Connect with us

Latest

News

America

Russia shares intel with US regarding planned ‘false flag’ attack in Syria

Russian ambassador hopes that the US will act responsibly, in contrast to April’s Syria airstrikes after a previous false flag attack.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

1,819 Views

RT reported on Thursday, 30 August, that Russian officials briefed US diplomats on a plan by militants is Syria to stage a false flag attack using chemical weapons in Idlib to frame Damascus.

Anatoly Antonov, the Russian ambassador in Washington, confirmed to the media on Wednesday that he had met with the US special representative to Syria, James Jeffrey, and David M. Satterfield, acting assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs.

The attendees of the rare meeting and the fact that it had taken place earlier this week
[were] revealed by US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert during a daily briefing.

The meeting was called by Russia on Friday and held on Monday, August 27, Antonov said. He commended the US side for coming at such short notice, and described the meeting as “constructive and professional.”

At the meeting, Russia officially conveyed its concerns over reports that Washington together with France and the UK is gearing up for another set of airstrikes in Syria under the pretext of a chemical attack, that would immediately be blamed on the Syrian government. Moscow […] asked Washington to “provide the facts without delay” to substantiate the new allegations that Damascus uses chemical weapons against its own people.

Such rhetoric fanned by Washington may prompt militants and their “pseudo-humanitarian” organizations like the White Helmets to mount another provocation using chemical agents, Antonov warned.

Intelligence that Russia has gathered has been shared with the US, and the diplomats were told “in detail” about the provocation against civilians being prepared by Al-Nusra Front (now known as Tahrir al-Sham) in the northwestern province of Idlib.

The Russian Defense Ministry reported earlier that Tahrir al-Sham was plotting a chemical attack that would then be misrepresented as another “atrocity” by the “Syrian regime.” Eight canisters of chlorine have been delivered to a village near Jisr al-Shughur city, and a specially trained group of militants, prepped by the British security company Olive, also arrived in the area to imitate a rescue operation to save the civilian “victims.” Militants plan to use child hostages in the staged incident, according to Antonov.

Moscow cautioned Washington against falling for this provocation, noting that a massive airstrike targeting Syria’s military and civilian infrastructure will constitute another act of “groundless and illegal aggression” against Syria.

“A new escalation in Syria does not correspond to interests of any party. We believe that our concern will be heard,” Antonov said, adding that he hopes the US “will take every effort to prevent terrorists from using toxic chemicals and will be acting responsibly, in accordance with the status of the UN Security Council permanent member.”

President Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton stated last week that the US “will respond very strongly” in case of a chemical attack by Damascus. The warning was interpreted by the Russian Defense Ministry as a veiled confirmation that the US has been considering an airstrike on Syria similar to the one it carried out in April, alongside France and the UK.

The war in Syria is all but over. President Bashar al-Assad’s government once again has control over almost all of Syria’s sovereign territory, and with a final battle looming between his forces and the antigovernment forces and al-Qaeda forces operating in Idlib there is just one problem: The American pressure to remove al-Assad by any means necessary, including prolonging the war, and including the semi-clandestine support of the al-Qaeda operative, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham.

The objectivity of news reporting about this war is rife with propaganda, mostly from the US and Western allies side. This is probably rather sensible, since the American forces operating in the area have no legal right to be there. In order to appear legitimate at home, the narrative must make it look like the US forces need to be there. President Trump came close to ending it in April, but just in the nick of time, an alleged gas attack took place, prompting the US, France and Great Britain to launch a visually impressive missile strike that thankfully only destroyed a few empty buildings.

The actuality of a gas attack in April still has yet to be verified, because the OPCW authorities cannot get to the site due to it’s being controlled by al-Qaeda forces.

With tensions rising over the possibility of the false-flag attack being repeated, US forces are on alert.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
4 Comments

4
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
tomRobertX5GyreBrad Isherwood Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
tom
Guest
tom

“Russia shares intel with US regarding planned ‘false flag’ attack in Syria”.

Isn’t that just telling them what their own plans are? Coals to Newcastle…

RobertX5
Guest
RobertX5

Do we honestly think that James Jeffrey and David Satterfield are the go to people to influence and enlighten U.S. policy in Syria. What is Mr Satterfield’s title ‘Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs’ – Wow, a real decision maker in Washington DC. What we will have is the usual playlist, heart wrenching scenes on the morning T.V. news, accompanied by a a breathless commentary telling us what we are looking at, and who did it. Our Presidents/Prime Ministers ( who I also suspect get much of their understanding of world affairs from the morning T.V.) then… Read more »

Gyre
Guest
Gyre

Just keep overestimating the ethics of US leadership Russia. Nor do I suppose that you remember Yeltsin.

Latest

EU leaders dictate Brexit terms to Theresa May (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 115.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss how EU leaders have agreed on a plan to delay the the Article 50 process which effectively postpones Brexit beyond the 29 March deadline.

The UK will now be offered a delay until the 22nd of May, only if MPs approve Theresa May’s withdrawal deal next week. If MPs do not approve May’s negotiated deal, then the EU will support a short delay until the 12th of April, allowing the UK extra time to get the deal passed or to “indicate a way forward”.

UK PM Theresa May said there was now a “clear choice” facing MPs, who could vote for a third time on her deal next week.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Theresa May outlines four Brexit options, via Politico

In a letter to MPs, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May set out the four options she believes the country has in light of Thursday’s decision by EU leaders to extend the Brexit deadline beyond next Friday.

The U.K. is faced with a four-way choice, May wrote late Friday.

The government could revoke Article 50 — which May called a betrayal of the Brexit vote; leave without a deal on April 12; pass her deal in a vote next week; or, “if it appears that there is not sufficient support” for a vote on her deal in parliament next week or if it is rejected for a third time, she could ask for an extension beyond April 12.

But this would require for the U.K. taking part in European elections in May, which the prime minister said “would be wrong.”

May wrote that she’s hoping for the deal to pass, allowing the U.K. to leave the EU “in an orderly way,” adding “I still believe there is a majority in the House for that course of action.”

“I hope we can all agree that we are now at the moment of decision,” she wrote.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

US media suffers panic attack after Mueller fails to deliver on much-anticipated Trump indictment

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


Important pundits and news networks have served up an impressive display of denials, evasions and on-air strokes after learning that Robert Mueller has ended his probe without issuing a single collusion-related indictment.

The Special Counsel delivered his final report to Attorney General William Barr for review on Friday, with the Justice Department confirming that there will be no further indictments related to the probe. The news dealt a devastating blow to the sensational prophesies of journalists, analysts and entire news networks, who for nearly two years reported ad nauseam that President Donald Trump and his inner circle were just days away from being carted off to prison for conspiring with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Showing true integrity, journalists and television anchors took to Twitter and the airwaves on Friday night to acknowledge that the media severely misreported Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, as well as what Mueller’s probe was likely to find. They are, after all, true professionals.

“How could they let Trump off the hook?” an inconsolable Chris Matthews asked NBC reporter Ken Dilanian during a segment on CNN’s ‘Hardball’.

Dilanian tried to comfort the CNN host with some of his signature NBC punditry.

“My only conclusion is that the president transmitted to Mueller that he would take the Fifth. He would never talk to him and therefore, Mueller decided it wasn’t worth the subpoena fight,” he expertly mused.

Actually, there were several Serious Journalists who used their unsurpassed analytical abilities to conjure up a reason why Mueller didn’t throw the book at Trump, even though the president is clearly a Putin puppet.

“It’s certainly possible that Trump may emerge from this better than many anticipated. However! Consensus has been that Mueller would follow DOJ rules and not indict a sitting president. I.e. it’s also possible his report could be very bad for Trump, despite ‘no more indictments,'” concluded Mark Follman, national affairs editor at Mother Jones, who presumably, and very sadly, was not being facetious.

Revered news organs were quick to artfully modify their expectations regarding Mueller’s findings.

“What is collusion and why is Robert Mueller unlikely to mention it in his report on Trump and Russia?” a Newsweek headline asked following Friday’s tragic announcement.

Three months earlier, Newsweek had meticulously documented all the terrible “collusion” committed by Donald Trump and his inner circle.

But perhaps the most sobering reactions to the no-indictment news came from those who seemed completely unfazed by the fact that Mueller’s investigation, aimed at uncovering a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin, ended without digging up a single case of “collusion.”

The denials, evasions and bizarre hot takes are made even more poignant by the fact that just days ago, there was still serious talk about Trump’s entire family being hauled off to prison.

“You can’t blame MSNBC viewers for being confused. They largely kept dissenters from their Trump/Russia spy tale off the air for 2 years. As recently as 2 weeks ago, they had @JohnBrennan strongly suggesting Mueller would indict Trump family members on collusion as his last act,” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted.

While the Mueller report has yet to be released to the public, the lack of indictments makes it clear that whatever was found, nothing came close to the vast criminal conspiracy alleged by virtually the entire American media establishment.

“You have been lied to for 2 years by the MSM. No Russian collusion by Trump or anyone else. Who lied? Head of the CIA, NSA,FBI,DOJ, every pundit every anchor. All lies,” wrote conservative activist Chuck Woolery.

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom was more blunt, but said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Canadian Lawmaker Accuses Trudeau Of Being A “Fake Feminist” (Video)

Rempel segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career

Published

on

Via Zerohedge

Canada’s feminist-in-chief Justin Trudeau wants to support and empower women…but his support stops at the point where said women start creating problems for his political agenda.

That was the criticism levied against the prime minister on Friday by a conservative lawmaker, who took the PM to task for “muzzling strong, principled women” during a debate in the House of Commons.

“He asked for strong women, and this is what they look like!” said conservative MP Michelle Rempel, referring to the former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who has accused Trudeau and his cronies of pushing her out of the cabinet after she refused to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to a Quebec-based engineering firm.

She then accused Trudeau of being a “fake feminist”.

“That’s not what a feminist looks like…Every day that he refuses to allow the attorney general to testify and tell her story is another day he’s a fake feminist!”

Trudeau was so taken aback by Rempel’s tirade, that he apparently forgot which language he should respond in.

But Rempel wasn’t finished. She then segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career. This from a man who once objected to the continued use of the word “mankind” (suggesting we use “peoplekind” instead).

The conservative opposition then tried to summon Wilson-Raybould to appear before the Commons for another hearing (during her last appearance, she shared her account of how the PM and employees in the PM’s office and privy council barraged her with demands that she quash the government’s pursuit of SNC-Lavalin over charges that the firm bribed Libyan government officials). Wilson-Raybould left the Trudeau cabinet after she was abruptly moved to a different ministerial post – a move that was widely seen as a demotion.

Trudeau has acknowledged that he put in a good word on the firm’s behalf with Wilson-Raybould, but insists that he always maintained the final decision on the case was hers and hers alone.

Fortunately for Canadians who agree with Rempel, it’s very possible that Trudeau – who has so far resisted calls to resign – won’t be in power much longer, as the scandal has cost Trudeau’s liberals the lead in the polls for the October election.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending