(ANTIMEDIA) While the mainstream media, spearheaded by CIA-linked media outlet Washington Post, takes the meaning of “fake news” to a whole new level regarding the supposed Trump-Russia collusion, this same media is almost all but silent on the fact that U.S. forces just directly attacked a Russian ally in Syria.
As of the time of this article’s publication, there is no mention of Syria or Assad on the Washington Post’s homepage. There are plenty of references to Russia, Michael Flynn, James Comey, and even speculation that Russian president Vladimir Putin directly pays American president Donald Trump.
We're revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.
Meanwhile, in the battlefield arena, Trump has given his military generals broad scope to call in airstrikes at their own discretion. As such, American aircraft bombed a military convoy flying Syrian flags in the country’s southeast region on Friday. According to U.S. defense officials, this is the first time the U.S. military has targeted regime forces since the start of the Syrian war.
However, this isn’t the first time the Syrian government has been on the receiving end of American airstrikes (see here and here.) The major difference here is that this is the first time the military has admitted to targeting pro-Syrian troops, with the exception of Trump’s military strike on a Syrian air-base in April, which was designed to damage infrastructure only.
According to Middle East Eye, the targeted convoy actually belonged to Shia militias loyal to the Syrian president, and Syrian troops were not directly targeted. The strike came after a warning to Russia from their American counterparts that these Assad loyalists were coming too close for comfort, and this warning was followed by a warning shot to the troops. After the warning shot failed to deter the troops, the coalition struck the front vehicles of the convoy directly.
Despite this strike, a U.S. official has explained that it was a “defensive” action that has not changed the U.S. policy of focusing military efforts in battling ISIS, the Independent notes.
Just yesterday, Anti-Media ran a story suggesting it was possible that anonymously leaked Russia-gate stories are a major distraction from a number of developments, including the fact that Russian-backed Syrian troops were headed toward a U.S. training base in Syria.
So, where is this story headed? The U.S. has illegally forced itself into the Syrian conflict (no U.N. mandate, no Congressional approval, no invitation from the Syrian government that represents Syria at the U.N.). It intends to work together with non-state forces to liberate areas of Syria from ISIS to ensure these areas cannot be reclaimed by the Syrian government and its associated forces. Yet the U.S. is the party claiming “self-defense” when Syrian troops advance upon their Special Forces even though they are technically the invading force in the first place.
The problem is that the Syrian government wants these liberated areas back and is making strong gains in the process, according to regional outlet Al-Masdar News. Whenever Syrian troops continue to make successful advances, expect American airstrikes to follow (even though those airstrikes benefit ISIS). This was seen clearly in an attack in September of last year, where the U.S. struck Syrian troops who were embroiled in a fight against ISIS in Deir Ezzor. ISIS also used the strike to launch a major offensive.
The battle for Deir Ezzor is still ongoing, and if the Syrian government is successful, Assad needs to reclaim the strategic Tanf Border Crossing for the liberation to have any real meaning.
The al-Tanf area is exactly where the U.S. training base is located, and the U.S. has clearly shown by launching this strike that it will not hesitate to use their airpower to deter Assad loyalists from advancing towards them.
The crucial fact being glossed over — and in the case of outlets such as Washington Post, being completely ignored — is that these troops are backed by the Russian air force.
This is not going to end well. On one hand, the U.S. will not lightly step aside and admit defeat in the Syrian battle. History has shown us that whenever the U.S. is on the brink of defeat, its go-to strategy is an outright massacre that is specifically designed to make life as miserable as possible for the civilian population.
On the other hand, the ball would be in Russia’s court to step down and allow the U.S. to take out its vital ally, paving the way for a jihadist takeover of Syria. But why would Russia step aside after investing so much time, energy, money, and personnel in the conflict? Not to mention, Russia has actually achieved many of its goals in Syria by bolstering the Assad government. It wouldn’t make sense for the Russian military to step aside now and waste all of its effort spent propping up Assad’s military.
Peace talks are underway in Geneva as we speak, but there can be no peace in Syria — or in the international arena, for that matter — while two nuclear powers bomb the same country with complete polar opposite interests.
Meanwhile, the media is more concerned with turning Donald Trump’s administration into a reality television sequel to the Apprentice than alerting the public to these crucial developments.