West trashes international law in favor of ‘might is right’

# US used $144,000,000 worth of missiles, in an attempt to destroy alleged chemical sites,,, due to be inspected starting today....seems the US would want the inspectors to find traces.... Unless there was no evidence to be found........

US-led Syria strikes: West trashes international law in favor of ‘might is right’
Robert Bridge
RT : 14 Apr, 2018

Once again, Western nations have ganged up on a sovereign state, first accusing it of crimes without evidence before following up with a brazen attack. The reason for such behavior is diabolically simple: because they can.

On Saturday morning, the world awoke to the news that the US, the UK and France had followed through on their threat to punish President Bashar Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons against innocent people. These NATO states unleashed a massive missile strike near Homs and the capital Damascus with the stated purpose of destroying sites said to be connected to the production of chemical weapons. If the attack was intended for domestic consumption only, in typical ‘wag the dog’ fashion, it failed miserably on that score.

Russian President Vladimir Putin slammed the military assault, saying it had not been sanctioned by the UN Security Council, and was carried out “in violation of the UN Charter and principles of international law.”

That was just the beginning of the serious legal issues regarding this brazen, cowardly attack on a sovereign nation. Not only did the Americans, British and French flaunt international law, exactly as they had done seven years ago in Libya, they arrogantly ignored the democratic will of their respective constituents, bypassing congressional and parliamentary procedure in a mad rush to war. In fact, the only thing ‘transparent’ and ‘accountable’ about Saturday’s attack was the flimsy foundation upon which it was advertised.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May, invoking the very same invalid argument that she used to accuse Russia in the Skripal poisoning mystery, said it was “highly likely” Syrian President Bashar Assad was behind the 'chemical attack'.

Echoing that subjective, fact-free assertion, the White House said it had a “high level of confidence” the Assad ‘regime’ was responsible for the alleged attack.

Not to be left behind by his peers, Emmanuel Macron, displaying early warning signs of Napoleon complex, told reporters that he had “proof” Assad was responsible for the attack. Yet the French makeup artist has yet to produce a shred of evidence to support his claim, and, we can safely assume, never will.

This brings us to the really disturbing part about Saturday’s attack: had Team Trump shown some restraint for just a few more days, they would have been able to make a much more accurate and measured assessment as to what really happened in the Damascus suburb one week ago. That’s because a team of experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), was scheduled to arrive in Syria on April 14 - the very same day the NATO members launched their assault - to carry out an investigation of the alleged chemical attack.

In other words, Trump, May and Macron could actually be charged with ‘tampering’ with a crime scene and destroying the evidence before investigators can carry out their forensic work.

"It's most probably an attempt to create difficulties for the OPCW mission that is just starting its work… or even to thwart it," the chair of Russia's Foreign Affairs Committee of the Federation Council, Konstantin Kosachev, said.

This rush to war brings to mind the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. With UN weapon inspectors on the ground in the country, reporting no trace of weapons of mass destruction, then Secretary of State Colin Powell saved the day by giving a performance worthy of an Academy Award at the UN General Assembly. As attendees stared on in wide-eyed disbelief, Powell shook a vial of ‘anthrax,’ inviting his audience to imagine what would happen if Saddam Hussein decided to unleash the deadly bacteria against their people. Only after the disastrous Iraq War was well underway did the Western mainstream media think to question the ‘bad intelligence’ and blatant deception that permitted the US and its allies to undertake the cruelest, most opportunistic attack on innocent people in recent memory.

The very same could be said about the disastrous NATO-backed regime change in Libya in 2011. In both cases, relatively stable and prosperous countries were turned into hotbeds of terrorism, violence and crime. In fact, the world would most likely never have heard of the terrorist organization ‘Islamic State’ had the West stayed out of Iraq. And here is the sick irony of the West attacking Syrian government forces: it could open the door to bona-fide terrorists coming to power in the event Damascus falls. Indeed, the US has made no secret that its goal is to remove Assad from power, yet – exactly as was the case with Iraq and Libya – they offer no realistic alternatives to his rule aside from ‘moderate rebels.’

Another irony from yesterday’s brazen attack: Trump used the phrase “mission accomplished” to describe the assault, like it was just another day at the golf course. The remark echoed former US President George W Bush’s premature speech on board the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in 2003 when he declared the end of combat operations in Iraq in front of a banner declaring “Mission Accomplished.” Yet in reality that was just the beginning of the nightmare for Iraq.

America’s waning unipolar moment

At this point, the question must be asked: What sort of dire affliction has infected the Western mind to the point where it believes it can act with impunity against multiple sovereign states? My personal guess is that America and the West are struggling with the uncomfortable realization that their ‘unipolar moment’ is setting fast below the horizon.

Soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States began to indulge itself in increasingly belligerent behavior across a wider and wider swath of the planet. The juggernaut was made all the more harrowing by America’s almost fanatical belief that it is the one and only ‘indispensable nation’ blessed by some higher authority with ‘exceptional’ qualities that are beyond question. This was America’s ‘unipolar moment.’

That open window of militaristic opportunity was applauded by neoconservatives, including Charles Krauthammer, who penned a 1990 article in Foreign Affairs (‘The Unipolar Moment’) where he boldly states: “The immediate post-Cold War world is not multipolar. It is unipolar. The center of world power is the unchallenged superpower, the United States, attended by its Western allies.”

This is pure unadulterated Machiavellian thinking, which substitutes liberty and equality before the law with a medieval ‘might is right’ philosophy. Yet, as has been proven time and again throughout history, whenever any single country sits astride the pinnacle of power, it is invariably proven, in the words of British politician Lord Acton that, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

This tendency towards the abuse of power was highlighted by a shocking comment made by General Wesley Clark during an interview with Democracy Now. Clark revealed that he had been shown a memo by one of his military superiors that outlined a classified plan to take out seven countries in a five-year period.

“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,” Wesley said, repeating what he had been told and shown.

