Saturday, September 27, 2014

US Considers a no fly zone to 'protect civilians' from SAA in North/Eastern Syria

Here is the latest!

-The Obama administration has not ruled out establishing a no-fly zone over northeastern Syria to protect civilians from airstrikes by the Syrian government

-Mr. Hagel and General Dempsey indicated they are open to considering the request of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey for a buffer zone.

  Refute By Exposing the Contradiction/s
 Show that a statement is false or at least unreliable by exposing a contradiction with other statements or facts.
Official narrative or conspiracy

-The US and co. claim that they are bombing north/eastern Syria to get ISIS or Khorasan
*U.S.-Led Airstrikes Target Oil Refineries In Northeast Syria
*Syria: US begins air strikes on Islamic State targets
The strikes targeted Raqqa, an IS stronghold in eastern Syria
* Finally a map, from BBC, that clearly shows us the US strikes, in North Eastern Syria




Concluding that yes, the US strikes are most definitely in the north and the east of Syria.

If as the US, UK, France, Israel, Turkey claim this is ISIS held territory and ISIS is the enemy, exactly why is it that Turkey and the US are talking about a no fly zone to stop the Syrian army from bombing these same ISIS terrorists?
Of course the US and Turkey are selling their lie, as a measure to ‘protect civilians’. We can of course be absolutely certain that the US & Turkey are absolutely unconcerned about civilians. Ever. Anywhere. Are we supposed to believe American bombs are morally superior? Of course, they are not! We know America has already killed Syrian civilians in their recent bombing runs.
 So we know with certainty the protection of civilians is yet another outright lie from the US.

What scenario is more sensible, logical and realistic?

 Obviously ISIS has been the pretext I have stated  all along. Since we are all aware that ISIS is affiliated with the western intelligence apparatus and we also understand ISIS is not the real target. We can expose the lie, by demonstrating the contradiction in the claims made by the US & the coalition of the killing.

And the biggest contradiction is a no flyzone to protect civilians, which intentionally & purposefully,  protects ISIS/ NATO/Israel's terror group, from being taken out of Syria by the Syrian Arab Army.

Continuing on with the buffer/ no fly zone news
General Dempsey added that “a buffer zone might at some point become a possibility,” but he said it was not imminent. Creating a buffer, or no-fly zone, would require warplanes to disable the Syrian government’s air defense system through airstrikes.
 Definitely connected into news of  the F-22

Air Force Missions over “hostile” Syria require this newest jet

 As to the effectiveness of airstrikes in eradicating ISIS? I don't get the impression the US is trying very hard.-NYT's
Separately, United States Central Command, which oversees American military operations in the Middle East, said that American warplanes conducted 10 more airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria on Thursday and Friday. The warplanes destroyed three Humvees and one vehicle, disabled two armed vehicles and damaged one mine-resistant ambush protected vehicle, or MRAP, in five airstrikes south of Kirkuk.
Airstrikes west of Baghdad destroyed a guard shack, an armed vehicle and a bunker. An airstrike near Al Qaim destroyed four armed vehicles, a command and control position and a checkpoint.
In Syria, three strikes south of Deir al-Zour destroyed four tanks and damaged another, according to the Central Command.

 US bombed empty buildings

OH, dear!
Damon revealed on air early Wednesday that ISIL terrorists who were held up in the town may have been tipped off weeks in advance to the US airstrikes on Tuesday. According to Damon:

“15-20 days before the airstrikes, (ISIL) buildings were evacuated, and fighters then mixed in with the local population”

U.S. blowing up its own Humvees

How sweet is that for the war profiteers?

 The U.S has hit 41 Humvees since attacks began in August, according to data from United States Central Command.

The U.S. is sending $30,000-bombs to destroy Humvees ($250,000 a piece) that were left accessible to ISIS, intentionally. The military industrial complex will then have to reproduce and resupply to Iraq. At a huge costs to taxpayers. Win/win for the war machine

Of course, the environment does not win. The civilians don't win. US taxpayers don't win.
Planet earth and humanity don't win.
And yes, I am still waiting for the protests from Greenpeace. UN. Sierra Club. WWF.
Any day now.....

19 comments:

  1. Hi penny, I do read your posts regularly for some years now and you supported a few comments I'd given on MoA back in the days. MoA has changed a lot in the last year. Im glad Ive seen of JSorrentines commetns on here. Anyway. I am asking myself if this is not the beginning of the end of Syrian-Russian alliance. God knows I hope it is not, but: US,F,GB,SA, Jordan,Qat, DK, B, and some others nations take part in that bogus coalition to "destroy" ISIS. Supposedly, those allies never ever saw anything of ISIS in the 12 months before their bombing-for-freedom campaign. We know its BS. On another side, isnt it a signal to Syria AND RUSSIA they, the military forces of this coalition can fly (be it f22 or not) as they wish into the syrian territory? This preparation needs some time. And it just goes to show those allies have coordinated their flights. In short: If they want to, the coalition COULD bomb SAA if they decided to. I dont know about Syrian Air defense, about S-300, about Yakhonts, Iskander which have or have not been installed in Syria, but I think, if Russia wants to save its Tartous harbour, why wouldnt they draw a fckn line and say, well take care of Isis in Syria too? Ive asked over at MoA, the responses made some sense: financial strains, not getting involved for the sake of domestic policies and not risking a MediaWar, which wld have a go on Russia once again. I do understand these arguments, but HEY, what is Russia planning to do, or Iran? Ive got the feeling Lavrov and Kerry now have defo reached an agreement on how to serve the game. Im a nonnative speaker as you prolly noticed. Therefore, bear with me, as they say ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi anon
      I don't worry about presentation so much as the substance, so don't worry about being nonnative
      yes, MOA, has changed quite a bit- and IMO not for the better
      but, to each their own.
      I enjoyed J Sorrentines take on many topics and do appreciate him/her participating here

      IMO and to my knowledge, Russia has been assisting Syria all along.
      They surely provide intelligence. They have supplied weapons
      They have propped them up monetarily- something to do with the central bank of Syria-
      But, I do notice that the US and company made their big move only after they had Russia occupied at their own border-to my mind that is not coincidence, that is planning.

      Russia can't possibly engage in multiple war 'theaters' simultaneously
      It simply is not a powerful enough nation. I get the impression that people believe that US and Russia are equals
      They aren't
      The US has the entire NATO war machine behind it
      Russia is a one country power- This could change if China allied with them
      but I don't see that being the case presently

      That said I do believe, that Russia wants and needs to keep Tartous particularly now that they have their base in the black sea secured

      I also think China needs that base in Tartous- Iran has access to the port at Lattakia if I'm recalling this all correctly.

      I have also long believed that while Russia has supported Syria as much as possible, they have to let Syria go it alone for as long as it can- Syria has a large and extremely capable army-

      That much is abundantly clear
      The F-22 suggests to me that Syria has more air defense then has been let on-

      I wrote a post some time back, suggesting that the US may bomb the northern area- creating kurdistan and then offer a defacto truce to Syria

      Which will of course be a truce only in label- The US will continue to bomb Syria, on occasion, in support of their terrorists- lying all the while about their actions-

      I also suspect that the US/NATO/Israeli terror states are going to go big- lots of chaos- they may draw Iran in sooner as opposed to later

      If events shape up half as badly as I suspect, it's going to get ugly, very ugly
      hope to god I am wrong!






      Delete
    2. I want to correct my statement on Syria's army
      They are not just a 'good army' that isn't good enough

      They are a loyal, honourable, army of Syrian citizens, defending their homeland, their families and their homes

      the NATO armies are marauders- despicable

      Delete
    3. FYI russia isnt engaged in multiple war threatres..its not even engaged in one

      Delete
    4. brian: 2:17am

      "FYI russia isnt engaged in multiple war threatres..its not even engaged in one"

      I didn't say russia was engaged in multiple theatres

      I said "Russia can't possibly engage in multiple war 'theaters' simultaneously" as compared to the US/NATO

      context

      Delete
    5. US also cantn engage in multple theatres...if it tried it go bankrupt more than it has...thats why its using jihadis (ME) or fascists(ukraine) or any bunch of dissiddents(Hong kong now)...cheap expendable plentiful shock troops.

      gandhi ,ust be turning in his grave at how satyagraha has been turned by intellectuals into color revolution....

      Delete
    6. brian; do a check on US military bases globally vs Russian bases globally
      And then consider all the engagements of US soldiers, special ops etc in any number of nations- They use jihadis and fascists and dissidents also for the reason of promoting an illusion of their destabilization being homegrown- as opposed to foreign
      The US won't go bankrupt as long as it has the federal reserve and the petrodollar---
      And as long as it has the military might to force its wishes on the globe

      Delete
  2. Well, freezing the people to death prevents them having to butcher them to death.....very good result for the eugenics programme. Greenpeace and WWF will be all for that, so why would they protest?

    If they can really get us all into a Third World War, which seems to be what they are determined to do, the programme gets another boost. Side benefits to that include diverting people's minds from all the other dirty business the PTSB are currently indulging us all in.

    If we need a world war it should be one to fight the PTSB, get rid of the lot of them and start from scratch; nobody should, at this stage, be willing to fight some bogey man created by those who are the cause of all the misery, of every kind, in this world.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "very good result for the eugenics programme. Greenpeace and WWF will be all for that, so why would they protest?"

    they wouldn't be and that is the point I am driving home when I point out repeatedly the hypocrisy of these so called 'environmental' saviours- something people believe in despite the fact they are the worse, despicable pied pipers possible


    "If we need a world war it should be one to fight the PTSB, get rid of the lot of them and start from scratch; nobody should, at this stage, be willing to fight some bogey man created by those who are the cause of all the misery, of every kind, in this world"

    I could not agree with you more, really and truly!

    ReplyDelete
  4. 100 sunni scholars refute ISIS: open letter to Baghadi
    http://lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  5. US Considers a no fly zone to 'protect civilians' from SAA in North/Eastern Syria

    someone tell the americans: april fools day is in april!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Again, Penny, this entire ISIS charade has been so transparent from the beginning especially given the recent history of the war criminal Zionist West that it amazes me that when confronted with such events as establishing a no-fly zone - A NO FLY ZONE?!!! For ISIS?!!! - that anyone can persist in claiming that this is anything but the Zionist West/Israel continuing on in the 13th year of their overt war of aggression against the world.

    That is what this is: a concerted and coordinated Zionist war of aggression that has included multiple theaters of conflict and people CANNOT allow themselves to be suckered into thinking of each arena as separate as they all are of a set.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Re: Russia vis a vis Syria:

    Again, the Russians are NOT going to allow the Zionist West to push them out of their Syrian naval base as was evidenced in the first Syria go-around a year+ ago when they parked part of their fleet off the coast. Yes, the don't YET have the ability to engage on multiple fronts but they know that short of a nuke war they don't have to do much to keep the Zionist West bogged down while they bolster their defenses and beef up their military. The balkanization/chaos plan cuts both ways: while it eventually will lead to smaller easier to control sectarian satraps the road to getting to that point will take time - time that Putin et al will inevitably use to assess/arm and perfectly plan for counter moves/strategies.

    And all the while the West is STILL MIRED in another Great Depression although the propaganda has done a good job of hiding it from the minds of the peons.

    Hmmm, which is harder for the regular peon to see? That we are in the midst of a Zionist Western war of aggression that has been going on for 13+ years or that we are in the midst of a depression that has lasted 6+ years?

    Time will tell I guess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi J Sorrentine!

      You'll get no disagreement from me about this charade.
      Yup a no fly zone to protect ISIS!
      Ooops, my bad- civilians

      And then there is the economic factor? bad, indeed
      but once the war get's big enough..... what difference is that going to make?
      If I had more time, i'd respond at length, but, today is a busy day
      sorry
      thanks for the comment !

      Delete
  8. now its Hong Kongs turn: this is in russian

    "One gets the impression that the United States-based" Hong Kong-American center "is trying to use the experience of Eastern European" color revolutions "in Hong Kong in order to influence the internal situation," - emphasizes the newspaper.

