On the surface, the cessation of hostilities was a failure. But it has its advantages, simply by virtue of the fact that it has exposed the reality of U.S. support for terrorism: the attack on Deir ez-Zor, the attack on the aid convoy in Aleppo, and the failure to separate moderates from extremists. With the cat out of the bag, Syria, Russia and Iran are now relatively free to continue their war on terrorism. One of the most important battles of the war - Aleppo city - has entered a new and critical phase. That doesn't mean the end of U.S. treachery, but it does mean the end of treating the U.S. as a partner with good intentions.

On this episode of Behind the Headlines, we discussed the latest developments, and other news.

Running Time: 01:34:30

Download: MP3

For 5 years, bloody mayhem has been going on in Syria, and in all that time only independent media has picked up on the really obvious flaw in the official narrative about the "Syrian civil war" ...

Officially, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) is a UK-based organization providing data to the Western press about troop movements, government policy and public sentiment in Syria. The Western press then reprints the information they are given - no questions asked:
What Western media editors conceal from the public however, is that the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" is neither based in Syria nor is it an observer of what actually goes on there. It is essentially one man - Abdul Rahman, aka Rami Abdulrahman, aka Osama Suleiman - a three-term convicted criminal in Syria, based out of a small house in Coventry, England, and his 'team of four activists in Syria'.

Apparently all it takes to inform the entire Western media about everything that is happening on the ground in Syria is four people. Four people could, theoretically, provide reasonably objective reports, but only if they were open to receiving information from many sources, including ones supportive of the Syrian government. They might even be able to produce - using objective discernment - reliable statistics of casualties, refugees and terrorists/rebels. But SOHR has consistently reported the 'civil war' from only the perspective of the so-called 'rebels', discounting Syrian government reports out of hand, as well as reports from civilians that reveal rebels' crimes.

That fact alone makes SOHR about as reliable a source of information on the Syrian conflict as the US State Department and the British Foreign Office, who have a vested interest in spinning the war to produce one end: the death or removal of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad.

The Russian cellist and conductor Sergei Roldugin recently shared an eye-opening anecdote regarding Putin and Obama. He apparently told a group of journalists - "confidentially" - that "Obama's bodyguards are not trusting enough to leave him alone with Putin, so that they can speak one-on-one." Sure, Putin is a martial arts master and ex-KGB, but to imagine he would put Obama in a chokehold or poison his tea is ridiculous. There has to be another reason, besides concerns for his physical safety, why Obama needs minders during his meetings with Putin. What could it possibly be?

The answer should be clear, and it has to do with what we wrote about on Tuesday regarding the differences of opinion between the State Department and the Pentagon, for example. But it goes deeper than that. Even disregarding the infighting and departmental rivalries, there is a power structure in the U.S. which goes beyond any individual group, whether the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, State Department, etc. Peter Dale Scott, among others, calls it the 'deep state' - a network of individuals in the public and private spheres who wield a disproportionate amount of influence on policy. This is the "CIA within the CIA", and the interconnections with Wall Street, private intelligence firms, Big Oil, big banks, arms manufacturers, and so on.

When it comes down to it, Obama has relatively little power. He was probably sincere in his promises to close Guantanamo, for example, but the simple fact is: it wasn't his decision to make. He may have had a hand in averting all-out war on Syria in 2013, but he couldn't have done it without the catalytic role of Russia's intervention with Assad to destroy Syria's chemical weapons. When it comes to unilateral decisions, however, Obama doesn't make any. And he can't. Thus, his minders. If Obama were to have a private conversation with Putin, there's a risk he may go "off script", and that simply isn't allowed.

The human body is teeming with billions -- nay, TRILLIONS -- of microbes with over a thousand different species populating the gut alone. We are covered with bacteria, fungi, viruses and parasites from the top of our heads to the bottom of our feet, inside and out. How did we come to be populated with such a vast array of these little beasties and what's their purpose? What influence do they exert on our physical and mental health and, more importantly, what can we do (and what can we avoid doing) to keep our microbial community happy and in balance?

Join us on this episode of the Health and Wellness Show as we take a look at the role these microbiota play from infancy to adulthood, in sickness and in health. Learn how to create poo you can be proud of and a microbiome that works in your favor. Cause -- let's face it -- germs are here to stay!

Stay tuned for Zoya's Pet Health Segment and learn about probiotics for your pets.

Running Time: 01:32:55

Download: MP3

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.