Views: 295

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks John.Now the Kurds are seeking ald from Assad.:

"I put up a comment over at Southfront where I said "I love the smell of irony in the morning" in regards to this ridiculous action by the Kurds in calling on the Syrian government for help in fixing the mess that they themselves created...

Yes, these same pricks that only a few months ago rejected Bashar al-Assad's proposal for them to have their own autonomy under the Syrian nation by basically making a "deal with the devil" in allying themselves with the evil and sick US-Israel cabal, have now been abandoned by that same evil entity and are now crying to the Syrian government for help!  The irony in all this is indeed so glaringly obvious..."

The US finally told the truth about its military objective in Syria

Nexus newsfeed

After over a year of flip-flopping and reversing its position on Syria and its president, Bashar al-Assad, the U.S. has finally admitted the real reason its military continues to violate Syria’s sovereignty. From the Washington Post:

“After months of incoherence, the Trump administration has taken a step toward a clear policy on Syria and its civil war. In a speech last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson bluntly recognized a truth that both President Trump and President Barack Obama attempted to dodge: that ‘it is crucial to our national defense to maintain a military and diplomatic presence in Syria, to help bring an end to that conflict, and assist the Syrian people . . . to achieve a new political future.’ To do that, the United States will continue to deploy several thousand personnel in the country and help allied Syrian forces maintain control over enclaves in the southwest, near Israel and Jordan, and the northeast, on the border with Iraq and Turkey.” [emphasis added]

The great lie told by the Washington Post editorial board, however, is its attempt to paint Washington’s regime change operation in Syria as crucial to America’s national defense and a “truth that both President Trump and President Barack Obama attempted to dodge.” In doing so, the Post is suggesting that regime change in Syria is the only realistic path for the U.S. to pursue, even when it has become increasingly clear that the longer the U.S. prolongs the war in Syria, the greater the suffering of ordinary Syrians will be.

Considering that the U.S. military’s recent strategy in Syria allegedly involves a 30,000-strong Kurdish and Arab border force that in less than a week prompted a Turkish invasion, it should be clear that the U.S. has no intention of putting Syria on the long-awaited road to peace.

However, according to the Washington Post, the U.S.’ new proposal is justified.

“Critics predictably charge that Mr. Trump is launching another ‘endless war’ in Syria,” the WaPo Editorial Board writes. “In fact, the administration has simply recognized reality: The United States cannot prevent a resurgence of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, prevent Iran from building bases across Syria, or end a civil war that has sent millions of refugees toward Europe without maintaining control over forces inside the country, just as Russia and Iran do.”

If you ever needed proof that the corporate media actively promotes the U.S. war machine, this is it. None of the above is true. At best, it is purposely disingenuous.

It is widely accepted that it was the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 that not only paved the way for al-Qaeda to take root in Iraq but also laid the foundation for what would later become ISIS (ISIS evolved out of what was previously referred to as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

ISIS was then able to grow from strength to strength in Syria, primarily by taking advantage of U.S. weapons transfers. Further, U.S.-led foreign policy actively weakened the Syrian state since 2011, creating a vacuum for these terrorists to take root.

The Washington Post’s attempt to absolve American foreign policy of its role in the refugee crisis ignores the fact that after the Syrian government was able to retake Syria’s major cities, hundreds of thousands of refugees began returning to their homes.

The references to Iran also raise some issues. If Syria opts to allow Iran to build bases inside its country, international law dictates that no other country should be allowed to interfere with this proposal. The U.S. is suspected of having close to 1,000 bases worldwide, and many of them have encircled Iran. If the U.S. can have bases, so can any other country.

Further, it is not clear under which legal principle the Washington Post is suggesting the U.S. has the right to invade someone else’s country just to oppose Iran.

Regardless, it is because of America’s incessant and obsessive approach of trying to contain Iran that we find Iran emerging as a victor in these confli.... If the U.S. hadn’t spent billions of dollars arming radical Sunni jihadists, Syria wouldn’t have had any underlying reasons to put effect to its mutual defense treaty with Iran and allow Iran to gain influence inside the country. Now, Iran’s influence has spread far beyond that of its borders and has made its way to Israel’s doorstep.

If the U.S. wants to counter Iran and al-Qaeda and bring peace to Syria, logic dictates that the U.S needs to try a brand new strategy altogether and respect international law for once. Of course, if recent history is any indicator, this is just as far-fetched an idea as the notion that the Trump administration will ever bring peace to this war-torn nation.

 US has indeed been arming their "rebels" and other forces with surface to air missiles to shoot down both Syrian and Russian aircraft... For according to the following report that also comes from the Southfront website, apparently some of these "rebels" were successful in shooting down a Russian Su-25 in Idlib province using what is obviously an American made "Manpad" shoulder launched surface to air missile... Here is the link to that report here:

Russians Reported Killed in US Strikes in Syria

 10  1

Multiple reports indicate that Russian military contractors were among the dead in air and artillery strikes launched Wednesday by the US military in the northeastern Syrian province of Deir Ezzor against forces loyal to the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

The Pentagon unleashed devastating firepower against the pro-government fighters on the pretext that they were mounting an attack against a headquarters of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the US proxy ground force that is dominated by the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia. US special forces troops directing the activities of the Kurdish proxies were stationed at the headquarters in the zone of influence carved out by the US intervention in Deir Ezzor, northeast of the Euphrates River.

Bombs and missiles were rained down upon the force, which reportedly included between 300 and 500 infantry, backed by tanks and artillery. US F15 fighter jets, Apache helicopters, AC-130 gunships and unmanned drones were all called in to attack the force, along with US artillery units.

According to Pentagon sources, 100 of the Syrian fighters were killed in the barrage. The Syrian government reported “dozens” killed in what it described as an unprovoked “massacre” and a “war crime.”

Iran’s Tasnim news agency quoted Syrian sources as reporting that several Russian military advisors were killed in the attack, which took place in the Khasham gas field in Eastern Deir Ezzor.

In the Washington Post, the newspaper’s columnist David Ignatius, who is well-connected to the US military and intelligence apparatus and is currently reporting from US-occupied areas in Syria, quoted a Kurdish militia commander working with the US special forces. The Kurdish commander, identified as General Hassan, told Ignatius that

“the casualties included some Russians, apparently from the mercenaries fighting alongside pro-regime forces.”

CNN, meanwhile, quoted Pentagon officials as saying that they were investigating reports of Russian casualties in the US strikes.

Moscow has insisted that it had no uniformed military personnel in the area, but Russian private military contractors have provided significant forces in support of the Assad government.

The attack, comes barely half a week after last Saturday’s shootdown of a Russian Su-25 fighter jet over Idlib province. The plane was brought down by a shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile, or MANPAD, most likely supplied by the CIA or Turkey to the so-called rebels dominated by Al Qaeda. A funeral for the pilot, Maj. Roman Filippov, who managed to eject but was killed on the ground fighting elements of the Al Nusra Front, was held in the southwestern Russian city of Voronezh Thursday, drawing some 30,000 people.

The two incidents have raised tensions in Syria between the two major nuclear powers to an unprecedented level.

The pretext for the illegal US military intervention in the country—the so-called war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)—has evaporated, and its real motives emerged ever more openly. These include Syrian regime change, sought initially through the support of the CIA and the Pentagon for Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militias against the Assad government, and, more broadly combatting Iranian and Russian influence and continuing the bloody decades-old campaign for US hegemony over the oil rich Middle East.

The US defense secretary, recently retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, gave a press conference Thursday insisting that the US massacre of pro-government forces in Deir Ezzor was an act of “self-defense,” a claim belied by the fact that the US and its Kurdish proxies suffered not one fatality in the incident and reported a single YPG militia member wounded.

“Obviously, we are not getting engaged in the Syrian civil war,” Mattis said, describing Wednesday’s massacre as a “perplexing situation” and insisting he could not give “any explanation for why” the battle had erupted.

The immediate explanation, however, is made obvious by the location of the attack. The pro-government forces were moving into gas and oil fields that had previously been controlled by ISIS and fell under the sway of the American proxies of the Syrian Democratic Forces. As an SDF commander told the Wall Street Journal last September, after the fields were taken, “

Our goal is to prevent the regime from taking the areas of oil which will enable it to regain control of the country like it was before.”

In this case, the word “our” refers to both Washington and its proxies.

US officials, most prominently Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, have made it clear that the US military force, officially consisting of some 2,000 special forces troops, will remain in Syria after the defeat of ISIS with the aim of toppling Assad and imposing a US puppet regime. To that end, Washington is determined to continue its carve-up of Syrian territory and to deny Damascus strategically vital energy resources in Deir Ezzor that are needed to fuel the country’s reconstruction. This is why the attack was unleashed Wednesday.

The US announcement of an indefinite military occupation in Syria, along with its plans for deploying a 30,000-strong “border security force” consisting in large part of the Kurdish YPG militia, is the principal driving force of the renewed escalation of violence in the country.

The Turkish military has resumed its airstrikes against the northwestern Syrian enclave of Afrin following a four-day hiatus imposed by Russia after the shootdown of the Russian fighter jet. It seems likely that Moscow, which exercises effective control over airspace in the region, gave the go-ahead to Ankara as a means of ratcheting up tensions between the US and Turkey.

Mattis, Tillerson and national security advisor H.R. McMaster are now all scheduled to arrive in Turkey next week for urgent talks with the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Erdogan, who has denounced the US plans as tantamount to creating a de facto Kurdish state on Turkey’s border, has vowed to extend the Turkish offensive eastward into the town of Manbij, which is currently occupied by the YPG along with its US special forces handlers. This raises the prospect of an armed confrontation between the two ostensible NATO allies.

The British Independent’s veteran Middle East correspondent Patrick Cockburn, citing sources in the region, reported this week that militia forces that are fighting alongside the Turkish army in the offensive in Afrin have been drawn almost exclusively from former ISIS fighters, who have been rebranded as the “Free Syrian Army.”

Washington, undoubtedly aware of this fact, has made no move to interfere with the Turkish operation in Afrin, so long as it does not continue eastward into US-occupied territory. There is ample evidence that the Pentagon has made its own use of the former ISIS fighters, thousands of whom were evacuatedalong with their arms and ammunition—from Raqqa and other cities besieged by the US and its proxies, in order to redeploy them against Syrian government forces.

Both Washington and the French government of President Emmanuel Macron have issued protests and threats over civilian casualties caused by Syrian government and Russian airstrikes against areas of Idlib province and Eastern Ghouta, outside of Damascus, that are controlled by Al Qaeda-linked militias. Dutifully echoed by the corporate media, these protests are utterly hypocritical, given the slaughter of tens of thousands carried out by the US itself in cites of Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq.

Unsubstantiated claims from Washington and Paris that the Syrian government, with Russian support, has carried out attacks using chlorine against the civilian population are being used to create conditions for a fresh military intervention against the Syrian government.

France’s Minister of the Armed Forces Florence Parly declared in an interview with the French broadcaster Inter on Friday that Paris had “potential evidence of the use of chlorine” by Damascus, but “no definite proof.”

This virtually echoes the statement made by US Defense Secretary Mattis, who threatened US military retaliation over unverified claims of chemical attacks, while acknowledging “we do not have evidence of it, but we are not refuting them.”

On Friday, the New York Times prominently carried an article by veteran propagandist Anne Barnard, depicting harrowing accounts of alleged atrocities by the Syrian and Russian militaries, beginning with the line,

“Half a dozen newborns, blinking and arching their backs, were carried from a burning hospital hit by airstrikes”

Reflecting pressure within the US ruling establishment for a more aggressive US intervention against Syria—as well as Iran and Russia—the Wall Street Journal published an editorial Friday, criticizing the Trump administration for having “turned, almost Obama-like, to pleading with Russia to make Assad stop his latest assaults.” It insisted that it was impossible to negotiate with Moscow, which “wants to keep Assad in power, maintain bases in Syria from which to threaten NATO, and thwart US goals in the Middle East.”

Insisting that Damascus has violated Washington’s “red line,” it called upon the administration to “send another” message to Syria, like the firing of the 59 cruise missiles against the country last April.


Featured image is from the author.

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria directly from Global Research.  

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. 992w" sizes="100vw" /">

US applies useful double standard

... to alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria:Nexus Newsfeed

Both Turkey and the U.S.-allied Kurds have been accused of using chemical weapons in Syria, but the U.S. has had two very different responses.

AFRIN, SYRIA — On Saturday, Syrian news agency SANA reported that six men had been hospitalized after an alleged Turkish chemical weapons attack on a small town near the city of Afrin in Northern Syria. Jiwan Mohammad, the director of the Afrin Hospital, told SANA that the men’s symptoms were indicative of those experienced after contact with chemical weapons, including “difficulty breathing, coughing and burning all over the body.”

Though various videos and images of the alleged victims were made available on social media, reports could not be independently confirmed.

Turkey has denied any and all responsibility. Yaskin Aktay, chief adviser to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told Al Jazeera that “it is out of the question for Turkey to use an internationally prohibited war tool in Afrin.” Turkey has been launching attacks within the Afrin province since late January as part of an offensive it has ironically called “Operation Olive Branch.” Turkey launched the offensive after the U.S. announced it would be using its Kurdish allies in the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to create a “border force” of 30,000 fighters.

Turkey condemned the proposed force as a “terror army,” owing to the fact that the SDF is largely composed of forces belonging to the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) militia, which Turkey has long considered a terrorist group. Turkish President Erdogan has vowed to “suffocate this terror army before it is born.”

Useful U.S. double standard 992w" sizes="100vw" /">

Nikki Haley, United States’ Ambassador United Nations, shows pictures of Syrian victims of chemical attacks as she addresses a meeting of the Security Council on Syria at U.N. headquarters, Wednesday, April 5, 2017. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)

The Trump administration, in marked contrast to its earlier responses to alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria, took the Turkish government at its word and said that it was “extremely unlikely” that Turkish forces had used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Afrin. This response was especially odd given that the Kurds in control of Afrin are ostensibly allied with the U.S.

Given that both Turkey, an ally of U.S.-dominated NATO, and the Kurdish militia, allied with the U.S., have each been accused of using chemical weapons in the past month, it seems that the U.S. is willing to turn a blind eye to such attacks when its allies are imp....

In these instances, the U.S.’ response has been drastically different from its response to alleged chemical weapon attacks where the accused party has been the Syrian government – even when the U.S. has admitted that it has never had evidence of Syria’s chemical weapons use. Yet that lack of evidence didn’t stop the U.S. from calling for a “no-fly zone” in Syrian government-held territory after an alleged chemical weapons attack in 2013, and a unilateral attack against Syria after another alleged chemical weapons attack last year.

In the most recent case, an alleged chemical gas attack, which was said to have injured a single person, was blamed on the Syrian government earlier this month. The evidence given was the verbal testimony of members of the White Helmets, long exposed as a “propaganda construct” and logistics group for the terrorist group al-Nusra. Al-Nusra and other so-called “rebels” in Syria have also been accused on several occasions of chemical weapons use, but these accusations have also failed to draw a response from the U.S. — even when these groups admitted to using the prohibited weapons.

In contrast, the case in Turkey was documented by both pro-opposition groups and pro-Syrian government groups and there was video footage. However, in this case, the accounts of the U.S.’ Kurdish allies are apparently not as trustworthy as those of the al-Nusra-affiliated White Helmets.

Whether or not the chemical weapons attack in Afrin actually happened, the event proves that the U.S. is not interested in stopping the use of chemical weapons nor in protecting the lives of Syrians – even when those Syrians are their allies. Instead, the U.S. has shown that it finds the alleged use of chemical weapons worth investigating or condemning only when it can be blamed on the Syrian government in order to justify more aggressive efforts to bring about the U.S.’ long-standing goal of regime change in Syria.


© 2018   Created by rose.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service