|Only in U.S. Can You Destroy Another State's Plane In Their Own Country And Call It "Self-defense"|
June 20, 2017 "Information Clearing House" - Let's see how the Corporate Media is going to spin this one!
The cat is out of the bag: the United States is the main sponsor of terrorism, using its henchmen - ISIS - to commit unspeakable acts, in pursuit of regime change, oil, gas and other spoils for the corporate state.
Another Step Toward Devastating War
An American pilot shot down a Syrian fighter that was attacking ISIS, thus confirming that Washington is not fighting ISIS, as Washington claims, but is protecting ISIS, its agent sent to Syria by Obama and Hillary to overthrow the Syrian government. General Michael Flynn revealed on a TV interview that Obama and Hillary had, over his objection as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, made the “willful decision” to send ISIS to Syria.
Washington’s pretense that Washington is fighting ISIS, rather than supporting it, is the excuse for Washington’s illegal presence in the Syrian conflict. Russia and Iran are in Syria legally, invited there by an elected government. The Americans are there uninvited as war criminals. Under international law established by the Americans themselves, it is a war crime to initiate aggression against a country that has not raised a fist against you.
So, to be in Syria, Washington has to pretend to be “fighting terrorism” rather than supporting it. The lie has been given to this claim many times, but now that an American pilot has proven that the US is in Syria to support its agent, ISIS, not even a Megyn Kelly presstitute can honestly claim to believe that Washington is fighting ISIS.http://bit.ly/2tn9MjR
Russia to track US planes as 'targets' as Syria tensions boil over
Russia says US downing of Syrian jet was 'act of aggression' and that planes west of Euphrates river will be tracked as 'aerial targets' http://bit.ly/2rKXN2j
The Pentagon Responds with: "US Pilots Will Defend Themselves If Attacked By Russians"
Really? Why not get out of Syria? We have no business there! The American People have been very clear in their request: "No war with Syria!"
US public opposes war despite media propaganda
The war is not popular with Americans. In fact, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found that only nine percent of Americans support a military attack on Syria. This makes a war on Syria even less popular than Congress. The poll was taken while reports of the chemical attack were in the news. There has been consistent propaganda for war on all the networks for months now, but the people are not buying it. ( 2013) http://bit.ly/2rxJrhH
Polls show Americans don't want war in Syria
The public is also concerned about the repercussions against the U.S. in the region that would result from an attack on Syria. Three in four (74 percent) believe there would be a backlash against the U.S. in the Middle East in the aftermath of an American attack. The public has a better understanding of lessons learned in the region than most policymakers do.
Americans are just tired of war and who can blame them? (2013) http://bit.ly/2rykClu
A recent poll shows that Americans have not changed their minds about a war with Syria:
Poll: Most Americans Don’t Want U.S. Troops in Syria
"Only one in five Americans favor an increased U.S. troop presence in Syria, according to the results of a CBS News poll released Monday. (April 2017) http://bit.ly/2tI2Qx4
The world is now perhaps closer to World War Three than it has been in five decades as the situation in Syria is heating up yet again. In less than 24 hours, the United States has attacked the Syrian military, Iran has launched missiles into Syria, Russia is threatening to shoot down American planes, and the United States is digging in its heels and threatening to continue to provoke both the Russians and the Syrians.
While that about sums up the current micro-version of the situation, it’s important to get a rundown of just what led up to the precipice we are all standing on. http://bit.ly/2tI4E9d
The problem is that Washington won’t accept a half-loaf solution because it remains committed to its goal of breaking up Syria, removing Assad, and controlling the vital resources in the Middle East in order to maintain its global primacy.
It’s going to take time and patience to discourage Washington’s aggressive behavior. There’s no easy fix. The resistance must be firm but flexible. Their national interests must be defended, but a broader war must be avoided. Washington must be gradually acclimated to the idea that it no longer rules the world, that its interests aren’t served by its erratic and destabilizing foreign policy, and that it must comply with international law.
Nudging the United States in the direction of a multipolar world in which its own narrow interests are not paramount, is going to take time. But what other choice is there; World War 3?
Let’s hope not. http://bit.ly/2sNsdRG
Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.
|If you want to start a war, the unwashed masses must be convinced to send their brothers, sons and fathers to die on the front lines. The specter of an external enemy must be etched into their collective mind through trauma, exaggeration and repetition. History must be whitewashed, twisted and cherry picked down to a politicized nursery rhyme. At no point should the real motives or consequences of such an endeavor be discussed.|
It stands to reason that if we want to STOP a war we must reverse this pattern.
Let’s start with a realistic look at the consequences:
The United States and Russia alone possess a total of over 15,000 nuclear warheads (as of 2014), each of which are 10 to 30 times more powerful than those that the U.S. used against Japan in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
During the Soviet era it was understood that a hot war between these two countries would inevitably lead to the use of these weapons, and would therefore be an act of mass suicide. This idea was so deeply engrained, that it had its own acronym: M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction). In recent years scientists have realized that this should be taken as a literal truth, regardless of which side may suffer the most in the initial exchange.
A nuclear war between just these two countries, utilizing only the weapons which are slated to be active after the implementation of the START treaty in 2018, would release over 150 million tons of debris into the atmosphere. This debris would block out the sun, dropping global temperatures between 8 and 30 degrees centigrade. Agriculture would become impossible. Mass extinctions would follow, and our species would not likely be exempt.
This is a mild description. We’re not even touching upon the direct consequences of the blasts, firestorms, and radiation poisoning or the secondary deaths caused by exposure, and disease.
Of course America’s political establishment has a good reason to play chicken with all of our lives, and the future of this planet. The balance of geopolitical and financial power has been shifting, and not in Washington’s favor.
China’s new Silk Road project, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and outposts in the South China Sea, in tandem with the Eurasian Union spearheaded by Russia, are edging the United States out of the world’s new center of gravity.
Pivots have failed, bilateral discussions have gotten nowhere, sanctions have backfired, trade agreements have stalled, influence has eroded… Washington is running out of options, and time.
The dollar denominated financial system has peaked. This is the end of a debt super cycle, and of the petrodollar. The next leg down is going to be epic.
The powers that be would rather tip the board, than lose the game. They’d rather take us to war, than take the blame. And if you let them get away with it, that’s just the beginning. http://bit.ly/2sNsMLg
This article was first published by Steemit -
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
What's your response? - Scroll down to add / read comments
| Please read our Comment Policy before posting -|
It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH.
Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
Click here to comment on our Facebook page
- See more at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47280.htm#sthash.jk9SOlK0.dpuf