« The new McCarthyism | Main | “US Special Forces sabotage White House policy gone disastrously wrong with covert ops in Syria” - TTG »

20 September 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



You ask the obvious question. I have to conclude that the R+6 doesn't want to stop aid, they are really trying to intentionally provoke an intervention so they can lose the war they are winning.


Here we go again back to red lines and late night UNSC emergency meetings. Colonel LANG, IMO the globalist Borg and her under controll governments, including this nation' are not willing to even accept a draw in Syria. Now is the bad old Putin who did in the UN aid convoy. At least one thing that is comforting ( to most Iranians beside possibility of seeing smoking guns for real ) is that no longer is bad old Ahmadinijad who did it, it now is the bad old Putin who did it, all that certified by Barbara Star of CNN.


Can't see any frag damage but a CBU? Little impact crater but downward penetrator damage and ignition effect. There would system parts all over the place from the weapon.


Babak Makkinejad

These are all the wages of the "Containment of Iran Policy" adopted by the United States and others back in 1993. I do not think "Globalism" has any direct bearing on it.

Please see below:


Ambassador Neuman - using the innocuous phraseology "...what must we protect, I would include Israel and our Arabian Peninsula friends" - correctly describes the twin motivations of US Policy - Religious Sentiment and Pocket Book (per MRW's explanation of reserve currency status of USD).

By the way, religious considerations are also not far away for the minds of the Gulfies - pushing for their Arab Islam to be dominant in the Levant.

And Ambassador Freeman goes on to observe that improvement of relations, however desirable for both side, are not in the cards.


I think it is safe to conclude that US policy as well as EU and Sunni Arabs is the containment of Syrian War but keeping it burning, in the hope of wounding Iran - and now, Russia as well.

They are still trying to leverage ISIS, unfortunately.

Since neither Iranian nor Russian leaders are stupid (if they were, they would not have been where they are today), one must surmise that they are aware of this. Perhaps it is for this reason that the Speaker of Iranian Parliament, Larijani, in 2015 estimated another 5 years of war in Syria.

What astonishes me about US government is that no one is getting fired for any of this. Cameroon at least had the decency of resigning from the Commons.

Chris Chuba

I don't understand why a humanitarian convoy has to originate in Turkey, travel through rebel held territory, cross Syrian (or Russian checkpoints) and then back into the rebel held part of Aleppo city. Wouldn't it make much more sense to have the convoy prepared at Latakia so it only crosses govt held territory and into rebel held territory once?

This would eliminate concerns that the convoy was being used as a Trojan horse to send in weapons and simplify the agreements needed to allow humanitarian aid to proceed. Who came up with this Rube Goldberg solution (rhetorical question, all things stupid seem to originate with my beloved country am I wrong this time?)


Missed the related headline by CNN
"White House: Russia responsible whoever carried out Syria aid convoy strike"



thanks for the replies


It does in the sense that the US resents any functionally sovereign government other than itself.


The UN removed its charges against Russia and Syria. It appears Russia was able to prove it wasn't an airstrike. Looks like it was Obama's darling rebels after all! Oh how the propaganda backfires!

ex-PFC Chuck

During the last decade and a half of first semi- and now full retirement, I've spent a lot of time exploring US history beyond what's available in the 'authorized narratives.' The US has never respected the sovereignty of other countries unless they were in a position to painfully force us to do so.


The convoy originated in Damascus where it loaded up from a UN warehouse, drove through government held territory to Aleppo and then crossed from western Aleppo (city) into the western Aleppo (governorate) which is held by rebels. Having monitored he load the Russians/Syrians knew exactly what was on those trucks so why bomb them when they could have delayed the crossing into rebel territory by a few hours to wait and see what happened with the ceasefire.
It's difficult to see what the motive of the Russians or Syrians for bombing the convoy could be. One that might make sense is that the Russians claimed they lost contact with the convoy after it crossed into rebel territory and that some Syrian agent reported the arrival of a suspicious convoy resulting in the attack. US officials are claiming that there were two Russian Su-24s overhead at the time of the attack, so we can exclude Syrian involvement. But after Saturdays windfall, I doubt the Russians would want to jeopardise that advantage by attacking an unknown convoy in an area where a known convoy has just arrived.
On the other hand, there are far more likely suspects such as Al Nusra and/or other Jihadi/rebel groups, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Saudi and/or Qatari regimes, the White Helmets and the local SARC itself so perhaps I should explain my thinking:
Al Nusra - If the ceasefire holds they are likely to become targets for the US and Russian air forces and have weapon supplies from the CIA, and from the Saudi, Qatari and Turkish regime cut off, particularly TOWs and MANPADs. With no external borders, they'll have to rely on what they can capture from the SAA and from other rebel groups - not rich pickings.
Other Jihadi/rebel groups - they have the same motives as Al Nusra but in addition if they do enter into the ceasefire they'll lose the cash coming from supporters in the GCC and Al Nusra will attack and either absorb them and their territory or wipe them out.
Sidebar - the Russians claim they saw on video a rebel pickup towing a large calibre mortar hiding behind the convoy. Maybe they're misinterpreting that and it was a rebel group delivering a warning to the drivers in the convoy, don't hang around your trucks tonight because we're going to attack them. They stop near to one person visible by the convoy, were they delivering a more specific message? Perhaps I've seen too many Mafia movies.
CIAAccording to Jack Murphy's article, the CIA are focused on removing Assad from power regardless of the consequences so they have every reason to see the ceasefire fail and they're not unknown for carrying out black ops.
PentagonThey really don't want to have to cooperate with the Russians. While this is possible, it's unlikely because the cost to careers of being caught is too great as Pat says. As for any PBI in Syria, I doubt they're much bothered providing the Russian don't bomb them by mistake - each dead jihadi is one less opponent and I've not heard of any friendly fire incidents in Syria involving the Russians and the Russians and Syrians have largely stayed away from the YPG/SDF except for that stupidity in Hasakah.
Saudi and/or Qatari regimes - with their obsession with regime change in Syria, they can't afford for the Syrian government to go into negotiations following the ceasefire in a strong position, so they want the ceasefire to fail and they, certainly the Saudis, have a history of conducting black ops. abroad.
White Helmets - one of the reasons they're so useful to their USG/UKG sponsors is the substantial amount of anti-Assad propaganda they produce, so while I strongly doubt they attacked the convoy, they might well have set it up as a propaganda exercise to discredit the Russian and Syrian governments. Normally, White Helmet propaganda videos include large numbers of "dead" bodies, in the media from this event nothing but some pictures of a man holding some entrails close to a SARC vest(watch @ 2:18 in the video below). So, if the drivers were in on it, there weren't any bodies. Given the sectarianism of the White Helmets, the claims in one video that it was a Syrian Christian warehouse seems a bit strange as does the detailed knowledge he had of the contents while the trucks were still burning and the claim he made that it took the SAAF (note not the RuAF, see above) eight hours to drop 8 barrel bombs and two cluster bombs even after the SARC had informed the SAAF of what was going on.
Local SARC - I used to work for a large business information and credit rating company and so learnt about the various types of fraud that criminals use - two that come to mind are long firm fraud (build up over time a good credit record, then order large quantities of stuff to sell on and then disappear) or short firm fraud (just order stuff on credit, sell it on then, disappear). Fraud is not unknown among charities and charity workers, so maybe that is what happened here, the local SARC built up a reputation for delivering supplies successfully until they were trusted with 31 truck loads which they could sell on the black market with the added advantage that the loses can be blamed on the Russians and Syrians and the perpetrators appear to be dead. Is anyone in a position to investigate what was left behind? The day after nobody seemed interested in recovering anything that was still usable. I'm not saying that this is what happened but it's a possibility.

Chris Chuba

The U.S. is telling our media that Russia is responsible for the convoy bombing and the media sheep are repeating it with the corresponding outrage.

I suppose that it's too much for one of these MSM sheep to simply ask, 'how do you know it was a Russian air attack?'
1. Does the time and place of the attack correspond with a de-confliction notice? The Russians claim they had no operations.
2. What do you make of the UN statement re-classifying the nature of the attack as unknown?
3. Did you track Russian aircraft or inspect the area yourself?

The problem with having such a compliant media is that it encourages our govt officials to lie even more because they are never shamed and they know that they can get away with it.

The Beaver

@ Peter

However, Ban Ki Moon, the spineless UNSG came out against Assad. His speech must have been written by Jeffrey Feltmann- it is known at Turtle Bay that quite a few of his speeches are drafted by the office of the USG of Political Affairs. Samantha Power must be working with Feltman.

Gene Poole

"neo-Pravda constellation"? You mean the New York Times and Fox News?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad