Tag Archive | NATO

Serbia to Sue NATO for 1999 Bombings Using Depleted Uranium Ammunition?*

Serbia to Sue NATO for 1999 Bombings Using Depleted Uranium Ammunition?*

Serbia has formed an international legal team to file charges against NATO for using depleted uranium munitions during the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia.

The legal team, proposed by the Serbian Royal Academy of Scientists and Artists, will bring together the best lawyers from Serbia and also from Germany, France, Italy, Russia, China, Britain and Turkey.

In March 1999, NATO launched a series of airstrikes against Federal Yugoslavia.

The aerial campaign and also NATO’s military intervention in Kosovo were not authorized by the UN Security Council and, therefore, violated international law.

In an interview with Radio Sputnik, Vice President of the International Association of Russian-Speaking Lawyers, Mikhail Ioffe, said that Serbia should have filed the lawsuits immediately after the 1999 bombings.

“From a legal standpoint, they should have brought the charges when the damage [caused by the airstrikes] was there for everyone to see, not now that its traces are no longer evident. Still, the damage they caused to the people’s health is hard to miss,” Ioffe said.

He described the idea of suing NATO for the 1999 airstrikes as “viable.”

Mikhail Ioffe also mentioned a number of legal problems that would prove hard to resolve.

“The question is whether the U.S. will respond to these charges or not. The other countries could likewise want to shirk responsibility for what they did. The biggest hurdle is that [the 1999 bombings] have not been recognized as an international aggression by any authoritative international body,” the lawyer stated.

“The U.N. refused to authorize them, neither did they term the actions by the U.S. and its coalition partners as an act of aggression. I guess this could be a matter for some backdoor diplomatic bargaining Serbia could benefit from,” Mikhail Ioffe concluded.

NATO launched air strikes in Serbia on March 24, 1999, without the backing of the UN Security Council.

Codenamed “Operation Allied Force,”’ it was the largest attack ever undertaken by the alliance and the first time that NATO used military force without the approval of the U.N. Security Council and against a sovereign nation that did not pose a real threat to any member of the alliance.

In the course of the campaign, NATO launched 2,300 missiles at almost 1,000 targets and dropped 14,000 bombs, including depleted uranium bombs and cluster munitions.

More than 2,000 civilians were killed, including 88 children, and thousands more were injured. Over 200,000 ethnic Serbs were forced to leave their homeland in Kosovo.

Source*

Related Topics:

Belgium and Serbia to Revoke Foreign Fighters’ Citizenship Unlike U.K. and U.S.*

Did HAARP Cause Devastating Floods in Serbia and Bosnia*

If NATO Wants Peace and Stability it Should Stay Home*

No Force on Earth can Compete with NATO and U.S.’ Drug Trafficking Business in Afghanistan*

Blacklisted, Smeared and Silenced for Exposing NATO Destabilization of Syria*

SAA Seizes 2 Shipments of NATO Weapons to Al Qaeda Near Damascus*

Jeremy Corbyn Accused of Being Russian “Collaborator” for Questioning NATO Troop Build-Up on Border*

NATO Auditor Who Discovered U.S. Funds ISIS Found Murdered*

If NATO Wants Peace and Stability it Should Stay Home*

If NATO Wants Peace and Stability it Should Stay Home*

By Ulson Gunnar

A curious op-ed appeared in The National Interest, penned by Hans Binnendijk and David Gompert, adjunct senior fellows at the RAND Corporation. Titled, “NATO’s Role in post-Caliphate Stability Operations,” it attempts to make a case for NATO involvement everywhere from Libya to Syria and Iraq in fostering stability in the wake of a yet-to-be defeated Islamic State.

The authors propose that NATO step in to fill what it calls an impending “vacuum left as the caliphate collapses,” heading off alternatives including “chaos or Iran, backed by Russia, filling the void, with great harm to U.S. and allied interests in either case.” The op-ed never explains why Iran, neighbouring Syria and Iraq, is less qualified to influence the region than the United States which exists literally oceans away and shares nothing in terms of history, culture, language or shared interests in stability and peace.

