What the Media is Missing in the Bloody Boy from Aleppo Photo: Thank You, Hillary

Ralph Lopez


Screen Shot 2016-01-23 at 2.38.28 PM

Editor's Note
For people who rarely read links when provided in articles, I recommend you pick up the habit. Some authors actually use them to good purpose as a provider of information, as well as for source acknowledgement purposes. A case in point is the first link in this article to a Wikileaks document that provides some info that puts many things in focus regarding the US (and Israel’s) holding onto the ouster of Assad EVEN IF IT KILLS EVERY CIVILIAN IN SYRIA. These people have NO concern for the people of Syria. Like the rest of the population of the Middle East and Asia, the people of Syria are virtually worthless to both the US and Israel where the loss of ONE Israeli or American life must be answered by the blood of hundreds – at least. Hence Syria is important for its strategic role vis a vis Israel and Iran, and the population is basically expendable in all calculations (except as a propaganda tool to legitimate continued decimation of them, and further hegemonic control of the region.)

Of course there is another interest for the US regarding access to Syria’s offshore oil. There are a variety of articles relating this. I would suggest doing a search that looks something like this Syria Assad offshore oil US and see what you come up with. I will offer two: “Western Firms Primed to Cash in on Syria’s Oil and Gas ‘Frontier” by Nafeez Ahmed; and “Syria: Ultimate Pipelineistan War” by Pepe Escobar. And there is global warming with a 5 year Syrian drought that left water resources at zero and rural Syria without hope (prime recruiting for anyone wanting to start a “revolution).

This poor boy, we have seen him dozens of times already. But NEVER do they say that the “rebels” are not pausing to either let people out (or supplies in) – rebels backed by the good ole U.S.A. And while they imply it was a Syrian government (or even Russian) missile that took out this boy’s home and family, they don’t (quite) go there, because there is a good possibility that it was a “rebel” missile (or even a drone missile) that did the deed. The answer (all too often) is “war is a dirty business.”  Now back to this shell-shocked boy.

Oded Yinon
Zionist supremacist Yinon

Wikileaks has released what may be the most underreported story of the year in a year full of them, Hillary Clinton’s uncanny fulfillment of Oded Yinon’s plan for the Middle East according to Israel 30 years ago. This was summed up in Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.” Yinon, an influential right-wing Israeli strategist, envisioned a Middle East riven with conflict between Arab tribes and religious denominations, unable to oppose Israeli ambitions for regional dominance. Yinon wrote:

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel…Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon.

When former presidential candidate General Wes Clark shockingly proclaimed in 2011 that he had seen a memo emanating from the Bush defense department which revealed that the invasion of Iraq was only the beginning of a much more extensive program of “regime change” across the Middle East, one could not help but recall Yinon’s desire to provoke “inter-Arab confrontation.” Recalling a conversation with a Pentagon staffer before the invasion of Iraq, Clark told an audience:

I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

In a recently released email from the Clinton Archives, which run from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014 while she was Secretary of State, Clinton wrote from the standpoint of not US interests, but Israel’s. She said:

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.

The unabashedly hawkish, typically cynical exchange, which seems to telegraph the intent to overcome obstacles to “common view” which would justify an attack on Iran, shows that Hillary is of a like mind with Yinon, who held that toppling stable Arab regimes and uncorking fratricidal civil wars, which may go on for decades, is in Israel’s interest.

General Wes Clark, “Seven Countries in Five Years”

With the world freshly shocked at an image seen in Syria and Libya every day, wounded children, it might help to remember the most exuberant advocate, as Secretary of State, for the military actions which unloosed the horrors seen today in these war zones. The photo of the boy is but one fairly tame example. The true carnage is unpublishable.

In a piece at Huffington Post, “Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath,” Harvard’s Professor Jeffrey Sachs writes:

Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called “Friends of Syria” to back the CIA-led insurgency.

Sachs is outraged at Hillary’s portraying herself as a “negotiator” who helped conclude ceasefires, writing:

This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton’s role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.

As for Libya, not only was Hillary the Obama administration’s most ardent supporter of military action to overthrow Gaddafi. It now comes out that the entire pretense for NATO intervention – stopping a massacre of civilians by Gaddafi, was pure fiction. Human Rights Watch, as reported in the Boston Globe:

released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.

Charles Kubic at the National Interest writes in “Hillary’s Huge Libyan Disaster”:

Despite valid ceasefire opportunities to prevent “bloodshed in Benghazi” at the onset of hostilities, Secretary Clinton intervened and quickly pushed her foreign policy in support of a revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood and known terrorists in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

Ongoing casualties of the Libyan Civil War are now in the hundreds of thousands, with just the latest UN report documenting 49 this month of June.

These are the dogs of war unleashed, in no small part, by Hillary. A disturbing glimpse of the cavalier attitude held by Clinton toward the chaos fomented by her policies was given when, told the news of Gaddafi’s torture and death, quipped and laughed: “We came, we saw, he died.”

Combined with her boosterism for the Iraq War while a US senator from New York, which included repeating now thoroughly debunked Bush lies about weapons of mass destruction, and with Hillary already talking of escalation of the US military role in Syria, it behooves those frightened by Donald Trump to say how any candidate could be any scarier, from a been-there-done-that perspective, than Hillary. She has in the past threatened to “obliterate” Iran with nuclear weapons, and once cackled maniacally with James Baker III at the thought of finally attacking Iran.

Summing it up best, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein once observed wryly:

“Trump says very scary things—deporting immigrants, massive militarism and ignoring the climate. Hillary, unfortunately, has a track record for doing all of those things,”

Screen Shot 2016-01-23 at 2.38.28 PMRalph Lopez, Pulishes at hubpages/@ralphlopez majored in Economics and Political Science at Yale University.  He has published in the Boston Globe and the Baltimore Sun.  He is a regular contributor to TruthOut.org, Alternet, Op-Ed News, and other Internet news media.  He reported from Afghanistan in 2009 and produced a short documentary film on the underlying causes of the war.

Source: Hub Pages.


Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

horiz-long grey

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.57.29 PMNauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

Send a donation to

The Greanville Post–or
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?


Make sure many more people see this. It's literally a matter of life an death. Imperial lies kill! Share widely.
  • 11