Nieuwe 'as van kwaad': VS, GB en Frankrijk uit op oorlog met Syrië en Noord-Korea........

Afgelopen woensdag bracht Anti-Media een artikel geschreven door Darius Shahtahmasebi. Hierin stelt hij dat de VS, Frankrijk en Groot-Brittannië bezig zijn met de voorbereiding op een oorlog tegen Syrië (de regering Assad) en Noord-Korea...... Daarmee kan je de VS, GB en Frankrijk aanwijzen als het VS cliché: 'as van het kwaad', zeker daar deze landen zich al langer hebben schuldig gemaakt aan het uitoefenen van grootschalige terreur in het Midden-Oosten......

Zo zou Macron een rode lijn hebben gesteld voor Syrië: nog één keer een aanval met gifgas en Frankrijk zal het reguliere Syrische leger aanvallen......  Dit terwijl er, zoals je wellicht wel weet, geen enkel bewijs is voor een gifgasaanval gepleegd door het Syrische leger, sinds de VS opstanden organiseerde en gewapende groepen tekeer liet gaan in Syrië, zodat Assad beschuldigd zou worden en men zijn kop zou eisen.... (de VS, Saoedi-Arabië, Groot-Brittannië e.a. waren al vanaf 2006 bezig met de voorbereiding daartoe......*)

Voor de uitgevoerde gifgasaanvallen werd na onderzoek keer op keer vastgesteld dat deze niet van het reguliere Syrische leger kwamen, iets dat 'uiteraard' niet of ergens ver weggestopt de reguliere westerse media haalde........ Zoals gezegd: deze gifgasaanvallen worden steevast door de terreurgroepen zelf uitgevoerd, waarna ze Assad beschuldigen van massamoord, dat is wat men een 'false flag' operatie noemt........

Echter in het westen blijven 'we' gewoon doen of we doof zijn en blijven het Syrische bewind beschuldigen..... Volgens een VN rapport zou Noord-Korea onderdelen voor een laboratorium hebben geleverd, waaronder zuurbestendige tegels. Let wel, de reguliere media stellen dat Syrië daarmee gifgas kan maken echter er zijn geen grondstoffen geleverd voor gifgas, bijvoorbeeld zoals Nederland die in de 80er jaren leverde aan Saddam Hoessein in Irak..... (met dank aan VVD schoft Bolkestein) Toch zou de Noord-Koreaanse levering het bewijs zijn 'dat Assad' nog steeds chemische wapens maakt.... Alsof er niet voor veel andere zaken zuurbestendige tegels in laboratoria nodig zijn........ Dan nog is het maar de vraag of deze claim klopt, het komt de anti-Assad coalitie wel heel erg goed uit........

Zo te lezen staat Shahtahmasebi wel achter de uitspraak van de Britse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, de neoliberale dweil Boris Johnson, toen hij stelde dat 'we' geen militaire oplossing kunnen afdwingen in Syrië: “no military solution that we can impose”. Daar valt wel wat op aan te merken, de militaire oplossing is heel simpel: de VS, GB en Frankrijk moeten hun militairen onmiddellijk terugtrekken uit Syrië! (en stoppen met het steunen van terreurgroepen daar!) 

Het westen en dan m.n. De VS is de grote terrorist die als 'het moet' over miljoenen lijken gaat en dat in het verleden al heeft gedaan (alleen deze eeuw al meer dan 2 miljoen vermoorde mensen en gerekend vanaf WOII meer dan 22 miljoen slachtoffers.....)

Terecht merkt Shahtahmasebi op dat de VS wel heel erg hypocriet bezig is in de VN (althans wat er nog aan 'normale praat' uitkomt bij de VS ambassadeur daar, Nikki Haley) immers in de VN blokkeert Rusland dan wel resoluties (overigens volkomen terecht) tegen Syrië, maar de VS spreekt haar veto bij wijze van spreken al uit als iemand met de vinger naar de fascistische apartheidsstaat Israël wijst.........

Voorts noemt Shahtahmasebi de vermeende gifgas aanval in Oost-Ghouta van vorige week zondag, o.a. gemeld door het Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), volgens hem geleid door een Syrische dissident, echter dat is niet waar, deze figuur is een ordinaire misdadiger >> Osama Suleiman, die Syrië ontvluchtte vanwege een veroordeling tot gevangenisstraf...... Voorts krijgt deze Sulieman z'n informatie van de terreurgroepen in Syrië, 'lekker betrouwbaar......' Echter er waren meer meldingen van een gifgasaanval waarbij een baby zou zijn omgekomen....... Eerder werd er al melding gemaakt van een voorbereiding tot een false flag gifgasaanval door terreurgroepen in Syrië....**

Blijkbaar was de claim van een gifgasaanval door het Syrische leger op Oost-Ghouta zo ongeloofwaardig dat deze werd genegeerd door de reguliere westerse media, dezelfde media die bij het vallen van het woord 'gifgasaanval' onmiddellijk naar Assad wijzen...... Dat de VS coalitie bij de 'bevrijding' van Raqqa het chemische wapen witte fosfor heeft ingezet, was voor de reguliere westerse media alweer geen reden om prominent over te berichten, laat staan dit aan de kaak te stellen........ 

Wat betreft Noord-Korea heeft de VS al helemaal geen excuses meer nodig, de VS stelt gewoon dat dit land een direct gevaar is voor de VS, terwijl het maar zeer de vraag is of N-K zelfs maar een atoombom heeft, daar nog nooit iemand meldde dat er nucleaire straling is gemeten op de plek 'waaronder de kernproeven plaatsvonden', straling die zelfs met satellieten is te meten......

Lees het artikel, meer dan de moeite waard:

US, UK, and France Are Making the Case for War Against Both Syria and North Korea

February 28, 2018 at 3:31 pm

Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — The United States, the United Kingdom, and France are gearing up for a renewed assault on Syria and North Korea. Earlier this month, French President Emmanuel Macron said France will strike Syria if chemical weapons have been used against civilians in the Syrian war in violation of the international treaty banning chemical weapons — even though he admitted he had not yet seen proof this was the case.

“On chemical weapons, I set a red line and I reaffirm that red line,” Macron told reporters. “If we have proven evidence that chemical weapons proscribed in treaties are used, we will strike the place where they are made.”

“Today, our agencies, our armed forces have not established that chemical weapons, as set out in treaties, have been used against the civilian population,” he added.

On Monday, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson also argued in the British Parliament that there was a case for “limited strikes” if there was “incontrovertible evidence of further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime or their supporters.”

However, he did indicate that there was “no military solution that we can impose” to bring peace to the war-torn country.

Despite this, he still suggested that the U.S. “did the right thing” when it attacked the Syrian government in April of last year in response to a suspected — though highly disputed — chemical weapons attack.

“I will certainly hope the West does not stand idly by,” Johnson added.

Opposition member John Woodcock appeared to take the pro-war rhetoric even further, stating that the U.N. Security Council “is broken while one of its permanent members flouts the basic laws and systems of order it was created to uphold.”

In case it wasn’t clear, this a reference to Russia, which has backed the Assad government through almost every U.N. Security Council vote. The irony of this, of course, is that it works both ways; the U.S. also regularly uses its veto to protect Israel, a country the U.N. regards as breaking international law in more ways than one.

“In these dreadful circumstances, being cowed into inaction by this strangulated body is a greater violation than seeking to act even without its own authorization,” Woodcock added.

Only a few weeks ago, the U.S. launched a deadly attack on pro-government troops, including Russian mercenaries on the ground in Syria, signaling that the U.S. will most likely not hesitate in striking Assad directly if the wind blows in the right direction.

On Sunday, Middle East Eye reported that there were signs that civilians had been hit by a suspected chlorine attack in Eastern Ghouta. The source of the claim was the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), an outfit run by one anti-Assad dissident in Coventry, England. Multiple outlets have also echoed the claims that Assad’s government has deployed chemical attacks early this year, though none of them seem to question the reliability of the allegations themselves.

Now, multiple outlets are reporting on an unreleased U.N. report that allegedly found North Korea has been providing Syria with supplies that could be used to make chemical weapons. According to the New York Times, the still-to-be-released report claims items including acid-resistant tiles, valves, and thermometers were shipped from North Korea to the Syrian government. The report also alleges that Pyongyang missile experts have been seen working in Syrian chemical weapons and missile facilities.

The report allegedly states that trade between North Korea and Syria poses a serious risk because it appears to allow Syria to maintain chemical weapons and allow North Korea to fund its nuclear program.

Further muddying the waters of truth are reports that previously emerged from Russian state-owned media claiming Russia’s Center for Reconciliation in Syria said it had been warned in advance that al-Qaeda linked terrorists brought in chlorine containers to a village in Syria, where they were to work with the White Helmets to stage “a provocation.”

Whether one wants to believe the Russian media’s claims or not, it is worth reminding ourselves that attacking a sovereign nation that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. and its allies is a major breach of international law unless that action has been approved by the U.N. Security Council. In the case of North Korea, the U.S. will most likely use the justification of what is known as preemptive self-defense to claim the right to protect itself from North Korea’s alleged nuclear program; in contrast, in Syria, the U.S. and its allies are hoping to invoke the “responsibility to protect” doctrine. Clearly, the recent claims about North Korea’s involvement in Syrian chemical weapons attacks suggest the U.S. may hope to bring a strike on North Korea to the table within this same pro-interventionist framework regarding the protection of Syrian civilians from deadly chemical weapons attacks.

However, in previously leaked audio, even former Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that the “responsibility to protect” argument had not yet evolved into a complete doctrine that could justify U.S. aggression towards Syria.

“The problem is that the Russians don’t care about international law, but we do,” Kerry stated behind closed doors to opposition members at the Dutch mission to the United Nations at the time. “And we don’t have the basis – our lawyers tell us – unless we have the U.N. Security Council Resolution, which the Russians can veto, and the Chinese, or unless we are under attack from the folks there, or unless we are invited in. Russia is invited in by the legitimate regime – well it’s illegitimate in our mind – but by the regime. And so they were invited in and we are not invited in. We’re flying in airspace there where they can turn on the air defenses and we would have a very different scene. The only reason they are letting us fly is because we are going after ISIL. If we were going after Assad, those air defenses, we would have to take out all the air defenses, and we don’t have the legal justification, frankly, unless we stretch it way beyond the law.” [emphasis added]

Where does that leave us? It should be clear that the U.S., the U.K., and France have no real leg to stand on when it comes to justifying their desire to disrupt the Syrian and North Korean governments. It is also apparent that the U.S. and its allies want us to believe they are concerned with human rights and chemical weapons attacks in Syria, even while the U.S.-led coalition used white phosphorus in the Syrian city of Raqqa – a city they destroyed at least 80 percent of in a ruthless and deadly siege that killed thousands of civilians.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

==================================

*  De voorbereiding op het organiseren van een opstand die tot een staatsgreep moest leiden. 'Helaas' voor de VS, de truc die elders nog wel eens wil werken, ging hier 'enigszins mis', zeker toen bleek dat Syrië niet zomaar platgelopen kon worden door terreurgroepen..... Op het moment waarop Syrië echt in het defensief was gedrongen, kwam Rusland Syrië op verzoek van de regering Assad te hulp......

** Zie: 'Syrië: nieuwe gifgasaanval als 'false flag' operatie tegen Syrisch bewind in voorbereiding........'

Zie ook: 'Ghouta: een gifgas false flag en VS chef Guterres eist staakt het vuren van pro-Syrische strijdgroepen op Oost-Ghouta......'

        en: 'VS geeft toe dat er geen bewijs is voor het gebruik van gifgas 'door Assad', ofwel: alweer 'fake news' van de massamedia doorgeprikt!'

        en: 'Oost-Ghouta, wat je niet wordt verteld'

        en: 'Assad heeft geen gifgas gebruikt tegen de Syrische bevolking!'

        en: 'US Aggression in Syria – an Imperialist Blueprint'

        en: 'Foreign Ministry: Some Western officials are complicit in the crimes of terrorists against civilians in Damascus and its countryside'

        en: ''False flag terror' bestaat wel degelijk: bekentenissen en feiten over heel smerige zaken..........'

Syrië, de catastrofale en illegale interventie van de VS......

Darius Shahtahmasebi is een mensenrechten activist, jurist en schrijver met het Midden-Oosten als specialisme.

In het volgende artikel, dat ik overnam van Anti-Media, buigt Shahtahmasebi zich over de illegale bemoeienis van de VS met Syrië en de vele leugens waarmee figuren als ex-VS-minister van BuZa John Kerry de aanwezigheid van de VS in dat land probeerde te legitimeren (en dat ging behoorlijk ver, zoals u in het artikel kan lezen.

Kerry is zo'n ongelofelijk hufter, dat hij de zaak volkomen omdraaide (en nog steeds omdraait). Als je hem moet geloven, is Rusland niet legaal op Syrische bodem daar Assad in de ogen van de VS niet de legitieme president van Syrië is..... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Als het over verkiezingen gaat, kunnen de VS overheid, inclusief Kerry, beter de eerste 100 jaar de vuilbek dichthouden, wat in dat gestolen land gebeurd (middels de op 1 na grootste genocide ooit), heeft al lang niets meer met democratie te maken!!

