Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 01, 2013

More Arms For Destroying Syria

As I wrote on September 30 2012 on the foreign supported insurgents in Syria:

Syria: Destruction Is Their Aim

Destruction of the infrastructure, economy and social fabric of Syria is their and their supporters aim.
Hizbullah's Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah has come to the same conclusion (as translated by @Amani_Lebanon):
10:56 AM - 30 Apr 13 - #Nasrallah: When we look at the whole picture on Syria, israel's position, and the recent happenings, we come to come conclusion:

10:57 AM - 30 Apr 13 - #Nasrallah: The aim is not just to get Syria out of the resistance axis, it's not just about the Arab struggle against israel

10:58 AM - 30 Apr 13-  #Nasrallah: Their aim is to completely destroy Syria, all of Syria, their aim is to make sure Syria becomes unable to stand on its feet.

10:59 AM - 30 Apr 13 - #Nasrallah: They want to destroy Syria as a people, an army, a whole nation

10:59 AM - 30 Apr 13 - #Nasrallah: They want to turn Syria into a starved, destroyed and torn one.

Today "officials" are telling U.S. papers that Obama is "moving toward sending lethal arms to Syrian rebels".

This is just political theater. These papers are conveniently forgetting their own reporting on Syria. The destruction of Syria with the help of jihadist groups has been planned since 2007. The U.S. has been sending arms to the insurgents from the very beginning. It has also run an extensive media campaign to support the insurgency. The U.S. exports grain and other food as "aid" to Syria which is then distributed by extreme radical al-Nusra cells. The first arms to Syria came from the black market, then from Libyan stockpiles, then arms were flown in from Croatia. All by or through U.S. secret services. The deliveries were made by the CIA from its large station in Benghazi, as well as through its stations in Turkey and Jordan. The groups those arms went to were vetted by the CIA and there is evidence that these weapons have also gone to takfiri jihadists like Jabhat al-Nusra. There is definitely no reluctance in official U.S. circles to arm anyone, no matter how radical there polices are, who is willing to destroy Syria.

In the end it does not matter whether the arms the CIA delivers are coming from Libyan, Croatian or U.S. stocks. It does not matter to which groups these arms are flowing to. More arms will only have one effect. The further destruction of Syria which the U.S. had planned for from the very beginning of its campaign.

Posted by b on May 1, 2013 at 9:45 UTC | Permalink

next page »

Given that the fate of Syria can in no small part be determined by Putin and Obama, I was surprised that their conversation on Monday seemed to go under the radar.

So, too, Russia's Deputy FM meeting with Nasrallah on Sunday in Lebanon, followed by Nasrallah's visit to Iran.

Then, yesterday, Nasrallah's announcement that Syria had “real friends” who would not allow it “to fall into the hands” of America, Israel and Islamic extremists - a departure from Hezbollah's previously reserved public statements on Syria.

After receiving assurances from Iranian and Russian officials, was Nasrallah then confident enough to make this announcement, or was his "real friends" remark only referring to Iran and Hezbollah, and meant as a dig at Russia, whose Deputy FM is reported to have warned Hezbollah against fighting in Syria to support the Syrian Government? Was Nasrallah's announcement borne from frustration that the Russians are prepared to see the conflict go either way?

It seems inconceivable that Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov would be whistling a different tune to Putin, and this position would have been articulated to Obama during their phone conversation.

Interesting to see if Obama does give the green light for sending lethal arms to the militants. This will give us an idea of the content of their conversation and Putin's attitude, and suggest that Bogdanov was warning Nasrallah of this development.

Posted by: Pat Bateman | May 1 2013 10:14 utc | 1

@Pat Bateman | May 1, 2013 6:14:52 AM | 1

and meant as a dig at Russia, whose Deputy FM is reported to have warned Hezbollah against fighting in Syria to support the Syrian Government?

This is what xinhuanet wrote in the article you refrenced

The Russian ambassador in Beirut denied on Monday reports alleging that Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov had pressured Hezbollah to withdraw its fighters from Syria.

Who wrtote reports were these? The main thing I took from his excellency Nasarallah speech was that Iran and her allies would defend mainstream Islam and would be willing to fight if needed. This is now a red line put out in the open.

Posted by: hans | May 1 2013 10:52 utc | 2

I read that WaPo article last night, than I read this: a one event and completely different picture. As if two reporters were on two different events. The Russians doesn't mention any arms at all.

Posted by: neretva'43 | May 1 2013 11:35 utc | 3

Pass the popcorn, please.
I've no idea what the Russians will do next.They have literally dozens of options and the dumbass Yankees won't like any of the ones Russia chooses. But the result will be worth waiting for and fun to watch. I can hardly wait...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 1 2013 12:06 utc | 4

MK Bhadrakumar has probably the best take on the Obama-Putin conversation.
The Russian's polite as usual, but ultimately Obama has no leverage & the US simply isn't trusted.
Russia's real feelings likely underscored here:
"...In any case, Russia is moving its Pacific Fleet naval task force to the Mediterranean for an extended stay near Syria. Interestingly, the war ships paid a friendly call at the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas en route to the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal..."

Obama reaches out to Putin

Tony Cartalucci's latest detailed view - the Syrians are winning & the West is getting desperate:
West’s WMD Lies Fray as Syrian Army Overruns Terrorist Proxies

And here's a couple of articles about the desperate manouvering in the US senate & think-tanks trying to make the case for immediate NATO intervention:

Graham: "Growing consensus" in Senate for U.S. action in Syria

The moral legitimacy of unapproved humanitarian interventions Part 1
The moral legitimacy of unapproved humanitarian interventions Part 2

The last two are particularly stomach turning - Cherry-picked information dressed in legalistic garb looking to justify the 'successes' of the R2P doctrine - This is the garbage that will be floating around EU & US policy circles as they look to dress up their corrupt ambitions in moralistic self-righteousness.

Posted by: KenM | May 1 2013 12:26 utc | 5

At this point, it is very doubtful Russia will sell Syria for some worthless trinkets. They have staked too much on it to throw it all away.

Thus, it could be Putin was warning Obama of some Russian counter moves...possibly even including (perhaps unlikely, but possibly) arming HA. Bogdanov might then have been coordinating such possibilities directly with HA.

I don't know if Iran is up to it, but they can always arm the Takfiris to their east in Afghanistan. They can even start by sending any weapons captured by the Syrian army, thus maintaining deniability and officially claiming that one Jihadi group is lending an assist to another. And that therefore the west has only itself to blame.

Alternatively, Russia can offer a major upgrade in their military cooperation with Iran: as in selling the latest SAMs and perhaps even modernizing the Iranian air force (of course the UNSC sanctions that Russia failed to veto would make that complicated.)

Lastly, the Afghan supply rout could always experience accidental troubles.

Not sure if any of that will actually happen, but it certainly would be effective. The other alternative of merely sending weapons and fighters to help the Syrian government will not deter the west. At a small price, the west can continue to drain the resources of Syria's allies while keeping most of the fighting inside Syria, where they want it.

Posted by: Lysander | May 1 2013 12:28 utc | 6

The Russians have not and will not abdandon Syria. If Obama thought he could order air strikes without the real risk of military confrontation with Russia, he would have done so 2 years ago.

Posted by: hilmi | May 1 2013 13:12 utc | 7

REL Lysander @6 - I think you're underestimating the sheer cost of what this whole GCC/NATO jihadi surge is costing.
So far it has likely been underwritten by the massive reserves siezed from Libya, but they have pouring through this at a massive rate - enormous bribes to Egypt, Lebanon & Jordan to keep them from throwing a spanner in the works; more major bribes to the 'new' EU members like Croatia & Bulgaria who were clearly involved in the staging; the enormous smuggling routes & cash laundering vehicles that involve an enormous level of spreading corruption; the spillovers to Jordan, Lebanon & Turkey which have had major effects on their economies & threaten the dissolution to two of the countries (Iraq is another but they'll probably chalk that up as a success); and this is just the obvious stuff.

This could all be sold by the GCC/NATO to the economic insiders as they would be recuperate their costs later from the presumed offshore gas & the pipeline bonanza - But Libya is fast disentegrating even with doubling the Gaddhafi budget (atleast) with bribes for the militias; billions to prop up Egypt & likely enormous costs to keep propping up Jordan.
If Syria manages to kick out the majority of the salafi's, many will return to their staging grounds & to where-ever chaos looks promising - Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, etc.. Others will try Central Asia, but Europe will see a major influx either way.
The sheer costs to keep propping up Western interests from the spill-overs from this are going to be vast, & whatever's left of the Libyan reserves that hasn't been looted is not going to cut it.

Posted by: KenM | May 1 2013 13:15 utc | 8

I posted this a couple of weeks ago at another blog, but think it's relevant to the conversation:

RE: the US on Syria, there seems to be three major factions competing as to whose scenario is executed :- currently still in charge seems to be the ‘humanitarian/liberal’ interventionalists led by Suzanne Rice, Hillary Clinton, Suzanne Nossel, etc. (whom Obama seems to clearly favour) who set the whole bizarre GCC/NATO/Israel/Jihadi/ ‘Human rights’ NGO circus off in the first place ;
The revamped neo-cons, who favour much the same but with greater direct military involvement – more leading from the front than behind;
And the conventional military along with what is left of the old realist foreign policy establishment, who want the whole thing wrapped up & to start focusing on limiting the damage.

A critical point looks to be coming up after June 19th, & MK Bhadrakamur has an excellent article on the subject :
This looks to be manouvering by both the liberal interventionists & neo-cons on both sides of the pond, joining hands to try & kick off a full-scale military intervention by NATO by recycling the chemical weapons bullsh*t.
They likely realise this is their last chance, as the jihadists are now losing badly inspite of the vast amount of weapons & money thrown at them, but they are getting some heavy pushback from various quarters.
Expect the rhetoric to ramp up by the interventionist crowd over the next month, especially on the chemical weapons story.

Posted by: KenM | May 1 2013 13:16 utc | 9

what is a takfiri jihadist? never heard that phrase before.

If the FSA can't beat the Assad outfit, which relied on secret police police and divide and rule, why do they think they could touch Hizbullah, which would only suit the Isrealis.

Posted by: heath | May 1 2013 13:41 utc | 10

From the way things are heading, any more stupid push by uncle Scam to militarize the conflict by way of arming the Al-Qaeda drenched "rebels" will surely ignite a wider regional war which will see to the end of US presence in the region.. We're already seeing hints of that in Iraq. Hezbollah's sec gen's speech is Iran/Russian's warning to uncle Scam and their tag-alongs, by other means.

Jordan is very very vulnerable and Israel is just a 12 mile wide patch of land.Where will they hide when/if the missiles start flying??? Ya do da maths!!!

The drone that spooked the IDF a couple of days ago is to prove to the Israelis that their airspace is not immune and can be penetrated anytime. The fact that it was shot down is immaterial, can they stop 20 - 30 missiles at once???

Posted by: Zico | May 1 2013 13:43 utc | 11

The game hasn't changed much b, destabilize and control by surrogates. As long as the US dollar remains the world's reserve currency, cost means nothing. The US Fed will make more.

Posted by: ben | May 1 2013 14:21 utc | 12

@2, religion doesn't need defending: the Almighty has it in His keeping. The Reptilians are secular beasts; they don't care if you're Amish, they'll still rip your head off.

Posted by: ruralito | May 1 2013 14:39 utc | 13

Penny's latest effort:

Posted by: ben | May 1 2013 15:04 utc | 14


The dollar isn't really the world's reserve currency any more. Just today, Japan entered into discussions over currency swaps for trade with Southeast Asia. It's true that the new systems that are being built will take another year or so to make this painfully obvious, but the writing is on the wall for the dollar as the overwhelming basis for the world. This isn't simply due to US imperialism; it's largely just the abuse of the privilege.


It is doubtful that ZATO feels that it can continue the strategy it's been following. Their army has been crushed over the last few months, and they wouldn't be so hysterical now if they thought they could simply rebuild and go back to how it was a year ago. The Syrian army has taken just about every strategic point, and the insurgents have got nowhere to hide any more. Notice that ZATO is not even asking for a ceasefire. Why not? Because there is nothing left to save inside the country. It is now a lot harder to recruit from other countries, and the prisons were emptied out a long time ago. It's also a lot more obvious to the slow learners of the world that this is a Zionist project. It's hard to remember now, but in the early stages of this destabilization, a fairly significant percentage of the Syrian public either supported the idea of overthrowing the government or did not support the government. There seems to be almost no support for ZATO now.

Posted by: Paul | May 1 2013 15:40 utc | 15

@Lysander | May 1, 2013 8:28:32 AM | 6

I don't know if Iran is up to it ...

Why, give a reason before such a sweeping statement. The red line have been drawn! Israel failed to kill his excellency Nasrallah, which they promised they would do if he ever travelled out from his bunker. The war that will be fought will be asymmetric, there are 2M NATO citizens living in the vicinity. NATO cannot afford to get back these immigrants.

Posted by: hans | May 1 2013 15:41 utc | 16

"More arms will only have one effect. The further destruction of Syria which the U.S. had planned for from the very beginning of its campaign."

What is your problem? It's something to do, isn't it? Do you have any idea how freakin' boring life is for all those people, military, CIA, intelligence, politicians, and most of all, American youth which needs its introduction to manhood, if there isn't a country to destroy?
You, sir, are a wet blanket. "More arms have only one effect"? That's a negative attitude.

Posted by: Mooser | May 1 2013 16:07 utc | 17

"what is a takfiri jihadist? never heard that phrase before."

You are, like, totally "L7", bud! Get yourself hepped, okay? It's just the hottest, coolest, craziest and newest thing on the scene, my man. You just wait, all the smart young kids will be doing it. It'll be bigger than the Frug, or Watusi, or Swim.

Posted by: Mooser | May 1 2013 16:13 utc | 18

Today is May 1st, International Workers' Day.

From Wikipedia:

"The police were trying to disperse a public assembly during a general strike for the eight-hour workday, when an unidentified person threw a bomb at them."

Sound familiar?

Posted by: neretva'43 | May 1 2013 16:21 utc | 19

@heath what is a takfiri jihadist?

A Takfiri (from Arabic: تكفيري‎ takfīrī) is a Muslim who accuses another Muslim of apostasy. The accusation itself is called takfir, derived from the word kafir (infidel) and is described as when " who is, or claims to be, a Muslim is declared impure."

Generally the term jihadism denotes Sunni Islamist armed struggle. (The religious interpretation of Jihad is different and much less violent but that discussion would have to go into theological details.)

The insurgents in Syria declare other Muslims to be not "real" Muslims which then allows them to struggle against them. They are therefore takfiris. As they fight by violent means the are also jihadists. Hence "takfiri jihadists"

Posted by: b | May 1 2013 16:38 utc | 20

Global Post: Syria: The horrific chemical weapons attack that probably wasn’t a chemical weapons attack (Graphic video)

The Post talks with real experts and looks at evidence which points to some form of teargas having been used in the April 13 attack. The Post has found no evidence for blaming this or that side for the attack.

The earlier attack in march was by the rebels and with chlorine.

Posted by: b | May 1 2013 16:42 utc | 21

"Today is May 1st, International Workers' Day.

From Wikipedia:

"The police were trying to disperse a public assembly during a general strike for the eight-hour workday, when an unidentified person threw a bomb at them."

Sound familiar?"

Where did I hear this before? Ah, maybe The Kent State Massacre.

Cruiser USS Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, Gleiwitz incident, Iraq WMD, Syrian WMD aka "red line" just those handy.

Happy May Day!

Posted by: neretva'43 | May 1 2013 16:46 utc | 22


It looks like parts - valve - of a washing machine.

Posted by: neretva'43 | May 1 2013 16:50 utc | 23

b - so "takfiri jihadist" = born-again christian? You aren't NOTHIN til yer SAVED.

But seriously, another esoteric euphemism to describe our gang of mercs, why am I not surprised. Next up at 11! The Top Ten vacation destinations for Takfiri Jihadists!

Posted by: L Bean | May 1 2013 17:01 utc | 24

While I value Bandrakhumars thoughts I think he is limited by his very experience. I know that from a good friend who is in international politics. Those people are in what one might call a fuzzy middle layer.

To explain the 3 layers:

The lowest one is what is sold to and seen by citizens (which can be compared to a TV show)

The middle one is the layer of formalisms, policies, diplomatics and the like. That's the layer around the real power and toward media is. Parlaments are an example or diplomats.

The highest layer is of course the real power and, connected to it, secret services, special ops, etc.

That part of the real decisions that can (or need be) be communicated, albeit usually codified, beautified or simply bent to fit an image, are handled, processed, communicated through layer 2; those that are to dirty, illegal, etc. are handled and processed through layer 1 appendices (secret services etc.).

Whatever obama and Putin discuss is either completely worthless diplomatic circus or will not be told for years to come.

One example: "the usa will help with security at the Olympic games" is pure diplomats-bullshirt. Putin would never accept any zusa involvement (beyond a dozen or so fbi agents), neither would he accept - or trust - any help of zusa with the real source of terrorism (and potential Sochi problems), the caucasus-terrorists financed, used and supported by the zusa.
In the very best of cases this offer of help could be interpreted as diplomatic speak for "O.K. we, the zusa, aren't the super power any more and we just can't afford any longer to piss off Russia. Therefore we will not any longer support caucasus terrorists". And even that would be worthless. Zusa can't be trusted and particularly not by Russia.

It might help to remember something that very much influenced Putins views and now gives him a position of experience concerning Syria.

During jelzins times and particularly as implemented by the "young" prime ministers the zusa willfully implemented a plan to completely destroy Russia once and forever. They had "laws" written by american "advisors" which basically stripped Russia completely and began to take away her resources basically for free. Furthermore they destroyed the core of Russias industry.

Adding insult to injury they sold this policy as "help" to build a democratic Russian state.

Putin stopped that process of willfull deterioration and plundering costing immense poverty and even many, many deaths. *That* is one of the reasons why Putin has profound support in Russia. The can have usaid, golus, navalny and whatnot blahblah and whine protest as much as they want; this just doesn't sit with people who have an uncle, a son, a sister, a neighbour whose former employer was completely and willfully destroyed until Putin came to stop it and built something up.

Strangely enough almost nobody knows about that zusa created nightmare in jelzins Russia. Must have somehow overlooked that, our "democratic, free media" ...

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 1 2013 17:59 utc | 25

@25. I see Putin as a Russian nationalist. The odd thing is he is perceived by Western liberals as a brutal dictator who murders journalists and won't let punk girls dance in cathedrals.

Posted by: dh | May 1 2013 18:45 utc | 26

@23 - looks more like the handle and nozzle of a CS canister - similar to that seen in the the infamous Davis spray scenes

Posted by: Yonatan | May 1 2013 19:13 utc | 27

25) funny that you assume Obama and Putin have real power ...

Posted by: somebody | May 1 2013 19:31 utc | 28

somebody (28)

Concerning Putin I'm sure that he does.

Concerning obama:

My point wasn't to reflect whether obama has power or is merely a remote controlled poppet.

And then:

Remember the NK show? Well, SK asks to play nice and obama seems to have it forgotten completely.

In short: zusa failed once more. They made lots of noise and threats ... and then retreated.

Syria? Lots of zusa noise, red lines and blah blah ...

So, sorry that my interest in the subtleties of zusas inner power structure is quite limited. Unlike Putin or, for instance, Maduro the zusa president isn't even elected.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 1 2013 19:42 utc | 29

I'm sorry, Mr. Pragma, but you neglected to tell us what layer you are in.
Don't you think it would help to know that?

Posted by: Mooser | May 1 2013 19:43 utc | 30

"so "takfiri jihadist" = born-again christian?"

Are we (US) for them now, or are we against them now? Or are we against the other side now? Is there another side, besides the other side? I can't keep up.

Posted by: Mooser | May 1 2013 19:47 utc | 31

@28 I think Putin has the power of the Russian people behind him. Obama has lost whatever popular power he had.

Posted by: dh | May 1 2013 19:47 utc | 32

"...that process of willfull deterioration and plundering costing immense poverty and even many, many deaths. "

It would be interesting and very instructive to estimate how many deaths did result from the systematic destruction of the Russian Republic.
If the same methodology that has been employed to determine that Stalin and Mao were responsible for millions of deaths, is used my suspicion is that the policies enforced in Russia by the Yeltsin regime, under International pressure, will have caused many millions of premature deaths. And that Clinton and Bush Sr will be regarded by posterity as criminals whose actions dwarfed the Ukrainian famines in the time of collectivisation, which, after all can be blamed on western sanctions quite as much as on communist land reform.

It might interest you, Mr Pragma, to learn that the word poppet, in English slang, means a young sexy woman.

Posted by: bevin | May 1 2013 19:55 utc | 33

Obama doesn't. I think Putin does.

In Russia it is highly, say, personalized political system. Deep or Shadow State, while exist, is not (yet) developed or institutionalized. In essence he is the leader. In the U.S. president can be anybody he/she is just happy salesman with policy already set in place and strictly enforced by state bureaucracy and its henchmen. Reason being: they are terrified not end up as Rome. If you "make the waves" you end up like Kennedy. Second thing both countries run very different history and school of thought.

