...a US bombing raid on rebel targets in the Deirez-Zor area, south of the town of Tabqah, the resulting huge and lethal explosion of chemical materials in terrorist facilities caused the death of several hundred innocent Syrian civilians, including dozens of so far unmourned “beautiful babies.” it turns out the terrorists do have quantities of chemical weapons at their disposal. Their established disregard for human life and rules of civilized conduct in general – not just in warfare – actually makes them prime candidates to be the authors of the politically motivated false flag April 4 outrage…
by Stephen Karganovic, Global Research:
What goes around, comes around. Fast on the heels of the April 4 false flag gas attack in Syria at Khan Sheikhoun, which was pinned on the Syrian government in a brazen, evidence-free media operation followed by an illegal missile strike, all skeptical objections were vehemently ridiculed and swept aside by Western propaganda agencies as groundless conspiracy theories.
Following systematic deconstructions in the alternative media, the official account would have come crashing down even without the welcome assistance of Dr. Theodore Postol’s meticulously written refutation. But several days later, while the controversy over the first alleged chemical exposure was still unsettled, as a result of a US bombing raid on rebel targets in the Deirez-Zor area, south of the town of Tabqah, the resulting huge and lethal explosion of chemical materials in terrorist facilities caused the death of several hundred innocent Syrian civilians, including dozens of so far unmourned “beautiful babies.”
Thanks to this probably inadvertent Western coalition hit on the terrorist chemical weapons depot, the key controversial issue left from the first explosion attributed to the Syrian air force was finally settled. Indeed, it turns out the terrorists do have quantities of chemical weapons at their disposal. Their established disregard for human life and rules of civilized conduct in general – not just in warfare – actually makes them prime candidates to be the authors of the politically motivated false flag April 4 outrage.
The vicious suicide bombing the other day, on terrorist-occupied territory, of a column of civilian refugees trying to reach the safety of Syrian government lines, should have further clarified the dilemma (if ever there was one) of who are the “bad” and the “good” guys in this conflict.
In that terror attack, in fact, in addition to numerous adult refugees, at last count about eighty “beautiful babies” were also snuffed out, a Syrian allegation (documented at least as compellingly, if not more, as the preceding one) that was promptly denied by the “usual suspects”. This outrage not merely did not invite the slightest expression of empathy from the ranks of the First Family but it provoked, rather, a torrent of media disinformation designed to obscure the location and circumstances of the lethal attack and to deflect any thought of attributing responsibility for this crime to the obvious, terrorist suspects, as Moon of Alabama amply documented.
“It was the Mother of all Hypocrisy,” according to no less an authority than Robert Fisk, an outstanding reporter but known for his extreme reluctance to step outside the prescribed bounds of carefully balanced and politically correct discourse. Just as in his uncommonly outspoken and indignant comments Fisk points out, not a single missile was launched to avenge the gruesome murders of these “beautiful babies,” presumably because they were perceived to be aligned with the wrong side in the conflict.
That is the context in which within two days of the uninvestigated chemical gassing incident the United States may have crossed the Rubicon in the Syrian war (subsequent “one off” claims notwithstanding) by undertaking a belligerent and aggressive act of the first magnitude: the bombing, unauthorized and uninvited, of the air force facility of a sovereign nation supposedly to avenge the murder of its “beautiful babies.” The specific circumstances of this gross and lethal violation of international norms (resulting, incidentally, in the death caused by stray missiles of a Syrian mother and her four babies, apparently judged by Western governments and media to be of minor significance because it occurred on Syrian government territory) were quite ably dissected by Alexander Mercouris and require no reiteration here.
Cutting it to the chase, two questions arise.
Why was Syria turned into a slaughterhouse to begin with, where an estimated 400,000 babies and adults have needlessly lost their lives? What does the abrupt intensification of unprovoked belligerence under an Administration elected on a peace platform that apparently never was intended to be implemented portend in terms of international relations?
The first question is easy to answer, and it has been dealt with many times over, but in order to understand the moral darkness of these times the answer always bears repetition in all its stark, shocking, and cynical simplicity. It is a war for the control and marketing of vital resources, in accordance with the principle postulated in the infamous Kissinger Memorandum that whoever controls energy and food is ultimately master of mankind. (“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”) Kissinger’s philosophy of global control is but a slight elaboration of the maxim of an earlier fellow German-speaker, Anton Zischka, in his classical “War for Petroleum”: “A drop of petroleum is worth a drop of human blood.” Kissinger and Zischka served competing hegemons, but their amoral mindsets were perfectly aligned.
Plans for what is going on in Syria today go as far back as 1984, as recently disclosed intelligence documents demonstrate. As Tyler Durden points out these long before laid plans “prophetically foreshadow the current crisis” and mayhem. It has nothing to do with barrel bombs or “dictators killing their own people” and everything with installing a compliant Syrian government in order to lay oil and gas pipelines under globalist control in order to bring Western-controlled energents to European markets and thus outflank Russia in the field of energy competition.
That is the logic behind the foreign engineered “regime change” assault in progress since 2011 and all its subsequent variants and modifications, including “Syria balkanization” proposals, various “splinter and control strategies,” and “safe zone” initiatives. Rescuing babies or avenging their callous deaths is not part of that picture.
So far, it has cost 400,000 lives and, down to the last drop of human blood, in the calculus of Madeleine Albright’s eager disciples it was undoubtedly “worth it”.
As for the second question, the answer should give pause to all who would avoid the unnecessary Armageddon that Paul Craig Roberts warns of, and who are rightly shaken by former Ambassador Charles Freeman’s surgically incisive diagnosis that the U.S. government is the “foreign relations equivalent of a sociopath – a country indifferent to the rules, the consequences for others of its ignoring them, and the reliability of its word.”
Philip Giraldi has also spelled it out plain and clear:
“What has become completely clear, as a result of the U.S. strike and its aftermath, is that any general reset with Russia has now become unimaginable, meaning among other things that a peace settlement for Syria is for now unattainable. It also has meant that the rebels against al-Assad’s regime will be empowered, possibly deliberately staging more chemical ‘incidents’ and blaming the Damascus government to shift international opinion farther in their direction. ISIS, which was reeling prior to the attack and reprisal, has been given a reprieve by the same United States government that pledged to eradicate it. And Donald Trump has reneged on his two campaign pledges to avoid deeper involvement in Middle Eastern wars and mend fences with Moscow.”
One can sign off on every word of Giraldi’s take on the matter, but correct as it is, it is but half the picture. The critical and ominous issue is, what is the take of the other nuclear-armed superpower with a genuinely vital, to be exact – existential, national interest in this and a number of other current, potentially conflict-engendering theaters? That superpower is Russia. Only a fool bent on self-destruction would disregard Russia’s view on these matters.
Here is the view of Russia’s influential, superbly informed geopolitical expert and analyst Andrei Akulov, in whose otherwise sparse blurb we merely find that he is “Colonel, retired, Moscow-based expert on international security issues”. Those proficient at deciphering code words will find this modest introduction sufficient and informative, especially in conjunction with Akulov’s voluminous and serious disquisitions on the topics of his expertise.
Ominously, Akulov sees the April 7 retaliatory raid on Syria not as a “one off” event but
“as a new phase in the ongoing war preparations (…) Alleged chemical attacks and other things are obviously used as a pretext to justify large-scale military presence in the entire region.The war in Syria has not been provoked by the recent events. It began long before Donald Trump took office. The incumbent president has not done anything new. He just decided to continue what his predecessor started. In general, the US administration is taking over where George W. Bush, Jr, left off. The president, who called for keeping away from foreign conflicts during the election campaign, has shifted his stance from ‘America First’ to ‘America Omnipresent’.”
The clear implication is that Russia – in whose name Akulov presumes to speak – does not take those pretensions to omnipresence either lightly or benignly. His exposition presents a very reasonable case why that is so and many would agree that it raises some sensible concerns:
“The United States has already entered Syria. Its military is there right now. The US Air Force has recently expanded an air base in northern Syria. The base is near Kobani, which is about 90 miles north of Raqqa, the last urban stronghold for the Islamic State (IS).
“It’s not Syria only. After initially reinforcing the residual forces remaining in-country, America’s military presence (Operation Inherent Resolve) was restored in Iraq in the summer of 2014, commencing a campaign, dominated by air and special operations, allegedly targeting the Islamic State (IS) group. In 2016, US military established the Kobani airfield in Syria and also set up an airfield at Qayarrah West in northern Iraq. The Kobani airstrip has been modified to support C-17s, the largest cargo aircraft which need hardened runway to support their weight, and other planes. In March alone, the airfield was used for at least 50 landings by C-17s and more than 100 landings by C-130 military cargo planes.
“The United States is accessing another airstrip near the newly retaken Tabqa Dam, north of Raqqa that was taken by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces on March 26. The capture of Tabqa airfield about 110 kilometers north of Raqqa would be used in the same way as Qayyarah Airfield West in Iraq is being used for operations to retake Mosul. When finished, Tabka airfield will enable the US to deploy twice as many warplanes and helicopters in Syria as the Russians currently maintain. It is already dubbed «Incirlik 2» or «Qayyarah-2».
“The new base is designed to accommodate the 2,500 US military personnel housed at Incirlik, Turkey. The administration is on the way to pull US air force units out of Turkey, to the five new and expanded air bases in Syria. In 2003, Ankara refused to let the US and its allies use its airspace when the invasion of Iraq started. The decision on airspace was reversed later but the Turkish parliament voted against the use of military bases on Turkish soil. As a result, the US operations in Iraq were significantly hindered. Now the US will not depend on Turkey anymore if Syria’s airspace is open for American flights. This is part of broader plans …
“Escalation is considered elsewhere. Another 2,500 paratroopers have been placed at a staging base in Kuwait. The military leaders have petitioned Congress and the White House for more troops, and the White House is considering loosening the rules of engagement in Afghanistan and Somalia. Add to this the reported plans to escalate US military involvement in Yemen.”
Faced with such a strategic panorama, in Russia it is considered entirely reasonable to ask:
What is going on here? Where is this headed?
Are we taking all reasonable measures to ensure our country’s and our children’s safety in the face of these rampaging Rambos?
Indeed, evidence is mounting of a growing consensus, not just in the Kremlin but throughout Russia, that “Trumpomania” is over and that having to pick the more dangerous of two apparently unstable leaders – Kim Jong-Un or Donald Trump – Russians in droves are voting for the American candidate.
Russia’s most influential television commentator Dmitry Kiselyov declared on Sunday, upon the departure of Secretary Rex Tillerson from Moscow, that
“the world is a hair’s breadth from nuclear war. War can break out as a result of confrontation between two personalities: Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un. Both are dangerous, but who is more dangerous? Trump is.”
Many will find the reasons for Kiselyov’s analysis, shall we say, interesting. According to him,
“Trump was ‘more impulsive and unpredictable’than the North Korean and both men share some of the same negative traits: ‘Limited international experience, unpredictability, and a readiness to go to war.’”
No compliments there for the chief American “partner.” As for the Kremlin’s perspective, Presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov was most ambiguous and diplomatic about it. Kiselyov’s views weren’t necessarily always interchangeable with the official position, however “his position is close, but not every time.”
Interpret as one will Peskov’s cryptic words, it does not seem to be very distant from the stance of a growing body of the Russian public:
“A survey by state pollster VTsIOM showed on Monday that the percentage of Russians who hold a negative view of Trump has jumped to 39 from seven percent in a month, and that feelings of distrust and disappointment towards him have grown too (…) “The U.S. missile strike on Syria was a ‘cold shower’ for many Russians,” said Valery Fedorov, the pollster’s general director.”
And to add just one more nuance of complexity to this increasingly eschatological brew, it so happens that, according to the Ku’ran, Syria is situated in the very heart of the end of history. According to Islamic scriptures, when history comes to an end the False Messiah (The Antichrist) will be challenged by Jesus Christ, who will descend from heaven, and the place of their final encounter will be – Damascus. The Last Judgment, we are told by Islamic teaching, will also occur there.
I wanted to check the authenticity of these portents and I asked my good friend Sheikh Imran Hossein, the foremost authority on Islamic eschatology, to enlighten me. This is his response:
Greetings of peace and love!
There are 3 main actors in the world in the End-time and they are:
The advent of the False Messiah (al-Masih al-Dajjal)
The advent of the Prince (Imam al-Mahdi)
The return of the True Messiah (al-Masih ‘Isa ibn Maryam)
Islamic eschatology locates all three in Damascus in Syria at the same time – hence the End-time importance of Syria.
Also, Islamic eschatology locates the Great War commencing in the region of Syria north of Damascus.
In view of these cheerful End-time prognoses, President Trump would perform a great public service if he took some eschatology lessons with Sheikh Imran before ordering his next missile strike, in Syria or anywhere else.
Anton Zischka: Ölkrieg, GoldmannVerlag, Leipzig 1939