US-lapdog Britain brings bogus allegation of Russian hacks !

After the United Snakes of America, the sorely pathetic pommies are going nuts. One now has to wonder what the blokes at GCHQ / MI5/6 are doing... These buggers are really jokers...
Since these are bogus claims, they would never propound any proof as asked by the Russians. Russia would be better to ignore these bozos and nutters...
British newspapers and tabloids need to raise their subscriptions badly amid dwindling sales... :-)
Or maybe, this is the reaction after being beaten in Aleppo by the Russians...

Russia launched ‘cyberwar & propaganda campaign’ against UK – media

RT : 17 Dec, 2016

The UK is facing a cyberwarfare and a propaganda campaign from Russia, British newspaper The Times is claiming. The Russian embassy in the UK has demanded “proof” as critics label the allegations “psycho propaganda” and say the accusations are “a new low.”

Moscow is resorting to a campaign of “propaganda and unconventional warfare,” The Times reported, citing unnamed officials in Whitehall. “Moscow is behind a concerted drive to undermine the UK through espionage, misinformation, cyberattacks and fake news, senior Whitehall figures believe," the newspaper writes.

According to the outlet, citing a source with a knowledge of the matter, the UK will now “assess and formulate options” on how to deal with the alleged threat. To address the issue, British Prime Minister Theresa May is also set to chair a national security meeting in the coming weeks.

“We will be happy to finally see some proof,” the Russian embassy said, responding via its official Twitter account.

An example of the suspected Russian “hybrid” warfare – as cited by The Times – is what UK’s intelligence services call “propaganda” by RT and Sputnik news agency to “influence” a British audience. Labour MP Ben Bradshaw recently said that Moscow "probably” influenced the UK referendum on leaving the EU (known as Brexit). Yet the allegations on alleged Russian hacking did not sit well with the vocal advocate of Brexit and a former UKIP leader, Nigel Farage.

“Ever since June 23 when we voted for Brexit, there have been all sorts of excuses that have been rolled out. But to now blame it on Russian cyber-hacking, I think they have reached a new low,” he recently said.

In a bid to be prepared for potential Russian propaganda warfare, the UK even went as far as to stage drills covering a scenario where Moscow would spread “false information” in the Baltic states, harming British troops there, according to another Times report.

However, the result of the drill was rather upsetting for the UK Ministry of Defense, as it acknowledged that lengthy bureaucratic procedures would prevent effective counteraction, the media revealed.

‘Ridiculous’ accusations

As Britain is joining the ranks of those claiming Russia is meddling in the internal affairs of Western states, the US has already made its point clear. Earlier this year, Washington officially accused Moscow of hacking servers and private computers of the Democratic Party, which Kremlin denied as “nonsense” and “myth making."

As no evidence was ever presented to the public, whistleblowing website WikiLeaks suggested on Friday that the US should publish the proof on its platform to verify the serious accusations.

And on December 9, the Washington Post cited unnamed CIA officials as claiming that Russia not only directed the hacking, but did it with the goal to secure Donald Trump’s election.

But in an interview to Fox News, President-elect Trump blasted the information as “ridiculous” and yet “another excuse.” The US President-elect stressed that the accusations on Russia prove the Democrats were simply “embarrassed” since they “suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of politics in this country.”

Speaking to RT, former US presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul said that Americans “should be worried about the influence of our CIA in other people's elections, I mean probably hundreds. It's constant.”

Talk Radio host and columnist John Gaunt called the British allegations on Russia’s cyberwarfare “psycho propaganda,” saying the EU is simply “unhappy” with the Brexit and Americans electing Donald Trump.

“So, they started off with these ridiculous stories that Vladimir Putin and the Russians tried to stir the American election,” Gaunt told RT.

“Next they are telling us that the Russians are going to come and eat our babies. It’s completely and utterly ridiculous.” Gaunt went on to say that the British public and those who he spoke to simply “see straight through this” since the allegations are “pure propaganda.”

“The European Union needs a new enemy. They’ve decided that new enemy is Vladimir Putin and so they are poking him with their biggest stick,” Gaunt said. Yet instead of portraying the Russian president as a “James Bond villain,” the West and UK should talk to Russia, since the British population does not believe the accusations, he added.

Selected Readers' Comments:

# Nothing but lies, dirty propaganda war, hystericaI aggression AGAINST Russia, by the US establishment and their pathetic minions from London.

# Looks like the same person is writing the script both for the US and UK media.

# This is called projecting in psychology.
However you call it, it is also condescending for the audience, as though we have no brain to filter data and news. They must do it for us. Put shortly, it is not only about media/propaganda war with Russia, it is about controlling us, the audience. Democracy is becoming less and less democratic in USA, UK, and EU.

# Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

# This is bullying, and more bullying...

# Who claimed that the Presidential Election were manipulated? Who collected money to recount the votes in some states? What has been the outcome? The Republicans had won votes in addition... Therefore: The claim has not been true. As nearly everyone had known right from the beginning. Now another way is tried, another lie, another claim but the same result in the end. Do these people really believe the voters would not realize which game they are playing..?

