Monday, September 26, 2016

America's official narrative about the Syrian war is being exposed as a huge lie | US-backed supposed "moderate rebels"

Blatant subversion: Syria ceasefire deal breakdown shows US under military rule

© REUTERS/ Khalil Ashawi
A schism within US government has come spectacularly into the open, with the Pentagon and CIA militarists seemingly subverting the president's authority over Syria policy.

This amounts to a brazen pulling of rank by the militarist elements within the US power structure over the civilian titular head of government. This power struggle came to light dramatically - if briefly - with the US air strike last weekend on the Syrian army base near Deir ez-Zor in which over 60 troops were killed.

That massacre was no accident, as the Pentagon subsequently claimed. It was a deliberate mortal blow to the shaky ceasefire worked out the week before by US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov.

Within hours of the Deir ez-Zor attack on Saturday evening, there were reports of air strikes on civilian areas of insurgent-held eastern Aleppo. But none of the reports were able to confirm the identity of the warplanes involved.

Two days later, media coverage shifted to the collapse of the Syrian ceasefire and what is being described as an "outrageous" air strike by Syrian or Russian warplanes on a UN aid convoy near the northern city of Aleppo. Again, no reports have been able to identify the aircraft alleged to have perpetrated that attack, although Washington blamed Syria and its Russian ally. Predictably, following the attack on the humanitarian convoy in which 12 civilian aid workers were killed and several trucks ferrying food were destroyed, the US is saying that plans to cooperate with Russian military in Syria are now off the agenda.

It is true that the Syrian government declared earlier on Monday that the ceasefire was over. Forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad have resumed air strikes and ground operations against insurgents in eastern Aleppo and around the capital Damascus. Russian air power is also providing support in the resumption of operations by the Syrian army.

But it is the aforementioned sequence of violence that needs to be particularly ascertained in order to appreciate the real significance of why and how the latest Syrian ceasefire has broken down. First of all, we should note that the Pentagon and its CIA covert arm were conspicuous in their dissent to the Obama administration's diplomatic efforts to implement a ceasefire in partnership with Russia.

When John Kerry met with Sergey Lavrov in Geneva on September 9 to finalize a planned truce, the head of the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, was openly telling media outlets that he opposed any deal with Russia. It wasn't just Carter. Other American military chiefs were also deprecating any liaison with Russia over Syria.

Nevertheless, Obama and his top diplomat Kerry persisted - despite the objections of the US military - in coming up with a "deal" with Russia that envisaged a cessation of violence, humanitarian aid to war-torn cities like Aleppo, and, remarkably, an ambitious proposal for US and Russian military forces to form a joint task force to go after al-Qaeda-linked terror groups, such as the rebranded al-Nusra Front and Daesh (ISIS/ISIL/IS).

For the ceasefire to take hold and for US-Russia joint operations to begin, the Kerry-Lavrov deal hinged on the separation of US-backed supposed "moderate rebels" from the notorious al-Qaeda-type extremists.

Even as the ceasefire came into effect on September 12, the Pentagon was contemptuously voicing doubts about its success. It was obvious that the US military establishment did not want the ceasefire arrangement with Russia. That dissent was tantamount to subverting Obama's presidential authority and his favored diplomatic option. Why was the Pentagon antsy over the ceasefire plan with Russia? After demonizing Moscow as a global threat for the past two years, part of the Pentagon's aversion was that any successful partnership with Russia over Syria would be a pointed negation to the hype of the new Cold War over Ukraine and Europe. More importantly, however, is that the Pentagon and the CIA knew that in Syria the White House spiel about "moderates" and "terrorists" being separable was always an illusion.

President Obama and his foreign secretary John Kerry may talk all they want about "vetted opposition fighters" and purportedly "fighting against terrorists".

But the war planners in Washington know all too well that in the real world of America's dirty war in Syria there is no such division of "good" and "bad" rebels among the insurgents. They are all part of a proxy terror front of illegally armed militants, which the US and its NATO and Arab allies have funded, armed, trained and directed for the past six years to overthrow the Syrian government.

That's why the Pentagon was expressing such pessimism about Kerry's diplomatic efforts with Lavrov. The US militarists have a more realistic, if unspoken, awareness of the true criminal nature of the militant groups fighting against the Assad government. Simply because the Pentagon and the CIA have masterminded the proxies, all of which are acting as terrorists, whether they go by the media monikers of "moderates" or "extremists".

A second crucial reason for why the US military planners opposed the ceasefire was because they were apprehensive that if the truce failed - as it surely would - then the failure would demonstrate the fallacy of the official Washington narrative of it only supporting "legitimate, moderate, vetted rebels". And, thirdly, if somehow the US and Russian air forces were to get to the stage of carrying out joint strikes against terror units that would be the ultimate anathema for the Pentagon and CIA. In that unlikely event, the Americans would be obliged to disclose to the Russians where their supposed "moderate rebels" are located. Which, as noted, is a fabrication. What the US and Russia would be targeting are covert American regime-change assets, which is impermissible for Washington's war planners. The Pentagon's misgivings were founded too. From the outset of the ceasefire, all the anti-government militant groups were engaging in breaches. And, glaringly, there was no separation of any of the insurgents, as John Kerry had appealed for. In other words, the American official narrative about the Syrian war was being exposed as a huge lie. And America's involvement in sponsoring a terrorist front in Syria was becoming transparent. The ceasefire regime was abided by Syria and Russia, but it was the US-backed militants who continued acts of terrorism, preventing, for example, humanitarian access to Aleppo all last week because of shelling and sniping at the Castello Road arterial

Given the damning revelation of US terrorist collusion in Syria, the Pentagon apparently took the decision to blow up the incriminating ceasefire. The first sabotage came with the US air strikes on the Syrian army base near Deir ez-Zor. It is inconceivable that such a massacre, accompanied by Daesh temporarily taking over the base, could have been caused accidentally.

In short order, a series of unidentified warplanes carried out strikes in and around Aleppo, including the blast on the UN aid convoy. No one knows as yet who carried out those strikes, but it is plausible that they were false flag attacks by US forces intent on obliterating the waning ceasefire, and distracting from the earlier US massacre at Deir ez-Zor. Now, conveniently, Washington is declaring no cooperation with Russia in Syria and the ceasefire is dead. Thus, the Pentagon has pulled rank on the White House's diplomacy with Russia. And US policy is under military rule. Nothing new there, one might say, except how blatant the subversion.

Washington rages as Syrian Army wins back Aleppo

Washington rages as Syrian Army wins back Aleppo

With the Kerry - Lavrov agreement having collapsed and the US military ruling out imposition of a no-fly zone, the US can only rage as the Syrian army with Russian backing closes in on the Jihadis in eastern Aleppo.

Over the course of the last week, following the collapse of the Kerry - Lavrov agreement and the ceasefire, and with the Syrian army closing in on the Jihadis trapped in eastern Aleppo, the reality of pending defeat in Aleppo has finally struck home with the Western powers.

The result is a round of frantic diplomatic and media activity to try to embarrass the Russians to bring the Syrian army's offensive in Aleppo to a stop.

The reason for this activity is the further advance of the Syrian army in Aleppo since the breakdown of the ceasefire.

Having defeated and driven back the Jabhat Al-Nusra led Jihadi offensive against the south west of Aleppo by the first week of September, the Syrian army since the collapse of the ceasefire has consolidated its control of the Castello road by capturing the now deserted area of the Handarat Palestinian refugee camp. It is also, following intense artillery shelling and bombing, advancing from the area of the Aleppo citadel and from the Ramousseh district into the Jihadi controlled areas of eastern Aleppo, apparently in order to consolidate its control of the suburbs of south western Aleppo and - possibly - so as to cut Jihadi controlled eastern Aleppo in half.

Reports from Aleppo speak of the Syrian military and its allies concentrating substantial forces near or in the city to support the offensive. The Russian marines are still at the Castello road, and there are reports that up to 8,000 Iranian commanded Iraqi Shia militia have also arrived in the city. The main strike force however remains the Syrian army.

It appears that the Russian aerial strike force at Khmeimim air base has also been reinforced. A video released on Saturday 24th September 2016 by Russian Ruptly TV supposedly shows Syrian troops advancing against Jihadi fighters in Lattakia province following the collapse of the ceasefire. The video shows SU25 aircraft providing ground support. Russia deployed SU25 aircraft to Khmeimim air base in September last year. However they were all withdrawn in March. It seems they are now back.

The key point to understand, and which explains all the furious rhetoric of the last few days, is that the Western powers cannot stop the Syrian offensive against the Jihadis trapped in Aleppo. 

At a US Senate hearing on Thursday 22nd September 2016 US General Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained why. Pressed by Mississippi Republican Senator Roger Wicker to say if the US could take "decisive action" by imposing a no-fly zone - something which Wicker said he had discussed with the Democrats and which might have bipartisan support - Dunford replied
"For now, for us to control all the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war with Syria and Russia. That's a pretty fundamental decision that certainly I'm not going to make."
Dunford's comment provoked an intervention by Republican Senator John McCain, a perennial war hawk and interventionist who constantly presses for US military action at any and every opportunity and especially so in any conflict involving Russia. McCain tried to get Dunford to say that a no-fly zone was not the same as "total control of the Syrian airspace", which would require war with Russia and Syria.

The reality, as both McCain and Dunford know, is that the US has never imposed a no-fly zone over a country over which it did not have "total control of the airspace". It is inconceivable the US would try to impose a no-fly zone over Syria if it did not have "total control of the airspace". Dunford's admission that "total control of the airspace" cannot be achieved in Syria without going to war with Russia for all practical purposes rules the whole idea of a no-fly zone over Syria out.

Unable to impose a no-fly zone, there is nothing in practical terms that the US can do to change the course of the fighting in Aleppo. 

It is this US awareness of its own impotence as its Jihadi proteges in Aleppo face total defeat which accounts for all the angry rhetoric and cranking up of atrocity stories we have been seeing over the last week. These have now culminated in some typically furious denunciationsof Russia by US ambassador Samantha Power on Sunday's 25th September 2016 at the UN Security Council, over the course of which she actually accused Russia of "barbarism".

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, in an unguarded comment for which he is probably already being taken to task, slipped the truth out during a television interview on Sunday 25th September 2016
"If you say to me the West is too impotent, I would have to agree. I would have to agree that, since we took those decisions in 2013, when those red lines were crossed,we have not really had a viable military response, or any kinetic response to what is going on. I don't think there is any real appetite for such a thing."
(bold italics added)

Johnson then went on to say that the only thing the West could do in this situation is to try to embarrass the Russians into calling a stop. He explained this by saying that "the one thing the Russians respond to is adverse global public opinion".

This explains all the current talk of war crimes, encompassing charges of (the unproved) Russian guilt for the attack on the relief convoy, complaints about the deliberate cutting off of Aleppo's water supply, charges of the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas of Aleppo, claims of the use of firebombs there etc. - all things which happen in Syria all the time, and which having been happening continuously there ever since the war started, but which are now being talked about as war crimes.

In the same interview Johnson put it this way
"They (the Russians - AM) are in the dock of the court of international opinion. They are guilty of making the war far more protracted and far more hideous, and yes, when it comes up, the bombing of civilian targets, we should be looking ... to see if the targeting is done in the knowledge they are wholly innocent civilian targets, [because] that is a war crime."
To Western dismay the Russians however show no sign of bending.

The key point about the events at the UN General Assembly last week was that Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov - despite coming under intense concerted pressure from the US and its allies - flatly ruled out any more unilateral ceasefires by the Syrian army. 

Instead he made it crystal clear that a ceasefire could only happen if the Syrian opposition fighters genuinely committed themselves to it and separated themselves from Jabhat Al-Nusra, as the US promised in February and in the recent Kerry - Lavrov agreement that they would do.

At the UN Security Council meeting on Sunday 25th September 2016 Russia's UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the same thing
"The American side de facto signed that it wasunable to influence the groups it sponsors and to deliver on the deal as it promised. First of all, to separate those groups from terrorists and mark their positions on the ground accordingly.

The ceasefire can only be salvaged now on a collective basis. It's not us that have to prove something to somebody unilaterally. We have to see proof that there is a genuine desire to separate US-allied rebel groups from the Al-Nusra Front, then destroy the Al-Nusra Front and bring the opposition into a political process. Otherwise our suspicions that this was only meant to shield the Al-Nusra Front would only grow stronger."
(bold italics added)

Two weeks ago I said that the likely motivation of the realists in Washington who supported the Kerry -Lavrov agreement was to save the Jihadis in Aleppo and preserve them as a coherent force by evacuating them from the city, where they had become trapped and where their position had become untenable. That was why - as I speculated on the strength of certain comments made by Russian military officials - it appeared that the Kerry - Lavrov agreement made provision for their withdrawal from Aleppo by way of the Castello road.

As it turns out the Kerry - Lavrov agreement did indeed provide for that. This has now been confirmed by the text of the part of the Kerry - Lavrov agreement the US has disclosed (through the bizarre device of a leak to the Associated Press). This is the specific provision in the text
"Any Syrians can leave Aleppo via Castello Road,including armed opposition forces with their weapons,with the understanding that no harm will come to them and they can choose their destination. Opposition forces leaving Aleppo with weaponsmust coordinate ahead of time with UN representatives as to the time they will be using Castello Road and the number of personnel and weapons and military equipment departing."
(bold italics added)

The document the US has published is only one document of the five which together make up the Kerry - Lavrov agreement. The other documents no doubt go into much greater detail about the separation of the fighters the US supports from Jabhat Al-Nusra. It is likely that these documents specify which fighters were to leave Aleppo via the Castello road, and what would happen to those who remained.

In the event the intentions of the realists were defeated because the hardliners in Washington and the Jihadis on the ground in Syria rejected the Kerry - Lavrov agreement.

The result was that instead of separating themselves from Jabhat Al-Nusra - as the Kerry-Lavrov agreement required them to do - the Jihadi fighters have remained united with Jabhat Al-Nusra, and tried to exploit the ceasefire to carry out more attacks on the Syrian army.

Following the collapse of the ceasefire, and with the forcible imposition of a no-fly zone for all practical purposes ruled out, the US has found itself left with nothing other than US Secretary of State Kerry's absurd proposal that Russia and Syria impose a no-fly zone on themselvesThe moment the Russians rejected this proposal - as they were bound to do - the US's bluff was effectively called. 

It is this awareness on the part of the US that its bluff has been called, and that its impotence to effect militarily the course of the battle of Aleppo has been laid bare, which is behind the furious denunciations we are now hearing from the US and its allies, as they scramble desperately to try to get the Russians to call off the battle of Aleppo so as to save their Jihadi proteges in Aleppo from total defeat, and themselves from the humiliation of the public failure of their strategy.