Coincidence or not, many of the names on that list have experienced the full wrath of the Western military in one way or another. However, given the rise of a multi-polar world, this diabolical shopping list has been put on hold, hopefully forever.

Whatever the case may be, it has become beyond clear that the West holds the claim to the title ‘protector of democratic principles’ only by the force of its lies, deception and outright aggression. How long it will be before the charade ends and the people openly proclaim that the emperor has no clothes is anybody’s guess.

- - -

Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is author of the book, 'Midnight in the American Empire,' released in 2013. robertvbridge@yahoo.com

# They strike "chemical weapons factories and warehouses" with missiles and are not concerned about releasing the poisonous agents into the surrounding area and killing thousands of people? Are westerner sheeple so foolish to believe these blatant lies?

===
Caught in a lie, US & allies bomb Syria the night before international inspectors arrive
Eva Bartlett
RT : 15 Apr, 2018

The US, Britain and France trampled international law to launch missiles against Syria, claiming to have “evidence” of the government’s use of chemical weapons. That evidence is based on terrorist lies.

After a week of outrageous tweets and proclamations by POTUS Trump, which included continued accusations that Syria’s president ordered a chemical weapons attack on civilians in Douma, east of Damascus, with Trump using grotesque and juvenile terminology, such as “animal Assad,” the very evening before chemical weapons inspectors of the OPCW were to visit Douma, America and allies launched illegal bombings against Syria. The illegal bombings included 103 missiles, 71 of which Russia states were intercepted.

For the past week, we were told that the US had ‘evidence’ and the UK had ‘evidence’ that Syria had used chemicals. The ‘evidence’ largely relied on video clips and photos shared on social media, provided by the Western-funded White Helmets (that “rescuer” group that somehow only operates in Al-Qaeda and co-terrorist occupied areas and participates in torture and executions), as well as by Yaser al-Doumani, a man whose allegiance to Jaysh al-Islam is clear from his own Facebook posts, for example of former Jaysh al-Islam leader, Zahran Alloush.

This, we were told, was ‘evidence.’ This and the words of the highly partial, USAID-funded, US State Department allied Syrian American Medical Society, which, like Al-Qaeda’s rescuers, only supports doctors in terrorist-occupied areas.

On April 12, even US Secretary of Defense James Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee that the US government does not have any evidence that sarin or chlorine was used, that he was still looking for evidence.

Syria, finding the claims to be lies and the sources tainted, requested that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) immediately come to Syria to investigate the claims. Accordingly, the OPCW agreed to send a team—the visas for which Syria granted immediately—which arrived in Damascus on April 14.

President Trump, instead of waiting for an investigation to confirm his ‘evidence,’ chose the very night before this investigative team would arrive in Syria to inspect the allegations, to bomb Syria. The timing of the attacks is more than just a little timely. And the bombings were illegal.

General Mattis tried to dance around the legality, stating, “the president has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to use military force overseas to defend important United States national interests.”

But he is wrong, this does not permit the US to illegally bomb a sovereign nation, and he knows it. So does Russia. In a statement on April 14, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared the attacks as illegal, noting:

“Without the sanction of the Security Council of the United Nations, in violation of the UN Charter, norms and principles of international law, an act of aggression against a sovereign state that is at the forefront of the fight against terrorism has been committed.”
What if chemicals had been at targeted locations?

In the same Pentagon briefing, General Joseph Dunford specified the US and allies’ targets in Syria, alleging they were “specifically associated with the Syrian regime's chemical weapons program.” One target, at which 76 missiles were fired, was the Barzeh scientific research centre in heavily-populated Damascus itself, which Dunford claimed was involved in the “development, production and testing of chemical and biological warfare technology.”

This ‘target’ is in the middle of a densely-inhabited area of Damascus. According to Damascus resident Dr. (of business and economy) Mudar Barakat, who knows the area in question, “the establishment consists of a number of buildings. One of them is a teaching institute. They are very close to the homes of the people around.”

Of the strikes, Dunford claimed they “inflicted maximum damage, without unnecessary risk to innocent civilians.”

If one believed the claims to be accurate, would bombing them really save Syrian lives, or to the contrary cause mass deaths? Where is the logic in bombing facilities believed to contain hazardous, toxic chemicals in or near densely populated areas?

Regarding the actual nature of the buildings bombed, Syrian media, SANA, describes the Pharmaceutical and Chemical Industries Research Institute as “centered on preparing the chemical compositions for cancer drugs.” The destruction of this institute is particularly bitter, as, under the criminal western sanctions, cancer medicines sales to Syria are prohibited.

Interviews with one of its employees, Said Said, corroborate SANA’s description of the facility making cancer treatment and other medicinal components. One article includes Said’s logical point: “If there were chemical weapons, we would not be able to stand here. I've been here since 5:30 am in full health – I'm not coughing.”

Of the facility, the same SANA article noted that its labs had been visited by the OPCW, which issued two reports negating claims of any chemical weapons activities. This is a point Syria’s Ambassador al-Ja’afari raised in the April 14 UN Security Council meeting, noting that the OPCW “handed to Syria an official document which confirmed that the Barzeh centre was not used for any type of chemical activity” that would be in contravention to Syria’s obligations regarding the OPCW.

Bombings based on Al-Qaeda and Jaysh al-Islam Claims

The entire pretext of the US and allies’ illegal bombings of Syria is immoral and flawed. There is no evidence to the claims that Syria used chemicals in Douma. Numerous analysts have pointed out the obvious: that Syria would not benefit from having used chemical weapons. But America, Israel and allies would benefit from staged attacks.

The website Moon of Alabama noted discrepancies in the videos passed around on social media as “evidence” of Syria’s culpability, including the following:

"The 'treatment' by the 'rebels', dousing with water and administering some asthma spray, is unprofessional and many of the 'patients' seem to have no real problem. It is theater. The real medical personnel are seen in the background working on a real patient.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry has released interviews with two men who were included in the footage alleging a chemical attack has occurred. One of the men, Halil Ajij, said he worked in the hospital in question, they had treated people for smoke poisoning, saying: “We treated them, based on their suffocation," also noting: “We didn’t see any patient with symptoms of a chemical weapons poisoning,” he said.

