Archive | April 14th, 2018

US Syria Attack – Here are the missile strike numbers from the Russians


Who is the big bad liar on the US missile attack on Syria?

The most important news in the press conference of the Deputy Chief of the Russian Staff:

[ Editor’s Note: This is a Google translation from the original Russian report. The Russians are very good at counting; and everyone knows, including the US coalition, that the Moscow has the technical ability to track every launch from beginning to end.

On the flip side, I am still a little shocked at this morning’s Pentagon report that “no missiles were intercepted”… seen here in thisSouthfront report.

This claim is beyond shocking. Maybe what is left of the downed missiles can be collected and shipped to the US to be put on display for a day on the street outside the UN so Nikki Haley can see them on the way in to work. Or maybe they could be put on the Pentagon lawn for a day…

Reuters quoted an unnamed Syrian official as saying that the targeted sites had earlier been evacuated upon Russia’s warning. “We have absorbed the strike,” he said. “We had an early warning of the strike from the Russians … and all military bases were evacuated a few days ago.”

So we are left with US’ silly claim that it destroyed the Syrian chemical weapons program, which Syria did not have and does not need, with the result being that the Pentagon opened the door for Russia moving S-300s into Syria, with virtual US permission, as it claims the Syrians have zero air defense.

Dear Pentagon, who shot down the Israeli plane, then? Please riddle me that.

And last, the OPCW announced it will continue its work of trying to verify if there was a chemical attack and where it was posed as happening.

The Pentagon has already hinted as to how it would spin a “no evidence exists” finding. It said that “after all this time any evidence could have dissipated”.

It should have talked to the Ghouta hospital medical people first and remembered the OPCW, as they are skilled in picking up trace elements. I had a mass spectograph in my prep school chemistry lab back in 1966.

The lame Pentagon attempt also showed its ignoring the video evidence and the testimony of the medics who treated the smoke-and-dust inhalation victims from a bombing that night.

This is the usual pattern of the US spin machine, where it simply treats all evidence that conflicts with its version as though it does not exist. This would not be possible without the assistance of the US media in not asking the right questions like we do here at VT. Maybe that is because they do not want to be banned from Fakebook … Jim W. Dean ]

Missing from all the Pentagon spin is any motive by Syria to use chemical weapons on civilians




– First published … April 14, 2018 –

Russian radar and air defense systems in the bases of Hameimim and Tartus were used to detect the American and British missiles and follow their course from the moment of launch of aircraft and warships and British warplanes Tornado above the average and from US aircraft F15 , F16 and strategic bombers B1-B from above the base Altnp occupied by US forces on Syrian territory (which I demanded the bombing started immediately after the start of the aggression on us with land-to-ground missiles) and Tomahawk missiles from warships in the Red Sea Labon & Montarie.

(French aircraft did not participate in the aggression)

The strikes were directed at the military airports, the scientific center and the manufacturing sites. According to the data, there are no casualties between civilians and military personnel.

103 rockets were fired at these Tomahawk and JB 38 sites and British warplanes fired eight SCALP & JEI

The Syrian air defenses dropped 71 missiles and used the following systems to drop them:
S-125, S-200, Bock, Kfadrat, Usa

Russian Federation has recently helped the Syrian Arab Republic rebuild its air defense systems, which have largely destroyed the Takfiri terror and at the urging of our Western partners, we have asked Syria to provide it with S-300 air defense systems. But today, we will reconsider this issue not only with regard to To supply Syria with this system, but to provide other countries (sleep, our strategic allies) ……..

Four rockets were fired at the international airport, all of which were dropped.
Twelve rockets were fired at Al-Dameer Airport, all of which were dropped.

18 rockets were fired at Bli airport and all were dropped.

Twelve rockets were fired at al-Shaerat airport.

9 rockets were fired at the unmanned Mezze airport, 5 of which were dropped.

16 rockets were fired at Homs, 13 of which were dropped. There were no significant losses to these two aircraft and were limited to material.

30 missiles were fired at the residential areas of Barzeh and Jirmana on facilities that the aggression states claimed had research centers and chemical weapons production plants. Seven of these rockets were dropped and the targeted places of equipment and persons were vacated for a long time.

We confirm that there are no weapons centers or factories
No rockets were fired into the Russian air defenses at the Hameimim and Tartous …
Our base was established in Hameim and Tartous in the state of alert and war and our warplane is flying in the Syrian airspace.

The Russian Ministry of Defense believes that this British-American aggression, which coincided with the arrival of the experts of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to verify what happened in Duma, aims to disrupt the work of this committee and prevent it from uncovering the truth.

On the other hand, it is a response to the successes achieved by the Syrian Arab Army in eradicating savage Tkfiri terrorism The armed man supported by these two countries … The general situation in Damascus is calm and you can be sure through our screens that convey the picture directly from there.

Posted in USA, Russia, SyriaComments Off on US Syria Attack – Here are the missile strike numbers from the Russians

U.S., U.K., France Conduct Massive Missile Strike On Syria: Details


…from SouthFront

On April 14, the US, the UK and France launched a joint massive strike on Syria justifying their actions with the alleged use of chemical weapons in Douma on April 7.

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the Syrian Air Defense Forces shot down 71 of 103 missiles launched by the US-led bloc.

  • Four missiles were launched at the area of the Damascus International Airport. All missiles were intercepted.
  • 12 missiles were launched at the Al-Dumayr Military Airport. All missiles were intercepted.
  • 18 missiles were launched at the Baly Military Airport. All missiles were intercepted.
  • 12 missiles were launched at the Shayarat Military Airport. All missiles were intercepted.
  • 9 missiles were launched at the Mezzeh Military Airport. Five missiles were intercepted.
  • 16 missiles were launched at the Homs Military Airport. 13 missiles were intercepted.
  • 30 missiles were launched at targets in the areas of Barzah and Jaramani. Seven missiles were intercepted.

The Pentagon rejected reports that Syrian forces had intercepted something saying that the US and its allies “successfully hit every target”.

According to this version, the US launched 105 missiles at the alleged “chemical weapons” facilities of the Assad government.

  • 76 missiles – “Barzah Research and Development Center”
  • 22 missiles – “Him Shinshar Chemical Weapons Storage Site”
  • 7 missiles – “Him Shinshar CW Bunker”

The situation is developing.

Posted in USA, France, Syria, UKComments Off on U.S., U.K., France Conduct Massive Missile Strike On Syria: Details

UK government’s reckless kowtowing of Trump on Syria – and contempt for the British people

Trump and May holding handsTrump and May holding hands

A word to my Westminster MP on Syria

Stuart Littlewood writes on 12 April:

A reminder to my MP that his party boss Theresa May and her out-of-control Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson impatiently jumped the gun on Iraq and look like making the same mistake on Syria in an apparent attempt to provoke a wider war.

In a crazy-dangerous situation like this, when our country is run by fools who never learn, what can one legitimately do short of taking to the streets in a mob? Write to one’s MP of course – though much good it will do. Most MPs are not there to express the wishes of their constituents but to obey the diktats of their tribal leaders (or the shadowy powers that pull their strings).

I well remember being on high alert during the last Cold War, and I’m not going through that again just to satisfy the pathological hatred some government ministers have for Russia, Iran and Syria while cosying up to the world’s truly vile regimes like Saudi Arabia and Israel and even rolling out the red carpet for them.

So, I for one have written to my MP along these lines:

Let’s remember that Theresa and Boris enthusiastically supported the loons who took us to war in Iraq and both voted against saying that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established (see Both were impatient to commit the gravest crime in the book, namely taking a nation to war, without being sure of the facts and without even bothering to run basic checks that would have told them the information fed to Parliament by Labour was bollox. Millions of ordinary citizens had managed to work that out for themselves, so why not MPs who are entrusted with getting it right?

Boris, as we’ve seen, still hasn’t learned the lesson and is none too careful about the way he seeks, interprets and broadcasts intelligence. Or the way he recklessly hurls accusations when he’s actually paid to make friends and do trade…

We now hear that Theresa May is under pressure from ministers and allies to join a US-led military strike against the Assad regime in retaliation for a suspected chemical attack. She says that President Assad and Russia will be “held to account… if they are found to be responsible”. Funny she isn’t so keen to hold the Israeli regime to account for its barbarism in recent days. Or the Saudi regime for its genocide in Yemen…

She’s been warned that Britain risks losing influence in Washington and Paris if she refuses Trump’s request to join his murderous military adventure. Crude and despicable stuff from our nice allies.

Trump, like Boris, might not last long. Let us pray for that. Meanwhile, the whole insane caper has a high chance of going badly, and I do mean badly, wrong and this time there’ll be no hiding place for the warmongers who were part of it…

There are insistent counter-reports that the Douma chemical attack never happened. And we all know that America-Israel axis have long had their own criminal agendas in this energy-rich region and are masters of disinformation, false flags and other dirty tricks. So, the news this morning that Mrs May contemplates joining a mad-ass freak like Trump in an act of war without recalling Parliament fills me with even more rage and disgust than Blair ever managed to do.

As we teeter on the brink of war in Syria, a further word to my Westminster MP

Stuart Littllewood writes on 13 April:

It is disturbing to hear on the news this morning that the Cabinet has agreed in principle to join the US-led coalition for a military attack on Syria and decided Cabinet approval is all that’s necessary.

In other words, parliamentary democracy will be by-passed in a matter with potentially fatal consequences for millions. Blair in 2003 at least was bright enough to get gullible MPs from across the House to give him political cover for his illegal game.

I have just come across the following remarks by an eminent US law expert, Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, that show Trump to be on very shaky ground and at risk of impeachment.

Boyle writes:

When Obama was in a similar position in 2013, his advisor Ben Rhodes has since commented that they turned back largely because they were afraid of impeachment. That fear is well founded. While the prospect of impeaching Trump is thrown around frequently for partisan purposes, on this issue the constitution is clear: Initiating a war or any such attack without authorisation is clearly impeachable.

Last year, at the National Press Club, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr claimed the authority to target the Syrian government stemmed from the 2001 Authorisation for the Use of Military Force. Gen. Dunford was totally incorrect. The AUMF passed after 9/11 has indeed been used to justify the bombing campaign purporting to target ISIS [Islamic State group], but it cannot possibly be used to justify targeting the Syrian government.

Excuses of “humanitarian intervention” have no basis in international law and in these circumstances are transparently hollow. Israel apparently just attacked Syria (illegal) from Lebanese airspace (also illegal). Israel itself just openly admitted that it is killing Palestinian civilian protesters – part of a decades-long brazenly illegal policy. The US representative to the UN, Nikki Haley, prevented even an inquiry by the UN into the matter. There’s no evidence of any humanitarian concern here, simply a search for pretexts to pursue geopolitical goals which may well include carving up Syria.

As upholders (one supposes) of the rule of law, including international law, Theresa May and her Cabinet colleagues surely won’t wish to implicate themselves – or the nation – in any such criminal conduct. You might criticise Boyle for his anti-US/Israel stance just as many people are sickened by the Conservative Party’s undying devotion to the Israel project, but none of that extinguishes the legal point. Exactly what advice has our Conservative government received, please, to say that joining this action against Syria is lawful or even sensible?

Also what rock-solid evidence is there that the Douma gas attack actually took place and, if so, that the Syrian government was responsible?

I imagine most government MPs have already asked these questions and received answers, but the British public is still waiting, unconsulted, while we teeter on the brink…

Posted in USA, Syria, UKComments Off on UK government’s reckless kowtowing of Trump on Syria – and contempt for the British people

On the clamour to repeat the disastrous Iraq and Libya interventions in Syria

Trump warmongering on Syria

Nureddin Sabir, Editor, Redress Information & Analysis, writes:

Despite the ongoing death and destruction that has followed Western military interventions in Iraq and Libya, the clamour for a repeat performance in Syria is gaining momentum, especially in Washington and London where Donald Trump and Theresa May have plenty of internal problems from which they wish to deflect attention.

The proponents of military intervention in Syria should name one – only one – instance where such intervention in the Middle East has resulted in a good outcome for the people of the country targeted. Attacking Syria will achieve just one thing: helping the remnants of Islamic State group and other jihadist cutthroats such as Al-Qaeda, the Saudi-backed (if not created) Jaysh al-Islam (Army of Islam) and the Muslim Brotherhood. It also risks breaking up Syria into ethnic and sectarian entities that will, without a doubt, be at perpetual war with one another.

The Syrian president, Bashar Asad, just like his father Hafiz, is capable of any kind of atrocity you care to mention – few people would disagree with that. As regards the alleged chemical attack in Douma, his regime is one of a number of possible suspects, the others being the jihadists themselves and Israel. We know that accusations against Israel tend to be met with sneers by Western politicians and mainstream media these days, but in many cases they are very real. It is also worth noting that Israel has not signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and has not ratified the the Chemical Weapons Convention.

One should not be too generous towards or trusting of the motives of the US and its satellite states towards Syria. We know from the case of Iraq that they are proven and accomplished liars. They have their ulterior motives that have absolutely nothing to do with human rights. Washington and its satellites don’t give a cahoot about human rights and never, ever, have — we know that from other instances in the Middle East and from Yemen, Latin America and elsewhere.

We also know from WikiLeaks that the civil strife that is blighting Syria (and Iraq) is fully consistent with the desires of US and Israeli political and military elites.

We at Redress Information & Analysis made a huge mistake in 2011 by lauding what has become the Arab Nightmare. Our reaction was emotional, not rational, and based on revulsion at the regimes that ruled the Arab world. We did not think that worse abominations could replace those regimes. We dare say many other people’s reactions were similarly based, and we are all now paying the price for that. The lesson for us was to dig beyond emotions and steer clear from the disastrous logic of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” or the primeval urge for revenge against a monstrous system without thinking about the other, worse  monstrosities that could replace it.

Posted in USAComments Off on On the clamour to repeat the disastrous Iraq and Libya interventions in Syria

Syria: Top academics claim chemical attacks were fake



Apologists for Assad working in British universities

Top academics claim chemical attacks were fake

Georgie Keate, Dominic Kennedy, Krystina Shveda, Deborah Haynes

April 14 2018

The Times

Senior British academics are spreading pro-Assad disinformation and conspiracy theories promoted by Russia, The Times can reveal.

They are founders of a self-styled Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (SPM) and hold posts at universities including Edinburgh, Sheffield and Leicester.

Members of the group, which includes four professors, have been spreading the slur, repeated by the Russian ambassador to Britain yesterday, that the White Helmets civilian volunteer force has fabricated video evidence of attacks by President Assad, who is backed by the Kremlin.

SPM’s advisers include an American who has challenged the US version of 9/11 as a conspiracy theory and an Australian who suggested that the CIA was behind last weekend’s chemical attack in Syria.

The White Helmets have attracted Russia’s ire for documenting the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun in April last year, which killed 83 people, a third of them children. Last September a UN unit found that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that Syrian forces dropped a bomb dispersing sarin” on Khan Sheikhoun.

Yesterday an SPM member, Tim Hayward, professor of environmental political theory at the University of Edinburgh, retweeted a claim about an attack on eastern Ghouta that the “White Helmets and terrorist factions staged false flag events and ‘kidnapped, drugged’ children to use as props”. He added: “Witness statements from civilians and officials in Ghouta raise very disturbing questions.”

Professor Hayward has published a blog article by his colleague Paul McKeigue, a professor of genetic epidemiology and statistical genetics, which claimed that there was almost “zero likelihood” that Assad carried out chemical attacks. He used “probability calculus” to assess the evidence.

Professor Hayward has used the hashtag #Syriahoax when discussing chemical attacks in the country. The hashtag went viral after being used by alt-right figures in the US, including Mike Cernovich, a main proponent of the “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory, which alleged that Hillary Clinton supporters were involved with a child-abuse ring. The hashtag was said to have been promoted by a Russian cyberoperation.

The professor also linked to a video that appeared to show chemical attack victims that, it was suggested, was staged. A rescuer removed a headscarf from an apparent victim. Professor Hayward wrote: “White Helmets’ mission: ‘To save one headscarf is to save all’ #SyriaHoax”. After being contacted by The Times, he deleted the tweet.

The American academic Mark Crispin Miller, who was said to have called the US government’s account of the 9/11 attacks a “conspiracy theory”, is on the SPM’s advisory board. Another board member is David Blackall, an Australian academic who tweeted “CIA stages gas attack pretext for Syria escalation” with a link to a blog article.

Professor Hayward has written for the alternative news website 21st Century Wire, whose associate editor is Vanessa Beeley, daughter of the late British diplomat Sir Harold Beeley. She claims that the White Helmets are al-Qaeda-affiliated and, as “terrorists”, are a “legit target” for Assad’s forces.

Another member of the group, Piers Robinson, professor of politics, society and political journalism at the University of Sheffield, posted a clip in which Ms Beeley repeated the argument that the group should be a target with the note “interesting interview”.

Another SPM academic, Tara McCormack, a lecturer in international relations at Leicester University, has tweeted that it is “an established fact that a) the White Helmets are basically Al [Qaeda]”. Dr McCormack has also argued that the death of the former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic while being prosecuted for war crimes in the Hague “brought an end to the farce” of his trial.

The first briefing note published by SPM, titled “Doubts about ‘Novichoks’ ”, questioned whether Russia’s secret nerve agent programme ever existed. Britain has blamed Moscow for the poisoning of the former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury last month.

Professor Robinson, a member of SPM, told The Times: “Everything I say and write I can defend as based on good faith research and due consideration of available evidence. Vanessa Beeley produces information that is worthy of consideration and certainly her work on the White Helmets, along with work produced by others, raises extremely important questions for academics to research [and] the public to know about.”

The University of Sheffield declined to comment, saying that it needed more time to consider the matters raised.

Professor Hayward said, regarding his use of #Syriahoax: “I understood a hashtag to indicate a topic rather than a creed. I do not accept that I am spreading any ‘disinformation’. ”

The University of Edinburgh said: “We recognise and uphold the fundamental importance of freedom of expression, and seek to foster a culture that enables it to take place within a framework of mutual respect.”

Adam Larson, an independent researcher with SPM, last night denied that it would promote disinformation. Such content would be “strategically designed to mislead” and wrong, he said.”

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syria: Top academics claim chemical attacks were fake

Deception Inside Deception: The Alleged Sarin Gas Attack


American Free Press has repeatedly questioned the allegations that the Syrian government and military used chemical weapon on their own people. Now, respected journalist Seymour Hersh confirms this with a new report detailing his extensive interviews with U.S. officials. The problem for Hersh, though is that his account seems odd when one considers the military-industrial complex’s efforts to oust Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. Could Hersh have fallen victim to a planned disinformation campaign?

By Paul Craig Roberts

Seymour Hersh, America’s most famous investigative reporter, has become persona non grata in the American Propaganda Ministry that poses as a news media but only serves to protect the U.S. government’s war lies. Among his many triumphs, Hersh exposed the American My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Abu Ghraib torture prison run by the Americans in Iraq. Today his investigative reports have to be published in the London Review of Books or in the German media.

From Hersh’s latest investigative report, we learn that President Trump makes war decisions by watching staged propaganda on TV. The White Helmets, a propaganda organization for jihadists and the “Syrian opposition,” found a gullible reception from the Western media for photographs and videos of alleged victims of a Syrian Army sarin gas attack on civilians in Khan Sheikhoun. Trump saw the photos on TV and, despite being assured by U.S. intelligence that there was no Syrian sarin gas attack, ordered the U.S. military to strike a Syrian base with Tomahawk missiles. Under international law this strike was a war crime, and it was the first direct aggression against Syria by the U.S., which previously committed aggression via proxies called “the Syrian opposition.”

Reporting on his sources, Hersh writes: “In a series of interviews, I learned of the total disconnect between the president and many of his military advisers and intelligence officials, as well as officers on the ground in the region who had an entirely different understanding of the nature of Syria’s attack on Khan Sheikhoun. I was provided with evidence of that disconnect, in the form of transcripts of real-time communications, immediately following the Syrian attack on April 4.”

The belief that sarin gas was involved in the attack comes from what appears to be a gas cloud. Hersh was informed by U.S. military experts that sarin is odorless and invisible and makes no cloud. What appears to have happened is that the explosion from the air attack on ISIS caused a series of secondary explosions that produced a toxic cloud formed by fertilizers and chlorine disinfectants that were stored in the building that was hit.

U.S. officials spoke with Hersh, because they are disturbed that Trump based a war decision on TV propaganda and refused to listen to the detailed counter-assessments of his intelligence and military services. A national security source told Hersh: “Everyone close to him knows his proclivity for acting precipitously when he does not know the facts. He doesn’t read anything and has no real historical knowledge. He wants verbal briefings and photographs. He’s a risk-taker. He can accept the consequences of a bad decision in the business world; he will just lose money. But in our world, lives will be lost and there will be long-term damage to our national security if he guesses wrong. He was told we did not have evidence of Syrian involvement and yet Trump says, ‘Do it.’ ”

Concerns about Trump’s purely emotional reaction to TV propaganda persist. Hersh reports that a senior national security adviser told him: “The Salafists and jihadists got everything they wanted out of their hyped-up Syrian nerve gas ploy” (the flare-up of tensions between Syria, Russia and America). The issue is, what if there’s another false-flag sarin attack credited to hated Syria? Trump has upped the ante and painted himself into a corner with his decision to bomb. And do not think these guys are not planning the next faked attack. Trump will have no choice but to bomb again, and harder. He’s incapable of saying he made a mistake.”

Liberty Stickers

As we know, the White House has already released a statement predicting that Assad is preparing another chemical attack, for which, the White House promises, he will “pay a heavy price.” Clearly, a false-flag attack is on the way.

By all means, read Hersh’s report. It reveals a president who makes precipitious decisions likely to cause a war with Russia.

I do not doubt Sy Hersh’s integrity. I accept that he has accurately reported what he was told by U.S. officials. My suspicions about this story do not have to do with Hersh. They have to do with what Hersh was told.

Hersh’s report puts Trump in a very bad light, and it puts the military/security complex, which we know has been trying to destroy Trump, in a very good light. Moreover, the story strikes me as inconsistent with the subsequent attack on the Syrian fighter-bomber by the U.S. military. If the Tomahawk attack on the Syrian base was unjustified, what justified downing a Syrian war plane? Did Trump order this attack as well? If not, who did? Why?

If national security advisers gave Trump such excellent information about the alleged sarin gas attack, completely disproving any such attack, why was he given such bad advice about shooting down a Syrian war plane, or was it done outside of channels? The effect of the shootdown is to raise the chance of a confrontation with Russia, because Russia’s response apparently has been to declare a no-fly zone over the area of Russian and Syrian operations.

How do we know that what Hersh was told was true? What if Trump was encouraged to order the Tomahawk strike as a way of interjecting the U.S. directly into the conflict? Both the U.S. and Israel have powerful reasons for wanting to overthrow Assad. However, ISIS, sent to do the job, has been defeated by Russia and Syria. Unless Washington can somehow get directly involved, the war is over. 

The story Hersh was given also serves to damn Trump while absolving the intelligence services. Trump takes the hit for injecting the U.S. directly into the conflict.

Hersh’s story reads well, but it easily could be a false story planted on him. I am not saying that the story is false, but unless we learn more, it could be.

What we do know is that the story given to Hersh by national security officials is inconsistent with the June 26 White House announcement that the U.S. has “identified potential preparations for another chemical attack by the Assad regime.” The White House does not have the capability to conduct its own foreign intelligence gathering. The White House is informed by the national security and intelligence agencies.

In the story given to Hersh, these officials are emphatic that not only were chemical weapons removed from Syria, but also that Assad would not use them or be permitted by the Russians to use them even if he had them. Moreover, Hersh reports that he was told that Russia fully informed the U.S. of the Syrian attack on ISIS in advance. The weapon was a guided bomb that Russia had supplied to Syria. Therefore, it could not have been a chemical weapon.

As U.S. national security officials made it clear to Hersh that they do not believe Syria did or would use any chemical weapons, what is the source for the White House’s announcement that preparations for another chemical attack by the Assad regime have been identified?

Who lined up UN ambassador Nikki Haley and the UK Defense Minister Michael Fallon to be ready with statements in support of the White House announcement? Haley says: “Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia and Iran who support him killing his own people.” Fallon says: “We will support” future U.S. action in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

How clear does an orchestration have to be before people are capable of recognizing the orchestration?

The intelligence agencies put out the story via Hersh that there were no chemical attacks, so what attacks is Nikki Haley speaking about?

A reasonable conclusion is that Washington’s plan to use ISIS to overthrow Syria and then start on Iran was derailed by Russian and Syrian military success against ISIS. The U.S. then tried to partition Syria by occupying part of it, but were out-manuevered by the Russians and Syrians. This left direct U.S. involvement as the only alternative to defeat. This direct U.S. military involvement began with the U.S. attack on the Syrian military base and was followed by shooting down a Syrian war plane. The next stage will be a U.S.-staged false-flag chemical attack or alleged chemical attack, and this false flag, as has already been announced, will be the excuse for larger scale U.S. military action against Syria, which, unless the Russians abandon Syria, means conflict with Russia, Iran, and perhaps China.

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on Deception Inside Deception: The Alleged Sarin Gas Attack

Neocons Are Back With a Big War Budget and Big War Plans

Neocons Are Back

The military-industrial complex has yet again taken the lead in U.S. government spending, receiving “the largest military budget in history” in the recent $1.3 trillion omnibus bill. And, as Ron Paul explains, “the neocons continue to do very well in this Administration.”

By Ron Paul

On Friday, President Trump signed the omnibus spending bill for 2018. The $1.3 trillion bill was so monstrous that it would have made the biggest spender in the Obama Administration blush. The image of leading congressional Democrats Pelosi and Schumer grinning and gloating over getting everything they wanted—and then some—will likely come back to haunt Republicans at the midterm elections. If so, they will deserve it.

Even President Trump admitted the bill was horrible. As he said in the signing ceremony, “There are a lot of things that we shouldn’t have had in this bill, but we were, in a sense, forced—if we want to build our military. . . .”

This is why I often say: Forget about needing a third political party—we need a second political party! Trump is admitting that to fuel the warfare state and enrich the military-industrial complex, it was necessary to dump endless tax dollars into the welfare state.

But no one “forced” President Trump to sign the bill. His party controls both houses of Congress. He knows that no one in Washington cares about deficits so he was more than willing to spread some Fed-created money at home to get his massive war spending boost.

American Freedom Party Conference in Tennessee

And about the militarism funded by the bill? Defense Secretary James Mattis said at the same press conference that, “As the President noted, today we received the largest military budget in history, reversing many years of decline and unpredictable funding.”

He’s right and wrong at the same time. Yes, it is another big increase in military spending. In fact, the U.S. continues to spend more than at least the next seven or so largest countries combined. But his statement is misleading. Where are these several years of decline? Did we somehow miss a massive reduction in military spending under President Obama? Did the last Administration close the thousands of military bases in more than 150 countries while we weren’t looking?

Of course not.

On militarism, the Obama administration was just an extension of the Bush administration, which was an extension of the militarism of the Clinton administration. And so on. The military-industrial complex continues to generate record profits from fictitious enemies. The mainstream media continues to play the game, amplifying the war propaganda produced by the think tanks, which are funded by the big defense contractors.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory. This is conspiracy fact. Enemies must be created to keep Washington rich, even as the rest of the country suffers from the destruction of the dollar. That is why the neocons continue to do very well in this Administration.

While Trump and Mattis were celebrating big military spending increases, the president announced that John Bolton, one of the chief architects of the Iraq war debacle, would become his national security advisor. As former CIA analyst Paul Pillar has written, this is a man who, while at the State Department, demanded that intelligence analysts reach pre-determined conclusions about Iraq and WMDs. He cooked the books for war.

Bolton is on the record calling for war with Iran, North Korea, even Cuba! His return to a senior position in government is a return to the unconstitutional, immoral, and failed policies of pre-emptive war.

Make no mistake: The neocons are back and looking for another war. They’ve got the president’s ear. Iran? North Korea? Russia? China? Who’s next for the warmongers?

Posted in USAComments Off on Neocons Are Back With a Big War Budget and Big War Plans

Has the War Party Hooked Trump?

President-elect Donald Trump speaks during the presidential inaugural Chairman’s Global Dinner, Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Following reports of an alleged gas attack on civilians in Syria, President Trump threatened Bashar Assad, via Twitter, with paying a “big price.” This in spite of just recently announcing the U.S. would be withdrawing troops from Syria. Is he bluffing? Or did he just further extend U.S. involvement in this foreign civil war.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

With his Sunday tweet that Bashar Assad, “Animal Assad,” ordered a gas attack on Syrian civilians, and Vladimir Putin was morally complicit in the atrocity, President Donald Trump just painted himself and us into a corner.

“Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria,” tweeted Trump, “President Putin, Russia, and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price . . . to pay.”

“Big price . . . to pay,” said the president.

Now, either Trump launches an attack that could drag us deeper into a seven-year civil war from which he promised to extricate us last week, or Trump is mocked as being a man of bluster and bluff.

For Trump Sunday accused Barack Obama of being a weakling for failing to strike Syria after an earlier chemical attack.

“If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand,” Trump tweeted, “the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Trump’s credibility is now on the line and he is being goaded by the war hawks to man up. Sunday, John McCain implied that Trump’s comments about leaving Syria “very soon” actually “emboldened” Assad:

“President Trump last week signaled to the world that the United States would prematurely withdraw from Syria. Bashar Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers have heard him, and emboldened by American inaction, Assad has reportedly launched another chemical attack against innocent men, women and children, this time in Douma.”

Pronouncing Assad a “war criminal,” Lindsey Graham said Sunday the entire Syrian air force should be destroyed.

So massive an attack would be an act of war against a nation that has not attacked us and does not threaten us. Hence, Congress, prior to such an attack, should pass a resolution authorizing a U.S. war on Syria.

And, as Congress does, it can debate our objectives in this new war, and how many men, casualties, and years will be required to defeat the coalition of Syria, Russia, Hezbollah, Iran, and the allied Shiite militias from the Near East.

On John Bolton’s first day as national security adviser, Trump is being pushed to embrace a policy of Cold War confrontation with Russia and a U.S. war with Syria. Yet candidate Trump campaigned against both.

The War Party that was repudiated in 2016 appears to be back in the saddle. But before he makes good on that threat of a “big price . . . to pay,” Trump should ask his advisers what comes after the attack on Syria.

Lest we forget, there was a reason Obama did not strike Syria for a previous gas attack. Americans rose up as one and said we do not want another Middle East war.

When John Kerry went to Capitol Hill for authorization, Congress, sensing the national mood, declined to support any such attack.

Trump’s strike, a year ago, with 59 cruise missiles, on the air base that allegedly launched a sarin gas attack, was supported only because Trump was new in office and the strike was not seen as the beginning of a longer and deeper involvement in a war Americans did not want to fight.

Does Trump believe that his political base is more up for a major U.S. war in Syria today than it was then?

The folks who cheered Trump a week ago when he said we were getting out of Syria, will they cheer him if he announces that we are going deeper in?

Before any U.S. attack, Trump should make sure there is more hard evidence that Assad launched this poison gas attack than there is that Russia launched that poison gas attack in Salisbury, England.

One month after that attack, which Prime Minister Theresa May ascribed to Russia and Foreign Minister Boris Johnson laid at the feet of Putin himself, questions have arisen:

If the nerve agent used, Novichok, was of a military variety so deadly it could kill any who came near, why is no one dead from it?

Both the target, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter Yulia are recovering.

If the deadly poison was, as reported, put on the doorknob of Skripal’s home, how did he and Yulia manage to go to a restaurant after being contaminated, with neither undergoing a seizure until later on a park bench?

If Russia did it, why are the British scientists at Porton Down now admitting that they have not yet determined the source of the poison?

Why would Putin, with the prestige of hosting the World Cup in June on the line, perpetrate an atrocity that might have killed hundreds and caused nations not only to pull out of the games, but to break diplomatic relations with Russia?

U.S. foreign policy elites claim Putin wanted Trump to win the 2016 election. But if Putin indeed wanted to deal with Trump, why abort all such prospects with a poison gas murder of a has-been KGB agent in Britain, America’s foremost ally?

The sole beneficiaries of the gas attacks in Salisbury and Syria appear to be the War Party.

Posted in USAComments Off on Has the War Party Hooked Trump?

Bolton Should Be Denied Clearance


Newly appointed national security advisor John Bolton is anything but new when it comes to his efforts to foment war—anywhere and everywhere possible. Phil Giraldi says the warmonger Bolton, “supremely sure of himself and possessing a tendency to do what he considers expedient without regard for consequences, cannot be relied upon to do the right thing when it comes to national security” and, based on his record, should not be given security clearance.

By Philip Giraldi

Much of the criticism of the appointment of John Bolton as national security advisor focuses on his record as a warmonger, a man who believes that any complex foreign problem can and should be resolved by force in support of the principle that the United States knows best how other countries should govern themselves.

The Israeli liberal newspaper Ha’aretz, dismayed over how Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government were overjoyed at the appointment, described Bolton as “Dr. Strangelove with a whiff of Apocalypse Now,” before observing ruefully how he “has yet to meet a war he didn’t love, a rival he didn’t want to destroy, an enemy he didn’t seek to blow to smithereens, and an international conflict he didn’t believe could be solved by force of arms. He denigrates diplomacy, maligns multilateral organizations, yearns for the days, if they ever existed, that America told the world what to do and everyone saluted.”

Bolton, a leading architect of the Iraq war, rightly described as America’s worst foreign policy blunder ever, endorses that decision to this day. But it was more than a blunder. It was a war crime that in turn produced many other crimes to include torture, rendition, and black site prisons.Bolton’s inability to recognize defeat and failure marks him as an intelligent man locked into his own worldview who is completely unable to learn from his mistakes.

For the past 15 years, Bolton has consistently advocated bombing Iran and has connived at creating some casus belli, by false flag if necessary, to initiate fighting. He has even pressured America’s hawkish United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley to contrive some kind of confrontation to kill the successful Iran nuclear deal. Bolton’s nomination has many Americans rightly alarmed that he might initiate yet another endless cycle of costly and bloody military engagement in the Mideast.

Beyond the general concerns, however, one might consider Bolton’s impending access to the most highly classified intelligence information that the United States possesses due to his close personal relationship with Israel and its government, which appears to have included divulging classified information in the past. The Israeli connection is particularly sensitive because of the role of casino billionaire GOP funder Sheldon Adelson, who supported some of Bolton’s initiatives after he left the State Department in 2006. Bolton certainly knows how to return a favor, approving of Adelson’s suggestion to detonate a nuclear bomb in the Iranian desert, just to warn the Mullahs what might be coming.

Bolton’s regard for Israel has included activity that might have involved unauthorized disclosure of classified information when he was undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. He collaborated with the Israelis, often without telling his superiors in the State Department, to create a justification for a U.S. attack on Iran. The strategy to bring about a war included diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda, and the production of fabricated evidence by Mossad.

Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Secretary of State Colin Powell, he violated existing State Department regulations by taking a series of secret trips to Israel in 2003 and 2004 without the required clearance from the State Department’s Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs. Thus, when Powell was saying administration policy was not to attack Iran, Bolton was working with the Israelis to prepare for just such a war. During a February 2003 visit, Bolton assured Israeli officials in private meetings that he was certain that the United States would attack Iraq to take down Saddam before dealing with Iran as well as Syria.

During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the secretary of state. Those meetings involved crafting a joint strategy to bring about political conditions supporting an eventual U.S. strike against the Iranians.

Bolton, while serving as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, also supplied Israel with crucial information on American plans at the UN so as to redirect U.S. policy. Dan Gillerman, who served as Israel’s ambassador to the UN in 2006 when Bolton was U.S. ambassador, has described how “in more than one case, Ambassador Bolton called me and alerted me to the fact that his mission—the United States mission to the UN—was about to vote against Israel and asked that I alert the prime minister, who at that time was Ehud Olmert. In more than one case the prime minister called the president, who was then George W. Bush, and got him to overrule the State Department.”


Bolton was working with Israel to subvert positions being supported by the U.S. government, as in August 2006 when the UN Security Council was considering Resolution 1701, to end a month-long war between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Bolton warned the Israelis that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice planned to support the initiative. Gillerman reports, “In that case John Bolton got in touch with me at about 8 o’clock in the evening, which was 3 in the morning in Israel, calling to say ‘You have to call your prime minister and tell him that Condi Rice sold you out to the French.’ ”

All of the above is now part of the public record on Bolton. Some might consider what he did as treasonous. Given what we know about his last experience of high office, he should never again be cleared to have access to classified information since he would likely abuse that privilege to satisfy his own agenda. Bolton, supremely sure of himself and possessing a tendency to do what he considers expedient without regard for consequences, cannot be relied upon to do the right thing when it comes to national security. He should never be granted a security clearance and should never be placed in a position of authority that would again permit him to do mischief. Unfortunately, however, urging President Donald Trump to reverse the Bolton decision because of the grave damage it will inevitably do to the United States is not likely be received favorably by the White House.

Posted in USAComments Off on Bolton Should Be Denied Clearance

Zionist Lobby and American Policy Issue Now Available: Order Extras


The May 2018 issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs will soon arrive in subscribers’ mailboxes and local bookstores! This issue is devoted to proceedings from an extraordinary conference held at the National Press Club on March 2, 2018: “The Israel Lobby and American Policy.”

May 2018 Cover.
Once again this year—and just two days before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its annual policy conference—the Washington Report and the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) gathered expert speakers to analyze the enormous impact Israel’s lobby has on Congress, the United Nations, federal government agencies, mainstream media, academia, evangelical churches and other major institutions. Hurricane-force winds closed down the federal government and local schools, but they couldn’t stop the audience and speakers from packing the ballroom and balconies.

While the mainstream media once again declined our invitations to cover the conference, millions of Americans were able to watch via C-SPAN2, which covered all eight hours of the program live. C-SPAN replayed segments of our conference in between its live coverage of the AIPAC conference, offering important balance the media often fails to provide.

Even if you were there you’ll find these transcripts published in the May issue of the Washington Report valuable to review. You’ll have the opportunity to purchase books by conference speakers. Every copy of this issue also includes a special edition of “Other Voices,” usually only available to subscribers for an additional $15 a year. You’ll also see pro-Israel PAC contributions to 2018 Congressional candidates.

Growing numbers of Americans, especially young people, are questioning the corrupting role of lobbies on our political systems. Kids are telling leaders who take lobby money that their time is up. Please help us get this special issue into the hands of Americans who are finally beginning to see the harmful effect Israel’s undue influence has on our country:

  • Call (888) 881-5861 or e-mail to give a gift subscription or subscribe to the Washington Report;
  • E-mail with the names and addresses of people who should read this special issue or subscribe to the magazine;
  • Ask for multiple copies to hand out at your local event (donations to cover shipping and printing are welcome, but not required). E-mail your street address, date of your event (please give us 10 days’ notice) and the number of copies you need to:;
  • Purchase a three-DVD set for only $15 from the 2014, 2015 and 2016 conferences—we no longer offer DVDs from later conferences. Order online: !
  • Please donate and support the Washington Report ( and IRmep ( This crucial topic doesn’t attract giant grants, advertising dollars, tenure offers, or talking-head contracts on network TV. But thanks to growing public outrage surrounding election campaign contributions and foreign influence on elections, it finally is possible to criticize the influence of the Israel lobby. Numbers count—the more people who view and share these talks the more we can show the Israel lobby and policymakers that business as usual is no longer acceptable.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zionist Lobby and American Policy Issue Now Available: Order Extras

Shoah’s pages


April 2018
« Mar   May »