Category Archives: NATO

Vote as if your life depended upon it, because it does.

Here’s why:

Hillary has repeatedly said: “We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Opposition forces  on the ground, with material support from the coalition, could then help create safe areas where Syrians could remain in the country, rather than fleeing toward Europe.”

This would mean that U.S. fighter-jets and missiles would be shooting down the fighter-jets and missiles of the Syrian government over Syria, and would also be shooting down those of Russia. The Syrian government invited Russia in, as its protector; the U.S. is no protector but an invader against Syria’s legitimate government, the Ba’athist government, led by Bashar al-Assad. The CIA has been trying ever since 1949 to overthrow Syria’s Ba’athist government — the only remaining non-sectarian government in the Middle East other than the current Egyptian government. The U.S. supports Jihadists who demand Sharia law, and they are trying to overthrow and replace Syria’s institutionally secular government. For the U.S. to impose a no-fly zone anywhere in Syria would mean that the U.S. would be at war against Russia over Syria’s skies.

Whichever side loses that conventional air-war would then have to choose whether to surrender, or instead to use nuclear weapons against the other side’s homeland, in order for it to avoid surrendering. That’s nuclear war between Russia and the United States.

 

Would Putin surrender? Would Hillary? Would neither? If neither does, then nuclear war will be the result.

Here are the two most extensive occasions in which Hillary has stated her position on this:

To the Council on Foreign Relations, on 19 November 2015:

      We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Opposition forces on the ground, with material support from the coalition, could then help create safe areas where Syrians could remain in the country, rather than fleeing toward Europe.

      This combined approach would help enable the opposition to retake the remaining stretch of the Turkish border from ISIS, choking off its supply lines. It would also give us new leverage in the diplomatic process that Secretary Kerry is pursuing. …

      QUESTION: When you were secretary of state, you tended to agree a great deal with the then-Secretary of Defense Bob Gates. Gates was opposed to a no-fly zone in Syria; thought it was an act of war that was risky and dangerous. This seems to me the major difference right now between what the president — what Obama’s administration is doing and what you’re proposing.

      Do you not — why do you disagree with Bob Gates on this?

      CLINTON: Well, I — I believe that the no-fly zone is merited and can be implemented, again, in a coalition, not an American-only no-fly zone. I fully respect Bob and his knowledge about the difficulties of implementing a no-fly zone. But if you look at where we are right now, we have to try to clear the air of the bombing attacks that are still being carried out to a limited extent by the Syrian military, now supplemented by the Russian air force.

      And I think we have a chance to do that now. We have a no-fly zone over northern Iraq for years to protect the Kurds. And it proved to be successful, not easy — it never is — but I think now is the time for us to revisit those plans.

      I also believe, as I said in the speech, that if we begin the conversation about a no-fly zone, something that, you know, Turkey discussed with me back when I was secretary of state in 2012, it will confront a lot of our partners in the region and beyond about what they’re going to do. And it can give us leverage in the discussions that Secretary Kerry is carrying on right now.

      So I see it as both a strategic opportunity on the ground, and an opportunity for leverage in the peace negotiations. …

      QUESTION: Jim Ziren (ph), Madam Secretary. Hi. Back to the no- fly zone. are you advocating a no-fly zone over the entire country or a partial no-fly zone over an enclave where refugees might find a safe haven? And in the event of either, do you foresee see you might be potentially provoking the Russians?

      CLINTON: I am advocating the second, a no-fly zone principally over northern Syria close to the Turkish (ph) border, cutting off the supply lines, trying to provide some safe refuges for refugees so they don’t have to leave Syria, creating a safe space away from the barrel bombs and the other bombardments by the Syrians. And I would certainly expect to and hope to work with the Russians to be able to do that. [She expects Putin to join America’s bombing of Syria’s government and troops and shooting-down of Russia’s planes in Syria, but no question was raised about this.] …

      To have a swath of territory that could be a safe zone … for Syrians so they wouldn’t have to leave but also for humanitarian relief, … would give us this extra leverage that I’m looking for in the diplomatic pursuits with Russia with respect to the political outcome in Syria.

During a debate against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries:

      Hillary Clinton, in a debate with Bernie on 19 December 2015, argued for her proposal that the U.S. impose in Syria a “no-fly zone” where Russians were dropping bombs on the imported jihadists who have been trying to overthrow and replace Assad: “I am advocating the no-fly zone both because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians; I’m also advocating it because I think it gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia.” She said there that allowing the jihadists to overthrow Assad “would help us on the ground to protect Syrians,” somehow; and, also, that, somehow, shooting down Russia’s planes in Syria (the “no-fly zone”) “gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia.”

      Bernie Sanders’s response to that was: “I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be.” He didn’t mention nuclear war as one of them.

The “no-fly zone” policy is one of three policies she supports that would likely produce nuclear war; she supports all of them, not merely the “no-fly zone.”

Hillary Clinton has never been asked “What would you do if Russia refuses to stop its flights in Syria?” Donald Trump has said nothing about the proposal for a no-fly zone (other than “I want to sit back and see what happens”), because most Americans support that idea, and he’s not bright enough to take her on about it and ask her that question. Probably, if he were supportive of it, he’d have said so — in which case it wouldn’t still be an issue in this election. Trump muffed his chance — which he has had on several occasions. But clearly he, unlike her, has not committed himself on this matter.

Hillary Clinton is obviously convinced that the U.S. would win a nuclear war against Russia. The question for voters is whether they’re willing to bet their lives that she is correct about that, and that even if the U.S. ‘wins’, only Russia and not also the U.S. (and the world) would be destroyed if the U.S. nuclear-attacks Russia.

Every other issue in this election pales by comparison to the no-fly-zone issue, which is virtually ignored, in favor of issues that are trivial by comparison. But a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for nuclear war against Russia, regardless of whether or not the voters know this. And a vote for Trump is a vote for the unknown. Could the unknown be even worse than Hillary Clinton? If so, would it be so only in relatively trivial ways?

This election should be about Hillary Clinton, not about Donald Trump.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

 

Vote as if your life depended upon it, because it does..

Nothing to See Syria, Move Along…

America is really trying to keep the wars alive. Melissa Dykes from Truthstream Media exposes the US military strikes on Syrian troops and how they tried to blame the Russia. Meanwhile ISIS coincidentally uses stooges to strike inside the United States? Who still believes this nonsense.

 

 

Nothing to See Syria, Move Along….

Syria: White Helmets Staged ‘Russian Bombing’ Scene Near Aleppo, Lapped-up By Mainstream Media

convoy-22
Image of one of the burned out SARC trucks in Urm-Al-Kubra, West Aleppo (Image Source: Reuters)

21st Century Wire
REPORT

When it comes to Syria, the level of disinformation fraud from US Coalition-aligned agencies shows no sign of diminishing. Once more, the West is attempting to produce an open and shut case of  humanitarian law violation, with which to further demonize the nations of both Syria and Russia. This, in turn, will enable them to escalate hostilities on the ground in Syria and invoke the much sought after ‘No Fly Zone’ which will be used to facilitate full spectrum destablization and a NATO bombing of Syria into the oblivion of a Libya-style failed state.

Last Saturday saw one of the most shocking and incendiary international incidents of this NATO war against Syria – a US-led, one hour-long airstrike which massacred 70 Syrian Army soldiers and wounded 100 others near the city of Deir al-Zour. The US claimed they were targeting ISIS.  However, the US brutal attack on the Syrian Army provided cover for an ISIS advance into Syrian Army held territory.

Just 48 hours later, new reports then began to circulate through the western media about an attack on a UN-sponsored Aid Convoy.  It is alleged that 18 of the 31 reported trucks were bringing “food relief ” from UN stores, said to be managed by Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC), to the town of Urm al-Kubra, west of Aleppo.  This is an area controlled by one terrorist group, US backed Nour al-din al-Zenki and surrounded by US/NATO supported Al Nusra Front.

convoy
One of the burned out SARC humanitarian aid trucks, despite claims of an air-strike, the surrounding countryside, road and electrical pylons are undamaged (Image Soure: Reuters)

The UN and international groups were immediately up in arms: “Yesterday’s attack is a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law and it is unacceptable,” Peter Maurer, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said in a statement. “Failing to protect humanitarian workers and structures might have serious repercussions on ongoing humanitarian work in the country, hence depriving millions of people of aid essential to their survival.”

The only problem is: the NATO backed terrorists occupying areas such as East Aleppo have never recognized international humanitarian law. That lawlessness applies universally across the spectrum of terrorist entities, including Nusra Front, ISIS and the myriad of US/NATO funded and armed terrorist brigades without exception.

Naturally, the US immediately labeled the attack, “a bombing” and proceeded to accuse both Russia and Syria’s Airforce. The US claimed it had reached a “preliminary conclusion” that indicates two Russian Su-24 jets were responsible, although unnamed ‘intelligence sources‘ have told Pentagon media operative Barbara Star at CNN and other media outlets, that their “intelligence” is classified and so they can’t actually show it to anyone.

Q: would countries like the US and UK lie and fabricate intelligence or evidence , in order to accelerate a case for escalating military intervention? The answer is a resounding ‘yes’. They’ve done it before, and they most certainly will go with what works in terms of advancing their geopolitical agenda. In the words of Donald Rumsfeld, this is one of those “known knowns.”

Unfortunately, the evidence doesn’t support US claims that a combined Russian/Syrian airstrike hit this Aid Convoy.  The evidence points more towards a ground attack, one most likely carried out by Nusra Front terrorists, with the aftermath filmed and media-managed as a false flag attack by the western-backed pseudo NGO the ‘White Helmets.’ Here’s why…

The UN, itself,  almost immediately began back-tracking on the initial US-backed conspiracy theory of a ‘Russian airstrike.’ Regardless of this obviously questionable and uninvestigated conjecture,  John Kerry and the west doubled-down on their initial, knee-jerk accusation fingering Russia and Syria.

bc-eliot-600x600A website called Bellingcat, run by Eliot Higgins (photo, left), immediate produced ‘a report’ entitled, “Confirmed : Russian Bomb Remains Recovered from Syrian Red Crescent Aid Convoy Attack”. This was meant to implicate Russia in the said airstrike, or “bombing” incident. ‘Bellingcat’ claims to be an independent ‘open source‘ intelligence website run “by and for citizen investigative journalists“, but in reality, it exists in order to support the narratives that serve NATO, and more specifically – the British Foreign Office or the US State Dept narratives. Producing flimsy and unsubstantiated evidence to support accusations against Russia, especially with regards to the Ukraine and the MH17 event, and now with Syria – seems to be Belingcat’s primary function.

One clear indicator that Bellingcat is probably working on behalf of the British Foreign Office is that Eliot Higgins has a direct line of communication with the Foreign Office construct, embedded exclusively in and alongside Nusra Front & ISIS terrorist forces in Syria, none other than the ‘White Helmets’. This connection was openly admitted by Bellingcat:

“Since the post was published the Bellingcat team has been in touch with the Syrian Civil Defence unit closest to the attacked site, who recovered and photographed two pieces of debris, including the object featured above.”

It’s worth noting here that the ‘White Helmets’ plagiarized the “Syria Civil Defence” name,  after stealing ambulances and fire engines, kidnapping and even murdering real rescue volunteer workers, according to members of the REAL Syria Civil Defense shortly after this western creation was launched in 2013 by high ranking British and NATO military intelligence operative James Le Mesurier:

“They came in and they drove us out of our homes and they came to the Syria Civil Defence yard and they killed some of my comrades, they kidnapped others.  They wanted to force me to work with them.  I escaped at night.  I was forced to leave my teenage sons behind. They burned my house to the ground and they put my name on all the terrorist checkpoints so if I go back, they will kill me.” ~ ‘Khaled’ (REAL Syria Civil Defense survivor, recounting 2012 terrorist takeover, Aleppo)

Note also that the ‘White Helmets’ are drawing finance of at least $60 million primarily from NATO members states, including at $23 million from US AID (US State Dept), $25 million (£19.7 million) from British Foreign Office, $4.5 million (€4 million) Netherlands, and other funding directly from the EU supposedly for ‘assistance and training,’. Initial investigations into the extent of the EU funding and equipping of this deceitfully self proclaimed “independent” NGO is still ongoing but has already demonstrated that the EU is also heavily  invested in this terrorist support group, the White Helmets.

It was announced, just today, that the German Foreign Office is officially funding the White Helmets with $7.86 million (7 million Euros). Also, the recent awarding of the “Alternative Nobel Peace Prize” to the White Helmets seems to be another conveniently-timed PR device designed to further legitimized additional public funding for what can rightly be described as a terrorist-linked criminal entity.

This funding is concealed behind the generic heading of  “Emergency Health and Relief Support to the Population Affected by the Crisis in Syria”, through the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG-ECHO), formerly known as the European Community Humanitarian Aid Office.

This latest media stunt essentially amounts to heavily politicized ‘gotcha’ blogging by Bellingcat. In this instance it appears that Bellingcat is attempting to amplify a fraudulent, and poorly staged “Russian bombing” of a “UN supply warehouse” supposedly run by the Syrian Arab Red Crescent in the ‘rebel’ terrorist-held town of Urm al-Kubra.

Here, Bellingcat’s director, Higgins posts a colourful array of images, diagrams and “proof” of a Russian bomb landing:

belingcat-syria

screen-shot-2016-09-24-at-01-40-02
(Image Sources: Bellingcat)

The only problem with Higgins’ elaborate “open source” trove is that he is much more likely to be analysing a staged photo-op, a set-dressing job courtesy of the White Helmets media team. Put simply, the narrative that’s been contrived by Belingcat and the White Helmets is an impossibility, based on image scenes provided by the White Helmets.

Here we see the primary photo of the alleged “Russian bombing” scene:

800px-ofab-250_bomb_in_urm_al-kubra_warehouse
Alleged scene of a Russian OFAB 250-270 high explosive fragmentation bomb (Source: Twitter)

According to independent analyst, Petri Krohn:

“This really looks like something considerably smaller, mortar shell sized, did explode there, and this fin is thrown into the crater, and all converted into this photo-op scene.”

“I don’t think anything exploded here, just hit the ground with force to make that crater, or it was already there. The shredding of the boxes to me suggests shrapnel, small, anti-personnel fletchettes.”

Krohn outlines a more likely sequence of events, and suggests the following possible scenario:

“Three things happened:

1) In August or July a small rocket or bomb came through the roof and left the burn marks seen on the walls.

2) On September 19 boxes of medical aid from the SARC convoy were placed next to the old crater, right under the hole in the roof. A small hand explosive was detonated in the old crater.

3) A OFAB-250 tail section was placed in the crater by White Helmets and partly covered with some boxes.

Photographs were taken, proving, ‘ASSAD KILLED US! PUTIN KILLED US!’

Give al-Nusra a No-Fly Zone now!”

“Bellingcat obtained its photos directly from the White Helmets that show that the object is not a dud OFAB-250, as previously assumed, but a crushed OFAB-250 tail section from a bomb that exploded somewhere else.”

The idea of the damage having been done prior to the alleged Russian/Syrian airstrike is more than plausible, as Urm al Kubra is a Nour al Din Zenki held area, an island in amongst Nusra Front held areas. 21WIRE has also learned that heavy inter-gang warfare had been going on since the 17th of September according to multiple sources on the ground in Syria.

The following tweet also further demonstrates the invalidity of the White Helmet reports. Indeed, how could the “witness” know for certain that it was Russian and Syrian planes, at night and in the dark, and in the midst of a supposed strike? Equally, why cant we hear and jets and helicopters?

21WIRE contributor Vanessa Beeley recently returned from Aleppo , and told us that the, “sounds of the Russian jets are deafening.”  Therefore, if this had been an extended air-strike conducted by both Russian and Syrian jets [and helicopters according to initial reports of ‘barrel bombs‘] they should have been clearly audible in this video of the said “attack”:


The ground conflict in Syria is being perpetuated by western terrorist brigades under a variety of names , but perhaps the greatest damage to  Syria and the Syrian people has been inflicted upon them by the propaganda merchants, a compliant western media, ‘humanitarian’ NGOs, US/NATO think-tanks, and all manner of NATO-biased, ‘Leftist’ peace activists or anti-war protesters in the west calling for another ‘war to end a war’ – when this present war was started by their  own governments who are still determined to escalate this war against Syria to effect their “regime change” policy targets.

This latest media incident once more demonstrates the size and power of the apparatus driving this propaganda – with a full compliment of ancillary crisis actors and extras.

From the reactions of Kerry and the West, it is hard not to conclude that we are being propelled closer to the abyss of a dangerous geopolitical standoff, or a World War.

For additional information on the west’s ‘White Helmets’, watch this short video:

Syria: White Helmets Staged ‘Russian Bombing’ Scene Near Aleppo, Lapped-up By Mainstream Media.

U.S. Renews Calls For Attack On Syria Air Force, U.K. Calls For Safe Zones, Military Action

 

syria safe zone

As tension between the West and Russia over the Syrian crisis heats up yet again, a combination effort on the part of elements within the United States and the UK are pushing for direct military confrontation with the Syrian military as well as the Russians. Indeed, after a period of time suggesting a major improvement on the ground, it appears that there is now the possibility of renewed vigor on the part of the imperialist Western powers in their goal to destroy Syria, even at the cost of igniting World War 3.

After having violated international law and Syria’s national sovereignty by not only funding and supporting proxy soldiers for the purpose of destroying the secular government of Bashar al-Assad but also by deploying aircraft and troops in the country despite not being invited in by the legitimate government, the U.S. is now warning Russia and Syria against targeting terrorists and Western proxy fighters within Syria’s own territory.

The new U.S. Commander of American troops in Iraq and Syria stated on August 22 that he will “defend” the Special Operations Forces aggressively deployed by the United States to Northern Syria if Syrian warplanes or Syrian artillery again strike areas where U.S. troops are located.

During an interview with CNN, Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend stated from his headquarters in Baghdad that “We’ve informed the Russians where we’re at … (they) tell us they’ve informed the Syrians, and I’d just say that we will defend ourselves if we feel threatened.”

The hypocrisy and deception of the United States government on this issue has now reached a staggering level. An accurate translation of what Townsend is saying is that “We have funded proxy terrorists to destroy the Syrian government. Those terrorists started losing so we deployed troops to support them and forge new brigades of terrorism with Kurds. Despite the fact that we deployed these troops against international law, violated Syria’s national sovereignty, as well as the wishes of the majority of the world, we will play the victim if those troops are injured during the course of Syria’s battle with the terrorists we support. We will then attack Syrian planes as a response to attacking terrorists whom our soldiers are assisting in attacking the Syrian government.” In other words, the U.S. position is that “We will attack you whenever we want, however we want, and everyone and everything else in the world be damned. And if you dare respond, we will play the victim, drum up sympathy and good ol’ fashioned ‘Murican patriotism back home so that we can launch a full-scale war upon your country.”

Essentially, Syria is being threatened with full-scale war if it defends itself and a death of a thousand cuts if it does not. This is an epic level of hypocrisy even for the U.S. government but the most surprising element is that it can be carried out so openly. Perhaps Western audiences are now so utterly befuddled as to foreign policy that such overt acts of deception and aggression simply go unnoticed.

Enter the British. Never known to take a backseat in hypocrisy, thirty Labour MPs are now calling for a “safe zone” in Syria, an obvious and admitted act of war that would initiate the creation of Libya 2.0. The pro-war camp is fully playing up the “spirit of Jo Cox,” the celebrated humanitarian bomber and warmonger who was murdered earlier this year. The campaign to create “safe zones” and “buffer zones” in Syria is being promoted not only by the war hawks in parliament but also by “friends” of Cox and the UK military establishment.

“In life, Jo argued with such passion and eloquence that the UK armed forces could play a role in protecting civilians in Syria by enforcing a ‘no bomb’ zone,” said John Woodstock, friend of Cox. “This is a time for Britain to show the courage and resolve which Jo herself exemplified by taking bolder action to end the horrific bloodshed.”

Translation: a warmongering MP was murdered so let’s pretend to honor her by ensuring that the people she wanted to murder while she was still alive are murdered now that she is dead.

This may be poor logic and poor presentation but, unfortunately, this type of propaganda is effective in the modern-day UK.

The former Shadow Minister, Pat McFadden chimed in as well. “The British contribution to attacking Isis strongholds – in which our pilots do everything they can to avoid civilian casualties – is an important part of the effort to free the people of Syria from the brutality of what they have been enduring. The whole approach to Syria has been marked by a reluctance to intervene but telling ourselves that because we didn’t break it we didn’t buy it is of little comfort to the innocent victims of the war.”

Translation: We have been bombing intermittently for some time and that is good but we should just go all in, to hell with civilian casualties and to hell with international law. In fact, to hell with our own population who will pay the price in blood and sacrifice as well as lower living standards back home.

The UK military voice is chiming in as well. As Col. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon said:

There is a military solution here and now is the time to be bold. We aren’t talking about boots on the ground, the very least we can do is place no bomb zones around hospitals. As the Russian government have strenuously denied that they target hospitals there should, in theory, be little danger of the nightmare scenario of a British or US jet shooting down a Russian one.

I have suggested creating a Safe Zone for civilians to go to in North West Syria and protect it otherwise they will remain and die in Aleppo or leave and turn right to Raqqa, where we could see them turn to Isil. The very least we can do is place no bomb zones around hospitals.

Translation: We have to destroy the Syrian government. I think we can do this without starting thermonuclear World War 3 but it’s just a chance we will have to take. Let’s create a “safe zone” that is, in effect, a refuge for terrorists and an excuse to bomb the Syrian Air Force out of existence. We can use hospitals and civilians as excuses. And if that nuclear world war happens, we will know we made the wrong decision.

According to the Telegraph, sources close to Hillary Clinton have stated that Killary is planning on a “safe zone” approach upon her coronation, er, election.

The idea of establishing a “safe zone” in Syria is, of course, not a new concept. In July, 2015, the agreement being discussed would have effectively created a “buffer zone” that would have spanned from the Turkish border line into Syria. It would have extended from Azaz in the East to Jarablus in the West and as far south as al-Bab. The width of the zone would have been about 68 miles and would have extended around 40 miles deep into Syria, right on the doorstep of Aleppo.

The zone would have much smaller than that which Turkey and the United States have been calling for in the years prior and wouldn’t have necessarily stretched the length of the Turkey-Syria border. But it is a start.

True to form, the US and Turkey attempted to obfuscate the fact that their agreement was the creation of a no-fly zone by renaming it an “ISIL-free zone.” This is the same tactic used when the term “no-fly zone” and “buffer zone” began to draw too much ire from observers only a year ago. Then, the term became “safe zone.”

Semantics have served NATO and the United States well over the years. After all, a simple name change of terrorist organizations has made the Anglo-American powers able to produce “moderate rebels” and the most frightening terrorist organization the world has ever seen while using the same group of terrorists.

The description of the “ISIL-free zone” of 2015 was that it would be a distinguished area in which the Turkish and U.S. military would engage in aggressive operations against ISIS. It was floated that this area would have also functioned as a place where civilians displaced by the Syrian crisis may run to for safe haven and where “moderate rebel” forces can maintain a higher presence free from the battles with ISIS.

“Once the area is cleared, the plan is to give control to as-yet-unidentified moderate Syrian rebel groups. The United States and Turkey have differing interpretations as to which groups can be defined as ‘moderate,’” the Washington Post reported.

The reality, however, is that the “ISIL-free zone” would have been nothing more than a Forward Operating Base deeper into Syrian territory, working under the direct protection of the U.S. military and Turkish air force. That is exactly what the British and the U.S. are arguing for today.

Going further back, public discussion of the implementation of a “buffer zone” began as far back as 2012 when the Brookings Institution, in their memo “Assessing Options For Regime Change” stated:

An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.

The Brookings Institution went further, however, describing a possible scenario that mirrors the one currently unfolding in Syria where Turkey, in coordination with Israel, could help overthrow Assad by establishing a “multi-front war” on Syria’s borders. Brookings writes:

In addition, Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly.

Of course, the establishment of a “No-Fly Zone” is tantamount to a declaration of war. Such has even been admitted by top U.S. generals when explaining exactly what a No Fly Zone would entail. As General Carter Ham stated,

We should make no bones about it. It first entails killing a lot of people and destroying the Syrian air defenses and those people who are manning those systems. And then it entails destroying the Syrian air force, preferably on the ground, in the air if necessary. This is a violent combat action that results in lots of casualties and increased risk to our own personnel.

General Philip Breedlove also echoed this description when he said,

I know it sounds stark, but what I always tell people when they talk to me about a no-fly zone is . . . it’s basically to start a war with that country because you are going to have to go in and kinetically take out their air defense capability

Regardless of the fact that the Anglo-American empire may very well be risking a direct military confrontation with another nuclear power, the NATO forces are intent on moving forward in their attempt to destroy Syria and its government. The major victories by the Syrian military that have taken place in recent weeks as well as the inability of the West’s terrorists to roll back SAA gains have obviously convinced NATO that more drastic measures are needed and that proxies are simply not enough to defeat a committed military supported by its people.

For a national oligarchy intent on “warning” other countries against defending themselves, we encourage the United States establishment to begin paying attention to warning signs themselves.

By Brandon Turbeville

 

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

 

U.S. Renews Calls For Attack On Syria Air Force, U.K. Calls For Safe Zones, Military Action.

What Could Go Wrong? US Unveils Artificially Intelligent Fighter Pilot

 

ai-fighter-pilots

The two most aggressive military forces in the world have added a new frontier in their immense ability to deal death and destruction. In the same week, an Israeli firm launched the first-ever torpedo from an unmanned sea vessel while a U.S. artificially intelligent fighter pilot easily won combat simulations against human pilots.

These achievements are a testament to the sad reality that military interests are often the first to take advantage of wondrous advancements such as AI, just as nuclear physics and other technologies were hijacked for more efficient methods of killing.

Stephen Hawking pointed this out during an interview on the Larry King show.

Governments seem to be engaged in an AI arms race, designing planes and weapons with intelligent technologies. The funding for projects directly beneficial to the human race, such as improved medical screening seems a somewhat lower priority.

The AI fighter jet pilot, known as Alpha, was developed by researchers from the University of Cincinnati and defense company Psibernetix. It used four virtual jets to defend a coastline from two attacking planes with superior weapons systems—without suffering any losses.

Retired US Air Force colonel Gene Lee was shot out of the air every time after protracted engagements, and could not even manage to score a hit on Alpha.

The groundbreaking feat was accomplished through the use of “fuzzy logic” to efficiently compute the massive amounts of data from a simulated fighter jet. Instead of analyzing every bit of data equally, fuzzy logic assigns a degree of truth or significance to the pieces of data before making a broader decision.

“Here, you’ve got an AI system that seems to be able to deal with the air-to-air environment, which is extraordinarily dynamic, has an extraordinary number of parameters and, in the paper, more than holds its own against a skilled and capable, experienced combat pilot,” said Doug Barrie, a military aerospace analyst at think tank IISS.

“It’s like a chess master losing out to a computer.”

For now, the talk is about using Alpha “as a simulation tool or as a device to help develop better systems for assisting human pilots in the air.” But it’s a safe assumption that using AI to pilot real machines is being explored by a military machine incessantly hungry for the next best means of reaping death and destruction.

If an AI fighter pilot were ever to fly an actual fighter jet, the obvious question is, what happens when it decides to attack a non-military target? Of course, human pilots routinely bomb innocent civilians, but this is “justified” as collateral damage in the pursuit of defeating the bogeyman du jour.

The unmanned torpedo-launching sea vessel system, called Seagull, will soon be put into use by the Israeli Navy for use against submarines and sea mines. It consists of one or two surface vessels, each about 40 feet long, operated remotely from manned ships or the shore.

One vessel carries a sonar system that can search the entire water volume, with another that deploys an underwater robot for further investigation. When a threat is confirmed, a vessel launches a torpedo-like weapon to destroy the target.

This test carried out in the Haifa port marks the first time that a torpedo has been launched from an unmanned boat.

‘The success of the first torpedo launch test is a major milestone, confirming the Unmanned Surface Vessel’s capability to incorporate weapons that counter submarines, in addition to its unique submarine and mine detection capabilities,’ Elbit, the firm behind the trial said.

While it’s great to “take the man out of the minefield,” the Seagull also represents the kind of military advancement we see with unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones.

As we know, drones have been the tool of choice for expanding undeclared war into countries in the name of fighting terrorism, which has resulted in thousands of innocent civilians being killed. When bombing is carried out remotely, from the comfort of a padded seat in a secure building, the operator is that much more detached from the reality of killing people.

Former drone operators have gone public about the blood lust and indifference that characterizes the drone assassination program, and fellow operators getting intoxicated to “bend that reality and try to picture yourself not being there.”

Of course, operating torpedo-equipped sea vessels is a different beast, but the trend toward unmanned killing machines is nonetheless troubling. With AI being brought into military technology, how long before scenes from the Terminator movies are a real thing?

By Justin Gardner

 

Justin Gardner writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.

 

What Could Go Wrong? US Unveils Artificially Intelligent Fighter Pilot.

NATO Commander Confirms: “Russian Aggression” Is Actually Nonexistent

 

TDC Note – Is this not the exact same thing Putin has been saying for well over a year?

by James Holbrooks, Underground Reporter

Brussels — Amid continued assertions about “Russian aggression” by NATO and its member nations — and coming just days after announcements that additional military assets will be deployed to Eastern Europe — a top commander of the alliance has just admitted that, in fact, the Russian threat is actually nonexistent.

“It is not the aim of NATO to create a military barrier against broad-scale Russian aggression,” General Petr Pavel, chairman of the NATO Military Committee, said on Monday, “because such aggression is not on the agenda and no intelligence assessment suggests such a thing.”

The admission stands in stark contrast to statements from other NATO leaders, who, as recently as mid-June, announced plans to deploy four international battalions to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland in the name of “defense and deterrence” against Russian action.

Defense Secretary Michael Fallon of Britain — one of the countries pledged to contribute to the military effort — stated at a press conference at NATO headquarters that the move sends “a very clear message that we are committed to defend the eastern flank. NATO is strong and united…We are ready to respond to any threat.”

Again, this statement contradicts what other top NATO officials are publicly saying.

“Russia could take over the Baltic states faster than we would be able to defend them,” General Ben Hodges — commander of U.S. ground forces in Europe — recently told German publication Die Zeit.

That assessment echoes what the commander told the BBC amid ongoing military drills in Poland earlier this month:

“The thing I worry about most is freedom of movement. Their snap exercises that they do, I personally am surprised each time they do it. And so you can see why that scares me.”

The Polish drills were part of a coordinated action that involved 31,000 troops from over twenty countries — what NBC called “the largest military exercises since the Cold War ended.”

Not surprisingly, Russian president Vladimir Putin expressed serious concerns on Wednesday about continued provocations by NATO forces. While speaking in Moscow on the 75th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of the USSR, the leader stated:

“NATO is stepping up its aggressive rhetoric and its aggressive actions close to our borders.”

He went on:

“In these conditions, we are obliged to dedicate special attention to resolving tasks connected with heightening the defense capabilities of our country.”

Considering the massive scale of the military buildup along Russia’s border — and in the face of conflicting and altogether confusing statements from NATO’s own commanders — President Putin’s concerns appear to be wholly justified.

Despite this common sense approach to national defense, however, the Russian leader’s words will no doubt be used as fodder to further the narrative of “Russian aggression” being touted by both governments and media outlets worldwide.

 

NATO Commander Confirms: “Russian Aggression” Is Actually Nonexistent – The Daily Coin.

« Older Entries