In an April 14 interview on Sky News, the former British Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, argued that the most elementary stage in the accusations game is to allow the actual inspection to occur.

“The evidence that chemical weapons were dropped is non-existent. Let the inspectors go in and possibly within days we will have a verdict but the jury is still out. ...I'm totally confident that the inspectors will not produce one shred of evidence to back up the assertions of the Americans. If the Americans had proof, they’d have brought it forward. What they're saying and what Mrs. May is saying, is just ‘take our word for it, trust us’. There’s not even a dodgy dossier this time.”
Israel and America benefit from the attacks... and are guilty of chemical weapons use

While the world’s eyes have been glazed over by chemical weapons script-reading journalists of corporate media, little notice is given to the ongoing Israeli slaughter and maiming of Palestinian unarmed demonstrators, targeted assassinations that last re-began with the March 30 murders of at least 17 unarmed Palestinians protesting in Gaza’s eastern regions. Israel’s murder of these unarmed youths, women and men got only mild tut-tuts from the UN, and was relegated to “clashes” by slavish corporate media. Israel is literally getting away with murder, as eyes are turned elsewhere.

According to Secretary Mattis, the US-led illegal attack on Syria “demonstrates international resolve to prevent chemical weapons from being used on anyone under any circumstances in contravention of international law.”

The irony? Both America and its close ally Israel have used chemical weapons on civilians. The US has attacked civilians in Vietnam and Iraq, to name but two countries, with chemical weapons.

In 2009, I was living in Gaza and documenting Israel’s war crimes when Israel bombed civilians all over Gaza with white phosphorous. These were civilians with nowhere to run or hide, including civilians who had fled their homes and taken shelter in a UN-recognized school. I myself documented numerous instances of Israel’s use of white phosphorous.

If this doesn’t outrage American citizens, the billions of US taxpayers’ dollars sent to Israel and spent on the bombing of sovereign nations — and not on America’s impoverished, nor on affordable health care — should outrage.

However, as author Jonathan Cook noted, the issue is not merely Trump’s threats to Syria:

“There is bipartisan support for this madness. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic leadership in the US, and much of the parliamentary Labour party in the UK, are fully on board with these actions. In fact, they have been goading Trump into launching attacks.”

By not attacking Russian forces in Syria this time, the US narrowly avoided a direct military confrontation with Russia, one which would have had global ramifications, to say the least.

The question now is: will the regime-change alliance be stupid and cruel enough to support yet another false flag chemical attack in their unending efforts to depose the Syrian president, or will they give up the game and allow Syria’s full return to peace? The US and allies claim their concern for Syrian civilians, but do everything in their power to ensure civilians suffer from terrorism and sanctions.

- - -

Eva Bartlett is a freelance journalist and rights activist with extensive experience in the Gaza Strip and Syria. Her writings can be found on her blog, In Gaza.

First a lie, then the strike and in the end ispectors found no evidence. Same story with Iraq nukes. History repeating as a tragic joke.

OPCW fail to include in its Skripal's poisoning report, that the BZ nerve-agent only produced by US & UK was identified in the samples.

 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.

Simply put, the most powerful county in the world and its chief satellites, the UK and France, have thrown the rule of law into the trash can. The only "law" now is the law of the jungle. There is no going back.

Ironically, the attack itself was claimed by its perpetrators as enforcement of legality, not of its obliteration. For example, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg called the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces "a clear breach of international norms and agreements" that "calls for a collective and effective response by the international community."

Leaving aside for a moment the question of what really happened in the Syrian city of Douma, Stoltenberg knows very well what the mechanism is for a collective response by the international community. It is agreement by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression," and to take military or non-military joint action to "restore international peace and security" under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Such action is subject to veto by the permanent members: the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France.

The US regime doesn't give a flip about chem weapons. It doesn't give a flip about democracy, freedom, or terrorism either. These are just bumper sticker slogans to get the public behind their wars of aggression.

The Russian Defense Ministry said that it had detected 103 cruise and air-to-surface missiles, 71 of which had been intercepted by the SADF. The Russian military provided the following list of the targets with additional details on the strikes:

    Four missiles were launched at the area of the Damascus International Airport. All these missiles were intercepted.
    12 missiles were launched at the Al-Dumayr Military Airport. All these missiles were intercepted.
    18 missiles were launched  at the Baly Military Airport. All these missiles were intercepted.
    12 missiles were launched at the Shayarat Military Airport. All these missiles were intercepted.
    9 missiles were launched  at the Mezzeh Military Airport. Five of them were intercepted.
    16 missiles were launched at the Homs Military Airport. 13 of them were intercepted.
    30 missiles were launched at targets in the areas of Barzah and Jaramani. Seven missiles were intercepted.

According to the Russian Defense Minisry, the US and its allies fired cruise missiles, including seaborne Tomahawks and GBU-38 guided bombs from B-1B planes while F-15 and F-16 fighter jets launched air-to-surface missiles. The UK Air Force’s Tornado aircraft fired eight Scalp EG air-launched cruise missiles.

The Russian military added that Moscow will consider supplies of S-300 air defense systems to Syria and other countries in response to the US actions.

The Pentagon held a press briefing to provide own version of the events. The Pentagon said that the US and its allies had launched 105 missiles at the alleged “chemical weapons” facilities of the Assad government.

The US-led bloc used the following means and launchers:

    The USS Monterey CG61 fired 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Red Sea.
    The USS Laboon DDG58 launched 7 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Red Sea.
    The USS Higgins DDG76 launched 23 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Persian Gulf.
    The USS John Warner SSN785 launched 6 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Mediterranean.
    The French frigate LANGUEDOC launched 3 Storm Shadow/SCALP EG (French naval variant is called “Missile de Croisière Naval”) cruise missiles from the Mediterranean.
    B-1B strategic bombers launched 19 AGM-158 JASSM [Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile] air-launched cruise missiles.
    British Typhoon and Tornado fighter jets launched 8 Storm Shadow/SCALP EG air-launched cruise missiles.
    French Rafel and Mirage launched 9 Storm Shadow/SCALP EG air-launched cruise missiles.

The targets of the attack, according to the Pentagon:

    76 missiles – “Barzah Research and Development Center”
    22 missiles – “Him Shinshar Chemical Weapons Storage Site”
    7 missiles – “Him Shinshar CW Bunker”

US Secret Plan on Damascus Foiled...

US, along with its European puppets, wanted to topple Assad with a surprise attack on Damascus using GCC-funded terrorists...

The US Secret Plan on Damascus Foiled: The Russian Role Before and After the US-US-France Attack Revealed
Elijah J. Magnier 15 April 2018

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.

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.

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.

White lie about Syrian White Helmets!

White helmets and Syrian Observatory for Human Rights are western backed terrorists. They are financed to produce fake photos and media so tha the U.S can spread propaganda through twitter and facebook.

The 'white helmets' tells us they are an independent organisation and do not accept money from Governments. Then British FM Borris Johnson comes along and says the British Government gave the 'white helmets' £32 million.

White Helmets: World’s most photogenic rescuers who ‘don’t care’ about civilians?
RT : 8 Apr, 2018

The notorious White Helmets group, claiming to be impartial first responders protecting Syrians – and filming themselves doing so – are again to the fore in Western media coverage, after they accused Damascus of a chemical attack.

The group, which emerged from ‘volunteer’ rescue teams operating in militant-controlled areas of Aleppo and Idlib in 2012, reached the peak of its worldwide fame during the Battle of Aleppo in 2016, becoming one of the most widely used sources of information and visual materials in Western media coverage of the Syrian conflict.

And, while a Netflix documentary about the White Helmets was praising courageous first responders and eventually won an Academy Award, people on the ground in Aleppo who spoke with RT’s Murad Gazdiev in 2017 were describing a much darker side to the ‘volunteers’ routine.

The self-proclaimed rescuers were working closely with the militants and operating under their protection, Aleppans told RT, describing how supposedly impartial humanitarian workers were saving only “their own.” White Helmets members were also accused of looting the very little aid that was coming into the city and of using the provisions to force starving locals to act on camera in return for a loaf of bread.

Further evidence of the Western-funded group’s close collaboration with militants was discovered by Gazdiev, as he toured several of their headquarters across the destroyed city. Watch Murad Gazdiev’s full report to relive the liberation of Aleppo and get a broader picture of the White Helmets’ daily routine.

Selected Comments:

# Who are those guys? Who pays their wages? Where are they from? Who trained them? Who feeds/suplies them? What passports do they hold? Who pays their insurance? Are they Arabs / Causicans / Blacks / Whites / Blue / Grey earthlings / Aliens / Martians / Moon men / Antarcticians? WHO is their leader / employer?

# You can find them only in areas where terrorists operate.

# I have seen a lot of investigative journalism on the white helmets. They claim impartiality like the Red Cross but a picture I saw of a man in "white helmet" dress one minute and the next armed with a Kalasnikov and magazine bandolier convinced me they are fighting for one side while spreading lies in their white helmets. They always seem to be "right there" to film an attack. Dressed in flip-flops and paper masks flushing nerve gas off the victims.

===
The War on Syria: The Need to Amplify Voices of Truth, Peace and Justice
By Mark Taliano
Global Research, April 07, 2018

The White Helmets[1], accepted and embraced by Canadian politicians, seek to convey the illusion that Western-supported terrorists[2] are “humanitarian”.  Nothing could be further from the truth, but Canadian politicians propagate the lie.

Canadian politicians accept and amplify terrorist-supporting narratives despite the absence of corroborating evidence.

Consequently, the “humanitarian intervention” lie is reinforced with a view to increasing Canada’s criminal “intervention” in Syria, which will necessarily bring more war and terrorism to Syria.

With these words, MP Iqra Khalid extols the virtues of al Qaeda’s PR front, the White Helmets:

“Mr. Speaker, I watched footage of a small boy, covered in dust, face streaked with blood, eyes baring hopelessness, being pulled out of rubble and into an ambulance. The brave people who saved this boy’s life, along with tens of thousands like him, wore white helmets, and belonged to the Syrian

civil defence. It is a team of 3,700 civilian volunteers who devote their lives to helping vulnerable Syrians in conflict areas. Since 2013, 243 white helmets have lost their lives. They are in Ottawa today so MPs can learn first-hand the brave work they do in Syria, and what our Liberal government
support has meant for them on the ground. Support from our government has helped them increase women volunteers in their organization and provide more services for women and children, including access to first aid. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending their bravery, their dedication, and their commitment to saving lives. They are the heroes of our time.”[3]

Similarly, with these words, MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj[4] makes the case for increased Canadian “humanitarian intervention” in Syria, presumably based upon the testimonies of visiting White Helmets members:

Unfortunately, Canadian politicians are not interested in independent evidence, which includes testimonies from Syrians recently liberated (by the SAA and its allies) from the captivity and tyranny of Western-supported terrorists in East Ghouta Syria.  This is one such testimony[5]:

Prior to the West’s criminal, dirty war on Syria, Syria was one the world’s safest countries in terms of personal safety.[6]

Instead of amplifying al Qaeda narratives, Canadian politicians should be amplifying evidence-based narratives of truth, justice, and peace.

Independent investigative journalist Eva Bartlett[7], in an interview with Lee Camp, gives an evidence-based explanation of what is really happening in Syria.

We the people need to amplify voices of truth, justice, and peace.  Canadian politicians will not do so.

US Has Illegally Occupied 30% of Syria!!!

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.

How the US Has Illegally Occupied 30% of Syria Containing Most of Its Oil, Water and Gas
By Whitney Webb
MintPress News, 16 April 2018

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 Safak, 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.

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.

The original source of this article is MintPress News
Copyright © Whitney Webb, MintPress News, 2018

Fa(c/k)ebook to cease data collection ?!

A fake reason is often given to justify that like any crisis, scandal etc. Also the real betrayal to fbook users is not really the data sales, advertizers and marketers, its the intel services who use them all, its the third party rogue agts who get in and out your fbook account anytime, and fb knows it all meaning fb is part of a big organized cabal. That is a very important thing and people should know this one. Cambridge Analytica was disinfo part. That would be all.

Facebook says it will cease cooperation with all third-party data collectors
RT : 29 Mar, 2018

Facebook has said it will no longer offer an advertising option that exploits personal data provided by third-party aggregators. The company, still bleeding from the Cambridge Analytica scandal, said it wants to improve privacy.

Among the companies that will be affected by the new measure are: Acxiom, which provides data from the US, the UK, France, Germany and Australia, Epsilon, which monitors the US consumer preferences, as well as Oracle Data Cloud, which collects data in the US and the UK, Experian, TransUnion and others, Facebook Product Marketing Director Graham Mudd indicated in a statement that was circulated by industry news sites.

The companies, all major data aggregators, helped Facebook to provide advertisers with valuable information concerning consumer behavior outside the web. This included the users' shopping habits, information on their home or car ownership, family make-up and other offline data that is essential for advertisers to make a precise targeting choice.

The aggregators partnered with Facebook so when the advertisers paid to use the option, Facebook would transfer a portion of the money received to the third-party company that harvested the data.

The social media giant plans to gradually phase out the service, known as "Partner Categories," within half a year.

"We want to let advertisers know that we will be shutting down Partner Categories," it said in a statement, noting that "while this is common industry practice, we believe this step, winding down over the next six months, will improve people's privacy on Facebook."

The decision comes on the heels of a data mining scandal involving the British firm Cambridge Analytica, which is accused of harvesting the data of 50 million Facebook users without their explicit knowledge or consent. Earlier this week, a legal complaint was filed against the firm, with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the US Department of Justice alleging it violated the law barring foreign entities from engaging in political campaigning.

Several reports and whistleblowers linked the firm to the Donald Trump presidential bid, alleging his campaign forked out $5 million to pay for its services.

In the wake of the scandal, the social media giant's stocks plummeted and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg offered an extensive apology, in which he described the leak of users' personal data as a "breach of trust." The attempt at damage control, however, did not move the EU, which accused Facebook and its CEO of a lackluster response and demanded guarantees that such a scenario would not be repeated.

Faced with an unprecedented public backlash, Zuckerberg has reportedly decided to testify before Congress on the issue. At the same time, he refused to appear before the British Parliament, sparking outrage in the UK, while offering to send one of his senior staffers to give evidence to MPs.

Selected Comments:

# And of course we believe you because the CIA and NSA never lie.

# The only thing Jewkerberg is sorry about is his stock value plummeting.

# I notice there's no investigation into Fuckerbergs insider trading, he sold off a lot of stock just before this story broke.

# FB is a third party data collector.

US has a long history of lying to start wars

 # 9/11 was the false flag that kick started the Greater Israel Project.

False flags are real – US has a long history of lying to start wars
Danielle Ryan
RT : 16 Apr, 2018

Use of the term ‘false flag’ is often met with raised eyebrows and accusations of conspiracism. But false flags are a very real and very present feature of geopolitics — and denying that is simply denying reality.

Last week, the United States, along with the United Kingdom and France, bombed Syrian government targets, ostensibly in retaliation for an alleged chemical attack which was carried out one week before in the city of Douma.

The story we’re told is simple: Syrian President Bashar Assad is an evil maniac who uses poison gas on his citizens for the sheer entertainment value. As neocon think tank the Atlantic Council put it last week, when Assad gasses people, he is simply “indulging an addiction” — an addiction which he seems to have only recently acquired, given the fact that before Syria’s war began, American journalists were busy praising the “educated” and “informed” Assad and marveling at the “phenomenal” levels of peace and religious diversity within Syria.

Anyway, so intense is Assad’s newfound desire for watching Syrian babies foaming at the mouth, that he is willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by deciding to use these weapons despite knowing it would provoke worldwide outrage and potentially a major US military effort to oust him. So, that’s the story. Assad is a monster and the world must unite to stop him.

There are plenty of people who are less than convinced by this narrative, however. One of them is Peter Ford, the former British ambassador to Syria. Ford told BBC Radio Scotland that “in all probability” the alleged chemical attack never happened and that the video and image evidence used as proof by the US and its allies was falsified. There are others who believe that the attack could have been real, but that the perpetrators were anti-Assad rebels trying to provoke fresh military action from the US — in other words, it was very possibly a false flag event which served its purpose perfectly.

One of the best questions to ask when something like this happens, is: Who benefits? Very clearly in this case, Assad has not benefited at all, but the rebel groups fighting against him have.

Whatever the truth about this alleged chemical attack, the notion of false flag events being used to prompt military action should not be met with such skepticism. The US has a long history of using lies (or ‘fake news’ you might call it) as a pretext for war. It is important to look at recent events in Syria within that context.
Nayirah testimony

Perhaps the most famous of all examples was the heart-wrenching testimony to Congress of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, identified only as Nayirah, which was used to sell the first Gulf War to the American people in October 1990. An emotional Nayirah told the Congressional Human Rights Caucus that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and leaving them on the floor to die.

What Americans did not know, was that Nayirah was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US and she had been coached by the American PR firm Hill and Knowlton. But before the details of the stunt and false testimony became widely known, it had already been used to sell America’s war against Iraq in 1991.

Operation Northwoods

In the 1960s, American military leaders devised plans to bomb US cities and blame Cuban leader Fidel Castro in order to manufacture public and international support for a war.

The plan was codenamed Operation Northwoods and what it advocated was nothing short of horrendous. The American military suggested sinking boatloads of Cuban refugees, hijacking planes and bombing Miami. The goal was to convince Americans that Castro had unleashed a reign of terror upon them.

The top brass were even willing to cause US military casualties by blowing up an American boat in Guantanamo Bay and blaming Cuba. Why? Because, as they put it, “casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation” and help manufacture support for war. The plans were quashed by President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated one year later, leading some to speculate on a link between those events.
Gulf of Tonkin

Top US officials also distorted the facts in the lead-up to the Vietnam War and the media dutifully reported the official narrative as absolute fact, helping launch perhaps the most disastrous war in America’s history.

On August 2, 1964, North Vietnamese torpedo boats attack the USS ‘Maddox’ while it was on “routine patrol” in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin. Two days later, the US Navy reported a second “unprovoked” attack on the ‘Maddox’ and the USS ‘Turner Joy’ — a second destroyer which had been sent in after the first attack. President Lyndon B. Johnson told the American people on TV that “repeated acts of violence” against the US ships must be met with a strong response. Soon after Johnson appeared on TV, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which pre-approved any military action that he would take from that moment on.

The only problem was, there was no second attack on the US ships at all — and the allegation that the first attack had been “unprovoked” was also a lie. In reality, the USS ‘Maddox’ had been gathering intelligence and providing it to South Vietnamese boats which were attacking North Vietnam. As for the second attack, the US boats had misinterpreted radio signals and radar images and spent two hours firing at nothing. Nonetheless, the “attack” was used to convince the American people to support war.

Soviet aircraft false flags

Recently declassified documents show yet more American false flag plotting, this time against the Soviet Union. A three-page memo, written by members of the National Security Council, suggested that the US government should acquire Soviet aircraft which would be used to stage attacks and provide the pretext for war.

Such aircraft, the memo said, “could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations to provide an excuse for US intervention."

The government even considered producing the soviet planes domestically in a massive covert operation. They went so far as to acquire estimates from the Air Force on the cost and length of time such an operation would take.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Is there even any need to rehash the lies which were told in the lead-up to the Iraq war? The media here again swallowed the government’s lies, one by one — and 15 years later, the region is still suffering the consequences and very few lessons appear to have been learned.

These are not conspiracy theories. They are cold, hard evidence that the US has no qualms whatsoever about using false flag events and fake evidence to provide pretext for military action.

Continued lack of critical inquiry from the media, given the severe potential consequences of escalating the conflict in Syria, is tantamount to a crime.

- - -

Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance journalist. Having lived and worked in the US, Germany and Russia, she is currently based in Budapest, Hungary. Her work has been featured by Salon, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, Russia Direct, teleSUR, The BRICS Post and others. Follow her on Twitter @DanielleRyanJ, check out her Facebook page, or visit her website: danielle-ryan.com

An Ayah a day keeps shaytan away...

An Ayah a day keeps shaytan away
Warda Zahid

The Holy Quran is a complete code of conduct for the Muslims. Reciting even a small portion of it is conducive to repelling the Satan. The code of conduct is expressive in every verse of the Holy Quran and with due comprehension, these verses can lead to a life free from the temptations of the Satan. The proximity with the message of the Holy Quran is a remedy from all the temptations of the Satan. Holy Quran contains solutions to all our worldly and spiritual problems. It is the miracle that Allah presented to Holy Prophet (PBUH) and told him to vociferously preach its word to the
mankind.

Surah Al Furqan establishes Holy Quran as the Criterion for success for the Muslims. Therefore, Quran is full of guidance on the road to success.

Recitation and comprehension of a single ayat every day is a small price to pay to achieve success. A person can only be successful in front of Allah if he/she is free from the influence of the Satan. In a nutshell, Quran teaches us how to repel the futile temptations of the Satan.

In order to fulfill our daily obligations, we tend to keep away from the Holy Quran. This drives a wedge between us and Allah and allows the Satan to tempt us into incurring sinful activities. These activities eventually lead us astray. Recitation of an ayat daily will remind us that we have to
fulfill the covenant with Allah Almighty. In accordance with that covenant, we will undertake pious actions in our lives. Furthermore, we will take one step a day on the road towards piety (Taqwa). Piety is the state in which a Muslim only performs those actions which are in conformity to the laws put forth by Allah.

Reading an ayat a day is a source of constant reminder that Allah is the Lord and the Cherisher of the universe and we should direct all our prayer to Him alone. It will also remind us of the merciful and forgiving nature of Allah and that we shall implore Him in the hour of need.

Holy Quran also contains a plethora of supplications that one can recite on daily basis. In Surah Al Baqarah, verse 201, Quran says:  Our Lord! Give us in this world that which is good and in the Hereafter that which is good, and save us from the torment of the Fire! (Al-Baqarah, 201)

Recitation of this surah proclaims the Lordship of Allah and rejection of the Satan. It also entails Allah to be the sole provider and cherisher of the universe. The reciter implores Allah to provide only what is good in this world and in the Hereafter. The reciter also asks for protection against the
blazing Hellfire. Ayats like this inculcate the fear of Allah in our hearts and save us from the evil and shrewd intentions of the Satan.

An ayah a day fosters and rekindles the concept of faith in a Muslim’s heart. He conforms to the ideology and teachings of Islam so that the odds of going astray are minimized to a great extent. Quran says in Surah Al-Baqarah:

    "And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who reject Faith."

This ayat is a testament to the fact that the presence of strong faith eradicates all the evils of Satan from the heart of a Muslim. One can only strengthen faith using the text of the Holy Quran as it is the ultimate word of Allah.

I Cannot Obey Allah in Public and Disobey Him in Private!

Narrated Abdullah ibn Zayd ibn Aslam, from his father, from his grandfather, {Allah be pleased with them }~ who said...

