Archive for the ‘Syria’ Category

Syria’s President Exposed a Flaw in US Foreign Policy That No One Wants to Talk About

September 16, 2017 Leave a comment

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed)  In an interview with RT in 2015, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad uttered perhaps one of his most intriguing statements since the Syrian conflict erupted in 2011. Assad stated:

We’re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.

“Western propaganda has, from the very beginning, been about the cause of the problem being the president. Why? Because they want to portray the whole problem in Syria lies in one individual; and consequently the natural reaction for many people is that, if the problem lies in one individual, that individual should not be more important than the entire homeland. So let that individual go and things will be alright. That’s how they oversimplify things in the West.”  [emphasis added]

He continued:

Notice what happened in the Western media since the coup in Ukraine. What happened? President Putin was transformed from a friend of the West to a foe and, yet again, he was characterized as a tsar…This is Western propaganda. They say that if the president went things will get better. [emphasis added]

Putting aside Assad’s vast and extensive list of war crimes and crimes against humanity, Assad highlighted one of the major flaws in Western thinking regarding America’s hostile policies toward a number of independent states.

Just look at the current to-and-fro-ing between North Korea and the United States to gather an accurate picture of what is being referred to here. The problem of North Korea is consistently portrayed in the media as caused by one person (current leader Kim Jong-un), a narrative that ultimately ignores the role America and its allies have played in this current crisis. As Anti-Media previously highlighted:

“…the problem [North Korean crisis] is constantly framed as one caused by North Korea alone, not the United States. ‘How to Deal With North Korea,’ the Atlantic explains. ‘What Can Trump Do About North Korea?’ the New York Times asks. ‘What Can Possibly Be Done About North Korea,’ the Huffington Post queries. Time provides 6 experts discussing ‘How We Can Solve the Problem’ (of North Korea). ‘North Korea – what can the outside world do?’ asks the BBC.”

What the media is really advancing here — particularly when one talks about a military option as a response to dealing with North Korea’s rogue actions — is the notion that if the U.S. could only take out Kim Jong-un, the problem of North Korea would disappear.

Would the death of one man rid every single North Korean of the hostility and hatred they harbor toward the United States when many know full well that in the early 1950s the U.S. bombed North Korea so relentlessly they eventually ran out of targets to hit — that the U.S. military killed off at least 20 percent of the civilian population?

If Kim Jong-un is removed, will North Koreans suddenly forget that nearly every North Korean alive today has a family relative that was killed by the United States in the 1950s?

In the simple corporate media narrative, yes they will. Killing that one person and removing them from office will not only save the country they brutalize but will also provide security and stability for the rest of the world.

Never mind that prior to the U.S.-NATO onslaught of Libya in 2011, Libya had the highest standard of living in the African continent. The Times once admitted that its healthcare system was the “envy of the region.” Now, the country has completely collapsed, with well over two million children out of school, countless migrants drowning in its waters, extremism running unchecked and unchallenged, and traders openly selling slaves like a commodity.

Let’s suppose every single accusation against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was true (they weren’t); how can it be said that destroying a country’s infrastructure and assassinating its leader in flagrant disregard of international law is a realistic solution to any problem? If you oppose Donald Trump, would a Russian-led military intervention solve your problems with the country he rules over?

Forget what you think you know about Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Kim Jong-un, Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin, and Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro – the narrative Western governments and their media mouthpieces have promulgated for the last few decades remains completely nonsensical. You can’t solve Syria’s or Venezuela’s problems by removing their current leaders, especially if you attempt to do it by force. Anyone who claims this is possible is lying to you and is also too naïve and indolent to bother researching the current situations in Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Iraq – to name a few.

The fact that the U.S. evidently doesn’t want to solve any problems at all – that it merely seeks to overthrow leaders that don’t succumb to its wishes – is a topic for a separate article but is certainly worth mentioning here as well.

The same can ultimately be said of Donald Trump. Since his election victory, many celebrities, media pundits, and members of the intelligence community have sought to unseat and discredit him. Yet Donald Trump is merely a horrifying symptom of America’s problems; to think he alone caused them and that by removing him from office the U.S. would suddenly become a safe-haven of freedom and liberty is nothing short of idiotic.

