Archives‎ > ‎

Syrias Business, from Peter Myers

(1) Nuclear Poker - Israel Shamir
(2) Obama Stepped Back from Brink, will Hillary?
(3) Trump not the Nuclear Nut - Hillary is
(4) General Dunford Hillary -> World War III (Youtube)
(5) How the West’s Economic Sanctions are Inflicting Suffering on Ordinary Syrians
(6) McCain Jumps On Gen Dunford for Opinion on War with Russia, Syria
(7) No mainstream media reported Dunford's comments on War with Russia, only Alternative media
(8) How the West’s Economic Sanctions are Inflicting Suffering on Ordinary Syrians
(9) Pentagon trafficks enormous Shipments of Light Weapons into Syria
(1) Nuclear Poker - Israel Shamir
            [linked 3 days ago on ODS]
From: "Israel Shamir [shamireaders]" Date: Mon, 10
Oct 2016 07:19:48 +0300
Nuclear Poker
Israel Shamir
The Unz Review, October 9, 2016
If the greatest poker game of all times will end by nuclear grand slam,
and the survivors will review the causes of WWIII, they will die
laughing. The Third World War had been fought to save al Qaeda. Yes, my
dear readers! Uncle Sam invaded Afghanistan in order to punish al Qaeda,
and now he started the World War to save al Qaeda. Positively a great
ambivalent passionate love/hate relationship between the American
gentleman and the Arab girl, from 9/11 to Aleppo.
For the future historians, the WWIII commenced with the US decision to
terminate bilateral talks with Russia over Syria. Let the arms do the
talking, they said. Here is an exclusive revelation:
The US decided to suspend talks after Russia called for withdrawal of al
Qaeda (al Nusra Front etc.) fighters from Aleppo. This was the /casus
I have in my possession two war-starting documents:
*Document One*, headlined October 2 Agreement. This is an American draft
of an agreement presented by State Secretary John Kerry to Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov. Its first line said "The Russian Federation will
ensure an immediate halt on October 3 to all offensive military
operations etc.". It is based on the older short-lived Lavrov-Kerry
agreement with an important addition: "without the previous requirement
for repositioning of forces".
*Document Two*, called Reducing violence in Aleppo, full-scale
humanitarian assistance to civilian population, setting of "effective
Cessation of Hostilities" and separation of moderate opposition forces
and Jabhat Al-Nusra. It is subtitled "position document draft". This is
the Russian counter-proposal, confirming the Geneva agreement of
September 9, 2016.
Its most important part is the call to separate al-Qaeda fighters (aka
terrorists) through pushing the terrorists out of Aleppo via
humanitarian corridor to the Castello Road.
This Document has been answered by American termination of talks.
Thus, the Russians wanted to take al-Qaeda out of Aleppo, so the city
can be fed and brought back to life. The Americans were ready to start
armed hostilities against Russia for the right of Al Qaeda to remain in
the city.
In other words, the Americans did not believe in their own myth of
moderate opposition. They knew, as well as the Russians, that without
"terrorists", the insurgency in Syria is doomed. They did not want to
let Syria be under Assad and with the Russians.
As usual, they made a lot of humanitarian-sounding noise about suffering
children of Aleppo. Why Aleppo, and not Mosul with its mounting victims?
Just because the killers of Mosul are supported by the US? Why not
Yemen, where Saudi troops using American weapons (procured after giving
a hefty bribe to Clinton’s war chest) to kill more children than there
are in Aleppo? And where is this great sisterly supporter of Mme
Clinton, Mrs Albright who famously said "it was worth it" to kill five
hundred thousand children of Iraq?
There is no doubt, the Aleppo children and grown-ups suffer, and there
is a simple way to stop their suffering: to remove the "terrorists" and
to allow more moderate forces to join in the political process. But on
this way, Assad and Russians will remain in control of the bulk of Syria.
The insurgency in Syria would have died out long time ago, if the Gulf
states and the US did not pump billions of dollars, heaps of weapons and
wagonloads of jobless fighters from nearby countries. It would be very
sad for many people, but not a terrible disaster for Syrians. Sometimes,
rebellions end with defeat. This is not end of the world.
The Irish Rising of 1916 ended in defeat, but Ireland is still there.
Tamil Tigers failed to take over Sri Lanka. The suppression of the
Confederacy in the American Civil War has been bloody and cruel. Atlanta
was burned and its citizens expelled by force. One million dead: much
more than in Syria, as mankind was much smaller in those days. One can
imagine the European force landing on the American shore and relieving
Atlanta in the name of human rights, preserving the Confederacy. But it
did not happen. Civil wars have their own logic. A defeat of rebels is
not the end of the nation.
As a young idealistic Israeli soldier, I planned to go to Nigeria and
join the Biafra rebel army. I thought the Ibo tribe are "Jews of Africa"
who had to be protected from a coming genocide. At the end, I was stuck
in the Attrition War at the Suez Canal, and the Biafra war ended without
my interference. In spite of apocalyptic predictions, Nigeria was
reunited, and Ibo reintegrated.
The Syrian war also can end with rebels’ defeat. The government will
assume its control, the Syrians will run the elections, and eventually
come to a modicum of co-existence. Are you worried the elections under
Bashar Assad won’t be fair? The US can loan them Mrs Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz to oversee the elections. I am sure, chances of Assad
won’t be better or worse than those of Mrs Clinton in the US elections.
The al-Qaeda forces (I keep using this name, for they forever change
their official titles; it was Al Nusra, and Ahrar al-Sham, and probably
Squirrels’ Union for Syrian Nuts, but they are basically the same good
old Al Qaeda that bombed out New York on 9/11 and had been bombed in
Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) are on their way to defeat. If the
Americans are so keen on them, ship them home to the US on direct
flights Aleppo-Washington, as this city seemingly is most pro-Al-Qaeda
place beside of the caves of Bora Bora. Probably the Democratic Party
will greet them and President Obama will grant them the US citizenship.
The only way to save al-Qaeda (short of the described above) is to start
war with Russia. And this is actually the choice the US administration
is about to make.
Provided the US can’t be serious planning to destroy mankind while
saving Al Qaeda, we are forced to look for a better explanation. I do
not want to dwell too much on "conspiratorial" reasoning of "for the
sake of Israel", or for gas pipeline.
These explanations are valid. We know that the US supported Qatari plan
to build a pipeline from the Qatari gas field to Europe to undermine the
Russian economy and European dependence on Russian gas. We know that
Hillary Clinton promised to break up Syria "for the sake of Israel", as
she wrote in a wikileaked email.
And still, these are just rationalisations of the true thing. I’ll tell
you the real reason.
Why the war? For the fun of it. American leaders appreciate
brinkmanship, I was told by a very prominent American insider. This is a
human quality. Young kids like to walk at the edge of the precipice.
This is their way of proving they are better than their mates. Grown ups
do it too, for the same reason.
Brinkmanship is the practice of causing a situation to become extremely
dangerous in order to get the results that you want, says a too-rational
dictionary, but in real life of elites, the reason ("in order to get the
results that you want") has been forgotten. It is pure art, brinkmanship
for the sake of brinkmanship.
For quite a while, the US leaders competed over who can push the Russian
bear further, who will take the world more close to the edge of the
abyss. Why? Just because it is there, as Mallory said on climbing
Everest. Perhaps, by its size, by its ostensible clumsiness ("giant on
clay legs"), by its nearness, Russia wakes up such a suicidal desire in
the hearts of powerful leaders, from Napoleon to Hitler.
Practical, quasi-rational reasons were always very weak, and usually
included saving the Russian people from their cruel rulers, be it
Judeo-Bolsheviks or the Tsardom of Knout (humanitarian intervention is
not a new invention!). Now it is saving kids of Aleppo.
True, the kids of Aleppo could be saved by removal of fighters out of
the city, but it does not score in the brinkmanship game.
The Russians understand the game. They are trying to save Syria, and
their positions in Syria; previously they tried to protect their
positions in their immediate vicinity by taking the Crimea in the wake
of the West-arranged Kiev coup. Every time, they tried to be reasonable.
They did not like what was done to them, but they lived with it.
Now they have finally come to the conclusion that the US will not stop
pushing until the challenge has been met. It is surrender, or war. Even
if they were to leave Syria (and they have no such intention), the
Americans will find the next reason for pushing them.
This is why Putin published his *Plutonium*
<> and
decrees. These decrees symbolised the end of Gorbachev-Yeltsin era and
undid the "victory in the Cold War" of the US over the USSR. In 1980s,
the two superpowers of the time achieved the MAD (Mutually Assured
Destruction) military potential, but beginning from 1986, Gorbachev, and
afterwards Yeltsin surrendered the Russian positions. Many missiles were
dismantled, nuclear warheads were broken and shipped to the US to be
used as a source of energy for American reactors.
The Russian scientists and experts complained that extremely expensive
plutonium and enriched uranium were sold for peanuts, efficient and
deadly missiles were broken and Russian ability to fight the enemy had
been diminished. But the Russian government said that Russia has no
enemies, the US is a friend, and the missiles and the warheads are not
needed anymore.
A few years ago Putin began slowly to restore and modernise the nuclear
arsenal. This was almost too late, as the American Dr Strangeloves
called for a first nuclear strike upon a weak Russia. They said there
will be no payback, as the Russian nuclear weaponry is too old and can
be intercepted by the newest American anti-missile systems. Anyway,
Russia observed the agreements made by Gorbachev and Yeltsin and duly
shipped plutonium and enriched uranium to the West. These agreements
made the US safe, and kept Russia vulnerable.
If the US would play its cards safely and fairly, this situation could
last for a long time. Until now, the Russians meekly responded to the
crescendo of NATO threats and accusations. But now, in course of one
week, the western mainstream media accused the Russians of multiple war
crimes, from downing the Malaysian liner in the Ukraine to bombing a
humanitarian convoy in Syria.
The Russians are positive that these accusations are groundless. Less
than 8% of Russian responders believe the Russians attacked the liner.
They think the liner had been shot down by the Ukrainians who thought
they were attacking Putin’s jet. As for the humanitarian convoy, the BBC
video clearly shows traces of thermobaric ammo Hellfire, used by the US
Predator drone. Such a drone has been observed at the place of the
tragedy, they say.
