100’s of U.S. tanks, heavy equipment flow into Europe to ‘counter Russian aggression’; not enough Americans are protesting

From RT

January 6, 2017

100’s of US tanks, heavy equipment flow into Europe to counter ‘Russian aggression’
Thousands of US and German troops, along with tanks and equipment, are being sent to Poland and countries bordering Russia, purportedly in “defense against Russian aggression,” author and journalist David Swanson told RT.

Europe is preparing to counter a perceived ‘Russian military threat.’ NATO countries in the East of the continent are awaiting the arrival of thousands of American soldiers as a part of a US-led battle group. The troops will be stationed along the Russian border from Estonia to Bulgaria.

However, ships carrying the first batch of troops were greeted in a German port by signs reading “Army Go Home.”

Scores of protesters marched through Bremerhaven, urging an end to the Alliance’s saber rattling…

In an interview with RT aired January 9, author and journalist David Swanson said

“…members of the Department of so-called Defense in Washington DC are almost openly talking to the media about profit being the motive for stirring up hostility with Russia. But this sending of thousands of troops – US and German – to Poland and countries on Russia’s border along with tanks and equipment – this is being done in the name of “defense against Russian aggression.” So unless you’re [the Pentagon] able to pretend there has been Russian aggression, you’re  not  going to be able to continue this; all this aggression has to be ‘defensive’. If Russia says otherwise, then what Russia is saying must be fake news.”

…you have serious protests in Germany by those who want peace [and are] against sending Germans or Americans from Germany eastward, as they should. There are not enough of us in the US similarly protesting.”
Hundreds of American tanks, trucks and other military equipment have arrived at the German port of Bremerhaven to be transferred to Eastern Europe as part of NATO’s buildup near Russia’s borders.

The Resolve cargo ship arrived on Wednesday, while two more vessels – Freedom and Endurance – are expected in Germany on Sunday, Deutsche Welle reported. The unloading of the ships began on Friday, with the heavy equipment to be transported to Poland via rail and road.

The US plans to deliverer a total of 87 Abrams M1A1 tanks, 20 Paladin artillery vehicles and 136 Bradley fighting vehicles to Eastern Europe, according to Reuters.  Four thousand American troops will reportedly be spread across Poland, the Baltic States, Bulgaria and Romania where they’ll remain on rotation basis.

Polish and US troops are scheduled to hold joint “massing” drills in Poland later this month, which NATO says is aimed at reassuring its European allies in the face of what it calls aggressive Russian behavior.

The 10th Combat Aviation Brigade, with 50 Black Hawk helicopters, 10 CH-47 Chinook helicopters and 1,800 personnel, as well as a separate aviation battalion with 400 troops and 24 Apache helicopters are also scheduled for deployment in Eastern Europe.

“The best way to maintain the peace is through preparation,” US Major General Timothy McGuire explained, adding that the deployment is about “just showing the strength and cohesion of the alliance and the US commitment to maintain the peace on the continent.” 

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania will host troops from Germany, Canada and the UK, with each nation sending up to 1,000 servicemen.

NATO calls it military buildup near Russia’s borders a defensive measure, claiming it is justified after Moscow’s reunion with Crimea in 2014 and its alleged involvement in the Ukrainian crisis. Russia views the military bloc’s actions aggressive and said the massive military is undermining the security balance on the European continent.

READ MORE: ‘No one in Russia plans to attack NATO’ – US envoy to alliance

In November 2016, the Pentagon shipped more than 600 containers of ammunition for Army and Air Force units in Europe, according military.com, marking the largest single shipment of US ammunition in more than two decades, the website reported.

Moscow has responded by stationing its most modern weaponry and armaments on its western borders, including the enclave region of Kaliningrad, and staging large-scale military drills on its own territory.

READ MORE: Russia not on Trump’s list of Pentagon priorities: Leaked memo worries establishment

Washington opted to speed up the deployment of its troops to Eastern Europe after Donald Trump’s win in the presidential election.

Trump, who is to be inaugurated on January 20, has been calling for improved relations with Russia and has voiced skepticism towards NATO, saying European powers would have to contribute a bigger part of the budget if they wanted to continue relying on US protection.

https://www.rt.com/news/372869-us-tanks-germany-nato/

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/373048-nato-us-europe-russia/

US B-52 bombs Idlib, Syria, killing over 20 civilians – Russian MoD

From RT

January 10, 2017

US B-52 bombed Idlib, Syria, killing over 20 civilians – Russian MoD
More than 20 civilians were killed in a B-52 strike carried out by the US on the Idlib province in Syria on January 3, according to Russian Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov.

As we remember, in September last year, the US aviation carried out an attack in the Deir-ez-Zor targeting government forces. After this attack, Islamic State started its advance,” Gerasimov said as cited by RIA Novosti news agency.

The latest example of this is the January 3 airstrike, when a B-52 bomber – without warning the Russian side – hit a target in the town of Sarmada, Idlib Province, which is covered by the cessation of hostilities agreement. Over 20 civilians died as a result of the airstrike.

He did not provide any further details.

The US Defense Department announced on January 6 that a strike had killed 20 people in Sarmada, Idlib; those killed were described as Al-Qaeda militants, AFP reported.

READ MORE: Pentagon chief claims US fighting ISIS alone, Russia doing ‘virtually zero’ in Syria

During the Tuesday meeting, Gerasimov said the operation carried out by the Russian Air Force since September 30, 2015 “has turned the tide of the Syrian war.

Since the beginning of its operation in Syria, Russia’s military jets destroyed around 200 illegal oil-extracting facilities belonging to IS, 174 oil-producing plants, 111 groups of oil tank trucks, the head of General Staff added.

This allowed not only to breach the IS supply system, but also to deprive them of their main income,” Gerasimov added.

All strikes are carried out only after the confirmation of data from several sources, including the space intelligence and drones,” Gerasimov emphasized.

https://www.rt.com/news/373178-us-civilians-bomber-syria/

 

Refusing to engage diplomatically, talk grows in U.S. of possibility of military strikes on North Korea

Peace would be too easy. Respect is not a U.S. government value. A peace treaty and peace talks have been requested by North Korea for years. The U.S. government doesn’t want independent states to exist which have alternate economic models or values.

What about Americans? What are they willing to fight for? Is their allegiance to this state or to the planet’s peoples — all of them?

And what about the nuclear facilities, if the U.S. was to strike them? The fallout and radioactive contamination would impact the Northern Pacific region and certainly South Korea. And it would spread worldwide. 

This hatred displayed by American leaders is pathological, insanity. What they propose is more genocide.

Global Research, January 05, 2017
Yonhap News Agency 5 January 2017

alk is growing in the United States of the possibility of using military strikes to take out North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities after the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un, threatened he’s close to testing a long-range missile apparently capable of hitting the U.S.

Kim said in his New Year’s Day address that the communist nation has reached the final stage of preparations to test-launch an intercontinental ballistic missile. The remark was seen as a thinly veiled threat that Pyongyang is close to developing a nuclear-tipped missile capable of striking the continental U.S.

The threat appears to have stoked genuine fears of security among Americans, with reporters bombarding the Defense Department with questions of what the U.S. is going to do about the North’s missile, including whether it’s going to shoot it down or even launch a preemptive strike before it’s fired.

It also prompted President-elect Donald Trump to send a tweet: “North Korea just stated that it is in the final stages of developing a nuclear weapon capable of reaching parts of the U.S. It won’t happen!”

On Wednesday, a private intelligence analysis firm, Stratfor, even laid out a list of potential targets in North Korea, including the Yongbyon nuclear complex, home to the North’s plutonium-producing reactor and reprocessing facility.

“When considering an attack on North Korea, there are two broad categories of strikes to deliberate. The first is a minimalist strike, specifically focused on dismantling the North’s nuclear weapons program. In this scenario, the United States would engage North Korean nuclear objectives only,” Stratfor said in an analysis piece carried by MarketWatch and, titled, “How the U.S. could derail North Korea’s nuclear program by force.”

“By not launching strikes on other North Korean targets, Washington leaves the door open, if only slightly, for de-escalation if Pyongyang can be convinced that the strike is not part of a regime change operation. What benefits Pentagon planners in this scenario is that a limited strike requires less resources and preparation, enhancing the element of surprise,”

Potential targets in the minimalist strike include the Yongbyon complex, including the 5-megawatt nuclear reactor and the reprocessing plant, as well as the Pyongsan uranium mine that provides fuel for the reactor, and the Pyongsong nuclear research and development facility, known as the North’s “Silicon Valley,” Stratfor said.

“These facilities form the heart of North Korean nuclear production infrastructure. If they were destroyed or disabled, the North Korean nuclear production network would be crippled, set back years at least,” it said.

U.S. defense officials were quoted by Reuters as saying that if ordered, the U.S. military has three options to respond to a North Korean missile test: a pre-emptive strike before it is launched, intercepting the missile in flight, or allowing a launch to take place unhindered.

Still, many arms and defense experts agree that a military strike is too risky to consider, especially in consideration of the proximity of Seoul to the border with North Korea and the possibility of the North showering artillery shells on the bustling capital area.

Military strikes “would be a wild gamble, especially with the Seoul-Inchon region — South Korea’s commercial, political and population heart — so close to the border. Although the DPRK would lose any war, it could cause horrendous casualties before succumbing,” said Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan.

“Yet the great achievement of America’s military presence for the past six decades has been to prevent precisely such a conflict from occurring,” he said in a recent piece carried by the National Interest.

Jeffrey Lewis, an expert on North Korea’s military, was also quoted by Reuters as questioning whether U.S. missile defenses could shoot down a test missile, saying destroying North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs would be a huge and risky undertaking.

Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS), was also quoted as saying that the North’s main nuclear and missile test sites were on different sides of the country, and an ICBM can be launched from anywhere in the country because it’s mobile.

Robert Manning, a senior Atlantic Council analyst, said U.S. options are limited on the North.

“While everyone says North Korea is at the top of the U.S. foreign policy agenda, other than strengthening deterrence, imposing tough sanctions that remove North Korea from the international financial system, there is little the U.S. can do in the near-term that does not risk a war, thousands of U.S. and hundreds of thousands of South Korean deaths,” he said.

By Chang Jae-soon

Erdogan Claims To Have Evidence, Photos, Video Of U.S. Coalition Support For ISIS-Daesh

Global Research, January 05, 2017
Activist Post 2 January 2017

Shortly after Christmas, and lost in the holiday shuffle, Turkish President and terrorist supporter Recep Tayyip Erdogan, made a statement accusing the U.S.-led coalition of supporting not only terrorists in Syria but ISIS itself. He also stated clearly that Turkey has proof that U.S.-led coalition is supporting the notorious terrorist organization it claims to be fighting.

Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, December 27, Erdogan stated that “They give support to terrorist groups including Daesh (ISIS).”

He added that “Now they give support to terrorist groups including Daesh, YPG, PYD. It’s very clear. We have confirmed evidence, with pictures, photos and videos.”

Erdogan also called on GCC members such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar to join Russia, Iran, and Syria in peace talks regarding the current crisis next month. He said these countries (the Russian coalition) have “shown goodwill and given support” to Syria. He stressed that Turkey would not take part in negotiations if “terrorist groups” like the Kurdish separatists were involved.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner responded to Erdogan’s statement by saying that it was “ludicrous” and that it has “no basis for truth.” Toner added that the U.S. is “100 percent behind the defeat and destruction of Daesh, even beyond Syria and Iraq.”

Erdogan’s statement is actually true as Mark Toner and anyone who can operate a keyboard knows full well. The United States and its coalition have long supported terrorists in Syria, and both have done so since day one. That being said, Turkey and Erdogan specifically have supported the same terrorists for just as long. For that reason, Erdogan’s statements may appear startling if taken alone.

Thus, the question now becomes – what is Erdogan’s purpose behind those statements? After all, Erdogan has remained stalwart in the NATO camp ever since the beginning of the crisis where he argued that Turkey only supported moderates, never acknowledging the fact that Turkey was buying ISIS’ stolen oil and providing jihadists with porous borders so that they could easily cross over into Syria. So why would Erdogan throw his NATO and GCC “allies” under the bus and actually spill the beans regarding Western/GCC support of terrorists?

The answer is actually a number of possibilities. Some researchers may suggest that Erdogan’s stance is changing and that he is moving Turkey more into the Russian orbit, abandoning the NATO position of destroying Syria and, thus, beginning the process of dropping the U.S., GCC, and NATO baggage and exposing imperialists at the behest of the Russians. Others attribute his statements to the mere ravings of a madman lashing out at the slightest sign of criticism or political trouble. While these explanations are possibilities, the reality is most likely that it is a complex web of intrigue that centers itself around Erdogan himself and the position of the Muslim Brotherhood that has caused Erdogan to make such a statement.

