At CCI, we see the need and possibility for changing this situation. When real people in large numbers get involved, amazing things begin to happen. Join us! Let's help reduce the tensions existing today between the two Superpowers.
Again Robert Parry, our award winning investigative journalist, brings truth home to us.
Our mainstream media interprets near identical wars in Aleppo and Mosul in two radically different ways. One is extolled, the other condemned. In Mosul where US troops are attacking and Aleppo where the Syrians and Russians are attacking.
Pray tell, what is the difference?
October 17, 2016
Good Deaths in Mosul, Bad Deaths in Aleppo
Exclusive: As the U.S.-backed offensive in Mosul, Iraq, begins, the mainstream U.S. media readies the American people to blame the terrorists for civilian casualties but the opposite rules apply to Syria’s Aleppo, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
Note how differently The New York Times prepares the American public for civilian casualties from the new U.S.-backed Iraqi government assault on the city of Mosul to free it from the Islamic State, compared to the unrelenting condemnation of the Russian-backed Syrian government assault on neighborhoods of east Aleppo held by Al Qaeda.
In the case of Mosul, the million-plus residents are not portrayed as likely victims of American airstrikes and Iraqi government ground assaults, though surely many will die during the offensive. Instead, the civilians are said to be eagerly awaiting liberation from the Islamic State terrorists and their head-chopping brutality.
Friends, on October 1, General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, rang the alarm on a “No Fly Zone” over Syria which was gaining traction in Washington. In no uncertain terms he predicted, “For us to control the airspace over Syria would require that we go to war with Syria and Russia.” (bold s.t.)
October 9 in the second Presidential Debate, this concept of “No Fly Zone” was still spoken about as though it’s a viable strategy. Does this mean that America is willing to go to war with Russia which has an equal number of nuclear weapons as we have?
We must somehow impress on our decision makers that strategies other than military solutions are desperately needed for our nation and our world. We can no longer invade countries to secure oil, gas and pipelines without taking the nations’ populations into consideration.
How do we open up this discussion to a nationwide audience here in the U.S.?
Surely few if any Americans would vote to start WWIII that would incinerate their families and homes. We need far cooler heads who will take responsibility for our futures rather than “acting tough” when far better solutions exist — like pulling out of Syria where we Americans have NO legal right to be.
FYI, Heads of State can invite other nations to participate if they are attacked and get UN approval to do so. Assad asked Russia, Syria’s decades-long trading partners, to assist with the rebels fomenting a “civil war.” These “rebels” unfortunately were mostly hired mercenary/terrorists even in the beginning. This was never a legitimate civil war, but a war instigated by Saudi, Qatar, Israeli and US money and “energy” interests. It is all about oil, gas and pipelines in addition to the centuries of hatred between Muslim rival groups. We should have NEVER gotten mixed up in this horrendous affair.
For truth, fair play, goodwill and solutions that are beneficial for all concerned,
October 1, 2016
Top US General: Hillary’s No Fly Zone Strategy Would ‘Require’ War With Russia
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford warned Congress that the implementation of a No Fly Zone, a centerpiece of Hillary’s foreign policy strategy, would result in World War III.
During testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services last week General Joseph Dunford rang the alarm over a policy shift that is gaining more traction within the halls of Washington following the collapse of the ceasefire brokered by the United States and Russia in Syria saying that it could result in a major international war which he was not prepared to advocate on behalf of.