Syria

A Turkish act of war against Russia. A No Fly zone in Northern Syria to protect ISIS. Response options.

Posted by

0

By Joaquin Flores
Global Research, November 25, 2015

Turkey has committed an act of War against the Russian Federation, in its downing of a Russian Su-24 fighter jet.  

A Turkish fighter jet shot down the Russian plane. Militia, under Turkish command, have killed the pilot who attempted to surrender. The pilot, being one man surrounded by hostile forces, clearly unable and not wanting to fight, would have followed protocols and Geneva convention proscribed procedures, and attempted to surrender. Instead, he was either killed in the field or executed by the Turkmen militia once captured.

It is highly probable that these actions taken by militia, as a proxy force under direct command from Ankara, carried out these actions with tacit state approval.  Turkmen militias have played a supportive role in supporting ISIS border crossings and ISIS oil shipments into Turkey.

Turkey claims the jet violated airspace, and that therefore the aggression was Russia’s.  There are numerous problems with this claim, leading to the conclusion that the ‘Act of War’ is Turkey’s.

First, the question here is whether the airspace was in fact violated.  The previous Russian response to the October 5th incident should be deemed a short-term diplomatic success, but an overall strategic failure.  Russia did not challenge that a technical violation had occurred, but relied on technical-legal factors such as degree of the violation, the intent of the pilot (scope of mission) and that no harm was done. Two stories ran immediately following the October 5th incident – 1.) that the violation was accidental, and contrary to this, 2.) that the violation was a maneuver meant to avoid anti-air activity from the ground in Syria. Instead of sticking to the second story, the first story was more heavily promoted and became dominant. This precludes an ‘easy course’ for Russia to use this pretext in the event of a future incident, which has now happened.

A violation of airspace is in and of itself a legal matter within international law and agreements between states. 

The manner and degree in which airspace is trespassed, and the probable intentions of the pilot, are both factors that must figure into a state’s legal and diplomatic justifications in deciding to shoot down a plane that has allegedly violated airspace.

Thus, justifiable responses are largely considered those which contain sufficient elements of parity or mirroring of the initial activity in question. The factors are the degree of the violation (how many km into the territory), which also speaks to the intention itself; The official mission of the pilot(s) and whether an ulterior mission is probable or possible;  In connection with this, whether the offending party, in this case Russia, has any actual or possible targets in Turkey if it posed any threat immediate to Turkish national security (immediate threats are dealt with immediately, other kinds dealt with diplomatically, etc.). Finally, if the offending party has any overt goal in an outright provocation

Therefore, the first factors which lead us to conclude that the Turkish response did not mirror the Russian actions are that:

1.) Russia has no formal or informal targets in Turkey- The plane posed no threat to Turkish national security, when construed legally.

2.) Russia has no geopolitical gain to be made from violating Turkish airspace (therefore, incidental).

This means that Turkey’s act can be construed as an act of war.

Turkey is performing NATO’s task – establishing a No-Fly zone in Northern Syria

The No-Fly zone is to protect ISIS supply lines in the north and north-east, including into Iraq as well.

In response to the Turkish aggression, Putin today has openly declared that the Turkish state itself is supporting ISIS terrorism. This follows a major report released last week showing the individuals and private-co-public institutions from certain states (Qatar, Turkey, KSA, etc.) supporting ISIS. Today’s statement from the Kremlin is aimed at disambiguation.

Were Turkey’s actions against Russia  a provocation, or a response?

Analysis indicates a bit of both, but tending towards response.

Turkey struggles to maintain its interest in the Syrian conflict, importing oil from ISIS controlled areas.  Russia recently dealt a serious blow to ISIS, striking a convoy of oil trucks headed to Turkey. From this perspective, Turkey has retaliated against Russia.

Erdogan’s son Bilal Erdogan is the owner of some 500 of the trucks used by ISIS to transport oil into Turkey.  It was these trucks that were struck by Russian attack jets during the past week. Therefore, Erdogan’s decision to shoot down the Russian Su-24 met these important requirements for NATO and Erdogan’s increasingly unstable AKP rule:

1.) Develop a NATO No-Fly Zone in northern Syria

2.) Establish Turkey unabashedly as a supporter of ISIS (to deflate the impact of the Russian investigation)

3.) Force increased NATO official action, possible invocation of Article 5 which would, for France, make independent or even Russian-coordinated anti-ISIS action extremely difficult. It would also openly activate German anti-air batteries located on the Turkish border

4.) Force a Russian response, which regardless of the nature of the response, has the advantage of requiring the opponent to make a move at a predictable time (known time of move is very important in strategy)

5.) Further activate anti-Russian, pro-Atlanticist opposition within Russia. Inside Russia, the 5th and 6th column will use this against the Russian state – the 5th saying this is proof that the Russian activity in Syria produces unwanted consequences.  The 6th will say that this is proof that Russia needs to push further (pursue a course of blind entanglement).

6.) Eliminate all positive speculation about Turkish-Stream – push Russia into a one-track solution ‘Nordstream II’, which later can be singled out and attacked by NATO through pressure on Berlin

7.) Retaliate and ‘make a strong statement’ about Bilal Erdogan’s personal business being targeted

8.) Marginalize anti-Erdogan forces within Turkey, shift the national dialogue from internal to external

At the present time it is difficult to order these by significance, except that the last two points are probably secondary or tertiary in importance in the broad geostrategic schemata.

What will Russia’s response be?

Russia’s response, to be sufficient, must address each of the above NATO and Turkey goals. These are ordered in direct relation to the above.  Some responses are short term, others more long term, in relation to the actions of Turkey and NATO.

1.) Continue to be active in Northern Syria – it has 4 mandates for this: legal, political, sovereign, and strategic. The loss of this plane, even several others, is militarily and strategically acceptable.

2.) Concretize the discourse – following up on the ISIS finance investigation and Putin’s statements today –  that Russian activity in Syria that happens to be anti-Turkish is in fact anti-Terrorist and therefore lawful action. Distinguish between Turkey as a sovereign state, Turkish long term interests, and thirdly the individual players running the Turkish establishment (Erdogan, AKP, et al) in anti-Turkish activities in Syria. Make Turkish support for ISIS a criminal matter of ‘the regime’ and its supporters, and not Turkish security and the Turkish state all together.

3.) Continue to invoke the Paris attacks as further pretext for anti-ISIS actions in Syria: Perpetuate rift between anti-ISIS France and pro-ISIS Turkey, focus and broaden the scope of this obvious contradiction. Create a security related ‘amicus brief’ to the French prosecutors and courts pursuing the Paris attack matter: this should focus on Turkish connections to ISIS. Push the Paris-Berlin axis to oppose Article 5 invocation.

4.) Russia must not be controlled by any forced response, but must forge its own activity. Initial public statements may suffice – further actions should follow the doctrine of mirrored/parity based response.  These do not need to be carried out immediately.  Again, single plane and the loss of a single pilot is an acceptable loss in purely strategic and military terms. The only possible problems are internal public discourse, as well as diplomatic. Russia must regain control time and timing.  Among Turkmen fighters in Syria are Turkish nationals as advisers and leaders: Deploying a Syrian, Iranian, or Russian special force to neutralize or arrest these individuals would be an example of a mirrored/parity based response.

5.)  Activated Russian 5th and 6th column threats exist at top levels, but cannot create  much political instability in Russia outside of mass media. Thus, their modes of attack in this stage are primarily rhetorical.  Therefore, activities to neutralize these should be rhetorical.

a.) The Kremlin must continue its course of public statements. Rule number 1 – never directly address the 5th and 6th columnists, only make statements which are totally based in one’s own policy and proclivities, and never as a response to the critiques of others, which may seem to give the specter of legitimizing such criticisms.  The opposition cannot be helped to exist as a viable source of policy formation, in any way.

b.) Neutralizing the 5th column, this is along the lines of acknowledging the risks and responsibilities that go along with military action – emphasizing the need for them, invoking a combination of the Sinai terrorist attack, the Paris terrorist attack, and Russia’s own experience with Wahhabi terrorism from Chechnya.

c.) Neutralizing the 6th column, reaffirm the need and plan for a robust and adequate counter-measure, while emphasizing the need to avoid being ensnared or losing sight of the mission; this will tacitly accuse the 6th column of promoting an irresponsible course without ever addressing them.

6.) Aggressively push Bulgaria back onto a South-Stream course.  All options on the table including the complete utilization of the Color-Spring technology: ‘peaceful’ regime change in Bulgaria if necessary

a.) Russia can here capitalize on its successes to thwart NATO attempts at Color-Spring maneuvers in Macedonia and Montenegro.  Publicly affirm that Serbia’s course towards the EU is a positive one. Welcome increased security integration of the Serbian military and deep-state into already developing Russian structures in Serbia.

b.) Alternately, Romania can be a surrogate for Bulgaria in South-Stream – at least as a stand-in to push Bulgarian energy and political elites into the course of a pro-Russian oriented power transition. Romania can be brought in with adequate resolution of Moldova and Transnistria issues, as well as other more mundane – but still outstanding – matters relating to grain and real estate.

7.) Publicize Bilal Erdogan’s role in supporting ISIS – engage in a media campaign which personalizes an otherwise state-based, abstracted accusation into a personality based, anthropomorphic version of the same. Publicly connect Turkey’s actions against the Russia to the criminal activities of Bilal Erdogan.

8.) Re-activate the pro-Eurasianist NGO’s which took part in the ‘Turkish Spring’ at Taksim Gezi park in Istanbul. Here is where Russia first showed its ability to utilize the Color-Spring tactic outside of defensive internal counter-operations.  Capitalize from the Russian success in getting Dogu Perincek released from prison, along with other pro-Eurasian military leaders, former generals, and members of the Worker’s Party (now called Patriotic Party), following the so-called Ergenekon conspiracy and Sledgehammer cases. Raise the demands – “political reform, anti-corruption, infrastructure, healthcare, education, anti-war/militarism, pluralist and civil rights”.  Pursue full support for the active socialist or social-nationalist opposition groups in Turkey today. These are not likely to succeed in taking power, will succeed in creating internal disruptions that make present Turkish regional aims more difficult to pursue.

Other theatres of Russia-Turkey Conflict – Recipe for Total War

Russia does not war.  Ultimately, war only benefits the US ruling class, safely across the Atlantic, and supports the needs of both the Military Industrial Complex and City of London and Wall Street based banking elites. To that end, we should expect the following

1.) Increased Turkish support for Tatar extremist groups in Crimea, making a two-pronged attack on Crimea following the recent Kiev backed attack on the power station. These extremist groups exist based on Turkish support, actual Crimean laws in the wake of the constitutional process to re-join Russia have granted minority status rights to Tatars which were denied to them by previous Kiev governments, including rights to language, schools, and plural and civic institutions. Therefore, today’s Crimean Tatar extremist groups cannot exist outside of artificial foreign backing.  Moderate Crimean minority leadership is institutional and supports the Crimean government and, by extension, Russia.

2.) Increased support of Turkey for Azerbaijan – supporting their aims in the conflict with Armenia over the contested border regions.  Russia will increase its support for Armenia.  This will act in connection with the Azeri natural gas project controlled presently by the Shah Denis consortium, now running the Shah Dennis 2 or Full Field Development (FFD) project. This will revive the Nabucco project in the wake of the total freezing of Turkish-Russian stream speculation. This will mitigate the economic/speculative impact on energy markets of this major cooling in Russian-Turkish bilateral relations.

3.) Turkey will collaborate further in supporting ISIS with Qatar and KSA in Khorasan/Kwarazem and Turkmen regions east of the Caspian, broadly speaking, Turkic lands – creating a total or final link between Caucus conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Syria-Iran conflict with Qatar/Israel/Turkey/KSA, and Afghan ‘Al Qaeda’ Mujahideen who will attempt push into Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

4.) Final short-term goal will be breach of security in pro-Russian Kazakhstan, and Russian Dagestan, and Chechnya. Uzbekistan pulled from the CSTO in 2012, but remains in the Chinese SCO: NATO destabilization attempts in the region hold the promise of pushing Uzbekistan closer to Russia (while remaining close to China).

Joaquin Flores is a Mexican-American expat based in Belgrade. He is a full-time analyst and director at the Center for Syncretic Studies, a public geostrategic think-tank and consultancy firm, as well Veritas, a London based private geostrategic consultancy firm, and as as the co-editor of Fort Russ news service. His expertise encompasses Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and he has a strong proficiency in Middle East affairs. Flores is particularly adept at analyzing ideology and the role of mass psychology, as well as the methods of the information war in the context of 4GW and New Media. He is a political scientist educated at California State University. In the US, he worked for a number of years as a labor union organizer, chief negotiator, and strategist for a major trade union federation. He presently serves as the president of the Berlin based Independent Journalist Association for Peace.

The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Joaquin Flores, Global Research, 2015
http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-turkish-act-of-war-against-russia-a-no-fly-zone-in-northern-syria/5491265

The gospel according to NATO

Posted by

0

 

• Was Russia in Turkish airspace? NATO says “yes” according to Turkish and allies’ intelligence; US representatives say the US and allies don’t know yet. Why is NATO lying?

Here is the transcript and video of the press conference with NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/events_67375.htm

Here is the press conference with Col. Steve Warren.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?401224-1/defense-department-briefing-military-operations-isis

Here is the later press conference with Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook
http://www.c-span.org/video/?401225-1/defense-department-briefing

Also, the press conference by Presidents Obama and Hollande, where they also answered questions on the Turkish action:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?401211-1/president-obama-joint-news-conference-french-president-francois-hollande

Pentagon spokesman Cook said several times including at 14:00 – “the US and several other allies are not able to conclude definitively” that the Russian jet went into Turkish air space. He said the report of going into Turkish airspace is from Turkey. “We are still gathering the details to find out exactly what happened here.”

President Obama said the U.S. doesn’t know yet.

Both Col. Warren and Mr. Cook state that they are still evaluating data. Col. Warren says it is not easy.

But, NATO’s Stoltenberg says

The Allied assessments we have got from several Allies during the day are consistent with information we have been provided with from Turkey. So the information we have from other Allies is consistent with what we have got from Turkey.

So who are the allies Stoltenberg is referring to? Is he lying?

• Secretary General Stoltenberg on the NATO club: “We support the territorial integrity of Turkey”…but not Syria

At 30:36, Col. Warren says, “All aircraft should respect the sovereignty of nations around them, absolutely. “

Oops. He didn’t mean that. The US, France and other partners are continually violating the sovereignty of Syria and other countries. Only NATO club members get territorial integrity. They can invade anyone outside the club because non-members don’t have territorial integrity according to them.

• Solidarity with Turkey…or solidarity with ISIS/Daesh

Turkey’s alliances with Daesh are well known. Connections with Daesh/ISIS go all the way to the top. Plus, Turkey has stolen Syrian manufacturing infrastructure, transported it across its border, and reassembled it in Turkey. Smuggled Syrian and Iraqi oil is going to Turkey, across Turkey’s open border. So, solidarity with Turkey is solidarity with ISIS, pure and simple.

Of course, NATO members are also up to their elbows in Daesh/ISIS. They supply, advise, arm, and protect their mafia. It’s a family affair, after all.

• Obama says Turkey has a right to defend its airspace. Doesn’t Syria?

Turkey has rights and Syria has no rights.

Peter Cook: “The United States and NATO support the right of Turkey to defend its airspace and sovereignty.”…”As a NATO ally, they have a right to defend NATO airspace.”

NATO has rights, but no one outside NATO does, like Libya or Yemen or Iraq or eastern Ukraine. That is how Messrs. Obama, Stoltenberg, Hollande, et al see it.

Is NATO airspace something holy, inviolate, sacrosanct, and righteous? No, it’s pure bullshit. However, this chilling predatory worldview is held by the people that control our countries and our militaries, including the United States.

Syria has every right to defend its airspace by any means necessary including enlisting the aid of other countries to help them do so. It can defend its sovereignty and attack anyone who enters its territory and airspace without its express permission.

• US has no control over its mercenaries

The attacks on Russian pilots and rescue helicopter were done by US-trained mercenaries (“moderates”). In answer to a question on that, Col. Steve Warren said (11:50), “US control of its [mercenary] forces ends when they cross over into Syria.”

So, the Pentagon has no control over US-trained mercenaries once they cross the Syrian border. These mercenaries are wind-up assassins. And it was American-made TOW missiles that those mercenaries may have used to shoot down the Russian helicopter. Wind up these mercenaries, give them lots of weapons, boost them over the territorial border of another sovereign country, and let them run free.

Now that’s sensible, moral, and responsible foreign policy.

• The NATO press conference came to an abrupt end.

Perhaps the questions were getting too uncomfortable for Secretary General Stoltenberg.

NOTE: These press conferences have many very useful quotes.

NATO statement on downing of Russian fighter jet

Posted by

0

Press conference by Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg following North Atlantic Council meeting, 24 Nov. 2015

Video is here: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/events_67375.htm

From NATO
Statement by the NATO Secretary General after the extraordinary NAC meeting
24 Nov. 2015
Press Release (2015) 169

“The North Atlantic Council has just held a meeting, an extraordinary meeting. And we have been updated by the Turkish Ambassador on the recent events. I have also spoken to Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg during his press conference

Turkey informed Allies about the downing of a Russian Air Force plane violating Turkish airspace.

I have previously expressed my concerns about the implications of the military actions of the Russian Federation close to NATO’s borders.

This highlights the importance of having and respecting arrangements to avoid such incidents in the future.

As we have repeatedly made clear, we stand in solidarity with Turkey and support the territorial integrity of our NATO Ally, Turkey.

We will continue to follow the developments on the South-Eastern borders of NATO very closely.

I look forward to further contacts between Ankara and Moscow and I call for calm and de-escalation.

Diplomacy and de-escalation are important to resolve this situation.

Now I’m ready to take your questions.

Q (CNN): The Russians are saying the plane was shot down over Syrian territory and never went into Turkish territory. Are you convinced that it was shot down indeed over Turkish airspace and that Turkish airspace was indeed violate[d]?

Secretary General: The Allied assessments we have got from several Allies during the day are consistent with information we have been provided with from Turkey. So the information we have from other Allies is consistent with what we have got from Turkey.

Q (Kurdish media): Mr Stoltenberg, how could be the situation and your position if tension between Russia and Turkey raised? You said that you are continue looking at developments. How could be your position if tensions continue to rise between Russia and Turkey? Thank you.

Secretary General: I’ve think I’ve expressed very clearly that we are calling for calm and de-escalation. This is a serious situation. This is a situation which calls on that we all are prudent and that we all contribute to de-escalating the situation.

And that’s also the reason why I welcome further contacts between Moscow and Ankara. There has been contacts and we would welcome even more contacts. To partly to solve this concrete incident, but also to continue to work on the development and also the strengthening of mechanisms to avoid these kinds of situation in the future.

Actually, inside the Alliance we are discussing how we can develop better and improved measures for transparency, for predictability, and for risk reduction. Because we have to avoid this kind of incidents. We have to avoid that situations, incidents, accidents spiral out of control.

And therefore this is a serious situation, but I think that the new security environment we are facing along NATO borders just underlines the importance of focusing more on predictability, transparency, and different measures to reduce risks.

Q (WSJ): What does this say about the ability for Allies to work together with Russia in Syria? Are the tactics just too different? Are the targets just too different?

Secretary General: The common enemy should be ISIL. And I would welcome all efforts to fight ISIL. And it is important that all of us, also Russia, is guided by the overarching goal of defeating ISIL.

What we have seen is that most of the attacks by Russia so far has been targeted towards targets in parts of Syria where ISIL is not present. So we welcome all efforts to fight ISIL. Our common enemy is ISIL, and therefore I would also welcome all efforts to strengthen the fight against ISIL.

Q (Reuters): Wondered if you had any contacts with the Russians or planned any contacts with the Russians over this incident?

Secretary General: There has been contacts between Ankara and Moscow, Turkey and Russia but so far there has been no direct contact between NATO and Russia. But we have been in contact with Turkey, a NATO ally, which has directly been in contact with Russian authorities.

Q (unknown): Do you have any more clarity as to how the plane was actually shot down because that’s disputed, whether it be surface to surface or surface to air or ground to air missile?

Secretary General: I will be careful going too much into specifics and too much into details but what I can confirm is that the assessments we have from allies are consistent with what Turkey briefed us about earlier today.”

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/events_67375.htm

The press conference was abruptly ended.

Turkey did not act on its own. Was Washington complicit in downing Russia’s aircraft?

Posted by

0

By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, November 24, 2015

Both countries are NATO allies, united against Assad, wanting him toppled, actively complicit in supporting and using ISIS, as well as other terrorist groups as proxy foot soldiers in the war Obama launched in March 2011.

It’s inconceivable Turkey acted on its own, independent of US-dominated NATO. Its action is a major geopolitical incident – a premeditated act of war against Russia in Syrian airspace.

Ankara claiming the aircraft entered Turkish airspace, ignoring multiple warnings, has the distinct aroma of a bald-faced lied to cover up a hostile act.

Erdogan’s recklessness ruptured Turkish/Russian relations, at least for the time being. Sergey Lavrov cancelled his scheduled Wednesday trip to Istanbul, saying “(a) decision has been made to cancel the meeting at the level of Russian and Turkish foreign ministers…”

He urged Russian citizens avoid visiting Turkey, leaving themselves vulnerable to terrorism, adding:

“It’s necessary to emphasize that the terror threats with their roots in Turkey have been aggravated. And that’s true even if we don’t take into account what happened today. We estimate the threats to be no less than in Egypt.”

Russia’s state tourism agency Rostourism recommended suspending tour package sales to Turkey. Moscow-based Natalie tours already did so.

Putin minced no words blasting Erdogan, saying “(t)his incident stands out against the usual fight against terrorism.”

“Our troops are fighting heroically against terrorists, risking their lives. But the loss we suffered today came from a stab in the back delivered by accomplices of the terrorists.” He warned of grave consequence for Russian/Turkish relations.

A Turkish Lockheed-Martin produced F-16 warplane willfully and without provocation downed Russia’s aircraft posing no threat to Ankara’s national security, Putin explained.

He’s well aware of Erdogan’s complicity with terrorists Russia is combating in Syria – at the request of its government, its actions entirely legal and heroic against a common scourge.

“IS has big money, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, from selling (stolen Syrian) oil. In addition they are protected by the military of an entire nation,” Putin stressed – leaving no doubt he means Turkey, well aware of Washington using ISIS and other takfiri terrorists as proxy foot soldiers against Assad’s legitimate government.

“One can understand why they are acting so boldly and blatantly,” said Putin. “Why they kill people in such atrocious ways. Why they commit terrorist acts across the world, including in the heart of Europe.”

Recalling Russia’s ambassador may come next. Expect Putin to react appropriately to what happened. It’s too serious to ignore or smooth over through normal diplomatic channels between both nations.

Putin explained Ankara didn’t contact Russia after what happened, instead outrageously called an emergency late afternoon Tuesday NATO meeting – apparently wanting the Alliance to serve the interests of ISIS, he added. Its actions won’t be tolerated, he stressed.

Washington backed Turkey’s absurd claim about issuing “10 warnings” before downing Russia’s aircraft. Was it directly complicit with what happened?

It bears repeating. It’s inconceivable Turkey acted alone without permission or direct complicity with NATO’s highest authority. America provides 75% of its budget. It calls the shots – deciding whether, when, where and how to act or react.

Erdogan’s action was reckless. Obama is playing with fire if his involvement with what happened is determined. Putin won’t let it pass without appropriate actions in response, already begun.

An official protest was lodged with Turkey military attache. A Russian Defense Ministry statement said “(w)e are considering actions of the Turkish air forces as an unfriendly act.”

Moscow’s anti-terrorist campaign in Syria will continue as planned, maybe intensified further after what happened – Turkey now clearly and openly an adversary in the war on terrorism, risking direct confrontation with Russia.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2015
http://www.globalresearch.ca/turkey-did-not-act-on-its-own-was-washington-complicit-in-downing-russias-aircraft/5491234

Russian warplane down: NATO’s act of war

Posted by

0

By Tony Cartalucci
Global Research, November 24, 2015
New Eastern Outlook 24 November 2015
Despite blatant provocation, Russia must continue toward the finish line

With cameras rolling, Turkey has claimed it has shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft. The New York Times in its article, “Turkey Shoots Down Russian Warplane Near Syria Border,” reports that:

Turkish fighter jets on patrol near the Syrian border shot down a Russian warplane on Tuesday after it violated Turkey’s airspace, a long-feared escalation that could further strain relations between Russia and the West.

The escalation is “long feared” not because the Turkish government actually fears that Russian warplanes crossing their border pose a threat to it or its people, but because Russia has ended NATO’s proxy war, a proxy war spearheaded in part by Turkey itself, amid Russia’s joint military operations with Syria against the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) and supporting terrorist factions.

In addition to having a camera rolling as the plane went down in flames, terrorists operating in region had allegedly surrounded the dead pilot shortly after the incident according to Reuters.

While Turkey maintains that it was only reacting in self-defense – it was against a nation’s planes that it knew had no intention of attacking its territory – and what looks like instead was Turkey targeting planes operating along reoccurring routes and shooting one down once the pieces were in place to maximize the event politically.

For Russia’s part, it claims its plane had not even entered Turkish territory which would reveal Turkey’s actions as an outright act of war.

Russia Continues Toward the Finish Line 

In recent weeks with Russian air support, Syrian troops have retaken large swaths of territory from ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist fighters. The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has even begun approaching the Euphrates River east of Aleppo, which would effectively cut off ISIS from its supply lines leading out of Turkish territory.

From there, Syrian troops would move north, into the very “safe zone” the US and its Turkish partners have long-sought but have so far failed to establish within Syria’s borders. This “safe zone” includes a region of northern Syrian stretching from Jarabulus near the west bank of the Euphrates to Afrin and Ad Dana approximately 90-100 kilometers west.

Once Syrian troops retake this territory, the prospect of the West ever making an incursion into Syria, holding territory, or compromising Syria’s territorial integrity would be lost forever. Western ambitions toward regime change in Damascus would be indefinitely suspended.

The endgame is at hand, and only the most desperate measures can hope to prevent Russia and Syria from finally securing Syria’s borders. Turkey’s provocation is just such a measure.

Russia’s time, place, and method of retaliating against Turkey is something only the Kremlin will know. But Russia’s actions upon the international stage have been so far thoroughly thought out, allowing Moscow to outmaneuver the West at every juncture and in the wake of every Western provocation.

For Turkey’s government – one that has been consistent only in its constant failure regarding its proxy war against its neighbor Syria, who has been caught planning false flag provocations to trigger wider and more direct war in Syria, and whose government is now exposed and widely known to be directly feeding, not fighting ISIS – the prospect of Russian retaliation against it, either directly or indirectly, and in whatever form will leave it increasingly isolated.

Until then, Russia’s best bet is to simply continue winning the war. Taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor and fortifying it against NATO incursions while cutting off ISIS and other terrorist factions deeper within Syria would be perhaps the worst of all possible retaliations. With Syria secured, an alternative arc of influence will exist within the Middle East, one that will inevitably work against Saudi and other Persian Gulf regimes’ efforts in Yemen, and in a wider sense, begin the irreversible eviction of Western hegemony from the region.

The West, already being pushed out of Asia by China, will suffer immeasurably as the world dismantles its unipolar international order, region by region.

As in the game of chess, a player often seeks to provoke their opponent into a series of moves. The more emotional their opponent becomes, the easier it is to control the game as it unfolds. Likewise in geopolitics and war, emotions can get one killed, or, be channeled by reason and superior strategic thinking into a plan that satisfies short-term requirements but serves long-term objectives. Russia has proven time and time again that it is capable of striking this balance and now, more than ever, it must prove so again.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.

The original source of this article is New Eastern Outlook
Copyright © Tony Cartalucci, New Eastern Outlook, 2015
http://www.globalresearch.ca/russian-warplane-down-natos-act-of-war/5491207

U.S. Congress: HR 4108 prohibits funding Syrian opposition groups and individuals

Posted by

0

HR 4108: “To prohibit the use of funds for the provision of assistance to Syrian opposition groups and individuals.”

Details on the bill will be here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4108

11/19/2015 Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on Intelligence (Permanent Select), and Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

These are the House of Representatives committee members that must be lobbied.

Letters to the editors of local and national newspapers are very important to alert the public to this bill and this issue. Local and national peace organizations must get behind this bill to pressure its speedy passage.

Weapons manufacturers, big oil, and those invested in the wars will be opposed and howling against it. The news media will increase its information warfare.

Support Reps. Tulsi Gabbard and Austin Scott. They have shown courage to go against political party leaders and big money.

Information warfare: PBS NewsHour claims Russian airstrike footage against ISIS is U.S. airstrike

Posted by

0

From Information Clearing House
By Moon of Alabama
November 20, 2015

U.S. media can no agree with itself if Russia is giving ISIS an airforce or if Russia pounds ISIS with the biggest bomber raid in decades. Such confusion occurs when propaganda fantasies collide with the observable reality.

To bridge such divide requires some fudging.

So when the U.S. claims to act against the finances of the Islamic State while not doing much, the U.S Public Broadcasting Service has to use footage of Russian airstrikes against the Islamic State while reporting claimed U.S. airstrike successes.

The U.S. military recently claimed to have hit Islamic State oil tankers in Syria. This only after Putin embarrassed Obama at the G-20 meeting in Turkey. Putin showed satellite pictures of ridiculous long tanker lines waiting for days and weeks to load oil from the Islamic State without any U.S. interference.

The U.S. then claimed to have hit 116 oil tankers while the Russian air force claims to have hit 500. But there is an important difference between these claims. The Russians provided videos showing how their airstrikes hit at least two different very large oil tanker assemblies with hundreds of tankers in each. They also provided video of several hits on oil storage sites and refinery infrastructure.

I have found no video of U.S. hits on Islamic State oil tanker assemblies.

The U.S. PBS NewsHour did not find any either.

In their TV report yesterday about Islamic State financing and the claimed U.S. hits on oil trucks they used the videos Russia provided without revealing the source.

<iframe width=”640″ height=”360″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/PMermbclRXs&#8221; frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen><!–iframe>

You can see the Russian videos played within an interview with a U.S. military spokesperson at 2:22 min.

The U.S. military spokesperson speaks on camera about U.S. airforce hits against the Islamic State. The video cuts to footage taken by Russian airplanes hitting oil tanks and then trucks. The voice-over while showing the Russian video with the Russians blowing up trucks says: “For the first time the U.S. is attacking oil delivery trucks.” The video then cuts back to the U.S. military spokesperson.

At no point is the Russian campaign mentioned or the source of the footage revealed.

Any average viewer of the PBS report will assume that the black and white explosions of oil trucks and tanks are from of U.S. airstrikes filmed by U.S. air force planes.

The U.S. military itself admitted that its strikes on IS oil infrastructure over the last year were “minimally effective”. One wonders then how effective the claimed strike against 116 trucks really was. But unless we have U.S. video of such strikes and not copies of Russian strike video fraudulently passed off as U.S. strikes we will not know if those strikes happened at all.

Propaganda and reality also collide in the larger U.S. policy on Syria. President Obama claims that the “overwhelming majority of people in Syria” want the Syrian President Assad to leave. But independent British polling in Syria found (pdf) that a strong plurality of Syrians prefers him as president over any of the available alternatives.

And while new research reveals extensive cooperation between NATO member and U.S. ally Turkey and the Islamic State the U.S. is asking for more cooperation with Turkey to shuffle more weapons into the Syria conflict and thereby, inevitably, also to the Islamic State. Some other U.S. allies are likewise deeply involved in financing and equipping the Islamic State.

But Kuwait just arrested a gang that was smuggling weapons from the new U.S. client state Ukraine to the Islamic State. Iraqi military and Shia militia find huge bundles of cash (vid) which were to be smuggled to the Islamic State. How does it come that the otherwise all-seeing (including your emails) U.S. secret services are unable to uncover Islamic State financing and smuggling when smaller states with much less resources can do so?

Does all this sound like the U.S. is really campaigning against the Islamic State? Or is this whole campaign just as fraudulent as the PBS video and Obama’s proclamations? Why is the U.S. so deeply lost on the ‘Dark Side’ in Syria?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43492.htm

By Press TV
Global Research, November 22, 2015
Press TV 22 November 2015

A major US media outlet has been caught passing on footage of Russian air raids in Syria as American airstrikes in a bid to advance Washington’s military agenda, a new report reveals.

The US Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), aired a program on the Daesh (ISIL) terrorist group on November 19, purporting to show how their oil trucks were destroyed by US airstrikes, as part of Washington’s new plan to disrupt the group’s main source of income, according to the Information Clearing House.

Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it would escalate its airstrikes on Daesh and bomb the terrorist organization’s oil infrastructure in Syria.

The new operation is supposed to cripple eight major Syrian oil fields over the next several weeks, about two-thirds of which are said to be in Daesh’s hands.

On November 16, the US military claimed it has destroyed 116 tanker trucks carrying stolen Syrian oil from those fields, but failed to provide video evidence.

Two days later, however, the Russian Air Force destroyed some 500 oil trucks and promptly released footage of the airstrike.

On November 19, a program dubbed PBS NewsHour used the Russian footage and passed them off as US airstrikes, without revealing the true source.

“For the first time the US is attacking oil delivery trucks,” a voice-over said while the exact same video released by the Russian Defense Ministry was being shown.

Daesh is reportedly generating as much as $40 million a month by producing and exporting oil it steals from the areas under its control.

According to US military officials, the group operates a fleet of over 1,000 oil tanker trucks.

US military officials say that they have studied eight major Syrian oil fields, namely Omar, Tanak, El Isbah, Sijan, Jafra, Azraq, Barghooth and Abu Hardan and are gearing up to inflict upon them the kind of damage which takes longer to fix or requires specially-ordered parts.

The original source of this article is Press TV
Copyright © Press TV, Press TV, 2015
http://www.globalresearch.ca/media-manipulation-us-shows-footage-of-russian-airstrike-against-isis-as-its-own/5490716

Zero Hedge: U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard co-authors bill to stop “illegal” war on Syria to oust Assad, says CIA ops must stop

Posted by

0

The bill is HR 4108.

Details on the bill will be here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4108
By Tyler Durden
Global Research, November 22, 2015
Zero Hedge 21 November 2015

Last month, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard went on CNN and laid bare Washington’s Syria strategy. 

In a remarkably candid interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gabbard calls Washington’s effort to oust Assad “counterproductive” and “illegal” before taking it a step further and accusing the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are “sworn enemies.” 

In short, Gabbard all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting “World War III.”

For those who missed it, here’s the clip:

That was before Paris.

Well, in the wake of the attacks, Gabbard has apparently had just about enough of Washington vacillating in the fight against terror just so the US can ensure that ISIS continues to destabilize Assad and now, with bi-partisan support,the brazen Hawaii Democrat has introduced legislation to end the “illegal war” to overthrow Assad. 

Gabbard, who fought in Iraq – twice – has partnered with Republican Adam Scott on the bill. Here’s AP:

In an unusual alliance, a House Democrat and Republican have teamed up to urge the Obama administration to stop trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad and focus all its efforts on destroying Islamic State militants.

Reps. Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat, and Austin Scott, a Republican, introduced legislation on Friday to end what they called an “illegal war” to overthrow Assad, the leader of Syria accused of killing tens of thousands of Syrian citizens in a more than four-year-old civil war entangled in a battle against IS extremists, also known as ISIS.

“The U.S. is waging two wars in Syria,” Gabbard said. “The first is the war against ISIS and other Islamic extremists, which Congress authorized after the terrorist attack on 9/11. The second war is the illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.”

Scott said, “Working to remove Assad at this stage is counter-productive to what I believe our primary mission should be.”

Since 2013, the CIA has trained an estimated 10,000 fighters, although the number still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear. CIA-backed rebels in Syria, who had begun to put serious pressure on Assad’s forces, are now under Russian bombardment with little prospect of rescue by their American patrons, U.S. officials say.

For years, the CIA effort had foundered — so much so that over the summer, some in Congress proposed cutting its budget. Some CIA-supported rebels had been captured; others had defected to extremist groups.

Gabbard complained that Congress has never authorized the CIA effort, though covert programs do not require congressional approval, and the program has been briefed to the intelligence committees as required by law, according to congressional aides who are not authorized to be quoted discussing the matter.

Gabbard contends the effort to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it is helping IS topple the Syrian leader and take control of all of Syria. If IS were able to seize the Syrian military’s weaponry, infrastructure and hardware, the group would become even more dangerous than it is now and exacerbate the refugee crisis.

And make no mistake, Tulsi’s understanding of Washington’s absurd Mid-East policy goes far beyond Syria. That is, Gabbard fully grasps the big picture as well. Here’s what she has to say about the idea that the US should everywhere and always attempt to overthrow regimes when human rights groups claim there’s evidence of oppression:

People said the very same thing about Saddam (Hussein), the very same thing about (Moammar) Gadhafi, the results of those two failed efforts of regime change and the following nation-building have been absolute, not only have they been failures, but they’ve actually worked to strengthen our enemy.

Somebody get Langley on the phone, this woman must be stopped.

Here’s Gabbard speaking to CNN this week about Assad:

[CNN clip available on ZeroHedge]

So there’s hope for the US public after all.

Perhaps if the clueless masses won’t listen to “lunatic” fringe blogs or Sergei Lavrov, they’ll listen to a US Congresswoman who served two tours of duty in Iraq and who is now telling Americans that The White House, The Pentagon, and most especially the CIA are together engaged in an “illegal” effort to overthrow the government of a sovereign country and in the process are arming the very same extremists that are attacking civilians in places like Paris.

Good luck Tulsi, and thanks for proving that there’s at least one person inside that Beltway that isn’t either dishonest or naive.

*  *  *

From Gabbard

“Here are 10 reasons the U.S. must end its war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad:

  1. Because if we succeed in overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad, it will open the door for ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic extremists to take over all of Syria.  There will be genocide and suffering on a scale beyond our imagination.  These Islamic extremists will take over all the weaponry, infrastructure, and military hardware of the Syrian army and be more dangerous than ever before.
  2. We should not be allying ourselves with these Islamic extremists by helping them achieve their goal because it is against the security interests of the United States and all of civilization.
  3. Because the money and weapons the CIA is providing to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad are going directly or indirectly into the hands of the Islamic extremist groups, including al-Qaeda affiliates, al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and others who are the actual enemies of the United States.  These groups make up close to 90 percent of the so-called opposition forces, and are the most dominant fighters on the ground.
  4. Because our efforts to overthrow Assad has increased and will continue to increase the strength of ISIS and other Islamic extremists, thus making them a bigger regional and global threat.
  5. Because this war has exacerbated the chaos and carnage in Syria and, along with the terror inflicted by ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups fighting to take over Syria, continues to increase the number of Syrians forced to flee their country.
  6. Because we should learn from our past mistakes in Iraq and Libya that U.S. wars to overthrow secular dictators (Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi) cause even more chaos and human suffering and open the door for Islamic extremists to take over in those countries.
  7. Because the U.S. has no credible government or government leader ready to bring order, security, and freedom to the people of Syria.
  8. Because even the ‘best case’ scenario—that the U.S. successfully overthrows the Syrian government of Assad—would obligate the United States to spend trillions of dollars and the lives of American service members in the futile effort to create a new Syria.  This is what we have been trying to do in Iraq for twelve years, and we still have not succeeded.  The situation in Syria will be much more difficult than in Iraq.
  9. Because our war against the Syrian government of Assad is interfering with our being one-pointedly focused on the war to defeat ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and the other Islamic extremists who are our actual enemy.
  10. Because our war to overthrow the Assad government puts us in direct conflict with Russia and increases the likelihood of war between the United States and Russia and the possibility of another world war.”

*  *  *

Oh, and if you needed another reason to like Tulsi, here’s a bonus 40 second clip for your amusement…

The original source of this article is Zero Hedge
Copyright © Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, 2015
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-congresswoman-introduces-bill-to-stop-illegal-war-on-syria-to-oust-assad-says-cia-ops-must-stop/5490705

U.S. Reps. Tulsi Gabbard, Austin Scott introduce legislation to end illegal U.S. war to overthrow Syrian government of Assad

Posted by

0

Update: The bill is HR 4108.

Details on the bill will be here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4108

From the website of Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard

Press release, November 19, 2015

Washington, DC—Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA), both members of the House Armed Services Committee, introduced a bipartisan bill today to end U.S. efforts to overthrow the Syrian Arab Republic led by President Bashar al-Assad.

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, a twice-deployed combat veteran, said the intent of the bill is to “Bring an immediate end to the illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.”

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard explained,“The U.S. is waging two wars in Syria. The first is the war against ISIS and other Islamic extremists, which Congress authorized after the terrorist attack on 9/11.  The second war is the illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.

“The war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria—which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world.  Also, the war to overthrow Assad is illegal because Congress never authorized it.”

Congressman Austin Scott said, “Our primary mission should be the war against ISIS, al Qaeda, and radical Islamic extremists that have operations both inside and outside of Syria and Iraq.  Those groups have carried out attacks on American allies, and are currently threatening attacks on our homeland.  This represents a clear and present danger to our citizens, and I support eliminating these radical Islamic terrorists through any means necessary.  Working to remove Assad at this stage is counter-productive to what I believe our primary mission should be.”

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said, “Here are 10 reasons the U.S. must end its war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad:

1.     Because if we succeed in overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad, it will open the door for ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic extremists to take over all of Syria.  There will be genocide and suffering on a scale beyond our imagination.  These Islamic extremists will take over all the weaponry, infrastructure, and military hardware of the Syrian army and be more dangerous than ever before.

2.     Because overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad is the goal of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic extremist groups. We should not be allying ourselves with these Islamic extremists by helping them achieve their goal because it is against the security interests of the United States and all of civilization.

3.     Because the money and weapons the CIA is providing to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad are going directly or indirectly into the hands of the Islamic extremist groups, including al-Qaeda affiliates, al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and others who are the actual enemies of the United States.  These groups make up close to 90 percent of the so-called opposition forces, and are the most dominant fighters on the ground.

4.     Because our efforts to overthrow Assad has increased and will continue to increase the strength of ISIS and other Islamic extremists, thus making them a bigger regional and global threat.

5.     Because this war has exacerbated the chaos and carnage in Syria and, along with the terror inflicted by ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups fighting to take over Syria, continues to increase the number of Syrians forced to flee their country.

6.     Because we should learn from our past mistakes in Iraq and Libya that U.S. wars to overthrow secular dictators (Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi) cause even more chaos and human suffering and open the door for Islamic extremists to take over in those countries.

7.     Because the U.S. has no credible government or government leader ready to bring order, security, and freedom to the people of Syria.

8.     Because even the ‘best case’ scenario—that the U.S. successfully overthrows the Syrian government of Assad—would obligate the United States to spend trillions of dollars and the lives of American service members in the futile effort to create a new Syria.  This is what we have been trying to do in Iraq for twelve years, and we still have not succeeded.  The situation in Syria will be much more difficult than in Iraq.

9.     Because our war against the Syrian government of Assad is interfering with our being one-pointedly focused on the war to defeat ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and the other Islamic extremists who are our actual enemy.

10.  Because our war to overthrow the Assad government puts us in direct conflict with Russia and increases the likelihood of war between the United States and Russia and the possibility of another world war.”

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said, “To destroy ISIS will take international alliances.  If we are serious about defeating ISIS and solving the refugee problem, we’ll work in partnership with Russia, France, and anyone else who is serious about destroying ISIS and affiliated Islamic extremist organizations worldwide.

“The problem is, because the U.S. is trying to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad and Russia is supporting the government of Assad, it is impossible for us to have an effective, cooperative relationship with Russia in our mutual fight against ISIS.  Our focus on overthrowing Assad is interfering with our ability to destroy ISIS.”

“We must immediately end the illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad and ally ourselves with any countries willing to focus on destroying the Islamic extremists who pose a genuine threat to civilization,” Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard concluded.

###

http://gabbard.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/520-reps-tulsi-gabbard-austin-scott-introduce-legislation-to-end-illegal-u-s-war-to-overthrow-syrian-government-of-assad

Virginia Senator Richard Black to President al-Assad: “The war on Syria was an unlawful war of aggression…I was pleased by the Russians’ intervention against the armies invading Syria”

Posted by

0

By Hazem Sabbagh
Global Research, November 20, 2015
SANA 19 November 2015
senator Richard Black

President Bashar al-Assad on Tuesday received a letter from U.S. Senator for the State of Virginia Richard Black [he is state senator in the Virginia legislature] (pictured above), a letter in which he said

“I was pleased by the Russians’ intervention against the armies invading Syria. With their support, the Syrian Army has made dramatic strides against the terrorists.”

“I was delighted by Syria’s resounding victory over ISIS at the Kuwairis Airfield. My compliments to those who heroically rescued 1,000 brave Syrian soldiers from certain death. I am convinced that many such victories lie ahead,” Black added.

The Senator asserted that the war on Syria was not caused by domestic unrest, saying “It was an unlawful war of aggression by foreign powers determined to force a puppet regime on Syria. General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, revealed that by 2001, Western powers had developed plans to overthrow Syria. Yet after fifteen years, of military subversion, NATO, Saudi Arabia and Qatar still cannot identify a single leader who enjoys popular support among the Syrian people.”

“Foreign powers have no right to overturn legitimate elections and impose their will on the Syrian people. Syrians alone must determine their destiny, free of foreign intervention. I am disappointed that the UN has turned a blind eye to the unlawful interference in Syria’s internal affairs,” he added.

He went on to note that “Before the war began, Syria had the greatest religious freedom and women’s equality of any Arab people. Many Americans are surprised to learn that the Syrian Constitution provides for free elections, religious freedom, women’s rights, and the Rule of Law. Before criticizing Syria, the U.S. might first insist that our allies – Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Kuwait – grant similar freedoms to their own people.”

Black voiced disappointment that the United States answered the Russian assistance for Syria by sending anti-tank TOW missiles to terrorists, which would only prolong said, criticizing the folly of arming “good terrorists” and withholding weapons from “bad terrorists,” adding that the irresponsible deployment of TOW missiles threatens aviation around the world, as ant-tank weapons have long range and can target and destroy passenger planes that are taking off.

He said that as a Senator for Virginia, he feels worry because such missiles can find their way to remote areas near airports like Reagan National Airport and Dallas International Airport, adding that he relayed these concerns to the American President.

Black went on to note that “Jaish al-Fateh” terrorist organizations, which he referred to by “Army of Conquest,” the literal translation of its name, has received more American military support, pointing out that this terrorist organization includes Jabhat al-Nusra which has sworn allegiance to Al Qaeda, which means that the United States is arming the same terrorist organization responsible for killing 3,000 Americans in 9/11, considering this to be a betrayal of those victims.

The Senator went on to say that it is becoming clear to people that the terrorists in Syria are receiving military support from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, who are allies of the U.S., and that Turkey is the most loyal backer of ISIS as it represents the main channel for the flow of jihadists, weapons, and trade, adding that Turkey also hasn’t offered anything significant to the performance of the proposed alliance against ISIS despite being a member of it.

He said that Turkey and Saudi Arabia seek to impose a religious dictatorship on the Syrian people, and if they succeed in that then Christians and other minorities would be murdered or sold into slavery, and many good-hearted Sunni and Shia Muslims will also fall victim along with them.

But the Senator noted that world opinion is turning against terrorism and their supporters, adding “The cruel treatment of captured Syrian soldiers by armed groups is appalling. Many Americans find the behavior of these so-called ‘moderates’ morally abhorrent.”

“I bled, fighting to defend this nation’s honor. I will oppose American support for terrorists, like the Army of Conquest and ISIS that threaten Syria. Many Virginians join in praying that the Syrian Arab Army and its allies will triumph over the forces of evil, and that peace will soon return to Syria,” he said, concluding the letter by adding:

“Thank you for protecting the lives of Christians and of all good people of Syria.”

The original source of this article is SANA
Copyright © Hazem Sabbagh, SANA, 2015
http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-senator-richard-black-to-president-al-assad-the-war-on-syria-was-an-unlawful-war-of-aggression/5490294