Posted by: neretva'43 | May 1 2013 20:00 utc | 34

@dh # 32
"I think Putin has the power of the Russian people behind him. Obama has lost whatever popular power he had."

Correct I guess , with Obama you have a ship without a captain , a lose canon so to say.

The 'poor' guy was a UNKNOWN before his presidency and he still is a UNKNOWN , never served in the army , never had a key postion etc.

Whereas Putin is a former KGB man , fluent in German language a 'Busenfreund' of Gerhard Schroeder , a man with clear a vision , a true Russian nationalist , even a distant comparision with Obama is misplaced.
I am not joking , but IMHO , Obama seems to be on drugs , like a 'SHIREYEI' ( someone who take higher degrees of derivates of opium ).
Reminds me of a persian joke:
"The Police raids a "Opium/Shireyei" den and the officers shout : Don't you move !!!
One Opium/Shireyei addict ( Obamalike ) responds : " Where do you see US move ??

Posted by: Tehran | May 1 2013 20:14 utc | 35

Mooser (30)

I'm sorry, Mr. Pragma, but you neglected to tell us what layer you are in.
Don't you think it would help to know that?

First and most in the third layer, the citizen/normal people layer.
With (as mentioned) limited access to the second layer. While there is little in terms of concrete events or matters (at the time, the former Yugoslavia being one of the few exeptions) that I know through the layer 2 access, there is a lot that I learned about its inner workings and its interface to layer 1.

bevin (33)

It would be interesting and very instructive to estimate how many deaths did result from the systematic destruction of the Russian Republic.

Numbers seem hard to get but they range between 2 mio and 11 mio Russians who died (due to those zusa criminal acts) with a clear tendency toward the upper end.

Ad "poppet": Unfortunately my english is worse than I'd like it to be. When I say "poppet" I mean a "marionette" a remote controlled figure. I'll gladly learn a better term if proposed.


I'd like to add that what is termed "corruption" in todays Russia is for a large part just another and still existing symptom of the jelzin traitor/zusa destruction aera.

To fight it the way that seems logical, i.e. to go very tough against it, is not neccessarily the right one, at least not alone. At those times, when zusa/jelzin and their accomplices went for the complete destruction of Russia there was a large layer of small and middle bureaucrats that simply weren't payed at all or payed only a ridiculous fraction. For them corruption was a natural - and even just - escape route; "just" because at the same time one could see western "supported" entrepreneurs (i.e. frontmen) throw money around while - that shouldn't be forgotten - for the average Russian incl. bureaucrats it often was a question of life and death (if, for instance, enough food to survive was available to them)
Secondly a state needs bureaucrats. They way Putin seems to go is two-pronged; on one hand he goes tougher and tougher against corruption, on the other he works to alleviate the grounds, the need for corruption by making sure that the small people and the middle class can have an adequate live on their own.

In that context I remember a scene where some rich people wanted to close down a factory which was healthy but not profitable enough for get rich quickly guys. Unfortunately that meant that ca. 2000 Russians would loose their work for that greed of the owners, one of which was the now famous Mr. deripaska.
Surprisingly Putin, asked for help, appeared there with his convoi and called an immediate conference. Then he asked the owners to sign a paper that guaranteed that the factory would in one way or another stay alive and the jobs were not killed. They all signed, except deripaska. Putin, who treated them like lousy little criminals, asked (ordered. In a tone like "do you want to test my authority?") deripaska to come to him and to also sign that paper. deripaska, verbally slapped again, did as ordered and "crawled" back to his place.
This was sent on the Russian television and (probably) is still on youtube. Russians who saw things like this (and there are millions who saw or heard similar actions themselves or through family or friends) are simply not reachable by golos, navalny and all the other zusa-sponsored whores. They *know* that Putin is their man and takes care for them.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 1 2013 20:46 utc | 36

"It would be interesting and very instructive to estimate how many deaths did result from the systematic destruction of the Russian Republic."

Putin stated once that in Russia died more people during "transition" than during WWII.

Posted by: neretva'43 | May 1 2013 21:00 utc | 37

Thanks for the ht Ben :)
The posts that would be most relevant to this discussion can be found




That should make it less confusing
Since, I am railing against the despicable Canadian gov. at this time

Posted by: Penny | May 1 2013 21:54 utc | 38

Today 1 May 2013 President Assad visited an electric power station in Damascus on the occasion of Worker's Day in Syria. It was a news story on Syrian TV this evening. It is an example of the fact (and it is a fact) that the President is a good politician. I could recite a lengthy list of similar moves by Bashar over the past couple of years. Bashar is broadly popular with the Syrian public, and he didn't get to be that way without being a good politician.

Bashar is a very good politician in terms of pure professional politics, sensitivity to public opinion, responsiveness to public opinion, and ability to sell policies to public opinion, and likeability in public.

On 6 Nov 2011, on the occasion of Eid Al-Adha, a religious holiday in Syria, Bashar Assad went to a prayer service at a mosque and afterwards he shook hands with everybody in the mosque who lined up to shake his hand. The hand-shaking process went on for more than thirty minutes. It was televised. I watched the entire 30+ minutes of this. In the video Bashar is grinning, smiling and enjoying himself all through the line of people who he shakes hands with. Looking at that video at that time, I concluded that Bashar wouldn't want any other job in the whole world for a long time to come. I've since seen lots of other videos of Bashar in public, all reaffirming the same conclusion. This means he wants to run for President next year.

Here's the video of the hand-shaking on 6 Nov 2011 on the occasion of Eid al-Adha which I found so compelling: -- the other two people working the handshaking line in the video are the Grand Mufti and the Minister for Religious Affairs -- notice that their handshaking is perfunctory compared to the President's.

Here's a video of Bashar enjoying himself today "working the handshake line" on the occasion of Worker's Day on 1 May 2013: . SANA's report today about this event is at

I said Bashar is a good political leader. Let me add that he is the figurehead of a vastly bigger government and set of government policies, which in turn is the expression of a bigger societal Establishment in Syria. If Bashar died suddenly tomorrow he would be missed, but he's not indispensible to the pro-government societal Establishment. His death would change nothing fundamental in the political landscape.

Posted by: Parviziyi | May 1 2013 22:06 utc | 39

Real Power. Putin seems to have more than Obama. Just look at the change since Yeltsin. Nothing like that in the US. More of the same. They say, his fans, that Obama is ham-strung by Congress, but that could be theater, like Agamemnon and his captains on another thread.

Posted by: ruralito | May 1 2013 22:31 utc | 40

Certainly the number of people killed in Russia by the "transition" was well into the millions. And its victims were, of course, the weakest and most vulnerable: the old, the young, the ailing. Many of them will have been Red Army veterans who survived the terrible battles they won and that saved the world. Robbed of their pensions, deprived of their life savings, including the social services and institutions of learning, the infrastructure of civilisation, which they had built by their own hard work, they were left to starve, their children to beg in the streets and prostitute themselves.

PUPPET Mr Pragma: Obama is a PUPPET. Brigitte Bardot was a poppet, before Sputnik was put together.

Posted by: bevin | May 1 2013 23:00 utc | 41

"poppet" was an older spelling of "puppet" and in middle English meant small child or doll (per wiki). AFAIK, it can still be used that way in British English, but I'm not sure.

So Mr Pragma's usage may simply have been archaic rather than incorrect.

Posted by: Lysander | May 1 2013 23:22 utc | 42


I would be careful how to characterize Pres. Assad as a politician. In principle, I hold them all in deep disdain. I do believe this terrible war is planned to happen. But his economic policies, in particular toward rural population, and neo-liberal reforms with collaboration with the IMF and some German Gov. as advisers, probably earned him more enemies than he otherwise may have. Daraa Governorate and city itself is the place which was struck by so-called reforms, and it has been hotbed of insurgency, since. Therefore I am not convinced about his "sensibility" and some an individual that he was surrounded with.

Posted by: neretva'43 | May 1 2013 23:33 utc | 43

Thanks for the kind explanation but no, I'm afraid my usage was simply wrong. Thanks for hinting me to the correct spelling "puppet".

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 1 2013 23:38 utc | 44

As for the weapons pumped into Syria ...

It may sound harsh but actually that's quite meaningless. Because those terrorists (at least for the largest part) gravely lack military power and there is no amount of weapons to offset that.

A properly trained soldier acting within proper military troups is far more than just some honcho with a gun; he is no less a professional than a baker or a car technician. A professional soldier can be a very valuable tool with what most would consider a lousy gun (say, an AK 47) while some infiltrated freaks from libya are worthless even with fine FN Fal assault rifles.

You see, missing the enemy (or killing one of your own or a civilian) isn't much different whether done with a Sarko (high end) sniper rifle or a cheap AK-47.

It may again sound harsh but all the collateral damage created by the terrorists works in favour of Assad. Simply because humans tend to react very badly to civilian deaths and wanton killing.

That, btw, is also the reason why "reports" about government troups creating havoc are quite certainly lies and inventions. Unlike the terrorists who can afford very high collateral damage because they are supported from outside, the government troups must have (and are trained in that way) protection and non involvement of civilians as a very high priority. Killing their own citizens would very quickly destroy troup morale as well as support for Assad.

That's also a major reason for the divergence between the few real syrian "freedom rebels" and the diverse groups of foreign sponsored terrorists.

All together an educated guess might be around 5:1 to 10:1 for government troups vs. terrorists, i.e. one can assume that to kill 1 government soldier to be killed by terrorists the terrorists will loose 10 of their own. Some might argue that 5:1 is very low but I gave a very conservative ratio because not all Syrian government troups are mature loyal soldiers; many might be drawn, be in the army for lack of alternatives, etc.

For Hezbollah I would see the ratio more arount 20 or 25:1. Don't make the mistake to consider them just a bunch of rebels. Their training and structure is of military quality and they should be considered highly in their field (asymmetric, low-tech warfare). Actually most western nations military would have a hard time fighting against Hezbollah (as israel learned the way).

That's also the reason why I'm not at all impressed or worried by inflated (by the zato media) numbers of "rebel fighters". Even if they had 250.000 terrorists infiltrated into Syria, the government troups would not even need half of their troups to take care of that problem.

I think, there is some weird game going on that forces Assad to hold widely still for the time being. One might suppose that (roughly putting a tag on it) BRICS/SCO first wants to reach a certain point, possibly somewhere in the area of making zato recognizable as criminals sending terrorists into a souvereign for their won dark purposes, and, driving zusa more toward the abyss.

I may be mistaken but there are many signs that a strange game is going on between zusa/zato and BRICS/SCO roughly along the line that everybody knows that zusa is not any more more than a loudmouth aggressive cripple who doesn't want to accept that his time is over, and that more and more they are driven into situations where this becomes visible. I assume that SCO/BRICS first want zusa to leave the whole thing and go home before Assad gets the "go!" for a cleaning action (which, no doubt, will also bring many, many more evidence for actual zato troups within Syria).

In summary it has become more and more meaningless an irrelevant what zusa has to blah.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 2 2013 0:12 utc | 45

Obama has become a disembodied voice, a sound that echoes in the room, as it is deflected by his teleprompters. This is not an unusual outcome for US Presidents. Such a person has his gravitas removed, once it is discovered that his principles are variable, his words empty; and his actions are not proceeding from any conviction at all, but are understood to be bumping up against objects with lethal results. The man becomes defined by routines: golf, Terror Tuesdays when he and his staff select victims, the Correspondents' Dinner where he awes the presstitutes with puerile remarks. People, in general, stop believing that there is anything inside the suit.

I hope Sibel Edmonds is wrong in her belief that Putin will accept a backdoor deal with Washington, for the quid pro quo of having a free hand to do his brutal housekeeping in the Caucasus, in exchange for granting the West+Israel its wish to depose President Assad and wreck Syria, the country itself, and its society. The idea of so much destruction, following the flux lines of so much political cynicism, is truly a repugnant thought. And, if the truth is to be told, if it is ever to be told; then the last thing we want to see is the shape of the world that comes in the wake of Syria's complete destruction.

Posted by: Copeland | May 2 2013 0:29 utc | 46

Copeland (46)

Don't worry, I don't think that deal will happen.

And why should Putin make such a deal? After Boston even americans know that there are terrorists in Chechenia and that they are bad guys. How could zusa dare to criticise Putin for "brutal housekeeping"? (besides, that the "brutal" is on the side of the terrorists has just been shown again)

Second, Putin doesn't trust zusa more than a rattlesnake on crack. And rightly so. zusa lied and lied and lied again, and they broke pretty much every single agreement they made with Russia; even the ones where they betrayed Russia from the start.

Third, other than brainwashed and lied to zato citizens pretty nobody cares a flyshit about what zusa wants or "thinks" or not.

Isn't it evident enough that zusa has hardly more to offer than failure and hot air?

obama isn't ignoring and doubting the (wrongly accused) crossing of the red line by Syria because he is a nice man but because he knows that a new war means suicide for zusa.

Again: zusa is not any more in the position to demand or offer anything.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 2 2013 0:51 utc | 47

Mr Pragma,

I like your optimism. One wonders, though, if ZATO can't continue to at least weaken Syria's economy and prevent any development of pipelines or gas fields. The bomb aimed at the PM was a sign that they can still cause serious trouble. Having spent too much time around the US's military-industrial complex, I find it hard to believe ZATO can't crush Syria in a dozen ways. It's just that the price for this is high. It has nothing to do with giving better weapons to untrained riffraff. So ZATO keeps looking for ways to bribe generals or business leaders. Fortunately, that has failed, and those who did fall for the ZATO bribes are now almost all gone.

As far as Assad waiting, I was under the impression that the Syrian Army has been crushing the insurgents, and has basically taken back almost all strategic locations. He may wait to announce that the war is now under control, but that is just to have Russia on board as to any PR and diplomatic moves.

Posted by: Paul | May 2 2013 3:34 utc | 48


The hypothesis of Sibel Edmonds seems pretty incredible, and her follow-up on the Jones show a day or two ago about how it could be part of a deal that the US wouldn't attack Iran for a year or two also seems dubious. Russia doesn't need permission to smash Chechens, as we saw in the wars there, and it is most unclear why Russia would see a US attack in a year or two on Iran as being such a worthwhile thing. The US will build up its oil and gas infrastructure over the next year or two, so it is easy to imagine that a gas and oil crisis would be better for Russia now, if that were the idea.

So one has to ask the unpleasant questions. It is usual for sensitive jobs in the US System to require family connections. Ms Edmonds is from Turkey, and Turkey is a big part of the Great Game here. Is she under pressure to not rock the boat when it comes to sensitive matters involving Turkey?

It's not much fun to raise that issue, as she seems like a good person and her info on the Gulen network has been useful. But it is also true that there really haven't been many whistleblowers in the US in the last 25 years, at least not from those who had access to stuff that could hurt the criminals in high places. One reason for this is that the typical punishment is to go to the whistleblower's brother and give him the choice of killing the wayward brother or to be set up for the murder of his family. So kill your brother or spend life in jail for the murder of your wife and kids. These guys don't mess around. Thus, one has to examine what info she has put out and consider if it has a missing side when it comes to Turkey.

Posted by: Paul | May 2 2013 3:43 utc | 49

@33 Well worth researching. I'm quite certain the the crimes of capitalism and the capitalist far outweigh anything attributable to communists.

Look up those "28 million" that Stalin "killed". It not only includes all of the Soviet military who died defending their mother land, but also all the GERMAN soldiers who died invading it. To be sure, Stalin committed great crimes, but not as are portrayed by the cold war Western PR firms. And Khrushchev's condemnation of those crimes is never given the credit it is due.

The lies Goebbels dreamed up continue to haunt the "historians" of the West. It's sad that a country that lost 20 million saving the world from Nazism gets treated as a pariah - in fact gets blamed for the very crimes of the Nazis. Not to mention what occurred after the cold war. It is to the Soviet system of relations between republics, and to the Russians themselves, great credit that - aside from Chechnya - they let a centuries year old empire go with limited bloodshed. Certainly the same can not be said about the Portuguese, Belgians, English, or the French.

Posted by: guest | May 2 2013 4:32 utc | 50


There is a much more extensive series of interviews with Sibel Edmonds on the Corbett Report.

Corbett is an expat American living in Japan who gets Sibel to talk about Gladio, program A, and the new program B version, and she talks about the Boston attack. The strategic shift in US policy is one that switches from backing fascistic ultra-nationalists (in Turkey for one example), to the new practice of operating, or materially supporting, fundamentalist Islamic insurgents. The new goal is migrating toward manufacturing chaos and creating failed states, as a more utilitarian strategy than propping up the structure of government, in the model of puppetry, working through the typical strongman or brutal autocracy, as in the past. Chaos, division, pure hysteria and sectarian hells, produce the kind of easy pickings and plunder that the evil bastards prefer.

Plundered and failed states greatly simplify the global battlefield plan for the Hegemon and its dogs of war, by reducing the possibilities for the weaker states to maintain, or even find, helpful alliances.

I think Edmonds was also hinting that the pot would be sweetened by letting Russia have its way with Georgia, into the bargain. And though I don't much care for Putin, who got much political leverage in the past, from scaling up the war in Chechnya, and using some false flag to get his war on,--still such a deal with aggressors who have extensive and unrestrained ambitions toward the whole planet--would be a fools bargain. It would be appeasement that would haunt Russia later.

Posted by: Copeland | May 2 2013 5:38 utc | 51

Paul (49)

(This one first because it's just a short remark)

With all - quite probably well reserved - respect for Sibel Edmonds I'm afraid her remarks are often not weighed correctly. She was if I'm not mistaken a translator at the fbi and it seems reasonable to assume that her access to information was rather limited. In the case that made her famous she *did* have access as she was one of the translators in charge if I remember correctly.


I don't consider that optimism but rather a clear (as opposed to brainwashed) view.

First again: When I consider most (incl. many here) more or less brainwashed then I don't mean that derising. I honestly can (based on my own experience growing up in Europe) understand that it's a rather tough process to step by step, many of them shocking, break free from the brainwashing.

It's a simple fact that zusa failed in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. They failed in more than one respect; they failed intellectually, psychologically, financially, politically, and militarily.

When the whole post 9/11 bruhaha started the zusa was widely considered *the* superpower one better feared and didn't provoke.

Today, the zusa *talks* (through their propaganda organs) of itself and considers itself, at least in the public image, but pretty nobody takes them serious.

Not to belittle Iraq but if zusa wasn't capable to reach a clear and undisputed victory in a mid-size country that was shaken and weakened by a decade of crippling sanctions, then, excuse me, *whom* could they win against? Andorra?

Another, more recent point: zusa didn't and doesn't act as a superpower but almost shy concerning NK and even Syria.Nk didn't give in an inch, yet zusa turned away and the matter is largely absent in the western media.

There are many reasons for that, maybe the most important one being that zusa lost its strength, values and their very core; today zusa is a nation that replaced content by ever more colourful packaging, values by ever more absurd language and political correctness and human qualities by quick (and usually dirty) deals.

Even their military *plays* hard, delivers a show but actually must install climate control systems, px stores and burger kings before they can send their soldiers in - where e.g. Russian forces get some tents and that's about it. And all that for wars that are increasingly - and cowardly - fought remotely.

For what reason? Because they value, if not human life in general, at least the life of *their* citizens so much? Hardly. Just have a look at how they treat their maimed veterans. Like dirt.

For what reason did they let go the NK matter? Because they are so peace-loving? Hardly. Just look at du ammunition infested Iraq cities where infants are slowly and painfully dying.

It's simple as chickenshit. zusa bet their house more and more on show because the contents were greedily sold. Even physically; just have a look at their gold reserves ... they've got paper, not metal.

As they *really were* (once upon a time ...) the superpower and as they did shape major parts of the western world, the majority of people still considers them mighty powerful. But they aren't - if ones measure are facts and not words.

Basically their game was simple. What's needed for power could be bought if one had the money. The money one had (and such an absurdly large military budget) if ones currency controlled the world. Ones currency controlled the world if one controlled what's the liveblood of modern times, oil.

So, realizing that zusa had spent way more than they had and could have in the foreseeable future, bush senior, the old oilman arranged for his idiotic son to make the last effort to save the imperiums future by trying to bring the whole oil region under their control. Afghanistan seems to not fit the picture; it does, however, considering that with Afghanistan zusa had Iran, a major and resistant oil-nation in "pliers" between Iraq an Afghanistan (with some added bonuses).

And, you know what? It would quite probably have worked with obedient whores running Europe.

But then, about the same time george "brainless stalker" bush was illegaly put in his oval office, Putin came to power and completely changed the game.

Last point: Pretty much along their path of slowly realizing that the "american century" was coming to a premature end they started terrorizing their own citizens.

Reason? Dirty simple:
- if they don't have the world as playground (and victim to suck their high incomes off) then it'll be what they still control, their own country.
- second and more important, they understood that their interest not to find themselves strung at the next tree was indirectly proportional to the freedom of their citizens ...

So, don't expect much more than noise from zusa ...

(Funny sidenote: Just these days kerry mentioned latin/southamerica being the neglected back yard of zusa. Sure with (Venezuela friendly) Brasil growing and gaining weight they will try to take of that. After all it would be pretty shameful if "those dark cornsuckers" (who have decades of reasons to detest americans) overtook zusa and in, say 15 years, zusa would be the "back yard".
So they'll try to repeat the jelzin-Russia model ...

Well, don't bet your money on zusa.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 2 2013 5:42 utc | 52

The false flag in Boston shows, more than any other fact, that the ruling elite doesn't intend to stop, or even slow down. And the road to Tehran, and Beirut, runs through Damascus. Did you see how easily military edict rolled over Boston? And the city's police chief wants drones for next year's Marathon. A Headquarter's Company in Jordan is what b reported a few days ago. Then there's the recent monkey business of a Russian airliner, threatened with a manpad, it seems.

Empires in dying trajectories become more reckless. And the accused within their own jurisdictions are beginning to be treated as if they have no rights at all. And it's sad I tell you; for Boston which was the crucible of the American Experiment, seems to be the place where my country has gone to die.

Posted by: Copeland | May 2 2013 6:26 utc | 53

Odummy is a slimeball, now that the prisoners in Guantanamo are finally forcing his hand he makes a decision. He is a typical wait and see type of person, not an alpha like Putin. Putin makes hard decisions, but he makes 'em. Odummy today said that its not his job to make the senators do this or that. That it's their responsibility to act like adults. Say what? Mutherfucker, you are the man in charge bitch! Make a God damn decision. This country needs a bold leader, somebody willing to tell John McCain, Lieberman & all those other psychos to chill and shut the hell up. We need a man like Putin.

Posted by: Fernando | May 2 2013 7:09 utc | 54


Sibel is the founder of a whistleblowers' society, that gets favorable talk on CIApedia. This is not possible in the US unless you are compromised. I'm quite familiar with Corbett, but he strikes me as meaning well. Those who mean well are usually painfully naive. He is also young, so he hasn't seen all the agents, plants, disruptors and so on that those of us with grey hair have. The willyloman blog goes into other issues with Edmonds.

It is also unclear about the nature of Chechen terror in Russia. There are factions within the FSB, and one needs to be careful with going with the right-wing conspiracy argument, such as Joel Skousen, when evaluating Putin. He's no saint, but a lot of that terror hasn't helped Putin. In fact, Islamic extremism is a serious hindrance to developing the Eurasia heartland that Brzezinski is so worried about. A major attack during the upcoming Olympics would be a major embarrassment for Putin.

Posted by: Paul | May 2 2013 7:28 utc | 55

Mahalo, b and barflies...!

Pouring Gas On The Syrian Inferno...

Posted by: CTuttle | May 2 2013 7:42 utc | 56

Mr P,

Before saying that the Iraq War was a failure, we have to ask what the CFR was trying to achieve. They don't care about 10,000 dead and the money for the war is not that big of a deal. The cost was the Iranian influence, wasn't it? Isn't the general idea to break up countries in the Middle East and leave things in such a mess that the Western companies can mop up? It's also to prevent an alliance forming against the ZATO crowd. Isn't oil production in Libya now close to the levels before the war? And who gets to control that oil? The Libyan War has been a big success, or so it would seem.

I think you are missing that the West is going through a strategy of tension. The talk about NK is to frighten everyone; there won't be a war till ZUSA sees it as being effective. It makes the Western colonial countries a reason to run home to their protector. Right now, there is a huge Operation Gladio going on. Whether it be a crazed Italian going after politicians, a bomb in Prague, or countless dubious events in the US, they all seem to be pushing the tension agenda. And the upcoming clampdown will be more believable due to this BS.

Saying that US gold reserves are low is questionable. The owners of the US are privatizing everything. So they have stolen things. What is going on now is similar to what happened after the fall of Communism. The difference is that the owners of the US are trying to keep the military angle. We'll see whether they are success soon enough. Will the VZ destabilization succeed? The US got Maduro down to 51%, and it's easy to imagine that he will have to become more "market friendly" in the coming years.

Posted by: Paul | May 2 2013 7:48 utc | 57

Paul (57)

I see your point and I see that it seems to be a valid view.

But I disagree.

There are different reasons why the zusa failed and fails. The wars were just one issue showing that. The reason behind all the failures and the decline is the same for all the obervable (and debatable) symptoms.

Sure, wars make money and from a brutally utilitaristic point of view it doesn't matter that much where the money comes from; 1 billion earned is 1 billion earned, not matter whether though the war industry or the car industry or whatever.

In the end, however, we arrive at as simple as decisive questions. Was democracy human progress, something positive, something that broke the masses free from their dictators?


Democracy was an illusion but an extremely useful one. An illusion that makes people to strive for what formertimes had to be demanded and enforced.

There are many views in that complex world with many different layers, some of them solid, some semi-transparent, some transparent and some mirrors - or a mixture. It's hard to tell with certainty what's true, what's show, who is good and who is bad, who plays whom and who is friend or foe.

It can however be stated with close to certainty that power that be will not make a step backwards. Funnily (well ...) it's not really the people who fight hard for democracy, it's the powers that be. And with - for them good reason.

While sure enough some of the turmoil is desired (as you explain) overall the state of zusa is rapidly and brutally declining and, that's important, taking the believe in - and the show of - democracy with it.

Actually, I'm convinced, that's one of the major reasons for obama being in his position, to somehow revive the immensely valuable and important belief in democracy. There has never been a more productive cow than democracy and never a more powerful control and manipulation of the masses.

Citizens are willing to give up democracy, at least in part - if they get something tangible and vital for it. Just look at Russia. It's the 0.1% of the ultrarich and really powerful, very typically persons very close to israel, that will not let go and give up democracy, no matter what.

The occupy movement, the repeated and almost bluntly overt disregard for democratic rules concerning the president elections but also the decline of and detesting of politicians throughout Europe show clearly that the "new roman empire" is going down.

It's not according to some weird and smart plan that the zusa/zato fails. It's because it evidently has arrived at the point where the package is not only empty but by now even the packagings colours are bleeding out and fading.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 2 2013 8:41 utc | 58

That "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" run by MI6 or so has stopped giving daily summations of people killed. The last it gave showed insurgents dying at about double the number as government troops.

Two hours ago it had this:

Homs province: Regime forces, with the support of the pro-regime, and Iranian trained and managed, organised militias of the National Defence Force, have taken over large parts of the Wadi al-Sayeh neighbourhood of Homs. Which connected the besieged neighbourhoods of Old Homs to the Khaldiya neighbourhood, therefore almost completely surrounding the Old neighbourhoods of Homs, in which the lives of more about 800 families, who have been under siege for a year, would be in increased risk and under existential threat. There are fears of sectarian attacks of murder against the families and the rebels in the old neighbourhoods if the regime forces and its militias take over.
Translation: The insurgents in Homs are surrounded by government troops, cut of from resupplies and in deep shit.

Posted by: b | May 2 2013 9:31 utc | 59

@Copeland #51

I would add to the pot concessions over missile defence to make it even sweeter. In March, the US effectively cancelled the final phase of a Europe-based missile defence system that was opposed by Russia.

Posted by: Pat Bateman | May 2 2013 9:36 utc | 60

The Wall Street Journal finds that the insurgents are lying about "chemical weapons":

To support their case, rebels have also released video accounts of alleged victims of chemical-weapon attacks. But such videos often include inconsistencies or lack evidence to show they weren't staged.

In one incident, rebels accuse the regime of launching rockets equipped with chemical warheads on the town of Al-Otaiba in the Damascus suburbs on March 19, killing "civilians and children." The videos of alleged victims supplied by activists showed men, some in military fatigues, who don't appear ill.

Another video showing rebel fighters being treated at a field hospital was released by opposition activists as evidence of the regime's alleged use of sarin. But a man identified in the video as a doctor says, "It's definitely not sarin because sarin is more potent," before another man cuts him off to say sarin was certainly used.

Interviews with rebels, activists and residents in some areas of alleged chemical attacks can be inconclusive, as well.

In the incident at Khan al-Asal on March 19, at least two rebel leaders said the Assad regime had deployed a Scud missile equipped with chemical substances. Others who said they witnessed the attack said it involved bombs dropped by a regime fighter jet.

The alleged attack occurred in an area that has been generally supportive of Mr. Assad, raising questions about why government forces would strike there. The Assad regime said a chemical attack did occur—by rebels. Rebels denied the charge.

Posted by: b | May 2 2013 9:36 utc | 61

Pat Bateman (60)

The problem with that suggestion is that the Russians, although making lots of noise about it, don't care the slightest about the zusa missiles in Europe. Besides the fact that major Russian systems can't be stopped by those systems anyway, Europe is plain and simple not the corridor for Russian missiles on their way to the zusa.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 2 2013 9:45 utc | 62

I'm inclined to disagree with you on that, but speculating about what the Russians are really thinking is probably a waste of time.

Instead, Robert Fisk has a new series from inside Syria that is worth reading. When he talks about "prowling through mountaintop positions" and accompanying the Syrian army through the forests of Latakia and the cobbled streets of Aleppo, I'm inclined to believe that he has a good grasp of the realities on the ground, which is the most important thing.

And, as b points out in the latest propaganda splurge from the SOHR, the "rebels" are being squeezed. Will Obama give the green light for more arms before they pop?

Posted by: Pat Bateman | May 2 2013 10:04 utc | 63

re: the Sibel Edmonds idea of Russia ditching Syria

There is an update on her website saying that Kerry is visiting Syria, and that things show a warming in the Russia-US relationship. It looks to me that one can make a much better case that the US is trying to get out of the mess by ditching the insurgents. Just look at the headlines. An example is Yahoo, which has this:

"Syrian president showing renewed confidence

Syrian President Bashar Assad and his allies are showing renewed confidence that the momentum in the civil war is shifting in their favor, due in part to the rapid rise of al-Qaida-linked extremists among the rebels ..."

The headline if the US was about to bomb Syria would be:

"Syrian dictator goes to the scene of his latest crime

Syrian dictator Assad visited the area where human rights activists say the dictator's troops used chemical weapons on civilians. Survivors of this brutal attack crawled to a humanitarian refugee camp in Turkey and were interviewed by CNN ..."

Posted by: Paul | May 2 2013 10:05 utc | 64

Pat B.,

A promise of removing missiles from Eastern Europe is nice, but the US has broken its promises in Eastern Europe in the past, and the value of Syria and Iran is immensely higher than those missiles. A Russian-Iranian-Chinese alliance and the development of Central Asia through rail and road can mean the end of the Anglo-American control through the oceans of the world.

Putin probably considered many ZATO offers early on in this invasion, but that was when the situation on the ground was totally different. I'm sure Hitler had some good peace proposals for Stalin in late 1944.

Posted by: Paul | May 2 2013 10:15 utc | 65

Paul :regarding Sibel Edmonds.. I found her contention a bit off the mark also. But no one gets it right all the time. It's simply not possible

Her claim of a deal with the US on Syria so he can clean up Chechnya is kind of silly. If Chechnya needs to be cleaned up it will get done
It has got done in the past. With much condemnation from the human 'rights champion',lol, the USA.

BTW: James Corbett is an expatriate Canadian. Not American

Copeland @51: "And though I don't much care for Putin, who got much political leverage in the past, from scaling up the war in Chechnya, and using some false flag to get his war on"

Of course he got leverage after cleaning house in Chechnya.
Why wouldn't he?
Have you forgotten the Beslan school massacre?
NATO's Islamist army were all over that one.

Pat Bateman @ 60

USA 'effectively' cancelled missile defense which offended Russia

Not really. They just moved the positions of the missiles. Russia is still in the crosshairs. No concession was really made.

I have an article at my place somewhere but here is one.
Not the best, but, you should get the idea?

Russia said today it saw “no concession” in the US decision to abandon the final phase of its missile shield for Europe.

Ryabkov said that Russia believed that extra US interceptors in Alaska “significantly expand US capabilities in the area of missile defence.”"We are not experiencing any euphoria about this,” he added.

Posted by: Penny | May 2 2013 11:05 utc | 66

In 2009 the US claimed it was cancelling part of this planned missile defense also

President Obama said Thursday that he is abandoning Bush-era plans for a land based/ long-range missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic

Opting instead for shorter range land- and sea-based system of sensors and interceptors.

"Those who say we are scrapping missile defense in Europe are either misinformed or misrepresenting the reality of what we are doing," Gates said. "The security of Europe has been a vital national interest of the United States for my entire career. The circumstances, borders and threats may have changed, but that commitment continues."

The US is not every going to truly reduce, abandon or make concessions on missile defence.
No matter the words used to obfuscate

Posted by: Penny | May 2 2013 11:12 utc | 67

The US is not ever going to truly reduce, abandon or make concessions on missile defence.

fixed sentence

Posted by: Penny | May 2 2013 11:13 utc | 68

For the first time ever, Russian Warship docks in Israel

But I'm sure this has nothing to do with anything..

Posted by: Pat Bateman | May 2 2013 13:22 utc | 69

Pat B.,

So what? Putin has visited Israel, too. Countries have interests, not friends, or so they say. If countries do have friends, then Russia and Syria are friends.

Russia has been trying to get the Zionists to see that peace is a formula that everyone can live with.

Posted by: Paul | May 2 2013 13:52 utc | 70

I'm confident that the US achieved all it wanted to with the recent war games in Korea - disrupt the possibility of improved relations and dialog between the North and South sought by (and one of those "only could be achieved by" Nixon in China dynamic) the new conservative President Park. A unified Korea would be a disaster for the United States.

Some good news though: Evo Morales kicked USAID out of Bolivia yesterday.

Hugo Chavez. 1954-Forever

Posted by: guest | May 2 2013 13:54 utc | 71

The fool John Kerry meets with the pig Mikheil Saakashvili. Stomach churning.

Posted by: guest | May 2 2013 14:00 utc | 72


Yes, no-one is perfect. I just think that many folks fall prey to the quote by Twain that it is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. I happen to have a soft spot in my heart for Ron Paul, but most of Tarpley's criticisms have turned out to be correct. Anyway, it is very easy for folks to convince themselves to work within the system; we see it everywhere. The most obvious thing is all those who try to do what they believe, but don't take on the Zionists or the banking world. Yes, they can make a difference in getting the roads improved in their region, but they have had to pay a big price.

James Corbett has done a great job, and is, of course, a Canadian in Japan. But I was pointing out that decent people have trouble relating to the dark underbelly that makes the world go 'round. A friend of mine knew old man Rezko in Chicago decades ago, and that's the kind of background one needs. Understanding the Chicago mob is very useful when trying to understand the US since Kennedy was removed. It gets into Lansky, the CIA, oil, Israel, guns, you get the idea.

By the way, you have a very good site.

Posted by: Paul | May 2 2013 14:25 utc | 73

Paul@ 73

"But I was pointing out that decent people have trouble relating to the dark underbelly that makes the world go 'round."

People need to face reality. If they don't, important changes cannot be made, that need to be made.
And decent people will find themselves in the most indecent of situations

Posted by: Penny | May 2 2013 15:28 utc | 74

The State flack Josh Rogin at The Cable pushes the Washington propaganda.

FP, May 1
U.S. delivers first aid shipment to Free Syrian Army

Early Tuesday morning, the United States delivered its first direct shipment of food and medical supplies to the rebel Free Syrian Army, with some help from its representatives in Washington.

At about 5 a.m. Tuesday morning at an undisclosed location across Syria's northern border, a U.S. C-17 transport aircraft based out of Dover Air Force Base offloaded the first of what will be several shipments totaling $8 million in halal "Meals Ready to Eat" and combat medical packs called Warrior Aid and Litter Kits. Those supplies are marked with a note from the Syrian Support Group, the U.S. government's implementing partner, which coordinated the logistics for the transfer to the FSA.

Gen. Salim Idris, the leader of the FSA's Supreme Military Command, who met with Secretary of State John Kerry last month, was on hand to oversee the delivery of the new aid. He is also in charge of overseeing its delivery to warehousing facilities in Aleppo province that are under FSA control.

How nice -- meals and medical packs. But of course as b indicates above CJChivers told us months ago what really goes on. There have been secretive arms shipments from various place including Benghazi and Croatia for a long time.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 2 2013 16:40 utc | 75

US aid to the anti-Syria forces in foreign-policy-speak falls under the general rubric of "Offshore balancing."

Offshore balancing is a strategic concept used in realist analysis in international relations. The term describes a strategy where a great power uses favored regional powers to check the rise of potential hostile powers. -- wiki

Offshore balancing is a sort of Goldilocks compromise between non-intervention and full-on military interventionism. It's not too cold, not too hot, -- just right.

Unfortunately for those who promote it, it rarely works. Any country which believes it can control another military force, usually can't.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 2 2013 17:00 utc | 76

@ 75 Someone is begging to get an aid flight shot down.

Posted by: dh | May 2 2013 17:14 utc | 77

General Salim Idris, Chief of Staff, Supreme Military council, Free Syrian Army, has written to Obama saying that he (Idris) is aware that Obama's administration has concluded that Assad used chemical weapons, he understands the reasons for Obama's cautious involvement in Syria, emphasizes that he doesn't need weapons of mass destruction and calls upon Obama to help the FSA.

Idris (reportedly, or not) further said that he would decapitate more Christians and kidnap more bishops and priests if he didn't get his way.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 2 2013 17:55 utc | 78

General Salim Idris, Chief of Staff, Supreme Military council, Free Syrian Army, donned his cammies and actually visited Syria recently, we're advised. Videos here.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 2 2013 18:04 utc | 79

Who's next? Kerry?

Posted by: dh | May 2 2013 18:30 utc | 80

guest (71)

I'm confident that the US achieved all it wanted to with the recent war games in Korea - disrupt the possibility of improved relations and dialog between the North and South sought by (and one of those "only could be achieved by" Nixon in China dynamic) the new conservative President Park. A unified Korea would be a disaster for the United States.

Possibly you are right. Looking from a zusa perspective.

But, there is a price attached to things and there are factors that exist and are valid even if one party just ignores them.

One of those factors is that nowadays not zusa anymore but China is the 800 pound gorilla in the region.

Also I can't help but notice that the whole issue seems to be seen through distorting glasses. One very typical "analysis", for instance, is that NK wants to force zusa/world/whomever to make this or that compromise in favour of NK.
I strongly doubt that. Because zusa's OK to whatever in NK has about the importance of a bus in new york being 2 min late or not; none, whatsoever. Whatever NK needs they can get from China.

Another factor is that SK and NK have the profound desire to reunite. SK didn't talk about it a lot for decades and didn't push it but rest assured that they do not see zusa as friend but rather as occupator, albeit a formerly useful one. They simply knew the time hadn't yet come to push reunification.

Last but not least, NK must have done something right. After all, zusa/zato didn't dare to attack them. No wonder, the americans are cowards.

But there is another, rarely seen, angle to it. A reunited Korea would be a nuclear power. This would be extremely valuable regarding their real enemy, japan.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 2 2013 19:14 utc | 81

Finally someone finds the guts to lay it out to Iran’s enemies like it would be.

Pre-emptive War with Iran and the Proverbial 800 Pound Gorilla

THURSDAY, MAY 02, 2013

Mahmoud Omidsalar
John F. Kennedy Memorial Library, California State University, Los Angeles

“The adverse political effects of such an event hardly need explanation. This brings me to another neglected point. The Range of options that are open to Iran in case of a radiological attack is not adequately considered. It is true that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. But it is also true that Iran does have the capability to build a “dirty bomb” if she is ever attacked by one. The moment the country is attacked by a “radiological weapon,” a red line would have been crossed. No one who knows anything about Iran’s history and culture believes that the Iranian armed forces are going to sit back and take it all on the chin. According to the IAEA, Iran possesses thousands of tons of Uranium hexafluoride (called “hex” in the nuclear industry). This is a highly toxic substance that forms grey crystals at standard temperature and pressure, is highly corrosive to most metals, and reacts violently with water (see Wikipedia: Uranium hexafluoride). If Iran is attacked by “dirty bombs” Iranians have the option of returning the favour by striking back with “dirty bombs” of their own. In other words, any attack on Iranian nuclear installations would be matched by a devastating attack upon Israel and her allies in the region, all of whom are well within reach of Iranian drones and missiles. A missile, armed with a radiological warhead, even if intercepted in the air, would be as destructive as one that lands.
Missile defence against such weapons would be meaningless because they devastate regardless of whether they land or are shot down. It would be a fatal error to think that Iran is helpless in the face of radiological aggression. Once that threshold is crossed, all calculations will change and all reasons for restraint will be eliminated. This may be the message of statements like, “attacking Iran will be Israel’s last mistake” (General Vahidi, Iran’s Defence Minster). In view of these facts, Ehud Barak’s suggestion that in case of war with Iran, the Israeli casualties would be no more than 500 may prove to be catastrophically wrong. Therefore, a sensible advice to the Israelis might be: Don’t wander into a wilderness out of which you may not emerge!”

