US To Begin Invasion of Syria

US policymakers sign and date paper calling for the division, destruction, and US occupation of Syria. 

June 26, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Unbeknownst to the general public, their elected politicians do not create the policy that binds their national destiny domestically or within the arena of geopolitics. Instead, corporate-financier funded think tanks do - teams of unelected policymakers which transcend elections, and which produce papers that then become the foundation of legislation rubber stamped by "legislators," as well as the enumerated talking points repeated ad naseum by the corporate-media.

Such a policy paper has been recently written by the notorious US policy think-tank, the Brookings Institution, titled, "Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country." The signed and dated open-conspiracy to divide, destroy, then incrementally occupy a sovereign nation thousands of miles from America's shores serves as a sobering example of how dangerous and enduring modern imperialism is, even in the 21st century.

Pretext ISIS: US Poured Billions Into "Moderates" Who Don't Exist

The document openly admits that the US has provided billions in arming and training militants fed into the devastating and increasingly regional conflict. It admits that the US maintains - and should expand - operations in Jordan and NATO-member Turkey to provide even more weapons, cash, and fighters to the already catastrophic conflict.

It then recounts the rise of the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS), but fails to account from where its money, cash, and weapons came. It should be obvious to readers that if the United States has committed billions in cash, weapons, and training on multiple fronts to alleged "moderates" who for all intents and purposes do not exist on the battlefield, a state-sponsor of greater magnitude would be required to create and sustain ISIS and Al Qaeda's Al Nusra Front who Brookings admits dominates the "opposition" uncontested.

Image: By all accounts, including Western think-tanks and corporate-media, ISIS territory includes corridors that lead up to NATO-member Turkey's borders, as well as US-ally Jordan's. Both nations host a significant number of US military personnel as well as CIA and special forces contingents. Clearly ISIS is a creation and perpetuation of the West, subsiding on a steady stream of supplies streaming from these two bases of operation.

In reality, ISIS' supply lines lead right into US operational zones in Turkey and Jordan, because it was ISIS and Al Qaeda all along that the West planned to use before the 2011 conflict began, and has based its strategy on ever since - including this most recent leg of the campaign.

The US Invasion of  Syria

After arming and funding a literal region-wide army of Al Qaeda terrorists, the United States now plans to use the resulting chaos to justify what it has sought since the beginning of the conflict when it became clear the Syrian government was not to capitulate or collapse - the establishment of buffer zones now called "safe zones" by Brookings.

These zones once created, will include US armed forces on the ground, literally occupying seized Syrian territory cleared by proxies including Kurdish groups and bands of Al Qaeda fighters in the north, and foreign terrorist militias operating along the Jordanian-Syrian border in the south. Brookings even admits that many of these zones would be created by extremists, but that "ideological purity" wound "no longer be quite as high of a bar."

Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi Dodging or Driving the Rohingya Crisis?

Image: Aung San Suu Kyi's "saffron monk" supporters are also rabidly racist, bigoted, and violent. They have been the primary belligerents calling for and carrying out the systematic displacement and genocide of the Rohingya people. Suu Kyi isn't dodging the crisis, she is driving it. 

June 20, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The Bangkok Post has recently featured an AFP report titled, "Suu Kyi dodges Rohingya issue again," which claims:
 In rare comments on Myanmar's persecuted Rohingya Muslims, opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi urged caution on granting citizenship to minorities, saying the sensitive issue must be addressed "very, very carefully."
The report then added:
But in an interview published online late Tuesday, Suu Kyi dodged a direct question on whether the Rohingya - who have triggered international outcry as they flee the country on rickety boats in their thousands - should be given citizenship.
"The protection of rights of minorities is an issue which should be addressed very, very carefully and as quickly and effectively as possible, and I'm not sure the government is doing enough about it," she said.
"It is such a sensitive issue, and there are so many racial and religious groups, that whatever we do to one group may have an impact on other groups as well," she stressed."So this is an extremely complex situation, and not something that can be resolved overnight."

If it appears Suu Kyi is attempting to argue against granting the Rohingya people citizenship, most of whom have lived in Myanmar for generations, that is because she is. The Nobel Peace Prize laureate, darling of the Western press, and venerated saint of Western "democracy" is backed by the very sects persecuting, butchering, and driving the Rohingya people into the sea.

Saudis to Offer Putin a Deal He Can't Refuse?

June 19, 2015 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - It is reported that Saudi Arabia will be sending a delegation to Moscow for the purpose of once again attempting to lure Russia away from its current interests in the Middle East, and into line behind Riyadh and its underwriters in Washington.

 
However, vacillating in the past between toothless threats and absurd promises of lavish economic deals, the Saudis have accomplished only one thing in their recent string of diplomatic maneuvering, that is to telegraph immense weakness and desperation ahead of their next visit.

Indeed, if on Earth there is one nation that needs Russia the most, it might be Saudi Arabia. Conversely, however, if ever there was a nation Russia would be wise enough never to do business with, it would also be Saudi Arabia. A client-state of the British and then American empire, it has of late allowed itself to be used as an intermediary in an increasingly dangerous proxy war involving Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and to a certain extent, Lebanon, Egypt, and even Libya. 

While undoubtedly US State Department staff explained at length how Washington would never allow anything to happen to their favorite regional autocracy, the war Riyadh started on Washington's behalf in Yemen is now slowly creeping over the borders into Saudi territory, and the weapons and fighters emerging on that battlefield may yet link up with long-simmering tensions in eastern Saudi Arabia.

