Archive | September 15th, 2014

Syrian “Moderate” Rebels and Islamic State Jihadists “Make Peace”. What Will Obama do Now?


Global Research


Well, Well, Well, what do we have here?

According to a new report by Agence-France Presse (AFP) “Syrian rebels and jihadists from the Islamic State have agreed a non-aggression pact for the first time in a suburb of the capital Damascus, a monitoring group said on Friday.”

What will the Obama administration do now? Originally President Obama said in a televised speech that he will support “military assistance to the Syrian opposition.” Here is what he said:

Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.

This is an interesting development since Washington wants to authorize airstrikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or ISIS on Syrian territory. It is a move that the Assad

government and Russia say that would be an act of aggression and a breach of International law. Will the mainstream media report this peace agreement between these two organizations? Washington would welcome this development because both groups consider the Assad government a common enemy. Online news organization Middle East Eye reported that both moderate Syrian rebels and the Islamic State’s common enemy is the Assad government:

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that moderate and Islamist rebels had signed a ceasefire deal for the first time in a suburb of the capital Damascus. “The two parties will respect a truce until a final solution is found, and they promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy” to be Assad’s government and his forces.

They forgot to mention that the U.S. and other Western allies consider the Assad government their enemy as well. Although this truce is a new development, it should not surprise anyone. The U.S. has been supporting the Syrian rebels’ right from the start to remove Assad. Many of them joined the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra and other terrorist groups in the region including those in Iraq. Washington would welcome a truce between both groups because they will target the Syrian government. Washington will most likely launch airstrikes against these same terrorists in Syria as a justification to enter Syrian territory.

The AFP detailed exactly what was agreed upon between both groups:

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the ceasefire deal was agreed between IS and moderate and Islamist rebels in Hajar al-Aswad, south of the capital.

Under the deal, “the two parties will respect a truce until a final solution is found and they promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime.”

Nussayri is a pejorative term for the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam to which President Bashar al-Assad belongs.

The world needs to stop this war. If the U.S. does launch airstrikes into Syria to target these terrorist organizations, it will be considered an aggression against the Assad government. If innocent civilians or Syrian government forces are killed in the airstrikes, the Assad government would most likely respond with military action. Russia, China and most nations around the world would condemn U.S. actions on Syria’s sovereign territory. The U.S. wants Assad out of power. ISIL was created by the U.S. and its allies in the region. Is this the start of World War III? I hope not. The Syrian government can defeat ISIL on their own if Washington would stop sending arms into the region. The question we must ask is who will receive U.S. arms shipments now. ISIL?

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syrian “Moderate” Rebels and Islamic State Jihadists “Make Peace”. What Will Obama do Now?

Jews warn Europeans about “far right” parties


The organized Jewish community in Europe, lead by Ronald Lauder, the president of the World Jewish Congress, is once again trying to dictate to Europeans who they can and cannot vote for. The Times of Israel reports:

European voters risk giving their countries a bad name by electing far-right politicians, the leader of the World Jewish Congress warned Saturday ahead of a major rally against anti-Semitism

WJC president Ronald Lauder also voiced concern that Islamic extremists are trying to “use all means,” particularly online, to stir hatred and pointed to the threat posed by radicalized Muslims returning from Syria and Iraq.

Chancellor Angela Merkel and Lauder are to speak at Sunday’s rally in Berlin, organized after tensions over the Gaza conflict spilled over into demonstrations in Europe that saw anti-Jewish slogans and violence. In May, European Parliament elections brought successes for far-right parties, particularly in France.

“One person representing a country who is extreme will give their whole country a bad name,” Lauder told The Associated Press. “When people vote who goes to the parliament they have to say to themselves, ‘who do we really want to represent us, who do we really want to be the face of what people see of our country?’” […]

You see, according to the Jews, democracy means only voting for politicians and political parties that cater to the interests of Jews and their international agenda of world domination and subjugation, which includes the destruction of all White Western nations and peoples. White people cannot have their own nations, and they certainly cannot have political leaders and governments that concern themselves with and advance the interests of their own people. Only Jews and other non-Whites can openly champion their own political, economic, and cultural interests. When White people attempt to do these things, they are called “racists,” “supremacists,” and “evil Nazis who want to murder 6 million Jews.”

Keep in mind that the Jews have their own ethnic state – the Jewish state of Israel – where the so-called “far right” has a major influence upon the government and society. The “far right” in Israel openly calls for the genocide of the indigenous Palestinian Christian and Muslim community.

Jews have literally thousands of organizations all across the globe operating on behalf of Jewish interests around the world. And yet, here we have the Jews saying to Europeans, “Do not vote for political parties that care about and champion the interests of your own people. That is wrong and racist.”

The hypocrisy of the Jew knows no bounds.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jews warn Europeans about “far right” parties

An important disclaimer, caveat and clarification


No to Internet censorship!

First, I will begin by a clear disclaimer which I ask you all to please carefully read and then keep in mind: I personally am not advocating any option for the final status of Novorussia.  That is for the people of Novorussia to decide and any option that they will chose I will support.  Furthermore, at this point in time I am not even personally sure what option I would recommend if asked to do so simply because the devil is in the details, not the big words.  What I propose to do below is to look at a number of issues related to this question but that analysis should not be interpreted as a personal endorsement of any solution.

Second, I have carefully parsed the news out of Minsk, Novorussia and Russia and I am left with the strong feeling that nothing has really been decided, hence the apparent zig-zags and changing interpretations over the terms offered by the Novorussian delegation.

Third, I urge everybody to be extremely cautious with Russian news sources including Russian TV channels and RT.  Why?  Because Russia has a major stake in this fight and that I am absolutely certain that the Russian elites are split on what the best solution would be for Russia.  There are also informal, shall we say, “groups of like-minded people” inside the Russian media who are trying to promote the interest of their patrons and supporters.  And while it is would be an oversimplification to say that, for example, NTV stands for “position A” while RT stands for “position B”, I know for a fact that insideRT, NTV, Rossia, REN-TV and the rest of various groups have various agendas: one editorial board might have a very different position than another one, even inside the same media outlet.

Fourth, Russian interests should not be automatically conflated with the interests of Novorussia, just as the interests of the Russian and Novorussian elites should not be conflated with the interests of the Russian and Novorussian people.  Seems obvious, but I feel that this should be clearly stated again because any agreement on the final status of Novorussia will be the resulting vector of the goals many very different interests groups and almost certainly end up being compromise from which nobody will walk away with everything they want.

Having said that, now let’s look at how this all began.

How did we get here?

Six months ago all the eastern Ukrainians wanted were a) guarantees for the Russian language and b) fiscal autonomy.  That’s it.  Nothing else.  As for Russia, her position was equally clear: a united and neutral Ukraine respectful of the civil rights of all its citizens. Sounds like a no-brainer, right?

As for the Ukrainian opposition, it officially wanted to remove an oligarch-controlled government and sign an Association with the EU.  Again, pretty straightforward.

Now, think of it, a compromise solution was rather obvious: the election of a new, non-oligarch controlled government which would sign an Association agreement with the EU and commit itself to the civil rights of all Ukrainians, including the cultural and linguistic rights of the eastern Ukrainians.  Yanukovich even went as far as to offer Iatseniuk the post of Prime Minister.  So why did it not happen?

Because the protest movement was completely co-opted, hijacked, manipulated, controlled, financed, organized and run by the USA who used EU political elites and a group of bona fide Nazis to achieve regime change and draw the Ukraine into the AngloZionist sphere of influence.  What they wanted was a Ukraine economically exploited by the EU and militarily owned by the US via NATO.  This plan centered on not only severing away the Ukraine from Russia and its economic union with Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and others, but to also on severing the economic ties between Russia and Europe (an old US goal dating from the Cold War when the US did everything it could to prevent the USSR from selling gas to western Europe).

You can think of the Nazi freaks as the Ukie equivalent of al-Qaeda or ISIS: rabid hateful murderous lunatics who literally cannot contain their hatred and desire to oppress and murder.  Of course, under US pressure, they tried very hard to act like sane and civilized people, but time and again they failed, hence the references to Russian speakers as sub-humans/non-humans, Timoshenko’s desire to use nukes to exterminate the “accursed Moskals”, the apparently crazy insistence that only Ukrainian be an official language or the equally imbecile categorical refusal of any form of federation.  Needless to say, as soon as these crazies got to power, they immediately passed a series of fantastically stupid and provocative laws such as the re-authorization of Nazi propaganda or the repeal of the official status of the Russian language.  Unsurprisingly, the folks in the east freaked out and correctly concluded that “the Nazis are back”.

As a result, a double dynamic was created: the crazies in the USA (the Neocons) directly threatened the vital/existential interests of Russia while the crazies in Kiev (the Nazis) directly threatened the vital/existential interests of the population of eastern and southern Ukraine.  In doing so they left the Donbass and Russia no other option than to react and directly respond to that danger.

This is important because what has been done cannot be simply wished away and undone.  Both Russia and Novorussia are now in a “survival mode” in which nothing short of a full elimination of these vital/existential threats will do.  In other words, the US Empire’s AngloZionist project AND the Ukie Nazi experiment must absolutely and definitely be defeated and conditions must be created which will forever prevent it’s reemergence.

Where do we stand now?

First, I would argue that the Junta repression force (JRF) has been defeated.  Not strategically (if only because it enjoys an immense strategic depth and still huge human and material resources), but operationally.  All the signs are that the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) are careful not to over-play their hand or push too far to the west, so things look very good for Novorussia right now.  Second, the Junta has also been defeated politically: if in the past the Ukrainian people had an oligarch-controlled government, now they have a government of oligarchs.  And they know it.  Furthermore, the Nazis have shown their true face (Odessa, Mariupol, MH17, MLRS and ballistic missiles used on civilians with white phosphor and cluster munitions, etc.).  Third, predictably, the Ukie economy is in free fall and for all practical purposes the Ukie industry is dead.  I would call that a full-spectrum failure for the Junta.

Uncle Sam is not doing much better: Crimea is lost forever, the Donbass is also lost for all practical purpose, Putin is more popular than ever, the EU tensions with the US are up (the Czech and Slovak republics have both announced that they will veto any further sanctions against Russia), and the US puppet-junta in Kiev has completely lost control of the situation.

art by Josetxo Ezcurra

As for the EU, it truly screwed-up badly.  The recent election of Donald Tusk and Federica Mogherini to the positions of President of the EU Council and EU Foreign Policy Chief is definitely good news, but it is also too little too late.  The mess left behind by Catherine Ashton and Herman Van Rompuy will take years of painful efforts to clear.  Besides, that other crazy, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, is still there, every bit as crazy and pathetic as always.  But for all the hot air blowing out of Rasmussen and a few more EU politicians, the EU has no stomach for more sanctions, much less so an ugly sanctions war with Russia.  The Russians know that, and so all they have to do now is wait for the fruit to become ripe (or rotten, really) and fall down on their lap.

There will be a NATO summit next week in Wales were Obama and his Neocon coterie of foreign policy advisors will most definitely push for a series of anti-Russian measure backed by very loud and macho statement about how Russia must be stopped, Europe protected and the NATO recognized as absolutely indispensable.  More men, more guns, more threats and, last but not least, more dollars for the US military-industrial complex.  Russia, however, will remain unimpressed for a very simple reason: the US and the EU have already been at the maximal anti-Russian policies for many years already.  In fact, the only anti-Russian policies which the AngloZionist Empire has not adopted yet are those which would hurt it more than they would hurt Russia.  Put differently, from now on any anti-Russian sanctions adopted will, by definition, hurt the AngloZionists more than they will hurt Russia (which they still will, of course).  The conclusion is obvious: the West simply cannot afford a sustained sanctions war against Russia.

There is still a real danger out there

The problem with the AngloZionists is that they are arrogant and stupid enough to stumble into a variant of the Israeli Samson Option: to strike out at their enemy even if that means bringing down the entire building on themselves.  Contrary to many analysts, I don’t think that the Americans are actually dumb enough to deliberately start a war against Russia, much less so a nuclear one, but they are arrogant enough to paint themselves into a corner in which the only way to save face is to use military force.  They are also capable of creating an extremely dangerous military situation in which even a firecracker can set off a shooting war (remember the insane USN posturing in the Strait of Hormuz or in the Taiwan Strait?).  The Russians must absolutely remain aware of this danger and thus never assume that the Americans are rational or prudent.  History proves that they are reckless and happy to create a situation resulting in war (US policies towards Japan before WWII are a perfect example).

Now let’s look at the options for Novorussia

As I have mentioned already, the devil is in the details, but there are basically to main options for Novorussia  1) full (de facto and de jure) independence 2) practical (de facto but not de jure) independence. I honestly believe that any other option which would fall short of de facto independence is simply impossible to achieve.  The Novorussians will not live under Kiev’s police or military, they will not pay Kiev more than purely symbolic taxes and they will most definitely not accept any limitation of their cultural, linguistic and economic rights, including the right to do business directly with Russia.  I consider that option as so unlikely, short of a massive and sustain bloodbath, that I won’t even consider it any further.  So let’s look at the two remaining options.

a) Full (de facto and de jure) independence: Novorussia

Advantages: Security: possibility to either join Russia or sign a mutual assistance treaty which could include the basing of Russian forces in Novorussia.  This would provide the ideal and maximal protection from any future attacks from the Ukies.  Economy: no taxes paid to Kiev, association with Russia, full access to the huge Eurasian market, work for the Russian industry, social rights paid for by Russia (as part of an aid package).  The joy of having fully won and to not have to deal with the crazies in the western Ukraine.  Full and total de-Nazification.

Disadvantages: maximalist position which leave no face saving way out for the crazies in Kiev and Washington, major difficulties in being internationally recognized.  This option also leaves all the rest of the ex-Ukraine in the hands of the AngloZionists and Nazis who will constantly sabotage, subvert and disrupt the life of Novorussia.  There is a real chance that this might mean leaving cities and regions like Odessa, Dniepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Chernigov, Nikolaev and many other historically Russian part of the ex-Ukraine to whatever regime is in power in Kiev.  Constant military danger: the current Ukie Minister of Defense promised a victory parade for the Ukie forces in Sevastopol, I kid you not.  You can imagine what folks like him will have to say to an independent Novorussia.  Key problem: this maximalist position leave no incentive whatsoever for Kiev to negotiate.

b) Practical (de facto but not de jure) independence: “Ukraine v2”

Advantages: Novorussia already gets much more than what it wanted six months ago (see above).  By preserving the fiction of a unitary Ukraine this solution leaves everybody a face saving way out and the major outside actors (Russia, US, EU, UN, OSCE) can all sign the deal and be declared guarantors.  Also, if Novorussia is nominally part of the “Ukraine v2” then it gives the people of the eastern Ukraine (who are the richest, best educated majority of the Ukrainian population) a chance to counter-act and challenge the rule of Nazis in Kiev and maybe serve as a basis to bring down the current “Banderastan” and replace it instead with a “Ukraine v2”.  Furthermore, a united Ukraine would be in a much better position to receive desperately needed international aid and money to rebuild.  Considering that at least initially the Nazi freaks would remain in power in Kiev we can be pretty sure that they will further destroy even the little left of “Banderastan” and that, sooner or later, some regime change will occur.  If the new regime in power is more or less sane, the eastern Ukraine could demand that those responsible for the mess be brought to trial and that a “truth and reconciliation” type commission be formed.

Disadvantages: There is a real risk that the Poroshenko regime will fall and be replaced by a Iarosh dictatorship.  Alternatively, southern Banderastan might break away from Kiev and for a “Kolomoiskistan”.  Either way, the collapse of the Poroshenko regime risks sucking in the Donbass into a 2nd phase of the civil war with no option for overt Russian aid (covert aid would, of course, be provided).  Even the notion of being represented by Nazi freaks in Kiev or to put up with a Ukie flag would be sickening for all those who died in defense of Novorussia.  Furthermore, if the deal does not look solid or stable, far from coming back home from Russia, even more Novorussians would “vote with their feet” and emigrate to Russia.  Nowadays, even the people of Crimea are still nervous and Russian politicians, including Putin, have had to constantly tell them “no, this time it’s forever, we will never abandon you, this is not something which will ever be overturned”.  If the folks in Crimea are worried about their future even though they are now legally part of Russia, you can imagine how frightened and unsure the people of Novorussia would be in any kind of “association” with Kiev, even a purely formal one.

These are only a few examples, there are many more which could be listed as advantages and disadvantages for both the independent Novorussia and the “Ukraine v2” option.

My very highly speculative and personal guess

Russia’s preferred option

I think that Russia would prefer a Ukraine v2 version.  From the point of view of Russia, it has a lot of advantages (like forcing the “Ukraine v2” to adopt a completely neutral, non-aligned, status).  As I have always said, Russia does not want or need the Ukraine.  What it wants is a stable, neutral and prosperous Ukraine, and not because Putin and the rest of the folks in the Kremlin are saints or Ukrainophiles, but because that is for the objective best interest for Russia.  The only thing Russia needed it already got: Crimea.

To those of you who might be appalled at the notion of a less-than-fully-independent Novorussia or a “Ukraine v2” I will say that I very much doubt that Russia can impose such an outcome on the people of Novorussia.  Sure, I am not naive, Zakharchenko and current Novorussian leaders got their power in a Moscow-backed change of leadership, so their ties to Moscow are very close, but the real power of Zakharchenko & Co. is that they have the support and consensus of the vast majority of the people of Novorussia, especially those fighting in the NAF.  I never believed in a “sellout” of Novorussia (even though I always feared it), and I am confident that should such a “sellout” occur the only real force in Novorussia – the NAF – will never let it happen.  Likewise any such “sellout” would trigger a severe political crisis for Putin.

All this is to say that while I do believe that, given the choice and option, Putin and his advisors would prefer a de-facto but not fully de-jure semi-independent Novorussia inside a very loose “Ukraine v2” I do not believe that a “sellout” is either what they want or even something they could do: the ultimate guarantor of the de-facto independence of Novorussia is not Putin or Russia, but the armed men of the NAF.

Novorussia’s preferred option

What would the people of Novorussia and, especially, the NAF prefer?

I honestly don’t know but I suppose that full independence is their preferred goal.  Still, the situation is complex and there are very solid argument speaking against such an option and for a “Ukraine v2” (as there very are solid arguments speaking in favor of a fully independent Novorussia and against a “Ukraine v2”).

One could also make a case that right now is not the correct time to make this choice.  For one thing, nobody knows who will be in power in Kiev in just a few months.  The winter is coming and the gas negotiations are becoming huge. Depending on what NATO does or does not decide, one of the other option might become a clearly better choice (just imagine NATO forces in Kiev!).

We have to give time to time (French expression)

The examples of Korea, Cyprus, Kosovo, Transnistria and many others show that sometimes the only solution is not solution at all.  The examples of Ireland or Chechnia show that some solutions are not at all the ones initially considered.  Furthermore, I would want to add here that the real end-goal of Russia in the Ukraine is not getting Crimea or saving the Donbass, but to achieve real regime change in Kiev.  Only that option would be an outcome which would really please Moscow and, if we keep that in mind, it is not at all clear to me that full independence for Novorussia is the best way to get there.  And let us also ponder this question: what is better for the people of Novorussia, full independence from the Ukraine or real, lasting, regime change in Kiev?

Just as in chess, time and timing are crucial pieces on the board.  Those who over the past few months were hysterically accusing Putin of being a traitor who will backstab the Novorussians simply failed to appreciate the importance of time and timing in strategy.  I am sorry to say that, no offense intended, but many people in the West have been raised, educated and trained in a culture of instant action-reaction, of immediate, almost kneejerk, responses.  They are used to consider only short-term rapidly achievable options.  Russia, and even more so China, are very different in this prospect.  These two nations build their immense countries by slow and steady progress, not by short pushes.  And though the Russian in the street might also prefer a fast solution to the Ukrainian problem, the folks in the Kremlin, especially former intelligence officers like Putin, fully realize that the “Ukrainian problem” is 400 to 800 years old, depending on how you define it (please read this and this if you are interested) and that it will not be solved in a few months.  This is especially true considering that in the current situation the real cause and force behind the current Ukrainian crisis is the AngloZionist Empire.

The real, “real”, goal of Putin (and Xi Jinping!)

As I have mentioned it here many, many times, the real “real” end-goal of Russia is not even regime change in Kiev: it is regime change on the planet.  There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that both Russia and China want to create a New World Order, but one very different one from the one envisioned by Bush, Fukuyama, Obama and the rest of the AngloZionist 1%ers.  Russia and China want a complete deconstruction of the AngloZionist Empire, they want to de-dollarize the world economy, the want an multi-polar international world order in which the rule of law is respected because it is understood that it is the most advantageous way to deal with problems.  Russia see its future in her North and in Siberia, China wants its economy to go global, including the Far-East Asia and the Pacific region, Africa and Latin America.  Russia also wants to role of Latin America and Central Asia to become more important because without these continents and regions there can be no truly multi-polar world.  I would also argue that both Russia and China are rejecting the western civilizational model and it’s key dogmas (I won’t list them here lest I offend or infuriate new readers, but my longtime readers know exactly what I mean) and that they are both seeking to create not only a different world order but a different civilization.  All this is much, much bigger than the Donbass or even the entire Ukraine.  Yes, at this moment in time, the frontline of the global civilizational war is going straight across the Ukraine, but this is only one battle in a much bigger and wider war.

Judging by some very telling statements of Zakharchenko in his recent press conference, I am confident that he understands that very well.  I have no doubt whatsoever that Putin does.


The main conclusion I hope that you all will draw from the above is that we should not jump to conclusions and avoid making big sweeping judgments.  If I have convinced you that this is a very tricky, complex and multi-dimensional issue then I am satisfied.  If I get another deluge of one sentence slogans in favor of either option, then I failed.  As I said, I am not sure that anybody really knows were this is all taking us.  For one thing, the Ukies and their western patrons have reneged on every single agreement they have signed since last Fall and there is really no rational reason to expect them to stick to anything they might sign this time.  Or maybe these negotiations will lead nowhere and the chaos and “somalization” of the ex-Ukraine will continue.  The other day Putin said this: “no matter where the US gets involved they always achieve the same result: Libya“.  That is quite true and maybe a libyalization of Banderastan needs to happen before everybody comes to his/her senses.  Or maybe, this is terrible to say, is the situation more similar to the one in Chechnia in 1999 when a lot of people had to be simply physically eliminated, killed, before any solution could be found (sadly, but Nazis and Wahabis have that in common that the only way to deal with most of them is to kill them).  I honestly don’t know.

So let us keep an eye on this incredibly fluid, complex and dangerous situation and not pretend like it is simple and the solution obvious.

Stay tuned, as always, I will do my best to keep you posted.

Kind regards and many thanks,

The Saker

Posted in Russia, UkraineComments Off on An important disclaimer, caveat and clarification

ISIL executions ordered from US, UK?


A still from a video purportedly showing the beheading of UK citizen David Haines by ISIL terrorists

A still from a video purportedly showing the beheading of UK citizen David Haines by ISIL terrorists.
By Finian Cunningham

If the ISIL terror group is indeed a Western military intelligence proxy, then that begs the question: are the beheadings of Western hostages being carried out on orders from Washington and London?

The presumption is that ISIL, also known as IS or ISIS, is somehow out of control, having turned on its covert masters in American and British military intelligence. However, when you note the political consequences from these very public executions of American and British citizens, it appears that the terror network is in fact carrying out orders to facilitate geopolitical objectives.

The immediate political consequence is that American and British public opinion is now being mobilized to support military intervention in the Middle East – under the guise of avenging the murder of Western citizens by knife-wielding fanatics. In particular, Washington and London are preparing the American and British public to acquiesce to air strikes inside Syrian territory. This would fulfil the long-held objective of Western regime change against the Syrian government of President Bashar al Assad – the real target – not going after ISIL, as we are being led to believe.

This weekend saw the release of a graphic video showing the first execution of a British man by ISIL. David Haines, a 44-year-old aid worker who was taken hostage in Syria last year, is seen kneeling on the ground dressed in an orange jumpsuit as a masked militant severs his throat. The dead man’s body is then filmed lying prostrate with a bloody head placed on the corpse’s back.

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron reacted with horror at the slaying, vowing to “hunt down the murderers” for their act of “pure evil.”

Earlier this month, American journalist Steven Sotloff was also decapitated by ISIL militants using the same barbaric ritual. Two weeks before that, James Foley, another American journalist was executed on camera in the same grisly manner, with his ISIL killers declaring that their actions were revenge for American air strikes against their bases in northern Iraq.

A fourth Western citizen, another Briton named as Alan Hemming, is also feared to have been slain after an unconfirmed video of his imminent execution was posted this weekend along with that of Haines’.

Some analysts have cast doubt on the veracity of these videos, claiming that they are fakes. But the foreboding demeanour of the victims and their final words spoken to the camera lend authenticity to the recordings.

With several other Western citizens believed to be held hostage by ISIL in Syria the disturbing outlook is that more such horrific videos will be released over the coming weeks.

The gruesome images of American and British citizens having their throats slit have had a huge impact on public opinion around the world. It is in this context of widespread public revulsion and anger that US President Barack Obama last week announced on prime-time television the formation of an international military coalition to “destroy ISIS”. Obama said the US-led coalition would carry out air strikes against the militants in their strongholds of northern Iraq and inside Syria’s eastern territory.

The Iraqi government has given its consent, but Damascus has not. The Syrian government has said that any such US-led military action would be tantamount to an act of aggression against a sovereign nation. Nevertheless, the Western public – shocked by the execution videos – appear to be giving the US-led coalition approval for its exceptional abrogation of international law to carry out air strikes inside Syria without the latter’s consent.

Before the execution videos started to appear, the majority of American and British public were adamantly against any military intervention in Iraq and more significantly in Syria.

Last year, Obama was forced to back down on plans to launch military strikes on Syria during September 2013 following the deadly chemical weapons attack near Damascus on August 21. The public was not convinced then that the incident was not a false flag provocation carried out by militants aimed at eliciting Western military intervention. The British parliament, heeding widespread public opposition in Britain, also voted against proposed military action. Without its crucial “special partner”, Washington was thus obliged to abandon its militaristic plans for Syria.

That public opinion obstacle to Washington and London’s desire for military intervention in Syria seems now to be eroding in light of the brutal executions of American and British citizens by ISIL.

But ISIL is a creation of American, British and Saudi covert intelligence, stemming from the early years of US-led occupation in Iraq from 2003 when the network stoked sectarian strife to the advantage of the occupying armies. As with the Al Qaeda terror network, ISIL serves the geopolitical objectives of Washington and its allies in the Middle East. These objectives include waging proxy war for regime change in target countries, such as in Syria, and the
perpetuation of American arms sales by fomenting a constant security threat.

The ISIL link to covert Western intelligence is confirmed by several informed analysts and former CIA personnel, as well as former Al Qaeda operatives, including Nabil Naim. Iranian military intelligence has also judged ISIL to be a Western psyops asset.

It is thus logical and plausible that secret government forces in Washington and London have given orders to ISIL to murder Western hostages. The political consequences fit the geopolitical agenda of military intervention and regime change in Syria. Political figureheads like Obama and Cameron may not be even aware of their own dark forces at work. Their public reactions of horror and indignation then assume an air of credibility.

But that does not lessen the grim conclusion that Washington and London are complicit in murdering their own citizens in order to facilitate geopolitical objectives.

Posted in UKComments Off on ISIL executions ordered from US, UK?

NY Times: ISIS Displaying a Deft Command of Varied Media


ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, is using every contemporary mode of messaging to recruit fighters, intimidate enemies and promote its claim to have established a caliphate.

Where exactly is this ISIS (Zio-Nazi Secret Intelligence Service?) based? Where do they sleep? Where do they do their banking? How did they pay for their fleet of pick-up trucks and sophisticated weaponry? How are they feeding and re-equipping their fighters? Where do their injured fighters get medical treatment?

A bunch of ‘good-ole-boys’ could not have assembled and trained such an advanced force while going unnoticed

What Internet Provider Service is allowing them to post videos and issue ‘recruitment’ tweets? How did the all-intrusive NSA miss the creation of this group? Why can’t the CIA. M-16 and Mossad infiltrate them and smash them from within? Why can’t we pinpoint them via satellite and smash them in their tents or barracks? How did such a formidable force like ISIS just seem to materialize out of nowhere and overnight? Why don’t they attack or even threaten to attack I$raHell?

Does the following quote from the Slimes piece make any sense to you?

“But Western intelligence services are also worried about their extraordinary command of seemingly less lethal weapons: state-of-the-art videos, ground images shot from drones and multilingual Twitter messages.”  
If ISIS is indeed “using every contemporary mode of messaging to recruit fighters”, as the article says, then why not answer their want ads and infest their ranks with undercover Arab agents? Then simply follow them to their lair, and destroy them. What is so difficult here?
How exactly does ISIS’s ‘social media recruitment’ campaign work anyway? Are they placing ads on Craigslist? CareerBuilder?

Sons of the Caliphate! Join the ISIS brigades! See the world! Rape women! Kill infidels! Death to America! For immediate consideration, attach resume with cover letter and salary requirements.

Or call us at 1-800-LAN-GLEY / Follow us on Twitter #KilltheInfidels


A spy show on the Fx network (FOX Group)  – a network which openly admits to having a CIA producer for its hit series, The Americans (here) 

 solves these mysteries for us. The name of the spy series is ‘Archer‘. Here is the description from the Fx website:

“Archer is an animated, half-hour comedy that revolves around the International Secret Intelligence Service (ISIS) and the lives of its employees. Although their work of espionage, reconnaissance missions, wiretapping and undercover surveillance is daunting and dangerous, every covert operation and global crisis is actually just another excuse for the ISIS staff to undermine, sabotage and betray each other for personal gain.”

The fakery doesn’t get anymore ‘in-your-face’ than this! 

 These sicko and psycho elites love doing this type of stuff. They must derive some perverted thrill from deceiving the brain-dead public and in plain sight no less. These types of hints were also dropped in TV shows during the years preceding the 9/11 attacks and also the months before the Sandy Hook non-shooting.

Sulzberger’s scribblers at the Slimes are all part of this sick murderous Global ‘great game’ that has been going on since at least the days of the French Revolution. The same NWO Mafia that spawned ISIS, also controls The Slimes.

Case closed!

“Arab” ISIS fighters hide their faces and hands because they don’t want you to see that so many of them are Caucasian (CIA-Mossad).  Why else wear gloves in the hot dessert?

Posted in USA, IraqComments Off on NY Times: ISIS Displaying a Deft Command of Varied Media

I Smell a Rat

by Nahida Exiled Palestinian

Was Jewish “israeli” Steven Sotloff and his co-religionist Bernard Henri Levy, (along with some more) part of a mossad plot (posing as Muslim converts or Muslim friendly “Westerners”) to create, manipulate, train and arm mercenary groups like ISIS, in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and all over the ME?

Who else is with them?

By their sleazy fingers of mossad

Those whose motto:

“By way of deception, thou shalt make war”

בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה

They continue to create havoc and reign terror all over the globe
Note, the motto of alleged “philosopher” Bernard Henri Levy on his own website:
“The art of Philosophy is only worthwhile if it is an art of war”

Screen Shot 2014-09-05 at 11.33.52


Steven Sotloff


Steven Sotloff



Steven Sotloff

Steven Sotloff

Steven Sotloff



ISIS leader “Albaghdadi”


Receiving AID from USA !


And coincidence coincidence !!!

 Look at the OTHER less known ISIS:

“ISIS provides worldwide security, intelligence, technology and training to government and private enterprises. ISIS is strategically positioned across the globe, with a highly credentialed management team and personnel. We have a superlative track record for delivering exceptional service and support to the most demanding of clients in the most challenging of circumstances.”



“ISIS professionals can be found working side by side with the U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. Government and Prime Contractors on the ground in such strategic environments as the Middle East.”

ISIS exists for one purpose: To provide government and business the sophisticated intelligence, technology, security and training they need to support and protect national and corporate interests in the most challenging of global environments. All with the utmost professionalism, transparency, and integrity.

– Don Wright, President & CEO

Screen Shot 2014-08-01 at 23.58.11

“Every ISIS employee is indoctrinated through training, evaluations, and a values pocket card that reinforces the importance of our mission and how we intend to get there through demonstration of our behaviors.”

Screen Shot 2014-08-01 at 23.58.21


Screen Shot 2014-08-01 at 23.59.11



Screen Shot 2014-08-01 at 23.39.52

Djebel Nefoussa

Bernard Henri Levy


Bernard Henri Levy



Bernard Henri Levy

Djebel Nefoussa


BHL en Israël




Djebel Nefoussa


Djebel Nefoussa


BHL en Israël


Djebel Nefoussa


Djebel Nefoussa


Djebel Nefoussa


Djebel Nefoussa


Djebel Nefoussa




BHL place Tahrir

BHL en Israël

To match interview LIBYA-FRANCE/


Director Levy and cast members pose during a photocall for the film Le Serment de Tobrouk at the 65th Cannes Film Festival








BHL a Misrata


BHL a Misrata


BHL a Misrata




BHL a Misrata








BHL and Libya rebels FEB17 NTC


BHL en Libye


BHL in Benghazi, Libya


BHL en Libye


BHL en Libye

BHL en Libye


BHL en Libye


BHL en Libye


BHL en Libye

BHL en Libye


BHL en Libye


BHL en Libye




BHL en Libye


BHL en Libye

BHL en Libye


BHL en Libye


BHL en Libye




BHL en Libye


BHL en Libye


BHL en Libye







Co+scenarist+co+director+Bernard+Henry+Levy+HzkIXW5nC3Al copy






BHL en Israël


BHL en Israël



Levy & Younis



برنار ليفي الاب الروحي لما يسمى بالربيع العربي مع مناحيم بيغن

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on I Smell a Rat

Gaza Nazi Holocaust: This part of my life is called: Running!” ”VIDEO”



by Nahida Exiled Palestinian

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Gaza, Human RightsComments Off on Gaza Nazi Holocaust: This part of my life is called: Running!” ”VIDEO”




by Richard Falk

[Prefatory Note: On September 24 a special session of the Russell Tribunal will examine war crimes allegations against Israel arising from the 50-day military operation that commence on July 8th. The RT has developed a record of examining the criminality of state actors that enjoy impunity internationally because they are insulated from accountability by what I have called a ‘geopolitical veto’ in this case exercised by the United States and several major European countries. Where governments and the UN fail to implement international law, there exists a right of peoples to play a residual lawmaking function.

It is somewhat analogous to the residual role that the General Assembly is empowered to play when the Security Council is unable or unwilling to perform its primary role in relation to international peace and security. To fill this normative vacuum the RT has long played made an honorable contribution to what might be called ‘the empowerment of legal populism.’ I encourage attentiveness to this event, including publicizing its occurrence and disseminating the results of its deliberations. As the announcement below indicates, I am proud to be a member of the jury for the session along with a series of truly distinguished and qualified high profile international personalities known both for their professional achievement and for their principled stands as ‘citizen pilgrims’ dedicated to a humane future shaped by global justice.]

Israel’s Crimes in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge – Extraordinary session of the Russell Tribunal

RT Israel’s Crimes in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge – Extraordinary session of the Russell Tribuna



24-25 September – Brussels – Albert Hall, Brussel

A few weeks ago, members of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, outraged by Israel’s terrible assault on Gaza and its population, decided to start working on an extraordinary session of the Tribunal that will look into Israel’s Crimes (including War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and the Crime of Genocide) during the still ongoing “Operation Protective Edge” as well as third States complicity.

During this session, that will take place on one day in Brussels on 24th September, our jury, so far composed of Michael Mansfield QC, John Dugard, Vandana Shiva, Christiane Hessel, Richard Falk, Ahdaf Soueif, Ken Loach, Paul Laverty, Roger Waters, Radhia Nasraoui, Miguel Angel Estrella and Ronnie Kasrils will listen to testimonies from Paul Behrens, Desmond Travers, Pierre Barbancey (TBC), Max Blumenthal, Eran Efrati, Mads Gilbert, Mohammed Abou-Arab, Mads Gilbert, Paul Mason, Martin Lejeune, Mohammed Omer, Raji Sourani, Ashraf Mashharawi, Agnes Bertrand, Michael Deas and Ivan Karakashian.

The jury will give its findings on 25th September in the morning during an international press conference at the International Press Center (IPC, Brussels). In the afternoon, the Jury will be received at the European parliament and address a message to the UN General Assembly for its reopening.

To register for the session (free), email us your name and organisation at :

Do mention if you are coming as a journalist and would like to record parts of the session.

To stay in touch with our work, “like” our facebook page! Thanks. (

Looking forward to seeing you all in Brussels.


Israel’s Crimes in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge – Extraordinary session of the Russell Tribunal

24-25 September – Brussels – Albert Hall, Brussel
A few weeks ago, members of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, outraged by Israel’s terrible assault on Gaza and its population, decided to start working on an extraordinary session of the Tribunal that will look into Israel’s Crimes (including War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and the Crime of Genocide) during the still ongoing “Operation Protective Edge” as well as third States complicity.

During this session, that will take place on one day in Brussels on 24th September, our jury, so far composed of Michael Mansfield QC, John Dugard, Vandana Shiva, Christiane Hessel, Richard Falk, Ahdaf Soueif, Ken Loach, Paul Laverty, Roger Waters, Radhia Nasraoui, Miguel Angel Estrella and Ronnie Kasrils will listen to testimonies from Paul Behrens, Desmond Travers, Pierre Barbancey (TBC), Max Blumenthal, Eran Efrati, Mads Gilbert, Mohammed Abou-Arab, Mads Gilbert, Paul Mason, Martin Lejeune, Mohammed Omer, Raji Sourani, Ashraf Mashharawi, Agnes Bertrand, Michael Deas and Ivan Karakashian.

The jury will give its findings on 25th September in the morning during an international press conference at the International Press Center (IPC, Brussels). In the afternoon, the Jury will be received at the European parliament and address a message to the UN General Assembly for its reopening.

To register for the session (free), email us your name and organisation at :

Do mention if you are coming as a journalist and would like to record parts of the session.

To stay in touch with our work, “like” our facebook page! Thanks. (


Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on RUSSELL TRIBUNAL SESSION ON PALESTINE

WHAT NAZI’S SAY ABOUT THE PALESTINIAN’S 8200 شاهد لماذا تمرد 40 جندي من وحده نخبه الإستخبارات الصهيونية في وحدة




Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on WHAT NAZI’S SAY ABOUT THE PALESTINIAN’S 8200 شاهد لماذا تمرد 40 جندي من وحده نخبه الإستخبارات الصهيونية في وحدة

Palestinian Authority foils new Gaza war crimes probe

Submitted by Asa Winstanley

The PA’s foreign minister Riad Malki told ICC prosecutors not to go ahead with a requested investigation into Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

(Issam Rimawi / APA images)

The leaders of the Palestinian Authority last month blocked efforts to bring Israeli war crimes in Gaza before the International Criminal Court (ICC), Al Jazeera’s investigative unit has discovered.

The TV channel revealed yesterday the existence of a letter from the office of top ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda (published in full by The Electronic Intifada below) in which she recounted a private 5 August meeting with Riad Malki, the PA foreign minister.

It is difficult to read her account of the meeting as anything other than Malki obstructing the process of investigating Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

Israel’s blood-thirsty onslaught against the Gaza Strip was then still raging, and, in public pronouncements before the assembled press in The Hague, Malki made a show of wanting to sign the supposed “State of Palestine” (actually the Palestinian Authority) up to the ICC by acceding to the Rome statute.

“Israel has left us with no other option,” he told reporters.

But that very same day, he was apparently singing a very different song in his meeting behind closed doors with Bensouda (an experienced Gambian lawyer, elected to head the ICC prosecutor’s office in 2011).

No “positive confirmation”

On 30 July, French lawyers acting on behalf of the PA’s justice minister and Gaza’s prosecutor general sent a request to the ICC to launch an investigation into then-ongoing Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

In the letter, obtained by Al Jazeera, Bensouda recounts that during her 5 August meeting with Malki, she “sought to confirm whether or not” that request had been officially “transmitted on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.”

This was a crucial procedural question since, under the rules of the ICC, only the head of state of Palestine, or its foreign minister, can authorize such a prosecution.

In the letter, a reply to the same French law firm, Bensouda is clear: “I did not receive a positive confirmation [from Malki]. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for my Office to consider” taking forward the prosecution.

Bensouda later wrote in The Guardian that “the decision is theirs [Palestinian Authority leaders’] alone and as ICC prosecutor, I cannot make it for them.” Some legal experts have disputed this interpretation, including international law expert and long-time Israel critic John Dugard.

In scuppering this request to investigate Israel, the PA “missed a golden opportunity” to hold Israel to account, Saad Djebbar, an influential Palestinian lawyer said on Al Jazeera English yesterday. Djebbar is the lawyer for the widow of Yasser Arafat, the late Palestinian leader, who there are very compelling reasons to believe was assassinated by Israel.


Hamas today reacted critically to the PA’s obstruction at the ICC.

Ismail Haniyehde facto head of the Hamas-led government in Gaza, urged PA leaderMahmoud Abbas to hurry up and sign onto the ICC. Ma’an News agency reported that he said: “signing the Rome statute is the right for every victim and stalling is neglecting their rights and an offence to the image of Palestinians.”

Last month, Middle East Eye editor David Hearst (formerly of The Guardianrevealed that the Hamas leadership had urged Abbas to join the ICC. The Islamic resistance movement agreed to pushing forward with joining the ICC and having Israel investigated for war crimes, even if that meant the court would also investigate Hamas leaders for alleged war crimes against Israelis.

In a rare move for mainstream Palestine solidarity groups in the UK (who often have friendly relations with PA representatives) Friends of Al Aqsa today also condemned the PA. “Abbas’s actions are inexcusable,” said the group’s chair Ismail Patel in a press release. “It is appalling that … the Palestinian Authority’s obligation to join the ICC and bring Israel to account is being squandered by a select few of its leaders who put their own political interests ahead of the needs of their people,” he said.

History of collusion

Since its inception in the early 1990s, the Palestinian Authority has been little more than a subcontractor for the Israeli occupation.

The most crucial aspect of this role is the so-called “security coordination” between Israel’s occupying military and intelligence forces and the Palestinian Authority’s sprawling and well-armed police and mukhabarat (undercover) forces.

In May, Abbas notoriously declared that this relationship with Israel is “sacred” and would continue indefinitely, regardless of any move to accommodate Hamas in any PA unity government.

In this way, the PA’s forces maintain an oppressive regime in the West Bank whose main purpose is to violently prevent Palestinian resistance to Israel occupation – including both popular protests and armed resistance. In common with other dictatorships in the Arab world, the PA also persecutes and jails critical journalists.

On the diplomatic front, the PA has a long history of obstructing legal moves to hold Israeli accountable on the world stage.

As revealed in 2011 after the release of the Palestine Papers, back in 2009 the PA helped obstruct efforts to hold Israel to account in the UN Human Rights Council using the Goldstone Report – an investigation (led by a South African judge) into Israel’s brutal 2008-2009 war of elimination against the Gaza Strip.

As this writer revealed back in 2010, UN and PA documents obtained by The Electronic Intifada proved that top PA officials in Geneva attempted to neutralize a UN Human Rights Council resolution condemning Israel’s deadly attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla.

Israel’s 31 May 2010 attack killed nine Turkish citizens, including a US citizen with Turkish residency, and injured dozens of others aboard the Mavi Marmara in international waters. A tenth Turkish activist, who was shot in the head by Israeli forces aboard the ship, died this past May after a four-year coma.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Palestinian Authority foils new Gaza war crimes probe

Shoah’s pages


September 2014
« Aug   Oct »