#  They can ask Tony B.Liar for fake news. He is the expert.

# Now I can say they are losing the battle. The establishment in UK and US are truly losing the battle. Here again they cannot make any mea-culpa to find their own limitation and improve themselves. Instead they are blaming Russia. This is becoming extremely pathetic. I remember what Lavrov said one day: They no longer have capable people to lead them to victory. Lavrov the most accomplished diplomate in modern time was right. Absolutely pathetic for UK and US to fail that low.

# Did Russia bring down both EU and USA? CIA should take some lessons from Putin!
 
# Indeed, perhaps they are simply scared they will lose the next election to Corbyn.

# These allegations are hysterical... under ALL definitions of the word.... lol

# Death to Western hegemony and its sorcery, i'm sick of looking for reasons to defend it.

# Just Endless provocations from these people. Why dont they spend more time on their human rights violations and take care of all the refugees they created.

# Britain is home to millions of spies. They're crooked and cold-blooded. This is the sheer truth. Look back on the history and what they did to India, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ireland, Iran, Syria, etc.

# On the other hand, spying Merkel and Holland is okay ... !


# If Moscow is so influencial to affect British and US election, then who is super power and who is the regional power? The fact is US and UK people are hungry about raw pure news. Whereas the media in those countries have become appendage of the government, rather than being critic of the government. That is why RT is so popular all over the world !

# Dont be fooled this doesnt affect anyone, they will never go to war but the propaganda will enable more arms sales. Search for SOFEX on youtube, its pretty astounding to see weapons from america being sold right next to china etc.

# why doesn't the West cut out the act and just start the war already rather than threatening to start one? We have heard endless justifications for going to war with Russia but have yet to see them make good on their crazy plans.

Threatening China overwater with underwater drones !

Chinese black magic nets Uncle Sam's big fish...

Pivot to Asia, “Underwater Spying”, US Drones Threaten China

By Stephen Lendman

Global Research, December 17, 2016

On December 15, a Chinese warship seized an underwater US drone, patrolling where it doesn’t belong in the South China Sea – in Beijing’s 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Beijing considers foreign vessels, aircraft and other intrusions entering it without permission potential national security threats, especially repeated US provocations.
Thursday’s incident occurred about 50 nautical miles northwest of Subic Bay, off the Philippines’ west coast. The incident reportedly is the first of its kind, occurring shortly before the US navy ship Bowditch was about to retrieve the submersible.
Pentagon director of press operations Capt. Jeff Davis accused China of seizing US military property, saying “(i)t is ours, and it is clearly marked as ours and we would like it back. And we would like this not to happen again.”
This incident is the latest in a series of provocative US actions, deploying its surface warships, aircraft and now an underwater surveillance drone in Chinese waters or airspace where they don’t belong.
Imagine if Beijing did something similar in America’s gulf or close to its east or west coasts. US initiated hostilities might follow.
Washington continues testing China’s patience provocatively, much like its doing to Russia in the Black Sea and along its borders, increasing its military presence – both nations entitled to respond defensively. Anything less would be irresponsible.
Last April, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, aboard the US carrier Stennis sailing in the South China Sea, said the Pentagon would shortly deploy “new undersea drones in multiple sizes and diverse payloads that can, importantly, operate in shallow water where manned submersibles cannot.”
Clearly, his announcement was aimed at Beijing, these vessels deployed for spying – intelligence gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance, also to track area submarines. They’re able to launch missiles and UAVs.
They’ll be used in waterways worldwide, undetected if things go as planned, clear threats to China, Russia and other targeted nations.
The advent of submersible drones and their use conflicts with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
It defines the rights and responsibilities of nations, using world oceans and seas. Without permission, foreign vessels have no right of so-called “innocent passage” through territorial waters of other nations. Spying and other forms of intelligence gathering are not innocent. It’s unlawful intrusion.
US encroachment incidents happen with disturbing regularity. Ones in Chinese waters occur in its 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ), Beijing legitimately calling them a national security threat, taking appropriate measures in response.
Washington seeks dominance over areas not its own, risking direct confrontation. Beijing believes US surface, air and underwater spying is preparing the battlefield for future war.
Seizing Washington’s underwater drone shows US provocations won’t be tolerated. America’s rage to dominate assures continued disturbing incidents, risking eventual war.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

Assad's pardoning of Aleppo militants - right or wrong?

Time will tell the consequences of pardoning, but this decision will prove to be hugely unfavourable. These hardened militants will simply get to their usual business and Assad will have to fight the same enemies again...Remember, once a terrorist, always a terrorist!

Syria: By Evacuating and Pardoning Terrorists, Is Bashar Al-Assad “Being Too Nice”?

By Adam Garrie

Global Research, December 17, 2016

The Duran 16 December 2016

Contrary to Western fake news, Assad’s approach towards terrorists is deeply humane, some would say overly humane. Here is what we know and what must be answered.

Images of green bus convoys leaving Aleppo have provoked mixed reactions across the world. The coaches are filled with the surrendered terrorists who had occupied parts of East Aleppo prior to its liberation by the Syrian Arab Army.

Far from the fake massacres reported in the Western mainstream media, President Assad and his Russian partners are handling the situation in an utterly humane fashion, perhaps too humane. Assad’s rationale is that in order for Syria to once again be a peaceful and united country, as it was prior to 2011 when Western provocations triggered the current crisis, there needn’t be any Nuremberg style trials for the terrorists who continue to plague the country.

Assad has offered amnesty to any Syrians participating in terrorist activities in return for their pledge to lay down arms and permanently return to civilian life or join the fight against terrorism. He is also happy for the larger bulk of foreign fighters to peacefully leave the country, with many suggesting that Turkey, knowing that her plans for regime change in Damascus have failed, will cooperate in this.

It is a safe assumption that many of the terrorists formerly operating in Aleppo will flee to Turkey, where they will no longer be Syria’s problem. Others may flee into ISIS controlled regions of northern Iraq and others yet may seek safe passage further abroad, to the terrorist paradise that is the failed state of Libya. But the danger for Syrians are the terrorists who stay in Syria.

The buses from Aleppo are heading for Idlib. There is a high probability that many terrorists from Aleppo will refuse to disarm and simply join the battle that other terrorist groups are currently waging in Idlib. This strikes one as a consequence of short-term thinking on the part of the Syrian government.

In a recent interview, Assad has stated that because of the finite resources of the Syrian Arab Army, one must understand occupied regions of the country as a set of descending priorities.

According to the Syrian President, Aleppo was the priority for obvious reasons. Its size, its location within Syria, its historical importance and its importance as a large urban centre for the region, all meant that Aleppo’s freedom was essential to secure first and foremost.

Assad’s second priority are regions on the outskirts of Damascus which continue to be occupied by terrorists. It is only after this that regions around Idlib, Palmyra and ultimately Raqqa will be dealt with.

All of this is totally logical, except for the idea that terrorist fighters should live to fight another day. The move is clearly one born of humanitarian concerns, but the question which necessarily follows is, why should anyone show mercy to terrorists who showed no mercy to their victims, and, furthermore, why should they simply be transferred to another region of Syria to do in Idlib or beyond, what they did to Aleppo?

These are questions which Syria and her allies will ultimately have to address, either in a diplomatic forum or perhaps directly on the battle field as part of Assad’s long term solution to gradually eliminate all terrorism from Syria. With Obama on his last legs and a seemingly cooperate Donald Trump on his way to the White House, the idea of meeting Obama’s America half-way in terms of sheltering Al-Nura/Al-Qaeda is becoming a non-issue.

The matter as British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson of all people said, is now in the hands of Syria, Russia and their allies. Terrorism cannot be tolerated in any form. This must be the long term and lasting message.

The original source of this article is The Duran

Copyright © Adam Garrie, The Duran, 2016

CIA's arms delivery channels to their Syrian mercenaries exposed !

CIA's arms supply routes and methodologies from East European countries to Syrian terrorists using Middle Eastern countries as transit routes and with finance from Gulf monarchies...

Aleppo Starts Uncovering Washington’s Design in Support of ISIS and Al Qaeda

By Jean Périer

Global Research, December 17, 2016

New Eastern Outlook 12 December 2016

It won’t be an exaggeration to state that the White House and its European allies have made a step too far in a bid to obstruct the successful liberation of the town of Aleppo by the Syrian government forces and Russia’s pilots providing close fire support to them. This development has been widely commented by various analysts and experts across the globe, with some of them claiming that Washington is determined to prevent the complete destruction of ISIS at all costs, since it created and nurtured this terrorist group to overthrow Assad just like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda was created to fight Soviet troops in Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

A few days ago new facts about Washington’s sponsorship of ISIS appeared in the Bulgarian media, along with the pictures and video made in eastern Aleppo by the Nova TV journalists. The crew stumbled upon a warehouse that was used by the Jabhat al-Nusra militants, where they discovered munitions for the BM-21 “Grad” self-propelled multiple rocket launchers, bearing visible indications that they were produced by the Bulgarian manufacturer VMZ (Vazovskaya Heavy Machinery). It’s curious that in spite of the ban on arms sales to Syria, missiles and shells of Bulgarian production, however, fell into the hands of terrorists. The Bulgarian crew indicated that the munitions were supplied by the company known as Arcus from Lyaskovets, while all labels were written in Bulgarian.

The channel has been consulting military experts ever since and the latter have already stated that the radical militants could have been fighting for another two years with the munitions they had.

In July, the report presented by the Balkan Network for Investigative Journalism» (BIRN) and the Project for the Investigation of Corruption and Organized Crime» (OCCRP) stated that thousands of units of small arms and ammunition were smuggled from the Balkans to the Persian Gulf and the states bordering Syria. Arms export data, UN reports, plane tracking, and weapons contracts examined during a year-long investigation reveal how the munitions were sent east from Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Montenegro, Slovakia, Serbia and Romania. Arms dealers in eastern Europe procured assets from their own countries and brokered the sale of ammunition from Ukraine and Belarus, even attempting to secure Soviet-made anti-tank systems bought from the UK. Robert Stephen Ford, the US ambassador to Syria in the period from 2011 to 2014, told BIRN and OCCRP, that trade is coordinated by the US Central Intelligence Agency, Turkey’s MIT and Gulf monarchies through the centers in Jordan and Turkey.

It’s been reported that European countries have been supplying Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey with thousands of assault rifles, mortars, rocket launchers, anti-tank weapons and heavy machine guns, the total worth of which amounts to 1.2 billion euros, that end up in terrorist hands in Syria and Yemen, contributing to the further escalation of the conflict.

A number of the countries reported as arms suppliers to terrorists try to use their media sources to deny the role they play in assisting radical militants in Syria. In particular, the Croatian Government has been consistently denying its role in the conflict. However, according to the New York Times, one of the senior Croatian officials offered to open country’s arsenals during a visit to Washington in the summer of 2012, after which Zagreb established a contact with the Saudis, that bankrolled the purchases, while the CIA provided logistics support for the transfer of Croatian weapons.

In their report, BIRN and OCCRP stated that the acquisition of significant amounts of military weapons from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe for the “Syrian opposition” were directly controlled by Washington. Earlier, the respected military journal Jane’s Defence Weekly in its article “US arms shipment to Syrian rebels detailed” stated that the US supplies the “Syrian opposition” with weapons and ammunition from Eastern Europe, and noted that these facts were almost officially recognized by the US Senate.

Over the last five years, Ukraine alone has sold nearly 615 thousand units of small arms to Syria. But it’s curious that its officials customers are not some third world countries, but large Western companies like Hire & Fire, IZH Impex Inc, Waffen Schumacher GmbH, BVS, spol. Sro – all buying old Soviet weapons en masse. In 2012 alone the American Hire & Fire made an acquisition of 90 thousand Soviet rifles. That’s almost enough to arm four divisions! And in just one year!

Reports on US arms purchases provided by SOCOM show that it paid at least 27 million dollars for Bulgarian weapons and 12 million dollars for Serbian weapons and ammunition in the period from 2014 to 2016 that were supposed to be used in the Syrian covert operations. Since December 2015, SOCOM commissioned three cargo ships to transport 4,700 tonnes of weapons and ammunition from the port of Constanta in Romania and Burgas in Bulgaria to the Middle East.

The Montenegro Defence Industry has already exported 250 tons of ammunition and 10, 000 grenade launchers to Saudi Arabia since August 2015 for them to be smuggled to Syria. Moreover, the British SkyNews channel conducted a journalistic investigation, which resulted in uncovering the largest weapons supply channel from Ukraine and some countries of Eastern Europe to the Middle East.

That is why Washington and its European allies are particularly interested in the Syrian conflict to be protracted, preventing people to enjoy peace only to profit from this “bloody business”.

So we must be prepared for new evil designs to be disclosed as new communities in Syria and Iraq will be liberated from radical militants, unleashed by the Obama administration and its European allies upon the Syrian people.

Jean Périer is an independent researcher and analyst and a renowned expert on the Near and Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”  

The original source of this article is New Eastern Outlook

Copyright © Jean Périer, New Eastern Outlook, 2016

Canadian journalist blasted MSM’s bogus coverage of Syria crisis

Excellent reporting by a Canadian journalist, Eva Bartlett.

The western media can't handle the truth, they believe in staging news to make it more dramatic to let their governments look so holy. Watch any news or American tv series it all got the same foundation: the government is good and superior. Exposing the corruption from the government, like wikileaks did, does not fit on that foundation.

The western press reporting on "fake news" is in itself fake news. The "fake news" stories are the outdated main stream medias final grasp at retaining the influence it once had.

Eva, remember that some female journalists have been killed for their reporting on Syria, I am sure you know whom I mean, so take care. Keep up with your honest Job. There are not many honest journalists like you. Be proud of yourself for not having been sold out!

They have started attacking Eva from the intelligence community in Britain and the USA. Watch out Eva, these intelligence murderers are reckless and immoral.

‘If I write in line with Russian media, it’s because we both tell the truth’ – Eva Bartlett to RT

Published time: 17 Dec, 2016

A Canadian journalist who blasted the mainstream media’s coverage of the Syria crisis at the latest UN event, told RT how her own reports have been accused of being biased on the side of the Russian and Syrian governments.

Eva Bartlett, a freelance journalist and human rights activist who has her own blog on RT.com recently sparked debate by giving an emotional speech at the UN. During a press conference arranged by the Syrian mission to the UN, she blasted the Western mainstream media’s coverage of the Syrian war as “compromised,” saying that their local sources are “not credible” and, in the case of Aleppo, not even real. The journalist, who has been covering events in Syria during the years since the civil war first broke out there, noted that while there are “certainly honest journalists among the very compromised establishment media,” many respected media agencies simply seem to avoid fact checking. The harsh response she has drawn for her unforgiving criticism of fellow members of the media is quite baseless, however, Bartlett told RT.

“Some people have taken issue with the things I said because I was basically criticizing much of the corporate media reporting on Syria, and instead of actually digesting what I said and criticizing the details of what I said, people have gone to the usual tactic of trying to smear who I am and imply that I am an agent of either or both Syria and Russia,” Bartlett said, adding that it’s been openly implied she is on the payroll of the Syrian and Russian governments. The fact that she is an active contributor to RT’s op-edge section has also been jumped all over.

“The fact that I do contribute to the RT op-edge section apparently, in some people’s eyes, makes me compromised. I began contributing to the RT op-edge section when I lived in Gaza, and this was not an issue for people who then appreciated my writing,” she stated. Bartlett also denied the notion that the Syrian government paid her to speak at the UN.

“It was not the Syrian government which arranged for me to speak at the UN. It was my request, and I requested this because… I thought this was actually a good opportunity to share with a wider audience what I’ve seen on my independent visits to Syria.

“The only thing it had to do with the Syrian government was the Syrian ambassador… to the UN agreeing to facilitate this [opportunity],” she said.

According to Bartlett’s UN speech, the corporate media is effectively reporting information that is the “opposite” of what is actually happening on the ground, whereas her reporting comes from personal interaction with the Syrian people during her now six trips to the war-torn state.

“What I am writing, and what I’m reporting, and who I am citing are Syrian civilians whom I’ve encountered in Syria.

“If people do not wish to hear the voices of Syrian civilians and if they want to maintain their narrative which is in line with the NATO narrative – which is in line with destabilizing Syria and vilifying the government of Syria and ignoring the overwhelming wishes of the people of Syria – then they do this by accusing me of spreading propaganda,” the journalist stressed.

As the West sees RT as a propaganda media outlet for the Russian government, Bartlett’s connection to RT has been used as a basis for accusing her of fake reporting because it differs from the picture of the Syrian crisis being presented by the Western mainstream media, the journalist claimed.

“The fact that I’m writing about what I see in Syria when I am on the ground in Syria, when I talk with Syrian civilians – and I sometimes contribute to Russia Today – suddenly this is an issue.

“I am a freelance journalist, I write for whomever I want. I submit an article to Russia Today’s op-edge section and they decide whether or not they are going to run it – that’s how it works,” she explains, noting that the reason that her reports are in line with those in the Russian media might be because both are accurate.

“The fact that my writing is in line with the Syrian people… in some respect aligns with Russian media reports, does not mean that I’m reporting Russian propaganda, and it does not mean that what Russian media is reporting is propaganda. It happened to be that I report the truth as I see it on the ground, and some Russian media happen to report the truth as they see it on the ground.

“Why do we not see these accusations when a BBC journalist goes to Syria and reports what I often believe to be not the full story? Why are they not accused of working for the State of England? Why are Al Jazeera journalists not accused of working for Qatar?” Bartlett asked, adding that all of these “loaded accusations” are slung at her in order to discredit what she has to tell.

Media Disinformation, War Crimes & the Liberation of Aleppo

The following article presents MSM propaganda from a Canadian perspective...

Media Disinformation, War Crimes, and the Liberation of Aleppo

By Jim Miles

Global Research, December 16, 2016

 

It continues to amaze me – although I know it shouldn’t because of its repetitious nature – but the mainstream media (MSM) content of Canada’s CBC as represented by Rosemary Barton on Power and Politics is a combination of double standards, misinformation, and innuendo through choice of language.

Barton’s main talking points today (Wednesday, December 14, 2016) came under the title “Fall of Aleppo”, with her main theme being war crimes.  The implications made for the latter put full blame for the declared crimes on the Assad/Russia combination.    Her three guests today were: Louise Arbour, former Canadian Supreme Court Justice; Stephane Dion, current Liberal foreign affairs minister; and Stephen O’Brien, UN Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs.   All three avidly reflected and supported the “war crimes” thesis of Ms Barton.

First, the “Fall of Aleppo”

From the many sources I have read, from the many history books and contemporary events books I have read, the very title “Fall of Aleppo” is a lie.  Aleppo – at least a good part of it, “fell” to the al-Qaeda/al-Nusra related so called rebels about four years ago.  These ‘rebels’ were aided and abetted by the U.S. CIA, indirectly through our great democratic allies in Saudi Arabia, and more discreetly, at first at least, by our Turkish NATO ally.  Yes there were protests, but the violence came from outside (hmmm, perhaps the call for war crimes investigations should extend back in time….more later).

What is actually happening in Aleppo is a victory of government forces, aided by its allies, in retaking the part of Aleppo that was held under the severe hand of the Islamic fundamentalist groups.  The way the CBC and other western MSM present the story is as if the “moderate” terrorists  – which the U.S. failed to identify – were the ones besieged in Aleppo.  Certainly the civilians trapped in this “cauldron” (the non-western term used for the surrounding and defeat of the rebel/terrorist groups) have suffered, as they do in all wars.  They will continue to suffer until the Assad government – okay call it a regime, which it is just as much as Trudeau’s government is a regime considering it governs with only 40 per cent of the populations approval (at last count) – until the government can restore some semblance of security to the city as a whole.  The civilians were essentially hostages to the rebel/terrorist forces, not allowed to leave the area, killed if they tried, subject to enforced fundamentalist rules.

In short, Aleppo has not fallen, Aleppo has recovered from its hostage taking by the terrorists.  Aleppo has been liberated.

War crimes - for sure, all wars are crimes, but how far back do you want to go?

The first guest, Louise Arbour, supported the war crimes meme currently circulating in western MSM and government agencies.  Barton asked about Canada’s UN initiatives which have gone nowhere.  Arbour’s response accepted the war crime premise, and placed the blame on the UN and the ICC as being ineffective and their actions insufficient in the past (as per Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Darfur).  She reported that they (someone) is “collecting…accumulated evidence” of the “devastation” as Aleppo “falls completely to the regime.”  The U.S. is not party to the ICC, and Russia has recently withdrawn because of its evident western bias and its true ineffectiveness.

Barton ended asking if Arbour was “anyway hopeful for the people of Syria?”  The response was a clear “No”, qualified by saying that the civilians were “hostage to both sides.”  Time will tell what happens in Aleppo, but so far from what I have seen, most of the citizens are very happy to see the end of the rebel/terrorist occupation and hostage holding in eastern Aleppo.  Arbour called it a “very dark day.”  Crazy, hey, I thought it was the best news to come out of the war so far – yes, I know, more civilians will die, in Mosul as well as Aleppo, and on to Idlib and Raqqa  – but at least the scourge of fundamentalist terrorism has been alleviated and hopefully seriously restricted for this important city.

Stephane Dion was the second guest, and stuck with the main themes of the afternoon.  Barton again began with comments about “shelling is a war crime” (really Rosemary?) in pockets of east Aleppo.  Dion attempted to explain what Canada was doing via the UN which effectively highlighted Canada’s ineffectiveness.  Part of the discussion actually entertained the idea of removing the veto from Russia in the Security Council – a great idea if the same would apply to the other four veto holders, the U.S., France, Great Britain, and China.   In other words allow the General Assembly to hold the true power, but that of course goes against ‘western’ wishes for dominance globally.

I missed a short section then returned to find Britain’s Stephen O’Brien essentially doing the British lap dog thing for the U.S. empire.  If one ever wants to hear any kind of rant containing double standards, lies, and false humanitarianism, just listen to those who still believe that Britain is an imperial power.  It is in a way, but only as mentioned, as a U.S. poodle.

O’Brien’s supercilious self-righteousness for humanitarian concerns would bring a tear to even the most jaded eye.  Mine were tears of cynical jaded laughter as to the wilful ignorance  of his overwrought self-satisfied rectitude and virtue, typical British imperial rhetoric.  Repeating the memes of a fallen Aleppo and war crimes,  O’Brien used such wonderful phrases as “heinous and abominable acts…atrocities,” in his attempts to be the civilizer, the bringer of benevolence to the world.   At the end, responding to Barton’s question concerning when  Aleppo were to be “run over entirely”, he indicated it was a “man made crisis” and those that “perpetrated these abominations” should be brought to justice.

War crimes? Well, where should we start?

Perhaps we should start most recently in Libya, where the British promoted no-fly zone turned into a bomb anything that will help the rebels, all on the pretext of a supposed genocide, the now thoroughly disreputed “right to protect.”  Certainly war crimes were committed there by Britain, and Canada, and the U.S., and every other participant. The military equipment used to supply the ‘rebels’ – really another branch of al-Qaeda – was redistributed to the protesters in Syria and the African Sahel.  Who are the people responsible for that who should be brought to justice for their abominable actions? Hint: it wasn’t the Russians.

Or maybe we can go back to all the war crimes that started and followed with the U.S. push for war in Iraq, based on lies and deception from the U.S. government, all departments including the military and the CIA, as well as the full Congress.   Britain followed suit with its false declarations by the Blair government  in order to reinvigorate the aged and poorly preserved ethos of the British Empire and its civilizing role in the world.  That led to war crimes throughout Iraq, including Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Tikrit, and on through other prisons where the rise of al-Qaeda in Iraq essentially occurred as it had not been there originally.  As a consequence of other events, that led to the rise of ISIS and the current war in Iraq and Syria.  Hint: the Russians weren’t involved.

Hmmm, where else can we go?  In reality, the whole U.S. empire – as were the British and French empires before that – is based on military dominance of other regions for the sake of U.S. and later international corporate interests.  There is ample material on this history of crimes against humanity under the fake guise of democracy and freedom, when what really mattered was the subservience of all to the Washington consensus and the dominance of U.S. power and U.S. money.

Enter Russia

After the CIA supported coup in Ukraine from which the Ukrop neonazis were wanting to ethnically cleanse the Donbass region of Russian speaking people;  after the establishment of nuclear capable missiles on the borders of Russia in Poland and Romania; after fighting fundamentalist terrorists in Chechnya who originated from U.S./CIA efforts in supporting the Afghanistan mujahideen, later Taliban; after watching Yugoslavia be torn apart on the “right to protect” doctrine that had no foundation and then to have Kosovo almost literally bombed out of Serbia; after the war crimes committed by the west without a Russian veto in the Security Council; after watching all these U.S. related crimes against humanity/war crimes,  it is really no wonder that Russia finally found the strength to say no to U.S.imperial desires in the Middle East.

But wait, wasn’t this about ISIS?

Well, yes, but ISIS is generally rooted in U.S. war crime activities that have taken place throughout the region, including U.S. supplying of military materials to Israel as it bombed the open air prison of Gaza with its now 2 million inhabitants.  But…but….the bad guys were hiding behind the civilians…whereas in Aleppo, the rebels/terrorists are….oh yeah, hiding behind civilians.

Also consider that the U.S. pretended to bomb ISIS for a couple of years  – before Russia intervened – and accomplished little but a bit of publicity;  consider that very recently a major agreement on military alignment was aborted by the U.S. when they bombed a known Syrian army position guarding Deir Ezzor from the ISIS terrorists;   consider that Saudi Arabia, the U.S.’ second largest ally in the region after Israel is supporting and supplying al-Qaeda and ISIS wherever it can find the necessary conditions to promote its fundamentalist inhumanitarian form of religion; consider that the U.S. has been the frontrunner in wanting to get rid of Assad, supported by their faithful British lapdog; consider all this before pointing a finger at anyone for war crimes.

So why would the U.S. do all that?  Simple, really, as mentioned above it’s about oil and money.    The U.S. does not necessarily want the oil, there are many sources available for that.  What it wants is twofold.   First, the price of oil, in large part controlled by the Saudis, is the main support of the U.S. petrodollar, the current global reserve currency.  If that status failed, if the Saudis sold oil in Euros, or yen, or renminbi, or rupees, the U.S. dollar would fail. That is another reason for the misadventures in Libya and Iraq as both were wanting to set up currency exchanges not involving the US$.

The second reason is related in that the U.S. wanted a pipeline to run from its friendly dictatorship countries in the Middle East  to Europe in order to weaken the Russian economic handle of oil/gas sales to Europe.  Except that Syria stood in the way, and Syria was allied with Iran, and Russia was bypassing Ukraine with its Nordstream and its Southstream through Turkey (or the Black Sea whichever works out).   So once again Russia is not only surrounded by U.S. missiles and military  bases, but also has to counter U.S. oil/financial attempts to deconstruct it and make it, like all other states, subservient to U.S. demands.

Syria, unfortunately for its citizens, is the small country caught up in U.S. geopolitical enterprises that are attempting to isolate and destroy the strength of Russia.  War crimes, yes, but start with the reality of the U.S. and its allies war crimes around the region over the past many decades.

War criminals then  for sure must be brought to justice to stop these “atrocities” and “abominations”.  Start with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, then onto Blair, then back to the U.S. for the CEOs of Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, General Electric, Lockheed Martin (of Hellfire missile infamy) et al.   The current crop in the EU could also be indicted for war crimes as they support the U.S. efforts and follow along with the manufactured consent of thinking of Russia as the bad guy in all this.  And don’t forget to come to Canada where we have our own crop of war criminals who support U.S. actions both rhetorically and in action.

Russia is being vilified as the evil scapegoat for all the west’s problems, as an empire needs a good enemy to distract its citizens from problems it really created itself and from war crimes it has created itself.  As a person who has proven to recognize U.S. intentions and outsmart the U.S. on most fronts, Vladimir Putin becomes the arch-villain.  What is truly happening is that Russia is standing up to U.S. imperial interests as it increasingly recognizes that the U.S. is still fighting its anti-Soviet cold war because it needs a good enemy to distract blame from itself.

The war is far from over, as the U.S. will certainly try to pull out all stops in order to retain dominance in the region – up to and including – and here’s some big speculation – the CIA operating internally to stop Trump from taking the presidency.  I would have to say, “Thank you” to Russia for intervening on behalf of the Syrian people in order to rid the country of U.S. supported terrorists.   It ain’t pretty, it ain’t neat and tidy, and it ain’t over, but Aleppo is liberated.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Jim Miles, Global Research, 2016

 

Who will be US 'Elected' Electoral College's 'Selected' President?

Interesting scenario - - Electors can overturn people's choice at their whims, and they call it 'democracy' ?!
Obama has formally accused Moscow of interfering in the US elections on behalf of Donald Trump. These are serious allegations, the objective of which are ultimately to prevent Trump from acceding to the US presidency.  What is at stake is tantamount to a “conspiracy” to manipulate the Electoral College vote on December 19.
 

If Electoral College votes against Trump, US will get worst constitutional crisis in its history'

RT : 16 Dec, 2016

The system of the Electoral College is corky, but it is not going away anytime soon. Each party thinks they can work the system to their advantage. The losers complain about it. The winners are happy with it, says political cartoonist Ted Rall.

Donald Trump may have won the US presidential election, but he faces one last hurdle - the Electoral College which convenes on Monday to vote for America's 45th leader.

Technically, it has the power to block him and electors are facing immense pressure from those hoping to scupper a Trump presidency.

RT: How can you explain all the pressure about the vote of the Electoral College members to usher in Donald Trump as President of the United States?

TR: Every time there is a situation as in 2000 when George W. Bush technically won the Electoral College vote over Al Gore, who won the popular vote - and there have been other examples in the history - the losers always look to the Electoral College as sort of a “maybe we can get these guys to change their minds after the fact”. But the fact is that historically, although technically it is legally allowed for members of the Electoral College to change their vote, there isn’t much precedent for it. The fact is that they are expected to vote in accordance with the way that their states ordered them to vote. They are appointed by their respective political parties and 99 percent of the time, they always have cast their votes exactly the way that they are supposed to. It does seem a little bit churlish at this point for Democrats to be complaining about the Electoral College. If the election had gone the other way and Hillary Clinton had won with the minority of the popular vote but had won the Electoral College, you could probably guess that the complaints would be coming from the Republican side. As they say “Hypocrisy, thy name is politics.”

RT: What can you tell about the history of the Electoral College? Is there any chance that pledged electors will change their votes over to Hillary Clinton?

TR: The Electoral College does have a long and strange history. The US is the only country that I know of that has a system like this. And it is balanced in order to benefit more rural states. The way it works is basically the number of Electoral College votes per population tends to benefit small states like Rhode Island and Vermont over large states like California, Texas and Florida. So, it is a system that is quirky. But I think it is not going away anytime soon. And the reason is that each party thinks that they can work the system to their advantage. The losers always complain about it. The winners are always quite happy with it. You would need a bipartisan effort on the part of both Democrats and Republicans to get rid of it. And while there are certainly grounds to complain about it. It is not direct democracy; it is not purely one man, one vote or one person, one vote. But nevertheless is also does serve to give a more equal vote to people who live in parts of the country that might not otherwise get that much attention. The Democrats are kind of looking foolish by not only trying to look anti-democratic by trying to defy the system that they tried to work and lost fair and square. This is just not going to work. And the last thing you want to do in politics is to try to get involved in a battle that you don’t have any chance of winning. There is just literally no way that you are going to get forty or more of this pledged electors to change their votes over to Hillary Clinton.

RT: What could be the consequences if members of the Electoral College really decide to change their mind?

TR: If you remember during the campaign Democrats really thought they are going to win and not by a little bit, they thought that Hillary Clinton really thought she was going to win by a landslide. And many of the polls said the same thing. And at that time there was a lot of pressure on Donald Trump to agree, pledge and promise that he was going to honor the results of the election when he lost. Well, he didn’t lose. Now, you have the Democrats doing the same thing that they didn’t want Donald Trump to do, which is an attempt to delegitimize the winner. Trump won the election fair and square. No matter what any Democrats say, there is just no allegation that there were millions of votes were changed somehow by magical means… I don’t think they are thinking this through very carefully. If by some miracle they were able to get the Electoral College to change its mind and install Hillary Clinton, this would create a constitutional crisis which would be unprecedented in American history. And nobody knows where that would lead. You’d have the odd situation, and you’d be doing it at a time when the Supreme Court – which could be called upon to settle it – isn’t in any position to do so due to the death of Antonin Scalia. You now have a 4-4 balance between Democrats and Republicans on the Court. So literally the system couldn’t cure the problem they’re creating. They really need to stop this… the country is already terribly divided in the aftermath of this very difficult and divisive election. If they want to take on Donald Trump there are better ways to do so.

Selected Readers' Comments:

# Can someone please tell me who's pushing this agenda, and would this have been pushed if Hillary had won the election?

It would not be pushed of course. But don't worry, Trump will win, because tha same establishment that want to dominate world an ww3, now needs Trump. You can not go into big war with collapsing economy and debt reaching 100% of gdp. If Trump settle things up in economy, they will just throw him away, or kill him like Kennedy. And then go for ww3.

# They rigged the election and lost. Now they are trying to rig it even more.

# Cue Civil war... justice will have be served when New York looks like Aleppo does now.

# .. that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. (The Federalist Papers) How on earth did Bush get to be president?

# The demonrats are fighting for their very survival.

# Meanwhile, if they can't sneak Clinton in, California is already planning an independence referendum.