On Hybrid Warfare

Imagine that you are a large country and that you want to destabilize an adversarial government.

Screen Shot 2018-08-24 at 11.20.48 PM


What tactics would you employ aside from direct invasion?

It’s not that hard to figure out a basic plan.

Step 1: Paint that government as bad (anti-democratic, for example).

Step 2: Support the opposition and give them positive media coverage (democratic, for example). Perhaps go as far as sending them weapons.

Step 3: If and when the enemy government suppresses the opposition, stage, along with your allies, an “international” outcry and call it “the international consensus”.

This is hybrid warfare.

The added bonus, of course, is that when that adversarial government blames you, then you can always claim that they’re crazy.

“The president is actually a crazy blood-thirty dictator!”

After all, isn’t it interesting that all “dictators” are presented as crazy? You’d think that there’d be at least one “dictator” who was at least a little in touch with reality. Stalin? Crazy. Castro? Crazy. Mao? Crazy. Gaddafi? Crazy. Khomeini? Crazy. Khamenei? Crazy. Saddam, after the Gulf War? Crazy.

Of course, the real fuckers (the ones supported by the West) are all hailed as being good leaders. Suharto? Strong, sensible. King Salman? Reformer, reasonable. Saddam, before the Gulf War? Clever, clear-headed.

The hypocrisy is mind-blowing.

Anyway, back to the point. This isn’t a conspiracy. This is logic.

Screen Shot 2018-08-24 at 11.10.30 PM

Soviet Propaganda: “Stop the Aggressor!”

After years and years of these repeated representations of the opposition as good and the government as bad, something inevitably starts to stick. After all, here we are in 2018 and where are the “enormous” protests in Venezuela? They’re gone.

But we all know that the next time that protests take place in Venezuela, they’ll revive the ghosts of 2017. No matter the situation, We$tern conservatives and liberals alike will cry out for the Venezuelans. Not for their suffering under imperialism, but for their apparent need to be rescued by imperialism.

And the conservatives and liberals will demonstrate that there is really no difference between them and they’ll say, “Remember 2017? Remember that one time? Remember?”

After all, isn’t this what happens in Iran?

Every time there is a protest, the West is quick to stump for a revival of the Green Movement of 2009. Every protest (that gets media coverage) is an “anti-government” protest, of course. Is that why the striking Bazaar shopkeepers (who aren’t We$tern-backed liberals) barely get any media coverage?

And don’t Iranian government officials sound crazy when they accuse the U.$. of supporting the liberal protests?

This the history of Iran. Denials from the Amerikkkans and the British go back to Operation Ajax in 1953 and the overthrow of Muhammad Mossadegh, the democratically-elected Prime Minister and his replacement with a brutal Amerikkkan puppet dictator – the Shah.

But Ayatollah Khamenei has a big white beard and wears a turban, so he must be insane, right?

The blueprint is so obvious that it barely requires discussion. And this is the key: for years, the U.$. denied Operation Ajax – chalking it up to a conspiracy theory as well. It was only recently (more than half a century after the fact) that it finally admitted to gutting Iranian democracy and installing a imperialist tyrant.

As it was in 1953 in Iran and 2018 in Nicaragua, the West is the master of Hybrid Warfare. Of course, it’s a tactic used by everyone, including the junior imperial partners, Russia and China. And it’s a tactic that everyone uses, because it works.

The propaganda is so effective that you don’t even realize that it’s there. The propaganda is so effective that the people making it don’t even realize that they’re making it.

It’s worth repeating – there is no conspiracy here. It doesn’t take any conspiracy to point at the facts. The CIA chief admitted to trying to destroy Venezuela last year.

Screen Shot 2018-08-24 at 11.16.37 PM

These old Tricontinental posters are my favorite, though.

And there’s no big media conspiracy here either. Journalists and reporters aren’t intentionally lying or manipulating the truth (usually). They’re simply following rational ideological positions. Anyone can go pick up a copy of “Manufacturing Consent” at the library and figure that out fairly quickly.

Journalists in Klanada and Amerikkka often continue to parrot the apparent threat by the Iranian government that they were going to “wipe I$rael off the map”. On the one hand, these are journalists who don’t speak Farsi, of course. On the other hand, in their worldview, it makes sense that Khamenei or Ahmadinejad would say that.

But following these ideological positions, journalists mistranslate and distort facts.

Indeed, the Iranian government never threatened to “wipe I$rael off the map“.

But again, news stories that sensationalize the apparently “crazy” statements of the Iranian leadership just act as another drop in the bucket. Another drop towards war against Iran.




And when I$rael bombs Iranians in another country, everyone is quick to justify it. It’s a whole web of bullshit, legitimized slowly and steadily over a long period of time. Critical thinking is replaced by blind hatred for a perceived enemy. People become willing to believe anything

The propaganda works and, therefore, repeats itself.

Every once in a while on social media or forums like Reddit, a meme appears that shows women in Iran before the Revolution and women in Iran after the Revolution. Of course, the meme never shows regular women before the Revolution. Instead, it focuses on the glamorous, mini-skirted upper-class party-goers.

(A similar meme is now being used with regards to Afghanistan.)

The argument of the meme goes something like this: before the Iranian Revolution, women were free to wear whatever they liked, then Ayatollah Khomeini made everyone wear hijabs, because Islam = bad and the Iranian government is repressive.

The CIA doesn’t need to post this meme on Reddit or Facebook (although it might be doing that), because regular Euro-Amerikkkan people are ready and willing to attack Iran (and all the other countries challenging We$tern hegemony).

Of course, the idea that Iranian women are worse off completely ignores how the Iranian government has actually facilitated women in the public space, how the lives of regular Iranian women have improved dramatically since the Revolution, how middle-class and upper-class protestors wore hijab during the Revolution as a sign of solidarity with regular women, or how literacy rates for women jumped from 29% in 1976 to 87% in 2005.

Screen Shot 2018-08-22 at 8.39.11 AM

Just another powerless Iranian woman.

And this narrative, most important, also ignores We$tern patriarchy and, more specifically, We$tern patriarchy directed at Iranian women and what they wear.

Academics, journalists, and politicians are overly willing to believe nonsense, provided that it aligns with they’re preconceived notions about the world. This was demonstrated through the extraordinary claim recently that China has detained over a million Uyghurs and is housing them in re-education camps, where they are being forced to renounce Islam and accept the Communist Party as a symbol of ideal crimson infallibility.

Of course, in the end, this turned out to be nonsense. China is doing no such thing. The UN never said that China was doing such a thing, but reporters pounced on the story for its liberal sex appeal.

Were the reporters intentionally lying? Obviously not. They were simply reporting information that seemed plausible to them, despite the fact that there was no evidence and the sources were unreliable.

But, as any journalist will tell you, retractions don’t matter. People don’t remember the corrections to the lies.

Khatami thinks Americans are smart

Never forget the time that Khatami thought Amerikkkans read Alexis de Tocqueville.

So you can write a sensational headline that’s full of shit and then back-track later. The ghosts of the headlines haunt every occasion.

Journalism has already served its necessary role in the system of hybrid warfare. And you don’t even need to back-track later, if you can celebrate hybrid warfare itself!

For example, when President Nazi-Clown plans a coup in Venezuela, the New York Times is quick to write about it with nice imperialistic undertonesthe problem with a coup is that it could backfire! And, after reading any other New York Times article about Venezuela, any reader can put two and two together.

Looking around the world today, the signs of hybrid warfare are everywhere. The color revolutions in the Post-Soviet Republics (Ukraine, Georgia, etc.), the instability in the Middle East (Syria, Iran, etc.), and the attempt to dismantle the Pink Tide in Latin America (Venezuela, Nicaragua, etc.) demonstrate this most clearly.

Imperialism has evolved. Today, people embrace the nice, trendy language of the academy: “The Global North is embracing neoliberalism, which marginalizes people in the Global South blah blah blah.” No one wants to talk about imperialism or oppression. No one wants to utter the dreaded verbatim of the Cold War: “The First World” or “The Third World”. This new language masks a stark reality, as far as I can tell.

Therefore, this blog, I can promise you, will continue to use these terms as long as they remain applicable.

The First World oppresses and exploits the Third World through imperialism.

And that is something we must fight.

In the end, there’s one country that needs regime change most. Take it away, Howard:


Drugs, Propaganda, and the Party of God

The news is abuzz with Politico’s new article that claims that Obama derailed an investigation in alleged drug trafficking and money laundering done by Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Politico article linked above charges Obama with dismantling “Project Cassandra” in order to make the “Iran Deal” possible.

I would, from the outset, question the veracity of these claims, considering a lot of the content of the article is regurgitated from allegations made back in 2011 (when Obama was president).

Of course, as usual, a little bit of reasoning ought to put the official Politico story into question. Whether or not Obama put up roadblocks against investigations is something that I do not and cannot know, beyond what the media reports (even at the end of the Politico article, they seem to call everything they’ve just said into question).

However, I do have three points that show something is very wrong with the propagandists’ rendering of Hezbollah and the fundamentals of the organization.


Hope and Change

1.) Hezbollah is, at least partially, a religious-confessional organization. Hezb-Allah (the Party of God) is an organization that was established in the draw-down of Lebanon’s bloody civil war, fought mostly along sectarian lines.

Hezbollah emerged as the primary representative of Lebanon’s Shi’a (although slowly, due to the competition from the Amal Movement).

The Politico article seems to suggest that Hezbollah is receiving money from both drug trafficking and Iran, or, alternatively, both Hezbollah and Iran are receiving funds from drug trafficking. The article leaves the reader guessing.

On the face of it, that would seem a bit odd, considering mainstream Islam’s pretty tight restrictions on drug use. Indeed, both Hassan Nasrallah (the leader of Hezbollah) and Ali Khamenei (the Supreme Leader of Iran) have explicitly forbade the use of drugs.

Aren’t these people supposed to be so incredibly religious that they’re unreasonable and impossible to negotiate with? Isn’t that the main line of the propaganda against them: Amerikkka can’t “trust” Iran, because they’re insane religious extremists?

Like Iran could ever trust Amerikkka!

Someone has their propaganda mixed up. It’s a jumbled policy of “throw everything at them and see what sticks”.

If you want to say that the leaders are lying and that they’ll take money from drug trafficking, then clearly they’re pragmatists and can negotiate. If you want to say they’re religious fundamentalists, then there is no way that they’re getting money from the drug trade.

2.) The Politico article centers around the drug trade in Latin American and Africa, apparently through some key business traders who have been able to secretly fund some transnational anti-Amerikkkan network.

In the past, Hezbollah’s alleged drug trafficking enterprise has been linked to the so-called Tri-Border Area. The Tri-Border Area is along the borders of Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil. Supposedly accounting for a significant portion of weapon, drug, and human trafficking, the Tri-Border Area is notoriously mysterious, with very little reliable information regarding the market there.


It’s sort of a similar situation to North Korea, right? We don’t know anything, but everything we do know is bad and, therefore, we can extrapolate a lot of nonsense from that.

Apparently, every “terrorist” organization gets funding from the Tri-Border Area, if we’re to believe the reports. According the U.$. media and the U.$. government, both Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda receive funds from illicit trading through South America.

That seems a little strange, considering the war in Syria, where Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda are killing each other.

The Politico article does not directly mention the Tri-Border Area. It does, however, bring up the supposed “cocaine corridor” from South America up through Mexico, where the funds are not only apparently used to support Hezbollah, but also governments in Latin America that stand up against imperialism – Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador.


What’s the connection? Well, according to Politico, we can find it in the relationship between Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

Screen Shot 2018-01-02 at 10.14.56 AM

Another claim with absolutely no evidence!

Isn’t it interesting that according to “interviews and documents”, Hugo Chavez is also responsible for everything bad in the world. After all, Politico says that Hezbollah has “for decades” been engaging in “narcoterrorism”?

Why is it that all of the evidence that comes up in the article is from simple testimonies and anonymous sources if this is an unquestionable fact?

If Hezbollah gets all its funding from illicit sources, then why does it even need funding from Iran?

If Hezbollah is so ubiquitous on the black market, then why isn’t there hard evidence of such trading?

Why is everything just hearsay and word-of-mouth?

This brings us to my third point.

3.) All of the supposed linchpins in the Hezbollah-drug trafficking connection conveniently work with everyone the U.S. doesn’t like right now, according to Politico. They even have this other picture in the article to drive home their point:

Screen Shot 2018-01-02 at 9.28.06 AM

Three presidents who are way better than Trump.

The article is fascinating for who make up this apparent narco-terrorist network around the world. It seems to be a blend of Russians and Lebanese businessmen traveling around the globe in search of ways to fund Putin and Hezbollah.

Isn’t it all just so convenient!

At one point, the article basically celebrates when, in 2008, “the CIA and Israeli intelligence detonated a bomb in [Imad] Mughniyeh’s car as he was leaving a celebration of the 29th anniversary of the Iranian revolution in Damascus, Syria. He was killed instantly. ”

How is this treated unproblematically in this story about Hezbollah? This was pretty big news in 2015, after seven years of Israel and the U.$. denying responsibility for the murder.

The Politico article accuses Imad Mughniyeh, who was a Hezbollah commander, of the bombing of a U.$. military barracks (by a different organization) during the Lebanese Civil War. However, notably, there is very flimsy evidence on which to blame him of any of his alleged crimes.

Also, no one seems to question the presence of a U.$. barracks on the outskirts of Beirut during a civil war.

Luckily, we don’t have to regard anything in the text with much seriousness, because the idea of “objectivity” on any level is thrown out the window. The Politico article reveals its pro-Amerikkkan bias very clearly with the following paragraph:

“Meanwhile, Hezbollah — in league with Iran — continues to undermine U.S. interests in Iraq, Syria and throughout wide swaths of Latin America and Africa, including providing weapons and training to anti-American Shiite militias. And Safieddine, the Ghost and other associates continue to play central roles in the trafficking of drugs and weapons, current and former U.S. officials believe.”

That last line is the most crucial – current and former U.$. officials believe. What does that mean? No evidence. None. Zero. Zilch.

And what is Hezbollah’s real crime? The fact that it continues to “undermine” the U.$.

This isn’t about drugs or about the black market or about terrorism (or about some bizarre used-car money-laundering scheme in Benin).

Screen Shot 2018-01-02 at 10.25.32 AM


This is about the fact that Hezbollah has stood up, time and time again, against U.$. imperialism.

Hezbollah has defended Lebanon from invasion by Israel. Hezbollah has defended Syria against terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. And Hezbollah continues to defend the Middle East from the threat of Saudi and U.A.E. influence.

The Crisis in Aleppo

What are we going to do about Aleppo?”


This question seems to be thrown around a lot at the moment now that the Syrian government is reclaiming control of the city. There are, however, a number of problems with this question.

The first glaring problem is the use of the pronoun “we”. If, by “we”, you mean the Syrian people, then perhaps you have some ground to stand on. If, by “we”, you mean the governments of the West, then “we”, instead of “doing” something, need rather to think about the consequences of “our” actions.

Aleppo is in a crisis, unquestionably. The fact is that Aleppo has been in a crisis for five years. So let’s rewind to 2011 in order to understand how we got here.

When the Arab Spring protests began and spread throughout North Africa and the Middle East, they were supported almost universally (including by myself) as displaying the political potential of people who had previously been deemed as “anti-democratic” or at least “undemocratic”. The rhetoric in the West has often centered around this virulent strain of Euro-centric “enlightened” thought.

For years (especially after the invasion of Iraq), pundits in the West got away with absurdly racist statements like:

The problem with Iraq was that the Arabs needed a dictator to keep them in line. They don’t understand liberal democracy. They have a violent religion. These people have been fighting each other for thousands of years.

In 2011, this presumption was decisively shattered as it became clear that real political representation was what the Arabs were dreaming about.

That also means that Iraq wasn’t thrown into a civil war because Arabs need a dictator, but rather because a brutal invasion and occupation by an imperial power fractured an already unstable society in a nation-state that was constructed to fail from the beginning.

There are a couple of lessons that we should have learned from Iraq.

You can’t terrorize a population into democracy.


So in 2011, the initially peaceful protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, and Syria were seen as opportunities to develop liberal democracies in dictatorships, the space opened for a peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy (successful only in Tunisia).

In Egypt, many were under the illusion that after two weeks, when Hosni Mubarak stepped down, that the peaceful protests in Egypt had achieved their goals and that peaceful transition had been accomplished. As Egypt sunk back into dictatorship, the world saw the evidence that the Egyptian military had never really let go of power.

However, there were two countries where events seemed to be somewhat analogous: Libya and Syria. So let’s take a look at the The Tale of Two Countries.

The sparsely-populated protests in Libya were not anywhere near as successful as the protests in Egypt. Whereas the protests in Egypt in 2011 had remained peaceful, the anti-government protests in Libya turned violent by mid-February of 2011.

When the protesters in Libya picked up guns, the police and military responded comparatively tepidly. However, journalists in the West were decrying “massacres” and warning that Gaddafi was about to slaughter every man, woman, and child in Libya. They said this daily, despite absolutely no evidence of such massacres (not totally dissimilar to today in Syria).

Those who had picked up guns began lying in order to coax the West into “helping”.

It was apparently the West’s job to bomb Libya into oblivion in order to save Libya. Was nothing learned from Iraq?

The West went to the UN and got a security council mandate to institute a “No Fly Zone”. This was, apparently, to keep the Libyan air force from dropping bombs on civilians. It should be noted that the Libyan air force was doing no such thing, as we now know. That mandate was reinterpreted by NATO to mean that they could start destroying Libya from the skies. The US began bombing key military points, destroyed the Libyan air force, and pumped money and arms into the hands of the “rebels”.

Now is the point where you should be asking yourself: “What if Libya had done that to the US?”

Imagine that in 2009, Libya had started funding the Tea Party protests. The protesters felt like the government wasn’t listening and they started receiving money and arms from Libya, who also promised to protect them. Thereafter, the Tea Party-ers began shooting at all the police and anyone who wasn’t joining the movement.

What would happen here?

Almost overnight in Libya, the spark of revolt ignited the wildfire of civil war. Thousands of people were killed on all sides, escalating the death toll (not reducing it, as Obama had assured us all). Massacres did occur, because of the invasion. Libya’s civil society was torn to shreds through the bullets and the bombs supplied by the West. And where did that get us?

Gaddafi was tortured and assassinated, his supporters were slaughtered in reprisal killings, the Libyan economy completely collapsed, all governmental institutions broke down (today, there are two competing governments), the (previously increasing) GDP went into free fall, terrorism spread (including people allying themselves with ISIS), and tribal warfare persists to this day.

So what was the result of NATO intervention to “protect” the Libyan people?

Libya today is a nightmare.

So why did NATO intervene in the first place?


What could it be?

And no one seems to be addressing the lies that went along with that invasion (just as the lies that lead to all imperial invasions, be it in Vietnam, Serbia, Afghanistan, Somalia, or Iraq). Somehow people forget what they were told to justify each and every war.

Obama said that there were massacres happening and that more were inevitable. Obama said that the invasion would save lives (he even invoked a new international paradigm: The Right to Protect). Obama said that NATO would bring peace and stability (along with democracy) to Libya and to the region. He presented the roving bands of men with guns as the architects of a future, democratic Libya. And he argued that by bombing Libya, the US would bring about the end to a war.

Not a single one of his claims turned out to be true. This is what happens when people in the West ask the question: “What are we going to do?”

In fact, as Alan Kuperman demonstrated in his article in Foreign Affairs, the war in Libya escalated and continued directly due to the Western intervention.

On top of this, he argues that it was the invasion of Libya that encouraged some Syrian protesters in the summer of 2011 to pick up guns in the hopes that NATO would also support them against Bashar al-Assad and start raining bombs over Damascus. Indeed, it wasn’t until the summer (when the Libyan “rebels” were winning) that Syrian “rebels” began their “armed struggle”.

That means, we can reasonably assume that without the West’s invasion of Libya, there might have been no war in Syria in the first place.


Those “rebels” in Syria 2012 successfully drove out government forces (police, military, government supporters) from most of the city of Aleppo through the use of suicide car bombs and house-to-house fighting. In eastern Aleppo, the different factions (the Free Syrian Army, Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, and countless others) set up their little statelets and declared themselves “liberated”. Aleppo was the epicenter of the civil war.

Last year, the government set up a full siege of the city, trying to encourage people to leave. Recently, the government (along with Russia) established humanitarian corridors available to everyone, including rebels. The rebels responded by shelling civilians and burning the buses for the sick and the elderly.

Today in Aleppo, we’re told that the Syrian government (along with Russia) is murdering civilians on the scale of Srebrenica or Rwanda.

After all, Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian government have a lot to gain from massacring the Syrian people, right?

Do you remember the obvious lie that Assad’s forces were the ones using chemical weapons against civilians? Do you remember how everyone repeated that lie even after journalists like Seymour Hersch proved that those claims were false? Do we have any reason to trust “reports” about Syria anymore?

Never mind the fact that these “reports” are coming with the caveat that “no one really knows” or the blatant and indiscriminate use of “unverified sources” telling us that Russia and Syria are using precision missiles repeatedly on hospitals, executing women and children, and carrying out war crimes of the highest caliber, all based on little evidence.

Where are these “reports” coming from?

From exactly the same people who were telling us of the “massacres” in Libya and the impending massacres yet to come back in 2011. We’re told that this information is reliable, just as we were told in 2011. What possible reason could we have for trusting them this time?

It’s the same people who said that the rebels in Libya wanted Western-style democracy (which is, of course, always worth killing for). Today, we can see that those who armed themselves in Libya were not acting in the interests of building a liberal democracy. They were no “humanitarians” picking up guns. They wanted power.

Of course the rebels in Libya were going to tell Americans and Europeans that Gaddafi was committing atrocities. It helped them. In that same way, the rebels in Syria are obviously going to tell Americans and Europeans that Assad is committing atrocities, regardless of the veracity of those claims.

So, given the high probability that “we” caused (directly and indirectly) the war in Syria, let’s ask the most important question.

What must be done to end the war?

It seems like the most obvious question, yet the one that’s never asked.

For the past five years, this war could have been ended at almost any point. From the beginning, the government seemed poised to make reforms. Once the war broke out, the UN got involved immediately in order to try to quell the violence.

Kofi Annan had a six-point peace plan that was accepted by the government to find a peaceful, political solution.

Who rejected it? The roving bands of men with guns.

And after Annan, Lakhdar Brahimi and then Staffan de Mistura brought forward another peace plan. Again, the government accepted.

Who rejected it? The rebels.

Another peace plan. Another acceptance from the government. And yet another rejection.

At what point do we stop calling them “the men with guns” and “rebels” and start labeling them as terrorists, opportunists, and sectarian murderers. After every ceasefire attempt, both sides accuse each other of breaking the ceasefire and the war resumes.

Again, what would be the response of the United States government if groups of angry Americans picked up guns and started shooting police and military personnel?

The myth that these people are looking to build some sort of Western liberal democracy has long been debunked. Aside from those in Rojava and an admittedly few members of the remnants of the Free Syrian Army, not a soul has been talking about democracy from among the ranks of Jabhat al-Nusra, ISIS, or the countless other groups that spring up and then separate after a few weeks.

Just as in Libya, those in Syria picking up arms against the government are interesting in one thing: power.

And who has supported them in this goal? The West.

Since the beginning of the war, the so-called rebels in Syria have been trained, encouraged, and bankrolled by the West.

And why is the West so interested in destabilizing Syria?


It’s clear that the West has a lot to gain from a war in Syria. Iran and Hezbollah are weakened. Russia is stuck putting resources into defending an ally. Saudi Arabia and Qatar’s influence is extended in the region.

Far from ending the war, this policy has had only one consequence: prolonging it. And prolonging has been great business for the West, because they’ve managed to expand their position geopolitically. That’s a hard fact for those who are sympathetic with the fantasy of overthrowing the last Arab nationalist government.

Even if one has good intentions filled with hope about a free, united, democratic Syria, then it must at least be admitted that the tactics were flawed from the beginning of the “armed struggle”. In the past 100 years, violent insurgencies have been successful 25% of the time, whereas non-violent insurgencies have been successful 50% of the time.

The weapons from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the US, and the West fueled the war from day one. We can easily see why Syria is in shambles. The indiscriminate use of violence by these countries has also been widespread and has gone unreported.

Why is no one talking about Turkey’s invasion of Syria and separation of the Rojava cantons?

And those who thought that the government and its supporters were going to sit back and let themselves be violently displaced were clearly looking at the situation though some sort of kaleidoscope.

Assad is a member of the Alawi religious minority in Syria, “Syria’s most-hated ethnic group. The majority of the rebels trying to overthrow the government are Sunnis who are not exactly happy with the fact that a Shi’a religious minority seems to have control of the state. So let’s look at it from the perspective of the Alawi community. If Assad gives up power to violent rebels (even the so-called “moderate” ones), the Alawis will most likely be the victims of the most brutal genocide of the 21st century.

Despite all those who want to talk about “impending massacres”, it seems that no one talks about that one.

It should’ve been apparent from the beginning that this was an unacceptable option for those in power. Assad was never going to relinquish power when that threat looming. Look at what ISIS or Jabhat al-Nusra are capable of.

Look at the rebels who have filmed themselves desecrating and even eating the corpses of their victims.

Why was the US (who cares oh-so-much about “protecting people”) so quiet about ISIS before ISIS starting spreading into Iraq (specifically Erbil, where US Oil Firms are located)?

Because, in spite of all the rhetoric that Assad’s government is the acme of Machiavellian politicking, we know who the true Machiavellians are – the Gulf kingdoms (Western-backed dictatorships), President Erdogan, and, of course, the US government (and its European lackeys), who have been all too willing to make alliances with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in order to destroy Syria from within.

So what are “we” going to do about Aleppo?

We” have already done so much to Aleppo. Aleppo is one of the primary victims of imperialist meddling. What the West should do about Aleppo is what the West should’ve done from the beginning: stay out.

For it is only by staying out of Syria that we all can hope that one day soon, the war in Syria will be over.