BREAKING: Russia Accuses US of “Defending ISIS”
- Thread starter Danbones
- Start date
You two still shooting blanks eh?? If you are the best America has she is in deep sh*t.
(in part)
[FONT="]Several narratives and events, in the chronological order below, are important to understand as the story unfolded. [/FONT]
[FONT="]*[/FONT]
[FONT="]1. The Reuters and AP, pieces set the Atlanticist media tone and gave all derivative media their talking points with a clear angle to follow. In this version, media reported that US officials 'knew' who carried out the attack: Russia. The Guardian was a degree more cautious, both citing the Reuters piece which 'cited' the anonymous US military sources but also included their own follow up with the White House and found that: "The White House and state department said they could not confirm the allegations, while the Russian foreign ministry rejected them with “resentment and indignation”."[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]2. The UN's initial statement that the destruction of the convoy was a result of 'air strikes' seemed to all but confirm that Russian or Syrian air forces were responsible, within the context of the publicly pronounced presumption that there were no US air forces present at the time.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]3. The UN then suddenly reversed its official statement, and withdrew its assessment that the destruction was caused by 'air strikes' and deferred the matter to pending investigation. One can only speculate what caused this sudden reversal, but it appears likely this was a diplomatic success on the part of Russia, which at any rate could have only led to great confusion on the part of the US as to what Russia's coming prepared response was going to be.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]4. Russia released aerial footage of the aid caravan, also showing an off-road vehicle towing a large caliber mortar. This was an interesting twist, and laid the potential for Russia to deny attacking the convoy while publicly presenting an understandable reason why it would be legitimate to attack it. Aid caravans have long been suspected by all sides as a way to cloak the transport or import of military equipment. Russia has publicly stated that its position is that the Caravan 'caught fire', using the passive tense in textual construction, and not indicating necessarily 'who', if anyone 'set' this fire, or if it was a random accident caused by heat, or even possibly the existence of munitions being smuggled in to aid US backed enemy combatants. [/FONT]
[FONT="]5. Russia went public with its intel, providing back up evidence to confirm, that a US predator drone was overhead in the skies at the same time as the attack. At the same time, it says that the cause of the loss of about 2/3rds of the aid caravan (18 of 31 trucks) was the result of 'fire'. [/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT] [FONT="]6. Public analysts and watchdog journalists across the internet, such as 21Wire, noticed that several of the released photographs of the damaged trucks indicated evidence of small weapons fire, and noted a lack of the sort of craters or blast marks that would be consistent with either shelling or an aerial attack. While this sort of 'remote forensics by photography' is useful in the public discourse, and even critical in some cases such as MH17, it is not conclusive in cases of a larger area of attack, because photographs in circulation were not taken with the intention of documenting the entire scene from several angles with the aim of seeking out conclusive evidence. Nevertheless, the possibilities raised are still present, and independent journalism surrounding this stands as an important contribution to public awareness[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]7. Lavrov met with Stoltenberg, in an ad-hoc meeting at the sidelines of the UN's 71st General Assembly, the details of which are presently unknown to the public. Based upon the following, it would appear that the exchange of data entailed more than what Russia went public with. We of course can only speculate that there may have been some direct evidence of the predator drone making the attack. Or perhaps there is aerial footage of a shelling from the direction of rebel held areas. The release of several perhaps conflicting narratives from Russia and the independent media sphere have created the likelihood that any one of these versions may be correct. [/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]8. Stoltenberg, a named source, in his position as the result of what is effectively a US appointment, publicly stated that he will "not speculate on who carried out the attack", which is a decisively different position than what was expressed through Western media, in an original Reuters story citing unnamed sources from the US military. The meaning of this is tremendous in terms of the public discourse. In an RT story in connection with this, they included the following: [/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]"Moscow, however, strongly denied it had played any part in the atrocity, while calling it “another unacceptable provocation.”[/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]"On Wednesday, Lavrov confirmed that Russia had provided all data related to the incident for investigation, and pointed out that the timing of the attack coincided with the large militant offensive in the 1070 district of Aleppo."[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT] [FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="] "Lavrov and his American counterpart, John Kerry, are expected to meet face-to-face for the second time since the start of the UN General Assembly session on Wednesday evening, a Russian delegation source told RIA Novosti."
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]9. Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Igor Konashenkov today has just said that there was an explosion at the caravan, and that the US's use of a predator drone is documented, which it is prepared to reveal to the public. But it is critical, very critical, to note here that the spokesman does not exactly connect the dots explicitly, which leaves upon some important openings listed below.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]10. As a result, a number of possibly contradictory public and official theories have surfaced, all however which tend to shift blame away from the Russian or Syrian forces. This is a compelling development, as both sides seek dominance in the information war.
RUSSIA'S COUNTER-BLOW: Info War victory and the destroyed Aid Convoy - Fort Russ
See if you can come up with something that is more than wishful thinking.
[/FONT]
(in part)
[FONT="]Several narratives and events, in the chronological order below, are important to understand as the story unfolded. [/FONT]
[FONT="]*[/FONT]
[FONT="]1. The Reuters and AP, pieces set the Atlanticist media tone and gave all derivative media their talking points with a clear angle to follow. In this version, media reported that US officials 'knew' who carried out the attack: Russia. The Guardian was a degree more cautious, both citing the Reuters piece which 'cited' the anonymous US military sources but also included their own follow up with the White House and found that: "The White House and state department said they could not confirm the allegations, while the Russian foreign ministry rejected them with “resentment and indignation”."[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]2. The UN's initial statement that the destruction of the convoy was a result of 'air strikes' seemed to all but confirm that Russian or Syrian air forces were responsible, within the context of the publicly pronounced presumption that there were no US air forces present at the time.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]3. The UN then suddenly reversed its official statement, and withdrew its assessment that the destruction was caused by 'air strikes' and deferred the matter to pending investigation. One can only speculate what caused this sudden reversal, but it appears likely this was a diplomatic success on the part of Russia, which at any rate could have only led to great confusion on the part of the US as to what Russia's coming prepared response was going to be.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]4. Russia released aerial footage of the aid caravan, also showing an off-road vehicle towing a large caliber mortar. This was an interesting twist, and laid the potential for Russia to deny attacking the convoy while publicly presenting an understandable reason why it would be legitimate to attack it. Aid caravans have long been suspected by all sides as a way to cloak the transport or import of military equipment. Russia has publicly stated that its position is that the Caravan 'caught fire', using the passive tense in textual construction, and not indicating necessarily 'who', if anyone 'set' this fire, or if it was a random accident caused by heat, or even possibly the existence of munitions being smuggled in to aid US backed enemy combatants. [/FONT]
[FONT="]5. Russia went public with its intel, providing back up evidence to confirm, that a US predator drone was overhead in the skies at the same time as the attack. At the same time, it says that the cause of the loss of about 2/3rds of the aid caravan (18 of 31 trucks) was the result of 'fire'. [/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT] [FONT="]6. Public analysts and watchdog journalists across the internet, such as 21Wire, noticed that several of the released photographs of the damaged trucks indicated evidence of small weapons fire, and noted a lack of the sort of craters or blast marks that would be consistent with either shelling or an aerial attack. While this sort of 'remote forensics by photography' is useful in the public discourse, and even critical in some cases such as MH17, it is not conclusive in cases of a larger area of attack, because photographs in circulation were not taken with the intention of documenting the entire scene from several angles with the aim of seeking out conclusive evidence. Nevertheless, the possibilities raised are still present, and independent journalism surrounding this stands as an important contribution to public awareness[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]7. Lavrov met with Stoltenberg, in an ad-hoc meeting at the sidelines of the UN's 71st General Assembly, the details of which are presently unknown to the public. Based upon the following, it would appear that the exchange of data entailed more than what Russia went public with. We of course can only speculate that there may have been some direct evidence of the predator drone making the attack. Or perhaps there is aerial footage of a shelling from the direction of rebel held areas. The release of several perhaps conflicting narratives from Russia and the independent media sphere have created the likelihood that any one of these versions may be correct. [/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]8. Stoltenberg, a named source, in his position as the result of what is effectively a US appointment, publicly stated that he will "not speculate on who carried out the attack", which is a decisively different position than what was expressed through Western media, in an original Reuters story citing unnamed sources from the US military. The meaning of this is tremendous in terms of the public discourse. In an RT story in connection with this, they included the following: [/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]"Moscow, however, strongly denied it had played any part in the atrocity, while calling it “another unacceptable provocation.”[/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]"On Wednesday, Lavrov confirmed that Russia had provided all data related to the incident for investigation, and pointed out that the timing of the attack coincided with the large militant offensive in the 1070 district of Aleppo."[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT] [FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="] "Lavrov and his American counterpart, John Kerry, are expected to meet face-to-face for the second time since the start of the UN General Assembly session on Wednesday evening, a Russian delegation source told RIA Novosti."
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]9. Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Igor Konashenkov today has just said that there was an explosion at the caravan, and that the US's use of a predator drone is documented, which it is prepared to reveal to the public. But it is critical, very critical, to note here that the spokesman does not exactly connect the dots explicitly, which leaves upon some important openings listed below.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]10. As a result, a number of possibly contradictory public and official theories have surfaced, all however which tend to shift blame away from the Russian or Syrian forces. This is a compelling development, as both sides seek dominance in the information war.
RUSSIA'S COUNTER-BLOW: Info War victory and the destroyed Aid Convoy - Fort Russ
See if you can come up with something that is more than wishful thinking.
[/FONT]
And with all this talk about their Anti-Air Capabilities it is astounding how many hospitals the Yanks bomb in the Russian Areas of Operation!
Of course the world knows it is the Russians and Syrians bombing hospitals regardless of what Sputnik News tells it's sheep.
Those S400/S500 systems are damn easy to beat.
Probably couldn't hit the broadside of a flying barn.
Probably couldn't hit the broadside of a flying barn.
Times up, still nothing from your side. You are aware that half the news stories I post are propaganda put out by the US right??? You do know you are mocking your own media releases right?? The US doesn't quite seem to be ready for war with anybody with something more powerful than a sling-shot. I wouldn't bet on this going very far once Trump is Commander and Chief.
House Panel: ‘Reboot’ of US Military to Cost $1 Trillion Over Next Decade -- News from Antiwar.com
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/360283-un-kerry-lavrov-syria/
trategically, if the jihad terrorists lose eastern Aleppo strategically this war is over, Jim Jatras, a former US diplomat, told RT. The fighting may go on for a while, but that will be the tipping point in terms of who is going to win, he added.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said he wants a thorough and impartial investigation into the deadly attack on the UN aid convoy near Aleppo, which the US has blamed on Russia without presenting any evidence.
Kerry, who seemed upset by Lavrov’s call to re-launch an intra-Syrian political dialogue “without preconditions and ultimatums,” went on to say that listening to Mr. Lavrov made him feel as if he was in a “parallel universe.”
RT: Kerry's attack on Lavrov was rather personal and maybe even undiplomatic for such a meeting. Why did he act as he did? Were you surprised?
Jim Jatras: No, not so much surprised. But I thought it was very significant. He did try to come across, and I think sincerely in a very personal human way. There are two things we really need to look at here. One is the incident itself with the hitting of this convoy. And the other one, what does it mean in the terms of the strategic situation in Syria.
As far as hitting the convoy, this is the kind of thing we’ve seen so many times before, not only in Syria but in Bosnia, in Kosovo, Libya and other places. Something happens and within minutes Western officials are saying “this is who is at fault, here is what happened, and here is the blame for it.” And then only afterwards, after all the headlines have gone around the world about responsibility, do we hear any argument about what the details are, what might or might have not happened. And those will be on page 19 somewhere.
The other thing, of course, is in his statement Secretary Kerry said two things of really grave importance. One is, he demanded what amounts to a ‘no-fly zone’ - the grounding of all Russian and Syrian aircraft. And he also said that only ISIS and Al-Qaeda should be excluded from the ceasefire, which means other terrorist groups - like Ahrar al-Sham and al-Zenki (Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki) - presumably are now moderate, legitimate opposition, even though they are obviously Wahhabist jihadist terrorists.
JJ: Of course it is opportunism. Let’s be clear: Right now, the Obama administration has one priority and that is to stop eastern Aleppo from falling to Syrian government forces. Strategically, if the jihad terrorists lose eastern Aleppo strategically this war is over. The fighting may go on for a while, but that will be the tipping point in terms of who is going to win. They can dance around any way they want, but the bottom line is always going to be to try and stop the Syrian and Russian forces from decimating these jihadists and changing the outcome.
Syria Announces New Offensive Against Aleppo as Truce Talks Fail -- News from Antiwar.com
You guys are beating a dead horse, I thought you should know that.
Insider Reveals Obama's Handlers Will Not Leave Him Alone with Putin
Insider Reveals Obama's Handlers Will Not Leave Him Alone with Putin
Putin confidant Sergei Rodulgin told Russian media that Barack Obama is not allowed to be left alone with the Russian president for private conversations
Globalist Slimeball Soros Funds New Website Smearing Trump and Putin
DC Hawks Were Scheming Against the Lavrov-Kerry Deal Long Before Syria Attacks Burried It
House Panel: ‘Reboot’ of US Military to Cost $1 Trillion Over Next Decade -- News from Antiwar.com
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/360283-un-kerry-lavrov-syria/
trategically, if the jihad terrorists lose eastern Aleppo strategically this war is over, Jim Jatras, a former US diplomat, told RT. The fighting may go on for a while, but that will be the tipping point in terms of who is going to win, he added.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said he wants a thorough and impartial investigation into the deadly attack on the UN aid convoy near Aleppo, which the US has blamed on Russia without presenting any evidence.
Kerry, who seemed upset by Lavrov’s call to re-launch an intra-Syrian political dialogue “without preconditions and ultimatums,” went on to say that listening to Mr. Lavrov made him feel as if he was in a “parallel universe.”
RT: Kerry's attack on Lavrov was rather personal and maybe even undiplomatic for such a meeting. Why did he act as he did? Were you surprised?
Jim Jatras: No, not so much surprised. But I thought it was very significant. He did try to come across, and I think sincerely in a very personal human way. There are two things we really need to look at here. One is the incident itself with the hitting of this convoy. And the other one, what does it mean in the terms of the strategic situation in Syria.
As far as hitting the convoy, this is the kind of thing we’ve seen so many times before, not only in Syria but in Bosnia, in Kosovo, Libya and other places. Something happens and within minutes Western officials are saying “this is who is at fault, here is what happened, and here is the blame for it.” And then only afterwards, after all the headlines have gone around the world about responsibility, do we hear any argument about what the details are, what might or might have not happened. And those will be on page 19 somewhere.
The other thing, of course, is in his statement Secretary Kerry said two things of really grave importance. One is, he demanded what amounts to a ‘no-fly zone’ - the grounding of all Russian and Syrian aircraft. And he also said that only ISIS and Al-Qaeda should be excluded from the ceasefire, which means other terrorist groups - like Ahrar al-Sham and al-Zenki (Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki) - presumably are now moderate, legitimate opposition, even though they are obviously Wahhabist jihadist terrorists.
"I think that John Kerry is torn really between an earlier desire as a diplomat to leave his mark on history as we are coming to the end of this administration. He managed to get a ceasefire with the help of Lavrov and with the help of the Russians. He is also torn between the whole Western propaganda strategy of demonizing Russia. The problem here is that to a certain extent neither of the superpowers can have 100 percent control of what is happening on the ground. The Russians are in the position because it is the regime they can at least control large part of it, while the Americans have armed groups… they cannot really have control over them. And then prior to that they had a strategy of trying to do Afghanistan. We should try not to make the same mistakes that we made in Afghanistan by trying to defeat Russia in Syria the way they did in Afghanistan. That would be a disaster for everybody. I think they should move away from that and really try to cooperate." - Adel Darwish, commentator, historian, author
RT: The US wants Russian and Syrian planes grounded so that rebels can separate themselves. Is this just opportunism or common sense?
JJ: Of course it is opportunism. Let’s be clear: Right now, the Obama administration has one priority and that is to stop eastern Aleppo from falling to Syrian government forces. Strategically, if the jihad terrorists lose eastern Aleppo strategically this war is over. The fighting may go on for a while, but that will be the tipping point in terms of who is going to win. They can dance around any way they want, but the bottom line is always going to be to try and stop the Syrian and Russian forces from decimating these jihadists and changing the outcome.
Syria Announces New Offensive Against Aleppo as Truce Talks Fail -- News from Antiwar.com
If you followed the stench it would be found in DC, all of DC.
You guys are beating a dead horse, I thought you should know that.
As per your request.
Insider Reveals Obama's Handlers Will Not Leave Him Alone with Putin
Insider Reveals Obama's Handlers Will Not Leave Him Alone with Putin
Putin confidant Sergei Rodulgin told Russian media that Barack Obama is not allowed to be left alone with the Russian president for private conversations
Globalist Slimeball Soros Funds New Website Smearing Trump and Putin
DC Hawks Were Scheming Against the Lavrov-Kerry Deal Long Before Syria Attacks Burried It
I just want to know what the Russians plan to use to pay the bill for Syria. There is not a big market for destroyed hospital equipment.
I'm thinking that the circus called the election in the US is designed to institute a civil war (odd term, as there is nothing civil about it) so that the globalist ruling elite can declare martial law. It is just too absurd to think that any of this crap is serious politics. The divisiveness, the hatred against both parties makes near impossible to think the country will survive either outcome without bloodshed. A country thus divided will certainly fall and from my perspective, that is exactly what the ruling elite want.
In the end it will be you and your fellow countrymen paying reparations for decades just like your mentors the Nazis.
So you keep saying. In other news.
(in part)
Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Turkish President Erdogan has defended his decision to send ground troops into Syria claiming that his incursion had helped establish "peace, balance and stability in a region taken over by hopelessness"; however political analyst Mehmet Yuva has warned Ankara against crossing "Russia's red line" in the country.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has used the UN General Assembly platform to defend his invasion into Syria claiming it has helped restore "peace, balance and stability in a region taken over by hopelessness".
Turkish officials have vowed to continue military operations in the border region with Syria "until all threats to its national security are removed." Sputnik Turkiye discussed the issue with Mehmet Yuva, Syrian political analyst of Turkish origin and international security expert at Damascus University. "It is only too clear that Turkey is striving to play a more substantial role in defining Syria's political future. Or, at least to ensure that the groups it supports take part in this process," Mehmet Yuva told Sputnik.
Read more: https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160923/1045623189/turkey-syria-military-operation.html
Who says Russians don't have a sense of humor?
(in part)
US Proxies in Syria Violated Ceasefire 'to Prolong War Until Clinton Presidency'
Recent attacks on the Syrian army have led to the end of a ceasefire with rebel groups, which was never accepted by war hawks in the US government and their allies in the region, Kevork Almassian, an analyst specializing in Middle East affairs told Radio Sputnik.
On September 19 a UN humanitarian aid convoy in south-western Aleppo came under fire. The attack left 20 civilians and a senior official of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent dead, and destroyed 18 out of 31 aid trucks which were intended to deliver food, winter clothes and medical supplies to 78 thousand people in besieged areas.
The incident took place in an area controlled by armed rebel groups, who have in the past repeatedly obstructed the passage of aid convoys.
It happened two days after the US-led anti-Daesh coalition bombed Syrian army positions in the eastern city of Deir ez-Zor, killing 62 Syrian soldiers are injuring over 100, an incident which Washington said was a mistake.
Read more: https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160921/1045546014/syria-ceasefire-clinton-presidency.html
Western Media Blames Russia, Syria For Attack On UN Convoy; Video and Photos Tell Different Story
Throughout the entirety of the Syrian crisis, Western media outlets have misrepresented facts and presented outright lies to their audiences regarding virtually every aspect of the war. Particularly when it comes to specific occurrences used to gin up support for greater Western intervention in Syria, these outlets kick it up a notch, launching flurries of disinformation and misinformation designed to leave imprints of false narratives in the minds of half attentive audiences. Incidents such as the Ghouta chemical weapons attack, little Omran, and, now the alleged attack on a U.N. convoy are now parts of a larger narrative. No matter how much they are debunked, confusion and distortion leave behind traces of the narrative embedded in the mind of the consumer.
Still, it is important to point out the false narratives where they do exist in order to deconstruct them as much as possible.
For instance, the recent hysteria over an alleged attack on a U.N. convoy by “either Syrian or Russian jets” (because it couldn’t have been the U.S. of course) has been used as an attempt to paint Russia and Syria as violators of a ceasefire and states so evil that they would dare attack the sacred U.N. who only ever provides food to hungry people and candy to children. Yet the entire incident, which the West is attempting to use as a political hammer, exists only through the channels and pages of Western media. In reality, however, not so much.
The story being peddled to the American people is that, even as the ceasefire was still in effect (from the point of view of the United States despite the fact that its terrorists never abided by one principle or obligation of the ceasefire from the very beginning), either Russia or Syria bombed a U.N. aid convoy on its way to deliver supplies to civilians.
However, further investigation reveals that the aid convoy that was destroyed and the U.N. aid convoy being presented to the American public as being the victim of the attack are two different convoys and two different incidents.
The convoy that was actually attacked, a Syrian Red Crescent aid operation, was attacked outside a warehouse in Urm al-Kubra just west of Aleppo. Twenty to thirty trucks were said to be destroyed in this attack which took place shortly after the ceasefire officially ended on September, 19. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the attackers were the Syrian or Russian militaries. Instead, it is most likely America’s rebels who attacked the convoy.
Still, the United States claims that, although it doesn’t know which military, it is confident that the UN aid convoy was bombed by either Syria or Russia. As the Washington Post reports,
Russia, however, denied that its planes, or Syrian jets for that matter, were involved in the attack. In addition, the Russian defense ministry pointed out some anomalies suggesting that the convoy was not bombed from the air at all.
“We have studied video footage from the scene from so-called ‘activists’ in detail and did not find any evidence that the convoy had been struck by ordnance,” said Igor Konashenkov of the Russian Defense Ministry. “There are no craters and the exterior of the vehicles do not have the kind of damage consistent with blasts caused by bombs dropped from the air.”
Indeed, photographs of the convoy do not line up with the damage that one would expect to see if the trucks had been attacked from the air. As Tom Miles and Angus McDowall reported for the Asia Times,
(in part)
Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Turkish President Erdogan has defended his decision to send ground troops into Syria claiming that his incursion had helped establish "peace, balance and stability in a region taken over by hopelessness"; however political analyst Mehmet Yuva has warned Ankara against crossing "Russia's red line" in the country.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has used the UN General Assembly platform to defend his invasion into Syria claiming it has helped restore "peace, balance and stability in a region taken over by hopelessness".
Turkish officials have vowed to continue military operations in the border region with Syria "until all threats to its national security are removed." Sputnik Turkiye discussed the issue with Mehmet Yuva, Syrian political analyst of Turkish origin and international security expert at Damascus University. "It is only too clear that Turkey is striving to play a more substantial role in defining Syria's political future. Or, at least to ensure that the groups it supports take part in this process," Mehmet Yuva told Sputnik.
Read more: https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160923/1045623189/turkey-syria-military-operation.html
Who says Russians don't have a sense of humor?
(in part)
US Proxies in Syria Violated Ceasefire 'to Prolong War Until Clinton Presidency'
Recent attacks on the Syrian army have led to the end of a ceasefire with rebel groups, which was never accepted by war hawks in the US government and their allies in the region, Kevork Almassian, an analyst specializing in Middle East affairs told Radio Sputnik.
On September 19 a UN humanitarian aid convoy in south-western Aleppo came under fire. The attack left 20 civilians and a senior official of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent dead, and destroyed 18 out of 31 aid trucks which were intended to deliver food, winter clothes and medical supplies to 78 thousand people in besieged areas.
The incident took place in an area controlled by armed rebel groups, who have in the past repeatedly obstructed the passage of aid convoys.
It happened two days after the US-led anti-Daesh coalition bombed Syrian army positions in the eastern city of Deir ez-Zor, killing 62 Syrian soldiers are injuring over 100, an incident which Washington said was a mistake.
Read more: https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160921/1045546014/syria-ceasefire-clinton-presidency.html
Western Media Blames Russia, Syria For Attack On UN Convoy; Video and Photos Tell Different Story
Throughout the entirety of the Syrian crisis, Western media outlets have misrepresented facts and presented outright lies to their audiences regarding virtually every aspect of the war. Particularly when it comes to specific occurrences used to gin up support for greater Western intervention in Syria, these outlets kick it up a notch, launching flurries of disinformation and misinformation designed to leave imprints of false narratives in the minds of half attentive audiences. Incidents such as the Ghouta chemical weapons attack, little Omran, and, now the alleged attack on a U.N. convoy are now parts of a larger narrative. No matter how much they are debunked, confusion and distortion leave behind traces of the narrative embedded in the mind of the consumer.
Still, it is important to point out the false narratives where they do exist in order to deconstruct them as much as possible.
For instance, the recent hysteria over an alleged attack on a U.N. convoy by “either Syrian or Russian jets” (because it couldn’t have been the U.S. of course) has been used as an attempt to paint Russia and Syria as violators of a ceasefire and states so evil that they would dare attack the sacred U.N. who only ever provides food to hungry people and candy to children. Yet the entire incident, which the West is attempting to use as a political hammer, exists only through the channels and pages of Western media. In reality, however, not so much.
The story being peddled to the American people is that, even as the ceasefire was still in effect (from the point of view of the United States despite the fact that its terrorists never abided by one principle or obligation of the ceasefire from the very beginning), either Russia or Syria bombed a U.N. aid convoy on its way to deliver supplies to civilians.
However, further investigation reveals that the aid convoy that was destroyed and the U.N. aid convoy being presented to the American public as being the victim of the attack are two different convoys and two different incidents.
The convoy that was actually attacked, a Syrian Red Crescent aid operation, was attacked outside a warehouse in Urm al-Kubra just west of Aleppo. Twenty to thirty trucks were said to be destroyed in this attack which took place shortly after the ceasefire officially ended on September, 19. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the attackers were the Syrian or Russian militaries. Instead, it is most likely America’s rebels who attacked the convoy.
Still, the United States claims that, although it doesn’t know which military, it is confident that the UN aid convoy was bombed by either Syria or Russia. As the Washington Post reports,
“We know it was an airstrike and not one from the coalition. We don’t know if it was Russia or the regime,” the only others flying over Syria, a senior administration official said. “In either case, the Russians have a responsibility certainly to avoid doing it themselves, but also to keep restraint on the regime.”
But, per the usual method of accusation, the United States never explained exactly how they knew this. Where is the intelligence coming from? Are there satellite images? Anything?
Russia, however, denied that its planes, or Syrian jets for that matter, were involved in the attack. In addition, the Russian defense ministry pointed out some anomalies suggesting that the convoy was not bombed from the air at all.
“We have studied video footage from the scene from so-called ‘activists’ in detail and did not find any evidence that the convoy had been struck by ordnance,” said Igor Konashenkov of the Russian Defense Ministry. “There are no craters and the exterior of the vehicles do not have the kind of damage consistent with blasts caused by bombs dropped from the air.”
Indeed, photographs of the convoy do not line up with the damage that one would expect to see if the trucks had been attacked from the air. As Tom Miles and Angus McDowall reported for the Asia Times,
He [Igor Konashenkov] said the damage to the convoy visible in footage was caused by its cargo catching fire. It had occurred at the same time as militants from the group formerly called the Nusra Front had started a big offensive in nearby Aleppo, he said, appearing to point the finger at rescue workers from a group called the “White Helmets” who filmed the aftermath.
“Only representatives of the ‘White Helmets’ organization close to the Nusra Front who, as always, found themselves at the right time in the right place by chance with their video cameras can answer who did this and why.”
Hussein Badawi, head of the White Helmets in the town, said he was 100 meters (yards) from the aid depot when the attack took place and was injured by shrapnel in the hand.
“There were fires, martyrs, wounded people. We were able to pull out four survivors and five dead bodies at first,” Badawi said. “The bombardment was continuous. The rescue teams weren’t even able to work. Those who arrived in ambulances couldn’t come in.”
“Only representatives of the ‘White Helmets’ organization close to the Nusra Front who, as always, found themselves at the right time in the right place by chance with their video cameras can answer who did this and why.”
Hussein Badawi, head of the White Helmets in the town, said he was 100 meters (yards) from the aid depot when the attack took place and was injured by shrapnel in the hand.
“There were fires, martyrs, wounded people. We were able to pull out four survivors and five dead bodies at first,” Badawi said. “The bombardment was continuous. The rescue teams weren’t even able to work. Those who arrived in ambulances couldn’t come in.”
Next to nothing compared to what the US has spent over the last 5 years, and not a dime returned on that 'investment'. There is just no good news for the US is there.
There's this rumor of a new global currency. It looks like they will be able to contain and service the area in question from the carrier task force very well. Syria will be fixed.
Someone will open another front behind someone else.
China Sea the Eurasian continent is being is being threatened by a known offender.
Poor Smack. His blind faith is his dying country will put him an the wrong side of history.
let's not give up hope, they could still decide to kill each other instead, and save on travel expenses, and sell just the same ammount of munitions and arms. F-35s for all sides. How many States have drawn up exit papers?
We should grab Maine and save the lobsters.
We should grab Maine and save the lobsters.