BREAKING: Russia announces readiness to shoot-down US attack planes – Syria

October 6th, 2016 – Fort Russ News –
– Collated sources – By Joaquin Flores –

 

In a stunning development, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov cautioned the US against carrying out airstrikes on Syrian army positions as in Syria there are numerous S-300 and S-400 Russian made air defense systems up and running, which have a a radius that may come as a “a surprise” to all unauthorized US planes in the air, as reported by TASS, RIA, and RT.

The Russian Defense Ministry explained clearly that any airstrikes or missile attacks in territory controlled by the Syrian government would put Russian personnel in danger.
These would, as a matter of policy, require both preventive or responsive measures
According to the defense official, unarmed workers of the Russian Reconciliation Center in Syria are also operating in these places and are delivering aid and doing community work with a large number of communities in Syria.
“Therefore, any missile or air strikes on the territory controlled by the Syrian government will create a clear threat to Russian servicemen.”, RIA quoted Konashenkov.
“Russian air defense system crews are unlikely to have time to determine in a ‘straight line’ the exact flight paths of missiles and then who the warheads belong to. And all the illusions of amateurs about the existence of ‘invisible’ jets will face a disappointing reality,” Konashenkov added.
The US’s ‘stealth’ program has been exposed, with increasing public awareness, that it is generally ineffective. The Yugoslav army shot down a US F-117A Nighthawk stealth aircraft in 1999, using the S-125 air defense system from 1961.
According to RT: He also noted that Syria itself has S-200 as well as BUK systems, and their technical capabilities have been updated over the past year.”
RT continued their report, stating that: “The Russian Defense Ministry’s statement came in response to what it called “leaks” in the Western media alleging that Washington is considering launching airstrikes against Syrian government forces.”
This has been confirmed – Reuters ran the report clearly citing official sources who as a matter of practice normally go unnamed.
“Of particular concern is information that the initiators of such provocations are representatives of the CIA and the Pentagon, who in September reported to the [US] President on the alleged controllability of ‘opposition’ fighters, but today are lobbying for ‘kinetic’ scenarios in Syria,” he said to TASS.
The other clear warning of Russia’s readiness to shoot-down US attack planes and respond appropriately to missile attacks (possibly from battleships), he cautioned Washington to conduct a “thorough calculation of the possible consequences of such plans.”
Russia relocated its S-300 system in order to protect Russian ships and the naval base in Tartus, which was confirmed by Russian defense officials on October 4th. Konashenkov explained that the S-300 is a “purely defensive system and poses no threat.”
Russia additionally has S-400 missile defense systems at Hmeimim air base that were placed there after Turkey downed a Russian SU-24 jet in November of 2015, which the general has reiterated will target any unidentified or aggressive planes over Syria’s skies which pose a credible threat.
 http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/10/breaking-russia-announces-readiness-to.html

U.S. to decide on striking SAA targets

October 6, 2016 – Fort Russ News –
RIANovosti – translated by J. Arnoldski –
White House press secretary Josh Ernest told journalists at a briefing that Washington does not rule out strikes on Damascus’ forces, even though it is doubtful that this is in the US’ interests. 
Earlier, US media reported that air strikes on military targets of the Syrian government’s army are among the number of possibilities being considered by the US.
The ministry of foreign affairs of Russia recognized that such “leaks” in Western media could be a prelude to real actions, and recommended “colleagues in Washington to cautiously calculate the possible consequences of such plans’ realization.” 
The US ceased direct cooperation with Russia in Syria this week, but US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov are still holding telephone talks on the issue.

 

Washington, having announced its decision to cease cooperation, referred to Moscow’s failure to fulfill its obligations. The Russian foreign ministry has rejected these accusations and stated that the US cannot fulfill the responsibilities it took upon itself, including distinguishing between the “moderate” opposition and terrorists in Syria. 

