Archive | October 6th, 2015

Tikkun Golem: Mossad Jane, AIPAC and You

Image result for AIPAC LOGO

1. The nest of Israeli-firsters, Israeli ass-kissers, dual loyalists and no doubt outright Israeli agents that is known as AIPAC is holding its annual policy conference in Washington, D.C. for three days starting Sunday, May 3. Mossad Jane Harman is scheduled to speak there and no doubt Haim Saban will make an appearance. The questions is, will the Israeli agent to whom Mossad Jane admits talking to on the phone and who allegedly bribed her by dangling the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee in front of her be there as well? Very possibly so, especially if that person, who for some very strange reason has never had his name released, is an AIPAC employee.   It sure would be nice if the transcripts with full idents suddenly appeared in the main stream media as the conference begins.  Bet that would put an end to the continuing efforts to stop the trial of former AIPAC employees Rosen and Weissman.

Here’s what the tuyuur have pieced together about the conversation that got Mossad Jane some unwanted exposure. This is all based on main stream media and blog reports of various parts of the story.

Mossad Jane is on the phone with an unnamed Israeli agent. Now an “agent” of Israel would be an American citizen working on behalf of Israel. And in fact, Mossad Jane has publicly acknowledged that she knows which conversation is the one at the height of the current controversy and that the person she was talking to was an American citizen. (We know this thanks to Dr. Juan Cole, the only Kennedy-liberal type I know whose blog should be ready regularly. Dr. Cole has a good reason to pinch the ass of the Israeli lobby since it played a major part in screwing him out of a job at Harvard University.)  So, it appears, this American Mossad Jane was on the phone with was working on behalf of Israel and thus was an Israeli agent. Now, according to the New York Times and picked up by Mondoweiss, the person Mossad Jane was talking to told her that he would have a major figure in California threaten Pelosi by withholding campaign contributions from her. That “California” figure is reportedly Haim Saban, a billionaire who came to the United States from Israel.

So, who was the person Mossad Jane was talking to who was suspected of being an Israeli agent? Saban already is one and, so it seems, so is Mossad Jane. Who’s that third guy? Does he work for AIPAC like Rosen and Weissman?

We think it would be a good idea for the FBI to go back into AIPAC’s offices this Sunday with warrents while the organization is holding its Israel love fest and maybe have a look around.

We also think it would be a good idea if the independent media would attend AIPAC’s version of Bohemian Grove and carefully report what is said and WHO is in attendance.  Maybe they’ll even get to interview Mossad Jane herself.

2. Many have commented on how interesting it is that Mossad Jane was a strong supporter of questionable wire-tapping schemes that Alberto Gonzales favored and that he may have even used evidence gathered against her to keep her on key.  Not so sure about that last point, but there is no doubt that the Zionist Golem is a major player in the erosion of the rights of every-day US citizens.  Despite all the blathering on about the concept of “healing the world” (tikkun olam) that the “Zionist light” crowd, to borrow once again Xymphora’s phrase, likes to attribute to liberal and progressive Judaism, there is quite another side to this concept and I think you had just better pay attention to it folks.

Rabbi Avi Shafran, the head of public affairs for the charming Agudath Israel of America, informs us that tikkun olam has been grossly misrepresented by the liberal Jewish community in the course of  his review of a number of meanings of the phrase. He quotes Maimonides on the concept:

“[In] any case where someone takes human lives without clear proof [of a capital offense] or the issuance of a warning, or even on the strength of a single witness [as two are required in a Jewish court], or where a person hates someone and kills him [seemingly] by accident, a king is permitted to execute [the unjustified taker of life] in order to repair the world [“li’saken ha’olam”] according to the needs of the time� to strike fear and shatter the strength [literally, “break the hand”] of the world’s perpetrators of evil.”

Gee, isn’t that nice?  Shafran’s view on this is even more horrifying than the quote itself:

First he paraphrases the quote to make sure the reader understands what this most famous of Jewish thinkers has written (as usual red highlighting is mine):

And so, Maimonides informs us, there is yet another meaning to tikkun olam, the authorization of a nation’s leader to do whatever is necessary, “according to the needs of the time” – even suspend the ordinary rules of evidence in capital cases – to preserve the security of his society from those who seek to disrupt it.

Shafran very much approves of this and poses the question of how the Maimonidean concept of tikkun olam might pertain to our own society, leaders and times.

I hope you are sitting down. Ready? Here goes:

Reasonably, it would seem to advocate the right, in fact the responsibility, of the chief executive of a country threatened by murderous elements to take strong and unusual action to undermine those enemies of civilized society – even if some personal rights may be compromised in the process.

So, interestingly, the concept of tikkun olam would seem to argue most eloquently today for things like, say, the imprisonment of enemy combatants, secret wiretaps and surveillance of citizens.

And thanks to people like Mossad Jane and her AIPAC and NeoCon buddies, that’s exactly what we have.

3. Mossad Jane never did get that job she was reportedly offered as the chair of the House  Intelligence Committee even though she is said to have agreed to do the bidding of an “Israeli agent” by working to get the AIPAC spy trial killed.  The chirping here at Mantiq al-Tayr has brought us to the conclusion that she did not get the job because of the scandal over this very issue that was in the media back in 2006 when she could have been appointed. Pelosi, who may hate Harman – which is about the only good thing about Pelosi that I can imagine – probably didn’t appoint Harman to the post because if she had done so, the transcripts that are the center of controversy today (and back in 2006) probably would have been released.  This would have shed so much light on the Israeli lobby that we would have seen them all running for cover like kitchen cockroaches in a slum owned by Sam Zell.

4. We want to thank Hesham Tillawi and his weekly radio show on RBN called “Current Issues” for the “Mossad Jane” reference. Furthermore, last time we promised you that we would teach you all how to say the name “Hesham.” His name is not Heyshaaam, nor is it Heshem nor Hessian, nor Hshem, nor even just plain old Heeeesham. No, no, no. Even his friends at RBN like the great Michael Collins Piper can’t say his name right. As for the guest host on his show, Mark Glenn, he’s pretty much hopeless on this one issue and he even has Arabic blood in his veins.  So let’s learn to say it correctly. Our guest teacher for this lesson is no less than Mossad Jane herself.

Isn't she lovely?

Isn’t she lovely?

Click here to learn how to pronounce the name “Hesham.”