It appears that Erdogan is attempting to sit on the fence between two world powers and their alliances – the Western world hegemon and the Russian coalition – while, at the same time, trying to promote his neo-Ottoman vision for Turkey. While Erdogan was firmly within the NATO camp at the start of the Syrian crisis, it is quite likely that Erdogan has started to realize that chaos in Syria might very well equal chaos in Turkey and that U.S. support for the Kurdish fighters in Syria and Iraq might ignite Kurdish separatists in Turkey, throwing his own country into chaos and civil war yet again. Thus, Turkey has moved more toward the direction of Russia, despite having shot down a Russian jet and acting provocatively toward Russia in the past. Putin is, of course, using the carrot more so than the stick, a diplomatic strategy that tends to yield better results in the long run, particularly when the power bearing the carrot has a massive stick for backup. For that reason, Turkey is willing to at least provide token support to “peace talks” and other Russian-led initiatives.

However, to suggest that Erdogan has actually moved into the Russian orbit is naïve. Turkey continues to keep its borders open for ISIS fighters to cross into Syria and it continues to maintain its “safe zone” area which is nothing more than a forward operating base and supply line corridor (the Jarablus Corridor) for ISIS and its related terror organizations. As previously mentioned, Erdogan has been willing to risk direct war with Russia on a number of occasions and the Turkish government has even announced support for terror brigades to be used on Russian territory, the Crimea.

Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman dreams have become more and more obvious through his own statements, such as his vocal support for the Misak-Milli, a series of decisions by the Ottoman Turkish empire that saw Turkey claiming parts of Iraq, Syria, Armenia, Georgia, Greece, and Bulgaria. He has even suggested the possibility of doing away with the Treaty of Lausanne, which delineates the Turkish borders.

Erdogan’s willingness to throw his GCC allies under the bus most likely is compounded by his Muslim Brotherhood affiliations, a slightly more moderate form of Islamic extremism that calls for a referendum in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. It is for this reason that a rift exists between the Islamist Erdogan and the Wahhabist Saudis. For beginners, it is the equivalent of “Democratic” socialists versus communists.

As Erdogan’s own plan of playing both sides continues, the situation inside his own country will most likely continue to deteriorate, despite his clever handling (or masterminding) of the recent coup that saw him eliminate many of his political and institutional enemies. As the domestic situation in Turkey worsens, Erdogan will likely face losses both in Syria and Iraq and will most likely move closer to Russia. As a result, the West will attempt to rein him in, using both the carrot and the traditional American stick. Domestically, his troubles may overwhelm him or, at the very least, the stability of his country.

Erdogan is currently attempting a delicate balancing act between two world powers. Delicacy, however, is not what Erdogan is most skilled at.

Regardless, it is important to remember that Turkey is still very much a part of NATO and very much a part of the anti-Syria, pro-ISIS coalition. His recent statements regarding the coalition support of ISIS is merely an attempt to bargain with the United States and gain brownie points with Russia, both designed to enhance his position for his own foolhardy neo-Ottoman dreams.

With that being said, we should welcome Erdogan’s newfound honesty and encourage him, if he has the photos and videos he claims to possess, to release them to the media immediately.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria,and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 850 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Green Party VP candidate: Trump’s Neo-Fascism will be built on Neo-Fascism of Obama and Democrat Party

Global Research, January 04, 2017
Black Agenda Report 3 January 2017

Late on the evening of December 23, when the attention of the public was fixed on the consumerist excesses of the holiday season, President Obama signed into law the Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Like the other NDAAs that President Obama signed into law during his administration, this one further strengthened the repressive capacities of the state.

Buried deep in the provisions of the NDAA was language from a bill introduced by Sen. Rob Portman ostensibly to protect the public from the effects of “foreign propaganda.” As previously reported by Black Agenda Report, the bill, originally introduced last March, was passed by the Senate on December 8 as the “Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act”and then inserted into the NDAA.

According to Senator Portman, the intent of the law is to “…improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government. To support these efforts, the bill also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government.”

For Senator Portman, the U.S. is the innocent victim of ruthless propaganda efforts on the part of foreign governments to slander and discredit the altruistic objectives of U.S. global activities.

In the face of the Neo-McCarthyism represented by this legislation and the many other repressive moves of the Obama administration to curtail speech and control information — from the increased surveillance of the public to the use of the espionage act to prosecute journalists and whistleblowers — one would reasonably assume that forces on the left would vigorously oppose the normalization of authoritarianism, especially in this period of heightened concerns about neo-fascism.

Unfortunately, the petit-bourgeois “latte left” along with their liberal allies have been in full collaboration with the state for the past eight years, with the predictable result that no such alarm was issued, nor has any critique or even debate been forthcoming.

So there has been very little “mainstream” liberal/left discussion around the fact that, as the political blog Zero Hedge noted, “long before ‘fake news’ became a major media topic, the US government was already planning its legally-backed crackdown on anything it would eventually label ‘fake news.’ ”

As Black Agenda Report publisher Glen Ford framed it, “When the narrative at the heart of a system of rule falls apart, when the flow of history runs counter to the story told by those in power, then we know the entire edifice is crumbling under the weight of its own contradictions. The political crisis arrives when the people sense that the prevailing order is built on a foundation of oppressions and lies. The rulers panic, scrambling to reweave the matrix of fables and myths that justify their waning supremacy. At such points in history, the truth is up for grabs – and a change of regime is in the offing.”

The dangerous and cynical moves by the Clinton campaign during the presidential campaign to paint Trump as an agent of a foreign government in order to project Hillary as the real, tough alternative, has morphed into a commonsense narrative that has a dual purpose.

First, it is meant to weaken the incoming administration by attempting to split it from its Republican legislative arm. The liberal, transnational financial and corporate rulers are especially concerned by Trump’s economic and social base that is demanding an alteration of the neoliberal order in favor of small, mid-size and large business interests still dependent on the U.S. domestic market. They see this demand as a threat to the neoliberal logic that has been largely unquestioned in the West over the last three decades.

Secondly, by narrowing the scope of acceptable political discourse in relation to U.S. global strategies that are heavily dependent on militarism and the strategic commitment to suppress regional capitalist rivals, the neocons and liberal interventionists can expect to avoid mass opposition to continued imperialist adventures. Similar to the McCarthyite period when the ideological commitment to containment abroad required the destruction of any domestic opposition, the neo-McCarthyism of today is geared toward ideological conformity. In this sense, Trumpism is becoming a useful tool for enforcing neoliberal ideological consensus.

The potential danger of the unfolding order is not lost on those of us who take a consistent oppositional stance to the bi-partisan games being played on the people. The set-up piece that ran in the Washington Post that supposedly identified news outlets that were supposed to be involved in questionable or outright “fake news” included a number of outlets to which I contribute, including Counterpunch and the only all-black outlet on the list, Black Agenda Report.

When you have supposedly respectable liberal outlets pushing this kind of madness, we are not expecting much support from liberals or even left forces when the repressive knives are sharpened.

The American Prospect’s Robert Kuttner has even suggested that Trump is guilty of treasonbecause of what he calls the President-elect’s “dalliance” with Vladimir Putin.

With the left’s attention fixed on Trump and its fear of the “new” authoritarianism that he is supposed to introduce, it has failed to confront or even be aware of the fact that the foundation for any kind of “neo-fascism” that might emerge in the U.S. was constructed over the last 15 years of the combined Bush and Obama administrations.

But even more dangerous for authentic oppositional forces in the U.S., collaboration from the left with the new McCarthyism is providing an opening for the isolation and repression of those of us who represent and are part of oppressed communities/peoples who were going to have to fight no matter who would have been elected.

This is not a new situation for us. When the repressive apparatus of the state focused on radical black organizations like the National Negro Congress and Civil Rights Congress, and on such individuals as Paul Robeson, W.E. B. Dubois, William Patterson and Claudia Jones, to the systematic assault on the radical Black Liberation Movement in the 1960s and ‘70s, we were largely required to fend for ourselves against the state after being abandoned by white liberals and significant numbers of white leftists. I fully expect that to happen again.

Neo-fascism is not a new existential phenomenon for us or for people around the world who have suffered from the racist, arrogant assaults of this criminal state to maintain the Pan-European colonial/capitalist project. So save your hysterical concerns about Trump for others and either commit yourself to building a revolutionary movement or get out of the way.

Ajamu Baraka was the 2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report. His latest publications include contributions to Killing Trayvons: An Anthology of American Violence (Counterpunch Books, 2014), Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA (HarperCollins, 2014) and Claim No Easy Victories: The Legacy of Amilcar Cabral ( CODESRIA, 2013). He can be reached at www.AjamuBaraka.com

U.S./UK paid “White Helmets” to help Al Qaeda blocking water to 5 million thirsty Syrians

Global Research, January 03, 2017

The blockade of water from Wadi Barada to 5 million people in Damascus is taking an interesting turn. The U.S. and UK financed White Helmet organization seems to be directly involved in it. This increases the suspicion that the illegal blockade of water to civilians in Damascus is part of a organized campaign under U.S. command. The campaign is designed to block utilities to government held areas as revenge for the liberation of east Aleppo.

As we described it yesterday:

After the eastern part of the city of Aleppo was liberated by Syrian government forces, the local rebels and inhabitants in the Barada river valley were willing to reconcile with the Syrian government. But the al-Qaeda Takfiris disagreed and took over. The area is since under full al-Qaeda control and thereby outside of the recent ceasefire agreement.On December 22 the water supply to Damascus was suddenly contaminated with diesel fuel and no longer consumable. A day later Syrian government forces started an operation to regain the area and to reconstitute the water supplies.

Photos and a video on social media (since inaccessible but I saw them when they appeared) showed the water treatment facility rigged with explosives. On Dec 27th the facility was blown up and partly destroyed.

The Syrian government is ready to send repair teams to rehabilitate the water flow to the millions of civilians in Damascus. But access to the site is denied and the Syrian army is now trying to push al-Qaeda and its allies away from it.

Curiously some “civil” groups today offered access under several (not agreeable) conditions:

Hassan Ridha @sayed_ridha – 2:10 AM – 3 Jan 2017W

adi Barada statement: we will let teams to fix water spring if SAA-Hezb stop attack, siege lift & monitor ceasefire by intl observers
[attachment]

EHSANI2 @EHSANI22 – 6:43 AM – 3 Jan 2017

Offer by opposition to trade access to water source for #Damascus with halting of military operations by army
[attachment]

Here is the attachment to both tweets. Note who signed it:


bigger

Check the logos of the undersigning organizations You will probably recognize the middle one in the second row. Here it is magnified.

And here is the original of that logo taken directly from the website of the Syrian Civil Defense organization aka The White Helmets:

The organizations who make an offer to lift the water blockade of Damascus obviously think they have the power to do so. They then must also be held responsible for keeping the blockade up. They must also have intimate relations with the al-Qaeda fighters who currently occupy the damaged water facilities.

The U.S. and UK government created and paid White Helmets are “impartially”, “neutrally” and “for all Syrians” blocking the water supply to 5 million Syrians in Damascus. U.S. military and CIA officers run the “operations rooms” in Jordan and Turkey that direct the insurgency.

This increases suspicion that the blockade is part of an organized response by the enemies of Syria to the recent liberation of east-Aleppo. As noted yesterday:

This shut down is part of a wider, seemingly coordinated strategy to deprive all government held areas of utility supplies. Two days ago the Islamic State shut down a major water intake for Aleppo from the Euphrates. High voltage electricity masts of lines feeding Damascus have been destroyed and repair teams, unlike before, denied access. Gas supplies to parts of Damascus are also cut.

Even after 14 days of water crisis in Damascus the “western” media are not reporting about the al-Qaeda blockade of water for 5 million Syrians. We can be sure that not a word will be written by them about this illegal hostages taking of millions of civilians in Damascus by their favorite propaganda organization White Helmets.

How the US deliberately destroyed Iraq’s water supply, and now Syria…

Global Research, January 03, 2017
Global Research 29 August 2001

Global Research Editor’s Note

This incisive and carefully documented article by Prof. Thomas Nagy was first published by Global Research in September 2001.

It confirms the criminal nature of US intervention.

A similar and comparable operation in Syria has now been launched by using US supported Al Qaeda “opposition rebels”, with the help of the White Helmets to undermine and destroy the system of water supply in Damascus; this issue has been casually ignored by the Western media and the self proclaimed “international community”.

While, the modus operandi in the case of Syria differs from that described by Prof. Nagy, it nonetheless confirms a pattern.  In Syria, this diabolical operation carried out by US backed terrorists, constitutes the ultimate crime against humanity.  

In regards to Iraq, Professor Thomas Nagy of George Washington University, D.C., revealed the existence of Defense Intelligence Agency documents “proving beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country’s water supply after the Gulf War.

“The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway.” On May 12, 1996 some of the horrible consequences of this policy were revealed when the CBS news program 60 Minutes reported that roughly half million Iraqi children had died as a consequence of U.S. imposed sanctions.

This led to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s infamous answer to the question, “is the price worth it?” Her reply was yes “we think the price is worth it.” Albright later apologized, not for the murderous policy for which she was partially responsible, but rather for the fact that her answer to the above question had “aggravated our public relations problems” in the Middle East.

As to domestic reaction, her comment “went unremarked in the U.S.” Subsequently, in 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq using the strategy of “rapid dominance” (more popularly known as “shock and awe”). The object of this strategy was to “paralyze” the enemy’s “will to carry on” through the disruption of “means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure.” One of the targets of the bombing campaign that led off the invasion was Iraq’s electrical grid. That directly impacted the country’s ability to process clean water.”

See also Lawrence Davidson, Loopholes in International Law

This important study by Professor Nagy was among the first articles published by Global Research. It was part of the launch of the site on September 9, 2001. The article was dated August, 29 2001.

The original URL of this article is: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAG108A.html

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research Editor, January 3, 2017

 

*       *      *

Confirmed by documents of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), “the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country’s water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway.”

Over the last two years, I’ve discovered documents of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country’s water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway.

The primary document, “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,” is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.

Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline,” the document states. “With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease.

The document goes into great technical detail about the sources and quality of Iraq’s water supply. The quality of untreated water “generally is poor,” and drinking such water “could result in diarrhea,” the document says. It notes that Iraq’s rivers “contain biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur.”

The document notes that the importation of chlorine “has been embargoed” by sanctions. “Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low.”

Food and medicine will also be affected, the document states. “Food processing, electronic, and, particularly, pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure water that is free from biological contaminants,” it says.

The document addresses possible Iraqi countermeasures to obtain drinkable water despite sanctions.

Iraq conceivably could truck water from the mountain reservoirs to urban areas. But the capability to gain significant quantities is extremely limited,” the document states. “The amount of pipe on hand and the lack of pumping stations would limit laying pipelines to these reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine purification, the water still would contain biological pollutants. Some affluent Iraqis could obtain their own minimally adequate supply of good quality water from Northern Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries requiring large quantities of pure water would not be able to meet their needs.

Continue reading

President Vladimir Putin’s New Year address to Russia

From Kremlin.ru
December 31, 2016

New Year Address to the Nation.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Citizens of Russia, friends,

The year 2016 is coming to a close. It was a challenging year, but the difficulties we faced have brought us together and allowed us to reveal enormous resources for our movement forward.

The main thing is that we believe in ourselves, in our strengths and in our country. We are working, and working successfully, and we are achieving much. I would like to thank you for the victories and achievements, for your understanding and trust, and for your true, sincere care for Russia.

We have a vast, unique and wonderful country! We are united by common concerns and common joys, by our long-standing good tradition of meeting the New Year with our families and with hope for the best.

But not everyone is at the holiday table today. Many of our citizens are away from home, ensuring Russia’s security, working at enterprises, on duty in hospitals, ad operating trains and aircraft. I would like to convey my very best wishes for the New Year to all those who are now fulfilling their labour and military duties.

Dear friends,

We are excitedly awaiting the sound of the chimes of the Moscow Kremlin, and we feel the march of time and the approaching future more clearly than ever before. We experience this only during these moments, during this wonderful and beloved holiday.

Meanwhile, New Year has its own secrets. For instance, each of us may become something of a magician on the night of the New Year. To do this we simply need to treat our parents with love and gratitude, take care of our children and families, respect our colleagues at work, nurture our friendships, defend truth and justice, be merciful and help those who are in need of support. This is the whole secret.

May our dreams, heavenly thoughts and good intentions come true. May joy and love reign in every home. May our beloved streets, cities and villages become even more beautiful.

Peace and prosperity to our common, great homeland, Russia. Happiness, health and wellbeing to each of you.

Happy New Year 2017!

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/53683

Zakharova: Diplomatic “partners” threatened to “make sure that Russia truly feels what pain is” over Syria air campaign and promised media disinformation campaigns; Obama administration committed moral crimes

The Obama administration “demonstrated the belief that the strongest has the right to create evil.”

December 29th, 2016 – Fort Russ News –

Rossia 1 – Translated by Inessa Sinchougova

<iframe src=”https://player.vimeo.com/video/197375753&#8243; width=”640″ height=”360″ frameborder=”0″ webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen>

Maria Zakharova, Russia’s Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, on a national TV show

Partial transcript:

I’d like to remind you that since October 2015, when Russia’s air campaign to Syria was announced, as well as invitation extended to the entire world to unite in this struggle – not even our struggle, but a threat to the whole world – I’d like to remind you how the events unfolded.

I reviewed many recordings of diplomatic talks from October 2015 and this is what we were told, at the high level of Ministers of Foreign Affairs:

We were asked to pass onto you the most serious of warnings – Russia is going to be hurting. They will make sure that Russia truly feels what pain is – keep this in mind.”

And this came from diplomats during a diplomatic round of discussions.

Keep in mind that everything you do in reality will be manipulated by a media company, which will cancel out the real results of your work.”

You’re going to fight terrorists? Yet you will look like the aggressor.”

This was said in October-November 2015.

After they failed to scare us…

Question: Was this during the famous talks between Kerry and Lavrov?

Zakharova: I can’t directly quote anyone because the talks were closed to the media. I can only say that such words were delivered to us, not once, but throughout much of October [2015[ as part of the discussions of Russia’s Representative of Foreign Affairs, and his international counterparts. I am talking about Sergey Lavrov’s colleagues [counterparts] who attribute themselves to be from the most forward and civilized of countries. So we’re not talking about someone who just recently barged into the world of foreign affairs. We are talking about people who constitute the world’s elite – they told us these words.

What happened after that? After it became clear just how openly, transparently, and in which precise targets the Russian Air Force was working – and how perfectly Russia’s personnel are carrying out commands – then began the direct disinformation campaign that discredited our actions. Well, the media is one thing, but I’d like to remind you, the U.S. State Department and the White House, for the mouths of their official representatives, directly threatened to cause us pain.

So, those words that were said in October 2015 behind closed doors were then delivered upon publicly.

You remember the promised “graves” and “coming home in body bags”. This was said by all, the U.S. Ministry of Defense, not only diplomatic representatives. Then all of this was regurgitated into the media, as a result of closed door discussions in Washington. But then they went even further.

Then, official Foreign Affairs representatives began to call upon their people to come out and protest in front of Russian embassies

Question: Yes, I remember that – the words of Britain’s Foreign Secretary.

Zakharova: Yes, just one example. He is looked at somewhat of a marginal character in terms of foreign policy, or politics as a whole, and his words may not hold as much weight as some more experienced officials – but nevertheless, he said those words. These words, within a matter of weeks, were converted into specific actions. He wasn’t the only one to call for protests outside Russian embassies. He is the only one which was in the public eye.

All [anti-Russian] campaigns over the past couple of years have been supported by official Ministries of Foreign Affairs of other states, either financially or by other creative means.

That which began in October 2015 ended with the murder of our ambassador in December 2016. I’ll remind you of one more thing – we’ve talked about this – let’s remember the real attacks. Not more campaigns with plastic arms and legs in London, or posters in front of our embassies in the EU, but the shelling of the Russian embassy in Damascus.

Russia’s official representative, Vitaly Churkin, would always raise this question to the UN Security Council. Who were the people that blocked these questions? It was the very same people who, through the mouths of their official representatives, promised that “we would feel pain.” It was the very same people who, in collaboration with mainstream media, deliberated how to truly hurt Russia. The blocked all statements by our representative to the Security Council, who condemned the attacks on Russia’s diplomatic representatives.

Question: When our ambassador was killed, Trump sent his words of sympathy, the U.S. State Department did also, but Obama personally did not. Is this in line with international protocol? Or is this an attempt at insulting us?

Zakharova: Obama, I think, is a unique person. I’m only talking about foreign policy, because domestic policy is for Americans, and it is only U.S. citizens who should have the right to assess it. But Obama is a person – and I mean the whole administration under him, – whose team, as it worked out in the international arena, was bad for everyone. I think during his 8-year term – under the pretext of their ‘exclusivity’ – they became the subject of disgust for the entire world. That is my impression. They did not deliver on any responsibilities they had to other nations. Nor did they deliver on what the American people entrusted to them on the international arena. This is an obvious thing.

And the main thing – of course, I am not a lawyer or a human rights activist – but from a moral point of view, they have committed crimes.

They showed that the strongest [militarily] has unlimited rights to create evil [in the world]. That is what’s going to go down in history for this administration.

Let me say it again – they demonstrated the belief that the strongest has the right to create evil.

This is in the 21st century. We’re not in the Middle Ages. We’re not in antiquity. This is today.

[on the question of whether or not Obama personally sent condolences]

…So, words of sympathy were said by many, but what Obama did or didn’t, you know the question is not over what he said now, but what he and his team did over the past 8 years – I emphasize the team that surrounded him in the White House – I think we’re going to find out a lot, give it six months to a year. We’re going to find out a lot about the real under-the-carpet struggle that took place there, between those who understood at least something about foreign affairs, that [the U.S.] is leading the world into a dead end, vs. those who pursued these mindless policies – illogical for all of us.

No matter who I’ve talked to, I’ve never met anyone who said, “These guys are doing great, they’re doing the right thing.”

https://vimeo.com/197375753

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/12/russia-obama-was-most-evil-president.html