Ziad Fadel

مع استكمال عمليات الجيش السوري شرق حلب ما هي وجهته القادمة؟

DAYR-EL-ZOR:  As more Syrian Army troops are freed to fight in other battles across their country, we see a force of close to 20,000 now heading directly from eastern Homs to Dayr El-Zor.  This move is a shift in strategy from when the Syrian High Command was more interested in the western part of the country.  But, Dayr El-Zor is a crucial element of Syria’s economic well-being and cannot be ignored, especially now that the Iraqi Armed Forces have started to close off all supply routes to the terrorists in East Syria.

About 4 days ago, the Al-Nujabaa` Front, was seen setting up positions to block supplies to ISIS on the border with Syria.  The Iraqi Air Force conducted several sweeps over ISIS concentrations at Al-Bu-Kamaal killing a high-ranking terrorist field commander by the name of ‘Abdul-Rahmaan Jamaal Al-Aseel.  


Al-Mayaadeen:  A warehouse managed by ISIS insects exploded killing 27 cockroaches and destroying 12 vehicles.  The operation has been attributed to Syrian Army-Special Operations Units.




Al-Qaaboon:  The first tranche of flea-bitten rodents left Al-Qaaboon for northwestern Syria yesterday after most accepted offers of amnesty and clemency from the government.  The last group has now left neighboring Al-Barza in order to live in the Wahhabist enclave of Idlib.  Brigadier General, Kamaal Saarim of the Syrian Army confirmed that his forces have killed over 1000 terrorists during the last 3 months of combat in Al-Qaaboon.  The key to the collapse of the terrorist presence in the two suburbs of Damascus was the discovery of over 29 tunnels that led to the East Al-Ghouta.  Once the tunnels were sealed by the SAA, so was the fate of the terrorist Wahhabi-supported vultures.  It has been revealed that some rodents escaped to ‘Irbeen or Harastaa through the tunnels before they were detonated by the SAA-Engineering Corps.


The Capital:  On Syrian television, the terrorist vulture, Waleed Hindi, confessed to fabricating scenes of horror in Aleppo which were filmed by Turkish television stations and the White Helmets in order to tarnish the image of the Syrian Army and government.  These films which depicted people suffering from CW attacks were pure fabrication.  He admitted to joining a terrorist organization whose members received their salaries from a “local council” and contributors from Persian Gulf Ayraab countries.

Another terrorist, ‘Imaad ‘Abdul-Jawaad, also admitted on television that he witnessed the presence of chemical weapons in the hands of the terrorists and that he personally was involved in transporting it.  When he was asked to move the CW from Al-Sukkari Quarter to the Al-‘Aamiriyya Quarter, he was told he was carrying dishwashing soap and laundry detergent as a cover story.  Because of his active asthma, he notice that what he was carrying was causing him to have breathing problems.  As he watched other terrorists appear in long silver-colored uniforms and masks, he was unceremoniously ordered to leave the scene.  But, what he saw them extract from the load was nothing similar to dishwashing soap or detergent.


Al-Hajar Al-Aswad:  This area adjacent to the Yarmouk Camp was the scene, on May 11, 2017, of the execution of Firaas Ghannaam, a/k/a “Abu Maryam” after he was accused and convicted of “breaking ranks”.  He took a shot to the head.


Madyaraa Village:  The Saudi-financed reptiles of the Faylaq Al-Rahmaan blocked the escape of medical doctors to Misraabaa. The physicians were arrested and forced to return to their practice as veterinarians.




West and East Habra Villages, Rasm Hameeda:  Three strategic points have been liberated by the Syrian Army from ISIS.  Our source in Damascus says over 40 rodents were killed and 8 pickups with 23mm cannons were destroyed in the operation.  Also cleansed were South Al-Mushayrifa, Rasm Al-Taweel, East Tallaa’ and Umm Sahreej. 


Al-Wa’er:  260+ rodents have left in the 9th tranche toward northern Aleppo Province.  Some can be seen in the photo below carrying their stolen possessions.



مصاردنا تنفي أكاذيب المعارضة حول

The Syrian Army has confirmed the liberation of Al-Mahdoom Village as another stepping stone toward Maskana, and, finally to Tabqa where mostly Kurd forces have managed to eject ISIS from the dam.  The Syrian Army is moving quickly to prevent the United States-backed Kurds from having any legal claim to establish their counterfeit state in northeastern Syria.


QUNAYTRA:   A leader of the Jaysh Thuwwaar Sooriyaa – Al-Jaysh Al-Hurr (FSA), a group which serves the interests of MOSSAD, was killed when an SAA-planted IED blew him and his car into smithereens as he left his home in Burayqa.  He was called “Abu Ja’far”.  He is now called “dead”.       



More from Dr. Postol on the contrived Khaan Shaykhoon attack:


Excellent article from Sharmine Narwani outlining the coming American debacle in Syria:

Read more 

Related Videos

Related Articles

Terrorist Confesses to Working with “White Helmets” in Aleppo to Fabricate Chemical Attack and Blame Syrian Army


Saturday, 13 May 2017 22:42

ALEPPO – Terrorist Walid Hendi confessed to taking part in fabricating videos and photos for a Turkish TV channel while working with the so-called “White Helmets” that depict neighborhoods and areas in Aleppo being attacked with chemical weapons in order to blame the Syrian Arab Army, SANA reported.

In confessions broadcast by the Syrian TV on Saturday evening, al-Hendi said that he joined the “white Helmets” three years ago in return for receiving funds from the so-called “local council” and financers from Arab Gulf countries.

Hendi said that they were told that there will be chemical attacks, and they were given protective clothing and they staged a fake chemical attack that was filmed by a Turkish channel, adding that they were filmed by two people called Ibrhaim al-Haj and Mohammad al-Sayyed as they sounded sirens and brought stretchers to transport supposed injured people, with the intent of posting these videos online and accuse the Syrian Arab Army of carrying out a chemical attack.

The terrorist also confessed to taking part in fabricating videos and photos depicting alleged attacks several times.

A Russian diplomatic and military source had revealed on May 4th that reporters working for Qatar’s al-Jazeera TV filmed a fake chemical attack against civilians in Idleb province in order to blame the Syrian Army.

In turn, terrorist Imad Abdeljawad said in similar confessions that terrorists in Aleppo possessed toxic chemicals and that he took part in transporting them.

Abdeljawad said that he was asked to transport what was claimed to be cleaning agents from al-Sukkari neighborhood to al-Ameriya neighborhood to cover up the fact that they were actually transporting dangerous chemicals, adding that after unloading materials from two cars and starting with the third, they wanted to know what materials they were transporting because their smells was agitating, particularly since he suffered asthma.

He went on to say that he saw people in silvery clothing, protective masks, and long boots transporting the materials to a basement, and they looked through windows and saw them opening barrels and pouting a liquid from them into cylinders, and when the man in charge of the terrorists noticed that Abdeljawad and his cohorts were watching he expelled them and prevented them from bearing arms.

Back in January, army engineering units uncovered while combing the Old City neighborhoods in Aleppo an amount of chemical materials of Saudi origin left behind by terrorists, which included sulfur, chlorine, and other materials.

Making sense of the “super fuse” scare

Making sense of the “super fuse” scareMay 11, 2017

This article was written for the Unz Review

For weeks now I have been getting panicked emails with readers asking me whether the USA had developed a special technology called “super fuses” which would make it possible for the USA to successfully pull-off a (preemptive) disarming first strike against Russia. Super-fuses were also mentioned in combination with an alleged lack by Russia of a functioning space-based infrared early warning system giving the Russians less time to react to a possible US nuclear attack.

While there is a factual basis to all this, the original report already mislead the reader with a shocking title “How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze” and by offering several unsubstantiated conclusions. Furthermore, this original report was further discussed by many observers who simply lack the expertise to understand what the facts mentioned in the report really mean. Then the various sources started quoting each other and eventually this resulted in a completely baseless “super fuse scare”. Let’s try to make some sense of all this.

Understanding nuclear strikes and their targets

To understand what really has taken place I need to first define a couple of crucial terms:

  • Hard-target kill capability: this refers to the capability of a missile to destroy a strongly protected target such as a underground missile silo or a deeply buried command post.
  • Soft-target kill capability: the capability to destroy lightly or unprotected targets.
  • Counterforce strike: this refers to a strike aimed at the enemy’s military capabilities.
  • Countervalue strike: this refers to a strike on non-military assets such as cities.

Since strategic nuclear missile silos and command posts are well protected and deeply buried, only hard-target kill (HTK) capable missiles can execute a counterforce strike. Soft-target kill (STK) capable systems are therefore usually seen as being the ultimate retaliatory capability to hit the enemies cities. The crucial notion here is that HTK capability is not a function of explosive power, but of accuracy. Yes, in theory, a hugely powerful weapon can compensate to some degree for a lack of accuracy, but in reality both the USA and the USSR/Russia have long understood that the real key to HTK is accuracy.

During the Cold War, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) were more accurate than submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) simply because targeting from the surface and from a fixed position was much easier than targeting from inside a submerged and moving submarine. The American were the first to successfully deploy a HTK capable SLBM with their Trident D-5. The Russians have only acquired this capability very recently (with their R-29RMU Sineva SLBM).

According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists just a decade ago only 20% of US SLBMs were HTK capable. Now, with the ‘super-fuse’ 100% of US SLBMs are HTK capable. What these super-fuses do is very accurately measure the optimal altitude at which to detonate thereby partially compensating for a lack of accuracy of a non-HTK capable weapon. To make a long story short, these super-fuses made all US SLBMs HTK capable.

Does that matter?

Yes and no. What that means on paper is that the US has just benefited from a massive increase in the number of US missiles with HTK capability. Thus, the US has now a much larger missile force capable of executing a disarming counterforce strike. In reality, however, things are much more complicated than that.

Understanding counterforce strikes

Executing a disarming counterforce strike against the USSR and, later, Russia has been an old American dream. Remember Reagan’s “Star Wars” program? The idea behind it was simple: to develop the capability to intercept enough incoming Soviet warheads to protect the USA from a retaliatory Soviet counter strike. It would work something like this: destroy, say, 70% of the Soviet ICBM/SLBMs and intercept the remaining 30% before they can reach the USA. This was total nonsense both technologically (the technology did not exist) and strategically (just a few Soviet “leakers” could wipe-out entire US cities, who could take such a risk?). The more recent US deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems in Europe has exactly the same purpose – to protect the USA from a retaliatory counterstrike. Without going into complex technical discussions, let’s just say that this point in time, this system would never protect the USA from anything. But in the future, we could imagine such a scenario

  1. The USA and Russia agree to further deep cuts in their nuclear strategic forces thereby dramatically reducing the total number of Russian SLBM/ICBMs.
  2. The USA deploys all around Russia anti-ballistic systems which can catch and destroy Russian missiles in the early phase of their flight towards the USA.
  3. The USA also deploys a number of systems in space or around the USA to intercept any incoming Russian warhead.
  4. The USA having a very large HTK-capable force executes a successful counterforce strike destroying 90% (or so) of the Russian capabilities and then the rest are destroyed during their flight.

This is the dream. It will never work. Here is why:

  1. The Russians will not agree to deep cuts in their nuclear strategic forces.
  2. The Russians already have deployed the capability to destroy the forward deployed US anti-ballistic system in Europe.
  3. Russian warheads and missiles are now maneuverable and can even use any trajectory, including over the South Pole, to reach the USA. New Russian missiles have a dramatically shorter and faster first stage burn period making them much harder to intercept.
  4. Russia’s reliance on ballistic missiles will be gradually replace with strategic (long-range) cruise missiles (more about that later).
  5. This scenario mistakenly assumes that the USA will know where the Russian SLBM launching submarines will be when they launch and that they will be able to engage them (more about that later).
  6. This scenario completely ignores the Russian road-mobile and rail-mobile ICBMs (more about that later).

Understanding MIRVs

Before explaining points 4, 5 and 6 above, I need to mention another important fact: one missile can carry either one single warhead or several (up to 12 and more). When a missile carries several independently targetable warheads it is called MIRVed as in “multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle”.

MIRVs are important for several reasons. First, one single missile with 10 warheads can, in theory, destroy 10 different targets. Alternatively, one single missile can carry, say 3-4 real warheads and 6-7 decoys. In practical terms what look like one missile on take-off can turn into 5 real warheads, all targeted at different objectives and another 5 fake decoys designed to make interception that more difficult. MIRVs, however, also present a big problem: they are lucrative targets. If with one of “my” nuclear warheards I can destroy 1 of “your” MIRVed missiles, I lose 1 warhead but you lose 10. This is one of the reasons the USA is moving away from land-based MIRVed ICBMs.

The important consideration here is that Russia has a number of possible options to chose from and how many of her missiles will be MIRVed is impossible to predict. Besides, all US and Russian SLBMs will remain MIRVed for the foreseeable future (de-MIRVing SLBMs make no sense, really, since the entire nuclear missile carrying submarine (or SSBN) is a gigantic MIRVed launching pad by definition).

In contrast to MIRVed missile, single warheads missiles are very bad targets to try to destroy using nuclear weapons: even if “my” missile destroys “yours” we both lost 1 missile each. What is the point? Worse, if I have to use 2 of “mine” to make really sure that “yours” is really destroyed, my strike will result in me using 2 warheads in exchange for only 1 of yours. This makes no sense at all.

Finally, in retaliatory countervalue strikes, MIRVed ICBM/SLBMs are a formidable threat: just one single R-30 Bulava (SS-N-30) SLBM or one single R-36 Voevoda (SS-18) ICBM can destroy ten American cities. Is that a risk worth taking? Say the USA failed to destroy one single Borei-class SSBN – in theory that could mean that this one SSBN could destroy up to 200 American cities (20 SLBMs with 10 MIRVs each). How is that for a risk?

Contrasting the US and Russian nuclear triad

Strategic nuclear weapons can be deployed on land, in the oceans or delivered by aircraft. This is called the “nuclear triad”. I won’t discuss the aircraft based part of the US and Russian triads here, as they don’t significantly impact the overall picture and because they are roughly comparable. The sea and land based systems and their underlying strategies could not be any more different. At sea, the USA has had HTK capabilities for many years now and the US decided to hold the most important part of the US nuclear arsenal in SSBNs. In contrast, the Russians chose to develop road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles. The very first one was the RT-2PM Topol (SS-25) deployed in 1985, followed by the T-2PM2 «Topol-M» (SS-27) deployed in 1997 and the revolutionary RT-24 Yars or Topol’-MR (SS-29) deployed in 2010 (the US considered deployed road-mobile strategic missiles, but never succeeded in developing the technology).

The Russians are also deployed rail-mobile missiles called RT-23 Molodets (SS-24) and are about to deploy a newer version called RS-27 Barguzin (SS-31?). This is what they look like:

Russian road mobile and rail mobile ICBMs

SSBNs and road and rail mobile missiles all have two things in common: they are mobile and they rely on concealment for survival as neither of them can hope to survive. The SSBN hides in the depths of the ocean, the road-mobile missile launcher drives around the immense Russian expanses and can hide, literally, in any forest. As for the rail-mobile missile train, it hides be being completely indistinguishable from any other train on the huge Russian railroad network (even from up close it is impossible to tell whether what you are seeing is a regular freight train or a missile launching special train). To destroy these systems, accuracy is absolutely not enough: you need to find them and you need to find them before they fire their missiles. And that is, by all accounts, quite impossible.

The Russian Navy likes to keep its SSBNs either under the polar ice-cap or in so-called “bastions” such as the Sea of Okhotsk. While these are not really “no-go” zones for US attack submarines (SSN), they are extremely dangerous areas where the Russian Navy has a huge advantage of the US (if only because the US attack submarine cannot count on the supper of surface ships or aircraft). The US Navy has some of the best submarines on the planet and superbly trained crews, but I find the notion that US SSNs could find and destroy all Russian SSBNs before the latter can launch unlikely in the extreme.

As for the land-based rail-mobile and road-mobile missiles, they are protected by Russian Air Defenses which are the most advanced on the planet, not the kind of airspace the US would want to send B-53, B-1 or B-2 bombers in. But most importantly, these missiles are completely hidden so even if the USA could somehow destroy them, it would failed to find enough of them to make a first disarming strike a viable option. By the way, the RS-24 has four MIRVs (make that 4 US cities) while the RS-27 will have between 10 and 16 (make that another 10 to 16 US cities vaporized).

Looking at geography and cruise missiles

Finally, let’s take a look at geography and cruise missiles. Two Russian cruise missiles are especially important to us: the Kh-102 and the 3M-14K(?):

KH-102 3M-14K
Range: 5500km 2600km
Launcher: Strategic bomber Aircraft, ship, container
Warhead: Nuclear 450kt Nuclear (unknown)

What is important with these two cruise missiles is that the KH-102 has a huge range and that the KM-14K can be fired from aircraft, ships and even containers. Take a look at this video which shows the capabilities of this missile:

Now consider where the vast majority of US cities are located – right along the East and West coasts of the USA and the fact that the US has no air defenses of any kind protecting them. A Russian strategic bomber could hit any West Coast from the middle of the Pacific ocean. As for a Russian submarine, it could hit any US city from the middle of the Atlantic. Finally, the Russians could conceal an unknown number of cruise missile in regular looking shipping container (flying Russian flag or, for that matter, any other flag) and simply sail to the immediate proximity to the US coast and unleash a barrage of nuclear cruise missiles.

How much reaction time would such a barrage give the US government?

Understanding reaction time

It is true that the Soviet and Russian space-based early warning system is in bad shape. But did you know that China never bothered developing such a space based system in the first place? So what is wrong with the Chinese, are they stupid, technologically backward or do they know something we don’t?

To answer that question we need to look at the options facing a country under nuclear missile attack. The first option is called “launch on warning”: you see the incoming missiles and you press the “red button” (keys in reality) to launch your own missiles. That is sometimes referred to as “use them or lose them”. The next option is “launch on strike”: you launch all you got as soon as a nuclear strike on your territory is confirmed. And, finally, there is the “retaliation after ride-out“: you absorb whatever your enemy shot at you, then take a decision to strike back. What is obvious is that China has adopted, whether by political choice or due to limitation in space capabilities, either a “launch on strike” or a “retaliation after ride-out” option. This is especially interesting since China possesses relatively few nuclear warheads and even fewer real long range ICBMs .

Contrast that with the Russians who have recently confirmed that they have long had a “dead hand system” called “Perimetr” which automatically ascertains that a nuclear attack has taken place and then automatically launches a counterstrike. That would be a “launch on strike” posture, but it is also possible that Russia has a double-posture: she tries to have the capability to launch on warning, but double-secures herself with an automated “dead hand” “launch on strike” capability.

Take a look at this estimate of worldwide stocks of strategic nuclear warheads: While China is credited with only 260 warheads, Russia still has a whopping 7’000 warheads. And a “dead hand” capability. And yet China feels confident enough to announce a “no first use” policy. How can they say that with no space-based nuclear missile launch detection capability?

Many will say that the Chinese wished they had more nukes and a space-based based nuclear missile launch detection capability, but that their current financial and technological means simply do not allow that. Maybe. But my personal guess is that they realize that even their very minimal force represents a good enough deterrent for any potential aggressor. And they might have a point.

Let me ask you this: how many US generals and politicians would be willing to sacrifice just one major US city in order to disarm China or Russia? Some probably would. But I sure hope that the majority would realize that the risk will always remain huge.

For one thing, modern nuclear warfare has, so far, only been “practiced” only on paper and with computers (and thank God for that!)? So nobody *really* knows for sure how a nuclear war would play itself out. The only thing which is certain is that just the political and economic consequences of would catastrophic and totally unpredictable. Furthermore, it remains very unclear how such a war could be stopped short of totally destroying one side. The so-called “de-escalation” is a fascinating concept, but so far nobody has really figured this out.

Finally, I am personally convinced that both the USA and Russia have more than enough survivable nuclear weapons to actually decide to ride out a full-scale enemy attack. That is the one big issue which many well-meaning pacifist never understood: it is a good thing that “the USA and Russia have the means to blow-up the world ten times over” simply because even one side succeeded in destroying, say, 95% of the US or Russian nuclear forces, the remaining 5% would be more than enough to wipe-out the attacking side in a devastating countervalue attack. If Russia and the USA each had, say, only 10 nuclear warheads then the temptation to try to take them out would be much higher.

This is scary and even sick, but having a lot of nuclear weapons is safer from a “first-strike stability” point of view than having few. Yes, we do live in a crazy world.

Consider that in times of crisis both the US and Russia would scramble their strategic bombers and keep them in the air, refueling them when needed, for as long as needed to avoid having them destroyed on the ground. So even if the USA destroyed ALL Russian ICBM/SLBMs, there would be quite a few strategic bombers in holding patterns in staging areas which could be given the order to strike. And here we reach one last crucial concept:

Counterforce strikes require a lot of HTK capable warheads. The estimates by both sides are kept secret, of course, but we are talking over 1000 targets on each side at least listed, if not actually targeted. But a countervalue strike would require much less. The US has only 10 cities with over one million people. Russia has only 12. And, remember, in theory one warhead is enough for one city (that is not true, but for all practical purposes it is). Just look what 9/11 did to the USA and imagine of, say, “only” Manhattan had been truly nuked. You can easily imagine the consequences.

Conclusion 1: super-fuses are not really that super at all

The super-fuses scare is so overblown that it is almost an urban legend. The fact is that even if all the US SLBMs are now HTK capable and even if Russia does not have a functional space-based missile launch detection capability (she is working on a new one, by the way), this in no way affects the fundamental fact that there is nothing, nothing at all, that the USA could come up with to prevent Russia from obliterating the USA in a retaliatory strike. The opposite is also true, the Russians have exactly zero hope of nuking the USA and survive the inevitable US retaliation.

The truth is that as far back as the early 1980s Soviet (Marshal Ogarkov) and US specialists had already come to the conclusion that a nuclear war is unwinnable. In the past 30 years two things have dramatically changed the nature of the game: first, an increasing number of conventional weapons have become comparable in their effects to small nuclear weapons and cruise missiles have become vastly more capable. The trend today is for low-RCS (stealth) long range hypersonic cruise missiles and maneuvering ICBM warheads which will make it even harder to detect and intercept them. Just think about it: if the Russians fired a cruise missile volley from a submarine say, 100km off the US coast, how much reaction time will the US have? Say that these low-RCS missile would begin flying at medium altitude being for all practical purpose invisible to radar, infra-red and even sound, then lower themselves down to 3-5 m over the Atlantic and then accelerate to a Mach 2 or Mach 3 speed. Sure, they will become visible to radars once they crosses the horizon, but the remaining reaction time would be measured in seconds, not minutes. Besides, what kind of weapon system could stop that missile type of anyway? Maybe the kind of defenses around a US aircraft carrier (maybe), but there is simply nothing like that along the US coast.

As for ballistic missile warheads, all the current and foreseeable anti-ballistic systems rely on calculations for a non-maneuvering warhead. Once the warheads begin to make turns and zig-zag, then the computation needed to intercept them become harder by several orders of magnitude. Some Russian missiles, like the R-30 Bulava, can even maneuver during their initial burn stage, making their trajectory even harder to estimate (and the missile itself harder to intercept).

The truth is that for the foreseeable future ABM systems will be much more expensive and difficult to build then ABM-defeating missiles. Also, keep in mind that an ABM missile itself is also far, far more expensive than a warhead. Frankly, I have always suspected that the American obsession with various types of ABM technologies is more about giving cash to the Military Industrial Complex and, at best, developing new technologies useful elsewhere.

Conclusion 2: the nuclear deterrence system remains stable, very stable

At the end of WWII, the Soviet Union’s allies, moved by the traditional western love for Russia, immediately proceeded to plan for a conventional and a nuclear war against the Soviet Union (see Operation Unthinkable and Operation Dropshot). Neither plan was executed, the western leaders were probably rational enough not to want to trigger a full-scale war against the armed forces which had destroyed roughly 80% of the Nazi war machine. What is certain, however, is that both sides fully understood that the presence of nuclear weapons profoundly changed the nature of warfare and that the world would never be the same again: for the first time in history all of mankind faced a truly existential threat. As a direct result of this awareness, immense sums of money were given to some of the brightest people on the planet to tackle the issue of nuclear warfare and deterrence. This huge effort resulted in an amazingly redundant, multi-dimensional and sophisticated system which cannot be subverted by any one technological breakthrough. There is SO much redundancy and security built into the Russian and American strategic nuclear forces that a disarming first strike is all but impossible, even if we make the most unlikely and far-fetched assumptions giving one side all the advantages and the other all the disadvantages. For most people it is very hard to wrap their heads around such a hyper-survivable system, but both the USA and Russia have run hundreds and even thousands of very advanced simulations of nuclear exchanges, spending countless hours and millions of dollars trying to find a weak spot in the other guy’s system, and each time the result was the same: there is always enough to inflict an absolutely cataclysmic retaliatory counter-strike.

Conclusion 3: the real danger to our common future

The real danger to our planet comes not from a sudden technological breakthrough which would make nuclear war safe, but from the demented filled minds of the US Neocons who believe that they can bring Russia to heel in a game of “nuclear chicken”. These Neocons have apparently convinced themselves that making conventional threats against Russia, such as unilaterally imposing no-fly zones over Syria, does not bring us closer to a nuclear confrontation. It does.

The Neocons love to bash the United Nations in general, and the veto power of the Permanent Five (P5) at the UN Security Council, but they apparently forgot the reason why this veto power was created in the first place: to outlaw any action which could trigger a nuclear war. Of course, this assumes that the P5 all care about international law. Now that the USA has clearly become a rogue state whose contempt for international law is total, there is no legal mechanism left to stop the US from committing actions which endanger the future of mankind. This is what is really scary, not “super-fuses”.

What we are facing today is a nuclear rogue state run by demented individuals who, steeped in a culture of racial superiority, total impunity and imperial hubris, are constantly trying to bring us closer to a nuclear war. These people are not constrained by anything, not morals, not international law, not even common sense or basic logic. In truth, we are dealing with a messianic cult every bit as insane as the one of Jim Jones or Adolf Hitler and like all self-worshiping crazies they profoundly believe in their invulnerability.

It is the immense sin of the so-called “Western world” that it let these demented individuals take control with little or no resistance and that now almost the entire western society lack the courage to even admit that it surrendered itself to what I can only call a satanic cult. Alexander Solzhenitsyn prophetic words spoken in 1978 have now fully materialized:

A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, in each government, in each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. There are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life (Harvard Speech, 1978)

Five years later, Solzhenitsyn warned us again saying,

To the ill-considered hopes of the last two centuries, which have reduced us to insignificance and brought us to the brink of nuclear and non-nuclear death, we can propose only a determined quest for the warm hand of God, which we have so rashly and self-confidently spurned. Only in this way can our eyes be opened to the errors of this unfortunate twentieth century and our hands be directed to setting them right. There is nothing else to cling to in the landslide: the combined vision of all the thinkers of the Enlightenment amounts to nothing. Our five continents are caught in a whirlwind. But it is during trials such as these that the highest gifts of the human spirit are manifested. If we perish and lose this world, the fault will be ours alone. (Tempelton Speech, 1983)

We have been warned, but will we heed that warning?

The Saker

No, the “New” CNN Video of the Chemical Incident Does Not Prove that the Syrian Government Did It

Global Research, May 11, 2017

The Sun claims that CNN has released new footage of last month’s Syrian chemical incident (click link to see video)… and strongly implies that the Syrian government was responsible.

Washington’s Blog asked MIT rocket scientist and chemical weapons expert Theodore Postol* what he thought of the footage.

Postol replied:

I agree that the footage is harrowing. However none of it is new and none of it proves that the Syrian government was the perpetrator of a nerve agent attack.

As such, this article merely falls into the category of propaganda.

The kindest alternative description of the article is that it might instead be yet another example of bad reporting that mixes ill-considered assumptions with facts that may or may not be relevant to its conclusions.

This kind of reporting could actually be encouraging such attacks.

If there was a false flag nerve agent attack, this tells the perpetrators that when they engage in the murder of children they can build a stronger false case against the Syrian government and thereby increase their chances of creating political pressure on the US Government to intervene militarily on their behalf.

If people are sickened by the inhumanity of these events, they might want to consider alternative explanations of who might be responsible for the immoralities we are seeing.

Click here to watch the video.

*Theodore Postol is  professor emeritus of science, technology, and national security policy at MIT. Postol’s main expertise is in ballistic missiles. He has a substantial background in air dispersal, including how toxic plumes move in the air. Postol has taught courses on weapons of mass destruction – including chemical and biological threats – at MIT.  Before joining MIT, Postol worked as an analyst at the Office of Technology Assessment, as a science and policy adviser to the chief of naval operations, and as a researcher at Argonne National Laboratory.  He also helped build a program at Stanford University to train mid-career scientists to study weapons technology in relation to defense and arms control policy. Postol is a highly-decorated scientist, receiving the Leo Szilard Prize from the American Physical Society, the Hilliard Roderick Prize from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Richard L. Garwin Award from the Federation of American Scientists.


Ziad Fadel 

Image result for donald trump

(Photo courtesy of Reddit)

United to Protect Democracy (UPD) is an advocacy group whose introductory web page describes it as a “nonpartisan nonprofit” organization established to hold the President of the United States accountable “to the laws and longstanding practices that have protected our democracy through both Democratic and Republican Administrations”.  Like other organizations around the world, it sees its overall purpose as one guarding against authoritarianism and tyranny.

The governing board of UPD is made up of former Obama Administration attorneys led by legal director, Justin Florence.  They have just filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration demanding he cough up all e-mails, memoranda, advisory opinions and/or anything which could be viewed as legal argumentation justifying the April 7, 2017 attack on the Syrian Airbase at Al-Shu’ayraat southeast of Homs City.  These suits are normally filed after legal requests are made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) which are rejected or ignored.  We are assuming from Mr. Trumps pattern of behavior that the requests were ignored.

The background to this legal brouhaha is an event which took place in the Alqaeda-controlled town of Khaan Shaykhoon in Idlib Province, Syria.  It was alleged, almost uniformly by compromised Western media, that the Syrian Air Force used Sarin gas (or something similar) indiscriminately killing over 80 civilians.  Without even a scintilla of evidence from objective sources, the Western propaganda organs like the BBC, CNN, NBC, inter alia, attempted to whip up a frenzied reaction in the streets of Washington D.C., London, Paris and Berlin to ignite some punishing reaction to President Assad’s encroachment over the red line which former president Obama drew in one famous statement to the Press.  The airbase was selected because of some unexplained method by which either the CIA or Pentagon determined that the Sarin gas loaded on Syrian bombers came from Al-Shu’ayraat.  Let’s forget that the base was primarily a repair-replace facility.  Let’s forget that 59 Tomahawk missiles were launched on the base and that only 23 made it to their target.  And let’s forget what the target might have been because the only damage done was to one hangar and 6 inoperable MiG23s.

In a post we published on SyrPer, we exposed the nonsensical nature of the charges against the Syrian government.  You remember the side-splitting scene of a man smoking a cigarette as masked “White Helmet” terrorists fiddled at the spot of the Sarin gas attack completely indifferent to the fact that Sarin gas is not dispelled by cigarette smoke.  And you also remember the man holding his two fake dead babies and who turned out to be a member of Alqaeda.

The United States Senate ratified the United Nations Charter on July 28, 1945 thus making the charter law in this country.  Its provisions have the same force as any statute and binds the U.S. to the obligations and duties spelled out in the body of the document.  The U.N. Charter defines exactly when a country may use force against another.  In Article 2 section 4, it provides that all states shall refrain from the threat of force or the use of force against another member state.  And if the state has an argument to use force it must take the matter to the Security Council in accordance with Chapter VII’s requirements.  Since Mr. Trump decided to use force 3 days after the incident at Khaan Shaykhoon, without consulting the Security Council, he was in violation of both American and international law.  On this issue, it is a no-brainer.

But, Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States gives the sitting president the power to engage in hostile action only with the consent of Congress.   He declined to seek Congress’ approval, unlike former President Obama’s blink in 2013 when the lies about Syrian Army use of CW were spreading in the MSM and poor Mr. Obama simply had no proof and could not bypass a Russian veto.  So, he took the matter to Congress who rejected the use of force against Syria.  At least his conduct was legal.

The U.S. Constitution is further buttressed by the War Powers Resolution passed on November 7, 1973 when an American population and Congress, aggrieved by a war in Vietnam’s jungles, sought to put limits on a president’s ability to send troops into war unilaterally.  President Nixon tried to veto the legislation unsuccessfully.   This is usually referred to as the “War Powers Act”.  50 U.S.C. Chapter 33.

“The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.”

Since the President could not argue that Syria’s alleged action threatened the United States in accordance with Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, he would be hard pressed to find any justification for his criminal act against Syria.  And, given the fact he took military action without even a fig leaf of legality, it would seem this president is on the slow lane to impeachment.  The lawsuit filed by UPD only seeks the divulgence of any articulated legal reason for Trump’s inane and possibly unlawful aggression against Damascus.  Given what we know about Trump’s style of shooting from the hip, it is very unlikely there will be any academically valid articulation of his ill-advised foray into Syria.

And, you know, there is a third argument which is not being brought up sufficiently.  Mr. Trump fired 59 Tomahawks at the airbase in Syria. That cost the U.S. an estimated $100,000,000 dollars in order to inflict damage to the Syrian military in the amount of $2,000,000.  This president claims to be an economical Wunderkind of sorts.  Well, do the figuring.

أبرز التطورات الميدانية على الساحة السورية.
Read more 

Washington is Leading the U.S. and its Vassal States to Total Destruction

By Paul Craig Roberts

“The problem is that the world has listened to Americans for far too bloody long.”  — Dr. Julian Osborne, from the 2000 film version of Nevil Shute’s 1957 book, On the Beach

May 06, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – A reader asked why neoconservatives push toward nuclear war when there can be no winners. If all die, what is the point?

The answer is that the neoconservatives believe that the US can win at minimum and perhaps zero damage.

Their insane plan is as follows: Washington will ring Russia and China with anti-ballistic missile bases in order to provide a shield against a retaliatory strike from Russia and China. Moreover, these US anti-ABM bases also can deploy nuclear attack missiles unknown to Russia and China, thus reducing the warning time to five minutes, leaving Washington’s victims little or no time in which to make a decision.

The neoconservatives think that Washington’s first strike will so badly damage the Russian and Chinese retaliatory capabilities that both governments will surrender rather than launch a response. The Russian and Chinese leaderships would conclude that their diminished forces leave little chance that many of their ICBMs will be able to get past Washington’s ABM shield, leaving the US largely intact. A feeble retaliation by Russia and China would simply invite a second wave US nuclear attack that would obliterate Russian and Chinese cities, killing millions and leaving both countries in ruins.

In short, the American warmongers are betting that the Russian and Chinese leaderships would submit rather than risk total destruction.

There is no question that neoconservatives are sufficiently evil to launch a preemptive nuclear attack, but possibly the plan aims to put Russia and China into a situation in which their leaders conclude that the deck is stacked against them and, therefore, they must accept Washington’s hegemony.

To feel secure in its hegemony, Washington would have to order Russia and China to disarm.

This plan is full of risks. Miscalculations are a feature of war. It is reckless and irresponsible to risk the life of the planet for nothing more than Washington’s hegemony.

The neoconservative plan puts Europe, the UK, Japan, S. Korea, and Australia at high risk were Russia and China to retaliate. Washington’s ABM shield cannot protect Europe from Russia’s nuclear cruise missiles or from the Russian Air Force, so Europe would cease to exist. China’s response would hit Japan, S. Korea, and Australia.

The Russian hope and that of all sane people is that Washington’s vassals will understand that it is they that are at risk, a risk from which they have nothing to gain and everything to lose, repudiate their vassalage to Washington and remove the US bases. It must be clear to European politicians that they are being dragged into conflict with Russia. This week the NATO commander told the US Congress that he needed funding for a larger military presence in Europe in order to counter “a resurgent Russia.” https://www.rt.com/news/387063-nato-counter-resurgent-russia/

Let us examine what is meant by “a resurgent Russia.” It means a Russia that is strong and confident enough to defend its interests and those of its allies. In other words, Russia was able to block Obama’s planned invasion of Syria and bombing of Iran and to enable the Syrian armed forces to defeat the ISIS force sent by Obama and Hillary to overthrow Assad.

Russia is “resurgent” because Russia is able to block US unilateral actions against some other countries.

This capability flies in the face of the neoconservative Wolfowitz doctrine, which says that the principal goal of US foreign policy is to prevent the rise of any country that can serve as a check on Washington’s unilateral action.

While the neocons were absorbed in their “cakewalk” wars that have now lasted 16 years, Russia and China emerged as checks on the unilateralism that Washington had enjoyed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. What Washington is trying to do is to recapture its ability to act worldwide without any constraint from any other country. This requires Russia and China to stand down.

Are Russia and China going to stand down? It is possible, but I would not bet the life of the planet on it. Both governments have a moral conscience that is totally missing in Washington. Neither government is intimidated by the Western propaganda. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said yesterday that we hear endless hysterical charges against Russia, but the charges are always vacant of any evidence.https://sputniknews.com/politics/201705041053274379-lavrov-russia-us-relations/

Conceivably, Russia and China could sacrifice their sovereignty for the sake of life on earth. But this same moral conscience will propel them to oppose the evil that is Washington in order not to succumb to evil themselves. Therefore, I think that the evil that rules in Washington is leading the United States and its vassal states to total destruction.

Having convinced the Russian and Chinese leaderships that Washington intends to nuke their countries in a surprise attack (see, for example, http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/04/us-forces-preparing-sudden-nuclear.html ), the question is how do Russia and China respond? Do they sit there and await an attack, or do they preempt Washington’s attack with an attack of their own?

What would you do? Would you preserve your life by submitting to evil, or would you destroy the evil?

Writing truthfully results in my name being put on lists (financed by who?) as a “Russian dupe/agent.” Actually, I am an agent of all people who disapprove of Washington’s willingness to use nuclear war in order to establish Washington’s hegemony over the world, but let us understand what it means to be a “Russian agent.”

It means to respect international law, which Washington does not. It means to respect life, which Washington does not. It means to respect the national interests of other countries, which Washington does not. It means to respond to provocations with diplomacy and requests for cooperation, which Washington does not. But Russia does. Clearly, a “Russian agent” is a moral person who wants to preserve life and the national identity and dignity of other peoples.

It is Washington that wants to snuff out human morality and become the master of the planet. As I have previously written, Washington without any question is Sauron. The only important question is whether there is sufficient good left in the world to resist and overcome Washington’s evil.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

See also

500K People Sign Petition Barring Trump’s Nuclear Weapons Use: According to the bill, the President will be prohibited from using the Armed Forces to conduct a “first-use nuclear strike” until a congressional declaration of war expressly authorized such a strike.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.


Ziad Fadel

Get a nice look at the Marlboro Man on the upper right side of the picture.  Gee, he must not be too worried about the Sarin gas!  Maybe he’s immune to Sarin gas since there really isn’t any around him anyways.  This photo was taken in Khaan Shaykhoon, probably by the bunglers at HRW or AI.   




Only British directors could goof this one up.  Filmed on location in Idlib, watch how the illustrious White Helmets prepare an actor for the horrors of being buried alive.   The CIA could not have done a worse job.  Read Brandon’s article on the subject:


Image result for zainab al-hosni

Zaynab Al-Husni seen in a photo taken after she was beheaded, strangled, raped, butchered  and skinned alive by Assad’s thugs.  Well, it didn’t quite turn out that way seeing she absconded from her home because her brothers were out to get her for some personal transgression.  In any case, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International got on the Humiliation Bandwagon with this corker of a story.  You could see the NYT also on the same bandwagon.


Well, folks, its like summertime reruns.  The same old rehash of the self-same tired narratives we have been watching for the last six years.  I just don’t have the gumption to regurgitate the worn out mantras used by the prostituted Western press about Assad’s this, or Assad’s that – it’s become too enervating.  But, when the president of the U.S. falls for this folderol, you know you’ve got a serious problem.

I remember back in 2013 when the propaganda machine run by MI6 in Syria bungled another story.  You see, they were trying to label Assad’s militias and intelligence services as cruel henchmen.  They aimed to do this by showing Assad’s men burying “honest”, “decent” and “well-meaning” reporters alive.  They rehearsed the scene so much that some people managed to sneak the tapes out and you could actually see them repeatedly burying the same person alive ad nauseam.

And there were the professional liars who could have done in serious news celebrities had it not been for the curious social and sexual status of the victim.  In this case, we are talking about Anderson Cooper who was so mesmerized by the acting abilities of Danny Abdul-Dayem that you could vicariously feel the perverse attraction between the 2 men – an obscene, lip-smacking, nay, orgiastic spectacle only sodomites and pederasts can possibly appreciate.  There was “Danny the Syrian”, a British citizen with an accent indicating a privileged upbringing, who, because of his raw courage and righteousness, his insistence on justice and dignity, found his way to war-torn Syria to chronicle the excesses of Assad’s military machine.  Huddled amongst modest, kerchiefed women, he blasted the regime which was purportedly indiscriminately bombing city centers, killing innocent civilians by the handful, pummeling anything that smacked of resistance to his cruel rule; his reign of terror; his archetypal republic of vampirism and slavery.  Why, he was so sincere, it is amazing nobody nominated him for some Nobel prize, a la the White Helmets.

Image result for danny abdul dayem

No, Danny did not receive any prizes after it was revealed he was nothing more than a career flim-flam man who was selected by MI6 to act out a scenario conjured up by some screenwriter contracted to the infamous British spook agency to make Assad look really bad.  Oooooooh.  Danny met his end, not by a bullet to the head, which would have been our preferred method of removing him from the tv screen.  No.  He met his end when some good soul transported a video Danny was filming of Syrian Army artillery shellacking the area where he was supposedly hiding (in Homs) and which showed him clearly giving directions to a crew of cameramen, sound men and special effects coordinators.  It was hilarious.  Even more evocative, was Anderson Cooper’s questioning him about that scene.  Danny just couldn’t give a decent answer.  Exeunt.

Nowhere in history has this level of propaganda been used so repeatedly in order to oust the sitting president of a member state of the U.N.  No other place!  Sure, Dr. Goebbels was a brilliant propagandist who managed to electrify Germans during WWII, but his ornate lying was not directed solely at one leader of another country in order to enflame its masses to rise up and destroy their own country.  Even Iraq, during George W. Bush’s days, was subjected only to one theme:  the possession of banned WMDs.  In Syria we have much more than CW as a target for perseverative lying in the Western Media.  We are watching the evolution of a complex, interwoven, coordinated and continuous pattern of obstinate adherence to a set of thematic targets which admit no other alternatives.  Once a reporter breaks from the accepted theme, he or she is blackballed and relegated to the “independent alternative media”.  Congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard, a two-tour Army veteran of the Iraq War,  had her patriotism impugned by a Democratic party member because she stood up for international law and the demands of her own Constitution.  One can only imagine the suffering Richard Black endures when he weighs in intelligently on the subject.

Ph.D. theses will be written about the nomenclature devised by the Western Press with guidance by the CIA, NSA, MI6, Turk MIT, Zionist Mossad, Saudi, Qatari and Jordanian General Intelligence Services and the French DGSE.  Suddenly, groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, are labeled “rebels” as though Chechen terrorists fighting against Dr. Assad’s government were “rebelling” against his rule.  It didn’t matter to the prostitutes in New York whether the “rebels” were Syrian or not.  What mattered was the promotion of a narrative which ascribed to terrorists the characteristics of a people fighting for dignity and freedom against a coarse, oligarchical tyranny represented by the Assad family.  The Western Press refused to even refer to the terrorists as “militants” because that might shake the carefully constructed image of a band of moderate freedom fighters locked in battle with a despotic regime.