Voorlopig werd Assad met een fikse meerderheid in 2014 tot president verkozen, in door internationale waarnemers als eerlijk beoordeelde verkiezingen!! Zo wil oud-VS-president Carter wil al jaren niet meer als waarnemer werken voor verkiezingen in de VS, daar deze verkiezingen in zijn ogen niet eerlijk en democratisch verlopen, terwijl hij dit wel in diverse andere landen heeft gedaan.......

Bovendien zou Rusland zich in Syrië niet bezig houden met het bestrijden van IS, iets dat de VS wel zou doen. Toen Rusland eind september 2015 de Syrische regering te hulp schoot in de strijd tegen IS en andere terreurgroepen ('gematigde rebellen' aangestuurd door Al Qaida en Saoedi-Arabië), was IS sterker dan ooit, ondanks dat de VS al meer dan een jaar deze terreurgroep 'bestreed', o.a. middels een enorm aantal bombardementen....... (waarover VS veteranen en andere getuigen vertelden, dat niet zelden delen van de woestijn werden gebombardeerd, waar geen mens te vinden was.....)

Zelfs de export van 'IS olie' naar Turkije werd niet aangepakt door de VS...... Na 2 maanden van Russische hulp aan het Syrische leger werd er (veel) meer bereikt tegen IS, dan de VS en haar coalitiegenoten in meer dan 1 jaar voor elkaar kregen en lag de IS oliehandel zo goed als op de reet.......

Ach wat zou ik nog toevoegen, lees de volgende uitstekende analyse van Shahtahmasebi:

America’s Catastrophic — and Illegal — Intervention in Syria Must Be Stopped

August 3, 2017 at 11:36 am

Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — Toward the end of last year, leaked audio of then-Secretary of State John Kerry went viral across the independent media because it appeared to confirm that the U.S. was watching ISIS and allowing the group to grow in order to exert pressure on the Syrian government, a long-time adversary of the Obama administration.

However, more stunning than this apparent admission was the fact that Kerry confirmed what Anti-Media has been warning about for some time now regarding the legality of America’s Syrian operation. In the leaked audio, speaking to Syrian opposition members at a meeting that took place at the Dutch mission to the United Nations, Kerry stated:

“The problem is that the Russians don’t care about international law, but we do. And we don’t have the basis – our lawyers tell us – unless we have the U.N. Security Council Resolution, which the Russians can veto, and the Chinese, or unless we are under attack from the folks there, or unless we are invited in. Russia is invited in by the legitimate regime – well it’s illegitimate in our mind – but by the regime. And so they were invited in and we are not invited in. We’re flying in airspace there where they can turn on the air defenses and we would have a very different scene. The only reason they are letting us fly is because we are going after ISIL. If we were going after Assad, those air defenses, we would have to take out all the air defenses, and we don’t have the legal justification, frankly, unless we stretch it way beyond the law.” [emphasis added]

As a lawyer who is extremely concerned with human rights and international law, I could have told John Kerry this for free. Though this devastating truth is evident to anyone who has a basic understanding of international legal principles, the fact that the U.S. is still pressing ahead with this strategy despite being informed of the illegality of the operation by their lawyers is quite telling on its own.

It is laughable that before stating this damning fact, Kerry alleged that the Russians don’t care about international law, but “we do” — before he went on to explain that Russia was acting within the bounds of international law while the U.S. wasn’t.

In all likelihood, the real reason Russia and Syria allow American aircraft to fly in Syria’s airspace is not that they are targeting ISIS, as Kerry pondered, but because there is very little that Russia and Syria can do without risking an all-out war with the world’s largest military superpower.

It is almost like saying that Iraq ‘welcomed’ the U.S. invasion in 2003 because there was little that Saddam Hussein’s military could do to stop it. Make no mistake, a country’s inability to drive the U.S. out of its country does not equate to tacit acceptance of its military presence. The schoolyard bully is not welcomed by the silent kids he or she wails upon. In fact, Syria’s president has made it quite clear that the U.S. has invaded its territory, and this alone should be all the knowledge we need to oppose yet another American-led war in the Middle East. Just because the U.S. is targeting ISIL and not Assad, does not legitimize America’s operations at all, especially in light of Kerry’s own assessment of the operation as referred to above.

How many countries does the U.S. have to invade illegally before its people decide it’s time to do something about it?

The 2003 invasion of Iraq had no U.N. Security Council Resolution, and the country has been plagued with rampant violence ever since. If the Russians had not been duped out of vetoing the misused U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 with regard to the Libyan conflict in 2011, then Libya would not be the failed state it is today. The Libyan resolution did not authorize regime change and was specifically worded so as to be concerned with protecting civilians on the ground. NATO used the authorization to transform itself into the air force of al-Qaeda-linked rebels and pounded Libya until Muammar Gaddafi had been assassinated.

Under President Trump, the U.S.’ bombing campaign in Syria makes even Obama pale in comparison. The U.N. estimated that in just the first week of America’s ramped up illegal bombing campaign in Raqqa, airstrikes killed 300 civilians.

Even if the U.S. does have some legal justification to bomb Syria, shouldn’t we still oppose military intervention? The U.S. has waged war in a number of countries since the attacks of September 11, and millions of people have died as a result of these American-led conflicts. Terror attacks still run rampant; part and parcel of the vicious cycle of violence responding to violence across the globe.

In areas that have been liberated by the Syrian government, hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians are returning home. In Aleppo, in a Christian-inclined district that was besieged by fanatic rebels who abhor religious diversity, a Cathedral just reopened with a Mozart-inspired concert – something that would have been almost impossible under rebel-held rule.

It is also worth pondering why it is that the U.S., a majority Christian nation, is siding with Islamist rebels against a government that protects the rights of Christians. It makes no sense outside of a geopolitical lens, and Trump supporters who openly profess to be “good American Christians” should take note of this damning fact.

Forget the legality of the war for a minute, forget the mounting death toll that is only able to accrue courtesy of your taxpayer dollars, and take a moment to figure out where we are headed as a species.

The U.S. has not only placed itself in a worldwide conflict with no foreseeable end that will continue to line the pockets of the arms-dealing class for centuries to come, but it is also bombing the same territory as another nuclear power with complete polar opposite interests. It is a powder keg that has been waiting a few years to ignite, and the two nuclear powers are becoming ever closer to bombing the exact same location with different ambitions as to which party to the conflict should emerge as the victor.

The potential for this conflict to dramatically escalate should be high enough to warrant a mobilization of effective resistance. If you don’t want your sons, daughters, partners, parents, and friends to go and die in Syria propping up a failing empire concerned only with money and resources, now is the time to act. You can’t afford to wait until body bags of loved ones come parading home before you decide that enough is enough — by then it may be too late.

Before anyone accuses me of sounding the alarm prematurely — and though the corporate media has attempted to accuse Trump of conceding to Putin inside Syria — can anyone name another conflict in which two nuclear-armed powers were bombing the same country with completely different intentions that was also concluded and de-escalated in a timely, safe, secure, and low-risk manner?

Didn’t think so.

The battle against ISIS is still ongoing and involves multiple state actors attempting to hoard as much Syrian territory as physically possible. It is clear that the U.S. has no legal or moral right to be inside Syria in the first place, so does it seem fair to endanger countless more lives in order for the U.S. to gift its proxies a chunk of Syrian territory after ISIS’ downfall?

Opinion / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Mosul is 'bevrijd' zo stelt de VS, daar zijn echter wel wat aanmerkingen op te maken.........

In een artikel van Shahtahmasebi op Anti-Media (11 juli jl.) stelt de schrijver dat er een behoorlijke stank hangt rond de 'bevrijding' van Mosul, niet alleen de letterlijke stank van lijken die nog onder het puin liggen (lijken van meer dan 4.000 mensen die werden vermoord middels bombardementen), maar ook een figuurlijke stank......

Volgens Shahtahmasebi had de VS in 2014 kunnen voorkomen, dat IS de grens van Syrië naar Irak overstak. De VS liet dit moordend tuig hun gang gaan, zodat het leger van de VS kon deelnemen aan het verdrijven van IS uit Irak. Daarmee legitimeerde de VS voor zichzelf en haar hielenlikkende partners, het besluit om in de achtervolging van IS vanuit Irak de grens met Syrië over te steken en zo het reguliere Syrische leger te kunnen aanvallen, zoals intussen meermaals is gebeurd.......... De VS stak dan ook geen poot uit, toen bleek dat IS grote aantallen VS wapens, Humvee's tanks en helikopters buit maakte in Irak, terwijl het makkelijk IS aan had kunnen vallen, dit nog naast minstens 2 VS leveringen van wapens en munitie direct aan IS..........

De VS heeft haar tactiek pas veranderd, nadat Rusland het reguliere Syrische leger te hulp schoot en IS werkelijk en effectief werd bestreden..........

Het gebruik van terreurgroepen is overigens een tactiek die de VS ook in Syrië gebruikte: de VS liet IS en andere terreurgroepen ('gematigde rebellen') haar gang gaan in Syrië, waarmee dit moordend en verkrachtend tuig werd en wordt gebruikt als een extra legermacht tegen het reguliere Syrische leger..... Voorts heeft de VS de 'gematigde rebellen' in Syrië van wapens, munitie en training voorzien, al deze 'gematigde rebellen' zijn gelieerd aan Al Qaida, zo bleek onlangs (waar Saoedi-Arabië de financiën voor deze terreurgroepen regelt, naast ook levering van wapens en munitie)...... Niet voor niets ook. dat de VS onlangs het besluit nam Al Qaida Syrië van de terreurlijst te halen.......

Jammer dat Shahtahmasebi in zijn artikel stelt dat Iraanse troepen zich te buiten zijn gegaan aan oorlogsmisdaden, daar is geen nanometer bewijs voor. Waarschijnlijk maakt hij de fout, om sjiitische terreurgroepen, die meevechten met de Iraakse coalitie (die in feite door de VS wordt aangestuurd), als Iraans militairen aan te duiden. Iraanse militairen die zouden worden gepakt voor oorlogsmisdaden begaan in Irak of Syrië, zullen zwaar worden gestraft door Iraanse militaire rechtbanken......

Het aantal doden dat Shahtahmasebi noemt is intussen zwaar achterhaald, onlangs werd bekend gemaakt, dat er de laatste 9 maanden in Mosul meer dan 40.000 inwoners zijn vermoord (vooral middels VS bombardementen....)....*

Verder een goed leesbaar artikel, met ontluisterende feiten:

The Media Says the US Just Liberated Mosul: Here’s What Really Happened

July 11, 2017 at 2:21 pm
Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) — The mainstream media appears to be celebrating ISIS’ recent defeat in Mosul, albeit with some reservations. The media is largely using the word “liberation,” which indicates the people of Mosul have been freed from a monstrous force by a friendly, benevolent one.

In reality, the “liberation” of Mosul paints a dark, horrifying picture of America’s foreign policy when one realizes how ISIS took hold of Mosul in the first place. As Anti-Media in summarized in September of last year, the U.S. allowed ISIS to gain control of Mosul quite deliberately:

“In June 2014, ISIS crossed the Syrian border into Iraq, effortlessly taking the strategic oil-rich cities of Mosul and Baiji and almost making it as far as Baghdad. Amid the terror group’s frightening victory, they uploaded images and footage of drive-by-shootings, large-scale death marches, and mass graves (following the mass executions of Iraqi soldiers).

“ISIS militants claimed massive quantities of American military equipment, including entire truckloads of humvees, helicopters, tanks, and artillery as their own. This was no secret to Washington, or even the world, as the militants photographed and recorded themselves and publicly flaunted their activity on social media.”

Was there a good reason the American military sat on its hands despite knowing full well that this was going on? As Anti-Media explained further:

“What did the U.S. do in response? Nothing. In spite of all the American bases in Iraq and the government’s ability to perform all manner of illicit activity — including assassinating Muammar Gaddafi in Libya using a drone that was flown out of Sicily by a pilot who operated the vehicle from a naval base in Nevada‚ the U.S. couldn’t do anything to stop ISIS rapid advancements. Was there a problem preventing the U.S. military from conducting air strikes? Clearly not, as the U.S. had been launching drone strikes in Pakistan at around the same time ISIS advanced.”

The U.S. allowed ISIS to gain this significant portion of territory before moving into Iraq with an air war that was designed to pave the way for a segued operation into Syrian territory. The U.S. couldn’t justify an intervention into Syria without going into Iraq first, and this was quite clearly the underlying intention of this operation the whole time, as evidenced by the U.S.’ obsession with the Syrian conflict throughout both the Obama and Trump administrations.

Since the U.S. moved back into Iraq in 2014, the U.S. has dropped 84,000 bombs in Iraq and Syria up until the end of May 2017. As Counterpunch explains, this is nearly three times the number of bombs and missiles dropped on Iraq during  George W. Bush’s “Shock and Awe” campaign in 2003.

Monitoring group Airwars’ currently estimates that the minimum number of civilians killed by the U.S.-led coalition’s campaign in Iraq and Syria has reached roughly 4,354 since the operation began in 2014. The number is likely higher, but we will never know the exact total because up until a month ago, the U.S. only had two personnel investigating casualties in Iraq and Syria full time.

Under President Trump, the number of bombs being dropped increased rapidly after Trump gave complete control to the military generals on the ground to call in airstrikes with little oversight. One such air raid in Mosul saw close to 300 civilians die, and the fact that the strike had been called in by Iraqi forces on the ground demonstrates the immense amount of scope that Trump has delegated to call in airstrikes with little regard to international law and the principle of proportionality.

The battle for Mosul also drew in Iran-backed Shia militias, who have been known to terrorize Iraq’s Sunni population (including torturing civilians). No one doubts that ISIS is a brutal and abhorrent group, but the people who are supposedly “liberating” the local population — whether it’s the U.S. military, the Iraqi armed forces, or the various militia on the ground — appear to be no better.

Now that these Iran-backed militias have firmly planted themselves in Iraq, the U.S. is left with an ultimate dilemma of how to kick them out and counter Iran’s expanding influence. In all seriousness, the battle for Mosul is only paving the way for further occupation and laying the groundwork for America to pursue its regional ambitions in its never-ending quest to confront Iran.

According to the U.N., more than 742,000 Iraqis have fled the battle in Mosul, with approximately 10,000 new civilians fleeing every day. For a country that hates refugees, the U.S. certainly plays a significant role in creating an endless supply of them.

And for those civilians still trapped in the city, their lives will never be the same. As Airwars explains:

“According to city officials, as much as 80 per cent of West Mosul has been completely destroyed. Civilians still emerging from the battlefield are often bloodied and starving – traumatised by Iraqi and Coalition bombardments; and by atrocities commited [sic] by ISIS.

“According to reporters accompanying Iraqi forces, the stench of death is everywhere in the Old City – with civil defence officials reporting that as many as 4,000 bodies still remain unrecovered in the rubble. It is likely to be many months before the full death toll is known.”

That is quite the liberation. Even if Mosul really has been “liberated” by the U.S.-backed coalition, no one seems to be talking about the fact that ISIS was only able to conquer strategic areas like Mosul under the safety of the Obama administration’s policies. Leaked audio of former Secretary of State John Kerry when he was a senator confirmed the U.S. was watching ISIS grow, and in turn, the hoped this would bring Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the negotiating table (you can listen to the full audio here).

You can’t target a group as an enemy in one location and view it as a useful proxy army in another. Indeed, ISIS was always a useful proxy force for the anti-Assad coalition, as Kerry admitted.

Essentially, the U.S. allowed ISIS to gain control of large swaths of Iraq and Syria so they could justify interventions in these war-ravaged nations.

As far as the people of Iraq are concerned, there is only one winner here: the military-industrial complex, which secured massive years-long contracts to make, supply, and drop over 84,000 bombs on a territory that never should have been in the hands of ISIS in the first place.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo
=========================================

* Zie: 'Mosul: minstens 40.000 gedode burgers in 9 maanden tijd, ofwel VS terreur op grote schaal.....'

Zie ook: 'Kinderen in Irak vermoord middels VS terreur.......'

       en: 'Mosul verwoest door VS.........'

       en: 'Mosul 'zal met precisie ontdaan worden van de terroristen, inclusief een minimum aan burgerslachtoffers.......'' (een ongelofelijk en ongeloofwaardige belofte....)

       en: 'Hennis-Plasschaert hoopte nog zo, dat IS de bevolking van Mosul niet als schild zou gebruiken........'

       en: 'Honderden burgerslachtoffers in Mosul door VS bombardementen, ofwel grootschalige terreur......'

      en: 'Mass Media Siege: Comparing Coverage Of Mosul and Aleppo' (met mogelijkheid tot vertaling) 

     en: 'After Mosul’s “Liberation,” Horror of US Siege Continues to Unfold' (met mogelijkheid tot vertaling)

     en:  'Mosul 'bevrijd' en BBC anti-Assad propaganda..........'

     en: 'Mosul (bijna) bevrijd: 'een positief verslag' van de BBC'