Tag Archives: Assad

WATCH: Ex-British Army Officer’s Mic Cut When Questioning Syria Gas Attack

London, UK — An interview between Sky News anchor Samantha Washington and former  British Armed Forces assistant chief Jonathan Shaw lasted less than 60 seconds after Shaw was asked whether the British parliament should move forward in intervention in Syria, and replied by questioning the logic of Assad launching chemical attacks in Douma.

Shaw, who served as the commander of the British Armed Forces in Iraq, questioned “what possible motive could have triggered Syria to launch this chemical attack at this time in this place.”

“You know, quite apart from all that, the part that seems to be missing from this—and this was actually mentioned by the ambassador—is what possible motive might have triggered Syria to launch a chemical attack at this time in this place?” Shaw said.

“You know, the Syrians are winning. And don’t take my word for it – take the American military’s word for it. General Votel – the head of CENTCOM – said to Congress the other day that ‘Assad has won this war and we need to face that.’ And then you got last week the statement by Trump that America had finished with ISIL and that we were going to pull out soon,” Shaw said.

He went on by saying “and then suddenly you get-” only to be quickly interrupted by presenter Samantha Washington who apologized for having “to leave it there.”

Speaking exclusively later on to The Daily Mail, Shaw added:

The jihadists and the various opposition groups who’ve been fighting against Assad have much greater motivation to launch a chemical weapons attack and make it look like Assad was responsible…

Their motivation being that they want to keep the Americans involved in the war – following Trump saying the US was going to leave Syria for other people to sort out.

Russia has officially claimed the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma was a planned provocation organized by the British security services and certain Syrian opposition NGOs, including the White Helmets. The UN’s Organization for Prohibited Chemical Weapons has inspectors in Syria until Wednesday inspecting the area with a preliminary report due before leaving.

Watch the full interview below:

Reality Check: Lies Justify U.S. Air Strikes on Syria?

The U.S. seems to be stuck on repeat.

Our government and our media have been peddling lies to justify war, from WMDs in Iraq to humanitarian intervention in Libya.

The latest? A U.S.-led missile strike on Syria for the alleged use chemical weapons on civilians. This, just a week after President Trump said we were ready to get our troops out of that country.

Time and time again, history has proven that our government has made the wrong choice in its efforts to overthrow authoritarian governments in the Middle East, from Iraq to Libya, and now Syria.

But this time, the U.S. is meddling in a country where multiple countries are playing out a proxy war, including Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Not to mention the heightened tensions from our president calling out Russia for its support of the Assad regime.

The big picture question: will we see this war escalate into a global conflict?

This is a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

So much has happened in Syria in the past two weeks: an alleged gas attack by the Assad regime, missile strikes blamed on Israel hit Syria and killed some 14 people, including Iranians, then President Trump announcing late Friday that the U.S. had launched its own missile attack on Syria in coordination with allies France and the United Kingdom.

Strong words from the president for not only Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, but also for his allies Iran and Russia.

As we reported last week, it was just a year ago that Trump authorized the first missile strike on Syria. So what did this new bombing involve?

Here’s what we know: the missile strikes hit just before dawn in Syria. They were carried out by manned U.S. military aircraft, and targeted an airfield, an alleged chemical weapons storage and manufacture facility, and command and control of the Syrian air defenses.

And while this barrage of air strikes is over, the pentagon did not rule out further strikes later.

U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis had previously stated that there was no evidence that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad used sarin gas on his own people. Now Mattis seems to be telling a different story.

To be clear, our government is claiming that there is evidence of a chlorine gas attack, and is framing this bombing as a retaliatory measure to stop Assad from gassing his own people, a humanitarian action.

Yet, as the financial times reported last Wednesday, it will take weeks to confirm if deadly gas was used, and by whom.

Again, Mattis said there is no evidence Assad used sarin gas on his own people. And why would Assad? What motive does the Syrian government have to gas attack civilians if it would only risk western retaliation?

Remember, the U.S., U.K. and France have been arming Syrian rebels bombing ISIS and putting boots on the ground in Syria for years. 2017 marked the first direct targeting of Assad’s government, and now this missile strike. Both labeled as humanitarian efforts.

But remember, the U.S. government has a history of taking humanitarian action without evidence.

Remember when Colin Powell and others in the Bush Administration said there was no doubt that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? He didn’t.

The lies continued, with claims that after our invasion of Iraq the extremists would be curtailed. Yet with some 4,500 American lives lost and $2.4 trillion spent, Iraq is still a mess.

