British media in a state of hysteria as Russian aircraft carrier passes by the English Channel


As Russia’s aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, heads to Syria via the English Channel, the UK’s mainstream news outlets have gone on a mad frenzy of fear mongering headlines to further paint Russian president Vladimir Putin of ‘flexing Moscow’s military might’ and of ‘provoking another world war.”

Mail Online, a British news outlet featured a rather terrifying click-bait story with the headline “The Russians are here! Putin’s attack fleet arrives at Dover as warships enter channel on their way to launch strikes in Syria.”

Another popular mainstream news website, The Independent has produced a video clip showing “Russian warships in English water “a smokescreen to distract world” while the BBC has bashed the Admiral Kuznetsov with stories concerning the sorry state of toilets in the aircraft carrier to its troubled engine and to a large tug boat accompanying the vessel ‘in case it breaks down.’ Also, British ‘analysts’ commented that the Russians ‘have achieved complete media and public opinion focus on one bright, shiny object.”

Be that as it may, but the UK does not even have its own aircraft carrier to match the Russian flotilla, which by now has passed the English Channel onto the Mediterranean and probably towards Syria to launch strikes against Islamic State terrorists. The British military will not have a new aircraft carrier until next year with the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales by 2020.

The British Defense Ministry for its part has bragged about its capabilities, where Secretary Michael Fallon reassured “to keep Britain safe” by “man marking” the Russian fleet passing the narrow English Channel.

Alas the hysteria is completely uncalled for. The Russian aircraft carrier group’s deployment to Syria has been announced a few months back. To make matters preposterous, Admiral Kuznetsov and its supporting warships passage is via international waters and is being completely transparent in their movements; there has been a deliberate and exasperated attempt to sensationalize and plant even more hate against Moscow.

Meanwhile, in American mainstream media, the deployment of the Russian aircraft carrier has been seen “as a kind of infomercial for its weapons sales” and that the “battle group adds to Russia’s military leverage in diplomatic negotiations with the United States and other Western powers over the future of Syria.” The Russian flotilla was also described as “a threat to its crew than anything else.”

These so called journalists have clearly missed how America and its allies in Western Europe have ‘manufactured’ conflicts around the world to merit their military’s deployment around the globe and with it billions of dollars of weapons. Indeed, the Admiral Kuznetsov, a floating airbase carrying more than 40 aircraft at a time, is just a ‘threat to its crew than anything else.”


Bombing Iraq to Democracy 2014 Edition

US President George W. Bush (R) awards F

As if not troubled enough, Iraq, the country raped by the United States and Britain, is on the verge of complete mayhem once again as Iraqi security forces withdraw control from regions deemed too violent.

As violence intensifies to new record levels, the fear is that the Iraqi military and police will unable to handle the carnage and then withdraw, and undo ‘progress’ made after the US military officially left in 2011. Of course, calling it ‘progress’ depends on whether you supported the baseless Western invasion of Iraq or not.

And herein lays the problem: will the US invade Iraq once more? Indeed President Obama cannot be more pressured with the Iraq question than today. In the previous weeks the question was whether the US military should be involved in Iraq once more. But as of press time, it was decided to send military advisers to Iraq and Special Forces to help curb the new wave of mayhem.

Tony Blair’s Outrageous Denial

As the Al-Qaeda leftover Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) militant group overpowers Iraqi security forces in more and more regions, some of the greatest offenders of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which include former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, have lashed out the moderates for not doing enough to curb the new wave of ultra-violence.

Last week, Blair denied, to everybody’s astonishment, that the lies-ridden invasion of 2003 was to blame for the present state of Iraq. In a statement with regards to the possible outcome of a Western invasion, Blair insisted “we have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this. We haven’t.”

Mr. Blair also had the nerve to call claims contrary to his as ‘bizarre’ and instead blamed the current upsurge in violence to the West’s failure to act in Syria. “It is a bizarre reading of the cauldron that is the Middle East today, to claim that but for the removal of Saddam, we would not have a crisis,” in a statement on his website.

Being among the original fear-mongering Western leaders on the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Mr. Blair still hasn’t changed his stance and strategy regarding ‘inaction’ in Syria, saying If we don’t deal with the Syria issue then the problems are not just going to be for Syria and for the region, the problems are actually going to come back and they are going to hit us very directly even in our own country.” You could replace Syria with Iraq easily and it becomes a statement sounding it was 2003.

Obama’s Options in Iraq

Riding on a platform of rejection of the war in Iraq during his first presidency, President Obama now is faced with a decision on how to invade Iraq once more. So far, the options include sending ‘advisers’ into Iraq and carrying out a new wave of airstrikes, Operation Desert Fox style with the sending of the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush to the Gulf.

On the other hand, hawks in the US government establishment are blaming Obama for creating a ‘security vacuum’ by unnecessarily pulling out US troops back in 2011. What unites the Western elites though is the belief in a ‘spillover’ of the Syrian civil war into, of all places, Iraq.

What remains true today are the facts: the lies that initiated the US-UK war against Iraq, the destruction of Iraq society, millions of lives and resources lost, the divide-and-rule strategy that paved the way for sectarian and civil war, all leading to the utter destruction of Iraq.

America has the Exclusive Right to Bomb the World

US Secretary of State John Kerry meeting Syrian rebels

US Secretary of State John Kerry meeting Syrian rebels

The past few months since the Syrian chemical weapon incident have seen a sensational back and forth action in international politics. On the one hand, Obama had played a very safe but misleading role in the resolution of the conflict.

Obama cautious on the outcome of British Commons vote

There is no denying the American president played his Democrat-cards well. As the representative of the party supposedly-opposed to wars abroad (unlike the Republicans), he halfheartedly  rallied for an intervention on the Syrian conflict by waiting for the outcome of the British House of Commons on their vote against an attack on Syria.

The epic August 30 disavowal against David Cameron’s support for another British-and-American misadventure reassured the international community that a decade is not too distant to forget the humiliation and outcome of the Iraq and Afghan carnage wrought by the United States. Despite the UK’s backing out of the Syria strike, Obama says the US will “continue to consult” its British ally.

Obama ‘consults’ Congress on Syria intervention

In a ‘true’ Democrat move, Obama, the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, played again a safe but misleading path to a ‘resolution’ on the Syria conflict by presenting Congress intelligence reports that apparently proved Bashar al-Assad’s hands on the most recent chemical attack. Certainly, on the back of Obama’s head, he knows he will be denied the vote he needs for authorization of another ‘coalition of the willing’ on Syria.

Now who could deny Obama’s heroism after the Congress turn-down? Undeniably in his Oval Office, the president is whispering he did what he could but that Congress was to blame for a failure to authorize the bombing of another Muslim country. At a lecture at the University of Michigan, David North described the US Syria policy as possibly a “carefully planned diplomatic masterstroke.”

American media’s disgusting propaganda  against Syria

Below the official Washington statements, the media, headed by CNN, has been skillfully playing their deception, including:

• The dropping of the word ‘alleged’ chemical weapons use from news

• That if it weren’t for America’s threat, the Syrian government will not be willing to negotiate (from the beginning, Bashar Al-Assad and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and so the willingness-to-negotiate trophy should go to Russia, not the US)

• That Syria’s possession of chemical weapons violates international rules, forgetting that this is the ‘best’ Syrian deterrent against Israel’s far more destructive and illegal possession of nuclear weapons

• That the Syrian rebels are being likened to the ‘freedom fighters’ supported by the West and Saudi Arabia against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan back in the 80s

• In lieu of the threat to use force, there is no mention on how extensive the West supports the rebels in Syria. In fact, the decision to use force is in large part dictated by the desperate situation of the Syrian rebels

Russia’s role in conflict resolution

If there is any other international leader who should be eulogized for brokering a deal on the removal of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile, it should be Russian president Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin leader knows that a peace deal is the only path to Syria’s return to normalcy, and he knew this from the beginning. Record-wise, Putin was a staunch renouncer of Western interventionism in the past.

In a recent gathering with academics and research analysts in Russia, he felt comfortable in criticizing the West’s double standards (especially with Israel), hypocrisy, and moral decline. Vis-à-vis Israel, the Russian leader proposed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, which happens to include Israel’s secret nukes and Syria’s chemical weapons.

Also at the recent Shanghai Security Organization (SCO) meeting held in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Putin insisted that “military interference from outside the country without a UN Security Council sanction is admissible” and that the summit jointly opposed “Western intervention in Syria, as well as the loosening of the internal and regional stability in the Middle East.”

As in the past, China, for its part, mostly favors Russia’s foreign policy. At the SCO meeting, Chinese president Xi Jinping expressed his country’s opposition to a Western-led strike against Syria, which is a close ally of Iran,  a major energy supplier to China.

The Iran Response

Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani, perceived as a moderate statesman, attended the SCO meeting, where he agreed on keeping Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, adding that this has given “hope that we will be able to avoid a new war in the region.”