When I was accompanying `Umar ibn al-Khattab (Radi Allahu ‘Anhu) on his patrol of Madinah at night, he felt tired, so he leaned against a wall. It was

the middle of the night...and (we heard) a woman say to her daughter...

“O my daughter, get up and mix that milk with some water.” {!}
The girl answered...
'O Mother, did you not hear the decree of  Amir al-Mu’minin today ? ”
The mother answered...
“What was that ?”
The girl said...
'He ordered someone to announce in a loud voice that milk should not be mixed with water.'
The mother then said...'Get up and mix the milk with water ! you are in a place where `Umar (Radi Allahu`Anhu ) cannot see you.'
The girl answered her mother...
"I cannot obey Allah in Public and Disobey Him in Private !”

'Umar (Radi Allahu ‘Anhu) heard this, and told me...

“O Aslam, go to that place and see who that girl is, and to whom she was speaking, and whether she has a husband.”

So I went to that place, and I saw that she was unmarried, the other woman was her mother, and neither of them had a husband.

I came to `Umar (Radi Allahu ‘Anhu) and told him what I had found out.

He called his sons together, and said to them...

'Do any of you need a wife, so I can arrange the marriage for you ' ?'If I had the desire to get married, I would have been the first one to marry this young woman !'

`Abdullah said: “I have a wife.
`Abd al-Rahman said: “I have a wife'.
`Asim said:"I do not have a wife, so let me marry her.”

So `Umar (Radi Allahu ‘Anhu) arranged for her to be married to `Asim.

A Lil Note ... She gave him a daughter, who grew up to be the Mother of ...Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz (Rahimahullah) !

Ganging up on Russia...

The reasons should be obvious; anyway they are explained below for the interested readers...

Why the UK, the EU and the US Gang-Up on Russia
By Prof. James Petras
Global Research, March 21, 2018

Introduction

For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear war.

The most recent western propaganda campaign and one of the most virulent is the charge launched by the UK regime of Prime Minister Theresa May. The Brits have claimed that Russian secret agents conspired to poison a former Russian double-agent and his daughter in England , threatening the
sovereignty and safety of the British people. No evidence has ever been presented. Instead the UK expelled Russian diplomats and demands harsher sanctions, to increase tensions. The UK and its US and EU patrons are moving toward a break in relations and a military build-up.

A number of fundamental questions arise regarding the origins and growing intensity of this anti-Russian animus.

Why do the Western regimes now feel Russia is a greater threat then in the past? Do they believe Russia is more vulnerable to Western threats or attacks? Why do the Western military leaders seek to undermine Russia’s defenses? Do the US economic elites believe it is possible to provoke an

economic crisis and the demise of President Putin’s government? What is the strategic goal of Western policymakers? Why has the UK regime taken the lead in the anti-Russian crusade via the fake toxin accusations at this time?

This paper is directed at providing key elements to address these questions.

The Historical Context for Western Aggression

Several fundamental historical factors dating back to the 1990’s account for the current surge in Western hostility to Russia.

First and foremost, during the 1990’s the US degraded Russia, reducing it to a vassal state, and imposing itself as a unipolar state.

Secondly, Western elites pillaged the Russian economy, seizing and laundering hundreds of billions of dollars. Wall Street and City of London banks and overseas tax havens were the main beneficiaries

Thirdly, the US seized and took control of the Russian electoral process, and secured the fraudulent “election” of Yeltsin.

Fourthly, the West degraded Russia’s military and scientific institutions and advanced their armed forces to Russia’s borders.

Fifthly, the West insured that Russia was unable to support its allies and independent governments throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Russia was unable to aid its allies in the Ukraine, Cuba, North Korea, Libya etc.

With the collapse of the Yeltsin regime and the election of President Putin, Russia regained its sovereignty, its economy recovered, its armed forces and scientific institutes were rebuilt and strengthened. Poverty was sharply reduced and Western backed gangster capitalists were constrained, jailed or fled mostly to the UK and the US.

Russia’s historic recovery under President Putin and its gradual international influence shattered US pretense to rule over unipolar world. Russia’s recovery and control of its economic resources lessened US dominance, especially of its oil and gas fields.

As Russia consolidated its sovereignty and advanced economically, socially, politically and militarily, the West increased its hostility in an effort to roll-back Russia to the Dark Ages of the 1990’s.

The US launched numerous coups and military intervention and fraudulent elections to surround and isolate Russia . The Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Russian allies in Central Asia were targeted. NATO military bases proliferated.

Russia’s economy was targeted : sanctions were directed at its imports and exports. President Putin was subject to a virulent Western media propaganda campaign. US NGO’s funded opposition parties and politicians.

The US-EU rollback campaign failed.

The encirclement campaign failed.

The Ukraine fragmented – Russia allies took control of the East; Crimean voted for unification with Russia. Syria joined with Russia to defeat armed US vassals. Russia turned to China’s multi-lateral trade, transport and financial networks.

As the entire US unipolar fantasy dissolved it provoked deep resentment, animosity and a systematic counter-attack. The US’s costly and failed war on terror became a dress rehearsal for the economic and ideological war against the Kremlin ..Russia’s historical recovery and defeat of Western rollback
intensified the ideological and economic war.

The UK poison plot was concocted to heighten economic tensions and prepare the western public for heightened military confrontations.

Russia is not a threat to the West: it is recovering its sovereignty in order to further a multi-polar world. President Putin is not an “aggressor” but he refuses to allow Russia to return to vassalage.

President Putin is immensely popular in Russia and hated by the US precisely because he is the opposition of Yeltsin – he has created a flourishing economy; he resists sanctions and defends Russia’s borders and allies.

Conclusion

In a summary response to the opening questions.

1) The Western regimes recognize that Russia is a threat to their global dominance; they know that Russia is no threat to invade the EU, North America or their vassals.

2) Western regimes believe they can topple Russia via economic warfare including sanctions. In fact Russia has become more self-reliant and has diversified its trading partners, especially China, and even includes Saudi Arabia and other Western allies.

The Western propaganda campaign has failed to turn Russian voters against Putin. In the March 19, 2018 Presidential election voter participation increased to 67% ..Vladimir Putin secured a record 77% majority. President Putin is politically stronger than ever.

Russia’s display of advanced nuclear and other advanced weaponry has had a major deterrent effect especially among US military leaders, making it clear that Russia is not vulnerable to attack.

The UK has attempted to unify and gain importance with the EU and the US via the launch of its anti-Russia toxic conspiracy. Prime Minister May has failed. Brexit will force the UK to break with the EU.

President Trump will not replace the EU as a substitute trading partner. While the EU and Washington may back the UK crusade against Russia they will pursue their own trade agenda; which do not include the UK.

In a word, the UK, the EU and the US are ganging-up on Russia, for diverse historic and contemporary reasons. The UK exploitation of the anti-Russian conspiracy is a temporary ploy to join the gang but will not change its inevitable global decline and the break-up of the UK.

Russia will remain a global power. It will continue under the leadership of President Putin. The Western powers will divide and bugger their neighbors – and decide it is their better judgment to accept and work within a multi-polar world.

Illegitimate Debts at the Core of Capitalist System

Capitalism is baring its ugly face as the time passes...


The Struggle Against Illegitimate Public and Private Debt Which Are at the Core of the Capitalist System
By Eric Toussaint
CADTM 6 April 2018

 The seventh CADTM South Asia regional workshop started in Colombo (Sri Lanka) on April 6, 2018, with participants coming from Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Japan, Belgium and France. Below is the general introduction by Éric Toussaint, spokesperson for the CADTM international network.

What we are fighting is a capitalist system that destroys nature.

We have to fight a capitalist system which, within the two centuries since the so-called Industrial Revolution, has accumulated enough greenhouse gases to trigger climate change.

It sees nature merely as resources to be extracted, exploited and traded for maximal profit.

A capitalist system that confines the inhabitants of many countries to producing raw material to be exported at the lowest possible price.

A system that drives people to produce food they will not eat and to eat food they have not produced.

A system that sets up and maintains nuclear plants which must urgently be shut down.
A capitalist system which perpetuates or even strengthens the oppression and exploitation of women. A capitalist system which perpetuates the cast system and racist policies.

A capitalist system which increases inequalities all over the planet.

A capitalist system which goes hand in hand with the debt system.

Illegitimate private debt

The debt system existed long before the capitalist system but it has thrived under capitalism.

Private debt has been used for millennia as a way of depriving peasants of their land, craftsmen of their tools. Slavery for debt was common during Classical Antiquity and is still existing in South Asia and other part of the world.

The system of illegitimate private debt usually involves imposing conditions of loans and repayment that make the latter impossible. This results in seizure (of housing, land, working tools) and/or in the need to consign long years or indeed decades to repaying debts.

History is littered with uprisings against the burden of illegitimate private debt, whether in Ancient Greece, in Northern Europe during the Middle-Ages or in Asia.

Those struggles against illegitimate debts are once more in spate:

    Peasants’ struggles for debt cancellation in India
    Women’s struggles against microcredit in Morocco, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka
    Students’ struggles against student debt in the US, Chile, Canada, Japan and in the UK,
    Household struggles against abusive mortgages and house seizures in Spain, the US, Greece and in Ireland.

Illegitimate public debt

The system of illegitimate debt is also used by the capitalist system to subject public policies to the demands of Capital. While public debt could be used to finance an ambitious programme of ecological transition and social justice… it is actually used to enforce anti-social, extractivist and productivist policies, policies that increase competition between peoples.

Public debt is not bad in itself. Governments can contract loans to finance the ecological transition:

    to finance the complete shutdown of nuclear plants;
    to replace fossil energies with renewable energies which respect the environment;
    to finance land reform;
    to drastically reduce road and air transport and replace them with collective transport by rail.

Public borrowing can thus be legitimate if it is used to finance legitimate projects and if those who contribute act in a legitimate way.

The CADTM believes that big companies and the richer households should contribute to non profit-making government loans, i.e. with zero interest rate and without compensation against inflation.

At the same time, a part of the households of the popular classes which are able to spare money could make voluntary contributions to finance the state with a positive interest return rate (for instance, 3% real interest rate in favour of the savings of the popular families. If the rate of inflation is 4% a year, the nominal interest rate guaranteed by the government should be 7% in order to make sure that the real interest rate earned by these popular classes is 3%).

This mechanism would be highly legitimate as it would finance projects which are useful for society while reducing the wealth of the richest and simultaneously increasing the poorer classes’ revenues.

The opposite happens: governments and local authorities mostly borrow to finance illegitimate policies such as:

    armaments expenses;
    white elephants;
    nuclear plants;
    public-private partnerships;
    repayment of former illegitimate debts;
    bailing out banks.

Public debt is thus used to finance illegitimate expenses. The way repayment of the debt is financed is illegitimate too: big companies and the richer households pay little or no taxes. Those on limited incomes have to tighten their belts to repay the debt. In the name of debt repayment, the state implements budget cuts in the social services, thus impacting the poor. Private banks grant loans to governments at profitable rates for themselves while they borrow at a very low rate from the central bank as is the case in the Eurozone or in Japan.

We can draw a straightforward conclusion: it is time to end the system of illegitimate public and private debt.

The CADTM is radically committed to fighting at local and international level with social movements and citizens toward the repudiation of illegitimate debts, whether public or private.

If public authorities with popular support wish to get involved, the CADTM is available and ready to help, for instance in the organization of citizens’ audits, as happened in Ecuador in 2007-2008, Paraguay in 2008 and Greece in 2015.

*
Eric Toussaint is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokesperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France.
He is the author of Bankocracy (2015); The Life and Crimes of an Exemplary Man (2014); Glance in the Rear View Mirror. Neoliberal Ideology From its Origins to the Present, Haymarket books, Chicago, 2012 (see here), etc.