Search This Blog

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Social Engineering 101: How to Make a Refugee Crisis and a History of the Phony War on Terror

Published on Oct 6, 2015

Paul Joseph Watson takes a closer look at manufactured terrorism used to invade countries and start wars.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has stressed the need to create a united front to battle terrorist groups in Syria.Lavrov made the comments in a phone conversation with US Secretary of State John Kerry during which the top diplomats discussed the current situation in Syria.

The US State Department did not immediately offer details of the call which was made shortly after the Russian president defended his country’s military assistance to the Syrian government.

Vladimir Putin said it is impossible to defeat ISIL terrorist group also known as Daesh without cooperating with Damascus, urging other countries to join the cause.

Russia has been actively participating in international efforts to find a political solution to the conflict in Syria, as well as to assist the Syrian army in fighting against Daesh.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad says a political solution to the conflict in Syria would only be possible after the terrorists are defeated.

Speaking to Russian media, President Assad went on to say that if the Europeans are truly concerned about the fate of the refugees, they need to stop supporting terrorist groups operating across Syria.

‘West crying for refugees with one eye, aiming gun with the other’

  • In a rare interview with Russian media outlets, RT among them, Syrian leader Bashar Assad spoke about global and domestic terrorism threats, the need for a united front against jihadism, Western propaganda about the refugee crisis and ways to bring peace to his war-torn nation.

    ‘West crying for refugees with one eye, aiming gun with the other’ – Assad (FULL INTERVIEW)

    As the Syrian crisis enters its fifth year, tension in the country is still growing. Bashar Assad, the President of Syria, gives an interview to key Russian media, revealing his view on political progress, the Syrian crisis, its allies and its war on terrorism (View Interview with full transcript and assorted clipped segments here »)


The US government is hesitant to investigate the September 11, 2001 attacks because a real investigation of 9/11 would destabilize the US political system, according to an American scholar in Wisconsin. Dr. Kevin Barrett, a founding member of the Scientific Panel for the Investigation of 9/11, made the remarks during an interview with Press TV on Friday, when the United States commemorated the 14th anniversary of the September 11, attacks that left thousands of people dead. “A real investigation of 9/11 would destabilize the United States’ political system… and it could even lead to a civil war,” Dr. Barrett said. “The truth about 9/11 is so horrific that if the American people actually were to learn that truth they would completely lose confidence in their system, because the truth of matter is that a faction of power here in the United States – the neoconservative faction – orchestrated the events of the September 11, 2001 as a New Pearl Harbor designed to launch their agenda of world domination and a rollback of freedom in the United States,” he added.

The September 11 attacks, also known as the 9/11 attacks, were a series of strikes in the US which killed nearly 3,000 people and caused about $10 billion worth of property and infrastructure damage. US officials assert that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists but many experts have raised questions about the official account. They believe that rogue elements within the US government orchestrated or at least encouraged the 9/11 attacks in order to accelerate the US war machine and advance the Zionist agenda. “Essentially, the United States has been ruined, its constitution has been shredded, its economy has been destroyed, all in the name of an utterly and bogus war on terrorism that started with an inside job on September 11 – a neoconservative coup d’état,” said Dr. Barrett, the author of Questioning the War on Terror. When asked why the neoconservatives did 9/11, the scholar said that “they exactly told us why they did it. Just read their writings and listen to their speeches. People like Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute of Near East Policy has open called another false flag event like 9/11, like Pearl Harbor… the fake invasion of Mexico, the Gulf of Tonkin.”

“Patrick Clawson of that leading Israeli-sponsored Jewish policy institute has told us that we need a false flag event, a fake attack, blamed on Iran to launch a war on Iran. He openly says that. You can watch him say in a video,” he stated. “The neoconservatives have openly admitted why they are doing what they are doing. They follow the Trotskyisan philosophy of governess through big lies and mass violence. And they believe they are elite that has the right even the duty to manipulate the minds of the public by creating fake terror evidence in order to achieve their agenda,” the analyst noted. “They called for a New Pearl Harbor one year before 9 /11 and they got it. They have not even hidden their trail. It’s kind of disgusting that other scholars haven’t picked up on this,” Dr. Barrett concluded.

