White Helmets/al Nusra bases in east Aleppo and M10 hospital still standing — what the mainstream news won’t tell (VIDEO, AUDIO)

Global Research, March 18, 2017
21st Century Wire 15 March 2017

The US and its allies have spun a web of lies about Syria over the last 6 years. After West and Gulf-backed terrorists were driven from their stronghold in eastern Aleppo this past December, the West’s propaganda facade has been gradually disintegrating. 

On a recent SUNDAY WIRE episode, host Patrick Henningsen conducted a live interview with French humanitarian Pierre Le Corf, who has been based in Aleppo for the last year. In this incredibly segment, Le Corf gives details about the the current safety situation in the city, as well as new evidence which reinforces previous reports regarding the US and UK funded White Helmets’ obvious terrorist affiliations.

Listen to Le Corf’s interview segment here:

Le Corf’s video completely dismantles the corporate media’s deceptive White Helmet narrative which the west has been promoting intensely over the last 3 and half years.

Pierre Le Corf writes: “As a French citizen, I refuse to support my country’s criminal foreign policy. Please read my letter to the President of the French republic where I outline my objections very clearly. In less than two hours I have gathered images of two hospitals that are still operating, claimed to have been destroyed. I have walked past tonnes of medicines reserved for the various terrorist groups and prohibited for civilians. I have passed by the remains of the buildings under the control of Jabhat Al Nusra and the Free Syrian Army, next door to the White Helmets building, which as civilian testimony shows us, mainly helped terrorists not civilians.”

Watch this stunning video walk-through of former White Helmet and Al Nusra (al Qaeda) encampments in war-torn East Aleppo:

The original source of this article is 21st Century Wire
Copyright © Patrick Henningsen and Pierre Le Corf, 21st Century Wire, 2017

http://www.globalresearch.ca/terrorism-with-a-human-face-white-helmets-were-al-qaedas-next-door-neighbours-in-aleppo/5580274

NATO weapons to al Qaeda near Damascus, seized by government forces

Global Research, March 15, 2017
Syria News 13 March 2017
Flag_of_NATO.svg
NATO weapons (Made in the UK) in possession of terrorists from al-Qaeda group were found and seized by a Syrian Arab Army unit in Damascus Countryside.

The first truck loaded with weapons, described as the smaller one, had a full arsenal of missiles and munition made in UK and hidden under boxes of vegetables. It was coming from Daraa city in the south where the SAA is fighting a fierce battle against a new wave of terrorists attacks re-enforced from Jordan.

image-nato-weapons-heading-to-alqaeda-confiscated-by-saa-near-damascus

SAA Seizes 2 Shipments of NATO Weapons to Al Qaeda Near Damascus

The second truck heading to Kiswa city south of the Syrian capital Damascus loaded with automatic machine guns, firearms, and live munitions. The arsenal was boxed and wrapped with aluminum foils to avoid detection by the SAA checkpoints.

This shipment of weapons was shipped the same time the NATO sponsored terrorists of FSA blew up civilian buses in the heart of Damascus killing scores of mostly Iraqi pilgrims on a religious visit to shrines in Bab Sgheir cemetery in the old famous Shaghour neighborhood.

It’s of no surprise the NATO’s full engagement arming terrorists fighting to destroy Syria and turn it into a failed state, similar to their previous ‘achieved goals’ in Libya and Iraq and elsewhere. The timing however might be surprising to the Russian leadership which keeps falling in the same trap time and again trying to struck deals with their ‘Western partners’ and the Erdogan regime in NATO member state Erdoganstan (formerly Turkey).

To help refugees, stop arming terrorists – Rep. Tulsi Gabbard

From RT

March 1, 2017

To help refugees, stop arming terrorists – Rep. Tulsi Gabbard

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

Historic civil law suit against alleged war criminal George W. Bush in California: Chilcot Report submitted to the Ninth Circuit Court

Global Research, July 25, 2016
Witness Iraq 23 July 2016

We are pleased to announce that excerpts from the Chilcot Report by the British Iraq Inquiry Committee have been submitted to the Ninth Circuit in support of the plaintiff’s case in Saleh v. Bush, et al.

What is the current status of the case?

Currently, Saleh v. Bush is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.  Ms. Saleh’s lawsuit in federal court against US government leaders named as Defendants — George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz — was dismissed in December 2014 after the district court immunized the Defendants, ruling they were acting within the lawful scope of their employment when they planned and executed the Iraq War.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair shaking hands with Defendant-Appellee George W. Bush.

Ms. Saleh is arguing on appeal that the Defendants should not be immunized. She alleges that the Defendants  were acting from personally held convictions that the US should invade Iraq, regardless of any legitimate policy reasons. Specifically, she is pointing to a record of statements made by some of the Defendants in leading neoconservative outlets in which they called for the military overthrow of the Hussein regime as early as 1997.

She is also arguing that Bush administration officials knowingly lied to the public by fraudulently tying Hussein to Al Qaida and the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Such misrepresentations would also make them personally liable for their conduct under relevant law.

The Ninth Circuit has not indicated when it will issue a ruling on the appeal.

What is the Chilcot Report?

The Chilcot Report is the final report issued by the Iraq Inquiry, a committee established by the British Government in 2009 to investigate what happened during the run up to the Iraq War. Composed of British “privy counsellors,” the report was released on July 6, 2016 after more than 6 years of investigation, research, and drafting.

Why is the Chilcot Report important to the Saleh v. Bush lawsuit?

The Chilcot Report contains (i) factual conclusions by the privy counsellors about what happened during the run up to the Iraq War, (ii) actual documentation (including written notes between Blair and Bush) that show a plan to go to war in Iraq as early as October 2001, and (iii) statements of international law by distinguished experts who have concluded that the Iraq War was illegal and constituted aggression against Iraq.

What are some of the pieces of evidence submitted to the Ninth Circuit?

These are some of the excerpts that we highlighted for the Ninth Circuit as evidence that the Iraq War was illegal, and that government leaders were not acting within the lawful scope of their employment authority when they planned and executed the Iraq War:

Conclusions of the Iraq Inquiry Committee:

  1. President Bush decided at the end of 2001 to pursue a policy of regime change in Iraq.
  1. On 26 February 2002, Sir Richard Dearlove, the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, advised that the US Administration had concluded that containment would not work, was drawing up plans for a military campaign later in the year, and was considering presenting Saddam Hussein with an ultimatum for the return of inspectors while setting the bar “so high that Saddam Hussein would be unable to comply.”
  1. Mr Straw’s advice of 25 March proposed that the US and UK should seek an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to re-admit weapons inspectors. That would provide a route for the UK to align itself with the US without adopting the US objective of regime change. This reflected advice that regime change would be unlawful.
  1. Sir Richard Dearlove reported that he had been told that the US had already taken a decision on action – “the question was only how and when;” and that he had been told it intended to set the threshold on weapons inspections so high that Iraq would not be able to hold up US policy.

Conclusions of the Iraq Inquiry Committee related to the legal analysis of the British government leading up to the war:

  1. Despite being told that advice was not needed for Mr Blair’s meeting with President Bush on 31 January, Lord Goldsmith wrote on 30 January to emphasise that his view remained that resolution 1441 did not authorise the use of military force without a further determination by the Security Council.
  1. Mr Wood had warned Mr Straw on 24 January that “without a further decision by the Council, and absent extraordinary circumstances”, the UK would not be able lawfully to use force against Iraq.
  1. Mr Wood wrote that Kosovo was “no precedent”: the legal basis was the need to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe; no draft resolution had been put to the Security Council; and no draft had been vetoed. He hoped there was: “… no doubt in anyone’s mind that without a further decision of the Council, and absent extraordinary circumstances (of which at present there is no sign), the United Kingdom cannot lawfully use force against Iraq to ensure compliance with its SCR WMD obligations. To use force without Security Council authority would amount to the crime of aggression.”
  1. Lord Goldsmith recognised that there was a possibility of a legal challenge

Underlying statements and facts relied on by the Iraq Inquiry Committee

15 January 2010 Statement by Foreign & Commonwealth Office legal advisor Sir Michael Wood to the Iraq Inquiry Committee

I considered that the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law. In my opinion, that use of force had not been authorized by the Security Council, and had no other legal basis in international law.

18 January 2010 Statement by Foreign & Commonwealth Office legal advisor Elizabeth Wilmshurst to the Iraq Inquiry Committee

I regarded the invasion of Iraq as illegal, and I therefore did not feel able to continue in my post. I would have been required to support and maintain the Government’s position in international fora. The rules of international law on the use of force by States are at the heart of international law. Collective security, as opposed to unilateral military action, is a central purpose of the Charter of the United Nations. Acting contrary to the Charter, as I perceived the Government to be doing, would have the consequence of damaging the United Kingdom’s reputation as a State committed to the rule of law in international relations and to the United Nations.

12 July 2010 Statement by Carne Ross, First Secretary of the U.K. Permanent Mission to the U.N. to the Iraq Inquiry Committee

This process of exaggeration was gradual, and proceeded by accretion and editing from document to document, in a way that allowed those participating to convince themselves that they were not engaged in blatant dishonesty. But this process led to highly misleading statements about the UK assessment of the Iraqi threat that were, in their totality, lies.

October 11, 2001 message from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to George W. Bush

I have no doubt we need to deal with Saddam. But if we hit Iraq now, we would lose the Arab world, Russia, probably half of the EU …

However, I am sure we can devise a strategy for Saddam deliverable at a later date. My suggestion is, in order to give ourselves space that we say: phase 1 is the military action focused on Afghanistan because it’s there that perpetrators of 11 September hide. Phase 2 is the medium and longer term campaign against terrorism in all its forms. …

(Mr. Blair was apparently discussing with Defendant-Appellee Bush regime change in Iraq just one month after the attacks that took place on September 11, 2001. Mr. Blair’s suggestion for “phase 1” of the U.S.-U.K. strategy on the war on terrorism to first direct military action toward “Afghanistan because it’s there that perpetrators of 11 September hide,” further supports allegations that U.S. officials used an unrelated terrorist attack to execute a pre-existing plan of regime change in Iraq.  Mr. Blair then went on to discuss a “phase 2” that would include invading Iraq).

December 4, 2001 message from  former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to George W. Bush

Iraq is a threat because it has WMD capability … But any link to 11 September and AQ [Al Qaeda] is at best very tenuous; and at present international opinion would be reluctant, outside the US/UK, to support immediate military action … So we need a strategy for regime change that builds over time. …

(This note supports allegations that U.S. government leaders were aware that Iraq had no link to the 9/11 attacks or Al Qaeda and support allegations that U.S. government leaders made false statements to the public about the threat Iraq posed, or its connection to Al Qaeda, in order to support a war and satisfy personally-held objectives of regime change that had no legitimate policy underpinning)

July 28, 2002 message from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to George W. Bush:

I will be with you, whatever …

The Evidence. Again, I have been told the US thinks this unnecessary. But we still need to make the case. If we recapitulate all the WMD evidence; add his attempts to secure nuclear capability; and, as seems possible, add on Al Qaida link, it will be hugely persuasive over here.

(This note confirms that U.S. government official’s intent to invade Iraq was well-formed by July 2002. Mr. Blair’s July 2002 note to George W. Bush observed that U.S. officials thought evidence supporting regime change was “unnecessary” and that an “Al Qaida link” could be simply be tacked onto government messaging in order to sell the war).

Statements by legal experts who have concluded that the Iraq War was illegal

10 September 2010 Submission by Philippe Sands QC to the Iraq Inquiry Committee

Distinguished members of the legal community in the United Kingdom have also concluded without ambiguity that the war was unlawful.

9 September 2010 Statement by Professor Nicholas Grief to the Iraq Inquiry Committee (emphasis added).

A second Security Council resolution specifically and unambiguously authorising military action was required. The vague warning of ‘serious consequences’ in resolution 1441 did not suffice, and to interpret resolution 678 as granting the necessary authority was not ‘good faith’ interpretation as required by international law. Without such a resolution, the invasion of Iraq constituted an act of aggression, contrary to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

What happens next?

The Department of Justice has indicated that it will oppose the filing of these portions from the Chilcot Report with the Ninth Circuit. We will circulate the DOJ opposition once it has been filed.

Terror attack in Nice: Open letter to President Hollande, the French Republic’s Frankenstein

Global Research, July 16, 2016

President Hollande, after this terrorist attack that has rocked our country, you addressed the nation with emotion and dignity, expressing your compassion for the victims.  We assume you have been well informed as you were able to immediately point the finger of blame at the perpetrators and you called upon France to display unity and solidarity against the “islamist terrorism”. You called upon us to close ranks and to harness all our energies in confronting this terrible threat.

But this entirely legitimate call for national cohesion, when our country is feeling so vulnerable, should not prohibit citizens from questioning your policies. From the day you were elected, you have claimed to be ceaselessly combatting terrorism. But in reality, you appear to be doing exactly the opposite.

Instead of combatting evil you have been focusing your efforts against those who are truly fighting it. You tell us you are fighting terrorism but you never cease your demonization of and campaign against Syria and Bashar al Assad.

You condemned this sovereign state to the horrors of the same criminals who open fire upon our cafes and restaurants, this sovereign state detested by your American-Zionist allies because it refuses to bow down to their diktat. The Jihadist mercenaries were looking for a target and you cynically gave them Damascus.

Image right: Prof. Bruno Guigue

Yes, thousands of young people have been brainwashed by your war propaganda and persuaded to take up arms against this despised state that you dream of bombing into oblivion. It is your foreign affairs minister, Laurent Fabius who launched this mission when he declared that Bashar al Assad does not deserve to live and that the Syrian Al Qaeda [Al Nusra Front] were doing a “good job” in Syria.

You can try to conceal your responsibility, but we all can see now how these attacks committed in France are a direct result of your failed foreign policy. Why are there no attacks in Italy, Argentina or Japan? Are the French being collectively punished for your refusal to co-operate with Syrian intelligence to identify the french jihadists and prevent their return to France?

Do our compatriots know that you expressly forbid the transfer of funds to the majority of the Syrian people living in government held areas inside Syria? Do they know that you have never once expressed your sorrow for the multitude of Syrian victims of Al Qaeda atrocities or that you persist in the imposition of sanctions upon these people enduring relentless mass terrorist attacks?

You decided to play a role in the Syrian conflict and you sugar-coated your involvement with humanitarian pretexts which are now collapsing like a house of cards, exuding the acrid stench of hydrocarbons. You have dragged France into a swamp which should have been avoided at all costs and you have exposed your people to a boomerang effect bringing with it, unimaginable devastation. You have brought home the violence that you and your neo-colonialist allies have unleashed.

Do you think the French will thank you especially once they have unraveled the truth of this dramatic event?

Mr Hollande, when the dust has settled on this drama, and the compassion photo-shoot is over, the patriotic unity celebrations finished, are you once more going to award medals to the bankrollers of terror? Overtly condemning terrorism while covertly entertaining its Saudi sponsors. The US has its Frankenstein in George W Bush, the sorcerer’s apprentice of geopolitical chaos. You are his equal – you are France’s own Frankenstein.

By affiliating France with a mafioso, manipulated, sectarian “rebellion”, thinking you were boxing clever while on the ropes, you have fed the monster that is now extending its tentacles into France. You allied yourself with DAESH while they were fighting Assad but condemned them after the first executions of westerners in Iraq. Thus you nourished resentment among these criminals from whom you seemed to expect greater understanding.

You have been advised by pseudo-experts whose intellectual independence is entirely dependent upon how much you pay them, so its impossible for you to extricate yourself from your errors without being overruled. Instead, you continue to throw dust in our eyes with the “State of Emergency” and to “windmill” your little arms. We are nine months away from the elections where, of course,  you will try to manipulate the facts.

Your legacy will be the rotting fruit of your political ineptitude, the manifestation of your incompetence as a minister who confuses Saddam Hussein with Bashar al Assad, an absurdity that does not even raise a smile on this day of universal grief.

Translation by Vanessa Beeley for 21st Century Wire.

The original article can be consulted at arretsurinfo.ch

Bruno Guigue is a French author and political analyst born in Toulouse 1962. Professor of philosophy and lecturer in international relations for highter education. The author of 5 books including  Aux origines du conflit Israélo-Arabe, l’invisible remords de l’Occident (L’Harmattan, 2002).