Author: admin

US airdrops 50 tons of ammo to ‘rebels’ after ISIS loses most supplies in Russian airstrikes

Posted by

0

What will happen when these ‘ISIS’/’rebel’ fighters realize that they are pawns, cannon fodder, playthings, and expendable to John McCain, Joe Biden, the U.S., and the ‘coalition’ partners?
By Stuart Hooper
Global Research, October 15, 2015
21st Century Wire 13 October 2015
us-isis
Who exactly is going to get their hands on those 50 tons of munitions?

The Russian Defence Ministry has reported that “Russian airstrikes resulted in the elimination of the majority of ISIS ammunition, heavy vehicles and equipment.“

This joins numerous other positive reports on the Russian intervention, where we hear 40% of the terrorists’ infrastructure has been eliminated and the launch of cruise missiles caused an exodus among the ranks of ISIS.

Despite cancelling their ‘rebel’ training program, the US has now airdropped 50 tons of ammunition for smalls arms, along with grenades, into the ISIS hotbed of Northern Syria.

Russia’s tiny missile ships pack powerful punch — U.S. military expert

Posted by

0

From Sputnik News
October 11, 2015

The 26 cruise missiles launched at terrorist positions in Syria by four small Russian warships of the Caspian Fleet have raised many an admiring eyebrow in the West, including that of US journalist and military expert David Axe.

“The raid shocked foreign observers — not the least because the ships involved were so … tiny,” Axe wrote on his War Is Boring website on Saturday.“One of the biggest surprises for Russia-watchers was the small size of the ships that launched the missiles — 1,000-ton ships. That’s really small,”

David Axe cited Eric Wertheim, author of Combat Fleets of the World guidebook.
According to Wertheim, Russian naval design philosophy has always emphasized firepower.”

SUPERSONIC MOSKIT CRUISE MISSILE
© rbase.new-factoria.ru
Russian Long-Range Cruise Missiles ‘Particular Challenge’ for US Defense

“But it’s worth noting that the four ships that launched the cruise missiles are all in the landlocked Caspian Sea. They don’t deploy anywhere, so they don’t need fuel and living spaces for long voyages,” he wrote.

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the attacking ships were Dagestan, Grad Sviyazhsk, Veliky Ustyug and Uglich.

The latter three are Buyan-class missile boats, 203 feet long and displace 950 tons of water. Dagestan is a 335-foot, 1,900-ton Gepard-class frigate.

All four ships entered service in just the last few years.

“For perspective, bear in mind that the smallest US Navy surface warship to possess an equivalent weapon, the Tomahawk cruise missile, is an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer that’s 500 feet long and displaces 9,000 tons. And America’s Littoral Combat Ship frigates, which displace 3,000 tons, carry only small, short-range missiles,” David Axe wrote in a comment.

http://sputniknews.com/us/20151011/1028354019.html

Moscow wants explanation: has UK cleared RAF pilots to shoot down Russian jets?

Posted by

0

From Sputnik News
10-11-15

The Russian Embassy in London has requested the UK Foreign Office’s clarifications on media reports of the alleged British leadership’s decision to enable UK pilots participating in anti-ISIL coalition’s airstrikes to shoot down Russian planes over Iraq. 

Earlier, a UK defense source told the Daily Star Sunday tabloid that British and NATO pilots reportedly had been given a clearance to shoot down Russian jets over Iraq.UK defense sources stressed that RAF pilots have been told to avoid contact with Russian jets “at all costs,” but warned the pilots must be prepared to attack Russian jets “if their lives depend on it.”

“We are concerned by media reports as far as they refer to senior members of the Cabinet. We urgently requested UK Foreign Office’s clarifications. At the same time, the hypothesis itself of a potential conflict between British and Russian aircraft in the skies over Iraq is incomprehensible. As it is known, the Russian jets are not involved in attacks on ISIL targets on its [Iraqi] territory”, Russian Ambassador in the UK Alexander Yakovenko told RIA Novosti.

Russia launched precision airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria last week at the request of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow had not received any requests from Baghdad to carry out airstrikes against ISIL targets in Iraq.The Royal Air Force’s (RAF) Tornado combat aircraft are said to be equipped with up to four Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missiles (ASRAAM) to shoot down a Russian jet they encounter. The 2,300-miles-per-hour missiles with warheads filled with 22 pounds of high explosive lock onto targets using an infrared heat-seeker.

British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said earlier he was seeking to extend RAF’s anti-ISIL efforts in Iraq to Syria.A US-led coalition of 60 nations has been conducting anti-ISIL airstrikes in Iraq and Syria for over a year, bypassing the UN Security Council’s and Assad’s approval.

Yakovenko also said that British aircraft were not involved in the coalition strikes against ISIL in Syria.

“As for the joint struggle against the Islamic State, we have not received an official response to our request concerning information the British side has on ISIL’s infrastructure targets, which could be used by the Russian Air Force,” the ambassador added.

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151011/1028348816/uk-explain-permission-shoot-russian-jets-iraq.html

Also, ZeroHedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-11/moscow-demands-britain-explain-green-light-shoot-down-russian-jets

 

British news media: RAF armed with new weapons and given green light to shoot down Russian jets in Syria

Posted by

0

From International Business Times, October 11, 2015

As relations between the West and Russia steadily deteriorate, Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots have been given the go-ahead to shoot down Russian military jets when flying missions over Syria and Iraq, if they are endangered by them. The development comes with warnings that the UK and Russia are now “one step closer” to being at war.

RAF Tornado pilots have been instructed to avoid contact with Russian aircraft while engaged in missions for Operation Shader – the codename for the RAF’s anti-Isis work in Iraq and Syria. But their aircraft have been armed with air-to-air missiles and the pilots have been given the green light to defend themselves if they are threatened by Russian pilots.

“The first thing a British pilot will do is to try to avoid a situation where an air-to-air attack is likely to occur — you avoid an area if there is Russian activity,” an unidentified source from the UK’s Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) told the Sunday Times. “But if a pilot is fired on or believes he is about to be fired on, he can defend himself. We now have a situation where a single pilot, irrespective of nationality, can have a strategic impact on future events.”

The RAF Tornados aircraft will be armed with heat-seeking Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Asraams, also called AIM-132 missiles). These weapons, which cost £200,000 each, can reach triple the speed of sound and have a longer range than other air-to-air missiles, allowing RAF pilots to shoot down enemy aircraft without being targeted themselves.

The Sunday Times’ report quoted a defence source as saying: “Up till now RAF Tornados have been equipped with 500lb satellite-guided bombs — there has been no or little air-to-air threat. But in the last week the situation has changed. We need to respond accordingly.”

“We need to protect our pilots but at the same time we’re taking a step closer to war,” said another source. “It will only take one plane to be shot down in an air-to-air battle and the whole landscape will change.”

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/raf-given-green-light-shoot-down-hostile-russian-jets-syria-1523488

Posted under Fair Use Rules

Putin: U.S. accuses Russia, yet stonewalls requests for information; some Western ‘partners’ have ‘mush for brains’

Posted by

0

From Kremlin.ru
Vladimir Putin took part in the 7th Russia Calling! Investment Forum organised by VTB Capital.
October 13, 2015

Excerpt [the transcript is somewhat different than the on-video translation; also, there were additional questions to and answers from President Putin on Syria and Ukraine, but they are not yet transcribed]:

This excerpt starts at approx. 45:23 on the video.

Question [from Geoff Cutmore, CNBC]: Over the weekend, US President Obama called into question your leadership over Syria. He said that you are propping up an ally rather than going after ISIS. He also said you are running down the economy here. Can I ask you, how do you respond to President Obama’s comments and what would you say to international investors who are dissuaded from putting money into the Russian economy because of such remarks? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, as we say in Russia, everything has been thrown into one pile. What does the situation with ISIS in Syria have to do with investments in Russia? Although, of course, everything in the world is interconnected. There is no direct connection, but ultimately, of course, everything is interconnected.

First of all, I do not want to debate with anyone right now, but I will note that we are not striving for some sort of leadership in Syria. There can only be one leader in Syria: the Syrian people. We strive to make our input in the fight against terrorism, which is dangerous for the United States, Russia, European nations and the entire world, without any exceptions.

I will point out that all our actions, as I have said before, are in strict compliance with the UN Charter and international law – unlike our colleagues from the so-called international coalition led by the United States, which is acting without UN Security Council resolutions and without invitation by the Syrian authorities. Over this time (operations by international forces headed by the United States – or if we put it simply, the actions by the US – have been underway by over a year), they have engaged 11 nations in bombing, with over 500 strikes on Syrian territory, spending half a billion dollars, and that’s only officially, to train Free Syrian Army fighters to fight against ISIS. We know the result: there is none, there’s no result.

Now, it has been reported that the Free Syrian Army is being supplied with ammunition via aircraft. Where is this Free Syrian Army? If they simply discharge or dump the ammunition and weaponry somewhere from the air, how can we know that it won’t all get into the hands of ISIS, as this happened during training of the Free Syrian Army personnel and arming it – what are the guarantees? After all, this was just done, this just happened, and just now, the United States admitted that the action failed. And now, they are simply throwing ammunition somewhere. To whom? This is not a rhetorical question.

Now, we often hear that our pilots are bombing the wrong targets, not ISIS. First of all, we briefed US leadership in advance, although the United States has never done this. We were the first to do this out of respect and a desire to establish a working relationship. Now they tell us, “No, first, we are not ready to cooperate with you, and second, you are bombing the wrong targets.” We said at the military level, appealed and asked, “Give us the targets that you are 100% certain to be terrorists.” The replied, “No, we are not ready to do that.” So then, we thought about it and asked another question: “Then tell us, where shouldn’t we be bombing?” No response there either. So then, what should we be doing? This is no joke, I did not make this up, this is what happened. Just recently, we said to the Americans, “Tell us the facilities we should strike.” There was no response. How can we work jointly then? Do you have an answer? I don’t have one either, yet.

I think that some of our partners are simply confused [translated elsewhere as “have mush for brains” (1)] and do not have a clear understanding of what is really happening on the ground, nor what goals they want to achieve. But we will insistently work to ensure that the efforts in the fight against international terrorism are joint efforts, and the result is clear, expected, and aimed at fighting international terror, to eliminate this threat for all of us.

As for investments, as I already said, I do not feel the two are related, but when I was just telling you about how these events occurred; I had said from the very beginning that nobody ever warned against such actions. Whereas we did. This speaks to the fact that we want to work together, and whoever wants to work with us in the spheres of security, counter-terrorism and economics is welcome.

The theme of the plenary session was “Building Long-term Cooperation and Developing Opportunities for Economic Growth.” The discussion focused on ways of adapting the Russian economy to the changing macroeconomic conditions that open up new opportunities for strengthening the Eurasian Economic Union and creating strategic integrational projects within the framework of the Silk Route Economic Belt, as well as other issues of importance for the Russian and global economies.

The video url is http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/video/en/video_low/hekWYcaE4JaSJfMEmRXMBOptiqMOd6K7.mp4

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50498

(1) http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/putin-syria-mush-brains/2015/10/13/id/695942/

PHOTOS: Pro-Russian rally in Damascus before shelling

Posted by

0

At the risk of their lives, citizens in Syria rally. Where are the American citizens protesting U.S. actions in the region and supporting Russia?  Where are the Russian flags waving on American streets?

From Fort Russ

October 15, 2015 –
RusVesna –
Translated for Fort Russ by J. Arnoldski

“Exclusive report of ‘Russian Spring’ from today’s pro-Russian rally in Damascus which terrorists shelled” 

The Donetsk militiaman and Ukrainian citizen currently in Syria with the call-sign “Timur” passed on  to “Russian Spring” exclusive footage from Tuesday’s Damascus rally in support of Russia’s operations in the Middle East.
People were not afraid to come to the rally, although they knew that they [terrorists] would shoot. Just half a kilometer from the venue of the rally, a thoroughly shelled place, is a quarters occupied by militants. 

 

As reported earlier, on Tuesday morning this rally in support of Russia and President Putin at the Russian embassy in Damascus was shelled by mortars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/10/photos-pro-russian-rally-in-damascus.html

The Drone Papers: Leaked military documents expose U.S. ‘assassination complex’

Posted by

0

By Nadia Prupis
Global Research, October 15, 2015
Common Dreams

A stunning new exposé by The Intercept, which includes the publication of classified documents leaked by an intelligence source, provides an unprecedented look at the U.S. military’s secretive global assassination program.

The series of articles, titled The Drone Papers, follows months of investigation and uses rare primary source documents and slides to reveal to the public, for the first time, the flaws and consequences of the U.S. military’s 14-year aerial campaign being conducted in Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan—one that has consistently used faulty information, killed an untold number of civilians, and stymied intelligence-gathering through its “kill/capture” program that too often relies on killing rather than capturing.

“The series is intended to serve as a long-overdue public examination of the methods and outcomes of America’s assassination program,” writes the investigation’s lead reporter, Jeremy Scahill.

“This campaign, carried out by two presidents through four presidential terms, has been shrouded in excessive secrecy. The public has a right to see these documents not only to engage in an informed debate about the future of U.S. wars, both overt and covert, but also to understand the circumstances under which the U.S. government arrogates to itself the right to sentence individuals to death without the established checks and balances of arrest, trial, and appeal.”

The source of the documents, who asked to remain anonymous due to the U.S. government’s aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers, said the public has a right to know about a program that is so “fundamentally” and  “morally” flawed.

“It’s stunning the number of instances when I’ve come across intelligence that was faulty, when sources of information used to finish targets were misattributed to people,” he told The Intercept. “And it isn’t until several months or years later that you realize that the entire time you thought you were going after this target, it was his mother’s phone the whole time. Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association – it’s a phenomenal gamble.”

As outlined by The Intercept, the key revelations of the reporting are:

  • Assassinations have depended on unreliable intelligence. More than half the intelligence used to track potential kills in Yemen and Somalia was based on electronic communications data from phones, computers, and targeted intercepts (know as signals intelligence) which, the government admits, it has “poor” and “limited” capability to collect. By the military’s own admission, it was lacking in reliable information from human sources.
  • The documents contradict Administration claims that its operations against high-value terrorists are limited and precise. Contrary to claims that these campaigns narrowly target specific individuals, the documents show that air strikes under the Obama administration have killed significant numbers of unnamed bystanders. Documents detailing a 14-month kill/capture campaign in Afghanistan, for example, show that while the U.S. military killed 35 of its direct targets with air strikes, 219 other individuals also died in the attacks.
  • In Afghanistan, the military has designated unknown men it kills as “Enemies Killed in Action.” According to The Intercept’s source, the military has a practice of labeling individuals killed in air strikes this way unless evidence emerges to prove otherwise.
  • Assassinations hurt intelligence gathering. The Pentagon study finds that killing suspected terrorists, even if they are legitimate targets, “significantly reduce[s]” the information available and further hampers intelligence gathering.
  • New details about the ‘kill chain’ reveal a bureaucratic structure headed by President Obama, by which U.S. government officials select and authorize targets for assassination outside traditional legal and justice systems, and with little transparency. The system included creating a portrait of a potential target in a condensed format known as a ‘Baseball Card,’ which was passed to the White House for approval, while individual drone strikes were often authorized by other officials.
  •  Inconsistencies with publicly available White House statements about targeted killings. Administration policy standards issued in 2013 state that lethal force will be launched only against targets that pose a “continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons,” however documents from the same time reveal much more vague criteria, including that a person only need present “a threat to U.S. interest or personnel.”
  • New details of high-profile drone kills, including the 2012 killing in Somalia of Bilal al-Berjawi, which raise questions about whether the British government revoked his citizenship to facilitate the strike.
  • Information about a largely covert effort to extend the U.S. military’s footprint across the African continent, including through a network of mostly small and low-profile airfields in Djibouti and other African countries.

The investigation comes as the Obama administration announced plans on Thursday to delay withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Administration officials told CNN that troops may conduct “counterterrorism operations” against Islamic State (ISIS) militants there.

But as the documents reveal, assurances from the Obama administration that drone strikes are precise and used only in cases of “imminent” threats are themselves based on intentionally vague definitions of “imminence.”

“Privately, the architects of the U.S. drone program have acknowledged its shortcomings,” said Betsy Reed, editor-in-chief of The Intercept. “But they have made sure that this campaign, launched by Bush and vastly expanded under Obama, has been shrouded in secrecy. The public has a right to know how the US government has decided who to kill.”

As the source himself said, “We’re allowing this to happen. And by ‘we,’ I mean every American citizen who has access to this information now, but continues to do nothing about it.”

Copyright © Nadia Prupis, Common Dreams, 2015
http://www.globalresearch.ca/drone-papers-leaked-military-documents-expose-us-assassination-complex/5482328

The U.S. Institute of Peace promotes war

Posted by

0

Completely appalling.

When Peace Activists Met With the U.S. Institute of Peace
By David Swanson

I was part of a debate on Tuesday that involved a larger disagreement than any exhibited at the Democratic presidential candidates debate that evening. A group of peace activists met with the president, a board member, some vice presidents, and a senior fellow of the so-called U.S. Institute of Peace, a U.S. government institution that spends tens of millions of public dollars every year on things tangentially related to peace (including promoting wars) but has yet to oppose a single U.S. war in its 30-year history.

usip

(Photo of David Swanson and Nancy Lindborg by Alli McCracken.)

Without CNN’s Anderson Cooper there to steer us away from the issues into name calling and triviality, we dove right into the substance. The gap between the culture of peace activists and that of the U.S. Institute of “Peace” (USIP) is immense.

We had created and took the occasion to deliver a petition which you should sign if you haven’t, urging USIP to remove from its board prominent war mongers and members of the boards of weapons companies. The petition also recommends numerous ideas for useful projects USIP could work on. I blogged about this earlier here and here.

We showed up Tuesday at USIP’s fancy new building next to the Lincoln Memorial. Carved in the marble are the names of USIP’s sponsors, from Lockheed Martin on down through many of the major weapons and oil corporations.

At the meeting from the peace movement were Medea Benjamin, Kevin Zeese, Michaela Anang, Alli McCracken, and me. Representing USIP were President Nancy Lindborg, Acting Vice President Middle East and Africa Center Manal Omar, Director of Peace Funders Collaborative Steve Riskin, Board Member Joseph Eldridge, and Senior Policy Fellow Maria Stephan. They took 90 minutes or so to talk with us but seemed to have no interest in meeting any of our requests.

They claimed the Board was no impediment to anything they wanted to do, so there was no point in changing board members. They claimed to have already done some of the projects we proposed (and we look forward to seeing those details), yet they were uninterested in pursuing any of them.

When we proposed that they advocate against U.S. militarism in any number of possible ways, they replied with a couple of main justifications for not doing so. First, they claimed that if they did anything that displeased Congress, their funding would dry up. That’s likely true. Second, they claimed they could not advocate for or against anything at all. But that isn’t true. They’ve advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria, regime change in Syria, arming and training killers in Iraq and Syria, and (more peacefully) for upholding the nuclear agreement with Iran. They testify before Congress and in the media all the time, advocating for things left and right. I don’t care if they call such activities something other than advocacy, I’d just like to see them do more of what they’ve done on Iran and less of what they’ve done on Syria. And by law they are perfectly free to advocate even on legislation as long as a member of Congress asks them to.

When I had first communicated about our petition with USIP they had expressed interest in possibly working on one or more of the projects we proposed, possibly including reports we suggest in the petition that they write. When I asked about those report ideas on Tuesday, the reply was that they just didn’t have the staff. They have hundreds of staff, they said, but they’re all busy. They’ve made thousands of grants, they said, but couldn’t make one for anything like that.

What may help explain the array of excuses we were offered is another factor I haven’t yet touched on. USIP seems to actually believe in war. The president of USIP Nancy Lindborg had an odd response when I suggested that inviting Senator Tom Cotton to come speak at USIP on the need for a longer war on Afghanistan was a problem. She said USIP had to please Congress. OK, fine. [Ed. No, that is not fine. That is horrendous.] Then she added that she believed there was room to disagree about exactly how we were going to make peace in Afghanistan, that there was more than one possible path to peace. [Doublespeak] Of course I didn’t think “we” were going to make peace in Afghanistan, I wanted “us” to get out of there and allow Afghans to start working on that problem. But I asked Lindborg if one of her possible paths to peace was through war. She asked me to define war. [Ed. This is when you know this organization has no integrity and no moral backbone. Their specialty is manipulating words, so that no one can possibly understand what they are saying. These “hundreds” pull in a good paycheck, and march in place to the beat of the US government drum, skilled at smoke and mirrors, yet “signifying nothing”. At this point, all the activists should have left.]  I said that war was the use of the U.S. military to kill people. She said that “non-combat troops” could be the answer. (I note that for all their non-combatting, people still just burned to death in a hospital.)

Syria brought out a similar perspective. While Lindborg claimed that USIP’s promotion of war on Syria had all been the unofficial work of one staffer, she described the war in Syria in a completely one-sided manner and asked what could be done about a brutal dictator like Assad killing people with “barrel bombs,” lamenting the lack of “action.” She believed the hospital bombing in Afghanistan would make President Obama even more reluctant to use force. (If this is reluctance, I’d hate to see eagerness!)

So what does USIP do if it doesn’t do war opposition? If it won’t oppose military spending? If it won’t encourage transition to peaceful industries? If there’s nothing it will risk its funding for, what is the good work it is protecting? Lindborg said that USIP spent its first decade creating the field of peace studies by developing the curriculum for it. I’m pretty sure that’s a bit anachronistic and exaggerated, but it would help explain the lack of war opposition in peace studies programs. [So, this “work” goes into colleges and universities with the blessing of the US government? If there is an Institute of Peace, then what other institutes are similarly funded with a name that means nothing? Including agencies like Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National Forest Service.]

Since then, USIP has worked on the sorts of things taught in peace studies programs by funding groups on the ground in troubled countries. Somehow the troubled countries that get the greatest attention tend to be those like Syria that the U.S. government wants to overthrow, rather than those like Bahrain that the U.S. government wants to prop up…

For the end of the article, http://worldbeyondwar.org/when-peace-activists-met-with-the-u-s-institute-of-peace/

 

What Eisenhower REALLY said about the “Military Industrial Complex”. The complicit role of the US Congress

Posted by

0

By Washington’s Blog
Global Research, October 12, 2015
Washington’s Blog 10 October 2015

You know about President and General Dwight Eisenhower’s prescient warning about the “military-industrial complex” as he left the White House?

Well, it turns out that he was really warning about the “military-industrial-congressional” complex.

42-year CIA veteran Milton Goodman explains:

In the spring of 1961, I was part of a small group of undergraduates who met with the president’s brother, Milton Eisenhower, who was then president of Johns Hopkins University. Milton Eisenhower and a Johns Hopkins professor of political science, Malcolm Moos, played major roles in the drafting and editing of the farewell speech of January 1961.

The actual drafter of the speech, Ralph E. Williams, relied on guidance from Professor Moos. Milton Eisenhower explained that one of the drafts of the speech referred to the “military-industrial-Congressional complex” and said that the president himself inserted the reference to the role of the Congress, an element that did not appear in the delivery of the farewell address.

When the president’s brother asked about the dropped reference to Congress, the president replied: “It was more than enough to take on the military and private industry. I couldn’t take on the Congress as well.”

And see this:

Indeed, Congress members – part of the fatcat club which makes money hand over fist from war –  areheavily invested in the war industry, and routinely trade on inside information … perhaps even including planned military actions.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/what-eisenhower-really-said-about-the-military-industrial-complex-the-complicit-role-of-the-us-congress/5481538

The Beast revealed: US celebrates Iranian General’s death at ISIS hands

Posted by

0

This website sends its deepest condolences to the family and loved ones of General Hossein Hamedani.
By Tony Cartalucci
Global Research, October 10, 2015
Land Destroyer 10 October 2015
Hossein-Hamedani

America’s celebration of the death of Iranian General Hossein Hamedani is a call to arms for the entire civilized world. 

The death of a top Iranian military commander in Syria this week has dealt a “psychological blow” to elements backing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to a U.S. intelligence official.

Brig. Gen. Hossein Hamedani was killed outside Aleppo, Syria, where he was advising the Syrian army in its fight against extremists, Iranian state media reported Friday.

CNN also claims:

The United States and Iran both say they are fighting ISIS terrorists, but in practice they have different goals: The United States is supporting rebels trying to oust Assad, while Assad’s close ally Iran became involved to defend his regime.

“I’m not sure it’s the Iranian objective to beat ISIS,” said Gerecht. “I think the primary Iranian objective is to ensure that Assad does not fall.”

The US and Iran indeed both say they are fighting ISIS terrorists. And while the US “accidentally” is supplying ISIS with weapons, fighters, and even fleets of brand new Toyota trucks, Iran has lost a senior commander on the ground who was clearly fighting them face-to-face.
Image: Just another happy coincidence. While the US Treasury dishonestly inquiries into where ISIS has gotten fleets of brand new Toyota trucks, it is a matter of record that the US State Department and the UK have been sending them into Syria since at least as early as 2013,
just ahead of  the “sudden” emergence of ISIS.
.

The loss of General Hamedani also reveals that indeed the Russian-led Syrian-Iranian-Iraqi anti-terror coalition is fighting ISIS in tandem with other terrorist groups – who despite claims by the United States – are ideologically, tactically, strategically, and politically indistinguishable from ISIS itself.

Monster Revealed – A Call to Arms of the Civilized World 

Again, the prophetic words written by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 New Yorker article titled, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” must be recalled (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

With a senior Iranian general dead, and ISIS and America’s “rebels” who are obviously also ISIS edging in on the Syrian government, the world should now finally see clearly what was planned as early as 2007 and what many have suspected since the beginning of Russia’s recent intervention in the conflict is now unfolding completely in the open. The United States and its regional allies have created this force of mass-murdering terror to intentionally direct against its enemies.

The death of General Hossein Hamedani and America’s celebratory mood in its wake is a call to arms ofthe entire civilized world. Stop the US and it’s now transparent, naked evil in Syria now – shoulder-to-shoulder with the Russian-Syrian-Iranian-Iraqi coalition – or fight them by yourself inevitably in the future.

America Finds its “Power Move” to Counter Russia 

The next step for Russia and Syria’s allies, including Iran and China, is clear. This will not stop in Syria – it is clearly aimed next at Iran, and then beyond. Full-scale intervention by Iran and a sizable commitment by China will be necessary to block Washington’s next move – a counterstroke hastily planned and hoped to deter, disrupt, and completely displace Russia’s goal of ending the conflict and restoring Syria’s stability.
Revealed in the Washington Post’s article, “US abandons Pentagon’s failed rebel-building effort in Syria,” it was reported that (emphasis added):

The Obama administration is overhauling its approach to fighting the Islamic State in Syria, abandoning a failed Pentagon effort to build a new ground force of moderate rebels and instead partnering with established rebel groups, officials said Friday.

Washington Post reveals transparently that American support of “rebels” in Syria is aimed not at ISIS, but admittedly at the Syrian government. It reported (emphasis added):

The change also reflects growing concern in the Obama administration that Russia’s intervention has complicated the Syrian battlefield and given new life to President Bashar Assad. Russian airstrikes have raised questions about whether and how the U.S. would protect rebel groups it is working with if they are hit by Russian bombs. 

Meanwhile, the CIA has since 2013 trained some 10,000 rebels to fight Assad’s forces. Those groups have made significant progress against strongholds of the Alawites, Assad’s sect, but are now under Russian bombardment. The covert CIA program is the only way the U.S. is taking on Assad militarily.

It is obvious that among that number of 10,000 is Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra which operates precisely in the areas described by the Washington Post, toward precisely the same objectives stated in the article.
Despite the Washington Post’s claims that the US goal is to “defeat” ISIS, it is clear that these terrorists backed by Washington are not fighting ISIS – admittedly so – as both CNN and the Washington Post have stated clearly, their aim is to remove the Syrian government from power. That also happens to be ISIS’ goal – one which has manifested itself in the death of Iranian General Hamedani.
The “shift” in logistical terms is meaningless – since any and every available amount of money, weapons, and fighters has already been fed by the US and its allies into Al Qaeda’s ranks since the conflict began – but the shift rhetorically is important. It signals America’s attempt to introduce direct military support for Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front and other assorted terrorist groups on the ground to counter and ultimately defeat Russian, Syrian, and Iranian efforts. This will also leave virtually no capable force on the battlefield to counter ISIS – which was the plan all along.The US hopes that this “power move” – the abominable assault with terrorists on a coalition demonstrably attempting to fight Al Qaeda and ISIS in the region – will force Russia to the negotiating table. However, Russia can do nothing of the sort. With the death of General Hamedani so clearly benefiting the United States – the conflict is of a clear existential nature. Failure to stop these terrorists in Syria and they are headed next to Iran, then through the Caucasus Mountains into Russia – and as far as China is concerned – across Central Asia and into its vast Xinjiang region.In hindsight, looking at a map in the 1930′s at Nazi Germany’s extraterritorial transgressions would have made it clear what was being done and what was soon to follow. With the United States and its allies devastating the nations of Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, and with Iran and Lebanon next on the list – with the US already supporting terrorist groups in China’s Xinjiang region and threatening Russia itself with isolation, destabilization, and regime change, the lines have been clearly drawn and the stage set by Wall Street, Washington, London, and Brussels for a catastrophic confrontation it has left the world with no choice but to face.
Copyright © Tony Cartalucci, Land Destroyer, 2015
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-beast-revealed-us-celebrates-iranian-generals-death-at-isis-hands/5481199?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
NOTE:  The Twitter post by John McCain is from 2011.