    Pravda.Ru recalls that color revolutions are called "non-violent" overthrow the government.
    http://www.pravda.ru/.../asia/25-09-2014/1228147-Cina-0/

    ReplyDelete
  9. U.S-led raids hit grain silos in Syria, kill workers
    Mon Sep 29, 2014

    (Reuters) - U.S.-led air strikes hit grain silos and other targets in Islamic State-controlled territory in northern and eastern Syria overnight, killing civilians and wounding militants, a group monitoring the war said on Monday.
    ...
    The strikes in Manbij appeared to have killed only civilians, not fighters, said Rami Abdulrahman, who runs the Observatory which gathers information from sources in Syria.

    "These were the workers at the silos. They provide food for the people," he said. He could not give a number of casualties and it was not immediately possible to verify the information.
    ...
    In eastern Syria, U.S.-led forces bombed a gas plant controlled by the Islamic State outside Deir al-Zor city...
    ...
    The raid hit Kuniko gas plant, which feeds a power station in Homs that provides several provinces with electricity and powers oil fields generators, the Observatory said.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/29/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKCN0HO0EV20140929

    US-led coalition against ISIL: Front for regime change
    09/29/14 Finian Cunningham

    Listening to American and British leaders this week one would think that Barack Obama and David Cameron are knights in shining armor on an epic crusade to defeat global evil.

    Of course, that is exactly what Washington and London are trying to inculcate in popular perception – that the US and Britain are the saviors of the world leading a military campaign to destroy the extremist network known as so-called Islamic State (IS, or ISIL/ISIS).

    This is a massive public relations scam to burnish the image of America and Britain – the two countries that, rightly, are most associated with illegal war making over the past decade, from Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011) to ongoing deadly drone warfare in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. Between them, Washington and London are responsible for the deaths of more than 1.5 million people over the past 13 years.

    Continues:

    http://www.a-w-i-p.com/index.php/2014/09/29/us-led-coalition-against-isil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thanks NMM

      "US-led coalition against ISIL: Front for regime change"

      I have been saying that for how long, here?
      From September 10/14

      http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2014/09/obamas-syria-bombingisis-pretext-is-yet.html

      and certainly before that!

      August 28/14
      http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2014/08/isis-smoke-mirrors-giving-cover-now-for.html

      Look forward to reading Mr Cunningham's take on the situation, certainly

      Delete
    2. Obama Bombing Syrian Oil Refineries, LNG Plants, Grain Silos and Children… State Sponsored Terrorism
      September 29, 2014 by Scott Creighton

      “3-84. At the core of IW are insurgency and COIN. The purpose of insurgency is to overthrow and replace an established government or societal structure. Terrorism and CT are activities conducted as part of IW and are frequently subactivities of insurgency and COIN . However, terrorism may also stand alone when its purpose is to coerce or intimidate governments or societies without overthrowing them” Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare

      Barack Obama is a terrorist.

      As is the case in most of our unconventional warfare destabilization campaigns, the one taking place in Syria right now is targeting civilian and industrial infrastructure in an attempt to decimate the cohesiveness of the Syrian society, making it painful in so many ways for the indigenous population to continue their support of their elected government. Obama justifies this with the fictitious ISIS™ Crisis.

      Continues:

      http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/obama-bombing-syrian-oil-refineries-lng-plants-grain-silos-and-children-state-sponsored-terrorism/

      Delete
    3. "The purpose of insurgency is to overthrow and replace an established government or societal structure."

      Yup, as mentioned in this post

      " Lots of news outlets presenting the US air strikes as strikes on ISIS assets.. Let’s be straight on this. These aren’t ISIS oil assets. These are Syria’s oil assets.
      And there is no doubt in my mind that ISIS ‘took over’ these oil assets so the US could take these same oil assets out!"

      Take out syrian infrastructure syrian state assets, which is exactly why ISIS took over these places- same as was done in Libya
      Whether it's grain silos or oil assets, society suffers

      http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2014/09/remember-war-against-iraq-syria-iran.html

      Delete

TROLLS & SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS