Tuesday 10th of December 2019

I would hate to be carthage...

I disagree with Wazeer Murtala Gatta post on Independent Australia about the fading influence of the US in the world. The Donald is playing us for fools. The “America First” doctrine is a way to consolidate the empire, not loose influence around the planet. In sports parlance, "America First", is "taking a step backwards to jump higher”. The tactic is not new. “America First” is not even a step back. It’s a policy designed to make sure that everyone knows, within the US and outside the US, that the Empire is First. It’s also a way to consolidate the friendship of those friends who have had too many dinners at your table without bringing a bottle. It’s about to define the “enemies” with a clearer mind. 
Wazeer Murtala Gatta concludes:

Not to mention the list of potential scandals leveled in opposition to him in his own country, the reactions against the Trump-America might seem negligible, but it is a clear indicator that the United States is losing some of its influence across the world under the administration of Donald Trump. It might be dismissed as trifling issues, but for those of us from outside the United States of America, the standard in the White House is abysmal and we can only hope that things don’t get worse before his term ends at the Oval Office.

Read more

The only difference here is that the previous tenant, Obama, was doing more or less the same thing without spelling it out. It was covert. Little Bush was so bold about “the Empire First” that he even created numerous false flags everywhere for the next president to hit “enemies” with the same hammer. Obama obliged with not a single day in his presidency at peace. But he fooled a lot of people. The deceit included “The Arab Spring” which was a way for the Sunni/Wahhabi/Salafists to take more of the Middle East cake and annoy the Iranians. This is the main reason for war in Syria.

The USA is flexing its muscles yet again, this time with even more might — and it ain’t going to be pretty. I’d hate to be Carthage.
Picture at top from the Facebook of the US navy — H Truman.

And yes. Things could get worse... like WW3.

corbyn's carthage moments...


There are two kinds of compromise: the strong compromise, and the weak.

The former is where you cede an interest to uphold a principle, the latter when you ignore your principles to further your interests.

The first is an important tool in all aspects of life, the second should almost always be avoided. Jeremy Corbyn should learn that lesson.

Twice in recent weeks Corbyn’s leadership has faced an opportunity to cede a point of principle in order to further – as they apparently see it – the interests of their party. Both times they have done so, both times were a huge mistake.


The first question is: What does “Antisemitism in the Labour party” actually mean? 

Let’s start by acknowledging what it isn’t. Criticising the government of Israel is notantisemitic. Supporting Palestine in its struggle for emancipation and justice is notantisemitic. Opposing George Soros’s neoliberal crusade through his various NGOs is not antisemitic. Accusing a Blairite MP (who happens to be Jewish) of working hand in hand with the right-wing press to undermine Corbyn is not antisemitic. Claiming Hitler was a “zionist” may or may not be accurate, but it is not antisemitic. Even supporting the freedom of expression for a painter who makes a mural about the 1% that some third parties allege might appear to represent unflattering images of Jewish people(even though the artist denies it completely) is not antisemitic, unless specific intents can be established.

When we remove all these non-antisemitic incidents from the list of alleged “antisemitism” in the Labour Party, how much real antisemitism remains? 

Very little to none would seem to be the answer. You might even argue there is less antisemitism within the Labour party than within the general population. Certainly there’s little evidence of any more. Ken Livingstone shows no signs of being antisemitic. Nor does the latest victim of the latest purge – Marc Wadsworth. 

Wadsworth – a veteran anti-racism campaigner – has been expelled from the party for notionally being racist (it was actually “bringing the party into disrepute”, the evidence of racism was so little they couldn’t even officially call it that). He has been effectively sacrificed to appease the state-sponsored and state-supporting media in the UK. 

This is a terrible mistake. By conceding this point of principle in order to gain a perceived strategic advantage Corbyn’s team have in fact conceded both principle and strategy to a force that has no interest in compromising with them and simply wants them gone. The result is this:

1. Labour’s right-wing, (who DO, demonstrably, work “hand in hand” with the anti-Corbyn press), have been allowed to define what “antisemitism” means, and they are going to take full advantage of this. From now on, any Labour MP or even grassroots member who criticises Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians – or who simply disagrees with another Labour member who happens to be Jewish – can look forward to being shamed and expelled. How does Corbyn see this as furthering the cause of freedom and democracy?

2. They have accepted the lie as truth. A man has been expelled for antisemitism. Even though the grounds are spurious, it will in future be cited as evidence that the left does indeed have a problem with antisemitism.

Corbyn’s team decided to play soft and weak, in the hopes that letting a little blood would sate the thirst of the media. But you don’t abate a feeding frenzy by chumming the water. You don’t compromise with the devil by selling a piece of your soul. They have made it immeasurably worse. Livingstone and Walker will follow, and slowly Corbyn’s allies in the party will be chipped away.


The same exact process is playing out with the “Russian interference” situation. When the first accusations of being “soft on Putin” were thrown around, the strong principled position to take would be to dismiss the smears as racist and stupid. Argue the issues, ignore the white noise of smear and innuendo.

Corbyn’s principles, and those of the Labour party, dictate that they should stand against prejudice, abuse, censorship and summary justice. 

They COULD have made statements that RT is just as valid a medium to be interviewed on as the BBC or CNN. They could have pointed out that Russian money in London is fleeing Putin’s crackdown on the oligarchs. They could have stood by the truth, and to hell with what the press say.

Instead Corbyn’s camp saw a chance to score some easy points in the media. McDonnell decided to publicly denounce RT, whilst the “leftwing” press tried to attack the Tories for their “dirty” Russian donors. Instead of saying “this campaign of demonising Russians is degraded & offensive”, they said effectively “Yes, Russians are demons, but they like the Tories more than us!”


Read more:



Idiots of the Poms Labour party...

next on the list to do...

Well, this one is easy. Donald and the US military will ask gently for all the Russian "interests" to depart from Iran, otherwise they cannot "garantee their safety"... How kind....

secondary plan of attack...

Apart from the Middle East (Syria and Iran, and possibly Iraq) being targeted, The US has also indicated for a long time that they intent to contain Russia in a military fashion, including increasing the conflict in Ukraine and placing NATO troops closer and closer to the Russian borders. Some areas of possible attack would come from US nuclear submarines presently cruising under water near all the coasts of Russia. The Russians need to have eyes behind their heads...

what did I say...

The United States has announced plans to re-establish the Second Fleet in the northern Atlantic Ocean following the publication of the country’s new National Defense Strategy, “which makes it clear that we’re back in an era of great power competition” with, among other threats, Russia, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson said Friday.

"[T]he security environment continues to grow more challenging and complex," the admiral continued while speaking in Norfolk, Virginia, noting, "that's why today, we're standing up Second Fleet to address these challenges, particularly in the North Atlantic."

The command will be established by July 1, according to USNI News, which broke the story after obtaining an internal US Navy memo announcing the plans.

"The move to stand the fleet back up is rooted in increasing threats in the Atlantic from Russia," multiple officials briefed on the decision told USNI News.


Read more:



What did I say? read comment just above this one...

hum... where's carthage: russia or iran?...


By the end of this column, it will be clear which country the United States will invade and topple next. Or failing that, it will be clear which country our military-intelligence-industrial complex will be aching to invade next.

We all want to know why America does what it does. And I don’t mean why Americans do what we do. I think that question still will be pondered eons from now by a future professor showing his students a video mind-meld of present-day UFC fighters booting each other in the head while thrilled onlookers cheer (not for either of the fighters but rather for more booting in the head).

But we all seem to assume that America—the entity, the corporation—has some sort of larger reasoning behind the actions it takes, the actions put forward by the ruling elite. And almost all of us know that the reasons we’re given by the press secretaries and caricature-shaped heads on the nightly news are the ripest, most fetid grade of bullshit.

We now know that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. We now know that the crushing of Libya had nothing to do with “stopping a bad man.” If one does even a cursory check of what dictators around the world are up to recently, you’ll find that the U.S. doesn’t care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they’re using their free time to kill thousands of innocent people or to harmonize their rock garden. In fact, the U.S. gives military aid to 70 percent of the world’s dictators. (One would hope that’s only around the holidays though.)

So if it’s not for the stated reasons, why does the U.S. overrun, topple and sometimes occupy the countries it does? Obviously, there are oil resources or rare minerals to be had. But there’s something else that links almost all of our recent wars.

As The Guardian reported near the beginning of the Iraq War, “In October 2000, Iraq insisted on dumping the U.S. dollar—the currency of the enemy—for the more multilateral euro.”

However, one example does not make a trend. If it did, I would be a world-renowned beer pong champion rather than touting a 1-27 record. (I certainly can’t go pro with those numbers.)

But there’s more. Soon after Libya began moving toward an African gold-based currency—and lining up all its African neighbors to join it—we invaded it as well, with the help of NATO. Author Ellen Brown pointed this out at the time of the invasion:

[Moammar Gadhafi] initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar.

John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” also has said that the true reason for the attack on Libya was Gadhafi’s move away from the dollar and the euro.

This week, The Intercept reported that the ousting of Gadhafi, which was in many ways led by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, actually had to do with Sarkozy secretly receiving millions from Gadhafi, and it seemed that his corruption was about to be revealed. But, the article also noted, “[Sarkozy’s] real military zeal and desire for regime change came only after [Hillary] Clinton and the Arab League broadcasted their desire to see [Gadhafi] go.” And the fact that Gadhafi was planning to upend the petrodollar in Africa certainly provides the motivation necessary. (It doesn’t take much to get the U.S. excited about a new bombing campaign. I’m pretty sure we invaded Madagascar once in the 1970s because they smoked our good weed.)

Right now you may be thinking, “But, Lee, your theory is ridiculous. If these invasions were about the banking, then the rebels in Libya—getting help from NATO and the United States—would have set up a new banking system after bringing down Gadhafi.”

Actually, they didn’t wait that long. In the middle of the brutal war, the Libyan rebels formed their own central bank.

Brown said, “Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their rebellion in March to create their own central bank—this before they even had a government.”

Wow, that sure does sound like it’s all about the banking.

Many of you know about Gen. Wesley Clark’s famous quote about seven countries in five years. Clark is a four-star general, the former head of NATO Supreme Allied Command, and he ran for president in 2008 (clearly he’s an underachiever). But it’s quite possible that 100 years from now, the one thing he’ll be remembered for is the fact that he told us that the Pentagon said to him in 2002: “We’re going to take down seven countries in five years. We’re going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan. We’re going to come back and get Iran in five years.”

Most of this has happened. We have, of course, added some countries to the list, such as Yemen. We’re helping to destroy Yemen largely to make Saudi Arabia happy. Apparently our government/media care only about Syrian children (in order to justify regime change). We couldn’t care less about Yemeni children, Iraqi children, Afghan children, Palestinian children, North Korean children, Somali children, Flint (Michigan) children, Baltimore children, Native American children, Puerto Rican children, Na’vi children … oh wait, I think that’s from “Avatar.” Was that fiction? My memories and 3-D movies are starting to blur together.

Brown goes even further in her analysis of Clark’s bombshell:

What do these seven countries have in common? … [N]one of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland. The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked.

What I’m trying to say is: It’s all about the banking.

So right now you’re thinking, “But, Lee, then why is the U.S. so eager to turn Syria into a failed state if Syria never dropped the dollar? Your whole stupid theory falls apart right there.”

First, I don’t appreciate your tone. Second, in February 2006, Syria dropped the dollar as its primary hard currency.

I think I’m noticing a trend. In fact, on Jan. 4, it was reported that Pakistan was ditching the dollar in its trade with China, and that same day, the U.S. placed it on the watch list for religious freedom violations. The same day? Are we really supposed to believe that it just so happened that Pakistan stopped using the dollar with China on the same day it started punching Christians in the nose for no good reason? No, clearly Pakistan had violated our religion of cold hard cash.

This leaves only one question: Who will be next on the list of U.S. illegal invasions cloaked in bullshit justifications? Well, last week, Iran finally did it: It switched from the dollar to the euro. And sure enough, this week, the U.S. military-industrial complex, the corporate media and Israel all got together to claim that Iran is lying about its nuclear weapons development. What are the odds that this news would break within days of Iran dropping the dollar? What. Are. The. Odds?

The one nice thing about our corporate state’s manufacturing of consent is how predictable it is. We will now see the mainstream media running an increasing number of reports pushing the idea that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism and is trying to develop nuclear weapons (which are WMDs, but for some strange reason, our media are shying away from saying, “They have WMDs”). Here’s a 2017 PBS article claiming that Iran is the top state sponsor of terrorism. One must assume this list of terror sponsors does not include the country that made the arms that significantly enhanced Islamic State’s military capabilities. (It’s the U.S.)

Or the country that drops hundreds of bombs per day on the Middle East. (It’s the U.S.) But those bombs don’t cause any terror. Those are the happy bombs, clearly. Apparently, we just drop 1995 Richard Simmons down on unsuspecting people.

Point is, as we watch our pathetic corporate media continue their manufacturing of consent for war with Iran, don’t fall for it. These wars are all about the banking. And millions of innocent people are killed in them. Millions more have their lives destroyed.

You and I are just pawns in this game, and the last thing the ruling elite want are pawns who question the official narrative.

If you enjoyed this article, please share it, and check out Lee Camp’s free weekly podcast, “Common Censored.”



Read more:


imagine the US army running out of enemies...

This would be TRAGIC!

.. and smells other dogs' turds in search of something to fuck..

“As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.”  — Proverbs 26:11

Peter Beinart writes in detail about how he, a supporter of the Iraq War, fell for the arguments for war last time, and how we are now going through a repeat of the same thing with Iran. Excerpt:

How is this possible? How is it possible that Trump—who during the presidential campaign boasted about his supposed opposition to the Iraq War—has now embraced an outlook so similar to the one that guided Bush in 2002 and 2003? How can Bolton and Netanyahu remain unrepentant about their role in promoting war with Iraq and yet be taken seriously when they make similar arguments about the supposed nuclear threat from Iran? Why can’t America learn from its recent past?

There’s no single answer. Part of the explanation is partisanship. Politics is today such a team sport that people often downplay or overlook even the grossest offenses by their own side. More than 60 percent of Republicans, according to a March Pew Research Poll, think the United States was right to invade Iraq. George W. Bush’s approval rating among Republicans, according to a January CNN poll, is 76 percent. I suspect that those numbers reflect tribal loyalty more than any considered judgment about the war’s impact. But they make it easy for Republican officials to claim, as Bolton does, that the real mistake wasn’t Bush’s decision to send troops to Iraq but Obama’s decision to withdraw them. Since many Republicans won’t even admit the Iraq war was wrong, it’s hard to apply its lessons to the current debate over Iran. It’s particularly hard since doing so would mean admitting not only that Bush was wrong in waging war with Iraq but that Obama was right in striking a deal with Iran. When was the last time you heard Trump admit that Obama was right about anything?

If you missed Army officer John Q. Bolton’s essay in TAC last week, in which he describes America through his own eyes, having gone through several deployments, you really need to read it. Excerpts:

Though only 1 percent of the nation is in uniform, the more alarming trend is that military service is increasingly a family affair. Coupled with the localized recruitment and basing in the West and Southeast, we are quickly evolving into a praetorian military culture. The tenor of discussion while I was home reflected this reality.

I found people expecting me to confirm things they already believed about our military in order to affirm their confidence in America. The trouble is I don’t share that confidence. My 40 months deployed since 2006 have left me with a hard edge. To be sure, I am proud of my country and certainly feel a strong desire to continue service past my thankfully short time left in uniform. But I temper that loyal desire with hard-earned realism about the capacity of the military to deliver on the blind faith the public reposes.

Perhaps condescendingly, I felt most people back home were naïve or at least perpetually misinformed. Consideration or debate beyond the platitudes didn’t occur. No matter their education or worldliness, most Americans retain their supremely American-esque limited interest in politics and foreign and military policy. Much-needed realism, if not satire, is absent from our sacred military, because the public either regards it as sacrosanct or detestable. Worst of all, the public is apathetic about their military.

From otherwise considerate and intelligent friends and family I heard comments like “Hope your killing lots of those f–kers” and “Kick some ass over there,” despite the lack of any serious, let alone existential, threat to the American homeland posed by extremists in Afghanistan. Even well-meaning people, it seems, don’t want to understand what our policies hath wrought, at home and abroad.

Many consider it patriotism, but this feeling is specious, insipid, and self-destructive. Calls to “do something” ignore the two-fold genesis of terrorist threats against us: domestic instability in Islamic countries and American actions. The truth is that America is exhausting itself in internecine wars of choice across the greater Middle East—actions that exacerbate instability. War has bankrupted our nation during a time of effective peace, without any discernible threat comparable to the costs, though the media certainly doesn’t help the public see the threat clearly. The wars have also contributed to our fractured politics, as we ignore guns versus butter by using debt and conduct specious freedom versus security arguments.

I know a guy who went to Iraq. Rush Limbaugh conservative kind of guy. Came home decorated. Describes the war as “a waste.” Won’t talk about it further. I found out recently from a relative that when he was in Iraq a decade ago, he had to pick up the pieces of one of his friends, blown to bits by an IED. He’s only now able to mention it in words. For a decade, he has carried that darkness inside.


Read more:


being part of a "kinetic" mission stinks...

Senior figures in the Turnbull Government have told the ABC they believe the United States is prepared to bomb Iran's nuclear capability, perhaps as early as next month, and that Australia is poised to help identify possible targets.

Key points:
  • Senior Government figures have told the ABC they believe the Trump administration is prepared to bomb Iran
  • They say Australian defence facilities would likely play a role in identifying possible targets
  • But another senior source, in security, emphasises there is a difference between providing intelligence and "active targeting"


It comes amid intense sabre-rattling by US President Donald Trump and his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani.

The ABC has been told secretive Australian defence facilities would likely play a role in identifying targets in Iran, as would British intelligence agencies.

But a senior security source emphasised there was a big difference between providing accurate intelligence and analysis on Iran's facilities and being part of a "kinetic" mission.

"Developing a picture is very different to actually participating in a strike," the source said.

"Providing intelligence and understanding as to what is happening on the ground so that the Government and allied governments are fully informed to make decisions is different to active targeting."


Read more:



Read from top.

... seven countries in five years ... plus yemen...

by David William Pear

We’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

 US General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO

Contemptuous of international law, the US makes no secret of its plots to overthrow the leaders of internationally recognized governments that reject the neoliberal New World Order. Iran is at the top of the US enemies list. The US has been at it since the 1979 Iran Revolution, when the Iranian people overthrew the US’s “our boy”, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Shah had become the US’s “our boy” as CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt referred to him in 1953, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower overthrew the popular democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Overthrowing governments is illegal according to US law and international law. It is also immoral if one believes in democracy, self-determination, and the sovereignty of nations, respect for human life, and the rule of law.


Read more:



Read from top.


Australia (being part of a "kinetic" mission stinks...SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY PART IN THIS, EXCEPT CONDEMN THE YANKEES FOR BEING AGGRESSIVE.




The Washington Post reports on the aftermath of the April 23 wedding massacre Alex Potter reported on last month:

The 22 fatalities included 12 of the dancers, four musicians and six villagers, including one who played the lute. Most of the children killed were in the dance troupe.

The dancers all belonged to the Muhamasheen, Yemen’s most marginalized ethnic group. Performing at weddings was among the few jobs they could find.

For 10 of them, only pieces of their bodies were found, so they are buried in two mass graves. “It’s all my family,” said Ahmed Rifaei, 37, a dancer who survived.

The living, too, are in bad shape.

Some of Raqah’s residents have lost their hearing. Children have lost limbs, while others carry shrapnel from the missile inside their bodies. The nearest hospital is in the provincial capital, and most villagers cannot afford the three-hour journey.

The attack on this wedding party is just one of the thousands of strikes that have hit civilian targets over the last three years. There is no possible justification for what the Saudi coalition did to this village. It was a wanton slaughter of innocent people that showed the coalition’s complete disregard for civilian lives. There have been many similar attacks on other weddings, funerals, schools, markets, and homes, and they have all been similarly outrageous and indefensible. The Saudis and their allies have been able to carry out all these attacks with impunity because none of their Western patrons will ever hold them accountable for what they have done. 

Providing the coalition with weapons and refueling gives their forces the means to carry out more of these massacres. The U.S. continues to provide weapons and refueling despite the coalition’s many documented war crimes, and our officials then have the gall to claim that U.S. support for the war is reducing the number of civilian casualties. There are simply too many examples of deliberate attacks on civilians like this one that prove that claim wrong. As long as U.S. support for the war on Yemen continues, there will be more of these senseless killings of innocent civilians, and the U.S. will be complicit in causing their deaths.

The Yemenis on the receiving end of these attacks know very well that the U.S. is responsible for enabling the war being waged against them:

Many are also filled with anger, not just at the Saudi-led coalition, but at the United States. “If it wasn’t for the American aircraft, Saudi Arabia would never strike Yemen,” said Mohammed Yahya, the groom’s uncle. “America gives them weapons, and the Saudis hit us.”

The official position that the U.S. is not a party to a war that our government helps make possible is an absurd lie, and the people that have survived U.S.-backed coalition attacks can see right through it. The U.S. should have never been involved in this war, and it is imperative that Congress halt our involvement in this despicable war at once.


Read more:



Read from top.


See also: 


suspicious vessels spying on US vessels where they shouldn't be.

NATO Spots 50 'Suspicious Vessels' Spying on US in Aegean Sea – Reports

Greek media has reported that Washington has stepped up its military activities in the Aegean Sea, which they claimed is turning into a US training ground.

NATO has handed Athens a list of 50 "suspicious vessels" it accuses of conducting reconnaissance missions in the Aegean Sea near the coast of Greece, according to the Greek newspaper Real

"The vessels include fishing, sailing and leisure ships which are sailing across the Aegean Sea in order to gather information. Apart from Greek military facilities and activities, they are also interested in the movement of Americans, which is currently gathering pace in Greek territory," the Real reported.

READ MORE: Turkish General Explains Why US Wants to Relocate Its Nukes to Greece

Citing ever-increasing US military activity in the region, the newspaper noted that the Aegean Sea already has started to resemble "a US training ground" amid a recently-clinched deal on the deployment of US MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicles in the area.


Read more:



Read from top. 


As experts in chemical attack are infiltrating Syria to create a false flag event and give a pretext for the West to yet attack Damascus under the watchful hypocritical eye of John Bolton, we should ready ourselves for more crap. The Western "captured" media will go as predicted and lode the brave bombings of whatever by the justicerer Donald taking revenge on the bad boy Assad "gassing more beautiful babies". 

Meanwhile the US Navy, still in need of navigation lessons (see: the admiral walks the plank...), is unhappy about being spotted in the island paradise of Greece water as if its ships should be invisible. 

see: not even qualified to paddle an inflatable ducky...

See also: the world, according to the US navy...

a scheduled logistical visit....

Earlier this week, the Russian Ministry of Defense warned that the so-called White Helmets had delivered a large shipment of toxic substances to local armed militant groups that have been plotting to stage a chemical attack in the Syrian province of Idlib.

The US Navy's Los Angeles-class submarine USS Newport News armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles has entered the port of Gibraltar at the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea, Gibraltar Chronicle reported.

READ MORE: Russian MoD: White Helmets Preparing to Stage Chemical Attack in Idlib

According to the media outlet, the nuclear-powered fast attack submarine was spotted near the port on Thursday, with a Spanish customs boat being intercepted by a Gibraltar Defense Police vessel once it approached the US vessel.

The Gibraltar Chronicle cited the US Department of Defense as saying that the submarine's arrival was a “scheduled logistical visit.”


Over the past two weeks, there has been a great deal of speculation about the possibility of a chemical weapons attack in Syria, with Russian military officials warning of an upcoming provocation that would trigger a new round of Western strikes against Bashar Assad’s government.

On Friday, CNN reported that facilities allegedly connected with the production of chemical weapons may be among the principal targets that would be hit if the US administration deemed Damascus had indeed used chemical agents against civilians.

To that end, the destroyer USS The Sullivans armed with 56 cruise missiles arrived in the Persian Gulf a couple of days ago, while a US В-1В bomber carrying 24 air-to-surface AGM-158 JASSM cruise missiles had been deployed to Al Udeid air base in Qatar, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said.

Last Sunday, Konashenkov warned that militants from the Tahrir al-Sham group were preparing to stage a provocation in Idlib province in order to accuse Syrian government forces of using chemical weapons against civilians.


Read more: