Why Did the West Help ISIS Spread Hysteria Post-Berlin Attack?

December 29, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The Washington Post - among others - hit the ground running in the wake of an apparent terrorist attack in Germany's capital of Berlin before evidence was forthcoming and even before German police arrested a suspect.

A truck plowed into a crowded Christmas market, killing 12 and injuring many more in what resembled an attack in Nice, France where a truck likewise plowed into a crowd killing 86 and injuring hundreds more.

Spreading ISIS Propaganda

The Washington Post's article and others like it followed the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) allegedly taking credit for the incident. Undeterred by a lack of evidence, the Washington Post and other media outlets - eager to capitalize on the attack to further Western narratives - concluded that the attack was aimed at "sharpening the divide between Muslims and everyone else."

The Washington Post's article, "Truck attack may be part of ISIS strategy to sharpen divide between Muslims and others," would claim:

The claim on the official Amaq media channel was short and distressingly familiar: A �soldier of the Islamic State� was behind yet another attack on civilians in Europe, this time at a festive Christmas market in Berlin. 

The accuracy of the claim remained in question Tuesday as German authorities searched for both a suspect and a motive behind the deadly truck assault on holiday revelers. But already it appeared that the attack had achieved one of the Islamic State�s stated objectives: spreading fear and chaos in a Western country in hopes of sharpening the divide between Muslims and everyone else.

The Washington Post's "analysis" fails to explain why ISIS would target a nation so far playing only a minor role in anti-ISIS operations or the logic in provoking a wider divide between Muslims and the West. At one point, the Washington Post actually suggests ISIS may be trying to hinder the flow of refugees away from their territory toward nations like Germany with open-door policies welcoming them.

In reality, the Washington Post and the "experts" it interviewed are merely attempting to perpetuate the myth of what ISIS is and what its supposed objectives and motivations are.

Understanding what ISIS really is, and what it is truly being used for, goes far in explaining why the incident has been so eagerly promoted as a "terrorist attack," and why other incidents like it are likely to follow.


ISIS Was Created By and For Regime Change in Syria and Beyond  

The United States government in a leaked 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo would admit that "supporting powers" including "the West" sought the rise of what it called at the time a "Salafist principality" in eastern Syria, precisely where ISIS is now currently based.

The leaked 2012 report (.pdf) states (emphasis added): 

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were that sought the creation of a "Salafist" (Islamic) principality" (State), the DIA report explains:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

In 2014, in an e-mail between US Counselor to the President John Podesta and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it would be admitted that two of America's closest regional allies - Saudi Arabia and Qatar - were providing financial and logistical support to ISIS.

The e-mail, leaked to the public through Wikileaks, stated:

...we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to [ISIS] and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

While the e-mail portrays the US in a fight against the very "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State) it sought to create and use as a strategic asset in 2012, the fact that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both acknowledged as state sponsors of the terrorist organization - and are both still enjoying immense military, economic, and political support from the United States and its European allies - indicates just how disingenuous America's "war" on ISIS really is.

The scale of the relatively recent attack on Syria's eastern city of Palmyra took place along a front 10's of kilometers wide, involving heavy weapons, hundreds of fighters, and was only achievable through immense and continuous state sponsorship as have been all of ISIS' gains across the region.

It and "other radical Sunni groups" remain the only relevant armed opposition on the ground contesting the Syrian government.

As early as 2007, as revealed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 article, "The Redirection: Is the Administration�s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?," it was made clear that the US sought to arm and back Al Qaeda-linked militants to overthrow the government's of Iran and Syria and to do so by laundering weapons, cash, and other forms of support through allies including Saudi Arabia.

ISIS is the full-scale manifestation of this long-documented conspiracy.

So What Did the Berlin Attack Really Seek to Achieve? 

Sidestepping verifiably false narratives surrounding the myth of ISIS' origins and motivations, and recognizing it as a whole cloth creation of the West for achieving Western geopolitical objectives, indicates that attacks like those in Nice, France, and now apparently in Berlin, Germany are aimed at perpetuating a lucrative strategy of tension in which Muslims are increasingly targeted and isolated in the West, more readily recruited by terrorists allowed to operate under the noses of Western security and intelligence agencies, and sent to wage the West's proxy wars in Syria, Iraq, and eventually Iran.

While the excuses made by newspapers like the Washington Post change with the wind on a daily basis to explain ISIS' creation and actions, the West's calculus - warned about by Seymour Hersh in 2007, documented in a 2012 US DIA memo, admitted to in a 2014 leaked e-mail, and evident amid ISIS' current, wide scale operations in Syria only possible through substantial state sponsorship - has been singular in nature and evident for years - even before the Syrian conflict began.

As long as Washington and its allies believe it is geopolitically profitable to maintain the existence of ISIS - used as both a proxy mercenary force and as a pretext for direct Western military intervention anywhere the terrorist organization conveniently "appears," attacks like those in Brussels, Paris, Nice, and now apparently in Berlin will persist.

At any time of Washington and Brussels' choosing, they could expose Saudi Arabia and Qatar's role in sponsoring ISIS. At any time of Washington and Brussels' choosing, they could also expose and dismantle the global network of madrases both nations - with the cooperation of Western intelligence agencies - use to fill the ranks of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Instead, the West covertly assists Saudi Arabia and Qatar in expanding and directing these terrorist networks - using them as a proxy mercenary force and a ready-made pretext for military intervention abroad and as a constant means of dividing and distracting the public at home.

Were the state sponsors of terrorism fully exposed and removed from the equation, the United States and its European allies would find themselves deployed across the planet, engaged in regime change operations, invasions, and occupations without any credible casus belli.

With the US and its allies determined to reassert and maintain global hegemony everywhere from the Middle East and North Africa to Central and East Asia, the manufactured threat of state sponsored terrorism - sponsored by the West's oldest and closest Arab allies and the West itself - will persist for years to come.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.   

2017: A Year of Transition and Trouble

December 24, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Predictions aside, there are obvious trends, plots, and paradigm shifts that will continue onward into the new year, that geopolitical observers should be distinctively aware of.

1. The War in Syria is Not Over 

The United States conspired as early as 2007 to overthrow the government of Syria through the use of armed militants - particularly those aligned to Al Qaeda and who enjoy state sponsorship from America's Persian Gulf allies.

The goal of eliminating the Syrian government was not an isolated objective, but rather fits into a much larger geopolitical agenda - including the overthrow of the Iranian government and the movement of militant proxies back into southern Russia and even into western China.

Russia's involvement in the Syrian conflict, and the duration of the conflict itself complicates, even sets back US efforts toward these ends, but Washington and Wall Street's desire for global hegemony will simply see these plans attempt to adapt and overcome current setbacks.

According to the Brookings  Institution's 2009 policy paper, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran," one option proposed includes the US arranging with Israel for Israeli forces to conduct what would appear to be a unilateral attack on Iran.

The paper states:

...the most salient advantage this option has over that of an American air campaign is the possibility that Israel alone would be blamed for the attack. If this proves true, then the United States might not have to deal with Iranian retaliation or the diplomatic backlash that would accompany an American military operation against Iran. It could allow Washington to have its cake (delay Iran�s acquisition of a nuclear weapon) and eat it, too (avoid undermining many other U.S. regional diplomatic initiatives).

For this to be convincing, the US and Israel would need to feign a diplomatic fallout, one the current administration of US President Barack Obama has been performing and just recently ratcheted up at the UN Security Council. With President-elect Donald Trump - undeniably and very publicly pro-Israel - coming into office in January, the window is closing for this option to be convincing.

One aspect of a covertly US-backed Israeli attack on Iran includes an opportunity for the US to subsequently intervene militarily if Iran were to retaliate. It is essentially a trap baited for Tehran. The trap could be sprung before President Obama leaves office, and US military intervention executed as President-elect Trump enters office.

Of course, Iran now possesses Russian S-300 anti-air defense systems, has a more formidable army today than when Brookings and other US policymakers first concocted war plans against Tehran, and the dynamics in the region have changed considerably as well. However, President-elect Trump has surrounded himself both during his campaign for president and amongst his incoming cabinet, with men who have promoted war with Iran for years.

This is perhaps one of the first, and greatest dangers that will need to be navigated around in 2017.

2. Economic Paradigm Shift, Driven by Technology 

It could be easily said that alternative energy and electric cars are already creating shifting trends in global economics and the geopolitical power derived from it. The cost and proliferation of solar power continues to favor its use against traditional forms of power production, and electric cars are finally being taken seriously by traditional manufacturers in the face of stiff competition from newcomers like Tesla Motors.

Nations that depend on petroleum and other fossil fuels for a substantial fraction of their GDP will need to begin planning how they will navigate what will inevitably be a total transition away from these sources of energy.


Automation is also a growing economic trend. Jobs are being taken from workers from North America to Asia by increasingly capable robots and forms of computer-controlled manufacturing. However, another component of this shifting trend is a drastic drop in prices and an exponential climb in capabilities of these automated systems. This makes it possible for smaller companies to use automation to manufacture locally, disrupting industrial monopolies and distribute the wealth obtained through automation through local entrepreneurship.

An example of this is 3D printing - with some machines with price tags comparable to a desktop computer. People working as freelance designers can now also include - and profit from - physical prototyping services once only possible from larger firms. As automated systems drop in cost and improve in capabilities, local companies will be able to do more with less, decentralizing manufacturing from the current, globalized model that now defines it.

How nations manage this transition - from China to Europe to the United States - will determine how much social upheaval is created as automation continues to take over. Those nations with highly unskilled workforces and with weak, inflexible education systems will suffer most, while those who retrain their populations to be designers and local entrepreneurs will survive, even thrive.

3. The Rise of Artificial Intelligence 

Science fiction horror stories aside, artificial intelligence (AI) in the form of machine learning, is already taking over a large number of highly specialized tasks - and doing them far better than traditional computers or human workers could ever do.

These tasks include everything from energy efficiency studies and automation, providing advice to doctors, and gaming financial markets, to providing protocols for advanced genetic engineering and image recognition and automatic tagging on social media websites like Facebook. Other possible applications include teaching AI systems to hack faster and more adaptively than any human could. AI systems are also being taught to write news articles and even manage social media accounts like Twitter.

While AI will not manifest itself as sentient machines seeking to usurp humanity yet, these highly focused uses of AI give their human operators uncontested advantages in whatever realm they are applied in. An AI arms race of sorts has erupted, and in 2017, AI will increasingly be used to provide world leaders in AI research and development economic and geopolitical edges over their competitors and enemies.

A balance of power must be struck between nations and within nations to prevent the very sort of technological disparity that left the United States in 1945 as the only nation wielding atomic weapons. With that uncontested advantage, the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of people. It would use its advantage in the field of nuclear weapons as leverage geopolitically for years - threatening to use the weapons everywhere from the Korean Peninsula to Vietnam.

The sort of damage caused by such disparity in the field of AI cannot be predicted - but what can be predicted with absolute certainty, is that any advantage the world affords aspiring hegemons like the US, will be used and abused eagerly and without hesitation.

4. China and Asia Still Face American Designs for Regional Primacy 

The United States' "pivot to Asia" has turned into a second front in its global quest for hegemony. In order to encircle and contain the rise of China, the US has committed to series of economic, politically subversive, and military maneuvers throughout Southeast and East Asia.

In 2017, the US will continue cultivating proxy opposition fronts across the region in hopes of challenging or toppling increasingly Beijing-friendly governments everywhere from Malaysia and Thailand, to the Philippines and Indonesia. In Myanmar, the US and its Saudi allies appear to be inflaming the Rohingya crisis by arming militants to fight the very government the US spent decades putting into power.

The result will be an attempt to establish a US military presence in Myanmar under the guise of "combating terrorism," just as the US did in the Philippines shortly after 2001. In reality, the US military presence in Myanmar will be next to impossible to remove - just as it has become in the Philippines. And while "fighting terrorism" will be the pretext, adding another point of pressure in America's encirclement of China will be the main objective.

The prospect of direct military confrontation between the US and China is difficult to predict, but US policymakers have admitted that as time passes, the possibility of the US winning any confrontation against China in Asia Pacific diminishes. The temptation to provoke a conflict sooner than later will exist, and regardless, the decades-long efforts by Washington to maintain primacy in Asia at Asia's expense will continue in earnest under President-elect Trump when he takes office.

The agendas of powerful special interests and the march of technological progress and its impact on human civilization are not divided into neat chapters as they appear in retrospect upon the pages of our history books. They transcend "New Years," presidential administrations, popular culture, and even "eras" in our collective history. Understanding the actual motives, money, and machinations that drive those with wealth and power help us see what lies before us and gives us a chance to prepare ourselves and intervene rather than sit by as helpless spectators. This year, perhaps more people than ever will realize that our best interests, and even the fate of our future depends on us doing the former, and abandoning forever the latter.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook.�   

As US Berates Russia For Political Meddling, It Openly Meddles in China

December 26, 2016 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Despite a concerted backlash against what US political leaders and policymakers claim is Russian interference in America's internal politics, the US continues to openly interfere in the internal politics of other nations worldwide, including most recently, China.

Berating Russia Over Alleged Hacks 

In an effort to redirect attention and blame for America's unravelling political fabric, the US political establishment and its media has spent an inordinate amount of time blaming Russia for allegedly "hacking US elections" by infiltrating the Democratic National Committee (DNC)'s e-mails.

The hacks revealed impropriety within the Democratic party as well as e-mails between US presidential candidate and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her adviser, lobbyist and counsellor to US President Barack Obama, John Podesta which revealed everything from admissions US allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar were providing material support to the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq to the Clinton Foundation receiving funding from these same state sponsors of terrorism.

The fallout from the revelations has included a media blacklist targeting what is called "fake news," or, any media outlet that opposes narratives established by Washington, particularly regarding the contents of the leaked e-mails. It also resulted in claims that Wikileaks (who published the leaked e-mails) was intentionally mixing fabricated e-mails in with genuine DNC data, the Intercept would report.

The United States government and policymakers have also promised retaliation against Russia, who is accused of orchestrating the hacks and working with Wikileaks to publish the e-mails.

Considering the gravity the US has viewed alleged interference in its internal political affairs, one would expect Washington to have a solid record of respecting the sovereignty of other nations, specifically in regards to respecting their internal politics and particularly now, as Washington attempts to justify growing hostility toward Moscow regarding alleged meddling.

Do As I Say, Not As I Constantly Do... 

But even as the backlash against Russia reaches a fevered pitch, the US finds itself openly, some may even say, shamelessly meddling in the affairs of other nations on an equal or greater degree than even Russia has been accused of.


The US State Department funded and directed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) openly admitted that its partner, China Digital Times (funded by both NED and Open Society) leaked documents revealing lists of topics deemed sensitive by the Chinese government.

Foreign Policy in an article titled, "All the News Unfit to Print: What Beijing Quashed in 2016," would claim:

On an almost daily basis, China�s ruling party and the state apparatus it controls relay detailed instructions to news outlets, websites, and social media administrators throughout the country on whether and how to cover breaking news stories and related commentary. A sampling of these are leaked each year and published by the non-profit California-based website China Digital Times. The collection is not exhaustive, but given the opacity of Chinese government decision-making, the orders offer unique insights into party leaders� priorities and their favored methods of �guiding public opinion� in a changing technological landscape.

Foreign Policy and China Digital Times both admit that the purpose of leaking this information is to undermine Beijing's ability to control the political narrative within China's borders. It is a clear effort by Washington to contribute to its decades-long overarching objective of undermining, encircling and containing China's rise in Asia Pacific to maintain American military, political and economic primacy in the region.

Foreign Policy, China Digital Times and the National Endowment for Democracy may claim that their motives for, and methods of leaking genuine documents to the Chinese public to skew China's political landscape in Washington's favour should be irrelevant to the fact that they are also simply exposing the truth. But if they genuinely believed that, their anger and promised retaliation against Russia for doing exactly the same thing, would appear tremendously hypocritical and undermine the gravity Washington is attempting to consign claims of Russian hacking.

If it is wrong for Russia, or anyone for that matter, to leak truthful information to the American public regarding the US government, thus undermining the credibility of American institutions and offices, it would logically follow that it is likewise wrong for the US to do this abroad in nations like China.

That the United States not only partakes in this tremendous hypocrisy, it should be noted that the National Endowment for Democracy and its subsidiaries including Freedom House, exist solely to openly and constantly undermine political order worldwide, including backing foreign opposition parties, street protests in foreign capitals, pro-US media outlets worldwide and even meddling in other nations' electoral processes through the use of "election monitors" who selectively notice or ignore voting irregularities depending on whether a pro-US opposition party stands to win or lose any given election.

Thus, unlike the US who has large, dedicated organisations openly pursuing political destabilisation worldwide, Russia and China are only accused of doing so, lacking any formal organisations or foundations focused on such activity, and with little to no evidence substantiating US claims.

As the US continues justifying an expanding war of words and actions against Moscow, it is important for observers to note that at the same time Moscow is condemned for interfering in American politics, America is openly and eagerly interfering in the politics of other nations, worldwide.

If other nations are not allowed to cry foul and "retaliate," why should the US be?

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.

Retaliation Promised: Russian Ambassador's Murder Justified, Even Praised Across the West

December 23, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - In the week leading up to the brazen, cold-blooded murder of Russian Ambassador Andrei Karlov in Ankara, Turkey, the United States repeatedly and publicly threatened "retaliation" against Russia for allegedly "hacking" the 2016 US presidential elections.

During the same week, Syrian forces backed by Russian airpower and Iranian ground support, finally ended the occupation of the northern city of Aleppo by armed militants who invaded in 2012. The inevitable liberation of Aleppo was accompanied by apoplectic hysteria across Western political, policy and pundit circles calling for everything from additional sanctions on Russia to threats against the lives of Russians themselves.

While the Western media has since attempted to dismiss murmurs across Russian and Turkish media in the aftermath of Ambassador Karlov's assassination implicating US involvement, they simultaneously appear incapable of concealing what can only be described as delight over the tragic attack.

The Washington Post, in an article titled, "Turkish police officer, invoking Aleppo, guns down Russian ambassador in Ankara," would characterize the assassination as a "retaliatory attack," stating:

The shooting was among the most brazen retaliatory attacks yet on Russia since Moscow entered the war in Syria on the side of President Bashar al-Assad, and unleashed a bombardment on Aleppo that has drawn international condemnation for what observers on the ground have called indiscriminate attacks on civilians. 

The Washington Post also intentionally portrays labeling the incident as a terrorist attack as Moscow's exclusive point of view, claiming:

But in Moscow, where the Kremlin has maintained that its aerial sorties and missile attacks have exclusively targeted �terrorists,� Russia�s Foreign Ministry called the shooting �a terrorist attack,� and President Vladi�mir Putin called it a �provocation aimed at rupturing ties between Russia and Turkey.�

The Washington Post is able to refrain from openly applauding the assassination, but does everything in its power to legitimize, even defend it within the context of an angry "police officer" provoked by what the Washington Post calls Russia's "indiscriminate attacks on civilians." Relegated deep within the article and beyond the attention span of most readers, are details that reveal Ambassador Karlov's attacker as a participant in organized terror.

CNN, the BBC and the New York Times have also carried, almost verbatim, the same talking points and perspectives provided by the Washington Post, just falling short of openly defending the attack or praising the attacker.

Elsewhere, however, pundits help readers unable to read between the lines of these messages. The New York Daily News in an article titled, "Assassination of Russian Ambassador Andrei Karlov was not terrorism, but retribution for Vladimir Putin�s war crimes," connects the dots plotted out by papers like the Washington Post. It bluntly states:

The image of an assassin standing over the dying body of Russian ambassador Andrei Karlov is a shocking one � but not a surprising one. 

As Vladimir Putin�s man in Turkey, Karlov was the public face of that murderous dictator�s war crimes around the globe and of oppression at home. Andrei Karlov is the human embodiment of policies that deployed bunker busters to kill babies, sent fighter planes on scorched earth bombing runs that destroyed a whole city, aided Syrian madman Bashar al-Assad in his campaign that has killed hundreds of thousands, and even ordered attacks on UN aid workers.

In addition to the baseless, even fully discredited accusations made, the New York Daily News compares Russian President Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler, and Ambassador Karlov's attacker to a "soldier � not a terrorist."

The Western media does not perform "journalism," but rather reflects the thinking and designs of Western policymakers, politicians and power brokers. That the media appears unanimously spinning the attack as "retaliatory," after spending the last week promising "retaliation" is if nothing else the worst case of institutional self-incrimination in recent memory. More likely, it is a blunt, ugly gesture toward Russia.

Unfortunately for the West, they find themselves threatening the world and celebrating the murder of ambassadors shot in the back by terrorists not from a position of strength, but from a position of profound and growing weakness. It is a vicious cycle that will only further undermine their legitimacy, diminish their influence and accelerate their decline.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.

Russian Ambassador Assassinated: Retaliation, But by Whom?

December 20, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Just days after the liberation of Syria's northern city of Aleppo, Russia's ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov, was gunned down while giving a talk at an art gallery in Turkey's capital of Ankara. 

The gunman, identified as a former Turkish police officer, flashed the familiar one finger gesture used by terrorist organizations operating in neighboring Syria including by Jabhat Al Nusra and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" - while shouting, according to the Guardian:

Don�t forget Aleppo. Don�t forget Syria. Unless our towns are secure, you won�t enjoy security. Only death can take me from here. Everyone who is involved in this suffering will pay a price.

The attack coincided with an alleged security incident near America's embassy in Ankara, characterized by the US Embassy as a "shooting," though it may be in reference to the actual assassination.

Western newspapers, however, including the Daily Mail, the UK Express, and The Sun attempted to portray the announcement as a separate incident. This may be a deliberate attempt to portray the US as a victim in tandem with Russia, to divert suspicion away from US involvement.

Assassination Takes Place Days After US Vowed "Retaliation" Against Russia 

US President Barack Obama, US policymakers and pundits, as well as US Senators for the past week have vowed "retaliation" against Russia for alleged "hacking" during the 2016 US presidential election. These threats take place against a wider backdrop of increasingly unhinged outbursts made by Western politicians, pundits, and policymakers amid frustration in advancing their global agenda versus a reemerging Russia and a rising China.

The Guardian in an article published just this week titled, "Barack Obama promises retaliation against Russia over hacking during US election," would state:

Barack Obama has warned that the US will retaliate for Russian cyberattacks during the presidential election. 

In an interview on National Public Radio on Friday morning, the US president said he is waiting for a final report he has ordered into a range of Russian hacking attacks, but promised there would be a response.

�I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections � we need to take action,� Obama said. �And we will � at a time and place of our own choosing. 

�Some of it may be explicit and publicised; some of it may not be.�

Articles like the International Business Times' "How Can The US Retaliate Against Russia's Hacking? Here Are 6 Possible Moves," would list possible forms retaliation could take, including:

Cyberattack on Russian networks or infrastructure; Release damaging information about Vladimir Putin; Target offshore accounts; Place malware inside Russian espionate networks; Interfere in Russian politics Economic sanctions.

However, it has been noted by many analysts, including those within the US' own foreign policy circles, that America's ability to retaliate with "cyberattacks" against Russia in such a manner would range from futile, to even galvanizing the Russian people further behind the Kremlin.

The New York Times in an article titled, "Obama Confronts Complexity of Using a Mighty Cyberarsenal Against Russia," would note:

But while Mr. Obama vowed on Friday to �send a clear message to Russia� as both a punishment and a deterrent, some of the options were rejected as ineffective, others as too risky. If the choices had been better, one of the aides involved in the debate noted recently, the president would have acted by now.

In all likelihood, an attempted counter "cyberattack" would have ended in further humiliation and isolation for the United States' ruling circles.


Cui Bono?

The cold-blooded assassination of a Russian ambassador in the heart of Turkey, however, is a very effective "retaliation," not only for Russia's role in balancing against the Western media's influence, effectively undermining the West's monopoly over global public perception, but also for confounding US geopolitical objectives across the Middle East - particularly in Syria, and particularly in the aftermath of Aleppo's liberation.

The assassination - a crime and even an act of war by any account - was apparently carried out by a militant drawn from the ranks of  terrorist organizations armed, trained, and funded by the United States and its regional allies, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and even Turkey. And despite this fact, should the US be involved in the assassination, it would be difficult to prove. And even if it was proven, it would be difficult to convince the global public that the US would make the jump from very publicly considering benign "cyberattacks" for the past week to assassinating a foreign diplomat.

Beyond simply "sending a message" as US policymakers sought to do - it also undermines alleged progress made between Ankara and Moscow regarding the former's role in the ongoing proxy war with Syria. The assassination strains any such progress, even threatening to rollback gains painfully made since Turkey's downing of a Russian warplane over Syria in November of 2015.

While evidence is still forthcoming regarding the assassination, the US - through its own insistence on publicly and repeatedly threatening Moscow with retaliation -  has made itself one of the primary suspects behind the brutal killing. Considering the US' role in creating, arming, funding, and directing terrorists across the region for years - the US is responsible indirectly at the very least.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook.�   

Welcome to Idlib: America's Model Syrian City

December 18, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - A report published by The Century Foundation (TCF), a US-based policy think tank, helps shed light on the inner workings of the small northern city of Idlib, Syria.

Idlib is to US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization Jabhat Al Nusra (also known as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham or Al Qaeda in Syria) as the eastern Syrian city of Al Raqqa is to the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (IS).

It is also home to a wide range of other militant groups cooperating with the terrorist organization, as well as a myriad of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) funded and directed by the US, Europe, Turkey and the Gulf states.

And while great hope resides within statements of US, European and Gulf state politicians, echoed across their respective media platforms for this city's possible role as an alternative "capital" for an alternative "government," opposed to the current Syrian nation-state, TCF's report dumps a cold bucket of water on what was but a spark, not even a flame of hope.

The "Opposition" Exists Solely Through the Support of Foreign Interests 
The report titled, "Keeping the Lights On in Rebel Idlib," describes a city so dangerous and dysfunctional, the authors of the report could not even venture there to conduct their interviews, which were instead conducted remotely from the other side of the Turkish-Syrian border.

The report even admits that the "provincial council" meant to replace the Syrian government remained based in Turkey for years and still maintains an office there today.

The report states:

In Syria�s rebel-held Idlib province, residents have established local governance bodies that provide needed services and simultaneously pose a political challenge to the regime of Bashar al-Assad. No overarching authority has replaced the state after it was forced from Idlib. Islamist and jihadist armed groups hold power at the local level, and have developed relatively sophisticated service coordination bodies. Yet ultimate decision-making power has typically sat with donor organizations outside the country.

The report points out that armed groups compete not only for influence within Idlib, but also for access to the constant stream of resources foreign donor organizations provide. The report admits that this foreign aid (dominated by USAID) sustains Idlib's occupiers, who themselves lack the ability to unify the city, fund any of their activities, let alone challenge the Syrian state.

The report also admits that initially the Syrian government was able to protect Idlib's urban centers, and that they only fell after the Bab al-Hawa border crossing with Turkey was taken over. This suggests that an influx of weapons, supplies and fighters over the border from Turkey, with Turkish and other state-sponsors' backing, helped turn the tide against Syrian forces, not the momentum of the "uprising" itself.


Idlib province is now one of the few regions in the country that still has an unsecured border with Turkey, making it no surprise that Idlib remains one of the few areas still left beyond the Syrian government's control. The report also admits terrorist organizations (Ahrar al-Sham and Al Nusra) dominate this remaining region, contrary to US and European rhetoric.

Dysfunction in Idlib Mirrors Failed Intervention in Libya, Afghanistan  

The TCF report explores the various facets of dysfunction plaguing Idlib including corruption, nepotism and interference from armed groups. The crippling dependency on foreign aid and the constant infighting is not only the shape of things to come nationwide should the Syrian government ever be toppled, but it is also a reflection of Libya post US-NATO intervention, or even US-occupied Afghanistan.

With contractors interested only in getting paid, and local groups being consumed with infighting, Idlib provides the latest example of failed US-European "nation building."

Idlib a Failed City, Would Preside Over a Failed Nation 

The report refers to Idlib as a "microcosm of the war." It states:

Idlib�s governance and service sector has been, in many ways, a microcosm of the Syrian war and Idlib�s fractious rebel scene. As with the province�s armed opposition, an existing tendency towards localism and disparate, uncoordinated streams of external support have resulted in a service sector that is discombobulated and fractious.

Even if the US and its allies believed it was politically possible to announce Idlib as an alternative "capital" to Damascus, Idlib in reality could never serve such a role. Between its small size, the fact that it is transparently dominated by armed terrorists and completely dependent on foreign aid means that Idlib cannot even administer itself, nor the province it resides in, let alone the entire country. Any nation subjected to "rule" from the failed city of Idlib, would without doubt be a failed nation.

All Idlib could ever be used for is the illusion of viable opposition. The city and province's administration is as artificial as the armed conflict its current state of dysfunction resulted from. Both city and provincial administration depends entirely on foreign support that is interested only in the overthrow of Damascus, not Idlib's peace and prosperity.

Like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, once the war is over and regime change accomplished, contractors will seek to make as much money "nation building" as possible, interested more in returning home to spend their new fortunes than leaving behind a functioning and "free" nation state.

The report concludes with the question of whether or not the Syrian government could reassert itself in Idlib. The Syrian government possesses absolutely everything the current "administrators" of Idlib lack, namely unity, ability and resources. Just as is happening across Aleppo, when areas are finally returned back to Syrian control and the supply of foreign aid, weapons and support is removed, so too is the illusion of opposition.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.

South China Sea: Failing to Find Asian Allies, US Invites UK to Meddle

December 16, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Parroting the US State Department's rhetoric, almost verbatim to justify the decision, a UK envoy vowed to fly warplanes over, and sail warships through the South China Sea over "concerns" regarding "freedom of navigation there." 

Reuters in its article, "British fighters to overfly South China Sea; carriers in Pacific after 2020: envoy," would report:

The envoy, Kim Darroch, told a Washington think tank that British Typhoon aircraft currently deployed on a visit to Japan would fly across disputed parts of the South China Sea to assert international overflight rights, but gave no time frame.

Speaking at an event also attended by Japan's ambassador to Washington, Darroch said that most future British defense capacity would have to be directed toward the Middle East, but added:

"Certainly, as we bring our two new aircraft carriers onstream in 2020, and as we renew and update our defense forces, they will be seen in the Pacific.

The time frame of 2020 assumes that the United States will still have any significant presence in the region, somehow reversing the otherwise irreversible retreat it has been undergoing throughout Asia-Pacific over the past decade.

The US Has Run Out of Friends in Asia, So Brings Along Europe

Client regimes the United States and its European allies have cultivated throughout the region have either turned on them or have been effectively removed from power, or even the prospect of ever holding power again.

The Philippines, quite literally a territory of the United States until the end of World War 2, and a nation that vacillated between independence from and interdependence with Washington for decades since, has recently become more vocal about perceived inequities in Manila-Washington relations. This is primarily because of the much more significant - and growing - ties Manila has with Beijing.

US-backed opposition forces in Malaysia have repeatedly tried and failed to oust the ruling government in street protests led by Anwar Ibrahim's political alliance under the brand name "Bersih."

In neighboring Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra and his political opposition party were ousted from power in 2014 and have since been incrementally picked apart through legislative and judicial proceedings. Even as Shinawatra clung to power, Thailand's establishment began shifting away from Cold War ties with the US and toward closer ties with not only Beijing, but also Moscow as well as its regional neighbors.

In Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party are increasingly hemorrhaging political legitimacy as her followers carry out what could be described as genocide against Myanmar's Rohingya minority. The United States has cynically elected to draw an increasing amount of attention to this in a bid to prevent Suu Kyi from double dealing with both Washington and Beijing.

Vietnam has recently showed reluctance to sign the US-initiated and dominated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement, being one of the few nations in Southeast Asia to have agreed to it in the first place, while Cambodia's previously pro-Western government headed by Hun Sen has become increasingly vocal about US meddling both in Cambodia, and across the region, openly taking Beijing's side in the South China Sea dispute.

Even Indonesia finds itself increasingly repelled by America's overbearing stick and its increasingly unappealing carrot.


Collectively, the region is attempting to rebalance itself to accommodate and cooperate with the rise of China, and create checks and balances in the void America's mismanaged "Pacific Century" has left.

The Specter of Empire  

It is perhaps ironic that the United States finds itself increasingly isolated in Asia amid its own attempts to isolate Beijing. It is also ironic that it is ending its "Pacific Century" the same way it began, side-by-side European nations attempting to impose Western interests on a region of the planet quite literally oceans away.

However, unlike during the age of empires, the US and any European nation that joins it in Asia-Pacific today, will find a region of the planet on parity with Western technology, wealth and power. Militarily speaking, the number of facilities the US and its European allies can exploit in the region are shrinking both in number and in relative significance to growing Asian military power - including China's expanding Pacific forces.

However, in addition to military power, the US still maintains vast political and media networks throughout Asia. The US State Department's Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) aims to indoctrinate thousands of young Asian students and professionals, provide them with both fronts to operate as well as significant financial and political support to continue their work, all in an effort to transform the region's values and principles to align with Washington's interests.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), its subsidiaries, and "aid" organizations like USAID all continue to build opposition fronts aimed at pressuring and altogether overthrowing political establishments across Asia. Together, this signifies a US that may be in retreat, but a US that still poses a potent threat to peace, stability, and prosperity across the region.

The inclusion of British forces in Asia-Pacific to augment US provocations presents a threat to Asian stability. With Asia increasingly trading among themselves and with the rest of Eurasia, instability brought by US-European meddling is perhaps the only threat that could actually undermine "freedom of navigation," trade, and economic growth - the very things the US claims its presence in Asia-Pacific is meant to protect.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook.�  

Myanmar: Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi Oversees Genocide

December 14, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Reading commentary, analysis, and even alleged "reports" from the Southeast Asian state of Myanmar, it would appear that Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi - poster child of American and European "democracy promotion" - is helpless to avert what is quickly expanding into wholesale genocide against the nation's Rohingya minority. 

In reality, Suu Kyi's political coalition has for decades been bolstered by highly politicized sectarian factions, including saffron-clad "monks" who have regularly employed street violence in support of Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party. These same factions - also for decades - have pursued a policy of racially and religiously charged, politically-motivated violence against Myanmar's Rohingya population. 

Myanmar's Rohingya - many of whom have lived in the nation for generations - had at one point coexisted with Myanmar's majority ethnic groups. It was only relatively recently that enterprising political factions decided to use racial and religious tensions as a means of galvanizing and radicalizing opposition aimed at undermining the then military-led government and bringing Suu Kyi to power.

It was warned years before Suu Kyi came to power that should her party win elections, free reign would be granted to her supporters to fully and openly pursue their genocidal agenda. The NLD has won the elections, and that genocidal agenda is now unfolding.

Covering Up Suu Kyi's Ties to Sectarian Extremists... for Years    

This fact is omitted across the Western media's current reports, in an effort to exonerate Suu Kyi from any responsibility for the ongoing violence.

CNBC News, for example, in an article titled, "Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi under fire as Rohingya crisis escalates in Rakhine," claims (emphasis added):

A year after becoming Myanmar's de-facto leader, Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi is coming under a barrage of international criticism for her failure to end alleged military crimes in the country's northwest.

About 1.1 million people in the state of Rakhine identify themselves as Rohingya Muslims, an ethnic minority that has long suffered persecution in the Buddhist-majority nation. The group's origins in Myanmar can be traced back to the fifteenth century, according to the Council of Foreign Relations, but Rohingyas have yet to be granted citizenship and remain unable to vote.

Strategically omitted from CNBC's coverage is the fact that it was Suu Kyi, her NLD, and street demonstrations led by her "saffron" supporters that protested the previous government's attempts to grant the Rohingya provisional citizenship and voting rights ahead of the elections that saw Suu Kyi's NLD come to power.

Australia�s ABC News would report in a 2015 article titled, �Myanmar scraps temporary ID cards amid protests targeting ethnic minorities without citizenship,� that (emphasis added):

Myanmar�s government says identity cards for people without full citizenship, including Muslim Rohingya, will expire within weeks.

The scrapping of ID cards snatches away voting rights handed to them just a day earlier (Tuesday), after Myanmar nationalists protested against the move.

The Rohingya, along with hundreds of thousands of people in mainly ethnic minority border areas, who hold the documents ostensibly as part of a process of applying for citizenship, will see their ID cards expire at the end of March, according to a statement from the office of president Thein Sein.

The "nationalists" were of course, Suu Kyi's "saffron" supporters.


Saffron and Secular Savagery 

Readers may remember Myanmar's "Saffron Revolution," a 2007 "pro-democracy" protest named after the "saffron" robes of the "monks" who led the street protests. Backed by the United States and British governments, the protests followed the same pattern of "color revolutions" carried out elsewhere to advance Western interests, including across Eastern Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.

The "Saffron Revolution" is now rarely mentioned by the Western press, though in 2007, the US State Department-funded propaganda platform, The Irrawaddy, would report in their article, "Suu Kyi Greets Monks at Her Home; 10,000 Monks Demonstrate in Mandalay," that:

Detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, dressed in yellow, came out of her home, where she is under house arrest, to pay respect to protesting monks who marched in front of her home on Rangoon�s University Avenue on Saturday afternoon, witnesses said.

The Irrawaddy would also report:

On Thursday, The Federation of All Burma Young Monks Unions called on students and civilians to join hands with monks in public demonstrations against the military regime which has ruled the country for almost 20 years. 

Human Rights Watch, in a lengthy report titled, "The Resistance of the Monks: Buddhism and Activism in Burma" (PDF), further exposes the role several sectarian factions in Myanmar played in bringing Suu Kyi to power. It mentions by name the many sectarian unions and associations that were involved in creating the power base and street fronts that helped bring Suu Kyi into power.

Those mentioned, also concurrently involved in anti-Rohingya violence, include the All Burma Monks Alliance under which many others fall.

The UK Independent in a 2012 article titled, "Burma's monks call for Muslim community to be shunned," would mention several by name:

The Young Monks' Association of Sittwe and Mrauk Oo Monks' Association have both released statements in recent days urging locals not to associate with the group. Displaced Rohingya have been housed in over-crowded camps away from the Rakhine population � where a health and malnutrition crisis is said to be escalating � as political leaders move to segregate and expel the 800,000-strong minority from Burma. Earlier this month, Thein Sein attempted to hand over the group to the UN refugee agency.

The All Burma Monks Alliance would even send representatives to Washington DC to attend a US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) event alongside other political allies of Suu Kyi and her NLD party - who while secular - also support discrimination and violence against the Rohingya.

The US Funds Them All... 

The Alliance's own website in a 2012 post titled, "Trip to Washington D.C," states (emphasis added):

On September 19 and 20, 2012 the All Burma Monks Alliance monks traveled to Washington, DC and joined many friends in welcoming Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to the United States. They watched as she received the Congressional Gold Medal, which is the highest honor given by the US Congress. They attended the event honoring her at American University and another event which honored recipients of the National Endowment for Democracy�s 2012 Democracy Awards. 

These included Aung Din [a] leader of the 1988 student movement and a former political prisoner who is co-founder and executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Burma.

Aung Din - far from the only secular supporter of anti-Rohingya violence - is also the author of several crypto-racist articles circulated throughout Western policy think tanks defending discrimination and violence against the Rohingya. One, published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) under the title, "Rohingya Is More than a Human Rights Issue for Myanmar," complains:

...the United States should avoid pressuring Myanmar to accept the Muslims in Rakhine state as an indigenous ethnic group and give them citizenship immediately. In Myanmar, neither the government nor the people will bow to such pressure, and changing their status to an indigenous people is not under consideration.

Aung Din's "US Campaign for Burma," is a Washington-based front both funded by the US government, and lobbying the US government for funding to other pro-NLD fronts both in and bordering Myanmar.

Among these US-funded fronts, included the Indochina Media Memorial Foundation in Bangkok. Run by Western journalists concurrently heading the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand (FCCT), the foundation trained pro-NLD agitators in communication and media.

One of the "graduates" of this foundation was Pe Myint, Myanmar's current "Minister of Information." He now uses the "Ministry of Information" to prevent even the use of the term "Rohingya," and regularly disseminates propaganda further inflaming national tensions.

In other words, from the "saffron-stained grassroots" to the highest levels of Suu Kyi's government, anti-Rohingya violence is so deeply ingrained and has been for years, it was only through the Western media's monopoly over information until now that has prevented this impending - and now unfolding catastrophe - from being noticed and averted.



Considering the extensive support the US has provided to place Suu Kyi, her NLD, and various supporting factions into power, and considering America's track record for implementing regime change around the world, is it any wonder ultra-violent racists are hacking Rohingya minorities to death in Southeast Asia, while Washington's proxies in Ukraine commit similar atrocities in the name of Neo-Nazism, while Western proxies in Libya and Syria do so under US-Saudi inspired Wahhabism?

While it is tempting to wade into the sectarian minutia of each and every one of these conflicts, there is but one common denominator, cynically inflaming tensions among groups that have in the past and could in the future coexist. This cynical process is carried out not for religious or ideology reasons but for self-serving geopolitical gain.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine�New Eastern Outlook�.

Unverified Aleppo "On the Spot" Executions

December 14, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - After a day of claiming up to 82 civilians were "shot on the spot" by Syrian forces battling to retake the northern city of Aleppo from armed terrorists who have occupied it since invading the city in 2012, no evidence or even the source of the claim has surfaced.

According to the BBC, the UN Human Rights office in Geneva received reports of the incident.

Despite Western journalists having been on the ground in Aleppo, along with UN staff, the reports were actually received in Geneva from unnamed sources alleged to be in Aleppo, not acquired - or verified - on the ground by either the Western media or UN staff.

The BBC, in its article, "Aleppo battle: UN says civilians shot on the spot," would admit (emphasis added):

"Yesterday evening, we received further deeply disturbing reports that numerous bodies were lying on the streets," Mr Colville added, while admitting it was hard to verify the reports.

It should be noted that the BBC left the accusation on their website for hours before eventually adding that the reports were both unverified, and acquired by "sources," not by UN staff firsthand in Aleppo.

The purpose of this was to maximize the initial impact of the shocking, easily "re-tweeted" headline without being burdened with providing evidence. Once the headline went "viral," the BBC eventually filled in the details - which had they been included in the initial report - would have significantly blunted the impact of the headline.

With talk of "fake news" reaching hysterical levels, the BBC in collaboration with the UN itself prove that organizations and institutions of the West have long held a monopoly on generating "fake news" and leveraging it not just to manipulate politics and public perception, but to perpetuate war and the destruction of human life.

Other Lies Exposed 

A day after the Western media's coverage of Aleppo reached a fevered pitch, and with the fighting effectively over, other lies repeated ad nauseam just a day ago are now surfacing as obvious, malicious fabrications.

CNN in a report titled, "Estimated 100,000 civilians trapped in Aleppo," admits that the supposed "rebels" only hold, "a few streets, a few blocks, maybe a neighborhood," admits that it is "very difficult to verify any of these reports," and repeatedly uses the term "might be" in reference to the supposed 100,000 civilians the Western media and the UN claim are still in "eastern Aleppo."

Of course, with evacuations underway now, it is clear there were nowhere near 100,000 civilians left in the remaining territory occupied by armed militants, revealing yesterday's news coverage of just the latest in a long line of politically motivated performances carried out by an otherwise unjournalistic Western media.

Patrick Cockburn in a UK Independent article titled, "This is why everything you�ve read about the wars in Syria and Iraq could be wrong," attempts to offer a conciliatory explanation as to why the Western media's coverage has been so divergent from reality.

He claims:

It is too dangerous for journalists to operate in rebel-held areas of Aleppo and Mosul. But there is a tremendous hunger for news from the Middle East, so the temptation is for the media give credence to information they get second hand.

He also states:

Unsurprisingly, foreign journalists covering developments in east Aleppo and rebel-held areas of Syria overwhelmingly do so from Lebanon or Turkey. A number of intrepid correspondents who tried to do eyewitness reporting from rebel-held areas swiftly found themselves tipped into the boots of cars or otherwise incarcerated. 

Experience shows that foreign reporters are quite right not to trust their lives even to the most moderate of the armed opposition inside Syria. But, strangely enough, the same media organisations continue to put their trust in the veracity of information coming out of areas under the control of these same potential kidnappers and hostage takers. They would probably defend themselves by saying they rely on non-partisan activists, but all the evidence is that these can only operate in east Aleppo under license from the al-Qaeda-type groups.

Cockburn also notes that much of the overt bias and poor reporting coming from across the Western media is politically motivated. When the light of reality began showing through in reports from journalists, experts, and diplomats, leadership in Western capitals intentionally ignored it, fixated only on regime change.

Image: A lady making claims in a Skype call is not evidence. But CNN and others have no qualms reporting their claims as if it were real news. And while CNN defends this practice of repeating unverified claims by "activists" in Syria, they have intentionally ignored pro-government bloggers for years, proving it is an agenda that has skewed their reporting, not a lack of access to the conflict and its participants.

And while the Western media itself has attempted to use its inability to report from on the ground as an excuse for repeating verified lies told to them by their "sources" in Syria, it should be noted that an equal or greater number of pro-government bloggers have been covering the conflict since 2011 as well, only to be intentionally ignored, even attacked by the Western media.

This goes far in explaining why the Western media finds itself eagerly defending militants who by all accounts are dominated by Jabhat Al Nusra, a US State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization and repeating their propaganda no matter how absurd.

Those across the West listening to this coverage would be led to believe that the hospital to population ratio in eastern Aleppo was nearly 1:1, that every inhabitant of eastern Aleppo was either a doctor, a woman, or a child, and that the remaining neighborhood amid the battle for the city housed a population larger than the entire city of Idlib, the defacto terrorist capital of Jabhat Al Nusra in Syria.

It is important to expose these lies, because while the city of Aleppo has been fully liberated, Idlib, Al Raqqa, and now once again Palmyra remain battles yet to be fought.

The capacity of the West and its proxies to destroy peace and security for the people of Syria rests in their capacity to continue lying about the nature of Western involvement in Syria in the first place. Undermine this capacity, and undermine their ability to disrupt and destroy the future of Syrians any further.

Aleppo Liberated: Washington Post Finally Admits "Rebels" Invaded - Was No Uprising

December 14, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - For months as terrorists backed by the United States, Turkey, and their Persian Gulf allies lost significant ground to the Syrian Arab Army in Syria's northern city of Aleppo, the battle was characterized by the Western media and Western politicians as a brutal assault on the city's residents - the extinguishing of a 6 year-long uprising.

However, in reality, that was never the case. And this reality is something careful readers will note even if they read the latest from one of the most prominent sources of pro-terrorist propaganda, the Washington Post.

In their article, "Endgame in Aleppo, the most decisive battle yet in Syria�s war," they admit (emphasis added):

When Syrian rebels surged into Aleppo in the summer of 2012, it was the high point of their still young, still idealistic revolution against President Bashar al-Assad. 

Four and a half years and hundreds of thousands of deaths later, troops loyal to his government were poised on Tuesday to take the city back, heralding the end of an era for the rebellion.

The Washington Post also demolishes another widely repeated lie regarding Aleppo - claims that a quarter of a million people remained in "rebel-held" eastern Aleppo. The Washington Post now claims (emphasis added):

Last-minute diplomacy to rescue the tens of thousands of people trapped by the fighting or because they fear being detained by loyalist forces generated a deal brokered by Russia and Turkey on Tuesday to evacuate the last rebel-controlled enclave.

"Tens of thousand" is a far cry from "the quarter of a million" lie repeatedly told by the Western media, including by the Washington Post itself in articles like, "More than 250,000 in Eastern Aleppo could die after the next 20 days."

Just as the Washington Post did in Libya, and Iraq before that, it ceaselessly worked not to inform the public, but to intentionally misinform them, part of a wider campaign to sell war to the West and justify direct military intervention to topple governments impeding Wall Street and Washington's global hegemonic expansion in the decades following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Washington Post's first-sentence admission that Aleppo was never the scene of an uprising, but rather the host of an invasion lays bare all the lies that have been told since to justify the city's occupation by groups of terrorists including US State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization Jabhat Al Nusra - quite literally Al Qaeda in Syria and progenitor of the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" itself.

With the city of Aleppo now fully liberated, it is important for the alternative media to catch these lies and the Western media's retrospective admissions to telling them, in order to maintain momentum in favor of the Syrian people as they attempt to restore security and order across their nation.

With many terrorist groups retreating to the dysfunctional and diminutive city of Idlib in the north, or surging forth toward Palmyra in the east, pivotal battles still remain to be won by the Syrian Arab Army and their allies. Many of the same lies and intentional mischaracterizations used to sell the occupation of Aleppo and fend off the city's liberation will undoubtedly be used again. It is essential to make sure when these tools of deception are used again, they are sufficiently blunted by informing the public of the truth - a truth the West's own admissions reveals.