Connect with us

Latest

News

Terrorism

WATCH: Terrorists, White Helmets met in Idlib, Syria to plot false-flag chemical attack

Russian defense ministry concerned about US proxy forces faking a “chemical attack” that would give US the excuse to dig in indefinitely.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

1,319 Views

According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, and as reported by RT, the Russian military reports being in possession of “irrefutable” data that terrorist groups, including Jabhat al-Nusra (a US proxy which also was affiliated with al-Qaeda) and the “White Helmets”, met in the Idlib province of Syria on Sunday September 2nd.

This meeting was to rehearse and plot the scenarios for the “chemical attacks” (or simulations thereof) to frame the Syrian government forces. This statement was made by the Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov:

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

The militants plotted the final scenarios for the chemical attacks that the Syrian army are expected to make in the cities of Jisr ash-Shugur, Serakab, Taftanaz and Sarmin, the Russian military revealed.

“Full readiness of all participants involved in the staging of the provocations is be ensured by the evening of September 8,” Konashenkov stated. He added that the terrorists are to receive a “special” signal from some “foreign friends of Syrian revolution” to launch the operation.

The statement comes after earlier warnings from Moscow’s that militants are preparing to stage a chemical attack in the Syrian province to give the Western coalition a pretext to strike Syria. In August, the Defense Ministry said that eight canisters of chlorine had been delivered to a village near Jisr al-Shughur city, and that a foreign-trained group of militants had also arrived in the area to simulate a rescue operation after the staged attack.

The US and its allies have repeatedly stressed its readiness to strike Syria if any attack takes place, ignoring all Russia’s warnings. Washington’s envoy to the UN Nikki Haley recently said that she already knows the perpetrators in case a chemical incident takes place in Syria.

In late August, American forces deployed missile destroyer USS Ross to the Mediterranean and USS The Sullivans to the Persian Gulf. The preparation of US military forces was condemned by Russia, with its Defense Ministry describing the move as “the latest evidence of the US intention” to take advantage of a false-flag attack.

On Friday, leaders of the three countries involved in the so-called “Astana process,” Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Iran’s Hassan Rouhani, met in Tehran to discuss the situation in Idlib and the rest of Syria. All three agreed that radical Islamists pose a threat to Syria, but there was no unanimous support for a major offensive in the terrorists’ last stronghold. The final document of the summit called for all armed groups in Idlib to lay down arms and seek a political transition in the country.

A further report detailed that the American geopolitical interest in Syria has prompted the US to plan to prevent the fall of this last stronghold of terrorists by whatever means necessary, including helping them stage “false flag” attacks, without regard for civilians at all:

Washington and its allies pursue their geopolitical interests under the guise of humanitarian concerns as they apparently try to prevent the destruction of the last terrorist enclave in Syria, the Russian envoy to the UN said.

The US and its allies have done virtually nothing to contribute to the real peace process in Idlib, the Russian ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia said, adding that the US particularly did not deliver on its promise to separate the “moderate opposition” groups from the terrorist organizations.

“Instead, [they] are hatching yet another aggressive plan, which includes false flag attacks involving the use of chemical weapons,”the envoy said.

The Western states apparently “go out of their way to prevent the fall of the last major terrorist stronghold in Syria,” Nebenzia said, adding that such actions serve some narrow geopolitical interests rather than the declared need to protect civilians.

The hysterical campaign that has unfolded around the upcoming liberation of Idlib closely resembles the one that the Western officials and the media waged at the time when the Syrian troops backed by the Russian Air Forces were liberating Aleppo. “Those apocalyptic forecasts turned out to be unfounded,” Nebenzia said, referring to the Western hysteria about the Aleppo campaign.

“Meanwhile, Raqqa was leveled to the ground as a result of the bombings of the US-led coalition,” he said, referring to another Syrian city, which was recaptured from the terrorists by the forces backed by the US and its allies, with the Western MSM mentioning little of its plight.

The image of Idlib presented by the West has in fact little in common with reality, Nebenzia said. “Those, who evacuated to Idlib from other Syrian regions were not some peaceful civilians but notorious militants, who refused to lay down their arms and return to normal life,” the Russian envoy to the UN said, adding that large forces of Al-Qaeda-affiliated former Al Nusra Front (now known as Tahrir al-Sham) have been concentrated in the militant-held province.

“The real situation in Idlib is defined through the activities of this large and combat-capable terrorist group,” Nebenzia said, adding that the terrorists pose a serious security threat both to the region and the entire world.

“The terrorists in Idlib hold millions of people hostage and raid neighboring cities and villages,” Nebenzia said. He pointed out that they also persecute any dissenting voices within the ranks of the local armed groups commanders, effectively quelling any attempts of a peaceful reconciliation with the Syrian government by killing the dissidents.

Under such circumstances, “it is unacceptable to let the terrorists off the hook for some political goals,” Nebenzia said – let alone supply them with military-grade weapons, which, the envoy said, they obtain from local armed groups.

In response, the US envoy to the UN, Nikki Haley, said that Washington “will not cooperate with Russia” in what she called “[Syrian President Bashar] Assad’s slaughter of civilians.” Haley then went on to accusing the Syrian government and “its enablers, Russia and Iran” of having a “playbook of death,” which includes targeting civilians and waging “starve and surrender campaigns.”

She particularly claimed that the people in Daraa and Eastern Ghouta, which were both liberated by the Syrian Army backed by the Russian Air Forces earlier this year, were “trapped and besieged”, without even mentioning the humanitarian corridors that the Syrian troops organized together with the Russian Reconciliation Center for Syria to let civilians leave the active combat zones.

Instead, she said that Washington would consider any operation in Idlib “a dangerous escalation of the conflict in Syria”and warned of “dire consequences” of such development.

With two such radically differing viewpoints on this conflict – both backed by great firepower – the situation in this region is very touchy.

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

9
Leave a Reply

avatar
7 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
FlorianGeyerwigginsAlex Christoforoujohn masonTjoe Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Andre de Koning
Guest
Andre de Koning

The Saker gives this article some more context with his usual sharp perception and sense of tactics in the big picture of this war. Essential reading I think: http://thesaker.is/russias-asymmetric-response-to-the-us-in-syria/

A.F.Veth
Guest
A.F.Veth

Russia continue to poison children and babies in Syria.

FlorianGeyer
Guest
FlorianGeyer

Your proof please?

Tjoe
Guest
Tjoe

Remember when Obama was going to bomb Assad and didn’t? There was a cell phone video that made it up on youtube of the “good rebels” working with a news crew, I think it was CNN, to launch CW and make claims that Assad did it. That video was taken down but thousands saw it (I did)…and Obomber didn’t bomb. This time they are closing Youtube down ahead of the operation.

Tjoe
Guest
Tjoe

Big thanks to Duran for dropping Disqus. Agreeing to new Disqus policy is terrible and I refused to do it. Then again, you will have to police the new sigh-ups for trolls and trolls in the making. Welcome real people.

Alex Christoforou
Admin

Thanks. We hope you like the comment system and spread the word about The Duran…more great upgrades on the way.

john mason
Guest
john mason

Russia and their allies will have to do what needs to be done to free Syria from all forms of terrorism and protect Syrian sovereignty because this is a universal test for democracy and any challenge to it needs to be confronted.

wiggins
Guest
wiggins

…and where were they evacuated too……..Yep, every time.

FlorianGeyer
Guest
FlorianGeyer

There is little doubt that the White Helmets et al will commit another chemical False Flag in Idlib even if they are ordered not to do so by their FUKUS sponsors. Its the only chance they have of surviving in their criminal minds. Russia and Iran are trying to convince Erdogan that its in his and his countries best interests to support the Syrian Government in Idlib and also all the other illegally occupied parts of Syria for that matter. If Turkey does support the SAA it will hasten the demise of the US in the Kurdish areas and with… Read more »

Latest

May Forces Brexit Betrayal to its Crisis Point

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote. 

Published

on

Authored by Tom Luongo:


The only words that were left out of Theresa May’s announcement of achieving Cabinet approval over her Brexit deal were Mission Accomplished.

Theresa May was put in charge of the U.K. to betray Brexit from the beginning.  She always represented the interests of the European Union and those in British Parliament that backed remaining in the EU.

No one in British ‘high society’ wanted Brexit to pass.   No. One.

No one in Europe’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

No one in the U.S.’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

When it did pass The Davos Crowd began the process of sabotaging it.  The fear mongering has done nothing but intensify.  And May has done nothing but waffle back and forth, walking the political tight rope to remain in power while trying to sell EU slavery to the both sides in British Parliament.

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote.  Why?

Because Theresa May’s 585 page ‘deal’ is the worst of all possible outcomes.  If it passes it will leave the EU with near full control over British trade and tax policy while the British people and government have no say or vote in the matter.

It’s punishment for the people getting uppity about their future and wanting something different than what had been planned for them.

Mr. Juncker and his replacement will never have to suffer another one of Nigel Farage’s vicious farragoes detailing their venality ever again.  YouTube will get a whole lot less interesting.

It’s almost like this whole charade was designed this way.

Because it was.

May has tried to run out the clock and scare everyone into accepting a deal that is worse than the situation pre-Brexit because somehow a terrible deal is better than no deal.  But, that’s the opposite of the truth.

And she knows it.  She’s always known it but she’s gone into these negotiations like the fragile wisp of a thing she truly is.

There’s a reason I call her “The Gypsum Lady.” She’s simply the opposite of Margaret Thatcher who always knew what the EU was about and fought to her last political breath to avoid the trap the U.K. is now caught in.

The U.K. has had all of the leverage in Brexit talks but May has gone out of her way to not use any of it while the feckless and evil vampires in Europe purposefully complicate issues which are the height of irrelevancy.

She has caved on every issue to the point of further eroding what’s left of British sovereignty.  This deal leaves the U.K. at the mercy of Latvia or Greece in negotiating any trade agreement with Canada.  Because for a deal between member states to be approved, all members have to approve of it.

So, yeah, great job Mrs. May.  Mission Accomplished.  They are popping champagne corks in Brussels now.

But, this is a Brexit people can be proud of.

Orwell would be proud of Theresa May for this one.

You people are leaving.  Let the EU worry about controlling their borders.  And if Ireland doesn’t like the diktats coming from Brussels than they can decide for themselves if staying in the EU is worth the trouble.

The entire Irish border issue is simply not May’s problem to solve.  Neither is the customs union or any of the other stuff.  These are the EU’s problems.   They are the ones who don’t want the Brits to leave.

Let them figure out how they are going to trade with the U.K.  It is so obvious that this entire Brexit ‘negotiation’ is about protecting the European project as a proxy for the right of German automakers to export their cars at advantageous exchange rates to the U.K. at everyone’s expense.

Same as it was in the days of The Iron Lady.

If all of this wasn’t so predictable it would be comical.

Because the only people more useless than Theresa May are the Tories who care only about keeping their current level of the perks of office.

The biggest takeaway from this Brexit fiasco is that even more people will check out of the political system. They will see it even more clearly for what it is, an irredeemable miasma of pelf and privilege that has zero interest in protecting the rights of its citizens or the value of their labor.

It doesn’t matter if it’s voter fraud in the U.S. or a drawn out betrayal of a binding referendum. There comes a point where those not at the political fringes look behind the veil and realize changing the nameplate above the door doesn’t change the policy.

And once they realize that confidence fails and systems collapse.

Brexit was the last gasp of a dying empire to assert its national relevancy.  Even if this deal is rejected by parliament the process has sown deep divisions which will lead to the next trap and the next and the next and the next.

By then Theresa May will be a distant memory, being properly rewarded by her masters for a job very well done.


Please support the production of independent and alternative political and financial commentary by joining my Patreon and subscribing to the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter for just $12/month.

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

Latest

The DOJ Is Preparing To Indict Julian Assange

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge…


The US Justice Department is preparing to indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange which, after sensitive international negotiations, would likely trigger his extradition to the United States to stand trial, according to the Wall Street Journalciting people in Washington familiar with the matter.

Over the past year, U.S. prosecutors have discussed several types of charges they could potentially bring against Mr. Assange, the people said. Mr. Assange has lived in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since receiving political asylum from the South American country in 2012.

The people familiar with the case wouldn’t describe whether discussions were under way with the U.K. or Ecuador about Mr. Assange, but said they were encouraged by recent developments.

The exact charges Justice Department might pursue remain unclear, but they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information. –WSJ

In short, the DOJ doesn’t appear to have a clear charge against Assange yet. Then there’s the optics of dragging Assange out of Ecuador’s London Embassy and into the United States, then prosecuting him, and if successful – jailing him.

Prosecuting someone for publishing truthful information would set a terrible and dangerous precedent,” said Assange lawyer Barry Pollack – who says he hasn’t heard anything about a US prosecution.

“We have heard nothing from authorities suggesting that a criminal case against Mr. Assange is imminent,” he added.

Moreover, assuming that even if the DOJ could mount a case, they would be required to prove that Russia was the source of a trove of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton that WikiLeaks released in the last few months of the 2016 election.

An indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller that portrayed WikiLeaks as a tool of Russian intelligence for releasing thousands of hacked Democratic emails during the 2016 presidential campaign has made it more difficult for Mr. Assange to mount a defense as a journalist. Public opinion of Mr. Assange in the U.S. has dropped since the campaign.

Prosecutors have considered publicly indicting Mr. Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy, the people said, because a detailed explanation of the evidence against Mr. Assange could give Ecuadorean authorities a reason to turn him over. –WSJ

It’s no secret that Assange and Hillary Clinton aren’t exactly exchanging Christmas cards, however would WikiLeaks’ release of damaging information that was hacked (or copied locally on a thumb drive by a well-meaning American), be illegal for Assange as a publisher?

Despite scant clues as to how the DOJ will prosecute Assange aside from rumors that it has to do with the Espionage Act, the US Government is cooking on something. John Demers – head of the DOJ’s national security division, said last week regarding an Assange case: “On that, I’ll just say, we’ll see.”

The U.S. hasn’t publicly commented on whether it has made, or plans to make, any extradition request. Any extradition request from the U.S. would likely go to British authorities, who have an outstanding arrest warrant for Mr. Assange related to a Swedish sexual assault case. Sweden has since dropped the probe, but the arrest warrant stands.

Any extradition and prosecution would involve multiple sensitive negotiations within the U.S. government and with other countries. –WSJ

Beginning in 2010, the Department of Justice beginning under the Obama administration has drawn a distinction between WikiLeaks and other news organizations – with former Attorney General Eric Holder insisting that Assange’s organization does not deserve the same first amendment protections during the Chelsea Manning case in which the former Army intelligence analyst was found guilty at a court-martial of leaking thousands of classified Afghan War Reports.

US officials have given mixed messages over Assange, with President Trump having said during the 2016 election “I love WikiLeaks,” only to have his former CIA Director, Mike Pompeo label WikiLeaks akin to a foreign “hostile intelligence service” and a US adversary. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said that Assange’s arrest is a “priority.”

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange, meanwhile, has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno – who called the WikiLeaks founder a “stone in our shoe,” adding that Assange’s stay at the London embassy is unsustainable.

Ecuador has been looking to improve relations with the U.S., hosting Vice President Mike Pence in 2018 amid interest in increasing trade.

Ecuador’s Foreign Relations Ministry declined to comment. This month, Foreign Relations Minister José Valencia told a radio station the government hadn’t received an extradition request for Mr. Assange.

Mr. Assange has clashed with his Ecuadorean hosts in over internet access, visitors, his cat and other issues. Last month, he sued Ecuador over the conditions of his confinement. At a hearing last month, at which a judge rejected Mr. Assange’s claims, Mr. Assange said he expected to be forced out of the embassy soon.  –WSJ

Assange and Ecuador seem to have worked things out for the time being; with his months-long communication blackout mostly lifted (with strict rules against Assange participating in political activities that would affect Ecuador’s international relations). Assange is now allowed Wi-Fi, but has to foot the bill for his own phone calls and other communication.

In October, a judge threw out a lawsuit Assange filed against Ecuador from implementing the stricter rules,.

“Ecuador hasn’t violated the rights of anyone,” Attorney General Íñigo Salvador said after the court ruling. “It has provided asylum to Mr. Assange, and he should comply with the rules to live harmoniously inside Ecuador’s public installations in London.”Assange’s attorneys say he will appeal the ruling – however it may be a moot point if he’s dragged into a US courtroom sooner than later.

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

Latest

Trump Understands The Important Difference Between Nationalism And Globalism

President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Raheem Kassam, op-ed via The Daily Caller:


President Macron’s protests against nationalism this weekend stand in stark contrast with the words of France’s WWII resistance leader and the man who would then become president: General Charles de Gaulle.

Speaking to his men in 1913, de Gaulle reminded them:

“He who does not love his mother more than other mothers, and his fatherland more than other fatherlands, loves neither his mother nor his fatherland.”

This unquestionable invocation of nationalism reveals how far France has come in its pursuit of globalist goals, which de Gaulle described later in that same speech as the “appetite of vice.”

While this weekend the media have been sharpening their knives on Macron’s words, for use against President Trump, very few have taken the time to understand what really created the conditions for the wars of the 20th century. It was globalism’s grandfather: imperialism, not nationalism.

This appears to have been understood at least until the 1980s, though forgotten now. With historical revisionism applied to nationalism and the great wars, it is much harder to understand what President Trump means when he calls himself a “nationalist.” Though the fault is with us, not him.

Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism … By pursuing our own interests first, with no regard to others,’ we erase the very thing that a nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great: its moral values,” President Macron declared from the pulpit of the Armistice 100 commemorations.

Had this been in reverse, there would no doubt have been shrieks of disgust aimed at Mr. Trump for “politicizing” such a somber occasion. No such shrieks for Mr. Macron, however, who languishes below 20 percent in national approval ratings in France.

With some context applied, it is remarkably easy to see how President Macron was being disingenuous.

Nationalism and patriotism are indeed distinct. But they are not opposites.

Nationalism is a philosophy of governance, or how human beings organize their affairs. Patriotism isn’t a governing philosophy. Sometimes viewed as subsidiary to the philosophy of nationalism, patriotism is better described as a form of devotion.

For all the grandstanding, Mr. Macron may as well have asserted that chicken is the opposite of hot sauce,so meaningless was the comparison.

Imperialism, we so quickly forget, was the order of the day heading into the 20th century. Humanity has known little else but empire since 2400 B.C. The advent of globalism, replete with its foreign power capitals and multi-national institutions is scarcely distinct.

Imperialism — as opposed to nationalism — seeks to impose a nation’s way of life, its currency, its traditions, its flags, its anthems, its demographics, and its rules and laws upon others wherever they may be.

Truly, President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention, expounded by President George Washington in his farewell address of 1796:

” … It must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of [Europe’s] politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

It should not have to be pointed out that the great wars of the 20th century could not be considered “ordinary vicissitudes”, but rather, that imperialism had begun to run amok on the continent.

It was an imperialism rooted in nihilism, putting the totality of the state at its heart. Often using nationalism as nothing more than a method of appeal, socialism as a doctrine of governance, and Jews as a subject of derision and scapegoating.

Today’s imperialism is known as globalism.

It is what drives nations to project outward their will, usually with force; causes armies to cross borders in the hope of subjugating other human beings or the invaded nation’s natural resources; and defines a world, or region, or continent by its use of central authority and foreign capital control.

Instead of armies of soldiers, imperialists seek to dominate using armies of economists and bureaucrats. Instead of forced payments to a foreign capital, globalism figured out how to create economic reliance: first on sterling, then on the dollar, now for many on the Euro. This will soon be leapfrogged by China’s designs.

And while imperialism has served some good purposes throughout human history, it is only when grounded in something larger than man; whether that be natural law, God, or otherwise. But such things are scarcely long-lived.

While benevolent imperialism can create better conditions over a period of time, humanity’s instincts will always lean towards freedom and self-governance.

It is this fundamental distinction between the United States’ founding and that of the modern Republic of France that defines the two nations.

The people of France are “granted” their freedoms by the government, and the government creates the conditions and dictates the terms upon which those freedoms are exercised.

As Charles Kesler wrote for the Claremont Review of Books in May, “As a result, there are fewer and fewer levers by which the governed can make its consent count”.

France is the archetypal administrative state, while the United States was founded on natural law, a topic that scarcely gets enough attention anymore.

Nationalism – or nationism, if you will – therefore represents a break from the war-hungry norm of human history. Its presence in the 20th century has been rewritten and bastardized.

A nationalist has no intention of invading your country or changing your society. A nationalist cares just as much as anyone else about the plights of others around the world but believes putting one’s own country first is the way to progress. A nationalist would never seek to divide by race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference, or otherwise. This runs contrary to the idea of a united, contiguous nation at ease with itself.

Certainly nationalism’s could-be bastard child of chauvinism can give root to imperialistic tendencies. But if the nation can and indeed does look after its own, and says to the world around it, “these are our affairs, you may learn from them, you may seek advice, we may even assist if you so desperately need it and our affairs are in order,” then nationalism can be a great gift to the 21st century and beyond.

This is what President Trump understands.

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