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Tikkun Golem: Mossad Jane, AIPAC and You

Five Leaders Challenging Western Imperialism


Image result for USA FLAG



Through Diplomacy, Persuasion and Public Pressure Pope Francis, Vladimir Putin, Xi, Jinping, Hassan Rouhani, and Jeremy Corbyn

James Petras


Western imperialism, in all of its manifestation, is being challenged by five political leaders, through diplomacy, moral persuasion and public pressure.  In recent time, Pope Francis, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn have raised fundamental questions concerning (1) war and peace in the Middle East and the Caucuses; (2) climate change and the destruction of the environment; (3) economic sanctions, military threats and confrontation; and (4) growing inequalities of class, gender and race.


The New Global Agenda

These five protagonists of a new global agenda differ from past critics from the left both in the style and substance of their politics.

The politics of change, reform and peace in the near immediate period has a particular complex, heterodox complexion, which contains traditional conservative and popular components.

These leaders have a global audience and major impact on world public opinion – and indirectly and directly on Western politics.

Defying Past Left-Right Divisions

These five leaders defy the traditional left-right division. Pope Francis demands immigrant rights, equal pay for women, diplomacy and peace negotiations instead of war, and greater class equality.  He excoriates neoliberal, capitalism (“the dung of the devil”).

But he also defends traditional Catholic doctrine on abortion, divorce, contraception and homosexuality. He opposes class struggle and social revolution in favor of class collaboration, dialogue, and negotiations.

President Putin favors negotiations and peaceful resolution of conflicts in Syria and the Ukraine. He is an ardent advocate of a global coalition to fight Islamic terrorism.  He has sharply reduced western pillage of the Russian economy and restored salaries, pensions and employment.  He has restored Russian military capacity and national security and reduced terrorist assaults from the Caucuses.

At the same time Putin supports some of the biggest Yeltsin era billionaires; is closely aligned with the conservative Russian Orthodox Church; and is excavating the remains of the last tyrannical Russian Tsar to honor him and his family.

President Xi Jinping has played a leading role in promoting increases in consumer spending, wages, pensions and social welfare.  He has deepened links with US high tech industries and signed off on a major reduction of carbon fuels and pollution, offering $3 billion dollars to fund alternatives for less developed countries.  He has fired, prosecuted and jailed over 250,000 corrupt government and party officials who exploited and abused the public, while limiting operations of speculative Western hedge funds.

At the same time, Xi retains the authoritarian one party system; defends China’s one hundred-plus billionaires; and restricts all forms of independent class political and trade union organizations.

Hassan Rouhani is both devout practicing Muslim and a staunch advocate of peace.  He supports a ‘nuclear-free Middle East’.  He is a consequential opponent of terrorism by Salafist Islamists, Zionists, Christians and Hindus.  He is the leading critic of Saudi Arabia’s military intervention in Yemen and a principled defender of national self-determination.  Internally he has reduced authoritarian state controls and censorship of free expression and promoted scientific and technological research – in a country where half of research scientists are women.

President Rouhani has signed a high risk peace agreement with the US and its partners (5 + 1) dismantling Iran’s nuclear facilities and opening its military installations to international inspection by an international  atomic agency of dubious neutrality.

At the same time, Rouhani opposes a secular state, supports liberalizing the economy, invites foreign multi-nationals to exploit lucrative oil and gas fields, and supports the corrupt and regressive US backed Shia regime in Iraq.

Jeremy Corbyn, the newly elected head of the British Labor Party, has been a consequ-ential critic of neo-liberal capitalism and a strong advocate of public ownership of strategic economic sectors.He backs a highly graduated progressive income tax to fin-ance a comprehensive welfare program. 
He advocates a democratic foreign policy that opposes Anglo-American and Israeli imp-erialism in the Middle East and elsewhere.
However, upon taking office as head of the neo-liberal, pro-imperialist Labor Party, he confronts a parliamentary party dominated by his adversaries.  His appointments tothe “shadow cabinet” are overwhelmingly pro-NATO and pro-European  Union; some even  oppose his Keynesian budgetary agenda.  Moreover, Corbyn endorses ‘working in the EU’and promises to support a ‘yes vote’ in any referendum, even as the world witnessed  how the EU imposed harsh austerity budgets on Latvia, Greece, Spain, Portugal,Irelandand other countries in financial straits.


The Collective Impact of the Five

There is no question that these five leaders have made a major impact on world public opinion on issues of peace, climate change, equality and the need to reach international agreements.  In most cases one or more of the leaders have exercised greater influence on a specific public or region and have had a greater impact on some issues over others.

The Pope, for example, has greater influence on Christians; Rouhani on the Muslim public; Putin, Corbyn and Xi on secular opinion.  Xi and the Pope have a greater impact on proposals for climate change.  Putin, the Pope, Rouhani and Xi are prominent in advocating peaceful resolution of conflicts; Corbyn and the Pope on reducing inequalities and securing social justice.

With the exception of Corbyn and Xi, all support traditional religious beliefs and observances.  Most are ‘ecumenical’ in the sense of supporting religious tolerance.

Most important, all pursue these goals through persuasion, diplomacy and winning over public opinion.  None of these world leaders have invaded or overthrown incumbent adversarial regimes or occupied countries.  All are leading opponents of terror – especially ISIS.

President Putin is playing a leading role in challenging President Obama to join a broad coalition, including Bashar Assad and Iran, in fighting ISIS terrorism.

Washington, despite its rhetorical hostility, was pressured to respond – ‘partially favorable’.

President Putin has also taken the initiative in the Middle East.  He leads a coalition, including Iraq, Iran and Syria to co-ordinate the war against terrorism.

China’s President Xi has committed military forces in support of the Russia’s anti-terrorist proposal for Syria.  The Pope has offered tacit support via his pronouncements against terrorism and for international coalitions.

As a consequence of the massive flood of refugees resulting from the US-EU-Saudi-Turkey support of Islamist mercenaries invading Syria and Iraq, several European allies of Washington are reconsidering their anti-Assad policies.  They are moving toward the broad front proposals of Putin-Rouhani-Xi and the Pope.

The social-economic impact of the Pope’s call for social justice is less apparent, apart from the routine lip-service from Western leaders.  Among the quintet, Rouhani is looking toward ‘market solutions’: inviting Western and Asian investors to revitalize the oil industry.  Xi is cracking down on big time fraudsters in China and abroad, but has yet to embrace a comprehensive welfare and incomes policy.  Putin presides over a petrol-economy in recession and has relied on private corporate oligarchs and overseas investors to regain growth.  Corbyn’s egalitarian pronouncements have little impact among Labor Party politicians and his shadow cabinet.  Moreover, he appears reluctant to mobilize the rank and file Labor  activists for a fight for his program within the  Party.

The climate change and environmental struggle received robust backing from the Pope –in his speeches to the US Congress, the United Nations and in his mass gatherings.

President Xi reinforced the message by proposing to fund a massive clean air program for the less developed countries, while setting rigorous targets to reduce pollution in China.  There is no doubt that their message is well received by all environmental groups and the general public.  Some political leaders, including Obama, appear to be, in part, receptive.

Rouhani, Putin and Corbyn have played only a minor role in the defense of the environment.


Response of the Western Powers

The US, EU, Japan, Israel and Australia, referred to as the ‘Western Powers’ paid lip service to the cause of peace, while continuing to pursue military objectives via air wars, cross border terrorist activities and military build ups.

In general terms, they manipulate a double discourse – of talking peace and bombing adversaries.

However, the Western Powers feel the pressure of ‘the quintet,’ which is winning the political ideological contest.  The ‘Russian threat’ is no longer viewed as credible by most of the international public.  China’s international financial initiatives have gained major support from across the globe.

Japanese militarization has provoked mass domestic unrest and regional concerns – especially in Southeast Asia.

Israel is a pariah, not just in the Middle East but is increasingly viewed with hostility by the rest of international public opinion.

Germany, Europe’s leading economic power, has been discredited because of the massive fraud scandal by Volkswagen, its leading automobile maker and major exporter.

In other words, while the Western Powers retain military superiority andimportant markets, their overseas policies have suffered severe setbacks and their leaders have lost credibility.  Their domestic and overseas supporters are turning against them.  Moreover, the moral authority of Western leaders has been severely questioned by the Pope’s harsh critique of the ‘exclusionary’ policies toward immigrants and refugees, the excessive greed of capitalism, the reliance on force instead of diplomacy and the massive human suffering due to capitalism’s unrelenting destruction of the environment.

The Pope’s generalities would not have had such a powerful political impact, if they were not accompanied by (1) the selective use of arms and diplomacy emanating from President Putin; (2) the diplomatic successes of President Rouhani; and (3) the economic muscle of President Xi, in support of economic development and international co-operation on the environment and climate change.



From widely divergent origins and diverse ideological backgrounds, five political leaders have set a new agenda for dealing with war and peace, equality and inequality, security and terrorism and environmental protection.  Except for Jeremy Corbyn, who in any case will probably be rendered impotent by his own party’s elite, none of these progressive leaders’ ideologies is derived from the secular left.

They challenge the status quo, and raise the central issues of our time, at a time when the secular left is marginal or self-destructs (as Greece’s Syriza, Spain’s Podemos or Italy’s Five Stars in Southern Europe).

Faced with this heterodox reality, the Left has the choice of (1) remaining in sterile isolation; (2) embracing one, some, or all of ‘the quintet’; (3) oraligning with them on specific pronouncements and proposals.

The five have sufficient drawbacks, ‘contradictions’ and limitations to warrant criticism and distance.  But in the big picture, on the major issues of our time, these leaders have adopted progressive policies, which warrant whole-hearted active support. They are the only ‘show’ in the real world – if we are serious about joining the struggle against imperial wars, terrorism, environmental destruction and injustice.

Posted in USAComments Off on Five Leaders Challenging Western Imperialism

Obama: Hillary Clinton’s call for no-fly zone in Syria is political move

President Barack Obama gestures as he answers question from members of the media during a news conference in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, Friday, Oct. 2, 2015. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) ** FILE **
President Barack Obama gestures as he answers question from members of the media during a news conference in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, Friday, Oct. 2, 2015. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) 
By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times

President Obama said Friday that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s call for a no-fly zone is Syria was a political move, although he stopped short of calling it a “half-baked” proposal.

Hillary Clinton is not half-baked in terms of her approach to these problems,” Mr. Obama said in response to a reporter’s question. “But I also think that there’s a difference between running for president and being president.”

He added, “The decisions that are being made and the discussions that I’m having with the Joint Chiefs become much more specific and require, I think, a different kind of judgment. And that’s what I’ll continue to apply as long as I’m here.”

Earlier in the news conference, Mr. Obama said critics of his Syria policy were offering alternatives that were mostly “a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.”

Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and Mr. Obama’s former secretary of state, said Thursday that she would advocate as president for a no-fly zone over Syria and “humanitarian corridors” to protect civilians caught in the civil war.

Mr. Obama said of her analysis, “If and when she’s president, she’ll make those judgments. She’s been there enough that she knows that these are tough calls. Hillary Clinton would be the first to say that when you’re sitting in the seat that I’m sitting in the Situation Room, things look a little different,” Mr. Obama said. “Because she’s been right there next to me.”

“We all want to try to relieve the suffering in Syria,” he said. “But my job is to make sure that whatever we do, we are doing in a way that serves the national-security interests of the American people, that doesn’t lead to us getting into things that we can’t get out of or that we cannot do effectively, and as much as possible that we’re working with international partners.”

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on Obama: Hillary Clinton’s call for no-fly zone in Syria is political move

The Hope Behind Putin’s Syria Help



Russia’s airstrikes on rebel strongholds in Syria, now in their fifth day, are a game-changer. To borrow an aphorism from philosopher Yogi Berra, “The future ain’t what it used to be.” Yogi also warned, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

What follows, then, will focus primarily on how and why the violence in Syria has reached this week’s crescendo, the magnitude of the tipping point reached with direct Russian military intervention in support of Syria’s government, and the self-inflicted dilemma confronting President Barack Obama and his hapless advisers who have been demanding “regime change” in Syria as the panacea to the bloody conflict.

Think of this piece as an attempted antidote to the adolescent analysis by Steven Lee Myers front-paged in Sunday’s New York Times, and, for that matter, much else that’s been written about Syria in the Times and other mainstream U.S. news outlets. Many articles, in accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin of bad faith, have willfully misrepresented his vow to strike at all “terrorist groups” as meaning only the Islamic State as if Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and other violent extremists don’t qualify as “terrorists.”

However, if Washington finally decides to face the real world – not remain in the land of make-believe that stretches from the White House and State Department through the neocon-dominated think tanks to the editorial pages of the mainstream media – it will confront a classic “devil-you-know” dilemma.

Does Washington really think that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, as demonized as he has been as a key player in a conflict blamed for killing more than 250,000, is worse than the beheaders of the Islamic State or the global-terrorism plotters of Al Qaeda? Does President Obama really think that some surgical “regime change” in Damascus can be executed without collapsing the Syrian government and clearing the way for an Islamic State/Al Qaeda victory? Is that a gamble worth taking?

President Obama needs to ask those questions to the State Department’s neocons and liberal interventionists emplaced by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who – like Israel’s leaders – positively lust for Assad’s demise. “Regime change” in Syria has been on the Israeli/neocon to-do list since at least the mid-1990s and the neocon idea last decade was that Assad’s overthrow would immediately follow the Iraq “regime change” in 2003, except the Iraq scheme didn’t work out exactly as planned.

But there may be some reason to hope. After all, Obama showed courage in overcoming the strong resistance of the neocons to the recent nuclear deal with Iran. So, he may have the intelligence and stamina to face them down again, although you wouldn’t know it from his recent rhetoric, which panders to the war hawks’ arguments even as he resists their most dangerous action plans.

At his news conference on Friday, Obama said, “in my discussions with President Putin, I was very clear that the only way to solve the problem in Syria is to have a political transition that is inclusive — that keeps the state intact, that keeps the military intact, that maintains cohesion, but that is inclusive — and the only way to accomplish that is for Mr. Assad to transition [out], because you cannot rehabilitate him in the eyes of Syrians. This is not a judgment I’m making; it is a judgment that the overwhelming majority of Syrians make.”

But Obama did not explain how he knew what “the overwhelming majority of Syrians” want. Many Syrians – especially the Christians, Alawites, Shiites and secular Sunnis – appear to see Assad and his military as their protectors, the last bulwark against the horror of a victory by the Islamic State or Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, which is a major player in the so-called “Army of Conquest,” as both groups make major gains across Syria.

Obama’s cavalier notion, as expressed at the news conference, that “regime changes” are neat and tidy, easily performed without unintended consequences, suggests a sophomoric understanding of the world that is stunning for a U.S. president in office for more than 6 ½ years, especially since he adopted a similar approach toward Libya, which now has descended into violent anarchy.

Obama must realize that the alternative to Assad is both risky and grim – and some of the suggestions coming from presidential candidate Clinton and other hawks for a U.S. imposition of a “no-fly zone” over parts of Syria would not only be a clear violation of international law but could create a direct military clash with nuclear-armed Russia. This time, the President may have to get down off his high horse and substitute a reality-based foreign policy for his rhetorical flourishes.

Yet, it is an open question whether Obama has become captive to his own propaganda, such as his obsession with Syria’s use of “barrel bombs” in attacking rebel strongholds, as if this crude home-made weapon were some uniquely cruel device unlike the hundreds of thousands of tons of high explosives that the United States has dropped on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other countries in the last dozen years.

Does Obama really think that his “humanitarian” bombs – and those given to U.S. “allies” such as Saudi Arabia and Israel – don’t kill innocents? In just the past week, a Saudi airstrike inside Yemen reportedly killed some 131 people at a wedding and an apparent U.S. attack in Kunduz, Afghanistan, blasted a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders, killing at least 19 people.

(By contrast, too, The New York Times treated the Kunduz atrocity gingerly, with the cautious headline, “US Is Blamed After Bombs Hit Afghan Hospital,” noting that Defense Secretary Ashton Carter extended his “thoughts and prayers to everyone afflicted” and added that a full investigation is under way in coordination with Afghanistan’s government to “determine exactly what happened.” Surely, we can expect the slaughter to be dismissed as some unavoidable “accident” or a justifiable case of “collateral damage.”)

With Obama, one cannot exclude the possibility that he has become so infatuated with his soaring words that he actually believes what he told the West Point graduating class on May 28, 2014; but if he does, someone needs to give him a quick reality check. He told the graduates:

“In fact, by most measures, America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. Those who argue otherwise … are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics. … So the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.”

How We Got Here

The world could have taken a very different direction after the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, the evaporation of the Warsaw Pact in February 1991, and the breakup of the Soviet Union in December 1991. Those developments left the United States in a virtually unchallenged position of power — and wise leaders might have seized the opportunity to wind down the world’s excessive investment in military hardware and war-like solutions.

But the U.S. government chose a different course, one of “permanent” global hegemony with American troops as the world’s “armed-up” policemen. Gulf War I, led by the United States in January-February 1991 to punish Iraq for invading Kuwait the previous summer, injected steroids into leading arrogant neocons like Paul Wolfowitz – already awash in hubris.

Shortly after that war, Gen. Wesley Clark recalled Wolfowitz (then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy) explaining the thinking: “We learned [from Gulf War I] that we can use our military in the region, in the Middle East, and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about five or ten years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran, Iraq before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.”

Clark highlighted this comment in an Oct. 3, 2007 speech, apparently thinking this might somehow enhance his credentials as a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination (see this highly instructive eight-minute excerpt).

Clark added that neocons like Bill Kristol and Richard Perle “could hardly wait to finish Iraq so they could move into Syria. … It was a policy coup. … Wolfowitz, [Vice President Dick] Cheney, [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, and you could name a half-dozen other collaborators from the Project for a New American Century. They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.” [See’sNeocon ‘Chaos Promotion’ in the Mideast.”]

The ideology of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was summarized in a 90-page report published in 2000 and titled, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century, which advocated a Pax Americana enforced by the “preeminence of U.S. military forces.”

The report emphasized that the fall of the Soviet Union left the U.S. the world’s preeminent superpower, adding that the U.S. must work hard, not only to maintain that position, but to spread its military might into geographic areas that are ideologically opposed to its influence, subduing countries that may stand in the way of U.S. global preeminence.

PNAC’s dogma, in turn, had antecedents in “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” a study written in 1996 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he was running for the election of his first government. That study was chaired by arch-neocon Richard Perle, who later served as Chair of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board (2001-2003); the majority of the study contributors were also prominent American neocons.

Here’s what Perle and associates, many of whom later found influential posts in the Bush/Cheney administration, had to say on Syria: “Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan ‘comprehensive peace’ and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program [sic], and rejecting ‘land for peace’ deals on the Golan Heights. …

“Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right – as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.”

Why Won’t Assad Do What He’s Told?

Given the hangover from the neocon binge during the Bush/Cheney years, one might say that President Obama was “under the influence” when he began calling for Assad to “step aside” in August 2011. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chimed in, too,telling ABC, “Assad must go – the sooner the better for everyone concerned.”

The violence in 2011 was the catalyst for the civil war – as Assad’s forces cracked down on an “Arab Spring” uprising that while largely peaceful included extremist elements who killed police and ambushed troops. But the repeated unconditional-surrender demands from Secretary Clinton and other U.S. leaders that “Assad must go,” plus “covert” U.S. support for rebels fighting against Syrian government forces, surely raised expectations that Assad would bow out, making the capture of Damascus a promising prize for a variety of Sunni militants.

Particularly pathetic has been Washington’s benighted, keystone-cops support for so-called “moderate” rebels – an embarrassing fiasco if there ever was one. For a while, the “mainstream media” actually was taking note of this disaster within a disaster, after the Pentagon recently acknowledged that its $500 million project had produced only four or five fighters still in the field.

Even earlier, President Obama recognized the fallacy in this approach. In August 2014, he told New York Times’ columnist Thomas Friedman that trust in rebel “moderates” was a “fantasy” that was “never in the cards” as a workable strategy. But Obama bent to political and media pressure to “do something.”

As journalist Robert Parry pointed out, “Official Washington’s most treasured ‘fantasy’ … is the notion that a viable ‘moderate opposition’ exists in Syria or could somehow be created. That wish-upon-a-star belief was the centerpiece of congressional [approval in September 2014 of] a $500 million plan by President Barack Obama to train and arm these ‘moderate’ rebels.”

Even Pentagon-friend Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies recently conceded that “what is very clearly not happening is there has not been any meaningful military action or success on the part of any of the rebels that we have trained.”

Cordesman described the state of play in Syria as “convoluted,” noting that “In addition to Iran’s involvement in the conflict, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have all sponsored armed groups in Syria, making it a surreal proxy playground, even by Middle East standards.”

Yet, this past week, the “moderate” Syrian rebels sprang back to prominence, at least in the mainstream U.S. media, when Russian planes began bombing targets associated with the Army of Conquest, a coalition which is dominated by Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front. This militant coalition suddenly was redefined as “moderate,” as part of the argument that Russia should only be attacking Islamic State targets.

The U.S. media also has downplayed where the Islamic State (also known as ISIS, ISIL or Daesh) came from. It was an outgrowth of the Sunni resistance to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 when the group was known as “Al Qaeda in Iraq.” It later splintered off from Al Qaeda over a tactical dispute, whether a fundamentalist Sunni caliphate should be started now (the ISIS view) or whether the focus should be on mounting terror attacks against the West (Al Qaeda’s view.)

Putin Chides US Failures

Putin reminded the world of this embarrassing history – and other damaging consequences of U.S. interventionism – during his Sept. 28 speech to the UN General Assembly when he noted: “The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting for it, including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion.

“Many recruits come from Libya whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. And now radical groups are joined by members of the so-called ‘moderate’ Syrian opposition backed by the West. They get weapons and training, and then they defect and join the so-called Islamic State. …

“I’d like to tell those who engage in this: Gentlemen, the people you are dealing with are cruel but they are not dumb. They are as smart as you are. So, it’s a big question: who’s playing whom here? The recent incident where the most ‘moderate’ opposition group handed over their weapons to terrorists is a vivid example of that.”

The UN speech was not the first time Putin complained about the way U.S. officials have presented the factual circumstances of the Syrian conflict. On Sept. 5, 2013, he publicly accused Secretary of State John Kerry of lying to Congress in exaggerating the strength of “moderate” rebels in Syria.

Alluding to Kerry’s congressional testimony, Putin said: “This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them [the Americans], and we assume they are decent people, but he is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.” [See’s Rebuilding the Obama-Putin Trust.”]

But the pretense continues. Obama knows only too well the sorry state of the handful of intrepid “moderates” that may still be operating within Syria. By the same token, he does not need Putin to tell him of the danger from ISIS or Al Qaeda if these Sunni extremists (either separately or together) march into Damascus.

So the question becomes: Will Obama bring himself to see Soviet military intervention as a positive step toward stabilizing Syria and creating the chance for a political settlement or will he cling to the “Assad must go” precondition, rejecting Russia’s help and risking an ISIS/Al Qaeda victory?

This Time the Russians Can Stop Us

There is another element here, creating an even graver risk. It is no longer 1991 when the triumphant neocons brushed aside hopes for global military de-escalation and instead pressed for worldwide U.S. military dominance. Under Putin, Russia has made clear that it will no longer sit back and let U.S. and NATO tighten a vise around Russia’s borders.

Regarding its “front yard” in Ukraine, Putin has sharply admonished those in the West who “want the Ukrainian government to destroy … all political opponents and adversaries [in eastern Ukraine]. Is that what you want? That’s not what we want and we won’t allow that to happen.”

Putin’s deployment of aircraft and other arms to Assad reflects a similar attitude toward events in Syria, which Russia considers part of its backyard. The message is clear: “Overthrow Assad with the prospect of a terrorist victory? We won’t allow that to happen.”

The risk here, however, is that the American neocons and liberal interventionists remain drunk on their dreams of a permanent U.S. global hegemony that doesn’t broach any rivalry from Russia, China or any other potential challenger to America’s “full-spectrum dominance.” If these war hawks don’t sober up – and if Obama remains their reluctant enabler – the chances that the crises in Ukraine or Syria could escalate into a nuclear showdown cannot be ignored.

Thus, Russia’s move last week was truly a game-changer; and Putin is no longer playing games. One can only hope Obama can break free from the belligerent neocons and liberal war hawks. [For more on this topic, see’s Obama Tolerates the Warmongers.”]

Posted in SyriaComments Off on The Hope Behind Putin’s Syria Help

HRW and White Helmets escalate propaganda at the UN.

At UN event, speakers call for end to Syria barrel bombs
(AP Photo/Craig Ruttle). Sylvie Lucas, Luxembourg's ambassador to the United Nations, left, listens to Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, right, during a high-level event surrounding the Syrian refugee crisis and the toll of indisc...
Sylvie Lucas, Luxembourg’s ambassador to the United Nations, left, listens to Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, right, during a high-level event surrounding the Syrian refugee crisis and the toll of indisc…

Deadly barrel bombs dropped by Syrian army helicopters on opposition-held neighborhoods of Syria are the main driver behind the refugee crisis that has overwhelmed neighboring countries and now Europe, speakers at a panel held at the United Nations said Monday.

Zionist puppet Kenneth Roth, the executive director of ‘Human Rights’ Watch, urged the international community to put an end to President Bashar Assad’s indiscriminate use of the bombs, saying the tactic also undermines the war against the Islamic State group.

“It is a recruitment bonanza for ISIS because the group can claim to be standing up to these atrocities,” he said, using an acronym for the group. He said the explosives are being used for the sole purpose of terrorizing the population and have played a major role in fueling one the largest exodus of people since World War II.

Barrel bombs are makeshift shrapnel-packed explosive devices that Syrian forces continue to dump on rebel-held neighborhoods from helicopters, killing thousands of civilians over the past four years.

“We are tired of collecting limbs,” said Raed Saleh, head of the Syrian Civil Defense. “We ask ourselves as we dig out people from the rubble, whether we are next.”

They were speaking at the U.N. Monday as part of a special event on President Bashar Assad’s use of the bombs.

Enforcing a no-fly zone that would neutralize Assad’s warplanes and helicopters would save 200 lives a week, said C.I.A puppet Khaled Khoja, leader of the main Western-backed Syrian National Coalition, an opposition group. He is in New York trying to convince world leaders of the urgent need for safe zones and a no-fly area in Syria, something the United States has so far resisted.

“The principal driver of the two biggest challenges that the international community faces – the refugee crisis and the threat of extremism – is the indiscriminate killing of civilians, mainly through air attack,” C.I.A puppet Khoja said.

“It does not need to be this way. There is still time to avoid another Rwanda.”

Posted in SyriaComments Off on HRW and White Helmets escalate propaganda at the UN.

CHP to engage both Syrian opposition, regime

DHA photo

DHA photo

The Republican People’s Party (CHP) has outlined a prospective foreign policy that would engage both “the Syrian administration” and “the Syrian opposition” in a departure from the Turkish government’s current course.

“We will not take sides in the ongoing war in Syria,” the CHP said in its election manifesto, which was announced by leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu on Sept. 30.

“While maintaining our relations with the Syrian opposition, we will also pursue contact with the Syrian administration,” said the CHP.

The social democrat party also pledged to end the largely shambolic “train-and-equip program” which involves U.S.-led efforts to train a moderate rebel force to take on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and counter other extremist militants in Syria.

“We will cease the train-and-equip program which is against international law and neighborhood relations,” said the manifesto.

As recently as Sept. 29, the Pentagon said it had suspended bringing moderate rebels from Syria to participate in its troubled train-and-equip program in Turkey and Jordan.

The training mission has come under fire after it got off to a disastrous start, leaving defense officials scrambling to salvage something from the $500 million program. The U.S. administration is also weighing a proposal to scale back the program, U.S. officials said after reports of newly trained fighters either being killed by al-Nusra or joining the jihadist group along with internationally supplied equipment.

The CHP also touched upon a long-standing demand floated by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government to create safe zones in northern Syria.

The safe zones would be created “only with consent from the Syrian administration and support from the coalition forces,” the party said.

The CHP vowed to block the flow of foreign fighters from Turkey’s territories into Iraq and Syria, saying Turkey would no longer be used as a “springboard by terrorists.”

“We will effectively fight through legal ways against internal components who mediate the flow,” it said, pledging to fulfill obligations under international treaties. “We will prevent Turkey’s being cited as a country lending support to terror.”

International conference for refugees

The CHP also used the term “refugee” for Syrians who fled from violence in their country to Turkey. The Syrians in Turkey are legally called “guests” but not “refugees” in line with Turkey’s geographical limitation in the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees as a signatory. Accordingly, Turkey grants refugee status and the right to asylum only to “persons who have become refugees as a result of events occurring in Europe,” while persons from outside of Europe are assessed in cooperation with the UNHCR.

All needs of Syrians such as education, health and housing will be met, the CHP said, noting that it planned to call for an international conference on Syrians under the roof of the United Nations with the participation of Jordan and Lebanon, which also host huge numbers of Syrians.

The party pledged not to adopt “sectarian policies,” while also saying it would upgrade diplomatic relations with Egypt, Israel and Syria where Turkey is currently not represented at the ambassadorial level.

Posted in TurkeyComments Off on CHP to engage both Syrian opposition, regime

Over 450 Saudi Zio-Wahhabi Rat’s Surrender to the Syrian Security Forces


Nusra Leader Killed in Busra Al-Sham


On Saturday morning, the Syrian Security Forces inside the provincial capital of the Dara’a Governorate were surprised by the huge line of  Saudi Zio-Wahhabi RAT’S from the C.I.A puppet ‘Free Syrian Army’ (FSA) that were preparing to surrender themselves to the state government in exchange for an amnesty hearing offered by a civilian tribunal.

According to a military source inside Dara’a City, over 450 Saudi Zio-Wahhabi RAT’S from the ‘Free Syrian Army’ and another 250 people wanted by governmental authority have turned themselves into the Syrian Security Forces after an activist from the Saudi Zio-Wahhabi RAT’S delivered a message, which specifically stated their intentions to surrender to the state government if they would be offered an amnesty hearing in exchange.

The Syrian Security Forces complied with the request and on Friday; this led to the ‘Free Syrian Army’ pouring into a checkpoint to deliver their weapons the checkpoint guards in order to turn themselves in per the agreement.

Meanwhile, in eastern Dara’a, the Syrian Air Force struck the Syrian Al-Qaeda group “Jabhat Al-Nusra” and their allies from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) at the ancient city of Busra Al-Sham, killing a number of enemy combatants, including the emir (leader) of Jabhat Al-Nusra that was entrenched with his fighters near the Al-Sweida border.


Posted in SyriaComments Off on Over 450 Saudi Zio-Wahhabi Rat’s Surrender to the Syrian Security Forces

The Origins of the Syria Solidarity Movement and the False Use of its Name


“respect for, and protection of, Syrian sovereignty and territory”
The Syria Solidarity Movement™ was registered on July 29, 2013, at the office of the Alameda County Clerk in Oakland, California, USA.  It was the creation of subscribers to the nosyriaintervention Riseup list, established in September, 2012, for the purpose of countering propaganda, distortion and false information about Syria, and to provide an otherwise marginalized and suppressed voice in support of the Syrian people in the US, Canada, the UK, France and other Western countries.  Shortly afterward, we published the name, opened a bank account in the name, obtained the domain name for our website, and later applied for a trademark, now pending.
Sometime later, a group in the UK began using the same name as ours, and opened a Facebook page with that name, taking advantage of the fact that we had not done so.  This group had exactly the opposite mission from ours, i.e. to distort the facts about Syria, to promote illegal outside military intervention in Syrian affairs, to cause the disintegration and destruction of the Syrian state, to expel half the Syrian population from their homes and to invite terrorists to take control of large tracts of Syrian territory.
We believe in the right of all persons and groups to express their views, but not to misrepresent themselves or to practice identity theft.  The use of the same name by two different groups benefits neither of them, and only promotes confusion.  Although we are studying the option of legal action, we urge the other group to stop using our name.  We doubt that they want our statements and actions to be confused for theirs, nor do we want anyone to mistake them for us.  We are not affiliated with any political organization in any country and our work is strictly for educational purposes and to advocate for human rights.  We are also a project of a charitable organization in the US and are authorized under the US tax code to receive tax exempt donations for educational and human rights purposes.  The other group has no such status in the UK, the US or anywhere else.
We therefore call upon the other group to cease using our name and to find another way to identify themselves.  A major purpose of this announcement, however, is to bring the attention of the public to this issue and to help avoid further confusion.
The Syria Solidarity Movement
Please visit our website for breaking stories and analysis:
If you wish to support the work of the Syria Solidarity Movement with your donations, please go to

Posted in SyriaComments Off on The Origins of the Syria Solidarity Movement and the False Use of its Name



by Ziad Fadel


DAYR EL-ZOR:  With Russian and Syrian bombers controlling the air, we have seen the utter destruction of ISIS command-and-control centers in eastern Homs as the terrorist Saudi-controlled organization continues on its nihilistic ways by destroying culture and history at the brilliant ancient Roman city of Palmyra.  As I write, there are reports from very reliable sources that a column of Syrian Army armored units are arriving at points near Palmyra which can easily target the ISIS rats.  Included here are reports of massive pullouts by ISIS families from Al-Raqqa in anticipation of the cleansing which is inevitable as China and Russia begin the process of assimilation in this Western-orchestrated war.  But, there is great news from Dayr El-Zor.

Al-Muree’iyya:  Russian and Syrian bombers targeted a group of ISIS mercenaries yesterday killing or wounding over 40 nihilists in a convoy of trucks protected by flatbeds armed with 23mm cannons.  The dust and smoke from the attack rose to over 1000 feet as tongues of flame shot out from the ghastly shroud of dust, sand and smoke, the carcasses of terrorists jumping up and down like adolescents on a trampoline.  It was magnificent.  The terrorists were mostly foreigners and their names were announced by some fanatical anti-Muslim blaspheming terrorist groups:

‘Umar Turki Al-Saalim Al-Hamdaan (SAUDI ARABIAN SWINE VOMIT.  Said to be a security chief for ISIS.  Yawn.)

Abu Al-Dahdaah Al-Leebi  (LIBYAN WEASEL MERD)

Al-Huwayqa Quarter in the city:  Another suicide driver behind the wheels of a truck sought paradise by killing people he had never met.  Unfortunately, the rodent was spotted approaching an SAA checkpoint where alert soldiers deployed anti-tank rocket launchers and waited for the rodent to approach at about a quarter mile where he was rudely and inhospitably directed straight into the arms of Mephisto.  Efforts to identify the driver met with failure as he had been transformed into a mist of atoms.  ISIS suicide drivers never carry identification, anyways.


Al-Muree’iyya area:  At the tiny villages of Al-Jafra and Hatla, the Russian and Syrian air forces shellacked ISIS positions in over 6 sorties using brand new laser-guided missiles never actually before used in any other area of conflict place by the RuAF.  We can confirm the total destruction of 13 pickups armed with 23mm cannons.  These kinds of aerial assessments are very accurate because it is relatively easy to count disabled vehicles visually, not to mention the use of satellite cameras to depict the situation on the ground.


الجيش يدمر 5 آليات للإرهابيين بقصف مدفعي على تجمعاتهم بريف اللاذقية

Al-Rubay’ah:  At the 2 villages of Zaahi and Bayt ‘Arab, the SAA continued to upgrade artillery fire focusing on rat packs coming in from Turkish-Occupied Syria.  The reports indicate the destruction of 3 pickups and 2 armored cars (courtesy of Britain).  All rats aboard these vehicles were killed.  When the SAA and PDC arrived at the scene, there were some rats still breathing, but, that did not last long since their injuries were extremely serious.  Among the dead were 3 who were Syrian:

‘Umar Bunajqali

Ahmad Sharshooh (another family about to become extinct)

Muzaad Maddaah

The other 27 carcasses were mostly Chechens and Turkmen.


Bayt Muneefa:  The SAAF and RuAF nebulized a command-and-control center operated by the Nusra/Alqaeda terrorists.  Destruction was complete.  No other details available.


Get a load of the Russian airbase in Latakia:  (Thanks, John Esq)



Vasili Zaitsev sends this explaining a type of missile used to kill rats:

John Esq. sends this one about Obama’s lying to the public about his bombing terrorists:

Want to learn about the Uighers in Syria?  Read this from Brandon.

Brandon comments on Putin’s speech at the UN and provides a transcript:

Another take on why the U.S. is annoyed by Russia’s involvement from John Esq.. Ziad’s theory is still the best:




India, Destabilizing South Asian Security


Map of India

By Sajjad Shaukat

Highlighting inter-related regional problems in his speech at the Central South Asia Security

Conference in Munich, Germany, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, General Raheel Sharif said on

September 29, this year, “Practical steps are required to manage Pak-Afghan borders for gainful

conclusion of the military operation Zarb-e-Azb—Afghan instability had telling effects on the

He stressed on all stake holders to revive reconciliation process, despite hurdles, and elaborated,

“A peaceful Afghanistan can open regional connectivity—China Pakistan Economic Corridor

(CPEC) benefits can be shared—it is essential for socio-economic development of the whole

During his recent trip to UK, and during his interaction with the British top officials and

addresses, Gen. Raheel Sharif again emphasized upon south Asian security. In this regard, he

said our environment need to be understood by the world—we are fighting various terrorist

groups, no new entities can be allowed to emerge—we want to finish terrorists and their

nurseries, while, we also expect the international community to play its part for regional

peace—terrorism is a global issue and it warrants global response—for long term success,

funding of all terrorist outfits has to be checked by all—we are against use of proxies and won

Gen. Raheel indicated that India has been continuing border violations to divert attention of

Pakistan from its war against terrorism.

However, South Asian security is not only important for Asian countries, but also for the US and

other western countries and even for the whole world. In this respect, American, British, German

leaders and high officials including those of other NATO countries appreciated progress of

Pakistan to counter terrorism, and acknowledged the nation’s contribution towards regional

But, it is regrettable that India is destabilizing the regional countries in general and Afghanistan

and Pakistan in particular. In order to obtain its secret designs, aimed at augmenting Indian

hegemony in the region, India is foiling the peace process between Afghanistan and Pakistan by

managing terrorist attacks like the recent ones in Afghanistan which revived old blame game

In this respect, in the recent past, cordial relations were established between Pakistan and

Afghanistan when Afghan President Ashraf Ghani realized that Afghanistan and Pakistan are

facing similar challenges of terrorism and will combat this threat collectively. They also set up a

mechanism to check infiltration of the militants through Pak-Afghan porous border.

While, it is misfortune that on direction of New Delhi and like the former regime of Afghan

President Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s present rulers have also started accusing Pakistan of

cross-border terrorism. In this context, after hours of the Taliban captured Kunduz city, on

September 28, 2015, during his address to the UNO General Assembly, Afghanistan’s chief

executive Abdullah Abdullah blamed Islamabad for carrying out cross-border attacks and

destabilizing Afghanistan. On June 1, 2015 President Ashraf Ghani condemned Pakistan for

waging undeclared war. Despite Islamabad’s rejection of these baseless allegations, and instance

on Pak-Afghan joint cooperation against terrorism, this blame game continued.

In fact, in collusion with Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS), Indian secret

agency RAW has well-established its network in Afghanistan, and is fully assisting cross-border

incursions and terror-activities in various regions of Pakistan through Baloch separatist elements

and anti-Pakistan groups like Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA), Jundullah (God’s soldiers)

and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) including their affiliated outfits. They have also abducted

and killed many Chinese and Iranian nationals. In this connection, on September 18, this year,

the TTP militants attacked a Pakistan Air Force camp in Badaber area, Peshawar and martyred

29 people including army personnel. In this regard, Pakistan’s civil and military sources pointed

out that valiant personnel of the security forces thwarted the attempt of the heavily-armed TTP

terrorists by stopping them to enter inside the base—and they came from Afghanistan, having

connections with Indian RAW.

Notably, RAW is making efforts to weaken Afghanistan, Tibetan regions of China and Pakistan,

especially Balochistan by arranging the subversive activities, promoting acrimonious sense of

dissent, political volatility, sectarian violence and arousing sentiments of separatism.

It is mentionable that New Delhi which has already invested billion of dollars in Afghanistan,

also signed a wide-ranging strategic agreement with that country on October 5, 2011. And, the

then President Karzai had also signed another agreement with India to obtain Indian arms and

weapons. While, under the cover of these agreements, India has further strengthened its grip in

Afghanistan. By taking advantage of lawlessness in Afghanistan, India is up to its usual tirade to

foment an environment by conducting terrorist attacks in that country to prove that Pakistan is

creating trouble for Afghanistan.

It is notable that Gen. Raheel accompanied by the DG of ISI went to Kabul on December 17,

2014. During his meeting with his Afghan counterpart, President Ashraf Ghani and the ISAF

commander, he presented the evidence of linkage between the massacre of children at Peshawar

school and TTP sanctuaries in Afghanistan. He also asked about action against the TTP and

handing over of its chief Mullah Fazlullah to Pakistan.

Nevertheless, Indian desperation in Afghanistan is increasing in the backdrop of growing

engagements of Pakistan, Afghanistan, China and US. Therefore, by arranging terror-assaults in

Pakistan and Afghanistan, India is also thwarting the peace process between the Afghan officials

and representatives of Tehreek-e-Taliban Afghanistan, which started in Murree, Pakistan, on July

8, 2015 through a meeting, hosted by Islamabad, and in it, Chinese and American

representatives, also participated. While, the US, China and Pakistan are jointly working to

facilitate the process so as to bring peace both in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the whole

In this backdrop, New Delhi is also trying to sabotage the CPEC. For the purpose, RAW has

created a heavily funded China-Pakistan and Afghanistan specific desk to target growing Pak-

China-Afghanistan relations.

Furthermore, on the instruction of the Indian leader of the fundamentalist party BJP and Prime

Minister Narendra Modi, Indian forces have accelerated unprovoked shelling across the Line of

Control and Working Boundary, while creating war-like situation between Pakistan and India.

Meanwhile, Pakistan raised the question of Indian cross-border terrorism and RAW involvement

in Pakistan at the UNO forum, with strong evidence in light of open statements of Indian defence

minister and prime minister who recently confirmed assistance to anti-Pakistan elements

including separation of East Pakistan. Islamabad also raised the issues of Indian cross-border

shelling and human rights violations in the Indian occupied Kashmir.

It is of particular attention that waging a prolonged war in Afghanistan, the US and other NATO

countries have realized that after the withdrawal of foreign troops, Afghanistan would be thrown

in an era of uncertainly and civil war. They recognize the fact and terrorism or stability in

Pakistan and Afghanistan has co-relationship. Therefore, US-led developed nations which also

spent billions of dollars for the development of Afghanistan have repeatedly agreed that without

Islamabad’s help, stability cannot be achieved there. Unfortunately, India does not intend to see

peace in that country and is undermining regional stability by creating unrest in Afghanistan and

some other countries, and by sabotaging their cordial relations.

So, these US-led developed countries must also show realistic approach by realizing that unlike

India, Pakistan shares common geographical, historical, religious and cultural bonds with

Afghanistan, while Pak-Afghan stability is inter-related, which is essential for their global and

regional interests. Especially, America must abandon its faulty strategy in this region and double

standard, and must check Indian secret strategy against Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, America,

Russia, Iran and other Asian countries.

Nonetheless, in order to obtain its cover aims at the cost of larger interests of international

community, India has been destabilizing South Asian security which is equally essential for

American and other major powers’ global interests.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants,

Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Posted in IndiaComments Off on India, Destabilizing South Asian Security

Shoah’s pages