The Syria Chemical Weapons Saga: The Staging of a US-NATO Sponsored Humanitarian Disaster

Author’s Note and Update
In the light of recent developments and accusations directed against the Syrian government, it is important once more to set the record straight: the US supported rebels possess chemical weapons.  
The following article first published in December 2012 [scroll down] documents how the Pentagon  not only provided chemical weapons to Al Nusra, an affiliated Al Qaeda terrorist organization, but also provided  training to the rebels in the use of these weapons.
While Washington  continues to point its finger at president Bashar al Assad, a United Nations independent commission of inquiry confirmed in May 2013 that the rebels rather than the government have chemical weapons in their possession and were using sarin nerve against the civilian population:
U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.
The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.
The Geneva-based inquiry into war crimes and other human rights violations is separate from an investigation of the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria instigated by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, which has since stalled [discredited]. See “U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator,” Chicago Tribune, May, 5  2013, emphasis added)
Ironically, when the chemical weapons pretext was first launched by the Pentagon in August 2012, the accusations were not directed against President Bashar al Assad to the effect that he was underhandedly conniving to use WMD against Syrian civilians. Quite the opposite. According to the Pentagon, the operation was to ensure that Syria’s WMDs, which allegedly had been “left unguarded” in military bunkers around the country would not fall in the hands of opposition jihadist rebels who are fighting government forces:
Pentagon planners are more focused on protecting or destroying any Syrian stockpiles that are left unguarded and at risk [of] falling into the hands of rebel fighters or militias aligned with Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or other militant groups. ( U.S. has plans in place to secure Syria chemical arms –, August 22, 2012
What the Pentagon was saying in August 2012, is that these WMD could fall in the hands of  the “pro-democracy” Al Qaeda rebels recruited and financed by several of America’s close allies including Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, in liaison with Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels.
In a twisted logic,  the Pentagon was to ensure that the rebels aligned with Al Qaeda would not acquire WMD, by actually training them in the use of chemical weapons:
The training [in chemical weapons], which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.
The nationality of the trainers was not disclosed, though the officials cautioned against assuming all are American. (CNN, December 09, 2012, emphasis added
And once these Al Qaeda rebels had been supplied and trained in the use of WMDs by military contractors hired by the Pentagon,  the Syrian government would then be held responsible for using the WMD against the Syrian people.
This in turn would provide a justification for a humanitarian R2P intervention to “protect” and come to the rescue of the Syrian people.
Believe it or not: that is the justification for waging a “humanitarian war” on Syria.
Michel Chossudovsky, May 7, 2013, minor updates and edits, September 12, 2015

The Syria Chemical Weapons Saga: The Staging of a US-NATO Sponsored Humanitarian Disaster?

by Michel Chossudovsky

December 12, 2012
Modeled on the Saddam Hussein WMD narrative, the propaganda ploy concerning the alleged threat of Syria’s chemical weapons has been building up over several months.
The Western media suggests –in chorus and without evidence– that  a “frustrated” and “desperate” president Bashar al Assad is planning to use deadly chemical weapons against his own people. Last week, U.S. officials revealed to NBC News that “Syria’s military has loaded nerve-gas chemicals into bombs and are awaiting final orders from al-Assad”.
Western governments are now accusing Syria of planning a diabolical scheme on the orders of the Syrian head of State. Meanwhile, the media hype has gone into full gear. Fake reports on Syria’s WMD are funneled into the news chain, reminiscent of the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The evolving media consensus is that  “the regime of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad appears to be entering its twilight”  and that the “international community” has a responsibility to come to the rescue of the Syrian people to prevent the occurrence of a humanitarian disaster.
“…Fears are growing in the West that Syria will unleash chemical weapons in a last-ditch act of desperation”
Recent reports that the embattled government of Syria has begun preparations for the use of chemical weapons [against the Syrian people] . After two years of civil war and more than 40,000 deaths, events in Syria may be heading to a bloody crescendo.  (WBUR, December 11, 2012)
Accused: George Bush and Tony Blair who said today that Archbishop Tutu was wrong about the Iraq war
Syria versus Iraq
Antiwar critics have largely underscored the similarities with the Iraq WMD ploy, which consisted in accusing the government of Saddam Hussein of possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The alleged WMD threat was then used as a justification to invade Iraq in March 2003.
The WMD Iraq ploy was subsequently acknowledged in the wake of the invasion as an outright fabrication, with president George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair actually recognizing that it was a “big mistake”. In a recent statement Nobel Peace Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu called  for ‘lying’ Blair and Bush to face trial in the Hague`s International Criminal Court
The Syria WMD saga is in marked contrast to that of Iraq. The objective is not to” justify” an all out humanitarian war on Syria, using chemical weapons as a pretext.
An examination of  allied military planning as well as the nature of US-NATO support to the opposition forces suggests a different course of action to that adopted in relation to Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011).
The purpose is indeed to demonize Bashar Al Assad but the objective at this stage is not the conduct of an all out “shock and awe” war on Syria, involving a full fledged air campaign. Such an action would, under present conditions, be a highly risky undertaking. Syria has advanced air defense capabilities, equipped with Russian Iskander missiles (see image) as well as significant ground forces. A Western military operation could also lead to a response from Russia, which has a naval base at the port city of Tartus in Southern Syria.
Moreover, Iranian forces from its revolutionary guards corps (IRGC) are present on the ground in Syria; Russian military advisers are involved in the training of the Syrian military.
In recent developments, Syria took delivery of the more advanced Russian Iskander missile system, the Mach 6-7,  in response to the deployment of US Made Patriot missiles in Turkey.  Syria already possesses the less advanced E-Series Iskander.  Syria is also equipped with the Russian ground to air defense missile system Pechora-2M.  (see video below)
Iskander Mach 6-7
Pechora-2M S-125 SA-3 surface-to-air defense missile system technical data sheet specifications information description pictures photos images video intelligence identification intelligence Russia Russian army defence industry military technology
The Pechora-2M is a surface-to-air anti-aircraft short-range missile system designed for destruction of aircraft, cruise missiles, assault helicopters and other air targets at ground, low and medium altitudes.