Posted by: kooshy | May 2 2013 19:36 utc | 82

Paul (73), Penny (74)

"But I was pointing out that decent people have trouble relating to the dark underbelly that makes the world go 'round."

People need to face reality. If they don't, important changes cannot be made, that need to be made.

And right you are.

But then, as you said, that mission (to make people see reality) must be accomplished or else we're left to wait for miracles.

I have said it before. The real power of zusa isn't military. Their real power is having successfully indoctrinated and brainwashed their citizens.

On the other hand it's almost embarrassing how simple one can test them. The "magic wand" is looking for incongruence.
An example: They always talk about the super-duper-importance of education - vs - The vast majority of their populace is kept numb and dumb.

As it's important to understand the principles, let me elaborate some more.

Effectively this "Education, education!" blah vs. keeping them dumb is just another application of the content/packaging principle. It's distressingly conforming to the Pawlow laws. There they make a rat associate a certain sound (like a bell) with a certain reality like food. After a while of conditioning the rat reacts to the bell as if the real thing was there.

That's the state of things. We, the "souvereign" in the democratic game have been successfully trained like rats. We take symbols and packaging for the real thing. And that works throughout pretty everything in our lifes. We have, for instance, been conditioned to associate little crowns and gold lines with "very high quality" or old-style handwriting with old-style=quality products. Now they can dump chemically treated GMO waste into glasses with old-style handwriting on them and we buy it as if it was really grandmas fine jam.

This, of course, also works - and even better - in the non-physical realm like "news" and politics.
While pretty everyone with a brain were almost bound to realize that we are powerless in big western democracy games, that americans actually have about as much power (politically) as cows in a farm, the vast majority actually buys and takes that bullshit with line an sinker.

Compare that to Putin and you will see the real ugliness. That man talks quite straight and openly says that democracy can't be just decided but must be build up step by step and that right now there are still more important issues (like food or social security for everyone). And what does the western system do? They brandish him as devil. Or, put differently, the lying scum sets the measure and calls the honest man a bad guy - and the people (in the west) actually believe that bullshit.

While this whole thing looks like a sure winner it isn't. Because it has a drastic weakness built in, the increasing lack of content.
Unfortunately though, we as well as rats in the end need food to survive; the nicest sounding bell won't do.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 2 2013 19:41 utc | 83

SecDef Chuck Hagel, today, along with UK's defence guy Philip Hammond at the Pentagon.

Q: So you are rethinking -- the administration is rethinking its opposition to arming the rebels?
Q: And may I ask why? What has changed in your mind? And does this put you respectfully at odds with the U.S. military, General Dempsey, who said it's not a good idea in his view? Why are you rethinking arming the rebels?
SEC. HAGEL: You look at and rethink all options. It doesn't mean you do or you will. These are options that must be considered with partners, with the international community, what is possible, what can help accomplish these objectives. We have a responsibility -- and I think General Dempsey would say the same thing -- to continue to evaluate options. It doesn't mean that the -- the president has decided on anything. But...
Q: Are you in favor of arming the rebels now?
SEC. HAGEL: I'm in favor of exploring options and see what the is -- is the best option in coordination with our international partners.
Q: Have you come to a conclusion yet?
Q: Even after all -- respectfully, even after all these weeks? You have no conclusion -- respectfully?
SEC. HAGEL: Conclusion about what options we would use?
Q: Conclusion about -- you said that your -- your think -- the administration, yes, is rethinking arming the rebels. You said, "yes." You have no conclusion yet about whether you support that rearming -- arming the rebels, sir?
SEC. HAGEL: We are exploring all options to achieve the objectives that I just talked about.

and later, on evidence:
SEC. HAMMOND: I think the point that I was making this morning was that the fact that we have set out our intention to establish evidence of the nature and caliber that would be acceptable in a court of law, sends a very clear message to the regime that any use of chemical weapons in the future -- which by definition generates the potential to collect that evidence -- has a price. And I hope we're sending a message that will have a deterrent effect. I'm not a technical expert, but I don't think you need to be a technical expert to know that after any use of a chemical agent there will be a degradation over time of the evidence that can be collected, and from the point of view of constructing a chain of custody of that evidence, clearly the longer the period that is elapsed between the use of such an agent, and the point where you acquire a sample, the less strong that chain of custody will be.
Q: So you would need a new -- a new attack?
SEC. HAMMOND: Not necessarily would need, but clearly, if there were future use of chemical agents, that would generate new opportunities for us to establish a clear evidence of use to -- to a -- a legal standard of evidence.
Q: Secretary Hagel, are you confident that, given the evidence that you already have or evidence that could be collected from past attacks, you would be able to work with that or would you need a -- a new attack to be able to...
SEC. HAGEL: No, I think Secretary Hammond said it exactly right. And I really wouldn't add much to what he -- to what he said. I would say again, what the secretary has already noted, there is a legal issue here as well. And, that's why evidence is so critically important here.
Q: So you need to be able to link the -- the sarin to the Assad regime...
SEC. HAGEL: Well, you need the evidence. If you're going to exercise certain options, a range of those options, that evidence is particularly important.
SEC. HAMMOND: Perhaps I can just add something from a U.K. perspective. U.K. public opinion remembers the evidence we were presented with in 2003 around Iraq, which turned out not to be valid. There is a very strong view that we have to have very clear, very high-quality evidence before we make plans and act on that evidence.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 2 2013 22:02 utc | 84

I guess when Hagel refers to objectives --"what can help accomplish these objectives" -- he's referring to something he said earlier:

On Syria, Secretary Hagel and I reaffirmed our shared view that the Syrian regime must end the violence, stop the slaughter of its own people, and recognize that it is no longer the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

Hagel and Hammond may have those objectives, but there is no UN Security Council resolution calling for regime change. There couldn't be, because Russia and China don't support it.

The UNSC Resolutions 2042 and 2043 adopted in April, 2012 called for a cessation of violence and established a a United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) to observe it. The UNSC has not called for a transition government. That came from an "Action Group for Syria Final Communiqué" on June 30, 2012 which has no international legal standing.

So the "objectives" are bogus. The government can't unilaterally end the violence when it is facing determined groups well-armed by the U.S. and others, and Syria is under no legal obligation to "recognize that it is no longer the legitimate representative of the Syrian people."

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 2 2013 22:20 utc | 85

While this may seem off-topic, since AQ in Iraq recently announced that it has been one with AlNusrah, etc, since forever, it is worth noting that the UN claims that April has been the deadliest month in Iraq in years.

The number of attacks increased sharply after security forces raided a protest camp near Kirkuk last week, triggering clashes that quickly spread to other areas including the western province of Anbar, which borders Syria and Jordan.

"The month of April was the deadliest since June 2008. A total of 712 people were killed and another 1,633 were wounded in acts of terrorism and acts of violence," a UN statement read.

The number of civilians killed last month was 434 while the toll of security forces personnel was 278.

Iraqi authorities published a monthly death toll for April on Wednesday which was much lower than the UN figure. The Interior Ministry said 245 people, including 84 members of the security forces, were killed.

Iraqi authorities often report lower estimates for the number of victims of attacks for unclear reasons but April's toll is still the highest since the beginning of the year.

Violence is still well below its height in 2006-07, but al-Qaeda's Iraqi affiliate and other insurgents are launching attacks on a daily basis to undermine the power of the government and provoke wider confrontation.

Iraqi politics are deeply divided along sectarian lines, with Maliki's Shia-led government mired in crisis over how to share power among Shias, the largest group, Sunnis and ethnic Kurds who run their own autonomous region in the north.

Particularly of note, the fighting has been intense in Anbar province on its border with Syria and Jordan. AQ had said that it and Al Nusrah would be doing more joint operations, as well as facilitating training in the network of caves on the border.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | May 2 2013 23:00 utc | 86

@86 Really interesting report.

There was a big RT report about the Kurds becoming more and more independent from Iraq itself. And the Sunnis the same. I haven't looked at a map, but presumably a hostile Kurdistan and a hostile Sunni state would sever Iran's links - both ground and air - with Syria?

The break up of Iraq. I guess we shouldn't be surprised. This was the policy of our highly influential vice president when he was a Senator.

Posted by: guest | May 2 2013 23:16 utc | 87

yeah, it never ceases to amaze me how the results of AQ activity segue so smoothly with the neocon agenda.

Posted by: annie | May 3 2013 1:33 utc | 88

Regarding State's delivery of "non-lethal aid." Does anyone know more about the halal MREs? Are these overstock that we're dumping before their expiration date? Or are we just helping to fund some of the military contractors that resupply these -- like Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown and Root?

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | May 3 2013 2:13 utc | 89

@88 They've got such ideological affinity though! They're both right wing, racist, obsessed with their religion (be the jews or christians), dogmatic, and aggressive.

Two rotten peas in an increasingly rotten pod.

Posted by: guest | May 3 2013 3:15 utc | 90

After the British and French colonialist began their retreat from the ME one thing they did was to divide up their former colonies into smaller states. The Palestine/Israel-Jordan-Lebanon-Syria division was one of their accomplishments. Guaranteed ethnic strife for a full century after their retreat. What a better way for the neocolonialist to manipulate their former subjects. The British were even more successful on the Arabian peninsula by giving every oil field its own state -- the local tribes were happy to accept those terms. Arab nationalism took a big hit however. Now we are seeing the next phase of American/British/French and now Israeli efforts to fragment the Arab people even more. It looks like Iraq will be broken up into 2 or 3 more easily manipulated pieces. Syria may also be broken up depending how successful Saudi, Turkish and American policies work out. Of course there is Sudan where Western forces have successfully backed South Sudan rebels to secede their oil fields from the nation of Sudan. Darfur remains in play as another possible schism from Sudan. The NATO led insurrection in Libya may very well divide that nation into multiple pieces.

The Arab world is being divided into smaller and smaller pieces. It makes it so much easier for Western Imperialism to control them. At the same time Europe is moving in the opposite direction with all of those competing states being incorporated into a single EU that is, of course, under the supervision of international finance capitalism.

Looking at this score card over the last half century it seems quite clear that the nations of the ME and N. Africa are becoming weaker and weaker and that Western international finance capital is gaining in power. Strange reversal for sure. In the 1950s it seemed the opposite was happening.

Posted by: ToivoS | May 3 2013 3:20 utc | 91

Sorry about my error on Corbett's nationality. He is Canadian. It is quite a good job he is doing of presenting and analyzing news. It's possible that Sibel Edmonds has got it wrong concerning the pliability of Putin; but in any such deal with Washington, making it easier for the empire to get what it wants will not diminish the aggression now displayed by the West+Israel. On Corbett's channel, the long interviews with Edmonds allow us a much broader view of the situation. The penetration of the FBI by CIA moles, as well as the protection from scrutiny of foreign interests which had also penetrated the FBI, prior to and after 9/11, really broadens the coverage of what Edmonds is discussing. She also describes the nexus of the drug trade as it intersects with major political figures, governments and their intelligence agencies.

The crimes of the FSB and Putin are not of the same order, since the damage is all internal to Russia, which includes Chechnya. The real and extreme hubris of the US/NATO/Israeli crimes, are more properly understood to be of global ambitions, global battlefields, global casualties, and gigantic piles of corpses along with the debris of plundered nations.

However, no one should gloss over what the faction backing Putin did, and how they used false flags to obtain power in Russia, using the general methodology of stimulating the juices of hatred, to demonize the Chechens, and leveraging that trauma to get a hell of a war rebooted. The Russian authorities, at the time of the Beslan hostage taking, had no interest in a negotiated outcome, they preferred the outrage to play out to their benefit, just as it did. Anna Politkovskaya (opposing Putin's war and the methods the State used to get it started) offered herself as a negotiator in the crisis at Beslan; and she took a plane to get there personally; and while on the flight she was poisoned and required hospitalization.

At #66 Penny writes:

"Of course he got leverage after cleaning house in Chechnya.
Why wouldn't he?
Have you forgotten the Beslan school massacre?
NATO's Islamist army were all over that one."

Is this to suggest that we should admire the humanity of the war Putin and his faction were so anxious to get started, after they were having their intelligence services plant bombs in Moscow, and blame it on terrorists from Chechnya?

All these years later it is one of the CIA's asset/scapegoats, the young Tamerlan, who ends up being brutally murdered by Boston police, to advance the plans of the American Empire, and its domestic plans as well, to roll martial law and the military power onto our streets.

Sibel Edmonds said of the Boston false flag, that it was our own nation's graduation to a police state.

Posted by: Copeland | May 3 2013 5:57 utc | 92

Copeland (92)

How much do you know about Russia? Quite evidently tons less than about zusa.

However, no one should gloss over what the faction backing Putin did, and how they used false flags to obtain power in Russia, using the general methodology of stimulating the juices of hatred, to demonize the Chechens, and leveraging that trauma to get a hell of a war rebooted.

Let me update you so that you then can form an opinion rather than parroting ignorant western coined half-truths.

The Chechen issue has two major factors.

The first one is that all those caucasian regions want their own states since eternity. If it went their way even micro-countries like georgia would be divided in 3 or more parts. Somewhat exaggerating there basically every village thinks they should have their own state. And there are many who are more than ready to try getting their way by brutal force. There is a reason that Chechenia is a fertile ground for terrorist recruitment ...

The second and (in the western world) widely unknown factor is jelzin and what the did. That idiotic always drunken scumbag not only sold out the country and allowed hundreds (!) of cia personel to write laws and work within the Russian ministeries. He also out of thin air (and lots of Vodka) decided to allow the Chechens to have their own state.
Now, frankly, probably this would by itself have been a blessing to Russia. Unfortunately though, it also started a massive wave of "me too" demands of many Russian regions. (Do you start to smell the fish?). If this wave wasn't interrupted, Russia would have been completely fractioned and broken down in dozens of small "states". In other words the "good" old dirty zusa game ...

If Putin wanted to keep the core of Russia intact (he did not force ex-USSR satellite countries - he only acted for Russia herself) he *had* to stop that process.

Of course the americans turned the heat up and instigated and financed further terrorism in and from Chechenia. In the worst time they - intentionally and malevolently - brought the terror even to Moscow.

Actually, Putin even tried to resolve that matter peacefully but zusa/Chechenia continued their terror wave. In the end Putin did what had to be done. And frankly, he was as reasonable and human as possible (many say, too friendly) - as is proven by the continuing terror in and from Chechenia.

That is also quite probably why Russia was so "ready to help" concerning Boston. It was their way to tell the americans "isn't it cool, you scumbags, to eat your own dogfood and to have those caucasian terrorists that you so generously financed in your own country?"

Let me put it this way: Asked about positive traits of Putin a high Russian bureaucrat (1 level below minister) told a few of Putins virtues. Then asked about some less positive traits he hesitated and said "Putin never forgets. Never".
And there are many and grave and ugly things to remember about zusas crimes in and against Russia.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 3 2013 6:54 utc | 93

Sibel Edmonds gets a lot of her information from 'whistleblowers' & former members in the US establishment, so likely this signifies nothing more than gossip floating around some in the US foreign establishment.
If anyone has waded through the leaked cables, most of these charecters live in a bubble universe where everything revolves around US actions, & this leaks over to even the better among them.
As myself & other people have pointed out, Putin has no reason to cut a deal with the US on this, as well as no reason to trust the US who have broken essentially deal they've ever made as soon as it was convenient for them.

RE: Copeland @ 92

Is this to suggest that we should admire the humanity of the war Putin and his faction were so anxious to get started, after they were having their intelligence services plant bombs in Moscow, and blame it on terrorists from Chechnya?

This was claimed by the mostly US sponsored 'opposition' without facts and has been repeatedly & decisively debunked - the Chechen/Caucasian Emirate crowd claimed 'credit' for it years ago when it happened, & it fits in exactly with their strategy & actions at the time...

Posted by: KenM | May 3 2013 7:03 utc | 94

I have said this since a couple of years.

What do people expect when zusa declines beyond the treshold of possible return to power? Bells and explosions? Godly appearances in the skies?

So there are two questions.

1) What will a country, in this case zusa, do when they see that point coming close and shortly after passing it?

2) How can one know that the threshold has been crossed? What are the signs and signals? - The answer comes through point 1.

One evident answer would be to say "Thanks for the fish and good bye". theoretically, very theoretically.
Practically the answer very much depends on the system and the major figures (kings, presidents, etc).

Looking at how zusa (and most of the western world) works one can't but see that the major figures are egomaniacal, unscrupulous, greedy without limits and aggressive, albeit formally polite (and very hypocritical).

So, evidently, zusa will not just say good bye and leave the world stage to take care of its own problems. A further reason for that is that zusa has made many enemies and must reasonably fear that those enemies might ones day do to zusa what zusa whithout hesitation did to them.

Cutting a long story short, zusa will (actually have) decide to fight to the bitter end. In a systems that relies so extremely on fraud, show and hypocrisy there is simply no other way. This is also inline with many decades of implementing - and having their "foreign policy" designed by - the monroe doctrine.

In the beginning they will, possibly for a last time, employ their still existing full military force trying to somehow turn things around in their favour. That's what they did when attacking Iraq/Afghanistan and threatening (and quite certainly seriously planning) to attack Iran.
If that fails they will be forced to begin dismantling their military force although they will try to play tricks and to keep the cutting as thin as possible.

In that respect (as well as their own good) further war like, albeit smaller, engagements are used. That way they can stretch the cutting a little longer and keep their military complex a little longer afloat.

Evidently, as resources become scarcer, the must reach deeper into the pockets, of course the citizens pockets. Which necessarily goes hand in hand with keeping them afraid and stressed so as to allow the government more room as well as explaining the need for ever more police and similar troups and keep the citizens low and to tightly control them - and the division of what little cake there rests in their favour.

In the end phase they keep the citizens in a more or less steady state of being threatened by some external evil force (an imaginary one will suffice) and explain ever increasing state power and ever increasing citizens rights.
Secondly, while they can not anymore employ the vast means of their high times there are still gazillions of smaller resources available that can be - and are - used for purposes of wars although those war actions are increasingly covert.

If you haven't recognized zusa 2013 there is only one hope left for you: Wait for ghost appearances, bells and judgement day. And enjoy your GMO meals.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 3 2013 7:25 utc | 95


Yes, there is the bubble universe. But you can't exactly buy good PR in CIApedia and the somewhat fake alternative news media, plus, you really, really can't have an independent whistleblowers group that isn't highly infiltrated or worse. Anyway, as usual, caveat lector.

For those interested in a humorous look at modern Amerika, check out the band "Paranoid Larry", and his song "Undercover Cop". In it, a guy is complaining about how everywhere he goes, everyone is an undercover cop or agent of some kind. Then, at the end, he says he knows because he's one, too.

Posted by: Paul | May 3 2013 8:06 utc | 96

New Reports of Slaughter in America
(Reuters) July 3, 1863: New reports have come in from the American Observatory of the Lincoln Regime's horrific slaughter of thousands of its own people in Gettysburg, with some victims foaming at the mouth. Secretaries Winken (UK) and Blinken (France) have reaffirmed their shared view that the American regime must end the violence, stop the slaughter of its own people, and recognize that it is no longer the legitimate representative of the American people.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 3 2013 13:46 utc | 97

Don, I'm in total agreement. Lincoln was a tyrant, he did butcher his own people (Sherman's march to the sea being but one example) and for at least a third of the country he was not a legitimate representative.

Posted by: Lysander | May 3 2013 14:07 utc | 98

Right on - the south will rise again. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and said the conflict was not a civil war but rather the suppression of rebellion.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 3 2013 15:53 utc | 99


You're telling me Sibel Edmonds "gets a lot of her information from 'whistleblowers' & former members in the US establishment, so likely this signifies nothing more than gossip floating around some in the US foreign establishment. "

You are way off base here. Those whistleblowers from whom she has obtained crucial facts are (at least some of them) significant players, who are being prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, by Team Obama. She has a lot of solid and detail information that is not gossip; but is instead information for which these whistleblowers risk termination of their careers and prosecution. These disclosures are oftentimes the acts of courage that allow us to see deeper into the criminality.

And your dismissal of false flags in Moscow is treated with this statement: "This was claimed by the mostly US sponsored 'opposition' without facts and has been repeatedly & decisively debunked - the Chechen/Caucasian Emirate crowd claimed 'credit' for it years ago when it happened, & it fits in exactly with their strategy & actions at the time..."

On the contrary, there was no debunking worth a damn here. The clumsy goons who were in on the planting of bombs in Moscow were well known Russia intelligence operatives who were recognized on the scene by local witnesses. These testimonies were published in Anna Politkovskaya' s books and news articles.. This is the same journalist, known throughout the world for her integrity and physical courage, who reported as a war correspondent, and was assassinated as some will remember, just outside her Moscow apartment, on Putin's birthday.

Posted by: Copeland | May 3 2013 22:22 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.