Leaked Clinton Email: Destroy Syria for the Benefit of Israel

[Nilgiri]

Media Blackout: Hillary Calls for Killing ‘a Lot of Civilians,’ Starting War with Russia

Nick Bernabe

Originally appeared at Anti Media

The media paid little attention when Hillary Clinton advocated killing civilians and starting a war with Russia during Sunday’s presidential debate — probably because the U.S. media is actively cheering on these very actions. In fact, the only real news coverage generated from the mention of a no-fly zone in Syria was when the media slammed Donald Trump for saying he doesn’t advocate using military aggression against Syria (and by default, Russia) despite Republican Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence’s opinion to the contrary.

“Trump Throws Mike Pence Under The Bus At Debate,” claims the Huffington Post. “Trump Shrugs Off Scandal, Backs Russia, and Throws Pence Under the Bus,” says Foreign Policy magazine. Washington Post had the best title, dumbed-down for the appropriate audience: “Mike Pence says Donald Trump didn’t throw him under the bus on Syria. But Trump really, really did.”

What the Washington Post won’t tell you is that it’s fully backing Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency — and that if she follows through on the promises she made in the debate, America will be facing two new major wars if Hillary becomes president. Judging by the fact that mainstream media has literally not covered or critiqued Clinton’s no-fly zone debate comments, they must really, really want America involved in a couple more wars.

But let me break down my headline — because Hillary Clinton’s promise to create a no-fly zone in Syria sounds pretty harmless, right? First, let’s summarize what a no-fly zone actually is:

A no-fly zone can be scaled from small to large, from a complete ban on enemy aircraft to a partial block on military aircraft. It essentially means controlling the airspace of an entire region or country. A no-fly zone would require bombing out air defenses; attacking airports; destroying aircraft; intercepting aircraft; engaging in air-to-air combat; placing boots on the ground; operating existing military bases while establishing new ones to house equipment and troops; employing radar, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft; and creating all of the infrastructure needed to support this kind of major operation.

And it won’t be just a few hundred boots on the ground, either. According to the New York Times, “mposing a no-fly zone, [Gen. Martin E. Dempsey] said, would require as many as 70,000 American servicemen to dismantle Syria’s sophisticated antiaircraft system and then impose a 24-hour watch over the country.”

That was General Martin E. Dempsey’s estimation before Russia entered the Syrian theater to defend the Assad regime. The number now might be more like 100,000 American boots on the ground.

Creating a no-fly zone in Syria is particularly harmful to Syrian civilians because many of Syria’s air defenses are located in densely populated areas. Hillary Clinton acknowledged as much in a (formerly) secret speech to Goldman Sachs recently leaked by WikiLeaks:

“To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk — you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians… So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.”

So there you have it: by calling for a no-fly zone in Syria, Hillary Clinton, in her own words, is knowingly advocating killing “a lot of civilians.”

But nobody is brazen enough to start a war with nuclear-armed Russia, right? I mean, that’s some terrifyingly apocalyptic absurdity that surely, the media would take seriously. Well, if we’re to take Hillary Clinton’s, Russia’s, and the Obama administration’s policies and statements at face value, that’s exactly what a no-fly zone in Syria would trigger.

Let me explain.

Amid souring relations between the United States and Russia over the Syrian conflict, diplomatic ties have been all but severed. Russia has now moved advanced anti-aircraft weaponry into Syria that it claims will be used to protect its personnel on the ground from air attacks. Russia says it will not hesitate to shoot down American aircraft if it feels its troops in Syria are threatened. In response, the United States has said it “maintains the right to self-defense against advanced anti-aircraft systems sent to Syria by Moscow.”

If Hillary Clinton wants to successfully establish a no-fly zone in Syria, she will have to bomb Russian air defenses. In turn, as Russia has promised, it will shoot down American aircraft that threaten its military presence in Syria.

And there you have it, folks: Hillary Clinton’s war with Russia. But don’t take my word for it — here’s U.S. Marine General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaking in September of this year about the implications of controlling Syrian airspace:

Video

I seriously hope we hear about this in the next debate. Along with her increasingly despising the average American (her words in the podesta emails).

I have no idea why she thinks Russia is some pushover. Putin is not Yeltsin, foreign policy 101 folks.

Obama has at least been somewhat measured, she has some real axe to grind with Putin...I hope its just bravado and posturing....because if its action, well you better hope you made a fallout shelter (just in case).

 

[Hrk19]

this is why im on the syrian government's side
one thing is for sure,iran is the good guy here
luckily russia is also on syria's side so the americans have to deal with them first

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

indont think americans have destroyed syria.i rather think its syrians who did this marvelous job.

I'd say that the main culprits are Muslim extremists coming from all over the world joining
Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusrah and ISIS.
They have been joined by Iran, the main supporter of the Assad genocide and Irans lapdog Hizbollah.
The free world have basically left any sane opposition with little or none support causing
a failure to unite, and widespread defection to more extreme factions.
Now Russia has become a main contributor to the genocide.

 

[Hrk19]

@TaiShang

wow,the us is to russia what india is to pakistan
us wants war with russia but just like the indians are afraid of actually going to war yet still mongering
the americans i met on anonymous boards are equally scared of the russians

 

[airmarshal]

So is the U.S. behind the Syrian crisis? Who's the real terrorist here?

http://todayinpakistan.com/clinton-email-syria-destroyed-israel/

And you thought US is not the reason for this Syrian crisis? US has been openly supporting terrorists in Syria. Its not only providing them training, weapons and funds, its also providing them diplomatic and media cover.

If Aleppo falls, it will be a big defeat for American and European backed terrorists.

 

[TaiShang]

And you thought US is not the reason for this Syrian crisis? US has been openly supporting terrorists in Syria. Its not only providing them training, weapons and funds, its also providing them diplomatic and media cover.

If Aleppo falls, it will be a big defeat for American and European backed terrorists.

Exactly so. The only (and really only) thing that stops the US from launching air strikes upon Syrian Army and government is Russia's presence, in my opinion.

I remember Victoria Nuland's screaming at Russia and China when the Syria no-fly zone Resolution was vetoed; they are desperate to find an excuse. The legal channels are blocked by China and Russia at the UNSC; the illegal channels are blocked by Russia.

I believe that Aleppo should be recaptured from terrorists before the new (potentially Clinton) administration takes office. Otherwise, no one knows what that derailed woman holds under her demented subconscious.

If the Jihadists could be pushed back to their country of origin, Syrians would quickly assume the control of the country and US-led sponsors of terrorism would have few proxies inside Syria.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Who's saying the US started it?

Let's face it, all who had grey matter in between their ears knew US was involved. You see a broken cup next to table you don't have to have seen it falling down to conclude it fell over from the table.

Whose primarily at fault for what is happening in Syria? The Syrians themselves. Nature has in built corrective mechanism. If there is a flaw it will come out at some point. Syrian society like many 3rd World countries is seriously divided horizontally and vertically. Those faultlines have been prized open by outside forces. Internal weakness mated with external wickedness equals what you see today.

I believe Saudia Arabia, USA and Israel are the primary external parties that came together in common interest. Syria was last state left on borders of Israel that posed a threat (small) and needed neutralizing. This is what brought US and Israel to the table. Saudi's as we all know are only there to spread their Salafi curse and Assad is Antichrist for them and second only to Iran as snakes that "need their heads cutting off".

Were US/Israel/KSA successful? I certainly think so. US and Israel 100% because Syria has been neautralized as a threat. KSA 50% - they failed to get a another Wahabi Emirate but they still have groups who call shots in large part of Syria. The women, minorities and Yazidies are being fed a taste of Saudi medicine.

As far as I am concerned US has been successful in foreign policy - it only looks failed if you assume that US went into these countries to install democracies. That is just food for public consumption. The real foreign policy imperatives were hidden and have been covered. Three of the biggest US critics in the region are either dead or in terminal decline - Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad. That is staggering success by any standards.

This does not make US 'evil'. All countries involved pursue their self interest. Pakistan does, India, tiny Maldives but all have smaller or larger footprint. The US leaves a bigger impress simply because it has the power to do so.

Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Link > http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

To quote Brzezinski US did not create the Syrian conflict but "knowingly increased the probability" of that happening. To be sure other tertiary actors were also involved like Turkey, France, UK, UAE, Qatar etc. It was a large group with shared interest and they got what they wanted, more or less.

*The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 looked like the right thing to do to Moscow. In the preceding century Russia had taken over other 'Stans in the region and had pacified them into it's own orbit. There was no reason to think Afghanistan was any differant from Tajikistan or Uzbekistan - they even share ethnic groups. However the Soviets badly underestimated American resolve to turn Afghanistan into a Soviet Vietnam. Which is what happened.

And the loser paid the price for it.

 

[Banglar Bir]

FOUR MILLION MUSLIMS KILLED IN US-NATO WARS: SHOULD WE CALL IT GENOCIDE?
Hearkening back to the Japanese internment camps of WWII, some Americans are now calling for Muslims to be placed in camps or even openly calling for genocide against the 1.6 billion practitioners of the faith.
It may never be possible to know the true death toll of the modern Western wars on the Middle East, but that figure could be 4 million or higher. Since the vast majority of those killed were of Arab descent, and mostly Muslim, when would it be fair to accuse the United States and its allies of genocide?

A March report by Physicians for Social Responsibility calculates the body count of the Iraq War at around 1.3 million, and possibly as many as 2 million. However, the numbers of those killed in Middle Eastern wars could be much higher. The actual death toll could reach as high as 4 million if one includes not just those killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the victims of the sanctions against Iraq, which left about 1.7 million more dead, half of them children, according to figures from the United Nations.

Raphael Lemkin and the definition of genocide

The term “genocide” did not exist prior to 1943, when it was coined by a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin. Lemkin created the word by combining the Greek root “geno,” which means people or tribe, with “-cide,” derived from the Latin word for killing.

The Nuremberg trials, in which top Nazi officials were prosecuted for crimes against humanity, began in 1945 and were based around Lemkin’s idea of genocide. By the following year, it was becoming international law, according to United to End Genocide:

“In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that ‘affirmed’ that genocide was a crime under international law, but did not provide a legal definition of the crime.”

With support from representatives of the U.S., Lemkin presented the first draft of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide to the United Nations. The General Assembly adopted the convention in 1948, although it would take three more years for enough countries to sign the convention, allowing it to be ratified.

According to this convention, genocide is defined as:

“…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Under the convention, genocide is not merely defined as a deliberate act of killing, but can include a broad range of other harmful activities:

“Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.”

It can also include forced sterilization, forced abortion, prevention of marriage or the transfer of children out of their families. In 2008, the U.N. expanded the definition to acknowledge that “rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or a constitutive act with respect to genocide.”

A Middle Eastern genocide

A key phrase in the convention on genocide is “acts committed with intent to destroy.” While the facts back up a massive death toll in Arab and Muslim lives, it might be more difficult to argue that the actions were carried out with the deliberate intent to destroy “a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”

The authors of the convention were aware, however, that few of those who commit genocide are so bold as to put their policies in writing as brazenly as the Nazis did. Yet, as Genocide Watch noted in 2002: “Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts.”

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush employed a curious and controversial choice of words in one of his first speeches. He alarmed some by referencing historic, religious conflicts, as The Wall Street Journal staff writers Peter Waldman and Hugh Pope noted:

“President Bush vowed … to ‘rid the world of evil-doers,’ then cautioned: ‘This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while.’

Crusade? In strict usage, the word describes the Christian military expeditions a millennium ago to capture the Holy Land from Muslims. But in much of the Islamic world, where history and religion suffuse daily life in ways unfathomable to most Americans, it is shorthand for something else: a cultural and economic Western invasion that, Muslims fear, could subjugate them and desecrate Islam.”

In the wars that followed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. not only killed millions, but systematically destroyed the infrastructure necessary for healthy, prosperous life in those countries, then used rebuilding efforts as opportunities for profit, rather than to benefit the occupied populations. To further add to the genocidal pattern of behavior, there is ample evidence of torture and persistent rumors of sexual assault from the aftermath of Iraq’s fall. It appears likely the U.S. has contributed to further destabilization and death in the region by supporting the rise of the self-declared Islamic State of Iraq and Syria by arming rebel groups on all sides of the conflict.

After 9/11, the U.S. declared a global “War on Terror,” ensuring an endless cycle of destabilization and wars in the Middle East in the process. The vast majority of the victims of these wars, and of ISIS, are Muslims. In this context, many Americans are embracing Bush’s controversial language of religious warfare, calling for Muslims to be placed in camps or even openly calling for genocide.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Let's face it, all who had grey matter in between their ears knew US was involved. You see a broken cup next to table you don't have to have seen it falling down to conclude it fell over from the table.

Whose primarily at fault for what is happening in Syria? The Syrians themselves. Nature has in built corrective mechanism. If there is a flaw it will come out at some point. Syrian society like many 3rd World countries is seriously divided horizontally and vertically. Those faultlines have been prized open by outside forces. Internal weakness mated with external wickedness equals what you see today.

I believe Saudia Arabia, USA and Israel are the primary external parties that came together in common interest. Syria was last state left on borders of Israel that posed a threat (small) and needed neutralizing. This is what brought US and Israel to the table. Saudi's as we all know are only there to spread their Salafi curse and Assad is Antichrist for them and second only to Iran as snakes that "need their heads cutting off".

Were US/Israel/KSA successful? I certainly think so. US and Israel 100% because Syria has been neautralized as a threat. KSA 50% - they failed to get a another Wahabi Emirate but they still have groups who call shots in large part of Syria. The women, minorities and Yazidies are being fed a taste of Saudi medicine.

As far as I am concerned US has been successful in foreign policy - it only looks failed if you assume that US went into these countries to install democracies. That is just food for public consumption. The real foreign policy imperatives were hidden and have been covered. Three of the biggest US critics in the region are either dead or in terminal decline - Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad. That is staggering success by any standards.

This does not make US 'evil'. All countries involved pursue their self interest. Pakistan does, India, tiny Maldives but all have smaller or larger footprint. The US leaves a bigger impress simply because it has the power to do so.

Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Link > http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

To quote Brzezinski US did not create the Syrian conflict but "knowingly increased the probability" of that happening. To be sure other tertiary actors were also involved like Turkey, France, UK, UAE, Qatar etc. It was a large group with shared interest and they got what they wanted, more or less.

*The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 looked like the right thing to do to Moscow. In the preceding century Russia had taken over other 'Stans in the region and had pacified them into it's own orbit. There was no reason to think Afghanistan was any differant from Tajikistan or Uzbekistan - they even share ethnic groups. However the Soviets badly underestimated American resolve to turn Afghanistan into a Soviet Vietnam. Which is what happened.

And the loser paid the price for it.

The free world instigates rebellion in every country run by a dictator, by its very existence.
People know they can have a better life and are prepared to fight for it.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

The free world instigates rebellion in every country run by a dictator

Thats true. Although between me and you I would insert "Western" for "free". Although raised in UK but with family orgins in Pakistan I often visit that country. In many ways there is too much freedom in that country. Unadulterated freedom is one of the worst things you can have.

At the end of the day Syria had internal fissures which were uased to split that country open - letting all the worms loose. That is fault of the Sysrian people themselves. Had they been united and resolved their differances then they would not have become footbals in World Cup game.

KSA has far less freedom then Syria had at the worse of times. It was a secular, relaxed country that accepted athiests, Yazidis, Shia's, Assyrian Christians under it's secular rule. Look at it now. A ISIS hell hole. Ultimately the blame goes on Syrians and they are paying the price for it according natures rule. Notice Iran or Turkey are more resilient toward external forces and that is because they are more unified.

 

[flamer84]

Thats true. Although between me and you I would insert "Western" for "free". Although raised in UK but with family orgins in Pakistan I often visit that country. In many ways there is too much freedom in that country. Unadulterated freedom is one of the worst things you can have.

At the end of the day Syria had internal fissures which were uased to split that country open - letting all the worms loose. That is fault of the Sysrian people themselves. Had they been united and resolved their differances then they would not have become footbals in World Cup game.

KSA has far less freedom then Syria had at the worse of times. It was a secular, relaxed country that accepted athiests, Yazidis, Shia's, Assyrian Christians under it's secular rule. Look at it now. A ISIS hell hole. Ultimately the blame goes on Syrians and they are paying the price for it according natures rule. Notice Iran or Turkey are more resilient toward external forces and that is because they are more unified.

The only problem with that "freedom" is that it was enforced with an iron fist by a dictator and his security aparatus.One only has to look at the last 5 decades in Syria and know that this current war was long brewing,see previous sunni,kurdish revolts crushed by tanks,helicopters and fighter jets.It's so naive to portray Syria as a paradise where everybody lived together in harmony.

 

[Darmashkian]

Who's saying the US started it? The US is not really in the business of "starting" things....but it does get involved quite early.

In this region, it played a significant role in supporting/perpetuating various elements of it once it had taken hold, in the mistaken belief that iron-fisted dictators are the absolute worst option in the Middle East. Very much the same reason the Obama administration abandoned Mubarak to the dogs in Egypt, thinking overnight democracy would produce a miracle.

The US foreign policy establishment lately (post cold war) is a ham-fisted bunch of incompetents at best....and seriously dangerous threat to world survival (forget stability) at worst....because when they commence some action, they do it quite blindly and idealistically with little empathy for all involved....and then when they start to see the errors of the action, they do not withdraw or correct it....because they are stubborn in the ideology that an action, no matter how bad it is proving to be, must be endured in the off chance it may somehow succeed through dumb luck or other random factor, so that the US does not have to be seen as being initially wrong in some foreign objective. Then scrap the whole thing eventually when it simply becomes totally unsustainable after the military industrial complex and/or some short term political gain (jingoism essentially in most cases) has had their fill.

It has been the case in their long drawn out involvements ever since the Vietnam war. They are too quick to want a fight and then too reluctant to have a suitable ROE for a suitable timeframe when it happens. Clausewitz and Sun Tzu would both be mightily unimpressed at how the ultimate evolution of military power thus far has acted during its unchallenged peak.

Its the superpower complex, the USSR was guilty of it too (80s afghanistan)....but the US has had more opportunities to show this to the world which they seem to relish in doing due to that complex. The American public better get it in their thick skulls that the US is not the US of post world war II anymore.

Spending and involvement must be rationalised fiscally before anything else, this includes alliances like NATO. A nation that has been consuming about double of what it produces and making up the difference at the printing press for a good 20 years or more is not in a position to continue on such a trajectory forever. Sooner its changed the better.,,,for everyone.

Would like to hear people's thoughts on this:

@Joe Shearer @PARIKRAMA @SOHEIL @The Sandman @Kaptaan @RAMPAGE @WAJsal @Providence
@Vergennes @Taygibay @AndrewJin @Chinese-Dragon @litefire @hellfire @nair @SpArK @MilSpec @Oscar @Serpentine @vostok @LA se Karachi
@MastanKhan @Arsalan

@AP Richeliu
Just because the American's didn't start it doesn't mean they aren't taking advantage of it.

Any smart guy tries to take advantage of as many opportunities in life! And the American establishment is not dumb.Despite how "Left-Liberal" & "Progressive" it has become recently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Nilgiri The staggering national debt of the USA is nearing 20 trillion dollars. They should be panicking or atleast taking it seriously if you ask me... If

From a political POV:- I believe the damage is already done. Regardless of who wins the election.
There is too much anger + hatred on both sides & massive distrust against the media,sooner or later something is bound to go wrong & then .....!?!?

& coming to foreign policy & security ,Do check out this guy-security analyst john Schindler on twitter. Ignore his rants against Trump & all. Dp check his views/articles on Obama & his FP. I have found them pretty interesting & enlightening once you get past his pro-American bias & POV. Do tell me what you think of him
https://twitter.com/20committee?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

https://20committee.com/ -his blog.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

@AP Richeliu
Just because the American's didn't start it doesn't mean they aren't taking advantage of it.

Any smart guy tries to take advantage of as many opportunities in life! And the American establishment is not dumb.Despite how "Left-Liberal" & "Progressive" it has become recently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Nilgiri The staggering national debt of the USA is nearing 20 trillion dollars. They should be panicking or atleast taking it seriously if you ask me... If

From a political POV:- I believe the damage is already done. Regardless of who wins the election.
There is too much anger + hatred on both sides & massive distrust against the media,sooner or later something is bound to go wrong & then .....!?!?

& coming to foreign policy & security ,Do check out this guy-security analyst john Schindler on twitter. Ignore his rants against Trump & all. Dp check his views/articles on Obama & his FP. I have found them pretty interesting & enlightening once you get past his pro-American bias & POV. Do tell me what you think of him
https://twitter.com/20committee?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

https://20committee.com/ -his blog.

There is nothing to gain in Syria. Correct me if you can name anything that would be of interest to anyone.
It is however a matter of principle to get rid of ISIS.
Once they are defeated, and their supporters are in Hell,Iraqis will be better off.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

As can be seen in the email, Clinton wrote it long after the Syrian people started their rebellion against Assad.
Trying to use this as proof that the the US started the whole thing, is pathetic.

EPIC FAIL!

View attachment 344196

Yeah, everything hit the fan in 2011. Hillary's email in 2014/2015 is a little late.

 

[Albatross]

As can be seen in the email, Clinton wrote it long after the Syrian people started their rebellion against Assad.
Trying to use this as proof that the the US started the whole thing, is pathetic.

EPIC FAIL!

View attachment 344196

Well if you know how to read between news this one should be enough to give you a reality check.

VIDEO: CNN tells viewers it is illegal to read the wikileaks Hillary emails

http://www.blacklistednews.com/VIDEO:_CNN_tells_viewers_it_is_illegal_to_read_the_wikileaks_Hillary_emails/54714/0/38/38/Y/M.html