Archive | October 5th, 2015

Nazi Forces Escalate their Arbitrary Measures in the West Bank,

Caught with the Klan: Raymond Mott (left), formerly of the Lake Arthur police department, was snapped in August 2014 wearing a Klan symbol while standing alongside a man in he familiar white hood

Nazi Police Officer Willfully Kills Palestinian Civilian in Occupied Jerusalem

Since Thursday, 01 October 2015, the West Bank, especially occupied East Jerusalem, witnessed a serious escalation by Israeli forces and settlers against the Palestinian civilians and their property. Following the killing of a settler and his wife southeast of Nablus on the abovementioned day, Israeli forces cordoned Nablus. Moreover, the settlers carried out a series of attacks on the Palestinian civilians and their cars on roads and in houses located in the outskirts of the villages adjacent to the settlements.

In the context of the escalation policy and the racist incitement by settlers, on Sunday, 04 October 2015, the Israeli forces willfully killed a Palestinian civilian in Jerusalem in after he was chased and beaten by settlers. Israeli forces claimed that the victim attempted to stab a 15-year-old settler, due to which that settler sustained moderate wounds, and then he escaped to Street no. 1 before the Israeli police arrived and shot him dead. Even if the Israeli claim was true, Israeli forces could have used less force or arrested the Palestinian, especially as he walked enough distance before he was killed without posing any threat to the Israeli officers or settlers.

On Sunday morning, 04 October 2015, Israeli forces killed a Palestinian civilian from al-Eisawiya village in occupied East Jerusalem. According to PCHR’s investigations and statements of eyewitnesses, in the early morning, a group of settlers chased Fadi Samir Mostafa Elwan (19), from al-Eisawiya village, northeast of East Jerusalem, while he was walking in al-Mesrara area. They chased him after he tried to escape towards “Haim Barlev Street no. 1”. In the meantime, an Israeli police patrol arrived at the scene and surrounded him, and soon after, an Israeli officer shot Elwan dead from a close range with over 7 bullets. This attack occurred in presence of the settlers who incited the police to kill him him. Videos reported by the Israeli media showed that a big group of settlers surrounded and beat Elwan while he was present in al-Mersrara area. They then chased him, so he was panicked.

The Israeli police arrived to the place and shot him dead. Furthermore, the video displayed by the Israeli media showed the settlers beating and pulling him after he was shot, and then chanting slogans calling for revenge against the Arabs. Afterwards, Israeli forces kept the corpse and did not inform his family of any details about the place where it was kept or the time of delivering it.

An eyewitness, who is a taxi driver during night shifts, said to a PCHR fieldworker that Elwan was chased by settlers from al-Mesrara area to the place where he was killed, which is a distance of over 500 meters. Moreover, when the Israeli police vehicle arrived, an Israeli officer stepped out of it and opened fire at him directly. It should be noted that the settlers, who had gathered in the streets and roads of the Old City in Jerusalem, reached al-Mesrara neighborhood and al-Amoud Gate area on Saturday night, 03 October 2015, after Mohannad Shafiq Halabi (19), from al-Bireh town, stabbed and killed two Israeli settlers in al-Wad neighborhood. Halabi was also killed by Israeli forces.

On Sunday early morning, 04 October 2015, Israeli forces backed by many vehicles moved into Jenin refugee camp adjacent to Jenin from three directions entrances: al-Jabriyat in the south of the camp; al-Zahraa’ in its north; and al-Hadaf area in the west of the camp.  Dozens of Israeli soldiers were deployed in the camp alleys. They topped the roofs of high buildings while their vehicles imposed a cordon on a house belonging to Qays al-Sa’di ordering its owner via loudspeakers to surrender.  His wife and children as well as his father and brother went out of the house and told the Israeli soldiers that the aforementioned was not at home.  However, the Israeli soldiers continued to cordon the house and fired a number of shells at it.  As a result, fire broke out on the third floor, which was completely burnt, and the second floor was partially destroyed.  Meanwhile, clashes broke out between the soldiers and a number of armed Palestinians, who opened fire at them to end the cordon imposed on the house.  Local sources said to a PCHR fieldworker that al-Sa’di survived the assassination or arrest attempt.  However, the Israeli forces arrested his brother, Mohammed (23), and took him to an unknown destination.

 On Saturday morning, 03 October 2015, Israeli forces moved into Nablus.  They arrested 7 civilians and wounded 11 others, including 3 children, as they were protesting against them.  Moreover, 3 civilians were wounded when a group of settlers protected by the Israeli forces attacked a house belonging to Jamal Abu Baker at the entrance of Soret al-Ra’ees village, southwest of the city.  The Israeli forces opened fire at a number of civilians who confronted the settlers and Israeli forces and threw stones at them to keep them away from the house.

In the same context, several areas in the West Bank witnessed a series of attacks by settlers against Palestinian civilians and property.  At approximately 21:30 on Thursday, 01 October 2015, after two settlers  were killed in a shooting incident on the bypass road between “Eitmar” settlement and Beit Foriq checkpoint, east of Nablus, hundreds of settlers gathered at Howarah checkpoint at the southern entrance of the city and the intersection leading to “Yitsahar” settlement and the intersection leading to “Barakha” settlement, south of the city.  They smashed the windows of Palestinian cars parked there.

This coincided with the closure of the aforementioned checkpoint by Israeli forces before the Palestinian civilians’ movement and their vehicles on both directions.  As a result of the attacks, around 40 Palestinian vehicles were damaged.  In addition, dozens of the vehicles’ passengers were injured by the scattered window glass.  The settlers used stones, sharp tools and sticks in their attacks which they carried in the presence of the Israeli soldiers and police.

PCHR strongly condemns the willful killing of ‘Elwan in East Jerusalem, which further proves the use of excessive force by Israeli forces against the Palestinian civilians in disregard for the civilians’ lives.  Moreover, PCHR condemns collective punishment measures taken by the Israeli forces in the oPt and the attacks launched by Israeli settlers before the eyes of Israeli forces.

Therefore, PCHR calls upon the international community to take immediate and effective actions to put an end to such crimes and reiterates its call for the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to fulfill their obligations under Article 1; i.e., to respect and to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances, and their obligation under Article 146 to prosecute persons alleged to commit grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention.  These grave breaches constitute war crimes under Article 147 of the same Convention and Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions.


Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi Forces Escalate their Arbitrary Measures in the West Bank,




Russia is having no problem precision-bombing Saudi Zio-Wahhabi ‘ISIS’ targets in Syria. For the past year, daily U.S. airstrikes have consisted of bombers going out but coming back with their arsenals in tact…just for show…Obama’s show…pretending to fight ‘ISIS’…but in actuality, supporting Saudi Zio-Wahhabi efforts to take out Assad.

Posted in Russia, SyriaComments Off on RUSSIA IN SYRIA ‘VIDEO’

Nazi regime of I$raHell must pay the price

Israel has made up its mind to rid itself of all the Palestinians in the territories it controls.  It does not care for demonstrations, declarations, warnings, resolutions, moral outrage, denunciations, international law or any other form of condemnation from any part of the world.
As Israel imprisons more Palestinian children, confiscates more land, denies more building permits, burns more infants, diverts more water, demolishes more houses, destroys more trees and crops, poisons more sheep, blocks more ambulances and executes more Palestinian women at checkpoints, it is welcoming and hoping for a third intifada to provide the excuse to kill and expel larger numbers of Palestinians at a faster rate.
This is a matter of planning and strategy.  Before Zionist Jews constituted even 1% of the population of Palestine,  plans had already been laid to eliminate its non-Jewish indigenous Arab inhabitants.  Since then, Israel has inexorably killed or expelled half of the entire Palestinian population and dispossessed three-quarters from their homes.
Today, Palestinians constitute 20% of the citizens of Israel, but they are permitted to live on and own less than 3% of the land.  In the West Bank, Palestinians are 80% of the population, but most of them are also confined to less than 3% of the total land area of Palestine (15% of the West Bank).  In Gaza, one of the most crowded areas in the world, Israel has made it even more crowded by preventing construction along the border and demolishing up to a kilometer or more deep, while the territory is less than 8 km. wide for most of its length. This leaves, again, only 3% of Palestine available for Palestinian habitation in Gaza.  In Jerusalem, more than 200,000 Palestinians, comprising more than 30% of the city’s population are forced to live on less than 7% of the land, and permits to expand living space are exceedingly rare.
Israel wants the land, but not the people on it.  It will pursue its ethnic cleansing project to completion unless the cost becomes unsustainable. But who could possibly make it unsustainable?
The US, Europe and other western nations like Canada and Australia have the power to stop Israel, but they are using it to enable the genocide, not prevent it.  Israel has so thoroughly inserted itself into the political, economic and media structures of these countries that it is unrealistic to expect this to change soon.
The Palestinians have the power to resist, but can they cause Israel enough pain that it will give up its genocidal actions?  Armed struggle is always a possibility, but it is a mismatch, with Israel holding most of the resources.  Conceivably, if tens or hundreds of thousands of Palestinians coordinate actions of mass civil disobedience of the kind practiced by some villages but on a vast scale, they will render themselves ungovernable.  But the price is potentially immense without international support.
Since we cannot expect support from governments, popular struggle is perhaps the only alternative, with coordination between international movements and the Palestinian resistance.  In order to be effective, however, the actions must make Israel pay a price that is too high to bear, and to maintain the costs for as long as necessary.  Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) actions are a good start, but the aim must be to shut down Israel completely, not just companies that are complicit in the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
Some examples of effective actions are the blockage of Israeli ships in the ports of the Oakland and other US cities.  So is the shutdown of the El Al ticket counter at Eleftheria Airport in Athens in July, 2010, blocking the departure of a flight.  However, these and other actions will be effective only if they are adopted on a massive and continuing basis throughout the world.
We cannot rest until this is the case and until Israel is treated as a pariah state everywhere.  Only then will its racist Zionist foundations crumble and Palestinian rights be restored.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi regime of I$raHell must pay the price

Russia Destroys Al Nusra Command and Control


Syrian Army Prepares Ground Attack against US Sponsored Al Qaeda Terrorists, FSA Militants Surrender

South Front International Military Review


The Syrian army is preparing for offensive actions against Al Nusra and ISIS near the town of Al-Rastan. In the recent interview, the Commander of the 147th Syrian tank brigade said that they coordinate perfectly with the Russian forces providing them intelligence and air support.

According to the government sources, over 450 militants from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and another 250 people wanted by governmental authority have turned themselves into the Syrian Security Forces at the provincial capital of the Dara’a Governorate (Dara’a city). There are no confirmed reports about the reasons of such activity, but anybody can easily suppose why they did this. Meanwhile, the Syrian Air Force struck the Syrian Al-Qaeda group “Jabhat Al-Nusra” and their allies from the FSA around the city of Busra Al-Sham.

On Saturday morning, the Russian Aerospace Defence Forces (VKO) targeted the Jaysh Al-Fateh (Army of Conquest) militant group positions in the Idlib Governorate: Mardeij, Ma’arat Al-Nu’man, Jisr Al-Shughour, Saraqib and Sarmeen.

Separately, the Russian Air Force’s destroyed a command-and-control center of Jabhat Al-Nusra at Saraqib.

Russian warplanes conducted a reconnaissance flight above the Al-Ghaab Plains of the Hama Governorate. This could be a feature of the future military activity in this sector.

ISIS has been targeted by the Russian warplanes at the city of Al-Raqqa sector at least 25 times and each time. This includes the Tabaqa Military Airport and Tabaqa National Hospital turned into the ISIS’ primary military base and headquarters in Al-Raqqa.

Recently, the VKO has targeted the terrorist group inside the Deir Ez-zour Governorate. The ISIS positions along the imperative Deir Ezzor-Raqqa International Highway and Al-Mayadeen-Deir Ez-zour Road were destroyed.

The Russian Aerospace Defence Forces has conducted more than 60 flights and bombed over 50 Islamic State targets in three days. According to the Lieutenant General Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Main Operation Directorate of the General Staff of Russia’s armed forces, the strikes have significantly reduced the terrorists’ combat capabilities.

Posted in Russia, Syria1 Comment

France: Seeking Old Mandate in Syria


Russia’s decision to use its Air Force in Syria was a necessary step that is essential in order to maintain the balance of power in the Eastern Mediterranean. There is no alternative: Russia’s geopolitical interests dictate to block the Islamic State and other terrorist groups’ advance to the Mediterranean coast. This is not about messianism, although historically St. Petersburg, and later Moscow, have always been sensitive to stimuli coming from the Middle East. Meanwhile, the West is pulling out maps from the archives that date back to the French mandate for Syria and Lebanon (1923-1946). This means that not only the border between Syria and Lebanon is being questioned, but also the Turkish border as well.

Washington, London, Paris and Tel Aviv totally controlled the Syrian crisis – until July 14, 2015. After the Iran deal was signed in Vienna, Tehran then emerged at the forefront of a major game being played over gas supplies, and military activity intensified on the Lebanese-Syrian border. Paris and Tel Aviv saw this move as a challenge and carried out a series of air strikes over Syria in late September. When former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing offers his opinions, he speaks in the spirit of the colonial wars of the 19th century, urging UN forces headed by a French general to be sent to the Arab republic turning President Assad into only a nominal ruler, a dignitary who could be trotted out when needed to bless Paris’s restoration of that mandate. This is rapid progress. The historical figure of General Henri Gouraud leaps to mind, who in 1920 bested King Faisal I of Iraq (a member of the Hashemite dynasty) at the Battle of Maysalun, thus capturing Damascus. Gouraud was so ruthless in his conquest of the Arab Kingdom of Syria that in 1921 he was able to carve out from its vast territory the État de Damas, the État d’Alep, the Alawite State (known as the Sanjak of Latakia), Jabal al-Druze (the Druze State), the Sanjak of Alexandretta (present day İskenderun and the Hatay Province in southern Turkey), and also Greater Lebanon (1920). Those unifications endured, in various incarnations, until 1946, when Paris withdrew its troops under pressure from Arab nationalists.


From a geographical point of view, the French today are operating within their sphere of influence, which was formed as a result of the conference in San Remo in 1920. For this reason, the French air force launched attacks (on Sept. 27) on the oil-rich northeastern city of Deir ez-Zor, where back in 1921 they had set up a military garrison, which was incorporated into a unified Syria in 1946. The French colonial empire, which was buried in 1962 under the rubble of the uprising in Algeria, has not only survived in the minds of the political elite, but is also showing a determination to be reincarnated.

The paradox is that Assad, an Alawite, is not requesting military assistance from Paris, which in the minds of Syrians is a symbol of dyed-in-the-wool European colonialism, but from Moscow. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, but the people of the Middle East have positive memories of Soviet presence in the region. In this sense, the air strikes carried out by the Russian air force on Jabhat al-Nusra & Daesh positions are marking the outlines of the absolutely new post-colonial framework for the Middle East, which was created not through secret diplomacy, but through the good will of Damascus and Moscow. It caused indignation of a vainglorious France. Yet everything is being done in a fully legal manner: Moscow’s actions are supported by a bilateral (with Damascus) Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance. François Hollande cannot hide his resentment, and he is now accusing Assad of wholesale slaughter. And this is not empty rhetoric. Paris is trying to claim that this matter falls under the jurisdiction of 2005’s Resolution on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which obliges the UN Security Council to use force against regimes that allow “ethnic cleansing,” “genocide,” or “mass killings.” The French have not lost hope. After all, that gimmick worked with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Russia’s stronger hand in the Middle East is a fact that has already been recognized by the US and Great Britain. Prime Minister David Cameron, who previously maintained an uncompromising position regarding Bashar al-Assad’s hold on power, is now saying the Syrian leader could play a role a “transitional government,” although in public he continues to threaten him with an international tribunal, working in sync with Hollande. The Guardian quoted Cameron as saying that “So far, the problem has been that Russia and Iran have not been able to contemplate the end state of Syria without Assad.”

The Israelis are in an uproar, especially after these words from Putin: “We respect Israel’s interests related to the Syrian civil war. But we are concerned about its attacks on Syria.” Translated from the language of diplomacy, this is a warning. Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon retorted, “Israel is not coordinating its operations in Syria with Russia.” He feels that the border between the Jewish state and the Arab Republic is the exclusive prerogative of Tel Aviv. The Kremlin is not contesting this position, which stems from the Israeli vision for the Middle East’s future borders (including Jabal al-Druze). The problem lies elsewhere. Without outside help, would Israel be prepared to survive a political earthquake in the Muslim world?

Sarkis Tsaturyan is the Russian-Armenian historian and international policy analyst. He teaches at the Moscow Peoples’ Friendship University.

Proclamation of the state of Greater Lebanon, Gouraud with Grand Mufti of Beirut Sheikh Mustafa Naja, and on his right is the Maronite Patriarch Elias Peter Hoayek, Sept 1, 1920.

Proclamation of the state of Greater Lebanon, Gouraud with Grand Mufti of Beirut Sheikh Mustafa Naja, and on his right is the Maronite Patriarch Elias Peter Hoayek, Sept 1, 1920.

Posted in FranceComments Off on France: Seeking Old Mandate in Syria

Timeline of CIA Interventions in Syria

syrian rebels cia

This partial timeline provides evidence that the U.S. government and Obama in particular bear a significant responsibility for the Syrian war and the results of that war. Obama approved elements of CIA plans that go back over 65 years. The CIA meddling is distinct from the Pentagon’s failed plan to train “moderate rebels”, not covered in this timeline.

1940s and 1950s “…if you want to understand the origins of authoritarian rule in Syria today, it is important to go back to the 1940s and the 1950s and see the role the CIA played in that land.” See also here, p. 122: “In the late 1940’s, U.S. policy makers grew alarmed when the Syrian government, bowing to public pressure, refused to let a U.S. oil company build a pipeline through its territory. Washington also found the strong anti-Western sentiment and the large Communist party in the country ominous. Concerned that Syria was ‘drifting leftward’, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) laid plans to overthrow its three-year old civilian government.” CIA operatives met with right-wing military leaders in Damascus to discuss installing a “military-supported dictatorship”.

1947-1948 CIA attempts “to influence the 1947-8 elections by backing right-wing figures in the Nationalist Party…”

March, 1949 CIA sponsors Syrian coup d’etat; CIA directly involved.

1957 CIA and MI6 devise plan to assassinate 3 top Syrian leaders and overthrow the government. “…they planned to use agents provocateurs to launch a series of incidents.” “A ‘Free Syria Committee’ should be funded and ‘political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities’ in Syria should be armed.” [Does this sound familiar?] See also here.

2006-2011 Prior to the onset of the Syrian war, the U.S. stirs up opposition to Syrian government (Assad). An April 18, 2011 article reads “Newly released WikiLeaks cables reveal that the US State Department has been secretly financing Syrian opposition groups and other opposition projects for at least five years, The Washington Post reports.”

March 2011 Daraa violence launches Syrian war. “The Daraa ‘protest movement’ on March 17-18 had all the appearances of a staged event involving covert support to Islamic terrorists by Mossad and/or Western intelligence.”  “In Daraa, roof top snipers were targeting both police and demonstrators.” [Notice that this technique also occurred in the Kiev, Ukraine violence.] See also here.

August 18, 2011 Obama says Assad must go. “President Obama and European leaders called Thursday for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to resign, after months of his violent crackdown on protesters. The rhetorical escalation was backed by new U.S. sanctions designed to undermine Assad’s ability to finance his military operation.”

August 1, 2012  “Obama authorizes secret support for Syrian rebels”. “The full extent of clandestine support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.”

October 2, 2013  “The CIA is expanding a clandestine effort to train opposition fighters in Syria amid concern that moderate, U.S.-backed militias are rapidly losing ground in the country’s civil war, U.S. officials said.” “The pace of the CIA program amounts to a trickle into the ranks of opposition fighters, who total about 100,000. U.S. intelligence officials said that as many as 20,000 of those are considered ‘extremists’ with militant Islamist agendas.”

“Those hard-line factions have drained momentum and support from moderate rebel groups. The most prominent Islamist groups, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Jabhat al-Nusra, include fighters who have extensive experience from the war in Iraq, have ties to al-Qaeda and have carried out high-profile strikes against Assad’s government.”

April 23, 2014  “The U.S. is providing more arms and training to the moderate rebels in Syria, under a growing secret program run by the CIA in Jordan.”  “Skeptics doubt the U.S. effort will help much, given the weakened state of the opposition and the inroads made by al-Qaida fighters. The moderate fighters being supported currently have relatively little influence on the ground.”

Oct. 2, 2015  “The CIA has provided the thousands of fighters it has trained at secret bases in Jordan with communications equipment, intelligence support and arms, including antitank missiles. Those CIA-backed fighters re-entered Syria across that country’s southern border with Jordan, but many have made their way into units that are now arrayed north and east of Damascus — areas that have been pounded by Russian strikes over the past several days.”

In my opinion, the most serious U.S. meddling is what the Wikileaks cables reveal, which is the State Department’s organization of domestic opposition to its elected government. This provoked the revolution that started in Daraa, and that provided an opening for radical and armed Muslim elements to enter the battle. Next in importance is Obama’s position that Assad must go, because this guides the entry of the CIA and Pentagon into the war while committing the U.S. to a politically untenable and impossible course of attempting to reconstitute a new government among radical and rival forces if and when Assad falls or rebel forces gain control. Undetermined but significant amounts of arms and training have ended up flowing to ISIS and other radical groups that the U.S. cannot control, and these forces can’t be dislodged without bigger military commitments by the U.S. Neither the CIA’s activities nor the Pentagon’s failed training program have resulted in control over the battlefield or those groups, which have expanded control over Syrian territory.

Why did Obama intervene in Syria? There are four main reasons and they are not mutually exclusive. One reason is “democracy promotion”. This appears again and again in his rhetoric and that of the State department, where “democracy” is taken to mean “rights” among other things. Obama viewed Assad as standing in the way of the Syrian people. Obama’s intention to bomb Syria when he accused Assad of using chemical weapons brought out a version of this position in his concern for violations of international law. Obama has an idea of world order and the U.S. role in enforcing it. Obama’s position on the Arab Spring also showed this democracy promotion concern. The second reason is to thwart Iran in order to maintain U.S. dominance in the region. Related to this is U.S. support for Saudi Arabia and Gulf states who have also supported rebel elements in Syria as well as support for Turkey. The U.S. leads a coalition. The third reason is Israel’s influence in administration circles and on Capitol Hill. The fourth reason is to thwart Russia’s influence in Syria and deny it access to the Mediterranean. This appears to have backfired.

These are all reasons associated with Empire. Maintaining and extending the U.S. Empire is the dominant underlying and unquestioned assumption in all of this and in all of the meddling going on in other countries. It is the idea that American ways are superior and should be extended over the globe to create some kind of world order that’s in some sense vaguely utopian or reaches a kind of ever-progressing ascent to God only knows what.

There is no real benefit to us average everyday Americans from any of this government meddling in Syria. We can ascend on our own. We can progress or regress on our own, without such interference. We do not need to bring down Assad and replace him with phantom moderates of the choosing of the State Department, the CIA or a president. We can invent, paint, write and play music, plant and cultivate crops, build dwellings, travel, participate in sports, take recreational drugs, have sex, play computer games, write poetry and do innumerable other activities without notions of empire, foreign meddling, or even progress. Who is to say what anyone is to do but themselves?

Why would I or many sane Americans want to bother with who rules Syria or how they rule it? It’s not my province. It’s none of my business. How in the world can I know whether I’m doing any good if I decide to butt in?

The government doesn’t think this way. It’s composed of people who want to meddle and run for office for that very reason. They are arrogant enough to think that they know what’s good for everyone when they don’t know diddly-squat. Who are they but pompous babbling fools?

The CIA attracts smart people who love to work by schemes and subterfuges behind the scenes. These are power freaks who love playing byzantine games and relish manipulations. Why should any sane American want to allow these kinds of people to have access to ungodly amounts of money and power that they waste on their futile and very dangerous schemes that kill, maim and destroy?

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on Timeline of CIA Interventions in Syria

New York Times Moving into High Spin Denigrating Vladimir Putin on Syria

Global Research

The specter of mass protest – of mob rule – seems to have haunted Vladimir V. Putin throughout his political life, and that fear lies at the heart of his belief in the primacy of state authority. It also informs Russia’s forceful intervention in Syria.  NYT, 4 October 2015.

The NYT – one of the key spin doctors in spreading falsehoods – knows no limits in manipulating public opinion and demeaning Mr. Putin in Machiavellian fashion with lies and untrue inferences.

What the paper describes in its article titled In Putin’s Syria Intervention, Fear of a Weak Government Hand”,  is just about what the US has been doing in Syria since 2007 with increasing intensity by training, funding and arming terrorists that were given different names ranging from al Qaeda – to al-Nusra – ISIS/L- Daesh… “moderate opposition” – you name it, to please the Washington hegemon’s needs; and this with the objective of achieving ‘regime change’, meaning replacing President al-Assad with a Washington puppet.

All the while hypocritically and deceptively claiming the US / NATO and other European puppets were fighting the terrorists, when in fact America, the Saudis, Qatar, Turkey, NATO and the EU were funding, arming and training them.

The only legitimate intervention on behalf of a foreign country since WWII is Russia helping Syria since 30 September 2015 in eliminating the foreign funded, devastating terrorism, causing human misery and millions of refugees flooding neighboring countries and Europe.

Mr. Putin with the approval of the Russian Parliament, the Duma, agreed to this intervention at the request of the legally and people-elected President al-Assad. The official request of the Syrian Government is one of the two only lawful reasons for a foreign country to intervene in a sovereign nation. The other one is by request of the UN Security Council.

None of the US / NATO interventions in the Middle East and around the world, including economic sanctions, are legal. None of them would stand up in an honest court of justice that deserves its name; is there still one left that is not coerced into defending US interests?

All interventions in foreign countries by the United States directly or by proxy are spreading chaos, destruction and death in the name of ‘democracy’. They have been and continue to be – in its full meaning – illegal and in flagrant violation of the Charter of the UN. They serve only one purpose: for Washington to achieving Full Spectrum Dominance of the world, as outlined by the Zionist-drafted PNAC (Plan for a New American Century) – which is the road map for the US State Department’s Foreign Policy. – NYT and other MSM adherents might want to know this.

After listening to Mr. Obama’s pitiful speech of lies and deceptions before the UN General Assembly on 28 September, followed by that of Mr. Putin – who presented a series of down-to-earth facts, culminating in his conclusion ‘do you realize what you have done‘ – the world at large may have started opening their eyes and minds to the truth. The shrouds of deception, manipulation and outright lies spread by the sorts of the NYT and other MSM will gradually be lifted, giving light to a new dawn, a new horizon away from the NWO (New World Order) towards peaceful cooperation rather than US controlled wars, conflicts and destruction through bombs and financial fraud.

Posted in USA, RussiaComments Off on New York Times Moving into High Spin Denigrating Vladimir Putin on Syria

It is the US that has been Destabilizing the Middle East, Not Russia


Russia has conducted its first airstrike against ISIL militants in Syria. The Russian Ministry of Defense says the operation took place in the Arab republic’s third largest city of Homs, which is a central link between the interior cities and the Mediterranean coast.

The operation came hours after the Russian Parliament approved the use of the country’s armed forces abroad.

According to Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Sergei Ivanov, the decision was made after Syrian President Bashar Assad requested military assistance from Moscow in the fight against terrorism.

While speaking to journalists on Wednesday morning, Ivanov also added that the move does not foresee any ground troop operations.

Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria have recently created an information center in Baghdad in order to coordinate the fight against Islamic State. The new center would begin operations in October or November.

Mahdi Nazemroaya, an award-winning author, sociologist and geopolitical analyst, spoke to Sputnik in an exclusive interview about the new center in Baghdad.

“Russia is very serious about fighting ISIL. This isn’t just for Syria or Iraq, it’s for regional security and it has broader international implications. ISIL has made it clear that it’s going to march to other places in the world and it is also a threat to the Russian Federation, specifically the North Caucasus. So this move is to stabilize the region and to keep the Syrian state intact,” Nazemroaya said.

He also went on to explain that this is very different from what the US is doing. He said that ISIL’s strength has not declined under the US’ bombing, nothing has been happening. The move that has been made by Russia, Iranians and the center in Baghdad show that now there will be real action taking place in the Middle East.

“Russia’s actions are absolutely intended to bring stability to Syria. It is vital to note that Russia wants to see Syria intact. It does not want to see Syria as a failed state. It wants to see a sovereign state’s government in place and all the institutions in place, which is the opposite of what the United States has done.”

Nazemroaya recalled the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US and Britain when they illegally invaded Iraq and the first thing they did was ‘destroy the state’. “They destroyed its institutions and the chaos in Iraq and the rise of ISIL are linked to this.”

The analyst further noted, “The Iranians are also involved in this as they have extended support to the Syrian government. They want to keep Syria intact. They have been providing Syria with military, economic and humanitarian support to Syria. They have extended diplomatic support at various foreign forums as well.”

He also said that China is also interested in neutralizing the ISIL force. “The US bombing campaign has done nothing in the fight against ISIL. It is clear that the US and Turkey have been helping ISIL.”

The analyst further explained how the US has been facilitating ISIL’s actions and why it hasn’t put a stop to their rise when it could.

Syria has been in a state of civil war since March 2011. The country’s army has been fighting various extremist groups, such as the Nusra Front and Islamic State. In mid-2014 the US started an airstrike campaign against ISIL in both Iraq and Syria within the framework of an international coalition.


Posted in Middle East, USA, RussiaComments Off on It is the US that has been Destabilizing the Middle East, Not Russia

Malaysian Premier Invokes Torah Wisdom to Bash Nazi’s in UN Speech



“Jews rule this world by proxy, they get others to fight and die for them… They have now gained control of the most powerful countries… This tiny community has become a world power” Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia former Prime Minister (for 22 years).

In his address to the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday, which followed a dramatic speech by Nazi Prime Minister Benjamin Naziyahu, the leader of Malaysia invoked Judaism to attack the Jewish state.

Before turning his attention to the Nazi regime, however, Prime Minister Najib Razak urged the nations of the world to “spread awareness of authentic Islam. Most especially when conflicts persist and people lose hope. For it is there that extremism finds fertile soil. And those who fight for extremism — for a perversion of true Islam — are one of the main drivers of the current migration crisis from the Middle East.” Razak devoted a good portion of his time at the podium to deploring the rise and methods of ISIS.

“Non-state actors, such as the so-called Islamic State, threaten to destroy sovereign states,” he said. “They don’t confine their horrific acts of cruelty within official boundaries. Expert at using social media to recruit followers in faraway countries, they lure them with false promises, persuading many young people that their barbaric actions will bring them closer to God. It is sickening, and there could be no greater a slur on Islam — a religion of peace, moderation and justice.”

He then proceeded to talk about the plight of the Palestinians.

“Forward-thinking leaders put their people’s interests first. Similar courage… is needed to permanently address the injustice suffered by the Palestinians since 1948.

Decades of impunity and the systematic dehumanization of Palestinians has culminated in increasing violence, increasing illegal settlements and increasing violations of rights. The frustration and anger felt by Palestinians resonates with Muslims worldwide.

If the world continues to turn a blind eye to their sufferings, we risk another catastrophe in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. We will also fail to uphold the right to self-determination, which was at the very basis of the United Nations when it was created 70 years ago.”

He continued:

“On that note, given the Rosh Hashanah violations of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and aggression against its worshipers three weeks ago, I call on the Israeli government to live up to Judaism’s highest ethical principles, and the essential message of the Torah as succinctly expressed by the first century BC sage Hillel. When asked to describe the Torah in a soundbite, he said, ‘That which is hateful to you, don’t do to your fellow human being.”

This dictum, known universally in all religions as the Golden Rule, could herald the dawn of a much needed revised relationship between Muslims and Jews.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Malaysian Premier Invokes Torah Wisdom to Bash Nazi’s in UN Speech

The War on ISIS and Russia’s Role: The Covert CIA Agenda, Media Deception and Propaganda

Global Research

Ever since Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the UN General Assembly on 28 September, the spokespersons for the US regime and its propaganda apparatus have tried to present Russia as a nostalgic power seething with envy. Such misrepresentations of current Russian policy and Russian history in the US are not unusual– in fact they have been the rule since 1917. Unlike the US, Russia is not an island whose ignorance and idiocy have been preserved by two oceans separating it from the rest of humanity (except the non-whites and half-whites south of Miami and the Rio Bravo).

Hence when Julia Ioffe quotes Putin in English except for a single Russian word in her Foreign Policyarticle, it is more than pedantic.[1] Her point is to reassure the journal’s readership that a single Russian word gosudarstvennik from an approximately 70 minute speech is more important than any of the complete sentences that composed President Putin’s polite but firm indictment of US imperial policy, especially as practiced in the Middle East. However as if to prove that she either has no comprehension of Russian or is simply illiterate, she elaborates:

The same is true when the two men talk about a certain post-war world order. In Obama’s mouth, the phrase evokes certain American ideals, however patchily or hypocritically implemented: human rights, democracy, and the idea that governments serve their people, not the other way around. It is about the democratic peace theory — the idea that democracies don’t go to war with one another. It is a force of progress and, often, progressivism. In Putin’s understanding, however, it is the vessel of a certain brand of standpatter conservatism and, most significantly, statism. Putin, at his core, is agosudarstvennik, a believer in a strong unitary central government.

In fact, Putin used the term gosudarstvennost’ — the stability and strength of the state — and its linguistic derivatives no fewer than 10 times in his address. And he didn’t use it the way someone like Obama might. Libya’s gosudarstvennost’, Putin said, “was destroyed through the grave violations of U.N. Security Council Resolution No. 1973.” When he spoke about the refugee crisis engulfing the Middle East and Europe, he spoke not of the responsibility of governments to help those in need, he spoke of gosudarstvennost’. “Without a doubt, the refugees need sympathy and support,” Putin said. “But the only way to definitively solve this problem is to restore gosudarstvennost’ in the place where it was destroyed, by strengthening state institutions where they still exist or are being recreated.

Ioffe uses another standard liberal rhetorical device when she insists that “post-war world order” “evokes certain American ideals, however patchily or hypocritically implemented”. She does not explain why precisely anyone but Americans should consider patchy and hypocritical behaviour to bear any connection to ideals, let alone “American ideals”. According to Ioffe Putin is a “statist”, a believer in a strong unitary central government. Of course David Cameron is too. Moreover since the Patriot Act is still in force to assert that the US regime does not advocate strong unitary central government (in the form of the POTUS) is to be on the verge of delirium.

No mention is made of a conspicuous difference between Putin’s speech and Obama’s:

The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region. We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War.

We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends on the region’s energy supply and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy. [2]

In US jargon “free” anything means the unrestricted ability of US corporations and their allies to extract labour, raw materials and any other resources from any place in the world without interference by the people or governments of countries that may be in possession of them. US “core interests” are just what George Kennan said they were in 1947—everything the US wants to satisfy its gluttonous ruling class, just like the slave labour that made the US from the very beginning. Israel and Saudi Arabia are US allies in the region for this purpose. In sub-Saharan Africa the allies are now Uganda and Rwanda. Human rights and national sovereignty have never been core interests of the US, except to the extent its courts treat corporations as if they were human beings or sovereign entities.

What escapes Ioffe—and is characteristic of most Anglo-American imperial thought on the matter—is that Putin uses the word gosudarstvennost to mean “sovereignty”. Putin has rightly said that the violation of national sovereignty has caused today’s conditions—the post-war order, in which the US claims to be the sole absolute sovereign. That is obvious even with no knowledge of Russian.

In his speech today, Putin spoke of the vital importance of other international bodies, like the G-20 and the World Trade Organisation. But their significance lies in the same basic fact: These bodies allow Russia to use its historic and unparalleled talent at bureaucratic manoeuvrings to punch above its weight…

In other words, Russian policy always has to be subordinated to US policy—because even Russia is not big enough to have its own foreign policy. The Washington Post, in a more diluted form for its semi-literate bureaucratic readership, describes the Russian government’s position as if it were merely the reaction of lower class day children to being spit-balled by the upper-class boarders at some New England prep school. While not everyone expresses such blatant ignorance as former Hewlett-Packard mistress Carla Fiorina, the propaganda experts in the US know that the best way to manipulate public opinion in the US is by maintaining a rigorous “no fact zone” over US airspace.[3]

With even sophomores able to reason the possible consequences of Russia’s intensified support for its long-time ally, Syria, a combination of irritation, condemnation and confusion can be found among the usual suspects who opine in the faux gauche media. Joshua Frank condemns Russia and anyone who supports its action in Counterpunch:

Russia’s latest involvement in the ever-worsening Syrian catastrophe — which has no doubt been fuelled by the U.S. and its regional allies — is being embraced by much of the anti-imperialist Left as a direct confrontation to U.S. intentions in the region. If one is to buy Russia’s propaganda more than Western disinformation, we’d have to believe that Vladimir Putin’s invitation to drop bombs in Syria is solely meant to aid the Syrian Army against the growing threat of the Islamic State. That’s it. It’s a pseudo-peace mission. Get it? Indeed, the Syrian Army is in retreat in much of the country and any help they can get is being welcomed by President Bashar al-Assad, who only controls 20% of the country. Assad needs victories, and he needs them fast. Yet, there is most certainly other geopolitical issues at play that shouldn’t be ignored. [4]

Frank is one of those closet cold warriors who believe that Columbia has the duty to carry Britannia’s torch throughout the world. He calls Russian statements “propaganda” because the word generates knee jerks throughout the outer party in the US. For Frank “Western disinformation” is obviously nicer, it sounds like “distress” or “distortion”; in the “land of euphemism” it means outright lies. In order to give his rant the quality of America’s favourite masturbatory tactic—even-handedness—he begins with reference to  “Two bullshit talks at the UN, one from the leader of the “Free World”, the other from the head of the Russian Federation…” Needless to say the “Free World” has been extinct since 1989 but Frank hasn’t noticed. The point is to reassure readers that no facts will penetrate Left cyberspace if Frank can do anything to prevent it.

In a story by Vijay Prashad, also appearing in Counterpunch but originally published in the Indian journalFrontline, confusion is sown in a discussion of General John Allen’s assessment of the alleged war against ISIS.[5]

Misused reports

Not long after Allen’s strong statement, 50 intelligence analysts who work at the U.S. military’s Central Command formally complained that their reports had been misused. They noted that their own assessments were less rosy than those of the upper administration. The Pentagon’s Inspector General has opened an investigation into these claims. Its spokeswoman, Bridget Serchak, noted: “The investigation will address whether there was any falsification, distortion, delay, suppression or improper modification of intelligence information.” Senior military officials at the Central Command—such as Major General Steven Grove, who ran its intelligence operation—are said to be targets of the investigation. The Central Command would not comment on the allegations. [6]

The excuse of bad or misused intelligence has been around at least since the US re-invaded Korea in 1951. Then the complaint was how could the Koreans north of the 38th parallel not only cross it by “surprise” but also nearly drive the US military and its Korean lackeys in the South into the Sea of Japan. This story of poor intelligence was repeated in Vietnam too. As a rule the “poor intelligence” song is sung whenever the official policy is faced with embarrassment or there is faction fighting within the ruling elite.

The “Leftist” mouthpiece The Nation, suggests one of the avenues the imperial elite is likely to consider.[7]

On the other hand, Obama is surely correct in his insistence that the Assad regime’s brutality “is not just a matter of one nation’s internal affairs—it breeds human suffering on an order of magnitude that affects us all.” And it’s certainly reasonable for Obama to call for ‘a managed transition away from Assad and to a new leader, and an inclusive government.

The parties to a new peace conference must focus on creative ways to bridge that divide, even as they pursue other steps to de-escalate the conflict. Those interim steps should include support for local cease-fires, like the one recently agreed to in Zabadani and Idlib province. A second step should be deeper cooperation among all nations in stemming recruitment by jihadi extremists, in particular ISIS. A third step is an arms embargo, preferably one agreed to by the UN Security Council. That may seem a distant possibility now, given Russia’s recent steps to buttress its military base in Latakia and increase the flow of arms to Assad’s government, not to mention the continued supply of weapons to rebel groups, whether moderate or jihadi. But an embargo agreed to by Washington, Moscow, and the other P5 nations, as well as the Gulf monarchies, Iran, and Turkey—and applied to all parties, rebels as well as government forces—is an eventual necessity.

The Nation editors support “regime change” provided it is “creative” and has the veneer of diplomacy. The proposed peace conference is a way in which Syria can be dismantled like Yugoslavia under CIA pacifier Richard Holbrooke was at Dayton. To even suggest that the Gulf oil despots, euphemistically called Gulf monarchies, should have anything to say in the restoration of peace and sovereignty in the Middle East is nothing more than the polite form of cynicism that prevails among the glitterati on the Hudson. An arms embargo is one of those old tricks used in Iraq and elsewhere to make sure that only covert weapons supplies to US proxies arrive. The dishonesty of the proposal is apparent by the conspicuous omission of Israel, whose settler-colonial regime has waged overt and covert war against Syria since it was part of Nasser’s United Arab Republic. Since the recruitment of jihadi extremists has been US (CIA) policy, for which Saudi Arabia and the Gulf tyrannies are amply paid, the only party that can stop these recruitments, not to mention training and arming them, is the very foreign policy establishment for which the journal regularly speaks.

The British shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn[8], bane of deceased, serious Left MP Tony Benn, was reported in the Guardian to have said:

Russia needed to ‘urgently clarify what the aims are of its airstrikes in Syria.

‘There is wide international agreement on the threat from Isil/Daesh [Isis], but, while the Russians say that this is who they are targeting, reports from Syria suggest that this is not the case,’ he said.

What has happened in the last 48 hours makes it all the more pressing and important that the British government lead the way in seeking to secure a UN security council resolution to deal with the threat from Isil/Daesh, safeguard civilians, increase humanitarian aid and agree a plan to try to bring peace to the long-suffering Syrian people.’ [9]

Either Benn does not read or it is not only his ministerial pretension that is in the shadows. Russia has always stated its objectives in Syria quite clearly—ever since Mr Obama threatened President Assad with his “red line”.[10] Unlike the US regime or HM Government and Opposition, the Russian government has consistently respected the letter and the spirit of the UN guarantees to the sovereign integrity of its member-states.

When the US regime subverted the UN Charter by declaring that NATO and OAS were merely “collective self-defence” arrangements—supposedly compatible with the Charter—it abrogated one of the primary terms by which states were encouraged to join this successor to the League of Nations: an end to aggressive war by military alliances. In 1991 and again in 2003 the German government subverted the provisional basic law (de facto constitution) by claiming that military participation in the invasions of Yugoslavia and Afghanistan were ultimately within the NATO framework, although they constituted neither self-defence nor actions within NATO territory at the time.

Wintour continues to confuse the Guardian’s “Left” readership with this thinly disguised regime polemic:

The immediate dilemma facing the UK was whether it would be forced to accept that the price of the ejection of Islamic State from northern Syria was the strengthening of President Bashar al-Assad. Cameron has always insisted that there can be no long-term settlement unless Assad goes, even if he remains during a transition. The Labour frontbench also recognises that Assad is the cause of most deaths in Syria. [11]

This is not far from the position that Frank intends to give respectability. Since it is clear—but not openly explained—that ISIS cannot be defeated without bombing then the best thing is for NATO to bomb because murdering Assad—Gaddafi-style—is worth killing every Syrian between Nusaybin – Al Qamishli and Damascus.[12] The announcement that the French are joining the bombing can be explained easily—since the conclusion of the secret Sykes – Picot agreement in 1916, France has considered Syria a part of its republican empire. If Assad and the Ba’ath Party are to be vaporised or sodomised, the French elite has at least sentimental reasons to collect their share of the booty a century later.

The Economist, by no means Left but enjoying a large readership among the “outer party” of the Empire, advises the white, middle-class bureaucrats, academics and business people who read it[13]:

Both Kunduz and Russia’s bombing are symptoms of the same phenomenon: the vacuum created by Barack Obama’s attempt to stand back from the wars of the Muslim world. America’s president told the UN General Assembly this week that his country had learned it ‘cannot by itself impose stability on a foreign land’; others, Iran and Russia included, should help in Syria. Mr Obama is not entirely wrong. But his proposition hides many dangers: that America throws up its hands; that regional powers, sensing American disengagement, will be sucked into a free-for-all; and that Russia’s intervention will make a bloody war bloodier still. Unless Mr Obama changes course, expect more deaths, refugees and extremism. [14]

The myth of the benevolent emperor, soon to be punished for his ill-placed mercy, is a trope that appeals especially to patients with Vietnam Syndrome. The Economist cautiously advises of the risks of coitus interruptus when an empire is in the process of raping a country.

The principal mouthpiece of the US corporate elite, the New York Times, presented the Russian airstrikes in Syria in the style consistent with the feigned objectivity for which the US propaganda flagship is renowned:

Russian aircraft carried out a bombing attack against Syrian opposition fighters on Wednesday, including at least one group trained by the C.I.A., eliciting angry protests from American officials and plunging the complex sectarian war there into dangerous new territory.

Russia’s entry into the Syrian conflict, foreshadowed by a rapid military build-up in the past three weeks at an air base in Latakia, Syria, makes the possibility of a political settlement in Syria more difficult and creates a new risk of inadvertent incidents between American and Russian warplanes flying in the same area. And it adds a powerful but unpredictable combatant to a civil war that has already resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and a flood of refugees.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia justified his country’s entry into the conflict by saying that Russia was acting “preventatively, to fight and destroy militants and terrorists on the territories that they already occupied, not wait for them to come to our house.”[15]

This article is riddled with deception. First of all the modifier “at least one group trained by the CIA” suggests that CIA-trained groups, of which ISIS/ ISIL is entirely composed, are distinguishable, “good CIA” and “bad CIA”. What could the “dangerous new territory” be? Syria is not the Netherlands, known to have expanded its national territory with land drained using dikes. Then the Times refers to a build-up at an air base. The reader is not told that the Latakia air base has been maintained by Russia since the days of the Soviet Union. The Latakia base and its naval station in Tartus have all the legitimacy of USAFB Ramstein, Germany or the USN Sixth Fleet station in Naples, Italy. To call Russia unpredictable is simply mendacious given the consistency with which Putin has always announced his government’s intentions and actions well in advance of implementation. The Times editors—who are intimately connected to the US national security establishment know very well that since Brzezinski replaced Kissinger in the National Security Council, Muslim militants and terrorists have been a major instrument for attacking Russia.

In fact were pundits like Joshua Frank to write what they really mean—and what many of the faux gauche in the US and UK believe—they would admit that they share the ambitions of the US regime to maintain their empire’s exceptional privilege in the world. Their quandary is namely that of speaking from both sides of their mouth while chewing the lies they have been regurgitating for decades.

So what is the real story that has the imperial establishment in a state of apparent panic? I propose the following explanation—just based on what ordinary people with some historical memory can construct.

Ever since the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 by CIA-trained mercenaries, the bulk of US wars have been conceived and managed at Langley. This was also the case with Vietnam as I argued in my essay (attached just for ease of reference). The regular US military provides a screen for these wars. At least that is Langley’s intention. After Vietnam there were in fact many regular military who were highly averse to fighting CIA wars (although not opposed to wars themselves, like in Iraq.) This led consecutive POTUS to increase the appropriations for so-called Special Operations forces. These irregulars dress like US military but are essentially nothing more or less than the US equivalent of the Waffen SS. They operate under direct political command structures that are more frequently than not completely distinct from the legislated chain of command. They wear regular uniforms in public in part to conceal their irregular role and also to promote an illusory “super-soldier” competence in the regular armed forces that is simply absent.

There are only two regular military forces active in the Middle East under “normal” US command, the US fleets in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean. The rest, especially after the draw down in Iraq, is under the control of Langley, either directly or through Israel/ Saudi Arabia or SOC.

The recent push by the CIA forces in Syria is essentially a copy of the Vietnam bombing campaigns intended to depopulate the countryside and create “free fire” zones. The refugees serve two purposes; one is to create a space between Turkey and Damascus where Syrian forces can be destroyed with impunity (like the gap between Benghazi and Tripoli) and two, to provide the justification for “humanitarian bombing” campaigns. This strategy against Assad relies upon the deniability of the ISIS and the illusion that “moderate opposition” is actually Syrian. (Recall the problems the US regime (CIA) had in creating a “third force” in Vietnam.) Since ISIS is a mercenary army with little or no Syrian participation it cannot be treated as part of the “opposition” to Assad which the US regime claims justifies its war.

It is very important to remember that every CIA war has at least three basis components:

a) the covert policy target: e.g. overthrow of Assad;

b) the exploitation of the covert economy: weapons, drugs/ contraband, and shadow finance;

c) the ideological/ political manipulation of the “white” population (US and/ or Europe). This means that the covert policy target may enjoy support of different regime factions.

At the same time obtaining the covert policy objective may have little or nothing to do with the Company’s main business– profiting from the covert economy and regulating it on behalf of the sectoral executive management (e.g. illicit drugs and the pharmaceutical industry). Moreover ideological manipulation of “whites” in Europe frequently poses different problems than the rather simple strategies needed to manipulate the US population. In the present case there are several levels at which internal policy conflicts can arise within the Company which are then magnified when tabled with the interests of other factions in the US ruling class.

Now shift to Russia (and apparently China). Putin has made clear on numerous occasions that he does not support separatism in the Ukraine or pseudo-Islamic terrorism in states bordering Russia. Putin is a staunch defender of national sovereignty (something utterly foreign to US/ CIA doctrine). Until now Washington has relied on the propaganda and sanctions against Russia, as well as pressure in the Ukraine, to keep Putin’s government divided. (He has to contend with those USD billionaires inherited from Yeltsin, too.) Putin sees– correctly– the strategy behind the sudden flow of refugees to Europe. If the CIA is allowed to do to Damascus what they did to Tripoli, any action to preserve Russian presence will become untenable.

The overdue decision to intervene and actively support Assad is based on the general knowledge– reiterated in his UN speech– that the Syrian army is competent and battle-worthy but needs support against the covert warriors. Putin knows that the US is not bombing ISIS but bombing Syrian infrastructure and military. (Evacuating the population helps keep this fact concealed.) If Putin actually destroys the ISIS bases and creates the shield the Syrian army needs to mop up, then the CIA will lose this war and even worse, Russia may produce all the smoking guns needed to show everyone whose war it is.

Ideally the CIA would like to have Russia forced to restrict its operations to NATO rules (essentially grounding them). Russia won’t accept that. So now the question for Langley is: can they get a USAF shield in place to prevent Russia from neutralizing their mercenaries (to use a CIA term)? That would risk a real war, which the regular US military would have to fight (from a considerable disadvantage). Or do they sacrifice the ISIS and help kill them off so that they remain deniable assets– while perhaps evacuating and regrouping them in Saudi Arabia or Turkey. Turkey is a risky place to hide them. Evacuating them under cover of refugee streams will save manpower but brings a number of other problems (especially in Europe).

So the folks in Washington are not “numbskulls”– just incredibly vicious. There is an understandable fight over who is responsible for the policy in the Middle East now. The CIA has never willingly conceded its prerogative to make foreign policy (after all it is the organisation closest to the Business elite that runs the country.) However it depends on all sorts of regular military and political assets to impose its strategy and implement its decisions. That is the core of ambiguity and “confusion” in Washington, a struggle among the factions (in which the psychopaths in Tel Aviv play no small role, as the principal US offshore enterprise.)

I confess, as I have argued elsewhere in these pages, that the primarily white male supremacist establishment on both sides of the Atlantic are still embarked on the war-driven campaign for global domination begun by Britain in the 19th century. While David Cameron wants to recreate himself as a 21stcentury Palmerston[16] and imagines he is fighting Russia like in 1853, the folks who run Langley hope—“they can” perpetuate the role they assumed when Britain was ruined in 1918. Generations of white imperialists, whether Progressive, Fabian or Tory, cannot bear the thought that Asia—Russia and China—could restore some semblance of the global equity that the United Nations promised seventy years ago and Anglo-American atomic bombs and mercenaries have obstructed since 1945. It is not Russia that suffers from nostalgia and obsessive delusions of global grandeur.


[1] Julia Ioffe, The Remarkable Similarity of Putin’s and Obama’s Speeches at the U.N. Foreign Policy pp. 3-7

[2] Barack Obama, Address to the 70th General Assembly of  he United Nations, 24 September 2015

[3] “I believe we must tell the Russians that we will conduct [and] we will secure a no-fly zone around anti-Assad rebel forces that we’re supporting,” she said on Fox News’s “Hannity.”

“Does that mean we might use force against Russian jets?” host Sean Hannity then asked.

“Well, hopefully not,” Fiorina responded. “Hopefully, if we are signaling clearly to the Russians are intention, it will not come to that.” Quoted in or

“But if it does come to that, I think we must be prepared,” the former Hewlett-Packard CEO added.

[4] Joshua Frank, It must be said here that Mike Whitney is one of Counterpunch’s regulars who has by far the most sober analysis of the situation. along with Michael Hudson.

[5] General John Allen USMC (retired), in addition to his rank in the US Empire’s traditional storm troopers, is a graduate of the National Defense Intelligence College. The mission of the college is to be the center of academic life for the intelligence community—will help shape graduates who address the range of mission challenges as a fully integrated community, and encourage lifelong learning as they continue to serve this nation.” It must be remembered that “intelligence community” is the official euphemism for the US enormous political warfare organisation.

[7] The Nation is effectively the flip side of its nominal nemisis National Review, started by CIA alumnus W F Buckley. Run by “OSS diapers” like CFR member Ms K Vanden Heuvel, The Nation features the opinions of the “Reform liberal” (and Democratic Party) wing of the US national security establishment.

[8] Hilary Benn (b. 1953) is the second son of deceased Labour MP and minister Tony Benn (1925 -2014). In a reported conversation with Tony Benn about the right-wing views of socialist Ralph Miliband’s (1924-1994) two sons (David and Edward, who are both senior members of the British Labour Party), he was to have lamented that he had the same problem with one of his sons.

[11] Patrick Wintour, op. cit.

[12] The town is one of the Turkey – Syria border towns still under control of the Syrian government.

[13] “Outer party” is the term Orwell used in 1984 to refer to the class of imperial functionaries that Noam Chomsky has said are the most heavily propagandised segment of the population, needed for maintenance of the empire at home.

[16] Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston (1784-1865), British prime minister when Britain and France defeated Russia in the Crimean War. He was also prime minister during the greater part of Britain’s Opium Wars against China. In that sense, like Cameron today, played a major role in the maintenance of Anglo-American control of the global narcotics trade. Today British forces protect the opium industry in Afghanistan along with the CIA assets, covered by the ISAF.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on The War on ISIS and Russia’s Role: The Covert CIA Agenda, Media Deception and Propaganda

Shoah’s pages