And what about Libya? In an episode of Reality Check from early March, we covered the open market slave trade happening there as a result of U.S. intervention. Even former President Obama said the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi was his greatest single mistake in office.

Our elected leaders never seem to learn from these mistakes. And the mainstream media is severely failing in holding them accountable.

Case in point, these latest strikes were authorized by the president, not congress. Congressional leaders were notified by the vice president shortly before the airstrikes were carried out. And many members of congress were angry at the president for not getting congressional approval before taking action against Assad.

Back in 2013, Trump criticized then-President Obama on Twitter for even considering striking Syria without congressional approval, saying:

“The president must get congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!”

What you need to know is that history tends to repeat itself, if we let it. Our government could very well be trying to do the same thing in Syria as it has done in Libya and Iraq.

And the trail goes back further. There’s a Wikileaks cable from 2006 detailing how to overthrow Assad, including radicalizing Islamists in the region.

Yet President Trump says this bombing was a targeted attack to stop the use of chemical weapons, that’s it. U.K. prime minister Theresa May took it further, stating that “this is not about regime change.”

It’s hard to believe when history tells a different story.

That’s Reality Check. Let’s talk about that on social media.

 

NOTE: The flag used in the graphics for this episode should have been the Syrian Arab Republic flag with two green stars, not the Syrian Interim Government flag with three red stars.

Report: Russian Black Sea Fleet on “High Level” Alert

Washington, D.C.— The Russian Black Sea Fleet has reportedly been placed on high level combat alert after a U.S. ship left Cyprus for Syrian waters, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense as reported by Al-Masdar News of Beirut. Additionally, NBC News is reporting that the Russian military is jamming U.S. military drones operating over Syria, which is affecting American military operations, according to several U.S. officials. These moves by Russia likely come in anticipation of a possible U.S.-led coalition military strike.

A U.S. military strike— a decision yet to be made by President Trump, but one which he has strongly suggested— would be the result of an alleged chemical weapons attack in the in the city of Douma that was blamed on the Syrian Army by “rebels” as well as the White Helmets. In response, Russia claimed that their investigators found no traces of chemicals being used at the alleged attack site. An investigation team from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will be traveling to Syria to conduct their own research following a request from Russia and Syria.

While Washington was quick to report that the Assad government was behind the alleged chemical attack, Russia warned weeks ago of false flag chemical weapons attacks by Islamist rebels intent on blaming the Assad government, as Truth in Media previously reported:

Russia’s Chief of the General Staff of Armed Forces, Valery Gerasimov, warned on Tuesday that Syrian rebels are preparing to utilize chemical weapons— to be blamed on the Syrian government— as a justification for U.S. strikes on Damascus, and cautioned that “in the event of a threat to our military servicemen’s lives, Russia’s Armed Forces will take retaliatory measures to target both the missiles and their delivery vehicles.”

“This has been confirmed by the discovery of a laboratory for the production of chemical weapons in the village of Aftris, which was liberated from terrorists,” Gerasimov stressed.

“As a countermeasure, Washington plans to deliver a missile and bomb strike against Damascus’ government districts,” Gerasimov continued.

The increased defensive alertness of Russian forces could raise concern, given Gerasimov’s warning of “retaliatory measures to target both missiles and their delivery vehicles.”

[Watch: Reality Check: No Sarin Gas Used by Assad in Syria?]

According to NBC News’ report:

The Russians began jamming some smaller U.S. drones several weeks ago, the officials said, after a series of suspected chemical weapons attacks on civilians in rebel-held eastern Ghouta. The Russian military was concerned the U.S. military would retaliate for the attacks and began jamming the GPS systems of drones operating in the area, the officials explained.

Dr. Todd Humphreys, an expert on GPS spoofing and jamming and director of the Radionavigation Laboratory at the University of Texas at Austin, warned that the Russian GPS jamming could be powerful, potentially causing them to malfunction.

“GPS receivers in most drones can be fairly easily jammed,” Humphreys said. “At the very least it could cause some serious confusion.”

NBC News reports that the Pentagon refused to say whether the jamming is causing drones to crash over concerns of operational security, but one official speaking off the record said the Russian jamming is sophisticated and has made a tactical impact on U.S. military operations in Syria.

“The U.S. military maintains sufficient countermeasures and protections to ensure the safety of our manned and unmanned aircraft, our forces and the missions they support,” Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon told NBC.

An unnamed U.S. official told NBC that the tactic is having an operational impact on U.S. military operations in Syria, and said “the equipment being used was developed by the Russian military and is very sophisticated, proving effective even against some encrypted signals and anti-jamming receivers.”

Investigative journalist Ben Swann’s most recent Reality Check fully summarizes the most recent chemical attack and the much larger conflict surrounding the incident:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcOxFAp-nx4

Reality Check: No Sarin Gas Used by Assad in Syria?

It was a stunning announcement, stunning because of what was said and maybe equally as stunning because it was honest.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis says there is no evidence that the Syrian government used sarin gas on the its own people.

It is a narrative we have been pushing back on for years. So what does this mean for U.S. policy in Syria? And will President Trump continue to push for war in Syria, or will he return to the positions of candidate Trump who said the U.S. should stay out of it?

Let’s give it a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

The statement is getting very little media coverage but it is a very big deal.

According to Defense Secretary James Mattis, there is no evidence that the Syrian government has used sarin gas on its own people.

Here is exactly what Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon:

“We have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used.”

“We do not have evidence of it.”

“We’re looking for evidence of it, since clearly we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions.”

Mattis insists that he wasn’t refuting the claims. But in a sense, he did.

According to Newsweek, in 2017 a White House memorandum was quickly produced and then declassified to justify an American Tomahawk missile strike against the Shayrat airbase in Syria.

The justification used was that Assad had used chemical weapons on his own people. Then President Trump himself insisted that there was no doubt that Syrian President Assad had killed his own people with banned chemical weapons.

But Mattis also didn’t qualify the statement to just the Syrian airbase strike. That means that the 2013 gas attack in Ghouta also was not proven to be Assad.

At that time, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were demanding congress approve use of force against Assad. Obama said this from the rose garden as he said American destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles were on standby in the Mediterranean Sea.

“I’m prepared to give that order, but having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”

Congress did not approve that use of force, but then applauded Trump for his use.

For his part, in this latest statement, Mattis says that “aid groups and others” had provided evidence of the Syrian government using sarin.

But as I have extensively reported over the past few years, there is much evidence that the so called Syrian freedom fighters are actually ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters. And there is evidence that they have used chemical weapons.

Other problems with the claims of Assad using sarin: in the 2013 Ghouta event, the sarin came from home-made rockets, which were favored by insurgents.

Also, according to Newsweek:

“In the 2013 event, the White House memorandum seemed to rely heavily on testimony from the Syrian white helmets who were filmed at the scene having contact with supposed sarin-tainted casualties and not suffering any ill effects.

“Carla del Ponte was unable to fulfill her U.N. joint investigative mechanism mandate in Syria and withdrew in protest over the United States refusing to fully investigate allegations of chemical weapons use by ‘rebels’ who are actually jihadis, allied with the American effort to oust President Assad (including the use of sarin by anti-Assad rebels).”

According to the Times of London:

“Carla del Ponte, head of the independent UN commission investigating reports of chemical weapons use in Syria, told a Swiss-Italian television station that UN investigators gleaned testimony from victims of Syria’s civil war and medical staff which indicated that rebel forces used sarin gas – a deadly nerve agent.

“‘Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,’ del Ponte said in the interview, translated by Reuters.

‘This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,’ she added.”

It was the involvement of those jihadis posing as Syrian rebels that made then-candidate Trump state emphatically that he wouldn’t intervene and help oust Assad as Hillary Clinton wanted to do.

Candidate Trump pushed back heavily against intervention. He warned that ISIS was likely to take over Syria if Assad were ousted, just as they have in Iraq and Libya.

And yet the U.S. is only escalating fighting.

Four Russian nationals, and perhaps dozens more, were killed in fighting between pro-government forces in eastern Syria and members of the United States-led coalition fighting the Islamic State, according to Russian and Syrian officials—that according to the New York Times.

Russia says that no members of the Russian armed forces were killed and that any Russians fighting alongside the Syrians were mercenaries.

So what you need to know is that candidate Trump was clear when he pointed to the bush policy in Iraq and the Obama/Clinton policies in Libya and Syria that have only strengthened the creation and spread of ISIS and jihadism.

Candidate Trump rightly pointed out that these policies had failed and that it was insanity to keep pursuing those policies and expecting a different outcome.

So why is President Trump now embracing those insane policies that if continued will undoubtedly leave another power vacuum in the Middle East which will be filled with jihadis?

That’s Reality Check, let’s talk about it tonight on Twitter and Facebook.

Defense Sec. Mattis Admits U.S. Has No Evidence Syrian Government Used Sarin Gas

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis confirmed that the U.S. government has no evidence that the Syrian government used sarin gas on its people— a claim that was used by the White House as justification for an April 2017 launch of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria.

On Friday, Mattis said that reports of chemical weapon use by the Syrian government have come from aid groups and others, but that the U.S. doesn’t have any evidence to support these assertions.

“We have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used,” Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon. “We do not have evidence of it.”

“We’re looking for evidence of it, since clearly we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions,” Mattis continued. “We’re even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use.”

Mattis explained that he was not refuting the third-party reports of chemical weapons used by the Syrian government led by President Bashar Assad. Assad has steadfastly denied that his government has used chemical weapons throughout the conflict.

In 2013, UN investigator Carla Del Ponte made note that Syrian rebels, not the Assad regime, used chemical weapons in the two-year civil war, contrary to assessments made by American officials.

According to a report by The Times of Israel:

“Carla Del Ponte, head of the independent UN commission investigating reports of chemical weapons use in Syria, told a Swiss-Italian television station that UN investigators gleaned testimony from victims of Syria’s civil war and medical staff which indicated that rebel forces used sarin gas — a deadly nerve agent.

‘Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,’ Del Ponte said in the interview, translated by Reuters.

‘This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,’ she added.”

 

During his comments on Friday, Mattis referred to the April 2017 cruise missile strikes on a Syrian airbase, noting that the Syrian government would “be ill-advised to go back to violating” the chemical weapons prohibition.

[RELATED: The Two Major Problems With President Obama’s Syria Address]

In addition to the UN investigation, one of the foremost academic experts in the field of missile fired chemical weapons, Theodore Postol, Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), came forward in a series of reports to note his opposition to the official Trump administration’s narrative in regards to the Khan Sheikhoun nerve agent attack in Syria, blamed on the Assad government, which precipitated the cruise missile strikes by the U.S., according to a report in the International Business Times. According to Postol, the Syrian gas attack was not carried out by the Syrian government.

In one of his reports, Postol concluded that the US government’s report does not provide any “concrete” evidence that Assad was responsible, adding it was more likely that the attack was perpetrated by players on the ground.

Postol wrote in his report:

“I have reviewed the [White House’s] document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria at roughly 6am to 7am on 4 April, 2017.

In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document point to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of 4 April.

This conclusion is based on an assumption made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and the photographs of that source. My own assessment is that the source was very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made from the photographs cited by the White House.”

Postol noted that he has “unambiguous evidence that the White House Intelligence Report (WHR) of April 11, 2017 contains false and misleading claims that could not possibly have been accepted in any professional review by impartial intelligence experts.”

Postol called for an independent investigation into the decision to launch cruise missile strikes in Syria, concluding:

“It is now obvious that this incident produced by the WHR, while just as serious in terms of the dangers it created for US security, was a clumsy and outright fabrication of a report that was certainly not supported by the intelligence community.

In this case, the president, supported by his staff, made a decision to launch 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian air base. This action was accompanied by serious risks of creating a confrontation with Russia, and also undermining cooperative efforts to win the war against the Islamic State.”

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton Claims Russia Has ‘Not Gone After ISIS’

During the latest Democratic Debate Thursday, Hillary Clinton defended her reservations towards Russia by claiming that the Russians “have not gone after ISIS or any of the other terrorist groups.”

Clinton’s statement was in response to comments made by rival Bernie Sanders when he was asked if he was prepared to “move militarily” against Russia, or to “institute further economic sanctions.”

Sanders called the United States’ relationship with Russia “complicated,” and said that although he believes the U.S. should “do our best in developing positive relations with Russia,” he also stands by President Obama in believing that Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to be shown that his “aggressiveness is not going to go unmatched.”

Clinton replied that she believes an agreement on a cease-fire is “something that has to be implemented more quickly than the schedule that the Russians agreed to.”

[pull_quote_center]You know, the Russians wanted to buy time. Are they buying time to continue their bombardment on behalf of the Assad regime to further decimate what’s left of the opposition, which would be a grave disservice to any kind of eventual cease-fire?[/pull_quote_center]

Clinton also said she is worried that the Russians are doing “everything they can to destroy what’s left of the opposition,” and she claimed that “the Russians have not gone after ISIS or any of the other terrorist groups.”

[pull_quote_center]So let’s support what Secretary Kerry and the president are doing, but let’s hope that we can accelerate the cease-fire, because I fear that the Russians will continue their bombing, try to do everything they can to destroy what’s left of the opposition. And remember, the Russians have not gone after ISIS or any of the other terrorist groups.[/pull_quote_center]

Russia began launching airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria in Sept. 2015. Syrian State media claimed the airstrikes began after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad requested help, and that the move was criticized by the U.S.

[RELATED: Russian-Backed Syrian Army Defeats ISIS at Aleppo]

A report from Reuters on Jan. 20 claimed that Russian airstrikes in Syria are gradually weakening both ISIS militants and the Free Syrian Army, allowing Assad to gain more power and to make one of its most significant gains since the start of the Russian intervention,” by capturing the town of Salma in Latakia province.

The report noted that out of the “3,000 people killed by Russian air strikes in Syria since they began in September, nearly 900 were members” of ISIS. The group lost control of the city of Ramadi in December, and has cut fighters’ pay since its “oil-smuggling operations are hit by plunging prices.”

However, the report also noted that Russia’s operation has harmed rebel groups in the area, who are “reporting intensified air strikes and ground assaults in areas of western Syria that are of greatest importance to Assad.”

[RELATED: Reality Check: Proof U.S. Government Wanted ISIS To Emerge In Syria]

Investigative journalist Ben Swann reported on the origin of ISIS in March 2015, and he noted that ISIS grew out of a group of U.S.-backed rebels who were attempting to defeat Assad.

However, Swann said that even when the U.S. government became aware that ISIS was capturing U.S. equipment, it did nothing, “because ISIS fighters were taking the equipment back into Syria to continue fighting Assad, which was what the U.S. government wanted.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6kdi1UXxhY

For more election coverage, click here.

DONEGAN: U.S. Should Sit Back And Let Putin Destroy ISIS in Syria

The rise of ISIS in the destabilized areas connecting Syria, Libya, and Iraq, much of the territory of which once made up the meat of a historical region referred to as the Levant, unfolded largely due to U.S. foreign policy blunders. Secular strong men Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and Bashar al-Assad had kept radical Islamist forces in check in Iraq, Libya, and Syria respectively before they found themselves on American neoconservatives’ somewhat-arbitrary and clearly ill-advised hit list.

With Hussein and Gaddafi gone and Assad struggling, ISIS emerged as professional terrorists from around the world have flooded into the region, tapped into the anger of once-marginalized Sunni minorities, and obtained advanced U.S. weaponry and military hardware through misguided American intelligence programs aimed at strengthening unverifiable “moderate rebels” against the secular strong men that had previously prevented terrorist uprisings.

Meanwhile, ISIS has become an enemy to nearly all of its neighbors, which, unfortunately for the U.S., consists largely of military forces that American leaders also consider enemies, making it impossible for the U.S. to create a local and regional coalition to take out ISIS. America’s main military ally against ISIS in the region is the weak Iraqi government that it has attempted to prop up and duct-tape back together after a prolonged military occupation that created mistrust among locals.

Putin’s Russia, on the other hand, which was reportedly victimized by what ISIS claims was a terror attack on a Russian airliner, started an air assault on ISIS on September 30 to support the terror group’s regional enemies. Consequently, a coalition of Syrian government forces—Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia, a list of groups that U.S. politicians consider enemies and thus can not assist—won the first major victory against ISIS earlier this week by liberating a once-besieged key air base in Syria’s Aleppo province, lending credibility to the notion that Putin’s strikes have turned the tides against ISIS in Syria.

[RELATED: Russian-Backed Syrian Army Defeats ISIS at Aleppo]

U.S. media jumped all over the story of only one high profile terrorist possibly being targeted by U.S. drone strike while completely ignoring that Russian forces helped to end, this week, an ISIS siege of a key air base in Aleppo,” wrote Ben Swann in a Friday report on the U.S. effort to target ISIS propagandist “Jihadi John.

Swann also noted in a CBS 46 Reality Check video, seen below, that the convoluted and “insane” foreign policy of most leading Republican presidential candidates aside from Donald Trump and Senator Rand Paul can be described as, “[Neoconservative-leaning GOP candidates] want to fight ISIS while also fighting Assad in Syria. Even though ISIS is fighting against Assad in Syria, and the Russians are helping Syria fight ISIS so [the U.S.] may have to fight Russia to stop them from fighting with Syria against ISIS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uisj3_A94c

Neocons have floated the idea of ordering a no-fly zone over Syria, where Russian bombers are currently running sorties successfully targeting ISIS, which would put the brakes on Putin’s assault on ISIS and replace it with World War III style tensions between the U.S. and Russia.

Presidential candidate Donald Trump, however, said, “If Putin wants to beat the hell out of ISIS I’m all for it 100 percent. I can’t understand how anyone would be against it.