The op-ed would literally claim:

NATO is the only security organization with the skills and breadth to take on this task. The U.S.-led anti-Islamic State coalition of 68 partners is ill equipped to engage in this complex task. A more cohesive organization such as NATO should lead, but in ways that allow continued Arab participation. A creative version of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) coalition could provide the answer.”

It was an interesting choice by the authors to showcase one of NATO’s most stupendous and continuing failures in Afghanistan with mention of the ISAF, a force that not only has failed to bring stability to the Central Asia nation in over a decade and a half of occupation, but has presided over the emergence of the Islamic State there where previously it had no presence.

The reality of what NATO is versus what The National Interest op-ed attempts to pass it off as, resembles more of a sales pitch for a shoddy product than a genuine attempt at geopolitical analysis or problem solving. But the truth goes deeper still.

NATO is a Global Wrecking Ball, It Cannot Create Stability 

The op-ed focuses primarily on proposing NATO roles for a post-Islamic State Libya, Iraq and Syria.

Libya is perhaps the most tragic of the three, with NATO having used direct military force in 2011 to topple the government of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in support of known extremists passed off at the time by both NATO spokespeople and the US-European media as “moderate rebels.”

The predictable fallout from this military campaign was the collapse of Libya as a relatively stable and unified nation-state into warring factions. The instability became fertile grounds for extremism, with many of the groups backed by NATO evolving into what is now the “Islamic State.”

The National Interest op-ed also makes mention of “Arab participation.” It should be remembered that the most extreme factions fighting in Libya were not only aided by direct NATO military intervention, but were armed and funded by Persian Gulf dictatorships as well, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

A similar pattern of sowing instability has unfolded in Syria, leading to, not averting the rise of the Islamic State.

And Iraq’s instability is a direct and lasting consequence of the US military invasion and occupation of 2003.

If nothing else, this exposes NATO and its members as a collective, global wrecking ball. Just as a wrecking ball cannot be used to construct a building on a vacant lot, NATO cannot be used to construct the conditions for stability across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

Really Stopping the Islamic State Means Really Stopping Support for It

Ultimately, what the op-ed calls for is the permanent occupation of the three nations by NATO forces ranging from special forces in Libya to the formal occupation of Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq.

Interestingly, the op-ed suggests that the NATO occupation force in Syria should not only be used to combat the Islamic State, but to also deter “Syrian military thrusts,” referring to the armed forces of the actual and only legitimate government in Syria.

This last point exposes fully what NATO is really interested in, and what this sales pitch is really advertising. NATO is not in MENA to defeat the Islamic State, it is merely using the Islamic State as a pretext to project Western hegemony across the region.

The closing paragraph states:

This NATO strategy cannot, and should not be expected to, settle the Syrian civil war, bring ethnic and sectarian harmony to Iraq, or create an effective Libyan state. What it could do is create conditions of stability in which lasting solutions at least have a chance. It can do so only if the U.S. is ready to call upon NATO to join it in filling the post-ISIS void and for the European allies to answer that call.

Certainly, NATO’s presence in Syria, Iraq or Libya will not bring any sort of stability. NATO has proven its absolute inability to achieve this in its 16 year occupation of Afghanistan. Claiming NATO occupation will “create conditions of stability in which lasting solutions at least have a chance” is merely NATO’s way of ensuring no matter how the chaos it itself has created across MENA, it will hold a stake in the outcome if for no other reason because it has literally taken and occupies territory within the post-war region.

U.S. Army Sgt.Mark Phiffer stands guard duty near a burning oil well in the Rumaylah Oi Fields in Southern Iraq

It is interesting that the Islamic State rose in the wake of US-led, NATO-backed violence stretching from North Africa to Central Asia and only began to suffer setbacks upon greater and more direct Russian and Iranian intervention.

The bombing of Islamic State and Jabhat Al Nusra logistical lines emanating from NATO-member Turkey’s borders by Russian warplanes, for example, inevitably led to huge gains by the Syrian Arab Army including the eventual liberation of Aleppo, the containment of Idlib and a significant retraction of Islamic State-held territory in eastern Syria.

The torrent of supplies feeding Islamic State and other fronts of extremist militancy flowing from Turkey is the admitted result of Persian Gulf sponsorship, which in turn, serves as an intermediary for US and NATO support for what the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency called in 2012 (.pdf) a “Salafist principality.”

The specific purpose of this “Salafist principality,” admittedly backed by Persian Gulf dictatorships, Turkey and what the US DIA refers to as “the West,” was to “isolate the Syrian regime.”  Clearly then, were NATO genuinely interested in defeating the Islamic State and undoing the damage it has done, it would begin by withdrawing it and its allies’ own support of the terrorist organization in the first place.

In short, if NATO truly wants to create stability across MENA, it merely needs to stop intentionally sowing instability.

Of course, a unilateral military bloc intentionally sowing chaos across an entire region of the planet is doing so for a very specific purpose. It is the same purpose all hegemons throughout human history have sought to divide and destroy regions they cannot outright conquer. A destroyed competitor may not be as favorable as a conquered, controlled and exploited competitor, but is certainly preferable to a free and independent competitor contributing to a greater multipolar world order. NATO, by embedding itself amid the chaos it itself has created, as it has proven in Afghanistan, only ensures further chaos.

Within this chaos, NATO can ensure if its own membership cannot derive benefit from the region, no one else will. A call like that featured in The National Interest for NATO to bring “stability” to the MENA region stands in stark contrast to the reality that everywhere NATO goes, chaos not only follows, it stays indefinitely until NATO leaves.

The best thing NATO can do for stability across MENA is to leave.

Source*

Related Topics:

No Force on Earth can Compete with NATO and U.S.’ Drug Trafficking Business in Afghanistan*

Blacklisted, Smeared and Silenced for Exposing NATO Destabilization of Syria*

SAA Seizes 2 Shipments of NATO Weapons to Al Qaeda Near Damascus*

Jeremy Corbyn Accused of Being Russian “Collaborator” for Questioning NATO Troop Build-Up on Border*

NATO Auditor Who Discovered U.S. Funds ISIS Found Murdered*

1,000s March for Peace, against NATO in Berlin*

NATO the Formless Entity of the Cabal and the U.S*

U.S., NATO Deploy Troops to Russia in WWIII Build-up*

World Leaders Agree to Merge NATO and E.U.*

Hacked emails Confirms NATO tried to Start War between U.S. and Russia*

NATO Violates Pledge to ‘Not Station Permanent Combat Troops’ in E. Europe*

The West Remains Silent as NATO Member Supports Terrorists in Syria*

Europeans Launch New Anti- NATO War Campaign*

NATO Just Attempted to Invade Moldova, but were Thwarted by People’s Resistance*

Israel Accepts Invitation to Hold Permanent Mission at NATO’s HQ*

NATO Amassing Hostile Forces on Russia Borders not Seen Since the Invasion in 1941*

U.S./NATO Atrocities Against Libya

If Terrorists Targeted Russia, Who’s Behind the Terrorists?

If Terrorists Targeted Russia, Who’s Behind the Terrorists?

By Tony Cartalucci

Eleven have been killed and dozens more injured in what is an apparent terrorist attack on St. Petersburg’s metro system. Western ‘analysts’ are assigning possible blame for the attack on either terrorists operating from Russia’s Chechnya region, or possibly terrorist groups affiliated with fronts fighting in Syria.

Western ‘analysts’ are also attempting to cement a narrative that downplays the significance of the attacks and instead attempts to leverage them politically against Moscow. A piece in the Sydney Morning Herald titled, “Fears of a Putin crackdown after terror attack on St Petersburg metro,” would attempt to claim:

So who is to blame? No one has said officially. The BBC’s Frank Gardner says suspicions will centre around Chechen nationalists or an Islamic State inspired group wanting payback for Putin’s airstrikes in Syria. Or it could be a combination of both.

Putin has in the past justified crackdowns on civilian protests by citing the terror threat. But will he this time, and will it work?

At least one pro-Kremlin commentator has linked the attack to the recent mass demonstrations organised by Putin’s political opponent.”

Yet, in reality, the demonstrations and the terrorist groups being implicated both share a significant common denominator – both are openly long-term recipients of U.S.-European aid, with the latter group also receiving significant material support from U.S.-European allies in the Persian Gulf, primarily Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

U.S.-European support for foreign-funded organizations posing as “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs) running parallel efforts with terrorist organizations undermining Moscow’s control over Chechnya have been ongoing for decades.

Beyond Chechnya, the United States’ own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) would admit in a 2012 memo (PDF) that:

“If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”

The DIA memo then explains exactly who this “Salafist principality’s” supporters are (and who its true enemies are):

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

In essence, the “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State) was a creation of the U.S. in pursuit of its attempted regime change agenda in Syria. The current, self-proclaimed “Islamic State” is situated precisely in eastern Syria where the DIA memo claimed its state sponsors sought to place it. Its role in undermining Damascus and its allies’ attempts to restore peace and order to the Syrian state is obvious.

 

The fact that NATO-member Turkey served as a logistical, training, and financial hub for not only the Islamic State’s activities, but also other terrorist groups including Al Qaeda’s regional franchise – Al Nusra – also further implicates not only possible Al Qaeda and Islamic State involvement in the recent St. Petersburg blast, but also these organizations’ state sponsors – those who “support the opposition” in Syria.

Whether the United States played a direct role in the St. Petersburg blast or not is inconsequential. Without the massive state sponsorship both Washington and its European and Persian Gulf allies have provided these groups, such global-spanning mayhem would be impossible. The fact that the U.S. seeks to undermine Russia politically, economically, and in many ways, militarily, and has recently fielded U.S.-European-funded mobs in Russia’s streets – means that it is likely not a coincidence violence is now also being employed against Russia within Russian territory.

As per U.S. policymakers’ own documented machinations – such as the 2009 Brookings Institution report, “Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (PDF) – a militant component is prescribed as absolutely essential for the success of any street movement Washington manages to stir up against targeted states.

In the Brookings Institution document, it stated unequivocally in regards to toppling the government of Iran, that (emphasis added):

Consequently, if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it. This requirement means that a popular revolution in Iran does not seem to fit the model of the “velvet revolutions” that occurred elsewhere. The point is that the Iranian regime may not be willing to go gently into that good night; instead, and unlike so many Eastern European regimes, it may choose to fight to the death. In those circumstances, if there is not external military assistance to the revolutionaries, they might not just fail but be massacred.   Consequently, if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime’s leaders to call on the military, or else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it.” 

The policy document would also openly conspire to fund and arm listed terrorist organizations including the notorious Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). The document would state:

“The United States could work with groups like the Iraq-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), helping the thousands of its members who, under Saddam Husayn’s regime, were armed and had conducted guerrilla and terrorist operations against the clerical regime. Although the NCRI is supposedly disarmed today, that could quickly be changed.”

It would also admit that (emphasis added): 

“Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.” 

If U.S. policymakers have openly conspired to arm and fund known terrorist organizations guilty of murdering not only civilians in nations like Iran but also citizens of the United States itself, why would they hesitate to do likewise in Russia?

While the U.S. poses as engaged in a battle against the so-called “Islamic State” in Syria, it has left its obvious, overt state sponsors unscathed both politically and financially.  If the bombing in St. Petersburg is linked to U.S.-European-Persian Gulf state sponsored terrorism, it will be only the latest in a long and bloody tradition of using terrorism as a geopolitical tool.

The U.S., having been frustrated in Syria and having little to no leverage at the negotiation table, is likely trying to “show” Moscow that it can still create chaos both beyond Russia’s borders amongst its allies, and within Russia’s borders – regardless of how well Russians have weathered such tactics in the past.

Source*

Related Topics:

Westminster Attacks BUSTED!!! Insider Photographers Exposed!

ISIS/L and European Neo-Nazis United under Pentagon’s 5th Generation Warfare*

Russia Foiled 70 million Cyber Attacks in 2016*

Sweeping Cyber Attack By U.S/ Gov’t on WIKILEAKS/TWITTER…Not RUSSIA!

BRICS Under Attack: Western Banks, Governments Launch Full-Spectrum Assault On Russia*

Russia Preparing for Potential Removal from International Banking System*

U.S. Deploys Troops on Russian Borders*

Russian Interior Ministry Foiled Mass Robbery of All National Banks*

French Caught Planning an ISIS False Flag Terror Attack on the French*

No Force on Earth can Compete with NATO and U.S.’ Drug Trafficking Business in Afghanistan*

No Force on Earth can Compete with NATO and U.S.’ Drug Trafficking Business in Afghanistan*

By Jonas E. Alexis

“In country after country, from Mexico and Honduras to Panama and Peru, the CIA helped set up or consolidate intelligence agencies that became forces of repression, and whose intelligence connections to other countries greased the way for illicit drug shipments.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has done it again. He has recently grabbed the New World Order establishment by the horn and cut them to pieces with a chainsaw when he said that the establishment has done covert and illegal operations in places like Afghanistan. Lavrov did not mince words:

The U.S. operation against the Taliban and al-Qaeda was supported by all countries. It’s another matter that after receiving the international approval, the United States and its NATO allies, which took over in Afghanistan, started acting rather inconsistently, to put it mildly.

“During their operation in Afghanistan, the terrorist threat has not been rooted out, while the drug threat has increased many times over. The drug industry prospered. There is factual evidence that some of the NATO contingents in Afghanistan turned a blind eye to the illegal drug trafficking, even if they were not directly involved in these criminal schemes.

“Afghanistan is a separate case, although the current developments there, which are a result of the NATO operation’s failure, despite the carte blanche the bloc received from the international community, can be considered an unintended cause of managed chaos. In Iraq, Syria and Libya, this chaos was created intentionally.”

Lavrov is right in line with the scholarly world. Peter Dale Scott of the University of California writes:

“In country after country, from Mexico and Honduras to Panama and Peru, the CIA helped set up or consolidate intelligence agencies that became forces of repression, and whose intelligence connections to other countries greased the way for illicit drug shipments.”

Noted historian Alfred W. McCoy of the University of Wisconsin has reported the same thing. McCoy began to work on this issue while he was a Ph.D. candidate in Southeast Asian history at Yale back in 1972. He accused American officials “of condoning and even cooperating with corrupt elements in Southeast Asia’s illegal drug trade out of political and military considerations.” McCoy’s

“major charges was that South Vietnam’s President Nguyễn Văn Thiệu, Vice President Nguyễn Cao Kỳ, and Prime Minister Trần Thiện Khiêm led a narcotics ring with ties to the Corsican mafia, the Trafficante crime family in Florida, and other high level military officials in South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand. Those implicated by McCoy included Laotian Generals Ouane Rattikone and Vang Pao and South Vietnamese Generals Đăng Văn Quang and Ngô Dzu.”

McCoy produced enough evidence which indicated that the CIA used “tribal mercenaries” in places like Laos in order to maintain their criminal and drug trafficking business.

In short, Lavrov was essentially deconstructing the CIA when he said that they have been spreading corruption throughout the world for decades. Whenever they take a break from spreading opium, they start perpetuating wars and creating false flags in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now in Syria.

The CIA is certainly not happy about what Lavrov has said. This is one reason why they hate Russia and all that it represents.

Source*

Related Topics:

Blacklisted, Smeared and Silenced for Exposing NATO Destabilization of Syria*

Blacklisted, Smeared and Silenced for Exposing NATO Destabilization of Syria*

By Mnar Muhawesh

Though it’s been nearly six years, the subject of the Syrian conflict remains as contentious as ever. While those who characterize themselves as pro-regime change have monopolized the wider conversation on Syria, even the most tame opposition against foreign intervention, or the CIA-backed rebels—who now come in varying flavors of extremism—continues to be taboo.

Those who refuse to support U.S. military intervention in Syria and the CIA backed regime change operation there that has been well documented for over 25 years — are branded “Assadists” — and if you’re a writer or commentator?

Well, that gets you and your work blacklisted from publications and, in the case of journalists like myself and others who make up a long list of anti-interventionists far too long to mention here, even gets your speaking engagements shut down and kicked off of blogs, regardless of what topic they’re on.

It seems that opposing what clearly amounts to a NATO-imposed regime change operation in Syria in order to create the next Afghanistan in the Middle East and ultimately weaken Russia and Iran gets you characterized as a supporter of genocide.

But this is not a new phenomenon — we’ve been here before as recently as Libya and Iraq.

During the pro-war campaign against Libya, we were told, just as we were during previous conflicts, that military intervention was necessary in order to protect civilians from a madman.

The same loudmouthed pundits who led us down the bloody path of war have since been eerily silent in the aftermath — where Libya is now being overrun by groups like ISIS and the country is being described as a failed state.

In Iraq, we saw an energized anti-war movement smeared as being pro-Saddam, and now, despite what we’ve learned about both conflicts, history seems to be repeating itself. Many are now suffering a kind of collective amnesia over how war is peddled to the public.

Today we’re joined by Rania Khalek, an independent journalist who has become the latest victim  of an organized smearing and blacklisting campaign for her recent reporting on Syria. The organized campaign against her became so aggressive that several of her talks on apartheid in Israel were canceled after student groups were pressured to blacklist her events by pro-Syrian rebel activists who support US intervention and regime change.

The blacklisting of Rania Khalek garnered the attention of many notable scholars, activists and journalists including Noam Chomsky, John Pilger and Glenn Greenwald among others who signed a petition calling for an end to censorship and warning that there needs to be more open dialogue on Syria rather than silencing journalists.

Source*

Related Topics:

Syrian Army Gains Upper Hand in Damascus Fighting*

18,000 Syrian Children Victim to Organ Harvesting

Civilians help Syrian Army Drive out Terrorists from Damascus*

Sunnis ,Shi’as Pray for Unity Week after Bombing*

Stop the International War of Genocide on Syrians Catholic Patriarch Demands*

Clinton’s Emails Reveals a Sunni-Shiite War Would be Good for Israel and the West*

Wahhabism as a Tool of Colonialism*

Saudi Arabia Facing Flack from both Sunni and Shia Leaders*

Trump-Israel Struggling to Save ISIS to divide and Conquer Syria and Iraq*

Trump Orders Drone Strike on Syrian Mosque, 40 Civilians Killed*

Purim Fest Recalls of the Jewish Act of Genocide*

SAA Seizes 2 Shipments of NATO Weapons to Al Qaeda Near Damascus*

SAA Seizes 2 Shipments of NATO Weapons to Al Qaeda Near Damascus*

By Arabi Souri

NATO weapons of British make heading to terrorists from al-Qaeda group were found and seized by a Syrian Arab Army unit in Damascus Countryside.

The first truck loaded with weapons, described as the smaller one, had a full arsenal of missiles and munition made in U.K. and hidden under boxes of vegetables. It was coming from Daraa city in the south where the SAA is fighting a fierce battle against a new wave of terrorists attacks re-enforced from Jordan.

The second truck heading to Kiswa city south of the Syrian capital Damascus loaded with automatic machine guns, firearms, and live munitions. The arsenal was boxed and wrapped with aluminum foils to avoid detection by the SAA checkpoints.

This shipment of weapons was shipped the same time the NATO sponsored terrorists of FSA blew up civilian buses in the heart of Damascus killing scores of mostly Iraqi pilgrims on a religious visit to shrines in Bab Sgheir cemetery in the old famous Shaghour neighbourhood.

It’s of no surprise the NATO’s full engagement arming terrorists fighting to destroy Syria and turn it into a failed state, similar to their previous ‘achieved goals’ in Libya and Iraq and elsewhere. The timing however might be surprising to the Russian leadership which keeps falling in the same trap time and again trying to strike deals with their ‘Western partners’ and the Erdogan regime in NATO member state Erdoganstan (formerly Turkey).

 

Washington, London and Paris Kill Dozens in Twin Explosions in Damascus

By Miri Wood

 

Twin explosions in Damascus. Main court of Palace of Justice, al Naser street.

 

The refusal of the Western capitals to condemn  twin explosions in Damascus Bab Sgheir cemetery four days ago, in the heart of the city gave their terrorists a green light to carry out more.  At the UNSC they foiled the Russian draft to condemn the explosions.

Bodies being removed from Justice Palace in Damascus

Twin explosions in Damascus, today, 15 March 2017.  The first bombing took place in the lobby of the Palace of Justice in Damascus, at the rush hour of the auditors.  The policemen at the security gate suspected the terrorist, and while trying to detain him, he escaped them, and ran inside to the main hall lobby of this Palace, where he self-detonated.  At this hour, there is not enough place to put your leg in, because of the crowds of people, including many lawyers.

The NATO armed terrorist blew himself up, claiming the lives of 50 innocent ones at least, according to the first general lawyer of Damascus.  More than 100 have been wounded.  To avoid a double-tap bombing, as these western moderate” terrorists usually do, after people gather to help the first bombing victims, the security forces immediately evacuated the victims and the entire area.

Syrian blood in the Palace of Justice

Also, authorities evacuated most civilians from most of the crowded institutions in Damascus today.

Instead of the demonic double-tap, today’s twin explosions in Damascus came when local police were chasing three terrorists.  One ran into the popular Abo Ahmad Restaurant where people were enjoying lunch.  He blew himself up. Twenty-four are injured, all of them civilians.

Twenty-four Syrians wounded at Abo Ahmad Restaurant

It seems there are multi-organized suicide bombing against Damascus, while the Astana talks trying to hold another round!

Again and again, with every conference about Syria, Syrians have to pay a high price as a bill for such conferences accepting armed gangs and welcome them on negotiations table! “Opposition” terrorists who sat at the Astana table, claimed responsibility for the suicide bombings four days ago!

Another important note, I would love to send it to the authorities in my beloved Syria, please prevent the blackened windows cars, please prevent those who are not real soldiers to wear the uniform of our soldiers to escape the check points! Please check everyone, women, men. NATO “moderates” are speeding up, making our emergency situation worse.

Today is the anniversary of the bloody foreign “revolution” against Syria.

Washington, London, and Paris celebrated with their twin explosions in Damascus.

Source*

Source*

Related Topics:

Over 10,000 Weapons intended for Terrorists Seized by Europol*

Public Buses in Aleppo take to the Streets after 5 Years of U.S.’s ISIS war on Syria*

U.S. Deploying Thousands More Ground Troops to Kuwait to Fight in Iraq and Syria*

U.S. Marines Invade Syria, helping ISIS and Turkey*

Trump-Israel Struggling to Save ISIS to divide and Conquer Syria and Iraq*

Turkish Forces Kill 24 People in Aleppo*

Turkish Forces Kill 24 People in Aleppo*

By H. Said

 

The Turkish regime’s forces committed another massacre in the course of their continued shelling of al-Bab city in the eastern countryside of Aleppo province.

Identical local and media sources said the Artillery and Air Force of the Turkish regime shelled residential neighbourhoods in al-Bab city, leaving 24 people dead.

11 children under 6 and 8 women are among the dead, according to the sources.

The attack cause huge damage to the locals’ houses and other properties and the infrastructure in the city.

On January 11, 9 people were killed and 57 others were injured in the course of the Turkish forces’ attack on al-Bab city and the towns of Baza’a and Tadef in the northeastern countryside of Aleppo.

Two other massacres were also committed by the Turkish forces on December 23 in which more than 88 civilians were killed and scores of others injured in al-Bab city.

Source*

Related Topics:

Turkey Continues Repeated Violations against the Sanctity and Unity of Syria’s Sovereignty*

“E.U. has been supporting the terrorists in Syria from the very beginning”*

Syrian Education Ministry Launches the Psychological and Social Support Guide*

USD 8 million is the Value of Syrian Fruit and Vegetable Exports to Belarus in Past 3 months*

Amnesty Int’l Admits Syria’s ‘torture prison’; Report Fabricated Entirely in U.K.*

Priceless Ancient Seed Bank Saved from Destruction in Syria*