Magda Hassan Wrote:"The US-led coalition will continue to fly missions over Iraq and Syria as planned and in support of our international mission to degrade and destroy ISIL," State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters.

Magda Hassan Wrote:Russian Foreign Minister at the UN has asked the UN to impose sanction on supporters of ISIS. So all of the US and UK good friends in Saudi, Qatar, and Turkey.

David Guyatt Wrote:On that basis in another year of us bombing ISIS would topple Assad and control of all Syria.

Oh! You don't think that......

No, surely not?

David Guyatt Wrote:::laughingdog::

Some analysts on RT are saying that Putin and Obama reached an agreement in their UN side meeting that went on a lot longer then scheduled.

And then there are the reports that Obama was tricked into his support and arming ISIS by his intelligence community. I mean, would they.

Quote:

1. Syria is currently the point of collision between two opposing global trends in global politics, the first of which is represented firstly by Russia, and the second of which - the US and NATO.
   
3. The first slip in the global headquarters of world US and NATO hegemony began in 2012, when Russia, together with China, blocked the resolution of the UN Security Council on Syria which would have opened the way for occupation of this Middle Eastern state. Syria was supposed to be, but in the end did not become (despite the bleeding), the next in line of NATO's victims after Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, and Libya, and the next field for deployment of a "color revolution."
   
5. The coup in Ukraine, to a large extent, was a counter-attack by the US and NATO against Russia in response to the failure of the plan of occupying Syria. The Banderization of Ukraine would compensate for the geopolitical losses of the US and restore the chances of the "color revolution" strategy aimed directly at Russia.
   
7. ISIS became another vector in continuing the US and its allies' destructive strategy against Syria. The expansion of ISIS became the pretext for starting to bomb Syria. Over the past two years, NATO has inflicted a huge number of airstrikes, officially against positions of the Islamic State, but de facto against Syria with the corresponding destruction of infrastructure. Israel directly struck units of the government army and its Lebanese allies. Thus, ISIS acts as a "smokescreen" for the aggression of the forces of international imperialism against Syria (and Iraq, Yemen, and other countries.)
   
9. A part of the armed anti-government forces in Syria, called "moderate" in the West, depends entirely on material support from the US and its allies, and their Islam is disguised under "democracy." They are the combat units of NATO or its satellites such as Saudi Arabia or Israel. Unlike the "moderate" puppets, ISIS, with the actual support of the most reactionary circles in the US and NATO, has become a significant military and political force, the center of gravity of these right-wing extremists being not only Syria and Iraq but also other countries of the Near and Middle East, Central Asia, and even Africa and South-East Asia. Mediating the participation of the US in bringing chaos to the Middle East, ISIS is also a relatively independent power of a neo-fascist persuasion which is even capable, under certain circumstances, of threatening its yesterday's patrons. In this respect, the situation has similarities with the European and Far-Eastern '30's and '40's of the 20th century.
   
11. In the context of the positive shifts in Russia's foreign policies, the pretext of "fighting terrorism", which was created by the USA as a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 2001 and used to actively destabilize disliked countries, could be turned against the neo-fascist wing of transnational monopoly capital. This would be a major success of Russian foreign policy and at the same time an important achievement of the progressive forces of the world.
    
13. Russia's call to create an anti-ISIS coalition using the analogy of the anti-Hitler coalition for the first time appeals to anti-terrorist rhetoric against the United States. In fact, the US is stumped - they are invited to join a coalition against themselves.
    
15. This trend is empirically found and, perhaps, is the only alternative in contemporary conditions to the the world sliding towards a global terrorist dictatorship of neo-fascist circles of transnational capital and/or the thermonuclear suicide of humanity. For Russia this is the only chance for a fair political settlement of the conflict with Ukraine with the fullest regard towards the rights and interests of the Donbass uprising (just as the resolution of the Colombian-Venezuelan conflict opens the way for a political resolution of the longstanding civil conflict inside Columbia).
    
17. Syria and Russia can deploy a genuine ATO (unlike the quasi-ATO of Ukraine against Donbass), the successes of which can chance the balance of power in the world and return rationality to world politics, returning the genuine meaning to words lost over the course of the global information war (it's not necessary to go far for an example - the labeling of the militia of Donbass as "separatists" and "terrorists" in global media). An example of such a path is shown by Latin America, where in the conditions of a new regional and global balance of forces, ruling circles are forcing Colombia to abandon the demonization of the insurgency and take the path of political agreement with it.
    
19. The return of rationality to world politics may be a factor in clearing the global public conscience and creating preconditions for a global understanding of the objectively terrorist and destructive nature of US imperialism and NATO. This would help defend against attempts at reactionary scrapping, and democratically reform the institution of the United Nations, and also stop attempts at global social revenge through Transatlantic and Transpacific "partnerships," similar to the case in which Latin Americans tore up the dress rehearsal of this scenario in their hemisphere - the FTAA project - ten years ago.
    

Quote:The US Empire is truly (sic) its last days.

What was said on live television at the UN with the ''joint'' statement made by Lavrov, and with Kerry at the conclusion, are "the things history is made from". And what was said behind closed doors versus what was said publicly is more than likely to be oceans apart.

There are certain key phrases that were used that are the biggest indication that this wide-gulf exists, setting aside an objective assessment of the situation which also demands such a view. Any objective appraisal indicates the US has a vulnerable position.

The decision to make this statement jointly and in the language of collaboration is partly about not scaring the general public - or giving the stock market a shock, given the relationship between this and treasury bonds and other notes which are held by the Chinese. The largest foreign holder of U.S. debt is of course China, which owns about $1.2 trillion in bills, notes and bonds, according to the US Treasury. The Chinese and the CSTO are no doubt involved in this conflict.

But chiefly, this decision to imply consensus and collaboration is about giving the US a graceful exit, something which is not only strategic for Russia but reflects its manner of conducting foreign policy. It is done in a manner which least encourages, least corners, and least frustrates their adversaries.

Allowing one's enemy a safe routing passage is an age old tactic, and a basic military maneuver which ensures the opponent does not have a necessary reason to fight to the bitter end.

It has allowed the US to make a hasty if somewhat tactical withdrawal without using the overt language of surrender.

Also, the language of collaboration has a legal meaning. While we live in a world where the US has tried to deconstruct the post-war order of law and precedent, and has abrogated any number of agreements and conventions, it is important to understand that this is not Russia's aim.

At the very core of the US's lawlessness is this: The post-war order created an international system of law, that while recognizing the supremacy of the victors of the war as evidenced in the structure of the UN Security Council, was also quite truly based in principles of equality between nations and the right to self determination.

In the several decades that followed the end of WWII the world saw a global anti-colonial and anti-imperialist uprising, primarily in the third world, which - despite some frustrations at the hands of US imperialism - was able to make good on the promises and values enshrined in the UN Charter. While the US continued to violate human rights and international law in some major instances; in South-east Asia and Central America in particular - its primary interaction with the world at large was not reliant on lawlessness as an operating system.

The US was agreeable to this post-war legal order, because through the international financial system of banks and parent structures like the IMF and WTO, they could dominate and control the third world countries economically even after they had won formal independence and sovereignty.

As many of these countries grew up, and in some ways surpassed the US, the method of maintaining hegemony through economic domination, that could counter the legal equality of nation-states, became less and less useful proportionally.

This explains in large part why the US has needed to defy international law as its primary operating system in order to hold on to or regain its once dominant position.

The combined forces of China, Russia, and Iran on the Eurasian continent cannot likely be defeated. The US is keenly aware of this, but for reasons of its own internal political and military culture, required 'evidence' in the form of a massively successful air campaign on the part of the Russians. This is what the Russians delivered today, and that was probably the main reason for it.

So what was said today behind closed doors?

What has probably in fact happened is a series of ultimatums were given by either side, but Russia is holding the cards. The US's primary bargaining tactic is to overplay its hand, and to bluff. Russia being aware of this, and aware of the delicate and sensitive US position given its newly discovered mortality, probably politely nodded in agreement to the US's threatening and outrageous claims and threats. All the while, however, it kept its focus on communicating their own final and unmoved position.

What has not happened is any sort of joint plan by the US and Russia to strike at ISIS targets. US media which hints at this are serving the primary role of running two kinds of interference: dissembling the reality that the US's main creation cum ally is in fact ISIS, and to make it look like the US is still part of something which smells or sounds like 'winning'.

What may have indeed happened is the US negotiating on behalf of Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to provide safe exit corridors for their foreign mercenary/extremist (hybrid) army groupments, and other important leaders, experts, and trainers. There is a growing view among many analysts that among the real refugees coming into Europe, are important leaders and trainers from ISIS/FSA/Al Nusra who got a bit ahead of the curve and made their exits a few weeks sooner.

What Kerry publicly said which is of critical importance - and what gives away the real nature of today's talk - that is US capitulation militarily - was this:

"As Sergey said to you, we agreed on the imperative of a ... as soon as possible, perhaps as soon as tomorrow, but as soon as possible - having a military to military deconflec .. deconfliction discussion, meeting, conference, whichever, whatever could be done as soon as possible, because we agree on the urgency of that deconfliction."

A military deconfliction discussion is neutrally postured face saving language for something more adequately described as 'disentanglement' or perhaps even 'terms of conditional surrender'.

To stare right in the face of the obvious - we must call it as it is. For two parties to have a deconfliction discussion - they must be in conflict. This is what was at the core of this last minute talk.

Another very significant thing that was not mentioned publicly was any talk of Syrian President Assad resigning from office.

There is little doubt who - between Kerry and Lavrov - begged for this emergency meeting to take place.

Outside of this more or less outright admission of defeat on the part of the US, is the similarity this has to the Debaltsevo situation and the Minsk Agreement.

This serves as a parallel to the Ukraine conflict where we saw the Debaltsevo cauldron, and the surrounding of what Motorola claimed publicly were NATO soldiers (whether in mercenary formations like Greystone/ Blackwater/ Xe/ Academi was not important), and the subsequent Minsk II Agreement built upon the defeat of the US proxy forces at Russian proxy force hands.

We also therefore must speculate as to whether combatants from the MI6, CIA, Mosssad and other secret military/special forces/ and/or the western mercenary outfits linked to these were among today's casualties.

And like with the Minsk II agreement, we will see the US continually attempt to sabotage it or work contrary to its own stated commitments.

At the same time, Russia is well aware of this, and will rely more heavily on its primary strength in today's emerging world: multi-polarity.

The US alliance is falling apart, and any wrong move which smells like a greater conflict could send the fragile US economy into shock mode. It has been difficult enough to use debt spending and an increasing debt-to-GDP ratio to simulate (not stimulate) growth. It has been difficult enough to shift numbers around to make a growing unemployment rate look like a shrinking one.

What Russia has essentially offered the US is also similar to September 2013 in Syria, but in heightened form, when Russia provided the US - as now - a very graceful and dignified official exit from the conflict. This came at the heels of a failed false flag attempt by the US to place the blame for a chemical weapons attack on the Syrian government.

What the US has threatened behind closed doors is that the it will double-down on its support for Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, or if you prefer 'ISIS'. This dovetails nicely with what has emerged publicly from Kerry, which is that Russia will "be allowed" to fight ISIS on its own.

To really understand how these two fit together, we need only hear from US presidential candidates like Trump, whose job it has been to float this idea. The idea is to 'let' Russia handle this fight, but with the real aim being here to increase support to ISIS with the goal of creating an Afghanistan like entanglement for Russia.

Truly, what was just said on live television at this late hour - after a long day of Russia obliterating at least 8 ISIS targets in 20 sorties - must be at odds with what was said behind closed doors.

As Lavrov spoke in the clear and transparent language of Russian diplomacy, Kerry had no choice but to nod his head in agreement, as if Lavrov's words were his own choosing.

Evidence that Kerry was forced into an agreement not to his liking behind closed doors, were his final public statements.

Conclusively and to summarize these; that while the two men had just tentatively agreed on points of principle - a Unified Syria, a Sovereign Syria, a Democratic Syria, a Secular Syria, and a Syria that is home to all ethnic and confessional groups - he would have to take this back to Obama and 'his team' for final approval.

In a diplomatic faux pas and incorrectly speaking for Lavrov, Kerry also included that Lavrov would likely be taking this back to Putin for approval. But it is not likely that Lavrov needs any further consultation given that what was agreed to were probably the full list of requirements from the Russian side. Victory does not typically require approval from above to accept - terms of surrender often do.

The difference is, Lavrov came, in standard Russian form, with the full authority of state to enter into the agreement of their own choosing, to begin with. Lavrov, like the gentleman he is, allowed the child-like Kerry to engage in a little more face-saving damage control.

Of course, Lavrov will not object publicly or correct Kerry. Russia' position of strength is not based on what Kerry thinks or does not think, says or does not say, but rather on its position in the international community.

Russia's strength lays with its partners in the region and on its actions founded firmly in principles of international law, and its military capacity - as resoundingly demonstrated today.

Russian strategy has been based upon its understanding between the relationship of actual power and support 'in principle' from the international community. As the US adventure has run out of gas, and run out of prospects for success - there has been an equal decrease in support from the international community. Filling the support vacuum, is Russia.

It is indeed very interesting to witness in real time the increased isolation of the US, and its decreased ability to make unilateral actions and demands upon the world. It is amazing to see that Kerry on live TV publicly surrendered the US position on Syria to Russia.

Quote:On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a blistering critique of US foreign policy to the UN General Assembly.

On Tuesday, Barack Obama shoved a knife in Putin's back. This is from Reuters:

"France will discuss with its partners in the coming days a proposal by Turkey and members of the Syrian opposition for a no-fly zone in northern Syria, French President Francois Hollande said on Monday…

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius "in the coming days will look at what the demarcation would be, how this zone could be secured and what our partners think," Hollande told reporters on the sidelines of the annual United Nations General Assembly…

Hollande said such a proposal could eventually be rubber-stamped with a U.N. Security Council resolution that "would give international legitimacy to what's happening in this zone."…(France, partners to discuss northern Syria safe zone': Hollande, Reuters)

Hollande is a liar and a puppet. He knows the Security Council will never approve a no-fly zone. Russia and China have already said so. And they've explained why they are opposed to it, too. It's because they don't want another failed state on their hands like Libya, which is what happened last time the US and NATO imposed a no-fly zone.

But that's beside the point. The real reason the no-fly zone issue has resurfaced is because it was one of the concessions Obama made to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for the use of Incirlik airbase. Washington has kept the terms of that deal secret, but Hollande has let the cat out of the bag.

So who put sock-puppet Hollande up to this no-fly zone nonsense?

Why the Obama administration, of course. Does anyone seriously believe that Hollande is conducting his own independent policy in Syria? Of course not. Hollande is just doing what he's been told to do, just like he did when he was told to scotch the Mistral deal that cost France a whopping $1.2 billion. Washington and NATO didn't like the idea that France was selling state-of-the-art helicopter carriers to arch-rival Putin, so they ordered Hollande to put the kibosh on the deal. Which he did, because that's what puppets do; they obey their masters. Now he's providing cover for Obama so the real details of the Incirlik agreement remain off the public's radar. That's why we say, Obama shoved a knife in Putin's back, because, ultimately, the no-fly zone damages Russia's interests in Syria.

The significance of the Reuters article cannot be overstated. It suggests that there was a quid pro quo for the use of Incirlik, and that Turkey's demands were accepted. Why is that important?

Because Turkey had three demands:

1Safe zones in north Syria (which means that Turkey would basically annex a good portion of Syrian sovereign territory.)
2A no-fly zone (which would allow either Turkish troops, US Special Forces or US-backed jihadi militants to conduct their military operations with the support of US air cover.)
3A commitment from the US that it will help Turkey remove Assad.

Did Obama agree to all three of these demands before Erdogan agreed to let the USAF use Incirlik?

Yes, at least I think he did, which is why I think we are at the beginning of Phase 2 of the US aggression against Syria. Incirlik changes everything. US bombers, drones and fighters can enter Syrian airspace in just 15 minutes instead of 3 to 4 hours from Bahrain. That means more sorties, more surveillance drones, and more air-cover for US-backed militias and Special Forces on the ground. It means the US can impose a de facto no-fly zone over most of Syria that will expose and weaken Syrian forces tipping the odds decisively in favor of Obama's jihadi army. Incirlik is a game-changer, the cornerstone of US policy in Syria. With access to Incirlik, victory is within Washington's reach. That's how important Incirlik is.

And that's why the normally-cautious Putin decided to deploy his warplanes, troops and weaponry so soon after the Incirlik deal was signed. He could see the handwriting on the wall. He knew he had to either act fast and turn the tide or accept the fact that the US and Turkey were going to topple Assad sometime after Turkey's snap elections on November 1. That was his timeline for action. So he did the right thing and joined the fighting.

But what does Putin do now?

On Wednesday, just two days after Putin announced to the UN General Assembly: "We can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world," Putin ordered the bombing of targets in Homs, an ISIS stronghold in West Syria. The attacks, which were unanimously approved by the Russian parliament earlier in the day, and which are entirely legal under international law (Putin was invited by Syria's sitting president, Assad, to carry out the airstrikes), have put US policy in a tailspin. While the Russian military is maintaining an open channel to the Pentagon and reporting when-and-where it is carrying out its airstrikes, U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said that the US plans to "continue to fly missions over Iraq and Syria" increasing the possibility of an unintended clash that could lead to a confrontation between the US and Russia.

Is that what Washington wants, a violent incident that pits one nuclear-armed adversary against the other?

Let's consider one probable scenario: Let's say an F-16 is shot down over Syria while providing air cover for Obama's militants on the ground. Now that Russia is conducting air raids over Syria, there's a good chance that Putin would be blamed for the incident like he was when the Malaysian airliner was downed over East Ukraine.

So what happens next?

Judging by similar incidents in the past, the media would swing into full-propaganda mode exhorting the administration to launch retaliatory attacks on Russian military sites while calling for a broader US-NATO mobilization. That, in turn, would force Putin to either fight back and up-the-ante or back-down and face disgrace. Either way, Putin loses and the US gets one step closer to its objective of toppling Bashar al Assad.

Putin knows all this. He understands the risks of military involvement which is why he has only reluctantly committed to the present campaign. That said; we should expect him to act in much the same way as he did when Georgian troops invaded South Ossetia in 2007. Putin immediately deployed the tanks to push the invading troops back over the border into Georgia and then quickly ended the hostilities. He was lambasted by critics on the right for not invading Georgia and removing their leader, Mikheil Saakashvili, in the Capital. But as it turned out, Putin's restraint spared Russia the unnecessary hardship of occupation which can drain resources and erode public support. Putin was right and his critics were wrong.

Will his actions in Syria mirror those in South Ossetia?

It's hard to say, but it's clear that the Obama crew is thunderstruck by the speed of the intervention. Check this out from the UK Guardian: "Back at the White House, spokesperson Josh Earnest suggests that Vladimir Putin did not give Barack Obama warning about his intentions to begin air strikes in Syria.

"We have long said we would welcome constructive Russian coordination," Earnest says, before qualifying that the talks between US and Russian militaries will be purely tactical: "to ensure that our military activities and the military activities of coalition partners would be safely conducted." (The Guardian)

What does Earnest's statement mean? It means the entire US political class was caught off-guard by Putin's blitz and has not yet settled on an appropriate response. They know that Putin is undoing years of work by rolling up proxy-units that were supposed to achieve US objectives, but there is no agreement among ruling elites about what should be done. And making a decision of that magnitude could take time, which means that Putin should be able to obliterate a fair number of the terrorist hideouts and restore control of large parts of the country to Assad before the US ever agrees to a strategy. In fact, if he moves fast, he might even be able to force the US and their Gulf allies to the bargaining table where a political solution could be reached.

It's a long-shot, but it's a much better option then waiting around for the US to impose a no-fly zone that would collapse the central government and reduce Syria to Libya-type anarchy. There's no future in that at all.

Quote:Starikov:

Even cats don't get born on their own and such high-profile terrorist organisations, packaged with beautiful Hollywood promos don't appear on their own. Of course, it is a project, the same project of the global banking elite. as once was Adolf Hitler, and before that where the Bolsheviks-Trotskyists, who have destroyed the Russian empire and were going to crush the neighboring states.

Islamic state is a can opener in the hands of the global elite, with which it was planning to destroy the world order, as it is.

You know, often when we talk about WWII, a question comes to mind, why did the English have to bring Hitler to power, if they were the strongest ones? Well, in order to be the strongest, you must destroy your competition. And Hitler was brought to power in order to destroy the USSR, which not only grew economically, but presented an alternative of a social order, which was a death sentence.

Lets remember the post-war USSR, when there was a constant dropping of prices which completely contradicts the market economy. Stalin did it, And did it yearly. And he would strangle this financially oriented economy with his price drops. It had to be prevented. This was Hitler's task.

Today's Islamic State is a tool to prevent the growth of China, Russia, and Europe getting out of control.

A big war is needed. Chaos is needed. It will help solve the problem of dropping consumption in the entire world.

War is needed for many reasons. Americans create the Islamic state.

Note, two years ago no one knew about this Islamic state. There was Al Qaida and Syrian opposition. Remember the Free Syrian Army, where is it today? Is it so free, that it has dissipated on its own?

Imagine, you have the Bandera "Forest brothers" in the woods, and suddenly they self-organize in the woods and become "The Red Guard." It is impossible. Either they are the "Forest brothers" or the "Red Guard". They can be one thing or the other. One cannot transform into the other on its own.

In order to create this instrument of destroying the world order you must destroy statehood.

First the destruction of states is a standard path of the global banking elite, which I am writing about in my book "Power".

Second, how can you create this force, if you have states everywhere? You have the states of Iraq and Syria. You cannot create 100 thousand militants on the territory of Iraq. Therefore you have to get rid of the Iraqi state. Either it has to be completely absent as in Lybia, or be nominal, occupying two blocks in Baghdad. It is weakened and destroyed.

And here is Syria. It also has to be destroyed, but it doesn't surrender. This is where the hate towards Assad comes from. This is why they keep repeating, Assad must go - in order to destroy the state.

Instead they create a quazi-state structure, which they pump with money and weapons and sent it towards Afghanistan. By the way there is fighting going on right now for Kunduz, which is on the border with Tajikistahn. They are preparing a bridgehead for the invasion. Everything is going according to plan.

They have to finish off Assad.

100 thousand fled to Europe, and how many refugees are in the camps? A few million. If they cannot get to Europe, where will they go? You can hire them for cheap into your army, for example ISIS. People have no options, the infrastructure has been destroyed, there is nowhere to live, and here you are offered a salary!

This mess they want to send through Afghanistan to Central Asia. To destroy the Central Asian states. Which I and many others wrote about several years ago.

Further they will strike Russia and China.

Today several thousand Uighur militants are fighting for ISIS. This is the force that will be blowing up China.

You have to understand the logic of the Unites States. They gave birth to this instrument, but they need to let it grow.

They say "We are going to fight it". They create a coalition, and as a result of this battle ISIS spreads to a huge territory.

Here is a question, are they fighting them?

In Afghanistan they were fighting with drugs. As a result the drug production grew 42 times. So ISIS will grow 42 times too. They are not fighting themselves, and not letting anyone fight it.

What are American strikes on the positions of militants? Do we know who they are bombing? I hope they know who they are bombing. They could be bombing the Syrian army. And if anything, they will say: "Ooops, sorry". We said, we are sorry!

When they are there, ISIS can freely grow.

What is Russia doing? Understating, that this threat is coming for us, of course we have to fight there, but how? Not by bringing ground troops. Instructors, heavy equipment, aviation, but no ground troops. There are Syrian and Kurd ground troops.

The surrounding states see what's going on. They are not stupid. They understand that his hurricane will sweep all the sovereign states. In Saudi Arabia there is a war on the border.
Do you think Saudi Arabia is happy, no they would rather drink cocktails and pump oil. At that moment comes Russia and says, guys we will clean this up, fold ISIS, we will pretend we don't know it was created by the US. But we will liquidate it. All we want from you is help.

A week before Putin's speech the Israeli prime minister, the Saudi king, the king of Jordan, why did they all fly to Putin? Because the fire is under their feet.

Everyone pretends they don't know where ISIS came from.

When we brought our instructors and weapons there, Americans ended up in a difficult situation. Their monopoly on fighting ISIS was destroyed. We said let's fight it, and they say, we are already fighting, we will not

Why are you flying here, bombing whatever you want?

If you don't do that, we will fight ISIS ourselves.

Americans lost the opportunity to bomb anyone they want on the Syrian territory. If they fly they can get shot down, saying "Why din't you coordinate with us? You flew into the territory of the Syrian army and they shot down your plane. We would have told you the Syrian army is there

Now they will try to torpedo this. If someone starts to pound the bandits, they are in a situation as if England and France were forced to destroy Hitler in 1938. Russia is forcing them to destroy their own project. This is the essence of it.

Today's approval of our Federation Council to use force abroad is simply a legal formality. It doesn't mean our troops will go there. They would love to suck us into a ground war, but we won't go for it. We will get money from the surrounding states. Syria will give us the soldiers. And everyone will be happy to get over with this ISIS. And Americans will be forced to repeat, yes, what a terrible organization.

We buried their project before it has entered a mature stage.

This is what's happening there today.

Quote:The New York Times in its recent article, "Russians Strike Targets in Syria, but Not ISIS Areas," attempts to frame Russia's recent actions in Syria as dishonest and dangerous. It reports:

Russian aircraft carried out a bombing attack against Syrian opposition fighters on Wednesday, including at least one group trained by the C.I.A., eliciting angry protests from American officials and plunging the complex sectarian war there into dangerous new territory.

This of course would only make Russia's actions dishonest or dangerous if groups trained by the US CIA were in fact the "moderates" the US claims they are. However, they are not, and thus Russia's actions are duly justified as is the expansion of their current policy.

There Are no Moderates, and There Never Were

For months now, after years of headlines confirming the US has been covertly arming militants in Syria for the purpose of overthrowing the government in Damascus, a narrative revolving around tens of thousands of these militants "defecting" to Al Nusra and the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS/ISIL) has been peddled to the public by the Western media and US politicians to account for the apparent failure of America's alleged policy of creating an army of "moderates" to both fight ISIS/Al Qaeda and the Syrian government.

In reality, from the beginning, there were never any moderates. Starting as early as 2007, years before the war in Syria began, the US as a matter of policy had long since decided to intentionally fund and support the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood for all intents and purposes the political wing of Al Qaeda and begin arming militants affiliated with Al Qaeda itself.

This was revealed in Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh's 2007 New Yorker article titled, "The Redirection Is the Administration's new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?," which stated explicitly (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Hersh's prophetic 9-page report would also reveal that even then, the extremist Syrian Muslim Brotherhood was already receiving funding and support from the United States via Saudi Arabia. His report revealed (emphasis added):

There is evidence that the Administration's redirection strategy has already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, "The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement." He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front's members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.

By 2011, Al Qaeda's affiliates in Syria, most notably the Al Nusra Front, began operating nation-wide, taking the lead in the US-backed fight against Damascus. By 2012, when the US State Department listed Al Nusra as a foreign terrorist organization, it was clear even then, that the largest contingent of anti-government forces on the battlefield was Al Qaeda.

The US State Department's official statement regarding Al Nusra reported that:

Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed.

It is clear that Al Qaeda was not only involved in the conflict since its beginning, but also led it. This betrays current US rhetoric that Al Qaeda had only entered the fight later on, seizing on the chaos created by "moderates" and their fight with Damascus. It is clear that it was Al Qaeda itself that drove that chaos from the beginning, and is still driving this chaos to this day.

The Rhetorical Pipeline

To explain how America's fictional "moderate" army has been displaced on the battlefield in Syria by Al Qaeda and ISIS, the US claims that its multi-billion dollar nearly 5-year operation has suffered from massive defections.

The Guardian would report in its article, "Free Syrian Army rebels defect to Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusra," that:

Syria's main armed opposition group, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), is losing fighters and capabilities to Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist organisation with links to al-Qaida that is emerging as the best-equipped, financed and motivated force fighting Bashar al-Assad's regime.

The International Business Times would report in its article, "Four Years Later, The Free Syrian Army Has Collapsed," that:

The Nusra Front, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, has picked up thousands of men who once fought under the umbrella of the FSA during the past three years. It offers its soldiers hundreds of dollars a month in salary and food installments. The soldiers in the FSA did not receive any monthly stipend. When extremist groups such as the Nusra Front gained ground in Syria and received millions of dollars in cash and weapons from wealthy businessmen in the Gulf states and Libya, the moderate rebels "had no other choice," Jarrah said. "They feel like they are cheated, so they join ISIS."

The Daily Beast would report in its article, "Main U.S.-Backed Syrian Rebel Group Disbanding, Joining Islamists," that:

The Syrian rebel group Harakat al-Hazm, one of the White House's most trusted militias fighting President Bashar al-Assad, collapsed Sunday, with activists posting a statement online from frontline commanders saying they are disbanding their units and folding them into brigades aligned with a larger Islamist insurgent alliance distrusted by Washington.

Harakat al-Hazm would take with them to Al Qaeda and ISIS, millions of dollars worth of sophisticated US weapons, including US-made anti-tank TOW missiles.

The most recent US supported group, the fabled "Division 30," has also allegedly defected to Al Qaeda assuming they weren't Al Qaeda militants from the beginning. The Telegraph in its article, "US-trained Division 30 rebels betray US and hand weapons over to al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria'," reported that:

Pentagon-trained rebels in Syria are reported to have betrayed their American backers and handed their weapons over to al-Qaeda in Syria immediately after re-entering the country.

Fighters with Division 30, the "moderate" rebel division favoured by the United States, surrendered to the al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra, a raft of sources claimed on Monday night.

What this news, admitted to by the West itself, of these US-backed "moderates" joining Al Qaeda's ranks by the thousands proves is that at the very least America's policy of building up a moderate opposition has failed entirely. What documented evidence stretching back as far as 2007 proves is that the US had no intention of building up a moderate opposition in the first place, and news of "defections" are simply cover for the direct funding and arming of Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria.

At the very least, Russia bombing these groups either having already defected to Al Qaeda, or inevitably going to defect to Al Qaeda, is doing the Pentagon a favor.

Russia is Bombing Al Qaeda

This leads back to the most recent New York Times article. Russia is not arbitrarily bombing "moderates" backed by the US in Syria to stave off allegedly "legitimate" opposition to the government in Damascus Russia is bombing terrorists who are either operating under the banner of Al Qaeda but are portrayed as otherwise by the US, or will inevitably end up turning their fighters and weapons over to Al Qaeda. Russia is bombing Al Qaeda.

The New York Times article would also claim:

"By supporting Assad and seemingly taking on everybody fighting Assad," Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said Wednesday, Russia is "taking on the whole rest of the country that's fighting Assad." Some of those groups, he added, are supported by the United States and need to be part of a political resolution in Syria.

Indeed, Russia is undoubtedly bombing militants supported by the United States, but that is only because the United States has intentionally supported Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria. At any time if the United States truly wanted to strike an irreparable blow at ISIS forces, it could simply seal off the Turkish border across which the summation of ISIS' supplies, fighters, weapons, and vehicles flow. By securing the Turkish-Syrian border to the north, and the Jordanian-Syrian border in the south, the United States could strangle ISIS out of existence in a month, if not sooner.

That it has intentionally allowed ISIS supplies to flow out from under the nose of its allies and its own military forces stationed both in Jordan and in Turkey, indicates the the US at the very least is tacitly perpetuating the existence of ISIS but most likely is actively involved in filling the trucks bound for ISIS in Syria as well.

US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter claims that the Russian position is "doomed," in what appears to be a pledge by the United States to resist Moscow's attempts to stamp out Al Qaeda groups in addition to taking on and eliminating ISIS.

Some might consider doubling down on a policy of backing terrorists that will inevitably be revealed to the world, and a policy that has thus far failed to topple the Syrian government which is now being bolstered by Russian, Iranian, and possibly Chinese forces, is a policy that is ultimately doomed.

And finally, it must be noted, for those still doubting ISIS is in fact an intentional creation of US foreign policy, that ISIS is now fighting the combined military forces of Syria, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and now Russia. One must ask themselves who has the material resources, finances, and operational capacity to support a single army capable of taking on a multinational coalition of this size. Where, if not from the US and its regional allies, is ISIS deriving the source of its fighting capacity?

Claiming to fight ISIS, while so transparently supporting them, is indeed a doomed position, one doomed to fail today, and one doomed to eternal condemnation in the future.