Still I couldn't get it to come together even as I worked at it more last evening
It's a new day, so here we go yet again.
Now that the holiday’s are over. Whew! (Wipes brow)
Let's get back to the ‘news’. Or what passes for it?
What is presented as news, doesn't strike me as informative or realistic, it is more like a hard sell.
The steady drum beat growing louder and faster punctuated by shrieks and calls to keep your attention, in order to advance the war agenda. Often reinforced with gruesome images and fudged numbers....
The UN has dramatically increased the number of dead in Syria
This UN increase in numbers, far outdoes the official opposition. With an increase count by a third.
The opposition had the casualty count at 45,000 (which was already likely inflated)
Now the UN comes in with 60,000?
Allegedly done by “cross referencing multiple sources”
Most of the sources are... .....surprise. NOT. Opposition sources. (First clue the numbers are cooked)
"Only four of the sources used covered the entire period.Therefore all information covering the entire period came from 'opposition'/NATO sources.
Three are activist groups with links to the opposition: Violations Documentation Centre, Syrian Network for Human Rights, the Syria Shuhada website.
The other is the UK-based activist group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights Also AN OPPOSITION GROUP BASED IN THE UK- The BBC always spinning for NATO. Always managing the readers perception.
The Syrian Government count up to March 2012 had the count at just over 2,000.
2,539 deaths to be exact.
The Syrian government count, up to March 2012 is lower, substantially lower and suggests to us that the overall count should really be much lower then the UN numbers suggest.
So were going to talk briefly on this point.
I have some trouble believing that the numbers from the Syrian Government were only available up to March 2012. You ask, why? Glad you did!
Syria has gone to the UN repeatedly with lists of foreign fighters and their nationalities in an attempt to make a case the nation is under attack. Which, of course, it is! Therefore it would only make sense, that along with lists of foreign fighters, Syria has provided lists of the victims of the foreign fighters, all along.
Why would the information suddenly cease at March 2012? Or abruptly become "unavailable"??
I can see no reason that it would or should have.
Would it be more sensible to suggest that the UN just chose to ignore the stats provided by Syria after that date? Yes, that would be much more sensible.
If the agenda is to cook the numbers, which it is, then ignoring that which is not beneficial to the agenda is the way to go!
Further to the low Syrian count it is important to mention that neither the NATO opposition or the UN have suggested the Syrian numbers that were available were wrong. Only that after March/12 they suddenly became 'unavailable'
There was also no breakdown by ethnicity or information about whether the dead were rebels, soldiers or civilians. Which is to be expected. That type of info would shine the light on false NATO media narrative of Syrians rising up How many Libyans were amongst the dead? Chechen’s? Lebanese? Saudi’s? French? British? Jordanian? Pakistani's How many foreign merc/fighters have died destabilizing Syria?
Another interesting point:
“The study did not provide a breakdown of whether those who died were rebels, soldiers or civilians.”
But it highlighted that 76% of the reported victims were identified as male.
Which tells us much of this count, though highly inflated is for NATO mercs and Syrian state soldiers.
When one considers that the UN count originates almost entirely from opposition groups,"corroborating and cross referencing one another", and that Syrian figures were 'unavailable' (or most likely ignored) after March 2012. Taking note, also, that their is no indication of dispute over the official Syrian figures that are used , though they are so low, they could not possibly corroborate the 'official' UN count.
One has to conclude that the UN numbers are a blatant fabrication.
The timing for this announcement of a ‘dramatic increase’ seems timed to sell the push for war that will most certainly be coming later this month. Barring any extremely earth shattering developments.
There is an alleged plan and a possible meeting mid January between the US, Russia and the UN envoy Brahimi
Will the plan be adopted by the international community?
He said he had crafted a ceasefire plan “that could be adopted by the international community.”
“I have discussed this plan with Russia and Syria... I think this proposal could be adopted by the international community,” the UN and Arab League envoy said, without giving details.
An aside: Russia has dispatched it’s third ship to arrive in Tartus mid January.
Meanwhile, a Russian warship carrying a marines unit has left its Black Sea port for Syria amid preparations for a possible evacuation of nationals living and working in the strife-torn country, news reports said Sunday.Getting back to the push for an attack on Syria.
The Novocherkassk landing ship is the third such craft despatched since Friday to the Tartus port that Russia leases from its last Middle East ally
The article from the NYT's surely seems to be promoting an attack by NATO/Israel/GCC
Headlined: Why Russia won’t help on Syria
What can be taken away from this article is that the US has no interest in peace or anything humane or democratic in Syria. Only overthrow along with the usual NATO compliant regime change and servitude to the Israeli agenda. I will excerpt, highlight the important bits and of course you can read the rest at the link.
"WITH all the high-level diplomatic visits to Moscow and accompanying news headlines, a casual observer might easily conclude that Russia holds the key to resolving the Syrian crisis. But as the latest round of failed talks this weekend — this time between Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, and Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations and Arab League envoy on Syria — conclusively demonstrate, Russia will not be part of the solution on Syria.Interesting that bit, eh? Clearly what is meant by that is Russia will not comply with the NATO agenda. Russia will not legitimize the illegitmate
Senior Russian officials have made that clear for months, but some members of the international community, perhaps until recently, just didn’t believe them.The Russian stance has been steadfast, despite the media spin.
The NYT's article will go on to talk about a subject that has been covered on this blog previously. Oh, yes I am going to relink that information. Be patient, please and thanks.
