Donate HERE to help with my webhosting expenses

Bitterroot Bugle post categories

Bitterroot Bugle archives

more on the eastern front

Saturday in war drums … silenced? I assembled a pile of news stories about the biggest event in the century, one the mainstream media has agreed to distract its viewers from until it is all over but the crying. As I was feeling a sense of urgency to get something out there, I put it up Saturday evening poorly formatted – cleaning it up Sunday morning – the time of day my creative side is stronger.

But I left a lot out. Today I add much more information from many more sources. As with the prior one, I will excerpt and put links in for you to look deeper into any aspect that piques your interest.

Do check out the links. There are solid videos and links to many, many other sources confirming, reinforcing and adding so much to what you should know when the Liar-In-Chief (and the rest of the cast) begins his polished obfuscation. I, by the way, get more than enough of that garbage second and third hand. I receive much more useful information from my dog.

Again I remind you, there has been nothing more significant in my lifetime than the beginning of the play they have scripted and staged before us now.

If your news sources did not cover the stories below,
they are much worse than a waste of your time,
they are deceivers and conspirators. – Ted


U.S. Gave Iraq Intel, Ignored Chemical Attacks In 1980s
The United States provided Iraq with intelligence on preparations for an Iranian offensive during the Iran-Iraq war even though it knew Baghdad would respond with chemical weapons, Foreign Policy magazine reported Monday.

Citing declassified CIA documents and interviews with former officials, the magazine reviewed the US record as Washington weighs military action against Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons near Damascus last week.

The magazine said the US knew in 1983 that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would not hesitate to resort to shelling Iranian forces with sarin or mustard gas.

“As Iraqi attacks continue and intensify the chances increase that Iranian forces will acquire a shell containing mustard agent with Iraqi markings,” a top secret CIA report said in November 1983.

“Tehran would take such evidence to the UN and charge US complicity in violating international law,” the agency warned.

In late 1987, US satellite imagery showed that Iran was concentrating a large force east of the southern Iraqi port city of Basra in preparation for a spring offensive.

The images also showed that the Iranians had identified a strategic weakness in the Iraqi defenses.

The report, titled “At the Gates of Basra,” was shown to president Ronald Reagan, who wrote a note in the margins that said, “An Iranian victory is unacceptable,” according to Foreign Policy.

The United States decided to inform Baghdad of its findings and help the Iraqis with intelligence on Iranian logistics centers and anti-aircraft defenses.

Saddam’s forces smashed the Iranian buildup before it could get off the ground, launching a vast offensive in April 1988, backed by bombardments with chemical weapons, on the Fao Peninsula.

Chemical agents were used four times, each time killing between hundreds and thousands of Iranian troops, according to the CIA.

“The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew,” said retired Air Force colonel Rick Francona, a military attache in Baghdad during the 1988 attacks.

During the same period, in March 1988, Saddam used chemical agents in an attack of the Kurdish village of Hallabja, killing 5,000 people, also with total impunity.


US aiding arms shipments to Syrian rebels

India TV News, March 26:

The US has been assisting Turkey and Arab nations boost their arms deliveries to Syrian rebels in recent months as the armed opposition attempts to unseat Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the New York Times reported.

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has helped Arab governments — including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan — in their efforts to procure weapons to arm the Syrian rebels with, and US intelligence officers have also assisted in vetting the insurgents designated to receive the shipments, the newspaper reported.

Deliveries of these weapons have increased precipitously in recent months, the daily said, citing air traffic data and anonymous sources in the US government, the Syrian rebel leadership and Turkish opposition politicians.

The US has described the government under Assad as “discredited” and has thrown its political support behind rebels fighting to topple him.

But Washington has insisted that it is providing only non-lethal aid to the insurgents, while conceding that some of its allies have opted to deliver weapons to the rebels seeking Assad’s ouster.

Russia has repeatedly warned against outside intervention aimed at “regime change” in Syria, insisting that its support is not for the Assad regime but for international law and urging caution in dealing with rebel groups whose composition and aims are uncertain.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest told a news briefing Monday that he was aware of the Times report but declined to comment on it.

Hugh Griffiths, who monitors illegal arms transfers for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, was quoted by the daily as saying that the “intensity and frequency of these flights” delivering arms were “suggestive of a well-planned and coordinated clandestine military logistics operation”.

“A conservative estimate of the payload of these flights would be 3,500 tonnes of military equipment,” Griffiths said, according to the report.


Sunday, 24 June 2012
Is Muslim Brotherhood a US Proxy

The rhetoric of the so-called “Arab Spring,” one would be admittedly confused over the emerging political landscape in Egypt where the military establishment and the Muslim Brotherhood have emerged from what was supposedly a “pro-democracy” “popular uprising.”

However, if anyone understood that the “pro-democracy” protesters were in fact US State Department-funded, trained, and equipped mobs providing cover for the attempted installation of the Muslim Brotherhood amongst many other potential Western proxies, the current political battle would make perfect sense.

The Egyptian military, like in many developing nations, may accept money from the West, may train with Western forces, and may even participate in Western machinations of global domination, but are ultimately nationalists with the means and motivation to draw lines and check the West’s ambitions within Egypt and throughout Egypt’s sphere of influence.

The necessity for the West of removing not only Hosni Mubarak who had refused to participate in a wider role against Iraq and Iran, but the grip of the military itself over Egyptian politics and replacing it with the Muslim Brotherhood who is already hard at work in Syria attempting to overthrow one of Iran’s primary regional allies, is paramount.

“Pro-democracy” movements, particularly the April 6 youth movement, trained, funded, and equipped by the US State Department, serve the sole purpose of giving the Muslim Brotherhood’s installation into power a spin of “legitimacy” where otherwise none exists.

Those within these “pro-democracy” movements with legitimate intentions will be inevitably disappointed if not entirely thrown under the wheels of Western machinations as regional war aimed at destroying Iran, Syria, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah arch of influence slowly unfolds.


US spooks stockpile arms for Syrian rebels in Jordan for August onslaught

Published time: June 27, 2013
… The CIA is stockpiling arms in Jordan for US-trained Syrian rebels, which they will use in an offensive against Damascus starting August, according to The Wall Street Journal. Up to hundreds of fighters are to be armed and sent to the battlefield monthly.

The intelligence agency had stored Soviet-made arms at a network of secret warehouses in advance of the Obama administration’s decision to provide military assistance to the militants fighting against the government of Bashar Assad, the newspaper reports. The weapons include anti-tank missiles, which may be handed over to the Syrian rebels.

The CIA was chosen to deliver arms to the Syrian rebels to limit public disclosures and restrict oversight to a small group of lawmakers, who would oversee the clandestine operation, the report explains…


US Planned Chemical Weapons False Flag Attack for Syria

August 27, 2013

The US government and the United Nations are on the verge of invading Syria under the pretense of a humanitarian intervention.

While Assad is definitely a tyrant, a US invasion of the country is a worst case scenario for the people living there.

Many details of last week’s chemical weapons attack remain a mystery, but there are a few very suspicious clues pointing to a false flag attack.

ANI and Yahoo News Reported that “The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.

A new report, that contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence, showed a scheme ‘approved by Washington’. As per the scheme ‘Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons,’”

Adding to the evidence, on August 23, Russia Today published an article titled “Materials implicating Syrian govt in chemical attack prepared before incident – Russia.”

According to Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich:

We’re getting more new evidence that this criminal act was of a provocative nature.”

“In particular, there are reports circulating on the Internet, in particular that the materials of the incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack. Thus, it was a pre-planned action.”


Reuters: U.S. To Strike Syria Before UN Evidence Collected

Tuesday, 27 August 2013

The US has accused the Syrian government of delaying UN inspectors from accessing the site of an alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus. But now, according to Reuters, the US appears to be preparing to strike Syria militarily before the UN’s now ongoing investigation is concluded and evidence revealed to either support or conflict with the West’s so far baseless allegations.