If you agree with the latter sentiment, you must also concede that the problems facing North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and elsewhere could never be solved by the U.S. forcibly removing their leaders.

If Assad was removed from Syria, would extremism disappear or would it thrive in the political vacuum as it did in Iraq? Could Syria’s internal issues — which are much more extensive than the corporate media would have us believe — be solved by something as simple as removing its current leader? Can anyone name a country where this has been tried and tested as a true model for solving a sovereign nation’s internal crises? Anyone who truly believes a country’s problems can be solved in this facile way needs to do a bit more reading.

If you can recognize this dilemma, you can agree that it’s time for the media to completely undo the simplicity in its coverage of these issues and start reporting on the genuine diplomatic options that could be pursued, instead.

Assad Complains to UN After Reported Israeli Airstrike Targeting Chemical Weapons Facility

September 11, 2017 Leave a comment

( – The Assad regime on Thursday complained to the United Nations after an Israeli airstrike reportedly targeted a facility linked to its chemical weapons program.

The foreign ministry’s letters to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the president of the Security Council said that the predawn missile strike had hit “Syrian military positions … killing two army personnel and causing material damage to the site.”

The letters were silent on allegations of chemical weapons work at the targeted facility. The regime denies possessing or using chemical weapons, claiming to have surrendered its stockpiles for destruction under a 2013 deal brokered by Russia.

Just a day earlier, a U.N. commission of inquiry report in effect called that a lie, blaming the regime for a deadly sarin gas attack in Idlib province last April 4, and for 20 other chemical attacks since 2013.

The targeted complex was a facility of the Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC) near the town of Masyaf in Hama province. The U.S. government has designated SSRC (also known as CERS) for work on chemical and biological weapons and missile systems – most recently imposing sanctions on 271 SSRC employees in retaliation for the April 4 sarin attack.

A Western intelligence agency told the BBC earlier this year that the Assad regime was continuing to make chemical weapons in violation of the 2013 agreement, and that an SSRC facility in Masyaf specializes “in installing chemical weapons on long-range missiles and artillery.”

In its letters to the U.N. the Syrian foreign ministry charged that “Israeli attacks have become systematic behavior to protect the terrorists from al-Nusra Front and ISIS.”

The line is in keeping with the regime’s narrative that Israel (and the U.S.) are covertly supporting terror groups in Syria – even as the regime is leading the fight against the terrorists.

“It is inconceivable that the Security Council has so far taken no action to put an end to these blatant attacks,” the letters said.

“Those who attack the Syrian army provide direct support for terrorism because the Syrian army and its allies are those who fight terrorism on behalf of the entire world.”

Israel has not publicly confirmed responsibility for the airstrike, but statements by senior political and Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) officials were interpreted as alluding to it.

Israel was dealing with threats “both near and far,” military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Herzl Halevi was quoted by the Times of Israel as telling an event in Tel Aviv, while IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkott said elsewhere that the military was “working to thwart with responsibility and determination any threat that seeks to harm our security and prosperity.”

Past Israeli military intervention in Syria has focused almost entirely on Iranian weapons shipments to Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shi’ite terrorist group which in alliance with Iran and Russia is fighting to keep President Bashar al-Assad in power.

Among Israel’s gravest publicly stated concerns about the civil war in Syria is that it will result in an armed Iranian presence on its border, cementing an arc of hostile Shi’ite influence stretching from Iran across Iraq and Syria to Lebanon.

Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman told an Israeli radio station Thursday Israel has no wish to be drawn into a conflict but would “do whatever it takes to prevent a Shi’ite corridor from Iran to Damascus.”

A former head of Israel’s military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, said Thursday that if the airstrike was carried out by Israel, “it would be a commendable and moral action by Israel against the slaughter in Syria.”

“The factory that was targeted in Masyaf produces the chemical weapons and barrel bombs that have killed thousands of Syrian civilians,” Yadlin said on Twitter.

He said the targeted complex was also used for the manufacture of “precision missiles which will have a significant role in the next round of conflict.”

Yadlin also said the strike sent important messages about Israel’s determination to enforce its red lines, notwithstanding the presence in Syria of Russian air defenses.

“Now it’s important to keep the escalation in check and to prepare for a Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah response and even opposition from Russia.”

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu held talks in Sochi last month with Russian President Vladimir Putin and said afterwards he had made clear that Israel would act in Syria when it deemed it necessary.

“Most of the discussion dealt with Iran’s attempt to establish a foothold in Syria in the places where ISIS was defeated and is leaving,” he said. “The victory over ISIS is welcome. Iran’s entry is unwelcome, endangering us, and in my opinion, endangering the region and the world.”

Netanyahu said he had spoken to Putin “very clearly about our positions on this matter and the fact that this is unacceptable to us.”

Neither State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert nor a spokesman for Guterres had any comment Thursday on the reported Israeli airstrike.

As Syria war tightens, U.S. and Russia military hotlines humming

August 25, 2017 Leave a comment

Phil Stewart

AL UDEID AIR BASE, Qatar (Reuters) – Even as tensions between the United States and Russia fester, there is one surprising place where their military-to-military contacts are quietly weathering the storm: Syria.

It has been four months since U.S. President Donald Trump ordered cruise missile strikes against a Syrian airfield after an alleged chemical weapons attack.

In June, the U.S. military shot down a Syrian fighter aircraft, the first U.S. downing of a manned jet since 1999, and also shot down two Iranian-made drones that threatened U.S.-led coalition forces.

All the while, U.S. and Russian military officials have been regularly communicating, U.S. officials told Reuters. Some of the contacts are helping draw a line on the map that separates U.S.- and Russian-backed forces waging parallel campaigns on Syria’s shrinking battlefields.

There is also a telephone hotline linking the former Cold War foes’ air operations centers. U.S. officials told Reuters that there now are about 10 to 12 calls a day on the hotline, helping keep U.S. and Russian warplanes apart as they support different fighters on the ground.

That is no small task, given the complexities of Syria’s civil war. Moscow backs the Syrian government, which also is aided by Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah as it claws back territory from Syrian rebels and Islamic State fighters.

The U.S. military is backing a collection of Kurdish and Arab forces focusing their firepower against Islamic State, part of a strategy to collapse the group’s self-declared “caliphate” in Syria and Iraq.

Reuters was given rare access to the U.S. Air Force’s hotline station, inside the Qatar-based Combined Air Operations Area, last week, including meeting two Russian linguists, both native speakers, who serve as the U.S. interface for conversations with Russian commanders.

While the conversations are not easy, contacts between the two sides have remained resilient, senior U.S. commanders said.

“The reality is we’ve worked through some very hard problems and, in general, we have found a way to maintain the deconfliction line (that separates U.S. and Russian areas of operation) and found a way to continue our mission,” Lieutenant General Jeffrey Harrigian, the top U.S. Air Force commander in the Middle East, said in an interview.

As both sides scramble to capture what is left of Islamic State’s caliphate, the risk of accidental contacts is growing.

“We have to negotiate, and sometimes the phone calls are tense. Because for us, this is about protecting ourselves, our coalition partners and destroying the enemy,” Harrigian said, without commenting on the volume of calls.

The risks of miscalculation came into full view in June, when the United States shot down a Syrian Su-22 jet that was preparing to fire on U.S.-backed forces on the ground.

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said those were not the only aircraft in the area. As the incident unfolded, two Russian fighter jets looked on from above and a American F-22 stealth aircraft kept watch from an even higher altitude, they told Reuters.

After the incident, Moscow publicly warned it would consider any planes flying west of the Euphrates River to be targets. But the U.S. military kept flying in the area, and kept talking with Russia.

“The Russians have been nothing but professional, cordial and disciplined,” Army Lieutenant General Stephen Townsend, the Iraq-based commander of the U.S.-led coalition, told Reuters.



In Syria, U.S.-backed forces are now consumed with the battle to capture Islamic State’s former capital of Raqqa. More than half the city has been retaken from Islamic State.

Officials said talks were underway to extend a demarcation line that has been separating U.S.- and Russian-backed fighters on the ground as fighting pushes toward Islamic State’s last major Syrian stronghold, the Deir al-Zor region.

The line runs in an irregular arc from a point southwest of Tabqa east to a point on the Euphrates River and then down along the Euphrates River in the direction of Deir al-Zor, they said.

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, during a visit to Jordan this week, said the line was important as U.S.- and Russian-backed forces come in closer proximity of each other.

