Trump: There Was Fight Between U.S. And Russian Troops, “Many People Died”

Donate

Trump: There Was Fight Between U.S. And Russian Troops, "Many People Died"

FILE IMAGE: AP Photo/Hussein Malla

“Many people” have been killed in the recent clash between Russian and US troops in Syria, US President Donald Trump said during a joint news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on April 18.

“We had a very, very severe… fight in Syria recently, a month ago, with our troops and Russian troops. It is very sad but many people died in that fight,” Trump said providing no further details.

There have been no official reports or even “rumors” on clashes between US and Russian troops in Syria. However, in February, rumors appeared that the US-led strikes against Syrian government forces allegedly led to some casualties among the Russian private military contractors deployed in Syria.

Most likeley, Trump refered to these rumors.

On April 12, Mike Pompeo, CIA director nominated to be US State Secretary, already used this rumor to get an approval of the Congress.

During the April 18 press conference, the US President added that “There has been nobody tougher on Russia than President Donald Trump”.

“With the media, no matter what I did, it is never tough enough, because that is their narrative. But Russia will tell you there has been nobody tougher than Donald Trump … We will do sanctions as soon as they very much deserve it…” he said.

Trump’s statement was likely a respponse to another version of the events promoted by some of its political opponents. On April 18, Senator Robert Menendez said the US-led strikes on Syria may have been “choreographed” with Russia.

“… you have a strike against three facilities, the Russians don’t activate their defense missiles against us, the Syrians shoot their missiles after our missiles land. And you wonder, wait a minute, was this a choreographed kabuki show?” Menendez said.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • antoun

    the humanity is dead! or russian and usa conflict! scrabs democrats!!!

  • Vince Dhimos

    Well, it is just as well that they lie. The US sheeple will think their government is protecting them. LOL. Eventually they will get their surprise.

    • Garga

      A lie and an aimed one.

      What they do is trying to paint a war with Russia as something affordable which can easily be shrugged off.

      They will repeat it again and again and with each repetition the number of Russian casualties will increase to show that Russkies are wussies, America fuck yeah and stuff.

      • Merijn

        They have to do somethin’…a bit of shouting here & there is not to Harmful… let them…Emperors without Clothes

    • Ralph Conner

      We’re not that stupid. We’re helpless and most of us know it. Unfortunately, the Deep State has a majority thinking that all they have to do is get another political party in power and everything will change.

      • Attrition47

        I doubt that the US public are that gullible; if they were, why the constant propaganda, rigged elections and McCarthyite persecutions?

        • Nod

          “I doubt that the US public are that gullible;”

          lol

          have you ever met any ? They drink a neuro toxin called fluoride. This makes for stupid, apathetic and very gullible people. I know, I live amongst them.

          Propaganda is the real education, while fluoride and mal-educational systems creates the dull stupid mindset to readily accept the propaganda.

          do you not remember Obama “we are exceptional”. They wanna beLIEve it. After all, they murder the planet, and no one does shit about it.

          As to the rigged elections ? I will let someone more qualified than I, explain it.

          “In short, Really Existing Capitalist Democracy is very remote from the soaring rhetoric about democracy. But there is another version of democracy. Actually it’s the standard doctrine of progressive, contemporary democratic theory. So I’ll give some illustrative quotes from leading figures – incidentally not figures on the right. These are all good Woodrow Wilson-FDR-Kennedy liberals, mainstream ones in fact. So according to this version of democracy, “the public are ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. They have to be put in their place. Decisions must be in the hands of an intelligent minority of responsible men, who have to be protected from the trampling and roar of the bewildered herd”. The herd has a function, as it’s called. They’re supposed to lend their weight every few years, to a choice among the responsible men. But apart from that, their function is to be “spectators, not participants in action” – and it’s for their own good. Because as the founder of liberal political science pointed out, we should not succumb to “democratic dogmatisms about people being the best judges of their own interest”. They’re not. We’re the best judges, so it would be irresponsible to let them make choices just as it would be irresponsible to let a three-year-old run into the street. Attitudes and opinions therefore have to be controlled for the benefit of those you are controlling. It’s necessary to “regiment their minds”. It’s necessary also to discipline the institutions responsible for the “indoctrination of the young.” All quotes, incidentally. And if we can do this, we might be able to get back to the good old days when “Truman had been able to govern the country with the cooperation of a relatively small number of Wall Street lawyers and bankers.” This is all from icons of the liberal establishment, the leading progressive democratic theorists. Some of you may recognize some of the quotes.”
          Noam Chomsky

          • Nod

            And frankly, the rest of the planet is not much better off with respect to intelligence, reason, and rational. Here is why.

            “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
            ― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda

          • AlexanderAmproz

            The Direct Democracy we have in Switzerland has nothing to do

            with what our Dear Chomsky said, it’s even the opposite !
            View from Switzerland the US Democracy is bogus and grotesque !

            Democracy is by the Peoples for the Peoples.
            It’s what the Swiss are doing since 1230
            None King since Barbarossa Emperor in 1190 !

            All titles were banned in the 1847 Constitution(everybody is equal !)
            as well as the Jesuits at the1847 Sunderbund Civil-War origins,
            luckily solved in 3 weeks with almost none victims,
            thanks General G.H. Dufour cleverness !
            He said “The war has to be short and Honorable ! ”
            Later on he was the Red Cross main funder !
            This Civil-War was on the verge to be terrible and destroy the Country for “ever”

            Average votations on the Cantonal(province) and Federal(National)
            is about yearly 50 ! Add on this the Popular Rights, “Initiatives” (New Laws proposal)
            and “Referendum” Every new governmental Laws could be canceled !
            Geneva voted free Mandatory School for All in 1536 !
            Public School quality is better than the well renowned Privates existing
            for rich Dropout’s and Foreigners…

            Excellent Universities(Einstein enjoy it) are almost for free…
            Free incentives are available for housing, food, cloths, etc., if poor and gifted
            Nobel Prizes/Population ratio is the World highest.

            Direct Democracy without Education is not workable !

            Absolutely Everything is decided by the Population since Centuries, it’s Cultural !

            For us, the US, French, British or any other Democracies
            are rubbish at the best !

            Israhell and Iran Theocracies didn’t worth more than
            the Spaniards too famous monstrous “Inquisition”

          • Nod

            “The Direct Democracy we have in Switzerland has nothing to do

            with what our Dear Chomsky said”

            Why are you still under the yoke of slavery via a FIAT monetary system? Want to convince me, fix that. You cannot. Most of those voting in your direct democracy, don’t even understand that.

            Ignorance is NOT freedom Alexander. And there simply can be NO democracy, under the yoke of inequality.

            You are a slave, with privileges. Just like I am.

          • AlexanderAmproz

            Enjoy Switzerland and see by yourself without prejudice
            what you are saying inequality and talk later.

            Sorry for you, but I never been a slave,
            spend my life hiking in the Alps, sailing, scuba diving in RP
            and traveling World wide
            for Art and Antique collection pieces fun…
            Never cares any wealth and consumption.
            Igloo or five Stars Hotels, I didn’t cares !
            More simple, Better !
            Only work for fun as an independent during about ten Years,
            it was enough for life time comfort and freedom !

          • Nod

            Most slaves cannot do this. You are a very privileged slave.

            lucky you. Half the planet lives with under 10 bucks a day, while the rest of us live under debt based slavery.

            “Only work for fun as an independent during about ten Years”…..

            How is that then. I am curious how anyone can set themselves up for life, in 10 years.

            And what if you didn’t have any money, how free would you be huh.
            Go on a trip without any money, lets see how free you are.

            To answer this question, will require an admission to your privileged status in a slave based society.

            “Money is a new form of slavery, which differs form the old only in being impersonal, and in freeing people from all the human relations of the slave.”

            – Leo Tolstoy

            It is illogical and unreasonable to deny your slavery, when your freedom comes via your wallet.

          • AlexanderAmproz

            I am not an American or a Jew…
            I managed my life to be above the money I consider miserable.
            No need money for mountaineering or sailing, I did it a lot,
            working two months a year was enough for shoes, food and simple basic.
            Library books is free food, if rich inside, you aren’t poor !

            At 30 years old I wanted to travel and started to make money,
            at 40 I was “rich enough” and stop working.
            With simple needs, good relationship, with little money it’s ok
            to travel comfortably in the Life alike I did…

            You have a proletarian viewpoint, I have a Martian viewpoint.
            You looks at the life from the bottom, I chose to look at it from the Mountain top !

            I have friends from every Strats of the Society,
            from the poorest among the poor to the World wealthiest…

            Travel and open your eyes, the World is wonderful and divers !

      • Merijn

        If that happens the U.S. Will be completely isolated in the Near Future…Americans have to Make Real Strong Decisions this Time…the World has had Enough….

      • Nod

        “all they have to do is get another political party ”

        That means stupidity m8….Time after time after time. The pattern is relentless, vote for one guy, he takes the lightning strike for working for business, then the herd runs to vote for the other guy, or doesn’t vote this time, just because. Then this guy does for business, the herd gets mad, and votes for the other guy again…repeat, repeat, repeat.

        If a person cannot see this pattern, and figure out the scam, they are stupid. .Fluoridated meek and stupid.

        We have the internet at our finger tips..And although they try to censor it by getting rid fo what they call fake news, well its better than the tube by far.

        “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.”

        Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564-581. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592714001595

    • Superfly

      Russia and its allies need to increase the cost to US occupation forces in the region. So far Russia has done itself a dangerous disservice by issuing empty threats and delusional “red lines as US and its puppets like even tiny UK and France kill Russians with impunity.

      • AlexanderAmproz

        The US built the Afghanistan war to drown Russia
        to take a revenge on Vietnam.
        Hopefully Syria will became the Afghanistan for the US.
        Don’t forget, Europe is under NATO occupation since 1949 !
        Europeans aren’t anti Russian !
        All Europeans from Gibraltar the the Oural and Caucasus
        are from Caucasian Celtic Populations origins !

        Anglo-American Money Owners Organized World War II
        http://www.voltairenet.org/article187508.html

        Zbigniew Brzezinski/US roll the Muslims and Russians in the flour !

        https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/05/29/zbig-m29.html
        Zbigniew Brzezinski, architect of the catastrophe in Afghanistan, dead at 89

        By Bill Van Auken

        29 May 2017

        Zbigniew Brzezinski, security adviser to Democratic President Jimmy Carter and a longtime proponent of an aggressive strategy for asserting US global hegemony, died Friday at the age of 89.

        During his four-year tenure in the Carter White House, Brzezinski was involved in a large number of criminal operations carried out by US imperialism around the globe, from support for the Shah’s attempts to drown the Iranian Revolution in blood to the initiation of a US policy in Central America that led to bloody counterinsurgency campaigns that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands.

        Unquestionably, however, the greatest of these crimes, and one for which he proudly took credit, was the orchestration and support of a dirty war waged by Islamist mujahedeen against the Soviet-backed government of Afghanistan at the end of the 1970s.

        Born into an aristocratic Polish family that was forced to take refuge in Canada, where his father was a diplomat at the outbreak of World War II, Brzezinski’s outlook and policies were grounded in a ferocious hatred of revolution, socialism and the Soviet Union.

        He was recruited into anti-Soviet operations while lecturing at Harvard University in the 1950s. He was among a delegation sent by the CIA through its front group, the “Independent Service for Information,” to intervene at a Soviet-backed world youth festival held in Vienna in 1959. He was described by contemporaries as the most anticommunist and provocative of those sent by the US intelligence agency.

        In the early 1970s, Brzezinski was tapped by David Rockefeller to head the Trilateral Commission, a body created to coordinate imperialist strategy between Washington, Western Europe and Japan. The commission, made up of influential business and political figures, in turn, threw its support behind the 1976 presidential campaign of Democrat Jimmy Carter, then governor of Georgia and seen as a Washington “outsider” who could provide a fresh face after the debacle of the administration of Richard Nixon and that of his successor, Gerald Ford. Members of the commission occupied key posts in the Carter administration, with Brzezinski as national security adviser exercising overwhelming influence over US foreign policy.

        It was in this position that Brzezinski authored one of the greatest crimes carried out by US imperialism in the 20th century, the instigation of a war in Afghanistan that has continued to ravage the country to this day.

        In its obituary of Brzezinski, the New York Times acknowledges that “his rigid hatred of the Soviet Union” had placed him “to the right of many Republicans, including Mr. Kissinger and President Richard M. Nixon.” It adds that under Carter he directed US policy with the aim of “thwarting Soviet expansionism at any cost…for better or worse.” As an example, it states, “He supported billions in military aid for Islamic militants fighting invading Soviet troops in Afghanistan.”

        This is a deliberate distortion of the real role played by Washington, its military and the CIA in Afghanistan, under Brzezinski’s direction.

        Brzezinski acknowledged in an interview with the French news magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in January 1998 that he initiated a policy in which the CIA covertly began arming the mujahedeen in July 1978—six months before Soviet troops intervened in Afghanistan—with the explicit aim of dragging the Soviet Union into a debilitating war.

        Asked, given the catastrophe unleashed upon Afghanistan and the subsequent growth of Islamist terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, whether he regretted the policy he championed in Afghanistan, Brzezinski replied:

        “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.”

        Asked specifically whether he regretted the CIA’s collaboration with and arming of Islamist extremists, including Al Qaeda, in fomenting the war in Afghanistan, Brzezinski responded contemptuously: “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”

        In the four decades of nearly uninterrupted fighting that flowed from Brzezinski’s “excellent idea”—with nearly 9,000 US troops still on the ground and plans being set in motion to carry out another escalation—over 2 million Afghans have lost their lives and millions more have been turned into refugees.

        In the aftermath of the Moscow Stalinist bureaucracy’s formal dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, Brzezinski refocused his long-standing maniacal hostility to the USSR toward a strategy to assert undisputed US hegemony over Eurasia.

        He was among the more influential imperialist strategists in shaping a policy of attempting to offset the long-term decline in the world position of American capitalism by resorting to Washington’s unchallenged supremacy in terms of military might. This turn would lead to unending wars in the Middle East and Central Asia designed to assert undisputed American dominance in the regions containing the lion’s share of the world’s oil and natural gas reserves.

        In an article published in the September-October 1997 issue of Foreign Affairs, Brzezinski argued:

        “Eurasia is the world’s axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world’s three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and historical legacy … In a volatile Eurasia, the immediate task is to ensure that no state or combination of states gains the ability to expel the United States or even diminish its decisive role.”

        Expanding on this thesis in his book The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski voiced his concern about the major obstacle to Washington pursuing such an aggressive drive for hegemony: the hostility of the vast majority of the American people to war.

        He wrote: “… America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifices (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” [The Grand Chessboard, Basic Books, pp. 35-36].

        Four years later, on September 11, 2001, the “sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being” that the former national security adviser saw as a necessary precondition for launching a global campaign of American militarism was served up by the very forces that he and the CIA had promoted in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda, with its historic ties to US intelligence, claimed credit for the attacks on New York City and Washington, which were carried out by individuals who were able to move remarkably unhindered in and out of the US.

        Brzezinski was a virulent opponent of revolution, socialism and any challenge to the existing capitalist order from the left. In 1968, during the mass protests against the Vietnam War, he wrote in the New Republic that students should be prevented from protesting by locking them up, adding that if the protests’ “leadership cannot be physically liquidated, it can at least be expelled from the country.”

        In more recent years, particularly in the wake of the meltdown of the global capitalist financial system in 2008, Brzezinski has repeatedly warned of the “growing risk of class hatred” and the danger of radicalization among young people under conditions of unsustainable levels of social inequality.

        In his 2012 book Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power, he wrote: “Populations of young adults… are especially explosive when combined with the revolution in communication technology.” He continued: “Often educated but unemployed, their resulting frustration and alienation” leaves them “susceptible to ideological agitation and revolutionary mobilization.”

        In a television interview that year, he warned that a growing “sense of social injustice can be terribly demoralizing and, politically in the long run, very dangerous.”

        While able to perceive this danger and issue his warnings, Brzezinski was no more able than any other representative of America’s capitalist ruling establishment to offer a rational, much less progressive, answer to the rising social and class conflicts that pose the threat of revolution.

      • Merijn

        The U.S. Is just printing All the Money they Need… gotta take the Printing-Machine away…Kill the FED and you’ll win the War…

        • Vince Dhimos

          No one in the West can kill the Fed, but the Chinese are in the process of doing that. The gold-backed yuan-denominated oil futures market in Shanghai is the first major step. http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/economics-and-finance/china-returns-the-world-to-the-gold-standard

          • Merijn

            That’s what I meant…they are workin’ on it…:)

        • Nod

          You need to kill the petro dollar, to kill the printing press. The American fdiollar sustains, because everyone needs buy it, in order to buy oil.

          Both Gaddafi and Saddam tried to sell oil in gold and Euros respectively, and they were invaded and murdered. Both countries now destabilized while now putting oil into our cars, profit to the rich, while supporting the purchase of American dollars.

          Russia and China now trade oil in currencies other than US dollars, and now we encircle them with missiles, tanks, and create hate against them.

          Libya was the most advanced nation in Africa, with benefits we western slaves dont even have. Now it is a breeding ground for terrorists and subjugation and a cesspool of privation.

          Want to kill the printing press, stop buying oil. Killing the fed, is impossible. They own everything and everyone important.

          You can however, make a personal choice to end your oil consumption.

          • Merijn
          • AlexanderAmproz

            http://www.voltairenet.org/article197477.html

            DIVERGENT INTERPRETATIONS IN THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST CAMP – PART 1

            The anti-imperialist camp: splintered in thought

            by Thierry Meyssan

            In 2011 when his country was subject to a jihadist siege, President Bashar el-Assad’s reaction was against the norm: rather than strengthening the powers of his security services, he cut them back. Six years on, his country is in the process of emerging victorious, in the most important war since Vietnam. This same type of aggression is unfolding in Latin America. Yet here, it is sparking off a far more classic response. In this article, Thierry Meyssan distinguishes the analysis and strategy of President Assad on the one hand and Maduro and Morales on the other. His aim is not to place these leaders in competition, but rather to call upon each of them to remove themselves from political catechisms and to pay due attention to the lessons learnt from the most recent wars.

            VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 15 AUGUST 2017

            In May 2017, Thierry Meyssan appeared on Russia Today and explained where the South American elites were going wrong in their fight against US imperialism. He insisted that there has been a sea-change in the way the US now wages armed conflicts and we now need to radically rethink how we should defend our homeland.

            The operation to destabilize Venezuela continues. The first phase: violent gangs demonstrating against the government killed passers by, as if citizenship created no bonds between them. The second phase: the major food suppliers organized food shortages in the supermarkets. Then some members of the forces attacked several ministers, called for a rebellion and now have retreated into hiding.

            Of course the international press never ceases to hold the “regime” responsible for the deaths of demonstrators. Yet it is a fact that a number of videos testify that these demonstrators were deliberately assassinated by demonstrators themselves. No regard is paid to this and on the basis of this false information, the press then proceeds to qualify Nicolas Maduro as a “dictator” just as it did six years ago with respect to Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar el-Assad.

            The United States has used the Organization of American States (the OAS) as an arm against President Maduro just like it once used the Arab League against President al-Assad. Caracas, not expecting to be excluded from the Organization, denounced this method and left of its own accord.

            Maduro’s government has however two failures on its balance sheet: the vast majority of its voters did not go to the polling stations for the legislative elections of 2015, allowing the opposition to sweep a majority in Parliament. it was caught out by the crisis of food products, even though the same thing had been organized in the past in Chile against Allende and in Venezuela against Chávez. It required several weeks to put in place new circuits to provide food.

            In all likelihood, the conflict that begins in Venezuela will not be held back by its borders. It will ooze out, embracing the entire North West of the South American continent and the Caribbean.

            An additional step has been taken with military preparations against Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador following Mexico, Colombia and British Guyana. The team responsible for co-ordinating these measures is from the former Office of Global Democracy Strategy. This was a unit established by President Bill Clinton, then continued by Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz. Mike Pompeo, the current director of the CIA, has confirmed that this unit exists. This has led to rumours in the press, followed up by President Trump, of a US military option.

            To save his country, President Maduro’s team has refused to follow the example of President al-Assad. Maduro’s team thinks that there is no real comparison between what is happening in Venezuela and Syria. The United States, the principal capitalist power, would set off to Venezuela to steal its oil, according to a plan that has been repeatedly played out in the past on three continents. This point of view was given further weight by a speech that Evo Morales, Bolivia’s President, recently delivered.

            Let us recall that in 2003 and 2011, President Saddam Hussein, the Guide Muammar Gaddafi and a number of President Assad’s advisors reasoned similarly. They thought that the US would attack the following states in succession: Afghanistan and Iraq, then Tunisia, Egypt and Libya and Syria. And why? For the sole reason of bringing about the collapse of regimes that were resisting its imperialism and controlling hydrocarbon resources in an expanded Middle East. A number of anti-imperialist authors cling to this analysis today. So for example, they use it to try to explain the war against Syria by reference to the interruption of the Qatari gas pipeline project.

            Now, this line of thinking is turning out to be false. The US is not looking to reverse progressive governments (Libya and Syria), nor to steal the region’s oil and gas. Its intent is to decimate States, to send people of these countries back to a pre-historic time where “man did not love his neighbour as God loved him but would pounce like a wolf upon his neighbour” [Translator’s note: the literal translation of the French original is: “man was a wolf for man”].

            Has toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and the regime of Gaddafi brought peace back to these states? No! Wars have continued even though “government of occupation” has been set up in Iraq, then a government composed of other governments in the region including those who collaborated with the imperialists opposed to national independence. Wars are still being waged. This surely evidences that Washington and London had no intention of toppling these regimes nor defending democracy. These were transparent covers for their true intentions which were to eliminate the people in these states. It is a basic observation that rocks our understanding of contemporary imperialism.

            This strategy, radically new, was taught by Thomas P. M. Barnett following 11-September 2001. It was publicly revealed and exposed in March 2003 – that is, just before the war against Iraq— in an article in Esquire, then in the eponym book, The Pentagon’s New Map. However, such a strategy appears so cruel in design, that no one imagined it could be implemented.

            Imperialism seeks to divide the world in two. One part will be a stable area which profits from the system while in the other part a terrifying chaos will reign. This other will be a zone, where all thought of resisting has been wiped it; where every thought is fixated on surviving; an area where the multinationals can extract raw materials which they need without any duty to account to anyone.

            According to this map, taken from one of Thomas P. M. Barnett’s power point slides, presented at a conference held at the Pentagon in 2003, every state in the pink zone must be destroyed. This project has nothing to with the struggle between classes at the national level nor with exploiting natural resources. Once they are done with the expanded Middle East, the US strategists are preparing to reduce the North West of Latin America to ruins.

            Since the eighteenth century and the British Civil War, Western development has been triggered by its attempt to do all it can to avoid chaos. Thomas Hobbes taught us to support the thinking of the State rather than risk experiencing this torment for another time. The notion of chaos only returned to us with Leo Strauss, after the Second World War. This philosopher, who has personally trained a number of personalities within the Pentagon, intended to build a new form of power by plunging part of the world into hell.

            Jihadism inflicted onto an expanded Middle East has shown us what is chaos.

            While President Assad reacted as anticipated to the events of Deraa (March – April 2011), by sending his army to quell the jihadists of the Mosque al-Omari, he was the first to understand what was happening. Far from increasing the powers of the forces to maintain order to repress the aggression sourced from abroad, he equipped his people with the means to defend their homeland.

            First: he lifted the state of emergency, dissolved the special courts, freed the Internet communications and forbid the armed forces to use their arms if to do so would endanger the lives of innocent civilians.

            When Assad took these decisions he was clearly not going with the flow. And these decisions were ladened with consequences. For example, at the time of the attack of a military convoy at Banias, soldiers held off using their weapons in self-defence; they preferred to be mutilated by the bombs of their attackers and occasionally die, rather than to fire, risking injuring inhabitants that were looking at them being massacred without intervening.

            Like many at this time, I thought that the President was too weak and his troops too loyal; that Syria was going to go down. However six years on, Bashar el-Assad and the Syrian armed forces met the challenge. While at the beginning the soldiers have struggled alone against foreign aggression, gradually, every citizen came on board, to defend the country.

            Those who were not able to or who did not want to resist, went into exile. It is clearly the case that the Syrian people have greatly suffered. That said, Syria is the only State in the entire world, since the Vietnam War, to have resisted until imperialism tires itself out and surrenders.

            Second: faced with this invasion of a multitude of jihadists, from Muslim populations all over the world – Morocco to China, President Assad took the decision to abandon part of his territory to save his people.

            The Syrian Arab Army confined itself to the “useful Syria”, that is, to the cities. It abandoned the countryside and the deserts to the attackers. Damascus kept supervising, uninterruptedly, the provision of food to every region under its control. Contrary to an idea accepted by the West as common knowledge, the only areas where there is famine are those areas under Jihadi control and in the cities that it has besieged; the “ foreign rebels” (forgive this oxymoron), supplied by “humanitarian” associations, use the distribution of food packages as a means of making starving populations submit to them.

            The Syria people have seen for themselves how the Republic alone assumed the role of feeding them and protecting them. The Muslim Brotherhood and their jihadists played no part.

            Third: In a speech delivered on 12 December 2012, President Assad traced, how he intended to remake political unity in his country. Of special mention, he pointed out the need to draft a new constitution and to submit it to adoption by a qualified majority of his people then to proceed to democratically elect all institutional officials, including of course, the President.

            At that time, the Westerners mocked the claim of President Assad to call elections when the war was at its bloodiest. Today, all diplomats involved in resolving this conflict including the UN, support Assad’s plan.

            While Jihadi commandos were freely roaming the entire country, notably Damascus, and were murdering politicians even invading their homes where their families were, to do so, President Assad has encouraged dialogue with nationals who oppose him. He guaranteed the security of the liberal Hassan el-Nouri and the Marxist Maher el-Hajjar so that they too, might risk presenting themselves at the presidential elections in June 2014. Despite an appeal to boycott issued by the Muslim Brotherhood and Western governments, despite jihadi terror, despite the fact that millions of citizens were exiled abroad, voter turn out (of those present) was 73.42 %.

            In the same way, from the beginning of the war, he created a ministry for National Reconciliation, something never seen before in a country where war is going on. Assad handed the ministry over to Ali Haidar, the President of PSNS, an allied party. He negotiated and concluded thousands of agreements taking into account the amnesty of citizens who had taken arms against the Republic and their integration in the Syrian Arab Army.

            During this war, President Assad has never used force against his own people. This is so, despite the allegations of those who freely accuse him of widespread torture. So, let me be clear: he has never set up mass executions nor mandatory conscriptions. It is always possible for a young man to avoid his military obligations. Administrative procedures allow any male citizen to evade national service if he does not desire to defend his country with weapons in hand. Only the exiled who have not had the occasion to pursue these procedures may find themselves in violation of these laws.

            For six years, President Assad has not stopped on the one hand, making an appeal to his people, asking them to thrust upon him obligations, and on the other hand, trying to feed them and to protect them, as far as he is able. He has always assumed the risk of giving before receiving. That is why today, he has won the confidence of his people, and can count on their active support.

            South American elites are wrong to pursue the fight of the previous decades for a fairer distribution of their wealth. The battle which they must focus is no longer one where the majority of the people and small class of privileged individuals are on opposite sides.

            The choice put to the peoples of the expanded Middle East and to the people of South America is this: aut defendendum vobis patriam est aut morendum vobis est (you must either defend your homeland or die). It is this question that they will have to respond to.

            The facts prove it: the number one priority of imperialism today is no longer plundering natural resources. Imperialism, unscrupulous, dominates the world. Yet now its vision has expanded to wiping out people and to destroying the societies in the regions where it is already exploiting resources.

            In this iron era, the Assad strategy alone allows us to stand tall and free

  • Xntrix

    Trump relies on Alex Jones’ infowars for ‘real news’. No wonder!

  • Gregory Gregory

    Alzheimer s disease

  • Mountains

    This must be another clash that has gone unreported

  • Well. Something’s needed to explain why Mattis had to talk Trump down from flattening Syria and hitting Russians to a token pos strike..

    Wonder if it had anything to do with that US helicopter that crashed and killed all in board – including more than a 100 relocating jihadis…….

    • Mountains

      I think the same.. I also remember right after the Wagner group massacre there was military build-up in DZ area. I guess something might have went down. Post-Wagner massacre

  • Jim Prendergast

    Peace and the freedom of Syria is the desire of the Syrian people and their elected government. The end of the war comes closer every day. Syria and her allies act wisely. They will win.

    • Merijn

      Your Absolutely RIGHT…😃

      • Superfly

        The sad fact is that over 200 Russians (mostly Wagner group), SAA, Hezbollah and Iranians were killed in a 8 hour attack by US and Kurdish forces at Deir Azzor and Russia as usual did nothing to even assist them. They were left without air cover and later Russia even failed to acknowledge the bloody incident. Russia is weak and has set a dangerous precedent like Arabs that it is too afraid to fight back, so US will keep on killing and humiliating Russians as does with Arabs and Muslims. Putin has really shamed Russia as a weak vassal failed state.

        • Merijn

          I have read this post before……

          • Nod

            superfly has an agenda me thinks. Be it personal or not. Because “its” conclusions are not based in anything but speculation and assumptions and ignorance.

            i WOULD SUGGEST THAT SUPERFLY IS A SOCK PUPPET. oR AN IGNORAMUS,.

          • Merijn

            THANKS, I’’LL TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT NEXT TIME….

        • Vince Dhimos

          I think what was shown in that video proves that Russia knows how to respond but is very careful how to do it. If that Satanovsy story is true, Russia really got revenge and checkmated US.

    • matt

      elected government???? FUCK OFF

      • v76

        fucktard sheep post

      • Nod

        You are a an ignorant turd, only capable of babbling bullshit.

        Because no matter how many times your masters tell you so, your ignorance is not knowledge.

        In May 2013, it was reported that even NATO recognized the Syrian president’s increased popularity. “The data, relayed to NATO over the last month, asserted that 70 percent of Syrians support” the Assad government. At present, the number is now at least 80 percent.

        The most telling barometer of Assad’s support base was the Presidential elections in June 2014, which saw 74 percent (11.6 million) of 15.8 million registered Syrian voters vote, with President al-Assad winning 88 percent of the votes. The lengths Syrians outside of Syria went to in order to vote included flooding the Syrian embassy in Beirut for two full days (and walking several kilometres to get there) and flying from countries with closed Syrian embassies to Damascus airport simply to cast their votes. Within Syria, Syrians braved terrorist mortars and rockets designed to keep them from voting; 151 shells were fired on Damascus alone, killing 5 and maiming 33 Syrians. ”

        “Candidate Party Votes %
        Bashar al-Assad Ba’ath Party 10,319,723 – 88.7%
        Hassan al-Nouri NIACS 500,279 -4.3%
        Maher Hajjar Independent 372,301- 3.2%
        Invalid/blank votes 442,108 -3.8%
        Total 11,634,412 100
        Registered votes/turnout 15,845,575 73.42
        Source: SANA, SANA
        ————-

        NEXT FACT that 30 nations oversaw and concluded the election was free and fair…

        “An international delegation from more than 30 countries including Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, India, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Russia, South Africa and Venezuela[12][13] issued a statement claiming the election was “free, fair and transparent”.[14]”

        NEXT fact Assads OPPONENET in that election also declared the elections free and fair…

        “Hassan al-Nouri – held a press conference at the Damascus Sheraton Hotel where he congratulated President Assad for “winning confidence of the Syrian people through winning the presidential elections.” Nouri also claimed that the electoral process had been clear and transparent to the entire world, adding that both he and his representatives had inspected the vote counting. ”

        Shut the fuck up now stupid. MSN and FOX are NOT news, they are propaganda.

      • Merijn

        Matt…matt…matt…I thought you were the nice & decent guy…. here you lose yourself a bit…..

  • 1691

    Have you noticed: the moment there is an article where the americans are brainwashing their local market the army of key board “warriors” pops up.

    • Nod

      sock puppets abound. Normally just smart enough to cut and paste the bullshit their computer coughs up to confuse an issue.

  • dhinds

    Syria’s elected government asked for Russia’s assistance. That is why Russian troops are present in Syria.

    Who invited the United States?

    • frankly

      Somehow the Russians don’t endlessly hammer this point, as more and more of us figure it out for themselves one starts to wonder. How many of the US’s bases worldwide have they been invited to? I reckon overwhenmingly they corrupted the officials in charge and now the locals face the daunting task of eviction.

      • Java Ape Timelord

        Germany and Japan are still on the USA books as enemy states.
        None of the military camps in these countries was by mutual agreement. USA is still in occupation.

        • frankly

          Lost count of how many bases they have spread throughout the world, would be shocked if even one of them has the backing of the majority of the locals.

        • Merijn

          They will Lose them All…slowly but surely….everyone is FED Up with’m! Those Times are a Good….no A Very Good Reason to Kick Them Out…..

      • Nod

        The USA has…………..

        “More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations
        The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

        In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing’s 2002 Map 1 entitled “U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of ‘Permanent War’”, confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

        The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

        In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

        These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).”

        https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases-2/5564

        • frankly

          Russia has like 3, in other countries, but they are labeled as aggressive!

    • Merijn

      The Falling Babylonian Empire…

      • Saupher

        thats what you think noob.

        • Merijn

          Go Fuck Yourself ZioNazi Shithead…get your Shekels…go suck your Khazarian Masters do them and us a favour

          • Saupher

            You need to seek mental help, is that what kind of a person you are?

          • Merijn

            Yup….and who are you? Calling me a Noob? Infowars Sucks….. your comments too

          • Merijn
          • matt

            pathetic…..

          • Merijn

            I am always Happy to see you again Matt… how are you doin’ bro, Alreet? Yeah…perhaps I could be a bit nicer to Asswipes… but I can’t…sorry, can happen in future events..my apologies upfront..

          • v76

            cnn that way fucktard sheep ———–>

          • Nod

            Better pathetic than a fluoridated stupid american like you obviously are.

          • Merijn

            He is Dutch like me……I apologise for Dutch Behaviour, they Bombed the Syrian People too…& I Hate the Dutch Government for that… the Guilty has to appear in a War Tribunal like the others…for they are Treacherous Slime

          • Nod

            No shame or guilt for you. My birth country murdered Libyan women and children. Because they are owned by money power.

            Every chance I get, I tell my countrymen how we are ALL murderers because of that fact. They hate me for it.

            Tough shit.

          • Merijn

            But you are Right…perhaps there will come a time they’ll realise that… Butterfly Effect…gotta start somewhere…it’s like throwing stones in the water…

          • Shylo Duffy

            My country is just as guilty as the rest of those that follow the Americans. .It shames me on a daily basis….We use to be known as peacekeepers…Today you know us as asskissers.

          • nshah

            Yeah.. but ur much, much more intelligent as I see it brother..it goes to Nod as well..!

          • Merijn

            Happy to see you again my Brother…! Things are starting to look positive these days…good things are happening…and that the Evil Ideology of them Wahbabis soon will be eradicated, and that Asia and the Middle East return to True Islam…it will make their World a lot more peaceful…time for some more strong prayers…(and some more cursing the Enemy on my behalf) hehehe

          • nshah

            Really pray & hope the same not only of your region but for the whole world too.. the world have had too much sufferings and are getting fed-up with the demon’s and Satan’s haunting us for decades now.. the culprit of the ME.. is the wahanjing (lol..!) hse of Satan..!
            Is there any news of that both father & sons of Satan after today’s insiden..? Really hope both of that SOBitches are dead by now.. or was just another false flag to implement a police state..? Guess both of them SOBs are afraid for their lives after the Ritz Hotel extortions.. lol.. God be with you always brother.. tx

          • Pathetic is what the people on your side do. And criminal.

        • Nod

          stupid is as stupid says huh forrest…

        • And what do you think? Maybe that is an action too much to ask for your ilk.

          • Saupher

            you guys are all terrible people, so much hated in your hearts its sad how blinded by it you are. 90 percent of Americans do not want anything to do with war, its not our fault our government does whatever the hell it wants to against our will. stop being demonic entities filled with hatred hoping for the death of innocents. true sickos you are.

          • frankly

            That’s not good enough any more, boo hoo, they made us do it! Syrians are dropping like flies, while you guys suck up the worlds commodities on the cheap, nurture addictions and bet on sports. Get it together, become the opposition not the enemy, die for your countrymen, not for the MIC. Grow up, this isn’t a Hollywood movie.

    • JPH

      Party crasher as always.

      • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

        The US and Saudi Arabia created and funded the trouble at this party and thought they sneak into the party while they allowed the gangs to do the distraction and as usual they sneak in .

    • Nod

      Man named Rothschild and his friends I beLIEve….

  • Joe

    What show? US version is a complete fabrication.

    So many loopholes.

    Next round no US plane can even fly in Syria

  • Zigfreid

    I beileive trumps comments are true . Many Russians were killed near Euphrates river a month or so ago . But I believe many Seals, SAS and French were killed and captured by Russian Syrian military in recent Douma operation. Many hundreds according to Chinese sources. That’s the reason for western msm outrage propaganda regarding. It’s tit for tat . It’s war . No army is immune to loss of life. Regardless of what western msm would have us believe

    • Java Ape Timelord

      I read an article the other day with references that the Russian mercenaries were not actually involved in the incident near the Euphrates river on 8th Feb 2018, but none the less were attacked and killed (about 10 to 20) and many more were wounded.

      I read also the Chinese account of the attack in Ghouta and capture and death of a number of USA etc troops. Not sure it was tit for tat, but it appears it happened.

      • Zigfreid

        I believe the Russians played down the number of military/mercenaries lost at Euphrates river. One fact I can’t ignore was an incident involving the Antonov plane crashing on approach to Latakia air base several weeks after initial reports western msm of Euphrates incident. Russia reported over 130 servicemen killed . A game of deception? Likewise the USA recently reported the loss of special forces in 2 helicopter crashes somewhere in America weeks after Ghouta fighting started. From the reports I’ve read this was in fact a failed rescue attempt in Ghouta. Both sides have indeed lost many hundreds of servicemen. A misstating of facts is merely to make it more palatable for their respective populace.

        • Java Ape Timelord

          My info did not come from the Russians and the numbers were based on local tribes’s evidence so no reason to play them down, however, I would not be surprised if numbers are played down by USA or Russia or etc.

      • Ivan Freely

        Where did you get this info from?

  • as

    People died. Too bad an assets and director of crap false flag in Daraa were killed after Kalibr Missiles lands on their shooting location.

  • zman

    Even when these liars seem to be ‘suspicious’, they lie. It is a favorite ploy used in the west by politicians and ‘journalists ‘ alike. “the Syrians shoot their missiles after our missiles land.”…meant to re-inforce the fairy tale of interceptions never happened, while supposedly being skeptical of Trump. Yeah, all 103 missiles hit their targets…sure they did. This tactic is so thread-bare as to be comical, yet it is all they have…pathetic. These professional liars should all be hung.

  • John

    President Trump is not going to come clean on anything. His behavior is the same as it was in at least the late 1980s and early 90s. He is mouthy and careless. I was hoping or better, for longer from him. I have to say at this point, he is probably over the edge. His policies will be a pain in the rear but, and with all do respect, President Trump is not a warrior, not a war leader and will not be a functional guy in a pinch when it comes to blood. All of this double talking and straight up delusional behavior, does not bode well. Still I hope somebody wakes up. A good day to all.

  • Promitheas Apollonious

    very hard to believe anything a bullshitter says, especially a bend over sissy as trumpo is.

  • AlexanderAmproz

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article200849.html

    A total success? Some glitches in the Western Bombing of Syria

    Two US missiles launched during the Western bombing of Syria did not successfully detonate. Both these explosives have been sent to Russia for analysis [1].

    The US and Russian technology in this type of weapon are radically different. As a result, progress made in one system, is difficult to transplant to and bring benefits to the other system. That said, Russian military engineers do intend to study the US missiles to improve the Russian anti-missile system.

    A French air plane, Rafale, which was not capable of bringing down one of the two Scalp-EG missiles had to land [2].

    Three naval cruise missiles made in France meant to be fired against Syria, could not be launched from the French multi-mission frigates [3]. These high-tech missiles which come at the considerable cost of around 2.8 million euro per missile, have never been used in combat.

    Both the US and French governments have tried to smooth away these problems, declaring on 14 April 2018 that the joint operation against Syria had been a total success.

    From Moscow, the Russian Defence Minister revealed that more than two thirds of the missiles used in the Western attack against Syria had been destroyed in flight by Syria Arab Army, a fact that both the US and the French governments contest [4].

    Translation

    Anoosha Boralessa

    [1] «Quel sort est réservé aux «missiles intelligents» US qui n’ont pas explosé en Syrie?», Sputnik, 19 avril 2018.

    [2] «Frappes en Syrie : un des missiles Scalp « n’est pas parti » du Rafale», Guerric Poncet, Le Point, 18 avril 2018.

    [3] «Couacs inexpliqués pour les missiles de MBDA au large des côtes syriennes», La Lettre A, 17 avril 2018.

    [4] «Conférence de presse du colonel-général Sergueï Roudskoï sur l’attaque occidentale de la Syrie», Réseau Voltaire, 14 avril 2018.

  • palegreendot

    Menendez is an Israel-First-and-Laster.

    Trump needs to point that out, repeatedly, to actual AMERICANS.

  • Terence Silvestre Jr.

    The truth, I do not know what to believe, and even worse, nor who to believe, in that super spider web of diplomacy and war of deception between Russian and American intelligence agencies, with all american allied puppets involved, a super big puzzle very complicated to solve.

  • Arseniy ‘Motorola’ Pavlov

    Or may be, he refers to this

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/02/politics/us-british-soldiers-killed-syria-isis-kill-mission/index.html

    Two angloamerican invaders terminated; five more injured.

  • dontlietome

    I think the rumours that Trump maybe the whooping the US Spec.ops got in East Ghouta, the Chinese intel quotes “over 200 dead” and on the Brits side, 22 Squadron of the SAS, many were killed and CAPTURED by the Spetznaz, ASWELL as Chemical weapons techs and chemists……………..you can read the english subtitles here:-

    https://vimeo.com/263728681
    Now you know why that filthy brutish bitch Theresa May was creaming her incontinence pants………………..
    Please watch and forward to friends and like minded folks.

    • Paulskiy

      Thank you! Really interesting!

    • Vince Dhimos

      Wow! THANKS! Can you send a URL or page source code so we can share?

      • dontlietome
      • dontlietome
        • Vince Dhimos

          Thanks. I could get the URL but it looks like Vimeo doesn’t give the viewer a chance to see the code to embed in a blog. At any rate, this is the most exciting news I have seen in over a year. The US seems to have painted itself into a corner this time,

  • Roger Snellman

    This was reported over a month ago about a battle on February 8-9 where Syrian government troops and some Russian nationals attacked a coalition position, near Al Tabiyeh, Syria trying to take control of an area rich in oil. Russia denied any Russian involvement or deaths. Later they admitted Russian Mercenaries employed by the Syrian Army may have died. Now, finally, Russia is admitting the truth, their forces went toe to toe with US backed forces and they were forced to run with more than a bloody nose. My sources indicate around 200 Russian “Mercenaries” dead. US helicopters were key in the fight and pursued the retreating Syrian and Russian forces. They were about to slaughter all retreating forces when a high level decision was made to spare them after contact with Russian Military leaders.

    • dontlietome

      Looks like the yanks were repaid in spadefuls……………. 200 Spec ops is a hefty price to pay, and then there are those captured SAS troopers……………………When the Russians serve up revenge, it is ice cold, just like a quality vodka.

      • Roger Snellman

        Where and when was the battle you are referring to?

        • dontlietome

          Eastern Ghouta, I cannot be exact as to the time of the actual battle, but the conflict in that area has been going on since the Yanks and Brits established a FOB there, which is over 2 years ago. The battle that broke the terrorists defences occurred about 3 weeks ago, once the Russian Military Intel had pin pointed where the US Spec ops, SAS and other Israeli and Nato troops were living and sleeping and where the Operations Room and Sat.Intel Eq. was stored as well as Aux.power supplies. The Russians had hacked the comm’s and discovered that a Chemical Weapons lab was being built underground too. So about 3 weeks ago, ( could be longer ),under the cover of heavy jamming, the RuAF, launched a precision bombing attack and wiped out the almost all the facilities mentioned. The SAS guys who survived , were captured. Up to 12000 enemy terrorists have been neutralized by Syrian and Russian Spetznaz and bombing by both air forces. This is a significant and magnificent victory of good over evil. The Yanks and Brits must have shit them selves when they heard of their losses……………but that is good news for all of us.

          • Roger Snellman

            Cannot find anything on the web to back up your story. Looks like you are trolling me.

          • dontlietome

            Roger, what I have told you is based on Chinese Intel, if you have bothered to follow the link, and watched the video, then , sure you are entitled to come to your own conclusions. But if you have watched the video, then the conclusions are pretty much as I have explained them. This is not the first of such battles, a similar incident occurred in Aleppo after Ru. Intel discovered a FOB/Ops centre that was manned by US/Brit/Isreali/Nato Intel operatives who were feeding live Intel to ISIS. 3 Kalibr cruise missiles solved that problem, and shortly after Aleppo was taken by the SAA. As for troling you…………. I have neither the time, nor the interest. As yourself why you would NOT hear about this latest battle if it were not for the Chinese and Russians ? I would also courteously ask you to not contact me again. thank you.

    • Nexusfast123

      Mercenaries are not Russian military regulars so the Russians are correct. There are mercenaries from a wide range of countries involved – a holiday opportunity for the adventurous and psychopathic. If there were 200 dead there would be much more evidence but there is not. Various reports say that 20 or so Russian mercenaries died. If the Russian military did an op like this it would be with air cover. Also if you can’t quote your sources then its just your pointless opinion and no one cares.

  • Ace

    Why does anyone need to be “tough on the Russians”? Do they drive too fast in school zones? Do they eat their food with their fingers? Do they not worship homosexuality? Wait! I know! They do not bow down to Donald Trump and all American neocons!

  • hwy
  • hwy
  • hwy

    Read those 2 links.
    That was why UK and US were so desperate to attack Syria.
    Hoping to rescues US and UK agents and mercenaries.

  • Ivan Freely

    “We killed some folks.”

  • Manuel Flores Escobar

    USA only lie and sometimes kill Syrian soldiers…its the frustration of losing the Syrian war…No Gulf states pipeline through Syria to EU….by the way…Why 76 cruise missile vs 3 small buildings?…26 per building!!…one for the bathroom,another for the Kitchen, another for the boardroom, another for the storeroom….and so up to 26 in the same building with only 2 floors…..

  • AlexanderAmproz

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/20/how-come-questions/

    “How Come?” Questions

    by ANDREW LEVINE FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

    Photo by Elvert Barnes | CC BY 2.0

    There are many reasons why American politics often seems more baffling than the politics of other so-called democracies.

    These would include un- and anti-democratic provisions enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and statutory law, the duopoly party system that the Democratic and Republican Parties have concocted over the years, and spillovers from the economic into the political realm.

    With increasing economic inequality and Supreme Court rulings that have turned “campaign contributions,” political corruption by another name, into Constitutionally protected free speech, the spillover problem has become especially egregious in recent years.

    Add to that a powerful propaganda system — run mainly by private corporations – that dumbs down and degrades public discourse.

    I don’t just mean Fox and Breitbart and others of their ilk. Because of their hold over a sizeable portion of the population, they are a menace. On the merits, however, they are not worth being taken seriously; their “journalism” is beneath contempt.

    The propaganda system I have in mind is the one led by ostensibly respectable purveyors of news and opinion — such as the two “liberal” cable networks, MSNBC and CNN, National Public Radio, The New York Times and TheWashington Post.

    Their ability to shape public opinion is so powerful and their influence is so pervasive that the ridiculousness of much of what passes for gospel truth in the political arena is seldom even acknowledged.

    One of the things they do, in order to obfuscate reality and denigrate the “bad guys” of the hour, is use key words in misleading and tendentious ways.

    Loosen the wool that is so tightly pulled over peoples’ eyes, however, and “how come?” questions that, properly considered, lay bare what is going on come immediately to mind.

    Conceptually rigorous, historically informed reflection is often indispensable for making sense of the political scene. “How come?” questions are different. Hidden in plain view, their answers are usually obvious as can be.

    Here are two timely examples:

    How come some countries have “regimes” while others have “governments”? And how come we Americans are governed by “administrations”?

    “Regime” can be, and often is, used to denote entire ensembles of social, political, and economic institutions. “Governments,” then, would be components of regimes.

    However, in our propaganda system, “regime” has sinister implications. It is used to denote foreign governments that the American government holds in disfavor.

    Bashar al-Assad heads a regime; Vladimir Putin does too. He moved into “regime” territory by complicating American machinations in Ukraine. Then his support for Assad got him ensconced there.

    Needless to say, none of this would have played out in quite the way that it has had our military and our “defense” industries and those whose economic fortunes depend upon them not found themselves in need of a more robust and terrifying enemy than the ones available to them since the Cold War ended.

    Before the Arab Spring in Syria turned into a civil war, Assad was a force for regional stability. Back then too, the Syrian government was more or less friendly to the United States, and vice versa.

    That changed in the course of the shifting alliances that emerged as the Syrian civil war took shape. Thus the Syrian government nowadays is the very model of a “regime,” a paradigm case. It is also, as everybody “knows,” a regime led by a vicious dictator who likes to kill his own people with poison gas.

    Meanwhile, Benjamin Netanyahu, a man every bit as malevolent and depraved as Assad, heads a government, not a “regime,” notwithstanding the fact that, with the support of almost the entire Israeli political class and the acquiescence or worse of the four-fifths of the Israeli population that is ethnically Jewish, the Israel Defense Forces, “the most moral army in the world,” uses live ammunition to kill scores and maim hundreds of peaceful demonstrators on its border with Gaza. The propaganda system is powerful indeed.

    The three mad bombers of Syria — Theresa May, Emmanuel Macron, and the supremely iniquitous Donald Trump, also head governments, not regimes, even though they, Trump especially, support Israeli shooters far more extensively than the Russians support Syrians accused of deploying poison gas.

    When those three and others like them talk about “regime change” what they have in mind has little to do with regimes, strictly speaking, and everything to do with changing the governments of countries whose sovereignty they have violated or would like to violate.

    In most instances, this would not even involve changing basic political institutions, much less the social or economic context in which they operate. The regime changes bandied about in Washington and European capitals amount to little more than the replacement of insufficiently submissive leaders by more biddable ones.

    Regime change in the narrow, propagandistic sense was seldom if ever an explicitly proclaimed objective of either side during the Cold War that ended a quarter century ago. Ironically, though, regime change in its theoretically sounder and more expansive sense actually was a goal of the contending parties.

    The United States and its allies wanted to bring the Soviets, the Chinese and their “satellites” into the American fold – by installing or restoring capitalism and by transforming their institutional arrangements and political practices in ways that facilitate American domination.

    The reality was different because the Soviet Union was never in any position to dominate more developed Western countries, but, at least in theory, the Soviet side sought world domination too; a point persistently drummed into Americans’ heads.

    The Cold War that the West has been stirring up for the past several years is different. It could hardly not be. Such differences as there may be in the political economic systems of Russia and the United States are not worth fighting over; they are not what set the sides apart.

    When they speak of “the Putin regime” in Western capitals and on Western media, the point is to deride the Russian government and its leader; not its economic system, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the West’s.

    And, self-righteous posturing aside, Western countries could care less about Russia’s institutions or their impact on the Russian people. Their quarrel is with the Russian government or rather with the Russian president and the persons closest to him.

    It is different with Syria and other less developed countries. But ever since Bush-era neoconservatives led the United States and its “coalition partners” to disaster in Afghanistan and Iraq, nobody wants to take on what true regime change would entail; “nation building” is expensive and, worse still, bound to fail.

    Therefore nowadays, “regime change” means nothing more extensive or radical than personnel changes in the upper echelons of the state and the economy.

    And yet, media flunkies automatically use “regime” and “government” in the tendentious ways that their corporate bosses – and their bosses’ class brothers and sisters – favor. Largely for this reason, the general public does so too.

    Whatever else our propaganda system may be, it is frighteningly efficient at winning over “hearts and minds.”

    There is an additional wrinkle as well. Our media, and therefore nearly everyone influenced by them, call the American government, or at least the part of it where executive power resides, an “administration.”

    This effectively takes real politics out of the discussion – not the electoral craziness corporate media obsess about, but genuine contestation over the distribution of benefits and burdens and over the course that state institutions ought to follow.

    Ironically, there is a sense in which, in doing so, they are following a more worthy precedent.

    • AlexanderAmproz

      In the Anti-Dühring (1877), Friedrich Engels famously contrasted “the governance of persons” with “the administration of things.” His idea was that, after successful proletarian revolutions, as class conflicts are overcome in transitions from socialism to communism, the state, the nexus of institutional arrangements through which class conflicts are organized and managed for the benefit of ruling classes, withers away.

      His reflections on these matters are part of a larger Marxist account of the structure and direction of human history. Obviously, the American propaganda system has no interest in anything like that. Otherwise, though, what Engels meant by “administration” is essentially what those who fashion and run our propaganda system have in mind.

      Their idea, like his, is that with fundamental social divisions overcome, governance devolves into management; as what was once a politically contested set of institutions and policies that functioned to coordinate conflicting class interests (in accord with the interests of the economically dominant class), devolves into a technical problem of coordinating the various parts of a large organization whose basic goals are uncontested.

      That governments only “administer” might seem an odd thing to claim in a political world as polarized as ours, but there is a certain, unintended, wisdom implicit in that understanding. On matters of little consequence to economic elites, American politics is polarized as can be. But the underlying social and political policies endorsed by both duopoly parties are essentially the same.

      However paradoxical it might seem, our elections are therefore devoid of political dimensions, except at the margins or in relatively trivial respects.

      How come the bad guys have oligarchs, while we have plutocrats, some of whom are, as Obama famously said, just “savvy businessmen”?

      Like “regime,” “oligarch” is another good word that the propaganda system has appropriated and misused.

      Since Aristotle, if not before, oligarchy designated forms of government in which “the few” rule. The contrast was with democracy, literally the rule of the “demos” (in contrast to the rule of elites), but in practice the rule of “the many.” Oligarchs did not have to be rich; they were not, for example, in ancient Sparta, Aristotle’s paradigm case.

      Strictly speaking, Russia is not an oligarchy any more than the United States is. Neither is it a “dictatorship.” It has a strong state, lorded over by an authoritarian leader with illiberal attitudes, but then, nowadays, the United States does too. The difference is just that Putin is better at it than Trump.

      Like the United States, Russia has obscenely rich people who enjoy inordinate political influence. Call them “plutocrats” on that account; “plutocracy” means the rule of the rich. But, just as in the United States, Russian plutocrats do not run the state – not in theory, and not in practice either. They are therefore not oligarchs in the strict sense.

      It was not always so. In the Soviet system, the “commanding heights” of major social, political and economic institutions were effectively run by the Communist Party; and the Party itself was hierarchically structured to such a degree that it would not be far-fetched to hold that the definition of oligarchy, rule of the few, correctly applied.

      Those days are over. Today’s Russian “oligarchs” are just plutocrats who happen to be from Russia and other currently out of favor, former Soviet republics.

      They differ from our plutocrats in at least one other key respect: for the most part they started out not as “kleptocrats.” That descriptively apt term has no theoretical meaning, apart from what its etymology implies. After the Fall of Communism, while reversion to a more primitive and irrational capitalist economic system was underway, thieves (of formerly public property) effectively ran the state.

      With privatization proceeding at a feverish pace, leading figures from the old regime, seized opportunities to enrich themselves by taking over state assets. To do this, they needed political help. Throughout the Brezhnev era, that help was forthcoming; the level of corruption and venality was extreme.

      But, again, the kleptocrats were, if anything, closer to being oligarchs under Communism than in the Wild West capitalism of the post-Communist era.

      Indeed, it was only after Communism imploded, that they became truly rich. Under Communism, incumbents of top positions, members of the so-called nomenklatura, had greater access to goods and services and other amenities than average citizens. But they were not rich by Western standards. The capitalist world is full of people, far from the seats of power, richer than they.

      Nevertheless, calling them “oligarchs” and using their wealth against them makes sense insofar as the idea is to use the very thought of their nefariousness to advance the interests of nefarious American plutocrats.

      From time immemorial, “oligarchy” has contrasted with “democracy.” The gap between the real world of Western democracy and the democracy of political philosophers is enormous, of course, but defenders of the status quo in “democratic” countries would be at a loss if they had to face the implications of this plain fact.

      But they are not beyond using words, deliberately or not, to obfuscate the reality they refuse to confront; not beyond, for example, depicting Russian “oligarchs” as sworn enemies of American democracy – as if our homegrown plutocrats, with our bipartisan political class and their media flunkies in tow, weren’t already doing a far better job of undermining what little democracy we have than faraway Russians possibly could.

      Meanwhile, giving “plutocrats” a pass or cutting them slack or even, like Obama, praising their business acumen whenever an appropriate situation arises, is as American as open carry laws and apple pie.

      But for the deeply engrained inclination of distressingly many Americans to glorify individuals, no matter how loathsome, who succeed in business, the fact that our “populists” embrace Donald Trump and others like him would be inconceivable.

      But embrace him, they do. Evidently, even wealth acquired by inheritance and augmented by shady business deals and by stiffing creditors, contractors and workers, is, as Trump’s hapless evangelical supporters might say, an outward sign of inward grace.

      Even so, the fact that loyalty to Trump has survived more than fifteen months of Trump’s tenure in office seems almost preternaturally unfathomable.

      Hypocrisy, ignorance, stupidity, and the echo chamber of rightwing pseudo-journalists and media pundits explain a lot. No doubt, the understandable reluctance of the conman’s marks to face up to the plain fact that they have been snookered is a factor too.

      But the main cause is that our “regime’s” propagandists ply their trade well.

      However, their deceptions are easily defeated. It is often enough just to throw off the blinders, face reality squarely, and use a little common sense.

      It will then become obvious how strange much that we are made to take for granted is, as “how come?” questions tumble out, and the miasma that engulfs us lifts just a little.

      Join the debate on Facebook

      More articles by:ANDREW LEVINE

      ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What’s Wrong With the Opium of the People. He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

  • AlexanderAmproz

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/20/the-great-game-comes-to-syria/

    The Great Game Comes to Syria

    by CONN HALLINAN

    An unusual triple alliance is emerging from the Syrian war, one that could alter the balance of power in the Middle East, unhinge the NATO alliance, and complicate the Trump administration’s designs on Iran. It might also lead to yet another double cross of one of the region’s largest ethnic groups, the Kurds.

    However, the “troika alliance”—Turkey, Russia and Iran—consists of three countries that don’t much like one another, have different goals, and whose policies are driven by a combination of geo-global goals and internal politics. In short, “fragile and complicated” doesn’t even begin to describe it.

    How the triad might be affected by the joint U.S., French and British attack on Syria is unclear, but in the long run the alliance will likely survive the uptick of hostilities.

    But common ground was what came out of the April 4 meeting between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Meeting in Ankara, the parties pledged to support the “territorial integrity” of Syria, find a diplomatic end to the war, and to begin a reconstruction of a Syria devastated by seven years of war. While Russia and Turkey explicitly backed the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, Iran was quiet on that issue, preferring a regional solution without “foreign plans.”

    “Common ground,” however, doesn’t mean the members of the “troika” are on the same page.