Friday 10th of July 2020

don't be a fool: a moderate with a gun is an extremist...


moderate war...

The United States and Turkey have signed a deal to train and equip Syrian opposition forces, officials say.

The US military said it plans to send more than 400 troops to train Syrian moderates at sites outside Syria as part of the fight against Islamic State militants.

"I can confirm that the agreement was signed this evening in Ankara," a US embassy spokesman said.

A Turkish government official said the deal was inked by Turkey's foreign ministry undersecretary Feridun Sinirlioglu and US ambassador to Ankara John Bass.


identifying "moderates" to turn them into killing machines...


Turkey and the United States signed on Thursday a deal to train and arm moderate Syrian opposition fighters, a Turkish Foreign Ministry official told Reuters on Thursday.

The United States has so far identified about 1,200 Syrian opposition fighters for potential participation in a U.S. military-led program, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

The U.S. military has said it is planning to send more than 400 troops, including special operations forces, to train Syrian moderates at sites outside Syria as part of the fight against ISIS, Reuters reported.

The fighters will undergo vetting for the program, which is expected to begin in March and train more than 5,000 Syrian fighters a year. Some 3,000 could be trained by the end of 2015, a U.S. official said.


Fighting ISIL first, then fighting Assad second, in whichever order...


reasonably respectfully yours...

A Reasoned Response to a Washington Post Call for War With Iran

I was going to write a careful, reasoned commentary on this article in the Washington Post -- “War With Iran is Probably Our Best Option" -- written by a highly respected fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, Joshua Muravchik. But in the end all I could find to say was this:  I hope this slavering, shrivelled-up, dead-souled little coward finds himself on the front lines of the war he advocates.

I’m sick to death of these timorous motherfuckers sitting on their well-wadded asses pushing for wars they’ll never fight. I want to see Muravchik standing on the Iranian frontier with a rifle in his hand.

I want to see him put his puffy gray face and his well-coifed hair in the line of fire. He’s so goddamned tough with other people’s lives. “Yes, we might absorb some strikes," he writes. He knows damn well he’ll never “absorb” a strike; that’s for other people, that’s for the cannon fodder this piss-ant empire sends to its wars.

No, by God, if he wants war, if he thinks it’s “probably our best option,” then let him drag his ageing ass over to Iran and put it on the line. Or else let him his shut his fucking mouth.

read more:

what do the US hypocrites expect?...


WASHINGTON — Iran continued its “terrorist-related” activity last year and also continued to provide broad military support to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, the State Department said Friday in its annual report on terrorism.

The assessment suggests that neither the election of President Hassan Rouhani nor the prospect of a nuclear accord with the United States and its negotiating partners has had a moderating effect on Iran’s foreign policy in the Middle East.

“In 2014, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training and the facilitation of primarily Iraq Shia and Afghan fighters to support the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown,” the report said.

“Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior Al Qaeda members it continued to detain and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody,” it added.

The report does not contend that Iranian officials are conspiring to kill Americans. Nor does it accuse Iraqi militias backed by Iran of plotting to attack American advisers in Iraq. The report also does not provide specific figures on Iranian operations that might indicate whether they are increasing or decreasing.

But it paints a picture of an aggressive Iranian foreign policy that has often been contrary to the interests of the United States. Even when the United States and Iran have a common foe, as they do in the Islamic State, the Iranian role in Iraq risks inflaming sectarian tensions. Some of the Shiite militias Iran has backed in Iraq, including Kataib Hezbollah, have committed human rights abuses against Sunni civilians, the report said.

Although the report covers 2014, American officials said the Iranian policies described in it had continued this year.

“We continue to be very, very concerned about I.R.G.C. activity as well as proxies that act on behalf of Iran,” said Tina S. Kaidanow, the State Department’s senior counterterrorism official, referring to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. “We watch that extremely carefully.”

read more:



The US itself is supporting "rebels"... read from top... What do they expect from people whose life or hegemony is endangered? Of course the US support the Sunnis from Saudi Arabia, who according to a secret report are supporting ISIL, despite making noise to the contrary. As my middle-eastern friend Abdoulah says: "you cannot trust a camel with two heads"... See also: 


fool me twice, shame on me ….


the US is in bed with terrorists....

Al-Nusra has been on the US terrorist watch list since 2012, Karen Kwiatkowski, retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, told RT. Asking Russia not to bomb it, is indicating that US is in working on behalf of the extremist organization, she added.Trends
Al-Nusra terrorists Saturday launched a heavy artillery attack on residential areas of Aleppo. At least 40 people were killed and more than a hundred injured, according to the Russian ceasefire monitoring center on the ground.

RT: The US asked Russia not to bomb Al-Nusra. Does that seem like a strange request?

Karen Kwiatkowski: It does, considering Al-Nusra is still on the terrorist watch list and has been since 2012, as I understand it. So it is a very obvious case of the US working on behalf of a terrorist group that the US itself has recognized. It is not a very clear policy. Very confusing.

RT: Some argue that these groups intermingle, so it is very difficult to distinguish between them. How difficult is it to keep these groups apart?

KK: It appears to be very difficult. Certainly if you look at the role of defense of civilians, which I think is something that both the US and Russia and all parties are interested in – defense of civilians – if you are defending them, you really are not going to worry about intermingling. If fire is coming, if violence is emanating from a particular source, that is going to be your target. That is almost a very simple thing that is being made complicated by claims from these folks in offices back in Washington. They are very academic about their evaluation, but in fact if people are being harmed and they are to be defended you don’t stop and worry about intermingling. I am sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.   

RT: Are you surprised that the US doesn’t seem to be able in some way to influence these groups that are intermingling with Al-Nusra?

KK: I think they are operating on really bad information. The State Department and even the Pentagon to the extent that it may be involved here, has really typically bad information about who our allies are and how much of an ally they might be. So when Washington, when the State Department talks about separating our fire, or treating one group a little bit differently than another group and putting out the word to our so-called allies, I think they are living in a fantasy world; their data is probably bad data – I don’t think it’s current. And it is really an excuse. You got to remember the Obama administration is a lame duck administration – they don’t have time to change the strategic course of their foreign policy in the Middle East and in Syria, they don’t want to. So there is no energy there to do something that might actually improve the situation. They’re just basically holding the line and waiting out the administration’s end of term. The State Department is really saying nothing. When it says: “They’re intermingling. We want to talk to them, give us time,” that is very empty language.




In a slight turn of events, Washington asked Moscow to direct its airstrikes solely at al-Nusra Front and refrain from targeting so-called “moderate” rebels, working with al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria, but, Russian officials and experts have said it is not rational since these militants are coordinating attacks against government forces and civilians.

In other words, those who work with al-Nusra Front even if they do so from time to time are de facto not moderate – whether they are described as such or not.

“The Obama Administration thus continues with the fiction that there are completely separate, vetted, moderate rebels who are dedicated to creating an inclusive, multi-cultural, multi-confessional, secular and democratic Syria as soon as both [Daesh] and the Assad government are defeated,” political analyst Daniel McAdams, Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, noted ironically.

On Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov urged the US to convince those rebel groups which they support in Syria to leave areas where al-Nusra Front militants are present. The Americans “are telling us not to hit [al-Nusra Front], because there is ‘normal’ opposition next to it,” the diplomat said. “But that opposition must leave terrorists’ positions, we long have agreed on that.”

In fact, this agreement was reached months ago, but it has not been implemented yet, making counterterrorism efforts in Syria less efficient.

Interestingly, both Moscow and Washington view al-Nusra Front as a terrorist organization. In this context, distancing itself from al-Qaeda’s offshoot should have been a non-issue for what Russian officials often have referred to as “patriotic” opposition. Why are they not severing ties will al-Qaeda then?

blood on the US hands and lip service...

Amid the recent diplomatic wrangling between the US and Russia on Syria, Larry Johnson, retired CIA intelligence officer, tells Radio Sputnik that the US has "an enormous amount of blood on its hands" for inciting this conflict and it is in fact "lip-service to the concept of fighting terrorism," pursuing completely different purposes.

“If Russia had not intervened, the region would be in more chaos and would be on a path towards more instability," Larry Johnson, retired CIA intelligence officer and State Department official told Radio Sputnik.

Read more:


It would be good for Australia to dessist from participating in any way in this killer "conflict" which has been staged managed by the US to favour terrorists (calling them "moderates" — see toon at top), until the Russians came and changed the script...

another illegal US war...

Speaking on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, the top US diplomat admitted that the administration’s lawyers had determined that any and all American intervention in Syria is illegal.

Experts have long criticized the legality of the US intervention in Syria under the tenets of international law given that the legitimate government of Bashar al-Assad has patently refused to welcome American intervention and has, in fact, repeatedly called on the United States to stop meddling in the ongoing civil war to which Washington is not a party to.

Read more:

they want to rebuild their lives...


With the media more interested in highlighting the ideological differences between the various factions in the country, Ortiz said that after six years, most Syrians “want to be able to have their lives back. They don't want war, they want to be able to send their children to school. Students want to be able to go to universities without having to be bombed, they want to rebuild their lives.”

In her experience, and for most civilians, the longing for normality transcends the religious and sectarian divides, and she notes that Syria has successfully sustained a multi-faith society for thousands of years.

“This is one of the few countries in the world where Muslims and Christians are united,” says Ortiz.“They want to keep their unity and their secularism, and many are angry that outsiders are always talking about their religion. They don’t want to talk about their religion, and they want to be referred to as Syrians.”

Ortiz, says that she “fell in love” with Syria and is not taking a break. She plans to make a documentary about Yemen, another conflict she believes has not been covered adequately, and then to go beyond sensationalist filmmaking and find the true face of North Korea.


Read more:


See toon at top...


a russian fly in the US ointment...


Although Russia has upset the US strategy aimed at disintegrating Syria and remapping the Middle East, Washington will not stop trying to implement its plans, Turkish military analysts have told Sputnik, stressing that US President Donald Trump's Jerusalem move is a sign that the Americans will continue to provoke conflicts in the region.

Russia has managed to save Syria from disintegration, instigated by the US which invaded the country to implement its geopolitical plan under the pretext of fighting Daesh (ISIS/ISIL) Erdogan Karakus, retired Lt. Gen. of the Turkish Air Force and chairman of the Turkish Union of Retired Officers, told Sputnik Turkey.

"Everything is extremely simple and obvious: the United States, which invaded the region in order to implement the 'Greater Middle East' project under the slogan 'Democracy will bring peace,' in fact not only has failed to ensure peace in any country [of the region], but also caused the death of a great number of people," retired Lt. Gen. Karakus emphasized.

The Turkish general said that the US bombing of Iraq led to the death of 1 million 200 thousand civilians.


"The point is that the United States bears the greatest responsibility for the destruction and chaos in the Middle East," Karakus highlighted.

According to the retired lieutenant-general, Russia became the major obstacle in the way of the US geopolitical plan. He recalled former US President Barack Obama saying that the US intended to fight Daesh for more than three years.



"What did this mean? Obviously, the United States determined a certain period for the implementation of its plans in the region," Karakus suggested. "By pronouncing these words, Obama officially recognized that the US sought the formation of a new political strategy in Iraq, Turkey and Syria to create an enabling environment for the implementation of the 'Greater Middle East' project."

When asked whether the US will continue to maintain its military presence in Syria after Russia's withdrawal of the forces, the Turkish general assumed that Washington is not intending to leave the region. US President Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital proves this, Karakus noted.

Stressing that Russia's pull out from Syria poses a certain challenge to the US, the retired lieutenant-general opined that Washington will continue to conduct its operations on the ground.

Read more:


The Western media will see things differently. You know "Assad gasses his people", "kills beautiful babies" and other moronifications designed to support the US destruction of Syria as a "pathway to democracy"(meaning giving it away to the "friendly" Saudis — the least democratic nation on the planet). All this "democratic" hubris is bullshit of course but the Empire is full of it. 


See also:


Read from top...

arming al qaeda...

On 3 July 2018, the Syrian Arab Army exposed to the press the reserve stocks of arms seized from the fighters in the region of Deraa (see the video below).

Western Press characterizes these fighters as “rebels” fighting for democracy. In contrast, the Syrians do not romanticize them. Even though some of these fighters claim to have recently joined the “Free Syria Army, the Syrians see them as jihadist members of Al Qaeda and Isis (also known as Daesh and the Islamic Emirate). In any event, these individuals have laid down al Sharia as the law governing the regions under their control.

We can observe the high quality and abundance of the equipment of these fighters.


Read more:


Read from top.

the aleppo revolution that never was....


By Nu’man Abd al-Wahid

Robin Yassin-Kassab has distinguished himself as one of Britain’s leading regime-change propagandists. Whether it’s Libya, Syria or Venezuela, Mr. Yassin-Kassab can be handsomely relied upon to supply the clever and poetic armoury to push forward narratives to facilitate Western imperialism militarily overhauling a nation-state not to its predisposition. For most of the last decade, Syria was his favoured target for spewing regime-change propaganda.

His byline has furnished The Guardian, Foreign Policy, Newsweek as well as the media of the Gulf state despots such as Al-Jazeera, The National and Al-Araby. Yassin-Kassab’s main contribution to the Syria regime-change campaign culminated in a book he co-authored with a certain Ms Leila Al-Shami titled, ‘Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War’.

War or regime-change propaganda is obviously nothing new. For the hundred years before the outbreak of the war on Syria, the establishment have provided bogus claims as pretext for war. Among the most infamous are Huns eating Belgian babies during World War One; Vietnam’s Gulf of Tonkin when the United States directly attacked Vietnam on the pretext of falsely claiming it was attacked by the Vietnamese; Iraqi soldiers removing babies from incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals in 1990; Weapons of Mass Destruction falling in the hands of al-Qaeda peddled by George Bush and Tony Blair regimes; Iraq’s purchase of Uranium from Niger; African mercenaries on Viagra killing and raping their way through Libya before the regime-change in Libya commenced. This essay argues that Mr. Yassin-Kassab’s account in ‘Burning Country’ of what happened in Aleppo in July 2012 must be seen in this ignoble historical context of regime-change propaganda. He begins his account of Aleppo with the following:


On the night of 19 July 2012, as battle erupted in the Salahudeen neighbourhood, thousands of fighters poured into the city from the northern and eastern countryside. Videos of the convoy filled distant revolutionaries with enthusiasm to echo that of the men on the backs of trucks…brandishing Kalashnikovs and freedom flags.”[1]


Before this date, he acknowledges that Aleppo “had remained largely calm in the revolution’s early months…The poorer people of the outer suburbs and nearby towns felt a certain resentment towards those overcomfortable Aleppans who’d sat on the sidelines…”[2] that is, ordinary Aleppans who he belittles as “overcomfortable”, wanted nothing to do with the “revolution” or the regime –change project. He also provides no evidence to substantiate the “feelings” and “resentment” besides the anecdote of one sympathiser from a city of two million people.

Yassin-Kassab continues that “the liberation of Aleppo” i.e. its invasion by rural militants, “had a definite class dimension – armed farmers and workers of the rural hinterland were welcomed by militants in the city’s working class zones.”[3] Once again, he provides no evidence on their welcome and I would be very surprised if any of the “armed farmers” from the rural hinterland know what “class” is.

So even when we read between the lines in Yassin-Kassab’s account, it is quite easy to decipher that there was no “liberation” of Aleppo but simply an invasion from the Syrian countryside. To confirm that Aleppo in July 2012 was invaded by hordes of rural militant peasants we could turn to two sympathisers of the Syrian “revolution”. Firstly, Professor Samer Abboud in his account of the war on Syria, also claims that before the city was invaded:


local Aleppines did not protest in large numbers against the regime, nor did armed groups emerge from within the city’s civilian population. Indeed, until mid-2012, Aleppo was relatively stable compared to other parts of Syria…[but] By 2012, FSA-affliliated brigades had entered Aleppo and established a presence.”[4]


If I were to raid my neighbour’s house with weapons, I would not be “establish[ing] a presence” in my neighbour’s house, I would rightly be referred to, at the very least, an anti-social monster who upon being removed from said property would expect to be brought before a court of law to face a long prison sentence. More so, I am surprised the good Professor fails to inform his readers whether these “armed groups” emerged from Jupiter or the Syrian countryside.

Secondly, Rania Abouzeid, a journalist working in the Middle East for many years has written a book, “No Turning Back” about the Syrian War to rave reviews. Among the reviewers is Yassin- Kassab who endorses book as an “excellent account”. Abouzeid is more forthright about the nightmare that befell Aleppo in July 2012. The city was,


dragged into the uprising in July 2012 like a hostage who were not its sons. The rebels who pushed into Aleppo were from the poorer, more religious conservative countryside around it. A band of rivals, not brothers, who weren’t welcomed by locals – men with little camaraderie, undisciplined groups, some of which looted the homes of civilians they claimed to be protecting.” [5]


So, there we have it Yassin-Kassab praises a book which totally contradicts his own account of Aleppo’s capture. Whereas he lauds the “liberation” of Aleppo, Abouzeid rightly informs her readers that the city was kidnapped by a disparate bunch of rural jihadis or as she says people from the, “more religious conservative countryside”. Whereas, Yassin-Kassab claims that these jihadis were welcomed by “militants in the city’s working-class zones”, Abouzeid claims they were not welcomed and indeed began their occupational tenure in Aleppo by looting the homes of the people in “liberated Aleppo”.

From establishing that there was no revolution or liberation in Aleppo in July 2012, we can now turn to identifying who specifically invaded the city of two million which had by all accounts remained relatively peaceful in the early months Syria’s upheaval.

On this point Yassin-Kassab rightly states that most of “Aleppo’s fighters were affiliated with the Tawheed, or Unification brigade – originally a merger of the revolutionary militias formed in the northern countryside.”[6] The Arabic name is actually, Liwa’ al-Tawheed which Yassin-Kassab claims is “redolent of Islam” and “also of the national unity envisioned by the slogans of 2011.”[7] Yassin-Kassab mis-translates the name of the brigade to take away its Islamist edge. The name actually translates as some variation of “Monotheism Brigade”.

There is nothing controversial about Tawheed per se and indeed it is as old as Islam itself but in jihadi circles it has acquired an understanding that is at distance from the original. To gain a more specific understanding of “Tawheed”, I have turned to another pro-regime change merchant, the academic, Dr. Shiraz Maher of King’s College London who has written a seminal book on Jihadis called, “Salafi-Jihadism: The History of an Idea”. Once again Yassin-Kassab reviews the book as “majestic” and “essential reading”.

At its most fundamental level, Tawheed (oneness of God) is a concept which distinguishes Prophet Muhammad’s vision from the preceding era of polytheistic jahiliyya (ignorance) in the seventh century Arabian desert. However, in jihadi circles in the 1990s and especially after 9/11 it gained a more politicised meaning among jihadis like Osama bin Laden which certainly doesn’t take into account Yassin-Kassab’s “national unity”. Maher claims that for jihadis, the “political realisation of tawhid [Tawheed]” is “intrinsically linked to the establishment of faith itself.” And he proceeds to quote bin Laden who argued that Tawheed is disbelief in the taghut (non-monotheism) as a central pillar of Tawheed and ordinary Muslims who do not fulfil this pillar are not monotheist.[8]

Therefore, the implementation of Tawheed is in effect the implementation of one’s basic faith. What’s peculiar is that in Yassin-Kassab’s review of Maher’s book, he rightly translates Tawheed as “oneness of God”.

Another academic Dr. Christopher Phillips based at Queen Mary’s University in London in his book on the events in Syria, “The Battle for Syria”, translates the name as “Monotheism brigade”.[9] If the name of the brigade was indeed “Unification”, then the Arabic equivalent would be, Wahdah. On this basis, Yassin-Kassab is not only mistranslating but concealing the Islamist nature of the name of the brigade of the rural militants.

The jihadist nature of Liwa al-Tawheed is confirmed by another propagandist for regime-change, this time Charles Lister who is known to be in the employment of Gulf state funded Western think tanks. Yassin-Kassab praises Lister’s book on the war on Syria, “The Syrian Jihad: The Evolution of an Insurgency” as “the definite account” on jihadi groups. Lister ideologically classifies Liwa al-Tawheed’s philosophy as an “ideology akin to the Muslim Brotherhood and enjoyed strong Qatari backing.”[10]

More so, not only do they have an ideology akin to the Muslim Brotherhood but as Lister confirmed they enjoyed a close-knit military alliance with Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, the so-called Jabhat al-Nusra. The Muslim Brotherhood is known for its long history of brutal sectarianism in Syria and Al-Qaeda is not known for its insistence on democracy or national unity. According to Lister several months after the invasion of East Aleppo, in November 2012, Tawheed Brigade co-signed a declaration with Jabhat al-Nusra calling for an Islamic state and rejecting a secular future for Syria. The declaration stated,


We are representatives of the fighting formations in Aleppo and we declare our rejection of the conspiratorial project, the so-called national alliance…We have unanimously agreed to urgently establish an Islamic state.”[11]


So much for Yassin-Kassab’s false idea that Liwa al-Tawheed’s name represents “national unity envisioned by the slogans of 2011”. Furthermore, in September 2013, Liwa al-Tawheed issued another statement co-signed with Nusra/al-Qaeda and other jihadi groups calling for, inter alia, unification, “within a clear Islamic frame created on an Islamic power based upon sharia arbitration and make it the sole source of legislation.”[12]

Yassin-Kassab then quite remarkably bemoans that the Tawheed Brigade, “ultimately presided over a cantonisation rather than a collective rebirth.” This is not a surprise as Western-Gulf backed jihadis always produce cantonisation whether in Afghanistan or Libya. The idea of a “collective rebirth” is mere poetic propaganda to cover up for the inevitable dismantling and disintegration of Aleppo. Yassin-Kassab proceeds to justify the attendant jihadi looting of the city on the basis of resourcefulness. That is,the reader is left the impression or to silently conclude that if militants were provided more support by the West and GCC countries such gangsterism would not have taken place,


Hungry for bullets and food, rebel commanders squabbled over resources. By December, looting and gangsterism were common. Aleppo’s factories were stripped and sold off – sometimes to feed the fighters [invaders] sometimes to buy villas in Turkey. Some, posing as FSA militants, full-time highwaymen.”[13]


Once again Abouzeid is more forthright on what happened to Aleppo once the jihadi gangs established authority, “Nusra [al-Qaeda] stripped Aleppo’s multimillion-dollar factories bare and sold their equipment in Turkey for millions.”[14]

Aleppo or east Aleppo fell to jihadi gangs in July 2012 who according to Lister were financed by Qatar. The largesse received from Qatar did not sufficiently quench their desire for booty so they dismantled and looted the industrial infrastructure of the city. This is the reality which Yassin-Kassab classifies as “liberated Aleppo”.

More so, when these jihadis were on the verge of total expulsion from Aleppo to much Western and Gulf chagrin in late 2016, Yassin-Kassab bemoaned their defeat in Qatari media by disgustingly turning history on its head. He wrote that the imminent defeat and expulsion of the Qatari backed jihadis amounted to “population transfer”. And as such was on a par with the Palestinian experience of being ethnic cleansed in 1948 by Zionist forces!

Palestinians that were ethnically cleansed in 1947-8 were indigenous to Palestine; the vast majority of Syrians and other jihadi nationals that were expelled from east Aleppo in late 2016 were not, they were originally a “band of rivals, not brothers, who weren’t welcomed by locals” in the words of Abouzeid. But what makes this analogy exceedingly disturbing, if not twisted, is that the Zionist state of Israel had been generously supporting the Syrian armed militants over the course of this war. One could argue that it is actually Yassin-Kassab and the Zionists of Israel who have enjoyed a de-facto military alliance against the Syrian state.

In conclusion, there was no revolution in Aleppo July 2012. The people who invaded and captured mostly eastern parts of Aleppo at this time were unwelcome jihadis from the countryside who proceeded to loot and dismantle the industrial infrastructure of the city under their control. They then sold the looted industrial parts in Turkey to the tune of millions. Robin Yassin-Kassab and Leila Al-Shami’s claim that the events of July 2012 in Aleppo were hitherto the “armed resistance’s greatest success” falls short and stands out, at the very least, as blatant propaganda if not outright deception. Then again, the media’s regime-change brigade lied about Vietnam, lied about Iraq, lied about Libya, so why would anyone expect anything else but a continued lack of sincerity about Aleppo?

Update: It has come to the author’s attention since submitting the original article, that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) issued a report in November 2017, almost one year after the jihadis were expelled from Aleppo which states that since militants’ defeat and expulsion, 300,000 Syrians have returned to east Aleppo. Therefore, proving that Yassin-Kassab’s theory of “population transfer” was entirely premature, misplaced and wrong.



Read more:



Read from top.