It’s an undeniable fact that a large number of people who live in Southwest Asia (aka the ‘Middle East’) believe that the United States is, in spite of its stated mission, covertly offering support to ISIS/ Daesh. With the U.S.-led coalition’s strikes on a Syrian military base this past Sunday, it’s unlikely that any of their minds are going to be changing any time soon. With the sneak attack on the Syrian Arab Army’s base south of the Deir Ezzor airport in the eastern region of Syria, which Centcom claims was mistaken for an ISIS training camp, the United States whether knowingly or not helped ISIS capture territory they previously did not hold.

   It was on September 17 when the U.S. military along with its vaunted coalition partners launched an aerial attack on the Syrian military at its base in Jabal Therdah, using two F-16s and two A-10s for an overall of four strikes. When the strikes were finished and dead bodies were littering the ground, paramedics arrived to assist the survivors and get them to safety, only to be faced with the possibility of being gunned down themselves by machine gun fire from U.S. warplanes. By the time the attack was over there would be somewhere from 65-83 dead Syrian military personnel. ISIS would prove to be the true beneficiary of this attack, for it didn’t take long for them to take full advantage of the opportunity given to them by the U.S. military and overran the base.

   The international community was stunned. It had been only five days since the U.S. and Russia had brokered a ceasefire, and now the ceasefire was for all intents and purposes off. That night Russia called an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council to discuss what was to be done as a result of this latest assault by the U.S. military on another sovereign nation’s government. Russian Ambassador to the U.N. Vitaly Churkin voiced grave concern about the timing of these attacks, which came as the Syrian military appeared to be making significant gains in its war against ISIS (ISIS was not covered in the ceasefire agreement obviously). His concern fell on deaf ears in the U.S., who’s Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power dismissed the entire meeting as a mere “stunt” by the Russians. The way Power tells it, Russia is perpetually trying to victimize the grand, noble and exceptional United States of America. Don’t these Russians know that part of being the one “exceptional” and indispensable nation means getting to dictate to the rest of the world when it’s appropriate to slaughter dozens of people in their own country and when it isn’t? Fortunately for Samantha Power and the power structure she represents, the U.S. corporate-owned media is made up of lapdogs who repeat whatever propaganda is fed to them by the State Department. Immediately after the ceasefire was ended by what was probably U.S. connivance, the corporate media dutifully began circulating an allegation that Russia hit a U.N. aid convoy while fighting the “rebels” in Syria, and by implication it must be the Russians who shoulder the blame for the breakdown of the ceasefire agreement.

   As far as the United States is concerned, they don’t see what the big fuss is about. Yes, they’re apologizing profusely (for once), but they question why it is the U.N. should be called to meet late at night concerning such an issue. After all, they’ve said it was a “mistake” and that they really thought they were attacking an ISIS training camp. What more can the world ask for? Well for starters not everyone is ready to blindly take the United States military at its word that this was just an innocent blunder. The Russians aren’t buying it, the Syrians (whose army general command cited the strikes as “conclusive evidence” of U.S. covert support for ISIS) aren’t buying it, and really nobody is buying it other than the U.S. corporate media and the public it so successfully brainwashes. There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical. It’s no secret that the Pentagon under Ash Carter along with many State Department employees are unhappy with the Obama Administration’s decision not to directly go to war with Assad the way they have against ISIS. (Obama has settled for a more covert method of doing this.) There is some speculation that the Pentagon might have been “going rogue” and knowingly carried out this attack for the purpose of killing the ceasefire deal before it was implemented. After all, the Syrian army had been occupying the base for at least six months, a fact the U.S. military with its sophisticated satellite imagery was bound to be aware of. How likely is it that they really believed this to be an ISIS training camp? Or maybe the Pentagon wasn’t “going rogue” at all and was following through on a policy that’s been around for a long time. After all, it was only three years ago that the Obama Administration was pushing for a direct military strike on the Syrian government in Damascus and undoubtedly would have done so had it not been for such a huge amount of pushback from across the globe, including from within the United States. Could it be, as was originally predicted here, that the U.S. never gave up its ultimate goal of removing Assad and the Syrian government from power, and is in fact using the fight against ISIS as another means to ultimately achieve the same goal?

   Finally, it cannot be overlooked that the day after the U.S. directly attacked the Syrian Arab Army for the first time, a spate of terror attacks were carried out on the U.S. homeland in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota. At least one of the men accused of carrying out an attack was known to be on the FBI’s terror watchlist, and it’s worth asking whether these were conveniently timed to occur the day after the U.S. was being widely criticized for attacking the Syrian army. This is not just some crazy conspiracy theory. Though there is no evidence at this time to suggest that the timing of these attacks was anything other than coincidental, it’s been thoroughly exposed in the past that the FBI has an ongoing policy of entrapment. Part of this policy involves undercover government agents seeking out individuals they perceive as having a vulnerable mentality and encouraging them to carry out terrorist attacks so that the FBI can “thwart” them at the last minute while claiming to have protected the U.S. from terrorism. Were the September 18 attacks a continuation of this overall pattern? It certainly isn’t out of the question. After all, the FBI’s entrapment methods have led to people being seriously injured at least once before.

cross-posted on USHypocrisy.com

Published by Caleb Gee