Reuters’ article, “Syria strike due in days, West tells opposition: sources,” states that:

Western powers told the Syrian opposition to expect a strike against President Bashar al-Assad’s forces within days, according to sources who attended a meeting between envoys and the Syrian National Coalition in Istanbul.

“The opposition was told in clear terms that action to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime could come as early as in the next few days, and that they should still prepare for peace talks at Geneva,” one of the sources who was at the meeting on Monday told Reuters.

Clearly, such a strike would render moot both the UN inspection team’s investigation and any evidence they may find.

While the US has accused the Syrian government of obstructing an investigation that is indeed already being carried out, the impending US attack would indefinitely end the UN’s efforts. If, as the US reasons, obstructing the UN’s investigation implicates guilt, then the US has just made itself the prime suspect of what is increasingly appearing to be a staged provocation to salvage a proxy war the US and its allies have all but lost.

What “Limited Strikes” Really Means

Before the US and its allies mire the world in another unprovoked military adventure at the cost of thousands, perhaps even millions of lives, the wider strategy behind what the US is calling “limited strikes” should be fully understood.

Much of the West’s proxy war against Syria has been drawn from plans laid by the Brookings Institution versus Iran in a 2009 document titled, “Which Path to Persia?” The report stated:

…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) -Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, pages 84-85.

Clearly those in the West intent on striking Iran (and now Syria) realize both the difficulty of obtaining a plausible justification, and the utter lack of support they have globally to carry out an attack even if they manage to find a suitable pretext. An article recently published in Slate indicates that the approval rating of a proposed assault on Syria is only 9% – making the potential war the most unpopular conflict in American history.

Brookings would continue throughout their 2009 report enumerating methods of provoking Iran, including conspiring to fund opposition groups to overthrow the Iranian government, crippling Iran’s economy, and funding US State Department-listed terrorist organizations to carry deadly attacks within Iran itself.

In Syria, each and every one of these options have also been tried, and have subsequently failed. It was revealed as far back as 2007 that the US was planning on arming and funding terrorists to overthrow the government of Syria, as reported by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?”

Starting in 2011, it has become increasing clear that the so-called “freedom fighters” in Syria are in fact terrorists drawn directly from the ranks of Al Qaeda, armed, funded, and otherwise supported by NATO just as was described in Hersh’s 2007 report.

Despite these overt acts of war, and even considering an option to unilaterally conduct limited airstrikes against Iranian and now Syrian targets, Brookings indicated there was still the strong possibility Iran (and now Syria) would not allow itself to be sufficiently provoked:

It would not be inevitable that Iran would lash out violently in response to an American air campaign, but no American president should blithely assume that it would not.

The report continues:

However, because many Iranian leaders would likely be looking to emerge from the fighting in as advantageous a strategic position as possible, and because they would likely calculate that playing the victim would be their best route to that goal, they might well refrain from such retaliatory missile attacks. – Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, page 95.

Already, both Turkey’s current government and its regional partner Israel have attacked Syria on numerous occasions with Syria each time exhibiting infinite restraint.

It is then revealed that the term “limited strikes” is a euphemism for “attempted provocations” to intentionally initiate a wider conflict. While the Brookings document refers to Iran, it is clear that if the West is to topple the Syrian government now with its proxy forces already spent, it will have to do so itself with a military campaign exceeding the currently planned “limited strikes.” Additionally, realizing there is virtually no support for a war with either Syria or Iran, special interests across the West are attempting to tangle the world in this lethal conflict by disingenuously proposing, at first, something relatively benign they believe they can get away with even without popular support.

Western special interests hope that a Syrian response and the death of American and/or Israeli troops – perhaps the sinking of a US ship or the loss of multiple US aircraft – will turn the 9% approval rating for their premeditated assault on Syria into an overwhelming baying for blood across the West’s populations. Failing to elicit a response from Syria, this may be accomplished with false flag attacks, as was the case in the Gulf of Tonkin incident at the onset of the Vietnam War.

Understanding that the intentional endangerment and death of US troops and their allied counterparts is part of initiating an otherwise impossible wider war, inoculates much of an already war-weary Western population from the “rally around the flag” effect Western special interests are depending on to re-energize their failed Middle East adventure.


Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria

Posted by EU Times on Aug 27th, 2013

A grim “urgent action memorandum” issued today from the office of President Putin to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is ordering a “massive military strike” against Saudi Arabia in the event that the West attacks Syria.

According to Kremlin sources familiar with this extraordinary “war order,” Putin became “enraged” after his early August meeting with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan who warned that if Russia did not accept the defeat of Syria, Saudi Arabia would unleash Chechen terrorists under their control to cause mass death and chaos during the Winter Olympics scheduled to be held 7-23 February 2014 in Sochi, Russia.

Lebanese newspaper As-Safir confirmed this amazing threat against Russia saying that Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord by stating: “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us.”

Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on an off. “These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria’s political future.”

London’s The Telegraph News Service further reported today that Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria, an offer Putin replied to by saying “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters” [Putin said referring to footage showing a Jihadist rebel eating the heart and liver of a Syrian soldier HERE], and which Prince Bandar in turn warned that there can be “no escape from the military option” if Russia declines the olive branch.

Critical to note, and as we had previously reported on in our 28 January 2013 report “Obama Plan For World War III Stuns Russia,” the Federal Security Services (FSB) confirmed the validity of the released hacked emails of the British based defence company, Britam Defence that stunningly warned the Obama regime was preparing to unleash a series of attacks against both Syria and Iran in a move Russian intelligence experts warned could very well cause World War III.


USS Nimitz aircraft carrier group rerouted to help US strike on Syria

The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz along with four destroyers and a cruiser have been ordered to move west in the Arabian Sea toward the Red Sea, so that it can help support a US strike on Syria if requested, a US official told Reuters.

“It’s about leveraging the assets to have them in place should the capabilities of the carrier strike group and the presence be needed,” the official told Reuters, adding that it was not clear when the ships would enter the Red Sea.

According to a US defense official, the USS Nimitz entered the Red Sea around 6 am EDT. The strike group has not received any orders to move into the Mediterranean, the official said.

The Nimitz carrier group was supporting the US war in Afghanistan and was due to return to its home port in Everett, Washington, after being released from duty by the USS Harry S. Truman strike group.

Considering the volatile situation and a looming decision on a Syria strike, US military officials have decided to send the Nimitz toward the Red Sea, and possibly the Mediterranean, the source said.

Another US official told Reuters that so far there was not a final decision to reposition the carrier group to the Mediterranean, and that the Navy is trying to “reduce the physics of time and space” to be ready for a possible call to arms.

Over the weekend a US amphibious transport ship USS San Antonio was also deployed to the Mediterranean. Although it has “received no specific tasking” it was rerouted to a US naval base on the Greek island of Crete.

The US Navy already has five destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean carrying an estimated load of 200 Tomahawk missiles. The naval presence was boosted over the past week in anticipation of an imminent US attack.

In the coming week, while US lawmakers will be discussing the prospects of a “limited military strike” requested by the commander-in-chief, military officials are expected to use the delay in military action to decide on the location of other US ships in the region.

The US President has already decided a limited military strike is necessary to teach Syria a lesson and prevent possible further use of chemical weapons against the Syrian population and US allies in the region. A formal request seeking authorization from legislators to launch a military campaign was filed on Saturday, and the Senate is expected to vote on the motion no later than the week of September 9.



August 30, 2013
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press journalist Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,”writes Gavlak.

Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.

His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha.

According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels.

“More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak.

If accurate, this story could completely derail the United States’ rush to attack Syria which has been founded on the “undeniable” justification that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR)…


Evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria should not be kept secret – Lavrov

Published time: September 02, 2013

… Later on Monday at another press conference with his South-African counterpart, the minister continued the line of reasoning that the upcoming peace talks are under a grave threat of being derailed completely if the American strike takes place. Already, Lavrov said, we can hear those that side with the strike pushing “not for a surgical tactic, but a wider and deeper strike on the country.”

The Minister explained that every effort was made to bring the Syrian rebels to the negotiating table and that the Geneva framework was in place. However, it appeared that Russia’s partners in the matter – especially those who back the rebels – were less interested in the conference than in creating “controlled chaos”, as Lavrov put it.

Finally, he warned that a strike on Syria would lead to a huge increase in extremism and have the opposite effect to what the backers desire….

Here I must interject – the smokescreen THEY repeatedly use is so obvious here. What the backers desire is exactly what they are most likely to get AND the absolute opposite of what they claim to want. – Ted


Syria urges UN to prevent ‘US-led foreign aggression’

Published time: September 02, 2013

The UN is under growing pressure from Syria to do its job and prevent an American “war of aggression,” and the Arab League demanding punishment for “war criminals” in the Syrian government.

The two identical letters delivered to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and President of the UN Security Council, Maria Cristina Perceval call on the international body to maintain its role of protector of international legitimacy and prevent US-led aggression against Damascus, Syria’s permanent representative to the UN Bashar al-Jaafari told Sana.

The Syrian government continues to deny any use of chemical weapons on the civilian population, with Jaafari reminding of Syria’s cooperation with the UN on this issue, which was often downplayed and twisted in the western media.

“The Syrian government is the first side who asked the UN Secretary General to form an objective investigation team to investigate the use of chemical weapons in Khan al-Assal in Aleppo,” Bashar al-Jaafari said, adding that they warned, “more than a year ago, against the serious risks of the possibility of using chemical materials by the armed terrorist groups in Syria.”

Despite the Syrian government’s swift permission for the UN investigation team to probe the site of the alleged attack on August 21, some “foreign countries” launched an anti-Assad campaign accusing government forces of slaughtering their own people, Jaafari said.

“Syria has informed, in official letters, the UN Secretary General and the UNSC about the activities of these groups, which coincided with a political, diplomatic and media campaign led by some countries which are directly responsible for shedding the blood in Syria and preventing the peaceful solution in order to accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapon,” he added….


UK Foreign Secretary says Syria military action ruled out

Published time: September 01, 2013

… William Hague, the UK’s foreign secretary, has ruled out military intervention in Syria stating Britain will only be offering diplomatic support in the light of PM Cameron’s defeat on the parliament vote. The UK Chancellor slammed Labour “opportunists.”

“Parliament has spoken. I don’t think it is realistic to think that we can go back to parliament every week with the same question having received no for an answer,” Hague said …

…Ongoing protests against UK military intervention Syria have been taking place, the most recent of which fell on Sunday. Thousands gathered in London’s Trafalgar Square, marching under banners stating that “war solves nothing.”

The vote was defeated by a 285 to 272 margin, constituting what was deemed a “major blow” to the party. The war vote was the first lost by a British prime minister since 1782

It is not coincidental that the Rothschild empire took control of the English government in 1815 and has used that power for great profit ever since. – Ted


Meanwhile, back in the land of the free:

In an executive order the Obama Administration has secretly blocked the re-importation of American made M-1 Garand and M-1 Carbine rifles being stored in South Korea.

These rifles were used by the US military during the Korean War and left there after the war was over.

With one stroke of his pen, he bi-passed the legislative process and banned nearly a million American-made rifles by executive fiat.

Make no mistake, these rifles were made in America, by Americans and used by American soldiers to defend freedom on foreign shores.

Now State Department officials claim that these antique, collector rifles could be used to commit crimes. If an M1 Garand was on the table with 8 rounds of ammo, there isn’t one guy in twenty who could load and fire it.. let alone accurately.

These are historic, collectible, beautiful rifles for those with knowledge and appreciation of them. However, 30-06 rifles with steel butt-plates and a loading mechanism that can and does brutally smash thumbs if not handled well ARE NOT the weapons of choice for the criminal element.

That, however, is not the point, is it?

Stay tuned – I’ll have more to say on this topic – Ted