Putin has been demonised as Milosevic and Saddam, compared to Hitler and
even (oh, the horror!) Trump. The New *York Times editorial*
described Russia as an outlaw state. This concerted push made an impact.
You never know how far you can push until you push too far. The Russians
were pushed too far.
They began to dismantle the system of agreements made after the Soviet
collapse. So, in a family quarrel, the man being pushed and pronged by
his hysterical spouse, lifts a pile of china plates and smashes them on
the kitchen floor. Now nuclear war is quite likely, – unless the US
leaders will come to their senses.
Russians aren’t worried about the forthcoming war. There is neither
panic nor fear, just cool stoic acceptance of whatever comes. This week,
some forty million people participated in a huge civil defence exercise.
Shelters of Moscow and other cities have been aired and repaired. They
do not want war, but if it comes, it will be met. The Russians have
fought many wars against the West; they never started a war, but
invariably fought to the finish.
An American attack on Syrian or Russian bases in Syria could be a
starting point for the avalanche. I am truly amazed by the Russian
spirits: they are considerably higher than they were in the days of
Korean war, of Vietnam war or the Cuban crisis. Then, they were scared
of war and ready for sacrifices to avoid MAD. Not anymore.
This readiness for the Armageddon is the most unexpected and scary
feature I observed. It is even more unexpected, as the daily life of an
average Russian has greatly improved. Russia probably never lived as
good as she does now. They have much to lose; it is only the feeling of
being cornered and unjustly so, that makes them to react in such a way.
The audacious demands of Putin: lift all sanctions, pay for damages
caused by sanctions and counter-sanctions, remove your troops and tanks
from the Baltic states, Poland, other late-joiner NATO states – show
that the stakes are indeed high. Not only the US leaders can walk at the
edge of the abyss: the Russians can show them the art of brinkmanship.
After the utter humiliation of 1990s, Russians are not likely to turn
off the road where two nuclear juggernauts are speeding towards each other.
There are some signs of the Americans coming to their senses. "/The
president has discussed in some details why military action against the
Assad regime to try to address the situation in Aleppo is unlikely to
accomplish the goals that many envisioned now in terms of reducing the
violence there,"/ White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters
And even the warmongers’ best friend /The New York Time/s has published
*a call*
/Do Not Intervene In Syria/.
So perhaps we shall live a bit longer.
Israel Shamir can be reached at **
(2) Obama Stepped Back from Brink, will Hillary?
October 12, 2016
by Mike Whitney
The American people need to understand what’s going on in Syria.
Unfortunately, the major media only publish Washington-friendly
propaganda which makes it difficult to separate fact from fiction. The
best way to cut through the lies and misinformation, is by using a
simple analogy that will help readers to see that Syria is not in the
throes of a confusing, sectarian civil war, but the victim of another
regime change operation launched by Washington to topple the government
of Bashar al Assad.
With that in mind, try to imagine if striking garment workers in New
York City decided to arm themselves and take over parts of lower
Manhattan. And, let’s say, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
decided that he could increase his geopolitical influence by recruiting
Islamic extremists and sending them to New York to join the striking
workers. Let’s say, Trudeau’s plan succeeds and the rebel militias are
able to seize a broad swathe of US territory including most of the east
coast stretching all the way to the mid-west. Then– over the course of
the next five years– these same jihadist forces proceed to destroy most
of the civilian infrastructure across the country, force millions of
people from their homes and businesses, and demand that President Obama
step down from office so they can replace him with an Islamic regime
that would enforce strict Sharia law.
How would you advise Obama in a situation like this? Would you tell him
to negotiate with the people who invaded and destroyed his country or
would you tell him to do whatever he thought was necessary to defeat the
enemy and restore security?
Reasonable people will agree that the president has the right to defend
the state and maintain security. In fact, national sovereignty and
security are the foundation upon which the international order rests.
However, neither the US media nor the US congress nor the White House
nor the entire US foreign policy establishment agree with this simple,
straightforward principle, that governments have the right to defend
themselves against foreign invasion. They all believe that the US has
the unalienable right to intervene wherever it chooses using whatever
means necessary to execute its regime change operations.
In the case of Syria, Washington is using "moderate" jihadists to topple
the elected government of Bashar al Assad. Keep in mind, that no even
disputes WHAT the US is doing in Syria (regime change) or that the US is
using a proxy army to accomplish its objectives. The only area of
debate, is whether these "moderates" are actually moderates at all, or
al Qaida. That’s the only point on which their is some limited
disagreement. (Note: Nearly everyone who follows events closely on the
ground, knows that the moderates are al Qaida)
Doesn’t that strike you as a bit bizarre? How have we gotten to the
point where it is "okay" for the US to topple foreign governments simply
because their agents are "moderate" troublemakers rather than
"extremist" troublemakers?
What difference does it make? The fact is, the US is using foreign-born
jihadists to topple another sovereign government, the same as it used
neo Nazis in Ukraine to topple the government, the same as it used US
troops to topple the sovereign government in Iraq, and the same as it
used NATO forces to topple the sovereign government in Libya. Get the
picture? The methods might change, but the policy is always the same.
And the reason the policy is always the same is because Washington likes
to pick its own leaders, leaders who invariably serve the interests of
its wealthy and powerful constituents, particularly Big Oil and Israel.
That’s how the system works. Everyone knows this already. Washington has
toppled or attempted to topple more than 50 governments since the end of
WW2. The US is a regime change franchise, Coups-R-Us.
Hillary Clinton is a charter member of the regime change oligarchy. She
is a avid Koolaid drinker and an devoted believer in American
"exceptionalism", which is the belief that ‘If the United States does
something, it must be good.’
Hillary also believes that the best way to resolve the conflict in Syria
is by starting a war with Russia. Here’s what she said on Sunday in her
debate with Donald Trump:
Clinton: "The situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that
goes by, we see the results of the regime by Assad in partnership with
the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air…I, when I was
secretary of state, I advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and
safe zones."
Repeat: "I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones."
This is a very important point. Hillary has supported no-fly zones from
Day 1 despite the fact that–by her own admission– the policy would
result in massive civilian casualties. And civilian casualties are not
the only danger posed by no-fly zones. Consider the warning by America’s
top soldier, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph
Dunford. In response to a question from Senator Roger Wicker
(R-Mississippi) on the potential dangers of trying to "control Syrian
airspace," Dunford answered ominously, "Right now… for us to control all
of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and
This is the Hillary Doctrine in a nutshell: Confront the Russians in
Syria and start WW3. If there’s another way to interpret Dunford’s
answer, then, please, tell me what it is?
Hillary also added that, "we have to work more closely with our partners
and allies on the ground."
This means that the Obama-CIA policy of supporting militant jihadists on
the ground to topple an elected government will continue just as it has
for the last five years. Is that what Hillary supporters want; more
intervention, more escalation, more Iraqs, more Syrias?
She also said this: "I do support the effort to investigate for crimes,
war crimes committed by the Syrians and the Russians and try to hold
them accountable."
Readers should pause for a minute and really try to savor the convoluted
absurdity of Clinton’s comments. As we pointed out in our analogy, Putin
and Assad are trying to reestablish the central governments control over
the country to establish security the same as if Obama found it
necessary to fight armed rebels in lower Manhattan. Governments have the
right to govern their country. This shouldn’t be hard to understand.
What Hillary is proposing is that the Syrian and Russians (who were
invited by Assad) be prosecuted for fulfilling the sworn duty of every
elected leader while –at the same time– the countries (like the US) that
have (by their own admission) armed, trained and financed foreign
invaders that have torn the country to shreds and killed more than
400,000 civilians, be let off Scott-free.
It is a great tribute to our propagandist western media, that someone
like Hillary can make a thoroughly asinine statement like this and not
be laughed off the face of the earth. By Hillary’s logic, Obama could be
prosecuted for war crimes if civilians were killed while he attempted to
liberate lower Manhattan. The whole idea is ridiculous.
Here’s another Hillary gem from the debate:
  "I do think the use of special forces, which we’re using, the use of
enablers and trainers in Iraq, which has had some positive effects, are
very much in our interests, and so I do support what is happening."
"Positive effects"?
What positive effects? 400,000 people are dead, 7 million more are ether
internally displaced or refugees, and the country has been reduced to a
Fulluja-like rubble. There are no "positive effects" from Hillary’s war.
It’s been a complete and utter catastrophe. The only success she can
claim, is the fact that the sleazebag Democratic leadership and their
thoroughly-corrupt media buddies have been more successful in hiding the
details of their depredations from the American people. Otherwise its
been a dead-loss.
Here’s more Hillary:
   "I would go after Baghdadi. I would specifically target Baghdadi,
because I think our targeting of Al Qaida leaders"
Baghdadi, Schmaghdadi; who gives a rip? When has the CIA’s immoral
assassination program ever helped to reduce the fighting, ever
diminished the swelling ranks of terrorist organizations, or ever made
the American people safer?
Never, that’s when. The whole thing is a fu**ing joke. Hillary just
wants another trophy for her future presidential library, a scalp she
can hang next to Gadhafi’s. The woman is sick!
Here’s one last quote from the debate::
  "I would also consider arming the Kurds. The Kurds have been our best
partners in Syria, as well as Iraq. And I know there’s a lot of concern
about that in some circles, but I think they should have the equipment
they need so that Kurdish and Arab fighters on the ground are the
principal way that we take Raqqa after pushing ISIS out of Iraq."
Obama is arming the Kurds already, but the Kurds have no interest in
seizing Raqqa because it is not part of their traditional homeland and
because it doesn’t help them achieve the contiguous landmass they seek
for their own state. Besides, arming the Kurds just pisses off Turkish
President Tayyip Erdogan who provides a critical airstrip at Incirlik
from which the US carries out most of its airstrikes on enemy targets in
Syria. In other words, Clinton doesn’t know what the heck she’s talking
While there’s no time to get into Hillary’s role in starting the war in
Syria, there is a very thorny situation that developed last week that’s
worth considering for those people who still plan to cast their vote for
Clinton in the November election.
Here’s a quick rundown of what happened: Last Wednesday, the Washington
Post leaked a story stating that the Obama administration was
considering whether it should directly attack Syrian assets on the
ground, in other words, conduct a covert, low-intensity war directly
against the regime. (rather than just using proxies.)
On Thursday, the Russian Ministry of Defense spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor
Konashenkov announced that Moscow had deployed state of the art
defensive weapons systems (S-300 and S-400 air defense missile systems)
to the theater and was planning to use them if Syrian or Russian troops
or installations were threatened.
In a televised statement, Konashenkov said: "It must be understood that
Russian air defense missile crews will unlikely have time to clarify via
the hotline the exact flight program of the missiles or the ownership of
their carriers."
Referring to the provocative article in the Washington Post, Konashenkov
added: "I would recommend our colleagues in Washington carefully weigh
possible consequences of the fulfillment of such plans."
The Russians were saying as clearly as possible that if US warplanes
attacked either Russian installations or Syrian troops they would be
shot down immediately. Reasonable people can assume that the downing of
a US warplane would trigger a war with Russia.
Fortunately, there are signs that Obama got the message and put the
kibosh on the (Pentagon’s?) ridiculous plan. Here’s a clip from an
article at The Duran which may be the best news I’ve read about Syria in
five years. This story broke on Friday and has been largely ignored by
the major media:
  "Following Russian warning of American aircraft being shot down, White
House spokesman confirms plan for U.S. air strikes on Syria has been
rejected….White House spokesman Josh Earnest confirmed this speaking to
reporters on Thursday 6th October 2016.
  "The president has discussed in some details why military action
against the Assad regime to try to address the situation in Aleppo is
unlikely to accomplish the goals that many envisioned now in terms of
reducing the violence there. It is much more likely to lead to a bunch
of unintended consequences that are clearly not in our national
interest." ("U.S. backs down over Syria after Russian threat to shoot
down American aircraft," Alexander Mercouris, The Duran)
As critical as I’ve been of Obama over the years, I applaud him for his
good judgment. While the Pentagon warhawks and foreign policy hardliners
are relentlessly pushing for a direct confrontation with Russia, Obama
has wisely pulled us back from the brink of disaster.
The question is: Would Hillary do the same?
(3) Trump not the Nuclear Nut - Hillary is
October 12, 2016
Clinton vs. Trump: a Zero-Sum Game
by John Wight
The 2016 US presidential election has officially descended into a
snarling, hate-filled slugfest, and is probably the most vicious there
has ever been. When you have one candidate, Donald Trump, threatening to
put his opponent, Hillary Clinton, in jail if he becomes president, we
are talking a race for the White House that is the political equivalent
of a zero sum game.
While Trump is a bigot, megalomaniac and mysogonist—and this on a good
day—he is also a tough and resilient operator whom you get the sense is
actually revelling in the pressure cooker that is the US political
arena. On the back of the release of the now infamous 2005 audio tape,
during which he brags to "Access Hollywood" host, Billy Bush, about his
sexual prowess with women, a media onslaught and the mass desertion of
his ship by major figures within the GOP appeared to ensure that his
campaign was all but destroyed.
But then out he comes in St Louis, a candidate with his back to the
ropes, to immediately mount a ferocious and sustained assault on his
opponent, one that succeeded in nullifying the tremendous momentum she
had behind her going in. Over the course of the debate, Trump threw and
landed major blows, bringing up Bill Clinton’s own less than stellar
record when it comes to the treatment of women, again reminding voters
of the 33,000 deleted emails of his opponent, and calling out Clinton’s
hawkish support for the war in Iraq and her role as secretary of state
in the destruction of Libya. His analysis of the conflict in Syria and
belief in resetting relations with Russia also has the benefit of being
sane when compared to his opponent, whose election would immediately
bring the world closer to a major conflict than it has been since the
Cuban missile crisis. When Trump vowed to direct a special prosecutor to
investigate her over the aforementioned missing emails, if elected,
followed later by his witheringly effective aside to put her in jail,
you could almost hear the collective cheer of millions not only in
America but across the world.
There is a method to the seeming madness of Trump’s approach. Though his
rhetoric comes over as out of control, he is reaching into a deep well
of animosity towards Washington, with the Clintons the emodiment of the
corruption, special interests, and machine politics that millions of
Americans have grown to despise. He is a billionaire who has succeeded
in positioning himself as an anti-establishment candidate. This is an
achievement of which P T Barnum would be proud.
Unlike the first debate, which Hillary Clinton won hands down, this time
round Trump managed to do what no opponent or critic of the Clintons
ever has in breaching the veneer of respectability and propriety which
they and their supporters have succeeded in maintaining in an insult to
the truth of their collective record. While the polls after the second
debate recorded a victory for Clinton, there is little doubt she left
the venue bruised and wounded.
The average American voter respects strength; whether real or perceived
it matters not, they admire and worship personal attributes of toughness
that reflect what they consider to be the attributes of the country. In
this regard Trump comes over as the political equivalent of a
gunslinger, a man for whom the rules of polite society do not apply, who
makes his own rules and changes them as it suits. He is the archetypal
maverick in this sense, an image that plays well with people grown tired
of the slick and on-message political mannequins that populate
Washington. He is rude, vulgar, inappropriate, and unpredictable in a
combination that brings a sense of frission to proceedings. That he is
also a mysogonist, equal opportunites bigot and narcissist matters less
to his supporters than the ocean of self confidence he exudes and the
willingness to do and say whatever it takes to get ahead. In other words
he is America with the mask removed.
When Hillary Clinton talked about establishing a no-fly zone in Syria a
chill should have slid down the spine of all right-thinking people. This
would be tantamount to a declaration of war against Syria and Russia.
Then there was her utterly ludicrous depiction of the ‘rebels’ in Aleppo
as freedom fighters. Freedom fighters? Nusra Front, the dominant faction
among the opposition fighting in Aleppo, differs from ISIS in name only.
In its methods and objective of establishing a pure sectarian Sunni
state, it poses the same menace. As for the so-called moderate rebels,
in what language is it moderate to kidnap and behead 12-year old
children, as militants beloning to the US-backed Nour al-Din al-Zinki
Movement did a few weeks ago, filming themselves doing so in the process?
This is why it has been so revelatory following the mainstream media
coverage in the wake of the second debate. With few exceptions it has
been on Trump, depicting him as an out of control nut who would be
dangerous for the country. In truth it is Hillary Clinton, with her
penchant for war and the destruction of Arab countries, who is far more
dangerous—not only for the people of the United States but a world grown
weary of US hegemony.
(4) General Dunford Hillary -> World War III (Youtube)
(5) Top US General: Hillary’s No Fly Zone Strategy Would ‘Require’ War With Russia
© REUTERS/ Yuri Gripas Russia 21:36 01.10.2016 (updated 01:31 02.10.2016)
Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:24  Top US General Warns Hillary’s Syria Strategy
Requires War with Russia
TEHRAN (FNA)- Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford
warned Congress that the implementation of a No Fly Zone, a centerpiece
of Hillary’s foreign policy strategy on Syria, would result in World War
During testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services last week
General Joseph Dunford rang the alarm over a policy shift that is
gaining more traction within the halls of Washington following the
collapse of the ceasefire brokered by the United States and Russia in
Syria saying that it could result in a major international war which he
was not prepared to advocate on behalf of, Sputnik reported.
Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) asked about Hillary Clinton’s proposal for a
no fly zone in Syria in response to allegations that Russia and Syria
have intensified their aerial bombardment of militant-held East Aleppo
since the collapse of the ceasefire.
However, the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff suggested that the
policy was too hawkish even for military leaders, saying that "…for US
to control all of the airspace in Syria would require going to war
against Syria and Russia. That is a pretty fundamental decision that
certainly I’m not going to make".
Despite the ramifications of the policy, Hillary Clinton has argued in
favor of a no fly zone throughout her presidency starting in October
2015 just days after Russia began a bombing campaign aimed at
maintaining the stability of the Syrian government.
"I personally would be advocating now for a no fly zone and humanitarian
corridors to try to stop the carnage on the ground and from the air, to
try to provide some way to take stock of what’s happening, to try to
stem the flow of refugees," said Clinton in an interview with NBC’s
Boston affiliate at the time.
The former Secretary of State, who has a well-known hawkish position
towards regime change and matters related to Russia, has continued to
advocate this position which has gained traction in recent weeks among
top US diplomats.
More than 50 US diplomats demanded in June, in a notorious dissent memo,
that the Obama administration employ military options against Assad,
such as the implementation of a no fly zone if not a direct attack
against the country.
The argument from the diplomats is that the situation in Syria will
continue to devolve without direct action by the US military, an
argument of dubious legality if undertaken unilaterally without a UN
Security Council resolution but which the US Ambassador to the UN
Samantha Power has been laying the groundwork for under the
controversial "right to protect" theory of international law arguing
that Russia’s opposition to a resolution should be ignored because they
are a party to the conflict.
Russia counters that if the Assad government falls then terrorist groups
including ISIL and al-Qaeda-affiliated Fatah al-Sham Front (formerly
known as al-Nusra Front) will likely fill the resulting power vacuum
descending the country into an even greater harbor for international
(6) McCain Jumps On Gen Dunford for Opinion on War with Russia, Syria
Posted on September 26, 2016
by Rick Wells
Senator Wicker (R-MS) seems hesitant and perhaps unfamiliar with the
situation the committee he’s serving on, the Armed Services Committee,
is dealing with in Syria. He’s also not being very specific, a factor
that an angry little establishment Senator from Arizona readily exploits
in the interest of keeping their intervention options intact.
Wicker noted that he and a Democrat Senator were discussing the
possibility the US imposing a no-fly zone in Syria to stop the barrel
bombing by the Syrian government. He first asks Defense Secretary
Carter, who attempts to define the question more specifically, saying,
"There are a number of different proposals that have been made." He
decides to focus on the plan that Secretary of State Kerry is currently
Carter describes it as "A no-fly zone for the Russians and the Syrians
who are attacking the Syrian people. If they’re talking about a no-fly
zone for American aircraft fighting ISIL, needless to say, that’s not
going to get any enthusiasm and get strong opposition."
He says, "Secretary Kerry’s trying to get a stand down of the Syrian and
Russian air force and if he’s successful that would be a good thing." He
passes the question to General Dunford who says, "The only thing I can
say is, you know, as the situation on the ground changes I have a
responsibility, we the joint force has a responsibility to make sure the
‘president’ has a full range of options."
Wicker asks, "What about the option of controlling the air space so that
barrel bombs cannot be dropped?" Dunford responds, "We look at all the
options." Wicker presses a little more, asking, "What do you think of
that option Sir?"
Dunford is too honest in his reply, something he’ll want to be careful
about when the songbird is in the room. He answered, "Right now,
Senator, for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us
to go to war against Syria and Russia." He added, "That’s a pretty
fundamental decision that certainly I’m not going to make." He doesn’t
have to, John McCain is going to demand a revision to the response.
McCain said, in his customary condescending, lecturing tone, "To impose
a no-fly zone," disgustedly moving to the next Senator for questions.
Dunford makes an emergency plea for an opportunity to modify his
response, claiming that he was replying to part one of a two part question.’
Dunford says he was asked about what it would take to control all of the
air space in Syria. McCain rudely replies, "No, what he asked was should
we have a no-fly zone so we can protect those people from being
slaughtered. That’s what he’s talking about. That’s what we’re all
talking about."
Dunford then apologizes to Senator Wicker. No wonder we’re losing and
not respected. Our military leaders are humiliated by opportunistic
traitors like McCain who berate them and change the question after the
fact and weak know-nothings like Wicker.
It’s a disgusting display by all parties involved, particularly by
General Dunford. He’s the military expert in the group and they are
asking for his opinion. They don’t have to like it, but he also doesn’t
have to change it to meet their preferences.
It illustrates the vague and poor method in which the question was asked
in the fact that Carter responded as to whether that included a no-fly
zone for American aircraft. We’re not dropping barrel bombs and wouldn’t
admit it if we were. Wicker was more interested in his clever idea to
call it something other than what it was than in asking a clear
question. There’s nothing clever in that, Senator, it’s standard
operating procedure for your Democrat colleague, just as partnering with
terrorists is for Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
(7) No mainstream media reported Dunford's comments on War with Russia, only Alternative media
Google search "Dunford" "syria" "war", October 14, 2016, time
restriction: past month
No mainstream media report Dunford's comment, only Alternative media -
Peter Myers
(8) How the West’s Economic Sanctions are Inflicting Suffering on Ordinary Syrians
October 11, 2016
by Patrick Cockburn
The US and EU economic sanctions on Syria are causing huge suffering
among ordinary Syrians and preventing the delivery of humanitarian aid,
according to a leaked UN internal report. The embargo was supposed to
target President Bashar al-Assad and contribute to his removal from
power. Instead it is making it more difficult for foodstuffs, fuel and
healthcare to reach the mass of the people.
Aid agencies cited in the report say they cannot procure basic medicines
or medical equipment for hospitals because sanctions are preventing
foreign commercial companies and banks having anything to do with Syria.
A European doctor working in Syria says that "the indirect effect of
sanctions… makes the import of medical instruments and other medical
supplies immensely difficult, nearly impossible."
The revelations in the internal UN assessment of the effect of sanctions
on aid delivery, entitled Humanitarian Impact of Syria-Related
Unilateral Restrictive Measures and leaked by the investigative
publication The Intercept, open up the US and EU to the charge of
hypocrisy, after criticising Syria and Russia for impeding the delivery
of UN aid supplies to besieged cities in Syria.
The Intercept quotes an internal UN email from a senior official saying
that sanctions have been a "principal factor" in degrading the Syrian
health system and have contributed to a 300 per cent rise in the price
of wheat flour and 650 per cent rise for rice, following a doubling of
fuel prices in the last 18 months.
Syria was once largely self-sufficient in pharmaceuticals, but many
plants were in the Aleppo area and have been destroyed or rendered
unusable by the fighting. The email says that many of the plants that
survived have now been forced to close because of the impact of
sanctions on obtaining raw materials from abroad and the foreign
currency to pay for them.
The report states that conflict in Syria is the greatest humanitarian
crisis the world has seen since the Second World War with 13 million
people, or two thirds of the population, in need of assistance. The
disaster has led to the exodus of at least five million refugees and
four million internally displaced people. The report says that the chaos
has produced a weakening of the state and conditions that have fostered
the growth of Isis.
US and EU sanctions are contributing to this humanitarian calamity while
Mr Assad remains firmly in power. In many respects, the situation
resembles that in Iraq between 1990 and 2003 when UN sanctions destroyed
the Iraqi economy and helped dissolve its society while doing nothing to
reduce the power of Saddam Hussein as Iraqi leader. Many critics of
Iraqi sanctions argue that the mass impoverishment they produced
contributed significantly to the political and sectarian breakdown after
the invasion of 2003.
The same process is now taking place in Syria. The report says that "in
totality, the US and EU sanctions in Syria are some of the most
complicated and far-reaching sanctions regimes ever imposed." It says
that in parallel with the humanitarian crisis there is this complex
network of non-UN sanctions targeting the government of Syria and some
entities and individuals alleged to have contributed to violence and
human rights abuses. The EU has imposed wide-ranging prohibitions on
commercial and banking dealings with Syria as well control of the export
of "dual use" items that might have some security application.
US sanctions are even more extensive, imposing a blanket ban on exports
to Syria or financial dealings with the country. This includes foreign
produced goods of which the US content is more than 10 per cent of the
value of the finished item. There are supposedly means available for
purely humanitarian goods to reach Syria, but in practice this is not
the case.
The report quotes numerous examples of aid agencies in Syria which have
found their work made very difficult or impossible by the Kafka-esque
system of licenses, export controls, risk management assessments and
other prohibitions that require expensive legal advice to navigate. For
instance, the ban on "dual use" goods includes such items as drilling
equipment and pipes used for water and sanitation which require a
special license – even though a shortage of fresh drinking water is a
major health hazard in Syria.
The big aid agencies are universal in their condemnation of the present
system and the way in which it compounds the miseries caused by the war.
None of the agencies are named in the report, but one large one from the
EU complains that it has to apply for a license to send goods to Syria
through national government bureaucracies, but officials there do not
know what the criteria is for doing so. This means endless delays and
many commercial companies and banks want to have nothing to do with
Syria for fear of unwittingly breaching sanctions and opening themselves
up to heavy fines.
These fears are not exaggerated. The report notes that "non-US banks
have paid billions in US dollars in sanctions related penalties, mostly
to US regulators." [...]
(9) Pentagon trafficks enormous Shipments of Light Weapons into Syria
From: "israel shamir [shamireaders]" Date: Tue,
4 Oct 2016 12:55:51 +0200
From: Michel Chossudovsky
U.S. "Military Aid" to Al Qaeda, ISIS-Daesh: Pentagon Uses Illicit Arms
Trafficking to Channel Enormous Shipments of Light Weapons into Syria
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, October 02, 2016
According to Jane’s Defence Weekly, quoting documents released by the
<> U.S. Government’s Federal Business Opportunities
(FBO), the US –as part of its "counterterrorism campaign"– has provided
Syrian rebels [aka moderate Al Qaeda] with large amounts of weapons and
The US and its allies (including Turkey and Saudi Arabia) have relied on
the illicit trade in light weaponry produced in Eastern Europe, the
Balkans, China, etc. for delivery to rebel groups inside Syria,
including ISIS-Daesh and Al Nusra. In turn, operating out of the
occupied Golan Heights, Israel’s IDF has provided weapons, ammunition,
logistical support to Al Qaeda rebels operating in Southern Syria. [...]
Although the bulk of the weapons and ammunition supplied to the Syrian
rebels (including the FSA, Al Qaeda affiliated entities and ISIS-Daesh)
are channelled by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the US is also involved in
the routine delivery (originating from third countries) of light weapons
to the rebels including anti-tank and rocket launchers.
America’s weapons shipments to Syria’s rebels are commissioned by the
Pentagon (and/or a US government agency) through several intermediaries
via private weapons trading and shipping companies from the Black Sea
port city of Constanta. None of these weapons under this de facto
(unofficial) "US military aid" program are "Made in the USA". These
light weapons purchased in Eastern Europe and the Balkans in the illicit
market are relatively inexpensive.
Moreover, Washington’s decision not to send US made weaponry to the
rebels is meant to uphold the camouflage. No doubt, what Washington
wants is to ensure that US and/or Western made weapons are not found in
the hands of terrorists. As we recall, the White House narrative at the
outset of the war in 2011 was: "humanitarian aid" to the rebels, coupled
with "some military gear….[but no weapons]" (BBC, October 10, 2015)
US military aid to the rebels channeled (unofficially) through the
illicit market, is routine and ongoing. In December 2015, a major US
sponsored shipment of a staggering 995 tons of weapons was conducted in
blatant violation of the ceasefire. According to Jane’s Defence Weekly,
the U.S. "is providing [the weapons] to Syrian rebel groups as part of a
programme that continues despite the widely respected ceasefire in that
country [in December 2015]."
According to Jane, the shipments of weapons on behalf of the US are
entrusted to private weapons traders and shipping companies:
"The FBO has released two solicitations in recent months [early 2015]
looking for shipping companies to transport explosive material from
Eastern Europe to the Jordanian port of Aqaba on behalf of the US Navy’s
Military Sealift Command." ( April 2016)
The shipments of weapons purchased and funded by the US are carefully
coordinated, with deliveries to rebels in the North and South of Syria
respectively. The weapons are shipped out of the Romanian Black Sea port
of Constanta (December 2015):
1) First, to the Turkish Eastern Mediterranean facility of Agalar-Limani
near Tasucu in support of rebels in Northern Syria, to be smuggled into
Syria with the support of the Turkish authorities. (half the shipment
2) The remainder of the shipment to the Jordanian Red Sea port of Aqaba
(for rebels in Southern Syria) via the Suez canal. From Aqaba, the
weapons would be smuggled into Syria through the Southern
Syria-Jordanian border.
According to Jane, the cargo of light weaponry included AK-47 rifles,
PKM general-purpose machine guns, DShK heavy machine guns, RPG-7 rocket
launchers, and 9K111M Faktoria anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW) systems.
It is worth noting that a large share of the RPG rocket launchers were
slated for delivery to Northern Syria (see table below).
Also of significance, the Black Sea route to Syria has also been used to
ship Ukrainian weapons to Al Qaeda and ISIS Daesh.
Peter Myers