This confusion could stem from the frequent reporting on the ties that bound Russia to President Bashar al-Assad’s Syria — military, religious, intelligence-sharing and so on. These factors certainly play some role in Moscow’s approach. But they do not explain why the Kremlin has issued three U.N. Security Council vetoes, bent over backward to water down the Geneva Communiqué calling for a peaceful transition of authority, and fastidiously avoided joining the call for Assad to step down.
Of course Moscow is absolutely correct in that stance
Rather, the tragedy in Syria has brought to the surface a fundamental divergence between Russia’s approach to international intervention and that of much of the rest of the international community, particularly the United States and the European Union. (NATO) Moscow does not believe the U.N. Security Council should be in the business of endorsing the removal of a sitting government.
"The notion that Russia could eventually be the target of such an intervention might seem absurd in Washington" And there it is! Russia is already the target of such an intervention? It is not absurd. It is obvious and in your face. No matter how the NYT's lies, oops I mean reports the news.
Many people in the Russian foreign-policy establishment believe that the string of U.S.-led interventions that resulted in regime change since the end of the Cold War — in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya — are a threat to the stability of the international system and potentially to “regime stability” in Russia itself.
The notion that Russia could eventually be the target of such an intervention might seem absurd in Washington, but suspicion of potential future U.S. intentions runs deep in Moscow. Therefore, Russia uses what power it has to shape the international system — particularly, its permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council — to avoid creating a dangerous precedent that could eventually be used against it.
Have we all forgotten the "pussy riot" debacle?
How about the 'protests' that were funded by the NED and Freedom House? USAID?
Russia Kicks USAID Out Of The Country
Kremlin crackdown hits NGOs' funding
Russia must close NED, other US fronts for money laundering
The groups listed above always indicate a campaign of destabilization and balkanization is underway. Including, but certainly not limited to, regime change that benefits the world army- NATO and the US/Israel war machine.
Continuing on with the NYT's article
Of course Moscow cannot be convinced that the US motives are driven by "humanitarian calamity",
In the case of Syria, Moscow cannot be convinced that U.S. motives are driven purely by the humanitarian calamity that Assad created. Instead, the Kremlin sees sinister geopolitics at play, with Washington moving to get rid of a government whose foreign policy long contradicted U.S. interests, particularly by aligning with Iran. So when President Obama proclaimed on Aug. 18, 2011, that “the time has come for President Assad to step aside,” thus making regime change an official U.S. priority, the window for common ground with Russia at the U.N. closed. The fact that the texts of the proposed resolutions did not reflect that priority was irrelevant, given what Moscow saw as Washington’s now openly stated ultimate goal.
"that Assad created". That sentence is an absurdity! Who could be convinced that those are really US motives ? Only the most gullible dupe, that is who! The US doesn't have a humanitarian concern in it's entire realm of reality. Or unreality? The US does not concern itself with it's own people and sure as hell not for the Syrians!
I have stated on numerous occasions there has been no Russian policy shift with regards to Syria.
Since then, many have tried to change Russia’s policy, and all have failed. Journalists often inadvertently perpetuate a perceived need to “take another go at Moscow” when every Russian statement is parsed for hidden clues to an imminent policy shift.
This has been particularly true in recent weeks as Russia’s assessment of the facts on the ground has changed; the Russians might be dogmatic, but they’re not blind. But a changed assessment in this case will not lead to a changed policy. The reason is simple: Russia’s stance on international action on the Syria crisis has more to do with anxieties about the implications of U.S. power than it does with Syria itself.
So if Russia can’t be part of a solution that involves the Security Council, why is the international community spending so much time courting senior Russians on Syria? Some say that Russia could, if it so chose, pressure Assad into making the concessions necessary for a negotiated settlement. Perhaps Russia had such leverage with Assad 12 or 18 months ago. But now he is in a fight for survival, and there is no good reason to believe that he would do anything more than smile and nod at any ultimatum from Moscow. And since such a hypothetical ultimatum would at a minimum involve Assad’s immediate departure, because that would be the only way to get the opposition to the table, it will remain a hypothetical one.
If there is one palpable outcome to all the recent diplomacy, it has been Moscow’s empowerment. This may prove fleeting, but in the meantime the international community’s time and energy are better spent on efforts that have the potential to produce a resolution in Syria.”
Ok, so Moscow is definitely getting the bigger picture. That which was done in Libya previously, presently ongoing in Syria with an eye to Iran, will culminate in the attempt to destroy of Russia.
Via destabilization. Balkanization. Ditto for China. Moscow, is fully aware that the tactics used in Syria are already in play against Russia. Unsuccessful to date, but what might the future bring????
As suggested by Adrian Salbuchi in yesterday's post -" So, 2013 will see Russia, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, Brazil, South Africa move closer together to tackle common goals and confront common threats."
Hmmm.. what entity/ies could pose a common threat to all the aforementioned nations?
As promised a relink to an old post from April 05/2012-
Predicting the Future: The destabilization of Russia
"Russia’s Northern Caucasus is turning into one of the most volatile, lawless regions in the world and a hotbed for international terrorist activity in spite of decades of Russian military operations and repeated assurances from the Russian government that peace has been achieved. As Russia continues to lose control of the region"........ it will be up to the US and allies to step in (paraphrasing the conclusion)
Sound familiar? It should. It's the same scenario played out over and over in different locations.
The 'terrorists' aka NATO mercs cause mayhem and US/NATO must respond
You should recall it from 9/11?