Intel Officials: Civilian Deaths in US Coalition in Mosul, 66X Higher Than US Says—40,000 Dead

Searing new information reveals the months-long battle by the U.S.-led coalition to liberate Mosul, Iraq, from the self-described Islamic State left a catastrophic number of people dead — exponentially more than previously claimed in American and other Western mainstream press — in fact, Intelligence officials now say the operation took more than 40,000 civilians lives.

Astonishingly, the coalition insists just 603 civilians have been “unintentionally killed” during months of intense combat for Operation Inherent Resolve — at least 66 times fewer civilian casualties than what the new information claims.

Kurdish Intelligence officials speaking with the Independent note the bombings, airstrikes, artillery rockets, and other firepower — launched variously by the coalition, Iraqi government forces, and Daesh — killed scores more than the several hundred deaths officially attributed the operation by the Pentagon, and trounced even the estimation of 6,000 dead, proffered by military watchdog group, Airwars.

Former Iraq senior minister, Hoshyar Zebari, told the Independent an unknown number of bodies “are still buried under the rubble,” with conditions so bleak in the decimated city, the “level of human suffering is immense.”

“Kurdish intelligence believes that over 40,000 civilians have been killed as a result of massive firepower used against them,” he continued, “especially by the Federal Police, air strikes and Isis itself.”

Advertisment

According to the outlet,

“Mr Zebari, a native of Mosul and top Kurdish official who has served as the Iraqi Finance Minister and prior to that Foreign Minister, emphasised in an exclusive interview that the unrelenting artillery bombardment by units of the Federal Police, in practice a heavily armed military unit, had caused immense destruction and loss of life in west Mosul.”

If Zebari and the Kurdistan Regional Government are indeed correct — and, according to the Independent, the latter boasts a “reputation for being extremely accurate and well-informed” — then the scope and violence of the undertaking have been drastically if unsurprisingly misrepresented to the Western public.

Manipulation of the death count  — particularly that of the same innocents anti-Islamic State forces putatively sought to protect from militants — serves to maintain the vestiges of long-diminished public support for the U.S. agenda in Iraq by downplaying the war’s extensive impact on the families either uninvolved or victim to the conflict.

Having gained insight firsthand from his previous position, Zebari lambasted Baghdad for deliberately ignoring the suffering experienced by those left in Mosul, remarking, “Sometimes you might think the government is indifferent to what has happened.”

READ MORE:  Pentagon "Lost" a Quarter of a Billion Dollars that was Supposed to be Used to Fight ISIS

Similar to other areas in the Middle East on the receiving end of U.S. foreign policy, Mosul’s centuries-old record of tolerance and cooperation amongst a host of religious and ethnic minorities likely cannot endure governance of the Sunni Arab majority in power, Zebari explained, as Yazidis, Kurds, Christians, and others see them responsible for much of the misery, including rape and murder.

Indeed, the Iraqi city’s Sunni population continues to face a broad backlash for supporting Daesh throughout the terrorist group’s three-year occupation — since the liberation of Mosul, Iraq government forces have inflicted cruel and unforgiving punishments against former ISIL fighters.

Eagerly corrupt government officials facilitated travel through tightly-controlled military checkpoints for Daesh militants who should not have been provided safe, unencumbered passage, the former government official explained. Reports the Independent,

“Reading from Kurdish intelligence reports, Mr Zebari says that a high level of corruption among the Iraqi military forces occupying Mosul is undermining security measures to suppress Isis in the aftermath of its defeat. He says that suspect individuals are able to pass through military checkpoints by paying $1,000 (£770) and can bring a vehicle by paying $1,500. He says corruption of this type is particularly rife in the 16th and 9th Iraqi Army Divisions and the Tribal Volunteers (Hashd al-Ashairi), drawn in part from the Shabak minority in the Nineveh Plain.

“The ability of Isis militants to remain free or be released from detention by paying bribes has led to a change in attitude among people in Mosul whom Mr Zebari says ‘were previously willing to give information about Isis members to the Iraqi security forces.’”

Justifiably terrified fighters would be free to exact revenge against anyone bold enough to name names, Mosul’s war-weary residents instead opt to remain silent — this conundrum tacitly allowing ISIL “sleeper cells” to continue operating in Mosul without much fear of reprisal or punishment, and, as the Independent elaborates,

“A belief that Isis fighters and officials detained in Mosul are later able to bribe their way free explains why soldiers, most of whom are not complicit in bribery networks, have summarily executed Isis prisoners, sometimes by throwing them off high buildings.”

Although the Independent does not share with readers the Intelligence documents the outlet claims to have observed — making verification of figures as impossible as those sums touted by the Pentagon or White House — that Hoshyar Zebari allowed use of his name provides more credence than typically vague propaganda-laced reports emanating from the U.S. government.

Recovery from war, the occupation of Daesh, and yet more war will undoubtedly hinder speedy recovery for the city; but, despite official declarations Mosul has been cleansed of the last terrorist holdouts, militants still lurk surreptitiously and in the skeletons of crumbling structures.

Beyond the torment and squalor in the wake of liberation, Zebari — who grew up in Mosul — opined the self-described caliphate’s annihilation of historic city’s architectural and religious gems, noting wistfully, “the soul of Mosul has gone and its iconic buildings are destroyed.”

Iran Claims Proof Of 'Direct US Support" For ISIS Days After Congressman Dana Rohrabacher Floats The Idea

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

Last Thursday, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher praised ISIS for coordinated terrorist attacks in Tehran which left 17 civilians dead - then suggested that the United States should support the terrorist organization in their endeavors to bring regime change to Iran, comparing the situation to working with Stalin"s Russia to get Hitler.

Rohrabacher: Isn"t it a good thing for us to have Untied States finally backing up Sunnis who will attack Hezbollah and the Shiite threat to us? Isn"t that a good thing? And if so, maybe this is a Trump strategy of actually supporting one group against another considering that you have terrorist organizations.

Maybe it"s a good idea to have radical Muslim terrorists fighting each other?

Dr. Asher: Having coordinated the economic warfare plan against the Islamic State, I would not condone an attack by the Islamic State. I would be determined to destroy them.

  

Three days later, Iran says that"s exactly what"s happening...

Iran"s Fars news agency reports that Iran possess documents claiming to prove that the United States provides "Direct" support to ISIS. According to deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces - Major General Mostafa Izadi, Iran is "facing a proxy warfare in the region as a new trick by the arrogant powers against the Islamic Republic."

As the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution (Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei) said, we possess documents and information showing the direct supports by the US imperialism for this highly disgusting stream (the ISIL) in the region which has destroyed the Islamic countries and created a wave of massacres and clashes -Fars

As ZeroHedge notes, Izadi"s statement echoed remarks made by Iranian politician Ali Larijani last Friday - who pointed a finger directly at the United States for last week"s terrorist attacks in Tehran. At a funeral ceremony for the victims, Larijani said "The United States has aligned itself with the ISIL in the region,"

Turkey"s Erdogan claimed that the US supports ISIS

In December 2016, Turkish President Erdogan said "he has evidence that the US supported terrorists in Syria, including ISIS."

They were accusing us of supporting Daesh [Islamic State],” he told a press conference, according to Reuters.

“Now they give support to terrorist groups including Daesh, YPG, PYD. It"s very clear. We have confirmed evidence, with pictures, photos and videos. -Erdogan

For years, anyone saying US UK had backed IS terror was branded a "conspiracy theorist". Now, Erdogan says it"s truehttps://t.co/qE9SFBkPoQ

— Charles Shoebridge (@ShoebridgeC) December 27, 2016

And in July of 2016, Julian Assange made a similar claim. Additionally - according to Wikileaks and the Podesta emails, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been supporting ISIS as well.

Hillary Clinton email reveals she knew of Saudi & Qatar government funding for ISIL (ISIS) by August 2014 https://t.co/tlWxkEZ8FN pic.twitter.com/RmaFi9lQQP

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) June 5, 2017

Iran hasn"t said if or when they will release proof of US support for ISIS/ISIL. Better not be trolling...

 In the meantime, perhaps US politicians would be wise not to cheerlead for support of one of the most brutal organizations on the planet. If the USA is in fact funding ISIS - that entire operation needs to be shut down and those responsible held to account.

Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow

US Just Warned Traveling Citizens That a Terror Attack May Happen at Any Time

In a rather unexpected move, the United States has now issued a terror alert warning citizens about travel throughout the European Union, and — while the warning recalls relatively recent incidents in France, the UK, Russia, and Sweden — its timing, amid hostilities with North Korea and others, implies an ominous prognostication, rather than cautionary heads-up.

For the U.S. Department of State to issue such a warning — unconnected in immediacy to any specific incident in the E.U. — appears to adhere to guidelines of past warnings, in that its impetus likely rests in credible babble of an imminent threat to life.

“While local governments continue counterterrorism operations,” the U.S. Department of State’s newest Travel Alert reads, “the Department nevertheless remains concerned about the potential for future terrorist attacks. U.S. citizens should always be alert to the possibility that terrorist sympathizers or self-radicalized extremists may conduct attacks with little or no warning.”

Interestingly, while the State Department admonishes citizens operatives of the Islamic State could strike at any time, it also cautions specifically against militants of al-Qaeda — the War on Terror’s original Enemy Number One — a group which now claims to be fighting alongside the U.S. in Yemen, among other locations.

Nevertheless, the warning continues,

“Extremists continue to focus on tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets/shopping malls, and local government facilities as viable targets. In addition, hotels, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, parks, high-profile events, educational institutions, airports, and other soft targets remain priority locations for possible attacks. U.S. citizens should exercise additional vigilance in these and similar locations, in particular during the upcoming summer travel season when large crowds may be common.

“Terrorists persist in employing a variety of tactics, including firearms, explosives, using vehicles as ramming devices, and sharp-edged weapons that are difficult to detect prior to an attack.”

Indeed, caution is necessitated — arguably, everywhere the United States continues fighting militarily in answer to political woes — and although the most dangerous locales undoubtedly lie in direct conflict zones, it is interventionist, imperialist foreign policy to blame for safety concerns.

Slated to continue through September 1, the travel advisement insinuates safety rests in the traveler’s purview — and not in a constriction of troops from areas known hostile to U.S. presence, where rage and a feeling of exploitation thwart any potential good intentions.

By all outward appearances, President Trump’s administration has not quelled the nefarious effects of blowback — a term murkily coined by both the U.S. Intelligence Community and journalists present abroad in delicate situations — comprising the negative and damaging repercussions, direct and surreptitious, from operations like regime change, undesired otherwise by civilian populations.

Blowback could not be more clear from the self-titled Islamic State, whose militants frequently cite U.S. operations interfering in the affairs of predominantly Muslim, sovereign States as the impetus for attacks carried out or threatened.

Unusual in the State Department’s travel alert is its duration and lack of specificity — its ambiguity, alone, suggests U.S. Intelligence might possess additional information not made apparent to travelers to Europe.

Why, when all the conditions listed have not changed for months or years, would State abruptly announce the need for increased vigilance and wariness when traveling abroad to Western-allied nations?

Issuing a caution without elaborating on the details of its sudden imperative nature necessitates questions about the extent of knowledge withheld from the populace. While the matter likely isn’t suspicious beyond what we’ve been told, the Department of State would not announce such a warning were no legitimate threat present.

“We continue to work closely with our European partners and allies on the threat from international terrorism,” the alert concludes. “Information is routinely shared between the United States and our key partners to disrupt terrorist plotting, identify and take action against potential operatives, and strengthen our defenses against potential threats.”

Perhaps, in an abundance of caution, State felt informing the public — without exploding latent fear and paranoia — usurped the need to provide comprehensive information.

Or, perhaps — as aforementioned — the U.S. Department of State knows more than it would ever provide, much less acknowledge openly.

Thanks to Trump, 50K US Troops May Soon Be Fighting Side-by-Side With ISIS/Al-Qaeda

If President Trump’s National Security Adviser, Gen. H.R. McMaster has his way, up to 50,000 ground troops will be deployed in Syria; but that would constitute a remarkable escalation in hostilities — particularly after Trump catapulted the U.S. directly into the fraught conflict with the launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles against a Syrian air base in retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians.

It isn’t as if tens of thousands of American troops would be well-received by President Bashar al-Assad, whose ally, Russia — actively fighting an intricate web of terror groups for control of the nation — has been embroiled in a volatile proxy war with the United States.

Antiwar.com’s Jason Ditz explains,

“When President Trump took office, Syria had only about 300-400 US troops present, and while that number has grown significantly (exact figures are no longer provided by the Pentagon), a 50,000 troop deployment would be both shocking and have a huge impact on the region, likely sparking a major backlash from Syria, who has not invited US troops to operate in their territory in the first place.”

A troop deployment of that magnitude could also risk putting Washington in direct conflict with Moscow — feasibly acting as the catalyst for world war. Not to mention, it would be a substantial departure from Trump’s statement to Fox Business News,

“We’re not going into Syria.”

And as Bloomberg reports, McMaster’s strategy hasn’t necessarily been well-received by others in the Trump administration:

“McMaster himself has found resistance to a more robust ground troop presence in Syria. In two meetings since the end of February of Trump’s national security cabinet, known as the principals’ committee, Trump’s top advisers have failed to reach consensus on the Islamic State strategy. The White House and administration officials say Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford and General Joseph Votel, who is in charge of U.S. Central Command, oppose sending more conventional forces into Syria. Meanwhile, White House senior strategist Stephen Bannon has derided McMaster to his colleagues as trying to start a new Iraq War, according to these sources.”

Trump’s first national security adviser, Ret. Lt. General Michael Flynn, had — as many others — sought to avoid increased troop presence in Syria’s complex war, as it would pit U.S. personnel against militants of the Islamic State and iterations of al-Qaeda, as well as the Russian and Syrian militaries.

McMaster’s opponents feel an amplified version of former President Obama’s plans to fight ISIL — airstrikes in conjunction with special forces operations, including the training of local fighters — presents the most efficacious strategy to deal with Syria’s murky morass of hostile entities.

Bloomberg notes top Pentagon brass seek to loosen rules of engagement for special forces, including providing them additional air support, such as attack helicopters, for future operations against the self-proclaimed caliphate.

But that would require reliance on groups with personal agendas in Syria — like Kurdish militias.

Retired four-star U.S. Army General Jack Keane — who is close to McMaster but did not speak for the general — told Bloomberg’s senior national security correspondent, Eli Lake, that while the Kurds have indeed actively fought ISIL, Arab forces have been primarily focused on fighting the Assad regime.

“Our special operations guys believe rightfully so that this was a proven force that could fight,” Keane told Lake of the Kurdish fighters. “While this makes sense tactically, it doesn’t make sense strategically. Those are Arab lands, and the Arabs are not going to put up with Syrian Kurds retaking Arab lands. Whenever you select a military option, you have got to determine what political end state will this support. Regrettably this option puts us back to the drawing board.”

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has expressed marked ambivalence over the U.S. arming and training to Syrian Kurds — whom he believes allied with Turkey’s Kurdish separatist rebels — as those assets could hastily be turned against the Turkish government. And that perception is high-risk for the U.S. military, which requires access to Turkey’s Incirlik air base to fly sorties against the Islamic State in Syria and elsewhere in the region.

Keane feels the U.S. would be better served accepting the assistance of Sunni Arab coalition forces in fighting the Islamic State. But that could further exacerbate tensions with Shi’a fighters, as well as with the Assad regime.

Although two unnamed and unverifiable sources told Lake the 50,000 troops figure is being debated behind closed doors, an explosive report circulated widely online, which cited that figure as 150,000 troops, is wildly exaggerated and not at all legitimate.

Every possible solution to the issue of Syria — where the U.S. seeks to depose Assad, while combating the insidious Islamic State — is now being deliberated.

With Trump’s schizophrenic amplifications of tension peppered with an almost dismissive tone on the threat presented by Assad remaining in power, whether or not McMaster’s desired 50,000 U.S. military personnel will actually be deployed to war-ravaged Syria remains an open — and crucial — question.

In New Executive Order, Trump Plans To Send ISIS Detainees To Guantanamo

The Trump Administration is preparing an executive order that would direct the Pentagon to bring future Islamic State detainees to Guantánamo Bay prison, despite warnings from national security officials and legal scholars that doing so risks undermining what increasinly appears as an "illegal" war launched by Obama to combat the terrorist organization (which many have accused of being directly and indirectly created by Saudi Arabia and the US itself).

According to the NYT which obtained a draft of the order (see below), White House officials "have spelled out their thinking about a new detainee policy in an evolving series of drafts of an executive order being circulated among national security officials for comment.

While previous versions have shown that the draft has undergone many changes – including dropping language about reviving C.I.A. prisons – the plan to add Islamic State detainees to the Guantánamo population has remained constant.  The latest version of the draft, which circulated this week, would direct Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to use Guantánamo to detain suspected members of “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, including individuals and networks associated with the Islamic State.”

The White House has kept similar language in the draft order despite warnings from career government national security officials that carrying out its plan would give federal judges an opportunity to reject the executive branch’s theory that the war against the Islamic State is legal, even though Congress never explicitly authorized it. The issue could arise when reviewing an inevitable habeas corpus lawsuit filed by an ISIS detainee.

The Obama administration first argued in late summer 2014 that the Islamic State was part of the existing armed conflict that Congress authorized in 2001 against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But while the Islamic State got its start as Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq a decade ago, that theory is disputed because the two groups later split and went to war with each other. By pushing forward with the ISIS detention provision, legal experts challenge that Trump could undo the very basis of the unwritten US war against ISIS:

“It raises huge legal risks,” said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former senior Justice Department official in the Bush administration. “If a judge says the Sept. 11 authorization does not cover such a detention, it would not only make that detention unlawful, it would weaken the legal basis for the entire war against the Islamic State.”

Ryan Goodman, a New York University law professor who worked at the Pentagon during the Obama administration, also chimed in and said there were other reasons bringing an Islamic State detainee to Guantánamo for indefinite detention, as opposed to prosecuting him in civilian court, might raise problems: Foreign allies, he said, might refuse to turn over prisoners or assist in detention operations if that was the administration’s goal.

But even if that turns out not to be the case, he said, the legal risks of bringing a suspected member of the Islamic State, sometimes referred to as ISIL, are “very serious.”

“If I were in the administration, I would advise that bringing ISIL fighters to Guantánamo raises too many legal risks,” he said. “If a court finds the 2001 statute does not apply to ISIL because of the extraordinarily remote links between ISIL and the original Al Qaeda, then it would put into legal jeopardy the executive branch’s basis for lethal operations as well as detention operations.”

Ironically, if Goldsmith and Goodman are right, it would be yet another case of Trump getting blamed and punished for errors accumulated during the Obama administration. Here is a brief timeline why, from the NYT:

In the 2012 version of the annual National Defense Authorization Act, Congress bolstered the government’s power to imprison suspected members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces by authorizing such detentions without reference to the Sept. 11 attacks. But while it has provided funds for military operations against the Islamic State, it has never explicitly authorized combat or detention operations against it.

In summer 2014, when the group swept out of Syria and began rapidly conquering swaths of Iraq, Mr. Obama launched a bombing campaign to curtail its advances. At the time, he put forth the theory that the group’s early ties to Al Qaeda were sufficient to bring it under the Sept. 11 war authorization without new action from Congress.

Nevertheless, in 2015, the Obama administration asked Congress to enact an authorization for use of military force against the Islamic State. Lawmakers disagreed about whether it should place limits on the use of ground forces or impose an expiration date, and Congress never acted on the proposal. Congress has continued to give no sign that it has the will or the consensus to explicitly authorize war on the Islamic State.

Last year, an army captain sued Mr. Obama, arguing that the war was illegal because Congress had not authorized it. A Federal District Court judge dismissed the lawsuit without ruling on the legal merits, saying the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the case.

Ultimately, the risk is that any Islamic State detainee at Guantánamo would have legal standing to get a court to rule on the question of whether the group is legitimately part of the war against Al Qaeda, thus collapsing Obama"s nearly three year old war against ISIS which was never legally sanctioned.

The full order as released by the NYT is below:

Congresswoman Who Says U.S. Funds ISIS Just Got Back from Syria: Here’s What She Found

January 31, 2017   |   Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, the lawmaker who accused the U.S. government of funding and arming ISIS and introduced a bill to prevent it from happening in future, recently disclosed that she met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during her recent trip to Syria. The move has reportedly angered many of her fellow congressmen and women.

Upon returning from the war-stricken nation, Gabbard released the following statement in the form of a press release:

“My visit to Syria has made it abundantly clear: Our counterproductive regime change war does not serve America’s interest, and it certainly isn’t in the interest of the Syrian people.

“As I visited with people from across the country, and heard heartbreaking stories of how this war has devastated their lives, I was asked, ‘Why is the United States and its allies helping al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups try to take over Syria? Syria did not attack the United States. Al-Qaeda did.’ I had no answer.”

According to the press release, Gabbard met with refugees, Syrian opposition leaders who led protesters in 2011, widows and family members who fight alongside al-Qaeda groups, pro-Assad troops, humanitarian workers, and students, to name a few. Gabbard also met with high-ranking officials such as Lebanon’s newly-elected President Aon and Prime Minister Hariri, as well as U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Elizabeth Richard, Syrian President Assad, Grand Mufti Hassoun, and Archbishop Denys Antoine Chahda of the Syrian Catholic Church of Aleppo.

Initially, Gabbard allegedly had no intention of meeting Assad, as she stated in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper.

“When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so because I felt that it’s important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we can achieve peace,” she told Tapper.

The meeting with Assad is incredibly controversial because of numerous allegations by the U.N. that Assad has committed crimes against humanity.

“Whatever you think about President Assad, the fact is that he is the president of Syria,” she added. “In order for any peace agreement, in order for any possibility of a viable peace agreement to occur there has to be a conversation with him.”

Not surprisingly, the media has hyped up this visit as outrageous but has omitted some very glaring hypocrisies that arise as a result of Gabbard’s trip to Syria.

First, the Obama administration and Bush administration both drew serious allegations of war crimes, but if Gabbard had met with either of those former presidents, it’s doubtful anyone would have batted an eyelid.

Second, former Secretary of State John Kerry met with Assad in 2009, even though, after nine years in office, Assad was clearly responsible for all of the things western media has been relentlessly accusing him of doing since 2011.

Third, Gabbard’s meeting symbolizes the ridiculousness of America’s foreign policy decision-making system. A few hundred old men and women who have never been to Syria — nor care to go — sit in a room and deliberate a piece of paper deciding whether or not to drop million dollar tomahawk missiles on a relatively poor country. Even when these decision-makers are well aware of the horror their edicts will unleash, they are never required to visit the country, talk to its people, or understand the situation and better educate themselves. In the case of Syria, Congress wasn’t even required to approve the air campaign that began in 2014, as Obama authorized airstrikes without their approval anyway.

Gabbard’s move should be applauded — not ridiculed. Singling Assad out as some sort of mass-murdering psychopath while foreign leaders routinely meet with alleged war criminals such as Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu, Saudi Arabia’s leadership, and Henry Kissinger, to name a few, is the epitome of U.S.-NATO arrogance.

Gabbard may have met with a mass murderer, but she also met with numerous people on the ground — the people who matter most. After doing so, she concluded:

“I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government. I call upon Congress and the new Administration to answer the pleas of the Syrian people immediately and support the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. We must stop directly and indirectly supporting terrorists—directly by providing weapons, training and logistical support to rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS; and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, who, in turn, support these terrorist groups. We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.”

No one can criticize her strategy because, for the last six years, no one has even attempted it.

---

This article (Congresswoman Who Says U.S. Funds ISIS Just Got Back from Syria: Here’s What She Found) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

Congressman Introduces Bill To Withdraw The U.S. From The United Nations

Submitted by Lance Schuttler via The Mind Unleashed blog,

A new bill has been introduced which would allow the United States to withdraw from the United Nations, and is now beginning to turns heads.

Representative Mike Rogers from Alabama introduced H.R. 193 American Sovereignty Act of 2017 in early January but is just now getting media exposure. The full bill can be seen here on congress.gov.

The bill repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws.

The bill requires: (1) the President to terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations (U.N.), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body; and (2) closure of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

The bill prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N., (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (4) U.S. Armed Forces from serving under U.N. command, and (5) diplomatic immunity for U.N. officers or employees.

Clearly, many people would be in favor of such a move and many would oppose it. Many who would support the move believe that the United Nations Agenda 30 is a blueprint for a unipolar world order with a destructive agenda, as Zerohedge reported last year.

Regardless of one’s beliefs or opinions on the UN being a front for  a new world order, this bill is a direct and bold move against the elite’s plans. For any nation to reclaim true sovereignty from the United Nations is setting a powerful example for the rest of the world. It sends a message that a country does not need a global governing body, but instead can run itself without global oversight.

Essentially, if the U.S. reclaimed sovereignty from the United Nations, it would be the equivalent of what Britain did by reclaiming it’s sovereignty from the European Union…times 10. 

Perhaps the biggest revelations to come from such news would be the eventual exposure of the level of theft, deception and criminal activity done by the registered corporation known as The United Nations (yes it is a registered corporation). It would also move the U.S. back to Common Law and away from Maritime Law, a deep and complex subject that is explained further here by Judge Anna von Reitz.

In addition to this latest bill that seeks to end control by the elite, the U.S. has also proposed two other (among many) bills that if passed, would expose even more lies and corruption on a global scale.

The first of the two is the bill that Representative Tulsi Gabbard proposed in December of 2016; the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. The bill would cut off U.S. government (and tax-payer) funding to terrorist groups like ISIL and al-Qaeda. Gabbard says of the bill:

“Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.”

Like the American Sovereignty Act of 2017, the Stop Arming Terrorists Act would expose much corruption and deception that the elite have been engaging in. Both bills would be a major blow to the elite’s agenda and would pave the way for mass arrests of many well known elites on a scale that has never been seen before. 

Another bill that would signal enormous changes within the United States and the entire world would be the passing of the “Audit the Federal Reserve Bill of 2017” that was just recently reintroduced by Senator Rand Paul. As many reading this already know, the level of theft and corruption that the Federal Reserve has been involved in will bring the global elite to their knees when exposed. If audited correctly and fairly, exposure of the Federal Reserve (also another private registered corporation) would likely also lead to many well known names and public figures being arrested.

Regardless of one’s political party or position, if any, these three bills must be supported and discussed on a mass scale. What is also important to remember is that if any one of these three are passed, it is extremely likely to trigger a domino effect that will expose the global elite and reveal many once unbelievable truths. 

We live in extremely exciting times.

US Military and Media Ignore New ISIS Push into Syria, 250K Civilians Threatened

January 19, 2017   |   Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) You wouldn’t know it from following most of the corporate media online or on your television set, but ISIS is currently making significant headway in Syria. According to the Guardian, ISIS fighters have broken through government defensive lines in the Syrian city of Deir ez-Zor, successfully surrounding a military airport and cutting off food supplies for roughly a quarter of a million civilians in the Syrian city.

Remember when the Syrian army surrounded Aleppo and Western media accused the regime of cutting off supplies to over a quarter of a million residents in eastern Aleppo? Apparently, when ISIS does the same, it is not newsworthy.

But there’s more. According to the Guardian, the ISIS fighters who successfully broke through government defense lines in Syria were “primarily reinforcements coming over the border from Iraq’s Anbar province.” In October 2016, Anti-Media speculated that the U.S. military was planning to allow ISIS safe passage to move from Mosul, their de-facto Iraqi capital, into Syria so they could battle the Syrian regime.

Unfortunately, whether or not the U.S. is allowing this to happen on purpose or out of sheer negligence, that speculation has become a reality. ISIS has indeed seemingly relied on their Iraqi component to push through the defenses of the Syrian government and the U.S. military has done little to stop the terror group bolstering its numbers in Syria.

But wait, there’s still more. The city of Deir ez-Zor is the same city that was attacked by the American-led coalition in September last year – an attack that targeted Syrian troops for over an hour, paving the way for a timely ISIS offensive.

This all begs the question: where is the U.S. military right now? Clearly, the U.S. coalition is capable of attacking Deir ez-Zor, as they didn’t hesitate to provide air cover for ISIS against Syrian troops in September. The U.S. could also target the convoys of ISIS recruitments heading from Iraqi territory into Syria if they wanted to. Why aren’t they? The U.S. has spent billions and billions of taxpayer money interfering in Syria, so surely some of that money could be used to advance Barack Obama’s stated goal of “degrading and destroying” ISIS.

Further, Deir ez-Zor holds significant importance for ISIS as it is close to key oilfields that provide a financial lifeline to the terror group.

Sounds like the perfect place for the American military to strike. Or the Russians, for that matter. They’re also adept at ‘spreading peace’ by bombing terror groups into submission (as well as civilians, including children).

It would appear the Syrian military has been left to its own devices, and the corporate media has turned its head the other way.

---

This article (US Military and Media Ignore New ISIS Push into Syria, 250K Civilians Threatened) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

The Media Is Lying to Everyone About What Obama Has Done in Syria

January 10, 2017   |   Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) It’s time to put to rest the notion and myth perpetuated by the corporate media that Barack Obama had a “hands off” approach to the Syrian conflict. According to a Council on Foreign Relations estimate, Obama dropped over 26,000 bombs in 2016 — almost half of which fell in Syrian territory.

Last year, 12,192 bombs were dropped in Syria by Obama. Iraq came in a close second place with 12,095 bombs. Altogether, the peace prize-winning president dropped at least 26,171 bombs in seven countries throughout the last year.

By all means, these are conservative estimates regarding Obama’s use of force in the Middle East. As noted by Zenko and Wilson:

“In President Obama’s last year in office, the United States dropped 26,171 bombs in seven countries. This estimate is undoubtedly low, considering reliable data is only available for airstrikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, and a single ‘strike,’ according to the Pentagon’s definition, can involve multiple bombs or munitions. In 2016, the United States dropped 3,027 more bombs—and in one more country, Libya—than in 2015.”

This means the number of actual individual bombs dropped in Syrian territory may be much higher.

Despite this, the hawkish corporate media has continued to advance the claim that Obama has had a “hands off” approach to the Syrian conflict, presumably suggesting he could have taken the guns blazing approach that George W. Bush took in Iraq in 2003.

The only way the mainstream media can continue to claim Obama had a “hands-off” approach to the Syrian war is to ignore a number of glaring facts.

First, the United States helped instigate the Syrian civil war to begin with; its orchestration dates as far back as 2006. According to Wikileaks, the U.S. establishment wanted to provoke Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to overreact to the threat of violent extremists crossing the border into Syria, similar to what was done to Russia in Afghanistan in the 1980s. A cable leaked by Wikileaks dated December 2006, authored by William Roebuck, at the time chargé d’affaires at the US embassy in Damascus stated:

“We believe Bashar’s weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising.” (emphasis added)

Secondly, under Obama’s administration, the United States has spent hundreds of millions of dollars arming and training Syrian rebels. However, the United States’ monetary contribution is not the only money that has flowed to the Syrian opposition, as Obama’s stalwart ally, Saudi Arabia, is responsible for providing most of the funding. The CIA delivers most of the training. Realistically, the U.S. spends about $1 billion a year aiding and assisting the rebels in Syria.

In 2014, PBS ran a report in which they interviewed Syrian rebels who were trained at a CIA training camping in Qatar. One of the fighters admitted they were being taught to finish off soldiers alive after an ambush – a potential war crime and ISIS’ standard operating procedure.

Further, the United States knew ISIS was a threat to the Assad regime, and according to a leaked audio of Secretary of State John Kerry, they hoped this would force him to negotiate with the Americans. This fell through, according to Kerry, when Russia stepped in and began bombing in Syria in the hopes of propping up Assad. A declassified Defense Intelligence Agency report also stated:

“The West, Gulf Countries and Turkey [Who] support the [Syrian] opposition…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…”

According to International Business Times, the U.S. spends about $11.5 million a day conducting operations in Syrian territory. Coupled with the findings above from the CFR that Syria was bombed the most heavily in 2016, it must be said that Obama’s approach to Syria is actually the most “hands-on” out of any country in the Middle East. Let’s not forget that these bombs actually targeted regime troops at one point, paving the way for a timely ISIS offensive.

Further, targeting these troops was no “accident.” Obama has been looking to bomb the Syrian regime for years now. In 2013, he vowed to punish Assad for alleged chemical weapons attacks, even when the evidence on both major attacks appeared to indicate that the Syrian rebels had been responsible for them (all the while these rebels still received support from Obama.) The proposed air strikes fell through as the United Kingdom’s parliament voted not to join the U.S.’ ambitions. Not only that, but Congress also looked set to join their British counterparts before Russia intervened quite convincingly to broker a diplomatic agreement.

In 2014, Obama found backdoor access into Syrian territory by purporting to bomb ISIS in Iraq, which would eventually lead them to bomb Syrian territory due to ISIS’ large Syrian component. Since then, he has clearly not been holding back on dropping ammunitions in Syria, despite the fact he has no cause for self-defense against Syria and has no UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force in Syrian territory – the only legal means in which another country can wage war against a sovereign nation.

It realistically cannot be realistically said that Obama has taken a “hands off” approach to Syria. If anything, the peace prize-winning president only had a “hands off” approach to fighting ISIS directly on numerous occasions, sitting back and watching as the terror group forcibly took a number of strategic cities in Iraq and Syria. However, one could make the argument that this was all part of a broader strategy to force Assad’s removal, as indicated by John Kerry’s leaked audios.

By these standards, George W. Bush also had a “hands off” approach to the Iraq war in 2003.

---

This article (The Media Is Lying to Everyone About What Obama Has Done in Syria) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

US Press Silent as Syria Presents Evidence of US-Backed Rebels Using Mustard Gas on Civilians

Syria — Amid a blackout by U.S. corporate media — who are now unironically waging a war against ‘fake news’ — Syria handed over evidence to an international watchdog organization reportedly proving rebels used chemical weapons against civilians.

Syrian authorities gave documents and samples evincing the use of mustard gas by rebels to the mission of the Technical Secretariat of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) — a group of eight experts from the United States, the U.K., Australia, Slovakia, and Slovenia, who have been stationed and working in Damascus at the behest of the Syrian government since December 12.

“We have provided all the documents to the mission, they were vetted and accepted,” Samer Abbas, spokesman for the Syrian National Authority monitoring the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, said in a statement. “The mission will come to Syria one more time to collect samples, which will be subsequently analyzed.”

In January, the samples will be delivered to the Hague — site of OPCW headquarters — via a charter flight.

An undetonated, homemade 240-millimeter mortar shell containing the chemical agent, sulfur mustard, was found in the village of Maarat Umm Hawsh in Aleppo province by Russian experts removing mines in the area on November 16. According to reports from Russian media, chemical experts tested and confirmed the presence of the liquid form of mustard gas — which has been banned since 1923.

Investigators believe the shell had been used in an attack on the village on September 16, when around 40 people were injured and later had to be treated for symptoms of mustard gas poisoning at a military hospital in Damascus.

In late November, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov asserted, “Russian specialists found that militants in eastern Aleppo used ammunition with poisonous substances, with the ammo targeting western Aleppo. The collected samples leave no doubt that it’s a toxic agent.”

Russia has pleaded with OPCW to investigate its evidence of chemical weapons — until now, to no avail — due to what is believed to be pressure from the West and U.S.

As the OPCW Director-General said in a recent statement on allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria, all State parties “to the Chemical Weapons Convention deem the use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances as reprehensible and wholly contrary to the legal norms established by the international community.”

While the West continues to accuse the Bashar al-Assad Syrian government of using chemical weapons against civilians — an allegation vehemently denied by both Syria and its ally, Russia — no solid evidence has yet been discovered suggesting as much. Daesh, the self-titled Islamic State, is widely suspected to have used chemical weapons; but the evidence given to the OPCW mission was believed to have been used by anti-government rebels — as in, the laughably-monikered ‘moderate rebel’ terrorists trained and supported by the U.S. to fight the former.

“Basically, there have been many allegations of chemical use by the Syrian government; it’s been used for numerous years to demonize the Syrian government,” Rick Sterling of Syria Solidarity told RT. “When there have been serious investigations, for example, in spring 2013, the UN official Carla del Ponte said that the evidence pointed to the rebels having used it, despite Western media claiming that it was clearly the Syrian government. There have been numerous accusations that the Syrian government used chlorine gas, including the times when the chlorine gas manufacturing plant was actually controlled by [al-Qaeda offshoot al-] Nusra. So, there’s been a steady stream of accusations against the Syrian government, and it’s good to see this emerging.”

In August, the United States tacitly admitted to supporting al-Nusra Front during an awkward press conference in which Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook evaded direct answers but hinted American forces might shoot down Russian or Syrian jets attempting to target al-Nusra fighters.

Then, the following month, al-Nusra commander Abu Al Ezz flatly told a German media outlet, “The Americans are on our side.”

Thus, U.S. support for anti-Syrian government rebels has by degrees included acceptance of the use of toxic chemical agents on civilians trapped in the morass — all because the goal of regime change has not been reconsidered.

For those unfamiliar with mustard gas, it can be horrifically harmful to humans. According to the OPCW website:

“Mustard agent was produced for the first time in 1822 but its harmful effects were not discovered until 1860. Mustard agent was first used as a CW agent during the latter part of the First World War and caused lung and eye injuries to a very large number of soldiers. Many of them still suffered pain 30-40 years after they had been exposed, mainly as a result of injuries to the eyes and chronic respiratory disorders […]

“Mustard agents are usually classified as ‘blistering agents’ owing to the similarity of the wounds caused by these substances resembling burns and blisters. However, since mustard agents also cause severe damage to the eyes, respiratory system and internal organs, they should preferably be described as ‘blistering and tissue-injuring agents’. Normal mustard agent, bis-(2-chloroethyl)sulphide, reacts with a large number of biological molecules. The effect of mustard agent is delayed and the first symptoms do not occur until 2-24 hours after exposure.”

Mustard gas, devastatingly, isn’t the only nightmarish chemical used against Syrian civilians.

“Officers from the Russian Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense troops in Syria previously produced evidence of chlorine and white phosphorus usage by militants in Aleppo province. In November, the Russian Defense Ministry reported that the expert found ‘nine selected samples which confirmed [that the terrorists] had used chlorine and white phosphorus munitions to fill their ammunition.’ The traces of the agents were on the fragments of mines, shells and soil from the craters to the southwest of Aleppo, Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov said,” according to RT.

Civilians are now fleeing Aleppo in droves, thanks to the efforts of Russia and Syria — although U.S. and the West have attempted to fully propagandize the situation and have criminally misrepresented what is actually taking place. Flagrantly false reports of genocide and brutality by Syrian government forces against civilians are thought to be the last gasps of the American regime change agenda in Syria — but if Russia is correct, and the Hague agrees about the use of mustard gas against innocent people, the whole plot could be for naught.

What You Aren’t Being Told About Iraqi ISIS Offensive

October 18, 2016   |   Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) — Iraq has officially begun a U.S.-backed offensive to drive ISIS from the Iraqi city of Mosul, the terror group’s last major stronghold in the country. The operation will be likely be assisted and supported by Iranian-backed militias. Turkey has also expressed a strong interest in joining the fight despite the fact Iraq told Turkey directly they do not want their assistance.

In 2014, ISIS claimed Mosul, a city with a population of 1.5 million people, and has since used it to expand their caliphate. When the terror group seized this territory two years ago, the U.S. air force was nowhere to be seen, even when ISIS stole American-made military vehicles and flaunted their advances on social media.

This latest offensive is expected to spell a major defeat for ISIS in Iraq, and the implications of this could spell the end of the terror group’s reign, which would undoubtedly be of great benefit to the rest of the world.

However, as it transpires, the U.S. has no immediate plans whatsoever to end ISIS. The U.S., together with Saudi Arabia, is reported to have agreed to grant free passage to thousands of Islamic State militants before the Iraqi city is overrun by Iraqi militia. According to an anonymous “military-diplomatic source,” the ISIS militants will reportedly be re-deployed to Syria to fight against the Syrian government instead.

“More than 9,000 Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS, ISIL) militants will be redeployed from Mosul to the eastern regions of Syria to carry out a major offensive operation, which involves capturing Deir ez-Zor and Palmyra,” the source told state-operated Russian news agency RIA Novosti, as translated by RT.

The source also seemed to suggest the air assistance the U.S. would provide to the Iraqi offensive would be a sham, as the coalition would only strike detached, vacated, or uninhabited buildings. According to the source, Washington’s strategy in moving these ISIS fighters is due to an attempt to counter Russia’s advancements in Syria.

The source stated this strategy had already been tried during the liberation of the Iraqi city of Fallujah earlier this year.

An anonymous source claiming to a Russian newspaper something as conspiratorial as the U.S. directly aiding ISIS militants may seem a bit dubious, but since the offensive was launched on Monday of this week, this has been the reality on the ground.

According to Army Lieutenant General Talib Shaghati, as reported by anti-Russian newspaper, the Guardian, ISIS militants are already fleeing Mosul to Syria. This was further confirmed by the Saudi foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, who said that if ISIS were forced out of Mosul, they would likely go on to Syria.

Whether or not the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are helping to facilitate this move — something they would never admit to —  al-Jubeir’s claim that Assad will help allow ISIS grow once they enter Syrian territory should give an indication of where this conflict is headed. This claim is especially hypocritical given that pro-Assad forces who were battling ISIS were struck by the U.S. coalition in September — before ISIS launched a timely offensive.

CNN reported Monday that more than 90,000 local forces are involved in the fight for Mosul; yet U.S. airstrikes have only been reported at Bartella, 14 kilometers east of Mosul. If the U.S. military does not strike legitimate ISIS targets within Mosul, it could be the case that they are either directly or indirectly allowing their free passage to Syria, especially considering the above reports confirm they already know where the fighters are heading.

It is not uncommon for the U.S. to bolster ISIS if that support is to the detriment of the Assad regime in Syria, as was the case in previous ISIS offensives, such as Palmyra in Syria. According to the New York Times:

“Any airstrikes against Islamic State militants in and around Palmyra would probably benefit the forces of President Bashar al-Assad. So far, United States-led airstrikes in Syria have largely focused on areas far outside government control, to avoid the perception of aiding a leader whose ouster President Obama has called for.”

The source’s claims about the U.S.-Saudi plan to move ISIS fighters from Mosul to Syria comes just a few weeks after an al-Qaeda leader claimed the U.S. is backing them, stating, “the Americans are on our side.”

---

This article (What You Aren’t Being Told About Iraqi ISIS Offensive) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.