UN Presses for "Truce"
to Save Embattled Terrorists in Aleppo
Syria is winning the war and has absolutely
no reason to show mercy for opponents that
have no intention to show any for it and its
people.
By Tony Cartalucci
February 18, 2015 "ICH"
- "LD"
- Curious is the United Nation and NATO's
sudden interest in peace. Both organizations
are suing for truces on two separate
battlefields, one in Ukraine in Eastern
Europe, and another in Syria's northern city
of Aleppo amid a regional conflagration in
the Middle East. It is curious because talks
of "truces" were completely absent just as
recently as 2011, when both organizations,
the UN and NATO, backed hordes of terrorists
sweeping across Libya, committing abhorrent
atrocities including the systematic,
genocidal extermination of Libya's black
communities.
There
was also the encirclement, intentional
starvation, and denial of humanitarian aid,
along with the bombardment
of Libyan cities like Sirte, which also
saw no protests or calls for "ceasefires" by
the UN or NATO. In fact, as terrorists
enforced blockades on the ground to starve
residents to death, NATO bombed the
encircled cities relentlessly from the air
for weeks. The eventual fall of Sirte, for
example, would leave behind an utterly
devastate city and a decimated, scattered
population. Other cities,
like Tawarga, had their entire
populations, down to the last resident,
either killed or forced to flee.
To explain the transparently hypocritical
change in policy, the UN and NATO are now
witnessing a change in fortunes for forces
backed by the very special interests that
have hijacked and upturned the mission
statements of both organizations.
Forces that were afforded absolute impunity
from the UN and were backed, armed, and
provided air cover by NATO in Libya, are now
encircled and facing destruction in Syria.
Likewise, a similar proxy conflict in
Ukraine has seen thousands of NATO-backed
militants encircled. A desperate attempt to
broker a ceasefire through the so-called "Minsk
accord" fell apart before the ink dried,
with NATO-backed militias openly declaring
they had no intention of giving up the
fight.
The Only Terms That Could Be Acceptable
For Syria in particular, Aleppo only still
serves as a battlefield for the sole reason
that NATO is to this day still funding,
arming, and transferring terrorists to the
battlefield
through NATO-member Turkey. Any
"ceasefire" or "truce" brokered in the
northern city of Aleppo, Syria's largest
city and a national commercial hub, should
be accompanied by international peace
keepers stationed in Turkey to ensure the
regime in Ankara is no longer harboring,
arming, and supplying terrorists within its
territory.
With the streaming of terrorists across
Turkey's border with Syria abated, the
existential threat to Aleppo and the rest of
northern Syria would likewise cease to
exist, making calls for Syrian troops to
stand down a much more reasonable
proposition. To ask them now, while hordes
of invaders flow into their country for the
sole purpose of dividing and destroying it,
is an unimaginable absurdity.
Should invading militants be blocked from
crossing into Syria permanently, an amnesty
could be arranged for Syrian militants.
The total and complete restoration of peace
and stability in Syria, with its territory
fully intact, can be the only terms accepted
in any deal with the UN. Anything less is
ploy by the UN and NATO to buy time for an
increasingly defeated army of proxy
militants and a last ditch effort to arrange
a "settlement" that will leave swaths of
Syrian territory in the hands of NATO's
proxy forces where they can rebuild and
relaunch their destructive campaign in the
near future.