The word “regime” was used so often to challenge the legitimacy of Dr. Assad’s presidency that it started a wave of tit-for-tat responses in readers’ comments.  I would read the angry responses to typically propagandistic articles with phrases such as “the Obama regime” or the “Hollande regime”.  You could tell people were picking up on the “neo-con terminology of choice” and were punching it straight back at the prostituted authors of these deplorably shabby articles.

Opposition members in Europe were rarely, if ever, outed as rented mercenaries working for the rag-headed Arabians of KSA, the UAE or Qatar.  No way!  Not one reporter ever wondered who was paying for the 5 star hotels in which these mostly failed exiles lived.  The Fake News Media never mentioned to a single reader that they were completely disconnected from the terrorists who ruled some streets during the onset of the insurrection.  Names were bandied about with no explanation of how or why they had some special characteristic that singled them out for celebrity or popularity in their own country.  Some exiled opposition members were completely ridiculous:  George Sabra who was showcased, at first,  because he was supposedly a Christian was an emcee on a children’s program in Damascus.  He was essentially a clown with no experience in politics.  On top of that, the authors of these lame-brained articles did not tell the readers that this pious Christian was, in truth, a rabid atheist and communist.  Others, like Ghassan Hitto, a Kurd, have not been to Syria for over 30 years having dodged the draft and relocated to Texas.  Still, others like Khaled Khoja, were not even Syrians – Khoja is a Turk.  Another, who was inextricably tied to the Saudis, was Ahmad Jarba, a scion of the Shammar tribe of Syria who was a convicted pimp, swindler and procureur.  You never got to read that in the Western Press.

The consistency in the reportage is the most telling clue of all.  Once might ask himself or herself, how is it that the NYT, the WP, WSJ, PBS, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, Jerusalem Post, Al-Jazeera, Al-‘Arabiyya, BBC, Christian Science Monitor, and the rest, all present with the same reporting?  How can that happen without an agenda laid out in purple prose directing the news media to follow in lockstep with the scenario spelled out for them by the intelligence services mentioned in the foregoing?  It seems almost surreal.  The only explanation is that the Deep State, or some very powerful cabal of billionaires, or, maybe, governments, sent out their messengers to blackmail these news organs:  “You’ll follow this plan or you won’t ever get to the White House.”  Perhaps, they were bought by promises of special treatment at Whitehall, the Department of State, the Quai D’Orsay, or the German Auswaartiges Amt.  That crucial scoop which makes reporters salivate was held in front of them like bait for a ravenous wolf.  Or, maybe,  the Western News Media is under the control of the International Zionist Movement.  All I know is that there is a programmatic character to the way the corporate media presents the news on Syria.

Remember the exciting episode when Richard Engel was kidnapped?  I sure do. This dyslexic ultramaroon and uber-Zionist was reportedly detained and kidnapped by “pro-Assad shabiha militiamen” when he was traveling in Syria illegally with a crew of boner-heads.  Why, as soon as he was released through some purported interventions, 5 days after the event, he went on the Today Show and proudly denounced President Assad’s thugs as the perpetrators.  Well, once again, we have a story, which, interestingly, in this case was exposed by the NYT.  It turns out that Engel’s story just didn’t add up.  And, as it turned out, Mr. Engel, a lapdog for Zionist katsas and assorted fairy tale writers,  admitted his story was wrong.  He was kidnapped by the heroic FSA, or some group affiliated with America’s darling “rebels”.



Besides the lying from Engel, what was even more involving was the fact that both NBC News and Vanity Fair, both of which ran orotund reports about the ordeal and the evil of Assad would not publish retractions.  Embarrassed to au plus haut point, they would not revisit the issue hoping their readers would live out their lives believing Dr. Assad’s blackguards were still responsible.  We, at SyrPer, still argue that the whole episode was deliberately skewed to bamboozle the American viewer.      

And does anybody remember the Der Spiegel reporter, Erich Follath,  who came up with one of the most bombastic lies in the history of propaganda.  Yes. That’s the one who disseminated a lie so incredible that even his own principals wouldn’t kite it beyond the first publication.  According to this birdbrain, Syria has a second and third nuclear weapons facility, this time, not on the Euphrates near the abandoned village of Al-Kibar, but, across the breast of Syria at Al-Qusayr, on the Lebanese border.  The article is gut-wrenchingly funny and should be read by all my friends:


You see his logic?  Iran, a powerful regional player with industrial capabilities, took decades to get its nuclear program rolling.  But, we Syrians, are such geniuses that we are able to have a kit to build a nuclear weapon with just one North Korean scientist.  And all this is being done in an area which used to be controlled by terrorists!  You have got to now believe that there is no redemption for these hacks in the West.  And by the way, the uranium found at Al-Kibar  by U.N. inspectors turned out to be from the missiles fired by the Zionist bombers.  There was no reactor there, only a factory for rockets after a tragic disaster at another factory in Aleppo.

But, look at the fervor!  American and Western politicians are so determined to get President Assad that they have turned into feral, rabid monsters.  John McCain for one, is so involved in the effort, he huffed-and-puffed his way out of a meeting between Syrian Christian priests who were lobbying Washington to stop attacking their leader.  He could not sit while these clerics pushed the narrative that Dr. Assad protected minorities.  I have already written about the fact that McCain has been promised millions of dollars by the Saudis as the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.  He is looking at a massive fortune. The same was true of Hollande and Cameron – both miserable sycophantish coprophiliacs to the unctuous and soiled boors of Arabia. The whole pot of fandangle built on a promise of lucre in exchange for a Brobdingnagian constellation of pure mendacity.  Shame has no place in the company of these charlatans – they wouldn’t know it if they saw it.

These lies have brought Syria to ruin.  The people of Syria have been tortured by lies.  There should be a criminal charge for lying that causes so much agony.  The perpetrators of the lies should spend their lives in a jar like the Sybil of Cumae.  When asked what she wanted, the Sybil responded, “I want to be dead”. That’s what I want for all these criminals.  Ziad
Read more

Related Posts

%d bloggers like this: