, and the conversion of the Kurds themselves into orderlies of the Americans, playing a very dirty role in the planned dismemberment of Syria.[15]

Regarding the present role of the Kurds more specifically, it is well known — and there is plenty of evidence to confirm — that the Americans have a significant number of military bases in Rojava (the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria) i.e. the unofficial Kurdistan)[16] and this is why they have been threatening the Turks with a military counter-attack in case they progress even as far as Manbij! Naturally the Russians support Erdogan indirectly (allowing the Turkish air force freedom of flight), and rightly so since it is widely recognized that the planned partition of Syria by the West is precisely based on the “anti-Imperialist” Kurds, whom Trump officially considers to be his strongest allies in Syria! If indeed Assad had demanded — as he had every right to do — that the territories occupied by the Kurds (with plenty of military and economic help from the Americans!) were automatically returned to the Syrian state and he had then given the Kurds local autonomy as in the past, the Turks would have had no excuse to stay in Afrin or in any of the other areas which they have occupied. However both Assad and Putin, biding their time and hoping that the Kurds would not eventually proceed to create their little state (which, under the present circumstances, would be a protectorate of the Transnational and Zionist Elites, like Greece), did not demand this from the Kurds. This resulted in the latter having the nerve even to demand Syria’s help in Afrin, which Assad — as the guardian of Syria’s sovereignty — had to grant them, albeit symbolically.

In conclusion, the present crisis constitutes a systematically-organized attempt to destroy, or at least significantly undermine, not only the Middle Eastern states that remain insubordinate to the TE (i.e. Iran and Syria) but, indirectly, to undermine even Putin’s Russia, which has refused to play the role of an elite that is subordinate to the TE as it was under Yeltsin. Therefore, in case the TE’s present attack on Syria were to succeed in undermining (or, even more so, overthrowing) Assad, it would directly undermine Putin’s hegemony and have direct repercussions on the movements for popular sovereignty which directly endanger the TE’s plans for global governance. Putin therefore has two possible options which he must choose between, after Nato’s bombing:

• One is for Russia to accept some kind of compromise with the TE over Syria, but also more generally over Ukraine etc., so as to become a sort of half-subordinate member of the TE within the NWO.
• The other is for Putin’s leadership to overcome these delusions and continue the struggle for territorial and economic sovereignty, not only that of Russia but also of all the Eurasian Union’s members. This union could function as an alternative pole to the TE and the NWO, attracting movements for national and economic sovereignty from Europe and beyond. This way the Eurasian Union would also acquire an ideological dimension, which it now lacks since it is basically an economic union of states within the NWO. This ideological element would be crucial in attracting the victims of globalization from across the world and would help overturn the TE’s plans for global governance and for a new Middle Ages, much wider-reaching than the first since its “subjects” would now be under the delusion that they were free, living in “democracies”…

*

This article was originally published on The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy.

Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher and economist who founded the Inclusive Democracy movement, aiming at a synthesis of classical democracy with libertarian socialism and the radical currents in the new social movements. He was an academic, and has written many books and thousands of articles which have been published in British, American and Greek theoretical journals, magazines and newspapers, several of which have been translated into over twenty languages. 

Notes

[1] No wonder that Emmanuel Macron, the ex-banker who effectively was appointed by the Transnational Elite as its political leader (given the unreliability of Donald Trump), in a major speech in front of the European Parliament, following his participation in the bombing of Syria, has fiercely attacked ‘populism’ warning that “there seems to be a European civil war between liberal democracy and rising authoritarianism.” See “France’s Macron urges EU to shun nationalism,” BBC News(17.04.2018).

[2] Takis Fotopoulos, “Iraq: the new criminal “war” of the transnational elite”, Democracy & Nature, vol.9, no.2 (July 2003).

[3] “Syria air strikes: Only a quarter of Britons back Theresa May’s decision to launch military operations against the Assad regime, new poll reveals”, The Independent, (14/4/2018).

[4] “Goal of Syria strikes was to prevent chemical watchdog’s fact-finding mission in Douma – Moscow,” RT (14/4/2018).

[5] “Lavrov: Swiss lab says ‘BZ toxin’ used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service”, RT (14/4/2018). <>

[6] See the following articles on Zionism by Takis Fotopoulos: “Zionism and the transnational elite,” The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 2, No.4 (November 2006); “The ‘nakba’ (catastrophe) and Zionist mythology,” ibid, Vol. 4, No. 3 (July 2008); “The Zionist attack against the international resistance to the New World Order and the Libertarian Left — A proposal for the liberation of Palestine from Zionist racism and religious fundamentalism,” ibid, Vol. 6, No. 2/3 (Spring/Summer 2010); “The Zionist Brutalization Within the New World Order and the Need for a United Multi-national and Multicultural State,” ibid, Vol. 10, Nos. 1/2 (Winter-Summer 2014).

[7] BBC, “Israeli minister praises viral video sniper,” BBC News (10/4/2018). <>

[8] See T. Fotopoulos, The New World Order in Action: Globalization, the Brexit Revolution and the Left (Progressive Press, Dec. 2016), ch. 2.

[9] See T. Fotopoulos, Greece as a Protectorate of the Transnational Elite (Gordios, 2010).

[10] The New World Order in Action, ch. 3.

[11] See also the following articles by Takis Fotopoulos on Syria: “The downing of the Russian plane and the military intervention in Syria,” The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 11, Nos. 1/2 (Winter-Summer 2015); “The real objectives of the Transnational Elite in Syria,” The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 10, Nos. 1/2 (Winter-Summer 2014).

[12] See also Takis Fotopoulos , “The First War of the Internationalised Market Economy,” Democracy & Nature, Vol. 5, No. 2 (July 1999).

[13] As Bookchin himself put it : “Libertarian municipalism proposes a radically different form of economy (…) it proposes that land and enterprises be placed increasingly in the custody of the community ― more precisely, the custody of citizens in free assemblies and their deputies in confederal councils (…) The maxim ‘from each according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her needs’ would seem a bedrock guide for an economically rational society”, in “Libertarian Municipalism: An Overview”, Society & Nature, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1992).

[14] For instance, The Centre for Citizenship, Civil Society and Rule of Law in the University of Aberdeen (UK) organizes a Conference on Radical Democratic Citizenship – Grassroots Political Practice in September 2018, which is dedicated “in solidarity to the people living in the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria (Rojava) who are, in the time of writing this call for submissions, under severe military attack led by the Turkish government” !

[15] As Lavrov recently stated: “The recent US steps “look more and more like a part of a course to create a quasi-state of sorts on a large chunk of Syrian territory (…) Autonomous, independent from Damascus governing bodies are being created in this territory, money keeps flowing there to keep them functional. Law enforcement, created there, is receiving weaponry; see “US trying to create ‘quasi-state’ on large part of Syria’s land – Lavrov,” RT (13/2/2018).

[16] “The number of U.S. military installations in Syria has increased to eight bases according to recent reports, and possibly nine according to one other military analyst,” 21st Century Wire reported, “US Strengthens Presence in Northern Syria”, Sputnik (July 4, 2017). See, also, Sarah Abed, “The Kurds: Washington’s Weapon of Mass Destabilization in the Middle East,”Voltaire Network (10/8/2017).

On March 23, 2018, the US media published an interview with the newly-appointed National Security Advisor John R. Bolton, where he stated that the only solution for North Korea is complete disarmament – following the example of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. This scenario is exactly what Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un need to discuss during their negotiations.

John R. Bolton is well-known as a hardliner regarding Pyongyang. During his work for the Department of State in the 2000s, he was one of the most furious opponents of any dialogue with North Korea, and more recently he advocated a preventive strike against it. According to him, North Korea and its nuclear program are a direct threat to the US and “given the incomplete US intelligence data on North Korea we should not wait until it’s too late.” On the contrary, “it seems justified that the US should respond to the North Korean nuclear weapon threat with a pre-emptive strike.” Apart from that, Bolton does NOT consider the Iraq War a mistake, he is a proponent of reforming the UN, taking the hard line with Russia and increasing aggression towards Iran.

The author of this article believes that such initiatives prove that either John R. Bolton spent some time in some kind of a space-time loop and has no idea of what happened afterwards, or he is just an extremely cynical old-school hawk.

Let us remind you that Libya announced abandoning its weapons of mass destruction development program in December, 2003. John R. Bolton took part in the negotiations, but when 2011 saw the beginning of the Arab Spring, he was one of the first to call for a war in Libya, justifying it by “Gaddafi’s desire to get hold of nuclear weapons”. However, many representatives of the George W. Bush Administration, in particular, Colin Powell, are still convinced that “the Libyan experience of abandoning nuclear weapons is positive and has led to the country’s integration in the world community.”

Nevertheless, in exchange for giving up the nuclear program (which was at a much earlier stage than the North Korean one), Gaddafi got way more than Kim Jong-un was ever promised. It included total absolution – even the Lockerbie jet bombing was “ascribed to Iran”.

Then the “Arab Spring” came and the fate of Gaddafi was very sad, after which many wondered what kind of fate he would have had, had he not given up the bomb eight years ago. No, it is, of course, highly probable that the “Green Book” author could have “earned” the Iraq scenario with the official US military invasion to fight the evil regime. But history has no “subjunctive mood”, and since then the Libyan scenario that used to be considered an example of a successful nuclear deal has not been mentioned without the ironic quotation marks.

First, this is about taking irreversible actions in exchange for reversible ones. A disassembled nuclear reactor and blown-up missiles cannot be assembled back as they were. Meanwhile, any diplomatic relations can be broken, any shipments can be discontinued and, as experience shows, the pretext for that can be not even the change in the outcast country’s policy, but the change in the leadership of its counterpart: our ex-president could have signed anything, now our policy line is different.

And North Korea relies heavily on its nuclear missile program as an efficient tool not only in maintaining its sovereignty, but also in raising the quality of life of the people. Today, some people fail to realize that the nuclear missile block is not the most precious and valuable thing. Conventional weapons equipped with expensive cutting-edge technologies cost more, but people are used to believing the following understandable idea: “the people are hungry and the government spends all the money on nuclear weapons.” Meanwhile, should North Korea search for a proportionate response, it would not end well for it. The South Korean military budget is 23-25 times as big as that of North Korea. And it has not only to do with the high salaries of the military personnel and equipping them with hand cream.

Second, any nuclear deal of the kind is the question of guarantees. The existing world order has a distinct characteristic of the degradation of the existing norms. Relatively speaking, if one can still try making North Korea comply with its obligations by imposing international sanctions on it, then an attempt to call Washington, DC to order is, let us face it, much more problematic. That is why it seems that, speaking of the Libyan scenario, John R. Bolton means not only the events of 2003, but also those of 2011. According to old-school hawks, it is quite logical to disarm the enemy and then finish him off based on “the newly-found evidence”.

The author would also like to draw the reader’s attention to why people like Bolton are in principle worse than the hawks like McMaster, Mattis or Pompeo, whose outlook is little defined by the military past. The thing is that, despite the stereotype about the military, in crisis situations that have to deal with the question “to strike” or “not to strike”, they usually choose the second option, as they start calculating possible casualties rather than possible political advantages. The first option is most often backed by the “pure” politicians who have no military or administrative experience and who are used to imagining war as some kind of a TV broadcast. If we consider John R. Bolton’s work record, he fits this category perfectly.

In this context, we shall note the widespread opinion among the US conspirologists that the US is going to start a war on the Korean peninsula, but unlike the situation that took place 15 year ago, this time it is going to take a more competent approach. Unsubstantiated accusations may not do the trick this time. That is why the strategy has to be more subtle and include 2 elements. The first one is to provoke an inadequate action which could be regarded as a casus belli. In this case, the US acts not as an aggressor, but as a defender at the same time lowering the probability that Pyongyang should receive any help. Thus, it is well known that Beijing corridors of power many times heard the message that the 1961 treaty military assistance article will only be in effect if North Korea suffers an unprovoked attack. Then many things may be expected. And if the North is the first to attack the South, then China will surely call for a peaceful resolution of the problem and will express its great concern, but nothing more.

The second element of the strategy is that the decision to start a war is made at the last minute and due to the circumstances. And until that moment, we keep talking a blue streak about the dialogue and peace actually only to throw our hands up in despair at the eleventh hour and say in front of the camera: “We honestly did our best. We were even ready to make concessions, but these scoundrels were so bad that we just have no other choice than to launch an air strike.” Even more so, as the Skripal poisoning case shows, to put a label justifying international sanctions “well-founded suspicions” are enough. Everyone knows that the terrible Putin has special invisible ninja agents, who leave no trace and evidence behind, and that is why the absence of traces and evidence is the main proof incriminating Putin. Naturally, he is the only one who has invisible ninjas.

Yes, another anti-American conspirologist branch thinks that the illustrative flagellation, called to remind the world that the US remains the world hegemon and can trample anyone else, may be in fact aimed at Iran, not North Korea. And, getting ready to start a war in a new area, one has to take precautions with the old one, to avoid getting in two conflicts at the same time. Yes, despite its higher population and better-developed industry potential, in terms of cynical policy, Iran is a more acceptable target. First, it has a nuclear program, but no nuclear bomb. Second, there is no Seoul analogue that would ensure that the outcast country deals unacceptable damage to a strategic ally in case of a “pre-emptive strike”. Third, despite the fact that Russia and Iran share no border, it would harm the Russian interests no less than an attack in the North. Fourth, given the Iranian society structure and occasional mass protests, unlike North Korea, the US has more reason to rely on the success of its propaganda machine in terms of possible sabotage or treason. In this context, we cannot exclude that at the end of spring – in early summer the US will terminate the “nuclear deal” with Iran and then search for a casus belli after finding the Iranian trace in some outrageous act of terrorism.

*

Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History is a Leading Research Fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of Far Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Featured image is from the author.

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

I wonder how many people, not just Americans but those in other countries, have come to the conclusion that the United States today is a less free and less aware society than the societies in the dystopian novels of the 20th century or in movies such as The Matrix and V for Vendetta.  Just as people in the dystopian novels had no idea of their real situation, few Americans do either.

What are we to make of the extraordinary war crimes committed by the United States in the 21st century that have destroyed in whole or part seven countries, resulting in millions of dead, maimed, orphaned, and displaced peoples?  Consider, for example, the latest Washington war crime, the illegal attack on Syria.  Instead of protesting this illegality, the American media egged it on, cheering impending death and destruction.   

During the entirety of the 21st century, Israel, Washington’s only ally—as contrasted with the European, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassal states of Washington’s empire—has continued with Washington’s support, protection, and encouragement the  genocide of the Palestinian people.  Essentially, all that is left of Palestine is a ghetto concentration camp known as Gaza which is routinely bombed by Israel using weapons and money supplied by Washington. When a bombing of Gaza is announced, God’s Chosen People take their lawn chairs and picnics up on a hill overlooking Gaza and applaud as the Israeli military murders women and children.  This is America’s only ally.

The crimes committed by the US and Israel are horrific, but meet with little opposition.  In contrast, an alleged attack in which 70 Syrians are alleged to have died sets in motion the wheels of war.  It makes no sense whatsoever.  Israel routinely bombs Syrian targets, killing Syrians, and the US arms and supports the “rebels” that the Obama regime sent to overthrow Assad, resulting in large numbers of dead Syrians.  Why all of a sudden do 70 Syrians matter to Washington?

According to the Washington authorities, or to the presstitutes’ reports of their statements, two or three alleged Syrian chemical weapons facilities were destroyed by Washington’s missile attack.  Think about this for a minute.  If Washington bombed or sent missiles into chemical weapons facilities, a vast cloud of lethal gas would have been released. The civilian casualties would be many times higher than the claimed 70 victims of Assad’s alleged and unsubstantiated chemical attack used as the pretext for the Trump regime’s war crime against Syria.  There is no evidence whatsoever of these casualties.

Had there been casualties, Washington’s attack would obviously be a far greater crime than the chemical attack that Washington used as cover for its own crime.  Yet the American presstitutes are crowing over the lesson that America has taught Syria and Russia.  Apparently, the American media consists of such immoral or moronic hirelings that the presstitutes are unable to comprehend that an attack by Washington on Syrian chemical weapons plants, if such actually existed, is the equivalent of an attack on Syria with chemical weapons.  

As I wrote yesterday, when I was a Wall Street Journal editor, if Washington had just announced that it had bombed the chemical weapons facilities of another country in punishment for that country’s alleged use of a chemical weapon, the Journal’s reporters were sufficiently intelligent to ask where are the victims of Washington’s chemical attack on that country?  Are there thousands of dead people from the chemical gas released by Washington’s attack?  Are the hospitals of the country over-filed with the injured and dying?  

If a reporter had brought to us a story that was nothing but a Washington press release claiming obviously impossible happenings, we would have told him to go look again and ask the obvious questions. Today the NY Times and Washington Post put the unsubstantiated report on the front page.

Today reporters no longer have to check sources, because there is no longer journalism in America.  When the Clinton regime in compliance with the Deep State that made the Clintons super-rich permitted 90% of the independent and diverse US media to be concentrated in the hands of six political companies, that was the end of journalism in America.  All we have now is a propaganda ministry that lies for a living.  Anyone in American journalism who tells the truth is either  immediately fired or in the case of Tucker Carlson at Fox News is set upon by outside presstitutes in an effort to force Fox to replace him.  I wonder how long before some woman pops up and claims Tucker Carlson sexually harassed her.

As far as I can tell, the United States is now a police state in which all information is controlled and the population is trained to believe the propaganda or be accused of lack of patriotism and consorting with terrorists and Russians.  

*

This article was originally published on Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The US strike against Syria, launched on Friday with the complicity of the UK and France, was a war crime executed in service to foreign policy objectives that run counter to US interests. As the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the UN chemical weapons watchdog, begins its fact-finding mission in Douma, journalists on the ground have been unable to confirm a chemical attack happened at all. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. We’ve been here before.

The US has a history of lying about chemical weapons in Syria. Attacks are invariably blamed on Assad, though this blame is never supported by conclusive proof. “Mad Dog” Mattis was forced to admit there is no evidence that Assad used chemical weapons in Douma, but he is “confident” it happened because of “social media” shared by the White Helmets, an anti-Assad group that has repeatedly been caught waving severed heads around while cavorting with terrorist leadership. The White Helmets’ reports have not been verified, and a doctor who treated the victims reported no injuries associated with chemical weapons, stating that the deaths were actually caused by suffocation.

Previous gas attacks pinned on Assad don’t add up either.

Last year’s Khan Sheikhoun attack, which followed Trump’s proclamation that the US military was no longer intent on regime change in Syria, was never conclusively linked to Assad. Patients turned up at hospitals with symptoms of gas exposure before the Syrian airplane believed responsible for the attack could have dropped its payload. A number of other inconsistencies were smoothed over with photographs of dead children, and a retaliatory strike preempted impartial investigation, just as would happen a year later in Douma. The White Helmets were on the scene here, too, and their dubious heroics provide further evidence against the official story. 

The Ghouta incident in 2013, which famously followed Obama’s declaration of a “red line” – noticing a pattern here? – also fell apart on closer scrutiny. Weapons experts including MIT’s Theodore Postol analyzed the missile that delivered the sarin in the attack and concluded that its short range meant it had to have been fired from rebel territory. US intelligence identified more than one rebel group with the capacity to produce sarin, poking holes in the administration’s supposedly iron-clad case against Assad, which relied on the false assumption that only the regime possessed the munition.

After Obama stepped back from the brink of war in 2013, Russia came forward as peace-maker, offering to help Syria destroy its chemical weapons stockpiles and make everyone happy. Even Wikipedia, hardly an anti-establishment voice, states Syria disposed of its chemical weapons offshore by August 2014, with blame for the two subsequent chemical attacks tacked on without explanation as to where these new weapons came from. The OPCW certified Syria’s chemical weapons destroyed. If they lied, why are they still relied upon? 

It should be obvious, then, that Assad has not been using chemical weapons. Aside from the fact that the US has been trying to remove Assad for over a decade and trying to control Syria for far longer, the timing of the “attack” was a dead giveaway. Trump’s surprise announcement that the US would pull out of Syria set off a flurry of activity among Trump’s handlers, including Israeli president Netanyahu, who personally called Trump to remind him he doesn’t actually have the authority to make foreign policy decisions for the country he was elected to run. Israel was also the first to respond to the Douma incident, launching its own missiles at the T4 airbase in Homs hours after the attack was reported. Good thing they had those missiles ready! 

Trump’s timing in launching the “retaliatory” joint strike is also telling. The OPCW was due to arrive in Damascus the day after the strike. If Trump’s cabinet was so certain Assad had used chemical weapons, surely they could have waited for proof. This strike was an attempt to prevent clearer heads from prevailing and goad Syria or Russia into hitting back, escalating into a larger conflict. It may also have been designed to destroy evidence (or lack thereof).

The timing of the strike looks even more suspicious in light of former OPCW Director General José Bustani’s (image on the right) revelation that John Bolton, then Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense, pushed him out of his position in 2002 when Bustani had the gall to invite Saddam Hussein into the OPCW, which would have allowed UN weapons inspectors to visit Iraq and actually look for the WMDs Bolton and friends claimed were lurking around every corner. Since this was a fantasy, the presence of actual OPCW inspectors would have jeopardized the case for war, and Bolton finally gave Bustani 24 hours to resign, telling him “we know where your kids live.” Bolton is now national security advisor to Trump. If the US didn’t even believe the new, improved OPCW would give them the “proof” required for war in Syria, they truly have gotten lazy with their false flags, suggesting even the most cursory inspection of the attack site could absolve Assad.

It should be obvious, in any case, that the US does not really care about chemical weapons, since Saudi Arabia, one of its closest allies in the Middle East, has used white phosphorus in Yemen. Yet we don’t bomb Saudi Arabia – we sell them billions of dollars in weapons to facilitate their war crimes. Israel, too, has used white phosphorus in Gaza – yet Israel is the largest recipient of US military aid in the world. If Assad was using chemical weapons, he’d just be emulating the US’s best friends in the region. Hell, the US used chemical weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan – are we bombing ourselves? I hadn’t noticed. 

The anti-Assad rebels have been caught using chemical weapons numerous times. Where do they get such things? When the US military overthrew Gaddafi’s government in Libya, it snatched up his chemical weapons and gave them to the “moderate” Syrian rebels – groups like al-Nusra and the Saudi-funded Jaysh al-Islam. The CIA in 2015 was spending $100,000 a head training these terrorists to overthrow Assad. 

The US and its allies have not shied away from spreading propaganda to support their paper-thin rationale for overthrowing Assad. Despite the high level of support he enjoys among Syrian citizens, Assad is portrayed as an oppressive dictator, though every congressperson who actually visits Syria (only Tulsi Gabbard and Dick Black, so far) discovers that Syrians like their leader a lot more than we like ours. 

So Assad is a beloved leader who hasn’t committed any war crimes. Why are we trying to overthrow him again? Nikki Haley gave away the game when she enumerated the three conditions that would have to be met for the US to withdraw from Syria. “We cannot have chemical weapons anywhere,” she said – an empty declaration for reasons stated above. ISIS is all but defeated, especially after having its US funding cut. Finally, she “wants to make sure that the influence of Iran doesn’t take over the area.” Overthrowing Assad has never been about Assad. The US’s goal of overthrowing seven countries – Iraq and Libya have already been crossed off the “to-do” list – is rooted in Israel’s Oded Yinon plan, which calls for the balkanization of the Middle East along ethnic and religious lines and the expansion of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. Saudi Arabia, once an enemy of Israel, has allied with its former nemesis against Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, the “Shia Crescent” the Sunni regime sees as its primary obstacle to regional dominance. 

Saudi Arabia is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, and Israel has openly admitted it prefers ISIS to the stable regimes of Assad and Iran’s Rouhani. The US has allowed itself to be led by its allies in choosing sides in this conflict to its detriment. We gain nothing from the overthrow of one of the few stable nations left in the Middle East. Taking out Assad would ignite a conflict sure to last decades and cost trillions of dollars. At a minimum, hundreds of thousands will die, many of them civilians, and many more will be displaced, turning up on European or American shores as refugees. The involvement of Russia and now China mean a local conflict could quickly spiral into World War 3, placing the future of human civilization at risk. The goals of our allies in Syria are not our goals. The US must choose its friends more carefully.

If you are unwilling to consider the possibility that the American government might be lying, put yourself in Assad’s place. You are the ruler of one of the last stable secular nations in a region destroyed by conflict, much of which was instigated by the US, Israel, and/or Saudi Arabia. You have been fighting a bloody war against foreign-funded terrorists for the better part of a decade, trying not to go the way of Gaddafi and Hussein. You have finally regained most of the territory held by the rebels seeking to overthrow your government – victory is in sight. Do you A) drive the rebels out of the last of their strongholds, declare victory, and throw a big parade or B) commit a sadistic war crime that serves no strategic goal but brings down the wrath of the same US military apparatus that so recently destroyed two of your neighbors?

Even the most inexperienced, politically-inept ruler would pick A. Assad is neither inexperienced nor politically inept. Few heads of state last as long as he has when the US military wants them gone. There is literally no reason why he would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in this way.

If you are willing to continue in this thought experiment, place yourself in the head of a military strategist seeking regime change in Syria. Your target, the legitimate ruler of that nation, has nearly defeated the terrorists your country has been funding and supplying with weapons for the better part of a decade. Your ability to indiscriminately fund terrorist groups has been somewhat curtailed by an uppity president who disapproves of your preferred militants’ appetite for beheadings and other barbaric displays of power. You’re screwed unless you can convince that president and his cabinet to reverse their course on how they handle this country. You know he has a weakness for gas attacks and photos of dead kids, and your colleagues were careful to lay the groundwork for such a move last time this president threatened to thwart your careful plan. Do you A) honorably admit defeat, realizing the legitimate ruler of the nation in question has beaten you fair and square despite the dirty tricks you’ve employed over the preceding years B) frame him for the one war crime that would bring down the wrath of the US military apparatus even though it contradicts his best interests? Even the greenest intelligence operative would pick B. 

Even if you don’t believe any of the above – in which case, I would ask what part of the establishment narrative is so compelling – it remains the case that the US and its allies acted outside international law in striking Syria. None of these nations obtained consent from Congress or Parliament; Syria as a UN member state is protected under UN law from attack without provocation, and since no member state was attacked, no provocation occurred. Striking Syria was a war crime. If one class of countries can flout international law while another can be accused of breaking it without evidence, the entire concept is meaningless. 

The US has gone to war on false pretenses before; in fact, it’s standard operating procedure. The establishment media were certain that Saddam Hussein was hoarding Weapons of Mass Destruction with which he was intent on laying waste to the US. The Gulf of Tonkin incident falsified Vietnamese aggression to justify US involvement in the Vietnam War. “Remember the Maine!” was the rallying cry pitching the then-isolationist US into the Spanish-American War. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; we can no longer count the number of times we’ve been fooled into feed the military-industrial beast. The ruling class thinks we’re stupid. Don’t prove them right.

*

The British government, like many others around the world, have been developing chemical weapons since the First World War – and continue to do so from Porton Down. However, unlike others, the Conservative government were complicit in the sale of these deadly banned weapons to Syria. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills granted licences for the sale of chemical weapons ingredients and components to Syria ten months after the uprising began.

There is a type of hypocrisy coming from the current crop of politicians that has learned nothing at all from the international embarrassment that emanated from Britain’s awful foreign policy choices when Tony Blair blindly followed the Americans and led the country into killing a million people in Iraq that even to this day has three million displaced from their homes. David Cameron saw fit to do the same in Libya. Many were killed, hundreds of thousands displaced and today the country in is the hands of gangsters and terrorists who make money in slave trading markets and sending millions of migrants across the Mediterranean that is currently destabilising Europe.

Theresa May has sought exactly the same route from the same playbook of lies and deceit. The Skripal/Novichok/it was Russia story has been roundly discredited. It was clearly the precursor to blaming Russia for protecting its ally, prior to attacking Syria without either the authority of the UN or debate in parliament, where 78 percent of Britain’s disagree with Theresa May’s air strikes.

The airstrikes were carried out on a pretext of the use of chemical weapons – which has now been fully discredited as well. Robert Fisk via The Independent brought us that evidence yesterday – that no chemical gas attack took place in Douma.

We have had very firm confirmation from the Obama administration back in 2014 that the British made nerve gas stockpiles were completely extracted from Syria. “We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out,” declared then-Secretary of State John Kerry on Meet the Press in 2014. Kerry was referring to Bashar al-Assad’s declared stockpiles of chemical weapons which, under a 2013 deal struck by the Obama administration following a sarin nerve gas attack that brought the U.S. to the brink of striking Syrian government forces, were dismantled and shipped out of the country.

In Summary

We have conclusive evidence that Britain manufactured and sold nerve agents to Syria even during the first year of the uprising.

We have evidence that ISIS backed terrorists did use chemical weapons as confirmed by the United Nations (see below) that was a ‘red-line’ for the Obama administration.

We have more evidence that these so-called ‘rebels’ used gas attacks as confirmed by the US State Department (see below).

We have concrete evidence that nerve agents sold by Britain were handed over via a diplomatically brokered deal that included the UN, US, Britain and Russia – to the complete satisfaction of all concerned.

We have confirmed evidence that no chemical weapons attack took place in Douma contrary to the Trump and May administrations allegations.

Like Blair and Cameron before her, we have been provided little more than circumstantial evidence from Theresa May and her cabinet that only goes as far as ‘highly likely‘ and ‘suspected,‘ almost all of which cannot be verified, much of which, can be discredited.

As if you needed more evidence:

The Week – July 9th 2014 – HEADLINE:

UK firms ‘sold chemical weapons ingredients to Syria’

“British companies supplied ingredients for the production of the deadly nerve agent sarin to Syria in the 1980s, a secret Foreign Office document obtained by Newsnight has revealed.

Sarin has been linked to several attacks during Syria’s three-year civil war, including last year’s deadliest, in which almost 1,500 people were killed, including 426 children. 

The report names the UK as the sole supplier of the three key ingredients used to produce sarin; dimethyl phosphate (DMP), trimethyl phosphate (TMP) and hexamine. These three chemicals are regarded as the “building block” of sarin.

Sarin is described by chemical weapons experts as one of the “deadliest agents known to man”. It is classified as a weapon of mass destruction as a small amount is capable of killing thousands of people, as was evident in Syria.

The report states that hundreds of tonnes of the ingredients were sold to Damascus. The UK also supplied electrical fans to Syria in 2003, it says, components of which were used in Assad’s chemical weapon programme. The programme points out that at the same time the UK invaded Iraq, which it accused of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.”

Washington Times – May 6th 2013 – HEADLINE:

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

“Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said in 2013.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC.

Damascus has recently faced growing Western accusations that its forces used such weapons, which President Obama has described as crossing a red line. But Ms. del Ponte’s remarks may serve to shift the focus of international concern.

Ms. del Ponte, who in 1999 was appointed to head the U.N. war crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The former Swiss prosecutor and attorney general, told Swiss TV: “Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals. According to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated.”

US admits Chemical weapons used by rebels

Source: US State Department

Last September, the US Department of State Consular Affairs offered official Syria travel warning for American citizens: that the core rebel group currently operating in northwest Syria not only possesses but has used chemical weapons – to the point that the State Department considers it a major enough threat to publicly warn citizens about.

The armed opposition group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), is referenced early in the document: “Terrorist and other violent extremist groups including ISIS and Al-Qaeda linked Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham [dominated by Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat Al-Nusra, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization], operate in Syria.”  The document clearly names terrorist groups operating in Syria who use tactics such as suicide bombings, kidnappings and chemical weapons – to target major city centres and open spaces.

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.

Until the 17th century, India was the richest country in the world and had controlled a third of global wealth. Political unity and military security helped evolve a uniform economic system, increased trade and enhanced agricultural productivity. Once the British had colonised India and left, it was a basket case.

Indian politician and writer Shashi Tharoor (image below) has documented the state the British left India in. They looted the country and the British legacy was 16 per cent literacy, a life expectancy of 27, practically no domestic industry and over 90 per cent living below the poverty line.

Once Britain lost its empire, it managed to secure a degree of global influence by throwing in its lot with the US as a junior partner in Washington’s quest for global hegemony. And if the 21st century tells us anything so far, it is that the centuries’ old colonialist mentality of the British state has not gone away: the mindset of Empire, conquest and duplicity persists.

In 2015, the then UK prime minister David Cameron said he felt deeply moved by the image of a Syrian boy dead on a Turkish beach. As pressure mounted on the UK to take in more of those fleeing to Europe from Syria and other war zones, Cameron added that the UK would fulfill its “moral responsibilities.”

On hearing Cameron’s words about ‘morality’, how many would not have failed to detect the hypocrisy? According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009. And writing in The Guardian in 2013, Nafeez Ahmed discussed leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor, including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials, that confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within.”

According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to “attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years,” starting with Iraq and moving on to “Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.” Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region’s vast oil and gas resources.

In 2009, Syrian President Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets in direct competition with Russia. Assad refused to sign and instead pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran crossing Iraq and into Syria that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe. The West agreed that Assad must go.

And this is where Britain and the West’s concerns really lie: facilitating the geopolitical machinations of financial institutions, oil companies and war profiteers in the form of arms manufacturers. Ordinary people are mere ‘collateral damage’ left dying in or fleeing war zones that the West and its allies created. Any ‘outrage’ about an alleged chemical weapons attack by the ‘monster’ Assad on ordinary Syrians must be seen for what it is. The West’s brutal oil and gas wars are twisted as ‘humanitarian’ interventions for public consumption.

When it suits, for example, these people are to be showered with fake sympathy and mock outrage by politicians through a media-driven campaign orchestrated to stir up mass emotion about victims of a (staged made-for-TV) gas attack in Douma. The goal is to manufacture consent to get a war-weary public onside for further killing and mayhem in Syria.

Imperial conquest

In 2014, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray told a meeting at St Andrews University in Scotland that the British Government is deeply immoral and doesn’t care how many people its kills abroad if it advances it aims. He said the UK was a state that is prepared to go to war to make a few people wealthy.

He added that Libya is now a disaster and 15,000 people were killed when NATO (British and French jets) bombed Sirte. Murray told his audience:

“I’ve seen things from the inside and the UK’s foreign interventions are almost always about resources. It is every bit as corrupt as others have indicated. It is not an academic construct, the system stinks.”

As far as Iraq is concerned, Murray said that he knew for certain that key British officials were fully aware that there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction. He said that invading Iraq wasn’t a mistake, it was a lie.

Over a million people have been killed via the US-led or US-backed attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, so we were told. It did not. That was a lie and hundreds of thousands have paid with their lives. We were told that Gaddafi was a tyrant. He used the nation’s oil wealth well by presiding over a country that possessed some of the best indices of social and economic well-being in Africa. Now, thanks to Western backed terror and military conflict, Libya lies in ruins. Russia is a threat to world peace because of its actions in Ukraine, we are told. It is not. The US helped instigate the overthrow of the government in Kiev and has instigated provocations, sanctions and a proxy war against an emerging Russia.

But this is the plan: to turn countries into vassal states of the US, or for those that resist, to reconstruct (destroy) them into fractured territories.

And Britain continues to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US throughout as much of Syria, Libya and Iraq now lies in ruins. Theresa May’s recent eulogies to morality and humanitarianism surrounding both the Skripal case and events in Douma are hollow rhetoric: part of the ongoing psyops being waged on the public to encourage people to regard what is happening in the world as a disconnected array of events in need of Western intervention.

These events are not for one minute to be regarded by the public as the planned brutality of empire and militarism, preservation of the petro-dollar system and the encircling and intimidation of Russia, China and Iran with military hardware.

Tim Anderson (author of ‘The Dirty War on Syria’) argues that where Syria is concerned western culture in general has favoured its worst traditions:

“the ‘imperial prerogative’ for intervention, backed by deep racial prejudice and poor reflection on the histories of their own cultures and reinforced by a ferocious campaign of war propaganda.”

This assessment rings true for Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq as it does for Syria.

In the book ‘Late Victorian Holocausts’, the author Mike Davis writes that millions in India were dying of starvation when Lord Lytton (head of the British government in India) said,

“There is to be no interference of any kind on the part of government with the object of reducing the price of food”.

He dismissed any idea of feeding the starving as “humanitarian hysterics”. There was plenty of food, but it was held back to preserve prices and serve the market.

Returning to Shashi Tharoor, he notes a speech to the British House of Commons in 1935 by Winston Churchill who said that the slightest fall from the present standard of life in India means slow starvation, and the actual squeezing out of life, not only of millions but of scores of millions of people. That after almost 200 years of British rule. According to Tharoor, this “squeezing out of life” was realized at the hands of Churchill in the six to seven million Indian deaths in the WW2 Bengali Holocaust.

Fast-forward to 2018 and despite Theresa May’s crocodile tears, hundreds of thousands in various countries are still dying today due to the same imperialist mindset. “Humanitarian hysterics” are for public consumption as the “squeezing out of life” continues according to plan.

*

Colin Todhunter is a Asia-Pacific Research correspondent; he is also a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. has basically eliminated the only real international authority the U.N. used to have. Here is how this was done:

The equivalent, in international law, to a domestic-law crime involving murder, rape, and theft, is an international invasion that’s purely for aggressive purposes and not at all authentically a defensive act against an authentic foreign threat that was coming from the invaded foreign country. Consequently, for the U.S. Government now to have removed the U.N. from any authority over international invasions, is, in domestic-law equivalency, like removing a national government from authority regarding murders, rapes, and thefts, which occur inside that nation. Such a ‘government’ is no government at all. But, tragically, this is what has happened; and, so, we are now careening into World War III, in this international “Wild West” world, which we live in (and may soon die in, as things thus head into WW III). 

The U.S. Government no longer even nominally cares whether or not the U.N. authorizes its invasions; but, as recently as 2003, it used to, even if only nominally, care. The U.S. has thus effectively discarded the U.N. altogether, whenever violating the U.N. is the only way to impose its will against a given target-country.

In late 2002 and early 2003, U.S. President George W. Bush nominally expressed a desire for the U.N. to authorize an invasion of Iraq, but failed to receive that authorization and then did the invasion anyway, along with only UK, Australia, and Poland, joining the U.S.-led gang, in this destruction of Iraq.

At a press conference on 6 March 2003, just 11 days before he (on March 17th) ordered the U.N. weapons-inspectors to leave Iraq, and then invaded Iraq on March 20th, Bush said:

Elizabeth.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren’t sure you have the vote?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I don’t think — it basically says that he’s in defiance of 1441. That’s what the resolution says. And it’s hard to believe anybody is saying he isn’t in defiance of 1441, because 1441 said he must disarm. And, yes, we’ll call for a vote.

Q No matter what?

THE PRESIDENT: No matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It’s time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.

Mark Knoller.

Q Mr. President, are you worried that the United States might be viewed as defiant of the United Nations if you went ahead with military action without specific and explicit authorization from the U.N.?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I’m not worried about that. As a matter of fact, it’s hard to say the United States is defiant about the United Nations, when I was the person that took the issue to the United Nations, September the 12th, 2002. We’ve been working with the United Nations. We’ve been working through the United Nations.

Subsequent U.S. Presidents haven’t been even that respectful of the U.N.’s authority; and current U.S. President Donald Trump is blatantly dismissive of it, so that he’s not even requesting U.N. authorization for his invasions.

Thus, the lesson that the U.S. Government learned from the Iraq invasion isn’t that the U.S. Government should never again lie about what the evidence actually shows, in order to invade a country, but instead that the U.S. Government should simply ignore the U.N. whenever the evidence doesn’t persuade other Governments that an invasion would be authentically defensive instead of purely an act of international aggression.

What might turn out to have been “The Most Important U.N. Security Council Vote Ever” was the 10 April 2018 U.N. Security Council’s failure to require the U.S. and its allies to provide evidence to prove that Syria’s Government had gassed its own people in Douma on April 7th as the U.S. and its allies alleged, before the U.S. and its allies could, with even just possible legal justification, launch a promised massive bombing of Syria as supposed punishment for the gas-attack that they were alleging. The question of whether or not the U.N. would authorize the American invasion wasn’t even being raised; the question was only whether the alleged gas-attack needed to be independently verified before an invasion might possibly legally be launched — and no proposal was passed. Unlike in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. never tried to win U.N. authorization to invade Syria in 2018, but simply invaded, casually ignoring all laws, and even denying the need for evidence to back up its allegations against Syria.

If the Russian Government’s proposal that the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) must investigate the case and issue a report on its findings, before any action, such as an invasion, is done by any country, had passed the Security Council, then that would be applying standard legal and juridical practice (that no punishment be imposed unless and until guilt has been proven), and likely no invasion of Syria (such as occurred on April 14th) would have been done, at least until the OPCW’s report is issued. But the U.S. and its allies refused to adhere even to this, the minimal legal requirement in any democracy. They instead demanded, and won, a U.S.-and-allied international dictatorship — a lawless, might-makes-right, international world.

A U.N. like this is, essentially, no U.N. at all, just a talking-forum — and that’s what now exists: it’s a forum merely for the constituent Governments to present their respective propagandas to the world, but no longer actually to negotiate anything, since the U.N. has no military, and now the U.S. Government has become effectively whatever the U.S. military (including its armaments corporations such as General Dynamics) want it to be — and, “To hell with the U.N.!” The way now to buy the U.S. Government has become to buy those corporations’ weapons, and then the U.S. Government will ally itself with that country. This is purely transactional, in the interests of America’s armaments-firms, not in the interests of the invading public, and certainly destructive of the interests of the invaded public, no matter how profitable it may be for the owners of those armaments-firms. (One can talk instead about “Wall Street,” but they’re mainly the sellers of stock in America’s armaments-firms and associated products and services; so, they are middle-men who represent the interests of the aristocracy, not really themselves necessarily principals — people who are within the aristocracy.)

Among the contrary accounts regarding that alleged Douma gas-attack was “What really happened — Chemical Attack that lead to missile Strikes on #Syria”, presenting it as having been set up by the ‘rebels’ that the U.S. Government supports. But truth is irrelevant for people with power, especially if it runs contrary to the lies that they are pushing.

President Trump came into office promising a rebirth of American manufacturing, but, so far, the vast majority of his boost to U.S. manufacturing has been only to the U.S. weapons-manufacturers — actually by far the largest international arms-sale in world history.

On 21 May 2017, I headlined it “U.S. $350 Billion Arms-Sale to Sauds Cements U.S.-Jihadist Alliance” and reported that the day before, “U.S. President Donald Trump and the Saud family inked an all-time record-high $350 billion ten-year arms-deal that not only will cement-in the Saud family’s position as the world’s largest foreign purchasers of U.S.-produced weaponry, but will make the Saud family, and America’s ruling families, become, in effect, one aristocracy over both nations, because neither side will be able to violate the will of the other. As the years roll on, their mutual dependency will deepen, each and every year.” That, sadly, has turned out to be true — and not only regarding America’s carrying the Sauds’ water (doing their bidding) in both Yemen and Syria, but in other ways as well. 

On 21 March 2018, CNBC bannered “Trump wants Saudi Arabia to buy more American-made weapons. Here are the ones the Saudis want”, and reported what Trump had just negotiated with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud, which was a step-up in that $350 billion sale, to $400 billion. CNBC associated the Sauds’ arms-purchases with ‘investments’ in the U.S., so as to mislead their audience to think favorably of these sales, but if these sales were actually investments in anything, it was in the ability of the Saud family to join even more fully with America’s aristocracy so as for them jointly to impose their will upon any country where they both want “regime-change” — control by themselves, instead of by that invaded country’s local aristocracy. (Then, the U.S. Government issues economic sanctions against Russia for ‘interfering in our democracy’. But the Sauds, and their allies, Israel’s aristocracy, actually do precisely that, routinely, and very effectively!) So: CNBC said: “During the Oval Office talks, Trump touted a creation of 40,000 American jobs due to Saudi military sales. The president used several maps and charts of Saudi acquisitions to further make his point. The crown prince, likewise, added that last year’s Saudi pledge of $200 billion in investments will rise to approximately $400 billion and that a 10-year window to implement the deal was already under way.” That was a misleading statement about the amounts, too. Here is how Indian Express had headlined and reported on 18 May 2017: “Saudi Arabia to invest $200 billion in US, purchase arms worth $300 billion”:

“As President Donald Trump prepares for his first overseas trip, Saudi Arabia has announced to make a whopping USD 200 billion investment in the US and intends to purchase arms worth USD 300 billion from America, a senior administration official has said.”

There, too, the Saudi masters got their propagandists to refer to “investments” in relation to “purchase arms worth $300 billion,” which turned out, just two days later, on 20 May 2017, to be actually $350 billion — and which amount of arms-purchases now has risen instead to $400 billion, which will be paid, as listed in that CNBC news-report to: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Honeywell, and Raytheon. When Trump campaigned for the Presidency, he had promised to be anything but a sales-person for America’s war-machine. But, he is so, and this is fascism: socialism for the rich, and ‘survival of the fittest’ for everyone else. Trump certainly isn’t a sales-person for the poor, anywhere. He’s what his fellow-fascists call a ‘populist’, in order to insult the public that they must appeal to for votes.

American ‘productivity’ thus will increase in the production of death and destruction; but, as economists view things, that is“productivity” and added “Gross National Product,” regardless of how much it actually immiserates the world (and, so, economic theory is part of the fraud that enables all of this, essentially, corruption). Thus, economic theory is as fraudulent as is the international ‘news’ that the propaganda-agencies spread to the public. It’s all a “pile of bull,” but lots of consumers are buying it, because it’s all that they know and it satisfies them — they’re not even looking for more than the myths.

Previously, the “Biggest Arms Deal in History” was between UK’s aristocracy and the Sauds, the Al-Yamamah deal, which boosted UK’s biggest weapons-maker, BAE, and in which the massive corruption became the subject of scandals and a Governmental inquiry, which Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud forced UK Prime Minister Tony Blair to close with no report being issued. And both the UK and U.S. claim to be ‘democracies’ — and both Governments accuse Russia of ‘interfering’ in their ‘democracy’!

If the reader wants to know why a web-search for the title of this article “How U.S. Has Virtually Destroyed U.N.” probably turns up no mainstream ‘news’media in the U.S.-allied world, and even very few “alternative news” sites, then the reason isn’t that they weren’t offered the article, because they all routinely receive the submission of each of my articles but routinely turn them down. The reason is instead that the most important truths are prohibited from publication in the U.S.-allied world — it’s a world dominated by lies. After all: we invaded and destroyed Iraq for no real defensive reason, and our Government has never apologized for that, much less been held accountable, at all, for it. And now, because of the U.S. Government, the U.N. isn’t even really a debating-forum, any more. It’s just a propaganda-forum, now.

*

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters stood up against war propaganda and media disinformation, condemning the US-NATO bombing of Syria following the alleged chemical attack in Douma.

According to Waters,

“The White Helmets are a fake organization that exists only to create propaganda for the jihadists and terrorists…”

Watch the video below.

A few days ago, Britain’s leader Theresa May said chemical weapons had been used “all too often” recently, insisting that “the international community [the West]… will not accept this”. May was of course referring to Bashar al-Assad‘s Syrian government, but neglected to mention that Britain itself has a century-old association with chemical warfare.

The British widely utilized gas during the First World War (from September 1915), on later occasions against Bolshevik troops, and in “experiments” on Indian soldiers in the 1930s and 1940s. Winston Churchill, perhaps Britain’s most famous ever prime minister and former leader of May’s own Conservative Party, was himself a strong proponent of “using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes”.

May also failed to highlight how the senior partner in her nation’s special relationship, the United States, have been using chemical weapons themselves “all too often” of late. In June last year, Amnesty International singled out US-led coalition forces fighting in northern Syria for its “use of white phosphorus munitions” near Raqqa, a densely populated area. Amnesty confirmed the deployment of American-led chemical warfare “after verifying five videos of the incident”.

When making contact with human skin white phosphorus penetrates flesh, burning to the bone. However, this incident went largely unreported in mainstream circles, disappearing quickly. Further, US-backed forces last year used white phosphorus in the battle for Mosul – as confirmed by New Zealand’s Brigadier General, Hugh McAslan, operating in the area, and elsewhere by US Army Colonel Ryan Dillon.

Back home in Britain, on these instances, May was not heard outlining her horrified objections to chemical warfare usage by Western-led powers. Pious concerns are only relayed when an official enemy, like Assad, can be accused of an alleged chemical attack. On such occasions, May insists “we cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to be normalized”.

A year ago, US president Donald Trump mourned the loss of “innocent children” which had “a big impact on me” – after a previous alleged chemical attack by Syrian government forces in Khan Sheikhoun, northwest Syria. During the same period, US-led forces were responsible for killing up to 11,000 civilians in the battle against ISIS in Mosul, northern Iraq. The death toll was “10 times greater” than initially reported by mainstream outlets, while Mosul itself was reduced to rubble.

This time, Trump expressed no sadness at the deaths of “innocent children” his forces were culpable for, nor did it appear to have “a big impact” on him either. Rather, in a July 2017 statement he celebrated “the liberation of Mosul”, while pinning the civilian death toll exclusively “at the hands of ISIS”.

The hypocrisy on show reaches unprecedented levels among the leaders of “civilized” first world nations. For decades, Western politicians have had little compunction in waging war for political and geostrategic purposes – on the outlandish pretexts of thwarting “Soviet aggression” or, later, “democracy promotion” – while ignoring the devastating consequences of their actions.

In lambasting Assad, who may be no God-given saint, politicians further display a high level of historical blindness. During the early 1950s, the US Air Force released 32,000 tons of the chemical liquid napalm upon Korea – while in the 1960s and 70s, American planes dropped over 20 million gallons of poisonous chemicals (napalm, dioxin, etc.) on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The Soviet Union had no such record as this.

In the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), while supporting Saddam Hussein, America and Britain were aware as early as 1983 the dictator was using poisoned gas against Iran, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent. Undeterred, Hussein was given ample backing for years with intelligence reports and other aid, including “agricultural” support, despite the West having “firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks”. As the retired US Air Force intelligence officer Rick Francona confirmed later, America “already knew” about Iraq’s chemical attacks.

These policies culminated in Hussein carrying out the 1988 Halabja chemical attack, which killed about 5,000 people, the worst gas attack since the demise of the Third Reich. None of this has been recalled by either May, Trump, Mike Pence, Boris Johnson or other public figures too many to mention.

Previously, the Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro noted that Western capitalism and what it entails is “repugnant. It is filthy, it is gross, it is alienating… because it causes war, hypocrisy and competition”. Castro also outlined that,

“Capitalism has no moral and ethical values. Everything is for sale. It is impossible to educate people in such an environment”.

Trump himself had immediately labeled Castro “a brutal dictator” upon his death in November 2016, a comment with quite a few ironic overtones. Castro, after a long struggle, had by 1959 overthrown the vicious US-supported Fulgencio Batista dictatorship. Batista, a long-time US favorite, had in the past flown to Washington to meet presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower, while also seeing Richard Nixon in 1954, when he was vice president.

Batista is just one name in a long list of murderous dictators warmly greeted in America, and to have graced the White House’s hallowed halls – there was also the Shah, Suharto, Park Chung-hee, Pinochet, Videla, Stroessner, Ceausescu, Mubarak, etc. These individuals’ crimes vastly outweigh anything that even Assad’s strongest critics can level at him, and they all experienced firm Western backing.

General Suharto, the worst of all, enjoyed especially significant American and British support from the beginning, despite killing up to a million Indonesians during his first months of control (1965-1966). The CIA, no less, described the forgotten genocide as “one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century”.

Long after this holocaust was perpetrated, General Suharto remained “a moderating force” according to Western publications, or even “at heart benign” (so insisted the London-based Economist magazine). One can surmise because Suharto kindly allowed Western corporations to exploit Indonesia’s massive resources.

Elsewhere Batista himself, during his time in power in the 1950s, oversaw a Cuba that was a true gangster’s paradise, killing tens of thousands of his own people amid widespread repressions.

None of this mattered while Batista obeyed orders from Washington, allowing US business interests to dominate the economy. In the Batista years, the Cuban national literacy rate (those able to read and write) was as low as 60%. By December 1961, with Castro less than three years in power, Cuba’s literacy levels rose to a remarkable 96%, one of the highest in the world.

This was as a result of nationwide efforts by Castro and Che Guevara to educate the Cuban population, young and old. Indeed, it was “the world’s most ambitious and organized literacy campaign”. Such policies as this did not appeal to American tastes, however.

Nor was it palatable to American elites as they looked on aghast while Castro performed the leading role in liberating southern Africa from apartheid – Cuban-led forces time and again defeating the US-backed terrorists propping up South Africa’s racist regime. It would appear Castro is “a brutal dictator” for undertaking actions like these.

No such description is allocated to Saudi Arabia’s King Salman, who Trump called “a special man” during meetings last month with his son, Mohammad Bin Salman. Amnesty International have repeatedly criticized the King for overseeing “an unprecedented wave of executions” in the oil rich kingdom, among other violations, while he also started the famine war against Yemen.

The deadly conflict, made possible by Western support, has also been carried forward with zeal by the new “Crown Prince” Bin Salman, who has been implicated in the Yemeni bombings. The UN says that Bin Salman “should face international sanctions” for “violating the laws of war” – while last month Amnesty noted that since his appointment as “Crown Prince” in June 2017, “the crackdown against dissenting voices in his country has only intensified”.

Little of this is being reported in the mainstream, however. It goes against the grain to criticize the oil dictator countries Western governments support. Instead, audiences are informed of Bin Salman’s valiant policies of allowing women to drive cars and his opening of cinemas. His friendly meetings with multinational bosses like Tim Cook (Apple) and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) serve as another useful propaganda boost.

*

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

This carefully researched article by Dirk Andriensens was first  published on on November 13, 2005

“Injuries to everyone involved in war – civilians and troops of all sides – shown supreme contempt for international humanitarian law ever since WW2. If this war shows one thing it is the need for the World to start to get control over the barbarity of the US military industrial complex. Criticisms of Saddam Hussein’s record of atrocities fade into history as they are eclipsed by the industrialised killing that US Forces have spent billions of dollars perfecting.”  (Dai Williams, April 06 2003)

The war on Iraq is an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe. Many health workers, professionals and students the world over added their voices to the massive protest movement. They were of the opinion that, apart from providing health services, their task also includes the prevention of diseases, injuries, and death because of this unjust war.

Despite the global protests, war was unleashed on Iraq. The Belgian NGOs Medical Aid for the Third World (MATW) www.m3m.be in cooperation with S.O.S. Iraq ( www.irak.be ) had a Medical Team of two doctors in Baghdad, Dr. Geert Van Moorter and Dr. Colette Moulaert. They remained in Iraq during the bombings and the invasion to witness the American and British aggression. They coordinated with the Ministry of Health, the Iraqi Red Crescent and international institutions including the World Health Organization and Unicef.

Their report from April 3 2003, that I copied underneath, described the use of some terrible weapons used by the US forces. I sent this report at the time to Dai Williams, weapons expert, to analyze the descriptions given by Dr. Geert Van Moorter.

Dai Williams’ answer, also copied underneath, includes a report from BBC reporter Adam Mynot (5 April 2003), who described civilian casualties with severe burns near Nasiriyah. “The Phosphorus turned the inside of his house white hot”. Even Dai Williams couldn’t believe then that White Phosphorus was used against civilians. But now we know the US aggressors DID use it.

The use of Napalm was reported by Martin Savidge from CNN as early as March 22 2003, so there’s no need to be surprised. ( http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/21/otsc.irq.savidge/ ):

“There is a lookout there, a hill referred to as Safwan Hill, on the Iraqi side of the border. It was filled with Iraqi intelligence gathering. From that vantage point, they could look out over all of northern Kuwait.

It is now estimated the hill was hit so badly by missiles, artillery and by the Air Force, that they shaved a couple of feet off it. And anything that was up there that was left after all the explosions was then hit with napalm. And that pretty much put an end to any Iraqi operations up on that hill.”

The United Nations banned the use of napalm against civilians in 1980 after pictures of a naked wounded girl in Vietnam shocked the world. The United States, which didn’t endorse the convention, is the only nation in the world still using napalm.

Here’s the story.

Diary from Baghdad, April 3, 20 O’clock: Dr. Geert Van Moorter through satellite telephone

About the horrors of war, 100 km south of Baghdad

Dr. Bert de Belder (coordinator of Medical Aid For The Third World)

“I have two awful stories to tell”, Geert immediately starts when I get him on the line. “Today we drove to Hilla, a small town near Babylon that was heavily bombed yesterday. One poor district was hit by 20 to 25 bombs. The hospital of Hilla received in the next half an hour 150 seriously injured patients. Dr. Mahmoud Al-Mukhtar said that the wounds were caused by clusterbombs. These are bombs that explode into many small bombs that again explode individually and cause enormous damage. Clusterbombs are banned by the International Laws on War, but Bush completely disregards these! In the hospital I have seen very many abrading situations. A family of eleven persons, of whom six are dead… A father who is left with one child; his wife and two sons are dead… Small children with amputated limbs…”

“My second story is even more horrible”, warns Geert. “About a bus with civilians that was fired upon. Not the one in Najaf, which reached the news everywhere, but a case that according to me has not yet been covered by western media. Three days ago, In Al Sqifal, near Hilla, a passenger bus was fired upon from an American checkpoint, with ghastly results. According to witnesses the bus stopped on time and had, on orders of the American Military, turned back. Dr. Saad El-Fadoui, a 52 years old surgeon who still has studied in Scotland, was immediately on the place of incident from the hospital in Hilla. When he told me what he had seen there, he again became very emotional, three days after it had happened. ‘The bodies were al carbonized, terribly mutilated, torn into pieces, he sighs. ‘In and around the bus I saw dismembered heads, brains and intestines….’ One wonders what a criminal weapon of mass destruction could have caused these horrors. Nobody had heard the sound of an explosion; on the bodies no traces of shrapnel were found. A journalist spoke of a heat-weapon with liquid cupper or something like that… Can the Americans be really that cruel? Dr. Saad El-Fadoui asked us repeatedly to do everything to help stop this horrible war of aggression.

Geert understands me poorly when I say something, the line is not always clear. “We are momentarily without electricity”, he explains. “Large blocks in Baghdad are without electricity, last night the bombardment was very severe”. Colette (Geert’s college-doctor Dr. Collete Moulaert) saw from her hotel room, just behind the mosque in this neighborhood, two enormous fireballs coming down. I think that these are containerbombs of about 7-8 tons each that cause enormous vibrations. “I am shivering of the cold”, Collete said, but this was the vibration caused by the bomb explosion.

“You should not believe verything what CNN and BBC are showing”, Geert informs us. “That we were able to travel today up to Hilla (near Babylon, south of Kerbala) with a large group ‘human shields’, 100 km south-west of Baghdad, proves convincingly that the Iraqi capital is not being completely surrounded and besieged. Along the way we hardly saw Iraqi troop movements. On the 100 km route we didn’t pass any Iraqi checkpoint, and hardly saw signs of war. There were groups of scattered houses, trees, even children playing with paper kites… One time we were told to take a side road because a colon of 20 to 30 Iraqi tanks had to pass. This again disproves the charges that the Iraqi army is using civilians as shield for military operations: our civilian vehicle was first sent safely to another road before the Iraqi army passed. On our way back the Americans and British were bombing the area. For our safety we had to take a new another road, but this was also nearly hit by a bomb, followed by a tick plume of smoke. This was frightening for a while, because we were not safely in our hotel, but in the open air.

http://www.irak.be/ned/missies/medicalMissionColetteGeert/report_04_04_2003.htm

And here is Dai Williams‘ evaluation (06 April 2003) of the weaponry used. His recommendations for the international community still stand today.

(…) Please can you ask the Pentagon to explain why and how many Daisy cutters, fragmentation bombs and suspected uranium weapons it has used in the last week in the region around now in the outskirts of Baghdad? And please can you ask the UK Government whether it condones the use of Daisy cutters in populated areas with large numbers of civilians?

I have been investigating US guided weapons as an independent researcher for 2 years. My primary concern are the 23 suspected uranium weapon systems. But my investigations include similar weapons like thermobaric bombs, daisy cutters etc.

Full weapons identification requires inspection on site by trained and independent weapons analysts. This must be a high priority for the UN. Ex-military personnel, HALO or similar demining organisations may help. Serving military personnel will simply lie about more advanced, prototype or illegal weapons.

Less trained observers can partly narrow down suspected weapon systems from descriptions of their explosions and from injuries on victims.

The following reports were received yesterday from two Belgian Doctors in Baghdad.

Partial answers to their questions are as follows:

[INCIDENT 1 ] “I have two awful stories to tell”, Geert immediately starts when I get him on the line. “Today we drove to Hilla, a small town near Babylon that was heavily bombed yesterday. One poor district was hit by 20 to 25 bombs. The hospital of Hilla received in the next half an hour 150 seriously injured patients. Dr. Mahmoud Al-Mukhtar said that the wounds were caused by clusterbombs. These are bombs that explode into many small bombs that again explode individually and cause enormous damage.
Clusterbombs are banned by the International Laws on War, but Bush completely disregards these! In the hospital I have seen very many abrading situations. A family of eleven persons, of whom six are dead. A father who is left with one child; his wife and two sons are dead. Small children with amputated limbs.”

Incident 1:
is a clusterbomb description. These are already recognised as weapons of indiscriminate effect by the media.

[INCIDENT 2 ] “My second story is even more horrible”, warns Geert. “About a bus with civilians that was fired upon. Not the one in Najaf, which reached the news everywhere, but a case that according to me has not yet been covered by western media. Three days ago, In Al Sqifal, near Hilla, a passenger bus was fired upon from an American checkpoint, with ghastly results. According to witnesses the bus stopped on time and had, on orders of the American Military, turned back. Dr. Saad El-Fadoui, a 52 years old surgeon who still has studied in Scotland, was immediately on the place of incident from the hospital in Hilla. When he told me what he had seen there, he again became very emotional, three days after it had happened. ‘The bodies were al carbonized, terribly mutilated, torn into pieces, he sighs. ‘In and around the bus I saw dismembered heads, brains and intestines…’ One wonders what a criminal weapon of massdestruction could have caused these horrors. Nobody had heard the sound of an explosion; on the bodies no traces of shrapnel were found. A journalist spoke of a heat-weapon with liquid cupper or something like that.. Can the Americans be really that cruel? Dr. Saad El-Fadoui asked us repeatedly to do everything to help stop this horrible war of aggression.

Incident 2:

3 April, Al Sqifal, near Hilla ‘The bodies were al carbonized, terribly mutilated, torn into pieces… One wonders what a criminal weapon of massdestruction could have caused these horrors. Nobody had heard the sound of an explosion; on the bodies no traces of shrapnel were found. A journalist spoke of a heat-weapon with liquid cupper or something like that…

The reference to a heat weapon with liquid copper sounds like a misquote of someone describing an anti tank weapon with a shaped charge warhead. (HEAT also stands for High Explosive AntiTank weapons).

Shaped charge warheads use a focussed explosive blast with a copper (or uranium) core that is melted by the blast and travels at very high velocity to cut through armour plating. “Heat” in the context may also be describing the obvious effects of an incendiary weapon.

If the weapon was fired from the check point (ground to ground) it must have been an anti-tank missile e.g. JAVELIN which uses a tandem shaped charge warhead. Recently purchased by UK forces I question whether JAVELIN warheads use a depleted uranium core like the prototype that DERA and the MOD made and tested in 1999 (refer MOD website). This would produce a far higher temperature (5000 degrees) blast than copper and may account for the characteristic severe burns on victims. “Carbonisation” was typical of uranium weapon victims on the highway of death in 1991.

Shaped charge weapons do not create shrapnel – they work by projecting a lance of burning molten metal, almost a plasma, into the target.

Similar effects would have been caused by the larger Hellfire or Maverick missiles though these are fired by planes or helicopters, not referred to in this report.

QUESTION: What weapon was used by US forces in this incident? Did it contain a Uranium warhead?

[INCIDENT 3] Geert understands me poorly when I say something, the line is not always clear. “We are momentarily without electricity”, he explains. “Large blocks in Baghdad are without electricity, last night the bombardment was very severe. Colette
(Geert’s collegue-doctor Dr. Collette Moulaert) saw from her hotel room, just behind the mosque in this neighbourhood, two enormous fireballs coming down. I think that these are containerbombs of about 7-8 tons each that cause enormous vibrations. “I am shivering of the cold”, Collette said, but this was the vibration caused by the bomb explosion.

Incident 3:
“Colette saw from her hotel room, just behind the mosque in this neighbourhood, two enormous fireballs coming down.”
The only weapons that match this description are the BLU-82 Daisy Cutter bombs. Developed in Vietnam for clearing jungle into runways they created immense pressure (1000 lbs / sq inch) over a large area – lethal from 300 to 900 metres.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm

They literally mash and burn any human beings under the blast area causing extensive internal injuries, severe burns but no shrapnel wounds from the high pressure blast. Rather like high-blast napalm in effect but the bombs are 10-20 times larger.

The two doctors providing these reports are in Baghdad. Dirk Adriaensens, coordinator of SOS Iraq, their contact in Belgium, is on [email protected] .

Dr Bert De Belder, coordinator of Medical Aid for the Third World, can be reached at [email protected]

Incident 4
– is from a separate report from BBC reporter Adam Mynot yesterday (5 April) described civilian casualties with severe burns near Nasiriyah. “The Phosphorus turned the inside of his house white hot”. This is the first reference I have heard to Phosphorus weapons in the current war.

A more likely alternative may have been a guided bomb with a uranium warhead e.g. GBU 31 or 32 (for increased penetration and incendiary effects). UK researchers located US patents for upgrading the 2000 lb BLU-109/B hard target warhead (used in the GBU-15, 24, 27 and 31 guided bombs) with a choice of tungsten or depleted uranium. See Appendix 2 of my summary “Hazards of Uranium weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq”, October 2002 at http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u23.htm and extracts
at http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/pdfs/USpats.pdf

These mini (just under 1 ton) bunker busters were used extensively in the earlier Baghdad bombing. The explosions with intense fireballs at ground level and incandescent metal in their explosion plumes are highly suspected of using uranium warheads.

The existence and use of guided bombs and missiles with uranium warheads is vigorously denied by the UK MOD saying that the Pentagon have assured them that such weapons don’t exist. I don’t trust either statement. In addition to causing horrific burns on casualties near the fireball such weapons are likely to be causing hundreds, possibly up to 1500, tons of uranium oxide contamination in target regions of Iraq, especially in and around Baghdad.

It is really important that media reports question what kinds of weapons are being used by US (and UK) forces – especially when large numbers of casualties or fatalities are seen with unusual injuries e.g. the fire and blast effects described in the incidents above.

The civilian casualties cause most obvious outrage. But there are very few questions about, or reports of, the forms of mutilation and death inflicted on Iraqi troops. It is customary in times of war to demonise the enemy. But much of the Iraqi army are conscripts..

Injuries to everyone involved in war – civilians and troops of all sides – are very serious issues. After World War 2 there was sufficient horror for consensus about the Geneva Conventions. The US Military and arms industry have shown supreme contempt for international humanitarian law ever since WW2.

If this war shows one thing it is the need for the World to start to get control over the barbarity of the US military industrial context. Criticisms of Saddam Hussein’s record of atrocities fade into history as they are eclipsed by the industrialised killing that US Forces have spent billions of dollars perfecting.

A new War Crimes Tribunal will be needed in Iraq as soon as hostilities cease – to inspect the targets and casualties of US weapon systems throughout Iraq. This will of course require a dramatic awakening of the UK Government and Conservative Opposition from the “war-trance” spell cast on them by Pentagon propaganda.

There will be one mighty reckoning to follow soon for the US and UK Governments (if and) when independent international observers are allowed into Iraq.

Dai Williams Woking, Surrey
Dr Bert De Belder, coordinator of Medical Aid for the Third World, can be reached at [email protected]
01483-222017 07808-502785

http://www.irak.be/ned/missies/medicalMissionColetteGeert/weaponsUS.htm

It’s time for the World community to wake up and charge the US with war crimes.

Dirk Adriaensens.Dirk is coordinator , Executive committee BRussells Tribunal

 

It is just matter of time before the major military powers begin to unleash their nuclear might. They are preparing for the final confrontation. Recent military strikes against Syria by U.S., U.K. and France, based on spurious “evidence” of an alleged “chemical attack” in Douma, indicate that even the pretentious “diplomacy” no longer exists.

Ambassador Nikki Haley, drunk with the notion of “mission accomplished”, has already turned the U.N. General Assembly into a place for her war hullabaloo. She arrogantly announced: “The US is locked and loaded.” In the absence of a massive antiwar movement, the military powers are competing for dominance, the world market and natural resources through their arsenal of death – nuclear bombs. In achieving this goal, the warlords are ready to turn the earth into massive killing fields.

However, in parallel to the forces of destruction, the world slowly is feeling the power of working people. The “Western Democracies” are overwhelmed with strikes and demonstrations by the most oppressed layers of their societies. Women and Youth are marching for their basic rights. Teachers and workers are overcoming the “Union Bosses” and directly challenging the authorities.

The war of ferocious tanks against the innocent bodies has been set in motion.

For peace activists around the world, it is time to stand up independent of the 1% political influences and organize for PEACE by any means necessary. Reject the National Chauvinism; UNITE with your peaceful sisters and brothers.

*

Massoud Nayeri is a cartoonist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author.

Relevant to the ongoing investigation on the alleged chemical attack in Douma on April 7, 2018, this article by the late Robert Parry examines the  the 2017 chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun.

Deja Vu: It happened exactly one year ago on April 4, 2017  at Khan Sheikoun. 

***

The U.S. mainstream media is treating a new United Nations report on the April 4 chemical weapons incident in Khan Sheikhoun as more proof of Syrian government guilt, but that ignores a major contradiction between two groups of U.N. investigators that blows a big hole in the groupthink.

Though both U.N. groups seem determined to blame the Syrian government, the frontline investigators from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) reported that spotters of departing Syrian military aircraft from Shayrat airbase did not send out a warning of any flights until late that morning – while the alleged dropping of a sarin bomb occurred at around dawn.

The report by the U.N.’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic noted that

“two individuals interviewed by the OPCW claimed that on the morning of 4 April the early warning system did not issue warnings until 11 to 11:30 a.m., and that no aircraft were observed until that time.”

If the OPCW’s information is correct – that no warplanes took off from the government’s Shayrat airbase until late in the morning – then the Trump administration’s rationale for launching a retaliatory strike of 59 Tomahawk missiles at that airfield on April 6 is destroyed.

But the U.N. commission’s report – released on Wednesday – simply brushes aside the OPCW’s discovery that no warplanes took off at dawn. The report instead relies on witnesses inside jihadist-controlled Khan Sheikhoun who claim to have heard a warning about 20 minutes before a plane arrived at around 6:45 a.m.

Indeed, the report’s account of the alleged attack relies almost exclusively on “eyewitnesses” in the town, which was under the control of Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and allied jihadist groups.

The report also gives no attention to the possibility that the alleged sarin incident, which reportedly killed scores of people including women and children, was a staged event by Al Qaeda to reverse the Trump administration’s announcement just days earlier that it was no longer U.S. policy to seek “regime change” in Syria.

The Khan Sheikhoun incident prompted President Trump to launch the missile strike that, according to Syrian media reports, killed several soldiers at the base and nine civilians, including four children, in nearby neighborhoods. It also risked inflicting death on Russians stationed at the base.

Lost History

In the U.N. commission’s report, the possibility of a staged event is not considered even though the OPCW had previously uncovered evidence that a chlorine-gas attack in the rebel-controlled town of Al-Tamanah, which also was blamed on the Syrian government, was staged by Al Qaeda operatives and their civilian “relief workers.”

The photograph released by the White House of President Trump meeting with his advisers at his estate in Mar-a-Lago on April 6, 2017, regarding his decision to launch missile strikes against Syria.

OPCW investigators, who like most U.N. bureaucrats have seemed eager to endorse allegations of chlorine-gas attacks by the Syrian government, ran into this obstacle when townspeople from Al-Tamanah came forward to testify that a supposed attack on the night of April 29-30, 2014, was a fabrication.

“Seven witnesses stated that frequent alerts [about an imminent chlorine weapons attack by the government] had been issued, but in fact no incidents with chemicals took place,” the OPCW report stated. “[T]hey [these witnesses] had come forward to contest the wide-spread false media reports.”

In addition, accounts from people who did allege that there had been a government chemical attack on Al-Tamanah provided suspect evidence, including data from questionable sources, according to the OPCW report, which added:

“Three witnesses, who did not give any description of the incident on 29-30 April 2014, provided material of unknown source. One witness had second-hand knowledge of two of the five incidents in Al-Tamanah, but did not remember the exact dates. Later that witness provided a USB-stick with information of unknown origin, which was saved in separate folders according to the dates of all the five incidents mentioned by the FFM [the U.N.’s Fact-Finding Mission].

“Another witness provided the dates of all five incidents reading it from a piece of paper, but did not provide any testimony on the incident on 29-30 April 2014. The latter also provided a video titled ‘site where second barrel containing toxic chlorine gas was dropped tamanaa 30 April 14’”

Some other “witnesses” who alleged a Syrian government attack offered ridiculous claims about detecting the chlorine-infused “barrel bomb” based on how the device sounded in its descent.

The report said,

“The eyewitness, who stated to have been on the roof, said to have heard a helicopter and the ‘very loud’ sound of a falling barrel. Some interviewees had referred to a distinct whistling sound of barrels that contain chlorine as they fall. The witness statement could not be corroborated with any further information.”

Although the report didn’t say so, there was no plausible explanation for someone detecting a chlorine canister in a “barrel bomb” based on its “distinct whistling sound.” The only logical conclusion is that the chlorine attack had been staged by the jihadists and that their supporters then lied to the OPCW investigators to enrage the world against the Assad regime.

The coordination of the propaganda campaign, with “witnesses” armed with data to make their stories more convincing, further suggests a premeditated and organized conspiracy to “sell” the story, not just some random act by a few individuals.

The Ghouta Attack

There was a similar collapse of the more notorious sarin incident outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013, which killed hundreds and was also blamed on the Assad government but now appears to have been carried out as a trick by Al Qaeda operatives to get President Obama to order the U.S. military to devastate the Syrian military and thus help Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front to win the war.

You might have thought that these experiences with staged chemical attacks would have given U.N. investigators more pause when another unlikely incident occurred last April 4 in the town of Khan Sheikhoun, which was under Al Qaeda’s control.

The Trump administration had just announced a U.S. policy reversal, saying that the U.S. goal was no longer “regime change” in Syria but rather to defeat terrorist groups. At the time, Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, the Islamic State and other jihadist forces were in retreat across much of Syria.

President Barack Obama meets in the Situation Room with his national security advisors to discuss strategy in Syria, Aug. 31, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

In other words, the Syrian government had little or no reason to provoke U.S. and international outrage by launching a sarin gas attack on a remote town with only marginal strategic significance.

Chemical attacks, especially the alleged use of chlorine but sarin gas as well, also offer minimal military effectiveness if dropped on a town. Chlorine gas in this form rarely kills anyone, and the international outrage over sarin far exceeds any military value.

But the jihadists did have a powerful motive to continue staging chemical attacks as their best argument for derailing international efforts to bring the war to an end, which would have meant defeat for the jihadists and their international allies.

And, we know from the Al-Tamanah case that the jihadists are not above feeding fabricated evidence to U.N. investigators who themselves have strong career motives to point the finger at the Assad regime and thus please the Western powers.

In the Khan Sheikhoun case, a well-placed source told me shortly after the incident that at least some U.S. intelligence analysts concluded that it was a hastily staged event in reaction to the Trump administration’s renunciation of Syrian “regime change.”

The source said some evidence indicated that a drone from a Saudi-Israeli special-operations base inside Jordan delivered the sarin and that the staging of the attack was completed on the ground by jihadist forces. Initial reports of the attack appeared on social media shortly after dawn on April 4.

The Time Element

Syrian and Russian officials seemed to have been caught off-guard by the events, offering up a possible explanation that the Syrian government’s airstrike aimed at a senior jihadist meeting in Khan Sheikhoun at around noon might have accidentally touched off a chemical chain reaction producing sarin-like gas.

But U.S. mainstream media accounts and the new U.N. report cited the time discrepancy – between the dawn attack and the noontime raid – as proof of Russian and Syrian deception. Yet, it made no sense for the Russians and Syrians to lie about the time element since they were admitting to an airstrike and, indeed, matching up the timing would have added to the credibility of their hypothesis.

A photo of the crater containing the alleged canister that supposedly disbursed sarin in Khan Sheikdoun, Syria, on April 4, 2017.

In other words, if the airstrike had occurred at dawn, there was no motive for the Russians and Syrians not to say so. Instead, the Russian and Syrian response seems to suggest genuine confusion, not a cover-up.

For the U.N. commission to join in this attack line on the timeline further suggests a lack of objectivity, an impression that is bolstered by the rejection of OPCW’s finding that no take-off alert was issued early on the morning of April 4.

Instead, the U.N. commission relied heavily on “eyewitnesses” from the Al Qaeda-controlled town with unnamed individuals even providing the supposed identity of the aircraft, a Syrian government Su-22, and describing the dropping of three conventional bombs and the chemical-weapons device on Khan Sheikhoun around 6:45 a.m.

But there were other holes in the narrative. For instance, in a little-noticed May 29, 2017 report, Theodore Postol, professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, challenged the Syria-government-did-it conclusions of The New York Times, Human Rights Watch and the Establishment’s favorite Internet site, Bellingcat.

Postol’s analysis focused on a New York Times video report, entitled “How Syria And Russia Spun A Chemical Strike,” which followed Bellingcat research that was derived from social media. Postol concluded that “NONE of the forensic evidence in the New York Times video and a follow-on Times news article supports the conclusions reported by the New York Times.” [Emphasis in original.]

The basic weakness of the NYT/Bellingcat analysis was a reliance on social media from the Al Qaeda-controlled Khan Sheikhoun and thus a dependence on “evidence” from the jihadists and their “civil defense” collaborators, known as the White Helmets.

Sophisticated Propaganda

The jihadists and their media teams have become very sophisticated in the production of propaganda videos that are distributed through social media and credulously picked up by major Western news outlets. (A Netflix infomercial for the White Helmets even won an Academy Award earlier this year.)

Postol zeroed in on the Times report’s use of a video taken by anti-government photographer Mohamad Salom Alabd, purporting to show three conventional bombs striking Khan Sheikhoun early in the morning of April 4.

The Times report extrapolated from that video where the bombs would have struck and then accepted that a fourth bomb – not seen in the video – delivered a sarin canister that struck a road and released sarin gas that blew westward into a heavily populated area supposedly killing dozens.

Panoramic image of the three bomb plumes that an anti-Syrian government photographer claimed to take on April 4, 2017, in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria. MIT analyst Theodore Postol notes that the plumes appear to be blowing to the east, in contradiction of the day’s weather reports.

But the Times video analysis – uploaded on April 26 – contained serious forensic problems, Postol said, including showing the wind carrying the smoke from the three bombs in an easterly direction whereas the weather reports from that day – and the presumed direction of the sarin gas – had the wind going to the west.

Indeed, if the wind were blowing toward the east – and if the alleged location of the sarin release was correct – the wind would have carried the sarin away from the nearby populated area and likely would have caused few if any casualties, Postol wrote.

Postol also pointed out that the Times’ location of the three bombing strikes didn’t match up with the supposed damage that the Times claimed to have detected from satellite photos of where the bombs purportedly struck. Rather than buildings being leveled by powerful bombs, the photos showed little or no apparent damage.

The Times also relied on before-and-after satellite photos that had a gap of 44 days, from Feb. 21, 2017, to April 6, 2017, so whatever damage might have occurred couldn’t be tied to whatever might have happened on April 4.

Nor could the hole in the road where the crushed “sarin” canister was found be attributed to an April 4 bombing raid. Al Qaeda jihadists could have excavated the hole the night before as part of a staged provocation. Other images of activists climbing into the supposedly sarin-saturated hole with minimal protective gear should have raised other doubts, Postol noted in earlier reports.

Critics of the White Helmets have identified the photographer of the airstrike, Mohamad Salom Alabd, as a jihadist who appears to have claimed responsibility for killing a Syrian military officer. But the Times described him in a companion article to the video report only as “a journalist or activist who lived in the town.”

Another Debunking

In 2013, the work of Postol and his late partner, Richard M. Lloyd, an analyst at the military contractor Tesla Laboratories, debunked claims from the same trio — Bellingcat, the Times and Human Rights Watch — blaming the Syrian government for the sarin-gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013.

Postol and Lloyd showed that the rocket carrying the sarin had only a fraction of the range that the trio had assumed in tracing its path back to a government base.

Since the much shorter range placed the likely launch point inside rebel-controlled territory, the incident appeared to have been another false-flag provocation, one that almost led President Obama to launch a major retaliatory strike against the Syrian military.

Although the Times grudgingly acknowledged the scientific problems with its analysis, it continued to blame the 2013 incident on the Syrian government. Similarly, Official Washington’s “groupthink” still holds that the Syrian government launched that sarin attack and that Obama chickened out on enforcing his “red line” against chemical weapons use.

Photograph of men in Khan Sheikdoun in Syria, allegedly inside a crater where a sarin-gas bomb landed.

Obama’s announcement of that “red line,” in effect, created a powerful incentive for Al Qaeda and other jihadists to stage chemical attacks assuming that the atrocities would be blamed on the government and thus draw in the U.S. military on the jihadist side.

Yet, the 2013 “groupthink” of Syrian government guilt survives. After the April 4, 2017 incident, President Trump took some pleasure in mocking Obama’s weakness in contrast to his supposed toughness in quickly launching a “retaliatory” strike on April 6 (Washington time, although April 7 in Syria).

A Dubious Report

Trump’s attack came even before the White House released a supportive – though unconvincing – intelligence report on April 11. Regarding that report, Postol wrote,

“The White House produced a false intelligence report on April 11, 2017 in order to justify an attack on the Syrian airbase at Sheyrat, Syria on April 7, 2017. That attack risked an unintended collision with Russia and a possible breakdown in cooperation between Russia and United States in the war to defeat the Islamic State. The collision also had some potential to escalate into a military conflict with Russia of greater extent and consequence.

“The New York Times and other mainstream media immediately and without proper review of the evidence adopted the false narrative produced by the White House even though that narrative was totally unjustified based on the forensic evidence. The New York Times used an organization, Bellingcat, for its source of analysis even though Bellingcat has a long history of making false claims based on distorted assertions about forensic evidence that either does not exist, or is absolutely without any evidence of valid sources.”

Postol continued,

“This history of New York Times publishing of inaccurate information and then sticking by it when solid science-based forensic evidence disproves the original narrative cannot be explained in terms of simple error. The facts overwhelmingly point to a New York Times management that is unconcerned about the accuracy of its reporting.

“The problems exposed in this particular review of a New York Times analysis of critically important events related to the US national security is not unique to this particular story. This author could easily point to other serious errors in New York Times reporting on important technical issues associated with our national security.

“In these cases, like in this case, the New York Times management has not only allowed the reporting of false information without reviewing the facts for accuracy, but it has repeatedly continued to report the same wrong information in follow-on articles. It may be inappropriate to call this ‘fake news,’ but this loaded term comes perilously close to actually describing what is happening.”

Referring to some of the photographed scenes in Khan Sheikhoun, including a dead goat that appeared to have been dragged into location near the “sarin crater,” Postol called the operation “a rather amateurish attempt to create a false narrative.”

Now, another U.N. agency has joined that narrative, despite a key contradiction from fellow U.N. investigators.

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

---

Global Research announces the forthcoming release of  the print edition of Mark Taliano’s Book, “Voices from Syria”  which includes two additional chapters. 

Taliano talks and listens to the people of Syria. He reveals the courage and resilience of a Nation and its people in their day to day lives, after more than six years of US-NATO sponsored terrorism and three years of US “peacemaking” airstrikes.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Special Pre-Publication Offer

**Pre-Order Special Offer: Voices from Syria (Ships mid-September)

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 2 new chapters)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Selected article from the GR archive, first published on April 1, 2017.

Fake news is simply a new, Trump-popularized descriptive for media lying that occurs in 2 basic forms, lying by omission and lying by commission. Lying by omission is far, far worse than lying by commission because the latter can at least admit refutation and public debate.

Western Mainstream media impose a huge burden of fake news on Western societies through entrenched and pervasive lying by omission. Indeed the most egregious and pervasive Mainstream media lie of omission is suppression of reportage of such lying by omission. The unimpeded, remorseless, corporate-dominated Mainstream media, politicians and pliant intellectuals are now going further, and variously threatening residual effective free speech and Alternative media on the basis of asserted fake news.

Numerous outstanding writers and journalists have commented cogently on Mainstream media lying and censorship and for alphabetically-organized compendia of such views see the websites “Mainstream media lying” [1] and “Mainstream media censorship” [2]. In particular, Eric Zuesse (a historian and the author, most recently, of “They’re Not Even Close: the Democratic vs Republican Records 1910-2010” and of “Christ’s ventriloquists: The event that created Christianity”) has commented incisively on “the most suppressed news of all – news about the news-suppression by the ‘news’-media” (2014):

“Recognize how extremely far from being a democracy today’s United States has, in fact, become. This is the most shocking realization of all, because it’s the most suppressed news of all – news about the news-suppression by the ‘news’-media…. That’s how dire the condition of what used to be American democracy has now become. The biggest news-story of all is thus the one that is, and that will inevitably be, the most suppressed news-story of all: the news-suppression itself. It extends from the major ‘news’-media to the alternative and even to the specialized ‘news’-media… He [Edward Snowden] raised the extremely serious question as to whether, and the extent to which, a government can lie to its public and still be a democracy. That’s the question. How can the public have a government representing informed consent, if the ‘news’ media are constantly, and systematically, lying about the most important things, and covering up that government’s worst, most heinous, crimes? Yet, this is what Americans have today. The United States is thus no longer a model for any country except for a dictatorship. How likely is it that America’s press will let the American public know this now-established fact? Something’s wrong — and it’s not people such as Edward Snowden” [3].

Barbara Kingsolver (American novelist, essayist, poet and author of “The Poisonwood Bible” and other powerful works) explores Mainstream, media lying by omission in her great novel “The Lacuna” (lacuna meaning hiatus, blank, missing part, gap, cavity, or empty space) which has Russian Communist revolutionary and theorist Leon Trotsky (Lev) and his secretary Van having the following discussion about media (2009):

“But newspapers have a duty to truth”, Van said. Lev [Trotsky] clicked his tongue. “They tell the truth only as the exception. Zola [French novelist of “J’accuse” fame] wrote that the mendacity of the press could be divided into two groups: the yellow press lies every day without hesitating. But others, like the Times, speak the truth on all inconsequential occasions, so they can deceive the public with the requisite authority when it becomes necessary.” Van got up from his chair to gather the cast-off newspapers. Lev took off his glasses and rubbed his eyes. “I don’t mean to offend the journalists; they aren’t any different from other people. They’re merely the megaphones of other people” … [Trotsky observes to his assistant Shepherd] “Soli, let me tell you. The most important thing about a person is always the thing you don’t know” [4].

The lying journalists of corporate-owned Mainstream media can attempt to justify their lying by omission in terms of responsibility to the shareholders over-riding the responsibility they have for their readers and the public in general. A very good example of this neoliberal perversion is provided by John Perkins in his book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” in which he describes how he spent most of his corporate life deliberately deceiving Developing Country governments in the interests of US corporate clients. Eventually his conscience outweighed the generous rewards from his employers and clients, but he sadly observes at the end of the book that while he knew what he would be doing was wrong when he was recruited straight out of university in the early 1970s, today business studies students in our universities are taught that their prime moral obligation is to the shareholders and not to truth.

However “fake news” via lying by omission is most shocking when it is shamelessly purveyed by non-corporate, taxpayer-funded, national media such as Australia’s taxpayer-funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) that is Australia’s equivalent of the taxpayer-supported UK BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). Now lying by commission and massive lying by omission are entrenched both the ABC [6] and the BBC [7] but it is of particular interest here to get hard evidence that the ABC and the BBC lie by omission about their lying by omission. Fortunately, the ABC and the BBC have Search functions that enable one to quantitate relative reportage and non-reportage of particular matters by these lying organizations, as detailed below.

A Search of the UK BBC (on April Fool’s Day, 1 April 2017) for the term “lying by omission” yields only 6 items, with the 2 most recent (2014) about an actress “coming out” as a lesbian: “I am tired of hiding and I am tired of lying by omission”. In stark contrast, a search of the BBC for “fake news” yields about 360 items that are overwhelmingly in 2017. The lying BBC hides the horrendous reality of its fake news as lying by omission behind a barrage of “fake news” as inconsequential concoctions dreamed up by the “yellow press” and on the Web.

Alarmingly, this Search of the BBC for ”fake news” throws up repeated calls for legislated and other censorship of Alternative media and the Web in addition to that already applied by authoritarian governments, Facebook and Google. One notes that a Google Search for “lying by omission” yields 139,000 results whereas a Google Search for “fake news” yields 32 million.

A Search of the Australian ABC (on 1 April 2017) for the term “lying by omission” yields 26 items, with none more recent than 2014, and 10 out of these 26 items being uncensored comments about ABC programs by one Dr. Gideon Polya (me) – there would have been more comments by me but remorseless censorship by the Neocon American and Zionist Imperialist (NAZI)-perverted and subverted ABC has effectively cut off this avenue for opposing ABC “fake news” and lying by omission [6]. In marked contrast, a Search of the ABC for “fake news” yielded 277 items of which 162 were from 2017.

What a disgrace. The taxpayer-funded ABC and BBC not only lie by omission, they also lie by omission about their lying by omission. Indeed, in an endless iteration of falsehood, the ABC and BBC are lying by omission about their lying by omission about their lying by omission …

The lying by omission by the ABC, the BBC and by Mainstream journalist, politician and intellectual presstitutes in general has deadly consequences in the sense that history ignored yields history repeated, genocide ignored yields genocide repeated, and holocaust ignored yields holocaust repeated.

Outstanding expatriate Australian journalist John Pilger has written cogently about lying by omission and” historical amnesia” (2012): “Writing in his personal blog, ever so quietly, Jon Williams, the BBC world news editor, effectively dishes his own ‘coverage’, citing Western officials who describe the ‘psy-ops’ operation against Syria as ‘brilliant’.

As brilliant as the destruction of Libya, and Iraq, and Afghanistan. And as brilliant as the psy-ops of the Guardian’s latest promotion of Alastair Campbell, the chief collaborator of Tony Blair in the criminal invasion of Iraq. In his “diaries”, Campbell tries to splash Iraqi blood on the demon Murdoch. There is plenty to drench them all. But recognition that the respectable, liberal, Blair-fawning media was a vital accessory to such an epic crime is omitted and remains a singular test of intellectual and moral honesty in Britain. How much longer must we subject ourselves to such an “invisible government”?

This term for insidious propaganda, first used by Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud and inventor of modern public relations, has never been more apt. “False reality” requires historical amnesia, lying by omission and the transfer of significance to the insignificant. In this way, political systems promising security and social justice have been replaced by piracy, “austerity”, and “perpetual war”: an extremism dedicated to the overthrow of democracy. Applied to an individual, this would identify a psychopath. Why do we accept it?” [8].

In the 2003-2011 Iraq War about 1.5 million Iraqis died from violence, and 1.2 million died from war-imposed deprivation [9]. However BBC estimates of Iraqi deaths in the Iraq War range from 90,000 to about 600,000, while the Australian ABC’s estimate on the occasion of US withdrawal in 2011 was a genocide-ignoring “tens of thousands”. The UK and Australia have invaded 193 and 85 countries, respectively, are both now into their 8th Iraq War since 1914, and are intimately involved in the Zionist-backed US War on Muslims (aka the US War on Terror) which has been associated, so far, with 32 million Muslim deaths from violence, 5 million, or from imposed deprivation, 27 million, in 20 impoverished countries invaded by the US Alliance since the US Government’s 9-11 false flag atrocity [9].

What can decent people do in the face of burgeoning and deadly Mainstream imposition of “false reality” by lying by omission “fake news”? All that decent, informed people can do is to (a) inform everyone they can, and (b) urge and apply Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Mainstream media, politicians and pliant intellectuals involved in deadly “fake news” lying by omission. Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity.

Photos obtained by Prison Legal News appear to reveal the bloody aftermath of a riot that occurred at the Lee Correctional Institution in South Carolina around 7:15 p.m. on April 15. The violence, which culminated in the deaths of seven prisoners, was the deadliest event of its sort in the past quarter-century in the United States.

To view the images click here (WARNING: graphic images)

A source who requested anonymity and said he is currently imprisoned at the Lee facility in Bishopville provided PLN with a series of photos that appear to have been taken with a cell phone. The images show dead or badly-wounded bodies covered with blood and a blood-soaked floor. PLN could not verify the photos at press time, and our investigation into the authenticity of the graphic pictures remains ongoing.

Along with the seven prisoners who were killed, whose names and photos were published by the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC), another 17 prisoners were wounded and are reportedly being treated. According to the SCDC’s official account of the incident posted on Facebook and Twitter, the fighting between prisoners lasted almost eight hours. At a press conference, SCDC Director Bryan Stirling said the lethal riot centered around rival gangs and contraband cell phones

“What we believe from initial investigation is that this was all about territory, about contraband, about cell phones,” Stirling said. “These folks are fighting about real money and real territory while they’re incarcerated.”

He also called on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to block signals from the cell phone tower located near the prison, saying that was something the Department of Corrections would be discussing with the FCC in the weeks to come.

In April 2016, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai visited Lee Correctional “to talk about the threat of contraband cellphones,” according to his Twitter account. Pai has long been a proponent of taking action to curb illicit cell phones behind bars, while also opposing lower prison phone rates that would undercut the black market for cell phones – a market that is typically supplied by prison employees in exchange for bribes. Rather than addressing the problem of corrupt staff members, corrections officials have focused on efforts to stop the flow of contraband phones.

However, the source who provided the photos to PLN said cell phones were not actually at the center of the violent dispute, but rather other items that one gang faction said were stolen from the other.

“This has been [an] ongoing beef from an incident that happened at Lieber Correctional Institution. Bloods and Folks have been fighting for over a year,” the source told PLN. “What SCDC does is when a gang fight happens, they move inmates to other institutions. They meet up with other members and what they do is put those guys in dorms with the gang that the person just got into [it] with.”

Another anonymous source who appears to be incarcerated at Lee Correctional Institution tweeted that SCDC officials at the facility “sat back” and let the fight escalate into a bloody and lethal riot, while watching and laughing. The Lee facility is a maximum-security prison, one of nine in South Carolina, with a checkered history of violence.

Ironically, given the push by the SCDC and Governor Henry McMaster to jam cell phone signals in the vicinity around state prisons, the public release of images of the fatal brawl at the Lee facility would not have occurred were it not for the use of cell phones by prisoners.

“They are using every excuse to get the phones blocked. Especially for situations like this where the news gets out before their PR team can make up a storyline,” said the confidential source.

“Prison officials are trying to get rid of the only devices – cell phones – that prisoners can use to reveal abuses, abysmal conditions and misconduct by staff members behind bars,” noted PLN editor Paul Wright. “If a picture is worth a thousand words, then the photos of the bloody aftermath of the recent violence at the Lee facility in South Carolina speak volumes. The ability to document such incidents is what prison officials really want to prevent,” he added.

SCDC officials did not respond to a request for comment from PLN about why prison staff took so long to respond to the fight at the Lee prison, nor did they disclose whether they have their own photos or video of the deadly incident.

Six of the seven prisoners slain during the riot were black. According to the SCDC’s website, based on June 2017 data, blacks comprise 61 percent of the state’s almost 20,000 prisoners. Lee Correctional Institution is located in Lee County, which is named after Confederate general Robert E. Lee.

WARNING: Graphic images are posted below. Note that these photos, reportedly of the aftermath of the riot at the Lee Correctional Institution, have not been authenticated.

PLN is publishing these photos not for shock value or to exploit a tragic incident, but because we believe the public has a right to know what actually happens behind prison walls — a narrative that is usually controlled by government officials who are reluctant to disclose the abuses and failures within “correctional” facilities.

To view the images click here (WARNING: graphic images) 

This article was originally published on Prison Legal News.

Many, including Russia’s President Putin, have asked why the US launched an illegal attack on Syria prior to the chemical weapons inspectors examining the site of the alleged chemical attack.

This popular question completely misses the point. The US attack on Syria is a clear and indisputable war crime against a sovereign country regardless of whether Syria used a chemical weapon in driving the Washington supported terrorists from Douma. No one acted to stop Washington’s war crime. Some of Washington’s vassals, such as Germany and Italy, refused to participate in Washington’s war crime, but no one attempted to block it. The impotent UN Security Council, to which Russia is wasting its time appealing, the EU, NATO, Russia and China themselves did nothing to stop Washington’s Nazi era war crime.

Russia said that if Washington’s attack harmed its citizens, there would be military consequences, but Russia did not protect its ally Syria from the attack.

Perhaps it doesn’t matter as Washington’s attack was carefully conducted so as to have no effect except to serve as a face-saver for Trump. Apparently no one was killed and no damage was done to anything real except to a facility in which anti-venom for snake bites was being produced.

On the other hand, it does matter, because of the perception that the American presstitutes have created that it was a great victory for America over the evil Syrian government and the evil Russian government that supports them. This perception, which the presstitutes have created with their fake news, justifies the war crime and will lead to more attacks on Syria.

It is unlikely that the UN Security Council will condemn Washington, which pays 25% of the UN’s budget. Moreover, the Security Council is loaded up with Washington’s vassals, and they will not vote to censure their liegelord. Putin is wasting his time taking the matter to the Security Council, unless his purpose is to prove that every Western institution is completely corrupt. As most informed people already know this, I don’t understand the point of proving the known. Putin should read Eric Zuesse’s article before he puts too much faith in the UN.

As I have written on a number of occasions, I admire Putin’s Christian character of sidestepping the beatings he continuously takes from Washington in order to save the world from the massive deaths of a world war. The problem is that by turning the other cheek, Putin encourages more aggression from Washington. Putin is dealing with neoconservative psychopaths. He is not dealing with common sense.

During the entirety of the Cold War no US ambassador to the UN spoke aggressively and disrespectfully to the Soviet representative as Nikki Haley speaks to the Russian ambassador. During the Cold War no American president would have tolerated Nikki Haley. She would have instantly been fired.

The Russian government is captured by delusion if the Russians believe that the US government, in which Nikki Haley is Trump’s choice to be America’s spokesperson to the world, in which the crazed neoconservative war monger John Bolton is a principal influence over US military and foreign policy, and in which the President himself is under threat of indictment for wanting to normalize relations with Russia, has any prospect of avoiding war.

The best chance of preventing the oncoming war is Russian-Chinese-Iranian unity and a defeat for American arms in a regional context not worth the Washington psychopaths launching of nuclear weapons. Until Washington is effectively resisted, Washington’s European vassals, the UN Security Council and the OPCW will stand with Washington. Once Washington experiences a defeat, NATO will dissolve and with this dissolution Washington’s ability to threaten other countries will lose its cover and evaporate.

*

This article was originally published on Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Technically, North and South Korea are still at war, and have been for more than six decades—but an “absolutely earth-shaking” new report on Tuesday indicates the conflict may soon be coming to an end.

Citing an anonymous South Korean diplomatic official, Munhwa Ilbo—a South Korean daily newspaper—reported that the neighboring countries are hashing out a statement that could officially bring the war to an end later this month, when North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in are set to meet in person for the first time.

As CNBC reports:

Kim and Moon could also discuss returning the heavily-fortified demilitarized zone separating them to its original state, the newspaper said.

Pyongyang and Seoul have technically been at war since the 1950-1953 Korean conflict ended with a truce—and not a peace treaty. Geopolitical tensions have occasionally flared up since the armistice, although to date both countries have managed to avoid another devastating conflict.

A successful summit between the Koreas later this month could help pave the way for a meeting between Kim and President Donald Trump. The U.S. president and North Korean leader are poised to hold talks in late May or June, according to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

The groundbreaking report comes as Kim has increasingly expressed his willingness to discuss denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula—an openness that foreign policy experts have attributed to South Korea’s “masterful” diplomacy, not President Donald Trump’s “fire and fury” threats and warmongering.

Korea experts and journalists argued that if the new report is true, it is major news for the Korean Peninsula and a crucial step toward establishing permanent peace in the region.

HUGE if true. Absolutely earth-shaking. https://t.co/LZEmxrL3hp

— Tim Shorrock (@TimothyS) April 17, 2018

If this is confirmed, this is huge for the Korean Peninsula. North and South Korea are still technically at war and have not signed an official peace treaty, just an armistice agreement https://t.co/Fci1siZYuz

— Joseph Kim (@josungkim) April 17, 2018

*

The limited Trump administration-led strikes against the Syrian government included a statement by the US, UK and French governments, saying that the action wasn’t intended to overthrow the Syrian government. This trio went out to warn against any future use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

Significantly omitted from this pronouncement, is whether the Syrian government has actually used such – an observation that takes into consideration other possibilities. Specifically, the use of chemical weapons by the rebels and/or that group staging a future chemical attack, for the purpose of having the Syrian government blamed.

It’s not paranoid to believe that the most recent military bombing operation against the Syrian government is motivated in part by the desire to confront Russia. The claim of militarily acting against the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons comes across as having a window dressing aspect.

This past Saturday, One America News reported that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Vladimir Putin asked his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, to forward information of his (Macron’s) claim that France has proof that the Syrian government recently used chemical weapons. According to Lavrov (as quoted by One American News), Macron declined, saying that it involved a “secret” mechanism. On that same day, another Anglo-American media source said that the French proof at issue is exclusively from social media. Lavrov noted this to the BBC’s Stephen Sackur.

(On the subject of Macron, it was earlier claimed that the Russian government meddled in the last French presidential election against him. This claim was rebuffed by the head of France’s cybersecurity agency – something very much downplayed in Western mass media, unlike the typically unchallenged claim of Russian meddling in that French vote.)

This past Sunday morning, CNN had a propaganda segment, featuring Spider Marks and Samantha Vinograd. Marks approvingly said that the Trump administration led strikes significantly diminished the Syrian government’s capability to launch chemical attacks – adding how Assad can “butcher” his people with other means. Marks uses different prose when describing the not too distant mass killing of civilians in Iraq (following the US government led attack on that country). There has been a comparative lack of coverage to the civilian deaths in Yemen, involving US ally Saudi Arabia. It’s extremely disingenuous to hold Russia and/or the Syrian government exclusively culpable for the deaths in the Syrian Civil War, which includes unsavory behavior among the rebels. Marks’ upbeat view of the significance of the Trump administration led bombing campaign has been reasonably contradicted elsewhere.

During this past Saturday’s UN Security Council meeting, the Syrian representative said that the bombed Syrian science and research center, had been recently inspected by the Organization for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons, with nothing shady found. At that discussion, there was no follow-up contradiction to that comment.

In 2016, Barack Obama informed Jeffrey Goldberg, that the claim of a Syrian government sarin gas attack in 2013 isn’t a “slam dunk”. US Secretary of Defense James Mattis concurs, adding that the same holds true of the chemical attack claim on the Syrian government in 2017. Mattis has been rather restrained with the latest claim against the Syrian government – initially not going along with it – only to later say there’s now enough evidence without providing such. Theodore Postal is among other sources, which haven’t accepted the claims of Syrian government involved chemical attacks.

Of late, there’ve been Western mass media TV segments with people who say they were victims of the most recently alleged Syrian government chemical weapons attack. The segments have been brief, without much, if any critical follow-up. Is it possible for some bombing victims to experience a non-chemical attack, while experiencing some (stress some) symptoms that are typically evident in a chemical attack? Meantime, Western mass media continues to downplay the phony pro-rebel propaganda.

Though perhaps doubtful, more time will hopefully provide a clear answer to what actually occurred, vis-à-vis the latest allegation against the Syrian government.

*

This article was originally published on Strategic Culture Foundation.

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic.

Featured image is from the author.

Global Research is an independent media funded exclusively through the support of its readers. Every contribution helps us continue to bring you the up-to-date, incisive information that you can count on.

If you are unable to make a donation, you can help us by cross-posting and/or forwarding Global Research articles, sending them to your friends on your e-mail lists, posting them on internet blogs, etc., and subscribing to our free newsletter.

*     *     *

Russia Reveals Who “Staged” Syria Gas Attack, As US Claims Moscow “May Have Tampered” with Douma Site

By Zero Hedge, April 17, 2018

The Russian envoy to the chemical weapons watchdog group, OPCW, said that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) funded by the UK and US carried out the April 7 chemical attack in the Damascus, Syria suburb of Douma.

War, Abuse and Other Peoples: Why Support Other Peoples, Especially during Conflict?

By Prof. Tim Anderson, April 17, 2018

The official war narrative – from Washington and its minions – was that ‘peaceful protestors’ were being slaughtered by the forces of a ‘brutal dictator’ intent on ‘killing his own people’. This was said to be a ‘civil war’, with no foreign aggression.

The Yerevan Protests Might End Armenia’s Unconvincing “Balancing” Act between Russia and the West

By Andrew Korybko, April 17, 2018

Armenia’s unconvincing attempts to “balance” between Russia and the West as it moves ever-closer to the pro-American EU might end in failure as the Yerevan protests put pressure on the country’s leadership to more decisively move westward.

Eight Reasons Why the Latest Syria Chemical Weapons Attack Allegations Are Almost Certainly Complete Nonsense

By Stephen Gowans, April 17, 2018

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but neither is it evidence of guilt. The complete lack of evidence, along with a political context that favors the production of spurious allegations, suggests that the latest chemical weapons claims are—like all that have preceded them—dubious at best.

Salisbury Nerve Agent Attack Reveals $70 Million Pentagon Program at Porton Down

By Dilyana Gaytandzhieva, April 17, 2018

The Pentagon has spent at least $70 million on military experiments involving tests with deadly viruses and chemical agents at Porton Down – the UK military laboratory near the city of Salisbury. The secretive biological and chemical research facility is located just 13 km from where on 4^th  March  former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found slumped on a bench following an alleged Novichok nerve agent poisoning.

Striking Syria: U.S. Shameless Violation of International Law. Fabricating Evidence and False Flag Operations

By Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, April 17, 2018

The United States government has once again shamelessly violated international law. There was no legal or moral justification for launching more than a 100 missile strikes against so-called chemical weapons’ sites in Syria on the 14^th of April 2018. Unlike the last strike targeting a single airfield in April 2017 which was also in retaliation for President Bashar Assad’s alleged use of sarin gas against civilians, the US was joined in its assault this time by its allies, Britain and France.

Per motivare la guerra del 2003, gli Usa accusarono l’Iraq di possedere armi di distruzione di massa: il segretario di stato Colin Powell presentò all’Onu una serie di «prove» risultate poi false, come ha dovuto ammettere lui stesso nel 2016.

«Prove» analoghe vengono oggi esibite per motivare  l’attacco alla Siria effettuato da Stati uniti, Gran Bretagna e Francia. Il generale Kenneth McKenzie,  Joint Staff Directordel Pentagono, hapresentato il 14 aprile una relazione, corredata da foto satellitari, sul Centro di ricerca e sviluppo Barzah a Damasco, definendolo «il cuore del programma delle armi chimiche siriane». Il Centro, che costituiva il principale obiettivo, è stato attaccato con 76 missili da crociera (57 Tomahawk lanciati da navi e sottomarini e 19 Jassm da aerei).

L’obiettivo è stato distrutto, ha annunciato il generale, «riportando indietro di anni il programma delle armi chimiche siriane».

Questa volta non c’è bisogno di aspettare tredici anni per avere conferma della falsità delle«prove». Un mese prima dell’attacco, il 13 marzo, l’Organizzazione per la proibizione delle armi chimiche (Opcw) aveva ufficialmente comunicato il risultato della seconda ispezione, effettuata al Centro Barzah nel novembre 2017, e dell’analisi dei campioni prelevati ultimata nel febbraio 2018: «La squadra di ispezione non ha osservato alcuna attività in contrasto con gli obblighi derivanti dalla Convenzione sulle armi chimiche».

Non a caso il Centro Barzah èstato distrutto poco prima che arrivassero per la terza volta gli ispettori della Opcw. La Siria, Stato membro della Opcw, ha completato nel 2014 il disarmo chimico, mentre Israele, che non aderisce alla Convenzione sulle armi chimiche, non èsottoposto ad alcun controllo. Ma di questo non parla l’apparato politico-mediatico, che accusa invece la Siria di possedere e usare armi chimiche.

Il  premier Gentiloni ha dichiarato che l’Italia, pur appoggiando «l’azione circoscritta e mirata a colpire la fabbricazione di armi chimiche», non vi ha in alcun modo partecipato.

In realtà, essa è stata precedentemente concordata e pianificata in sede Nato. Lo prova il fatto che, subito dopo l’attacco, èstato convocato il Consiglio Nord Atlantico, nel quale Stati uniti, Gran Bretagna e Francia hanno «aggiornato gli Alleati sull’azione militare congiunta in Siria» e gli Alleati hanno espresso ufficialmente «il loro pieno appoggio a tale azione». Gentiloni ha inoltre dichiarato che «il supporto logistico che forniamo soprattutto agli Usa non poteva in alcun modo tradursi nel fatto che dal territorio italiano partissero azioni direttamente mirate a colpire la Siria».

In realtà, l’attacco alla Siria dal Mediterraneo èstato diretto dal Comando delle forze navali Usa in Europa,con quartier generale a Napoli-Capodichino, agli ordini dell’ammiraglio James Foggo che comanda allo stesso tempo la Forza congiunta Nato con quartier generale a Lago Patria (Napoli).

L’operazione bellica è stata appoggiata dalla base aeronavale Usa di Sigonella e dalla stazione Usa di Niscemi del sistema Muos di trasmissioni navali.

Come mostrano i tracciati radar, i droni spia Usa RQ-4 Global Hawk, decollando da Sigonella, hanno svolto un ruolo fondamentale nell’attacco alla Siria, appoggiato con aerei-cisterna per il rifornimento in volo dei caccia.

L’Italia condivide dunque la responsabilità di un’azione bellica che viola le piùelementari norme del diritto internazionale. Non si sa ancora quali saranno le sue conseguenze, è certo però che essa alimenta le fiamme della guerra. Anche se Gentiloni assicura che «non può essere l’inizio di una escalation».

Manlio Dinucci

The Russian envoy to the chemical weapons watchdog group, OPCW, said that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) funded by the UK and US carried out the April 7 chemical attack in the Damascus, Syria suburb of Douma.

Russia’s permanent representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Alexander Shulgin, said Russia has irrefutable evidence that there was no chemical weapons incident in Douma.

“Therefore, we have not just a “high degree of confidence,” as our Western partners claim, but we have incontrovertible evidence that there was no incident on April 7 in Douma and that all this was a planned provocation by the British intelligence services, probably, with the participation of their senior allies from Washington with the aim of misleading the international community and justifying aggression against Syria,” he stated. –Sputnik

Shulgin added that the US, UK and France are not interested in conducting an objective investigation of the attack site. “They put the blame on the Syrian authorities in advance, without even waiting for the OPCW mission to begin to establish the possible facts of the use of chemical weapons in Syria,” he said.

The nine-member OPCW mission people has yet to deploy to the city of Douma according to the organization’s Chief, citing pending security issues.

“The Team has not yet deployed to Douma. The Syrian and the Russian officials who participated in the preparatory meetings in Damascus have informed the FFM Team that there were still pending security issues to be worked out before any deployment could take place. In the meantime the Team was offered by the Syrian authorities that they could interview 22 witnesses who could be brought to Damascus,” OPCW Director-General Ahmet Uzumcu said as quoted by the organization.

The Russian Envoy says that the controversial “White Helmets” were one of the anti-Assad “pseudo-humanitarian NGOs” which staged the event. As Disobedient Media and others have reported, the White Helmets are funded in large part by the United States.

“The Syrian Civil Defense Force (aka the White Helmets) is funded in part by United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Included here are two links showing contracts awarded by USAID to Chemonics International Inc. (DBA Chemonics). The first award was in the sum of $111.2 million and has a Period of Performance (POP) from January 2013 to June 2017. It states that the purpose of the award will be to use the funds for managing a “quick-response mechanism supporting activities that pursue a peaceful transition to a democratic and stable Syria.” The second was in the sum of $57.4 million and has a POP from August 2015 to August 2020. This award was designated to be used in the “Syria Regional Program II” which is a part of the Support Which Implements Fast Transitions IV (SWIFT IV) program.” Via Disobedient Media

Remember this photo of a kid laying next to her ‘dead’ parents who were ‘killed’ by Assad and this photo went viral and got thousands of retweets and had people crying all over Twitter? pic.twitter.com/VLjuodDtZT

— Jad (@jadinho123) April 13, 2018

Well pic.twitter.com/sNlvshIkF9

— Jad (@jadinho123) April 13, 2018

Oh and remember this photo of this child who was in the back of an ambulance after supposedly being attacked by Assad and his regime??? pic.twitter.com/tzoFiMbK5S

— Jad (@jadinho123) April 13, 2018

Interesting pic.twitter.com/jw1HzWCXzV

— Jad (@jadinho123) April 13, 2018

Staging Aleppo Boy pic.twitter.com/J8txn399Yo

— Pace Picante (@DSBurrito) April 16, 2018

Hilarious pic.twitter.com/FWnkMcuZWM

— Jad (@jadinho123) April 13, 2018

https://t.co/Q61b5lvmLW

— Jad (@jadinho123) April 13, 2018

It’s a lie pic.twitter.com/vRzIppUwlH

— Jad (@jadinho123) April 13, 2018

Moscow says they have confirmed that “these structures [NGOs] on a fee-based basis cooperate with the governments of the United States, the UK and some other countries.”

Russian experts who conducted the verification of reports on the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian city of the Douma, found participants of video filming, presented as evidence of the supposedly occurring chemotherapy, according to the Russian Envoy to OPCW. –Sputnik

“Everything has been developing according to the script that was prepared in Washington. There is no doubt that Americans are playing the ‘first violin’ in all of this. The United States, the United Kingdom, France and some other countries after the “fake” addition from the White Helmets and their ilk in Douma, immediately pounced upon the Syrian authorities with accusations,” Shulgin said.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has alerted the OPCW that Russia “may have tampered” with the chemical attack site in Douma…

AP: U.S. alerts chemical weapons watchdog that Russia 'may have tampered' with the chemical attack site in Douma, Syria

— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) April 16, 2018

“It is our understanding the Russians may have visited the attack site,” U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Ward said at a meeting of the OPCW in The Hague on Monday.

“It is our concern that they may have tampered with it with the intent of thwarting the efforts of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission to conduct an effective investigation,” he said. His comments at the closed-door meeting were obtained by Reuters.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov shot back in a BBC interview, saying “I can guarantee that Russia has not tampered with the site.”

Earlier, Britain’s delegation to the OPCW accused Russia and the Syrian government of preventing the international watchdog’s inspectors from reaching Douma.

The inspectors aim to collect samples, interview witnesses and document evidence to determine whether banned toxic munitions were used, although they are not permitted to assign blame for the attack. –Reuters

“Unfettered access is essential,” the British delegation said in a statement. “Russia and Syria must cooperate.”

Moscow says the OPCW delay is due to the Western air strikes. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the British accusation that Russia was to blame for holding up the inspections was “groundless”.

“We called for an objective investigation. This was at the very beginning after this information [of the attack] appeared. Therefore allegations of this towards Russia are groundless,” Peskov said.

***

On Friday we reported that Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow has “irrefutable evidence” that the attack – which allegedly killed over 40 people, was staged with the help of a foreign secret service.

“We have irrefutable evidence that this was another staged event, and that the secret services of a certain state that is now at the forefront of a Russophobic campaign was involved in this staged event,” he said during a press conference according to AFP.

According to defense ministry spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov, the Kremlin has evidence that Britain was behind the attack.

Quoted by Reuters, he said: “We have… evidence that proves Britain was directly involved in organising this provocation.”

As RT further adds, the Russian Defense Ministry presented what it says is “proof that the reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged.” It also accused the British government of pressuring the perpetrators to speed up the “provocation.” During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said, are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the Syrian capital, Damascus.

During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said, are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the Syrian capital, Damascus.

During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said, are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the Syrian capital, Damascus.

In the interviews released to the media, the two men reported how footage was shot of people dousing each other with water and treating children, which was claimed to show the aftermath of the April 7 chemical weapons attack. The patients shown in the video suffered from smoke poisoning and the water was poured on them by their relatives after a false claim that chemical weapons were used, the ministry said.

“Please, notice. These people do not hide their names. These are not some faceless claims on the social media by anonymous activists. They took part in taking that footage,” said Konashenkov.

“The Russian Defense Ministry also has evidence that Britain had a direct involvement in arranging this provocation in Eastern Ghouta,” the general added, referring to the neighborhood of which Douma is part. “We know for certain that between April 3 and April 6 the so-called White Helmets were seriously pressured from London to speed up the provocation that they were preparing.”

According to Konashenkov, the group, which was a primary source of photos and footage of the purported chemical attack, was informed of a large-scale artillery attack on Damascus planned by the Islamist group Army of Islam, which controlled Douma at the time. The White Helmets were ordered to arrange the provocation after retaliatory strikes by the Syrian government forces, which the shelling was certain to lead to, he said.

The UK rejected the accusations, with British UN Ambassador Karen Pierce calling them “grotesque,” “a blatant lie” and “the worst piece of fake news we’ve yet seen from the Russian propaganda machine.”

So when will Moscow release their evidence for the whole world to see? Or is it maybe waiting for the US to first release its own proof that Assad launched the attack?

If so, we’ll be waiting for a long time.

Featured image: A row of craters from exploded mines, left by DAESH throughout Palmyra. (Image credit: Prof. Tim Anderson)

Why support other peoples, especially during conflict? Some explanation seems necessary because wartime debates often degenerate into simplistic clichés, personal abuse and confusion. I am one of many who have been subject to this abuse. Even the sanity of the critics of war is attacked, in attempts to disqualify opposing voices. Confusion is sown through the extreme nature of war propaganda, and its invented pretexts.

In the most recent half dozen Middle East wars, all driven by Washington and its minions, it has become common to dismiss dissenters as ‘apologists’ for this or that enemy. In reality, whatever the virtues or flaws of these ‘regimes’, they are all independent, and targeted precisely for their independence. For this same reason they are branded ‘dictatorships’. Consequently the loyal western corporate and state media, on a war footing, replaces reasonable discussion with abuse and shows little interest in respect for other peoples under attack.

The clichés and abuse replicate the aggression of war mentality. People abandon their normal rules of verbal engagement, reducing discussion to combative point scoring. Having been subject to some of these attacks in recent years, mainly for my defence of Syria, here is a personal account of motives and some of that abuse.

As I see it, human society is founded on cooperation and reinforced by communities determining their own affairs and building their own social structures. We are social beings and our natural human urge is to help others. Social dysfunction comes after social cooperation, and the most toxic of all such dysfunctions is imperialism. Those outside interventions are always disastrous, destructive and tainted with the ambitions of the interveners. That is why uninvited interventions are rightly banned, these days, under international law.

I believe that support for popular self-determination, and the defence of peoples under attack, is an essentially human urge. In my opinion this comes before the pathological drive to dominate. The natural sense of support for other human communities must especially include support for formerly colonised peoples. That is consistent with human values such as respect for others, and not putting one’s voice in the place of others.

At any rate, that is the thinking behind my support for independent peoples under threat or attack. In my experience of recent decades this has included support for the peoples of Cuba, Venezuela, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, Palestine, Iraq, Iran and Syria. However I have refused to be part of the multi-billion dollar aid industry, remaining an independent writer, academic and volunteer.

This is not only altruism. Engaging with other peoples in this way is a rewarding learning experience, indeed a privilege. I believe in and remain open to learning from other cultures.

Yet imperial pathology is also a reality. Its demands, the refusal to listen, domineering, interventions and outright war represent a fundamentally anti-social mentality. From that perspective I came to see the wars of the 21st century – propaganda, economic and real wars – as a continuation of the older politics of imperialism, while often adopting the contemporary language of ‘human rights’.

I saw such abuses in my own country’s intervention in neighbouring East Timor, in 2006. There an internal conflict attracted Australian intervention, largely on false pretexts. Australian state media gave prominence to claims that East Timor’s then Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri had killed dozens of political opponents (Jackson 2006). The Prime Minister was deposed, the journalists involved were given awards; but the claims turned out to be quite false (Anderson 2006).

I spent years defending Cuba and Venezuela from a barrage of fake ‘human rights’ propaganda, including from supposedly independent agencies such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (Anderson 2005; Anderson 2010, Anderson 2013).

Amnesty International, for example, attacked Cuba in 2003 for arresting several dozen US-paid agents (dubbed ‘dissidents’ in the US media), just as Havana anticipated that the mad emperor George W. Bush, having just invaded Iraq, was about to invade Cuba (Amnesty 2003). In fact, Cuba had documented US payments to these people as part of a Washington program to overthrow the Cuban government and its constitution (Elizalde and Baez 2003). There is virtually no state in the world that would not criminalise such activity.

Yet these agents became the ‘Cuban dissidents’ of Amnesty, which used ‘human rights’ as the pretext to back US aggression against its island neighbour (Barahona 2005; Anderson 2008; Lamrani 2014). That same human rights group took several years to say anything about the torture prison President Bush established at an illegally occupied part of Cuba, in Guantanamo Bay (Anderson 2009). The prisoners there (unlike the US agents in Cuba) faced no charges or trial, abuses that used to be the substance of Amnesty International’s activity.

Human Rights Watch (HRW), for its part, made repeated savage political attacks on Venezuela and Cuba, while saying next to nothing about the appalling human rights violations by Washington and its close allies. Many western liberals went along for the ride, but the partisan nature of HRW was obvious to any serious observer. A group of academics and writers assailed HRW over its heavily politicised reports on Venezuela (NACLA 2009). Later several Nobel Prize winners condemned HRW for its refusal to cut ties with the US Government (Alternet 2014).

So when this ‘human rights’ industry (Anderson 2018) turned on Libya and Syria I was half-prepared. I had already written on my own country’s shameful involvement in the aggressions against Afghanistan and Iraq, detailing Australian involvement in war crimes in both countries (Anderson 2005b; Kampmark 2008; Doran and Anderson 2011). [I would go on to document Australian war crimes against Syria (Anderson 2017a).]

However in early 2011 I did not have detailed knowledge about Libya or Syria. In March 2011 I had to look on a map to find Daraa, the border town where the violence in Syria began (Anderson 2013a). Further, I did not then know that the petro-monarchy Qatar – owner of the successful Al Jazeera media network – was funding and arming sectarian Islamist terrorists in both Benghazi (Libya) and Daraa (Syria) (Khalaf and Smith 2013; Dickinson 2014).

Once President Gaddafi was murdered and the state was destroyed, Amnesty International (France) would admit that most of the claims they had made against the Libyan President were baseless (Cockburn 2011). US analysts confirmed the fakery (Kuperman 2015).

The violence in both countries deserved scrutiny, especially when Washington, the main aggressor in the world, was urging ‘regime change’, and most independent countries were urging caution. I wrote a dozen articles against the war on Libya, over the NATO ‘double speak’, ‘regime change’ motives and NATO’s ‘humanitarian’ missile attacks (Anderson 2011a, 2011b). Yet that little country, with the highest living standards in Africa, was rapidly destroyed.

My first article on Syria in May 2011, ‘Understanding the Syrian Violence’, simply urged people to read more widely. The conflict was clearly not just ‘demonstrators v. police’ (Anderson 2011). After that I searched on a wider range of sources, of course including Syrian sources. I began to document the ‘propaganda war’, the deceptive doctrine of ‘humanitarian intervention’, the failures of the western ‘left’, and ‘the lies that fuel regime change’. I shared a detailed list of sources for ‘Reading Syria’ and began to explore several ‘false flag’ massacres (Anderson 2011c, 2012, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c).

There was very little western critical discussion of the conflict in Syria so, in 2012, a number of us, mainly Syrian-Australians, formed the group ‘Hands Off Syria’. Later that year I wrote of a ‘malignant consensus’ which had been created over Syria, one which supported a foreign-backed insurgency and a drive to wider war (Anderson 2012d). It was clear to me that a campaign of lies was afoot, just as there had been with the attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

The official war narrative – from Washington and its minions – was that ‘peaceful protestors’ were being slaughtered by the forces of a ‘brutal dictator’ intent on ‘killing his own people’. This was said to be a ‘civil war’, with no foreign aggression (see Anderson 2016: Chapter 3). It was an extraordinary claim, with little reason, but reliance on jihadist-linked sources and repetition of the claims made it effective, at least amongst western populations.

Yet sectarian Islamist insurrections, linked to the banned Muslim Brotherhood, had a long history in Syria. Since the 1950s such violence had always been backed by Syria’s enemies, particularly Washington and Israel. There was virtually no recognition of this in the loyal western media. Their governments demanded an extreme, fabricated story which could serve as a basis for ‘humanitarian’ intervention.

However the ‘peaceful protestor’ lie was contradicted by independent witnesses and fatally undermined by multiple admissions of US Government officials. The witnesses spoke of sectarian violence from the beginning, which drove political reform rallies off the streets. The leaked documents showed that Washington knew, from the beginning, that extremists were fomenting the violence, with the aim of imposing a religious state.

Regardless, Washington, Israel and the former colonial powers Britain and France armed these extremists, both directly and indirectly, through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar (Anderson 2016: Chapters 2, 4, 6 and 12). The ‘peaceful protestors v regime’ fiction served as the basis for arming terrorists, while imposing a cruel economic blockade on the entire Syrian nation.

In late 2013 I helped organise an Australian delegation to Syria, to meet with government and non-government people to find out more about Syria and to express solidarity with a people under attack. Most of us stayed on after the official tour to meet new friends, exploring Damascus. On our return we were attacked by much of the Australian state and corporate media, in particular for a meeting we had with President Bashar al Assad, the principal target of mindless western demonization (Worthington 2013). I had expected criticism from those who backed the war, but the Murdoch media made some special efforts.

In January 2014 Christian Kerr from The Australian newspaper rang me up for a very brief interview about the trip. It lasted less than one minute. The next day Kerr published a 1,600 front page article ‘Academic with a murky past stirs fresh controversy with trip to Damascus’ (Kerr 2014). This was mainly a personal attack, with little reference to the actual visit. The reporter dishonestly claimed that I was on “a pilgrimage to honour a dictator”. The hit piece says I was an ‘extremist’ for supporting Cuba, Venezuela and Palestine, for opposing Aboriginal deaths in custody and for writing about the destructive role of the World Bank in the Pacific.

The Murdoch paper called on then then Education Minister, Christopher Pyne, to “remind” universities that they “should be partners” to the government in the goal to “build revenue … by growing the international student market … and ensure that their reputations support rather than hinder that ambition”. This meant that universities should distance themselves from controversy. Pyne presented a nice summary of the commercial imperatives placed by successive Australian governments on universities. These days that same commercialisation is regarded by an overwhelming majority (84%) of academics as at the root of a decline in the quality of Australian tertiary education (Evans 2017).

Soon after that the Channel Seven television program Today Tonight invited me into their studio for an interview with presenter Nick Etchells. However, once there, the Chanel Seven people placed me in a separate room of the same building, so that I could not hear Etchells’ introduction, which was a vicious personal attack on me. They had only pretended an interest in the Syria visit. They cut out any answers they did not like. The Australian and Channel Seven personal attacks show how closed the Australian corporate media was to hearing another side to the war in Syria.

Over 2014-2015 I wrote a book ‘The Dirty War on Syria’ (Anderson 2016), to address the western myths and to begin a documented history of the conflict. The book was published in Canada in January 2016 and, over the next two years, was translated into and published in ten languages (English, Arabic, German, Greek, Italian, Spanish, Bosnian, Swedish, Farsi and Icelandic). Over 2016-2018 I did an average of 4 or 5 interviews per week, from media in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Korea, Italy, China, Canada, Germany, Russia and the USA. I was invited to speak at conferences in Greece, Iraq and Germany. There was less interest in my own country.

After September 2015, when Russia and Iran began a more direct involvement in the conflict, in defence of Syria, the tide of the war began to turn in Syria’s favour. But the propaganda war remained strong. Personal attacks against me and other prominent defenders of Syria became more organised. Dissident voices were seen as a threat to the war’s legitimacy.

Independent journalists Eva Bartlett (Canada) and Vanessa Beeley (England), in particular, attracted hostile attention for helping expose the grossly distorted western media coverage of the liberation of the city of Aleppo, in late 2016. The UK Guardian for example – a strong backer of the ‘humanitarian war’ against Syria – commissioned a long hit piece from a San Francisco based journalist with no experience in the Middle East (Solon 2017). Britain’s Channel 4 (Worrall 2016) and self-appointed ‘fact checkers’ – like the US family business ‘Snopes’ – pretended to debunk the consistent critical reports from Bartlett and Beeley. The would-be gatekeepers backed the Washington-led ‘humanitarian’ war story on Syria: this was a ‘civil war’ in which ‘we’ had to help the people of Syria overthrow their ‘brutal dictator’.

In early 2017 the new US President Donald Trump ordered a missile attack on Syria’s Shayrat airbase, after a chemical weapon provocation had been carried out by terrorist groups in Khan Sheikhoun (Idlib). This happened just as we were preparing an academic conference on the Syrian conflict at the University of Sydney (CCHS 2017). On social media I called Trump, Obama and Bush ‘the masterminds of terrorism in the Middle East’ (Anderson 2017).

The Murdoch media responded with another personal attack, running front page smears against myself and a colleague. This abuse began with a Daily Telegraph article by Kylar Loussikian (2017), titled ‘Sarin Gasbag: academic claims Trump a terrorist and tyrant Assad didn’t launch chemical attack’, next to a picture of me in Syria. This was a response to my assertions – based on detailed research – that chemical weapons claims against the Syrian Army were baseless (Anderson 2016: Chapter 9). There was not the slightest corporate media interest in evidence over the chemical weapons allegations. When we criticised journalist Loussikian on social media, he ran to university authorities, complaining he was a victim of a ‘personal attack’.

Underlining the absurdity of Trump’s 2017 attack, in 2018 the US Secretary of Defence admitted that, while ‘others’ were saying it, ‘we do not have evidence’ of Syria’s use of sarin gas (Wilkie 2018; Graphic 1). This had been one of the key pretexts for US aggression against Syria, over several years. But war propaganda was never concerned with evidence.

Graphic 1

A similar media attack occurred after I visited North Korea, in July 2017. By this time I had begun studying several countries subject to Washington-led ‘sanctions’. These included Cuba, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Venezuela and North Korea (DPRK). Not that the loyal western media was interested in any such study.

On seeing some social media photos, Murdoch reporter Loussikian penned another smear story, titled ‘Sydney University’s Tim Anderson praises North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during a solidarity visit’. An introductory paragraph read:

“A controversial Sydney University lecturer who backed Syria’s murderous al Assad regime has travelled to Pyongyang and pledged “solidarity with the North Korean dictatorship against “aggression” from the west (Loussikian 2017a).

It certainly was a solidarity visit, but the lie behind the headline and its sub-head should have been obvious. There was no quote in Loussikian’s article to justify that claim that I had praised any North Korean leader. I did not even mention them. Nor had I mentioned solidarity with the government (‘dictatorship’). In principle, solidarity is always with peoples.

Further, the night before the article Loussikian had asked me, by email: “It was unclear whether you were expressing concern about warfare … or whether you had a view in supporting the North Korean Government”. Because of his previous dishonesty over Syria I did not reply.

This sort of abuse, mostly launched because of my defence of Syria, also came from some of the western ‘left’; or rather what many of us now call ‘the imperial left’. These are small groups of Trotskyists and Anarchists who swallowed the Washington line that the conflicts in Libya and Syria were popular ‘revolutions’. They repeated the western state and corporate media clichés that the highly internationalised conflict in Syria was a ‘civil war’, and that the fanatical jihadist-terrorists were ‘revolutionaries’ (e.g. Karadjis 2014; and in Norton 2014).

Some of these people – having observed that some extreme right wing figures also questioned the war on Syria, or supported Russia, or opposed Israel – decided to smear me with the lie that I ‘work with’ or am ‘friends’ with fascists. The ‘evidence’ they show for this is that some extremist and right figures attended some of my many public talks; and that those figures and I both attended a funeral wake for the murdered Russian Ambassador to Turkey, at the Russian consulate in Sydney. On that basis I was said to ‘work with Nazis’ (see Graphic 2).

Graphic 2

My first response to this sort of childish abuse was to just ignore it. Now I think there might be some educational value in showing others the worst cases.

Such attacks do not mean much from tiny groups, barely relevant except when they oppose imperial wars. Yet many western liberal-leftists today join with Washington, NATO, the Saudis, Israel – and their fanatical, reactionary mercenaries – against the remaining independent states of the Middle East.

What these left-liberals miss is that the new fascism in the world is precisely that chain of wars aimed at destroying independent African, Arab and other West Asian states. Western cheer squads for these wars are necessary to minimise opposition and keep imperial plans alive.

This century’s military, economic and propaganda wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya and Syria have successfully conscripted western liberals, leftists, NGOs and of course the corporate and state media. Very few question the war narrative; and those who do are abused.

But that is not the future. The world is changing. BRICS and other regional groupings and states, especially in Africa, Asia and Latin America, are on the rise. In my opinion, support and respect is due to all independent peoples. It is not about whether we agree with everything they do. It is about respect for other peoples. Their self-determination is also our human responsibility.

*

Dr. Tim Anderson is a Senior Lecturer in Political Economy at the University of Sydney. He researches and writes on development, human rights and self-determination in the Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Middle East. He has published dozens of articles and chapters in academic journals and books, as well as essays in a range of online journals. His work includes the areas of agriculture and food security, health systems, regional integration and international cooperation.

Dr Tim Anderson is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

See details regarding his book on Syria below. 

Sources

Alternet (2014) ‘Nobel Peace Laureates Slam Human Rights Watch’s Refusal to Cut Ties to U.S. Government’, 8 July, online:https://www.alternet.org/world/nobel-peace-laureates-slam-human-rights-watchs-refusal-cut-ties-us-government

Amnesty International (2003) ‘Cuba: Massive crackdown on dissent’, April, AMR 25/008/2003, online:https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/104000/amr250082003en.pdf

Anderson, Tim (2005) ‘Contesting ‘Transition’: the US plan for a Free Cuba’, Latin American Perspectives, Vol 32, No 6, November, pp.28-46

Anderson, Tim (2005a) ‘Cuba: the propaganda offensive’, Online Opinion, 15 March, online: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3243&page=0

Anderson, Tim (2005b) ‘Indictment and prosecution of John Winston Howard’, The Guardian, Sydney, 17 August, p.2, online:http://www.cpa.org.au/guardian-pdf/2005/Guardian1241_17-08-2005_screen.pdf

Anderson, Tim (2006) ‘Timor Leste: the second Australian intervention’, Journal of Australian Political Economy, December, pp.62-93

Anderson, Tim (2008) ‘Cuba and the ‘independent journalists’, Green Left Weekly, 24 May, online:https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/cuba-and-independent-journalists

Anderson, Tim (2009) ‘Hypocrisy over Cuba’s ‘political prisoners’, Green left Weekly, 19 September, online:https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/hypocrisy-over-cubas-political-prisoners

Anderson, Tim (2010) ‘How Credible Is Human Rights Watch on Cuba?’, MRonline, 16 February, online:https://mronline.org/2010/02/16/how-credible-is-human-rights-watch-on-cuba/

Anderson, Tim (2011) ‘Understanding the Syrian violence – check your sources’, 7 May, Facebook, online:https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-anderson/understanding-the-syrian-violence-check-your-sources/10150186018711234

Anderson, Tim (2011a) ‘The Double Speak on Libya: conflict resolution or regime change?’, Facebook, March 19, online:https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-anderson/the-double-speak-on-libya-conflict-resolution-or-regime-change/10150125374666234

Anderson, Tim (2011b) ‘Humanitarian attack on Libya – first volley, 112 tomahawk missiles hit two cities’, Facebook, 20 March, online:https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-anderson/humanitarian-attack-on-libya-first-volley-112-tomahawk-misiles-hit-two-cities/10150126117161234

Anderson, Tim (2011c) ‘Propaganda war rages over Syrian violence’, Facebook, 8 August, online: https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-anderson/propaganda-war-rages-over-syrian-violence/10150273915031234

Anderson, Tim (2012) ‘Humanitarian Intervention and the Left in Imperial Cultures’, Facebook, 1 March, online:https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-anderson/humanitarian-intervention-and-the-left-in-imperial-cultures/10150603967576234

Anderson, Tim (2012a) ‘The lies that fuel intervention and ‘regime change’ – Iraq, Timor Leste, Libya, Syria’, Facebook, 8 May, online:https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-anderson/the-lies-that-fuel-intervention-and-regime-change-iraq-timor-leste-libya-syria-/10150806025926234

Anderson, Tim (2012b) ‘Reading Syria’, Facebook, 24 May, online: https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-anderson/reading-syria/10150862173381234

Anderson, Tim (2012c) ‘Massacres in Syria: the awful truth’, Facebook, online: https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-anderson/massacres-in-syria-the-awful-truth/10150895942696234

Anderson, Tim (2012d) ‘The malignant consensus on Syria’, The Conversation, 19 September, online: https://theconversation.com/the-malignant-consensus-on-syria-9565

Anderson, Tim (2013) ‘Hugo Chávez, Venezuela and the Corporate Media’, Online Opinion, 9 April, online:http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14882&page=0

Anderson, Tim (2013a) ‘Syria: how the violence began, in Daraa’, OpEd Opinion, 13 May, online:https://www.opednews.com/articles/Syria-how-the-violence-be-by-Tim-Anderson-130513-875.html

Anderson, Tim (2016) The Dirty war on Syria, Global Research, Montreal

Anderson, Tim (2017) ‘Masterminds of terrorism in the Middle East.’, Twitter, 7 April, online:https://twitter.com/timand2037/status/850516689036861440

Anderson, Tim (2017a) ‘Implausible Denials: The Crime at Jabal al Tharda. US-led Air Raid on Behalf of ISIS-Daesh Against Syrian Forces’, Global Research, 17 December, online: https://www.globalresearch.ca/implausible-denials-the-crime-at-jabal-al-tharda-us-led-air-raid-on-behalf-of-isis-daesh-against-syrian-forces/5623056

Anderson, Tim (2018) ‘Syria: the human rights industry in ‘humanitarian war’’, Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies, Research Paper 1/18, online: https://counter-hegemonic-studies.net/humanitarian-war-rp-1-18/

Barahona, Diana (2005) ‘Reporters Without Borders Unmasked’, Counter Punch, 17 May, online:https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/05/17/reporters-without-borders-unmasked/

CCHS (2017) ‘Syria Conference 2017’, online: https://counter-hegemonic-studies.net/category/conf/sc-2017/

Cockburn, Patrick (2011) ‘Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war’, The Independent, 23 June, online:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html

Dickinson, Elizabeth (2014) ‘The Case Against Qatar’, Foreign Policy, 30 September, online: http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/30/the-case-against-qatar/

Doran, Chris and Tim Anderson (2011) ‘Iraq and the case for Australian war crimes trials’, Crime, Law and Social Change: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23 August, online: http://www.mapw.org.au/files/downloads/doran-anderson-war-crimes-2011%20%282%29.pdf

Elizalde, Rosa Miriam and Luis Baez (2003) “The Dissidents”, Editora Política, La Habana; partially online here:http://www.redandgreen.org/Cuba/Disidents/index.html

Evans, Michael (2017) ‘State of the Uni Survey: Thousands of uni staff have their say’, NTEU Advocate, online:https://www.nteu.org.au/article/State-of-the-Uni-Survey%3A-Thousands-of-uni-staff-have-their-say-%28Advocate-24-03%29-20157

Jackson, Elizabeth (2006b) ‘E Timor Prime Minister denies new ‘hit squad’ claims’, ABC

Radio, AM, 10 June, online: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1660023.htm

Kampmark, Binoy (2008) ‘John Howard and War Crimes’, CounterPunch, 26 June, online:https://www.counterpunch.org/2008/06/26/john-howard-and-war-crimes-2/

Karadjis, Michael (2014) ‘Why the Syrian rebels oppose U.S. air strikes’, Socialist Worker, 6 October, online:https://web.archive.org/web/20161105044008/https://socialistworker.org/2014/10/06/why-syrian-rebels-oppose-us-air-strikes

Kerr, Christian (2014) ‘Academic with a murky past stirs fresh controversy with trip to Damascus’, The Australian, 4 Jan 2014

Khalaf, Roula and Abigail Fielding Smith (2013) ‘Qatar bankrolls Syrian revolt with cash and arms’, FT, 16 May, online: http://ig-legacy.ft.com/content/86e3f28e-be3a-11e2-bb35-00144feab7de#axzz5BBZYAcu2

Kuperman, Alan J. (2015) ‘Obama’s Libya Debacle’, Foreign Affairs, March/April, online:https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/obamas-libya-debacle

Lamrani, Salim (2014) Cuba, the Media, and the Challenge of Impartiality, Monthly review Press, New York

Loussikian, Kylar (2017) ‘Sarin Gasbag: academic claims Trump a terrorist and tyrant Assad didn’t launch chemical attack’, Daily Telegraph, Sydney, 10 April

Loussikian, Kylar (2017a) ‘Sydney University’s Tim Anderson praises North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during a solidarity visit’, Daily Telegraph, 4 September

NACLA (2009) ‘Critics Respond to Human Rights Watch’s Defense of Venezuela Report’, North American Congress on Latin America, 13 January, online: https://nacla.org/news/critics-respond-human-rights-watchs-defense-venezuela-report

Norton, Ben (2017) ‘Michael Karadjis whitewashes Syrian al-Qaeda as “decent revolutionaries”’, 10 May, online:https://bennorton.com/michael-karadjis-syrian-al-qaeda-jabhat-al-nusra/

Solon, Olivia (2017) ‘How Syria’s White Helmets became victims of an online propaganda machine’, The Guardian, 18 September, online:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories

Wilkie, Ian (2018) ‘Now Mattis admits there was no evidence Assad used poison gas on his people’, Newsweek, 8 February, online:http://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admits-there-was-no-evidence-assad-using-poison-gas-his-people-801542

Worrall, Patrick (2016) ‘Eva Bartlett’s claims about Syrian children’, 20 December, 4 News, online:https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eva-bartletts-claims-about-syrian-children

Worthington, Kerri (2013) ‘Australian delegation condemned for Syria visit’, SBS, 2 January, online:https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-delegation-condemned-for-syria-visit

---

The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-8-4

Year: 2016

Author: Tim Anderson

Pages: 240

List Price: $23.95

Special Price: $15.00

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Last May, Trump fired FBI director Comey, saying he lost confidence in his ability to manage the agency – at the time calling him “a showboat, grandstander,” along with other ad hominem remarks.

Comey failed to call for Hillary’s prosecution for conducting classified State Department business on her private server – merely saying:

“There is evidence that (she was) extremely careless in handling very sensitive, highly classified information” this way – a serious offense gone unpunished.

Comey lied saying the FBI couldn’t prove she knowingly exchanged classified information stored on her unsecured private server.

She conducted sensitive State Department business this way, including with material designated “top secret.”

Yet Comey whitewashed the FBI’s investigation into her illegal and highly improper activities to save her from prosecution.

He’s named along with former Deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in the explosive Russiagate FISA memo.

It revealed extensive information about the Justice Department, FBI and fake Trump doggy dossier – financed by Hillary and the DNC, based on disinformation from former UK MI6 intelligence operative Christopher Steele.

It made spurious accusations without evidence, alleging misconduct and collusion between Trump, his campaign team and Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign – including phony accusations of Russian US election interference.

In August 2017, Judicial Watch (JD) said

“Comey sits in a firestorm of his own making. By his own admission, he created and then leaked memos to ensure that a special counsel would be appointed to investigate President Trump” – when none was justified.

“Comey broke government rules and laws as part of his machinations. Special Counsel Mueller is unlikely to investigate his friend Comey – just continue his Russiagate witch hunt endlessly, finding nothing suggesting Trump’s team colluded with Russia on anything.

Comey disgraced the office he held, mocking legal, moral and ethical standards – including involvement in the sham Russiagate probe, along with letting Hillary off the hook for serious wrongdoing.

He remains unaccountable for his own offenses, contemptuous of the rule of law in public office, perhaps as a private citizen.

Now he’s cashing in handsomely, his memoir mistitled “A Higher Loyalty,” published this week.

Ahead of its release, it became Amazon’s top-selling book. Days earlier, RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called the book “salacious, (Comey) discredit(ing) himself.”

Law Professor Jonathan Turley slammed him, saying his book has nothing to do with “justice as an ideal,” adding:

“Comey is selling himself with the vigor of a (reality TV) Kardashian and the viciousness of a Trump. While professing to write the book to protect the FBI as an institution, Comey is doing that institution untold harm by joining an ignoble list of tell-all authors” – along with cashing big in by telling things his way.

Involved with investigating Trump as FBI director, discussing an ongoing probe is highly unethical, Comey’s book an exercise in self-interest, notably self-enrichment.

Justice Department prosecutors said he violated his obligation to “preserve, protect and defend the traditions of the Department and the FBI.”

He was supposed to find administration leakers. He became one himself, illegally and improperly removing memos he wrote about the Russiagate investigation and his relationship with Trump – FBI material, not his personal journal.

Under bureau rules, he was prohibited from removing the material. He gave them to Columbia University Professor Daniel Richman to leak to the media, including classified information.

He remains unaccountable for his actions. Interviewed Sunday on ABC News 20-20, a PR vehicle promoting his book, he accused Trump of multiple offenses, calling him “a serial liar, (a) stain” on staff working with him, a mafia boss “morally unfit to be president…some evidence (showing his) obstruction of justice.”

His tell-all book committed offenses leading to his firing, revealing more about himself than Trump.

He was interviewed last year by special counsel Mueller as part of his Russiagate witch-hunt probe.

His book, lengthy ABC News interview and others sure to come compromised his remarks about Trump – true or false.

Past FBI directors were circumspect. Comey’s abuses of power as FBI director reveal a morally and legally challenged, unethical public official, further discredited by his self-serving book.

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

After the U.S. launched “limited” airstrikes on Friday April 14, 2018, against Syria, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced that the U.S. will maintain its illegal presence in Syria until U.S. goals in the area are fulfilled, opening the door for the U.S. occupation to continue indefinitely.

While the U.S. military presence in Syria has been ongoing since 2015 – justified as a means of countering Daesh (ISIS) — U.S. troops have since turned into an occupying force with their failure to pull out following Daesh’s defeat in northeastern Syria. Currently, the U.S. occupies nearly a third of Syrian territory — around 30 percent — including much of the area east of the Euphrates River, encompassing large swaths of the Deir Ezzor, Al-Hasakah and Raqqa regions.

Though the U.S. currently has between 2,000 to 4,000 troops stationed in Syria, it announced the training of a 30,000-person-strong “border force” composed of U.S.-allied Kurds and Arabs in the area, which would be used to prevent northeastern Syria from coming under the control of Syria’s legitimate government. Though it backtracked somewhat after backlash from Turkey, the U.S. has continued to train “local forces” in the area. Russian military sources have asserted that former members of Daesh — who were allowed to leave cities attacked by the U.S. and their proxies, as was the case in battle for Raqqa — are to be included among the force’s ranks.

This, along with the U.S. government’s insistence on maintaining the occupation until Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is removed from power, shows that the U.S. government has no intention of permitting the reunification of Syria and will continue to occupy the region over the long term.

The illegal U.S. occupation of Syria has been widely noted in independent and corporate media, but little media attention has focused on identifying the wider implications of this occupation and the U.S.’ main objectives in keeping northeastern Syria from coming under the control of the legitimate, democratically elected Syrian government. As is often the case in U.S. occupations, both historical and present, it is an effort born out of two goals: resource acquisition for U.S. corporations and the destabilization of a government targeted for U.S.-backed regime change.

Control of fossil fuel deposits and flow

Northeastern Syria is an important region owing to its rich natural resources, particularly fossil fuels in the form of natural gas and oil. Indeed, this area contains 95 percent of all Syrian oil and gas potential — including al-Omar, the country’s largest oil field. Prior to the war, these resources produced some 387,000 barrels of oil per day and 7.8 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually, and were of great economic importance to the Syrian government. However, more significantly, nearly all the existing Syrian oil reserves – estimated at around 2.5 billion barrels – are located in the area currently occupied by the U.S. government.

In addition to Syria’s largest oil field, the U.S. and its proxies in northeast Syria also control the Conoco gas plant, the country’s largest. The plant, which can produce nearly 50 million cubic feet of gas per day, was originally built by U.S. oil and gas giant ConocoPhillips, which operated the plant until 2005, after which Bush-era sanctions made it difficult to operate in Syria. Other foreign oil companies, like Shell, also left Syria as a result of the sanctions.

With the U.S. now occupying the area, the oil and gas produced in this region are already benefiting U.S. energy corporations to which Trump and his administration have numerous ties. According to Yeni Şafak, the U.S. along with the Saudis, Egypt, and Kurdish officials held meetings where decisions were made to extract, process and market the fossil fuels harvested in the region, with the Kurds being given a handsome share of the profits. As of 2015, the Kurds were said to be earning in excess of $10 million every month.

Syria’s Kurdistan exports its oil to Iraq’s Kurdistan, with which it conveniently shares a border, and it is then refined and sold to Turkey. Though no corporations are publicly involved, the deal between Syrian and Iraqi Kurds was brokered by unnamed “oil experts” and “oil investors.” The Kurds in Syria and Iraq did not even sign the agreement in person. They were subsequently “informed” of the agreement by the United States and instructed to supervise the operation.

A source in Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) told NOW News that “with regard to southern Kurdistan, it was a company and not the KRG that signed the deal, and it is [the company] that directly hands over the sums in cash every month.” Given that over 80 foreign companies are involved in the KRG’s oil trade, most of them U.S.-based, we can safely assume that many of the same players have also been involved in developing the oil trade of Syria’s Kurdistan.

Major corporate interests

The Trump administration’s numerous connections to the U.S. oil industry make this alliance clear. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was fired in March, was previously the top executive at ExxonMobil, an oil company that unilaterally brokered an oil deal with Iraqi Kurds behind the back of the Iraqi government and has expressed interest in developing Syrian oil interests in the portion of the country currently occupied by the U.S.

ExxonMobil also had a major stake in the proposed Qatari pipeline, whose rejection by Assad was a likely factor in jumpstarting the Syrian conflict. Trump himself, prior to assuming the presidency, also had sizable investments in ExxonMobil — as well as in 11 other major oil and gas companies, including Total, ConocoPhillips, BHP and Chevron.

In addition, even though Tillerson has now gone, his replacement, Mike Pompeo, is equally a friend to the U.S. oil and gas industry. Pompeo is the “#1 all time recipient” of money from Koch Industries, which has numerous interests in oil and gas exploration, drilling, pipelines, and fossil-fuel refining.

While the U.S. occupation of Syria is no doubt motivated by a desire to exploit the region’s oil and gas resources for itself, the U.S.’ refusal to leave the area is also born out of a concern that, were the U.S. to leave, its chief rival, Russia, would claim the oil and gas riches of Syria’s northeast. Indeed, according to an energy cooperation framework signed in January, Russia will have exclusive rights to produce oil and gas in areas of Syria controlled by the Syrian government.

Since 2014, the U.S. has been aggressively trying to limit Russia’s fossil-fuel sector, particularly its exports to Europe, and replace themwith U.S.-produced fossil fuels. As former Speaker of the House John Boehner wrote in 2014, “The ability to turn the tables and put the Russian leader in check lies right beneath our feet, in the form of vast supplies of natural energy.” Allowing the Russian fossil fuel sector to strengthen, whether in Syria or elsewhere, would harm U.S. strategic objectives, U.S. corporate bottom lines and the U.S.’ vision of maintaining a unipolar world at all costs.

Location, location: pipeline maps and a zero-sum game with Russia

In addition to its fossil fuel resources, Syria’s strategic location makes it crucial to the regional flow of hydrocarbons. Having the northeastern section of Syria under the control of the U.S. and its proxies could have a profound effect on future and existing pipelines. As The New York Times noted in 2013, “Syria’s prime location and muscle make it the strategic center of the Middle East.”

For that very reason, much of the U.S.’ Middle East policy has been aimed at seizing control of territory and pushing for the partition of countries to secure safe transit routes for oil and gas. In Syria such plans to partition the country for this purpose date back to as early as the 1940s, when European oil interests in the country’s northeast began to grow. Since then, several countries have tried to occupy parts of northern Syria to secure control of the region for these strategic purposes, including Turkey and Iraq in addition to Western powers.

A crucial pipeline already exists in northeastern Syria that connects Syria’s oil fields to the Ceyhan-Kirkuk pipeline. Though that pipeline sustained heavy damage in 2014, there are plans to rebuild it or build a new pipeline alongside it. Thus, northeastern Syria also boasts oil export infrastructure that could help Syrian oil travel easily to Turkey and thus to the European market.

In addition, the conflict in Syria – now in its seventh year – was, in part, initiated as a result of clashes over two pipeline proposals that needed to secure passage through Syria. Syria, not long before the foreign-funded proxy war besieged the country, had turned down a U.S.-backed proposal that would take to Europe natural gas from Qatar in favor of a Russia-backed proposal that would take natural gas originating in Iran.

Though those pipeline proposals are no longer as powerful in shaping motives as they once were – largely due to Qatar’s rift with other Gulf monarchies and improved relations with Iran – the northeastern part of Syria remains key to U.S. objectives. According to the German publication Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, the U.S. has developed plans to build a new pipeline from the Persian Gulf to Northern Iraq and into Turkey through northeastern Syria, with the ultimate goal of supplying oil to Europe. Russia, for its part, opposes this plan, as it seeks to maintain its own lucrative exports of fossil fuels to Europe.

Water and land

Beyond fossil fuels and pipelines, northeast Syria boasts several other key advantages in terms of resources. Chief among those is water – a resource of prime importance in the Middle East. The U.S.-controlled portion of Syria is home to the country’s three largest freshwater reservoirs, which are fed by the Euphrates river.

One of those reservoirs now controlled by the U.S. and its proxies, Lake Assad, is the country’s largest freshwater reservoir and supplies government-held Aleppo with most of its drinking water. It also provides the city with much of its electrical power, which is generated by Tabqa Dam, also located in the occupied territory. Another key hydroelectric power plant is located at Tishrin Dam and is also controlled by U.S.-backed proxy forces.

Kurdish Fighters take positions at the top of Mount Annan overlooking the Tishrin dam, after they captured it from ISIS militants, south of Kobani, Syria December 27, 2015. (Photo: Rodi Said)

In addition to its abundant water resources, northeastern Syria is also home to nearly 60 percent of Syria’s cropland, a key resource in terms of Syria’s sustainability and food independence. Prior to the conflict, Syria invested heavily in bringing irrigation infrastructure into the area in order to allow agriculture there to continue despite a massive regional drought. Much of that irrigation infrastructure is fed by the occupied Tabqa Dam, which controls the irrigation water for 640,000 hectares (2,500 square miles) of farmland.

Game plan for occupation, partition

Unlike the northeast’s fossil fuel resources, the U.S. is not hoping to gain financially from the region’s water and agricultural resources. Instead, the interest there is strategic and serves two main purposes.

First, control over those resources – particularly water and the flow of the Euphrates – gives the U.S. a key advantage it could use to destabilize Syria. For example, the U.S. could easily cut off water and electricity to government-held parts of Syria by shutting down or diverting power and water from dams in order to place pressure on the Syrian government and Syrian civilians.

Though such actions target civilians and constitute a war crime, the U.S. has used such tactics in Syria before, such as in the battle for Raqqa when it cut off water supplies to the city as its proxies took control of the city from Daesh (ISIS). Other countries, like Turkey, have also cut off the flow of the Euphrates on two occasions over the course of the Syrian conflict in order to gain a strategic advantage.

By controlling much of the country’s water and agricultural land – not to mention its fossil fuel resources — the U.S. occupation will not only accomplish its goal of destabilizing Syria’s government by depriving it of revenue; it also invites a broader conflict from Syria and its allies, who are eager to prevent another long-term U.S. occupation in the Middle East and to reclaim the territory for Syria.

Another way the U.S. has the ability to destabilize Syria through its occupation of the northeast is its plan to have the Saudis rebuild much of the area. Though the U.S. initially allied itself with the Kurds in northeastern Syria, opposition from Turkey has led Washington to focus more on working with Arabs in the area, particularly those allied with or formerly part of Saudi-allied Wahhabi groups, in order to create a Saudi-controlled enclave that could be used to destabilize government-controlled areas of Syria for years to come. The area is set to become much like the Idlib province, which is also essentially an enclave for Wahhabi terrorists.

The U.S. plan to create a Wahhabi enclave in northeast Syria was directly referenced in a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report from 2012. That report stated:

“THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME…” [capitalization original]

Despite Daesh’s defeat, their presence in Northeastern Syria, as the DIA reveals, was cultivated to provide a pretext for the foreign control of the region.

Partition chess: thinking two moves ahead

Whether the Saudis or the Kurds ultimately end up dominating the portion of Syria currently occupied by the United States is besides the point. The main U.S. purpose in occupying the northeast portion of Syria is its long-standing goal of partitioning Syria, thereby permanently separating the country’s northeast from the rest of the country.

Throughout the Syrian conflict, the U.S. government has repeatedly tried to sell partition to the public, arguing that partition is the “only” solution to Syria’s ongoing “sectarian” conflict. However, this sectarianism was cynically engineered and stoked by foreign powers precisely to bring about the current conflict in Syria and ultimately justify partition.

WikiLeaks revealed that the CIA was involved in instigating anti-Assad and “sectarian” demonstrations as early as March 2011. Declassified CIA documents show that the plan to push partition by directly engineering sectarianism in order to weaken the Syrian state dates back to at least the 1980s. The partition idea was also repeatedly touted by the Obama administration, which stated on several occasions that it “may be too late” to keep Syria whole.

Though the Obama administration has come and gone, the Trump administration is also set to push for partition, thanks to the recent appointment of John Bolton to the position of National Security Adviser. As MintPress recently reported, Bolton has long advocated for combining northeastern Syria with northwestern Iraq in order to create a new country, which Bolton called “Sunnistan,” that would dominate the two countries’ fossil fuel resources and would count on the key water and agricultural resources of the region to sustain the population. Bolton called for the Gulf Arab states, like Saudi Arabia, to finance the creation of that state – hence the Trump administration’s recent attempts to negotiate a “deal” with the Saudis by which they take over control of the U.S.-occupied portion in Syria if they agree to pay $4 billion for reconstruction.

Aiming at Iran

While gaining control of key resources for partitioning Syria and destabilizing the government in Damascus, the U.S.’ main goal in occupying the oil and water rich northeastern Syria is aimed not at Syria but at Iran.

As U.S.-based intelligence firm Stratfor noted in 2002, taking control of Syria’s northeast would greatly complicate the land route between Syria and Iran as well as the land route between Iran and Lebanon. In January, Tillerson made this objective clear. Speaking at Stanford University, Tillerson noted that “diminishing” Iran’s influence in Syria was a key goal for the U.S. and a major reason for its occupation of the northeast.

By cutting off the route between Tehran and Damascus, the U.S. would greatly destabilize and weaken the region’s “resistance axis” and the U.S. — along with its regional allies – would be able to greatly increase its regional influence and control. Given the alliance between Syria and Iran, as well as their mutual defense accord, the occupation is necessary in order to weaken both nations and a key precursor toTrump administration plans to isolate and wage war against Iran.

With internal reports warning of the U.S.’ waning position as the “world’s only superpower,” the U.S. has no intention of leaving Syria, as it is becoming increasingly desperate to maintain its influence in the region and to maintain as well the influence of the corporations that benefit the most from U.S. empire.

Acknowledgment: Investigative journalist Rick Sterling, who specializes in the Syria war, provided MintPress with some images and pertinent information that was used in this story.

*

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

You may assume that the idea of kicking out Syrian dictator Assad is a recent idea stemming from his brutal crackdowns on protestors starting in March 2011.

But the truth is that it is a 70-year old project …

The CIA backed a right-wing coup in Syria in 1949. A CIA officer involved in the coup has written several books about it.

Douglas Little, Professor, Department of Clark University History professor Douglas Little notes:

Recently declassified records… confirm that beginning on November 30, 1948, [CIA operative Stephen] Meade met secretly with Colonel Zaim at least six times to discuss the “possibility [of an] army supported dictatorship.” [“Cold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria, 1945-1958,” Middle East Journal, Winter 1990, p. 55]

***

As early as 1949, this newly independent Arab republic was an important staging ground for the CIA’s earliest experiments in covert action.

The CIA secretly encouraged a right-wing military coup in 1949.

The reason the U.S. initiated the coup? Little explains:

In late 1945, the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) announced plans to construct the Trans-Arabian Pipe Line (TAPLINE) from Saudi Arabia to the Mediterra- nean. With U.S. help, ARAMCO secured rights-of-way from Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The Syrian right-of-way was stalled in parliament.

In other words, Syria was the sole holdout for the lucrative oil pipeline.

(Indeed, the CIA has carried out this type of covert action right from the start.)

In 1956, NSA and CIA officials penciled out “Operation Straggle” to implement a US-backed “anti-communist” coup in Syria.

In 1957, the CIA planned another coup, code-named  “Operation Wappen”.

After the coup plot was exposed, the U.S. tried another means to overthrow the Syrian government:

After the coup attempt was exposed, the US government and media began describing Syria as a “Soviet satellite”. One intelligence report suggested that the USSR had delivered “not more than 123 Migs” to the country. Reporter Kennett Love later said that “there were indeed ‘not more than 123 Migs’. There were none.” In September 1957, the US deployed a fleet to the Mediterranean, armed several of Syria’s neighbors, and incited Turkey to deploy 50,000 troops to its border. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles suggested that the US sought to invoke the “Eisenhower Doctrine” of retaliating against provocations, and this intention was later confirmed in a military report. No Arab state would describe Syria as a provocateur, and these military deployments were withdrawn.

Also in 1957, the American president and British prime minister themselves agreed to launch regime change again in Syria. Historian Little notes that the coup plot was discovered and stopped:

On August 12, 1957, the Syrian army surrounded the U.S. embassy in Damascus. Claiming to have aborted a CIA plot to overthrow neutralist President Shukri Quwatly and install a pro-Western regime, Syrian chief of counterintelligence Abdul Hamid Sarraj expelled three U.S. diplomats ….

Syrian counterintelligence chief Sarraj reacted swiftly on August 12, expelling Stone and other CIA agents, arresting their accomplices and placing the U.S. embassy under surveillance.

***

More importantly, Syria also had control of one of the main oil arteries of the Middle East, the pipeline which connected pro-western Iraq’s oilfields to Turkey.

***

The report said that once the necessary degree of fear had been created, frontier incidents and border clashes would be staged to provide a pretext for Iraqi and Jordanian military intervention. Syria had to be “made to appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments,” the report says. “CIA and SIS should use their capabilities in both the psychological and action fields to augment tension.”

***

The plan called for funding of a “Free Syria Committee” [hmmm … sounds vaguely familiar], and the arming of “political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities” within Syria. The CIA and MI6 would instigate internal uprisings, for instance by the Druze [a Shia Muslim sect] in the south, help to free political prisoners held in the Mezze prison, and stir up the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus.

1983 CIA documents show that the U.S. schemed to:

Covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey.

***

Consideration must be given to orchestrating a credible military threat against Syria in order to induce at least some moderate change in its policies.

CIA documents show that, in 1986, the CIA drew up plans to overthrow Syria by provoking sectarian tensions.

Neoconservatives planned regime change in Syria once again in 1991.  General Wesley Clark, who commanded NATO’s bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, said:

It came back to me … a 1991 meeting I had with Paul Wolfowitz.

***

In 1991, he was the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy – the number 3 position at the Pentagon. And I had gone to see him when I was a 1-Star General commanding the National Training Center.

***

And I said, “Mr. Secretary, you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm.”

And he said: “Yeah, but not really, because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein, and we didn’t … But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran, Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.”

(Skip to 3:07 in the following video)

In 1996 – U.S. and Israeli Neocons advocated:

Weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria ….

General Clarke said that – in 2001 – the Pentagon again planned regime change against Syria:

I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September.

***

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

Michel Chossudovsky notes:

The proposed re-division of both Iraq and Syria is broadly modeled on that of the Federation of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven “independent states” (Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo). According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three separate states is part of a broader process of redrawing the Map of the Middle East.

The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers”. (See Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East” By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, November 2006)

A December 13, 2006 U.S. diplomatic cable reveals how the US government (USG) was seeking out weaknesses of the Assad government which could be exploited to undermine it. William Roebuck, chargé d’affaires at the US embassy in Damascus, said in summarizing the cable:

We believe [Syrian leader] Bashar’s weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising.

Roebuck argued that the US should try to destabilize the Syrian government by coordinating more closely with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to fan sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shia, including by the promotion of “exaggerated” fears of Shia proselytizing of Sunnis, and of concern about “the spread of Iranian influence” in Syria in the form of mosque construction and business activity.

The U.S. started funding the Syrian opposition in 2006 … and arming the opposition in 2007.

Former French foreign minister Roland Dumas said that Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009.  He told French television:

I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business.

I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria.

Nafeez Ahmed notes:

Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor, including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials, confirmed that as of 2011, US and UK special forces training of Syrian opposition forces was well underway. The goal was to elicit the “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within.”

And see this.

Indeed, the U.S. has carried out regime change in the Middle East and North Africa for many decades.

*

This article was originally published on Washington’s Blog.

Washington’s Blog is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Dear Prime Minister,

As a healer for these past 50 years, I wish you and your cabinet to note this analysis.  It is obvious to a child that your order to bomb three sites in Syria had no basis in ‘international law’, although that has been shredded by HMG and others.  That the twittering psychopath Trump took the lead confirmed the absence of any law.

Law – one view, joined by others, ref “Customary International Law” – Dapo Akande, Professor of Public International Law, Oxford University

I reach the following conclusions:

1. Contrary to the position of the government, neither the UN charter nor customary international law permits military action on the basis of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. There is very little support by states for such an exception to the prohibition of the use of force. The UK is one of very few states that advocates for such a legal principle but the vast majority of states have explicitly rejected it.

2. The legal position advanced by the government ignores the structure of the international law rules relating to the use of force, in particular, because a customary international law rule does not prevail over the rule in the United Nations charter prohibiting the use of force. To accept the position advocated by the government would be to undermine the supremacy of the UN charter.

3. Even if there was a doctrine of humanitarian intervention in international law, the strikes against Syria would not appear to meet the tests set out by the government. The action taken by the government was not directed at bringing “immediate and urgent relief” with regard to the specific evil it sought to prevent, and was taken before the inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were able to reach the affected area.

4. If the position taken by the government were to be accepted by states globally, it would allow for individual assessments of when force was necessary to achieve humanitarian ends, with the risk of abuse. It is because of the humanitarian suffering that will ensue from such abusive uses of force, that other states and many scholars have been reluctant to endorse the doctrine of humanitarian action.

Humanitarian intervention as per Blair in Sierra Leone etc.  

“As a pretext for deploying troops in Italian Somaliland and Italian Eritrea for an intended invasion of Ethiopia, Benito Mussolini thus claimed that he was attempting to both secure the Wal Wal border area where some Italian soldiers had been killed and abolish the local slave trade.[12] Similarly, Adolf Hitler justified his own forces’ occupation of the Sudetenland by suggesting that they were attempting to quash ethnic tensions in Czechoslovakia.[11]”

Join Mussolini and Hitler.

Humanitarian?  A third, 4 million, of our dear children are poor.  Two thirds of those poor children are in ‘working families.’  The planned destruction of OUR National Health Service.  Imagine the distress – humanitarian?  The vile treatment of our black sisters and brothers who came from the Caribbean 67 years ago – humanitarian?  To be sent ‘home’ from the slave owners isle.  Oligarchs and others crooks with money welcome.  Off shore tax havens welcome.  Dual nationality – easy if you are part Israeli citizen.  Such vaunting hypocrisy.

National interest – quoting you PM.

A Britain to be adept only at lying and using explosive force?  The other prominent psychopath and Bullingdon Boy, Mr Johnson, has spoken of ‘toppling Assad’ and used other very aggressive language.  It is not national interest that drives you, it is the interests of Israel.  This is obvious in very many ways, including GB’s ‘turning away’ (Amira Hass) from the genocide of the Palestinian people.  Yes – genocide.  The plan for Syria, and the decimation of ALL Arab entities was laid out by Oded Yinon in 1982 as translated by the good Israel Shahak – a humanitarian Israeli immigrant.  This was reinforced by ‘Securing the Realm’ Perle et al, and the most evil Project of the New American Century, which GB was part of.

Your bombing of the 3 sites is all to do with a late attempt to ‘topple’ President Dr Assad.

Logic

You pretended to be erasing chemical weapon storage and production.  The alleged attack was trumpeted by the ‘White Helmets’, trained terrorists from outside Syria, who you partly fund.  In the propaganda video, they were not wearing protective clothing, masks etc and the child victims showed no obvious respiratory distress.   As at Salisbury, you condemned the Syrian army before there was good evidence, and against the 900 years long tradition of British law.  You disgusted millions by your violence and your lawlessness.  What happens when you blow up chemical weapons?  Would you blow up a Porton Down?

The Way Forward

This teetering country needs some healing and some truth.  Give genuine help to the Syrian people in their recovery from all the efforts to destroy it.  (You will know how many times Syria has been bombed by Israel for instance). And get to work on the schooling and nutrition of our children here.

All is aggression and so much lie.

For truth,

David Halpin, MB BS FRCS

David Halpin is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Armenia’s unconvincing attempts to “balance” between Russia and the West as it moves ever-closer to the pro-American EU might end in failure as the Yerevan protests put pressure on the country’s leadership to more decisively move westward.

The Roots Of Armenian Rage

The Armenian capital of Yerevan has been rocked by increasingly violent protests over the past couple of days as demonstrators react with rage at former President Sargsyan’s bid to become the country’s next Prime Minister after an upcoming vote in Parliament later today. The South Caucasus country recently changed its governing model to a prime ministerial system from a presidential one, and Sargsyan is essentially retaining the same powers as before despite him “switching hats” and taking on a nominally different role. Protesters are angry at Armenia’s economic stagnation and the perception (key word) that not much has improved since the country joined the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAU), and they blame (whether rightly or wrongly) what they believe to be their corrupt government and Sargsyan in particular for perpetuating their plight.

Sargsyan is also seen as being “Moscow’s man” in Armenia much as his Serbian counterpart Aleksandar Vucic is considered to be the same in the Balkans, and in spite of their actual and speculated faults, both leaders have maintained and at least visibly expanded their country’s relations with Russia during their tenure. In addition, Vucic also “switched hats” recently by becoming Serbia’s President after having served for a while as its Prime Minister, so it’s interesting to draw parallels with what’s happening in Armenia nowadays, especially when considering that both men pride themselves on supposedly “balancing” between the West and Russia. Armenia, however, is in much direr economic straits than Serbia is and the situation is arguably more desperate there, which is why the ongoing anti-government protests have the potential of becoming really dangerous both in local terms and also geopolitical ones.

The Latest Step In A Long Process

Color Revolutions work most effectively whenever there are legitimate grievances within a country because this enables their organizers to effortlessly catalyze self-sustaining processes of unrest that can then be guided by a select “core” of individuals (some of whom are usually linked to abroad) in the eventual direction that’s most closely in line with their and their patrons’ geopolitical objectives. The domestic and international situation that Armenia finds itself in is very complicated because this EAU-member state recently agreed to a “Comprehensive & Enhanced Partnership Agreement” (CEPA) with the EU and also proudly participates in NATO “peacekeeping” missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo. In fact, Armenia has been moving westward for the past 3 years already, and the following collection of the author’s works should be referenced for those who are unfamiliar with what’s been happening:

• 25 May, 2015: “Are Armenia And Belarus Wandering Westward?”
• 24 June, 2015: “‘Electric Yerevan’ is Sliding Out of Control”
• 13 August, 2016: “Serzh Sargsyan: All Roads Lead to Moscow”
• 9 September, 2016: “The Tripartite’s Big Barter In The ‘Eurasian Balkans’: The Southern Caucasus”
• 10 August, 2017: “Armenia Abandoning Russia: Consequences for the Caucasus”
• 29 August, 2017: “Are Armenia, India, And Serbia ‘Balancing’ Against Russia Or ‘Betraying’ It?”
• 15 September, 2017: “Russia’s New Thinking Towards Armenia And Azerbaijan: An ‘Obstructionist’ vs. An ‘Integrationalist’”
• 4 October, 2017: “The US-Based Armenian Lobby Is On A Mission To Provoke Azerbaijan And Russia”
• 24 February, 2018: “Armenia’s Black Sea-Persian Gulf Corridor Plans Risk Antagonizing Russia”

Summarizing The Strategic Trends

The general idea is that Armenia has drifted closer to the EU (and by extent, the US and NATO) in spite of its institutional obligations to Russia per the EAU and CSTO because of the distrust that Yerevan feels towards Moscow as the country’s traditional partner seeks to “balance” between it  and Azerbaijan. Hyper-nationalist fringe elements have taken advantage of this sentiment and society’s overall anger against the authorities for their perceived corruption and other faults to encourage increasingly violent protests against them, all with the intent of either seizing power for themselves and steering the state in a radically anti-Russian direction just like what happened in Ukraine after “EuroMaidan”.

In this specific context, an ultra-nationalist Armenia on unfriendly terms with Russia might either provoke a “Continuation War” in Nagorno-Karabakh so as to drag Moscow into potential conflict with Azerbaijan & Turkey and/or undermine the North-South Corridor through an Armenian-transiting branch to the Black Sea, both outcomes of which are detrimental to Russia’s strategic interests. It should serve as no surprise that the same man who played a leading role in the 2015 “Electric Yerevan” Color Revolution “probing” attempt, Nikol Pashinyan, is also front and center in this week’s disturbances as well, making it obvious that politician has been tasked with being the face of Armenia’s hyper-nationalist Color Revolution movements.

The “Armenian Dagger”

The end result of his provocations – no matter how supposedly “justified” they may be in channeling the public’s pent-up rage against an utterly dysfunctional system – is to fulfill the “Armenian Dagger” scenario that the author wrote about on 23 September, 2016 in his work about the “Mideast: Greater Eurasia Scenarios” and which is being republished below for the reader’s convenience:

“Armenia undergoes either a hyper-nationalist Pravy Sektor-like Color Revolution or such ideologically affiliated candidates are democratically voted into office, instantly moving the country closer to the unipolar camp when the hot-headed leaders expel Russia’s military presence because of Moscow’s cautious refusal to aid in the new Armenian leadership’s hostile provocations against Azerbaijan. Yerevan quickly pivots closer to the EU and NATO, and Washington wastes no time in deploying military assets there in order to protect its new regime from their “pro-Russian” Azeri enemies, thus turning the curve-shaped country into a decisive dagger striking straight at the heart of the Russian-Iranian-Turkish Tripartite of Great Powers.”

In this case, Pashinyan’s Pravy Sektor-like Color Revolution doesn’t even have to succeed in the traditional sense of installing its own members into power, but all that it has to do is exert enough “grassroots” pressure on the authorities that they become intimidated into complying with his vision, which would basically allow him to exploit Armenia as a tool of geopolitical blackmail against Russia.

Concluding Thoughts

Armenians may have convinced themselves that moving closer to the West would safeguard them from these Hybrid War scenarios, but such an assumption would betray a naïve belief that only a “desperate” population could fall for. This makes the situation all the more dangerous because there are indeed many “legitimate” reasons for people to be angry with the authorities, and there’s always the ever-present threat that some demagogues might try to exploit the masses’ easily manipulatable “crowd psychology” by giving an anti-Russian angle to events in alleging that all of Sargysan’s political and other faults (both presumed and actual) are attributable to Moscow in one way or another. The situation has yet to unfold in this manner, but there are arguably deep roots of rage surrounding Russia’s regional “balancing” role that could be tapped into if “need” be.

What’s happening nowadays in Yerevan therefore isn’t anything thematically new since it follows the exact same pattern as what happened in 2016, 2015, and even in previous years before those two. The only real difference is the specific “trigger event” that’s being relied on as the public pretext for setting these preplanned provocations into motion and deceiving the many peaceful civilians who are innocently taking part in these protests for reasons unrelated to the geopolitical endgame that its organizers have in mind. It’s still far too early to gauge whether this newfound destabilization attempt will have the staying power that “Electric Yerevan” did and if it’ll yield any tangible political dividends for the forces that are behind it, but any “success” in this respect would undoubtedly represent a “zero-sum” “defeat” for Russia and severely complicate its regional peacemaking efforts.

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Today I was going to write about how mainstream media propaganda over the use of chemical weapons in Douma, Syria – had reached hysteria mode two days ago and then suddenly today, stopped. The silence was both abrupt and stunning. The national newspapers went from the outrage of the chemical attack, Russian confrontation and Britain’s saintly ‘humanitarian’ role of bombing another country to, well ….  Ant McPartin’s drink-drive episode in The Sun, The Express, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Telegraph – and the Windrush scandal in The Times, the Independent and Guardian. Nothing about the UK, US and France bringing the world to the centre of a truly global crisis.

There’s a reason.

Mainstream media, the government and the propagandists have just been called out as liars – by one of their own. Irrefutable, hard evidence has just come forward that totally destroys the story of chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government in Douma. Theresa May and her cabinet now stand in the dock.

Twice winner of the British Press Awards‘ Journalist of the Year prize, and seven-time winner of the British Press Awards’ Foreign Correspondent of the Year, Robert Fisk has been Middle East correspondent since 1976 for various media; since 1989 he has been correspondent for The Independent, primarily based in Beirut. Just to be sure of his credentials though, he has lived in the Arab world for more than 40 years, covering Lebanon, five Israeli invasions, the Iran-Iraq war, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Algerian civil war, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, the Bosnian and Kosovo wars, the American invasion and occupation of Iraq and the 2011 Arab revolutions. There’s no doubting this man’s C.V.

He has managed to make his journey unaccompanied by Russian or Syrian officials – to Douma, the site of the so-called attack that three Western governments decided was enough evidence to be the pretext for the bombing a sovereign state that could have escalated into something much worse.

Apart from his own account, he gets the testimony of a senior English-speaking doctor at the clinic that treated victims of what a video purported were chemical weapons used by the Syrian government.

That doctor says the video was real, but did not show the effects of a chemical weapons attack. It showed something completely different. This is what the doctor is reported as saying. Below is Fisk’s own account.

Fisk writes his report in The Independent newspaper. Excerpts from that report include

 “that the ‘”gas” videotape which horrified the world – despite all the doubters – is perfectly genuine. War stories, however, have a habit of growing darker. For the same 58-year old senior Syrian doctor then adds something profoundly uncomfortable: the patients, he says, were overcome not by gas but by oxygen starvation in the rubbish-filled tunnels and basements in which they lived, on a night of wind and heavy shelling that stirred up a dust storm.”

Fisk’s report goes on to say “inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are currently blocked from coming here to the site of the alleged gas attack themselves” and that many eye-witness accounts confirmed that there had never been any gas attacks.

“I walked across this town quite freely yesterday without soldier, policeman or minder to haunt my footsteps, just two Syrian friends, a camera and a notebook.”

As if that evidence was not hard enough to crush the propagandised narrative, here comes another eye-witness deposition:

“I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred metres from here on the night but all the doctors know what happened. There was a lot of shelling [by government forces] and aircraft were always over Douma at night – but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived. People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a “White Helmet”, shouted “Gas!”, and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia – not gas poisoning.”

Hypoxia – caused by too much sand and dust in the air in confined spaces to breath properly was the cause, along with a ‘white helmet’ shot of fear, not a gas attack.

Fisk continues with eye-witness accounts:

“Oddly, after chatting to more than 20 people, I couldn’t find one who showed the slightest interest in Douma’s role in bringing about the Western air attacks. Two actually told me they didn’t know about the connection. They shrugged when I asked about the 43 people said to have died in the infamous Douma attack.”

It is clear from this report and the words of multiple eye-witnesses, that no-one had been killed by a gas attack in Douma.

Fisk then goes onto talk about another Western construct – the white knights of this awful war, the so-called White Helmets. “The White Helmets in Douma abandoned their main headquarters and chose to take the government-organised and Russian-protected buses to the rebel province of Idlib with the armed groups.” This is indeed yet more confirmation that this ‘White-Helmets’ organisation, funded by the British government are not there for any other reason than to create stories of propaganda and drum up both hysteria and fear.

Fisk continues to speak to local Syrian people.

“They talked about the Islamists under whom they had lived. They talked about how the armed groups had stolen civilian homes to avoid the Syrian government and Russian bombing. The Jaish el-Islam had burned their offices before they left, but the massive buildings inside the security zones they created had almost all been sandwiched to the ground by air strikes. A Syrian colonel I came across behind one of these buildings asked if I wanted to see how deep the tunnels were. I stopped after well over a mile when he cryptically observed that “this tunnel might reach as far as Britain”. Ah yes, Ms May, I remembered, whose air strikes had been so intimately connected to this place of tunnels and dust. And gas?”

This is evidence that the Syrian and Russian military were indeed bombing – terrorists, not their own people.

This is the testimony of a highly respected Western journalist who has actually visited the site of the alleged atrocity and provided eye-witness accounts, unlike the desk-bound press pack of the mainstream media back in London. It was they who told the world to hold its breath in case Russia reacted. Fortunately, Russia kept a calm head and today’s headlines are about bloody Ant McPartin and not the beginnings of a catastrophic conflict.

In July 2010, Theresa May said in a speech “that national security is the first duty of government.” That speech was about a key part of the Government’s pledge to rebalance civil liberties and the powers of the state. The Home Secretary at the time, Theresa May, promised to correct “mistakes” made by the Labour government which, she said, was allowed to “ride roughshod” over civil liberties. She has done neither, in fact, quite the opposite.

If anything, Theresa May and her cabinet should hang their heads in shame. They are clearly not fit to run the government and not fit enforce policies of national security if they are prepared to risk every man, woman and child to keep them in power on the basis of a cooked up story supported no by evidence whatsoever.

Read the full account by Robert Fisk in The Independent HERE.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

An earlier article said US-led overnight Friday aggression on Syrian targets wasn’t the end of it.

It was likely prelude for further aggression to come, maybe all-out war ahead, risking confrontation between Russia and Washington.

Syria is a hugely dangerous flashpoint. With Israel itching for escalated aggression, along with lunatic fringe Bolton and Pompeo hardening Trump’s war cabinet, anything ahead is possible.

Overnight Monday, Syria’s military reportedly intercepted six air-to-surface missiles targeting its Shayrat airbase, another three launched at its Dumair base.

The Pentagon denied involvement. Israel almost never comments on these type attacks.

The IDF was likely responsible for the overnight incident – attacking Syrian targets often from Lebanese airspace. Russian military personnel are reportedly at Dumair.

Syria’s military initially said unidentified warplanes launched the attack, later blaming Israel for the incident – either from Lebanese airspace or at high altitude overflying Syria.

No damage or casualties were reported, all missiles apparently intercepted or failing to hit intended targets.

The incident is the second in the last 72 hours, more like it almost certain to come.

Following US-led overnight Friday aggression on Syria, Sergey Lavrov said it won’t go unanswered.

“There will be consequences. (T)he last remnants of trust (with the US, UK and France have been) los(t),” adding:

“Several years ago, we decided not to supply S-300 systems to Syria at (the) request (of these countries). Now we will consider options to ensure the Syrian state’s security after this outrageous act of aggression from the United States, France and Great Britain.

Russia should expedite delivery of these air defense systems to Syria, what should have been done years ago, vital to do now as quickly as possible, an important deterrent to US, UK, French and Israeli aggression.

These systems should target their warplanes along with further missiles fired at Syrian targets – making them pay a price for naked aggression.

Lavrov said Russia is ready to aid Syria curb further incidents. Shipping S-300s to its military should be expedited.

Two acts of aggression on Syria’s military surely indicates much more to come, Russian personnel on the ground endangered.

Self-defense is a universal right. Damascus needs help in defending its sovereign territory from aerial, land and offshore attacks.

Lavrov explained the logic of Theresa May’s “highly likely” Syrian use of CWs accusation.

He quoted from Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland’s description of a trial, the king saying:

“Let’s ask the jury and the Queen shouted: ‘No jury! Sentence first! Verdict afterwards!’” – what Lavrov called “the logic of ‘highly likely.’ ”

It’s “highly likely” and then some that further aggression is coming.

Will Russia continue acting passively, relying on diplomacy having achieved nothing, or will it challenge Washington, Israel and their imperial allies more forcefully?

Much rides on what Putin decides to do.

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

There is a certain bullishness in French circles these days, even if there was an initial attempt, with the Macron government, to calm matters down.  The need to assert Gallic might in the face of brutality has again surfaced; and has a familiar ring to it.  With Syria’s Bashar al-Assad getting more comfortable with military progress, officials in the United States, France and Britain are chewing finger nails and churning out policy papers of concern. 

For them, Syria remains a chess piece they never quite controlled, an entity filled with failed “free” rebel fighters and packed with such agents of spoliation as murderous jihadi groups. But one group’s murderous antics are another’s decent balancing act in terms of strategy.

Even before US President Donald Trump decided to huff and issue the order that lead to the launch of 105 missiles from the triumvirate, France’s President Emmanuel Macron was being egged on to do something.  He was also egging himself on to target the Assad regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons, despite having previously suggested that there was no “legitimate successor” to the Syrian President.

This impulse to punish, to instigate the use of force for the specific purpose of correcting a supposed violation of international norms was already being flagged last summer.  “When you set out red lines, if you are unable to force them, then you decide to be weak.”

The Syrian imbroglio has not been an easy one to define for Macron.  His predecessors – Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande were of the more traditional Gallic mould of intervention and interference, finding untrammelled sovereignty in North Africa and the Middle East a bit difficult to stomach.  Macron, at least initially, found the nightmare of intervening in Libya part of a neo-conservative impulse, and issued that sober warning that failed states were hardly in France’s best interest.

On the issue of chemical weapons, Hollande was punitively clear, instructing the French Air Force in the aftermath of the Ghouta attacks in August 2013 to ready for strikes on Syrian command centres linked to the attack.  But he pinned such a move on joint US support.  Having issued a “red line” ultimatum, US President Barack Obama signalled his wish to leave the strike party.

This instance of an ally backing down infuriated the already irritable French grouping.  Assad was to be rid of, but do to so would require whole-hearted backing from Washington’s war machine.  France’s foreign minister Laurent Fabius was all rather gung-ho about it: something needed to be done, and not getting one’s hands dirty was a sign of fatal weakness.

His interpretation of the consequences arising from such vacillation were broad and inventive.  By not striking Assad, claimed Fabius in a radio interview on Europe 1 in February 2016, the Western alliance bore witness to “a turning point, not only in the crisis in the Middle East, but also for Ukraine, Crime and the World.”  Those horrible Russians, again, with their insatiable belligerence, their territorial hunger!

Macron is now marking himself up as a true realist, a sombre assessor of more limited aims.  Less than a neo-colonial, he is a pseudo-neo-colonial, still keen to intervene in theatres of traditional French interest.

One recent example stands out: establishing a French troop presence to shadow Kurdish ambitions within the Syrian Democratic Forces from the prying moves of Turkey in north-eastern Syria while also combating Islamic State ambitions.

“He assured the SDF,” went a statement from the French President in March, “of France’s support for the stabilization of the security zone in north-east Syria, within the framework of an inclusive and balanced governance, to prevent any resurgence of Islamic State.”

He also claims to have persuaded his US counterpart to remain in Syria, despite repeated mutterings and tweets to the contrary.

“Ten days ago,” claimed Macron in an interview, “President Trump was saying ‘the United States should withdraw from Syria.’  We convinced him it was necessary to stay for the long term.”

Even more of an achievement, he felt it worth noting that he had been the voice of reason for a rampant Trump itching to strike. Macron “persuaded him that we needed to limit strikes to chemical weapons [sites], after things got a little carried away over tweets.”

The US interpretation on this as unsurprising as it is predictable.

“The US mission has not changed,” came White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders.  Trump had “been clear that he wants US forces to come home as quickly as possible.”

Trump reiterated that sense in his Friday speech to the nation.

“We cannot purge the world of evil, or act everywhere there is tyranny.”  He looked “forward to the day when we can bring our warriors home.”

Macron might have been reading different smoke signals, even if there was some smoke to read.

The battle over Syria as a matter of “long term” garrisons suggests a very important point for Macron’s strategy. While Russia continues its customary backing of the government of the day, the French, with moderate support from the UK and even more moderate support from Trump, are seeking a garrison presence in some form – call them what you like: specialists, experts or just plain saboteurs – to keep Syria in orbit.  For them, Assad and his Russian backers cannot be permitted a free hand.

*

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Donald Trump has climbed down from the tree he climbed up a few days ago when he gathered a large military force and firepower similar to “operation desert storm” (but without ground forces).  “Plan A” consisted of a destructive attack on Syria to destroy its army, presidential palace, command and control bases, elite force, strategic military and ammunition warehouses, radar, defence systems and political leadership institutions.

Prior to the triple attack on Syria by the US – UK – France, intensive contacts were carried out by Russia and President Vladimir Putin himself – at around 04:00 am– to reduce the attack and go to a softer, less significant “Plan B”.

Russia, in its contact with several heads of state, rejected any hit that could cripple the Syrian Army and instructed the leadership in Damascus that the West would now think very carefully before radically changing the balance of power in the Levant.

But what is the real reason behind the US – UK – France’s attack? Is it the claim of the “chemical attack” on Duma? The Organisation for the prohibition of the chemical weapons is already in Damascus and its members visited Duma on April 5th to inspect the location where the claimed use of a chemical attack was alleged to have taken place. Why not wait for the results?

Sources in Damascus explain that the Syrian Army and its allies, supported by Russia, were carrying out a large attack on rural Idlib and had reached Abu al-Duhur airport when, all of a sudden, the military operation stopped. The entire spearhead force was moved to Ghouta. What happened?

Russia had informed the Syrian leadership of a large gathering of forces at Al-Tanf US-occupied military base on the Syrian-Iraqi borders, where tens of thousands of US proxies have received continuous military training. The Russians identified unusual military movements and understood that the US was preparing to push Syrian proxy forces to reach eastern Ghouta, linking itself with around 30,000 jihadists in Ghouta itself. This attack was planned to take place simultaneously with a diversion from Daraa, southern Syria, attacking south of Damascus so as to deceive the Syrian army and its allies into leaving smaller forces around the capital.

Syrian Research centre bombed by US/UK/France

The US plan – said the sources – consisted in supporting its proxies and the Ghouta jihadists to reach Damascus and take full control of it. But the shifting of the military operation from rural Idlib to Ghouta spoiled the US plan to impose on Russia an enforced stay in Lattakia and Tartous confined to a limited place, and to finally change the Syrian regime. This “genius’s plan” would have spoiled all Russia’s efforts deployed through almost three years of heavy involvement in the war in Syria, and would have given the US the upper hand , just at the moment when Moscow and the Syrian Army were about to end the war, with only few more pockets left to liberate.

Russia’s hit in Ghouta broke the US plan into pieces, and imposed the withdrawal of tens of thousands of militants from Ghouta along with their families, to the north of Syria. The capital is now much safer, with the remaining area south of Damascus occupied by Al-Qaeda and the “Islamic State” group (ISIS) in Yarmouk camp and al-Hajar al-Aswad.

Today Russia rendered the US – UK – France strike meaningless, both in respect of its content and its objectives. Russia was able to impose that US – UK – France carry out only a “limited attack” of little value, and with not much chance of altering the reality on the ground in Syria.

When Russia vowed to shoot down missiles fired at Syria, Trump answered: “Get ready Russia because they will be coming, nice, new and smart”. Russia, after the hit, replied: “We have used the old Soviet anti-Air defence system against these smart, new and very expensive missiles fired by the Americans”. Not only that, the US-UK air strikes hit objectives which Israel bombards almost on a regular basis. By showing the capability to stop two thirds – as declared by Russia – of the incoming missiles, Syria is taking it as a kind of “training with live ammunition against any future Israeli attack on Syrian territory”. Israel is very disappointed and seems not at all pleased with this end result.

Showing restrain and control, the US Secretary of Defence James Mattis – he who said “the Pentagon still has no independent evidence to confirm that there was a chemical weapons attack in Syria last week”- contested any wide scale attack on Syria that could have triggered a direct Russian involvement and deadly return of fire against US objectives. Mattis accepted “an honourable strike” to save his boss’s inexperienced face. In point of fact, the trio’s strike on Syria seems have boosted the Syrian Bashar al-Assad’s reputation: the population celebrated in the streets of Damascus,  and mocked the western attack on their country!

The trio avoided at all times direct provocation of Russia, circumvented Russian bases and operational theatres instead of overflying. Russia imposed its presence and provoked the US and French navy by carrying out a simulated air attack, to show its willingness to hit back. The Russian navy was positioned opposite the Lebanese coast to cover that angle and avoid blind spots.

Moscow managed to avoid a direct confrontation with Washington outside its territory: US military bases surround Syria (Israel, Jordan, al-Tanf, al-Hasaka, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrein, Iraq, Turkey). Russia remembers how Leonid Brezhnev fell into the CIA’s trap in 1979, supporting  the Mujahedeen six months prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan- trap.  Zbigniew Brzezinski said the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was deliberately provoked by the US:

“It was an excellent idea. It drew the Soviets into the Afghan war and we gave them Vietnam”.

Putin has avoided the same US trap almost 40 years later.

Source: SANA

What is the next step?

All eyes are directed on the northern city of Idlib controlled by al-Qaeda now that the fate of Damascus is secured. But why Idlib?

The situation in Yarmouk camp, south of Damascus, seems directly linked to that of Fua and Kfarya. During the Zabadani negotiation, it was agreed between al-Qaeda and Damascus’s allies to keep away from al-Yarmouk, in exchange for the two besieged cities in the north of Syria. However, Damascus is now pushing to clean the capital completely, attempting to persuade its allies to bypass previous commitments.

As far as Daraa and Quneitra in the south are concerned, it seems no one in Syria seems willing to provoke the US and Israel at this tense moment; this will maybe be left to the end. In al-Badiyah, the Syrian steppes, ISIS is totally surrounded and can only wait to be exterminated in the coming months.

Idlib remains despite the Turkish-Russian-Iranian economical and financial agreement. There is no doubt about the existence of strong differences of an economic nature between partners over Syria.

Turkish President Erdogan expressed his support and later satisfaction with the US strikes on Syria. Russia answered by asking him to deliver the city of Afrin to the Syrian government. Iran’s special envoy for Syrian affairs Ali Akbar Velayati overtly stated that the next objective is Idlib. Therefore, it is now feasible for Turkey to pull out of its dozen observation bases around Idlib, even as Russia pulled out of Afrin prior to the Turkish attack. And Russia expects Erdogan to cancel the previously agreed sale of the S-400 missiles any day.

Thus, the compass points to Idlib, Rastan, Jisr al-Shoughour and the Syrian Army forces gathering in rural Lattakia, ready to divide Idlib after liberating the many villages around it.

This will bring the world to the next “chemical attack” appointment in the next operational theatre of the Syrian army and its allies. Would the US stand by al-Qaeda? Why not? It has never really been a question of the use of chemical weapons, since the US holds the largest stockpile of chemical weapons worldwide: the real issue is the defeat of the US faced with the dominance of Russia over the Levant.

*

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated.

The April 14th invasion was the apogee, the turning-point downward, for American hegemony, the end of the mono-polar world or U.S. dictatorship that ever since 24 February 1990 the U.S. Government has imposed on all of its foreign allies for them to join the U.S in imposing against Russia — the only other nuclear super-power and thereby the only effective counter-weight to America’s global dictatorship. The strategy, ever since that time, has been to pick off, one-by-one, Russia’s allies, and bring them into NATO, so as to place missiles right on and near Russia borders, and, effectively, compel Russia to surrender to the will of America’s leaders.

The embarrassing ineffectiveness of the April 14th invasion — it didn’t even get the OPCW, Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, to cancel its planned investigation of the evidence in Douma Syria regarding whether it was Assad and Putin who have been lying, or instead Trump and his foreign allies who were lying — caps what is actually the U.S. Government’s defeat in its decades-long plan for global hegemony, global dictatorship.

The Washington Post reported, on April 16th, that Trump is angry at his “aides” for their falsehoods, misrepresentations to him about what the result would be if he were to select a particular policy-option — their false advice and predictions on the basis of which he had made the decisions that he had decided, on the basis of their advice, to make, and which results did not happen as they had predicted. It reported that:

Growing angrier, Trump insisted that his aides had misled him about the magnitude of the expulsions [of Russian diplomats]. “There were curse words,” the official said, “a lot of curse words.”

In that news-article was made clear that his “aides” had persuaded him that if he expelled lots of Russian diplomats, he would satisfy not only the American newsmedia but the leaders of allied countries, which would then expel at least as many diplomats as the U.S., in order for the U.S. President to be able to be leading a real “alliance” against Russia, and not to be, essentially, pursuing a go-it-alone anti-Russia policy (and thus hardly any global dictator at all).

The WP article indicated that Trump strongly wants to win Putin’s support for his anti-Syria and anti-Iran policies (apparently, Trump is 100% committed to the policies of the royal Saud family and of Israel’s aristocracy, to conquer both Iran and Syria), and that Trump is dumbfounded that European leaders are not following through with the necessary support (of Saudi Arabia’s and of Israel’s policies). (Though George Herbert Walker Bush had intended on 24 February 1990 that the U.S. would be the global dictator; Israel and the Sauds jointly took control of the U.S. Government, and Trump is even more committed to those two aristocracies than Obama was. And, yet, even with the U.S. aristocracy’s support, the Sauds and Israel are failing to achieve their demands.)

Russia resists, and now no reasonable person can question — despite America’s spending ten times what Russia does on the military — that Russia’s weapons are vastly more reliable than America’s are. (If you click on the video, start viewing at around 1:30:00.) This is a failure also of the corrupt leaderships of America’s allies that joined in the invasion, who now can know that in any country where their billionaires can make profits from war (e.g., Lockheed Martin, BAE, etc.), corruption will flourish even more than ‘defense’ spending does. Why are the Sauds and Israelis being served by America’s foreign policies (against Syria and Iran)? It’s because that is the way for America’s aristocracy to generate wars and to cause the profits of the hundred top military contractors to soar. The only winners are those super-rich who are on the taking side of their government’s expenditures — and, secondarily, their mega-bankers who benefit also from those nations’ continuously soaring debts to fund the permanent-war-for-permanent-‘peace’ economies. Aristocracies thrive on nothing so much as the sale, to other governments, of wars, and of debts — other governments are their essential market. If an aristocracy’s allies don’t buy, that aristocracy will die. Mainly, aristocrats sell to governments weapons, and then sell, to the public, those governments’ debts.

Finally, the massive corruption in the U.S. military (what Eisenhower had called the “military-industrial complex”) has come home to roost. Not even the projected increases in U.S. ‘defense’ spending (and soaring federal debts) will be able to address the problem — the only result of doing yet more of the same will simply be yet further escalation of the corruption, and of the foreign corpses, cripples, and refugees. For only the most corrupt to be on the receiving end of the benefits cannot be sustained forever. The aristocracies are coming to the end of their tethers, and won’t be able to grab all that they crave to have (which is everything). The U.S. aristocracy’s dream of establishing “Nuclear Primacy” is likewise just a fantasyland.

Russia is now making the commitment to its allies clearer, upping the ante, but if the only allies that the U.S. can get behind its campaign for the Sauds and Israel remain UK and France, then perhaps Trump will prefer a face-saving way out, over invading Russia. However, given the unlimited greed of Trump’s masters, there could be a nuclear war even without any expectation that it would have a ‘winner’. For some people, being (or remaining) king of the hill is even more important than staying alive. Unless some NATO members quit the alliance, the prospect of avoiding World War III will remain unlikely. If Turkey quits NATO, that optimistic prospect will suddenly become likely. Turkey’s President Erdogan holds the most important cards of all.

The Saker remains pessimistic:

Facts [such as this and this] simply don’t matter. And neither does logic. All that matters are perceptions!

And the perception is that “we” (the AngloZionist rulers and their serfs) “kicked” Assad’s “ass” and that “we” will “do it again” if “we” feel like it. That is all that matters in the Empire of Illusions which the AngloZionist Hegemony has become.

The failed missiles-invasion of Syria might be a turning-point in reality; but, if it’s not also a turning-point in the way that Western publics view reality, then WW III will probably come soon. Can the human lemmings be fooled all the way off the cliff? Fooled much farther, we’ll all fall.

*

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Replenishment of sand on beaches in Ciego de Avila to mitigate the effects of erosion. (Photo: Ernesto Tristá)

“An important biological species is facing the risk of extinction given the rapid and progressive elimination of its natural conditions for life: humanity” –Fidel Castro Ruz (Earth Summit, Río de Janeiro, June 12, 1992)

What is to be done about high temperatures, rising sea levels, and increasingly powerful hurricanes? What can we do to be less vulnerable to climate change?

Preliminary observations by groups of specialists in the country indicate that sea level has increased on the island an average of 6.77 centimeters since 1966, a process that has accelerated during the last five years. Since the middle of the last century, the average annual temperature has risen 0.9 degrees Celsius, and the coastline is today more fragile than ever. This reality calls for action, and Cuba is acting on the premise of preparing, to avoid lamenting later.

Tarea Vida (Life Task) is the country’s most ambitious project addressing climate change. The plan was approved April 25, 2017, by the Council of Ministers and refers to the ideas Fidel expressed at the Earth Summit held in Río de Janeiro, June12, 1992, where he emphasized the seriousness of threats to the human species.

The project led by the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Environment (Citma) is the most all-encompassing, comprehensive among those that have been drafted. With a broad scope and superior organization, it includes and updates the local dimension, citing locations and actions to be taken in the short term (by 2020), long term (by 2050), and long range (2100). Outlined are five strategic actions and 11 tasks meant to counteract the impact being felt in vulnerable areas.

Odalys Goycochea Cardoso, Citma environmental director, told the press that the plan is comprehensive, and includes the identification of prioritized areas and sites, effects, and steps to be taken. She added that the program is being constantly enriched and expanded as its implementation progresses.

Action Research

“Projections for the future indicate that the average increase in sea level could reach 27 centimeters by 2050, and 85 by 2100, values that fall within the estimated ranges for the entire planet. This implies a slow reduction in our dry land surface and a gradual increase in salinization, meaning that our underground aquifers will be impacted at a level that must be taken into consideration,” explained Rudy Montero, lead expert within the Environmental Agency’s risk assessment group.

Given this panorama, 103 studies have been conducted on dangers, vulnerability, and risks related to weather and precipitation, including the impact of high winds, coastal flooding, and heavy rain. Likewise, research on drought, wildfires, risks of a geological, technological, or health nature have been considered, in order to take action in terms of prevention, preparation, response, and recovery – to confront and reduce risks and vulnerabilities “to adapt to this phenomenon that affects all,” Montero said.

Coastal flooding produced by extreme weather phenomena is one of the main dangers resulting from climate change that has been identified. These floods impact human constructions and the natural environment, and along with rising sea levels, put a number of settlements at risk.

“We have identified them, and are going to work on new land use plans for each one,” he reported.

Among the strategic measures being implemented is the prohibition of any new construction of dwelling in threatened coastal settlements, the most vulnerable and those that are expected to eventually become permanently inundated. Also projected is reducing population density in low-lying areas and ensuring that all new construction is well-adapted to the environment.

Agriculture and livestock ranching also figure among priorities to be addressed, given their importance to the country’s food security. Several actions projected address changes in land use patterns as a consequence of rising sea levels and drought: these include reducing cultivated areas along the coastline and in areas affected by saltwater instrusion; diversifying crops; improving soils; as well as introducing and developing varieties resistant to higher temperatures. Also projected is a process of reordering urban planning in identified settlements, and consideration of threatened infrastructure, in accordance with the country’s economic situation.

Accomplishments Thus Far

Although Citma is the main body responsible for Tarea Vida, it is a project that necessarily involves many ministries and state entities. In carrying out this joint work, Guantánamo is among the provinces that has made the most progress. Reforestation of coastal ecosystems, the construction of water treatment plants, and the promotion of environmentally friendly agricultural practices are just a few examples of what has been accomplished.

The Ministry of Agriculture (Minag), for its part, is working on replanting mangroves to reduce coastal erosion in this eastern province. Efforts are underway in several vulnerable areas, including the communities of Boca, Mata, and Barrancadero.

While their specialists are promoting agro-ecological practices to improve soils and conducting other community participation efforts.

“Thanks to this interest, the Yacabo Arriba mountain ecosystem has recovered some 20 hectares affected by erosion and the impact of Hurricane Matthew,” Clark Feoktistova, Citma representative in the province, told the press this past January 25.

The program of conservation measures to ensure sustainable land use, and protect soils, has been implemented in all of Guantánamo’s municipalities, he indicated, on state farms, and within cooperatives of both types, credit and services and agricultural production.

In an effort to mitigate the impact of drought in the province, the National Institute of Water Resources has undertaken, among other projects, the construction of several water treatment plants in the municipalities of Niceto Pérez, Manuel Tames and Maisí, along with the drilling of 12 wells to access water in underground aquifers to supply the population.

For its part, the province of Ciego de Ávila has prioritized the use of technology to promote water conservation. Looking to reduce leaks in its distribution network and protect groundwater, key to economic and social life, more than 6,000 meters have been installed in homes, principally in the provincial capital, Morón, and Majagua, according to Héctor Rosabales Pérez, water infrastructure director in the province.

Another short term mitigation effort is the replenishment of sand on beaches on the province’s northern keys, that have experienced erosion. This is a problem affecting many areas in the country, including Las Tunas where the impact has been strong.

In addition to the deterioration of sandy beaches along the northern coast, agriculture in this province has been affected by drought and high levels of salt water instrusion in fields close to the coastline, in the municipality of Puerto Padre. Given these difficulties, the Las Tunas Administrative Council created a multi-disciplinary team to manage the Tarea Vida work.

“There are a number of entities that are decisive to the project, such as Physical Planning, that is the guiding body in terms of land use; the University, given its contribution of knowledge via research: the Ministry of Agriculture as responsible for soil resources, among other institutions that must combine forces to achieve the objective,” stated Amado Luis Palma, environmental management specialist for the Citma office in Las Tunas.

The province of Sancti Spíritus has also made progress with the implementation of Tarea Vida. The Sur de Jíbaro Agro-industrial Grain Enterprise and the Rice Research Station have done outstanding work in the development of varieties resistant to salinity and drought stress. Of equal importance has been the repair and recovery of irrigation canals to protect the fresh water they carry to the coastline, to help reduce the salt wedge.

Climate change is impacting this province mainly in the form of rising sea levels, which is affecting beaches, tourist development, and agricultural production.

Leonel Díaz, Citma representative in Sancti Spíritus, explained that saltwater instrusion, soil erosion, and the disappearance of mangroves have severely affected the municipalities of Sierpe and Sancti Spíritus.

Over the years, he added, a number of steps have been taken to mitigate the environmental impact of climate change, including important educational work in communities to raise awareness.

Saving Lives

Cuba’s high level of vulnerability as an island nation, makes rising sea levels precisely the element that most affects the country, in terms of climate change.

In a recent interview in Juventud Rebelde, Elba Rosa Pérez Montoya, minister of Science, Technology and the Environment, stated ” Tarea Vida involves everyone.”

Thus during her travels around the country, she has prioritized exchanges with provincial authorities, local Party leaders, representatives of Central State Administration bodies, Civil Defense, Physical Planning, and provincial risk assessment centers. She also considers raising consciousness of the issue within the population as essential, to have the support of all in confronting the phenomenon.

“The tasks are highly complicated, since environmental investments must be made, which are characterized by their significant cost and special requirements. Those that have been made are based on the research of many scientists, and are today systematized,” the Minister added.

Among Tarea Vida’s 11 approved tasks are the identification and implementation of projects to adapt to climate change; assure the availability and efficient use of water to confront drought; reforestation to protect soils and water; stop the deterioration of coral reefs by restoring and protecting them; as well as measures, plans, and projects linked to renewable energy, food security, health, and tourism.

Also included is the protection of urban waterfronts; relocating at-risk human settlements; integrated recovery of beaches, mangroves, and other protective natural ecosystems; waterworks and coastal engineering projects, among others.

Priorities are based on protecting human life in the most vulnerable areas, food security, and the development of tourism.

While Tarea Vida is being enriched as it is being implemented over time, and action is taken, Cuba is aware that what is most important is foreseeing and confronting climate change. The ambitious, complex project shows the government’s determination to reduce vulnerability and raise risk perception

Eleven Tasks Included in State Plan “Tarea Vida”

TASK 1: Identify and implement actions and projects to adapt to climate change, of a comprehensive, ongoing nature, needed to reduce existing vulnerability in the 15 identified priority zones. To be considered, to determine the order of these actions, are the population threatened, their physical safety and food security, and the development of tourism.

TASK 2: Implement legal norms needed to execute the state plan, as well as assure their strict enforcement, with particular attention to measures directed toward vulnerability of constructed properties, prioritizing threatened coastal communities.

TASK 3: Conserve, maintain, and recover the Cuban archipelago’s sandy beaches, prioritizing those urbanized for tourist use and reducing the structural vulnerability of constructed properties.

TASK 4: Assure the availability and efficient use of water as part of confronting drought, on the basis of technology for conservation and satisfying the demands of locations. Improve water infrastructure and its maintenance, while taking action to measure the efficient and productive use of water.

TASK 5: Direct reforestation toward providing maximum protection of soils and water in terms of both quantity and quality, as well as the recovery of the most affected mangroves. Prioritize reservoirs, canals, and the regulatory banks of tributaries leading to the island’s principal bays and coasts.

TASK 6: Stop deterioration, renovate, and protect coral reefs throughout the archipelago, with priority for those bordering the insular platform, and protect urbanized beaches used for tourist purposes. Avoid over-fishing of species that benefit corals.

TASK 7: Maintain, and add to plans, territorial and urban land use stipulations that emerged from the Macro-project on Dangers and Vulnerability of Coastal Zones 2050-2100, as well as Studies of Dangers, Vulnerability, and Risks in the disaster preparedness effort. Employ this information as an early warning to make decisions.

TASK 8: Implement and supervise implementation of climate change adaptation and mitigation measures, which emerge from sector policies in programs, plans, and projects linked to food security, renewable energy, energy efficiency, land use, fishing, agriculture, health, tourism, construction, transport, industry, and the comprehensive management of forests.

TASK 9: Strengthen monitoring systems, vigilance, and early warning plans to systematically evaluate the condition and quality of coastal zones, water, drought, forests, as well as human and plant health.

TASK l0: Prioritize measures and actions to increase risk perception, understanding of, and participation by the entire population in confronting climate change, and a culture that promotes water conservation.

TASK 11: Manage and use international financial resources available, both those from global and regional climate funds, as well as bilateral sources, to make investments, carry out actions, and implement projects related to the tasks outlined in the state plan.

Prioritized zones, areas, and sites

• The southern regions of Artemisa and Mayabeque
• Havana’s shoreline
• Havana Bay
• Mariel Special Development Zone
• Varadero and its tourist corridor
• Villa Clara’s resort keys
• Ciego de Ávila’s northern resort keys
• Ciego de Ávila’s northern and southern coastlines
• Camagüey’s resort keys and northern coastline
• Holguín’s northern coastline
• Santiago de Cuba Bay
• Coastal cities threatened by gradually rising sea levels: Cienfuegos, Manzanillo, Moa, Niquero, and Baracoa.
• Coastal settlements expected to be permanently inundated between 2050 and 2100 located in the provinces of Sancti Spíritus, Camagüey, Pinar del Río, and Villa Clara
• Sandy beaches facing severe erosion that could disappear if impacted by an extreme weather event; and others of tourist and recreational interest, located in the provinces of Camagüey, Pinar del Río, Granma, Holguín, Las Tunas, and he Isle of Youth.
• Unprotected coastal areas facing saline intrusion, located in the provinces of Pinar del Río, Matanzas, Granma, Camagüey, Cienfuegos, and Sancti Spíritus.

Leading legal experts and former US officials have almost universally stated that the recent airstrikes in Syria carried out by the United States, France, and the UK – three permanent members of the United Nations – were illegal under international law.

This even includes a former top legal official in the Bush administration. Yet, these types of attacks have garnered strong support from governments around the world.

Additionally, strikes like this appear likely to happen again: the United States has stated that it is “locked and loaded” to strike Syria again in response to further chemical attacks.

This is nothing new.

Countries have selectively ignored international law constraints on the use of force at different points in history. In fact, a famous 1970 article described the “demise” of international law norms against the use of force.

But should we be concerned about this ongoing discrepancy between the use of force and international law? And what is at stake here?

Blackletter International Law on the Use of Force

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter clearly states 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 only two limited circumstances when a state can lawfully use force: (1) with the permission of the UN Security Council or (2) in self-defense. In this case, the attack on Syria does not fit either circumstance.

First, the United Nations Security Council did not approve the strike. Second, this was not clearly self defence. Instead, the most common justification for the strike has been an attempt to deter Syria’s use of chemical weapons in the future.

Other arguments also fail.

Attempts at grounding the attacks in the Chemical Weapons Convention fail immediately. Nowhere does the Convention provide for unilateral uses of force in response to a breach of the Convention. As some analysts have noted, if the Convention had provided such authorisation “there’s a good chance no state would ever have joined it.”

Second, the United Kingdom’s justification – the “humanitarian use of force” – also fails. This justification relies on three prongs. First, there must be “convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole” of extreme humanitarian distress. It must also be “objectively clear” that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved. And finally, proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering and must be strictly limited in time and in scope to this aim.

This argument also does not work. On its own terms, this justification does not seem to apply to the current situation.

If we look at the first prong, it is not clear that the “international community as a whole” has accepted that there is convincing evidence of an attack since both Russia and China have argued that more investigation and dialogue are necessary before any action is taken.

Regarding the second prong, the speed by which the strikes were carried out at least brings into question whether there is no other practicable way to save lives. In fact, the strikes were carried out on the morning of the day that inspectors were due to begin their investigation.

Secondly, even if these prongs were satisfied, there are only two countries that have recognised a right of humanitarian intervention – the UK and Denmark. It therefore does not render any attack legal.

Despite this clear illegality, many of the richest and most powerful countries in the world have supported the attack. This includes all members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as well as Israel and Japan. Most have voiced this support by arguing that, with a deadlocked UN Security Council, the only effective way to deter the future use of chemical weapons is through the limited use of force that punishes a state for using such weapons against its citizens.

Australian Prime Minster Malcolm Turnbull praised the attacks, stating that

“the Assad regime must not be allowed to commit such crimes with impunity.”

But this is not a legal argument, and according to some legal experts, the language has the flavour of armed reprisals which is clearly unlawful.

All that is left really of this argument is that the attacks are “illegal but legitimate.” But if “illegal but legitimate” becomes an accepted principle, then the Charter’s limits, at least on the use of force, become meaningless.

What Should We Do?

So, how should we respond to this gap between the use of force and the international law regulating it?

One option is to continue to disregard international law and justify the illegal use of force in the language of morality. This would essentially continue the status quo approach and further the slow degradation of Article 2(4)’s prohibition against the use of force in the international legal system. This approach might be well-intentioned but would come with considerable cost.

International law – without a centralised institutional mechanism for enforcement – already faces significant problems of enforcement. The less respect countries pay to the letter of international law on the use of force – particularly Western countries – the more likely it is that other countries themselves will not choose to follow it.

In fact, it becomes far harder – if not impossible – for the United States, the UK, and France to condemn the use of force by other countries when they themselves grossly flaunt it. So if we care at all about the “rules-based order”, we should worry about ignoring international law constraints on the use of force. Otherwise we are admitting that international legal regime on the use of force has completely broken down.

The Language of International Legality

A better way to respond is to recommit to international law by seeking to engage with and introduce changes in the use of force.

Change like this requires two things. First, it requires Western states using force to make legal arguments about its basis outside the established exceptions. It would mean that States must abandon their extralegal moral arguments grounded in concepts of deterrence and more explicitly engage in the language of international legality.

This is the only way to possibly begin to create a new rule of customary international law.

Second, it requires the involvement (or at least acquiescence) of the two key permanent members of the UN Security Council: Russia and China. To get these countries on board would more than likely require a diplomatic approach meant to restore trust in the use of force.

In the wake of recent interventions in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Libya, this is an uphill battle.

For Western states, it would require clear statements and qualifying language that any additional international law norm justifying the “humanitarian use of force” is not aimed at regime change (as these countries suspect).

Instead, this additional exception would only legally authorise the highly limited and targeted use of force in response to gross violations of humanitarian law. Additionally, it would also require Russia and China to admit that some of their allies are engaged in heinous practices which deserve no defence.

The fact that this kind of engagement seems unlikely says more about the attitude of leaders in Western capitals to international law and the difficulties (and potential compromises of) traditional diplomacy than it does about the possibility of reform.

But to fail to attempt engagement like this would be to allow a key linchpin of the rule-based-order – its prohibitions on the use of force – to continue to weaken.

These norms against the use of force were initially placed in the UN Charter in 1945 for good reason – “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.”

Surely, this is good enough of a reason to recommit to a policy of engagement with international law on the use of force?

*

Prof. William Partlett is an Associate Professor at the Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne.

We bring to the attention of our readers this article by Ivalyo Grouev, Professor of Political Science, University of Ottawa. Dr. Ivaylo has carefully articulated what seems to be going on in this tangled mess in the Middle East.

The Skripal Affair followed by the missile strikes on Syria are too critical to be ignored. Both appear to be largely fabricated as a pretext for war.

The second Cold War has been launched along with the threat of a world war and the collapse of our civilization. Peace activists, especially the Doukhobors, need to speak up and be counted to oppose a world catastrophe. Much of the Western aggressive stance has to do with establishing hegemony for the United States and Great Britain, and much of it seems to be done under the banner of false flags, misinformation, and staged events (such as the White Helmets have done in Syria and which now is being used by the West as the only ‘evidence’ to declare that President Assad and President Putin are behind all of the world’s problems).

Koozma J. Tarasoff. April 16, 2018

***

“History is a set of lies agreed upon.”  — Napoléon Bonaparte

On April 5rd, 2018 during the extraordinary session of the Security Council of  the United Nations, Russia’s envoy to the UN Vassily Nebenzya described the Skripal affair as the “theater of absurd”. Days before, the official spokesperson of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Maria Zakharova called Theresa May’s speech a “circus act”. Known for his diplomatic tact, the number one diplomat in the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov cited a quote from “Alice from the Wonderland” from the podium of the Moscow International Security Conference — it referenced the passage where the queen throws accusations and automatically sentences, without passing the threshold of any trivial due process. There is no question the UK prime minister Theresa May and Foreign Affairs minister Boris Johnston delivered a series of extraordinary performances in the best tradition of Monty Python, and surpassed the level of intense creative absurdity of their esteemed writers. (Indeed, Putin was compared to Hitler and FIFA 2018 to the 1936 Olympic games in Nazi Germany).

However, the impact was anything but entertaining. No laughing matter, by any stretch of imagination. To put it bluntly, it was terrifying. Rushing into the Parliament without presenting any evidence — Scotland Yard officially declared that it needs months to complete its investigation — UK Prime Minister Theresa May gave a twenty-four hour ultimatum to the Kremlin to admit its guilt. The reason? Without presenting any evidence or sample, Theresa May declared in Salisbury that a WMD [weapon of mass destruction] neuro gas (Novichok) was used against civilians, which had, she stated, a Russian origin. The logic of this accusation is akin to the claim that the perpetrator of the 2016 terrorist attack in Nice, France, where 86 people were killed, was the government of France, as the Renault truck used was made in France. Regardless, the Prime Minister failed to mention that the Porton Down chemical lab denied the fact that Novichok was produced in Russian Federation.

To give a twenty-four hour ultimatum to a nuclear power which may obliterate your state with but one of its new generation missiles is — to borrow a term from the psychiatric lexicon — a defiant act of melancholic suicide: when the perpetrator kills their partner, kids, relatives, pets and only then kills themselves.

What is most troubling is that the country which started the Magna Carta and gave birth to constitutional monarchy with institutional human rights has permitted itself to systematically ignore its domestic law, while displaying such blatant disregard for international law. The law was not the only fatality; basic human logic and intelligence has been victimized, making the Skripal affair even more disturbing. Indeed, the perplexing contradictions in the official narrative can truly make one question the mental health of those issuing the official accusations. Indeed, the numerous inconsistencies of the Skripal affair are offensive to basic logic. How is it that the most powerful neuroparalytic WMD gas — supposedly used in this attack — failed to kill anyone in contact, not only Skripal but also the emergency doctor who was treating them at the scene for over half an hour? The only fatalities of this event were in fact two Guinea pigs and a cat, in Skripal’s sealed home, who died from dehydration, not from the gas.

The story had multiple incredible twists; the two comatose bodies are now in good health.  Julia Skripal managed to have phone conversation with her aunt, then the neuro-paralytical WMD gas turned out to be a cream placed on the front door handle, which then became instead contaminated porridge brought from Russia. Even the best of Monty Python could not reach such a staggering height of absurdity.

However, the hard question cui bono? [who benefits] from the Skripal case remains open.

A few possible explanations come to mind:

1. A mega public relations campaign to distract the British electorate from the rather raucous Brexit divorce, while Britain may be on the hook to pay billions of dollars to the EU.
2. The “Falklands Factor“: an attempt to consolidate its failing popularity among the British electorate as well as within the ranks of the Conservative party. This could signal the repetition of the successful political stunt in 1983, where then Prime Minister Thatcher faced an imminent defeat and subsequently engaged a military campaign against Argentina for the tiny Falkland Islands (and its population of less than three thousand). This victory saved her government in the next elections.  
3. A smear campaign to besmirch the Opposition Labor Party, which was dramatically gaining strength before the Skripal affair, and blaming Jeremy Corbyn for his soft stand on Russia in declaring him to be a “Putin useful idiot” (as stated by Boris Johnston).
4. Planting a poisonous pill before leaving the EU, thus making it increasingly difficult for EU member states with struggling economies to manage the astounding $ 80 billion dollars deficit as result of the anti-Russian sanction.   
5. To silence the less vasal-minded Slovakia, Czech Republic, Austria and most recently Italy, who openly expressed the will to distance themselves from the Washington dictate and drop the anti-Russian sanctions.   
6. To revoke the licenses of the Russian state-owned “Russia Today” and “Sputnik International”, seen as unacceptable media outlets that challenge the mainstream narrative in the West.  
7. To further strengthen the climate of intimidation and self-imposed censorship in the mainstream media in the West, thus making it impossible to view any positive coverage on Russia and Russian politics.
8. Targeting the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline, as dismantling the project has continuously been a focal political objective especially after 2014, when Russian businesses were cut out of European banks to stop contractor and creditor payments associated with the pipeline.
9. To create an “October surprise”, an American term as US elections are held in November — the media mania that ensued the Skripal affair would be useful in swaying the outcome of Russia’s presidential elections on March 18. This is a rather opportune time to cause an international scandal, as three powerful buzzwords are strung together: Putin, KGB, poisoned ex-KGB spy.   
10. To upset the World Cup in Russia in 2018, where some heads of states, such as the British royal family, may no longer be in attendance, making this event even less legitimate on the international scene.
11. To confiscate the “illegally obtained money” of Russians living in the West beyond Deripaska and Karimov. The city of London is the hub of the Russian nouveau riche and oligarchs; according to some reports, there are more than twenty thousand Russians from these categories living in London. Two objectives would therefore be focalized: the creation of enormous pressure within the Putin administration, and offsetting the financial black hole as result of Brexit.

All these factors seem plausible in the decision-making process which led to the most unprecedented and coordinated expulsion of Russian diplomats — more than two hundred Russian diplomats — from EU, from the USA, Canada, Australia as well as from two of the most important international organizations, the United Nations and NATO. However, as powerful as these factors may be, they cannot explain the level of the current geo-political hysteria.

The Skripal affair is a powerful tool in order to demolish any possible rapprochement between the White House and the Kremlin. This would render any of Trump’s future attempts to engage in dialogue with Russia nothing other than an impeachable offence — ie, sealing his political coffin from the inside.

In this case, the architects of the Skripal affair hoped to achieve multiple objectives. First, the elimination of the Trump factor — the scandal has made the flamboyant maverick president compliant and under control of the deep state, attenuating any risk of brisk unauthorized moves. Secondly, the Skripal scandal may make it possible to exercise even greater pressure on EU member states in controlling the European – Russian division just like the old Berlin Wall. Finally, and this remains the most important point, the Skripal affair may pave the way to a full-scale Cold War, where no political leader — be it from the right, left or center — is able to pose obstacle.

The Skripal saga can plausibly be understood as a de facto declaration of a New Cold War. It is interesting that Britain — and not the USA —  was in charge of the heavy PR lifting. We should not forget the simple fact that it was a different prime minister, Winston Churchill, who in 1946 delivered the famous “Iron Curtain” speech in Fulton, Ohio, the first official declaration of the Cold War.

The strategy of the Cold War had been developed by a young American diplomat, George Kennan, though no one has ever heard of this low-rank diplomatic attaché. Instead, everyone knew the name of one of the “Big Three” from Yalta — Winston Churchill. Churchill did the PR for the Americans. This is how you become the strongest ally to the new Pax Americana. That was back in 1946, and in 2018 the same scenario was repeated. This has nothing original to it. In 2018, the British Prime minister has played the same role: to deliver an important message that any attempt to challenge the unquestionable hegemony of the USA in this unipolar world will be met with stern response, even if it leads to a total disregard of international law. However, we ought to remember that this is exactly how WWII began. Disrespect for international law, political impotence, and “solidarity” with Hitler policies by many member states of the League of Nations.

In hindsight, there was an importance difference back in 1946. The Cold War had its unwritten but respected rules, which explains how we survived 47 years of this period. I am afraid that in this New Cold War, we do not have these same guarantees. As such, we cannot expect this impending conflict to carry the adjective ‘Cold’ either.

*

This article was first published on the blogsite of Koozma J. Tarasoff

Prof. Ivaylo Grouev is a professor of Political Science at the University of Ottawa, Canada and a frequent contributor to Global Research

The full extent of the damage to international peace and security caused by the US-led Syrian strikes will take some time to become clear. But its impact on the very concept of legality in international affairs is already evident.

When it comes to creating bogus news stories and advancing false narratives, the British intelligence services have few peers. In fact, the Secret Intelligence Service (MI-6) has led the way for its American “cousins” and Britain’s Commonwealth partners – from Canada and Australia to India and Malaysia – in the dark art of spreading falsehoods as truths. Recently, the world has witnessed such MI-6 subterfuge in news stories alleging that Russia carried out a novichok nerve agent attack against a Russian émigré and his daughter in Salisbury, England. This propaganda barrage was quickly followed by yet another – the latest in a series of similar fabrications – alleging the Syrian government attacked civilians in Douma, outside of Damascus, with chemical weapons.

It should come as no surprise that American news networks rely on British correspondents stationed in northern Syria and Beirut as their primary sources. MI-6 has historically relied on non-official cover (NOC) agents masquerading primarily as journalists, but also humanitarian aid workers, Church of England clerics, international bankers, and hotel managers, to carry out propaganda tasks. These NOCs are situated in positions where they can promulgate British government disinformation to unsuspecting actual journalists and diplomats.

For decades, a little-known section of the British Foreign Office – the Information Research Department (IRD) – carried out propaganda campaigns using the international media as its platform on behalf of MI-6. Years before Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, and Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir became targets for Western destabilization and “regime change.” IRD and its associates at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and in the newsrooms and editorial offices of Fleet Street broadsheets, tabloids, wire services, and magazines, particularly “The Daily Telegraph,” “The Times,” “Financial Times,” Reuters, “The Guardian,” and “The Economist,” ran media smear campaigns against a number of leaders considered to be leftists, communists, or FTs (fellow travelers).

These leaders included Indonesia’s President Sukarno, North Korean leader (and grandfather of Pyongyang’s present leader) Kim Il-Sung, Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Cyprus’s Archbishop Makarios, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Chile’s Salvador Allende, British Guiana’s Cheddi Jagan, Grenada’s Maurice Bishop, Jamaica’s Michael Manley, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, Guinea’s Sekou Toure, Burkina Faso’s Thomas Sankara, Australia’s Gough Whitlam, New Zealand’s David Lange, Cambodia’s Norodom Sihanouk, Malta’s Dom Mintoff, Vanuatu’s Father Walter Lini, and Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah.

After the Cold War, this same propaganda operation took aim at Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Somalia’s Mohamad Farrah Aidid, and Haiti’s Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Today, it is Assad’s, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s, and Catalonian independence leader Carles Puigdemont’s turn to be in the Anglo-American state propaganda gunsights. Even Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi, long a darling of the Western media and such propaganda moguls as George Soros, is now being targeted for Western visa bans and sanctions over the situation with Muslim Rohingya insurgents in Rakhine State.

Through IRD-MI-6-Central Intelligence Agency joint propaganda operations, many British journalists received payments, knowingly or unknowingly, from the CIA via a front in London called Forum World Features (FWF), owned by John Hay Whitney, publisher of the “New York Herald Tribune” and a former US ambassador to London. It is not a stretch to believe that similar and even more formal relationships exist today between US and British intelligence and so-called British “journalists” reporting from such war zones as Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, and the Gaza Strip, as well as from much-ballyhooed nerve agent attack locations as Salisbury, England.

No sooner had recent news reports started to emerge from Douma about a Syrian chlorine gas and sarin agent attack that killed between 40 to 70 civilians, British reporters in the Middle East and London began echoing verbatim statements from the Syrian “White Helmets” and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

In actuality, the White Helmets – claimed by Western media to be civilian defense first-responders but are Islamist activists connected to jihadist radical groups funded by Saudi Arabia – are believed to have staged the chemical attack in Douma by entering the municipality’s hospital and dowsing patients with buckets of water, video cameras at the ready. The White Helmets distributed their videos to the global news media, with the BBC and Rupert Murdoch’s Sky News providing a British imprimatur to the propaganda campaign asserting that Assad carried out another “barrel bomb” chemical attack against “his own people.” And, as always, the MI-6 financed Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an anti-Assad news front claimed to be operated by a Syrian expatriate and British national named Rami Abdel Rahman from his clothing shop in Coventry, England, began providing second-sourcing for the White Helmet’s chemical attack claims.

With President Trump bringing more and more neo-conservatives, discredited from their massive anti-Iraq propaganda operations during the Bush-Cheney era, into his own administration, the world is witnessing the prolongation of the “Trump Doctrine.”

The Trump Doctrine can best be explained as follows: A nation will be subject to a US military attack depending on whether Trump is facing a severe political or sex scandal at home.

Such was the case in April 2017, when Trump ordered a cruise missile attack on the joint Syrian-Russian airbase at Shayrat, Syria. Trump was still reeling from the resignation of his National Security Adviser, Lt. General Michael Flynn, in February over the mixing of his private consulting business with his official White House duties. Trump needed a diversion and the false accusation that Assad used sarin gas on the village of Khan Sheikoun on April 4, 2017, provided the necessary pabulum for the war-hungry media.

The most recent cruise missile attack was to divert the public’s attention away from Trump’s personal attorney being raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a sex scandal involving Trump and a porn actress, and a “tell-all” book by Trump’s fired FBI director, James Comey.

Although these two scandals provided opportunities for the neo-cons to test Trump with false flag operations in Syria, they were not the first time such actions had been carried out. In 2013, the Syrian government was blamed for a similar chemical attack on civilians in Ghouta. That year, Syrian rebels, supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, admitted to the Associated Press reporter on the ground in Syria that they had been given banned chemical weapons by Saudi Arabia, but that the weapons canisters exploded after improper handling by the rebels. Immediately, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and Syrian rebel organizations operating out of Turkey claimed that Assad had used chemical-laden barrel bombs on “his own people.” However, Turkish, American, and Lebanese sources confirmed that it was the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) that had badly bungled a false flag sarin nerve agent attack on Ghouta.

Few Western media outlets were concerned about a March 19, 2013, sarin nerve agent by the Bashair al-Nasr Brigade rebel group linked to the US- and British-backed Free Syrian Army. The rebels used a “Bashair-3” unguided projectile, containing the deadly sarin agent, on civilians in Khan al-Assal, outside Aleppo. At least 27 civilians were killed, and scores of others injured in the attack. The Syrian Kurds also reported the use of chemical weapons on them during the same time frame by Syrian rebel groups backed by the United States, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. The usual propaganda operations – Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Doctors Without Borders, the BBC, CNN, and Sky News – were all silent about these attacks.

In 2013, April 2017, and April 2018, the Western media echo chamber blared out all the same talking points: “Assad killing his own people,” “Syrian weapons of mass destruction,” and the “mass murder of women and children.” Western news networks featured videos of dead women and children, while paid propagandists, known as “contributors” to corporate news networks – all having links to the military-intelligence complex – demanded action be taken against Assad.

Trump, now being advised by the notorious neocon war hawk John Bolton, the new National Security Adviser, began referring to Assad as an “animal” and a “monster.” Bolton, along with Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff Irving Lewis “Scooter” Libby, helped craft similar language against Saddam Hussein prior to the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq. It was not coincidental that Trump – at the urging of Bolton and other neocons – gave a full pardon to Libby on the very same day he ordered the cruise missile attack on Damascus and other targets in Syria. Libby was convicted in 2005 of perjury and illegally disclosing national security information.

The world is being asked to take, at face value, the word of patented liars like Trump, Bolton, and other neocons who are now busy joining the Trump administration at breakneck speed. The corporate media unabashedly acts as though it never lied about the reasons given by the United States and Britain for going to war in Iraq and Libya. Why should anyone believe them now?

*

Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research

While Defense Secretary James Mattis and newly appointed National Security Advisor John Bolton disagreed on aspects of the Syrian strike, (“we are looking for the actual evidence”) it is generally acknowledged in the MSM that Trump agreed with Mattis in approving a more limited, antiseptic military strike on April 13^th focused on three Syrian research facilities.

The preferred alternative offered by the MSM is that the aggressive Bolton lost out in his maiden voyage on the USS Trump to Armageddon to the more humanitarian Mattis and Joint Chief of Staff Joseph Dunford with Trump approving their more conciliatory approach. All of which turns out to be far from the reality. A good bet is that the lack of a full throttle US attack on Syria was not only in recognition that Trump lacked the incontrovertible evidence international law requires and that multiple US Navy carriers stationed in the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Black Sea were little more than sitting ducks for Russian retaliation.

To assume that the controversial Bolton would ever be content with a seat in the back of the bus while allowing a professional military man to run the show would be a woeful misread  of Bolton’s recent past history.   While the MSM  apparently missed what buttons Bolton was pushing during the lead up to the strikes, the Israeli press filled in the blanks.

Let’s connect the dots….

The morning after the attack, Haaretz ran an article announcing that “Trump Advisor Bolton  Coordinated US led attack on Syria with Israel.” According to Haaretz, the White House was in touch with Israel days before the attack with Bolton “coordinating details” with his Israeli counterpart, Meir ben Shabbat. It was not immediately clear exactly what details Haaretz was referring to since Israel has not been acknowledged as an active participant in the attack.

Over the weekend it was reported (although unconfirmed) by a White Helmet ‘volunteer’ that as part of the US led air strikes, Israel conducted air strikes at Jabal Azzam, near Aleppo in northern Syria with twenty Iranian military officers reported dead. Adding to the escalation of Israeli involvement, the Jerusalem Post reported on April 14^th of explosions on the outskirts of Aleppo, near Iran’s largest base in the Syria.  Initially reported as an air strike, it has also been reported as an accident at a facility. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group confirmed that “A powerful explosion went off in an area of southern Aleppo province.” Details of that explosion near Aleppo remain sketchy.

Adding to the current intensity of Iran – Israel military confrontations is the February 10th strike by Israel after it claimed that an armed Iranian drone had infiltrated Israeli defenses.   Israel responded by attacking the T-4 air base near Homs which is known to house Iranian military  personnel.  Hit by Syrian air defenses, the Israeli attack resulted in its first loss of a jet during the Syrian conflict, with both pilots parachuting to safety.    After the loss of the Israel F 16 jet, Israel launched a second round of missile strikes on the T-4 base.

On April 9^th, just days prior to the American-led attack on Syria and as John Bolton moved into his White House office, two Israel F15 fighter jets from Lebanese air space again attacked the T-4 airfield near Homs. The Iranian Fars News agency confirmed seven Iranian deaths as Israel initially refused comment. In the aftermath of the American airstrikes on April 13^th, Haaretz reported on April 16^th that Israel has now admitted to attacking Homs a second time in repeated retaliation for the February 10^th armed Iranian drone and Israeli loss of its F-16. In other words, Israel reserves the right to harbor a past grievance any time into the future.

According to the NY Times on April 10^th, a senior Israel military official told NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman “it was the first time we attacked live Iranian targets – both people and facilities” as a senior Iranian foreign policy official warned Israel that the latest attack “would not remain without a response.”

With Bolton now in the driver’s seat, he is better able to triangulate Russia via a more emboldened Israel, now more confident than ever that the US will continue to look the other way and remain constraint in its military response as Israel assumes control and initiates many on-the-ground and in-the-air details.

Given Bolton’s historic devotion to Israel, even before he formally began as Trump’s National Security Advisor, it is worth inquiring where Bolton’s loyalty lies since his name appears on the list of US politicians  holding joint citizenship with Israel. In addition, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (Mearsheimer/Walt) cited Israel UN Ambassador Dan Gillerman’s description of Bolton in May, 2006 as a “secret member of Israel’s own team at the United Nations” and informing a B’nai B’rth meeting said that

“Today the secret is out. We really are not just five diplomats (at Israel’s UN mission).  We are at least six including John Bolton.”

As 4.000 US troops train in Jordan 300 miles from the Syrian border, it  is clear that Bolton and his neo con thugs will never be satisfied with a spineless “token” military strike without massive casualties leading to extensive escalation and without Israel benefitting from US foreign policy.

It is a matter of time before the odious Bolton et al will create another false-flag crisis, one that will be more horrendous, more obscene and more merciless than a mere chemical weapons attack.  A false flag  event that will trigger international outrage and whatever scant remains of the American peace movement that may still have a pulse.

Renee Parsons is a frequent contributor to Global Research

---

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

As the federal and Alberta governments continue to pull their hair out over the B.C. government’s stand against Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and tanker project, it’s important to point out, as we’ve been doing for years, that the pipeline company doesn’t have the consent of all First Nations along the route. In fact, many of them are strongly opposed to the project.

Kinder Morgan’s recent announcement that it is stopping all but essential spending proves that its shareholders are starting to understand the degree and depth of the Indigenous-led opposition movement to this pipeline project.

The Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion is made up of 150 Indigenous Nations in Canada and the United States, dozens of which are located along the Kinder Morgan pipeline route, with many of them having launched legal actions against the Kinder Morgan project.

Further, Indigenous Nations are supported by a quickly growing and broad-based network of support from allied Canadians who understand the existential threat that humanity faces from climate change and who are ready to stand up against the injustices still carried out today against Indigenous people.

More than 20,000 people have signed the Coast Protectors pledge to do whatever it takes to stop the pipeline. Thousands took part in a March 10 solidarity rally at the Kinder Morgan gates on Burnaby mountain.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has a decision to make. It can cut its losses and realize it simply made a mistake in approving the project. Or the Trudeau government can double down on its current path. But Canadians should be very clear-eyed about what that represents. It represents more than a failure of climate leadership. It means going back to the Stephen Harper days when Canada’s reputation on the climate file was mud.

Importantly, it also means going back to colonial-era relations with Indigenous people. In fact, if the federal government tries to ram through this pipeline, it could mean going back to one of the darkest times in modern Canadian history: the Oka standoff with the Mohawk Nation.

We just witnessed the ugly and shameful crackdown in the United States on the peaceful anti-pipeline protests at Standing Rock.

We don’t believe that’s the Canada that most Canadians want to live in. It would be a cruel joke indeed if, in this era of “reconciliation,” Canada instead repeats the mistakes of the past.

This is a learning moment for Canada. For far too long, governments and industry thought they could ignore Indigenous people by paying lip service to consulting us all the while doing what they wanted to do anyway.

Canadians are starting to grasp that there are governments and jurisdictions on this great land besides the provinces and the federal government. Indigenous peoples possess the inherent right to govern our territories. Pursuant to that inherent right, you need our free, prior and informed consent to develop our lands, especially when we are talking about a high-risk project such as Kinder Morgan that poses a real risk to those lands and waters and climate.

This is something the Supreme Court of Canada recognized in the historic 2014 Tsilhqot’in decision and it is the foundation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the federal government has agreed to implement.

The other learning moment is that this beleaguered pipeline is forcing Canadians of all ages from all walks of life to begin to imagine a world that is not so reliant on oil. We should be racing as fast as we can to get off oil instead of producing even more of the dirtiest, most polluting kind from the Alberta oil sands.

This is not some typical debate with many sides to it – there’s really just two: right and wrong. Collective survival or collective suicide.

Finally, no one should see this as a constitutional crisis. On the contrary, this is our Constitution¹ working, at least in practice, with Indigenous people acting as real decision makers on their territory. At the same time, you’re seeing beautiful acts of real reconciliation with Canadians standing up for our rights and trying to make this country a more just place. And we are finally seeing the kind of climate action that Canada needs and that the Trudeau government refused to take when it approved this pipeline.

The real constitutional crisis will occur if Mr. Trudeau chooses to ignore our constitutionally protected Aboriginal Title and Rights and Treaty Rights, and tries to ram through the pipeline – putting a lie to all his promises of reconciliation and setting Canada up for another catastrophic crisis on the same level as Oka.

*

This statement by Stewart Phillip and Serge Simon published on the Globe and Mail website.

At the 2015 Paris COP 21 climate conference Justin Trudeau pledged his newly-elected government would help “to limit global average temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius as well as pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees.”

The strategy adopted was two-pronged and contradictory on its face: implementing gradual carbon price increases through carbon taxes or cap-and-trade mechanisms while building more pipeline capacity to boost exports of fossil-fuel resources, especially the products of Alberta’s tar sands.

As environmentalists noted, the approach was inherently futile. Carbon taxes – contingent on provincial government consent – assumed higher costs would induce businesses to introduce less climate-destroying technology and practices. And provincial consent was dependent on the federal commitment to pipeline development, which inevitably would promote further fossil fuel exploration and production.

From the outset, Ottawa has faced opposition to carbon taxes from some provinces, which fear such market-based mechanisms will discourage private business investment. And mass popular opposition accompanied by the global downturn in resource prices has already led to TransCanada’s cancellation of its $15.7-billion Energy East project and Ottawa’s nixing of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline. Although U.S. President Donald Trump has now reversed Obama’s stop to Keystone XL, its future is still in doubt in the face of opposition from U.S. environmental activists.

Doubling Pipeline Output

That leaves Kinder Morgan’s plan to duplicate its existing Trans Mountain pipeline. It entails a $7.4-billion duplication of an existing pipeline from Alberta, with a three-fold increase in capacity, that would carry tar sands bitumen to a refinery in the Vancouver suburb of Burnaby. From there tanker traffic to hoped-for Asian markets would increase from a current five boats per month to an estimated 34 threading their way through coastal tidal straits. The plan has become the linchpin of the Trudeau government’s hope to win support for its approach from an Alberta government eager to get its petroleum to tidewater, and which has hinged its carbon tax on completion of the Trans Mountain project.¹

The economic prospects behind the Kinder Morgan project are suspect, given the declining prospects globally for new fossil-fuel export markets.² More importantly, it is facing mounting protests from environmental and First Nations activists. In recent weeks, dozens of demonstrators at the Burnaby refinery have been arrested on trespassing charges. The newly-elected minority NDP government, dependent on support from the Green party, which opposes Kinder Morgan, has joined in legal challenges to the project. This has brought the B.C. government into conflict with Alberta’s, likewise held by the New Democratic Party.

Burnaby protest March 10 against Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline project.

However, both governments have been boosting fossil-fuel exports.

B.C. premier John Horgan says he will limit the province’s carbon tax rules applying to a $40-billion Shell Canada-led LNG project in Kitimat. He prepared the way for that project when he recently gave the go-ahead to completion of the $10.7-billion Site C dam in northern B.C., which the NDP had campaigned against prior to its election last year. The dam will provide electricity to the Kitimat project.

Alberta premier Rachel Notley has been negotiating with Ottawa to exempt tar-sands projects from federal climate reviews. B.C.’s support of the Kitimat LNG project while opposing Trans Mountain as environmentally unsafe is “hypocrisy,” she notes, because it will be processing shale gas extracted in Alberta.

Meanwhile, the OECD warned in December that “without a drastic decrease in the emissions intensity of the oilsands industry, the projected increase in oil production may seriously risk the achievement of Canada’s climate mitigation targets.” The report noted that Canada has the fourth largest greenhouse gas emissions of the OECD’s 35 developed national economies. As for carbon taxes, it said, Canada’s regime “is far below that of other OECD member countries.”

Then, on April 8 Texas-based Kinder Morgan announced it was suspending “non-essential” spending on the Trans Mountain project and would cancel it altogether if by May 31 it was not “guaranteed” the project could proceed despite the B.C. opposition.

The announcement produced a flurry of panic-stricken reaction from Canadian business elites, their media, and the Alberta and federal governments. Surely, it was exclaimed, Ottawa has the constitutional authority to override B.C.’s opposition – especially in a matter so eminently in the “national interest,” as Trudeau and Notley constantly reiterate. To ensure the project proceeds, both governments have even indicated interest in buying a stake in Kinder Morgan, if not the entire company, investing billions of taxpayer dollars in this climate-destroying enterprise.

However, their dilemma is that even federal “guarantees” of the project will not insulate it from popular protest. In fact, it will only generate more opposition. The fight over Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain project is far from over.

And there are some huge stakes involved, much greater than the fate of governments and their supposed “climate change” strategies. The broader issues are eloquently set out in a powerful statement authored by two First Nations chiefs and reproduced below. Their promise of militant direct action is redolent of the “blockadia” advocated by Naomi Klein in her best-selling book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. And it echoes the Leap Manifesto, co-authored by Klein, which proclaims: This leap to “a country powered entirely by renewable energy… must begin by respecting the inherent rights and title of the original caretakers of this land,” the Indigenous communities that “have been at the forefront of protecting rivers, coasts, forests and lands from out-of-control industrial activity.”

*

Richard Fidler is an Ottawa activist who blogs at Life on the Left – with a special emphasis on the Quebec national question, indigenous peoples, Latin American solidarity, and the socialist movement and its history.

Notes

1. Rachel Notley’s government has imposed a $30 per ton tax on carbon emissions, the revenue going mainly to consumer rebates and phasing out (not until 2030!) the province’s coal production, while its cap on tar-sands emissions would still allow a 47.5% increase above 2014 levels. See “What if the Trans Mountain pipeline is never built?”

2. See, for example, “Only Fantasies, Desperation and Wishful Thinking Keep Pipeline Plans Alive,” and “Forget Trans Mountain, here’s the sustainable way forward for Canada’s energy sector.”