The Purpose of ISIS, Pt. 1

This is the first of a 5-part report which attempts to detail a history of the rise of ISIS and to explain its true relations to the actors involved in the war theatre. It attempts to show how and why ISIS has been exploited while attempting to answer the question: what has been the groups’ ultimate purpose in relation to the dominant powers manipulating the proxy conflict. Then, given what is known historically, it hopes to shed light on what the motivations are behind the current actions against the group and what purpose they serve.

ISIS is Born in Iraq

The origins of ISIS are buried beneath the rubble of the US occupation.

It was out of this crucible of war and invasion that the original grievances were born, leading analysts to conclude that “the basic causes of the birth of ISIS” were the United States’ “destructive interventions in the Middle East and the war in Iraq.”¹

The framework underlying this being the exacerbation of Sunni-Shia tensions in the aftermath of the invasion, which previously have been inflamed through various other foreign interferences. These were highlighted by the sectarian brutality of the post-invasion Iraqi government, which then continued under Maliki later on. Given this, some have concluded that Saddam had simply been replaced by another “repressive and murderous authoritarian state, albeit under a more representative sectarian set up.”²

The Maliki-era repression was also marked by the governments’ continual gravitation towards Iran, further stoking fears within the Sunni community that Iraq would become an Iranian-backed Shia power that would exact further reprisals against its Sunni population. Grievances were therefore ignited not only against the violation of the occupation but as well among even non-Islamist Sunnis who felt marginalized and threatened by their government.³

 Out of this sectarian nexus, a man known by the name of al-Zarqawi was able to bring together various groups of jihadists under the umbrella of “al-Qaeda in Iraq” and lay the foundations for a sort of governmental structure which could evolve into an eventual Islamic state. A veteran of the jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, Zarqawi had reportedly obtained sanctuary in Iran where he accumulated weapons and equipment before later returning to Iraq to oppose the US occupation.⁴

Following al-Zarqawi’s death at the hands of a US airstrike, a new federation of jihadists then established the “Islamic State in Iraq” by the end of 2006, although it was at first marked by widespread defections as the Sunni insurgency was then losing momentum. However, evidence reveals that Syria’s Bashar al-Assad had helped the insurgents by facilitating the flow of jihadists into Iraq, in an apparent attempt to jeopardize the US occupation and thereby prevent against a similar US attack against Syria.⁵

Yet what really allowed ISI to expand its influence were the abuses and violence perpetrated by the US military.⁶ Rising to power during his imprisonment in the infamous Camp Bucca, the group was rejuvenated under the enhanced leadership of the mysterious to-be-named al-Baghdadi.

However, it is widely accepted that the Camp Bucca prison served as a sort of training ground or “jihadist university” from which the eventual Islamic State was born. The networks Baghdadi established there going on to form the upper echelons of the groups top leadership. Indeed, without such military detentions “it would have been impossible for so many likeminded jihadists and insurgents to have met together safely in Iraq at that time without such a protective atmosphere as Bucca.” In this sense, a former inmate explains that the US did “a great favor” for the mujahideen, having “provided us with a secure atmosphere, a bed and food, and also allowed books giving us a great opportunity to feed our knowledge with the ideas of al-Maqdisi and the jihadist ideology.”⁷

Yet the round-ups conducted by the US army were indiscriminate and civilians were targeted wholesale, estimates from 2006 confirming that only 15% of detainees were true adherents of any kind of extremist ideology.⁸ Yet now jihadists leaders like Baghdadi were given an opportunity to further radicalize others, prisoners explaining how “under the watchful eye of the US soldiers”, “new recruits were prepared so that when they were freed they were ticking time bombs”, not the least of which due to the extensively documented abuses and torture that took place there as well.⁹

Concurrent with this was a covert attempt by the US military to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq by fostering alliances with other al-Qaeda-affiliated Sunnis. Spelled out and confirmed by an army-commissioned Rand report, the strategy was to utilize groups like ISI, who, although having fought against the US military, could be counted on to “sow divisions in the jihadist camp” by fighting against al-Qaeda, and thereby the US could exploit “the common threat that al-Qaeda now poses to both parties.”

Mass releases from Bucca were therefore orchestrated in an attempt to augment the strategy with manpower and engender support from the local Sunni tribes. And while the strategy in a sense succeeded, at the same time, it also emboldened another segment of disgruntled Sunnis, when the original causes of their resentments were continuing under the anti-Sunni repression of the US-backed government. The resulting sectarian violence pushed other Sunnis into supporting ISI as the lesser of the two evils, further entrenching the groups foothold in the country.¹⁰

Yet this was only half of the story.

By this time influential policy planners were already thinking up other strategic uses which could be gleaned from supporting these disgruntled Sunni radicals.

The accelerated relationship then forming between Maliki and Iran had greatly distressed the White House. Fearing an Iranian-dominated Iraq more so than a resurgence of al-Qaeda, in the context of a “redirection” of US policy against Iran, it was thought that “ties between the US and moderate or even radical Sunnis could put fear into the government of Prime Minister Maliki.” The reasoning was that an alliance with Sunni extremists would be useful as it would “make [Maliki] worry that the Sunnis could actually win the civil war there”, and thus encourage him to cooperate with the US.¹¹

Therefore, in order to remedy the Iranian influence spreading throughout the Maliki government, clandestine operations were adopted, the byproduct of which being the “bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”¹²

The Fake Arab Spring

With the eruption of the crisis in Syria and the subsequent lack of state authority that came with it, ISI was able to exploit the power vacuum and expand its grasp beyond Iraqi borders, changing its name to the “Islamic state in Iraq and al-Sham/the Levant” or ISIS/ISIL to reflect this greater reach.¹³

The Syrian crisis itself represents just one part in a much larger strategy by the Western powers aimed at manipulating the trajectory of the Arab Spring uprisings to ensure that they ultimately serve the regional agenda of the West. Having successfully thwarted the threats faced from the self-determination and pro-democracy uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen, similar but smaller protests in Syria and Libya were covertly redirected into a pretext for attacking uncooperative regimes which had historically proven antagonistic to Western interests.¹⁴

The uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen all threatened to wrestle away the status-quo systems of control that the Western powers had exerted in these countries for almost half a century. This had ensured that foreign corporations maintained easy access to valuable markets and resources and that profits flowed primarily to Western investors.¹⁵

This framework of neoliberal reform began to be implemented during the 1970’s when Arab republics were struggling amidst the impacts of global economic downturns and began to institute policies largely directed from above by international finance institutions (IFIs) such as the IMF and World Bank. Given that the IFIs had been increasingly dominated by Western governments, they primarily represented the interests of the financial elite from wealthy Western countries. Therefore, the models they suggested were of rapid economic liberalization and denationalization which on the one hand gave Arab administrations immediate financial relief, yet at the same time, made their economies increasingly vulnerable to exploitation by Western multinational corporations and financial institutions.¹⁶ As some have described, such policies had the effect of “massively restricting the ability of [these] governments to promote policies in their own national interests”, as they promoted rules which the UN explained “reflect an agenda that serves only to promote dominant corporate interests”, while at the same time rejecting the kind of policies that historically have been shown to achieve developmental success, such as import controls, taxes on foreign corporations, and state interference in the private sector.¹⁷

These policies resulted in the emergence of a growing state-bourgeoisie which was able to enrich itself in a nepotistic fashion through its proximity to influential players within the state sector, allowing connected persons and groups primary access to newly privatized assets which they were able to monopolize and monetize.¹⁸ These local elites served the function of clients of the Western powers which insured that the vast bulk of the country’s wealth would flow outwards and into the hands of foreign investors, resulting in a system of modern day neo-colonialism from which the United States and other previously colonial regimes were able to maintain effective control of the region and its resources.¹⁹

Apart from the liberalization of resources the prescriptions adopted from the IFIs included the removal of labor rights, the weakening of trade unions, increases in worker instability, tax advantages for foreign corporations, and the privatization of welfare systems.²⁰ This lead to massive increases in inequality, large concentration of wealth, and an erosion of the previous Cold War-era social contract which had traded economic security for political quiescence to authoritarian political structures.²¹

As these policies advanced these states were increasingly unable to meet the basic needs of their citizens, and the compounding socio-economic pressures led to the rediscovery of long-suppressed notions of Arab dignity and self-determination which became personified within the Arab Spring protests. In this way, the Arab Spring was primarily a result of “people being drawn to the streets by the pressing economic grievances and uneven development that are the result of more than thirty years of neo-liberal policies.”²²

Such movements were naturally a major threat to the established systems of power, primarily being centered around social justice and the rebuilding of domestic welfare states that threatened to unseat supplicant and compliant regimes with more assertive and indigenously representative administrations.²³ Too much of a challenge for the Western powers to bear, externally-directed counterrevolutions were conducted to insure that such movements would be co-opted and redirected so that the governments which resulted would maintain as much of the previous order as possible, thereby insuring that the threatening ambitions for democracy and self-governance were effectively crushed.²⁴

However, for states which at the same time sat astride coveted natural resources and had long frustrated the ambitions of Western powers to gain greater access, local protests represented a golden opportunity to overturn non-compliant regimes under the pretext of Arab Spring humanitarian and democratic concerns.²⁵ The idea was, as Durham University’s Christopher Davidson explains, to give “ostensibly similar but evidently much smaller-scale protest movements in Libya and Syria the sort of outside helping hand they needed to become full-blown and state-threatening insurgencies.”²⁶ Thus, those Western states which had insured the failure of progressive Arab Spring movements throughout the region, “soon took the concurrent role of funding and weaponizing a fraudulent and more violent Western-sponsored version of the Arab Spring” in both Libya and Syria.²⁷ The cause of such bloody crisis therefore, being a result of these states having been “deliberately targeted in a calculated and sustained manner by external actors who saw a strategic use in supporting and boosting the ambitions of local oppositionists.”²⁸

The “fake Arab Spring” and subsequent civil wars that resulted from these externally-directed and Western-backed insurgencies nevertheless were successful at insuring the failure of the protesters ambitions while as well providing the perfect environment for radicalized extremist organizations to expand their reach and control over territory.²⁹  Such a situation was further encouraged and facilitated by the Western powers who, as previously explained, saw such groups as strategically beneficial foot-soldiers which could be utilized and directed against their enemies.

Notes:

1.)    Ezgi Basaran, “Former CIA officer says US policies helped create IS,” Al Monitor, 2 September 2014.

2.)   Christopher Davidson, Shadow Wars: The Secret Struggle for the Middle East, p. 366. Citing Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, “The Terrible Beauty of Wikileaks”, Critical Muslim, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, p. 215.

3.)   Ibid.; Ezgi Basaran, “Former CIA officer says US policies helped create IS,” Al Monitor, 2 September 2014. Comments made by Graham Fuller.

4.)   Christopher Davidson, Shadow Wars, pp. 369-71.

5.)   Ibid., pp. 372-73. Citing Weiss, ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, p. 49, 58-9, 70-78.; Roy Gutman, “Assad Henchman: Here’s How We Built ISIS,” The Daily Beast, 1 August 2016.

6.)   Nafeez Ahmed, “After Mosul: The coming break-up of Iraq and end of the Middle East,” Middle East Eye, 13 March 2017.

7.)   Christopher Davidson, Shadow Wars, pp. 375. Citing Martin Chulov, “ISIS: The Inside Story,” The Guardian,” 11 December 2014, and Bunzel, “From Paper State”, pp. 22-3.

8.)  Nafeez Ahmed, “After Mosul,” Middle East Eye, 13 March 2017.

9.)   Ibid.; Christopher Davidson, Shadow Wars, pp. 375. Citing Bunzel, “From Paper State”, pp. 22-3.

10.)           Nafeez Ahmed, “After Mosul,” Middle East Eye, 13 March 2017.

11.)            Christopher Davidson, Shadow Wars, p. 367. Citing Seymour M. Hersh, “The Redirection,” New Yorker, 5 March 2007. Remarks made by Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

12.)           Seymour M. Hersh, “The Redirection,” New Yorker, 5 March 2007.

13.)           Christopher Davidson, Shadow Wars, pp. 380-81.

14.)           Ibid., pp. xi-xiii, 275, 276-347.

15.)           Ibid., pp. 177-78.

16.)           Ibid., p. 195.

17.)            Ibid., p. 200. Citing Peter Sutherland and the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, from M. Curtis, Web of Deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World, p. 213, 221.

18.)           Ibid., p. 195, 197-98.

19.)           Ibid., pp. 197-201.

20.)          Ibid., p. 196.

21.)           Ibid., pp. 194, 201-205. Citing Steven Heydemann, “Arab autocrats are not going back to the future,” Washington Post, 4 December 2014.

22.)          Ibid., p. 201. Citing K. Bogaert, “Contextualizing the Arab Revolts: The Politics Behind Three Decades of Neo-liberalism in the Arab World”, Middle East Critique, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2013, pp. 214-15, 224.

23.)          Ibid., pp. 221-22.

24.)          Ibid., pp. 221-272.

25.)          This was exacerbated further in Syria when Assad rejected a pipeline proposal by Qatar which would have connected their North Pars gas field, which is contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field and together account for the largest gas field in the world, to European energy markets through transitional hubs in Syria and Turkey. This would have greatly reduced Russia’s hold over Europe through their dependence on Russian gas exports, which now account for over a third of its energy demands. The proposal was rejected by Assad in order to “respect the interests of [his] Russian ally” while instead an Iranian sponsored project was put into motion, which would have linked their South Pars field to Europe thereby increasing Russian and Iranian influence and further frustrating the US ambition of unipolar geopolitical dominance. See Eurostat, “Energy production and imports”, data from July 2016.; The Guardian, “Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern”, 30 August 2013.; Foreign Affairs, “Putin’s Gas Attack: Is Russia Just in Syria for the Pipelines?”, 14 October, 2015.; Middle East Eye, “The US-Russia gas pipeline war in Syria could destabalise Putin”, 30 October 2015.; EcoWatch, “Syria: Another Pipeline War”, 25 February 2016.; For visual representation and listings of the largest gas fields, see Wikipedia, “South Pars / North Dome Gas-Condensate field”, and Wikipedia, “List of natural gas fields.”

26.)          Christopher Davidson, Shadow Wars, p. 275.

27.)           Ibid., p. 276.

28.)          Ibid., p. 275.

29.)          “It was the war in Syria that destabilized Iraq when jihadi groups like ISIS, then called al-Qaeda in Iraq, found a new battlefield where they could fight and flourish”, Patrick Cockburn, The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution, p. 9.

Contrasting Tales of Two Besieged Cities: Mosul & Aleppo

During the Syrian army’s offensive to retake the eastern part of Aleppo from the insurgent opposition, the Western media portrayed the assault as if Russia and Syria were carrying out a campaign primarily aimed at killing and harming civilians. The humanitarian crisis dominated headlines while key facts, such as Al Qaeda’s domination of the opposition forces and the way in which the militants had brutally conquered the city’s civilians, were marginalized or not reported at all.

A similar military offensive being carried out by the U.S. and its allies in the Iraqi city of Mosul reveals the hypocritical nature of Western news outlets, which portray their own countries’ actions as targeting only Islamic State terrorists and scrupulously avoiding harm to civilians.

There is no doubt that the siege in eastern Aleppo resulted in a humanitarian crisis for the civilian population trapped within the warzone. As the Washington Institute’s Fabrice Balanche described: “What the United Nations is describing [about] the humanitarian situation is correct: hospitals destroyed, people living in shelters, women and children trapped in the rubble, and so on.”

Yet in reality the destruction waged upon Aleppo was hardly different from what is now being done in Mosul as the U.S.-led coalition carries out a similar campaign of counterinsurgency and siege warfare.

Continue reading the article here...

Why ISIS is in Mosul

Propaganda 101

The US is currently engaged in a counterinsurgency campaign against ISIS in Mosul city, Iraq. US officials and western media however castigated Syria and Russia for a very similar campaign in eastern Aleppo which drove out the insurgents who were dominated by al-Qaeda and supported by CIA-backed rebels. As I explained here, the primary goal of this propaganda campaign was to stop the Syrian army from defeating the opposition and taking east Aleppo, and failing that, to brand Syria and Russia as war criminals for having defeated the US-backed opposition in a strategically important city. This also served to direct attention away from inconveniences to US imperialism, such as their reliance on an opposition dominated by al-Qaeda and the brutal way they had conquered and subjugated Aleppo’s civilians. 

It as well redirected the narrative so that the only option discussed to reduce the civilian suffering was to stop the Syrian army’s offensive. Other, more practical options which would have disadvantaged western imperialism, like the evacuation of civilians or pressuring insurgent groups to stand down, were therefore conveniently not considered. Hidden from view was the fact that America had essentially supported al-Qaeda’s policy of preventing civilians from fleeing and using them as human shields. By arguing that the civilians should be “allowed to stay in their homes” in an active warzone, they effectively endorsed the human shield policy and exploited the civilian suffering as this was advantageous and helped them to oppose the defeat of their insurgents. If the civilians had been evacuated, as had been proposed by Russia, there would have been nothing stopping the Syrian army from besieging the militants and western officials would not have been able to cry foul at their tactics. This is all part of a long history of the US and its allies opposing the separation of civilians from combatants as this would “be helping you [Syria and Russia] win.” 

The painting of Syria and Russia as the bad guys helps distract from the fact that this policy results in civilian deaths and exploits human suffering for political ends, and redirects the public into thinking primary responsibility for the suffering rests on their enemy’s shoulders, and not theirs.

Another means of accomplishing this is to depict similar actions carried out by the US and its allies in a positive light. So, when the US carries out siege warfare against ISIS in Mosul, using the same tactics as Syria and Russia used against al-Qaeda in Aleppo, they are not portrayed as war criminals but as liberators. In addition, to maintain the narrative that the US and its clients are the white knights fighting against evil in the world key historical inconveniences showing US policy to be the cause of the current predicament are erased down the memory-hole. These help to explain the current situation but put the US under a bad light, and betray the fact that the military actions carried out by Russia and Syria actually have much more basis in legitimacy than US actions do.

How ISIS Came to Occupy Mosul

It must be remembered that the reason the US is in Iraq to begin with was because of an unjustified act of quite deliberate aggression and neo-colonialism based on completely false pretexts in order to gain a military footing in a strategically important Middle Eastern nation and to exploit its substantial energy resources.  That act of aggression and subsequent war fanned the flames of violence and instability which created the conditions from which extremists like the Islamic State and its precursors were able to form and prosper.  In addition the US policy of arming and financing the “moderate” opposition in Syria did much the same and led to the empowerment of radical Islamist groups from which the Islamic State itself was founded.  The US then exploited the appearance of ISIS and utilized their formation as a means to attack their geopolitical enemies.  For example, the US-coalition’s “anti-ISIS” airstrikes were conducted with the intent to push ISIS away from US-backed groups and allies (like in Kobani and Iraqi Kurdistan) while neglecting to strike them when battling the Syrian army or Hezbollah, as this would have help their enemies.

Similarly, the US took no action to stop the Islamic State from pushing into Iraq despite long-term prior knowledge in order to exploit its offensive as a means to pressure then Prime Minister al-Maliki to step down and install a more pliant ruler in his place. 

Elijah J. Magnier, one of the most well informed Middle East journalists and the chief international correspondent for the Al Rai newspaper, explains that “as long as the aim of ISIS’s military activity and expansion was to occupy land in Iraq, governed by pro-Iranian Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki (creating a weak state and much confusion in the Iraq-Iran relationship)” then “the ISIS presence in Iraq could be tolerated” by the US.  This was further motivated by the fact that “in Iraq, al-Maliki’s main objective, following an Iranian request witnessed by the author, was to prevent the establishment of any US military base in the country.”  The US therefore “did not just start taking a bunch of airstrikes all across Iraq as soon as ISIL came in,” Obama explained, because “that would have taken pressure off of al-Maliki.” The resulting pressure from Iraq's military defeats to ISIS finally unseated the unwanted Prime Minister, the Wall Street Journal explaining: "After the rout of the Iraqi military that year, combined pressure from Washington and Tehran led the Iraqi parliament to oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, seen in both capitals as responsible for the debacle, and to replace him with current Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi."

The motivation behind standing by as ISIS claimed large swaths of land in order to depose an unwanted leader raises further questions about the nature in which Mosul was overtaken. 

US intelligence had predicted the fall of the city to an “Islamic state” of some kind a full two years before it occurred, if, as explained, “the situation continues to unravel” and support to the opposition continued, which was mainly empowering jihadists.  Yet the Syrian policy did continue, and only intensified in the years after.  Thus, when ISIS attacked the city the Iraqi security forces of no less than 350,000 battle-hardened men simply “disintegrated and fled” in the face of roughly 1,300 lightly-armed jihadis.  One of these Iraqi soldiers explaining that on the morning of June 10^th his commanding officer “told the men to stop shooting, hand over their rifles to the insurgents, take off their uniforms, and get out of the city.”1

The town was simply handed over to ISIS by the Iraqi commanders.  Many were quick to explain this as evidence of incompetence or disillusionment towards the political leadership, yet it could just as well have been an adjunct to a strategy of pressuring a change in government. 

Two months after the June 2014 fall of Mosul to ISIS, al-Maliki stepped down as Prime Minister.

This is the history behind the ISIS occupation of Mosul that does not get reported.  It, of course, not being the only explanation for the groups takeover of the city.  Other factors, such as the post-invasion governmental repression of the country’s Sunni minority, US counterinsurgency efforts targeting large segments of the population under false pretexts of being “al-Qaeda adherents”, and systematic torture and abuse by the US military all contributed to the deep sectarian tensions and legitimate grievances which have empowered extremism and helped solidify ISIS’ hold over the country. 

Yet now, like the arsonist who comes to extinguish the fire, the US is engaged in another bloody military operation that is wreaking havoc on a civilian population in order to eradicate the original problem of the Islamic State occupying Mosul city, a situation which their own policies helped to create.

On the other hand, Syria is fighting against a foreign-backed insurgency dominated by extremists like al-Qaeda, which is being supported by the world’s leading superpower and other powerful allies.  Russia, apart from its other crimes, is operating in Syria in full accordance with international law and is assisting an ally who is being attacked by foreign powers.  The US-led coalitions actions against the Islamic State in Syria are illegal and in violation of international law and various UN resolutions and in places like Iraq have no base in legitimacy, especially given the history of coalition members' support for the group in the first place.

Syria, therefore, has a much stronger argument for the use of military force within their territory.  The fact that the media continually fail to mention this, is also quite telling.

Notes:

1.)    Patrick Cockburn, The Rise of the Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution, pg.15.

How the US Manipulates Humanitarianism for Imperialism #Aleppo

The United States is manipulating humanitarian concern in an effort to protect its proxy militias and its imperial regime-change project in Syria.  The media and intellectual classes are dutifully falling in line, promoting a narrative of military aggression under the cover of “protecting civilians.”  These same “responsibility to protect” arguments led to the invasions of Iraq and Libya, exponentially increasing the massacres, chaos, and proliferation of violent extremism within those countries.  They are hypocritical, designed to further interests of conquest and domination, and will lead to more death and destruction in Syria as well.

The United States has no stake in the wellbeing of Syrian civilians, despite their condemnations of Russia’s offensive in Aleppo.  This is clearly shown in the fact that the people they are supporting are guilty of the same crimes they accuse Russia and Syria of: indiscriminate attacks, targeting of civilians, destruction of schools, hospitals, etc.  Furthermore, the offensive in Aleppo is really no different from what the US did in Manbij, where they are said to have incorporated a “scorched earth policy” while they liberated the city from ISIS, whereby the civilian population was treated “as if they were terrorists or ISIS supporters.”  Arguably their conduct was even worse, as they there earned the distinction of launching the deadliest single airstrike on civilians out of the entire 5-year conflict, massacring at least 73 where no ISIS fighters were present.  The Manbij operation elicited no moral outcry from the media and punditry, understandably since these were “unworthy victims” given that they were our victims and not those of our enemies.  The same can be said about the US operations in Kobani and Fallujah, whereby the entire towns were essentially reduced to rubble without any uproar.

Saudi Arabia as well has no concern for Syrian civilians, as they have been ruthlessly besieging and bombing Yemen, with the support and help of the United States, for two years without any concern for civilian lives.  Their assault has led to a humanitarian situation even more dire than in Syria, leaving at least 19 million in need of humanitarian assistance; in Syria it is estimated that a total of 18 million are in need of aid.

Turkey as well is not concerned, as is evidenced by their conduct towards their Kurdish population, yet the recent quiet by Erdogan over the fate of Aleppo is indicative of an understanding reached between him with President Putin, whereby Turkey establishes a presence in northern Syria and blocks the advance of the Kurds, and in return limits its support to the rebels and the insurgents in Aleppo.

The real reason the US is decrying the Russian operation is the fact that they are staring aghast at the near-term possibility that their proxy insurgency in Aleppo will be defeated.  Not only will this mark the decisive turning point in the war, the rebels all-but being fully overcome with the Syrian government in control of all the populated city centers except Idlib, but others have argued that it could as well mark the end of US hegemony over the entire Middle Eastern region in general.  In other words, the US is trying to turn global public opinion against the Russian effort in an attempt to halt the advance and protect their rebel proxies trapped inside Aleppo.

So, who are these rebels? 

In short, they are an array of US-supported groups in alliance with and dominated by al-Qaeda. 

During the past ceasefire agreement these rebels refused to break ties with al-Qaeda and instead reasserted their commitment to their alliances with the group.  The UN’s special envoy for Syria recently explained that over half of the fighters in eastern Aleppo are al-Nusra (al-Qaeda’s Syria affiliate), while according to the US Department of Defense, it is “primarily Nusra who holds Aleppo.” 

Expert analysis concurs, as Fabrice Balanche of the Washington Institute details how these rebel alliances indicate “that the al-Nusra Front dominates more different rebel factions, including those considered ‘moderate.’”  He explains that al-Qaeda’s “grip on East Aleppo has only increased since the spring of 2016.”

It is these fighters, al-Qaeda and their affiliates, that the US is trying to protect from the Russians, and as well other US intelligence operatives that are likely embedded with them.  The narrative that Russia is committing a humanitarian catastrophe is intended to hide this fact, as well as to shift the blame for the suffering in Aleppo off of the US’ shoulders.  Yet it was the US support to the rebels that is primarily responsible for the suffering.

To illustrate this, the people of eastern Aleppo never supported the rebels nor welcomed them.  The rebels nonetheless “brought the revolution to them” and conquered the people against their will all the same.  Of the few reporters who actually went to the city, they describe how Aleppo has been overrun by violent militants through a wave of repression, and that the people only “saw glimmers of hope” as the Syrian army was driving them from the area.  The people decried this “malicious revolution” and characterized the rebel’s rule as a “scourge of terrorism.”  This, of course, was of no concern to the US at the time, who now proclaims to be the “protectors” of the civilians in Aleppo.

Around 200-600,000 of the original population fled and relocated in the government-held western part of the city.  Of the civilians who remain, they are primarily the families of the fighters, who themselves are paid to stay and fight.  The official numbers for those remaining are 200,000, yet the actual number is likely much lower, around 40-50,000. 

Nonetheless, the remaining civilians who were trapped within this warzone were prevented from leaving.

During the first ceasefire, humanitarian corridors were opened and the civilians were encouraged by the Syrian army to leave, yet the rebels stopped them, with reports saying they went as far as to shoot at those who tried.  The attempt to evacuate the civilians was condemned by the US, who argued that the innocent people “should be able to stay in their homes.”  The radical groups were using the civilian population as human shields in order to protect themselves, and the US was supporting it.  Further corroborating this is the special UN envoy Steffan de Mistura, who quotes reports indicating that the rebels have been utilizing “intentional placement of firing positions close to social infrastructure, aside and inside civilian quarters.” This is because it has always been the policy of the Syrian government to separate civilians from insurgents, as it is simply much more militarily effective to fight against an enemy that is not ensconced within a civilian population.  Likewise, it has always been US and rebel policy to prevent this separation.

According to a knowledgeable individual with contacts with high level Syrian officials, the US and EU always rejected the Syrian governments proposals to separate civilians from the fighters, as they explained, “because doing so will be helping you win.”  This makes sense, given that if all of the civilians from eastern Aleppo were evacuated there would then be nothing stopping the Syrian army from crushing the remaining fighters, and there as well would be no international outcry over them doing so.  The source explains: “Syria’s war is an urban war theater.  [The] only way for insurgents to compete is to use residential areas to hide and operate out of.  This is in direct contrast to [the] Syrian army who would like to fight a theater totally void of civilians.”

   

Those claiming to be protecting Aleppo’s civilians from the Russian and Syrian onslaught are in actuality using them as a means to protect their own success on the battlefield.

Given this, the strategy of the Syrian government has been to bomb sporadically in order to scare the civilians and force them to flee from areas controlled by the militants.  This is also why the Syrian army just recently halted their advance in order to allow civilians to evacuate; they wanted the civilians out of the picture so they could militarily defeat the rebels more quickly and easily.   

If one actually were concerned about saving the civilians in eastern Aleppo it is pretty straight forward that one would try to evacuate the civilians from the area, and that the backers of the rebel groups would put pressure on them to allow this to happen.  From there it would follow that all sides abide by the UN Security Council resolutions of which they agreed to, which call for the suppression of financing, fighters, and support to al-Qaeda, for the suppression of al-Qaeda “and all other entities associated” with them, and “to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Syria,” of which Aleppo is one of the largest.

Unfortunately, it is only Syria and Russia who are following through on these commitments, while the US and its allies are consciously blocking them.  The media and intellectual opinion are as well falling in line, obscuring from the narrative all of these inconvenient truths that do not support the interests of the policy planners in Washington.  In this way, the media are shown to be completely subservient to state power, drumming up support for another aggressive war based on falsities and half-truths in the exact same way that led to the continuing catastrophes in Libya and Iraq.  When the US was driving ISIS from Manbij, just as Syria is now driving al-Qaeda from Aleppo, killing hundreds of civilians at a time, there was not so much as a debate about it, much less an international outcry.   

Yet now there are countless calling to “save” Syrians by bombing them and flooding the warzone with more weapons and fighters, ironically using “humanitarian” concern to call for policies that will lead to even more death and misery.  The rebels are dominated by jihadi extremists, and any further support to them will further strengthen the radicals engaged in a project of ethnic cleansing, conquest, and reactionary theocratic governance.  Bombing would only help to further descend Syria into chaos and death, just as it did in Iraq and Libya.

This is an international proxy war and humanitarian concerns are being manipulated unscrupulously in support of interests having nothing to do with concern for innocent lives.  Don’t fall for this faux humanitarianism from which more war, imperialism, and thus more death and destruction will result.    

The Liberation of Hypocrisy in Aleppo

Lies & Liberation

As Syrian government forces looked poised to encircle the rebels in east Aleppo by breaking their last remaining supply line, the selective humanity that so often accompanies aggressive interventions, which provides the veneer of humanitarianism to solely pragmatic and selfish acts, began to abound.

The UN’s humanitarian chief could not stress “how critical the situation is” to the Security Council.  “This is medieval and shameful,” he said, “we must not allow this to happen.”  “If nothing is done to stop the advance,” warns the Guardian, “disaster seems imminent.”  “Russia shoulders particularly great responsibility,” said the Germany's Foreign Minister, “on account of its support for the Syrian army and air force.”  The media explained this would be “the beginning of a new, humanitarian catastrophe of unprecedented proportions in Syria,” and therefore “Aleppo’s siege must be urgently lifted.”

Of course, such “medieval and shameful” acts are nothing that the US would ever contemplate today.  “You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion,” John Kerry reminded us after the reunification of Crimea into Russia.  The lesson, of course, was lost upon the people of Yemen, who were backwards enough to think that such principles were meant to apply universally, and not only to our enemies.

As the world was “failing to protect” against the horrors in East Aleppo, another siege was being laid, not to a section of a city, but to an entire nation. 

The Saudis have instituted a naval, land, and air blockade on Yemen, one of the poorest countries in the world, preventing the bulk of commercial shipping of which they are dependent from entering.  Yemen imports more than 90% of its food supply.  This has caused a “desperate shortage of food, water and medical supplies,” and has “choked a fragile economy already staggering under the impact” of war. 

The blockade has crippled “the country’s electricity supply,” forcing “the mass closure of hospitals and schools.”  Oxfam estimates the total without access to drinking water or sanitation at 16 million, nearly two thirds of the population, causing “dire implications for the spread of disease.”  At the same time 14.4 million people, more than half of the population, are food insecure and facing the possibility of famine.  The UN has decried this as a “humanitarian catastrophe”, estimating that “nearly 20 million Yemenis are in need of humanitarian assistance – 78% of the entire population.” (For comparison, it’s estimated that 18 million people in Syria, or 66% of its population, are in need of aid.)

Who cares?  Certainly not most informed opinion.  After initially reporting on the horrors, the UN and international organizations have largely abandoned the effort, as has the media.  Disciplined intellectuals realize that concern over such lives does not expedite the policies of concentrated power, and so are dutifully quiet on the subject.  One would be hard pressed to find the average person who even realizes there exists a siege on Yemen.

That person, given that they had but glanced at the news recently, would undoubtedly be aware of Aleppo, and the incarnate of evil that is Assad.  Yet if Assad is a monster, what is Saudi Arabia?

The Saudi invasion, which is really a US-Saudi invasion, was precipitated by a likely power-sharing agreement among the various warring factions.  Only it did not include Saud’s favorite puppet, the former President Hadi, who had been ousted by the Houthis after having balked on past commitments to institute power sharing mechanisms, instead choosing to consolidate his rule.  The Saudi’s then erased any possibility of a peaceful settlement and bombed, in an attempt to reinstate Hadi and thus their control over the country.  They predictably blamed all of this on Iran, yet that pretext was never backed by any evidence.  Instead, Iranian involvement increased as a result of the attack, the extent of its influence however remaining negligible.

In Syria, the US and its allies have instigated a proxy insurgency from abroad.  “In early 2011, Turkey and Saudi Arabia leveraged local protests against Assad to try to foment conditions for his ouster. By the spring of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed insurrection against the regime”, Jeff Sachs explains.  This armed insurrection included the sponsoring of some of the world’s most powerful terrorist organizations. 

Given these cases, who has the sounder argument for the use of force, Syria or Saudi Arabia?

Without a sense of irony however, as the plight of Yemenis was disregarded, the suffering of east Aleppo was paramount on everyone’s minds.

It is true that there exists real pain and suffering in east Aleppo, civilians are daily slaughtered by bombs of the Syrian and Russian air force, causing untold misery and catastrophe.  Shortages of medicine, food, as well as basic supplies and services abound.  Most of the structures have been destroyed, while poverty runs rampant.

Yet is this the only reason why they are suffering?  If your humanity is conditioned upon the interests of imperialism, then yes, however when one looks further something different emerges.

In actuality, the people of Aleppo never welcomed, nor wanted the rebels to be there, the overwhelming majority of them supporting Assad.  When the rebels began to take control of eastern Aleppo in 2012 they admitted that they did not have the support of the population.  “Around 70% of Aleppo city is with the regime,” one rebel commander said.  “It has always been that way.  The countryside is with us and the city is with them.” 

This did not stop the rebels from conquering the city all the same, with dire consequences for the population.  A year later residents would implore visiting journalists about the “malicious revolution” that reached them and the misrule of the Free Syrian Army who “started taking bread by force.”  They hoped that Assad would drive the militants out and defeat what they described as a scourge of “terrorism.”  The majority would complain of the suffering and lawlessness endured in the face of the abuses, banditry, and general looting being carried out by the violent militias.  They complained of their vulnerability and lack of security, and the lack of access to basic necessities like water, bread, and electricity.  They blamed the rebels for the city’s desperate conditions.

This was what was hailed as the “liberation” of Aleppo.

The media describing the city as a bastion for “revolutionary civil society.”

An FSA commander described it more accurately: “We liberated the rural parts of [Aleppo] province. We waited and waited for Aleppo [city] to rise, and it didn’t. We couldn’t rely on them to do it for themselves so we had to bring the revolution to them.”

This is the picture reported by journalists who visited the city.  In 2016 Stephen Kinzer of the Boston Globe wrote that “The coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press.”  He explained the situation as such: “For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: 'Don’t send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin.' Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.”

The people, however, “finally [have] seen glimmers of hope,” as the Syrian army was successfully driving the militants from the area.  The fighters then began “wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces.”  “Turkish-Saudi backed ‘moderate rebels’ showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars,” one local resident wrote.

Given this sordid reality most of the residents fled, relocating to the government held parts of the city.  When Martin Chulov of the Guardian visited the area in 2015, one of the only reporters to actually have done so, he reported that “roughly 40,000 from a prewar population estimated at about a million” still remained.

As all current reports estimate a figure of 200-300,000, Chulov defended his original figure, explaining that “whole suburbs were emptied even then [in 2015].  Most of the east [has been] uninhabitable for a long time.  No water or power… the number is nowhere near 300,000.”

Setting the Trap

As the conquest of eastern Aleppo evolved, as did the historiography of the coverage that accompanied it, an observation by Malcom X comes to mind.  “If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”  In this case, those doing the oppressing are al-Qaeda, who came to rule east Aleppo along with other radical extremists.

It is “primarily al-Nusra who holds Aleppo,” explained the spokesman for the US operation against ISIS, Col. Steve Warren.

This, however, did not stop the major human rights organizations from claiming that extremists are only a “minority in the opposition.”  As for the newspapers, they would have you believe that the city is a hub of the “mainstream armed opposition.”  We are only wonderful people after all, and unlike our loathsome enemies, would never support terrorists.

Yet Col. Warren’s assessment corroborates prior Pentagon assessments going back to 2012, and is further backed up by investigative reporting.

Drawing on an extensive range of local sources, journalist Gareth Porter shows a list of evidence which makes clear that every single rebel group in Aleppo “is engaged in a military structure controlled by Nusra militants.”  Soon after the Wall Street Journal would report that the rebels “are now dominated by hard-line Islamists determined to tear down all regime institutions.”

These kinds of things are best left hidden, however, and thus are buried deep within the doctrinal narratives.  Also hidden are explanations as to why events like this are currently taking place to begin with.  Here, however, there was a dedicated effort to deceive, something far from mere negligence.

The recent hostilities were a result of the failed ceasefire agreement, which looked very promising at first, holding for longer than most had expected.  It was agreed upon as a consequence of the shift in momentum that resulted from the Russian intervention.  Despite having the initiative, the Russians halted their advance before reaching Turkey’s border and before sealing the important Turkish supply lines.  Instead, they used their leverage to force upon the Americans a ceasefire agreement, and the pursuit of a political settlement. 

That is something you are not supposed to say however, instead this all is supposed to be understood as Russia “setting a trap” for us, as them being intransigent and dishonest in their commitments. 

Yet in reality this led to the peaceful cessation of hostilities that saw an end to the majority of the fighting, the US lacking the leverage to continue in its obstinacy and forced to pursue negotiations.  The problem was that the Russian intervention had such devastating success at routing the opposition that the US objective of overthrowing Assad lay in tatters unless the tide of war could be reversed.

Realizing the paramount importance that al-Qaeda played in the success of this strategy, John Kerry attempted to formally protect them under the ceasefire.  When this was rejected by Russia, a different strategy was adopted.

From the very beginning it was clear that powerful factions within the US establishment wanted the agreement to fail, and for a resumption of hostilities to occur.  The US and its allies then utilized the pause in fighting to rearm the al-Qaeda dominated insurgency, the weapons passing quite directly from the CIA-rebels to al-Qaeda.  A ubiquitous propaganda campaign began to proliferate the narrative that Russia would likely break the ceasefire.  This functioned as a means to prime public opinion to eventually blame the upcoming collapse on Putin and Assad. 

After stalling Russia at the negotiation table with far-from-serious talks of trying to “separate” the CIA’s rebels from their “comingling” with al-Qaeda, a known impossibility, the US-backed groups teamed up with al-Qaeda and launched a major offensive in Aleppo that broke and disintegrated the ceasefire for good.  The call to trigger this kind of large-scale resumption of hostilities was something that undoubtedly originated from the backers of the various groups.

This event was reported at the time, but immediately afterwards vanished from the narrative, the important facts deleted from subsequent reporting and therefore from public consciousness altogether.  The media distorted the reality, and the common knowledge now holds that it was Russia and Syria who had broken the agreement, like everyone always predicted they would.

It is in this deception that we find the genesis of the recurrence of fighting in Aleppo, which eventuated in the Syrian army’s capture of the Castello road supply line and the siege of al-Qaeda controlled East Aleppo.

Gareth Porter explains that “The lesson of the Syrian ceasefire episode is clear: The most influential news media have virtually complete freedom to shape the narrative surrounding a given issue simply by erasing inconvenient facts from the storyline.”  Yet it would not end there.

Immediately after the siege began, the falsities and propaganda campaigns began as well.

Days prior to the siege it was widely reported that eastern Aleppo had stockpiled at least 3 months of supplies.  As the siege began, immediately those inconvenient facts were wiped from the storyline, supplies were reported to be quickly drying up, and a near humanitarian catastrophe was imminent.

When Russia announced that it was opening up humanitarian corridors for the besieged civilians to escape through, the main human rights organizations tried to denounce the effort and to argue against it, saying that it wouldn’t be good enough because “many civilians may be unable or afraid to leave.” (emphasis added) 

These organizations may have not realized that they were running interference and propaganda for al-Qaeda. 

The reason that civilians were afraid and unable to flee was because the rebels were preventing them from doing so.  One resident reporting that rebels were shooting at those trying to leave.  After all, with all the civilians evacuated there would be nothing left to stop the Syrian Army from starving and defeating the occupiers.

The world played along, the US taking center stage.  The State Department denounced Russia’s evacuation corridors, made no mention of the rebels preventing civilians from fleeing, and argued that “the innocent people of Aleppo should be able to stay in their homes.”  This all despite the fact that the civilians lucky enough to have escaped expressed utter joy at having made it out alive.  “Thank god we can’t believe we’re out.  May you never have to go through what we have been through.  They made us suffer.  No water, no electricity.  They robbed us.”  Another said “They made us suffer.  No food or anything…  They were cruel.  They broke my leg.  They killed my sons.”  When asked about how they were received in the government-held area, one said “They’ve been very good to us.  They provided us with everything.  Here is much better.  God preserve the president.”

Yet while the horrors of those still trapped within the city were the focus of everyone’s attention, another deadly siege was being imposed that was murdering countless more innocent lives, and nobody cared to talk about it. 

What Manbij?

One could be forgiven for not remembering the outcry from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and the UN… because there simply wasn’t any.

The US has been besieging the ISIS-held city of Manbij for months.    

The strategy was described as a “scorched earth policy” in which “the attacking militias and the international coalition have dealt with Manbij civilians, who are estimated to be around 3,000 in number, as if they were terrorists or ISIS supporters.”

The thousands of civilians held under siege were trapped as all routes out of the town were cut, while ISIS as well prevented them from leaving, just as al-Qaeda did in Aleppo.

As a result, residents were extremely malnourished and at risk of starvation, reporting that the village had run out of bread and water, some not eating for days.  Electricity as well had been cut.  One AFP reporter saw a young boy begging on the streets for bread from passing cars.  Their condition was dire.

None of this, however, elicited any cries from the UN or human rights organizations, only one tepid UN report warning that the hostilities could displace civilians from their homes.  The daily pain and suffering inflicted upon the population was not enough to illicit an international outcry.  Indeed, it only after the coalition launched the deadliest single air assault on civilians of the entire war, which massacred at least 73 in a single strike, mostly women and children, that Amnesty expressed “alarm” over something so horrific that it could not have possibly been ignored.  Residents said there were no ISIS fighters in sight.  In a more recent strike the coalition murdered another 25 civilians, earning the US-led effort the sordid distinction of having launched “three of the deadliest single air attacks” on civilians out of the entire 5+ year war.

The response from the director of Human Rights Watch?  A tweet saying that “ISIS hold on Manbij… looks increasingly precarious.”  Nothing more.

Eventually the operation was completed, and ISIS was pushed from the city.

The situation however is hardly dissimilar from Aleppo.  In both instances the towns were held by radical extremists, al-Qaeda hardly being different from ISIS.  Both operations were aimed at liberating the city from jihadists, yet whereas the civilian suffering in Manbij was met with silence, an international outpouring engulfed the media for those in Aleppo.  The difference, of course, is that one is expected to view the Syrian government’s siege as being brutal and aimed primarily against civilians, and thus to call for its end, while the US-imposed siege is to be viewed as an effort to liberate civilians from evil, the massacres and scorched earth policy could conveniently be placed aside and forgotten. 

When put into perspective, the efforts of the media, international human rights groups, the US, and the UN all appear aimed at mobilizing support for a halting of the Syrian Army’s advances, and thus to protect the al-Qaeda-led opposition which they are attacking.  Human lives are of no concern, except for when their suffering could be utilized for the furtherance of US interests.

There is, however, another major difference, namely that the US has no right to be bombing in Syria. 

 

It might appear strange to read those words, yet one could imagine that in a world where law is not continually usurped by the leading hegemonic power that it might make a difference that the US has, against international law, and without the permission of the Syrian government, invaded Syrian lands with their warplanes and murdered scores of civilians in the process.  The United Nations has indeed authorized the use of force against ISIS and al-Qaeda, but only under the conditions that both international law as well as national sovereignty be respected.  The US, as the world’s leading rogue state, has done neither.

Russia, on the other hand, has a full mandate from the UN, and has been invited by the Syrian government, and is in complete accordance with international law. 

The distortions of these inconvenient realities are typical, however.  They recall, as Chomsky explains, “Orwell’s observations on the “indifference to reality” of the “nationalist,” who “not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but … has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them” in the first place.

We are the good guys, after all.  Facts notwithstanding.

A Very Different Track

The current rebel offensive to lift the siege of Aleppo had been planned for months in advance. 

Since the beginning of the year the US and its allies have been shipping thousands of tons of weapons to the opposition.

Russia had warned in April that large amounts of weapons were crossing from Turkey into Syria, and that thousands of al-Qaeda fighters were gathering for an offensive.  Nusra itself said that the attack had been planned “months ago.”

The preparations were accompanied by a smokescreen of diplomacy, in which John Kerry feigned to have offered a proposal to Russia about jointly fighting al-Qaeda which he knew they would refuse.  This also allowed the Saudis and Turks to rebrand their favorite al-Qaeda proxies, which as of yet has failed to exonerate their image or their ties to al-Qaeda.

The genesis of all of this was revealed back in May when John Kerry warned that unless Assad voluntarily steps down by August 1^st, he was asking for “a very different track.”  That “very different track” was indeed realized on August 1^st when the rebels launched one of the biggest offensives of the war to date, aimed at breaking the siege. 

One could imagine what the response would be if Assad, Russia, and Iran had organized, armed, and financed a major ISIS offensive to break the US siege of Manbij, yet for the not-so-different al-Qaeda, they were the “liberators of Aleppo” as they attempted their offensive to break the siege.

This Aleppo “liberation” push was indeed led and organized by al-Qaeda, and from the start has been aimed at imposing a new, much more deadly siege on the government-held area.  Government-held western Aleppo houses 1.5 million Syrians, as opposed to the east’s 40-50,000; thus the logical conclusion of the international outcry to “liberate” the siege was to impose a completely new one on 1.5 million others.

The rebels have repeatedly cut off the water supply to these 1.5 million civilians, which is deceptively reported as being the result of “escalated fighting” with no mention as to who is responsible.  They have as well continuously showered civilians with US-supplied rockets, mortars, and hellfire cannons.  A doctor on the ground explains “there are not only tens of mortars every day which fell on the western part of Aleppo, but hundreds, and every day we have hundreds killed or wounded.  And nobody spoke about it.”  The attacks consist of “a rain of mortars” which send 20 to 30 injured people to overcrowded public hospitals at a time.  Lacking in staff and equipment, when there are “ten severely wounded persons arriving at the same time,” by the time care arrives “a victim has time to die.”

Perhaps not-surprisingly then is the fact that the al-Qaeda led rebels named their offensive after Ibrahim Youseph, who former Sunday Times reporter Hala Jaber explains is deemed a hero “for separating Sunnis from Alawites and apostates and executing 80 of them” in 1979.  The rebels now pledge to do the same “blessed” thing from the lands they take from the government.  They announce that they will “kill all Alawites and desecrate their bodies.”  This not only was announced by the al-Qaeda fighters leading the battle, but as well by the wider coalition participating in the attacks, which includes the CIA-backed “moderates.”

In typical jihadi fashion the offensive was launched with suicide bombers exploding themselves over government positions.  The bombers are told they will go to “paradise” where they will be given 72 virgins whose kisses will “fill your mouth with honey and honeycomb.” 

The “liberation” of largely deserted eastern Aleppo is a radical jihadi attempt to besiege and conquer the 1.5 million residing in the west while ethnically cleansing and genociding the Alawites “and apostates” they find there.  If successful, the rebels will put under siege more civilians “than all those besieged by the regime nationwide,” and initiate a “wave of repression” and “terrorism” like that which characterized the initial conquest of Aleppo in the first place.

We indeed have “a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about” the “atrocities committed by our side,” as well as those we are soon likely to commit.

The reason is that all of this is hidden within the “humanitarianism” one finds in the newspapers, which is solely defined by its proximity to the furtherance of policy interests, even going so far as for a chief correspondent to be seen praising the radical jihadis at the UN, saying they have emerged as “heroes on the ground.”

As the rebels look poised to potentially fully break the siege and in turn lay siege to millions more, it appears obvious that under the false guise of humanitarianism, which is so commonly an opportunistic effort to mobilize support for policy with no basis in principles, the western press has conducted a massive propaganda effort to clear the way for an al-Qaeda victory in Syria, and to impede the popular, secular forces fighting against jihadi terrorism, which we have officially expressed to be our most hated of enemies.

The “logic” of imperialism is indeed truly wondrous to behold.