NO SOONER SAID THAN DONE: CHINA SENDING “AERIAL ASSETS” TO SYRIA?

Posted on September 26, 2015 by Joseph P. Farrell •http://gizadeathstar.com/2015/09/no-sooner-said-than-done-china-sending-aerial-assets-to-syria/

This article came from Mr. G.B., and it was one of those "no-sooner-said-than-done" affairs. So allow me to explain. Just two days ago, on my weekly News and Views from the Nefarium video, I referred to a quiet meeting between the French, Russian, and German foreign ministers (Laurent Fabius, Sergei Lavrov, and Frank-Walter Steinmeir) in Berlin. The reason? Germany had green-lighted Russia's military intervention in Syria (not that the Russians needed it), and the foreign ministers of the European Big Three were doubtless meeting to "coordinate".
Other than this, the silence of the western media concerning this event, held in Berlin last weekend, has been deafening. One can understand why, for in my opinion it represents nothing less than a major geopolitical earthquake - a quiet one to be sure, but an earthquake nonetheless - for it represents a major rebuke of American foreign policy in the Middle East, and its effects on Europe with the growing refugee crisis. And though I did not state it explicity in that News and Views, it also represents an earthquake of a very different kind: a cultural earthquake. The Russian foreign minister, Lavrov, has reportedly said that "Europe is committing suicide." And perhaps at some level the governments of the major European powers have finally realized this. As the old adage goes, better late than never. The cultural implications will be with us for some time, but our focus remains on the geopolitical one for the present.
In that News and Views, I suggested that we'll know that there is a growing and concerted effort to rebuke American policy in the region if China becomes involved in the Syrian situation. In that light, ponder this one from Zero Hedge:
Chinese Military Personnel, "Aerial Assets" Allegedly En Route To Syria
Before you ponder the Chinese implications though, consider those opening paragraphs and the hidden players that are implicated:

On Wednesday evening, we suggested that Vladimir Putin’s explicit promise to go ahead with airstrikes against terrorist targets in Syria with or without the help of the US effectively marks the end of Washington’s years-old effort to destabilize and ultimately remove the Assad regime.
The Kremlin's pronouncement came just a day after the mainstream media began reporting that Moscow and Tehran are coordinating their efforts on the ground (something which should come as no surprise to anyone) meaning any Sunni extremists and/or CIA-trained “freedom fighters” intent on seizing control of the country will now need to go through Russia and Iran, with the latter now seemingly willing to make the badly kept secret of its military support for Assad no secret at all.

Who are the hidden players? Well, as I suggested, they are Israel and Saudi Arabia, the latter being - it is no secret - a sponsor of some radical Islamicist groups. The failure of American policy in Syria, and the failure to overthrow Assad, means very definitely that the kingdom's position is now precarious, a conclusion highlighted by the fact that Riyadh has recently made significant overtures to... Russia, a very open admission that it perhaps sees the consequences of dwindling US influence and effectiveness in the region.  A sign, too, perhaps, that it realizes it had better "make nice" or "be on the menu."
But what of China? As the article notes, the Chinese position in the UN Security Council on the Syrian position has been consistent and clear, and there is one thing to note about their position:

Mr. Wang Min(China) (spoke in Chinese): For over three years, the escalation of the conflict in Syria has inflicted deep suffering on the Syrian people and posed a serious challenge to the countries of the region and the international community. China has always maintained that all parties in Syria should respect human rights and international humanitarian law and prevent innocent people from being harmed during the conflict. China is firmly opposed to all violations of international humanitarian law or serious violations of human rights committed by all parties to the conflict in Syria. However, with regard to draft resolution S/2014/348, on which the Council voted earlier, China has some serious reservations.

First, China believes that any action to seek recourse to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute the perpetrators of serious violations should be conducted on the basis of respect for State judicial

sovereignty and the principle of complementarity. China is not a State party to the Rome Statute. China always has reservations concerning the referral by the Security Council of particular country situations to the ICC. This is our principled position. (My emphasis added)

In other words, China, along with Russia, is bucking, clearly and openly, the globalist dogma of the obsolescence of the notion of the sovereignty of nation-states, and hence, if Syria requests military aid and assistance from any other nation, it is within its rights to do so, and other nations - Russia for example - are within their rights to provide it.

Which brings us to the possibility of a Chinese intervention, which Zero Hedge acknowledges, pointing out elsewhere in the article that China has already rendered humanitarian aid in Yemen, and with it, projected military force into the region:

Yes, "regrettably China's approach has not been taken on board" and so, more than a year later that approach might have just shifted to a strategy that involves direct military intervention on behalf of Assad.
For now, this is still in the realm of speculation as the story cited above certainly falls short of providing anything in the way of conclusive evidence for a claim that the Chinese military is set to intervene directly. That said, the last several weeks have proven that the situation in Syria is remarkably fluid and what seems far-fetched one day has the potential to become reality the next, which is why we contend that Xi Jinping very well may decide that Raqqa is as good a place as any to test out some of the equipment that was on full display in Beijing earlier this month.

Will China intervene? My personal guess is that at present, it will not do so. Chinese intervention would tip the scales so preponderantly against the West that it may bust the emerging "state consensus" building between Russia, France, and Germany over the matter, and hence be self-defeating in a sense. But that could change very rapidly, if China suddenly experiences fallout from the crisis in the form of growing Islamicist terrorism. But this assessment also comes with the implicit assumption that the Chinese government is not sufficiently "upset" over the policy bungling by Washington in the region. They know as well as anyone else that yesterday's Syrian "freedom fighters" are today's ISIS, a monster created by flows of money from Washington and from "elsewhere." hehe nazis ?
But non-intervention does not mean non-participation. China, as is evident from the quotations above, is definitely watching from the sidelines as an interested observer, and that puts pressure on Moscow, Berlin, and Paris to make good on their discussions. To put it country simple: a "caliphate" is of no benefit to anyone, least of all China.
And for those who doubtless are looking at all this from the standpoint of "the fulfillment of prophecy," a reminder: those interpretations themselves are the recent creations of moneyed interests and elements of "big oil", and are not the historical interpretations of mainstream denominations. So my traditional warning is again applicable: "the fulfillment is the deception."

Gallup: 60% of Americans Want a New Political Party. But, Why? A Crisis of Legitimacy   ~ The U.S. Government thus now faces a crisis of legitimacy.          no ??? ... who KEEPS yr after yr after yr after fucking ...yr  "voting"   the lesser of 2 evils  ....IN ???     evil + evil  =   fucking EVIL    Duhhh !  & don't fer~geet 2 filllll  IN yer controller file today boys & girls

By Eric Zuesse

Global Research, September 26, 2015

Region: USA

In-depth Report: U.S. Elections

A Gallup poll issued on September 25th is headlined “Majority in U.S. Maintain Need for Third Major Party,” and it opens: “A majority of Americans, 60%, say a third major political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic parties ‘do such a poor job’ of representing the American people.”
When Gallup started polling on this matter in 2003, only 40% wanted a different major party from the two existing major parties.
The only other time when as high as 60% wanted a new major party was in October 2013, when the government shut down — something that now threatens to repeat. No other period had a percentage this high.
78% of independents want there to be another “major” party; 47% of Democrats do; 45% of Republicans do.
The way the question has been phrased is: “In your view, do the Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job of representing the American people, or do they do such a poor job that a third major party is needed?”
Consequently, for example, these findings have nothing to do with a desire of Americans for another Ralph Nader or Ross Perot; this would instead need to be “a third major party.” It would, in other words, need to be a party not of mere protest, but instead, one that has a real chance to win the White House, and Congress: i.e., a real and serious political contender.
A substantial majority of Americans think that each of the two existing major parties does “a poor job,” “of representing the American people.”
Americans do not feel that “the American people” are represented by either of the existing parties.   ( hehe again WHO is voting this shit IN ??? )   ..that's right
When this polling started in 2003, it was not yet clear to most Americans that President George W. Bush’s repeated statements that he had seen conclusive proof that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were mere lies; it was not yet clear that Bush had not actually seen any such proof as he claimed existed; but, gradually the American public came to recognize that their government had, in fact, lied them into invading a country which actually posed no national security threat to the United States; and, so, gradually, this 40% rose to 48% in 2006, and then to 58% in 2007, as the realization that their government had lied finally sank in, gradually, among the American electorate.
By way of contrast, the 2008 economic crash seems to have had little, if any, impact upon this (in effect) repudiation of the U.S. Government, by the American people. That economic crash was, perhaps, widely viewed as having been a problem for the private economy, not primarily a governmental problem — as having been basically an “economic” instead of a “political” problem. (Whether it actually was that is another matter.) By contrast, clearly and incontrovertibly, the invasion of a foreign country on the basis of false pretenses was strictly a governmental (not at all a merely economic) problem; and, since both of the two major Parties had supported it, both of them had been responsible for this international war-crime: invasion on the basis of false pretenses.
Never before in American history had the people been so clearly abused by their Government. Even the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident which precipitated the U.S. invasion of North Vietnam had been based upon an authentic existing geostrategic threat, of communists taking South Vietnam. By contrast, the invasion of Iraq was entirely unjustified, by any real geostrategic or ideological issue. And the President, Bush, had simply lied through his teeth about it. This started the U.S. down the road to its current massive public disillusionment, that the government, which is supposedly “representing the American people,” is instead actually fraudulent — on a war-and-peace issue, no less. Both of the existing political parties participate in, rather than expose, this fraud, at the highest levels.
And, so, the American people are at a political turning-point, of seriously questioning whether they live in an actual democracy — a country in which the possibility, that the government represents the public instead of some controlling individual or group of individuals, exists. 60% now think that that possibility doesn’t exist — neither party represents it. They think that America, at the very highest governmental level, is no longer an authentic democracy. There actually exists strong evidence that it’s not an authentic democracy.
Another Gallup poll, issued on September 19th, was headlined“75% in U.S. See Widespread Government Corruption.” 75% answered “Yes” to: “Is corruption widespread throughout the government in this country?” This could offer yet another explanation as to why 60% of Americans answer no to the question of “do the Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job of representing the American people?” However, unlike the proposed Iraq War explanation, that one doesn’t possess any clear relationship to 2003. Gallup reported, in their poll of perceived corruption, that, “the percentage of U.S. adults who see corruption as pervasive has never been less than a majority in the past decade.” Gallup provided no further details, except that, when Obama came into office, the percentage was 66%. So, a decade back, in 2005, the percentage was somewhere above 50%, and then it was 66% when Obama entered the White House in 2009, and it’s 75% today.
Regardless of what the explanation is, the American people are feeling increasingly alienated from the government that supposedly represents them. If the U.S. Government is a democracy at all, it’s one whose legitimacy is increasingly being doubted by its public.
The U.S. Government thus now faces a crisis of legitimacy.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Copyright © Eric Zuesse, Global Research, 2015