The Western media refutes their own lies
The Western media refutes their own lies.
Not only do they confirm that the Pentagon has been training the terrorists in the use of chemical weapons, they also acknowledge the existence of a not so secret “US-backed plan to launch a chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime”
London’s Daily Mail in a 2013 article confirmed the existence of an Anglo-American project endorsed by the White House (with the assistance of Qatar) to wage a chemical weapons attack on Syria and place the blame of Bashar Al Assad.
The following Mail Online article was published and subsequently removed. Note the contradictory discourse: “Obama issued warning to Syrian president Bashar al Assad”, “White House gave green light to chemical weapons attack”.
The Pentagon’s Training of “Rebels” (aka Al Qaeda Terrorists) in the Use of Chemical Weapons
CNN accuses Bashar Al Assad of killing his own people while also acknowledging that the “rebels” are not only in possession of chemical weapons, but that these “moderate terrorists” affiliated with Al Nusra are trained in the use of chemical weapons by specialists on contract to the Pentagon.
In a twisted logic, the Pentagon’s mandate was to ensure that the rebels aligned with Al Qaeda would not acquire or use WMD, by actually training them in the use of chemical weapons (sounds contradictory):
“The training [in chemical weapons], which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.
The nationality of the trainers was not disclosed, though the officials cautioned against assuming all are American. (CNN, December 09, 2012, emphasis added)
screenshot of the CNN article, the original link has been redirected to CNN blogs,
The above report by CNN’s award winning journalist Elise Labott (relegated to the status a CNN blog), refutes CNN’s numerous accusations directed against Bashar Al Assad.
Who is doing the training of terrorists in the use of chemical weapons? From the horse’s mouth: CNN
And these are the same terrorists (trained by the Pentagon) who are the alleged target of Washington’s counterterrorism bombing campaign initiated by Obama in August 2014:
“The Pentagon scheme established in 2012 consisted in equipping and training Al Qaeda rebels in the use of chemical weapons, with the support of military contractors hired by the Pentagon, and then holding the Syrian government responsible for using the WMD against the Syrian people.
What is unfolding is a diabolical scenario –which is an integral part of military planning– namely a situation where opposition terrorists advised by Western defense contractors are actually in possession of chemical weapons.
This is not a rebel training exercise in non-proliferation. While president Obama states that “you will be held accountable” if “you” (meaning the Syrian government) use chemical weapons, what is contemplated as part of this covert operation is the possession of chemical weapons by the US-NATO sponsored terrorists, namely “by our” Al Qaeda affiliated operatives, including the Al Nusra Front which constitutes the most effective Western financed and trained fighting group, largely integrated by foreign mercenaries. In a bitter twist, Jabhat al-Nusra, a US sponsored “intelligence asset”, was recently put on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.
The West claims that it is coming to the rescue of the Syrian people, whose lives are allegedly threatened by Bashar Al Assad. The truth of the matter is that the Western military alliance is not only supporting the terrorists, including the Al Nusra Front, it is also making chemical weapons available to its proxy “opposition” rebel forces.
The next phase of this diabolical scenario is that the chemical weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda operatives will be used against civilians, which could potentially lead an entire nation into a humanitarian disaster.
The broader issue is: who is a threat to the Syrian people? The Syrian government of Bashar al Assad or the US-NATO-Israel military alliance which is recruiting “opposition” terrorist forces, which are now being trained in the use of chemical weapons.” (Michel Chossudovsky, May 8, 2013, minor edit)
Safe Zones As Soft Military Occupation: Trump’s Plan For Syria, Iraq Is Taking Shape
The Trump administration is moving closer to its goal of creating “safe zones” within Syria. Though this strategy may be described as a humanitarian effort, the sizable increase in military presence that it will bring looks more like an invasion in disguise.
Soon after his inauguration, President Trump stoked concerns regarding of U.S. intervention in Syria after announcing his plan to create so-called “safe zones” within Syria. At the time, Trump had ordered Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, along with Secretary of Defense James Mattis, to create a plan within 90 days to create such “zones” within Syria in order to allow refugees in the war-torn nation to “await firm settlement, such as repatriation or potential third-country resettlement.”
Trump stated that this approach was preferable to the strategy adopted by European Union nations that resulted in the controversial influx of millions of refugees from Syria and other countries. As analysts noted at the time, the move, despite its allegedly humanitarian motivations, risked sparking something much more grave: the escalation of U.S. military involvement in Syria, which would greatly heighten the risk of conflict between the US. and the Syrian government, along with its Russian allies.
Now, it appears that Tillerson and Mattis are quickly approaching the completion of their strategy for the establishment of Syrian “safe zones” after Tillerson recently confirmed the administration’s commitment to the measure in both Syria and Iraq at a summit held for a 68-member U.S.-led coalition that is targeting Daesh.
Though the details of the plan have yet to be released, many members of the coalition and members of previous U.S. presidential administrations have voiced their concerns that “safe zones” would be ineffective, concerns that Trump himself once echoed in criticizing Hillary Clinton’s advocacy for such zones in the 2016 election. For example, Portuguese Foreign Minister Augusto Santos Silva stated that his government was “never close to favoring this solution,” arguing that forcing refugees “to stay in their country when you cannot ensure that they won’t be attacked by some of the warring factions” fails to comply with international law.
Indeed, the U.S.-led coalition seems quite unqualified to oversee civilian safety, as bombing campaigns in recent months have claimed more innocent Syrian and Iraqi lives than military actions taken by Daesh or any other faction currently active in those countries.
In addition, tensions between coalition members and some U.S. allies in the region threaten even the feasibility of establishing the zones in the first place. Any plan to establish the zones would require cooperation with Russia and Syria, who are likely to oppose any such measure, as the zones would necessitate a massive increase in the U.S. military presence in Syria. Furthermore, the zones are set to be held by a still undetermined mix of Turkish, Kurdish and Western forces – an unlikely combination due to the often explosive antagonism between the Turks and the Kurds.
Brian McKeon, former undersecretary of defense for policy in the Obama-era Pentagon, echoed such concerns, stating that safe zones would be counter-productive in the fight against Daesh in an interview with Foreign Policy:
“A safe zone in theory assumes some agreement on the part of the Russians, Turks and possibly Syrians to yield sovereignty, or you don’t have agreement. The number of assets it would take to defend against potential attacks would likely be to the detriment of the counter-ISIL campaign.”
Safe Or Subterfuge? Zones Will Bring Large And Enduring Military Presence
Considering that such “safe zones” will in no way guarantee safety of any kind and may be entirely impossible to implement due to Turkish-Kurdish tensions, the Trump administration’s commitment to such measures – along with other actions they have recently taken in the region – suggest that their real motivation is something else entirely.
Most telling of all is the fact that the debate over safe zones has coincided with the increased movement of U.S. troops and military assets into Syria and Iraq, such as the U.S.’ recent deployment of 2,500 soldiers to both Iraq and Syria. In addition, the U.S. government has signaled that these troops will remain in those nations long after Daesh is no longer deemed a threat.
For instance, hidden within the announcement of U.S. troop deployment in the Syrian city of Raqqa was the admission that the troops will be “required” to stabilize the region after Daesh’s defeat, as U.S. officials anticipate that “America’s allies” will need assistance in establishing “Syrian-led peacekeeping efforts” in the region for the foreseeable future. As for the forces to be deployed to Iraq, Tillerson confirmed that they would remain in Iraq after the defeat of Daesh in Mosul, despite his promise that no “nation-building” would take place afterwards.
Any additional forces deployed in Syria and Iraq for the establishment of “safe zones” would also ostensibly form part of an indefinite military presence within nations that have not authorized their operations within their borders – making these troop movements tantamount to an invasion. Moreover, the recent announcement from the Pentagon that they would no longer be publicly announcing subsequent troop deployments suggests that the U.S. government is seeking to obfuscate what is set to be a drastic increase in U.S. military presence in both Syria and Iraq – an increase set to spark geopolitical tensions in the region and beyond.
Ultimately, these safe zones – despite their humanitarian function – seem to be nothing more than an excuse to justify an increased U.S. military presence within Syrian and Iraqi borders – forces which, by the military’s own admission, have no intention of leaving anytime soon.
Watch A US armored convoy enter the city of Manbij, Syria:
Whitney Webb is a MintPress contributor who has written for several news organizations in both English and Spanish; her stories have been featured on ZeroHedge, the Anti-Media, 21st Century Wire, and True Activist among others – she currently resides in Southern Chile.
Syria has condemned a US missile attack targeting an army airbase near Homs as a “blatant act of aggression,” while Israel hailed it and a foreign-backed terrorist coalition called for further attacks.
Some 60 US Tomahawk missiles were fires from US warships deployed to the Mediterranean at the Shayrat airfield southeast of Homs early Friday.
In a statement issued Friday morning, the Syrian army said the US attack on the airbase killed six Syrian soldiers, leading to “big material loss” at the targeted facility.
A Syrian military source had earlier said the strikes led to “losses” as missiles hit airstrips, hangars, control tower and ammunition areas.
Homs Governor Talal Barazi said US missile strikes serve the goals of “armed terrorist groups” and Daesh, reiterating that the “aggression” will not prevent the Syrain government from “fighting terrorism.”
“This attack will not prevent us from continuing fighting terrorism. We are not surprised to see America and Israel supporting this terrorism,” Barazi said in a phone interview with state television.
Bolivia requested a closed-door UN Security Council to be held on Friday. Russia also said it wall call the 15-nation body into session.
The foreign-backed National Coalition, an alliance of terrorist groups, said it “welcomes the strike” and urged Washington to neutralize Syria’s ability to carry out air raids.
“We hope for more strikes… and that these are just the beginning,” coalition spokesman Ahmad Ramadan was quoted by the French news agency AFP as saying.
The Saudi kingdom also joined the militants to laud US strikes against Syria, calling it a “courageous decision” by Trump.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office celebrated the attack with an early morning statement, saying he supported “strong message” sent by US strikes.
Tel Aviv, which is widely viewed as a supporter of terror groups in Syria, has time and again carried out airstrikes on the Syrian territory under various pretexts. Israel and France also said they had been informed by the US ahead of the military strike.
Ankara urges no-fly zone over Syria
Meanwhile, Turkey welcomed the US air strike on a Syrian airbase early Friday as a “positive” move.
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan’s spokesman Ibrahim Kalin said on Friday it was necessary to enforce a no-fly zone and create “safe zones” in Syria without delay.
US President Donald Trump said he ordered missile strikes against a Syrian airfield from which a chemical weapons attack was allegedly launched this week.
Syria has categorically denied carrying out a chemical attack. Russia has said the deaths in Idlib were caused when a Syrian airstrike struck a “terrorist warehouse” used for making bombs with toxic substances.
The strategic base targeted in the US attack is a frontline in Syria’s operations against terrorists. It was used to respond to an Israeli aerial attack in March which prompted Tel Aviv to threaten to destroy Syria’s air defense systems.
The Pentagon said the Russians deployed to the targeted military facility were given prior notice, and that the missiles did not hit sections of the airbase where Moscow’s forces were reportedly present.