According to Breitbart, Trump explained earlier this year, “Let Syria and ISIS fight. Why are we — why do we care? Let ISIS and Syria fight. And let Russia, they’re in Syria already, let them fight ISIS. Look, I don’t want ISIS. ISIS is bad. They’re evil. When they start doing with the head-chopping, and drowning of — these are really bad dues, so I don’t want them. But let them fight it out. Let Russia take care of ISIS. How many places can we be?

Letting Putin take out ISIS would not be an abdication of American leadership. There is no American leadership in the region to abdicate. We have worn out our welcome with schizophrenic efforts to arm non-vetted “moderate rebels” who repeatedly turn out to be recruitment centers for ISIS fighters that are beheading everyone in sight in the region. We have decapitated the leadership of the few forces in the region that previously kept radical Islamists at bay. Now, the groups that have the ability to do it are U.S. enemies with whom we can not cooperate without a diplomatic re-alignment that hawkish American politicos will not support.

Russia, on the other hand, has built a coalition with Syria’s government, Iran, and Hezbollah that is making serious progress against ISIS in just a few short weeks. Let’s leave Syria alone and let Putin finish what he has started. Not only will it result in the decimation of ISIS, but it will do so without forcing the U.S. to borrow more from China to pay for it.

Russia Begins Airstrikes Against ISIS in Syria

by Jason Ditz

Russian warplanes have begun their first airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria, with President Putin saying he is concerned about the continued ISIS takeover of the region, and fear that ISIS forces might threaten European countries, including Russia, if they weren’t stopped.

A statement from the Syrian state media says President Bashar al-Assad formally requested help from Russia in the ongoing civil war, and that the airstrikes began in response to that. U.S. officials slammed the move, saying Assad has to be removed from power.

The first Russian strikes targeted western Homs Province, with the Russian Defense Ministry saying they believe the positions hit belong to ISIS. Another rebel faction, however, claimed they were the ones that were hit, and also claimed Russia deliberately targeted civilians in the area.

According to US officials, Russia gave them an hour’s notice on the airstrikes, and advised them to remove US and coalition warplanes from Syrian airspace during the bombing run. There was no confirmation, however, if the US actually did this.

Non-Lethal Aid: US Spends $15 Million on Journalists for Anti-Assad Reports

Funding Is Pending Congressional Approval

by Jason Ditz, March 13, 2015

The US State Department has announced their latest round of “non-lethal aid” for Syrian rebels, and while couched as an attempt to “support the Syrian opposition,” much of the money is going to pet projects to try to rile up international support against the Assad government.

$15 million of the funding is going to go to journalists and opposition figures “to support documentation of war crimes, human rights violations, and other Syrian government abuses.”

The State Department has been keen on this, hyping abuses committed by the Assad government for years, initially in an effort to build up support for a failed US invasion, and now seemingly just to keep that window open.

Despite talking up a $70 million figure for the non-lethal aid to rebels, the rebels themselves appear only to be getting about $25 million worth of gear, with the rest going to journalists or self-proclaimed governments-in-exile to try to buy credibility.

Much of that will be going to the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) in Istanbul, which has virtually no backing by any armed rebel forces anymore, but is still regularly bankrolled by the US to keep their lights on while they hold endless meetings over who is going to be leading their ultimately powerless group.

Image by Freedom House via Creative Commons license.

Did the US Train ISIS Rebels to Fight Against Assad in Syria?

Special note: the above Fox News video, from 2013, references the existence of a US-led training program in Jordan aimed at strengthening the Syrian opposition against Assad, which some have alleged might have equipped ISIS fighters with the tactics they are currently using against the US-trained Iraqi Army.

Iraq has fallen into total disarray, with a rebel group called ISIS, or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, having conquered broad sections of the nation, along with a significant amount of territory in neighboring Syria. Though the Iraqi military claims to have ISIS contained, clashes are currently taking place within 140 miles of Baghdad. The US is sending ground troops back to Iraq, and officials representing the government of the war-torn nation have asked the US to provide air support against ISIS.

However, is it possible that the very rebels fighting against the US-backed government in Iraq were trained by American forces in an effort to strengthen the Free Syrian Army’s rebellion against Assad in Syria? Back in March of 2013, Reuters reported that the German magazine Der Spiegel published an account by organizers of the Syrian rebellion claiming that US trainers, some wearing uniforms, were seen providing anti-tank training in Jordan to anti-Assad forces. Though the article mentioned that the training program was meant to exclude radicals that might turn against locals in Jordan, it is challenging to run background checks on everyone who joins a rebel group. Also, individuals who seemed ideologically moderate at one time could later on join a group like ISIS, especially considering its escalating momentum.

In January of 2014, a rift formed between members of the Syrian rebellion and ISIS, largely over tactics. However, ISIS has been successful in its military campaign against the Iraqi government, and this has led its ranks to grow. It’s difficult to know whether the rebels allegedly trained by the US in Jordan have since joined ISIS, but The Washington Post is reporting that ISIS just released a new propaganda video touting its American-style military tactics. The video not only shows a capable military force with mature training, but it also contains footage of rebel fighters using an anti-tank guided missile system.

It is tough to conclusively prove whether or not ISIS fighters were the individuals being trained by the US in Jordan. However, the group’s beginnings lie in the Syrian rebellion, and its military tactics look distinctly American. The latest ISIS propaganda video even demonstrates sophisticated anti-tank tactics, which were the focus of the alleged 2013 training session in Jordan. The division between other Syrian rebel groups and ISIS didn’t grow until January of 2014, several months after Der Spiegel‘s report. The Guardian also corroborated Der Spiegel‘s assertions, noting that special operators from the US, UK, and France were working together in Jordan to strengthen the Syrian opposition and that anti-aircraft missiles, like those seen in ISIS’ new propaganda video, were being funneled over the border from Turkey to Syrian fighters. An Associated Press article referenced by CBS News also noted the existence of the training program.

At this point, not enough clear evidence exists to confirm or deny the rumors that the US might have inadvertently provided ISIS with the training to defeat US-trained forces in Iraq. However, this would not be the first time American tactics and weapons have been found on both sides of a conflict. Also, ISIS’ latest propaganda video demonstrates a tactically mature force using anti-tank weapons, which was the specific focus of the alleged training session in Jordan. When the fog of war clears, it is entirely possible that history will reflect that the US inadvertently armed and trained the very opposition group that would later undo all of its efforts to strengthen the government in Iraq.

Al Qaeda Backed Syrian Rebels Decapitate Young Boy (Warning: Graphic)

Photo Credit: Time Magazine
Al Qaeda Backed Syrian Rebels Decapitate Young Boy– Photo Credit: TIME Magazine

We have been providing you all coverage on the Syrian civil war for quite some time. Atrocities surface every so often. We first realized the barbaric face of the Free Syrian Army when one member cut the heart of a soldier out and proceeded to eat it. The rebel claimed the act in the name of Allah. Now, we see yet another crime against humanity that is a regular practice of the rebels.

Time Magazine was given exclusive access to images, which witness the Syrian rebels in action. The above decapitation is one of four that occurred that day. Below is the photographer’s eye witness account of the event.

“The man was brought in to the square. His eyes were blindfolded. I began shooting pictures, one after the other. It was to be the fourth execution that day I would photograph. I was feeling awful; several times I had been on the verge of throwing up. But I kept it under control because as a journalist I knew I had to document this, as I had the three previous beheadings I had photographed that day, in three other locations outside Aleppo.

The crowd began cheering. Everyone was happy. I knew that if I tried to intervene I would be taken away, and that the executions would go ahead. I knew that I wouldn’t be able to change what was happening and I might put myself in danger.

I saw a scene of utter cruelty: a human being treated in a way that no human being should ever be treated. But it seems to me that in two and a half years, the war has degraded people’s humanity. On this day the people at the execution had no control over their feelings, their desires, their anger. It was impossible to stop them.

I don’t know how old the victim was but he was young. He was forced to his knees. The rebels around him read out his crimes from a sheet of paper. They stood around him. The young man was on his knees on the ground, his hands tied. He seemed frozen.

Two rebels whispered something into his ear and the young man replied in an innocent and sad manner, but I couldn’t understand what he said because I don’t speak Arabic.

At the moment of execution the rebels grasped his throat. The young man put up a struggle. Three or four rebels pinned him down. The man tried to protect his throat with his hands, which were still tied together. He tried to resist but they were stronger than he was and they cut his throat. They raised his head into the air. People waved their guns and cheered. Everyone was happy that the execution had gone ahead.

That scene in Syria, that moment, was like a scene from the Middle Ages, the kind of thing you read about in history books. The war in Syria has reached the point where a person can be mercilessly killed in front of hundreds of people—who enjoy the spectacle.

As a human being I would never have wished to see what I saw. But as a journalist I have a camera and a responsibility. I have a responsibility to share what I saw that day. That’s why I am making this statement and that’s why I took the photographs. I will close this chapter soon and try never to remember it.”

The photographer’s name is not published to protect his identity. This is the face of the creature, which Assad fights against. This is the face of the creature, which president Obama wishes to support. When Obama addressed America two days ago to try and rally support for a Syrian strike he made no mention of taking Al Qaeda’s weapons. In fact, he only mentioned them once in the entire 15 minute speech. Instead, he declared more than 10 times that Assad would be disarmed to give the upper-hand to the Al Qaeda backed, Free Syrian Army.

Exclusive: Lt. Colonel Connor: “If Assad did this, he’d be the stupidest military leader on the face of the earth” (Video)

In a question and answer session on Friday, Lt. Colonel Bill Connor discussed the history and geopolitical importance of the current situation in Syria. Connor served in Kuwait twice after the Gulf war in the early 1990s, and won the Bronze Star for his efforts in Afghanistan. He also served in Sinai and Egypt on peacekeeping duties which gives him unique insight into the complexities regarding the middle east. Connor gave his analysis regarding Syria and also addressed recent claims by John McCain and Lindsey Graham supporting the attack in Syria, as well as detailing important facts about the war unknown to most Americans.  He also said that he was considering running for Lindsey Graham’s Senate seat, but had not yet decided whether it was the right course of action.

conno with harry Connor said it was plausible that the rebel forces were behind the sarin gas attacks blamed on Assad’s regime, because the US does not currently have all the facts about the situation and it would be a much more logical course of action for the rebels than Assad.  “If Assad did this, he’d be the stupidest military on the face of the earth,” he said, later continuing “If I’m a rebel commander, I would love for the whole would to be on my side against Assad.”  He noted that both Assad and the Russian government had alleged that the attacks were perpetrated by rebels.

The Lt. Colonel also described a tape in which a high level Syrian official seeing the gas attack asking what was going on.  “Now what this tells me is that probably Assad and those guys didn’t know.”  That means, he said, that one of two situations occurred.  Either it was the rebels, or it was a lower commander acting against orders. Connor admits that he does not have the same intel as Congress, but wanted to tell his audience that he has many concerns about a strike on Syria.

The rebel forces, Connor said, are very divided and diverse.  Al Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood fighters undeniably make up a significant portion of the forces in the country, but they’re not fighting for its freedom, they’re fighting to set up a caliphate, another Taliban-like Islamist – more specifically Sunni – extremist government.  Assad, in contrast, is Allawi, a minority sect in both Syria and the Middle East, considered “heretical” by the Sunnis.  Connor said that although Assad is a brutal dictator, he still protects religious minorities like Christians because his own sect is considered little better than Christians.

The Free Syrian Army, though, seems to be a secular organization run by a military official.  It seems that the Free Syrian Army has been attempting to protect churches and Christians in the country, but they have been slaughtered by “fellow rebel” Al Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood fighters.  It’s possible that arming and supporting the Free Syrian Army via covert operations could lead to a positive outcome of the Syrian Civil War.

In his discussion, Connor also countered arguments made by John McCain and Lindsey Graham as they supported the idea of an attack.  Quite simply, John McCain was shown the “rebel forces” by the Saudis, who favor intervention.  Military personnel see and deal with what’s going on at the ground level, while politicians are “wined and dined,” and shown what people want them to see.  In addition to Saudi Arabia, Turkey’s leader is helping to train Al Qaida forces because he is far more fundamentalist than the West realizes.

Regarding Graham’s Iran argument, he said it was “a separate issue in some ways,” but that “The fact that the Saudis are bankrolling all this makes it almost more worrisome.”  The Saudis are interested in putting a Sunni radical in charge of Syria, but Syria has sarin gas.  A radical ruler who supports terrorism – as the Saudis do – getting a hold of large quantities of sarin gas is a very dangerous situation.

Finally, he detailed the reasons that air strikes alone cannot be seen as an appropriate form of intervention.  People know the air strikes are coming and can prepare accordingly, so they accomplish relatively little.  When Clinton bombed Serbia and Afghanistan, it made no difference in the outcome of the situation or force one side to give in.  These plans, in addition to military leaks, will simply give people who have WMDs the time to hide them, which will make this “a very silly operation.”

The operation will have geopolitical consequences, though.  Russia provided the air defense systems for Syria, so they will automatically be involved if any American planes are shot down, especially if people are taken prisoner.

Bill Connor’s detailed analysis highlighted the problems with US intervention in Syria, from goal to execution.  Simply toppling a dictator isn’t enough when he will merely be replaced by another dictator whose intention is to exterminate minority populations.  Bombing campaigns achieve nothing without land-based military intervention.  There are possible beneficial courses of actions America could take, but this is unlikely with its Saudi connections.