US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power last weekend unleashed a tirade of vitriol at the emergency session of the UN called by Russia following US-led coalition airstrikes which killed approximately 80 Syrian soldiers in Deir ez-Zor last Saturday.

Vile bizarre, ugly, is how Jason Ditz described her performance in AntiWar.com. I think he is only scratching the surface, as the petulant, almost childish performance of Power left the visibly shaken Russian Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, to front the media, explaining that Power said she was not interested in what he had to say as what he had to say was "a stunt." Churkin said: "I have never seen such an extraordinary display of American heavy-handedness."

As well as labelling calling the emergency session a "stunt," Power said Russia was grandstanding, hypocritical and accused it of killing civilians and hitting hospitals and refugee camps. The Syrian government was not spared her acid tongue either; she accused it of routinely using chemical weapons, intentionally striking civilian targets, preventing the delivery of humanitarian supplies, and brutal torture. Power glossed over the horrendous crime of the day, the slaughter of 80 Syrian soldiers, before launching into her full frontal attack on Russia and Syria. It was a slap in the face of Syrian families who have lost their fathers, husbands, brothers and sons, and of the ceasefire now hanging on tenterhooks.

If you were reading the Health and Wellness section of SOTT over the past week, you probably saw a few things that were shocking to say the least. And I'm not talking about magnetic particles from traffic exhaust entering your brain (although, granted, that's pretty shocking). I'm talking about the articles covering the push we see from the Powers That Be toward a healthcare police state, complete with forced vaccinations and quarantining of populations. Sound a tad dramatic? Read on.

Last month the Centers for Disease Control in the U.S. quietly announced their plans to grant themselves the power to apprehend and detain people deemed "reasonably believed to be infected with a [quarantinable communicable] disease in its qualifying stage and (A) moving or about to move from a state to another state; or (B) to be a probable source of infection to individuals who, while infected with such disease in a qualifying stage, will be moving from a state to another state". The details are laid out in a long Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the August 15, 2016, Federal Register to amend federal public health law. The full document is here.

While in New York for the UN General Assembly debate, Russian FM Lavrov held a meeting with US Secretary of State Kerry, after which the Russian Foreign Ministry released a statement saying that:

"Lavrov emphasized that the United States' fulfillment of its obligations to differentiate the moderate opposition groups and terrorists [in Syria] was a priority, as well as a more active influence of regional sides on the the radical groups."

It may be true, but it's entirely unrealistic, and that's the point.

Ideally, it would all work out: the U.S. would tell its jihadis to break their alliances with al-Nusra and physically separate themselves. Then, they could abide by the ceasefire, stop fighting, and stop being killed, while Nusra and Daesh are eliminated. On the slim chance that would happen, it would be a win for Syria and Russia, and the U.S. too (at least, for those that realize the current strategy isn't working).

But it hasn't happened, and chances are it never will, because the so-called moderates aren't moderate. They are al-Nusra allies - they hold the same goals and employ the same terror tactics. That's why they have refused to cease fighting, despite the U.S. (allegedly) commanding them to do so. But even then, it's still a win of sorts for Syria and Russia, for it exposes the fact that the so-called moderates are not moderate, and that the U.S. either cannot or will not exert any control over them.

Kerry wants ceasefire, Syria/Russia say no, resume attacks on jihadists

The current situation in Syria may look like a confusing mess, but we think there are enough clues to make some sense of it. It all comes down to a statement UN ambassador Churkin made after his close encounter with Samantha "Kill 'em to save 'em" Power: "Who is in charge in Washington? Is it the White House or the Pentagon?" The Pentagon and CIA are rabidly anti-Assad; they don't want a ceasefire. Kerry and the State Department appear - at least on the surface - to want the ceasefire to succeed, despite their continued anti-Assad rhetoric. That doesn't necessarily mean their aims and objectives are the same as Russia's when it comes to Syria, but if we give them the benefit of the doubt, at the very least they aren't completely insane like Ash Carter and the rest of the war hawks. What makes us think that?

Unless Kerry and the rest of the negotiating team are complete idiots, they must have known that a simple repeat of the February ceasefire would not work, for the simple reason that the February ceasefire did not work. The lengthy negotiations and the U.S.-requested secrecy of the specific details suggest that the U.S. made major concessions. They could have refused to go forward, blaming Russia for unrealistic demands or some other such nonsense. But they didn't. And the publicly known goals of the agreement are all agreeable to Syria and Russia and align with their intentions throughout the course of the war for the past year or so: cooperation in the fight against Nusra and Daesh, separation of "moderate" and Nusra elements (i.e., a face-saving way for the U.S. to save some of its Nusra proxies), and humanitarian aid.

These haven't been U.S. goals in the war, but by agreeing to them, the U.S. can appear to be on the right side of history and morality. What the U.S. really needed was a face-saving way of scaling back their failed strategy without being totally discredited. For the saner factions in Washington, this apparently means scaling back the demands for regime change (Assad's future was not even mentioned in the agreement), saving some of their proxies (by rebranding some as moderates and hanging others out to dry in joint U.S.-Russian airstrikes), and perhaps leaving open an eventual plan B later down the line in the political process utilizing the remaining "opposition". Bottom line: the "military" solution isn't working; the Syrians are steadily winning against all brand of anti-government jihadists. (The real moderates sign truce agreements with the government.)

In his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler wrote that the best way to manipulate public opinion en masse was to use the 'big lie' - a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

According to Hitler, an example of the 'big lie' was seen in the way in which the Jews blamed Germany's defeat in WWI on German General Eric Ludendorff. After WWI, Ludendorff had popularized the idea that Germany had lost the war because they were 'stabbed in the back' by Marxists and Bolsheviks - many of whom were Jews - who led the 1918-1919 German revolution that is credited with helping to bring an end to German involvement in the war. So the allegations against Ludendorff were a response to his allegations against the Jews.

Just a day after bombing Syrian troops who were fighting Daesh, the Americans have bombed Afghan police who were fighting the Taliban. The officers were guarding a security checkpoint near Tarin Kot during the "double tap" (trademark held by the IDF) airstrikes. The first airstrike killed one officer, then when seven additional officers returned to the scene, they too were targeted and killed. Highway Police Commander Samunwal Rahimullah Khan told VOA, "we are unable to understand why Americans targeted our policemen."

The U.S. insists it was targeting "individuals" firing on Afghan National Defense and Security Forces. Perhaps the U.S. really is that incompetent. Or perhaps the U.S. really is that Machiavellian - staging a repeat of their "mistake" in Syria just in order to prove to the world that it really was an accident. Either way, the world should react by containing American idiocy and the destruction it causes, whether mistakenly or intentionally. Either way, people die needlessly.

Yet again, US' 'diplomacy' threatens to further destabilize the Middle East. After NATO murdered Syrian soldiers in broad daylight - an act of war against Syria and, arguably, against Russia - by conducting airstrikes on behalf of ISIS, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power had the gall to walk out of a emergency UN Security Council meeting on the matter. Instead of responding sanely to Russia's request for information, Power completely side-stepped the issue and, delusional as ever, demanded that Russia pressure Syria to 'push for peace'. Stunned, her Russian counterpart Vitaly Churkin called her walk-out an act of 'unprecedented contempt.'

Churkin went on to say: "What I saw today, unfortunately, was very concerning, as my American colleague Samantha Power behaved very strangely to say the least." It's obvious that things are bad when even seasoned diplomats like Churkin are compelled to comment on the strange behavior of their colleagues. But then, again, Power herself is a unique type of crazy. The 'asthenic' psychopath as described by Lobaczewski is relevant here.

Asthenic psychopaths are, among other things, hypersensitive and full of dreams of reforming the world, seeking to 'save it' in their own crazy way. The result is typically mass murder, which in no way deters them from pursuing their 'ideal world.' They are easily found in literary and political milieus, where they seek to impose their false idealism on others. There's also one to be found inside Samantha Power's head.

The big news this weekend has obviously been the U.S.'s massacre of 62 Syrian soldiers in Deir ez-Zor, in which they provided air cover for a Daesh offensive on the besieged city. The Americans reportedly dropped phosphorus bombs on the Syrians, killing many of them instantly. You can read all about it in our full coverage of the incident here:

• Russia-brokered ceasefire shattered as US airstrikes against Syrian Army in Deir ez-Zor leaves 80 soldiers dead, over 100 injured (UPDATES)

To give a brief recap of events leading up to it: the ceasefire went into effect on Monday. On Friday, it was extended for the final 72 hours, after which Russia and the U.S. planned to set up their joint implementation group, collaborating on targeting Nusra and Daesh. Despite hundreds of violations on the part of the U.S.-backed rebels, this was still the plan. But the U.S. was threatening to pull out because Assad wasn't letting UN aid into Syria - no mention of the fact that this was because the U.S.-backed rebels north of Aleppo refused to abide by the agreement to demilitarize the road on which the aid convoys were planned to travel. But the details were all worked out, with convoys planned for this morning. In other words, the U.S. would have no reason to call the ceasefire a failure. Now this.

The U.S. says it was targeting Daesh in the area, which is ridiculous for several reasons: 1) they've never provided air cover for Syrian troops in the past, 2) the Syrians were known to have held the area targeted, 3) if they had really been observing the 'targets' for days, they would have known exactly who they were targeting, 4) if they really wanted to attack Daesh, they could have waited 2 days in order to do so with Russian coordination. Unless they're just total idiots, this attack was deliberate, and it came just 2 days before the planned U.S.-Russian coordination. Someone is trying to sabotage the ceasefire, and it looks like the Pentagon is the guilty party.

With just two days left before the planned creation of a Russian-U.S. joint implementation group in the war on Daesh and Nusra in Syria, the Americans have done the unthinkable. Not only did they break the ceasefire they had allegedly agreed to last Friday; they targeted positions of the Syrian Army in Daesh-besieged Deir ez-Zor. The troops defending the city there were not even involved in the war against the U.S.'s "moderate" jihadis in other areas of the country. Now, 62 Syrian soldiers are dead, 100 are wounded, and the future of the ceasefire - and the war as a whole - does not look good. The U.S. has not even taken full responsibility, passing with ease between subtly blaming Russia, explicitly blaming Assad, and pretending it was an accident.

On this episode of Behind the Headlines, we discuss the massacre, its context, and what it means in relation to the ceasefire and the dirty war on Syria in general. Brent also joins us for a Police State Roundup.

Running Time: 02:04:15

Download: MP3

Last Sunday, I, like millions of people around the world, was intrigued by the collapse of Hillary Clinton at the 15th 9/11 memorial in New York City.

I quickly visualized ear-to-ear grins on those who were convinced Clinton has serious health problems. 'Vindicated!' I could hear them say.

Next, I turned my attention to the mainstream media, which had just spent the last year arrogantly scoffing at all those 'conspiracy theorists' claiming that Clinton is very (and possibly terminally) ill. I could see them squirming behind their rickety old typewriters, wondering how they'd wriggle out of this one. Belatedly, some in the MSM have now conceded that Clinton's health is a campaign issue.

I predicted that Putin would be blamed. So I waited for the shoe to drop. And I waited. And then waited some more. Hang on, let me scour Twitter again, surely it will be there...

Come on MSM, lift your game! Are you all worn out, bereft of inspiration, or just cringing at the thought of having to trundle out more hyper-russophobic fantasy? We all know the headline you want to write:

"Putin 'did a Litvinenko' on Clinton"

Isn't that the next logical step in your trumpeting of Clinton by demonizing Putin?