The Renewed Call for War in Syria is coming. Be ready.

by Kit

A-Syrian-flag--011
Since Russia and Iran agreed to lend military assistance to the embattled government od President Bashar al-Assad, Syria has taken very much a backseat in the Western political sphere. The Russian presence there seemed to silence all but the most insane warmongers in Washington and Whitehall. We got updates, courtesy of NGOs like the highly suspicious Syrian Civil Defense, telling us how “brutal” the Russian bombing campaigns were, and how “savage” the siege-tactics have been. Occasionally a lunatic like Natalie Nougayrède will write about how “we” are “letting down the people of Syria”. But it’s a long time since anyone read any of NatNug’s columns with anything but a sense of baffled pity for the poor old dear.
Brexit, the Labour coup and the Presidential election in the US have pushed Syria further to the back pages recently. The vague, simmering propaganda execises about Syria’s “plight” are met with derision by the public, never has the general population’s opinion been so far from what they are supposed to think. It is a sign of the power of the internet, and the failing of the old media mechanisms.
All this is primed for a change, however. There will be a renewed push for war in Syria before the end of the year. With Iran and Russia already deeply involved, any Western military intervention could easily trigger a truly global conflict. In the nuclear age such a war would be brief and catastrophic. These risks cannot be overstated.
The ordained presidential successor to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, has been shown to be a dangerously psychopathic warmonger many times in her political career – blazing a path of destruction from Latin America to the Middle East via Eastern Europe. Once elected she will make Barack Obama look like the drum-circle peacenik he has always pretended to be. Her projected Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, is a glassy-eyed neocon lunatic who already, in Ukraine, pushed us right to the precipice of calamity and started spitting over the edge.
It was reported, late last month, that a Clinton regime:

…will reset Syria policy against ‘murderous’ Assad regime

This comes from a statement made by one of Hillary’s aides, the delightfully named Jeremy Bash, speaking the Telegraph Bash also said:

…a Clinton administration would seek to bring moral clarity to the US strategy on the Syrian crises.”

For those of you behind on your Newspeak lessons, “moral clarity” means bombing more people. It means arming terrorists and mercenaries (even more than they already are), and it means implementing the famous “no fly zone”. People tend to think of a no-fly zone as a passive, defensive measure. It is neither. A no fly zone means NATO jets patrolling the skies above Syria, shooting down Russian and Syrian bombers. A no fly zone is World War III waiting to happen. A no fly zone is a global suicide pact. Nevertheless, it will almost certainly be part of the “moral clarity” Clinton intends to bring to bear on Syria.
There are also signs of a renewed propaganda campaign re: Syria. On August 6th Le Point [link in original French] headlined:

Why Putin is going to destroy Aleppo

Coupled with the Telegraph article, and the 1, 2, 3, 4 editorials in the Guardian in the last week (2 by the increasingly bewildered and incoherent NatNug), and the failed hype of a “new chemical attack”, you can sense an increased energy surrounding the Syria question.
The “new chemical attack” is the reported use of barrel-bombs laced with chlorine gas in Idlib province. Reported, it should be pointed out, only by the previously mentioned Syrian Civil Defence, also known as the “White Helmets”. Whose about page declares [our emphasis]:

Syria Civil Defence receives funding (through Mayday Rescue and Chemonics) from the governments of the UK, Holland, Denmark, Germany, Japan, and the USA. This funding goes towards the training, equipment and support we need to achieve our mission.

Now, the more cynically minded readers might be thinking this calls into question how “neutral, impartial and humanitarian” they are, don’t worry because:

Our donors…do not control the mission of the organisation, our advocacy messages or our internal leadership structure.”

So that’s alright then.
It’s interesting that, alongside the sudden ratcheting up of tension from the media and Western-backed NGOs, there is also the sudden identity crisis for Jabhat al-Nusra. They have decided to cut all ties with al-Qaeda, and change their name. The “moderates” are getting more moderate every day, now they are even disavowing their jihadist roots and calling themselves a new friendly name: Jaish al-Fatah, or “The Army of Conquest”…which doesn’t sound especially “moderate” to me, but then again neither does decapitating prisoners or eating human organs.
John Kerry said, on May 5th this year, that August 1st would be the deadline (a new “red line”, if you will) for Assad to step down…or else.
He said:

…either something happens in these next few months, or they are asking for a very different track.”

Assad is, obviously, still in power. The board was set, and now the pieces are moving.
To sum up:

  • In the week leading up to the 1st of August the Western media began a new barrage of propaganda concerning Syria, and especially Aleppo.
  • On July 28th al-Nusra Front, the much derided “moderate rebels”, changed their name and disavowed all links to al-Qaeda (or pretended to, at least).
  • On August 1st the “rebels” launched a counter-attack, trying to cut the supply lines of the government forces surrounding Aleppo, and a Russian helicopter was shot down, killing 5 Russian soldiers.

Nobody is asking where the “besieged” rebels got the arms and supplies needed to counter-attack. No one is asking where the rebels, who previously had no anti-air weapons, got the MANPADs required to take down a helicopter. No one is asking, because everyone knows.
It’s the same place ISIS get their matching Toyotas and green-screen equipment. It’s the same place that started this war five years ago, and the same place that will set the whole world ablaze if allowed to go unchecked.


Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.

Filed under: Essays, featured, Kit, Syria

by

Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Jackie Holt wrote: The free press may not be perfect, but it is by definition the best we can get because it is free, because journalists can choose to write for papers which broadly accord with their own world outlook, because papers can print whatever they like as long as they refrain from libel. There’s not much difference between state controlled media and US style oligarch controlled media. Very often the oligarchs and the state have the same interests, since its the oligarchs who fund the politicians who get elected and run the state. Journalists work for corporations. They follow… Read more »

janiece farris
Reader

#IgnoreMSM & like MAGIC it will DISAPPEAR! #BeTheMedia

anonymous
Reader

The Guardian publishes obviously fake letter from “doctors” in Aleppo. Amusing, actually. http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/08/aleppo-six-killed-pediatricians-sign-letter-to-obama-.html#more

janiece farris
Reader

Oped News posted phony letter today! sad

nuffalready
Reader
nuffalready

About half of us Americans want to see the Washington/Whitehall war wagon go over a cliff. .Love that bare-knuckle British political wit.

louisproyect
Reader

Nobody is asking where the “besieged” rebels got the arms and supplies needed to counter-attack. No one is asking where the rebels, who previously had no anti-air weapons, got the MANPADs required to take down a helicopter. No one is asking, because everyone knows.
It’s the same place ISIS get their matching Toyotas and green-screen equipment.
This article is utter nonsense. Here’s the real story on the arming of Syrian rebels.
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2016/8/9/anti-aircraft-missiles-could-be-a-game-changer-in-syria

Joe Staten
Reader
Joe Staten

Stopped reading at “Russian invasion of Syria.” You’re just a shill Louis, and no one believes your stupid cover story about being a fucking “Marxist”.

anonymous
Reader

I remember when Louis Proyect joined up with another paid U.S. government infiltrator of the left, a certain Pham Binh, whose claim to fame was that he had hung around at Occupy Wall Street. They started a Web site called The North Star with a nutcase in Los Angeles (who had been kicked out of Occupy LA) whose sole reason for existence was to try to get the left to support the U.S. and NATO war on Syria. When I pointed out in comments that they were working for the USG, I was blocked. I don’t know what happened to… Read more »

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

Occaisionally [sic] a lunatic like Natalie Nougayrède… the poor old dear. The ordained presidential successor to Barack Obama… Toe-curling stuff. Is this a newspaper or a nursing home for writers of the NME? It’s emotionally incontinent guff. Kit blares out that there will be renewed calls for war before the end of the year, only to qualify that as meaning no-fly zones, which we’re told amount to much the same thing. They do not. Scorn is poured on the Syrian Civil Defence because – shock! horror! – it receives funds from the west, especially Europe; and rightly so, given its… Read more »

Admin
Reader
Admin

Your response is puzzling and seemingly more emotional than rational. The article gives the widely accepted reasons why a no-fly zone is a declaration of war – viz “A no fly zone means NATO jets patrolling the skies above Syria, shooting down Russian and Syrian bombers.” You give no reason why you think this is untrue. Al Nusra has been associated with the indefinable “moderates” on many occasions, either directly or simply by implication. Here’s the Indy discussing this phenomenon explicitly, since this entire chapter seems to have passed you by somehow. 🙂 The point about the Syrian Civil Defence… Read more »

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

Well, let’s not get into who is making ad hominem arguments, when the author of this article states – But it’s a long time since anyone read any of NatNug’s columns with anything but a sense of baffled pity for the poor old dear. which is clearly ad hominem and also, in my opinion, rather pathetic to see in a newspaper. If you’ve issues with the arguments Nougayrède makes, why not counter them rather than dismissing her as batty? Al Nusra has been associated with the indefinable “moderates” on many occasions, either directly or simply by implication. Here’s the Indy… Read more »

OffG Editor
Reader

Do you really believe that if the US invaded Syria and declared a no-fly zone over Aleppo (say), that the Syrian government and its allies would/should just agree to abide by it? If they don’t (and they won’t), how do you think the no-fly zone could be imposed short of shooting down Syrian and/or Russian planes? Do you likewise really believe these no-fly zones are “used in areas of conflict by third parties to provide protection to civilians”? Can you provide any examples of where this has been the result? As to your bizarre request for a “link” to the… Read more »

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

As to your bizarre request for a “link” to the widely accepted view that a no-fly zone is a declaration of war – I can only assume you simply don’t understand that any uninvited incursion into a sovereign nation’s territory – such as would be necessary to impose a no-fly zone – is defined as an act of war under international law. Look, I understand why you people are finding this request for a link difficult, but you don’t get to make up your own definitions for well-understood terms, which is why I’ve asked for the link. Here’s my link… Read more »

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

jackie holt wrote: SSorry, that’s simply not true. The degree of state control over RT is like nothing in the West. Here’s the Independent – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-today-tomorrow-the-world-2083869.html But RT is rather different from the BBC, certainly when it comes to covering the “home” country. Several journalists at the channel have told The Independent that while some coverage of problems in Russia and sensitive issues is allowed, any direct criticism or questioning of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin or President Dmitry Medvedev is strictly prohibited. You’re quoting the western press as a defence of the western press. Why should I believe the claims… Read more »

OffG Editor
Reader
OffG Editor

Really not sure what your point is any longer. You appear finally to admit the author is correct and that a no-fly zone in Syria would be enforced by shooting down Syrian and Russian pilots, which is the point you originally decided to disagree with. Are you now suggesting that if NATO shoots down Russian jets this is not likely to start WW3? If you just want to quibble about whether invasion of a sovereign country and the murder of its soldiers can technically be defined as “not war” if no declaration of war has been made then that’s your… Read more »

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

@Catte Even if the anonymous claims are true, there is just as much and far better direct testimony of the same kind of editorial control being endemic in Western media. All editors exercise editorial control, it goes with the job. It’s entirely different to exercise state control prohibiting criticism of the regime. I’m surprised you’re so blithely accepting of state propaganda! I’ve shown that RT cannot criticise the Putin regime and provided evidence of consistently terrible journalism at RT, but have little doubt you still regard it as a trustworthy source – or more accurately, as a useful source for… Read more »

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

Really not sure what your point is any longer. Honestly? My point is about having some self-respect. Don’t headline an article about a NFZ with “Renewed Call For War”, as though they are the same thing, they are not (as I’ve shown). How about: “West Mulls NFZ in Syria, WWIII Beckons”? It’s about honesty. Don’t write articles calling Natalie Nougayrède a ‘lunatic’, Hillary Clinton ‘dangerously psychopathic’ and Victoria Nuland a ‘lunatic’; such abuse just reflects badly on the writer’s ability to rationally critique contrary opinions in a calm and lucid manner. Avoid innuendo which suggests the West regards al-Nusra as… Read more »

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Jackie holt wrote@ @ Catte You are quoting a Western media source as evidence of how much better Western media sources are than RT! The Indy article isn’t making that point, it’s interviewing RT journalists about the restrictions they work under. Do you understand the difference? The journalists admit they can’t criticise the Putin regime, that ought to be damning in itself: a ‘News’ channel which can only report favourable stories on the state should more correctly be termed a propaganda outlet. What didn’t you understand about the sentence: You are quoting a Western media source as evidence of how… Read more »

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

@OffG Editor It’s Fiske, not Fisk, I wonder how aware of his work you are when you are clearly unfamiliar with his name? It’s not even a difficult name: F I S K. Four letters. Hey poor diddums, if you’re going to modify my posts, you need to edit the entire sentence, otherwise the change doesn’t make sense. Glad to see you’ve learned to spell Fisk though, why you’ve even corrected the spelling of his name in your own post! Bravo! This site continues to cover itself in glory. Why not edit my posts entirely so that they just cheer… Read more »

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

@ Catte

You are quoting a Western media source as evidence of how much better Western media sources are than RT!

The Indy article isn’t making that point, it’s interviewing RT journalists about the restrictions they work under. Do you understand the difference? The journalists admit they can’t criticise the Putin regime, that ought to be damning in itself: a ‘News’ channel which can only report favourable stories on the state should more correctly be termed a propaganda outlet.

Catte
Reader

LOL! Do you mean these two sentences? Hardly an “interview” is it? 🙂 “Several journalists at the channel have told The Independent that while some coverage of problems in Russia and sensitive issues is allowed, any direct criticism or questioning of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin or President Dmitry Medvedev is strictly prohibited.” But even if you think anonymous unquoted claims are a trustworthy source for RT media bias, this still doesn’t go anywhere near proving your claim. Even if the anonymous claims are true, there is just as much and far better direct testimony of the same kind of editorial… Read more »

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

@ Catte Everything you say about RT can equally be said of the state-controlled BBC or the oligarch-controlled Guardian. Sorry, that’s simply not true. The degree of state control over RT is like nothing in the West. Here’s the Independent – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-today-tomorrow-the-world-2083869.html But RT is rather different from the BBC, certainly when it comes to covering the “home” country. Several journalists at the channel have told The Independent that while some coverage of problems in Russia and sensitive issues is allowed, any direct criticism or questioning of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin or President Dmitry Medvedev is strictly prohibited. Unless you… Read more »

Catte
Reader

LOL! You are quoting a Western media source as evidence of how much better Western media sources are than RT! If I quoted RT on the subject of how RT is better than the BBC, what would you say? Your other link is just a source for alleged instances of RT media bias. That’s fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t prove or even support your allegation that RT is consistently less reliable than Western media. OffGuardian has hundreds of examples right here of media bias and even outright lying by the BBC, the Guardian and other outlets,… Read more »

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Jackie holt wrote:
RT is untrustworthy because it’s the propaganda arm of the Putin regime. The MSM is as trustworthy as any news source can be because it allows freedom of expression across the political spectrum. It’s not hard to understand that the second is vastly more trustworthy than the first.
In what sense is Russian state funded media different from British or US state funded media?
Also the MSM does not allow complete freedom of expression. That’s because it has owners, wealthy people who decide what is published and what is not.

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

@ Catte RT is untrustworthy because it sells the Russian perspective. The MSM is trustworthy because it sells the Western perspective RT is untrustworthy because it’s the propaganda arm of the Putin regime. The MSM is as trustworthy as any news source can be because it allows freedom of expression across the political spectrum. It’s not hard to understand that the second is vastly more trustworthy than the first. If you can do that [show RT is less trustworthy than the MSM] we’ll give you space here to publish your findings. How noble of you, however my comments now appear… Read more »

Catte
Reader

Repeating your own preconception over and over again in different language is not developing a point. Everything you say about RT can equally be said of the state-controlled BBC or the oligarch-controlled Guardian. More so in fact since RT is very closely monitored by OfCom and would face sanction for any overt misrepresentation. Facts are sacred here. But your a priori beliefs are not facts, and they will not become facts no matter how many times you reassert them. Unless you can show some evidence for the prevailing inaccuracy of RT over the various western outlets you prefer you have… Read more »

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

Breaching the sovereignty of another state using one’s military most certainly does place 2 countries at war.
It is not up to the UN to decide if that is a war or not. It just is a war.

I never claimed that the UN decides who is at war, read my post again.
Your claim that there’s an automatic state of war is preposterous: is Ukraine at war with Russia over Crimea? No.

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

@Catte There’s a good breakdown of all that here , but just Google if you need more information. The link is to 21st Century Wire, which isn’t a credible source. Patrick Henningsen is a conspiracy theorist and RT ‘expert’. If SCD has questions to answer, those should appear in mainstream publications with a reputation for honesty to uphold (i.e. credibility), not just on conspiracy theorist websites. In fairness you can’t expect us to fill the gaps in your own research. Hitchen’s Razor: that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You don’t need to provide links to… Read more »

Catte
Reader

The link is to 21st Century Wire, which isn’t a credible source. Patrick Henningsen is a conspiracy theorist and RT ‘expert’. If SCD has questions to answer, those should appear in mainstream publications with a reputation for honesty to uphold (i.e. credibility), not just on conspiracy theorist websites. If you unquestioningly accept everything you read from your allegedly “credible” sources and refuse to even read those outlets you have been taught to regard as “non-credible”, you’re entirely surrendering your independent judgement and becoming little more than a consumer of pre-packaged opinion. Wouldn’t it be better to eschew potentially propagandist notions… Read more »

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

@Catte If you unquestioningly accept everything you read from your allegedly “credible” sources and refuse to even read those outlets you have been taught to regard as “non-credible”, you’re entirely surrendering your independent judgement RT is the propaganda arm of the Russian state, its purpose is to further the causes of the Putin regime, not to report news. I don’t have an omniscient independent judgement when I read a story which says “the white helmets are faking bombing photos”, as though I can divine the story’s truthfulness, all I can do is look for the story in as many places… Read more »

Catte
Reader

Yes, you just re-affirmed your prejudice in extended prose. You believe RT is untrustworthy because it sells the Russian governmental perspective. You believe the MSM is trustworthy because it sells the Western governmental perspective, which for you equates automatically with some higher form of truth. No amount of labyrinthine reassertions can make this anything but a statement of blind faith. If you want to make it more than that you need to show some data that supports the hypothesis that what you term the “free press” has a consistent record of greater honesty, balance and accuracy than the “Russian propaganda”… Read more »

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Breaching an article of the UN Charter in such a way doesn’t place two countries at war, that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the charter. If an article is breached, the offender is considered to have broken international law and it is then in the UN’s remit to decide what action to take.
Breaching the sovereignty of another state using one’s military most certainly does place 2 countries at war.
It is not up to the UN to decide if that is a war or not. It just is a war.

Catte
Reader
Catte

@JackieHolt You’re welcome. BTW the fact the founder of the White Helmets is an ex-mercenary and ex-military intelligence is common knowledge. Ditto the fact that senior members of the Syrian “opposition” are among the leaders, and the fact they have recycled pics from other incidents as evidence of their good deeds. There’s a good breakdown of all that here , but just Google if you need more information. In fairness you can’t expect us to fill the gaps in your own research. Not sure I can help with the other issues you have. This article does not say anywhere that… Read more »

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

@ Eric_B: You can’t use wikipedia as a source. If you think there’s an error in the article, provide a link to a more authoritative source which contradicts it, don’t just stamp your feet because you don’t like what it says! A hostile NFZ means a state of war exists. This is derived from the first principle of international law, the sovereignty of states, as per the UN Charter and all other sources of international law. Breaching an article of the UN Charter in such a way doesn’t place two countries at war, that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the charter.… Read more »

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Jackie wrote: Eric, you’ve become a little confused. My stance (corroborated by Wiki) is that a NFZ isn’t a declaration of war. Whereas you’ve said – [Eric_B, August 12th:] “A non consensual no fly zone is a declaration of war on the country” come on now, it’s only August 15th, how can you go from claiming it’s a declaration of war to claiming that such a thing is long obsolete? What i meant was that a state of war exists when a hostile NFZ is declared. While declarations of war per se are no longer used, a NFZ amounts to… Read more »

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

@Eric_B: Yet still you’re harping on about the long obsolete idea of ‘declaration of war’. Eric, you’ve become a little confused. My stance (corroborated by Wiki) is that a NFZ isn’t a declaration of war. Whereas you’ve said – [Eric_B, August 12th:] “A non consensual no fly zone is a declaration of war on the country” come on now, it’s only August 15th, how can you go from claiming it’s a declaration of war to claiming that such a thing is long obsolete? You concoct a phrase of your own, “Iraq War 1997”, can’t find it on google, then use… Read more »

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Jackie Holt wrote:
Don’t write articles calling Natalie Nougayrède a ‘lunatic’, Hillary Clinton ‘dangerously psychopathic’ and Victoria Nuland a ‘lunatic’; such abuse just reflects badly on the writer’s ability to rationally critique contrary opinions in a calm and lucid manner.
I sincerely hope Off Guardian will continue to use the epithets the kind of trash who write for The Guardian deserve.
And I am more than confident they will.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Jackie holt wrote:
Honestly? My point is about having some self-respect.
Don’t headline an article about a NFZ with “Renewed Call For War”, as though they are the same thing, they are not (as I’ve shown).

You’ve shown nothing, you quoted a garbled wikipedia article that you didn’t understand.

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

@ Catte
Thank you Catte, your reply was a model of civility and even came with that rarest of things, a supporting link! I hadn’t contended the point about the Toyotas, but I was unaware of it, so I will read the link.

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

@OffG Editor That’s not a point, it’s simply abuse. If you feel I’ve misrepresented the article, explain where. Without credible links to back-up these assertions, they’re just bullshit – and, oh look! – you’re not going to provide links. The SCD is funded by the West because the West has a long history of funding NGOs: Russia doesn’t, Syria doesn’t. There is no evidence that the West funds SCD to further its propaganda. There is no evidence that the SCD makes propaganda, its reports are corroborated by other sources. It’s Fiske, not Fisk, I wonder how aware of his work… Read more »

Catte
Reader

I can add that there are numerous sources for the US govt supplying trucks to al Nusra back in 2014. In fact one “explanation” for how ISIS got those matching fleets of Toyotas is that they were being sent over by the US to al Nusra, but were somehow waylaid. We cover it briefly in one of our ISIS articles.

OffG Editor
Reader

Don’t misrepresent the article. No one will bother to correct you any more and you risk appearing sub-intelligent. If you really don’t understand what the article is saying, try reading it again. No one is “slating” the White Helmets for “pulling people out of rubble.” They are “slating” the White Helmets for masquerading as neutral humanitarians when their major funders are regimes that are actively trying to overthrow the legitimate government and when they are run by prominent members of the “rebel” Syrian groups, and when their founder is an ex-military, ex-British Intelligence mercenary. They also take issue with the… Read more »

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Harping on the idea of war needing to be declared or it’s not really a war shows your lack of understanding of the subject matter. That idea is old hat and has been for decades.
Was the Vietnam War a war? War was never declared. How about the invasion of Iraq? War was not declared.

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

I’m not harping on about war needing to be declared for it to be war (that’s something of your own invention), but about whether a NFZ is a declaration of war. I supplied a reference explicitly stating that a NFZ is not a declaration of war. Was the Vietnam War a war? War was never declared. How about the invasion of Iraq? War was not declared. From the Wiki article on NFZs I linked to – In 1991, the United States, United Kingdom, France, Turkey, and other states intervened in Kurdish-Iraqi dispute in northern Iraq by establishing a no-fly zone… Read more »

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Jackie Holt wrote:
Your claim that there’s an automatic state of war is preposterous: is Ukraine at war with Russia over Crimea? No.
Ukraine does indeed view itself as being at war with Russia.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

jackie holt wrote: I can Google ‘Vietnam War’, ‘Iraq War’. But ‘Iraq War 1997’ (the year of Operation Northern Watch) produces nothing. NFZs aren’t declarations of war, I’ve provided the links to prove my point, now it’s down to you to provide more than just hot air if you want to prove my links wrong. I already showed you that wars usually dont get declared these days even though they are wars. Yet still you’re harping on about the long obsolete idea of ‘declaration of war’. You concoct a phrase of your own, “Iraq War 1997”, can’t find it on… Read more »

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

The coercive appropriation of another nation’s airspace or any other part of their territory is the very definition of an act of war. The wikipedia entry doesnt make much sense. It says “No-fly zones are a modern phenomenon. They can be distinguished from traditional air power missions by their coercive appropriation of another nation’s airspace, in peacetime, without either the existence of a condition of war between the two nations or the surrender or occupation of the target nation. ” If there’s a non consensual no fly zone the target nation’s airspace clearly is occupied. Moreover such a no fly… Read more »

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

No such thing as a ‘third party’ imposing a no fly zone.
If you’re imposing one you become a direct party to conflict with the state concerned.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

Jackie Holt wrote:
which is clearly ad hominem and also, in my opinion, rather pathetic to see in a newspaper.
This isn’t a newspaper. It’s a blog where people point and laugh at Guardian ‘journalists’.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

A non consensual no fly zone is a declaration of war on the country where the no fly zone is situated. It’s an infringement of sovereignty enforced by foreign military units.
It’s irrelevant whether or not the foreign state(s) involved explicitly declare war.

Jackie Holt
Reader
Jackie Holt

A non consensual no fly zone is a declaration of war on the country where the no fly zone is situated. It’s an infringement of sovereignty enforced by foreign military units. It’s irrelevant whether or not the foreign state(s) involved explicitly declare war. Hi Eric, that sounds like a statement of fact, but it lacks the reference link I asked for. I like the ‘non consensual’ bit, it sounds to me that you think some no-fly zones might be consensual? Surely that’s just airspace? 😉 Anyhoo, links please. Ps. You claim that this is just a blog for people to… Read more »

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

what don’t you understand about non consensual, I’m not following.
Non consensual means without the consent of the state concerned.

Joe Staten
Reader
Joe Staten

He’s either a moron or a troll

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

A consensual no fly zone whould be where a state agreed not to conduct military flights at the request of the UN Security Council.

Eric_B
Reader
Eric_B

What do you think war is? A non consensual no fly zone cannot be anything other than an act of war.
It’s an armed attack on the sovereignty of another state as per the UN Charter.

ddddffff
Reader
ddddffff

Get ready for what exactly? Which force is supposed to attack Syria, the martians? Or do you mean that majestic force that coulsn’t even kill a handful of Taliban barbarians?
A big LMAO from me, and most certainly also from Russia and the US military itself.

George
Reader

“Or do you mean that majestic force that coulsn’t even kill a handful of Taliban barbarians?” Sounds like you mean the US.

falcemartello
Reader

Yes the neo-cons r on captogan. The shill Moreel with Charlie Rose last nite made complete asses of themselves.”We have to kill Russians and Iranians in Syria so the Know we mean business.” Pure idol psychopaths. Its all hasbra. The west especially the exceptionalist/Washington Consensus mob r so delusional it’s beyond belief. It is so sad that we the sheeple fall for such hyperbole. we have only ourselves to blame. Ignorance is bliss while the rest of the world has their eyes wide open. Iran knows the deal. The west r not honourable people. They have been planning for an… Read more »

George
Reader

Agreed

AtaBrit
Reader
AtaBrit

Fear of Clinton is well justified.
But what is missing entirely from your piece is the TR-RF ‘reset: in relationa both drectly and regionally.
If the doomsayers are correct and this is all a ploy by TR to better negptiate a position in the West, then all hell is going tp break loose And if it isn’t I can’t see the west fairng any better without TR on their side.

Dr Flange
Reader
Dr Flange

On Natalie Nougayrède’s Guardian nonsense piece “Pity Aleppo as Putin drops his bombs to salvage Russia’s pride” a commenter simply pointed out that our Natalie had attended the 2014 Bilderberg meeting.
http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2014.html
His post was remove post haste.

Richard Le Sarcophage
Reader
Richard Le Sarcophage

Nougayrede is, in my opinion, barking mad and ferociously vicious. Like a female Luke Harding. The trade-mark hysteria, invective, routine lying and misrepresenting is reminiscent of Zionazi screechers, whose histrionics were described by Gilad Atzmon as a ‘Pre Traumatic Stress Disorder’, where any criticism of Israel’s barbarity is greeted by the screaming of ‘antisemitism’, ‘Holocaust’ and ‘Holocaust denier’, ‘blood libel’ etc. Unless Nougayrede is herself Jewish, and not just their property, she seems to be exhibiting ‘Pre Traumatic Stress Syndrome by Proxy’. Funny to think that hundreds of thousands have been murdered in Syria, and millions, even billions, more may… Read more »

michaelk
Reader
michaelk

A vote for Clinton… is a vote for more wars, and down the line a few years, probably war with Russia and China. Liberals should bare that in mind before, like the Guardian, they throw all their concerned weight behind Clinton. In this context, Trump is looking increasingly like the ‘not more war’ candidate, probably because he’d rather folks spent their money in his casinoes. The ruling elite in the US seems to be split. The War Party, which includes the leadership of both of the main factions, the Democrats and Republicans, supports Clinton, which means more of the same… Read more »

menechem golani
Reader
menechem golani

i do not see why mr murdoch can provide sky,times and fox informational news on syriana and at the same time part own israel firster firm genie energy.
un resolution states golan is syria these nazi ignore the talmud where it states clearly most of syria belongs to us.
oil drilling rights is only the start of a more robust claim from israel nazi will always hate we need to drill for oded yinon and ignore these dogs.

Seamus Padraig
Reader
Seamus Padraig

From the Washington Post article Kit linked to:
“Jabhat al-Nusra announced that it would henceforth be known as Jabhat Fatah al-Sham — or Front for the Conquest of Syria — and said it no longer owes allegiance to al-Qaeda.”
So if they no longer owe allegiance to Al-Qaeda, that must mean that, from now on, they will answer directly to the CIA!

Brian Harry, Australia
Reader
Brian Harry, Australia

The USA MIC and the real rulers of Britain seem to be descending into complete lunacy, egged on by the lunatics controlled by Tel Aviv………

Secret Agent
Reader
Secret Agent

Ah, but that’s where the Brexit comes in. The Brit oligarchy sees where this is headed and had disembarked the American crazy train.

Brian Harry, Australia
Reader
Brian Harry, Australia

“Like”

Philip Roddis
Reader

My term is “criminally insane”. Our rulers are mad of course, but in a purposeful way, explicable by laws of capital accumulation and imperial rivalry. (Really, the conspiracy theorists need to get up to speed on Marx.) I began to note, in the context of Ukraine, that there are those within the American ruling class who think a limited nuclear war can be won, especially when the warmongers in chief are several thousand miles away. A Clinton win in November, still the most likely scenario though after Brexit no-one should rule out Trump, will make this scary world considerably more… Read more »

Brian Harry, Australia
Reader
Brian Harry, Australia

“Like”

mohandeer
Reader

I’ll be the one walking around in a T shirt with the legend STOP THE UK’s CRIMINAL WARS.
Someone could make a fortune making T shirts with STOP US/NATO CRIMINAL WARS printed on them.

joekano76
Reader

Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.

Captain Kemlo
Reader
Captain Kemlo

Excellent article and, yes, you could see this ramping-up from a mile away. The Neo-con supporting Guardian will be first in the queue. Watch this space…

Empire Of Stupid
Reader

OMG, I thought I was the only person in the universe that still remembered Kemlo!

Captain Kemlo
Reader
Captain Kemlo

We’re keeping constant watch from the Space Lanes.