U.S. admits big loss in Syria: leaked Kerry recordings expose fear of Russian victory

October 3, 2016 – Fort Russ –
Ruslan Ostashko, PolitRussia – translated by J. Arnoldski –
Introduction by J. Arnoldski: On September 30th, 2016, the New York Times published an article entitled “Audio Reveals What John Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors” which presented a series of leaked recordings of discussions between John Kerry and Syrian opposition representatives on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York. In these leaked audio samples, Kerry is heard expressing frustration with being outmaneuvered by Russian diplomacy and nervously attempting to explain the crisis of the US’s game plan for Syria in light of recent developments. In the following commentary, Russian political analyst Ruslan Ostashko explores just why this leak has appeared now and how it bears on the domestic and geopolitical situation of the US…
 
****
Anyone who follows geopolitics is periodically plagued by bouts of insatiable curiosity. One really wants to know just what is being said behind closed doors during negotiations deciding the fate of the world.
Retelling news from different sources is, of course, interesting, but not the point. And waiting for memoirs, which are filled with lies anyway, is long and boring. Sometimes we have the delight of published WikiLeaks that give us the opportunity to spy on American diplomatic mail and the results of the private conversations of American diplomats and their pocket politicians, but this is also not quite what is needed.
Very, very rare are those leaks that allow one to really see through the diplomatic smokescreen. The New York Times’ leak of conversations between Kerry and representatives of the so-called Syrian opposition is one of these rare finds.
Our media have picked up only a few elements in this leak which, undoubtedly, are pleasant for us, but these are not even the most important. 
Yes, during his talk with his Syrian puppets, Kerry complained of “cunning” Russian diplomats, which very much pleased the Russian foreign ministry.
Yes, Kerry acknowledged the possibility of Assad participating in presidential elections in Syria despite the State Department’s official position that Assad must leave and never return to Syrian politics.
This is all very good, very nice, and really is an extra reason to point a finger at the absurdity of the official American position and make fun of American propaganda. But the most important part of this leak is something else.
Let’s ask ourselves two questions: Who did this leak? Why did a top American newspaper, and not RT, first publish this incriminating recording? 
Here begins to spin the quite interesting story which I have mentioned many times. We are witnessing a very intense conflict between the CIA and Pentagon or, if you wish, between the moderate and radical parts of the American elite. This conflict sometimes manifests itself in an intricate way. In this specific situation, it turns out that the leak’s orchestrators aimed at Kerry, but ended up hitting the whole USA.
The most likely scenario behind the appearance of the recorded conversations is such: representatives of the Syrian opposition are very frustrated that the US never started bombing Damascus, so they decided to record talks with Kerry during which he explained that everything is bad, that the Russians have tricked him, and thus offered dozens of reasons why the “US Secretary of State has ditched the Syrian opposition and caved in to the Russians.”
The New York Times as a newspaper is the official mouthpiece of the Clintonoids and all the American hawks. That it happily published this leak hints that such a position of the American diplomatic leadership is a disgrace for the US and that things were never and never could have been so bad under Clinton. As a result of this special operation, Kerry’s reputation has been dealt a serious blow and the American hawks have scored extra points in the fight for influencing the minds of American citizens and the undecided part of the American elite. 
All of this would be good, but the entire world is watching this showdown and drawing different conclusions. Here are the conclusions that beg themselves: 
1. Now the US really wants to, but effectively cannot influence the situation in Syria. No one believes in Obama’s peaceful intentions, and this means that there can only be one explanation: the Americans are afraid to engage in a real military conflict with Russia. For the Americans, this is a minus, just as it is a plus for our reputation.
2. The American elite have reached such a point in their internal confrontation that they no longer hesitate to sacrifice the interests of the country in order to spite their competitors in internal political struggles. 
This is a very important milestone. From the point of view of old civilizations, such as the Chinese, this is a clear sign that the American Empire is nearing its end and should be treated accordingly.
Now the Americans are trying to arrange another media and diplomatic show around the offensive of Syrian troops and the bombing of Aleppo. They are trying to put maximum media and diplomatic pressure on Russia. But since Kerry’s leaked confessions, no one will take this seriously.
The Americans have run out of tools for directly influencing the situation in Syria, and their opinion should be ignored. By spreading media and diplomatic noise, they are trying to hide the fact that they have already reconciled with the fact that Assad is going to continue to lead Syria and that the Russian army is going to continue to use Syrian bases. All that is left is to squeeze them to recognize this not only on the sidelines of the UN, but officially.
I think that our air force can handle this task. 

U.S. proxies panic: Russia hikes up air strikes on Al-Nusra across Syria

October 5, 2016 – Fort Russ News –
RusVesna – translated by J. Arnoldski –
Precision air strikes by Russian air forces on militants’ infrastructure and positions in the Hama and Idlib provinces have inflicted heavy losses on illegal armed formations. In Aleppo, terrorist leaders have begun to panic. This has been reported to Russian Spring by a military source.
“In the northern part of Hama province, one of the leaders of Jebat Al-Nusra, Abdul Jabbar Fawaz al-Ahmad, was liquidated. In the al-Latamna district, a commander of an Al-Nusra sniper battalion, Ahmad Nahlawi, was also killed,” the source told Russian Spring.
The source continued: “As a result of an airstrike on the building of the Sharia court in the area of Serakab (15 km southeast of Idlib), 12 Ahrar ash-Sham militants were destroyed along with 9 from Jebat Al-Nusra and 5 from Islam at-Turkestani.”
North of Serakab, around 30 Al-Nusra militants were killed and more than 50 wounded by an air strike,” the source added.
“In eastern Aleppo, following a series of successful Russian air force operations, an outright panic has spread among the war lords of Al-Nusra. It is known from reliable sources that in the southern part of blockaded Aleppo, incidents of militants refusing orders have been noted. In block 1070, leaders of the bandit group refused to attack the positions of Syrian government troops,” the source summarized. 

Raising the stakes: Putin slams U.S. nuke threat with ultimatum

From Fort Russ

October 5, 2016 – Fort Russ –
– Rostislav Ishchenko, RIA Novosti
translated by J. Arnoldski –
Following the president of the Russian Federation’s decree on suspending Russia’s compliance with agreements with the US on the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium and the submission of the corresponding bill to the State Duma, disputes have begun in the media on whether this is connected to the rupture of the Syria deal. The second stumbling block is a question: Why is Russia, having known that the US has not fulfilled its part of the deal, only reacted now after a few years?
Some nuclear experts argue that the deal was objectively beneficial for Russia. Maybe. I’m not an expert in this sphere and it’s difficult for me to say how objective they are. Moreover, that which is beneficial from the standpoint of the nuclear industry might be disadvantageous from the point of view of security.
In principle, I think that there were no particular security problems. Russia has a sufficient nuclear arsenal capable of inflicting a deadly blow on the United States. Washington recognizes this as well. There was also more than enough material for the production of new warheads. In the event of full-scale nuclear strike exchanges, the production of another batch of weapons would already be redundant and, indeed, physically impossible. The real problem would be physically preserving the remains of civilization at least at the level of the stone age.
As for the Syria, this is not the first time, and not only in Syria, that the US concludes agreements only to disrupt their fulfillment and then conclude them again. The form of the Russian reaction is clearly not comparable to Washington’s public rejection of cooperation which, in fact, it has yet to do.
I think that in order to understand the scale of this incident, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that Putin has not simply taken Russia out of a contract. He has announced the possibility of returning to it, but he has furnished certain conditions.
Let’s look at these conditions:
(1) the US must lift all sanctions against Russia;
(2) compensation should be paid not only for the losses from American sanctions, but also for the losses incurred by Russian counter-sanctions;
(3) the Magnitsky Act should be repealed;
(4) the US’ military presence in Eastern Europe should be sharply reduced; and
(5) the US should abandon its policy of confrontation with Moscow.
Only one word fits in determining the essence of Putin’s demands: “ultimatum.”
As far as a I remember, the last time that Washington was given an ultimatum was by the United Kingdom over the Trent vessel incident. And that was in 1861 during the American Civil War. Even then, in extremely difficult conditions, America agreed to partially meet British demands.
It should be noted that the British demands in  1861 did not contain anything humiliating for the US. The captain of a US Navy ship had indeed broken international law, arrested people on a neutral (British) ship, and thereby encroached upon the sovereignty of the UK, nearly provoking a war. Then America disavowed the actions of its captain and freed the prisoners, albeit refusing to apologize.
But Putin is not demanding any apologies or the release of a few prisoners, but for all of American policy to be changed, and still more for Russia to be compensated for losses due to the US’ sanctions. This is an unmeetable, humiliating demand. This demand essentially means complete and unconditional surrender in the hybrid war which Washington does not consider to be irreversibly lost. And there’s still all those indemnities payments and reparations.
Something similar was demanded from the US by the British Crown before the end of the war for independence, when the Americans were still King George III’s rebellious subjects. For the last 100 years no one has even imagined talking with Washington in such a tone.
And so, the first conclusion is: Putin has deliberately and demonstratively humiliated the US. He has shown that it is possible to talk tough to the US, even tougher than the US itself has gotten used to talking down to the rest of the world. 
How was this done? What did Putin actually react to? Did he actually think that the US would fulfill the Kerry-Lavrov deal and is now upset over what happened? Russia also knew that Washington has not been observing the plutonium deal for years, but Moscow has extracted serious profit from this for its nuclear industry by nearly becoming a global monopoly and is clearly not perturbed by the US’ technological backwardness preventing them from disposing of weapons-grade plutonium as stipulated in the agreement.  
Russia’s tough and almost immediate reaction followed the statements of the US Secretary of State’s spokesperson to the effect that Russia will have to start sending its troops home from Syria in body bags, is going to start losing planes, and that terrorist attacks will begin to plague Russian cities.
In addition, the State Department’s statement was immediately followed by the Pentagon’s announcement that it is ready to launch a preventative nuclear strike on Russia. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also reported that Moscow knows about the US’ intention to launch an air war against Syrian government forces, which also means against the Russian contingent legally stationed in Syria. 
What else formed the background for Putin’s ultimatum?: The exercises from six months ago involving air and missile defense and strategic missile systems which practiced repelling a nuclear attack on Russia and then launching a responsive counter strike. Add to this the other day’s emergency exercises involving up to 40 million Russian citizens that inspected the readiness of infrastructure and civil defense structures for a nuclear war and provided additional information to citizens on the plan of action in the cause of “X hour.”
If we take all of this together, then we can see that the US has long since informally frightened Russia with a nuclear conflict, and Moscow has regularly hinted that it is ready for such a turn of events and is not going to back down.
However, given the end of Obama’s rule and lacking absolute confidence in a Hillary Clinton victory in presidential elections, the Washington hawks have decided to raise their bets once again. And now things have reached an extremely dangerous limit in which conflict begins to reach the stage of developing independently. At this stage, nuclear Armageddon could begin over any kind of incident, including due to the incompetence of some senior Pentagon officials or White House administrators. 
At this precise moment, Moscow has seized the initiative and upped the ante, but by moving the confrontation onto another plane. Unlike America, Russia is not threatening war. It is simply demonstrating its capability of giving a harsh political and economic response which can, in the event of further inappropriate behavior by the US, realize just the opposite of Obama’s dream: tearing apart Washington’s economy and financial system.
In addition, with these actions, Russia has seriously undermined the international prestige of the US by showing the whole world that America can be beaten with its own weapons. The boomerang has come back. Given such dynamics and turn of events, we might see hundreds of representatives of the American elite at the dock in the Hague not only in our lifetime, but even before the next American president serves their first four-year term in the White House.
The US has been given a choice. Either it will carry through with its threats and start a nuclear war, or it will accept the fact that the world is no longer unipolar, and begin to integrate into the new format.
We don’t know what choice Washington will make. The American political establishment has a sufficient number of ideologically-blinded, incompetent figures who are ready to burn up in a nuclear fire with the rest of a humanity rather than recognize the end of US world hegemony, which has turned out to be short-lived, senseless, and criminal. But they have to make a choice, because the longer that Washington pretends that nothing has happened, the greater the number of its vassals (who are called their allies, but have long since been bogged down in dependency) will openly and explicitly ignore American ambitions and cross over to the other side of the new perspectives of global power arrangement.
In the end, the US could be faced with the status of one of the centers of the multipolar world no longer being available for it. Not only Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans, but also Europeans will gladly take revenge against the former hegemon for their former humiliation. And they are not so humane and peace-loving as Russia.
Finally, Putin’s ultimatum is a response to all of those who were outraged that Russian tanks didn’t take Kiev, Lvov, Warsaw, and Paris in 2014 and pondered over what Putin’s plan could possibly be. 
I can only repeat what I wrote back then. If you are going to confront the global hegemon, then you have to be sure that you will be capable of responding to any of its actions. The economy, army, society, and state and administrative structures should all be ready. If everything is not fully ready, then one needs to buy time and build muscle.
Now things are ready and the cards have been put on the table. Let us see what the US will respond with. But the geopolitical reality will never be the same. The world has already changed. The US has had the gauntlet publicly thrown down before it and they have not dared to pick it up right away. 

“Hotbeds of extremism”?: FBI’s new plan to spy on U.S. high school students

From Project Censored: The top censored stories of 2015-2016

14. FBI’s New Plan to Spy on High School Students across the Country

Under new guidelines issued in January 2016, the FBI is instructing high schools across the country to report students who criticize government policies and “western corruption” as potential future terrorists, Sarah Lazare reported for AlterNet. The new guidelines also warn that young people who are poor, are immigrants, or talk about travel to “suspicious” countries are more likely to commit violence. As Lazare wrote, the FBI’s “Preventing Violent Extremism in Schools” guidelines combine “McCarthy-era theories of radicalization”—in which authorities monitor thoughts and behaviors suspected of leading to acts of violent subversion—with elements of a “widely unpopular” and “deeply controversial” British surveillance program, known as Prevent, that monitors Muslim communities and individuals.

The new guidelines depict US high schools as “hotbeds of extremism,” Lazare summarized. Claiming that youth “possess inherent risk factors,” the FBI guidelines describe high school students as “ideal targets” for recruitment by violent extremists. Educational materials prepared by the FBI for schools indicate that activities ranging from using “unusual language” or “private messaging apps” and encryption (“going dark,” in FBI speak) to playing online games outside of school could indicate that “someone plans to commit violence.”

The guidelines draw on a conveyor belt theory of extremism, which contends that extreme ideas lead to violence, a model tracing back to “the first red scare in America, as well as J. Edgar Hoover’s crackdown on civil rights and anti-war activists,” Lazare wrote. As Hugh Handeyside, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project told Lazare, by broadening the definition of violent extremism, “the FBI is policing students’ thoughts and trying to predict the future based on those thoughts.”

The guidelines “are almost certainly designed” to target Muslim-American students. “In its caution to avoid the appearance of discrimination,” Lazare wrote, “the agency identifies risk factors that are so broad and vague that virtually any young person could be deemed dangerous and worthy of surveillance.” Nonetheless, the guidelines’ repeated focus on “immigrant” and “diaspora” populations, as well as cultural and religious differences, reveal an underlying agenda. The FBI “consistently invokes an Islamic threat without naming it,” Lazare reported. Arun Kundnani, author of The Muslims are Coming!: Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror, about Islamophobia, told AlterNet, “In practice, schools seeking to implement this document will end up monitoring Muslim students disproportionately.”

Writing for Just Security, an online forum based at the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University School of Law, Danielle Jefferis of the ACLU’s National Security Project reported that “the FBI’s request that school officials spy and report on students’ ideas and beliefs risks stifling curiosity and free expression, which corrupts the trust that should exist between teachers and students.” Though the FBI asserts that it does not want to limit students’ freedom of speech, the guidelines encourage school officials to identify students who “engage in communications indicating support for extreme ideologies” or who are “curious about” subject matter that could be deemed extreme.

In calling for schools to create threat assessment teams and to “enhance domain awareness,” the FBI engages in what Jefferis characterized as “fear mongering,” which “will almost assuredly ratchet up the pressure on school officials to go to law enforcement before seeking out alternatives.” This forces school principals with the false dilemma of choosing between keeping their schools safe or upholding students’ rights to freedom of expression and equal protection. Instead, Jefferis concluded, “Our kids are safer, and our communities are stronger, when we work to protect—not erode—our fundamental values and freedoms.”

Lazare’s AlterNet report was republished by Salon. PressTV, the Free Thought Project, MintPress News, and the Intercept subsequently ran stories on the FBI’s “Preventing Violent Extremism in Schools” guidelines, but US corporate news media appear not to have covered this story in any detail.


Sarah Lazare, “The FBI Has a New Plan to Spy on High School Students across the Country” AlterNet, March 2, 2016, http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/fbi-has-new-plan-spy-high-school-students-across-country.

Danielle Jefferis, “The FBI Wants Schools to Spy on Their Students’ Thoughts,” Just Security, March 11, 2016, https://www.justsecurity.org/29901/fbi-schools-spy-students-thoughts/.

Student Researcher: Brandy Miceli (San Francisco State University)

Faculty Evaluator: Kenn Burrows (San Francisco State University)

14. FBI’s New Plan to Spy on High School Students across the Country

Project Censored: News media cover-up of reason for war on Syria — a natural gas pipeline route

Project Censored publishes a book annually of the top 25 unreported or under-reported news stories for the year. This year, the story of a major reason for the Syrian conflict was #8.

8. Syria’s War Spurred by Contest for Gas Delivery to Europe, Not Muslim Sectarianism

At least four years into the crisis in Syria, “most people have no idea how this war even got started,” Mnar Muhawesh reported for MintPress News in September 2015.

In 2011–12, after Syrian president Bashar al-Assad refused to cooperate with Turkey’s proposal to create a natural gas pipeline between Qatar and Turkey through Syria, Turkey and its allies became “the major architects of Syria’s ‘civil war.’” The proposed pipeline would have bypassed Russia to reach European markets currently dominated by Russian gas giant Gazprom. As a result, Muhawesh wrote, “The Middle East is being torn to shreds by manipulative plans to gain oil and gas access by pitting people against one another based on religion. The ensuing chaos provides ample cover to install a new regime that’s more amenable to opening up oil pipelines and ensuring favorable routes for the highest bidders.”

In 2012, the US, UK, France, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, along with Turkey, began to organize, arm, and finance rebels to form the Free Syrian Army, consistent with long-standing US plans to destabilize Syria. These nations formed a pact, “The Group of Friends of the Syrian People,” that implemented a sectarian divide and conquer strategy to overthrow President Assad. “It’s important to note the timing,” Muhawesh wrote. “This coalition and meddling in Syria came about immediately on the heels of discussions of an Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline that was to be built between 2014 and 2016 from Iran’s giant South Pars field through Iraq and Syria. With a possible extension to Lebanon, it would eventually reach Europe, the target export market.” As MintPress News reported, access to oil and gas—not sectarian differences—is the underlying cause of the violent conflict and humanitarian disaster in Syria. “The war is being sold to the public as a Sunni-Shiite conflict” by the Friends of Syria because, if the public understood the economic interests at stake, “most people would not support any covert funding and arming of rebels or direct intervention.”

Based on secret US cables revealed by WikiLeaks, Muhawesh reported that “foreign meddling in Syria began several years before the Syrian revolt erupted.” US State Department cables from 2006 documented plans to instigate civil strife that would lead to the overthrow of Assad’s government. The leaks revealed the United States partnering with nations including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt to fuel Sunni-Shiite sectarianism to divide Syria.

Although there is plenty of coverage in US corporate media about the violence in Syria and the refugee crisis that is sweeping Europe and reaching North America, this coverage has failed to address the economic interests, including control of potentially lucrative gas pipelines, that motivate the US and its allies.  (US corporate news coverage of the Ukraine crisis was comparable in that it too downplayed geopolitical oil interests as a source of tension among Russia, the US, and their respective allies, as Nafeez Ahmed has reported. See “US Media Hypocrisy in Covering Ukraine Crisis,”Censored story #9 from Censored 2015.) Instead, corporate news coverage has characterized the conflict in Syria as a battle for democracy that has been hijacked by Sunni-Shiite interests. For example, Oren Dorell of USA Today identified “a mind-boggling and dangerous stew of shifting and competing alliances” involved in the Syrian conflict—including groups categorized as progovernment, antigovernment, anti-Islamic State, and “other fighters”—but he did not address the gas interests that, according to Muhawesh’s reporting, ultimately underpin the conflict. Instead, much of what passes for news coverage in the corporate press adheres to a pattern that Muhawesh identified and critiqued as simplistic and “Orientalist,” framing conflict in the Middle East and especially Syria as sectarian in order “to paint the region and its people as barbaric.”


Mnar Muhawesh, “Refugee Crisis & Syria War Fueled by Competing Gas Pipelines,” MintPress News, September 9, 2015, http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competing-gas-pipelines/209294/.

Student Researcher: Salah Mouazen (Citrus College)

Faculty Evaluators: Andy Lee Roth and Lanette Granger (Citrus College)

8. Syria’s War Spurred by Contest for Gas Delivery to Europe, Not Muslim Sectarianism

To find out more information on this year’s stories and order the book: http://www.projectcensored.org

Intercepted calls – Proof of U.S. & ISIS coordination: Syrian MP goes public

From Fort Russ

September 26th, 2016 – Fort Russ News –
– Sputnik Arabic and Al Mayadeen – translated by Marwa Osman –
Speaker of the People’s council of Syria, Hadiya Abbas, stated publicly that the Syrian Arab army intercepted calls between the US and Daesh just before the US raids against the SAA in Mount Altherdh in Deir Ezzor. The Syrian government said in related reports that it will make these intercepted calls public.
Syrian foreign minister, Walid Muallem, stated that the US air strikes on Syrian military positions in the Mount Altherdh in DeirEzzor, were not accidental fast strikes, on the contrary they came in coordination with “Daesh”, who immediately invaded the military site command of Deir ez-Zor Airport after the airstrike. Muallem said in an interview with Al Mayadeen Channel that the US air strikes on Syrian military positions in the Mount Altherdh came in direct coordination with the “Daesh” pointing out that they were not even fast strikes, rather they lasted for 50 minutes.
According to Al Muallem: “American Spy drones flew in the airspace of Deir ez-Zor two days before the US raid on the Syrian army positions” and he added that “what confirms that the US deliberately hit the SAA was that the military base had been there in Mount Altherdh for the past two years which debunks the US claim that it was an accident.”

The REAL Syria Civil Defence exposes NATO’s ‘White Helmets’ as terrorist-linked imposters — Part 1

[Editor: I have divided this overview article into two parts]
Global Research, September 24, 2016
21st Century Wire 23 September 2016

I am a director not only of a Syrian Civil Defence Unit, but of brave human beings, volunteers who risk their lives, despite the terrorism that is invading Syria, to maintain security for Syria. I give thanks from my heart for the courage of my men who have lost their comrades in terrorist attacks but they keep working despite the risks. They are true soldiers, their equipment and their spirit are their only weapons ~ Director of Tartous’ REAL Syria Civil Defence

Did I hear a pin drop?  The real Syria Civil Defence? Are the west’s iconized ‘White Helmets’ not the only emergency first-responders inside Syria?

For the REAL Syria Civil Defence you call 113 inside Syria.  There is no public number for the White Helmets.  Why not? Why does this multi-million dollar US & NATO state-funded first repsonder ‘NGO,’ with state of the art equipment supplied by the US and the EU via Turkey, have no central number for civilians to call when the “bombs fall”?

Before we introduce the real Syria Civil Defence, who are Syria’s real ICDO certified civil fire and rescue organisation, let’s first take a closer look at the imposters; terrorists in white hats, and agents of war – NATO’s pseudo ‘NGO’ construct, embedded exclusively in terrorist-held parts of Syria…

We’re told that the White Helmets routinely scale the walls of collapsed buildings and scrambling over smouldering rubble of bombed out buildings to dig a child out with their bare hands. Of course, never without a sizeable camera crew and mobile phone carrying entourage in tow.

white-helmet-camersss
Screenshot from one of the multitude of NATO’s White Helmets promotional videos, as per usual – with fans and camera crew in attendance.

So who, and what exactly are the White Helmets?

Founded in 2013, the White Helmets, officially called the Syria Civil Defense, are often the only emergency first-responders available in rebel-held areas of Syria and claim to have saved more than 58,000 lives. ~ The Slate

netflix-still2
White Helmets ‘Team’ Photo: Screenshot from Netflix promotional documentary.

jlm

British Military officer James Le Mesurier

The western media mythology goes as follows:

They are made up of former bakers, builders, taxi drivers, students, teachers, pretty much anything apart from rescue workers,” according to the much repeated phrase used by their British ex-military, USAR (Urban Search & Rescue) trainer, James Le Mesurier who specialises in outsourcing warfare – the kind of private security operations exemplified by the likes of Blackwater (now known as Academi) and DynCorp, and other well-known global suppliers of mercenaries and CIA outreach assassination experts.

Running operations through Blackwater gave the CIA the power to have people abducted, or killed, with no one in the government being exactly responsible. ~ The Atlantic, 2012

White Helmets founder Le Mesurier, who graduated from Britain’s elite Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, is said to be an ‘ex’ British military intelligence officer involved in a number of other NATO ‘humanitarian intervention’ theatres of war, including Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq, as well as postings in Lebanon and Palestine. He also boasts a series of high-profile posts at the UN, EU, and UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Not to mention his connections back to the infamous Blackwater (Academi).

The White Helmet network showing primary funding sources and James Le Mesurier connections back to deep state  (Image: UK Column)

The streaming giant, Netflix, recently launched the documentary meant to elevate the White Helmets to a Hollywood level of Madison Avenue-styled demagoguery. As an interesting aside: a major shareholder in Netflix just happens to be the Capital Research Global Investors who hosts a number luminaries of the military industrial complex on its books including Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

netflix-final
Variation on the Netflix promotional poster for the NATO White Helmet documentary.
|Poster by: Cory Morningstar of WrongKindofGreen.

Later, in Part III of this article, we will go into depth concerning the recent awards, including an objectionable nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, that have been bestowed upon this group of US, UK, EU backed fifth columnists, or as they would have you believe, “first-responders.”

With over $60 million in their back pocket courtesy of USAID, the UK Foreign Office and various EU nations like the Netherlands, this group is possibly one of the most feted and funded entities within the west’s anti-Syrian NGO complex, a pivotal part of the clandestine shadow state building enterprise inside of Syria.

Like many other ‘NGOs’, the White Helmets have been deployed by the west to derail the Syrian state, first  by undermining existing civic structures and by disseminating staged PR to facilitate regime change propaganda, through western and Gulf state media outlets. Despite the fact that they were started, and are still generously funded by NATO members states, particularly from the US and UK, the White Helmets’ official statement still claims categorically that they are somehow “fiercely independent” and “have accepted no money from governments, corporations or anyone directly involved in the Syrian conflict“. This is both farcical and deeply misleading.

They claim they are not “tied to any political group in Syria, or anywhere else”, yet they are embedded with Al Nusra Front, ISIS and affiliated with the majority of US allied terrorist brigades infesting Syria.  In fact during my recent trip to Syria, I was once again struck by the response from the majority of Syrians when asked if they knew who the White Helmets were.  The majority had never heard of them, others who follow western media noted that they are a “NATO construct being used to infiltrate Syria as a major player in the terrorist support network.”

For further details on the White Helmets and their role in supporting US & NATO state-sponsored terrorism in Syria please refer to the compilation of articles contained in the 21WIRE article: WHO ARE SYRIA’S WHITE HELMETS?

For the rest of the article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-syria-civil-defence-exposes-natos-white-helmets-as-terrorist-linked-imposters/5547528

US Congress seeks to steal 100,000 acres from native Americans in Utah

The Utah Public Lands Initiative was proposed by Utah Congressperson Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz and seeks to “roll back federal policy to the late 1800s when Indian lands and resources were taken from tribal nations for the benefit of others.” — Ute Nation Business Council

Global Research, September 20, 2016
TeleSUR 19 September 2016

Two Republican congresspeople are seeking to pass a controversial bill through the U.S. House of Representatives that would seek the first land grab of Native American lands in 100 years, members of the Ute nation have warned.

The Utah Public Lands Initiative was proposed by Utah Congressperson Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz and seeks to “roll back federal policy to the late 1800s when Indian lands and resources were taken from tribal nations for the benefit of others,” the Ute Business Committee said in an article for the Salt Lake Tribune Saturday.

Bishop and Chaffetz will present the bill to the House in few weeks, and if passed it would see 18 million acres of public lands in Eastern Utah downgraded from protected lands and turned into oil and gas drilling zones that are exempted from environmental protections, Think Progress reported earlier this year when the bill was unveiled.

“The actions of Bishop and Chaffetz would seek to divest the Ute Indian Tribe of their ancestral homelands,” the committee added while also bringing back “failed policies of tribal land dispossession that have had a devastating and lasting impact upon tribal nations for the past century.”

The bill proposes to make more than 100,000 acres of the Ute reservation lands for the state of Utah. “This modern day Indian land grab cannot be allowed to stand,” the committee argued.

The nation further slammed the legislators for utterly failing to consult and work with leaders of the Native American community in drafting such a bill when it proposes taking away more than 26 percent of its lands.

“Representing more than a quarter of these eastern Utah lands, the tribe should have been a major participant in the development of any bill to address problems in federal land management. We were not,” the committee warned in their article.

The news comes as more than 100 Indigenous groups have been organizing major mobilizations against the Dakota Access pipeline which sparked a wave of international solidarity.

The US$3.8 billion pipeline would carry shale from the Bakken oil region in North Dakota to oil refineries on the Gulf Coast.