“We do not do that (communication) with the (Syrian) regime. It is with the Russians, is who we’re dealing with,” Mattis said.

“We continue those procedures right on down the Euphrates River Valley.”

Bisected by the Euphrates River, Deir al-Zor and its oil resources are critical to the Syrian state.

The province is largely in the hands of Islamic State, but has become a priority for pro-Syrian forces. It also is in the crosshairs of the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

SDF spokesman Talal Silo told Reuters last week that there would be an SDF campaign toward Deir al-Zor “in the near future,” though the SDF was still deciding whether it would be delayed until Raqqa was fully taken from Islamic State.


US Planes Caught Sneaking ISIS Terrorists Out Of Syria

July 4, 2017 1 comment

Syrian authorities have caught US military aircraft secretly transporting ISIS terrorists out of Syria to unknown destinations. 

According to senior Syrian legislator Ammar al-Assad, the United States is helping ISIS to escape Raqqa, where Russian and Syrian forces are successfully defeating the terrorist organization. reports: Assad said that the US is now transferring the ISIL terrorists from Syria, specially Raqqa province, to unknown places.

Arab media outlets had disclosed that the ISIL started withdrawing troops from West of Raqqa province following an agreement with the US-backed Kurdish forces, while Syrian army soldiers managed to oust ISIL from its last strongholds in Eastern Aleppo and enter Western part of the group’s de-facto capital in the Arab country.

Al-Assad revealed mid-June that the US has transferred the ISIL ringleaders who are originally from the Western states from Raqqa to other regions.

He said that the US has allowed over 120 ISIL members to leave Raqqa with their weapons and go towards al-Sukhnah to create insecurity in Palmyra (Tadmur) region but the Russian and Syrian fighter jets pounded and killed them.

“The US is highly coordinated with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) as some of the group’s commanders are from the US, Britain, France and certain regional states. Actually what is happening in the battlefield is against what the media say. Many surprising events happen,” al-Assad added.

He said that weeks ago, the US-led coalition planes staged heliborne operations in Raqqa and transferred a number of ISIL ringleaders to unknown places, adding that they were not Syrian, Iraqi or Chinese, but were the western commanders of the ISIL.

Noting that Raqqa is highly important to the US, he stressed that “How could it be possible for the ISIL and the SDF to arrive at an agreement, despite their ideological differences, that allows the ISIL leaders to leave Raqqa through a safe passage.”

Washington’s New Threat Against Syria, Russia and Iran: Invitation to False Flag Operation

The Arab American News


On Monday 26th June, the White House released a statement saying that the United States had “identified potential preparations for another chemical attack by the Assad regime…” It went on to say: “If, however, Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price.”

Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, followed that statement by tweeting,

“Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing his own people.”

On Tuesday morning, speaking on BBC 4 Today programme, the British Defence Minister Sir Michael Fallon was asked how Britain would respond to another American attack on Syria, and he responded “we will support” future US action in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

With these unsubstantiated statements on Syria, the Trump Administration is dragging the world towards the law of the jungle. As if the situation in the Middle East was not bad enough, these warlike statements have made the situation much worse, and are in fact leading us towards a major confrontation in the Middle East with unimaginable consequences.

Some 14 years ago, in total violation of international law and without any authorization by the Security Council, former US President George W. Bush launched a barbaric attack on Iraq, which destroyed the country, killed and wounded more than a million people, and gave rise to ISIS that has since waged a campaign of terrorism throughout the world.

Far from having learned any lessons from that disastrous mistake, the Trump Administration seems intent on committing a similar mistake on a grander scale. During the campaign, Candidate Trump accused the former US Administration of having created ISIS, not indirectly but deliberately. He spoke about America having spent six trillion dollars on illegal wars in the Middle East and having nothing to show for it. He vowed that he would not be interested in regime change and was intent on resolving international disputes through negotiations and deals.

Whether he has changed his mind or whether the neocons in the Administration and the deep state have infiltrated and dominated his administration makes little difference. The clear fact is that the Trump Administration is acting in a dangerous and arrogant way and is dragging the world towards another catastrophe.

Shortly after coming to power, President Donald Trump and his disgraced National Security Advisor Michael Flynn singled Iran out for condemnation and put her on notice, despite the fact that the Iranian government had spent hundreds of hours in constructive talks not only with the United States, but with all the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany and had reached a landmark agreement that was then endorsed by the Security Council.

