Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana


Why is U.S. not globally condemned for its military occupation of Syria?

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Mario Milano

Mario Milano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 29691 posts

Posted 09 February 2018 - 02:17 PM

Why is U.S. not globally condemned for its military occupation of Syria?



Eric Zuesse


On February 8th, at the U.N., the Russian Government, through its U.N. Representative Vasily Nebenzia, said against the U.S. Government’s forces in Syria, “They are in fact illegally in Syria, nobody called them there, they constantly assert that they are fighting there against international terrorism, but we see that they go beyond this framework.”


No public response has yet been issued by the U.S. Government.


Furthermore, the U.N. Security Council was presented on February 8th with a resolution condemning the bombing on February 6th of the Russian trade mission in Syria’s capital of Damascus, and this condemnation was blocked by the U.S. and UK delegations, which said that there wasn’t enough “information” about the event to condemn it.


Russia and Syria say that the attack had been done by jihadists, “terrorists,” by a shell fired by armed groups who were deployed in the eastern Ghouta suburb of Damascus, as part of repeated attacks on the Russian Embassy in Damascus, but the U.S. and UK refused to condemn the attack, regardless. Consequently, the U.N. Security Council’s press office was blocked from issuing a statement to the press saying that the Council condemned the attack on the Russian facility in Damascus.


Not only is the U.S. trying to take over part of sovereign Syrian territory (using Al Qaeda and Kurdish forces as their boots-on-the-ground to do it), but the U.S. and its UK ally are, essentially, supporting Al Qaeda allied jihadists who shell the Russian trade mission in Damascus.


Though the U.S. Congress has not yet declared war against Syria and against Russia, the U.S. Executive branch, the Commander-in-Chief or President of the United States, has placed the U.S. Government at war against both Russia and Syria, and America’s allies are not expresssing disgust at this act by their ally, which violates not only the U.S. Constitution but international law.


Meet the new Adolf Hitler: Donald Trump. Is every other government headed by a Neville Chamberlain of today? If none condemn the U.S. Government, then isn’t it undeniable?



Edited by Mario Milano, 09 February 2018 - 02:30 PM.

  • 1

#2 Mario Milano

Mario Milano

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 29691 posts

Posted 09 February 2018 - 02:34 PM

Can we say lying piece of Jew controlled shit?



  • 0

#3 Nemesis



  • Administrators
  • 20207 posts

Posted 09 February 2018 - 03:07 PM

'What right does the US have to defend illegal formations in Syria?'



Published time: 8 Feb, 2018 12:25


Edited time: 8 Feb, 2018 15:37



FILE PHOTO © U.S. Air Force



Whatever President Trump said earlier about fighting ISIS, the real US mission in Syria now is to block the Iranians and to look at Assad as simply an Iranian puppet, former US diplomat Jim Jatras told RT.

The US-led coalition conducted airstrikes against pro-government forces in Syria on Wednesday, which US Central Command described as a "defensive" measure in retaliation for what they called an “unprovoked” attack on the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and foreign military “advisers.”


“In defense of coalition and partner forces, the coalition conducted strikes against attacking forces to repel the act of aggression against partners engaged in the global coalition’s defeat-Daesh (Islamic State, IS, formerly ISIS) mission,” the Central Command said in a press release.


The SDF is an alliance of militias in northern Syria. It is mostly Kurdish and has received continued support from the United States.


RT America’s Ed Schultz discussed this direct confrontation between the US and pro-Syrian government forces with former US diplomat Jim Jatras.


RT: How does this complicate things?


Jim Jatras: It complicates things very much. Not only does it put us potentially in an American conflict with Syrian government forces, but since those are allied with the Russians, also the Iranians, conceivably directly confronting those countries as well.


RT: Does this make a statement about American policy that we're not done with Assad


JJ: I think it certainly does. And I think Secretary Tillerson has been talking that way in recent weeks, and it really begs the question Donald Trump ran on ‘We're going to destroy ISIS.’ ISIS is virtually eliminated in Syria, so what is our American force doing there? What is their mission? I don't think that's clear, neither is it clear what their legal authority is.


RT: What about Turkey and Russia? What do you anticipate that their response will be to this?


JJ: Of course, the Turks are engaged in their own offensive against the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces, which are mostly Kurdish forces, that is primarily in a different part of Syria, further to the west, although they've also indicated they might move toward the main area where the Kurds are based. We don't really know exactly which forces were being targeted by the Syrian government here that the United States claimed we had to respond in self-defense – whether it was the Kurdish forces that the Turks are fighting against, or whether it was some other allied forces. Some of them, by the way, are former Al-Qaeda or ISIS types that have been reconfigured in something called a New Syrian Army.


So far, the Syrian government is still reluctant to enter into direct clashes with the US because the balance of powers is drastically to the favor of the US Army there. And, at the same time, the Syrian Army is fighting terrorist groups elsewhere in the country… But in the future, the Syrian government will deal with the US Army as an occupying force and there might be armed resistance to this occupation. - Jamal Wakeem, international relations professor at the Lebanese University


RT: President Trump has been quick to align himself with the Kurds, praising them by saying they've been the most loyal to the United States. Let's talk about this budget that is being approved in the Senate. Does this signal that there's going to be some resources to do more of this, if they have to?


JJ: Early on in Syria, one of the first things that Trump did is he cut off the CIA support for the Al-Qaeda-linked jihadist and threw all the support behind the Kurds, which are the Pentagon's client. And I think there's some internal bureaucratic politics going on here, that for whatever reason Donald Trump has decided the Pentagon and the Defense Department are his boys. Look, who domestically are the elements of the deep state that are trying to bring him down. So, I think he has planted his flag on that side. Whatever they want over, there they're going to get.


Americans aren’t just in Syria to fight (Islamic State or IS, formerly) ISIS, they’ve been in there for a long time because they want to overthrow [President Bashar] Assad. And as the specter of ISIS fades, as it becomes clear that Syrian forces themselves have largely defeated ISIS, the priority of overthrowing Assad begins to reassert itself in the Pentagon and in the White House. The overthrow of Assad was always the prime reason why the Americans were in Syria, arming and training these groups, intervening with airstrikes and so on. They were diverted from that by ISIS. Now with the possibility of defeat of ISIS inside Syria, that policy reasserts itself. – political analyst Chris Bambery


RT: Does this somewhat vindicate what Sergey Lavrov has said about the United States when it comes to dealing with them, the United States and cooperation in Syria?


JJ: I think in the sense that the Russians think, ‘We can't stick by a deal, we can't take yes for an answer.’ If our mutual goal, where both we and the Russians think ‘We have to destroy the terrorists, we have to destroy ISIS,’ then what exactly we are doing here.


RT: Is there a broader picture here that we're not seeing in some sense?


JJ: Sure, there is. Because what it all comes down to is - whatever early on President Trump said about fighting ISIS - the real mission now has nothing to do with ISIS. It is to block the Iranians and to look at Assad as simply an Iranian puppet, which of course is not true. But that's now clearly what the focus is of whatever amounts to a policy.



This is an aggression against the Syrian Arab Army and against the Syrian government. Because the US has no legitimate claim to have troops on Syrian soil. It claimed that it was fighting ISIS, but so far we never saw a single strike by the US against ISIS fighters, all strikes came against the Syrian Arab Army and its allies in an attempt to take hold of north eastern Syria and establish military bases there. - Jamal Wakeem, international relations professor at the Lebanese University


RT: What did you make of the fact that the coalition said the attack on the SDF headquarters was unprovoked? What does that mean?


JJ: Honestly, I think it's bizarre. You've got illegal formations fighting against the legitimate, internationally recognized govern

  • 0

#4 wirehaired


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14349 posts

Posted 09 February 2018 - 04:23 PM

    This is what you can expect from the UN regarding US and Zionist crimes,its been that way for many years,i don't know why people expect

anything else,the thing is after the US bombed the Syrians killing God knows how many, Russia should have launched massive airstrikes within hours on the US supported quislings the SDF,that would have sent a message,also the SAA should have launched missiles against them,we don't want one but at some stage there will be a major War in the region because that's what it will take to bring the forces of arrogance down,if they continue to get away with their crimes it will just drive them on to more crimes,it won't be long at this rate before they are bombing Central Damascus.

Edited by wirehaired, 09 February 2018 - 04:24 PM.

  • 1

#5 Ivan88


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14012 posts

Posted 09 February 2018 - 04:38 PM

1. They are afraid. Operation Gladio.... removes anyone who doesn't follow sinogog of satan.

2. They are still locked in mentality of sinogog of satan.

3. They are too divided to overcome the foregoing.

Book of Revelation said that 10 kings would give their power to the beast & its associates etc.

But, that they would one day stop that, and overthrow it all.

Book of Ezekial, says the nations would rise and throw this wicked lion into a pit where it's voice is heard no more.

Those 10 kings are Christian Israelite nations, as 10 represents Israel.


BTW, United Nations began with Atlantic Charter when Churchill & Roosevelt met on a battle ship and declared war on Germany as part of the original plan indicated by Balfour Declaration.  In essence UN created as a weapon of war and to establish a resurrected Pharisee bloody old power center where it was when it murdered the Perfect Man and His followers.

As of 1991, the USA has formally adopted the doctrines and traditions of the Pharisees that make the Perfect Word of God of none effect on Earth, under which all of Mankind is to either be killed or enslaved for the "superior" people of the sinogog of satan.

Edited by Ivan88, 09 February 2018 - 04:44 PM.

  • 0

#6 Nemesis



  • Administrators
  • 20207 posts

Posted 09 February 2018 - 06:12 PM



Syria - U.S. May Have Arranged "Self Defense" Attack On Syrian Government Forces


Last night the illegal U.S. occupation force in north-east Syria attacked a group of Syrian government aligned troops and their Russian support. The incident happened north-east of Deir Ezzor city on the east side of the Euphrates. The U.S. claims that it killed some 100 Syrian soldiers that were allegedly attacking its proxy forces in an attempt to recover oil fields.


There is a factual separation of areas south-west of the Euphrates under Syrian government control and north-east of the Euphrates under U.S. occupation. But several locations around Manbij, Raqqa and Deir Ezzor contradict that and are under control of the respective other side. The U.S. claims that a "de-confliction line" along the Euphrates is agreed upon. The Syrian government says that no such agreement exists.


A small area across the Euphrates north-east of Deir Ezzor had been taken by Syrian government forces months ago. It is near some oilfields which the U.S. wants to keep away from the Syrian government.





"The U.S. wants to keep Syria weak and poor," says Prof. Joshua Landis. According to Landis the U.S. is keeping the north-east of Syria under occupation to deny Syria access to its oil and its best agricultural land. It wants to turn Syria into a swamp for Russia and Iran to the benefit of mostly Israel.


The valuable oil and gas fields are currently in the hands of local Arab tribes who earlier worked with the Islamic State and are now, the U.S. claims, allied with the YPG/PKK Kurds under the name Syrian Democratic Forces. The SDF is the U.S. local proxy force for its occupation.

On the Syrian government side in Deir Ezzor are a few Syrian troops, local militia from the area, as well as members of Russian private military contractor named Wagner Group. Wagner allegedly has a contract with the Syrian government that will give it some 25% of all revenues from oil-fields it recovers and protects.




Check out the continuation at the URL, (too many quotes)

  • 0

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2019 Pravda.Ru