Connect with us




America’s hypocritical war crimes continue in Syria, Iraq and beyond

The United States has committed crimes against humanity in Syria, Iraq and beyond. Evidence that they are doing anything to fight terrorism is scant and laughable.

Afra'a Dagher




In Raqqa, the American led coalition is a self-described anti-ISIS force but in reality hundreds of civilians have been the victims of what can only be called genocide. Areas like Al-Mansora,  Al-Jomailieh and many others in the countryside of Raqqa Governorate are filled the bodies of the murdered, including entire families. Many others still have been left displaced with no safe places to seek or obtain shelter.


Those who were fortunate fled Raqqa because of the US led coalition strikes on their buildings, schools and infrastructure. US atrocities against the civilians of Raqqa are as barbaric as the acts of the so called ISIS. The refugees from Raqqa to Aleppo and Lattakia told me and my friends all about it.

The US led coalition is destroying the city, leaving people with no water, no electricity all while failing to hit many ISIS targets. This is nothing new, the US has been torturing the people of Syria ever since 2011 when it began backing terrorists who have destabilised Syria ever since.

I remember a girl called Lara who fled Raqqa with her family to Lattakia almost three years ago. I asked Lara what is worse , Al Nusra front (aka al-Qaeda in Syria), the FSA or this new form of ISIS. I Could ask Lara the girl with 12 years old as she replied, but I didn’t ask the older women , they  were afraid to reply, in case they ever returned to Raqqa.

Lara  said that  both are radical, however with  the FSA you see slightly more Syrians, but in this ISIS organization, you see that most of them are Africans that came with their families, they occupied the city, and they took beautiful women by force to join their vile so-called sex jihad. Anyone that resisted was summarily beheaded in the public square.

Why is it that only the so’called ‘rebel’ strongholds so rapidly and easily turn into areas under ISIS control?

Furthermore, Raqqa is currently being bombarded by US coalition airstrikes but against whom?

We know that the US led coalition used white phosphorus against people in Raqqa and Mosul in Iraq!

It is the US  who has an evil plan to ethnically cleanse Syrians and give their  provinces  to YPG (Kurdish fighters) as a reward for fighting along side the US.

Raqqa  has started to witness cholera cases  because of the pollution of  the water supply  by  the rebels, as well as the fact that the USA  cut  the water  from the city, without  a care for the humanity, health, and hygiene of the people.  None of these conditions existed when Raqqa was under government control.

The USA  doesn’t stop attacking Syria with false accusation of chemical attacks! They claim they obtain this information through their satellites.

However when it comes to the so-called ISIS convoy  movements from Iraq to Syria, their Satellites are  blind!

Furthermore ,  US officials had  declared a year ago that it would take them 10 years to defeat ISIS in Iraq.

But what we see now is that the Iraqi forces on the ground almost defeated the so called ISIS in less than one year of intense fighting.

The US is effectively using ISIS as a justification to set up  airbases on the border with Iraq and within the Syrian territory, this  time  in the north of Syria with the help of Kurdish fighters. The pretext for these illegal acts of military occupation is always the same: fighting ISIS.  The existence of ISIS has become a useful tool to America for achieving their ultimate goal of occupying and dividing Syria. They are constantly aided in this by illegal attacks on Syria by the Israeli air force.

In fact, why have never even heard or seen a single kidnapped kid  that was  released from the hands of ISIS by this US led coalition? Why have we never seen one picture of an ISIS fighter killed by America?

However, there is a story of a Christian girl who was  three years old, when ISIS kidnapped her: After three years the Iraqi forces  along with  the Iraqi families helped to secure the girl, Christina now is again among  her family. However , she couldn’t recognise them, she is six years old now,  and  she forgot her religion and the language of her  Yezidi family.

What else did the liberation of Al-Mosul reveal?

A report was made to  be sent to the UN which talked about 17,00+ dead bodies of Iraqi civilians under the ruins of destroyed buildings because of US airstrikes on residential buildings. They were found by Iraqi civil defend teams according to Iraqi officials

5,000 Iraqi houses were turned into piles of stones because of the US led coalition airstrikes against  Iraqi people in Al-Mosul.

The result is 900,000 refugees and homeless families.

Again,why did the  so-called ISIS  never suffer in such ways under US led coalition airstikes?

The Iraqi army with the support of  Al Hashd  al sha’abi,  continue their  mission to  capture many  ISIS terrorists who are  running  inside  the tunnels in Al-MOSUL , in their  attempt to escape being captured, and  remain as sleeper cells!

Least  but  not  last,  the  USA  is seeking  to strike a deal regarding the de-escalation zones  in the southwestern parts of Syria, where the Syrian Army is advancing and gaining ground in  the war against  terrorists.  It is the USA  and  their  lovey dovey Israel, the occupation entity, which is afraid of the Syrian Arab Army’s advance in these areas. We can  recall that the Israeli Prime Minister declared that they prefer terrorists such as Al Nusra front over the Syrian Government. Why not  since  those terrorists fight on behalf of Israel, and get all treatment in the Israeli entity’s hospitals. Israel justifies  their  support by  all  means to those terrorists, under the pretext of humanitarian help!  But what about  Gaza?

Gaza according to reports also made by  the UN, were defined as a city not suitable for human living.

The Gaza Strip has been under Israeli occupation for ten years. The water is not drinkable,  there is no electricity, no medical care and  no crossings are allowed to be opened for urgent cases who need transport to hospitals. The  Same conditions now exist in Syrian areas such as  Kafriea and Fao’a which have been under terrorist “moderate rebel” siege for more than two years.

In my simple report, I  am only  talking  about Mosul  in Iraq, Raqqa in Syria, and Gaza in occupied Palestine.  I didn’t mention Yemen which is suffering under the US backed Saudi’s illegal strikes, cluster bombs, and the cholera epidemic. I didn’t mention Libya and the miserable life there which has developed after the NATO bombardment of  this country in 2011.

When the United States wants to control our land , when humanity is being destroyed under their drones, and while their media machine turns their war crimes into ‘humanitarian help’ to make war look like the bringer of democracy and freedom, it is no wonder that America has become so hated in Syria, Iraq and Palestine.

Afra’a Dagher is a Syrian political commentator and analyst based in Lattakia. Her statements represent her personal views as a Syrian civilian.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Notify of


New York Times hit piece on Trump and NATO exposes alliance as outdated and obsolete (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 61.

Alex Christoforou



RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at the New York Times hit piece citing anonymous sources, with information that the U.S. President dared to question NATO’s viability.

Propaganda rag, the NYT, launched its latest presidential smear aimed at discrediting Trump and provoking the establishment, warmonger left into more impeachment – Twenty-fifth Amendment talking points.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The American Conservative

The New York Times scored a serious scoop when it revealed on Monday that President Trump had questioned in governmental conversations—on more than one occasion, apparently—America’s membership in NATO. Unfortunately the paper then slipped into its typical mode of nostrum journalism. My Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “nostrum” as “quack medicine” entailing “exaggerated claims.” Here we had quack journalism executed in behalf of quack diplomacy.

The central exaggerated claim is contained in the first sentence, in which it is averred that NATO had “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is wrong, as can be seen through just a spare amount of history.

True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism. But it did so not over 70 years but over 40 years—from 1949 to 1989. That’s when the Soviet Union had 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops poised on Western Europe’s doorstep, positioned for an invasion of Europe through the lowlands of Germany’s Fulda Gap.

How was this possible? It was possible because Joseph Stalin had pushed his armies farther and farther into the West as the German Wehrmacht collapsed at the end of World War II. In doing so, and in the process capturing nearly all of Eastern Europe, he ensured that the Soviets had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad or within 1,200 miles of Moscow. This vast territory represented not only security for the Russian motherland (which enjoys no natural geographical barriers to deter invasion from the West) but also a potent staging area for an invasion of Western Europe.

The first deterrent against such an invasion, which Stalin would have promulgated had he thought he could get away with it, was America’s nuclear monopoly. By the time that was lost, NATO had emerged as a powerful and very necessary deterrent. The Soviets, concluding that the cost of an invasion was too high, defaulted to a strategy of undermining Western interests anywhere around the world where that was possible. The result was global tensions stirred up at various global trouble spots, most notably Korea and Vietnam.

But Europe was saved, and NATO was the key. It deserves our respect and even reverence for its profound success as a military alliance during a time of serious threat to the West.

But then the threat went away. Gone were the 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops. Gone was Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Indeed, gone, by 1991, was the Soviet Union itself, an artificial regime of brutal ideology superimposed upon the cultural entity of Mother Russia. It was a time for celebration.

But it was also a time to contemplate the precise nature of the change that had washed over the world and to ponder what that might mean for old institutions—including NATO, a defensive military alliance created to deter aggression from a menacing enemy to the east. Here’s where Western thinking went awry. Rather than accepting as a great benefit the favorable developments enhancing Western security—the Soviet military retreat, the territorial reversal, the Soviet demise—the West turned NATO into a territorial aggressor of its own, absorbing nations that had been part of the Soviet sphere of control and pushing right up to the Russian border. Now Leningrad (renamed St. Petersburg after the obliteration of the menace of Soviet communism) resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces, while Moscow is merely 200 miles from Western troops.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has absorbed 13 nations, some on the Russian border, others bordering lands that had been part of Russia’s sphere of interest for centuries. This constitutes a policy of encirclement, which no nation can accept without protest or pushback. And if NATO were to absorb those lands of traditional Russian influence—particularly Ukraine and Georgia—that would constitute a major threat to Russian security, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to emphasize to Western leaders for years.

So, no, NATO has not deterred Russian aggression for 70 years. It did so for 40 and has maintained a destabilizing posture toward Russia ever since. The problem here is the West’s inability to perceive how changed geopolitical circumstances might require a changed geopolitical strategy. The encirclement strategy has had plenty of critics—George Kennan before he died; academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Robert David English; former diplomat Jack Matlock; the editors of The Nation. But their voices have tended to get drowned out by the nostrum diplomacy and the nostrum journalism that supports it at every turn.

You can’t drown out Donald Trump because he’s president of the United States. And so he has to be traduced, ridiculed, dismissed, and marginalized. That’s what the Times story, by Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper, sought to do. Consider the lead, designed to emphasize just how outlandish Trump’s musings are before the reader even has a chance to absorb what he may have been thinking: “There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” Translation: “Take that, Mr. President! You’re an idiot.”

Henry Kissinger had something interesting to say about Trump in a recent interview with the Financial Times. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history,” said the former secretary of state, “who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.” One Western pretense about Russia, so ardently enforced by the likes of Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper (who, it may be safe to say, know less about world affairs and their history than Henry Kissinger), is that nothing really changed with the Soviet collapse and NATO had to turn aggressive in order to keep that menacing nation in its place.

Trump clearly doesn’t buy that pretense. He said during the campaign that NATO was obsolete. Then he backtracked, saying he only wanted other NATO members to pay their fair share of the cost of deterrence. He even confessed, after Hillary Clinton identified NATO as “the strongest military alliance in the history of the world,” that he only said NATO was obsolete because he didn’t know much about it. But he was learning—enough, it appears, to support as president Montenegro’s entry into NATO in 2017. Is Montenegro, with 5,332 square miles and some 620,000 citizens, really a crucial element in Europe’s desperate project to protect itself against Putin’s Russia?

We all know that Trump is a crude figure—not just in his disgusting discourse but in his fumbling efforts to execute political decisions. As a politician, he often seems like a doctor attempting to perform open-heart surgery while wearing mittens. His idle musings about leaving NATO are a case in point—an example of a politician who lacks the skill and finesse to nudge the country in necessary new directions.

But Kissinger has a point about the man. America and the world have changed, while the old ways of thinking have not kept pace. The pretenses of the old have blinded the status quo defenders into thinking nothing has changed. Trump, almost alone among contemporary American politicians, is asking questions to which the world needs new answers. NATO, in its current configuration and outlook, is a danger to peace, not a guarantor of it.

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century

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


Nigel Farage To Back Another “Vote Leave” Campaign If UK Holds Second Brexit Referendum

Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition.



Via Zerohedge

Pro-European MPs from various political parties are pushing back against claims made by Prime Minister Theresa May’s government that a second Brexit referendum – which supporters have branded as a “People’s Vote” on May’s deal – would take roughly 14 months to organize, according to RT.

But while support for a second vote grows, one of the most notorious proponents of the original “Vote Leave” campaign is hinting at a possible return to politics to try and fight the effort.

After abandoning UKIP, the party he helped create, late last year, Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition. Farage also pointed out that a delay of Brexit Day would likely put it after the European Parliament elections in May.

“I think, I fear that the House of Commons is going to effectively overturn that Brexit. To me, the most likely outcome of all of this is an extension of Article 50. There could be another referendum,” he told Sky News.

According to official government guidance shown to lawmakers on Wednesday, which was subsequently leaked to the Telegraph, as May tries to head off a push by ministers who see a second referendum as the best viable alternative to May’s deal – a position that’s becoming increasingly popular with Labour Party MPs.

“In order to inform the discussions, a very short paper set out in factual detail the number of months that would be required, this was illustrative only and our position of course is that there will be no second referendum,,” May said. The statement comes as May has been meeting with ministers and leaders from all parties to try to find a consensus deal that could potentially pass in the House of Commons.

The 14 month estimate is how long May and her government expect it would take to pass the primary legislation calling for the referendum (seven months), conduct the question testing with the election committee (12 weeks), pass secondary legislation (six weeks) and conduct the campaigns (16 weeks).

May has repeatedly insisted that a second referendum wouldn’t be feasible because it would require a lengthy delay of Brexit Day, and because it would set a dangerous precedent that wouldn’t offer any more clarity (if some MPs are unhappy with the outcome, couldn’t they just push for a third referendum?). A spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street said the guidance was produced purely for the purpose of “illustrative discussion” and that the government continued to oppose another vote.

Meanwhile, a vote on May’s “Plan B”, expected to include a few minor alterations from the deal’s previous iteration, has been called for Jan. 29, prompting some MPs to accuse May of trying to run out the clock. May is expected to present the new deal on Monday.

Former Tory Attorney General and pro-remainer MP Dominic Grieve blasted May’s timetable as wrong and said that the government “must be aware of it themselves,” while former Justice Minister Dr Phillip Lee, who resigned his cabinet seat in June over May’s Brexit policy, denounced her warning as “nonsense.”

As May pieces together her revised deal, more MPs are urging her to drop her infamous “red lines” (Labour in particular would like to see the UK remain part of the Customs Union), but with no clear alternative to May’s plan emerging, a delay of Brexit Day is looking like a virtual certainty.

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


The National Security Agency Is A Criminal Organization

The National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Paul Craig Roberts



Via Paul Craig Roberts…

Years before Edward Snowden provided documented proof that the National Security Agency was really a national insecurity agency as it was violating law and the US Constitution and spying indiscriminately on American citizens, William Binney, who designed and developed the NSA spy program revealed the illegal and unconstitutional spying. Binney turned whistleblower, because NSA was using the program to spy on Americans. As Binney was well known to the US Congress, he did not think he needed any NSA document to make his case. But what he found out was “Congress would never hear me because then they’d lose plausible deniability. That was really their key. They needed to have plausible deniability so they can continue this massive spying program because it gave them power over everybody in the world. Even the members of Congress had power against others [in Congress]; they had power on judges on the Supreme Court, the federal judges, all of them. That’s why they’re so afraid. Everybody’s afraid because all this data that’s about them, the central agencies — the intelligence agencies — they have it. And that’s why Senator Schumer warned President Trump earlier, a few months ago, that he shouldn’t attack the intelligence community because they’ve got six ways to Sunday to come at you. That’s because it’s like J. Edgar Hoover on super steroids. . . . it’s leverage against every member of parliament and every government in the world.”

To prevent whistle-blowing, NSA has “a program now called ‘see something, say something’ about your fellow workers. That’s what the Stasi did. That’s why I call [NSA] the new New Stasi Agency. They’re picking up all the techniques from the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestapo and the SS. They just aren’t getting violent yet that we know of — internally in the US, outside is another story.”

As Binney had no documents to give to the media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused blame on Snowden as a “traitor” and not on NSA for its violations.

Whistleblowers are protected by federal law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him.

Binney blames the NSA’s law-breaking on Dick “Darth” Cheney. He says NSA’s violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to have been cleared at the top of the government.

Binney describes the spy network, explains that it was supposed to operate only against foreign enemies, and that using it for universal spying so overloads the system with data that the system fails to discover many terrorist activities.

Apparently, the National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately for Americans, there are many Americans who blindly trust the government and provide the means, the misuse of which is used to enslave us. A large percentage of the work in science and technology serves not to free people but to enslave them. By now there is no excuse for scientists and engineers not to know this. Yet they persist in their construction of the means to destroy liberty.

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


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...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter