Militants Destroyed Aid Convoy To Blame Russia & Syria

The suspicion is that the attack on the aid convoy was a deliberate provocation to distract from the American criminal assault on the Syrian army in support of ISIS. This would explain why Kerry keeps repeating the lie that it was Syrian or Russian planes... even when he has no more evidence then he did with the false flag chemical attack in Syria or the shoot down of M17.

Malas of the Red Crescent who escorted the convoy said that everything points to the militants exploding and setting fire to the trucks of the convoy. There was also a mass attack at the same time in the vicinity by the terrorists that should be investigated.

There are two possibilities for the attack according to an expert, either the terrorists decided to do so on their own, or they received an order from Washington to do so, in order to distract from their criminal act of entering Syria illegally and killing the Syrian soldiers.

Not only were there 200 killed and maimed by our planes when they attacked the Syrian army, there are now the 20 civilians killed who were escorting the aid convoy... yet it's all for a good cause, or at least in the minds of our resident psychopaths it is, since it will arouse people against Russia as they head the world towards war. With all this criminality, is it any wonder Clinton said that if she doesn't win they will all hang.

"There is no evidence that it was an airstrike of either Russian or Syrian aviation on the humanitarian convoy in Syria," Wael al Malas, the representative of the Syrian branch of the Red Crescent, which escorted the convoy, told Russia's Izvestiya newspaper.

"On the contrary, everything points to it being the militants of the terrorist organizations who exploded and set on fire the trucks of the convoy," he added.

It should be also noted, al Malas added, that the attack coincided with the militant assault on the positions of the Syrian army near Aleppo.

"Therefore it was more likely a provocation aimed at capturing the media's attention in order to accuse Damascus and Moscow of the attack," he stated.

"It cannot be ruled out that there was an order to distract somehow the attention from that particular incident and move the spotlight on to Russia," he suggested.

The expert said, there are thus two possibilities behind this attack: either the oppositional forces decided on their own to escalate the situation and attack the convoy, or they might have received an order from the US to do so.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160922/1045586415/syria-convoy-attack-provocation.html

​

 

Lol .... the Russia did it' narrative is beginning to fall apart.

 

And so is any hope of any peace process in Syria. Lavrov said no more and that they are all a sham. From now on the situation is serious and full scale war is on its way... exactly as the Russia political scientist Alexander Dugin said will happen before the elections.

I'm making a new thread on it.

 

Fort Russ has compiled a timeline of events in this information war concerning the aid convoy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/09/russias-counter-blow-info-war-victory.html?m=1

In a surprising turn of events, Russia struck back at the US and the western media disinformation campaign, causing NATO to back off from claiming that Russia or Syria was responsible for the attack on the Red Crescent aid convoy destroyed earlier this week. This became evident after the public statement of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Wednesday, September 21, in comments to media following an ad-hoc meeting with Russian FM Sergei Lavrov.

Western media outlets previously reported, both through AP and Reuters distributors like the New York Times, LA Times, etc., as well as the UK's Guardian and BBC, that US officials laid the blame on Russia for the attack on the Red Crescent aid convoy in Syria. The attack destroyed nearly twenty of the thirty-one trucks scheduled to arrive in Uram Al-Kubra.

Reuters apparently broke the US version of events, duplicitously citing two conveniently anonymous military sources, claiming that:

"Two Russian Sukhoi SU-24 warplanes were in the skies above an aid convoy in Syria at the precise time it was struck on Monday, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Tuesday, citing U.S. intelligence that has led them to conclude Russia was to blame." -Reuters, September 19th, 2016.

The same article went on to claim in conclusion that: "The strike appeared to deal a fatal blow to Syria's fragile week-old ceasefire."

On September 20th, the Guardian ran with the headline "Russian planes dropped bombs that destroyed UN aid convoy, US officials say".

These indicate an intention on the part of the US to spin this event, placing blame on Russia both for the attack on the aid convoy and also for the collapsed ceasefire, in the first hours and days after the convoy attack, as part of a public disinformation campaign to create that ever-important first impression in the public mind's eye.

As a matter of record, it was the planned US and ISIS joint attack on the Syrian Arab Army forces at Deir ez-Zor on September 17th, 2016, that led to the Syrian government unilaterally calling off the ceasefire hours before the attack on the Red Crescent convoy. The diplomatic crisis was compounded by the 'heavy handed' and 'unprofessional' ( in the words of Russia's UN rep, Churkin,) approach of the US's UN representative Samantha Power at an emergency session of the UN Security Council.

Therefore, the western media focus on the aid caravan attack seems to aimed at deflecting blame on the collapsed ceasefire away from the US, and diverting public attention onto a more recent news story - this is in line with the use of the 'recency effect' in psychology. Human memories are not recording devices, and the public is prone to remember things based cues and references independent of reality.

Several narratives and events, in the chronological order below, are important to understand as the story unfolded
. *
1. The Reuters and AP, pieces set the Atlanticist media tone and gave all derivative media their talking points with a clear angle to follow. In this version, media reported that US officials 'knew' who carried out the attack: Russia. The Guardian was a degree more cautious, both citing the Reuters piece which 'cited' the anonymous US military sources but also included their own follow up with the White House and found that: "The White House and state department said they could not confirm the allegations, while the Russian foreign ministry rejected them with “resentment and indignation”."

2. The UN's initial statement that the destruction of the convoy was a result of 'air strikes' seemed to all but confirm that Russian or Syrian air forces were responsible, within the context of the publicly pronounced presumption that there were no US air forces present at the time.

3. The UN then suddenly reversed its official statement, and withdrew its assessment that the destruction was caused by 'air strikes' and deferred the matter to pending investigation. One can only speculate what caused this sudden reversal, but it appears likely this was a diplomatic success on the part of Russia, which at any rate could have only led to great confusion on the part of the US as to what Russia's coming prepared response was going to be.

4. Russia released aerial footage of the aid caravan, also showing an off-road vehicle towing a large caliber mortar. This was an interesting twist, and laid the potential for Russia to deny attacking the convoy while publicly presenting an understandable reason why it would be legitimate to attack it. Aid caravans have long been suspected by all sides as a way to cloak the transport or import of military equipment. Russia has publicly stated that its position is that the Caravan 'caught fire', using the passive tense in textual construction, and not indicating necessarily 'who', if anyone 'set' this fire, or if it was a random accident caused by heat, or even possibly the existence of munitions being smuggled in to aid US backed enemy combatants.

5. Public analysts and watchdog journalists across the internet, such as 21Wire, noticed that several of the released photographs of the damaged trucks indicated evidence of small weapons fire, and noted a lack of the sort of craters or blast marks that would be consistent with either shelling or an aerial attack. While this sort of 'remote forensics by photography' is useful in the public discourse, and even critical in some cases such as MH17, it is not conclusive in cases of a larger area of attack, because photographs in circulation were not taken with the intention of documenting the entire scene from several angles with the aim of seeking out conclusive evidence. Nevertheless, the possibilities raised are still present, and independent journalism surrounding this stands as an important contribution to public awareness

6. Russia went public with its intel, providing back up evidence to confirm, that a US predator drone was overhead in the skies at the same time as the attack. At the same time, it says that the cause of the loss of about 2/3rds of the aid caravan (18 of 31 trucks) was the result of 'fire'.

7. Lavrov met with Stoltenberg, in an ad-hoc meeting at the sidelines of the UN's 71st General Assembly, the details of which are presently unknown to the public. Based upon the following, it would appear that the exchange of data entailed more than what Russia went public with. We of course can only speculate that there may have been some direct evidence of the predator drone making the attack. Or perhaps there is aerial footage of a shelling from the direction of rebel held areas. The release of several perhaps conflicting narratives from Russia and the independent media sphere have created the likelihood that any one of these versions may be correct.

8. Stoltenberg, a named source, in his position as the result of what is effectively a US appointment, publicly stated that he will "not speculate on who carried out the attack", which is a decisively different position than what was expressed through Western media, in an original Reuters story citing unnamed sources from the US military. The meaning of this is tremendous in terms of the public discourse. In an RT story in connection with this, they included the following:

"Moscow, however, strongly denied it had played any part in the atrocity, while calling it “another unacceptable provocation.”

"On Wednesday, Lavrov confirmed that Russia had provided all data related to the incident for investigation, and pointed out that the timing of the attack coincided with the large militant offensive in the 1070 district of Aleppo."

"Lavrov and his American counterpart, John Kerry, are expected to meet face-to-face for the second time since the start of the UN General Assembly session on Wednesday evening, a Russian delegation source told RIA Novosti."

9. Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Igor Konashenkov today has just said that there was an explosion at the caravan, and that the US's use of a predator drone is documented, which it is prepared to reveal to the public. But it is critical, very critical, to note here that the spokesman does not exactly connect the dots explicitly, which leaves upon some important openings listed below.

10. As a result, a number of possibly contradictory public and official theories have surfaced, all however which tend to shift blame away from the Russian or Syrian forces. This is a compelling development, as both sides seek dominance in the information war.

 

Usually when the Russians"vehemently" deny something..they may had something to do with it..it's an old play they've used time and time again, deflect, obfuscate, lie, etc.

 

Woogs, I noticed like in your article above, that ever since the investigative reporter Robert Parry and Donald Trump said that the advice given by the Intelligence Agents to the president is ignored, the propaganda networks make a point of referring information as having come from the Intelligence Agency ...rather than from their own stupid Think Tank lobbyists, and sociopath heads.

What a bunch of bull(*)(*)(*)(*). But then again is there anything coming out of this administration that is not bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

The convoy was destroyed from the air by aircraft dropping bombs, shooting rockets from the air, and firing small canon shells with rapid fire guns. The " militants" do not have air power. Russia and Syria gave air power. Thiose were Russian war planes either flown by Russians or Russuan planes flown by Syrian Assad,s barbarians.

The murder of those aid workers in on the hands of Russia and Assad.

 

Impossible for the narative of truth to fall apart. The world knows that the convoy was destroyed by Russia and Russians murdered the aid workers.

God and the truth is on our side.

 

This time we have the proof thatvRussia and it,scappoligists are lying.The militants do not gave an AirForce. Russia and Assad,s Syria has an AirForce. Russua and or Syria flying Russian planes bombed that convoy and murdered those aid workers.

EOS

 

The convoy wasn't attacked by planes, so come up with another one.

 

.... thanks, I needed that

 

Yeah, that's why the UN and the NATO Secretary General are backing off that claim.

Stay tuned for more obfuscation and back-peddling.

 

What world? Your alternative reality one?



*It's our world Partizan1*

 

It's gonna end up like this .....
[video=youtube;OjYoNL4g5Vg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjYoNL4g5Vg&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

 

I do not give a damn what the UN authorities are now saying about the case. I know the history of Russwians and that history is not pretty. Russia lies, then denies, then Luke's again.

 

My world is based on history and the history if Russia is that Russia very was, us nit nun, and never will be trustworthy. Even during WW II WHILE WE SAVED Russia from destruction by the Germaniacs they were ready to betray us, , spy on us, and stab us in the back.

 

Haters gonna hate. Meanwhile, in Ukraine ....

In 2011, the ‘criminal pro-Russian regime’ of Victor Yanukovich had the wildly popular former PM, Julia Timoshenko, jailed for signing a deal with Gazprom on terms supposedly favorable to Russia.

“Julia! Julia!”, chanted the crowds at the Maidan who cheered her triumphant return after Yanukovich’s violent overthrow in February 2014 for refusing to sign an association agreement with the EU.

Several days ago, Timoshenko travelled to the Ukraine’s westernmost and most pro-European region of Lvov and came back concluding that Yanukovich was not so bad after all.

Addressing her fellow Verkhovna Rada deputies Timoshenko, the leader of the Fatherland Party, said that people there call the present Kiev policy “systematic genocide”:

“We had a walk around the city, talking to people. I’ve never seen so many tears, curses, such hopelessness as these people are demonstrating, after consistently fighting for Ukraine’s independence and a pro-European choice. They would say that if the democrats in power cannot rule the country, they should resign and bring back the “criminal power” that improved people’s lives”.

“If that’s the feeling there, you can imagine what people in the rest of the Ukraine think”, she concluded.

 

Oh so the war wasn't fought in Stalingrad, it was fought in Washington? Interesting!

 

Uhhh, didn't some in Washington want to bomb Moscow at the end of the war? Wouldn't you consider that betrayel?

 

Quite funny. When the US attacked Syrian soldiers the past week, they took the blame. When Russia attacks and aide convoy, they blame militants.

 

Who attacked the convoy has not been established yet, but it's looking less and less likely that Syria or Russia did it.

 

It's always been genocide, right from the start... and it's deliberate and not just in the Donbas. Poroshenko refused to give his conscripts protective gear or more than two weeks training. Even Putin reprimanded him for it at the start, not realizing then that it was intentional.

When the soldiers were trapped in a cauldron at Debaltsevo, 3,000 men died, and most of them were caused by accidents since the conscripts didn't know how to man the guns properly. In the meantime the officers were told to escape before the cauldron closed, but not to let the men know that they were trapped... that way they wouldn't surrender. It seems he wanted to kill them off.

I think Washington...and Germany planned on killing off the young men, that way there won't be anyone to farm the land and the corporations can buy it up cheaply. Funny how Beyer a German company bought Monsanto. I guess the plan is to take over the Ukrainian farmland ...something Hitler wanted to do but didn't quite manage it.

 

Why would Russia attack the convoy when the Red Crescent is on friendly terms with Assad, and when it was the militants that didn't want the aid going through to Aleppo? A little logic here?

Also why would Russia want to distract from Washington's criminality of supporting ISIS and killing so many Syrians by attacking an aid convoy at exactly this time? A little logic here?

Anyway Russia handed in it's proof that the drone in the vicinity came from the base at Incirlik in Turkey.

I'm sure this time though, Washington will be handing in its satellite photos proving it was Russian planes and thereby substantiating its rash accusations without the usual trust me?



But I'm so honest!
....

 

I do not see anywhere in the legitimate press networks that says the UN is backing out of saying that thecRussians are the killers of the convoy. Do you have a network source ?