September 12, 2016 – Aletho News (2024)

9/11 and Israel, Alan Sabrosky’s PRESS TVInterview

For more information on the alleged link between Israel and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I recommend the following documentaries, lectures and short clips:

Who really did 9/11? (2017) – Lecture by Christopher Bollyn, based on his book ‘Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World’
The Empire Unmasked (2017) – Documentary by Ryan Dawson
9/11: An Infinite Dream (2016) – Documentary by Dream Eskimohttps://www.bitchute.com/video/nf4a2yaObmUk/
Never Forget September 11, 2001 with Adam Green from Know More Newshttps://www.bitchute.com/video/AzGV9EFPLmw/
Remembering 9-11 with Christopher Bollyn (Know More News interview)https://www.bitchute.com/video/VBYF0B-74Mg/
9/11 Suspects: The Dancing Israelis (The Corbett Report)https://www.bitchute.com/video/d0s9TYHZm3p8/
Meet Lucky Larryhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/j2n2F1JzQLX8/
Israeli Mossad Links to 9/11 (The Banned Fox News 9/11 Report)https://www.bitchute.com/video/hfAwRoVsMAu3/
Dr Alan Sabrosky Certain Israel did 9/11https://www.bitchute.com/video/0J8McGq1IUFo/
James Corbett on those “Crazy” 9/11 Conspiracy Theoristshttps://www.bitchute.com/video/1MEYHSiXtoAp/

When Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was explaining the prominent role of the Jewish financiers and revolutionaries behind the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which led to the slaughter of millions of his Russian countrymen, he wrote the following:

“The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators.”

The same is true with regards 9/11. Most people are ignorant of the evidence linking Israel to this atrocity because the global media today, as in Solzhenitsyn’s day, is now more than ever in the hands of Israel’s most ardent defenders.

September 12, 2016 Posted by aletho | False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video | Israel, Middle East, United States, Zionism | 2 Comments

Russia-China military ties take a leapforward

By M K Bhadrakumar | India Punchline | September 11, 2016

The wrap on the long-awaited China-Russia naval exercise in the South China Sea has been lifted, finally. From what Beijing disclosed today regarding the eight-day exercise (codenamed Joint Sea-2016), beginning on September 12, it is anything but a routine exercise. Make no mistake, it marks a leap forward in Sino-Russian military ties and signals a significant show of strategic congruence.

The Chinese Navy spokesman revealed that the exercise will be held “off southern China’s Guangdong Province”, without elaborating. Both navies are deputing surface ships, submarines, fixed-wing aircraft, ship-borne helicopters marine corps and amphibious armored equipment for the exercise.

The announcement said the two navvies will “undertake defense, rescue, and anti-submarine operations, in addition to joint island seizing and other activities…(and) in particular, will carry out live-fire drills, sea crossing and island landing operations, and island defense and offense exercises among others”. (Global Times )

China’s South Sea Fleet and Russia’s Pacific Fleet will be the participants. The SSF, of course, plays a major role in the disputed waters of the South China Sea and, in fact, was instrumental in occupying the Paracel Islands in 1974.

The exercise is taking place against an extraordinary backdrop. Only six days ago, Russia came out with a stance on the South China Sea issue, which is completely to China’s satisfaction. It was hugely symbolic that President Vladimir Putin personally articulated it – and from Chinese soil, as he was leaving for home after the G20 summit in Hangzhou. Putin said in reply to a query from a journalist:

• I’ve developed a very good relationship based on trust with President Xi Jinping. I would say a friendly relationship. However, he has never – I would like to underscore this – he has never asked me to comment on this (South China Sea) issue or intervene in any way. Nothing of the kind has ever passed his lips. Nevertheless, of course, we have our own opinion on this. What is it? First of all, we do not interfere. We believe that interference by any power from outside the region will only hurt the resolution of these issues. I believe the involvement of any third-party powers from outside the region is detrimental and counterproductive. That’s my first point.
• Second, as far as the Hague Arbitration Court and its rulings are concerned, we agree with and support China’s position to not recognise the court’s ruling. And I’ll tell you why. It is not a political but a purely legal position. It is that any arbitration proceedings should be initiated by parties to a dispute while a court of arbitration should hear the arguments and positions of the parties to the dispute. As is known, China did not go the Hague Court of Arbitration and no one there listened to its position. So, how can these rulings be deemed fair? We support China’s position on the issue. (Kremlin website)

