EXCLUSIVE: U.S.-Backed "Rebels" In Syria "Will Not Be Backed by a Trump Administration; They Should Go Home"


Earth-Shaking word from Trump Tower here in New York is that a "yuuuuuge" change to US foreign policy is in the works, involving Syria and other areas.  "Rebels that have been backed by the US in Syria should go home right now" said one key player in the ongoing presidential transition plans who insisted on anonymity due to the serious nature of the topic.

"The United States will not back the forcible overthrow of Democratically elected governments" under a Trump Administration and, "Neither the United States military nor its weapons technology will be for rent to destabilize one government to the benefit of another, or to advance corporate interests.  US-Backed "rebels" in Syria  -- and elsewhere -- should go home right now."

The individual who offered the quotes, did so in writing and insisted they be conveyed precisely as shown above, with "not one word or punctuation mark changed." This individual also insisted the document provided be "shredded, burned and its ashes discarded in the wind outside prior to publication."  That has been done.

The fact that this type of potential policy change has even been mentioned outside the closed-door world of international geopolitical intrigue is major, even earth-shaking in its implications.  It would be a staggering change to US policy with implications that literally span the globe.

If undertaken by the new Administration, the so-called "civil war" in Syria would likely end overnight.  But such a change would also have immediate implications in places like Ukraine and even Yemen as well.

This revelation comes hours after it was reported that Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin had a telephone call with US President-Elect Donald Trump.  The two spoke of improving relations and also discussed certain issues.  The big take-away from that call was the agreement by both men to "Take out Terrorists."  That telephone call is reported HERE


BELOW IS ANALYSIS AND OPINION MIXED WITH NEWS FACTS.  We draw this line clearly so readers understand what is "news" versus what is analysis and opinion.

In weighing the stunning news above that the US will not back rebels to overthrow democratically-elected governments and that US-Backed Rebels is Syria should go home, it is absolutely vital that readers have an understanding of just how bad things are, and how they got so bad, what the world is facing as a result of US behaviors overseas, and what it means that US policy is being changed.  Below is that background.


The conflict in Syria erupted in 2011, quite by coincidence, just after Syrian President Bashar Assad refused to permit a natural gas pipeline running from Qatar, in the Middle East, to Europe, to be built through Syria.

Email communications allegedly uncovered from the laptop of former Congressman Anthony Weiner during the recent election campaign, allegedly show that foreign governments like Qatar made cash contributions to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.  That money is of particular interest because about a Million Dollars from Qatar allegedly arrived to the Foundation after the Syrian President Bashar Assad, REFUSED to allow Qatar to run a natural gas pipeline through Syria to supply gas to Europe.

MORE-Intel Analyst: “It’s crazy, Russia Is Preparing Almost Everything For WAR. Time To Be ‘deeply Concerned’-Now Mobilization of 300,000 TROOPS!

Not long after that million was donated, seven (7) experienced operatives from the CIA were dispatched to Syria, allegedly on orders from the US State Department which Clinton headed.  Those 7 CIA operatives reportedly created the Free Syrian Army (FSA), to begin efforts to forcibly overthrow President Assad of Syria.  The operatives reportedly recruited Jihadis and others and began launching attacks inside Syria to destabilize its government, while the State Department churned out a media onslaught describing President Assad as a "brutal dictator" who "tortured his own people" and "used chemical weapons against civilians" etc., etc., etc. This fomented what would become the now 5 year old Syrian "Civil War."



Each country through which such a pipeline runs, charges a fee to the pipeline owner based upon the amount of gas run through the pipeline and the distance of that pipeline through each country.   But Syria saw the pipeline as damaging to their ally, Russia.  Moreover, at the same time as Qatar was planning a pipeline to Europe, Iran was planning one of its own, also to run through Syria.

In order to understand the geopolitics involved, it is important at this point to note that Russia provides the overwhelming majority of natural gas to Europe.  This gives Russia a degree of power over Europe; which neither the Europeans nor previous US Administrations felt comfortable about.

The Qatar pipeline would lessen or eliminate Europe's dependence upon Russian gas which, from a geopolitical power perspective, would allow Europe and the US to better "control" Russia's power abroad.

At the time, Iran was still under UN Sanctions over its alleged nuclear program and pretty much the entire western world did not want Iran to suddenly be earning billions from supplying gas to Europe.  Here's how the Iranian Pipeline was to be built:


Under the Qatar plan, the pipeline would have traveled through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey.  The Iranian pipeline would travel through Iraq, Syria and a much smaller area of Turkey.

While Turkey is still a secular state, its financial interest in the Qatar pipeline stemmed from the distance that pipeline would travel through Turkey; much longer than the proposed Iranian pipeline.  the longer distance of the Qatar pipeline means more money for Turkey.  But interests other than money were also at stake.  Qatar is Sunni Muslim.  Iran is Shi'ite Muslim.  Sunni and Shi'ite do not seem to get along . . . at all.

This religious component caused other nations to get involved in what would become the Syrian conflict.  Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey joined together to support the overthrow of the Syrian government because those countries are mostly Sunni Muslim like Qatar. They all have an interest in curtailing the growth and influence of Iran and its Shi'ite belief system.

So it was in the interest of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey to make certain the Qatar Pipeline was built and the Iranian pipeline was not.

For Syria, it made no difference.  Either pipeline would result in about the same amount of revenue for that country.  But Syria was in the way of the Qatar pipeline and that just wasn't going to be allowed by the Sunnis regimes in the Middle East or the US.

As the Syrian conflict grew, it became clear just how much Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey were involved.  Rebel camps which were uncovered in various battles, contained food, clothing, weapons and ammunition all found to have originated in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey!  Late in the conflict (just this year) weapons and ammunition from the United States were also found in rebel camps.


Battling proxy armies from all these countries did not go well for Syria.  As it became clear the Syrian government would fall, President Bashar Assad reached out to his ally, Russia, for military assistance.  He got it.

Russia came into battle with two goals:

1) Stop the rebel overthrow of its ally, the Syrian government, AND;

2) Stop terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaida, which had entered the fray.

But there was a problem: Determining who was a "rebel" and who was a "terrorist" was not an easy task.  So Russia turned to the United States and asked the US to identify who was who.  The US failed to do so, in part because the US did not want Russia attacking the rebels being backed by the US, Saudi Arabia, Jordan et al, and, unfortunately, because there are no clear lines between who is a "rebel" and who is a "terrorist."

After delaying and delaying, then obstructing and obstructing by the US over this issue, the Russians ultimately told the US to either crap or get off the pot.  The US was told to identify who was who, or Russia would simply go after all the people it felt were attacking the Syrian government.  At that point, the US cut cooperation with Russia!

In the interim, the US began churning out anti-Russian propaganda. Even the campaign of Hillary Clinton was in on it, demonizing Russia for allegedly interfering in the election, and openly promising to "confront Russia" if Clinton was elected.

MORE-War Is Coming, The Whole World Knows It Except The People Of The United States.Wake Up People!

While all this was going on, the US and its NATO allies, began moving tanks, troops and missile systems to the Russian Border with Europe.  Through media outlets, the US and NATO began claiming that Russia had once again become "aggressive" and a push to demonize the Russian Federation began churning out all sorts of rhetoric.

The decision by the Obama administration to cut cooperation with Russia in Syria, just two months or so ago, meant the US was defacto "protecting" the terrorists in ISIS and al-Qaida. The decision by the US and NATO to begin moving troops, tanks and missile systems to the Russian border with Europe made it clear to the Russians that the stage was being set for actual war between the US/NATO and Russia.  All this over a pipeline and the desire to "control" Russia.

Seeing what was being done in Syria, what was still ongoing in Ukraine, and the troops tanks and missile systems being placed on its border by the US and NATO, Russia knew that __it__ was in the cross-hairs.  So on October 18, the Kremlin publicly made clear that if war broke out in Syria it would not simply be war in Syria;  "it would be war everywhere."

The American and European people were kept in the dark over these developments by the western mass-media.  But thanks to the Internet and alternative news sites like SuperStation95, reporting was getting out about what was taking place and these reports began to awaken the American people.


What the US and NATO did in Ukraine was another disaster.   Ukraine is a former satellite of the now defunct Soviet Union.  Ukraine was not a member of NATO.  This lack of membership was, in part, due to a commitment made by former Secretary of state James Baker.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and dissolved itself, the Russians were very concerned that their vulnerability might be exploited.  So they asked for an assurance that, since they were no longer a threat to Europe, that NATO agree not to expand itself?  Secretary of State Baker told Russia that NATO "will not move one inch eastward."

One of the biggest sources of tension between the United States and Russia today is the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), to countries that were either Moscow’s allies in the Warsaw Pact or part of the Soviet Union itself. During the Cold War, Leningrad was roughly twelve hundred miles away from the edge of NATO; now (as St. Petersburg) it is less than a hundred, thanks to the membership (in NATO) of Estonia.

How To Survive A Nuclear Attack-video below!


Present-day Russian officials insist that the United States, by enabling and supporting this expansion, has broken promises made during the era of the George H. W. Bush presidency and German unification, when the Soviet Union came to an end.
Ron Asmus, a Clinton State Department official who helped to enlarge NATO, remembers being continually confronted by these claims; Moscow firmly believed that it had “received assurances from the United States, France,and the United Kingdom that NATO enlargement would go no further than eastern Germany.” This view has become conventional popular wisdom. In The New York Review of Books, security analyst George Friedman argued that the Russian invasion of Georgia in the summer of 2008  was a reaction to the fact that “George H.W. Bush . . . had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet empire.”Russian leader Vladimir Putin was trying to push back and reestablish a sphere of influence, he argued. Similarly, Bill Keller told readers of The New York Times that the invasion was Putin’s “existential payback” because the United States had “charm[ed] away his neighbors.”
For their part, U.S.foreign policy officials from both the first and second Bush eras as well as the Clinton administration have consistently denied that any such agreement existed. Both Republican and Democratic administrations maintain that what was said in 1990 was a speculative part of the negotiations surrounding German unification and had no significance for the rest of Europe after that deal was done. Scholars have supported this interpretation; Mark Kramer has written of the myth of guarantees against NATO expansion.
Russians disagree and, as a result, contradictory memories about the end of the Cold War remain a source of tension and controversy in today’s geopolitics. In particular, this tension arises from differing interpretations of four fateful bilateral meetings in February 1990: one in Washington, two in Moscow, and one in Camp David. As will be described below, these talks involved (in various combinations) President Bush, Secretary of State James A. Baker III, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, along with Gorbachev’s foreign minister Eduard Shevardnadze and top aide Anatoly Chernyaev. When NATO expansion became a reality in the 1990s, Russian negotiators would repeatedly cite these meetings, most notably the Baker-Gorbachev conversation of February 9, 1990, in order to claim —as Asmus put it—“that they had received a US pledge not to enlarge NATO to Central and Eastern Europe.”
Regardless of who is correct, there is no denying that NATO undertook a very aggressive enlargement and now virtually surrounds Russia.  Take a look:


Russia's position is simple: Since the big bad Soviet Union is no more, and Russia isn't about to attack anyone, why is NATO surrounding us?
Moreover, recently, NATO installed "missile defense" systems in Poland, Romania and Turkey, which can not only shoot down Russian Nuclear missiles to prevent Russia from defending itself if the west attacks first, but can also be fitted with nuclear warheads to attack Russia first -- and do so within about FOUR MINUTES!
Take a look at where the US and NATO positioned these missiles and pay particular attention to Poland, Romania and Turkey:
The Russians are rightly worried that they are being set up for conquest by an aggressive west and they made very clear these actions by NATO would soon reach a point where Russia was FORCED to attack simply to assure its own survival.
President Vladimir Putin went so far as to invite western Journalists into a very candid and up-front press conference where he laid out what Russia was facing and how the actions of the US and NATO were leading the world toward nuclear war!   Here is a brief video of that Press conference, held in St. Petersburg in 2016 (12 minutes) with sub-titles to translate the Russian language into English.    Listen to how close the Obama regime has brought us all to nuclear war:


The Russia leader makes clear that his country "is in grave danger."     And the danger is real as evidenced by what took place in neighboring Ukraine.
In the 2010 Ukranian presidential election, Victor Yanukovych became Ukrainian President after the Central Election Commission and international observers declared that the presidential election was conducted fairly. Ukraine had been a former Soviet Satellite state, and in 2010, the European Union (EU) and the US began overtures to bring Ukraine into the sphere of influence of the EU and NATO.
Negotiations began about trade, travel, tourism, security, defense and a whole host of other issues.  These negotiations went on for almost five years and were set to culminate in the signing of an agreement between Ukraine and the EU in Lithuania during the last week of November 2013.

Ukraine suddenly cancelled that signing ceremony, announcing it was re-opening discussions with Russia about remaining within Russia's sphere of influence. This did not sit well with either the EU or the US.
About three weeks later, Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, gave a speech in which she admitted the US had spent over $5 Billion in Ukraine since the fall of the Soviet Union. Here's video of the short speech wherein Nuland admits the US spent $5 Billion in Ukraine only to have all that effort fall apart two weeks prior.



$5 Billion is a lot of money for the US to lose by having Ukraine cancel the signing of the agreement.  Sooooooo . . .
About 3 weeks after Nuland's speech, in January 2014 to be precise, "protests" suddenly began erupting in the Ukraine capital of Kiev; protests against President Yanukovich and the cancellation of the EU agreement.

Editor's Note:  Do you see the pattern here?  In Syria in 2011, an agreement for a pipeline gets denied and all of a sudden "protests" erupt in that country destabilizing it into Civil War.  Two years later in Ukraine in 2013, same thing: an agreement with the EU and US gets cancelled  and all of a sudden "Protests" erupt to destabilize THAT government which ultimately overthrew its President.  See the pattern?  These "protests" are a weapon used by the US and the EU to get what they want.  Now, fast-forward to 2016 and the US Presidential Election.  Trump won . . . . and all of a sudden, "protests" are erupting.  The same players on the world stage are doing the same thing to the USA that they've done in so many other places!  The ongoing "protests" here in the US are specifically designed to destabilize the incoming Trump Administration and, make no mistake, if Trump doesn't do what these people want, they fully intend to use the ongoing "protests" to ignite an actual Civil War inside the USA.  That is what's at stake!

The protests in Kiev, Ukraine grew fast and they grew violent.  People were shooting and killing each other in Kiev.  Buildings were being burned to the ground with government officials and civilians inside - they burned to death.
By February 2014 "Euromaidan" protest clashes in Kiev's Independence Square had gotten so brutal that they resulted in more than 100 deaths, occurring mostly between 18 and 20 February 2014.
Seeing his country being ripped apart, and fearing for his life, the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovich, had to flee the country.
He was successfully overthrown by civil unrest and protests.   And why?  He backed out of an agreement with the EU and US.  He did something that "the-powers-that-be (TPTB)" didn't like.
As an interesting side note, during these protests, Ukrainian Internal Security tapped phone lines and intercepted a conversation between Assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt,  Apparently, these two mo-mo's did NOT use a secure telephone line when they had this conversation; that's how inept the Obama administration and its minions have been!
During the conversation, Nuland and Pyatt are talking about who the US wants to be in the Ukraine government when it falls!  Pyatt mentions the concerns of the EU and Nuland replies "Fuck the EU." The phone call was recorded and the recording was "leaked" to the public so everyone could hear for themselves what was actually going on.  The BBC in London has the recording and offers a transcript HERE.
Do you realize what it means when Nuland says "Fuck the EU?  It means the protests in Ukraine were not being done by the EU, they were being done by the US.  It was America overthrowing a democratically-elected government of another country!  
This is what the Obama regime has been up to.  And this is what Hillary Clinton would have continued.  The mass-media in the US and Europe knows this.  They have known it for almost a year, but they concealed it from the public.  Because after all, the mass-media is liberal and they couldn't very well expose the fact that Barack Obama was overthrowing democratically-elected governments in other countries because . . . well . . . he's America's first BLACK president.
Exposing him would harm the liberal agenda, especially their plans to install America's first WOMAN president!   If they were to reveal that America's first liberal Black President was using his community organizer background to overthrow duly elected governments, well, that might just harm the liberal cause of electing America's first WOMAN president.   So they kept quiet.  Because to liberals, innocent people being killed is simply collateral damage to achieving their social utopia.  That's how liberals operate.  They are sociopaths who do not care if innocent people get killed and entire societies are uprooted, as long as it advances their agenda.  These people are dangerous and right now, they're setting their sights on doing something similar in the US.
Think about what you've read here.  America breached its promise to Russia not to expand eastward.  America started the civil war in Syria over a pipeline.  America overthrew the government of Ukraine over an agreement.  America put missiles in Poland, Romania and Turkey aimed at Russia.  We did this.  The US.  With NATO.  And we did it after telling the Russians in 1990 that we wouldn't.
Under the Obama administration, we have overtly LIED to Russia about our intentions, and they know we LIED.  So in the video above, when Vladimir Putin says he believes Russia is in grave danger . . . he's has just cause to believe that!


This is what President-Elect Trump is walking into.  A mess.  Created by war-mongering fools with wet dreams of some glorious conquest of . . . . anyone they choose to .  .   . even Russia,  so as to control the world.
The policies the US embarked upon with its NATO allies has been nothing less than psychotic.  And with the recent election, this insanity has to be undone.
Step-by-step, it can be undone.  With actions, not words.  With an acknowledgment of reality, not some psychotic delusion of a manufactured reality.
And so, today, SuperStation95 is able to report --EXCLUSIVELY -- that the incoming Trump administration will not support the forcible overthrow of a democratically elected government and that US-backed rebels in Syria should go home.  It seems like a good first step.
But the "protests" that are ongoing here in the US show that TPTB are not going to go quietly.  Americans need to be aware that these "protests" are not spontaneous eruptions of anger or opposition to the results of the election.  They are paid-for theatrics by the same people who started the Syrian Civil war.  Need proof?
1) Protesters against Trump are being bused-in to cities so as to protest as shown in the video at the link.
2) Protesters who have been "arrested" in places like left-wing, liberal, Portland, OR . . . .  HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED for rioting, burning, looting or beating people!!
3) More than HALF of the protesters arrested . . .  DID NOT VOTE or WERE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE
So in every regard, the same people who overthrew the Ukrainian government, and started a "civil war" in Syria are now fomenting fake protests here in the USA.
These people refuse to accept our free, democratic election because to do so would allow Trump to undue their plans for global domination.  They are using protests in the US to destabilize Trump.  They plan to get things so tumultuous in the US that somehow Trump is not able to govern.  They want the US/NATO to fight Russia, and for both sides to kill each other.  Which will leave these folks in charge of everything.

The next time you read an article in Forbes Magazine or in London Newspapers  about the super rich buying bunkers to survive a calamity, (even bunkers with golf Courses) bear in mind that it is those same people who are planning the calamity.  Not for themselves. For us.  So they can control everything.  They finally get their utopia.  And they don't care one wit if a couple billion of us little people have to be killed to achieve it.
Rebels in Syria, go home.  Your US backing will end on January 20.
A Warning
Liberal Elites who are planning to use protests to do to Trump and to the US what you've done in Syria and Ukraine:   We know who you are.  We know where you live.  Stop now or you will be stopped.  Your bunkers won't help you.
You should have taken the hint when we stopped you by stopping Hillary Clinton.  But now, you are not stopping.  You're doing the whole phony protest thing.  So here's a reminder: We stopped her via a voting booth.  You are not running for election.  The method we use to stop you will not be a fucking voting booth.

The Lost Ways…a true story about our grandparents days!

Once Upon a Time in America…Are you ready to turn back the clocks to the 1800s for up to three years?Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers were the last generation to practice the basic things that we call survival skills now. ….Watch this video and you will find many interesting things!


Leave a reply