Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Syrian boy’s image shamelessly exploited for West’s war agenda

By Finian Cunningham | RT | August 21, 2016

How many times have we seen this before? Western media selectively focusing on, or distorting, human suffering in order to fulfill a base political agenda – war – for powerful interests.

It is no coincidence Western media fevered with images of a five-year-old boy, pulled from rubble in Aleppo after an alleged air strike by Syrian government or Russian forces – and the very next day US warplanes were scrambled over northern Syria reportedly to ward off Syrian Su-24 fighter bombers.

American political analyst Randy Martin at crookedbough.com told this author: “This is a prelude to an all-out war in Syria – one that would inevitably bring American and Russian forces into direct confrontation.”

Martin says a warmongering cabal in Washington wants an “existential showdown” with Russia. This “war party” comprises hawkish think-tanks, military corporations, the Pentagon and CIA whose world view is predicated on American total domination. “They are counting on Hillary Clinton for president,” says the analyst. “And a war with Russia in Syria is an opportunity for this cabal which Clinton seems more than willing to accommodate.”

Perversely, the image of a suffering child is being exploited to solicit an outcome entailing many, many more children suffering.

It is no coincidence either that last week saw Western media reports alleging that thousands of detainees have died during incarceration in Syrian prisons.

https://www.rt.com/news/356600-aleppo-children-hospital-situation/video/

There were also reports claiming that since President Vladimir Putin ordered Russian military intervention in Syria last September his forces have “killed more civilians than terrorists” belonging to the Islamic State and other extremists. The latter claim was based on figures from the so-called Syrian Network for Human Rights, which, according to reliable sources, is a political front for Western governments. Tellingly, the UK-registered network refers to Russia as the “Russian regime”.

The unmistakable context is to further discredit and demonize the elected government of Syria and its foreign allies, which then gives pretext for further Western intervention in the country – intervention that under any normal, rational perspective would be viewed as illegal aggression.

Several alternative media observers have questioned the validity of the now-iconic image of the five-year-old boy, named as Omran Daqneesh. Commentators at the OffGuardian site, for example, have pointed to anomalies in the video footage suggesting that it was staged for propaganda effect. The so-called Aleppo Media Center that fed the images to Western outlets is evidently embedded with the proscribed terror group, Fatah al Sham (previously Jabhat al Nusra).

Other observers noted that the self-declared “photojournalist” Mahmoud Raslan has also been spotted in selfies posted on social media in which he cheerfully enjoys the company of militants belonging to the Nour al Din al Zinki – the very same individuals who last month posted a video of themselves decapitating a 12-year-old boy near Aleppo.

The Russian Ministry of Defense refuted claims that its aircraft were involved in the Aleppo blast. Major General Igor Konashenkov said Russian forces were not operating in the eastern district of Qaterji on the day of the alleged strike. He also said that footage of the blast site indicated it most likely was caused by a mortar shell, which could have been fired by anti-government militants. This is consistent with claims that such militants are holding civilians in eastern Aleppo as hostages and human shields.

The politicization of an image purporting to show a little boy with bloodied head, covered in dust becomes obvious when we step back from this emotive singular focus. Why do Western media outlets not give the same prominence to thousands of children who have been killed or maimed by the anti-government militants or US warplanes?

Why, we should ask, is this particular image made “iconic”? What about the countless children suffering in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali and elsewhere where Washington and its Western allies have waged dubious wars and invasions?

In the same week that the image of five-year-old Omran was plastered all over Western channels, in Yemen US-backed Saudi warplanes bombed a school killing 10 children. Where were their images on Western media?

Almost invariably, Western media focus on human suffering is hardly as simple as relaying the story that meets the eye. Russia was right this week to denounce the “cynical manipulation” of images as an attempt to score political points and orchestrate public sentiments.

Notorious incidents recall how Western media have actually engaged in not just “selective focus” and “omission” but fabrication. Recall the image of the emaciated girl whom Western media claimed was from an enclave in Syria besieged by “regime forces” in a policy of starving rebel-held populations. Turns out the little girl is Lebanese, unrelated to the Syrian conflict.

Or remember the Houla massacre that occurred in May 2012? Over 100 villagers were butchered in that attack and Western media rushed to assign blame on militia supporting the Assad government. Turned out that it was Western-backed mercenaries who perpetrated the atrocity, with the aim of incriminating the Syrian government.

Perhaps the most notorious “false flag” massacre was that of the chemical weapon attack on the Damascus suburb of East Ghouta in August 2014. Images of children suffocating were broadcast across the Western media. Again, it later emerged that it was US-backed Jaish al Islam militants who likely carried out the massacre in a deliberate attempt to prompt Obama’s “red line” for American air strikes on Syria.

Shameless Western media manipulation over Syria’s conflict – as with so many others, for example, Gaddafi’s “imminent butchering of Benghazi” which served as a pretext for NATO bombing of Libya and overthrow of its government in 2011 – is always correlated with a desired policy shift.

The Houla massacre back in 2012 happened only days before the UN security council was to meet on ramping up sanctions on the Assad government. The East Ghouta atrocity was around the time Washington was looking for a red line excuse to impose its military directly in Syria.

The image of the boy from Aleppo falls into the same pattern of expediting political objective.

The battle for Aleppo marks a last stand by the Western-backed militants. Their likely defeat by Syrian, Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah forces portends the end of a six-year war that Washington and its allies covertly embarked on for the illegal purpose of regime change. As many as 400,000 Syrians have died in this Western-fomented war.

Washington desperately wants to thwart the Russian-backed offensive, which is putting paid to its regime-change scheme.

Western outcry for ceasefires and No-Fly Zones are animated by emotive images of children suffering. But the real, underlying concern is to afford respite to the West’s proxies in Aleppo and to stave off terminal defeat.

Much more than this, however, is the perplexing sign that Washington wants to go to war in Syria, as US analyst Randy Martin and others point out.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has already stated that she will escalate American involvement in Syria. Her backers in the CIA and Pentagon are also advocating “killing Russians” and supplying anti-aircraft missiles to their jihadist proxies.

In this prelude to war, we can therefore expect many more such images of children shamelessly exploited to condition the public to accept Washington’s despicable agenda.

Read more:

‘Aleppo child survivor image will be used as propaganda for more war – not less’

August 21, 2016 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | 1 Comment

Footage Of Boy In Aleppo Is Opportunistic, Vile Propaganda From Western Media

160818142212-05-omran-daqneesh-aleppo-syria-super-169

By Brandon Turbeville – Activist Post – August 19, 2016

It’s August, 2016 and the Western mainstream press is parading yet another injured child in front of a population of normally uncompassionate audiences in order to drum up support for some type of NATO military action against the secular government of Bashar al-Assad.

The picture of a little boy, seemingly injured in some type of bombing incident, sitting alone in an orange chair in the back of an ambulance, blood stains on his face and covered in dust from cracked concrete also comes in video form, footage that lasts for about two minutes, showing the boy being carried to a well-equipped ambulance (with English writing on some of the equipment). The boy’s story is also accompanied by “heart wrenching” stories from “activists” in east Aleppo alleging the crimes of the Syrian government and the horrific situation in the area.

The story as presented in the Western press goes as follows:

The video shows a child after he was pulled from rubble in Aleppo, a Syrian city that has been devastated by constant bombardment. A man carried the boy away from the rubble after a suspected Russian or Syrian regime airstrike in the neighborhood of rebel-held Qaterji. He placed him in an orange seat, and the boy brushed his eye and face after the man walked away.

Looking dazed, he then wiped the blood and debris on the seat. After the airstrike, which reportedly shook the northern Syrian city Wednesday night during a call to prayer, the boy was rescued from the rubble that was once his home. Mahmoud Raslan, a photojournalist who captured the image, told the Associated Press that emergency workers and journalists tried to help the child, identified as 5-year-old Omran Daqneesh, along with his parents and his three siblings, who are 1, 6 and 11 years old. “We were passing them from one balcony to the other,” Raslan said, adding: “We sent the younger children immediately to the ambulance, but the 11-year-old girl waited for her mother to be rescued. Her ankle was pinned beneath the rubble.”

Omran was taken to a hospital for a wound on his head.

. . . . .

“This picture of a wounded Syrian boy captures just a fragment of the horrors of Aleppo,” read a Telegraph headline about the picture. The International Business Times said: “Heartbreaking video of little boy dragged from Aleppo rubble shows Syrian children’s suffering.”

. . . . .

The haunting image was also shared by David Miliband, former British foreign secretary and now president and chief executive of the International Rescue Committee. At least 400,000 people have died and millions have been displaced as the Syrian conflict has stretched on for years.

It is rather clear that the child is being used as a stage prop. After being passed to the medical “attendants,” little Omran is placed in an orange chair facing the camera and immediately left alone. He is not treated, no one else is being lifted into the ambulance, and no one is even in the vehicle with him. Instead, he is left to face the “activists” outside the vehicle and their cameras for what seems like too long a time to be anything other than a photo op for the “activists” videotaping him.

While some more discerning alternative media outlets are questioning the credibility of the footage – suggesting that the entire affair was simply staged by “activists” (meaning terrorists and terrorist supporters like the White Helmets) for propaganda purposes – one need not go so far in order to destroy the narrative being pushed by Western outlets. It is, of course, quite possible that the footage was simply created from beginning to end by propagandists but there is also no shortage of injured and dying children in Syria. Thus, the possibility that this footage is completely real and merely seized upon by the propagandists is incredibly real as well. It is even possible that the child was injured as a result of errant bombs dropped by Syrian or Russian planes. Generally, however, when children are killed or injured by American bombs or by bearded freaks receiving a paycheck from the U.S. government, those children are simply labeled “collateral damage” or “unfortunate realities of war.” Even if the bombing targets were intentionally civilian areas, the results are excused. When children are unintentionally injured by a Syrian or Russian plane – despite have taken all the appropriate measures to avoid these types of incidents – the Western press refers to the results as “crimes against humanity,” “intentional targeting of civilians,” and Assad “killing his own people.”

It should also be noted that, while all of the above may be the source of the child’s injuries, it is just as likely that his injuries came as a result of the men seen handling him. After all, America’s “rebels” have long killed children in the most grotesque manner, even beheading a young boy on camera in recent weeks.

But regardless of the nature of the child’s injuries, the photo and the footage is clearly a propaganda stunt. At best, it was seized by propagandists in the West and their foot soldiers in “rebel held” areas of Syria, ) i.e. terrorist support operations such as the White Helmets). One need only examine the “photographer” and this push by mainstream outlets to see that little Omran is being used as the latest bit of war porn propaganda, designed to create sympathy and moral outrage in an audience devoid of both until they are told to have one or the other by mass media outlets.

Mahmoud Raslan, “Activist,” “Journalist,” Terrorist

Raslan describes himself to be a “Syrian media activist,” which, in and of itself, is a red flag to anyone who has studied the Syrian crisis. In the world of Western media, anyone defining themselves as an “activist” in Syria should immediately be translated to mean “terrorist.” Calling “terrorists” “activists” has been an important mode of operation by the Western media since day one in Syria since “activists” can be quoted while actual terrorists are not seen as credible enough in the minds of the general public. In other words, “activist” is merely a moniker assumed by terrorists when propaganda outfits need “on the ground” confirmation of what they are already peddling.

Raslan, the “Syrian media activist” certainly fits the bill. Despite being hailed a true journalist or selfless “activist,” Raslan’s terror-supporting history is easily revealed via social media. Raslan has repeatedly made public statements praising terrorists and suicide bombers. In a post on Raslan’s facebook page (translated by The Canary) reads:

With the suicide fighters, from the land of battles and butchery, from Aleppo of the martyrs, we bring you tidings of impending joy, with God’s permission

Another post reads:

Thousands of suicide fighters and tens of booby-traps are being prepared for the great battle in Aleppo, the first battle where I see men weeping because they can’t participate on account of the number of attackers.

Raslan’s Twitter page is full of pictures and footage of him standing next to captured Syrian tanks, marching with terrorists flying the French mandate flag (white, black, and green), taking selfies with terrorists, and celebrating terrorist victories. His Twitter page alone carries a cover photo that says “Stop Russia.” Why would anyone want to stop Russia from bombing terrorists unless they themselves were terrorists? This is a question more and more Americans should be asking themselves.

Videos on Raslan’s social media also show celebrations with other terrorists, praising suicide bombers on camera.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fmahmoud.rslan.58%2Fvideos%2F331262460539557%2F&show_text=0&width=560

As Miri Wood writes in her article, “Oscar Nominations For War Porn With Child Has New Nomination,” “That one woman with a Twitter account can immediately expose this heinous relationship, while paid msm reporters cheer this scum, if further indictment of the criminal intentions of western media against the Syrian Arab Republic.”

Wood and Afraa Dagher continue by writing,

True, Gray Boy might not be the best competition for Aylan, but how many drowned babies’ bodies that have been desecrated by repositioning for maximum emotional impact are we to expect?

Besides,

Aylan’s defiled corpse was needed to propagate the myth of the external Syrian refugee — part of the plan to strategically depopulate the country (which is why msm neglected to mention Aylan’s father was the human trafficking boat ‘captain’) — while Gray Boy is to be used for an increased bombing campaign against Syria, by the same NATO forces which have funded terrorism in the SAR, and which obliterated Libya in 2011.

As Mnar A. Muhawesh of Mint Press News stated,

Since when does the corporate or mainstream media care about the people of Syria let alone the children of Syria? The answer is never. Watching CNN anchors cry crocodile tears over the Aleppo boy lifted from rubble serves one purpose only: to play with our emotions to justify more US intervention. MEDIA and their pundits are now calling for the US to help these people, as if our actions haven’t done enough damage. And by help, they mean bomb. But, I have been poking around to find the original source of this video of the heart-wrenching Syrian boy. It brought me to tears and I’m seeing everyone post about it. CNN cited the original source as coming from the Aleppo Media Center. The website is in Arabic but I read it, and it’s a pro rebel website referring to Al-qaeda rebels that behead civilians as “revolutionaries”. I doubt many people looked up the original source, but I did and it wasn’t hard to find. What the media is not telling us is that many parts of Aleppo is currently occupied by Al-qaeda rebels including al-Nusra Front and Noor alzinki — including the area this boy is from.

. . . . .

Consider this: CNN and other media and NGO’s that are funded by NATO county’s like the US and the UK have embedded reporters, rescue workers and doctors in al-Qaeda held areas like we see with the White Helmets. These are the sources the media is using for interviews and sources for information to control the narrative. But the Assad government is bombing the Al-qaeda held areas. Three years ago the media referred to these areas as al-qaeda held. Today, they’re referring to these same terrorists as “opposition” . These groups are starving the areas they occupy and hog up all aid sent into the areas set to them for civilians. This gives these institutions an opportunity to show the West how the Assad government and the Syrian army are airstriking “opposition” held areas without the context that these are al- qaeda held or that many times the Al-qaeda rebels are starving the population. Doesn’t the US want to get rid of Al-qaeda and ISIS? You’d think that but instead, they are defending them to the world and legitimizing them. These “sources” are simply controlling the narrative  Indeed, the award-winning performance of CNN news anchor Kate Bolduan crying, hyperventilating, and indignantly insinuating that someone should “do something” to stop these airstrikes against terrorist forces has caught the attention of many people who couldn’t find Syria on a map before or after her report. But we haven’t see Bolduan crying for any other Syrian children over the course of the last five years. Did she cry over the young boy beheaded by America’s “moderate” rebels? Did she cry at any other child’s death at the hands of the “rebels?” There is no shortage of dead children in Syria and certainly no shortage of them killed in the most horrific and sadistic ways by the “activists” and “rebels” her employer has been pimping to the American people since day one. So why the tears for this child?

Bolduan’s carefully scripted performance and excellent follow-through should earn her a serious acting job one day. But we would kindly ask she leave journalism to someone else.

Little Omran is unfortunately the rehash of baby Aylan, a child for whom Western audiences wept and wailed for days, becoming more and more willing to allow the West to increase its intervention in Syria and allow hordes of non-Syrian immigrants into their country but who, only a year later, would scarcely warrant a head scratch at the familiarity of the name. But it would be virtually impossible to ask any American to recount the name of the little girl killed by Obama’s rebels in Lattakia, car bombed to death by “moderates” and democracy-loving Sharia fanatics, around the same time as baby Aylan. Why? Because not one mainstream media outlet reported her death.

Indeed, some children are more equal than others and children killed by America’s terrorists aren’t worthy of even a mention by the mainstream press. Forgive me if I am unconvinced and unmoved by CNN’s crying anchors or America’s temporary fickle and hypocritical moral outrage.

August 21, 2016 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | 1 Comment

What Should We Do About Crimea?

1022745447

By Ron Paul | August 21, 2016

Is Crimea about to explode? The mainstream media reports that Russia has amassed troops on the border with Ukraine and may be spoiling for a fight. The Russians claim to have stopped a Ukrainian sabotage team that snuck into Crimea to attack key infrastructure. The Russian military is holding exercises in Crimea and Russian President Vladimir Putin made a visit to the peninsula at the end of the week.

The Ukrainians have complained to their western supporters that a full-scale Russian invasion is coming, and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said he may have to rule by martial law due to the Russian threat.

Though the US media pins the blame exclusively on Russia for these tensions, in reality there is plenty of blame to go around. We do know that the US government has been involved with “regime change” in Ukraine repeatedly since the break up of the Soviet Union. The US was deeply involved with the “Orange Revolution” that overthrew elected president Viktor Yanukovych in 2005. And we know that the US government was heavily involved in another coup that overthrew the same elected Yanukovych again in 2014.

How do we know that the US was behind the 2014 coup? For one, we have the intercepted telephone call between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. In the recording, the two US officials are plotting to remove the elected government and discussing which US puppet they will put in place.

You would think such undiplomatic behavior could get diplomats fired, but sadly in today’s State Department it can actually get you promoted! Nuland is widely expected to get a big promotion – perhaps to even Secretary of State – in a Hillary Clinton administration, and Geoffrey Pyatt has just moved up to an Ambassadorship in Athens.

Ambassador Pyatt can’t seem to control himself: Just as tensions were peaking between Russia and Ukraine over Crimea this month, he published a series of Tweets urging Ukraine to take back Crimea. Is this how our diplomats overseas should be acting? Should they be promoting actions they know will lead to war?

When the mainstream media discusses Crimea they are all lock-step: that’s the peninsula Putin annexed. Never do they mention that there was a referendum in which the vast majority of the population (who are mostly ethnic Russians) voted to join Russia. The US media never reports on this referendum because it produced results that Washington doesn’t like. How arrogant it must sound to the rest of the world that Washington reserves the right to approve or disapprove elections thousands of miles away – meanwhile we find out from the DNC hacked files that we don’t have a lot of room to criticize elections overseas.

What should we do about Ukraine and Russia? We should stop egging Ukraine on, we should stop subsidizing the government in Kiev, we should stop NATO exercises on the Russian border, we should end sanctions, we should return to diplomacy, we should send the policy of “regime change” to the dustbin of history. The idea that we would be facing the prospect of World War III over which flag flies above a tiny finger of land that most US politicians couldn’t find on a map is utterly ridiculous. When are we going to come to our senses?

August 21, 2016 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , , , , | 4 Comments

Clinton’s Campaign & The Anti-Russian Roots of the ‘Cultural Left’

By Caleb Maupin | New Eastern Outlook | August 21, 2016

In recent speeches, including her speech accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination for the Presidency, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has declared she would work to eradicate “systemic racism.” Clinton did not present any specific strategy or policy to do this, yet each time she has uttered the two word phrase “systemic racism” there is a large burst of applause from her audience. An article from vox.com claimed that use of this term was “major” because it is a phrase that is “embraced in particular by younger activists.”

In her speech, Clinton could have said she would work to eradicate “discrimination” or “under-representation” of minorities, but instead chose to use the favored buzzword of a specific political milieu to whom Clinton’s campaign seems to be pandering. The phrase is part of a whole vocabulary of what some call “oppression theory.” Young people have learned it from their University professors, namely those who teach Black or Gender Studies. This new lingo is used on various internet forums, especially Tumblr.

When the Democratic Nomination was still up for grabs, the internet was filled with Clinton supporters who referred to Sanders supporters as “Bernie Bros”, arguing that supporting the Presidential campaign of the Senator from Vermont was an expression of “white male privilege.”

Blogs, tweets, and statuses now urge disappointed Sanders supporters to “check their privilege”, consider ramifications of a Trump presidency, and vote for a candidate they despise. If a male Sanders supporter responds to these arguments and defends his decision to support Jill Stein or Gloria La Riva, or any candidate other than Clinton, he is accused of “man-splaining.” As the argument continues, if an opponent of Clinton objects to a personal insult directed toward him, he is “tone-policing.”

Where do these phrases come from? What is this political milieu that the Democratic Nominee has attached herself to? In the public eye it is often identified as the “far left.” This is not completely accurate.

The entity known as the political left can trace its roots to the French Revolution of the 1790s. Since that time, people who identify as “leftists,” revolutionaries, or radicals have used phrases like “liberty” and “solidarity,” they have talked about working toward “emancipation” and “liberation” against “oppression.” They have often used specifically Marxian formulations like “exploitation” and “expropriation” while advocating “power to the working class.”  With rhetoric about liberation and opposing injustice, the left has been the traditional home for opponents of racism, sexism, and advocates of social equality.

However, this new milieu that talks of “interconnectedness” and “intersectionality” rather than solidarity, and celebrates global military interventions done for “humanitarian” reasons, while engaging in heated debates about concepts like “cisgender privilege,” accusing its detractors of being “white-splaining” “Bernie bros” who need to “check their privilege” is a new development, that did not arise naturally from within the left milieu.

The Congress for Cultural Freedom

To understand the unique rhetorical style that Clinton has embraced, one must understand what happened at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel back in 1949. Despite the United States being in an anti-communist frenzy, with the House Un-American Activities committee in full swing, and many Communist Party members being sent to federal or state prisons, the Moscow-aligned Communist Party scored a key public relations victory.

On March 25th, 1949 the “Scientific and Cultural Conference for World Peace” opened in New York City, and gave voice to a loud, solid critique of US foreign policy. Albert Einstein, Will Geer, Arthur Miller, Aaron Copeland, Lillian Hellman, Frank Oppenheimer, Paul Robeson, W.E.B. Dubois, and many of the most well respected cultural and intellectual figures of the time took the stage at the conference. The speeches not only denounced the military build-up against the Soviet Union, but also defended Soviet military interventions, and presented the USSR as a friendly, socialist society, not the “Iron Curtain” or “Evil Empire” portrayed in US media. The US Central Intelligence Agency watched with anger as images of the Waldorf Peace Conference were distributed by media outlets across the planet, discrediting the United States and raising the prestige of the Soviet Union.

In response, the following year the CIA launched a project called the “Congress for Cultural Freedom.” Still today, the project is considered to be one of the agency’s greatest achievements of the Cold War era. The CIA brags about the project on its website saying it involved: “a cadre of energetic and well-connected staffers willing to experiment with unorthodox ideas and controversial individuals if that was what it took to challenge the Communists at their own game.”

The project involved indirect CIA funding of “cultural leftism.” Across the United States and western Europe, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, as well as artists, musicians, academics and film-makers started getting CIA money. Many of them were unaware of where this money came from.

The CIA’s website confirms that it subsidized the New York-based Trotskyist magazine called Partisan Review. The magazine presented itself as representing the genuine socialism of Karl Marx, Max Shachtman and Leon Trotsky, while opposing “Stalinism” in the USSR. The CIA also promoted the works of Sidney Hook and other “socialist” college professors.

The project went beyond just political activism, and included funding for art galleries, experimental film-makers, and most especially, left-wing academics. The CIA funded the printing of George Orwell’s writings, as well as concerts by left-wing musicians. A 2014 article from the Chronicle of Higher Education bemoans the impact of CIA funding for the Iowa Writers Workshop, which promoted what was described as stylistic innovations and breakthroughs in literature.

Why Foment “Cultural Leftism?”

It seems strange that at the time of the Cold War, the US government was intentionally funding people who called themselves radical leftists. However, it makes sense for one key reason: all of the artists, activists, academics, and philosophers who received money from the CIA program were staunchly anti-Soviet.

The CIA intentionally promoted “cultural leftists” hoping to divert people with leftist and dissident instincts away from Soviet Communism. A significant political gap between western leftists and the USSR was already developing. Over the course of the 1920s, the Soviet Union grew to be much more socially conservative than during its earliest years. Homosexuality and abortion were outlawed, and the state awarded medals to women who bore more than 10 children.

While western leftists clung to abstract Marxist concepts like “free love” and “the destruction of gender,” the Soviet Union, fighting for its survival amidst blockades, invasions and foreign subversion, needed to tighten up. Facing constant attack, the Soviet Union was forced to become very authoritarian. With its industries rapidly developing within a previously poor and agrarian society, the Soviet economy required strict regulation. As they faced foreign attacks, Soviet leaders invoked not only Marxist-Leninist principles, but also Russian nationalism. Films portrayed medieval Czars not as tyrants but as patriotic idols fighting off foreign invaders. During the Second World War the Russian Orthodox Church was resurrected and allowed to function within Soviet society.

Despite having a centrally planned, non-capitalist economy, achieving what was often described as “economic miracles” by economists, when it came to cultural issues, the USSR simply did not live up to fantasies of many western leftists. Many activists who strove for an egalitarian paradise with “total freedom” were quite disappointed with what the Soviet Union had become.

Yet, even despite the growing divide, the Soviet Union had a huge network of international allies. The Communist International and broader People’s Front of anti-fascists represented a massive global current. After the Second World War, the current got even larger around the world due to the very admirable role played by Communists and the USSR itself during the war.

Starting in 1950 the CIA began working to exploit and expand the gap between western radicals and the Soviet Union, in the hope of isolating and defeating the USSR. From the earliest days, some of the project’s participants were already fantasizing about events similar to the “color revolutions” the CIA would be involved in a few decades later. When the project was being planned, the ex-Communist academic Sidney Hook said: “Give me a hundred million dollars and a thousand dedicated people, and I will guarantee to generate such a wave of democratic unrest among the masses–yes, even among the soldiers–of Stalin’s own empire, that all his problems for a long period of time to come will be internal. I can find the people.”

Regardless of their intentions, in funding and promoting “Cultural Leftism” the CIA ultimately remolded the left-wing of politics in the USA and Western Europe.

 Eastern Mysticism, Fascism & The Occult

In Western Europe and the United States, Christianity represented the most prominent religious perspective and was promoted by the most centrist and mainstream elements of the political establishment. The radical left generally promoted philosophical materialism and scientific atheism. The occult, paganism, and eastern mysticism were an obsession of the extreme right.

The Nazis, who considered themselves to be a “party of the right” had glorified Germany’s pre-Christian religions, frequently invoking Oden and Valhalla in their propaganda. The famed Occultist Aleister Crowley who entertained the rich and powerful in Britain often vocally aligned with the Conservative Party and considered leftists to be a dirty crowd of uncultured rabble rousers. As a staunch right-winger the iconic para-normalist said “I hate Christianity as socialists hate soap.”

European fascists often marveled at India’s caste system, seeing it as an antidote to class struggle. Julius Evola, one of the primary Italian far-right intellectuals was also considered an expert on Hinduism and pre-Christian mythology. The Nazis adopted the Swastika as their emblem and called themselves “Aryans” because they identified themselves with the authoritarian structures of ancient India, and believed Germans to genetic descendants of it.

Within India, the caste system, mystical practices that are designed to attract spirits, along with the strict patriarchal family structure have been the main targets of social reformers. Many leftists in India accused the British empire of working to reinforce these things in order to effectively weaken the struggle for independence.

Regardless of left and right norms, following the 1950s, as the “Cultural Left” was re-energized while being re-molded by CIA funding in the United States, it was filled with admirers of traditional Indian culture. Writers like Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg used Hindu chants in their writings, which were distributed and promoted at Universities. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness, a very conservative and anti-communist sect that worships a Hindu Diety became iconic participants in peace marches.

Similarly, the theocratic and feudal kingdom of Tibet was rewritten into a trendy liberal cause. The Dalai Lama’s regime was considered to be one of the most right-wing, authoritarian and patriarchal kingdoms in the world. The Nazis had been so impressed with the harshly enforced traditional structures of the Kingdom, that they had dispatched many delegations to study it. The Nazis had actively worked with the regime to fight the Nationalist and Communist forces in other parts of China.

In the 1950s, the CIA sponsored a campaign of guerrilla warfare intended to drive the Communist Party of China from the Tibet Autonomous Region and restore feudal theocratic rule. The book “The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet”, published by the Heritage Foundation, tells how the Dalai Lama’s brother led a team of violent insurgents who were airdropped into Tibet with US made weapons.

However, the remolded Cultural Left which Hillary Clinton now embraces, nearly worships the Dalai Lama. The “Free Tibet” movement, which calls for breaking up the People’s Republic of China, is now one of the trendiest “left-wing” causes. One of the favorite books of this “movement” is “Seven Years in Tibet”, written by Heinrich Harrier, a member of Hitler’s SS, who had been dispatched to Tibet during the Second World War.

“Tune in, Turn On, Drop Out”

The political left had long been outspoken opponents of recreational drug use. Many of the early socialists even opposed drinking alcohol and were part of the broader temperance movement of the early 20th century. However, as CIA money flowed in, forging the anti-Soviet “cultural left” this position was also altered.

According to what was revealed by the Church Committee, a commission set up by the US Congress to investigate the CIA in 1975, the CIA had actively distributed drugs to college students and others as part of “Project MKULTRA.” The CIA had involved many professors and academics in its research and distribution of Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) also called “acid.”

This hallucinogen had first been synthetically created by Albert Hoffman, a Swiss chemist, in 1938. During the 1950s, the US Central Intelligence Agency had widely experimented with LSD, hoping it could be weaponized and used against the Soviet Union.

Timothy Leary, a Harvard psychology professor, became one of the most well known figures among left-wing students during the 1960s and 70s. He preached “tune in, turn on, and drop out” and loudly encouraged young people who opposed the Vietnam War and racism to use LSD. In 1999, FBI files were released showing that Dr. Timothy Leary had been an FBI informant for much his career.

As the cultural left emerged, there was a strange re-orientation of the mainstream US media. The press backed away from hard line celebrations of capitalism and condemnations of dissent. Instead a large section of popular rock bands, University professors, and TV programs almost celebrated the “New Left,” specifically its cultural manifestations.

During the upsurge of left-wing political activism during the 1960s and 70s, many Communists who took political direction from the Soviet Union, China, or Cuba identified the campus based, drug using, promiscuous, and well funded anti-Soviet “New Left” as problematic. These forces that were organized into disciplined cadre organizations, were a minority, often labelled “Tankies” and “Hardliners” and denounced by iconic New Left figures like Jerry Rubin.

By the mid-1970s, the New Left’s political strength had died down. It remained a kind of small “loyal opposition” in US politics. Peace marches took place, the Green Party was formed, and the New Left functioned as a place that could absorb free thinkers and others with grievances against US society.

While the New Left remained isolated, the US government was ruled by people who espoused Neo-Con formulations about “the greatest country in the world” and called capitalism “the greatest system ever created.” The Ford Foundation, various Rockefeller think tanks, along with projects directed by George Soros funneled money to many who would be considered “left of center,” but they remained a small bloc that was ignored by major political forces.

The New Left Takes Power

CN620_mWIAEwaydThe turning point came after the failures of the Bush administration and the 2008 financial crisis dramatically changed the political atmosphere. The USA clearly has big problems now, and the Republican Party’s political message of “my country right or wrong” and “don’t fix it if it ain’t broke” would no longer suffice.

Amidst Republican confusion and re-messaging, the Democratic Party has now emerged as the most powerful entity in US politics. In order to maintain its grip on power, the Obama presidency and the Clinton campaign are re-energizing the “Cultural Left.” In 2016, the foot soldiers of the Democratic Party are those who have been trained in NGO funded, University based Cultural Leftism. With the global Communist movement far weaker now, the remnants and descendants of the CIA’s “New Left” have a high level of ideological dominance. What was once considered “counter-culture” has become the mainstream.

Now that opponents of the United States on the global stage are much more socially conservative, the pro-war and imperialistic message of the Cultural Left is far more pronounced. At times, Hillary Clinton’s campaign against Donald Trump sounds almost conservative. The Clinton campaign insinuates that Trump is unpatriotic for avoiding military service during the Vietnam War, and unqualified for the Presidency because he uses “offensive” language. According to Clinton’s supporters, Trump is loyal to the Kremlin and admires “dictators” i.e. regimes that challenge Wall Street dominance.

Hillary Clinton thundered “America is great, because America is good” during her convention speech, dismissing Trump’s “Make America Great Again” as unpatriotic. Many of the attacks leveled against Trump are not condemning him for being bigoted or authoritarian, but rather for being overcritical of US society and embracing “conspiracy theories.”

According to politics extolled by the Clinton-ites and their foot soldiers, being left-wing, fighting for women’s rights, and opposing injustice means carrying out regime change. According to Clinton’s Cultural Left, the battle for “human rights” must continue, and the Pentagon must be utilized to free women, homosexuals, transgender people, and others from “dictators” who do not share their enlightened social perspective. This liberation is to be carried out by arming Islamic extremists, enacting economic sanctions, and firing cruise missiles in order to create chaos and topple regimes deemed to be promoting values contrary to those taught in Race and Gender Studies courses.

Greater confrontation with Russia is considered a good thing because its government is accused of being “homophobic.” Those who point out that Clinton coddles dictators in places like Saudi Arabia, or that US meddling in Syria and Libya has strengthened the menace of ISIL are labelled “conspiracy theorists” who need to “check their privilege” and “stop man-splaining.”

At the same time, pointing out that the US backed anti-government fighters in Syria are actually Wahabbi fanatics who have slaughtered Christians and Alawites is called “Islamophobia.” Consistent with the argumentative style of the campus based “privilege politics” milieu, these facts are never refuted. Rather, one is simply accused of some ideological crime or impurity for pointing them out.

As millions of people are rapidly fleeing both Libya and Syria because NATO interventions have toppled independent nationalist governments and made their lives unlivable, leftists are applauding the situation. Rather than protest these imperialist crimes which created a mass refugee crisis, the bulk of leftists are having parades to “Welcome the Refugees.” Those who point out that NATO destabilizations have caused a crisis of mass migration, and say this is an atrocity that should be opposed, are accused of being bigots and Islamophobes.

The Growing Danger of War

The left that existed prior to the Second World War is something that Clinton-ites would never recognize. Books like “Toward Soviet America” by William Z. Foster in 1932 laid out a blue print for a planned economy in the United States, and called for hungry, unemployed working class people in Kentucky, Ohio, Alabama, and elsewhere to fight back and demand better working conditions.

The mass movements of the 1930s won the creation of social security, unemployment insurance, veterans benefits, and much more. The slogan the Communist Party used was “Don’t Starve, Fight!” Those who were mobilized were not a well educated cultural elite, but industrial workers, unemployed youth, students, and all kinds of other ordinary Americans who were suffering during the economic crisis known as the Great Depression.

The manufactured and recently empowered “cultural left” with which Clinton has aligned herself would look at such people and tell them they deserve to be destitute, because it would help them better understand what people of color have experienced. It would tell them that demanding jobs was a sense of “entitlement” and “white privilege.” It would tell them that they should celebrate the prospects of war with Russia or China because it would be mean toppling leaders portrayed to be “homophobic” or “oppressive of women.”

Now that the “left” has become something miles away from what it once was, it should be no surprise that lots of working class white people are embracing Donald Trump and the “alternative right.” Many white people who are suffering during the economic downturn have come to see the left as a current that seeks to punish and shame them, not improve their living situation. Furthermore, the modern left is perceived as looking down on them for not knowing the appropriate “oppression theory” lingo which is being taught at Universities.

If organizations emerged that actually made economic appeals, and organized against big money interests, in a way that is similar to what was done during the 1930s, the situation could be drastically altered.

However, that is not the case. The “new left,” specifically fostered to counter the influence of global opponents of western capitalism, has now taken the helm of western civilization, staffed with a cadre of loyal crusaders fighting in the name of “diversity” and “intersectionality.” Meanwhile, the economy is getting worse and the danger of a bigger military clash between the United States and Russia or China, the two largest countries on earth, is rapidly growing.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College.

August 21, 2016 Posted by | Deception | , , , , | Leave a comment

‘No Wall, No Yatsenyuk, No Money’: All That’s Left From Project Wall With Russia

Sputnik – 21.08.2016

Public outcry is growing in Ukraine over the amount of money spent on the construction of what was supposed to be a ‘wall’ at the border between Ukraine and Russia, presented at the time by ex-PM Yatsenyuk as no less than ‘The European Rampart’; it turned out to be a metal fence, which “wouldn’t even stop a rabbit.”

One of Ukraine’s most widely discussed and costly projects from the times of the former Prime Minister Yatsenyuk – a giant wall on the border with Russia dubbed no less than ‘The European Rampart’ turns out to be a figment of our collective imagination.

1044490362‘The Wall’, which was once claimed to become an “arrangement of the Eastern border of Europe,” is actually a metal fence which “wouldn’t even stop a rabbit,” and by all accounts, the money that was chanelled into the grand scheme has been embezzled.

Last week the Ukrainian media reported that the country’s Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) opened a criminal case over the embezzlement of funds allocated for the implementation of the proposed barrier, which was supposed to act as a layered defense system on the border with Russia.

SAP’s head, Nazar Golodnitsky, told journalists that prosecutors will go to the site “to look, to describe and to examine.”

Meanwhile the deputies of the Verkhovnaya Rada, the country’s parliament, have already visited the site of the wall and posted their impressions on their Facebook pages.

Deputy Borislav Bereza called it a “garden wire netting” which “wouldn’t even stop a rabbit.”

“My colleague Elena Sotnyk has gone to have a look at the notorious Wall which Yatsenyuk has been pouring millions of hryvnas into,” the deputy wrote at this Facebook page.

“And so what do we see now? There is no wall, no money and no Yatsenyuk. However there is Yatsenyuk running around Washington in his pink t-shirt.”

“And who is going to answer for this “creativity” which under the wartime laws could be considered a raid, undermining of state security and large-scale money embezzlement,” he further wondered.

Elena Sotnyk also posted her comments where she called it a “pit at the cost of 4 billion hryvnas ($158 mln).

“Let me remind you that we are talking about ‘The European Rampartl’ – Yatsenyuk’s “strategic fortification project,” which he used for self-promotion and PR for almost a year. The project is still claimed to be under construction and the budget money is still being allocated to this epic wall,” she wrote on her Facebook page.

Public officials and experts were outraged by the construction cost.

According to deputy Bereza, Yatsenyuk’s government has already spent over 1 billion hryvnas ($39 mln), while Sotnyk’s estimates suggest it was 4 billion hryvnas ($158 mln).

The project has been strongly criticized by experts who explained that such a wall couldn’t possibly deter the hypothetic assault of a regular army. Regular citizens have also posted pictures online of flooded pits and criss-crossed fences.

Ukrainian political analyst, director of the Institute of Political Management and Analysis Ruslan Bortnik suggested that the primary purpose of the project was to calm down the Ukrainians in the midst of the military hysteria when everyone was afraid of “Russian intervention.”

And already during the construction of the fence, public officials have invented corruption schemes, he told Russian online newspaper Vzglyad.

Director of the Center for Eurasian Studies Vladimir Kornilov suggested that the project was an exceptional PR stunt which went very well.

“Ukrainian public servants and foreign politicians have actively taken pictures on the background of dug-out pits, simulated some activity, appropriated the allocated grants and budget money and left happily,” he told the website.

He also recalled that even though the ‘Project Wall’ was initially associated with the Yatsenyuk’s government, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, former US Ambassador to Ukraine who has recently left it for Greece, has also regarded it as his own achievement.

“He has only just left, and already the Ukrainian authorities have begun arresting public servants for the unfinished construction of the wall,” Kornilov said.

Back in 2014 then-Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk announced that he would fence the country’s 2,000 kilometer border with Russia, claiming that it would prevent Russian military and paramilitary personnel from infiltrating the nation’s territory.

Kiev then said it needed more than $500 million and four years to complete its wall.

“The ‘European Rampart’, and namely its construction and equipping the state borders with Russia, will be completed. This project should be finished within four years,” Yatsenyuk said at the time.

The prime minister stated that Ukraine was establishing a “separate state agency to support the border,” adding that the project will cost an estimated 8 billion hryvnas [about $510 million].

Yatsenyuk had faced a great deal of scrutiny for the wall’s lack of progress and although he has branded the project the “European Rampart” it is more widely known by its ironic name “the Great Wall of Ukraine.”

© Photo: Borislav Bereza facebook

August 21, 2016 Posted by | Corruption | , , | Leave a comment

Iran Unveils Its Own Long-Range Air Defense System

Sputnik – 21.08.2016

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Sunday unveiled the country’s long-awaited Bavar-373 air defense missile system with characteristics similar to Russia’s S-300, according to the local media reports.

On the National Defense Industry Day, which is celebrated in Iran on August 21, Rouhani, accompanied by Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan, visited the exhibition at the Iran Aviation Industries Organization (IAIO) at the Defense Ministry, which showcased the latest achievements in the air defense industry, including the domestically-built Bavar-373 air defense system.

The Iranian president inaugurated the Bavar-373 (meaning ‘Belief’), which was commissioned in February 2010 amid the suspension of a deal with Russia on deliveries of five S-300 systems over the adoption of UN Security Council sanctions on Iran.

The long-range mobile Bavar-373 air defense system has been designed and constructed by Defense Ministry scientists and experts in cooperation with the country’s Khatam al-Anbia Air Defense Base and other scientific and investigative centers.

The home-grown system was successfully test-fired in August 2014. It is similar to the Russian S-300 and is capable of hitting targets at a high altitude.

The new system uses a phased array radar like Russian 96L6 radar for tracking aerodynamic targets and ballistic missiles in medium to long ranges, mounted on the ZAFAR heavy truck.

In May, Dehghan announced that Iran had completed development of the domestically-produced Bavar-373 air defense system, with mass production expected to be launched later in 2016.

Hassan Rouhani also observed the latest achievements and developments in air defense technology, including fighter and transport aircraft, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

The president was also briefed on the progress in the designing and manufacturing of the first national Turbojet engine.

On Saturday, Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan said the country is not going to purchase the Russian-made S-400 air defense missile system, though Moscow has offered to sell it to Tehran.

During his press conference in Tehran, the defense minister confirmed that Russia has offered Iran “S-400 and some other systems,” but Tehran currently has no plans to order them.

He also commented on the S-300 system, which Moscow had undertaken to sell to Tehran under a 2007 contract.

Dehqan said Iran has voluntarily terminated a lawsuit against Russia after the delivery of the missile system to Iran began.

However, he added, Iran reserves the right to legally pursue the case if the full implementation of the deal runs into any problems.

Iran has received the bulk of the S-300 missile system, the minister noted, adding that the remaining parts are expected to be delivered within a month.

August 21, 2016 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | 1 Comment

Iran pitches huge gas reserves for Asia markets

With more than 34 trillion cubic meters, Iran owns the world’s largest natural gas reserves but its share of global trade in gas is less than 1%

Press TV – August 21, 2016

Iran is pitching its massive gas sector for trade with Asia where it sees a better market for exports than Europe.

“Gas prices are more attractive in East Asia than in Europe,” Deputy Petroleum Minister for trade and international affairs Amir-Hossein Zamaninia has said.

The country hopes to eventually export natural gas to East Asia, including Japan, he told the Kyodo news agency in an interview on Sunday.

Zamaninia held the prospect of Iran and Japan forming a long-term partnership for the supply of Iranian LNG to the Asian country.

“Japan has a great potential of becoming a major partner for Iran in developing its gas industry,” he said.

The two countries have a chequered history of trade relations. They had to ditch a massive petrochemical project in 1991 as the Iraqi war of 1980-1988 under former dictator Saddam Hussein dragged on.

In 2010, Japan’s state-owned Inpex walked out of an agreement to develop Iran’s South Azadegan oilfield under US pressures.

Tokyo, however, was among the first countries to rush through a series of measures to lift sanctions on Iran before a nuclear agreement with Tehran went into effect.

In August, Japan sent its State Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Daishiro Yamagiwa to Tehran with executives from major trading houses such as Mitsubishi Corp., Mitsui & Co. and Itochu, as well as plant-engineering giant JGC and major banks.

Tehran accounted for 10% of Japan’s oil imports before sanctions cut them to five percent. Japan wants to raise the purchases to the previous level.

“Given that Iran’s oil and natural gas reserves are one of the world’s biggest, there is a possibility that Iran will play a part if Japan seeks to diversify its supply sources,” Kyodo quoted a Japanese gas and oil industry source as saying Sunday.

Zamaninia said Japanese companies are interested in being re-engaged in the Iranian energy sector, especially in the gas sector, adding he thinks Japan’s current policy seems to be focusing less on crude oil.

With more than 34 trillion cubic meters under its belt, Iran owns the world’s largest natural gas reserves but its share of the global trade in gas is less than one percent.

According to an Iranian energy official, natural gas will be the main fuel in the next 20 to 30 years. Zamaninia said within two to three years, Iran will be a major supplier of gas to its neighbors.

Currently, Turkey is Iran’s biggest customer with 30 million cubic meters a day of imports under a 25-year deal signed before the West imposed sanctions on Tehran.

Iran seeks to raise gas production to 1.2 billion cubic meters (bcm) a day in five years, from 800 million cubic meters now. Annual output totals 166 bcm, which is mostly used at home.

The country exports 10 bcm of gas per year. To put it in perspective, Russia exports about 150 billion cubic meters of gas a year.

South Pars in southern Iran is the world’s largest gas field which the country is developing in two dozen phases.

It provides feedstock for a number of petrochemical complexes in an area known the Pars Special Economic Energy Zone (PSEEZ) in Assaluyeh on the Persian Gulf coast.

Yoichi Yamamoto, adviser in charge of the Middle East at the Japan External Trade Organization in Tokyo, says petrochemical products, rather than natural gas itself, might be more attractive for Japanese companies for now.

“To transport gas across the sea, it is necessary to convert gas into liquefied natural gas and use special tankers, resulting in relatively large investment,” he told Kyodo.

“If Japanese companies are to form joint ventures or invest funds in the PSEEZ, petrochemical products produced there would be attractive,” he said.

“They cannot sell all the products in Japan. If they could draw up a business model in which they will sell the products also to third-party countries, I think it would be possible for them to invest,” he added.

August 21, 2016 Posted by | Economics, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | 1 Comment

Casuistry

By Thomas S. Harrington | CounterPunch | August 19, 2016

Casuistry, which one dictionary defines as “specious, deceptive, or oversubtle reasoning, especially in questions of morality” is, rightly or wrongly, inextricably linked to the history of Jesuit order of the Catholic Church. And the rise of the Jesuit order is deeply enmeshed with the Counter-Reformation, a set of measures designed to roll back the spread of Protestantism in Europe during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. The control center of the movement was Spain, the world-striding superpower of that historical moment.

Rightfully fearful that Protestantism’s rejection of long-standing modes of clerical privilege and the Church’s “right” to collect vast sums of money from parishioners would undermine their ability to bully and bribe Italian, French, Dutch and German potentates into compliance with their political demands, the Spanish Monarchy undertook an endless series of military adventures against “heretics” across the Continent in the years between 1530 and 1648. This military thrust was accompanied by a well-organized propaganda campaign in which the highly educated Jesuits priests played a crucial role.

Appearing morally and intellectually reasonable while serving as a convinced advocate for the systematic subjugation of other people and their animating ideals is not a simple task. In the long run it is, in fact, an impossible one. No amount of argument can convince a person or group of persons who see them selves as suffering under the boot of another that their bondage is a good and necessary thing. What such a rhetorical posture can do, for a time at least, is convince the subjects of the hegemonic country of, if not the inherent nobility of their bloody mission, its generally benign nature.

A key, if generally unstated, goal of the 16th and 17th century Jesuits was to insure that the highly problematic matter of Rome’s corruption, and the brutal Imperial designs of the Spanish monarchy that lay behind it, never be allowed to occupy the center zone of what then passed for “public” discourse.

When confronted by the emergent Protestant movements about the clear violations of Christian morality practiced by the Church of Rome, they responded with complex disquisitions on the largely circumstantial nature of all moral reasoning. By constantly parsing the intricacies of how overarching moral rules should, or should not, be applied in each particular circumstance (and teaching others to do the same), they very effectively prevented the emergence within the Church, and by extension in the leadership class of the Spanish Empire, of a frank discussion of the quite real and deeply-felt grievances of their many enemies.

I am reminded of all this when I read or watch the news after every so-called “terrorist” attack against a US or European target. Within minutes of the violence, mainstream journalists, begin intense speculation about what particular ethnic group the assailant came from, how he or she became “radicalized” (as if the desire to kill was akin to some sort of contagious moral flu) and whether the “West’s” latest stand-in for PURE EVIL™ (e.g. Al-Qaeda, ISIS, ISIL) was behind the act.

What will almost never be talked about are the many very good reasons a person from the vast region stretching from Morrocco in the west, to Pakistan in the east, have to be very angry at, and to feel highly vengeful toward, the US, its strategic puppeteer Israel, and their slavishly loyal European compadres like France, Germany and Great Britain.

There is never any talk of that group of august “democracies” long-standing penchant for implanting, then staunchly supporting, ruthless and deeply corrupt regimes in that region.

No talk of the very long Algerian experience of French colonialism, nor the US and French- backed coup of that country’s government in 1992 which led to a civil war that left 200,000 people dead.

No talk of the coup against the legally elected president of Egypt in 2013, nor the cold-blooded massacres carried out by his US-backed successor upon hundreds of that same president’s followers.

No talk of the decision of the US to back elements of ISIS in order to cynically extend a Syrian Civil War that was on its way to peace—albeit an imperfect one—by means of a Syrian government victory by late 2013.

No talk of the planned destruction of Libya in 2011 and its enormous effects on the stability of life in that once wealthy country as well as all of northern Africa.

No talk of the US-Israeli nullification of the results of the Palestinian elections of 2006, Israel’s coldly planned siege of Gaza nor the “shoot-fish-in-a barrel” assaults on that benighted enclave by Israel in 2006, 2008, 2012 and 2014.

No talk of the ongoing Saudi—and therefore US-approved—war on Yemen, nor the ruthless Saudi march on Bahrain in 2011 in which several dozen people died and thousands of democracy activists were tortured and/or carted off to prison.

No talk of the 18-year Israeli—and therefore, US-backed—occupation of Southern Lebanon nor Israel’s 1993, 1996 and 2006 assaults upon that same country.

Oops, I almost forgot. There is no talk of the small matter the calculated US destruction of Iraq, pre-invasion Libya’s rival as the Arab world’s most wealthy and socially progressive state.

But hey, why talk about all that off-putting stuff when you can boil it all down to neat tales of personal ideological contamination, Svengali-like recruiters lurking in mosques, and that old standby, the development of an urgent need to bang virgins in the hereafter.

It seems the media believes that the delicate imperial mind must be left free from understanding the effects of the actions for which it regularly cheers and prays.

The best way to insure this? Casuistry, as the old saying goes, “Pure casuistry”.

Thomas S. Harrington is a professor of Iberian Studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut and the author of the recently released  Livin’ la Vida Barroca: American Culture in a Time of Imperial Orthodoxies.

August 21, 2016 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Russia, Iran reset Middle East’s geopolitics

By M K Bhadrakumar | Indian Punchline | August 21, 2016

In exceptionally assertive remarks on Saturday, Iranian Defence Minister Gen. Hossein Dehqan said in Tehran that more numbers of Iranian military bases could be made available to Russia, depending on operational requirements, in addition to the use of the Hamadan air base by Russian bombers currently.

He added that there is no time limit set to the access given to Russian aircraft to operate out of Hamadan military base. Dehqan disclosed:

  • Russian jets and bombers are free to undertake repairs and load ordnance in the Iranian base;
  • Iran’s military cooperation with Russia in this respect is “strategic” in nature;
  • The cooperation stems from a defence pact to upgrade military cooperation “so as to act in more harmony, particularly in the fight against terrorism”;
  • The use of Iranian military bases by Russia is a topic that is beyond the purview of the Majlis (implying it is based on decision by the Supreme Leader);
  • The Iran-Russia alliance aims to bring an early end to the Syrian conflict.

The big question will be whether an Iran-Russia mutual security alliance could be in the making – something akin to the Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1971.

A Moscow pundit Prof. Dmitry Yevstafyev tiptoed around the explosive theme in the weekend. He made the following key points in an opinion-piece that is presumably intended for the Western audience:

  • There is “still no talk of a full-fledged military union” between Russia and Iran;
  • However, the use of Hamadan is not a stand-alone event, either;
  • Nor is it to be seen as a mere tactical tie-up with the narrow objective of liberating Aleppo;
  • On the contrary, it rests on a solid foundation that has been laid carefully in political, military and economic terms in the Russian-Iranian relations through recent period, which in turn is predicated on a cool assessment by Moscow that the US-Iran ‘honeymoon’ has become a thing of the past;
  • Russia and Iran have created together a “completely new context” in the region and aspire to be “decisive players”;
  • Russia has signalled to Washington that: a) its partnership with Iran is a “strategic priority”; b) Moscow is no longer bound by US’ ‘red lines’ as regards strategic ties with Iran; c) if Hamadan tie-up is successful, “moves that will lead to an unprecedented convergence between Iran and Moscow are also possible in future”; and, d) Washington cannot stop Moscow in its tracks in the priority task of “destroying the Syrian opposition in Aleppo”;
  • Russia’s tie-up with Iran has emboldened Beijing to shed its reticence and to move to “expand its assistance” to the Syrian regime with the intention to “participate in future political and economic processes”.

To my mind, the above is an accurate assessment of the trends that have surfaced. This can only mean that the balance of power in the Middle East is phenomenally shifting.

India needs to take serious note even as Minister of State MJ Akbar arrives today in Damascus on a rare visit by an Indian dignitary. (Where China goes, can India be far behind?)

To be sure, Moscow is moving speedily to create new facts on the ground before the next US president takes over the reins of the US’ Middle East policies. Moscow aims to bolster Iran’s defence capability to a point that a military strike on that country becomes a non-option for the US and/or Israel.

Conceivably, we cannot rule out that there would have been some discussions already between Moscow and Tehran regarding a mutual security alliance in the event of a military threat from a new US administration dominated by neoconservative ideologues (which could be the case in a Hillary Clinton presidency.)

Russia is speeding up the delivery of the S-300 missile system to Iran. Reports from Tehran say that the delivery will be completed within a month from now.

The Israeli military intelligence sources have been cited by Debka as claiming that Russia has deployed the formidable S-400 missile system as well in Hamadan. (Despite Iranian denials, this should not cause surprise since pictures show an unspecified number of Tu-22M3 strategic ‘Backfire’ bombers – capable of carrying nuclear missiles – and Su-34 strike fighters parked in the Hamadan air base; and it is inconceivable that a solid Russian air defence system is not deployed alongside.)

The import of the Russian-Iranian strategic congruence is sinking in regionally. Over the weekend, for the first time Syrian jets attacked Kurdish forces in northern Syria (which are protected by the US Special Forces) despite American warnings to stay clear. (Reuters )

Equally, Turkish Foreign Minister Mavlut Cavusoglu had a 5-hour meeting with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Zarif in Tehran on August 18 to follow up on Zarif’s talks with the Turkish leadership in Ankara on August 12. Cavusoglu’s hurried trip to Tehran aimed at Turkish-Iranian coordination in the move against Kurds.

Ankara will be pleased with the prospect of Damascus taking on the Kurds, finally. In remarks Saturday in Ankara, Prime Minister Binaldi Yildirim strongly hinted at Turkey moving on the ground to prevent the emergence of a Kurdistan enclave in northern Syria (with tacit US backing). Turkey has shared interest in this regard with Tehran and Damascus.

If so, Ankara, Tehran and Damascus may find themselves on the same page sooner than one would have expected. Moscow cannot but be pleased with this prospect.(Sputnik )

August 21, 2016 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Lawless Plan to Target Syria’s Allies

By Ray McGovern | Consortium News | August 20, 2016

On Aug. 17, TV interviewer Charlie Rose gave former acting CIA Director Michael Morell a “mulligan” for an earlier wayward drive on Aug. 8 that sliced deep into the rough and even stirred up some nonviolent animals by advocating the murder of Russians and Iranians. But, alas, Morell duffed the second drive, too.

Morell did so despite Rose’s efforts to tee up the questions as favorably as possible, trying to help Morell explain what he meant about “killing” Russians and Iranians in Syria and bombing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad into submission.

In the earlier interview, Morell said he wanted to “make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. … make the Russians pay a price in Syria.”

Rose: “We make them pay the price by killing Russians?”

Morell: “Yeah.”

Rose: “And killing Iranians?”

Morell: “Yes … You don’t tell the world about it. … But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.”

In the follow-up interview, some of Rose’s fretful comments made it clear that there are still some American non-neocons around who were withholding applause for Morell’s belligerent suggestion.

Rose apparently has some viewers who oppose all terrorism, including the state-sponsored variety that would involve a few assassinations to send a message, and the notion that U.S. bombing Syria to “scare” Assad is somehow okay (as long as the perpetrator is the sole “indispensable” nation in the world).

Rose helped Morell ‘splain that he really did not want to have U.S. Special Forces kill Russians and Iranians. No, he would be satisfied if the U.S.-sponsored “moderate opposition” in Syria did that particular killing. But Morell would not back away from his advocacy of the U.S. Air Force bombing Syrian government targets. That would be “an okay thing” in Morell’s lexicon.

The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” That would seem to cover Morell’s plan.

But Morell seems oblivious to international law and to the vast human suffering already inflicted in Syria over the past five years by government forces, rebels, terrorists and outside nations trying to advance one geopolitical goal or another.

What is needed is a serious commitment to peace talks without unacceptable preconditions, such as outside demands for “regime change.” Instead, the focus should be on creating conditions for Syrians to make that choice themselves through elections or power-sharing negotiations.

Morell prefers to think that a few more U.S.-directed murders and some more aerial-inflicted mayhem should do the trick. Perhaps he thinks that’s the sort of tough-guy/gal talk that will impress a prospective President Hillary Clinton.

A Slight Imprecision?

Charlie Rose begins the “mulligan” segment with the suggestion that Morell might have slightly misspoken: “Tell me what you wanted to say so we understand it … Tell me what you meant to say … perhaps you did not speak as precisely as you should have or I didn’t ask the right questions.”

Morell responded, “No, no, Charlie, you always ask the right questions,” and then he presented his killing plan as a route to peace, albeit one in which the United States dictates “regime change” in Syria: “So there’s not a military solution to this, there is only a political solution. … And that political solution is, in my view, a transition of power from Assad to a, a, a transitional government that represents all of the Syrian people.

“That is only going to happen if Assad wants it to happen, if Russia wants it to happen, if Iran wants it to happen. So … we need to increase our leverage over those … three people and countries, in order to get them more interested in having a conversation about a transition to a new government.

“And sometimes you use military force for military ends. Sometimes you use military force to give you political leverage. … So what I tried to say was, Look, we need to find some ways to put some pressure on Assad, or put some pressure on Russia, and put some pressure on Iran. Now, with regard to Russia and Iran, what I said was, what I wanted to say was: Look, the moderate opposition, which the United States is supporting (everybody knows that, right?), the moderate opposition is already fighting the Syrian government, and they’re already fighting Russians and Iranians. …

“So … the Syrian military, supported by Russia and the Iranians, is fighting the moderate opposition. And the moderate opposition is already killing Iranians and Syrians. What, what I said is that’s an okay thing, right, because it puts pressure on Iran and Russia to try to see some value in ending this thing politically. And what I said is that we should encourage the moderate opposition to continue to do that and perhaps get a lot more aggressive.” (Emphasis added)

Rose: “You weren’t suggesting that the United States should do that, but the moderate forces on the ground.”

Morell: “And I think I came across as saying U.S. Special Forces should go in there and start killing Iranians and Russians. I did not say that. …

“So that’s Russia and Iran. Now, Assad. How do you put some pressure on Assad, right? And here I did argue, Charlie, that the U.S. military itself should take some action, and what I would see as valuable is limited, very, very, very limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are extremely important to Assad personally. So, in the middle of the night you destroy one of his offices; you don’t kill anybody, right, zero collateral. … You do this with the same rules of engagement we use against terrorists. … (Emphasis added)

“You take out his presidential aircraft, his presidential helicopters, in the middle of the night, right, just to send him a message and get his attention that, that maybe your days are numbered here, just to put some pressure on him to think about maybe, maybe the need to think about a way out of this.

“Now these issues that I’m talking about here, right, are talked about in the sit room. They’re talked about in national security circles all the time, right. These are debates that people have, and I certainly understand that there are people on the other side of the argument from me, right. But I wasn’t talking about the U.S. starting a major war with Iran and Russia, and I think that was the way people interpreted it.”

Acts of Illegal War

Not to put too fine a point on this, but everything that Morell is advocating here violates international law, the rules that – in other circumstances, i.e. when another government is involved – the U.S. government condemns as “aggression” or as an “invasion” or as “terrorism.”

Remember, after the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014, when Russia intervened to allow Crimea to hold a referendum on splitting away from the new regime in Kiev and rejoining Russia, the U.S. government insisted that there was no excuse for President Vladimir Putin not respecting the sovereignty of the coup regime even if it had illegally ousted an elected president.

However, regarding Syria, the United States and its various “allies,” including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel, have intervened directly and indirectly in supporting various armed groups, including Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, seeking the violent overthrow of Syria’s government.

Without any legal authorization from the United Nations, President Barack Obama has ordered the arming and training of anti-government rebels (including some who have fought under Nusra’s command structure), has carried out airstrikes inside Syria (aimed at Islamic State militants), and has deployed U.S. Special Forces inside Syria with Kurdish rebels.

Now, a former senior U.S. intelligence official is publicly urging bombing of Syrian government targets and the killing of Iranians and Russians who are legally inside Syria at the invitation of the internationally recognized government. In other words, not only does the U.S. government operate with breathtaking hypocrisy in the Syrian crisis, but it functions completely outside international law.

And, Morell says that in attacking Syrian government targets — supposedly without causing any deaths — the United States would employ “the same rules of engagement we use against terrorists,” except those rules of engagement explicitly seek to kill targeted individuals. So, what kind of dangerously muddled thinking do we have here?

One can only imagine the reaction if some Russian version of Morell went on Moscow TV and urged the murder of U.S. military trainers operating inside Ukraine – to send a message to Washington. And then, the Russian Morell would advocate Russia bombing Ukrainian government targets in Kiev with the supposed goal of forcing the U.S.-backed government to accept a “regime change” acceptable to Moscow.

Rather than calls for him to be locked up or at least decisively repudiated, the American Morell was allowed to continue his fawning audition for a possible job in a Hillary Clinton administration by extolling her trustworthiness and “humanity.” – Full article

August 21, 2016 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Western Propaganda is Paid for in Syrian Blood’ – Dr Bouthaina Shaaban Talks to Vanessa Beeley

By Vanessa Beeley | 21st Century Wire | August 20, 2016

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” ~ George Orwell.

The media furore surrounding the now viral image of wounded Syrian child, Omran Daqneesh, in terrorist-held eastern Aleppo, Syria is still raging, while the push back against the tide of western-sponsored anti-Syrian State propaganda reveals itself to be strengthening with each new spike in pro-terrorist hyperbole designed to provoke a knee-jerk foreign policy response that is either advocating a “No Fly Zone”, or some form of escalation foreign military intervention inside of Syria.

1

Today I had the honour to meet with Dr Bouthaina Shaaban, political and media advisor to Syrian President Bashar al Assad. We discussed many issues including this most recent heart wrenching image that is appearing across all main stream media channels. As we opened the discussion, Dr Shaaban said immediately: “We are paying for this propaganda with our blood.”

Dr Shaaban went on to describe how the “corporate media is distorting reality in Syria,” while also explaining why she was reluctant at the beginning of the NATO member and allies war on Syria, to speak to western mainstream media:

“They came here with accusatory questions, they didn’t come here to know what is going on. They came here to ask me why are you working with a man who is ‘killing his own people.’ What an ugly start for an interview. I said there is no point, they come here to gain credibility but only to re-confirm their own story rather than to find out what is really going on.  I didn’t want to be used to ‘re-confirm’ their own story or to give them credibility.”

Dr Shaaban believes that there is a need to ensure voices like hers that resonate with passion for her country and its people, which should be heard across a far wider range of media platforms to counter what might be described as a vast Zionist and Gulf State (GCC) funded media network that is driving the propaganda train though the US and Europe. Dr Shaaban mentioned a weekly column that she is writing in Arabic and suggested that perhaps she should translate it for English media.

What follows is the transcript of Dr Shaaban’s statements on various subjects:

Why is our country being destroyed?

“I wrote that really we are going through a third world war, without naming it a third world war but this time it’s a global war between two projects and two ways of thinking – between western concepts that they want to promote: their own way of life, their own ideology, their own way of thinking even at the expense of other lives and the innocence of our countries while the old civilisations like the Chinese, the Indian, the Arab civilisation are struggling to keep their identity and to pass this identity to their children and grand-children

Personally I no longer believe that the way the system is working in the west has any ‘democracy’ for us, or has any ‘human rights’ for us, or that there is any ‘free press’ for us in their official media system. If  you know how we feel now you would be really surprised.

I have two daughters and a son. One daughter is doing a PhD in architecture in London and the other is doing a PhD in the US in international relations and politics. The one in London has a three year old girl, the one in the States has a four year old boy. They have been here for a month, every time they go to the Old City, they come back crying. They say, is it possible that our children cannot live the way we lived, cannot know the Syria we knew, cannot enjoy the Syria we enjoyed? Why?

Why are we being prevented from passing on our experience, our culture, our livelihood to our children? Why are our families being destroyed? Why is our country being destroyed? This is a daily struggle for our children. My children take their children and show them everything because they are afraid that tomorrow this will not be here anymore.

This is a terrible thing to happen to any country, to any people on earth. We have the right to live the way we think, to live our own culture. You might find Paris exciting, I find Damascus the most beautiful place on earth. This is us, this is who we are. I was asked many times to leave as an Ambassador but I cannot leave Damascus, can you believe it? I do not want to live one year out of Damascus, I can never get enough of this city.

So, leave us alone – that is really our message and unfortunately the calculus of politics in the west has no consideration whatsoever for the way people feel or for their aspirations.”

Western Exceptionalism

“The problem with the western system is that they think they are superior and they think that they want to “civilize” us and they want us to come up to their “standards”, and I hate when I hear Obama or any US official talking about American exceptionalism. What do they mean American exceptionalism?

God created us as people. We belong to the same humanity, we belong to the same world. In the Quran God spoke about the differences between us and we should understand that we should celebrate and cherish these differences. This idea of supremacy is basically rooted in racism because it believes in the supremacy of one sect, colour or nationality over another.

I feel it is bad for the west too because racism is now producing bad results for western countries especially as there are so many different religions living everywhere in the world. The only salvation for all of us is to say there is one world, one humanity and to apply this rule to everybody. We must truly believe in that not only talk about it in the media and then practice racism in the law. There is a huge area for dialogue but we need people who believe in similar values.

We are fighting a war on the ground but it is also a clash of values.”

Reshaping our world and the problems we face.

“The Gulf States are a huge problem. With the petro dollar they are feeding the arms industry in the US, UK and France and prolonging this conflict. It is going to be a long process, we are living through a transitional stage in world history.  It is going to be a long process in order to reshape our world. That is why we all have the obligation to be active so our new world is based on better values, better ethics, better ways of dealing with each other.

To achieve this new world, co-operation between east and west is crucial.

Where are the leaders in the US, or even in Europe, who are visionary and who are thinking about their countries for the next fifty years and who are doing the right thing for the people from an historical perspective? So perhaps we are living through a crisis of leadership.”

The Destruction of the Middle East is to protect Israel. NATO is trying to impose an Islamist extremist state onto Syria’s secular state.

“I think there are two explanations for that. First the west should be embarrassed to be supporting countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar against Syria, Iraq or Sudan. We were the secular republics who produced books, scientists, intellectuals etc. I think there is a reason for that. The reason for what the west is doing, in my opinion as an Arab woman, could be summed up by the Arab-Israeli conflict. I feel that the western support for Israel against the Palestinian people and the destruction of a whole people and their identity by Israel shows that what the west cares about is for Israel to be the powerful state in the region for the next fifty or a hundred years. In order for Israel to be the prevailing force in the Middle East it is necessary to destroy Arabic culture.

Unfortunately, now I can see a union of evil between the Gulf States and Israel and western systems. I use the word systems to divorce this evil from the western people.

I respond as an Arab woman, who grew up knowing that my country was part of Bilad al-Sham, Greater Syria. I do not say this in an aggressive tone, but in a loving tone because Syria was Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan and I can’t understand why as a Syrian woman, I cannot visit Al Aqsa. Its very close geographically, yet its impossible for me to get there because Israel has been planted in the Middle East.

Israel is a major focus for western countries and all these wars against Arab countries and what they call the ‘Arab Spring’ is to destroy Arab armies and to prevent any Arab country being able to resist Israel in the future. They do not want us to be able to liberate our Golan Heights, or Palestine, or to simply assure the rights of the Arab people.

By the way, there are at least 50 UN resolutions that give the Palestinians at least half of Palestine and the world is doing nothing about that – on the contrary the US used 37 vetoes in order to prevent the Palestinians getting their rights. Western hypocrisy is amazing.

That is where the supremacy in the west is turned against Arabs because it is the Zionist media that tells the west that the Arabs are ‘backwards’ or primitive. People are persuaded by this propaganda and they treat us as the Zionists wish us to be treated. This is racism against Arabs and emanates from the Zionists.

Hillary Clinton has spoken about working with the Muslim Brotherhood. It is extensively documented that the Muslim Brotherhood has had connections to the CIA since they were created. Even if we read nothing but we apply the western proverb, “who is the beneficiary” – you will find Israel is the beneficiary from all this destruction.

You can see that the army and our intellectuals are the major targets for Israel.  They dont want any intellectuals or any army left in our country. They destroyed the Iraqi army. There is a war of attrition against the Syrian army, against the Libyan army, the Sudanese, the Lebanese.

Unfortunately some who call themselves Arab in the Gulf use the petro-dollar in order to serve this project against our culture and our civilization because as a Syrian woman I feel the Gulf has no culture, no history. This is Bilad al-Sham continually inhabited for ten thousand years. The Gulf is forty years old and therefore they have no right to speak in the name of the Arabs

We are the Arabs, we are history, we are civilization.

What they are doing is against our civilization, against our history and against our future but I feel this is a very dangerous project that reminds me of how the American Indians were treated. They have destroyed Palmyra, they have destroyed our history and our culture.

khaled-asaad-isis-palmira003-1000x600
Khaled al Assad. Photo:Screenshot

Khaled al-Assad is the only archaeologist in the world who was writing about who was here in the past, in Palmyra. He was proving that the Zionists were never here. They killed him, they burned his library, they burned his books so we have nothing left of his work. From an observers’ perspective, they are focusing on history, material history, cultural history, identity, army.  Any power that keeps you as an entire state, or any statesman that represents strength or unity will be demonized and destroyed.

Even Ramadan al Bouti a Sunni scholar who was speaking sense was murdered because they want to destroy anybody who speaks the truth or who is influential and can gather people around him.

What is the significance of President Assad? He is credible, people believe in him, Arab people believe in him. They do not want anybody like that to have influence. I feel there is a huge plan against all of us.

They operate by buying people, Arab people, people in powerful positions who serve the Zionist project against our culture and identity because they can be bought by money.

I am talking to you from experience, I was subjected to a huge amount of pressure by many countries to be bought by money and all the temptations you can think of were offered to me but I am somebody who cannot be bought by money. I am somebody who believes in my country and in my people. Even if I die, I can die for a cause. If I can’t live for it I can die for it.

Most of the defections that happened in Syria were driven by money. None of them has a cause or an ideology or any credibility with our people.

As you said quite rightly, the western people do not see any of this, they only see the shadow. Those people bought by money, they are the shadow state.

Nobody wants to know who we really are.”

The reason nobody knows the real Syria and the real Syrians, is because the western media has routinely lied and deceived us from the very beginning of the war against Syria – led by the US, NATO members and funded by the Gulf states, supported and encouraged by Israel who, as Dr Shaaban states, stands to benefit most from the perpetual chaos being maintained inside their strongest enemy in the region.

August 21, 2016 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | 4 Comments