Ground to air defense Russian Pechora 2M deployed to Syria
Non-Conventional Warfare
At this juncture, despite US-NATO military superiority, an all out military operation, for the reasons mentioned above, is not contemplated.
Non-conventional warfare remains the chosen avenue. Reports confirm that NATO-led military operations would be largely in support of rebel forces, its command structure, communications systems, recruitment, training, the transfer to rebel forces of more advanced weapons. Part of this undertaking including the training of rebels is being carried by private mercenary companies.
A limited and selective air campaign in support of the rebels, using Syria’s chemical weapons bunker stockpiles as a pretext could be contemplated, but even this would be a risky undertaking given Syria’s air defense capabilities.
What was on the drawing board of a recent “Semi-Secret” Meeting in London, hosted by General Sir David Julian Richards, head of Britain’s Defense Staff  is a coordinated military agenda characterised by “air and naval support, plus military training for the opposition”.
The meeting in London included the participation of  the military chiefs of France, Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, the UAE and the US. No further details were made public (See Felicity Arbuthnot,  Secret Meetings in London Plotting to Wage War on Syria without UN Authorization, Global Research, December 11, 2012
The thrust of this London gathering behind closed doors (reported on December 10, 2012) was to support a unified military command structure of opposition forces designed to “unify insurgent ranks” fighting government forces. In practice, this will require a renewed influx of mercenaries under the supervision of Western special forces which are already on the ground inside Syria.
Staging a Humanitarian Disaster?
The training component of  US-NATO action is of crucial importance. How does it relate to the Syria ‘chemical weapons’ issue?
The Western military alliance does not contemplate at this stage an all out war in response to Syria’s possession of chemical weapons. What is contemplated is the need to train the opposition rebels in the handling of chemical weapons.
This specialized training program which was confirmed is already ongoing, implemented with the support of specialized private mercenary and security companies on contract to the Pentagon:
The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday. ( CNN Report, December 9, 2012)
What is unfolding is a diabolical scenario –which is an integral part of military planning– namely a situation where opposition terrorists advised by Western defense contractors are actually in possession of chemical weapons.
This is not a rebel training exercise in non-proliferation. While president Obama states that “you will be held accountable” if “you” (meaning the Syrian government) use chemical weapons, what is contemplated as part of this covert operation is the possession of chemical weapons by the US-NATO sponsored terrorists, namely “by our” Al Qaeda affiliated operatives,  including the Al Nusra Front(see image on right), which constitutes the most effective Western financed and trained fighting group, largely integrated by foreign mercenaries. In a bitter twist, Jabhat al-Nusra, a US sponsored “intelligence asset”, was recently put on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.
The West claims that it is coming to the rescue of the Syrian people, whose lives are allegedly threatened by Bashar Al Assad.  The truth of the matter is that the Western military alliance is not only supporting the terrorists, including the Al Nusra Front, it is also making chemical weapons available to its proxy “opposition” rebel forces.
The next phase of this diabolical scenario is that the chemical weapons could be used by the US-NATO recruited “opposition” terrorists against civilians, which could potentially lead an entire nation into a humanitarian disaster.
The broader issue is: who is a threat to the Syrian people? The Syrian government of Bashar al Assad or the US-NATO-Israel military alliance which is recruting and training “opposition” terrorist forces.
The Syria Chemical Weapons Pretext: Background
The Syria Chemical Weapons Saga was launched last Summer. In  early August, the Pentagon announced that it would send “small teams of special operations troops” into Syria with a view to destroying Syria’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). These teams would in turn be supported by “precision air strikes”, namely air raids. An all out aerial attack was not contemplated. According to the Pentagon, the precision strikes were intended to “destroy the chemical weapons without dispersing them in the air”, a highly risky undertaking…
Ironically, at the outset of this diabolical plan, the US special forces incursion and air operation were not to be directed against the Syrian regime. In fact quite the opposite. The stated intent of the operation was to protect civilians against “opposition” rebels, rather than government forces.
No accusations were directed against President Bashar al Assad to the effect that he was underhandedly conniving to use WMD against Syrian civilians. According to the Pentagon, the operation was to ensure that Syria’s WMDs, which allegedly “are left unguarded” in military bunkers around the country do not fall in the hands of opposition jihadist rebels who are fighting government forces:
Pentagon planners are more focused on protecting or destroying any Syrian stockpiles that are left unguarded and at risk [of] falling into the hands of rebel fighters or militias aligned with Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or other militant groups. ( U.S. has plans in place to secure Syria chemical arms –, August 22, 2012
What the Pentagon was saying in August, was that these WMD could fall in the hands of  the “pro-democracy” freedom fighters recruited and financed by several of America’s close allies including Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, in liaison with Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels.
In essence, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was refuting his own lies. In August he acknowledged the terrorist threat, now he is accusing Bashar Al Assad. Tacitly acknowledged by Washington, the majority of the Syrian freedom fighters are not only foreign mercenaries, they also belong to extremist Islamist groups, which are on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.
Israel is a partner in the Syria chemical weapons operation in liaison with NATO and the Pentagon.
Training Terrorists in the Use of Chemical Weapons
If the Obama administration were genuinely concerned in preventing these chemical weapons from falling “in the wrong hands” (as suggested by the Pentagon in August), why then are they now training “opposition rebels” –largely composed of Salafist and Al Qaeda affiliated fighters– to gain control over government stockpiles of chemical weapons?
The training [in chemical weapons], which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.
The nationality of the trainers was not disclosed, though the officials cautioned against assuming all are American. (CNN, December 09, 2012)
While the news report does not confirm the identity of the defense contractors, the official statements suggest a close contractual relationship to the Pentagon:
The US decision to hire unaccountable defense contractors to train Syrian rebels to handle stockpiles of chemical weapons seems dangerously irresponsible in the extreme, especially considering how inept Washington has so far been at making sure only trustworthy, secular rebels – to the extent they exist – receive their aid and the weapons that allies in the Gulf Arab states have been providing.
It also feeds accusations that the Syrian Foreign Ministry recently made that the US is working to frame the Syrian regime as having used or prepared for chemical warfare.
“What raises concerns about this news circulated by the media is our serious fear that some of the countries backing terrorism and terrorists might provide the armed terrorist groups with chemical weapons and claim that it was the Syrian government that used the weapons,” the letters said.”( John Glaser, Us Defense Contractors Training Syrian Rebels,, December 10, 2012, See also CNN Report, December 9, 2012)
The central question is: what is the nature of this gruesome covert operation? Is the purpose of the US-NATO led operation to “prevent” or “encourage” the use of chemical weapons by the Free Syrian Army (FSA)?
The above report confirms that the US and NATO are training terrorists in the use of chemical weapons. Does this type of specialized training require the actual handling of toxic chemicals? In other words, is the Western military alliance, through its appointed defense contractors, making chemical weapons available to terrorists for training purposes?
Knowing that the Syrian insurgency is in large part made up of jihadists and Al Qaeda affiliated formations, this is hardly a means to “preventing” the actual use of chemical weapons against civilians. Moreover, amply documented, many of the “opposition” rebels who are receiving training in chemical weapons, have committed countless atrocities directed against Syrian civilians, including the massacres in Houla:
“Terrorist groups may resort to using chemical weapons against the Syrian people… after having gained control of a toxic chlorine factory [in Aleppo],” the foreign ministry said Saturday.” (Press TV, December 8, 2012)
It should be noted that the use of chemical weapons by opposition forces does not require that the rebels actually secure control over government stockpiles. Chemical weapons could easily be made available –from Western stockpiles– to the defense contractors involved in the specialized chemical weapons training programs.
Needless to say, the chemical weapons training and the involvement of private mercenary outfits on contract to NATO and the Pentagon, increase the risk; they create conditions which favor the use of chemical weapons by opposition forces, thereby potentially triggering a nationwide humanitarian disaster.
The US-NATO coalition has clarified at its “semi-secret” meeting in London (reported on December 10), however, that it does not contemplate “boots on the ground”. The special forces will be working with the opposition insurgency against government forces.
In the absence of an all out US-NATO military operation, the focus is on non-conventional warfare. In this context, one of  several diabolical “options on the table” would be to create conditions whereby chemical weapons “fall in the hands” of the terrorists thereby potentially triggering a nationwide humanitarian disaster.
While this option, were it to be carried out, would not require a US-NATO military intervention, the humanitarian catastrophe would set the stage for the collapse of the Syrian government, namely the long sought objective of “regime change”.
The Libya or Iraq model is not an option. The strategic choice of the Western military alliance points towards the possible staging of a humanitarian catastrophe?
In the logic of war propaganda and media disinformation, the deaths of civilians resulting from the use of chemical weapons would be blamed on President Bashar Al Assad, with a view to enforcing subsequent actions by the US-NATO military alliance.
We are not suggesting that this option will inevitably be carried out. What we are saying is thatthe option of chemical weapons in the hands of the rebels which could potentially trigger a humanitarian disaster is on the US-NATO drawing board.
How can we ensure that this gruesome and diabolical option be thwarted and definitively shelved?
The issue must be brought into the open. Public opinion must be mobilized against the US-NATO-Israel led war.
Denounce the Déjà Vu WMD lies.
Challenge the mainstream media consensus.
Reveal and refute the lies and fabrications concerning Syria’s chemical weapons program.
Spread the word, far and wide,
Bring the issue to the forefront of public debate, Confront the war criminals in high office.

