All posts filed under: USA

VIDEO: Trump Won’t Be Cancelling World War 3 After All

from StormCloudsGathering On April 6th, 2017, on the 100 year anniversary of America’s entry into World War I, Donald Trump launched airstrikes against against the Syrian government; in retaliation for a gas attack supposedly perpetrated by Assad. There was no investigation, not even a hack job of a frame up like we had in 2003. The evidence we do have contradicts the official story, and the stakes are much higher this time around. Full transcript and sources available here.

Donald Trump Has Been Played Like a Violin

by David William Pear, via OpEd News The Central Intelligence Agency, the Democrats, neocons in the Republican Party and the Main Stream Media (MSM) have gotten under Donald Trump’s thin skin. When attacked, Trump’s instinct is to lash out at his attackers with counter attacks, without regard to his truthfulness or not. When Trump was a candidate for President that meant a war of words. As the President of the United States of America he has resorted to a dangerous and deadly shooting war of aggression. Trumps critics are so numerous, unrelenting and persistent that like a cornered rat, Trump lost any sanity that he may have possessed and instead of lashing out at his tormentors, he lashed out at Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad. Just like a drunk that comes home and beats his wife, terrorize his children, busts up the furniture and kicks the dog it accomplished nothing but chaos, but it feels so good to blow off some steam, even if it is at the wrong target. Now Trump has a lot of …

A multi-level analysis of the US cruise missile attack on Syria and its consequences

by The Saker, 11 April 2017 The latest US cruise missile attack on the Syrian airbase is an extremely important event in so many ways that it is important to examine it in some detail.  I will try to do this today with the hope to be able to shed some light on a rather bizarre attack which will nevertheless have profound consequences.  But first, let’s begin by looking at what actually happened. The pretext: I don’t think that anybody seriously believes that Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical weapons attack on anybody.  To believe that it would require you to find the following sequence logical: first, Assad pretty much wins the war against Daesh which is in full retreat.  Then, the US declares that overthrowing Assad is not a priority anymore (up to here this is all factual and true).  Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does not have.  He decides to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and cameras.  Then, …

The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and Russia

by Mike Whitney, 7 April 2017, UNZ Review President Donald Trump’s missile attack on the Shayrat Airfield in Western Syria was a poorly planned display of imperial muscle-flexing that had the exact opposite effect of what was intended. While the attack undoubtedly lifted the morale of the jihadists who have been rampaging across the country for the last six years, it had no military or strategic value at all. The damage to the airfield was very slight and there is no reason to believe it will impact the Syrian Army’s progress on the ground. The attack did however kill four Syrian servicemen which means the US troops in Syria can no longer be considered part of an international coalition fighting terrorism. The US is now a hostile force that represents an existential threat to the sovereign government. Is that the change that Trump wanted? As of Friday, Russia has frozen all military cooperation with the United States. According to the New York Times: In addition to suspending the pact to coordinate air operations over Syria, …

Five Top Papers Run 18 Opinion Pieces Praising Syria Strikes–Zero Are Critical

by Adam Johnson, FAIR Five major US newspapers—the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and New York Daily News—offered no opinion space to anyone opposed to Donald Trump’s Thursday night airstrikes. By contrast, the five papers ran a total of 18 op-eds, columns or “news analysis” articles (dressed-up opinion pieces) that either praised the strikes or criticized them for not being harsh enough: New York Times After the Missiles, We Need Smart Diplomacy on Syria (4/7/17) Acting on Instinct, Trump Upends His Own Foreign Policy (4/7/17) (originally headlined “On Syria Attack, Trump’s Heart Came First”—presumably changed due to social media mockery) Trump Raises the Stakes for Russia and Iran (4/7/17) Syria’s ‘Conundrum’: Limited Strikes Risk Entrenching Assad’s Strategy (4/7/17) Washington Post Editorial: Trump’s Chance to Step Into the Global Leadership Vacuum (4/7/17) Trump Enforces the ‘Red Line’ on Chemical Weapons (4/6/17) Trump Has an Opportunity to Right Obama’s Wrongs in Syria (4/6/17) Syrian Opposition Leader: Trump Has a Chance to Save Syria (4/7/17) Was Trump’s Syria Strike a Moral Impulse or …

Evidence Calls Western Narrative About Syrian Chemical Attack Into Question

by William Craddick, 6 April 2017, Disobedient Media The April 4th, 2017 incident at Khan Sheikhoun has provoked an emotional response around the world after images began to emerge showing civilian adults and children apparently suffering from the effects of chemical weapons.  US President Donald Trump has stated that the attack has totally changed his views towards the Syrian civil war, and may alter his intended strategy there. Although Western media immediately accused Bashar al-Assad of participating in a gas attack against his own people, the evidence indicates that the intended target was not immediately in a civilian area and was in fact a location where Syrian White Helmets were on the scene with rebel groups at what observers have claimed was a storage facility for conventional and chemical munitions. Additionally, evidence indicates that rebel groups may have had prior knowledge of the attack and knew that there was a risk of chemical weapons being unleashed. The attack also came in the aftermath of a trip by Senator John McCain to meet with groups known …

Chemical Attack in Idlib — Duplication of Eastern Ghouta Scenario

by Mariam Alhijab, Syrian Media Center On April 7, two U.S. Navy battleships USS Porter (DDG-78) and USS Ross launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at al-Shayrat military airfield in Syria’s Homs province from the Eastern Mediterranean.  The U.S. strikes particularly targeted the main landing strip, aircraft, radio locators, air defense system and fuel stations. The strike was approved by U.S. President Donald Trump, who said that the Syrian Air Force had used affiliated al-Shayrat air base to prepare chemical attack on the city of Khan Shaykhun in Idlib.  “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons”, Trump said. Previously, on April 4, several European states accused Syrian Air Force of using warfare poisonous agents while striking Khan Shaykhun.  Syrian government, in its turn, refuted these accusations, stating that the target of the strike was a militants’ position where they had organized a chemical depot.  The strike led to the spread of poisonous agents and dozens of casualties among civilians. …

Philip Giraldi says IC-Military Doubt Assad Gas Narrative

via libertarianinstitute.com Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer and Director of the Council for the National Interest, says that “military and intelligence personnel,” “intimately familiar” with the intelligence, say that the narrative that Assad or Russia did it is a “sham,” instead endorsing the Russian narrative that Assad’s forces had bombed a storage facility. Giraldi’s intelligence sources are “astonished” about the government and media narrative and are considering going public out of concern over the danger of worse war there. Giraldi also observes that the Assad regime had no motive to do such a thing at this time. http://dissentradio.com/radio/17_04_06_giraldi.mp3  

VIDEO: Footage from Al-Shayrat Airbase, Syria and the aftermath

by Sophie Mangal, Syria Media Center edited April 8 to add working video link On April 7, between 3.42am and 3.56am, a massive rocket attack was carried out from an area near Crete Island in the Mediterranean Sea. Two destroyers of the US Navy (USS Ross and USS Porter) launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Syrian Al-Shayrat airbase in Homs Province. According to various mass media, only 23 of them reached the Syrian airbase. The strike on the Al-Shayrat airbase in Syria’s Homs Province destroyed a material storage depot, a training facility, a canteen, six Mig-23 aircraft in repair hangars and a radar station. The runway, taxiways and the Syrian aircraft remain undamaged. According to the command of the Syrian airbase, two Syrian military personnel were missing, four were killed and six were burned in the firefighting. The remaining 36 cruise missiles hit the surrounding peaceful settlements. As a result five civilians including three children were killed in the village of Al-Shayrat located 1.5 km east of the airbase. Seven citizens were wounded in …

Demonizing Russia: The Psychology and Consequences of Neo-Mccarthyism

by Stormcloudsgathering, March 28, 2017 This article is not intended to alter your position in regard to Donald Trump in any way. Whether you love him or hate him isn’t an issue of global importance, nor is his political survival relevant to this analysis. Some of the tactics being used in the push to take Trump down however, are. The Stakes Before we dive into the quagmire that the topic of of Russia, Trump and the 2016 elections has become, it behooves us to anchor to the stakes: Russia is a nuclear power. The demonization of foreign nations is a precursor to war, and even a limited conflict between the United States and Russia would kill millions (if not billions) of people; rendering much of the planet uninhabitable for decades. Using U.S. Russian relations as a political football in this context is foolish and irresponsible. The Trump Variable Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign made tying Trump to Russia a central pillar of their messaging strategy. This line of attack was predicated on comments made by …

Questions following the US attack on Syria

Last night, and much to chagrin of people who thought Trump would not escalate matters in Syria, the US military launched 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria, allegedly attempting to destroy a government airbase. They warned the Russian government before-hand, who will have passed on that warning to the Syrians, meaning the area was probably on alert, with any important equipment or personnel removed. The Pentagon have also stated that, at this time, there are no plans for any other strikes or any campaign in Syria.

“Experts” reveal their “evidence” of Russian “hacking”

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence convened today, hearing testimony from three “star witnesses”. If you have a spare three hours, and a strong stomach, feel free to watch the whole sordid ordeal here. Not surprisingly there was no mention of that fact the that the FBI didn’t analyse the DNC servers – they were not allowed to. Likewise, there was no talk of CrowdStrike, the private firm that did get to do analysis, and then had to backtrack on their own findings. None of that was deemed important. Instead we got three hours of speeches from people who had nothing to say. The three expert witnesses have startlingly similar backgrounds, all hailing from the intelligence community in some way or other. They are all very long on exposition…and very short on actual evidence. Rather than citing statistics, or bringing up evidence of any kind, the Senators are more than happy to just let the three men ramble along twisting narrative pathways. Two of them had the good-grace to be non-committal, or at least vague, …

Instead of draining the swamp Trump is feeding the alligators

by Eric Zuesse, follow-up of a version originally published at The Saker Zerohedge’s “Tyler Durden” headlined on February 21st, “Bannon Breaks With Pence, Delivers Warning To Europe” and noted that before U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis reassured European leaders this past weekend that the U.S. is as anti-Russian now as it was under Barack Obama, U.S. President Donald Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, had told European leaders “that he viewed the EU as a flawed construct and favoured conducting relations with Europe on a bilateral basis” — and that this fact supposedly raises a question regarding the Trump Administration, of “which axis is dominant: that of Trump/Bannon/Miller or Pence/Mattis/Haley.” However, there is actually no such conflict: the Trump Administration, ever since at least February 14th’s White House press conference stating it firmly as President Trump’s policy, is and will remain anti-Russian. But this doesn’t deny that the Trump Administration also is going to be dealing not with the European Union as a government, but instead with the European …

The NeoNazis Protesting Trump

by George H. Eliason An Open Letter to Those Who Voted for Clinton and may not realise the company they are keeping when they take to the streets There isn’t an easy, kind, or right way to open this conversation with people that have stood up for the rights of people worldwide as well as on the home front for decades. Any and every starting point seems wrong. Since there is no good starting point, let’s go to the honest one. The current political climate be damned. How are 25% of American voters, the percentage that voted for Hillary, now a protesting majority?  What’s the makeup of that 25%?  Do all of them care about women’s, human or civil rights? These questions aren’t as difficult to answer as the truth will be to hear, especially for progressives.  I’m going to show why the best qualified candidate Bernie Sanders never stood a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected to the US presidency.  To get there, look at the simple math which shows that if Sanders …

CIA, FBI and NSA produce joint report, jointly prove nothing

by Ricardo Vaz, originally published at Invesig’Action The recent hysteria surrounding Russia’s alleged interference with the November presidential elections saw another episode after an intelligence report, jointly elaborated by the CIA, FBI and NSA, was released on Friday, January 6th. After weeks of bombshell headlines based on statements from anonymous intelligence officials, western media finally had an official intelligence report to support their bombshell headlines. Unsurprisingly, all headlines look very similar, with the Guardian even changing the title of their main story after realising it was not menacing enough. The problem is that, much like the old stories, the new ones do not contain any evidence to support the claims, because the report itself does not have anything in that regard. The report says that the “evidence” remains highly classified. These outlets are just being fed the same (non-)information in a new package, and reporting it as “remarkably blunt” (WaPo) and “damning and surprisingly detailed” (NYT) does not change the fact that there are no facts to back this thesis that there was a campaign …

Social-Democracy and the Centre-Left: Decline and Fall?

Viewed retrospectively, the significance of the Reagan-Thatcher counter-revolutionary offensive of the 1980s has been seen primarily as a political project aimed at the overturning of the post-WW2 political and social settlement; an undertaking in which it has largely succeeded. However, perhaps of equal importance was the political assimilation of centre-left, liberal class, into this emerging neo-liberal, neo-conservative movement.

America’s Secret Planned Conquest of Russia

by Eric Zuesse The U.S. government’s plan to conquer Russia is based upon a belief in, and the fundamental plan to establish, “Nuclear Primacy” against Russia — an American ability to win a nuclear war against, and so conquer, Russia. This concept became respectable in U.S. academic and governmental policymaking circles when virtually simultaneously in 2006 a short-form and a long-form version of an article endorsing the concept, which the article’s two co-authors there named “nuclear primacy,” were published respectively in the world’s two most influential journals of international affairs, Foreign Affairs from the Council on Foreign Relations, and International Security from Harvard.  (CFR got the more popular short version, titled “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy”, and Harvard got the more scholarly long version, which was titled “The End of MAD?”.) This article claimed that the central geostrategic concept during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, Mutually Assured Destruction or “MAD” — in which there is no such thing as the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. conquering the other, because the first of the two to attack will itself …

Obama’s Sanctions against Moscow “Intended to Box In Donald Trump”: Evidence that Hacking of DNC Accusations are Fake

by Prof. Michael Chossudovsky at Global Research, Dec. 30 2016 President Obama in the course of his last few weeks in the White House has ordered several retaliatory actions against Russia, on the grounds that Moscow was in involved in the hacking of the Democratic Party National Committee (DNC) with a view to influencing the outcome of the US presidential elections in favor of Donald Trump. The sweeping measures taken by Obama on December 29 consist in imposing sanctions on Russia’s intelligence services as well as requiring the departure of 35 Russian diplomats “suspected of being spies” from the US as well the shut down of two Russian compounds in Maryland and New York. According to NBC, the December 29 sanctions on Russia constitute “an assertive act by President Obama to punish Russia before he leaves office.” The unspoken truth, however, is that the punishment was intended for Trump. Whereas the sanctions were directed against Russia, the ultimate intent was to undermine the legitimacy of president-elect Donald Trump and his foreign policy stance in relation to Moscow.  According …

Journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates’ love letter to Barack Obama

by Niles Niemuth and David Walsh, via WSWS Ta-Nehisi Coates, national correspondent for the Atlantic, recently wrote a lengthy piece for that publication, “My President Was Black.” It is a love letter to Barack Obama. Coates is the author of Between the World and Me, which gained him the 2015 National Book Award for Nonfiction. Last year he received a “genius” grant, worth $625,000, from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. “My President Was Black” is a piece that takes sycophancy and prostration before authority to extraordinary new heights. The Atlantic—for many years the Atlantic Monthly—was founded in Boston in 1857 as a journal of cultural commentary. It was initially an organ of leading New England literary circles (James Russell Lowell, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Harriet Beecher Stowe, etc.), which at the time had some substance to them, including opposition to slavery. Presumably, even in its present state, the publication views itself as a commentator on and critic of the American cultural and political scene. But the Atlantic’s “national correspondent” openly expresses admiration and …