To the north, Saudi Arabia has actively contributed to the destruction of Iraq and Syria, and on the African continent, Saudi Arabia has played a role in destabilizing both Egypt and to a far greater extent Libya. Should the tides turn in any of these theaters of war, the temptation for those victimized by Saudi Arabia's meddling to in turn help fuel chaos upon the Arabian Peninsula, will be overwhelming.

To say that Saudi Arabia is a nation in need of friends is an understatement, and Riyadh might finally have realized that Washington sees its "favorite" autocracy as it does all other client-states, expendable.  However, so sociopolitically, economically and geopolitically disfigured from its role as chief regional facilitator for Washington and London's agenda, it may have left itself with no alternatives.

The "Deal" 

Saudi Arabia has done much to destroy its neighbors in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), but it also has played a role in applying pressure on states well beyond, but states that hold significant influence throughout the region. This includes Russia. In fact, Saudi Arabia's role in destabilizing and destroying the MENA region is part of a larger geopolitical gambit aimed at Moscow, among others.


Mass Shooting, Mass Hysteria, Mass Propaganda

June 19, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Nine lives were ended in a tragic mass shooting at a historic church in Charleston South Carolina, perpetrated by a deranged, apparently brainwashed 21 year old man whose motivations appear to be centered around extreme racism. 

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, a familiar, shameful charade of exploitation unfolded yet again, seeking to reassert  the "gun control" agenda amid both national public opinion and across America's legislative bodies.

Yet the engineered, concerted, deceitful propaganda campaign launched by the corporate media and America's political circles fails to put into perspective the recent shooting and the greater "gun control" debate.

Instead, a mad rush has ensued to exploit anger, sorrow, and fear to once again attempt to snatch from responsible Americans their right to bear arms based on the criminal actions of a single individual.

Drunk Driving Kills 20 Times More Per Year Than Mass Shootings Have in 30 Years 

The Washington Post, along with other mainstays of Western propaganda, have repeatedly summed up the history of mass shootings and gun violence in articles following in the wake of violent episodes. Usually, these statistics are presented in a vacuum without reference intentionally to deceive the reader.

In their most recent article, "11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States," they claim that in the past 30+ years, 574 people have been killed in mass shootings. While in their article they attempt to make this number sound enormous, to put it into perspective, the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that in the year 2013 alone, 10,076 were killed by drunk drivers. That is about 20 times more people killed in a single year due to drunk driving than in the past 30 years due to mass shootings (mass shootings being defined as 3 people or more killed in a single spree).

The Post amid its disingenuous spin, claims:
In this post, adapted from previous versions* that we released after mass killings in the past, we explore America's unique role among advanced countries as a place where support for guns is widespread -- and violence involving firearms is equally widespread. There are some perhaps surprising findings -- gun ownership in the United States is declining overall, for instance. But despite mass killings -- which have occurred with increasing frequency in recent years -- support for gun rights is still resolute in America.

Essentially, the Washington Post argues throughout its article that gun ownership is increasingly unpopular, the primary cause of higher levels of violence than other industrialized nations, and that mass shootings are a major problem. Yet clearly when placed alongside other senseless causes of death, mass shootings while clearly better at grabbing headlines, are also clearly not our greatest challenge.

Violence in America is Caused by Socioeconomic Factors, Not Guns 

America has guns. America is a violent country. Guns cause violence. This is perhaps the most elementarily absurd argument imaginable, yet it is in fact the cornerstone of the gun control agenda. Yet when we examine violence and access to legally acquired weaponry, there is little correlation.

Who's Behind Asia-Pacific's Growing Tensions?

June 18, 2015 (Tony Cartlaucci - NEO) - Increasing tension in the Asia-Pacific between China and nations surrounding its territory, appears to be an unstoppable and inevitable lead-up to regional conflict and perhaps even global war. 


In reality, for those who have studied history, this is a familiar rerun. Change the characters and place current events in the context of the early 1900's and we see the lead up to World War II and more specifically, the events that set the stage for the fighting in the Pacific. 

Some may believe this is a rerun of when Japan was the sole aggressor in the region, expanding beyond its means before finally meeting its match. Predicated on this misconception, these same people would believe that China has now traded places with Imperial Japan, and is expanding recklessly at the expense of regional and global peace and stability.

However, this is indeed a misconception.

World War II: Setting the Record Straight

To make this clear, we must consider the words of a contemporary of the period before World War II and the words of warning he offered regarding the true nature of tensions at that time. He was United State Marine Corps General Smedley Butler, two-time recipient of the Medal of Honor, and a man who fought America's wars on multiple continents throughout his entire adult life and part of his childhood - he lied about his age to enlist in the Marine Corps early.

In his seminal writing "War is a Racket," he speaks specifically of tensions in the Asia-Pacific at the time and offered advice on how to avoid what would be a catastrophic war (emphasis added):
At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.


The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.
General Butler alludes to the fact that America's posture in Asia-Pacific would inevitably provoke war. To answer why precisely the United States was conducting naval maneuvers off Japan's shores before the outbreak of World War II, one must consider America's openly imperialist "Manifest Destiny" which saw the seizure and occupation of islands across the Pacific, up to and including the Philippines which still to this day suffers the effects of constant US military, political, and economic meddling - but at the time the island nation was literally occupied as a conquered territory by the US.