Leaked Clinton Email: Destroy Syria for the Benefit of Israel

[as1mz]

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

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

 

[war&peace]

Clinton Email: Syria must be Destroyed for Israel

OCTOBER 17TH, 2016

F. A. EDITORIALS / OPINIONS0 COMMENTS7

A leaked Hilary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration orchestrated the civil war in Syria purely for the benefit of Israel.
A Wikileaks release shows the current runner for the President of the United States Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State at the time of the email enclosed, ordered a war in Syria to overthrow President Assad believing that I was the best way to help Israel. Under case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498, the Clinton email produced below was one of the many documents unclassified.

The Clinton email produced below offers proof that US policy for the longest of times has been to overthrow Assad’s government in Syria by force and violently citing Israel’s best interests as a reason for this action. Clinton email starts off with,

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.


U.S. Intelligence reports have dismissed the theory of Iran being in possession of an atom bomb. These reports were also supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) however, it is evident that Clinton continues to use false justifications in order to destroy Syria and cause further chaos in the region.

Clinton asserts that if Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, not only would it threaten Israel’s monopoly but also allow Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt to be a step closer to nuclear weapons, all of which would go against every fiber of Israel’s existence. Clinton email also supports a direct threat to Assad himself and his family with violence.

If not more this Clinton email leak suggests U.S.’ involvement in growing terrorism in the Middle East all of which is orchestrated to protect Israel. Moreover, the unrest and chaos, caused by the U.S., in the Middle East gave birth to a refugee crisis which currently is a threat to Europe. Furthermore, over 250,000 Syrians have been killed so far in this conflict. All of this happened with Clinton in the backdrop and for her to actually be elected as the next President of the United States could see the situation worsen exponentially.

Of course, the choice is between a rock and a hard place. While Trump’s success would mean destruction of the U.S. from within, Clinton intends to destroy wreak havoc in the entire world.

 

[T-72]

While Trump’s success would mean destruction of the U.S. from within, Clinton intends to destroy wreak havoc in the entire world.

no it won't and yes she will.

 

[Nilgiri]

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

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

Yes thank you for waking up (if this is news to you)

Clinton is a continuation of Obama (or you can say Obama neatly fit in to the corrupt "establishment" after promising "change").

The US establishment is relatively warmongering ever since the USSR fell.

They also HATE and DESPISE anti-establishment threats like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump... so rig the system against them in various ways using the great power at their disposal.....because such people cannot be expected to follow their war-mongering without question....unlike establishment candidates like Clinton who are quite willingly part of this or can be blackmailed if push comes to shove.

The anti-establishment in the US has to win at some point for this to change, the good news is the US has a pretty bad debt problem that is getting worse as people keep voting for free money to be given to them in some way and funding of this through greater extraction from productive sources (the rich and industries). This is essentially why the US has been consuming way more than it produces for the last 20 - 30 years....increasingly over-leveraging the seigniorage of its fiat currency.

Thus a complete (could be bloody) overhaul is probably closer than you think even if Trump does not win this time.

@Desert Fox

 

[fitpOsitive]

Hillary will be Gorbachev of USA.

 

[Ghostwhowalks]

Is Hillary actually so dumb as to put this stuff on email? If yes, then just for this sheer stupidity she doesn't deserve to be POTUS

 

[!eon]

Hillary will be Gorbachev of USA.

I think for USA, Hillary is slightly better than Trump. Who could not come out of teenage mentality.
But in both cases President Hillary or President Trump, USA is on very dangerous turn.

 

[dani958]

syria never was atreat

 

[Banglar Bir]

US root cause of all problems in Middle East: Iran
Chief spokesman for Iran's Armed Forces says the United States is the most important reason behind all the current problems in the Middle East, stressing that Washington must accept its strategic mistakes and leave the region.

“The root cause of all the problems in the West Asia region is the US hegemony,” Deputy Chief of Staff of Iran's Armed Forces Brigadier General Massoud Jazayeri said on Sunday.

He added that bloody wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen, the continuation of the Israeli regime’s occupation of Palestine, the Iraqi imposed war on Iran in the 1980s, the Lebanese and Bahraini conflicts and other events that have killed and wounded thousands of people and left behind destruction are only some consequences of measures taken by the evil US government in the region.

“The US presence in the region is [like] a malignant cancerous tumor and the only way to treat it is to remove this infected tumor and kick the US out of the region,” Jazayeri added.

He urged the US to own up to its strategic mistakes and shoulder responsibility for the thousands of criminal acts it has committed and leave the region to relieve the regional nations of the malevolence of the Great Satan.

Jazayeri made the remarks in reaction to recent claims by the US Secretary of State John Kerry, who had questioned the Islamic Republic’s policies in the region, particularly in Syria and Yemen, and said Iran is “firing missiles that people deem to be threatening.”

In an interview with the American magazine Foreign Affairs published on Friday, Kerry claimed that Washington has carried out all of its obligations under last year’s nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries, and sought to blame Iran’s “banking system, business practices, and transparency” for the complications arising in the implementation of the deal.

While major European banks have been reluctant to do business with Iran for fear of US retribution, smaller banks have already approached the country in search of post-sanctions business opportunities.

In May, the US secretary of state told a meeting of top EU bankers that they will not be penalized for conducting or facilitating business with Iran. However, major European banks have already emphasized that Kerry’s assurances are not enough and a series of confusions that remain over transactions with Iran need to be cleared by Washington.

Iran has been persistently urging European countries to take the required measures to encourage their banks to facilitate transactions with Tehran now that the sanctions have been removed.


https://www.facebook.com/RTAmerica/videos/10152990412791366/

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=771884946284932

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian activist/freelance journalistst. Eva has lived cumulative ~3 years in Gaza, spent time in Lebanon and visited Syria 3 times since April 2014. Anti-zionist, anti-imperialist, pro-justice.

You can find out more about Eva’s trips to Syria on Eva’s Websites:

· https://InGaza.WordPress.com

· http://www.SyriaSolidarityMovement.org

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1183079388414390

UN arrives in Aleppo to escort al-Qaeda to safety
Sputnik
Sat, 15 Oct 2016 20:00 UTC

UN staff arrived in Syria's Aleppo on Saturday to carry out militants' evacuation from the eastern part of the city, a source on the ground told Sputnik.

On October 6, UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura offered to accompany Jabhat Fatah al Sham (also known as Nusra Front, or Jabhat al-Nusra) militants if they decided to leave Aleppo with arms and to head for the city of Idlib or somewhere else. Russia supported this offer. The source said that the UN employees had arrived to Bustan Qasr district where the buses to take the militants away were already waiting.

The evacuation may begin later in the day, however, the total number of evacuees remains unknown. Fighting in Aleppo has recently escalated with the Syrian army and local militia forces having managed to encircle large groups of militants in the eastern districts of Aleppo. Government troops began to advance after the September 12 ceasefire collapsed.


Comment: Desperate times, desperate measures? Even though the UN has authorized and called for the destruction of al-Nusra, and the Russians are the only ones doing just that (along with Syria and Iran), the Russians support this deal. It's kind of the least worst option. The rebels have refused to leave Aleppo and the ceasefire (designed in part to facilitate their movement out of Aleppo) has failed. If this works, it will be a small victory. But what are the chances that the terrorist organization al-Nusra will follow through? Not very, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Update: Fars News Agency is reporting that some 2,000 militants are ready to stop fighting in eastern Aleppo, allegedly due to "rising public protests against the presence of Jeish al-Fatah terrorists" in the encircled city:

"In an unprecedented move, a least 2,000 militants have contacted their families and announced their readiness to lay down arms and join the peace plan in Aleppo city," Arabic-language al-Watan reported on Saturday, quoting militants' relatives and family members.

"In the meantime, renowned figures and tribal leaders in Aleppo districts have formed local committees to identify those militants who want to join the peace agreement to introduce them to the national reconciliation committees," al-Watansaid, adding, "Popular protests against militancy and the Syrian government forces' advances have caused a rising despair among the militants and a recent growth in their surrender to the government forces."

"A large number of militants in Seif al-Dowleh, Salahuddin, Bostan al-Pasha, Karam al-Jabal, Bostasn al-Qasr have laid down arms and surrendered to the authorities," the Syrian paper added.

FNA adds that the Russians are ready to ensure safe passage for gunmen and civilians, and Syrian planes are dropping thousands of leaflets telling militants to surrender. The Syrian government, too, "expressed full readiness to ensure the safety of those who wanted to leave the area," as they have always done.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

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!

 

[ali_raza]

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

 

[Nilgiri]

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

EPIC FAIL!

View attachment 344196

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

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

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.

Most persons in this thread, for starters - including OP...

That the US wants Assad to resign is yesterdays news.
That US supports Israel, and opposes Iran - same thing.

 

[TaiShang]

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

 

[dani958]

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

look nice