If Terrorists Targeted Russia, Who's Behind the Terrorists?

April 5, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Eleven have been killed and dozens more injured in what is an apparent terrorist attack on St. Petersburg's metro system. Western analysts are assigning possible blame for the attack on either terrorists operating from Russia's Chechnya region, or possibly terrorist groups affiliated with fronts fighting in Syria. 

Western analysts are also attempting to cement a narrative that downplays the significance of the attacks and instead attempts to leverage them politically against Moscow. A piece in the Sydney Morning Herald titled, "Fears of a Putin crackdown after terror attack on St Petersburg metro," would attempt to claim:

So who is to blame? No one has said officially. The BBC's Frank Gardner says suspicions will centre around Chechen nationalists or an Islamic State inspired group wanting payback for Putin's airstrikes in Syria. Or it could be a combination of both. 

Putin has in the past justified crackdowns on civilian protests by citing the terror threat. But will he this time, and will it work? 

At least one pro-Kremlin commentator has linked the attack to the recent mass demonstrations organised by Putin's political opponent. 

Yet, in reality, the demonstrations and the terrorist groups being implicated both share a significant common denominator - both are openly long-term recipients of US-European aid, with the latter group also receiving significant material support from US-European allies in the Persian Gulf, primarily Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

US-European support for foreign-funded organizations posing as "nongovernmental organizations" (NGOs) running parallel efforts with terrorist organizations undermining Moscow's control over Chechnya have been ongoing for decades.

Beyond Chechnya, the United States' own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) would admit in a 2012 memo (PDF) that:

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran). 

The DIA memo then explains exactly who this "Salafist principality's" supporters are (and who its true enemies are):

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

In essence, the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State) was a creation of the US in pursuit of its attempted regime change agenda in Syria. The current, self-proclaimed "Islamic State" is situated precisely in eastern Syria where the DIA memo claimed its state sponsors sought to place it. Its role in undermining Damascus and its allies' attempts to restore peace and order to the Syrian state is obvious.

The fact that NATO-member Turkey served as a logistical, training, and financial hub for not only the Islamic State's activities, but also other terrorist groups including Al Qaeda's regional franchise - Al Nusra - also further implicates not only possible Al Qaeda and Islamic State involvement in the recent St. Petersburg blast, but also these organizations' state sponsors - those who "support the opposition" in Syria.

Whether the United States played a direct role in the St. Petersburg blast or not is inconsequential. Without the massive state sponsorship both Washington and its European and Persian Gulf allies have provided these groups, such global-spanning mayhem would be impossible. The fact that the US seeks to undermine Russia politically, economically, and in many ways, militarily, and has recently fielded US-European-funded mobs in Russia's streets - means that it is likely not a coincidence violence is now also being employed against Russia within Russian territory.

Al Qaeda Rebranding Serves US Agenda

March 25, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The RAND Corporation's recent piece titled, "Al Qaeda in Syria Can Change Its Name, but Not Its Stripes," all but admits what was already suspected about designated terrorist groups operating in Syria - that they are undergoing a transition in an attempt by their state sponsors to bolster their legitimacy and spare them from liquidation amid the shifting tides on the battlefield.

The piece, written by Colin Clarke described by the RAND Corporation as a "political scientist at the RAND Corporation and an associate fellow at the International Center for Counter Terrorism," states:

Following recent infighting with other Syrian rebel groups in the northwestern part of the country, al Qaeda in Syria appears to have recognized the need to secure legitimacy and present itself to the civilian population it seeks to influence as an authentically Syrian entity.

However, this is not simply Al Qaeda's objective - this is the objective of the United States itself as well as the Persian Gulf states it funnels money and arms through, fueling Syria's destructive conflict since 2011.

Clarke continues by stating:

The most likely scenario is that the change in nomenclature is merely an attempt to buy time and live to fight another day. Indeed, the rebranding has done nothing to slow down the group's operations tempo of conducting attacks.

And concludes by claiming:

Six years into the conflict in Syria, al Qaeda's presence in the country has never been stronger. And while most dismiss the notion of al Qaeda as a political entity in Syria, the same was said 30 years ago about Hezbollah — the Shia group that now holds seats in Lebanon's parliament and maintains a vast military wing. If jihadist groups linked to al Qaeda in Syria can succeed in rebranding themselves, they can take steps toward positioning themselves as political players if or when negotiations to end the civil war in Syria gain traction.

Clarke notes that militant groups fighting in Syria - being associated with Al Qaeda - has greatly complicated efforts by the US and its collaborators to fund, arm, and otherwise support their efforts in executing regime change against Damascus.

Hopes of playing a rhetorical shell game that is long and complicated enough to confuse the general public and produce a front ambiguous enough for the West and its regional partners to more directly and widely support is essential. While the overthrow of the Syrian government looks all but impossible at the moment, the US, Turkey, and various Persian Gulf states appear to be maneuvering to annex territory and place it under the control of these "rebranded" terrorist groups.

As previously noted, across the entirety of the Western media, there is a concerted effort to provide cover for what is the preservation of proxy groups fighting in Syria as the conflict draws to an end. Explaining away how these groups will find themselves protected safe havens abroad, or rehabilitate themselves into legitimate political fronts is merely the latest in a long line of ploys Western policymakers have used to pose as fighting terrorist organizations while simultaneously serving as their exclusive state sponsors.

In reality, however "reasonable" the West's repetitive talking points may seem, the prospect of a "legitimate" political front composed of Al Qaeda terrorists is only a possibility if the United States and its regional allies provide it recognition. The prospect of Syria, Russia, Iran or other states outside Washington's sphere of influence recognizing the legitimacy of such an entity is unlikely.

However, considering the immense amount of resources provided to these terrorist organizations since their inception back in the 1980s by the West and its allies, the continuation of this support into the realm of political fronts seems all but inevitable. Yet the crisis of credibility the West has suffered as its project in Syria drags on will only expand if and when such a political front is established and lent legitimacy by the West and its allies.

US Expands Defacto Syrian Invasion

March 25, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The recent expansion of US military forces in Syria follows a predictable, singular agenda targeting this nation for decades - and more specifically - during the most recent and ongoing conflict which began in 2011 amid the US-engineered "Arab Spring."

The UK Independent in its article, "US marines sent to Syria to help assault on Isis' Raqqa stronghold," would report that:

Hundreds of US marines have arrived in Syria armed with heavy artillery in preparation for an assault on Isis’ de-facto capital of Raqqa.

However, the presence of US troops in Syria is entirely unsolicited by the Syrian government and constitutes a clear violation of Syria's national sovereignty under international law.

CNN in its article, "Assad: US military forces in Syria are 'invaders'," would report that:

Syria's President Bashar al-Assad scoffed and questioned US actions in Syria, calling American troops deploying to the country "invaders" because he hadn't given permission for them to enter the country and saying there's been no "concrete action" from the Trump administration toward ISIS.

The fact that US policy remains absolutely unchanged despite a new president taking office is no surprise.

Further Evidence of Continuity of Agenda 

With Israel occupying Syria's Golan Heights and Turkish troops occupying a northern "buffer zone" stretching from Azaz in the west to Jarabulus on the Euphrates River in the east, US troops continuing to carve out a permanent presence in Syria's eastern most regions threatens to fulfill a decades old conspiracy to divide and destroy the Syrian state.

Recently declassified documents from the US Central Intelligence Agency reveal that as early as 1983, the US was engaged in virtually identical covert and overt operations aimed at destabilizing and overthrowing the Syria government.

A 1983 document signed by former CIA officer Graham Fuller titled, "Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria" (PDF), states (their emphasis):

Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf -- through closure of Iraq's pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the [Iran-Iraq] war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey. 

The report also states:

If Israel were to increase tensions against Syria simultaneously with an Iraqi initiative, the pressures on Assad would escalate rapidly. A Turkish move would psychologically press him further. 

That a virtually indistinguishable agenda has transcended decades and multiple presidencies allows observers of Syria's current conflict to sidestep tempting political diversions and focus solely on the strategic overlay of the actual conflict.

Despite claims across the Western media that Turkey and the United States are at odds - and specifically at odds regarding their respective illegal occupations and operations within Syrian territory - their decades long collaboration in the attempted division and destruction of the Syrian state indicates that in all likelihood, this collaboration continues, albeit behind a veil of feigned conflicting interests.

Likewise, attempts to portray Israel as a rogue nation amid this ongoing conflict affords US policymakers flexibility through plausible deniability. Airstrikes targeting Syrian forces impossible for the US or even Turkey to justify, are tolerated by the "international community" when carried out by Israel.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other lesser members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are similarly used to launder various aspects of US foreign policy targeting Syria through, including the arming, training, and funding of various terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda and the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) itself.

Should the US-NATO-Israeli-GCC axis be more overtly apparent, such flexibility would be significantly negated.

The True Endgame for US Troops in Syria

US ambitions versus the Syrian state have been significantly rolled back by both Syrian advances on the battlefield and the direct military support it is receiving from allies including Russia and Iran. Turkish forces attempting to advance deeper into Syrian territory under the guise of fighting "terrorists" and Kurdish fighters Ankara claims threaten Turkish national security are now chaffing against Syrian Arab Army forces changing places with Kurdish forces along the perimeter of Turkey's "buffer zone."

Likewise, US forces are facing similar obstacles in their attempts to incrementally seize Syrian territory. Additionally, their proxy forces consist of militant organizations disinterested in long-term cooperation with the United States or in carving out autonomous regions within Syria's borders that will inevitably face sociopolitical and economic hurdles the US will have no interest in assisting them in crossing - meaning that eventually, any long-term deal will likely be struck with Damascus, not Washington.

But like Israel's seizure and ongoing occupation of the Golan Heights, Turkish and American incursions and territorial seizures constitutes a similar, incremental dismemberment of the Syrian state. Facing the likely prospect that most of Syria's territory will return to Damascus' control sooner than later, the US and its collaborators in Ankara are attempting to take and hold as much territory as possible before this happens in a bid to weaken Syria ahead of future, yet to unfold rounds of targeted destabilization.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.  

Keeping the Myth and the Islamic State Alive

March 23, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Joint Syrian-Russian-Iranian operations against foreign-funded and armed militant groups across Syrian territory have incrementally dismantled and frustrated the fighting capacity of groups including the so-called Islamic State, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, and a myriad of other fronts coordinated and arrayed from abroad against Damascus.

With the Russian intervention in late 2015, considerable air power was applied to these militant fronts' logistical lines extending beyond Syria's borders. As the supplies were cut, Syrian forces and their allies were able to isolate and eliminate one stronghold after another.

Now, many of these groups face defeat within Syria, prompting their foreign sponsors into two courses of action - posing as the forces responsible for their defeat as the US and Turkey are attempting to do amid their respective, illegal incursions into Syrian territory, and creating a narrative to serve as cover for the evacuation and harboring of these militant groups elsewhere for future use.

Terrorist Organizations are Empire's Modern Mercenaries 

Just before and since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, Anglo-American interests have cultivated militant groups across its territory to divide and conquer the entire region - contributing toward Washington and London's greater global hegemonic ambitions.

The terrorist organization known as Al Qaeda, created in part from the shattered remains of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood defeated by Hafez Al Assad in the 1980's, would be deployed next to Afghanistan after their foreign-backed bid to overthrow the Syrian government failed.

Since then, Al Qaeda has participated in NATO operations in the Balkans, across the Middle East and North Africa, and even as far as Asia. The group operates as both a casus belli for Western intervention globally, and as a proxy force able to wage war against governments Western military forces are unable to confront directly as was the case in Libya and currently in Syria.

Al Qaeda and its various subsidiaries and affiliates - including the Islamic State - also serve in an auxiliary capacity such as in Yemen where they hold territory taken by mechanized forces from Persian Gulf invaders.

While Western narratives attempt to portray these militant fronts as independent terrorist organizations operating beyond both international law and the reach of superior Western military and intelligence capabilities, in reality, this narrative is cover for what is obvious state sponsored proxy terrorism and militancy.

The United States has all but admitted its role in the creation of these organizations as well as their ongoing role in their perpetuation. The use of US allies including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to launder money, weapons, training, and other forms of political and material support through has also been extensively documented.

Israel: America's Mad Dog in Syria

March 20, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Israel has played an increasingly provocative role in the destructive conflict unfolding within and along Syria's borders since 2011. To many observers, it appears Israeli policy borders between opportunistic and unilateral aggression. In reality, Israel's role in the Syrian conflict fits a much larger and long-term pattern with Anglo-American plans not only for Syria but for the entire region.

A more recent row between Israel and Syria was the reported incursion of Israeli warplanes into Syrian airspace, including attacks near the eastern Syrian city of Palmyra. Palmyra hosts an ongoing battle between Syrian forces and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) terrorist organization. Israeli airstrikes against Syrian forces - then - would have facilitated ISIS operations in the region.

Israel is a State Sponsor of Terror, Not a Champion Against it

Israel has existed as a nation-sized, defacto forward operating base for Anglo-American interests since its creation in the 20th century. It has pursued aggressive regional policies that have intentionally pitted itself against its neighbors as a means of maintaining a Western foothold and point of leverage in North Africa and the Middle East for decades.

Ongoing conflicts between Israel and Palestine are fueled by an orchestrated strategy of tension between a manipulated Israeli population and controlled opposition - Hamas - politically backed, armed, and funded by Israel's own regional collaborators including Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

When proxy military operations began against the Syrian state in 2011 under the cover of the US-engineered "Arab Spring," Israel along with Jordan and Turkey, played a direct role in backing militants and undermining Damascus.

While Jordan has played a more passive role, and Turkey a more direct role in facilitating proxy militant forces, Israel has played the role of "unilateral provocateur." While Turkish, US, and other "coalition" forces are unable to directly attack Syrian forces, Israel - posing as a unilateral regional player - can and has done so regularly since 2012.

CNN in its article, "Israeli jets strike inside Syria; military site near Palmyra reportedly targeted," would note:

In November 2012, Israel fired warning shots toward Syria after a mortar shell hit an Israeli military post, the first time Israel had fired on Syria across the Golan Heights since the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Israeli jets have been striking targets in Syria since at least 2013, when US officials told CNN they believed IDF jets had hit targets inside Syrian territory.

CNN would also report:

Israeli strikes may have gone as far inside Syria as the capital. In 2014, the Syrian government and an opposition group both said an IDF strike had hit Damascus' suburbs and airport.

And while Israeli politicians and military officials claim their aggression seeks to stop the transfer of weapons to terrorist organizations, organizations they deem as "terrorist" are in fact the sole forces within Syria fighting actual, internationally recognized terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda, its  various subsidiaries and affiliates, as well as the Islamic State itself.

Paradoxically, these genuinely terrorist organizations have existed along Israel's border enjoying defacto protection from Israeli forces from Syrian military operations.

Israel's Role as America's "Mad Dog" is No Secret 

Israel's geopolitical role as "unilateral mad dog" has been a matter of stated US policy since at least the 1980s - and in specific reference to America's repeated attempts to undermine and overthrow the Syrian state amid much larger objectives aimed at Iran and the region as a whole.

A 1983 document - part of a deluge of recently declassified papers released to the public - signed by former CIA officer Graham Fuller titled, "Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria" (PDF), states (their emphasis):

Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf -- through closure of Iraq's pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the [Iran-Iraq] war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey. 

The report also states:

If Israel were to increase tensions against Syria simultaneously with an Iraqi initiative, the pressures on Assad would escalate rapidly. A Turkish move would psychologically press him further. 

In 2009, US corporate-financier funded policy think tank, the Brookings Institution, would publish a lengthy paper titled, "Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran" (PDF), in which, once again, the use of Israel as an apparently "unilateral aggressor" was discussed in detail.

Human Rights Watch Cites Al Qaeda and Collaborators in Latest Syria Report

February 26, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - On the heels of Amnesty International's admittedly and entirely fabricated report regarding Syria's Saydnaya prison, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has published its own baseless report on Syria - this one regarding alleged chlorine bomb attacks in Aleppo during the city's liberation late last year.

In a post on HRW's website titled, "Syria: Coordinated Chemical Attacks on Aleppo," it claims:

Syrian government forces conducted coordinated chemical attacks in opposition-controlled parts of Aleppo during the final month of the battle for the city, Human Rights Watch said today.

However, when qualifying HRW's accusations, it admits:

Through phone and in-person interviews with witnesses and analysis of video footage, photographs, and posts on social media, Human Rights Watch documented government helicopters dropping chlorine in residential areas on at least eight occasions between November 17 and December 13, 2016. The attacks, some of which included multiple munitions, killed at least nine civilians, including four children, and injured around 200.

Watching the videos and viewing the photographs reveals that none of them actually link any of the alleged "chlorine attacks" to Syrian forces, or even to chlorine itself.

The body of evidence presented by HRW also reveals that the interviews they conducted with alleged "witnesses" included almost exclusively opposition forces. Among them were the US-UK funded White Helmets - referred to disingenuously as "Syria Civil Defense" in HRW's report - who served as designated terrorist organization Jabhat Al Nusra auxiliaries, often found on the battlefield shoulder-to-shoulder with armed militants.

Image: "Syria Civil Defense," interviewed by Human Rights Watch, hoisting Al Qaeda's flag amid a gang of  heavily armed terrorists.

United Arab Emirate-based Al Nusra propaganda platform "Orient News" was also cited, as were other notorious anti-government propaganda networks including the Aleppo Media Center.

Not only are these clearly compromised sources of information based on their admitted political alignments, but also because of their respective, systematic fabrications throughout the Syrian conflict. It is telling of HRW's systematic bias that it would base an entire report on compromised sources drawn from the opposition, but not even a single report based on government claims.

In reality, a truly reputable rights advocacy organization would only report what physical evidence was verified. Human Rights Watch has deliberately avoided doing so not only in Syria, but amid virtually ever conflict it involves itself in.

Citing Terrorists and Verified Liars

From conflating the number of civilians "trapped" in eastern Aleppo, to attempts to downplay or dismiss the role designated terrorist organizations played in the occupation of Aleppo, the groups and individuals cited by Human Rights have practiced deliberate deceit throughout the battle for Aleppo, and the Syrian conflict at large.

US War on Islamic State Designed to Fail

February 24, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Any US general providing candid views on fighting and winning a war admit the impossibility of victory as long as the source of an enemy's fighting capacity remains intact.

In fact, as an excuse for why the US is still struggling in Afghanistan over a decade and a half after initially invading the Central Asian state in 2001, US General John Nicholson blamed outsiders including Pakistan, Iran and Russia for aiding, abetting and harboring anti-US forces.

No amount of military might brought to bear on forces fighting the US within Afghanistan's borders can disrupt finances, recruitment, training, weapon supplies, logistics and refitting taking place beyond Afghanistan's borders and thus beyond the US military's reach. The United States suffered a similar problem during its prolonged occupation of Vietnam. North Vietnam, China and neighboring states provided support and safe havens for fighters in the south facing off against US troops and their South Vietnamese counterparts.

Despite killing up to 4 million people and dropping more ordnance on the region than had been dropped during the entirety of World War 2, the US ultimately failed to defeat North Vietnam or prevent the reunification and independence of the Vietnamese people. 

Despite both a historical and contemporary example of futile warfare fought out of reach of the source of an enemy's fighting capacity, the US is presenting to the American public a "plan" to fight and defeat the so-called "Islamic State" in Syria completely ignoring the terrorist front's state sponsors.  

The "Plan" To Defeat the Islamic State

The plan includes a possible expansion of US troops already operating illegally and uninvited in Syria. In the Guardian's article, "US military will retain core strategy against Isis as Trump mulls escalation," it states: 

[US General Joseph] Votel, speaking from Jordan on Wednesday, said that one option to speed up a long-signaled attack on Raqqa was to “take on a larger burden ourselves”. Shouldering more of the task would mean US forces, conventional as well as special operations, bringing more artillery and logistics options to the fight.

Absent from US President Donald Trump's "plan," and from comments made by US commanders, is any mention of the source of the Islamic State's fighting capacity. No mention is made as to where they are drawing their fighters from, who is paying for and overseeing their training, arming, outfitting and continuous supplying of when finally they reach the battlefield, or how they have managed to fight the summation of Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, Lebanese and Russian forces for years now.

Unlike in Vietnam and Afghanistan, two theaters the US desperately sought or seeks victory over indigenous resistance and had openly and repeatedly accused neighboring states of aiding and abetting that resistance, the US has been strangely quiet during both President Barack Obama's and now President Trump's administrations regarding neighboring states aiding and abetting the Islamic State.

However, without addressing the very source of the Islamic State's fighting capacity, defeating the terrorist front will be difficult if not impossible.

National Security Adviser General McMaster: The War Complex' Resident Parrot

February 22, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - It was recently announced that US President Donald Trump selected US Army Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond McMaster as his National Security Adviser.

The New York Times in their article, "Trump Chooses H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser," would report:

President Trump appointed Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster as his new national security adviser on Monday, picking a widely respected military strategist known for challenging conventional thinking and helping to turn around the Iraq war in its darkest days.

In reality, what President Trump has done, is select a man who will bring very little of his own thoughts with him to the position. Instead, he will - verbatim - repeat the talking points, reflect the agenda of, and serve the interests driving the collection of corporate-financier funded think tanks that devise - and have devised for decades - US-European foreign policy.

What General McMaster Represents

In a talk given at one such think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies - funded by corporations such as ExxonMobil, Hess, Chevron, and Boeing and chaired by individuals including President Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson and representatives from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Betchel - General McMaster provides a well-rehearsed pitch collectively reflecting the worldview hashed out by not only the CSIS itself, but admittedly the worldview and objectives of the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and a myriad of other special-interest driven policy think tanks.

The talk, published on CSIS' YouTube channel in May of 2016, features General McMaster in his military uniform accusing Russia of "invading Ukraine" and China of  "challenging US interests at the far reaches of American power." When describing China's "challenging" of US interests, he presents a map of China itself and the surrounding South China Sea - quite decidedly nowhere near the United States or any logical or legitimately proximal sphere of influence Washington could justify in maintaining.

General McMaster predicates allegations that Russia and China pose a threat to "US interest" abroad - not US national security itself - by challenging the post World War 2 international order - an order admittedly created by and for the US and its European allies, granting them military, sociopolitical, and financial unipolar hegemony over the planet.

Continuity of Agenda: Destroying Syria, Since 1983

February 21, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Syria's current conflict, beginning in 2011, was the culmination of decades of effort by the United States to subvert and overthrow the government in Damascus. From training leaders of opposition fronts years before "spontaneous" protests erupted across Syria, to covertly building a multinational mercenary force to both trigger and leverage violence thereafter, the United States engineered, executed, and perpetuated virtually every aspect of Syria's destructive conflict.

Enlisting or coercing aid from regional allies, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Jordan, and Israel, Syria found itself surrounded at its borders and buried within them by chaos.

"Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria" 

But recently revealed CIA documents drawn from the US National Archives portrays recent efforts to undermine and overthrow the Syrian government and the Syrian conflict's relationship with neighboring Lebanon and its ally Iran as merely the most recent leg in a decades-long campaign to destabilize and overturn regional governments obstructing US interests.

A 1983 document signed by former CIA officer Graham Fuller titled, "Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria" (PDF), states (their emphasis):

Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf -- through closure of Iraq's pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the [Iran-Iraq] war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey. 

The report also states:

If Israel were to increase tensions against Syria simultaneously with an Iraqi initiative, the pressures on Assad would escalate rapidly. A Turkish move would psychologically press him further. 

The document exposes both then and now, the amount of influence the US exerts across the Middle East and North Africa. It also undermines the perceived agency of states including Israel and NATO-member Turkey, revealing their subordination to US interests and that actions taken by these states are often done on behalf of Wall Street and Washington rather than on behalf of their own national interests.

Also mentioned in the document are a variety of manufactured pretexts listed to justify a unilateral military strike on northern Syria by Turkey. The  document explains:

Turkey has considered undertaking a unilateral military strike against terrorist camps in northern Syria and would not hesitate from using menacing diplomatic language against Syria on these issues.   

Comparing this signed and dated 1983 US CIA document to more recent US policy papers reveals a very overt continuity of agenda.

US Cooks Up New Syrian Atrocities Amid Syrian Talks

February 10, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Amnesty International is inextricably compromised in its stated duty to hold nations accountable for human rights violations through its direct connections with Western political interests and their use of the organization as a tool of geopolitical influence and coercion.

Image: The closest Amnesty International got to the prison they wrote a 48 page report on is illustrated by this photo taken from outer space.

As such, reports like its most recent titled, "Syria: Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison, Syria," begs belief. The report begs belief not just because of the systematic campaign of disinformation and war propaganda Amnesty International has been engaged in against Syria specifically, or the many fallacious reports it has published targeting Washington, London, and Brussels' political enemies elsewhere, but particularly because of the report's own admitted methodology.

The report itself states clearly (emphasis added):

The research for this report took place between December 2015 and December 2016. Amnesty International interviewed 31 men who were detained at Saydnaya (also spelt Sednaya) between 2011 and 2015.

The report also admits (emphasis added):

 Amnesty International also interviewed four prison officials or guards who previously worked at Saydnaya; three former judges, one of whom served in the Military Court in the al-Mezzeh neighbourhood of Damascus; three doctors who worked at Tishreen Military Hospital; four Syrian lawyers; 17 international and national experts on detention in Syria, such as investigators, analysts and monitors; and 22 family members of people who were or still are believed to be detained at Saydnaya. The majority of these interviews took place in person in southern Turkey. The remaining interviews were conducted by telephone or through other remote means with interviewees still in Syria, or with individuals based in Lebanon, Jordan, European countries and the USA.

In essence, Amnesty International admits to having no actual, physical evidence. It also is admitting it never stepped foot on Syrian soil, let alone anywhere around or in the prison their 48 page report covers. The report itself admits:

Despite repeated requests by Amnesty International for access to Syria, and specifically for access to detention facilities operated by the Syrian authorities, Amnesty International has been barred by the Syrian authorities from carrying out research in the country and consequently has not had access to areas controlled by the Syrian government since the crisis began in 2011. Other independent human rights monitoring groups have faced similar obstacles.

So distant was Amnesty International from actually obtaining physical evidence, their only images of the prison itself included in their report are satellite photographs taken from outer space. The only other photographs included are of three alleged prisoners, before and after their alleged detention, attempting to illustrate not torture, but weight loss.

Admittedly, Amnesty International interviewed members and organizations of the Syrian opposition, including those operating out of southern Turkey where much of the war was organized and launched against Syria from.

Amnesty International Admits Syrian "Saydnaya" Report Fabricated Entirely in UK

February 9, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Amnesty International's 48 page report titled, "Syria: Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison, Syria," boasts bold claims, concluding:

...the Syrian authorities’ violations at Saydnaya amount to crimes against humanity. Amnesty International urgently calls for an independent and impartial investigation into crimes committed at Saydnaya.

However, even at a cursory glance, before even reading the full body of the report, under a section  titled, "Methodology," Amnesty International admits it has no physical evidence whatsoever to substantiate what are admittedly only the testimony of alleged inmates and former workers at the prison, as well as figures within Syria's opposition.

Image: What you are looking at is a 3D model fabricated entirely in the United Kingdom, based solely on satellite pictures and hearsay. Passed off as evidence this technique of "forensic architecture" may soon become a new tool in the dissemination of war propaganda if it is not exposed. 

Within the section titled, "Methodology," the report admits:

Despite repeated requests by Amnesty International for access to Syria, and specifically for access to detention facilities operated by the Syrian authorities, Amnesty International has been barred by the Syrian authorities from carrying out research in the country and consequently has not had access to areas controlled by the Syrian government since the crisis began in 2011. Other independent human rights monitoring groups have faced similar obstacles.

In other words, Amnesty International had no access whatsoever to the prison, nor did any of the witnesses it allegedly interview provide relevant evidence taken from or near the prison.

The only photographs of the prison are taken from outer space via satellite imagery. The only other photos included in the report are of three men who allege they lost weight while imprisoned and a photo of one of eight alleged death certificates provided to family members of detainees who died at Saydnaya.

The alleged certificates admittedly reveal nothing regarding allegations of torture or execution.

Articles like, "Hearsay Extrapolated - Amnesty Claims Mass Executions In Syria, Provides Zero Proof," provide a detailed examination of Amnesty's "statistics," while articles like, "Amnesty International “Human Slaughterhouse” Report Lacks Evidence, Credibility, Reeks Of State Department Propaganda," cover the politically-motivated nature of both Amnesty International and the timing of the report's promotion across the Western media.

However, there is another aspect of the report that remains unexplored - the fact that Amnesty International itself has openly admitted that the summation of the report was fabricated in the United Kingdom at Amnesty International's office, using a process they call "forensic architecture," in which the lack of actual, physical, photographic, and video evidence, is replaced by 3D animations and sound effects created by designers hired by Amnesty International.

Amnesty Hired Special Effects Experts to Fabricate "Evidence" 

In a video produced by Amnesty International accompanying their report, titled, "Inside Saydnaya: Syria's Torture Prison," the narrator admits in its opening seconds that Amnesty International possesses no actual evidence regarding the prison.

Trump's "Migrant Policy" Exposes Continuity of Agenda

February 2, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The full scope of the current deception being perpetrated against both the American people, and the rest of the world under the presidency of Donald Trump and the supposed "push back" from the "liberal media" is exposed in full amid President Trump's unfolding migrant policy.

Bloomberg, in two articles, reveals in full how the US proxy war against Syria, presided over by US President Barack Obama, prepared for under US President George Bush Jr., and plotted since President Bush's father was in office in the 1990's, continues in earnest under President Trump. The articles also reveal how the so-called "liberal media's" "push back" against President Trump willfully omits this glaring fact, and diverts public attention toward more partisan explanations for what is blatantly continuity of agenda.

Bloomberg's first article titled, "Trump Freezes Refugee Program, Orders New Vetting for Entry," claims:

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Friday indefinitely banning admission of people fleeing Syria, temporarily freezing the entry of other refugees and prohibiting entry by people from seven majority-Muslim nations for 90 days. 

Trump said the measure would prevent terrorists from being admitted into the country. Democrats labeled the order a "Muslim ban" and criticized it as inhumane. Absent from the order was a provision from a draft of the document, obtained by Bloomberg, that would require the Defense Department to make a plan to create "safe zones" in Syria and neighboring countries for people fleeing that nation’s civil war.

The article also claims:

The admission of refugees would be suspended for 120 days. Citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya would be banned from entering the U.S. for 90 days, while the government determines what information it needs from other countries to safely admit visitors. The order doesn’t list the countries but points to laws that cover those seven, which were provided by the White House.

Bloomberg and other allegedly "liberal" media platforms have attempted to link President Trump's policies to his own business interests, deflecting public attention away from the fact that the seven nations targeted by the new executive order are precisely the same nations targeted since the 1990's by Wall Street and Washington special interests.

US and European media are also leveraging their own manufactured "migrant crisis" to sell the concept of "safe zones" in Syria, a policy laid out and pursued under President Obama when initial US-backed regime change in Syria failed to materialize. The policy is now being continued without interruption under President Trump.

US Betrays Iran Deal as Predicted - Edges Closer to War

February 2, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - As the world remains mesmerized by the antics of US President Donald Trump, his national security adviser Michael Flynn brazenly linked Iran to Yemeni fighters who attacked a Saudi warship, as well as cited an Iranian missile test as grounds to reverse course on US rapprochement with Tehran, concluding that Iran was "put on notice."

Flynn would state:

In these and other similar activities, Iran continues to threaten US friends and allies in the region.

Flynn, who was head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) when a memo was published acknowledging the West, Turkey, and the Persian Gulf monarchs sought the rise of what was at the time called a "Salafist principality" in eastern Syria - precisely where the Islamic [Salafist] State [principality] now occupies, is surely aware that America's "friends and allies in the region" include state sponsors of terrorism, including the state sponsors of the Islamic State itself.

As Flynn furiously flipped through the pages of his statement, he was signifying the predictable betrayal of the so-called "Iran deal," meant before it was even introduced the public - as early as 2009 - to serve as a pretext not for peace, but for war with Iran.

US corporate-financier funded think tank, the Brookings Institution, in a 2009 policy paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (.pdf) would lay out in detail various means of provoking war and regime change against Iran.

In it, Brookings explicitly revealed how a "superb offer" would be given to Iran, only to be intentionally revoked in a manner portraying Iran as ungrateful:

...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

The so-called "Iran deal," introduced during the administration of US President Barack Obama, represents precisely this "superb offer," with Flynn's accusations serving as the "turn down" ahead of the "sorrowful" war and attempted regime change the US had always planned to target Tehran with.

In fact, Flynn would seemingly draw almost verbatim from the ploy described by Brookings in 2009, by stating:

Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened ... As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.

Flynn's statement is particularly surreal - considering Yemeni fighters are only targeting Saudi warships because Saudi Arabia is currently waging full-scale war on Yemen. Accused on all sides of war crimes, and with the US itself even restricting weapon sales to Riyadh - if only symbolically - in response to Saudi Arabia's aggression - Flynn still claims that the attack on Saudi Arabia's warship constitutes justification for putting Iran "on notice."

Claiming that Iran is "sponsoring terrorism" throughout the region, when it is currently a major member of the coalition fighting the DIA's "Salafist principality" in both Iraq and Syria is also surreal.

Another prerequisite mentioned in the 2009 Brookings document was the need to move Syria out of the way. It appears that the US' attempts at regime change in Syria have reached their final conclusion, failing overall, but weakening Syria significantly in the process. War on Iran - a nation taxed greatly in fighting US, European, and Persian Gulf-backed terrorist organization in Syria - may be perceived now as more preferable than before the 2011 conflict began.

Meanwhile, the political climate in the West has been so expertly manipulated that the public is either so distracted with identity politics that they are unaware and unconcerned with the prospect of war with Iran, or so hysterical over "Islam" that any nation perceived as being Muslim is seen as justifiably a target of US military aggression - regardless of how divergent any of these alternate realities are from actual reality.

Flynn's statement encapsulates a documented conspiracy drafted under President Bush, implemented under President Obama, and finally coming into full fruition under President Trump, once again illustrating the continuity of agenda that transcends party politics, presidencies, and political rhetoric - driven by immense corporate-financier special interests, not the will of the American public. 

Syria's War Was Only Ever the Beginning

January 2, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - With the liberation of the city of Aleppo in northern Syria, it appears that the Syrian government in Damascus is on its way to ending the highly destructive conflict now ongoing for nearly 6 years.

But to assume the Syrian conflict is on the verge of resolution is to assume the Syrian conflict was fought in a geopolitical vacuum, disconnected from regional, even global agendas.

In fact, the proxy war the West waged on Syria was considered for the years before it began, during its planning and preparation stages, as only a prerequisite for war with Iran and a greater global conflict to prevent the reemergence of Russia and the rise of China.

US Hegemony Seeks to Eliminate Rising Superpowers 

At the close of the Cold War, the US sought to establish and maintain itself as the world's sole superpower.

US Army General Wesley Clark, in a 2007 Flora TV talk titled, "A Time to Lead," would reveal this post-Cold War agenda by relating a conversation he had as early as 1991 with then US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz, by stating (emphasis added):

I said Mr. Secretary you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm. And he said, well yeah, he said but but not really, he said because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and we didn't. And this was just after the Shia uprising in March of 91' which we had provoked and then we kept our troops on the side lines and didn't intervene. And he said, but one thing we did learn, he said, we learned that we can use our military in the region in the Middle East and the Soviets wont stop us. He said, and we have got about five or ten years to clean up those all Soviet client regimes; Syria, Iran, Iraq, - before the next great super power comes on to challenge us. 

Revealed in General Clark's statement is a clear, singular agenda, beginning after the Cold War, and evident with Desert Storm, the conflict in the Balkans, the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and the US invasion and occupation of Iraq as well as the overall expansion of US military power projection predicated upon the "War on Terror" following the attacks on New York City and Washington DC on September 11, 2001.

America's "regime change" spree included not only the above mentioned wars, but also a series of so-called "color revolutions" across Eastern Europe. This includes Otpor!'s activities between 1998-2004 in Serbia, the 2003 "Rose Revolution" in Georgia, and the 2004-2005 "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine.

Those involved in these US-backed regime change operations, both within the US State Department and American private industry (the corporate media and IT giants like Facebook and Google), as well as "activists" from each respective nation, would begin in 2008 to train opposition leaders from across the Arab World ahead of the 2011 US-engineered "Arab Spring."

Image: Then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the "Alliance of Youth Movements." Many of these "activists" with US money and equipment would return to their native countries to help overthrow their respective governments. 

The US State Department itself, in a 2008 press release, would admit to organizing a "Alliance of Youth Movements Summit," admitting:

This Alliance of Youth Movements had organic beginnings in the sense that already, youth movements from around the world that were utilizing online, mobile and digital media were interacting to discuss best practices. The State Department acted as a facilitator to help provide some structure to this trend by partnering with entities like Facebook, Howcast, Google, MTV, and Columbia Law School.  

Discussed throughout the dialogue featured in the press release were the very tactics used to serve as cover for inevitably violent regime change operations from Egypt and Libya to Syria and Yemen. A look at attendance of the US State Department's "Alliance of Youth Movement Summits" reveals many of the groups that spearheaded protests upon returning home to the Middle East including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt.

Why Did the West Help ISIS Spread Hysteria Post-Berlin Attack?

December 29, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The Washington Post - among others - hit the ground running in the wake of an apparent terrorist attack in Germany's capital of Berlin before evidence was forthcoming and even before German police arrested a suspect.

A truck plowed into a crowded Christmas market, killing 12 and injuring many more in what resembled an attack in Nice, France where a truck likewise plowed into a crowd killing 86 and injuring hundreds more.

Spreading ISIS Propaganda

The Washington Post's article and others like it followed the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) allegedly taking credit for the incident. Undeterred by a lack of evidence, the Washington Post and other media outlets - eager to capitalize on the attack to further Western narratives - concluded that the attack was aimed at "sharpening the divide between Muslims and everyone else."

The Washington Post's article, "Truck attack may be part of ISIS strategy to sharpen divide between Muslims and others," would claim:

The claim on the official Amaq media channel was short and distressingly familiar: A “soldier of the Islamic State” was behind yet another attack on civilians in Europe, this time at a festive Christmas market in Berlin. 

The accuracy of the claim remained in question Tuesday as German authorities searched for both a suspect and a motive behind the deadly truck assault on holiday revelers. But already it appeared that the attack had achieved one of the Islamic State’s stated objectives: spreading fear and chaos in a Western country in hopes of sharpening the divide between Muslims and everyone else.

The Washington Post's "analysis" fails to explain why ISIS would target a nation so far playing only a minor role in anti-ISIS operations or the logic in provoking a wider divide between Muslims and the West. At one point, the Washington Post actually suggests ISIS may be trying to hinder the flow of refugees away from their territory toward nations like Germany with open-door policies welcoming them.

In reality, the Washington Post and the "experts" it interviewed are merely attempting to perpetuate the myth of what ISIS is and what its supposed objectives and motivations are.

Understanding what ISIS really is, and what it is truly being used for, goes far in explaining why the incident has been so eagerly promoted as a "terrorist attack," and why other incidents like it are likely to follow.

2017: A Year of Transition and Trouble

December 24, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Predictions aside, there are obvious trends, plots, and paradigm shifts that will continue onward into the new year, that geopolitical observers should be distinctively aware of.

1. The War in Syria is Not Over 

The United States conspired as early as 2007 to overthrow the government of Syria through the use of armed militants - particularly those aligned to Al Qaeda and who enjoy state sponsorship from America's Persian Gulf allies.

The goal of eliminating the Syrian government was not an isolated objective, but rather fits into a much larger geopolitical agenda - including the overthrow of the Iranian government and the movement of militant proxies back into southern Russia and even into western China.

Russia's involvement in the Syrian conflict, and the duration of the conflict itself complicates, even sets back US efforts toward these ends, but Washington and Wall Street's desire for global hegemony will simply see these plans attempt to adapt and overcome current setbacks.

According to the Brookings  Institution's 2009 policy paper, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran," one option proposed includes the US arranging with Israel for Israeli forces to conduct what would appear to be a unilateral attack on Iran.

The paper states:

...the most salient advantage this option has over that of an American air campaign is the possibility that Israel alone would be blamed for the attack. If this proves true, then the United States might not have to deal with Iranian retaliation or the diplomatic backlash that would accompany an American military operation against Iran. It could allow Washington to have its cake (delay Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon) and eat it, too (avoid undermining many other U.S. regional diplomatic initiatives).

For this to be convincing, the US and Israel would need to feign a diplomatic fallout, one the current administration of US President Barack Obama has been performing and just recently ratcheted up at the UN Security Council. With President-elect Donald Trump - undeniably and very publicly pro-Israel - coming into office in January, the window is closing for this option to be convincing.

One aspect of a covertly US-backed Israeli attack on Iran includes an opportunity for the US to subsequently intervene militarily if Iran were to retaliate. It is essentially a trap baited for Tehran. The trap could be sprung before President Obama leaves office, and US military intervention executed as President-elect Trump enters office.

Of course, Iran now possesses Russian S-300 anti-air defense systems, has a more formidable army today than when Brookings and other US policymakers first concocted war plans against Tehran, and the dynamics in the region have changed considerably as well. However, President-elect Trump has surrounded himself both during his campaign for president and amongst his incoming cabinet, with men who have promoted war with Iran for years.

This is perhaps one of the first, and greatest dangers that will need to be navigated around in 2017.

2. Economic Paradigm Shift, Driven by Technology 

It could be easily said that alternative energy and electric cars are already creating shifting trends in global economics and the geopolitical power derived from it. The cost and proliferation of solar power continues to favor its use against traditional forms of power production, and electric cars are finally being taken seriously by traditional manufacturers in the face of stiff competition from newcomers like Tesla Motors.

Russian Ambassador Assassinated: Retaliation, But by Whom?

December 20, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Just days after the liberation of Syria's northern city of Aleppo, Russia's ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov, was gunned down while giving a talk at an art gallery in Turkey's capital of Ankara. 

The gunman, identified as a former Turkish police officer, flashed the familiar one finger gesture used by terrorist organizations operating in neighboring Syria including by Jabhat Al Nusra and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" - while shouting, according to the Guardian:

Don’t forget Aleppo. Don’t forget Syria. Unless our towns are secure, you won’t enjoy security. Only death can take me from here. Everyone who is involved in this suffering will pay a price.

The attack coincided with an alleged security incident near America's embassy in Ankara, characterized by the US Embassy as a "shooting," though it may be in reference to the actual assassination.

Western newspapers, however, including the Daily Mail, the UK Express, and The Sun attempted to portray the announcement as a separate incident. This may be a deliberate attempt to portray the US as a victim in tandem with Russia, to divert suspicion away from US involvement.

Assassination Takes Place Days After US Vowed "Retaliation" Against Russia 

US President Barack Obama, US policymakers and pundits, as well as US Senators for the past week have vowed "retaliation" against Russia for alleged "hacking" during the 2016 US presidential election. These threats take place against a wider backdrop of increasingly unhinged outbursts made by Western politicians, pundits, and policymakers amid frustration in advancing their global agenda versus a reemerging Russia and a rising China.

The Guardian in an article published just this week titled, "Barack Obama promises retaliation against Russia over hacking during US election," would state:

Barack Obama has warned that the US will retaliate for Russian cyberattacks during the presidential election. 

In an interview on National Public Radio on Friday morning, the US president said he is waiting for a final report he has ordered into a range of Russian hacking attacks, but promised there would be a response.

“I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections … we need to take action,” Obama said. “And we will – at a time and place of our own choosing. 

“Some of it may be explicit and publicised; some of it may not be.”

Articles like the International Business Times' "How Can The US Retaliate Against Russia's Hacking? Here Are 6 Possible Moves," would list possible forms retaliation could take, including:

Cyberattack on Russian networks or infrastructure; Release damaging information about Vladimir Putin; Target offshore accounts; Place malware inside Russian espionate networks; Interfere in Russian politics Economic sanctions.

However, it has been noted by many analysts, including those within the US' own foreign policy circles, that America's ability to retaliate with "cyberattacks" against Russia in such a manner would range from futile, to even galvanizing the Russian people further behind the Kremlin.

The New York Times in an article titled, "Obama Confronts Complexity of Using a Mighty Cyberarsenal Against Russia," would note:

But while Mr. Obama vowed on Friday to “send a clear message to Russia” as both a punishment and a deterrent, some of the options were rejected as ineffective, others as too risky. If the choices had been better, one of the aides involved in the debate noted recently, the president would have acted by now.

In all likelihood, an attempted counter "cyberattack" would have ended in further humiliation and isolation for the United States' ruling circles.

Welcome to Idlib: America's Model Syrian City

December 18, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - A report published by The Century Foundation (TCF), a US-based policy think tank, helps shed light on the inner workings of the small northern city of Idlib, Syria.

Idlib is to US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization Jabhat Al Nusra (also known as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham or Al Qaeda in Syria) as the eastern Syrian city of Al Raqqa is to the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (IS).

It is also home to a wide range of other militant groups cooperating with the terrorist organization, as well as a myriad of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) funded and directed by the US, Europe, Turkey and the Gulf states.

And while great hope resides within statements of US, European and Gulf state politicians, echoed across their respective media platforms for this city's possible role as an alternative "capital" for an alternative "government," opposed to the current Syrian nation-state, TCF's report dumps a cold bucket of water on what was but a spark, not even a flame of hope.

The "Opposition" Exists Solely Through the Support of Foreign Interests 
The report titled, "Keeping the Lights On in Rebel Idlib," describes a city so dangerous and dysfunctional, the authors of the report could not even venture there to conduct their interviews, which were instead conducted remotely from the other side of the Turkish-Syrian border.

The report even admits that the "provincial council" meant to replace the Syrian government remained based in Turkey for years and still maintains an office there today.

The report states:

In Syria’s rebel-held Idlib province, residents have established local governance bodies that provide needed services and simultaneously pose a political challenge to the regime of Bashar al-Assad. No overarching authority has replaced the state after it was forced from Idlib. Islamist and jihadist armed groups hold power at the local level, and have developed relatively sophisticated service coordination bodies. Yet ultimate decision-making power has typically sat with donor organizations outside the country.

The report points out that armed groups compete not only for influence within Idlib, but also for access to the constant stream of resources foreign donor organizations provide. The report admits that this foreign aid (dominated by USAID) sustains Idlib's occupiers, who themselves lack the ability to unify the city, fund any of their activities, let alone challenge the Syrian state.

The report also admits that initially the Syrian government was able to protect Idlib's urban centers, and that they only fell after the Bab al-Hawa border crossing with Turkey was taken over. This suggests that an influx of weapons, supplies and fighters over the border from Turkey, with Turkish and other state-sponsors' backing, helped turn the tide against Syrian forces, not the momentum of the "uprising" itself.

Unverified Aleppo "On the Spot" Executions

December 14, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - After a day of claiming up to 82 civilians were "shot on the spot" by Syrian forces battling to retake the northern city of Aleppo from armed terrorists who have occupied it since invading the city in 2012, no evidence or even the source of the claim has surfaced.

According to the BBC, the UN Human Rights office in Geneva received reports of the incident.

Despite Western journalists having been on the ground in Aleppo, along with UN staff, the reports were actually received in Geneva from unnamed sources alleged to be in Aleppo, not acquired - or verified - on the ground by either the Western media or UN staff.

The BBC, in its article, "Aleppo battle: UN says civilians shot on the spot," would admit (emphasis added):

"Yesterday evening, we received further deeply disturbing reports that numerous bodies were lying on the streets," Mr Colville added, while admitting it was hard to verify the reports.

It should be noted that the BBC left the accusation on their website for hours before eventually adding that the reports were both unverified, and acquired by "sources," not by UN staff firsthand in Aleppo.

The purpose of this was to maximize the initial impact of the shocking, easily "re-tweeted" headline without being burdened with providing evidence. Once the headline went "viral," the BBC eventually filled in the details - which had they been included in the initial report - would have significantly blunted the impact of the headline.

With talk of "fake news" reaching hysterical levels, the BBC in collaboration with the UN itself prove that organizations and institutions of the West have long held a monopoly on generating "fake news" and leveraging it not just to manipulate politics and public perception, but to perpetuate war and the destruction of human life.

Other Lies Exposed 

A day after the Western media's coverage of Aleppo reached a fevered pitch, and with the fighting effectively over, other lies repeated ad nauseam just a day ago are now surfacing as obvious, malicious fabrications.