It is a calibrated stance that does not take any side on the disputes as such and simply ignored UNCLOS, et al, but it pointedly snubs Washington’s interference. It serves Beijing’s purpose, while for Moscow it no way jeopardises Russia’s developing strategic ties with Vietnam or with the ASEAN. Beijing is pleased. The Chinese Foreign Ministry lauded Putin’s remarks. (MFA)

Moscow and Beijing kept fine-tuning the details of the exercise, presumably taking into account the fluidity in the regional security. One reason could be the US’ decision to depute the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan to South Korea for a naval exercise in mid-October. The drill is projected as a show of strength to North Korea but it is being held at a time of heightened regional tensions over North Korea and the USS Reagan is part of a Japan-based American strike group and the only forward-deployed aircraft carrier in the region.

Interestingly, the visiting speaker of the upper house of Russia’s parliament Valentina Matviyenko stated in Beijing on Friday that Russia and China have identical positions on North Korea. A day later, on Saturday, Russian Foreign Ministry issued a joint appeal with China calling for avoidance of precipitate moves.

Putin’s remarks on South China Sea were by no means ex-tempore. The big question is whether Moscow and Beijing could be exploring the matrix of an alliance that is unlike a formal alliance but prepares them nonetheless to push back at a probable shift in the US’ policies in a pronounced interventionist direction and a greater readiness to use military power under the next US president. The deployment of the THAAD missile defence system in South Korea is a matter of common concern for Russia and China. Again, despite the seamless charm offensive by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Putin does not intend to make any territorial concessions to Japan over the Kuriles.

Indeed, the idea of a Sino-Russian alliance is not new. In 2014, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu explicitly aired the idea of a common front with China to fight terrorism and counter US-sponsored ‘color revolutions’. In a significant reference just before the visit to Hangzhou, Putin described Russia’s relations with China as “a comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation”. Again, at the meeting with Putin in Hangzhou on September 4, Xi explicitly called for closer, tighter strategic alignment between the two countries. (Xinhua )

September 12, 2016 Posted by aletho | Aletho News | China, North Korea, Russia, United States | Leave a comment

The Guardian’s coverage of Clinton’shealth

By Kit | OffGuardian | September 12, 2016

OffGuardian has been quiet on the issue of Clinton’s health, about which there has been a whole lot of speculation in the alt-news in recent weeks, and a whole lot of denial in the MSM. Discussing someone’s health can be tricky, you have to tread a fine line between journalism and voyeurism. You have to have a baseline of respect for privacy that, one would hope, would be applied to oneself by others.

However, this isn’t about a private citizen, this is about the physical and mental fitness of the (notionally) most powerful person on the planet… and the absurdity of the current narrative cries out for a response. Stories about Clinton’s health in the Guardian or on CNN simply say “there is no evidence Clinton is sick!” and complain about Trump’s campaign stoking “conspiracy theories” (I was not aware that “Gosh, that old lady doesn’t look well!” was a conspiracy theory… but that’s the media for you).

The problem with the argument that “there’s no evidence Clinton is ill” is, pretty simply, that there’s quite a lot of evidence Clinton is ill.

• First, there are her coughing fits. Over the past couple of years Hillary has had repeated fits of coughing. See here, here and here.
• Secondly, there are her bizarre facial movements/spasms, what some people describe as “seizures”. The famous one here, and the odd one at the DNC.
• Third, there is her memory loss and cognitive problems, see this video, where she appears to freeze up. When she does eventually speak she simply repeats the phrase that was whispered into her ear by a man who appears to be secret service (there has been a lot of speculation as to his identity and/or role).
• Fourth, blood clots. She has had two major blood clots, one in her brain, and is consequently on blood thinners to prevent a third.
• Fifth, apparent weakness and unsteadiness. There are many photographs of Clinton seeming to need assistance standing, balancing, or climbing stairs. In many of her public appearances she is propped up on a stool rather than standing up.

The web is rich with speculation and theorising trying to tie these threads of evidence to a solid hypothesis, plenty of doctors have given their opinions, and some of their ideas seem to have merit. But that is not the point of this article. The point of this article is more to ask a simple question: How far will the media go to persuade people they cannot trust their own eyes? How self-evident must something be before it can no longer be dismissed as a “conspiracy theory”?

No mainstream media source has discussed the possibility that Clinton might be sick, no newspaper or network has offered a refutation of the evidence, or an explanation of her bizarre behaviour. They simply do not discuss it. That is not how a healthy media should work.

For weeks The Guardian has put out opinion pieces such as this, and this, which construct straw-man arguments to dismiss the idea that Clinton might be anything other than perfectly fine.

In her latest in a long line of Clinton-touting nonsense, Jill Abramson repeats that Hillary is “fundamentally honest” (whatever the hell that means), before summing up yesterdays collapse as:

…the candidate appeared to stumble after leaving the 9/11 memorial in New York.”

Which is akin to summarising the plot of Jaws as “Some fishermen appear, from some angles, to get rather too close to a shark”.

At the same time Barack Obama’s biographer, Richard Wolffe, describes the “stumble” in even more benign terms. A “hot wobble” he calls it, before launching into a rather long polemic about how Trump is worse than Hillary in practically every regard (including physically). It was just unfortunate, he says, that Hillary’s perfectly normal “hot wobble” happened to be caught on camera. She is actually totally healthy and fine.

All of which is rather undermined by the presence of an editor’s note which reads:

Editor’s note: shortly after publication of this article, the Clinton campaign revealed she was suffering from pneumonia.”

Friday’s beautifully Orwellian “Facebook Fact-check” (which, for the record, checked no facts) repeated the claim:

Unlike her rival Donald Trump, Clinton has released fairly detailed medical records. There is no evidence to suggest the 68-year-old should be worried about her health.

But Clinton has NOT released “detailed” medical records, rather her doctor – Dr Lisa Bardack – wrote an open letter to the New York Times… over a year ago. Incidentally, this is the same doctor who was shadowing the perfectly healthy candidate all yesterday morning…just in case she got heatstroke allergies pneumonia.

Perhaps the most beautifully timed editorial on the subject was David Ferguson’s, it headlined:

I cough at all the wrong times. Thank God I’m not Hillary Clinton”

Before adding in the sub-head:

Those of us with allergies know only too well what that tickle at the back of the throat feels like. Luckily, no one assumes we’re secretly dying.”

And then finishing on this note:

Sometimes, oh ye right-wing vultures, a cough is just a cough and the female candidate whose health you’ve never cared one iota about before now is probably just fine, suffering from – as her personal physician disclosed in detail – a round of seasonal allergies.

Three hours after this was published, Clinton collapsed in a parking lot. Ten minutes after that, the comments section under Mr Ferguson’s article was closed. It was a farce, and could not have been better timed if it had been deliberate.

Of course, the media’s refusal to deal with the subject of Clinton’s health goes beyond ATL denial, there is also the (now standard) BTL censorship.

In the interest of promoting educated discussion on this subject, I endeavoured to point out the relationship between pneumonia and some neurological diseases, like Parkinson’s, in the CiF comment section:

… Only to find that the Guardian is currently censoring any comment that uses the word “Parkinson’s”, I suggest you try it for yourself.

Interestingly, “Dr Drew” (real name Dr. David Andrew Pinsky), a famous TV doctor in the US, was subject to rather more high-profile censorship when he was fired just a week after airing his totally non-partisan thoughts on Clinton’s health, and the ability of her doctors.

I hope they realise that simply concealing a fact doesn’t change reality. I don’t know whether or not Hillary is ill, but IF Hillary is, in fact, very sick…no amount of censorship or denial is going to keep her alive.

September 12, 2016 Posted by aletho | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Hillary Clinton, The Guardian | 3 Comments

The New York Times is looking for a climate changeeditor

Drone footage that shows Greenland melting away. Long narratives about the plight of climate refugees, from Louisiana to Bolivia and beyond. A series on the California drought. Color-coded maps that show how hot it could be in 2060.
The New York Times is a leader in covering climate change. Now The Times is ramping up its coverage to make the most important story in the world even more relevant, urgent and accessible to a huge audience around the globe.
We are looking for an editor to lead this dynamic new group. We want someone with an entrepreneurial streak who is obsessed with finding new ways to connect with readers and new ways to tell this vital story.
The coverage should encompass: the science of climate change; the politics of climate debates; the technological race to find solutions; the economic consequences of climate change; and profiles of fascinating characters enmeshed in the issues.
The coverage should include journalism in a variety of formats: video, photography, newsletters, features, podcasts, conferences and more. The unit should make strategic decisions about which forms are top priorities and which are not.
The climate editor will collaborate with many others throughout the newsroom, but will operate apart from the current department structure, with no print obligations. —

To Apply

Applicants should submit a resume, examples of previous work, and a memo outlining their vision for coverage to Dean Baquet and Sam Dolnick by Sept. 19. This vision is the most important part of the application. It should be specific and set clear priorities. Some important questions to wrestle with:
What audiences should we be focusing on?
How will our coverage fit into their lives, and how will they experience it?
How will we distinguish our coverage from other journalism in this space?
What will be the main vehicles for the coverage? Features? News? Videos?
Should there be a signature voice attached to our climate coverage? Who?
How will you make a difficult subject interesting and accessible?
What stories are we willing not to do?
What should the team look like to get it done?
This non-Guild position is open to internal and external candidates. Applications should be sent to nytrecruit@nytimes.com.

September 12, 2016 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | New York Times, United States | 3 Comments

Tax dollars used to shape thenews

By Yves Engler | September 12, 2016

Last Saturday theOttawa Citizenpublished a feature titled “The story of ‘the Canadian vaccine’ that beat back Ebola“. According to the article, staff reporter Elizabeth Payne’s “research was supported by a travel grant from the International Development Research Centre.” The laudatory story concludes with Guinea’s former health minister thanking Canada “for the great service you have rendered to Guinea” and a man who received the Ebola vaccine showing “reporters a map of Canada that he had carved out of wood and displayed in his living room. ‘Because Canada saved my life.’”

A Crown Corporation that reports to Parliament through the foreign minister, the International Development Research Centre’s board is mostly appointed by the federal government. Unsurprisingly, the government-funded institution broadly aligns its positions with Canada’s international objectives.

IDRC funds various journalism initiatives and development journalism prizes. Canada’s aid agency has also doled out tens of millions of dollars on media initiatives over the years. The now defunct Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has funded a slew of journalism fellowships that generate aid-related stories, including a Canadian Newspaper Association fellowship to send journalists to Ecuador, Aga Khan Foundation Canada/Canadian Association of Journalists Fellowships for International Development Reporting, Canadian Association of Journalists/Jack Webster Foundation Fellowship. It also offered eight $6,000 fellowships annually for members of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, noted CIDA, “to reportto the Canadian public on the realities lived in developing countries benefiting from Canadian public aid.”

Between 2005 and 2008 CIDA spent at least $47.5 million on the “promotion ofdevelopment awareness.” According to a 2013 J–Source investigation titled “Some journalistsand news organizations took government funding to produce work: is that a problem?”, more than $3.5 million went to articles, photos, film and radio reports about CIDA projects. Much of the government-funded reporting appeared in major media outlets. But, a CIDA spokesperson told J-Source, the aid agency “didn’t pay directly for journalists’ salaries” and only “supported media activities that had as goal the promotion of development awareness with the Canadian public.”

One journalist, Kim Brunhuber, received $13, 000 to produce “six television news pieces that highlight the contribution of Canadians to several unique development projects” to be shown on CTV outlets. While failing to say whether Brunhuber’s work appeared on the station, CTV spokesperson Rene Dupuis said another documentary it aired “clearly credited that the program had been produced with the support of the Government of Canada through CIDA.”

During the 2001–14 war in Afghanistan CIDA operated a number of media projects. A number of CIDA-backed NGOs sent journalists to Afghanistan and the aid agency had a contract with Montréal’s Le Devoir to “[remind]readers ofthe central role that Afghanistan plays in CIDA’s international assistance program.”

The military also paid for journalists to visit Afghanistan. Canadian Press envoy Jonathan Montpetit explained, “my understandingof these junkets is that Ottawa picked up the tab for the flight over as well as costs in-theatre, then basically gave the journos a highlight tour of what Canada was doing in Afghanistan.”

A number of commentators have highlighted the political impact of military sponsored trips, which date back decades. In Turning Around a Supertanker: media-military relations in Canada in the CNN age, Daniel Hurley writes, “correspondents were not likely to ask hard questions of people who were offering them free flights to Germany” to visit Canadian bases there. In his diary of the mid-1990s Somalia Commission of Inquiry, Peter Desbarats made a similar observation. “Some journalists, truly ignorant of military affairs, were happy to trade junkets overseas for glowing reports about Canada’s gallant peacekeepers.”

The various arms of Canadian foreign policy fund media initiatives they expect will portray their operations sympathetically. It’s one reason why Canadians overwhelmingly believe this country is a benevolent international actor even though Ottawa long advanced corporate interests and sided with the British and US empires.

September 12, 2016 Posted by aletho | Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | Canada | Leave a comment

Duterte Says U.S. Special Forces in Philippines ‘Have toGo’

teleSUR | September 12, 2016

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on Monday called for the withdrawal of U.S. military from the restive Jolo and Basilan islands, marking his latest in a string of statements distancing the Filipino government from Washington.

“These special forces, they have to go,” Duterte said in a speech during an oath-taking ceremony for new officials. “I do not want a rift with America. But they have to go.”

Duterte, who was in the spotlight last week over his televised tirade against U.S. imperialism and President Barack Obama, said that the U.S. special forces now training Filipino troops were high-value targets for the Islamic State-linked Abu Sayyaf as counter-insurgency operations intensify.

“Americans, they will really kill them, they will try to kidnap them to get ransom,” Duterte added.

Duterte, a former southern mayor known for his bombastic style, said he wants an independent foreign policy has frequently accused the archipelago’s former colonizer of hypocrisy. The Philippine leader denied on Friday calling Obama a “son of a bitch” in a response to a journalist’s question about the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit.

Some U.S. special forces have been killed in the southern Philippines since 2002, when Washington deployed soldiers to train and advise local units during the so-called “Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines.”

At the height of that operation, some 1,200 Americans were deployed to Zamboanga City and on Jolo and Basilan islands, both strongholds of Abu Sayyaf.

The U.S. program was discontinued in the Philippines in 2015, but a small troop presence has remained for logistics and technical support. Washington has shifted much of its security focus in the Philippines towards the South China Sea.

Presence of U.S. troops on the island, which has continued despite constitutional changes made following the “People’s Power” uprising that toppled U.S.-backed dictator Ferdinand Marcos, has long been a source of discontent among Filipinos.

In his speech to officials on Monday, Duterte repeated comments from last week when he accused the United States of committing atrocities against Muslims over a century ago on Jolo island.

September 12, 2016 Posted by aletho | Militarism | Philippines, United States | Leave a comment

Israeli MP: Tel Aviv aiding Takfiris inSyria

Press TV – September 12, 2016

An Israeli lawmaker has criticized the Tel Aviv regime for supporting Takfiri terrorists who are fighting in Syria to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

In a Facebook post on Sunday, Akram Hasson said the Fateh al-Sham terrorist group, formerly known as al-Nusra Front, is operating in Syria with “unprecedented logistical and medical” support from Israel.

He said Israel’s recent escalation of attacks on the Syrian army positions in the Golan Heights are aimed at paving the way for the terrorist group to gain more grounds.

Golan belongs to Syria, and the international community has never recognized Israel’s occupation of around 1,200 square km (460 square miles) of the territory during the 1967 Six-Day War and its annexation later.

Scores of illegal settlements have been built in the area over the years while the Israeli regime has used the area to launch attacks against the Syrian government and its allies.

Israel has recently intensified its airstrikes on the Golan Heights, targeting the Syrian army and the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah, which is assisting Damascus in the fight against Takfiri terrorists.

The Israeli lawmaker further said that the Fateh al-Sham terrorist group is bombing the Syrian Druze village of Khadr, with the support of Israeli Minister of Military Affairs Avigdor Lieberman.

“This new strategy led by Lieberman since he took office has strengthened the Nusra Front and it’s raising its head to attack our brothers,” Hasson wrote.

Citing eyewitnesses, Hasson said the Takfiri terrorist group is using advanced technological equipment, adding Israel’s strategic support has been broadened over the past few months.

Syria has been gripped by foreign-backed militancy since March 2011. UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura estimates that over 400,000 people have been killed in the conflict.

Damascus has blamed regional players, including Saudi Arabia and Israel, for supporting Takfiri militants inside the country.

September 12, 2016 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes | Israel, Syria, Zionism | Leave a comment

US Wants Respite, Not Ceasefire inSyria

By Finian Cunningham | Sputnik | September 11, 2016

Tough negotiations between America and Russia’s top diplomats have managed to produce a tentative ceasefire plan for Syria. But Washington doesn’t really want a ceasefire. More likely, a respite for its regime-change proxies.

After more than13 hours ofintense discussions inGeneva this weekend, ontop ofmonths ofback-and-forth talks, US Secretary ofState John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov emerged ina joint press conference to announce that a cessation infighting would begin this week.

A previous attempt atimplementing a truce back inFebruary failed withindays ofthat initiative because anti-government insurgents affiliated withthe al-Qaeda terrorist network refused toabide bythat earlier agreement.

There is no reason why this second ceasefire attempt should otherwise succeed inholding.

There may well be a temporary lull inviolence simply because opposition militia will avail ofthe opportunity toregroup and repair. But the core ofthe insurgents are dominated byterrorist groups likeJabhat Fatah al Sham (formerly al-Nusra Front) and Daesh and numerous other affiliates.

These proscribed terror groups have no interest innegotiating a political transition inSyria withthe incumbent government ofPresident Bashar Assad. Their whole purpose is tooverthrow the state and turn it intoa so-called caliphate ruled byfear.

This gets tothe kernel ofwhy the ceasefire deal worked outby Kerry and Lavrov is fatally flawed.

Arguably, the Russian side is negotiating ingood faith withthe genuine intention ofachieving a peaceful resolution tothe nearly six-year-old conflict, which has resulted in400,000 dead and millions displaced fromtheir homes. But not so the American side.

We must always keep firmly inmind that the conflict inSyria was instigated inthe first place bythe US and other foreign powers forthe objective ofregime change againstthe Assad government – a long-time ally ofRussia and Iran.

Recall that former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas revealed in2013 that the foreign conspiracy forregime change inSyria was hatched atleast two years beforethe violence erupted inMarch 2011.

This US-led criminal agenda forregime change has not changed. When John Kerry talks aboutgetting Russia tosign upto a “political transition” he means a process which will culminate inthe ouster ofthe Assad government.

At the Geneva press conference this weekend, the US diplomat clearly said that he was coordinating his efforts withthose ofthe exiled opposition group called the High Negotiations Committee. Days before, the Saudi-backed HNC unveiled yet another “vision” demanding “transition” and Assad’s departure.

On the Geneva meeting this weekend, the Washington Post reported: “Kerry acknowledged the truth ofthe Russian charge that some opposition groups are fighting intandem withthe [al-Nusra] Front and said it was incumbent onthem tonow make a choice.”

The paper also noted: “Both Kerry and Lavrov emphasized that outsidesupporters ofall non-terrorist [sic] belligerents would have tobring their allies inline.”

Without this putative separation of “moderates” and “terrorists” then there can be no feasible premise fora substantive cessation ofviolence. The proposal forUS and Russian forces tosubsequently cooperate incarrying outair strikes againstterror groups is therefore a non-starter.

The confidence forthis assertion is because, asKerry half-acknowledged, there is no distinction between “moderate rebels” and “terrorists”. They are all part ofthe same regime-change proxy army that the US and its NATO and regional allies orchestrated fromthe outset ofthis reprehensible conflict.

Expecting these proxies tosomehow sort themselves into “good guys” and “bad guys” is a ludicrous conception ofhow and why the war was instigated and prosecuted.

Washington and the Western news media engage ineuphemisms ofhow these groups are “intermingled”, “overlap” and “marbled”. But such attempts atdifferentiation are either deluded or deceitful. For virtually all the anti-government insurgents are integrated intothe same terrorist front. That’s why months ofRussian admonitions tothe US tosegregate its supposed moderates fromthe terrorists have resulted inno separation.

For John Kerry topropose atthis late stage for “non-terrorist belligerents” toget onboard withthe ceasefire is nothing buta cynical ruse.

So what is Washington really seeking? Part ofthe proposed deal involves Russian and Syrian forces calling offtheir offensive againsteastern Aleppo – the so-called “lifting ofthe siege” and supplying “humanitarian aid” toinsurgent-held areas.

Cynically, butrealistically, those provisions are less abouthalting violence and humanitarian effort and more aboutgiving the foreign-backed regime-change forces a much needed breathing space.

Ever sinceRussia sent its forces intoSyria atthe end oflast year, the US-led regime-change war has turned intoa losing campaign.

What Washington and its other foreign co-conspirators – Britain, France, Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia – badly need is togive their proxies a respite fromthe withering offensive ofthe Syrian army and its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies.

A reasonable conjecture is that the Pentagon and CIA war planners – Kerry’s ultimate bosses – want a holding and reorganizing position untilHillary Clinton is elected asthe new president. Lame-duck Obama has been too much ofa ditherer and not sufficiently gung-ho aboutregime change inSyria.

Clinton, onthe other hand, has vowed tostep upAmerican military intervention inSyria. She has called forsetting upof no-fly zones and a tougher stance towardsAssad and Russia.

But if Syrian and Russian forces continue their rate ofattrition againstthe regime-change proxies, there may be little ofthese foreign assets left bythe time Clinton takes office early next year. Hence, the insurgents must be salvaged fromtheir precipitous defeat – and this is what really pertains tothe “ceasefire” that Kerry has appeared so keen toaccomplish.

The conjecture ofa “holding, reorganizing position” also tallies withthe recent invasion byTurkish military forces intonorthern Syria and the joint US-Turk annexation ofterritory. It suggests that a greater war effort forregime change is being anticipated forwhen Clinton takes office. (Assuming Donald Trump’s candidacy can be wrecked bythe relentless US media vilification he is being subjected to.)

Which begs the question: why have Russia and the Syrian government apparently gone alongwith this latest ceasefire arrangement? If, that is, it is a cynical ruse forregime change?

Why don’t Syria and Russia just drive onwith their very effective offensive todefeat the terrorist regime-change front?

Perhaps, Syria and Russia have their own calculations forregrouping and refining tactics forresuming even greater offensive power.

Or perhaps, Russia knows all too well, privately, that the Americans are full ofclaptrap. This latest ceasefire proposal has no chance ofworking because ofthe inherent flaws. But Russia’s international reputation has little tolose from “giving peace a chance”. [a likelier conjecture]

So, let Washington’s proposal for “separation” ofinsurgents fail, fail, and fail again, and let the world come tosee the utter fallacy and criminality ofAmerican policy.

The trouble, however, is that more delay gives more leverage toa Clinton presidency and what promises tobe a far more warmongering next White House administration.

Finian Cunningham is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.

September 12, 2016 Posted by aletho | Deception, Militarism | Da’esh, Russia, Syria, United States | 5 Comments

Is Bibi ALizard?

September 12, 2016 Posted by aletho | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Benjamin Netanyahu, Max Blumenthal, Palestine, Zionism | 3 Comments