Friday, September 2, 2016

Deceased FBI Agent Found At Trump Tower With Silenced Pistol

Barry Lee Bush
Barry Lee Bush

According to Get Off The Bs, a source within the NYPD has reported that an armed 62 year old man tried to sneak in to the Trump Tower late Tuesday night. Interestingly the suspect who was found with a semi-automatic handgun fitted with a silencer has been identified as Barry Lee Bush, a former Newark NJ FBI agent who has been dead since 2007.
A Secret Service agent discovered Bush after he had circumvented a security partition on the bottom floor of the Trump Tower.  Questioned by Secret Service at the scene, Bush who initially identified himself as Barry Franklyn, remained silent offering no explanation for why he broke security at the Trump Tower.
According to the NYPD source, Bush was arrested for trespassing and for illegally carrying a pistol fitted with an illegal silencer. During his booking at the NYPD Jail, Bush’s fingerprints were submitted to the National Crime Information Center, which immediately reported Bush’s true identity.
“I wasn’t sure if our system had malfunctioned, so I rescanned his fingerprints to confirm that our system was working correctly.  There was no system error. The man we have in custody was reported deceased in 2007 after being shot in an attempted bank robbery, “one source speaking on anonymity said.
The New York Times reported on April 6, 2007 that Barry Bush,  a veteran F.B.I. agent on a bank-robbery detail was fatally wounded apparently when another agent’s weapon accidentally discharged during a confrontation with three gunmen outside a bank in a quiet town in central New Jersey.
Deceased FBI Agent Found At Trump Tower With Silenced Pistol
Not actual gun
Speaking about the weapon found on Bush, the NYPD source stated, “We don’t find hardware like this on the streets–that Glock was never stamped at the factory [serial number]—those pieces are reserved for people with a lot higher pay grades than me.”
According to a spokesman at the Newark FBI field office, Bush was killed in the line of duty in April of 2007. Coincidentally, five minutes after we got off the phone with him, a page honoring FBI agents who were killed in the line of duty, went down on the FBI’s website.
It is not clear what Bush’s intentions were for sneaking around security to presumably access the service elevators at the Trump Tower, however it does not take much imagination as to why Bush was carrying a silenced pistol at the time of his arrest.
Trump is in Florida today for rallies in Daytona Beach and Jacksonville.  The Trump organization has informed us that he was not at the Trump Tower yesterday evening and did not have any information about the incident, other than an armed man had been arrested at his building and that it was not clear about what Bush’s intentions were.
Mr. Trump seemed to take the news that an armed dead person was found at his NY building, with a grain of salt.  Fortunately for his family and supporters, Mr. Trump is still around to try to sort out this interesting incident.

Authors Notes:[Get Off The Bs]

We have had two different opposing issues come up with this particular article. One was written by  I had a lot of respect for at one time. The husband and wife who published that blog published it for the same reason we do–to tell people what the mainstream media for some reason refuses to print.  Unfortunately, the people at Snopes became greedy and allowed their original intentions to become skewed, spewing whatever garbage they think will draw people to their paid advertising.
This site does not and will never feature paid advertising. [please see our FAQ’s page] We are not in this to make money. This is my wife and my way of sharing whatever information we can with people who would like to know the truth that the mainstream media chooses not to post for their own reasons that in our opinion, are greed related.
Another issue came up with someone posing to be a security guard at Trump tower informing us that this incident did not happen.  We are very fortunate at this blog to receive information from the Trump organization, often from Mr. Trump himself.   Mr. Trump is aware of this article. From what I understand, he reads everything we post. He has never been bashful about letting us know if we are off on anything. If in fact this story was not true, Mr. Trump would of let us know days ago that it was inaccurate. Going on that basis, we stand by.
[This is a really an interesting story because there seems to be two gunman that showed up at the Trump Towers that day.  Was the first one a dupe to draw Trump’s security forces attention away from Bush?  And what about the guy who scaled the Trump Towers with some kind of paperwork he wanted to give Trump?  Our investigation on this issue is inclusive. The NY cops are keeping a lid on the thing and the FBI is definitely trying to hide something.  Were not buying the Snopes explanation, because all Snopes did was tell the author of the story at Get Off The Bs that he or she was full of crap, offering no proof other than a suspect article from the New York Daily news.  Be sure to drop us a line and tell us what you think.]