putin smiling_0
At an ongoing Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) summit in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, Vladimir Putin affirmed Russia’s support for Syria “against terrorist aggression. We assist it and will keep rendering necessary military-technical assistance,” he said.
He urged the international community to cooperate with Moscow and Syria in combating terrorism, adding:
(W)ithout participation of the Syrian army…against the Islamic State, terrorists cannot be expelled from the country and the region as a whole. The…Syrian people cannot be protected against destruction, enslavement and barbarity.
Putin urged cooperative international community efforts with Assad’s government, Kurdish militias, and moderate internal opposition elements against a common terrorist enemy.
“Elementary common sense and responsibility for global and regional security require concerted efforts of the international community against this threat,” he stressed.
Syria’s ambassador to Russia was clear and unequivocal, saying “(a)ny talk about the presence of Russian troops in Syria is a lie propagated by Western countries and the United States.”
We think that a new conspiracy is being plotted against our country to penetrate into our territory under the pretext of Russian troops’ presence.
Weapons are being supplied under the agreements that were signed between our countries rather long ago. As for Russia’s position, it is based on international law, on our sovereignty and territorial integrity.
We have been cooperating with Russia in various spheres, including the defense sector, for 30-40 years. Yes, we do receive weapons and military hardware.
Since the very beginning of the current developments in 2011 and up till now, we have to face terrorist groups that are relying on the help and support from outside.” (Washington and its anti-Syrian allies) call actions taken by terrorist groups, including murders, destruction, executions, seizure of property, ousting civilian population as manifestations of freedom and democracy building.
But as a matter of fact, they only sought to achieve a vile political goal -to bend Syria to the United States and those countries that support it.
US-led Western countries “are fighting not against but by means of the Islamic State,” actively supporting its terrorism.
Ending Obama’s war on Syria depends on observing earlier agreed on “Moscow principles,” including respecting Syrian sovereignty, its territorial integrity, the right of its people alone to choose who’ll lead them with no outside interference, and a unified struggle against imported terrorism.
Instead, Washington insists Assad must go, State Department spokesman Admiral John Kirby repeating the demand Monday, saying he “cannot be part of the solution against ISIL” – blaming him for US-imported terrorists devastating the country with US air support, adding:
(T)here’s not going to be any solution against ISIL that would involved assisting, aiding, cooperating with, communicating with Bashar al-Assad. It’s not going to happen.
Previous articles explained Washington uses imported Islamic State and other takfiri terrorists as proxy foot soldiers against Assad – aiming for regime change to install a US-controlled stooge government, pursuing the same objective globally, waging endless wars on humanity for unchallenged dominance.
Washington floods the Middle East with heavy weapons for naked aggression. Moscow justifiably helps arm Syria for self-defense against foreign invaders. There’s nothing civil about ongoing conflict.
Irresponsible Russia bashing remains intense. Accusations about sending troops to aid Assad are malicious Big Lies. No evidence exists to prove what The New York Times recklessly calls “an escalating buildup that could give Moscow its most significant military foothold in the Middle East in decades.”
Its source: unnamed “American officials,” no fact-checking to verify their claims, accepting willful lies as facts, saying Moscow may use a Syrian airfield “as a staging area for airstrikes in support of Syrian government forces.”
Russia openly admits supplying Syria with contractually agreed on weapons and military supplies. Sergey Lavrov explained “(t)hey are inevitably accompanied by Russian specialists, who help adjust the equipment and train Syrian personnel” on how to use what’s provided.
All countries supplying weapons and technology do the same thing. Washington and supportive media want Syria rendered increasingly defenseless and isolated.
Neocon Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl headlined “Putin shifts fronts in Syria and Ukraine,” repeating the long ago discredited Big Lie about “Russian forces in eastern Ukraine ke(eping) up a daily drumbeat of attacks on the Ukrainian army.”
Now Putin is “shifting fronts” to Syria, he blustered. On the one hand, claiming “9,000 (nonexistent) regular troops (and) more than 30,000 (undefined) irregulars” in Ukraine.
On the other, ludicrously saying “Putin’s use of force…induce(d) the West to accept his Ukraine demands – and he is trying to repeat his triumph in a second theater.”
A litany or more Big Lies followed. Cold, hard truths are polar opposite Diehl’s duplicitous invective, typical of WaPo editorial reporting.
Wall Street Journal editors operate the same way. On September 13, they headlined “Putin’s Syria Play,” irresponsibly accusing him of intervening militarily to aid Assad.
Saying he won’t defeat ISIS but might save him, “giving Moscow a new sphere of influence in the Middle East.”
Journal editors urge establishing no-fly and “no-drive” zones on the ground – illegal without Security Council authorization not forthcoming.
Mostly, they want a hawkish Republican succeeding Obama in 2017 – to wage greater war on Syria and elsewhere than already, especially confronting Russia and China more aggressively.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Visit his blog site at
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 1PMCentral time plus two prerecorded archived programs.


  1. Big writing - I am old & it is such a relief - don't let them thwart you - I write big too - I got it sneered at me a few times "why are you shouting, can't you talk" & the like - weirdo paranoia is all I can think.
    I have not read this article yet & it is so long even - so I will be back - right.
    I just want to say that the pictures of these refugee camps have blown me away - in fact they are Nazi Concentration Camps - the prototype for the Nazi Camps came from King Leopold of Belgium's Free Congo State Slave Camps.
    SOMEONE'S - MEANING MOVER & SKAKER POWER BROKERS - ARE MAKING A LOT OF MONEY FROM THESE CAMPS -aid & assistence money for staters & then food ....

  2. Hi.
    I think you are wrong about "the individual's capacity to grip the concept" of their - human livestock concept, the livestock being us - after all, when was it not so, that we the people of planet earth would not 'get it'. So why have we not acted - why have we not stormed the castle & slaughtered them as they sleep in their beds - it would be a mercy performed upon them, only ? It can't be easy for them, living the life of evil incarnate, riddle with it like a dog with fleas - or is it !
    Only that we are civilized & therfore we refrain. Also, up until now we have not had the communications systems in place to support the mass information sharing & confidence needed - to stand together & be counted - today, like never before on planet earth, we the people can directly talk to each other - this is a very powerful aspect.
    However - they still have the brute force, the, for $$$ thug with the guns & cuffs to subdue us & the holding camps to keep us under control.