I was a little surprised to see a story like this
published in a mainstream news outlet...
Russia said Saturday it was ready to provide air support for Western-backed moderate rebels battling both jihadists and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as Moscow presses on with its diplomatic offensive over the conflict.
Speaking after a surprise summit between Syria's embattled leader and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin this week, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov urged moves towards presidential and parliamentary polls in the war-torn country.
Representatives of Syria's Western-backed opposition sounded incredulous, saying Russia should first stop bombing moderate rebels and that talk of elections was premature.
Russia has, in fact, bombed ISIS quite effectively. Our controlled media won't tell you that.
The contradiction in the above account -- "air support for Western-backed moderate rebels" vs. "Russia should first stop bombing moderate rebels" -- can be reconciled pretty easily. You simply have to understand that the United States has quietly redefined the term "moderate" so broadly as to include Al Qaeda, while Russia feels that the label "moderate" should be restricted to actual moderates.
Frankly, I hope Russia does
bomb Al Qaeda/Nusra into smithereens.
Here's the key takeaway from this story: Russia is the one proposing elections, and "our" allies are saying no to the idea.
It's stunning to see that bit of non-establishment truth waft into a Yahoo News story. Usually, the press treats Russia very differently.
I hate to admit it, but Paul Craig Roberts
(who is not
someone I would normally cite) has a pretty good summary of the situation...
The pinpoint accuracy of the Russian cruise missiles and air attacks has the Pentagon shaking in its boots. But according to the Western presstitutes the Russian missiles fell out of the sky over Iran and never made it to their ISIS targets.
According to the presstitute reports, the Russia air attacks have only killed civilians and blew up a hospital.
The presstitutes fool only themselves and dumbshit Americans.
The other tool used by presstitutes is to discuss a problem with no reference to its causes. Yesterday I heard a long discussion on NPR, a corporate and Israeli owned propaganda organ, about the migrant problem in Europe. Yes, migrants, not refugees.
These migrants have appeared out of nowhere. They have decided to seek a better life in Europe, where capitalism, which provides jobs, freedom, democracy, and women’s rights guarantee a fulfilling life. Only the West provides a fulfilling life, because it doesn’t yet bomb itself.
I don't agree with that "Israeli-owned" remark vis-a-vis NPR; until I see evidence, I'll consider that assertion to be baseless. But the rest of his analysis is so spot-on that I had to bring it to your attention.
Politico published an impressive example of presstitution
on the 14th of this month. It's an account of the Syrian crisis by Frederick Hof, "a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East and a former special advisor for transition in Syria at the U.S. Department of State." (Harari was a Lebanese leader assassinated in 2005. Justin Raimondo
offered an excellent analysis of that event.)
Politico does not tell you that Hof is the business partner
of Richard Armitage, whose history deserves to be much better known
. Question: Why did Hillary Clinton allow a man like Hof to function as her special aide on Syria?
Although Politico is not very forthcoming when it comes to Hof's history and associations, Hof himself is far more open than I would dare to be when it comes to the Israeli factor. He pretty much admits that, when he worked for the State Department, what most concerned him were the interests of Israel, not the interests of the United States.
Peace between Israel and Syria would require Damascus to cut all military ties to Hezbollah. It would require Syria to stop facilitating Iran’s support to Hezbollah. It would set the stage for a Lebanon-Israel peace that would further marginalize Lebanon’s murder incorporated.
Assad told me in late February 2011 that he would sever all anti-Israel relationships with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas and abstain from all behavior posing threats to the State of Israel, provided all land lost by Syria to Israel in the 1967 war—all of it—was returned. My conversation with him was detailed in terms of the relationships to be broken and the behavior to be changed. He did not equivocate. He said he had told the Iranians that the recovery of lost territory—the Golan Heights and pieces of the Jordan River Valley—was a matter of paramount Syrian national interest. He knew the price that would have to be paid to retrieve the real estate. He implied that Iran was OK with it. He said very directly he would pay the price in return for a treaty recovering everything.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was interested. He was not at all eager to return real estate to Syria, but he found the idea of prying Syria out of Iran’s grip fascinating. And the negative implications for Hezbollah of Lebanon following Syria’s peace accord with Israel were not lost on him in the least. Although there were still details to define about the meaning of “all” in the context of the real estate to be returned, Netanyahu, too, knew the price that would ultimately have to be paid to achieve what he wanted.
But by mid-April 2011 the emerging deal that had looked promising a month earlier was off the table. By firing on peaceful demonstrators protesting police brutality in the southern Syrian city of Deraa, gunmen of the Syrian security services shredded any claim Assad had to governing legitimately. Indeed, Assad himself—as president of the Syrian Arab Republic and commander in chief of the armed forces—was fully responsible for the shoot-to-kill atrocities.
Almost needless to say, Hof's version of the events of 2011 is deceptive. Those seeking an alternative view may want to start here
, and then travel here
These news reports of the events in Daraa confirm the following:
This was not a “peaceful protest” as claimed by the Western media. Several of the “demonstrators” had fire arms and were using them against the police: “The police opened fire on armed protesters killing four”.
From the initial casualty figures (Israel News), there were more policemen than demonstrators who were killed: 7 policemen killed versus 4 demonstrators. This is significant because it suggests that the police force might have been initially outnumbered by a well organized armed gang. According to Syrian media sources, there were also snipers on rooftops which were shooting at both the police and the protesters.
What is clear from these initial reports is that many of the demonstrators were not demonstrators but terrorists involved in premeditated acts of killing and arson. The title of the Israeli news report summarizes what happened: Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests.
The Daraa “protest movement” on March 18 had all the appearances of a staged event involving, in all likelihood, covert support to Islamic terrorists by Mossad and/or Western intelligence.
In a bitter irony, the Western media acknowledges the police/soldier deaths while denying the existence of an armed insurrection.
The key question is how does the media explain these deaths of soldiers and police?
Without evidence, the reports suggest authoritatively that the police is shooting at the soldiers and vice versa the soldiers are shooting on the police.
If you look carefully at the events of 2011, you'll see the same trickery that proved so effective in Ukraine.