The agreement blocked all the paths to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, even if she ever had any intention of manufacturing them, something that Iran has denied, and years of investigation have not provided a shred of evidence to the contrary.

President Trump chose Saudi Arabia, the home of Wahhabi fundamentalism that has provided the ideological framework for nearly all the militant Sunni terrorist groups from Al Qaeda, to the Taliban, to Boko Haram and finally to ISIS and its various affiliates, which have created mayhem throughout the world, including the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, as the venue for his first foreign visit. While in Riyadh, he bizarrely formed a “coalition against extremism” with Saudi leaders at its head.

However, as Trump made absolutely clear in his speech to the unelected Arab monarchs, the main aim of the coalition was to unite those Sunni potentates against Iran.

In the past few weeks, America has launched a number of attacks on the positions of the forces allied with the Syrian government in their battle against ISIS. On 18th May and 6th June, American aircraft bombed pro-Syrian militias in southern Syria. They shot down two Iranian-made drones on 8th and 20 June, and on 18th June a US fighter shot down a Syrian aircraft near the town of Tabqah, west of Raqqa, while the Syrian aircraft was attacking ISIS forces in Raqqa. American and Israeli forces have also frequently attacked the forces affiliated with the Syrian government.

On 6th April, the day when Trump was playing host to the Chinese President, he fired 59 Tomahawk missiles at the air base from which a Syrian aircraft that had allegedly used chemical weapons had taken off. This was despite the fact that the United Nations was still investigating the source of the attack and some evidence produced since, including an article by award winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, have cast doubt on the veracity of those accusations.

As Syrian forces, backed by Russia and Iran, are gaining the upper hand and pushing the terrorists and the insurgents out of Syria, the intensity of Israeli and American attacks on Syrian government forces has increased.

From the start of the crisis in Syria, there have been a number of theories based on some leaked information that claimed that the entire debacle in Syria was part of a vicious plot by Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States, initially supported by Turkey and Qatar, to isolate Iran and to cut off any links between Iran and Hezbollah through Syria.

Sadly, all the recent events seem to confirm those assumptions. The US Secretary of State has openly spoken about the need for regime change in Tehran, and many members of Congress have also backed those calls. The US Congress has again imposed new sanctions on Iran in clear violation of the JCPOA. American courts have blocked huge Iranian assets and have turned them over to the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, despite the fact that 15 out of the 19 terrorists were Saudi citizens.

A court is considering at the moment the confiscation of a major building belonging to an Iranian foundation in New York again on flimsy charges.

However, whether those theories about US involvement in Syria in support of Israel and against Iran were correct or not, the fact remains that the Trump Administration, once again supported by Britain, is engaged in an illegal and dangerous course of action that may result in a major confrontation between Russia and Iran on the one hand, and the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia on the other.

There is no need to point out that these actions are in clear violation of the UN Charter and are aggressive actions taken illegally in a sovereign state. However, there are a number of points that need to be stressed in this connection:

1. On the basis of which authority is the United States engaging in hostile acts in Syria against that country’s legal government? Russian and Iranian forces have been invited by the Syrian government to fight against the terrorists. By what authority does the United States station her forces in that country and attack Syrian forces?

2. Is the Trump Administration sincere in wanting to fight against ISIS or not? If it is, then why has it intensified its attacks on Syrian and allied forces just at a time when ISIS is on the verge of collapse?

3. Does the Trump Administration believe in democracy, free elections and the rule of law or not? If it does, then how is it possible to side with a number of autocratic rulers in Riyadh on the day when millions of Iranians took part in competitive and vibrant elections with 76 per cent turnout to choose their new president?

4. Is the Trump Administration interested in changing the behavior of the Iranian government, with greater freedoms and more emphasis on human rights, or is it intent on regime change no matter what, in order to please its Israeli and Arab clients? Iran has moved a long way towards greater openness at home and greater coexistence with the West, as evidenced by the JCPOA. Is it not wiser to allow these democratic practices to take their course in the only country in the Middle East with the greatest potential for democracy and cooperation with the West?

5. Has the Trump Administration calculated the cost of another major war in the Middle East, which might prove to be even more disastrous than the invasion of Iraq and Libya? If it hasn’t, is it not time for the international community to tell the US Administration that it will not bear the brunt of another unnecessary catastrophe in the Middle East?

6. During the campaign, candidate Trump often talked about how good it would be to cooperate with Russia to fight ISIS. Russia and Iran have been the two countries that have been fighting ISIS both in Syria and Iraq ever since that terrorist organization was formed. If Trump meant what he said, why is he not cooperating with Russia to finish the job in Syria, instead of hampering Russian and Iranian efforts in support of the Syrian government to restore peace to that country? Have Trump and his generals thought about the consequences of a confrontation with Russia for America and the world?

7. Does the Trump Administration believe in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict with some justice for the hard-pressed Palestinians who have lived under a brutal occupation for more than 50 years, or is it going to turn a blind eye to their suffering by supporting Israel’s illegal occupation? For the sake of sustainable peace in the Middle East, would it not be better to put some pressure on Israel to reach a fair settlement with the millions of Palestinians either on a one-state or a two-state solution, instead of destabilizing the Middle East in support of unreasonable Israeli demands?

8. During the campaign, Mr. Trump strongly criticized President Obama for having set a red line for Syria not to use chemical weapons, and then did nothing when Syria allegedly used chemical weapons. Does he realize that by issuing such statements he is making an open invitation to the terrorists to undertake such false flag operations and then he will be boxed in and would have no option but to launch a heavy attack on Syria, whether the government was responsible for the use of chemical weapons or not?

9. Finally, does the Trump Administration believe in the rule of law, the supremacy of the Security Council and the need for negotiations and talks, or does it believe in the law of the jungle? If it believes in the rule of law and peaceful resolution of conflicts, it should clearly stop any action that is not authorized by the Security Council and that goes against international law.

The world is poised at a very critical juncture.

The events in Syria could either lead to the restoration of stability in that war-torn country whose people have gone through unimaginable hardships, or it can pave the way for a global confrontation the outcome of which is too frightening to contemplate.

US Claims Syria Heeded Its Warnings Over Chemical Attack

The U.S. has claimed it managed to avert a chemical attack in Syria because of a warning it sent to Syria, Iran and Russia.

The White House issued a statement on Monday saying the Syrian government was preparing for another chemical weapons attack and warning President Assad and his military  that they would “pay a heavy price” if it went ahead.

The U.S. ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley said the Trump administration intended its warning to be aimed not just at Syria’s government but also at Russia and Iran, who are Syria’s key allies.

As many wondered whether or not the US was preparing for another false flag chemical attack to justify military confrontation in Syria, the  Secretary of Defense announced that Syria had backed down and stopped preparation for the alleged attack.

Jim Mattis said that the Syrian government backed down after the White House threatened that Syrian forces would “pay a heavy price” if they carried out another chemical strike.

How does Mattis know….he said: “They didn’t do it”

According to Brandon Turbeville via Activist Post:

What the world just witnessed was simply the United States government inventing a threat, making its own threats based on the made-up threat, and then claiming that its own threats prevented the original made-up threat from happening. It created a bogeyman and claimed to defeat it. Truly, 1st graders everywhere are in awe of the Trump administration.

Still, it seems relatively clear that the U.S. Government and the Pentagon were not only setting the pretext for a false flag attack that would justify another U.S. military intervention, but also putting out the call for every Western-backed terror organization operating inside Syria to conduct a chemical weapons attack. After all, America’s Ambassador to the United Nations and stealth Ambassador to Israel, Nikki Haley, stated that “Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing his own people.”

Seems pretty cut and dried, doesn’t it? Whatever happens, we will blame Assad, Russia, and Iran. I would love to hear an explanation by pro-war advocates as to why this statement would do anything besides embolden terrorists to commit a chemical attack. That is, in addition to humiliating the country even further, a feat Haley has proven time and again she is quite capable of achieving.

In all seriousness, however, it should be noted that one anomaly in this whole affair is that CENTCOM officials were reportedly unaware of the announcement made by the White House. According to sources in CENTCOM cited by Buzzfeed, the officials in this department were completely in the dark. What is interesting about this is that the Buzzfeed sources show that, either there is a disconnect between the branches of government or that there is a mole inside CENTCOM (presumably) releasing information to publicly undermine the White House.

