UN Report Cynically Spins Rohingya Genocide

September 12, 2018 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Media headlines claim an independent UN report is calling for genocide charges against Myanmar officials.

Qatari state media outfit Al Jazeera in its article, "UN report calls for genocide charges against Myanmar officials," claims:

Myanmar's senior military officials must be prosecuted for genocide and war crimes against the Rohingya and other ethnic minorities, a UN fact-finding mission has urged. 

The mission, which was established by the UN Human Rights Council in March 2017, found that Myanmar's armed forces had taken actions that "undoubtedly amount to the gravest crimes under international law".

Al Jazeera admits Myanmar's military has been singled out by the report. Suspiciously absent from both the accusations made in the report and the charges called for, is State Counsellor of Myanmar Aung San Suu Kyi, referred to throughout the Western media and the report itself as the "de facto" leader of Myanmar.

The leader of a nation is undoubtedly responsible for the actions of that nation's military and while some claim Suu Kyi has no power over Myanmar's military, Al Jazeera itself notes her silence in even condemning the ongoing violence.

Despite the obvious role Suu Kyi plays in enabling the violence even at face value through her silent complicity, the 20 page UN report (.pdf) mentions her name only one time and fails entirely to call for any form of accountability for this role. Suu Kyi's notoriously violent supporters are only briefly and ambiguously mentioned in the report:

Local authorities, militias, militant “civilian” groups, politicians and monks participated or assisted in violations, to varying degrees.

The report never qualifies or further discusses these "varying degrees."

The report admittedly is dependent primarily on interviews. While videos and photography are also supposedly among the evidence the report is based on, neither are specifically referenced in the actual report.

Many of the interviews were supposedly corroborated with likewise secondhand information obtained from what are referred to as "intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, researchers, and diplomats." These individuals and organisations are conveniently left unnamed and are most likely individuals and organisations directly funded by the US, British and European governments.

In essence, it is US, British and European funded propaganda laundered through a UN report.

Upon closer examination, Suu Kyi and more importantly her political supporters, have played a much more direct role in violence aimed at Myanmar's Rohingya population. It is an intentional and systematic cover up by Western media organisations and foreign-sponsored human rights advocacy groups ongoing for years, one the UN report is a continuation of.

British Divide and Rule Re-imagined 

British public service broadcaster Channel 4 would explain in an article titled, "A Brief History of Burma," about the very source of Myanmar's current ethnic divisions:

Throughout their Empire the British used a policy called 'divide and rule' where they played upon ethnic differences to establish their authority. This policy was applied rigorously in Burma. More than a million Indian and Chinese migrants were brought in to run the country's affairs and thousands of Indian troops were used to crush Burmese resistance. In addition, hill tribes which had no strong Burmese affiliation, such as the Karen in the south-east, were recruited into ethnic regiments of the colonial army.

The article also admitted:

The British 'divide and rule' policy left a legacy of problems for Burma when it regained independence.

We can see the "legacy" of British and now US foreign policy in Southeast Asia still unfolding today, including in Myanmar's north where Kachin militants still battle against Myanmar's military and in the west, particularly in the state of Rakhine, where violence is ongoing between religious and nationalist fanatics and the Rohingya minority.

This recent UN report attempts to place the blame for the ongoing violence against Myanmar's Rohingya minority squarely on the military. However, it was Suu Kyi's most vocal political supporters who had brutalised the Rohingya for years, long before she finally took power in 2016.

Despite a concerted effort across American, European and Commonwealth media outlets to conceal Suu Kyi and her followers' role in the violence, occasional admissions have emerged.

This includes articles like the UK Independent's 2012 report titled, "Burma's monks call for Muslim community to be shunned,"  revealing both Myanmar's "hardline Buddhists" and even activist groups celebrated in the West for "promoting democracy" being involved in persecuting the Rohingya.

Idlib: Al Qaeda's Last Stand

September 7, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The United States has raised tensions further amid Syria's ongoing conflict. It has issued a threat in the form of a "warning" against Damascus against retaking the northern region of Idlib. More specifically, the US has accused Damascus of preparing chemical weapon attacks as part of its alleged strategy to retake the territory.

No evidence has been provided by the US to substantiate these accusations - and it is clear that the warning was actually a threat implicating a planned, staged provocation likely to be followed by US military aggression.

Idlib: Al Qaeda's Syrian Capital 

The northern city of Idlib has become the defacto capital for Al Qaeda in Syria.

It is home to Al Qaeda affiliates, partners, and allies including Tahrir al-Sham - formally Jabhat Al Nusra, a US State Department-listed Foreign Terrorist Organization, Nour al-Din al-Zenki - a US-armed and backed military front notorious for its many war atrocities involving torture and executions including the beheading of a child, and Ahrar al-Sham which has repeatedly cooperated with the self-proclaimed "Islamic State in Syria and Iraq" (ISIS).

The nature of the militants occupying Idlib is well known to Washington, London, Brussels, and the Persian Gulf nations sponsoring them. It is because of this knowledge that the West's media monopolies work feverishly to cover up, deny, defend, or even excuse their atrocities.

When Idlib-based terrorist front Nour al-Din al-Zenki beheaded a child, the BBC disgracefully attempted to defend the atrocity by suggesting the boy was a "fighter," and attempting to dispute his age, claiming:

...he appears to be as young as 10, although other reports suggest he is considerably older.

The BBC appears indifferent to the fact that if the victim had been a fighter and was over the age of 18, Nour al-Din al-Zenki would still be guilty of an egregious war crime.

BBC's defense of war atrocities committed by terrorist organizations occupying Syrian territory is the rule, not the exception - not just for British state broadcaster BBC, but the Western media as a whole. From the beginning of the 2011 conflict, the BBC and others have played a direct role in covering up the terrorist affiliations of fighters attempting to overthrow the Syrian government.

Terrorist Central - A Collaborative Western Project 

Idlib remains one of the last remaining strongholds of Al Qaeda in Syria specifically because of its proximity to the Turkish border - Turkey being a NATO member who has provided years of financial, political, and military support to militants operating in Syria.

Washington Post Covers Up US Meddling in Malaysia

September, 3 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The Washington Post has now repeatedly used its platform to systematically cover up extensive US political interference across Southeast Asia.

Last month, the Washington Post attempted to deny US interference in Cambodia. Its article - however - did more to reveal US meddling in the process - exclusively citing opposition organizations and individuals either funded by Washington or literally living in Washington.

The Washington Post in its more recent article titled, "In Malaysia, a victory for democracy — and an opportunity for the U.S.," would likewise attempt to paper-over US meddling in Malaysia's recent general elections which placed US-backed opposition into power after decades of Washington investment.

The article begins by claiming (emphasis added):

While Washington wasn’t looking, democracy won a major battle over authoritarianism in Malaysia, a Muslim-majority nation that just voted out its crooked, illiberal leader and has embarked on a peaceful transition to a new era of hope. The unexpected change has given the Trump administration a chance to reverse a policy of benign neglect toward the region, support democracy — and gain a rare win over China. 

The United States had little to do with last month’s overwhelming election victory by a multiracial, multiparty opposition coalition in Malaysia.

Of course - this is categorically untrue. Virtually every aspect of Malaysia's opposition, from pro-opposition media organizations like Malaysiakini, to street fronts like Bersih, to legal organizations like "Lawyers for Liberty," and even the defacto opposition party leader himself - Anwar Ibrahim (PDF) - are recipients of extensive US government support spanning well over a decade via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its many subsidiaries and affiliates.

President of NED subsidiary, the International Republican Institute (IRI) Daniel Twining - almost as if wounded by the Washington Post's omission of his organization's extensive political meddling in Malaysia - would boast on social media while linking to the Post article, that:

[IRI] has worked to strengthen Malaysian opposition parties since 2002. For 1st time since 1957 they won & are in power. Democrats around the world can play a long game confident that sooner or later, their time will come.

It is clear that evidence and even admissions by those dispersing US government money to Malaysia's opposition expose the Washington Post's article as categorically untrue - but it is also intentionally untrue. At least one member of the Washington Post's editorial board literally serves as member of the US NED's board of directors. Washington Post editor Anne Applebaum even has her own webpage on NED's site.

Thus, it is also clear that the Washington Post not only faces a serious conflict of interest regarding its responsibility to accurately report on political developments around the world while its editorial board is directly involved in influencing those developments - it is actively involved in exploiting these conflicting interests by using its media platform to cover up the actions of organizations its editorial board are involved in.

And almost as if to contradict its own initial premise, the Washington Post article admits the US Department of Justice's primary role in opening and perpetuating investigations into the former government's finances - producing a scandal many have cited as at least partially responsible for aiding the US-backed opposition's victory.

The Post claims (emphasis added):

The U.S. government could help the new Malaysian government to dig out of the mess that Najib left by helping it reform civil society, return to a free press and bolster the country’s economy. The United States can also help recover the billions Najib’s clique plundered from Malaysian coffers. The U.S. Justice Department is already deep into its investigations of those scandals.

Considering the extensive amount of backing the US government has provided the Malaysian opposition, it is difficult to imagine the US Department of Justice only coincidentally fixated on alleged financial impropriety in Malaysia, ahead of general elections the US government sought victory in for its proxies.

All About China 

The Washington Post also reveals the motives behind the extensive US political meddling it is attempting to conceal, mentioning China's growing regional influence throughout the article.

US-British Neo-Imperialism and its Modern Day 'Missionaries'

September 2, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The worst sort of deception is that perpetrated by those who pose as defending the most vulnerable when in reality, are leveraging their circumstances, exploiting their suffering, and in many cases, playing a direct role in perpetuating both.

This is an apt description of Washington, London, and Brussels' global-spanning human rights racket - used repeatedly as a pretext for political meddling and even war.

An especially cynical example of this is playing out in Southeast Asia's nation of Myanmar.

With ties between Myanmar and China growing, the US and its European partners are working to pressure, co-opt, or even overthrow Myanmar's current political order which includes not only a powerful, independent military, but also a civilian government the US and UK played a direct role in placing into power.

The decades of US-UK support for Aung San Suu Kyi - Myanmar's current State Counsellor - now hang around her and her National League for Democracy (NLD) political party's necks like a millstone. The very foreign-sponsored networks they invited into Myanmar to assist them into power are now being leveraged against them to coerce Myanmar's domestic and foreign policy.

Another Dubious UN Report

A recent UN report on alleged atrocities being carried out against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar has been accompanied by a coordinated public relations campaign led by the Western media and US-UK and European Union-funded fronts posing as "nongovernmental" organizations (NGOs).

Part of this PR campaign has included calls to refer many of Myanmar's military leaders to the International Criminal Court (ICC) - an institution seen around the world as a continuation of Western colonization - especially in Africa. Pressure has also been placed on Myanmar's civilian government led by Aung San Suu Kyi and her NLD party.

The overall effect is the West's ability to leverage ethnic violence to place pressure on Myanmar allowing the West to exact concessions as well as impose sanctions on or remove from power any prominent political or military figures at will.

The primary foreign policy objective of the West is to severe Myanmar's ties with China, transform Myanmar into an obedient client state, and use success there to expand similar efforts across the rest of Southeast Asia.

The actual UN report officially titled, "Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar" (PDF), reveals its methodology to have been interviews. It claims:

The Mission amassed a vast amount of primary information. It conducted 875 indepth interviews with victims and eyewitnesses, both targeted and randomly selected. It obtained satellite imagery and authenticated a range of documents, photographs and videos. It checked this information against secondary information assessed as credible and reliable, including organizations’ raw data or notes, expert interviews, submissions, and open source material.

The report also admits:

The Mission also held over 250 consultations with other stakeholders, including intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, researchers, and diplomats – in person and remotely. It received written submissions, including through a public call.

It is this second point that is of particular concern.

It appears that much of what the UN report includes, is merely a repeat of information US, UK, and EU-funded supposed "NGOs" - central components of the West's human rights racket - have already reported in their own highly suspect publications.

Among these is Fortify Rights - funded by the US, UK, Canadian, and Dutch governments, as well as convicted financial criminal George Soros' Open Society Foundation. The UN report appears to be merely a short summary of Fortify Rights' report, "They Gave them Long Swords" (PDF).

US-UK Funded Modern Day "Missionaries"  

Fortify Rights discloses its funding in at least two annual reports from 2015 and 2016.

In 2015 (PDF), sponsors included the Dutch, Canadian, and US government via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). It also included Open Society Foundations and Avaaz. In 2016 (PDF), the UK government was also included upon its donors list.

When confronted with questions regarding Fortify Rights' acceptance of money from governments currently engaged in human rights abuses around the globe - including weapon sales to Riyadh and assistance in Riyadh's war on Yemen - Fortify Rights founder, American Matthew Smith, attempted to deflect and downplay his organization's funding.

He claimed NED money did not constitute US government funding because US Congressional funds passed through NED before reaching him.

He also claimed that money his organization accepted from the UK was not used for work in Myanmar, claiming it went instead to a program his organization is running in Thailand - apparently in the belief that this explanation resolved the obvious conflict of interest his organization's activities and its funding represent.

Worst of all, Smith acknowledged the UK's role in Myanmar's current crisis. It was British colonialism that intentionally fomented and exploited the very ethnic tensions still playing out in Myanmar today. This includes virtually all of the ethnic groups Fortify Rights poses as a champion for.

Smith, and others within Fortify Rights have been asked, and have repeatedly failed to explain how foreigners funded by the very governments that created Myanmar's ethnic tensions, inserting themselves into the ongoing violence, can serve as a solution to this conflict.

Syria: Bolton's 'Damascus Chemical Weapons Plot' Lacks Motive, Credibility

August 29, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - US National Security Adviser John Bolton - a tireless proponent of US-led war around the globe - has recently claimed the Syrian government is preparing to use chemical weapons to retake territory held by militants in northern Syria. In response, the US has already threatened to carry out military strikes against Syria. 

Bloomberg in its article titled, "U.S. Warns Russia It Will Hit Assad If He Uses Chemical Arms, Sources Say," claims: 

Tensions between the nuclear powers flared after National Security Adviser John Bolton told his Russian counterpart, Nikolai Patrushev, that the U.S. has information Syrian President Bashar al-Assad may be preparing to use chemical weapons to recapture the northwestern province of Idlib from rebels.

The article also claimed:  

In April 2017, and again a year later, the U.S. carried out limited airstrikes on Syrian targets as punishment for what it said was the use of chemical weapons. Bolton said any U.S. action will be stronger this time, the people familiar with the talks said.

However, not only has the US failed categorically to produce the evidence it claimed to possess regarding previous alleged chemical weapon attacks blamed on Damascus, it has also failed to provide any logical motive to explain why Damascus would carry out such attacks. 

The Syrian military along with its Russian, Iranian, and Lebanese allies have retaken large swaths of occupied Syrian territory from Western-backed terrorists through the use of conventional weapons, including precision strike capabilities provided by Russian military aviation. 

Alleged chemical weapon attacks have been on such small scales as to have no tactical or strategic value to Damascus, but demonstrable political value to the United States, its regional partners, and the militants it has been arming and backing since the 2011 conflict began.

Chemical Weapon Attacks: Cui Bono? 

The US media and its corporate sponsors have repeatedly attempted to explain the rationale behind Damascus' alleged use of chemical weapons. This struggling narrative is best summed up by Atlantic Council "expert" Aaron Stein and US Army Reserve officer Luke O'Brien in their coauthored article titled,  "The Military Logic Behind Assad's Use of Chemical Weapons."

The article claims that chemical weapons are a cheap alternative for struggling regimes fighting wars "on the cheap." The article proposes that chemical weapons are ideal for terrorizing the population and to target "buried facilities" that a lack of precision munitions have left otherwise invulnerable.

The article claims: 

 Chemical weapons have proved to be more psychologically damaging to populations than conventional munitions, and are thus well-suited to the regime’s strategy of mass punishment.

Yet the article can only cite 4 instances in which the Syrian government allegedly even used chemical weapons in the past 5 years. There have literally been more total cities the Syrian military has had to retake from foreign-sponsored militants than even the most liberal number of alleged chemical weapon attacks blamed on Damascus.

Stretching the credibility of this narrative further, the article assigns another impetus to Damascus' alleged use of chemical weapons, claiming:

For Assad, chemical weapons also compensate for the limitations of his army’s older, less sophisticated weapons. While the use of precision-guided munitions has grown in militaries around the world, they are still a comparatively small part of most countries’ arsenals, limited to anti-tank roles or against naval targets. As a result, most states are forced to use unguided munitions instead. Many targets, if sufficiently protected, can weather most unguided attacks by sheltering in structures, tunnels, or fighting positions.

The article claims that chemical weapons can seep into these heavily defended positions "with relative ease." However - again - the article itself can only cite 4 instances where Damascus allegedly used chemical weapons in the past 5 years. Syrian forces have obviously encountered well-fortified militant positions more than 4 times in the past 5 years - having retaken buildings, blocks, districts, and even entire cities through the use of conventional weapons and military tactics.