US Foils Fake Chemical Attack It Predicted, Mainstream Media Pats Self on Back

June 30, 2017 Leave a comment

Claire Bernish | The Daily Sheeple

Well, we can all rest easy — the chemical weapons attack mainstream media predicted Assad would carry out against his own people has been successfully thwarted by mainstream media, which credited mainstream media’s original pre-crisis reporting for successfully averting the crisis.

Per Reuters:

“U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Wednesday that the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad appeared so far to have heeded a warning this week from Washington not to carry out a chemical weapons attack.”

Phew. That was close.

Of course, it was the feckless and secretive Trump administration nurtured the story, having given birth to the latest dish of propaganda for mainstream media to spoon feed the somnambulant masses, and — despite the ongoing Fake News Battle Royale between the two petulant entities — the synergistic non-story played out like a flaccid tabloid cherry bomb to the wicked delight of anyone weary for the days when news was actually news.

Antics like these — baseless prognostication Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would gas his own people with deadly, noxious chemicals — have grown stale.

Make that moldy, actually, considering this despicably irresponsible, predicted-but-apparently-foiled-preemptively, chemical weapons attack seems to have spawned from an horrific incident at Khan Sheikhoun in April, in which the mainstream media glommed on to a (still [still!]) unproven (and, recently, destroyed) claim concocted by the White House that Assad (again, for literally no reason) abruptly unleashed a deadly chemical agent, killing scores of innocent Syrians — prompting President Trump to green light firing 59 retaliatory Tomahawk missiles as after-dinner entertainment against a dormant airbase inside the sovereign nation — killing scores of innocent Syrians in the process.

So, to imagine the apparently-clairvoyant Trump administration, whose penultimate agenda in Syria happens to comprise forcibly removing the elected president, might just entreaty a precarious situation to its strategic advantage — by, say, carrying out a chemical weapons attack against mostly terrorists but some civilians, and then remind the world you told everyone if any attacks happened anywhere in Syria, Assad did it — would not be much of a stretch.

Pre-blaming Assad responsible and reserving the right to attack Syria and ally, Russia, instantaneously in response thereafter might handily eviscerate the record for the most sanctimonious, presumptuous, hapless, indolent, imprudent exercises in terrible propaganda ever undertaken in the history of these once-United States.

But it’s okay now.

Evidently, Damascus — having perused the bewilderingly inept American mainstream media circuit — must have glimpsed the headlines, gasped, and opted not to gas Syrians for no reason, whatsoever, after all.

Plot foiled.

If you bought into the blithely fear-tinged prediction, that’s your one and only strike, considering mainstream media has tacitly championed itself an eager, unabashed transmitter of dangerous — potentially cataclysmic — government propaganda.

In the vein of the aforementioned nonexistent ‘attacks,’ the relentless bullhorn of the corporate press skewered the Syrian president from the outset — aligning, to Washington’s undoubted amusement, with the longstanding regime change objective — in a collective body of reporting so bereft of journalistic due diligence as to be suitable for a daytime Emmy.

Esteemed, award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh revealed internal communications between an active duty U.S. soldier and a security adviser proving — assuming authenticity — Washington and the Pentagon knew full well there had been no attack ordered or carried out by Assad in early April.

Rather, Syria performed an airstrike announced ahead of time — including to the U.S. — on a depot housing weapons. Wind — not an actual chemical bomb from the sky — carried a chemical cloud away from the scene and into a populated area, tragically killing dozens and severely injuring hundreds more.

We knew this — the Trump administration knew this — but aggressively bombed Syria, anyway.


Within hours of Hersh’s damning revelations, corporate presstitutes augured Syrian civilians should brace for ‘another’ attack.

It would be worth noting Damascus and Moscow have also bored of phenomenally brash and unfounded claims from Washington and its lapdog media — to the point world war isn’t as much an open question.

Mainstream media isn’t just a dinosaur fumbling its way at a snail’s pace into the twenty-first century — mainstream media is a chimerical nightmare of bottomless corporate funding, government-approved alternative facts, and cheerleader of the American War Machine.

Believing otherwise is accepting the comfort of wool over your eyes to block the blinding light of Washington’s endless bombs.

%d bloggers like this: