Archive | February 19th, 2016

Washington Accuses Russian Airstrikes are Targeting “Our Guys” in Syria

NOVANEWS

CIA Operatives, Military Advisers, Mercenaries, Special Forces, … Instead of ISIS Terrorists

Global Research
La-CIA-dans-le-monde

This article was first published in October 2015. Are we gearing up for a war between US-NATO-Turkey-Saudi Arabia and Syria-Russia-Iran?

US-NATO operatives are already on the ground inside Syria. In fact they have been on ground within “opposition” militia from the very outset in March 2011.

Russian Airstrikes are Targeting “Our Guys”: 

The Western media quoting US officials has reported that the Russian Air Force is not really targeting ISIS terrorists.

They are targeting CIA sponsored operatives inside Syria. 

According to a US official in an interview with Fox News:

‘Putin is deliberately targeting our forces. Our guys are fighting for their lives.’

Moscow is “deliberately targeting” U.S.-backed forces in Syria as part of a military campaign that has killed up to 150 CIA-trained rebels, a U.S. official told Fox News

The claims state that Russia’s apparent mission to destroy ISIS is really a facade, and that their real mission is to kill American assets. (October 14, 2015).

The “Our Guys” category (“fighting for their lives”) not only includes bona fide “moderate terrorists” trained by the Western military alliance, it also includes countless Western military advisers, intelligence agents and mercenaries (often recruited by private security companies) operating on the ground inside Syria since March 2011.

In a bitter twist, by making these accusations directed against Moscow, the Obama Administration candidly acknowledges what has been known from the outset: the presence of Western forces inside Syria in support of Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists. Lest we forget, this constitutes an undeclared act of waragainst a sovereign country in violation of international  law (Nuremberg).

Amply documented, from the outset of the Syrian insurgency, Western special forces and covert intelligence agents including British SAS, French Parachutistes, CIA, MI6  and Mossad have integrated rebel ranks. Their activities are not limited to training. They are routinely involved in overseeing the conduct of terrorist operations on the ground together with Turkish and Qatari special forces, as well thousands of mercenaries recruited from Muslim countries:

“As the unrest and killings escalate in the troubled Arab state, agents from MI6 and the CIA are already in Syria [2012 report] assessing the situation, a security official has revealed. Special forces are also talking to Syrian dissident soldiers. They want to know about weapons and communications kit rebel forces will need if the Government decides to help.  (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star, January 2012). (emphasis added)

From the outset of the insurgency, Al Qaeda affiliated rebel forces including ISIS and Al Nusrah are “infiltrated” by Western military and intelligence  operatives.

“MI6 and the CIA are in Syria to infiltrate and get at the truth,” said the well-placed source. “We have SAS and SBS not far away who want to know what is happeningand are finding out what kit dissident soldiers need.” ” (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star, January 2012). (emphasis added)

.

(The SBS operatives referred to above are the British Royal Navy’s Special Boat Service (SBS), often recruited from the Royal Marine Commandos)

These foreign forces are also involved in intelligence  and logistics as well as terror command operations directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad. They are in permanent communication and liaison  through their satellite phones with US, NATO, Turkey and Israel military and intelligence.

Without Western support, the terrorists would not have been able to gain control over entire regions of the country. In this regard, Vladimir Putin intimates that this would not be possible without foreign support:

“The so-called Islamic State [ISIS] has taken control of a huge territory. How was that possible? Think about it: if Damascus or Baghdad are seized by the terrorist groups, they will be almost the official authorities, and will have a launchpad for global expansion. Is anyone thinking about this or not?” (Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Valdai Conference, October 2015)

Covert support to the terrorists has been provided from the outset of the war in March 2011. The CIA is supporting terrorists as a means to triggering “regime change” in Syria, implying the conduct of covert intelligence operations within Syrian territory:

“The U.S. spy agency has been arming and training rebels in Syria since 2013 to fight the Assad regime  (WSJ, September 30, 2015 emphasis added)

According to the Daily Mail:

And after the CIA spent more than two years secretly working to arm, train and fund thousands of select so-called moderate Syrian rebels to oppose Assad, U.S. officials have watched those groups become the target of Russian missiles. (emphasis added)

Russia’s Smart Bombs do not Distinguish between the Terrorists and their Western Advisers
Russian air strikes initiated in September are directed against terrorist units integrated by Western operatives and advisers.
Russia’s “smart bombs”, however, are not in a position to distinguish between the rank and file “jihadist” terrorists and the Western special forces and mercenaries which have integrated (“infiltrated”) rebel forces since March 2011.
CIA Operatives together with British SAS and French Special Forces on the Ground in Syria

Reports confirm that US, British and allied Special Forces have been on the ground since the outset of the war in 2011. The underlying pattern is similar to that of Libya where Western special forces had integrated terrorist ranks prior to the launching of NATO’s military intervention.

The website of Britain’s SAS candidly acknowledges that  …[T]here has been growing chatter indicating that British Special Forces are in some way assisting forces aligned against the Syrian regime”:

Reports from late November last year state that British Special forces have met up with members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the armed wing of the Syrian National Council. The apparent goal of this initial contact was to establish the rebel forces’ strength and to pave the way for any future training operations.

More recent reports have stated that British and French Special Forces have been actively training members of the FSA, from a base in Turkey. Some reports indicate that training is also taking place in locations in Libya and Northern Lebanon. British MI6 operatives and UKSF (SAS/SBS) personnel have reportedly been training the rebels in urban warfare as well as supplying them with arms and equipment. US CIA operatives and special forces are believed to be providing communications assistance to the rebels. http://www.eliteukforces.info/uk-military-news/0501012-british-special-forces-syria.php (emphasis added)

In August 2015, Britain’s Sunday Express Tabloid headlined “SAS dress as ISIS fighters in undercover war on jihadis,” (see screen shot below)

More than 120 members belonging to the elite regiment are currently in the war-torn country on operation Shader, tasked with destroying IS equipment and munitions which insurgents constantly move to avoid Coalition air strikes.

It comes just days after David Cameron gave “carte blanche” for the SAS and SBS to target IS leaders as part of the Government’s “broad spectrum” response to the murder of 30 British tourists by ISIS gunman Seifeddine Rezgui in the Tunisian beach resort of Sousse.

Though the Prime Minister is being kept informed, senior military sources last night told the Sunday Express that he would not be required to “green light” every mission.

The article portrays SAS forces disguised as ISIS terrorists acting as part of a covert British Counter-Terrorism operation. (For further details see Stephen Lendman, British SAS Special Forces Dressed up as ISIS Terrorists, Global Research, August 4, 2015)

The truth of the matter is that these SAS commandos are there to integrate rebel ranks on the ground, overseeing carefully planned terror operations against Syria, in permanent liaison with US-NATO et al.

French Parachutistes on the Ground Advising the Terrorists

The French have been actively involved since the outset of the insurgency on the ground in liaison with their US, British and Israeli counterparts. In February 2012, 13 French military officers were arrested in Homs pointing to the presence of foreign troops on Syrian soil inside rebel ranks. The report suggested that the arrested officers could have been part of “a larger contingent” of  French Parachutistes (special forces).“ (The Daily Star  March 5, 2012)

The French government initially denied the report, insisting that “not a single French soldier is on Syrian soil.” Yet sources confirmed that negotiations between Paris and Damascus were held, in all probability regarding the repatriation of the French military officers:

“A French Foreign Ministry spokesman said: “We deny the idea that there are French troops on the ground in Syria. A Defense Ministry spokesman added: “We have no information on this. We neither confirm nor deny it.” (Report: 13 French officers captured in Syria – Israel News, Ynetnews, emphasis added)

Posted in USA, Russia, SyriaComments Off on Washington Accuses Russian Airstrikes are Targeting “Our Guys” in Syria

Ken O’Keefe Rant: Stuck at LAX and Disgusted with ‘Godforsaken’ America

NOVANEWS

By Richard Edmondson

Airport Doldrums in the Former Land of the Free

Editor’s note:  We always love hearing from Ken, a guy who has paid his way, US Marine Corps, Mavi Marmara and is truly meaner than shit.g

Every time I go through US customs it’s a graphic reminder to me of what an authoritarian society we live in. Posted in sympathy with Ken O’Keefe. Hopefully he will make it to his destination.

Posted in USAComments Off on Ken O’Keefe Rant: Stuck at LAX and Disgusted with ‘Godforsaken’ America

Zionist lobby money behind US anti-boycott-I$raHell legislation

NOVANEWS
Right to BDS

By Lawrence Davidson

Congress moves against

It was bound to happen: an attempt by the US Congress to endorse the attacks on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement already taking place in some states and municipalities.

The strategy is to legitimise an increasingly standard approach to undermining the boycott of Israel, an approach wherein the investment of any state funds, including pension funds, in any business or organisation that boycotts the Zionist state is forbidden.

Two bipartisan pairs of senators – Mark Kirk (Republican, Illinois) and Joe Manchin (Democrat, West Virginia) – and Congressional Representatives – Robert Dold (Republican, Illinois) and Juan Vargas (Democrat, California) – introduced into both houses the Combating BDS Act of 2016” (S.2531 and H.R.4514).

We can be sure that all four of them are doing this at the coordinated behest of Zionist special interests to which they are financially tied. In other words, acting in their official capacity, their behaviour on things that touch on Israel-Palestine is a payback for money and other forms of assistance offered by the Zionists to facilitate the politicians’ elections and re-elections.

…one’s pathway to success is made easier if you don’t know the difference between ethics and your elbow.

Sadly, this is the way the US campaign system works. Unless you are very wealthy, you are constantly scrounging for money. Under such circumstances one’s pathway to success is made easier if you don’t know the difference between ethics and your elbow.

Our four sponsors of the “Combating BDS Act” would, of course, deny any such tainted motives. Rather, they would insist that theirs is an effort to weigh in against anti-Semitism and defend the integrity of the “only democracy in the Middle East”.

If they really believe this is so, the kindest thing that can be said for these legislators is that they are profoundly ignorant about Israel and its true character. It is also possible that they know the truth about their patron, but really don’t care. It is all about the money.

Intimations of the real Israel

For instance, are Senators Kirk and Manchin and Representatives Dold and Vargas aware that the Israeli legislature, the Knesset, recently voted down a bill to include the principle of equality among citizens in the wording of the country’s “Basic Law” on Human Dignity and Liberty? Basic Laws stand in for a constitution in Israel.

The bill was introduced by one of the few Arab-Israeli MKs (members of the Knesset), Jamal Zahalka, who noted that “All constitutions in modern countries begin with stressing the principle of equality among their citizens.”

That did not matter to a majority of the Knesset who, following inherently discriminatory Zionist ideals, do not believe in equality between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens.

Yet to Israel’s supporters in Washington the Zionist state remains a “democracy” much like the United States.

Such an unquestioning assumption, so wide of the mark, displays a level of closed-mindedness that ought to require intensive remedial critical-thinking training before allowing someone to stand for office.

Are Senators Kirk and Manchin and Representatives Dold and Vargas aware that the Knesset “Ethics Committee” has suspended three Arab-Israeli MKs, including Mr Zahalka, from participating in legislative sessions because they met with families whose members had been killed while violently resisting Israeli occupation?

The aim of the meeting was to assist the families in recovering from the Israeli authorities the bodies of their slain relatives.

The Israelis refuse to recognise the truism that the violence of the oppressed will eventually reach the level of the violence of the oppressor. Instead, any violent blowback occurring in response to their own violence is conveniently characterised as “terrorism.”

In order for the action of the Arab MKs to make sense to most Israeli Jews and their Zionist supporters abroad, there has to be recognition of the historically established fact that the occupation of Palestinian land is real.

This the Zionists will not do and, apparently, part of their deal with the US politicians in Congress is that they too must echo that same denial.

Are Senators Kirk and Manchin and Representatives Dold and Vargas aware that the respected human rights organisation Amnesty International has recently released a report accusing the Israeli forces of using “intentional lethal force” against Palestinians in situations where such force was “completely unjustified”?

Amnesty spokesman Philip Luther asserted that the Israelis had “ripped up the rulebook” by “flouting international standards” when it came to the use of force.

For the politicians in Washington who have made their pact with the Zionists, such behaviour, if noted at all, is rationalised as self-defence on the part of the Israelis.

However, suppression of resistance to illegal occupation cannot not be judged self-defence either legally or logically. Who in Congress is aware of the Fourth Geneva Convention?

There are many other practices and policies of the state of Israel that must be ignored (including Israel’s support of al-Qaeda in Syria) if Senators Kirk and Manchin and Representatives Dold and Vargas are to carry on with clear consciences.

But this might be based on a false assumption that these politicians have a conscience to which they pay attention. After all, our system of politics, which all but demands submission to special interests, may well select for amoral personalities.

Ignoring the question of constitutionality

The apparent indifference of Senators Kirk and Manchin and Representatives Dold and Vargas goes beyond Israel’s flouting of international law. It carries over to these politicians’ own disregard for the US Constitution, which each gentleman has sworn to uphold.

Ever since the early 1980s the Supreme Court has regarded domestically initiated boycotts as a legitimate form of political speech. There is little excuse for our four defenders of Israel not to know this.

And what are we to say of them if they do in fact know? Only that they, like their patrons, are willing to “rip up the rulebook”. They are willing to act as if what is unconstitutional is, after all, acceptable when it protects the interests of a foreign rogue state on whose payroll they happen to be.

Just how long can they get away with this? Is the answer really just as long as the Zionist money keeps coming?

Congressmen and senators tied to Zionist special interests will eventually have to rethink these alliances.

Their connection with a state that has no compunction about violating international law has led them to become accomplices in the undermining of US law.

Thus, the actions of politicians such as Kirk, Manchin, Dold and Vargas act as a barometer indicating the degree to which under-regulated special interests have corrupted the US government.

Those involved are walking a path that can lead only to ongoing ethical decline and policy failures.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, CampaignsComments Off on Zionist lobby money behind US anti-boycott-I$raHell legislation

Twenty-six Things About the Islamic State ‘ISIL’

NOVANEWS

Twenty-six Things About the Islamic State (ISIL) that Obama Does Not Want You to Know About

Global Research

This article was first published in November 2014.  

Recent developments confirm what is known and documented: Washington is behind the Islamic State (ISIS) and at the same time it is behind the moderate Al Qaeda terrorists, which the Obama administration is supporting as part of America’s campaign against the Islamic State (ISIS). And they expect us to believe that they are committed to waging a campaign against terrorists.

The Islamic State (ISIS) was until 2014 called al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

Al Nusra is an al Qaeda affiliate which has committed countless atrocities in Syria.  It is now considered by the Obama administration as the “Moderate Opposition”. 

America’s “anti-terrorist campaign’ consists in supporting a so-called “moderate” Al  Qaeda entity (Al Nusra)  with a view to going after another al Qaeda entity entitled The Islamic State, formerly designated as Al Qaeda in Iraq.  

“Al Qaeda is going after Al Qaeda”, and both wings of al Qaeda are supported covertly by US intelligence. 

Both ISIS and Al Nusra are protected by the Western military alliance. Both Al Qaeda entities are used to destroy Syria and Iraq. The air campaign allegedly against ISIS does not target ISIS, it targets Syria and Iraq, schools, hospitals, factories, residential areas, government buildings, roads, bridges, etc. 

Both Al Qaeda affiliated entities are being used to destroy Iraq and Syria as nation states.

The terrorists  are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance.

US-NATO-Israel are state sponsors of terrorism, providing training, weapons and money to various terrorist formations. 

The endgame is “regime change” in Syria and the fragmentation of Iraq.  

Michel Chossudovsky, September 03, 2015

The US led war against  the Islamic State is a big lie.

Going after ” Islamic terrorists”, carrying out a worldwide pre-emptive war to “Protect the American Homeland” are used to justify a military agenda.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a creation of US intelligence. Washington’s “Counter-terrorism Agenda” in Iraq and Syria consists in Supporting the Terrorists.  

The incursion of the Islamic State (IS) brigades into Iraq starting in June 2014 was part of a carefully planned military-intelligence operation supported covertly by the US, NATO and Israel.

The counter-terrorism mandate is a fiction. America is the Number One “State Sponsor of Terrorism” 

The Islamic State is protected by the US and its allies. If they had wanted to eliminate the Islamic State brigades, they could have “carpet” bombed their convoys of Toyota pickup trucks when they crossed the desert from Syria into Iraq in June. 

\

The  Syro-Arabian Desert is open territory (see map below). With state of the art jet fighter aircraft (F15, F22 Raptor, CF-18) it would have been  -from a military standpoint-  a rapid and expedient surgical operation  

In this article, we address 26 concepts which refute the big lie.  Portrayed by the media as a humanitarian undertaking, this large scale military operation directed against Syria and Iraq has resulted in countless civilian deaths.

It could not have been undertaken without the unbending support of  the Western media which has upheld Obama’s initiative as a counter-terrorism operation.  

THE HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF AL QAEDA

1. The US has supported Al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations for almost half a century since the heyday of the Soviet Afghan war. 

2. CIA training camps were set up in Pakistan.  In the ten year period from 1982 to 1992, some 35,000 jihadists from 43 Islamic countries were recruited by the CIA to fight in the Afghan jihad.

“Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the Jihad.”

3. Since the Reagan Administration, Washington has supported the Islamic terror network.

Ronald Reagan called the terrorists “freedom fighters”. The US supplied weapons to the Islamic brigades.  It was all for “a good cause”: fighting the Soviet Union and regime change, leading to the demise of a secular government in Afghanistan.

Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)

4. Jihadist textbooks  were  published by the University of Nebraska. “. “The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings”

5. Osama bin Laden, America’s bogyman and founder of Al Qaeda was recruited by the CIA in 1979at the very outset of the US sponsored jihadist war against Afghanistan . He was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp.

Al Qaeda was not behind the 9/11 Attacks. September 11, 2001 provided a justification for waging a war against Afghanistan on the grounds that Afghanistan was a state sponsor of terrorism, supportive of Al Qaeda. The 9/11 attacks were instrumental in the formulation of the “Global War on Terrorism”.

THE ISLAMIC STATE (ISIL)

6. The Islamic State (ISIL) was originally an Al Qaeda affiliated entity created by US intelligence with the support of Britain’s MI6, Israel’s Mossad, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Presidency (GIP), Ri’āsat Al-Istikhbārāt Al-’Āmah ( رئاسة الاستخبارات العامة‎).

China unlikely to join Obama's anti-ISIS coalition: Report

7. The ISIL brigades were involved in the US-NATO supported insurgency in Syria directed against the government of  Bashar al Assad.

8.  NATO and the Turkish High Command were responsible for the recruitment of ISIL and Al Nusrah mercenaries from the outset of the Syrian insurgency in March 2011. According to Israeli intelligence sources, this initiative consisted in:

“a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria. (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011.)

9.There are Western Special Forces and Western intelligence operatives within the ranks of the ISIL. British Special Forces and MI6 have been involved in training jihadist rebels in Syria.

10. Western military specialists on contract to the Pentagon have trained the terrorists in the use of chemical weapons.

“The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday. ( CNN ReportDecember 9, 2012)

11. The ISIL’s practice of beheadings is part of the US sponsored terrorist training programsimplemented in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

12. Recruited by America’s ally, a large number of ISIL mercenaries are convicted criminals released from Saudi prisons on condition they join the ISIL.Saudi death row inmates were recruited to join the terror brigades. 

13. Israel  has supported  the ISIL and Al Nusrah brigades out of the Golan Heights.

Jihadist fighters have met Israeli IDF officers as well as Prime Minister Netanyahu. The IDF top brass tacitly acknowledges that “global jihad elements inside Syria” [ISIL and Al Nusrah] are supported by Israel. See  image below:

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon next to a wounded mercenary, Israeli military field hospital at the occupied Golan Heights’ border with Syria, 18 February 2014″

Inline images 1

SYRIA AND IRAQ

14 The ISIL are the foot soldiers  of the Western military alliance. Their unspoken mandate is to wreck havoc and destruction in Syria and Iraq, acting on behalf of their US sponsors.

15. US Senator John McCain has met up with jihadist terrorist leaders in Syria. (see picture right)

16  The Islamic State (IS) militia, which is currently the alleged target of  a US-NATO bombing campaign under a “counter-terrorism” mandate, continues to be supported covertly by the US.  Washington and its allies continue to provide military aid to the Islamic State.

17. US and allied bombings are not targeting the ISIL, they are bombing the economic infrastructure of Iraq and Syria including factories and oil refineries.

18.  The IS caliphate project is part of a longstanding US foreign policy agenda to carve up Iraq and Syria into separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia Republic, a Republic of Kurdistan.

THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM (GWOT)

19. “The Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) is presented as a “Clash of Civilizations”, a war between competing values and religions, when in reality it is an outright war of conquest, guided by strategic and economic objectives.

20 U.S. sponsored Al Qaeda terror brigades (covertly supported by Western intelligence) have been deployed in Mali, Niger, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, Somalia and Yemen.

original

America’s “War on Terrorism” By Mchel Chossudovsky

These various affiliated Al Qaeda entities in the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa  and Asia are CIA sponsored “intelligence assets”. They are used by Washington to wreck havoc,  create internal conflicts and destabilize sovereign countries.

21 Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Shabab in Somalia, the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) (supported by NATO in 2011),  Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM),  Jemaah Islamiah (JI) in Indonesia,  among other Al Qaeda affiliated groups are supported covertly by Western intelligence.

22. The US is also supporting Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist organizations in the Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region of China. The underlying objective is to trigger political instability in Western China.

Chinese jihadists are reported to have received “terrorist training” from the Islamic State “in order to conduct attacks in China”. The declared objective of these Chinese-based jihadist entities (which serves the interests of the US)  is to establish a Islamic caliphate extending into Western China.  (Michel Chossudovsky, America’s War on Terrorism, Global Research, Montreal, 2005, Chapter 2).

HOMEGROWN TERRORISTS

23 The Terrorists R Us:  While the US is the unspoken architect of the Islamic State,  Obama’s holy mandate is to protect America against ISIL attacks.

24 The homegrown terrorist threat is a fabrication.  It is promoted by Western governments and the media with a view to repealing civil liberties and installing a police state. The terror attacks by alleged jihadists and terror warnings are invariably staged events. They are used to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.

In turn, the arrests, trials and sentences of “Islamic terrorists” sustain the legitimacy of America’s Homeland Security State and law enforcement apparatus, which has become increasingly militarized.

The ultimate objective is to instill in the minds of millions of Americans that the enemy is real and the U.S. Administration will protect the lives of its citizens.

25.  The “counter-terrorism” campaign against the Islamic State has contributed to the demonization of Muslims, who in the eyes of Western public opinion are increasingly  associated with the jihadists.

26  Anybody who dares to question the validity of the “Global War on Terrorism” is branded a terrorist and subjected to the anti-terrorist laws.

The ultimate objective of the “Global War on Terrorism” is to subdue the citizens, totally depoliticize social life in America, prevent people from thinking and conceptualizing, from analyzing facts and challenging the legitimacy of the inquisitorial social order which rules America.

The Obama Administration has imposed a diabolical consensus with the support of its allies, not to mention the complicit role of the United Nations Security Council.  The Western media has embraced the consensus; it has described the Islamic State as an independent entity, an outside enemy which threatens the Western World.

The Big Lie has become the Truth. 

Say no to the “Big Lie”. Spread the message.

The truth is ultimately a powerful weapon.

Please help us continue. We rely on the support of our readers.

Consider donating to Global Research. 

For Peace and Truth in Media, Michel Chossudovsky

Posted in USAComments Off on Twenty-six Things About the Islamic State ‘ISIL’

ISIS beheads 15-year-old Iraqi boy for listening to pop music

NOVANEWS

The boy, Ayham Hussein, was discovered by Saudi Zio-Wahhabi ‘ISIS’ henchman as he was listening to a portable compact disc player.

ISIS operative decapitates a young boy

Saudi Zio-Wahhabi ‘ISIS’ operative decapitates a young boy. (photo credit:ARAB MEDIA)

Just when you thought Islamic State had reached its limit of depravity, it manages to outdo itself.

According to Kurdish media reports, the Saudi Zio-Wahhabi jihadist group that has captured wide swaths of Syria and Iraq beheaded a 15-year-old boy in Mosul for the crime of listening to Western pop music.

Reports cite officials in the northern Iraqi city as saying that the boy, Ayham Hussein, was discovered by ISIS henchman as he was listening to a portable compact disc player.

Hussein was detained by Saudi Zio-Wahhabi ‘ISIS’ operatives as he sat inside a shop owned by his father in an open-air market in western Mosul. The boy was beaten and tried in a local sharia court, which sentenced him to be executed.

“The boy was executed by beheading in a town square in the center of the city,” a source told Kurdish media.

The execution shocked and angered Mosul residents, some of whom staged a protest at the home of the victim’s family.

Posted in IraqComments Off on ISIS beheads 15-year-old Iraqi boy for listening to pop music

Obama’s ‘Moderate’ Syrian Deception

NOVANEWS
Syria_Obama

President Obama, who once called the idea of “moderate” Syrian rebels a “fantasy,” has maintained the fiction to conceal the fact that many “moderates” are fighting alongside Al Qaeda’s jihadists, an inconvenient truth that is complicating an end to Syria’s civil war, explains Gareth Porter.

Secretary of State John Kerry insisted at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday that the agreement with Russia on a temporary halt in the war in Syria can only be carried out if Russia stops its airstrikes against what Kerry is now calling “legitimate opposition groups.”

But what Kerry did not say is that the ceasefire agreement would not apply to operations against Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, the Nusra Front, which both the United States and Russia have recognized as a terrorist organization. That fact is crucial to understand why the Obama administration’s reference to “legitimate opposition groups” is a deception intended to mislead public opinion.

President Barack Obama talks with Ambassador Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, following a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Sept. 12, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)President Barack Obama talks with Ambassador Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, following a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Sept. 12, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The Russian airstrikes in question are aimed at cutting off Aleppo city, which is now the primary center of Nusra’s power in Syria, from the Turkish border. To succeed in that aim, Russian, Syrian and Iranian forces are attacking rebel troops deployed in towns all along the routes from Aleppo to the border.Those rebels include units belonging to Nusra, their close ally Ahrar al-Sham, and other armed opposition groups – some of whom have gotten weapons from the CIA in the past.

Kerry’s language suggests that those other “legitimate opposition groups” are not part of Nusra’s military structure but are separate from it both organizationally and physically. But in fact, there is no such separation in either of the crucial provinces of Idlib and Aleppo.

Information from a wide range of sources, including some of those the United States has been explicitly supporting, makes it clear that every armed anti-Assad organization unit in those provinces is engaged in a military structure controlled by Nusra militants. All of these rebel groups fight alongside the Nusra Front and coordinate their military activities with it.

This reality even slips into mainstream U.S. news accounts on occasion, such as Anne Barnard’s New York Times article last Saturday about the proposed Syrian cease-fire in which she reported, “With the proviso that the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s branch in Syria, can still be bombed, Russia puts the United States in a difficult position; the insurgent groups it supports cooperate in some places with the well-armed, well-financed Nusra in what they say is a tactical alliance of necessity against government forces.”

At least since 2014 the Obama administration has armed a number of Syrian rebel groups even though it knew the groups were coordinating closely with the Nusra Front, which was simultaneously getting arms from Turkey and Qatar. The strategy called for supplying TOW anti-tank missiles to the “Syrian Revolutionaries Front” (SRF) as the core of a client Syrian army that would be independent of the Nusra Front.

However, when a combined force of Nusra and non-jihadist brigades including the SRF captured the Syrian army base at Wadi al-Deif in December 2014, the truth began to emerge. The SRF and other groups to which the United States had supplied TOW missiles had fought under Nusra’s command to capture the base.

And as one of the SRF fighters who participated in the operation, Abu Kumayt, recalled to The New York Times, after the victory only Nusra and its very close ally Ahrar al-Sham were allowed to enter the base. Nusra had allowed the groups supported by the United States to maintain the appearance of independence from Nusra, according to Abu Kumyt, in order to induce the United States to continue the supply of U.S. weapons.

Playing Washington

In other words, Nusra was playing Washington, exploiting the Obama administration’s desire to have its own Syrian Army as an instrument for influencing the course of the war. The administration was evidently a willing dupe.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, who had been supporting an aggressive program of arming opposition brigades that had been approved by the CIA, told a January 2015 seminar in Washington, “For a long time we have looked the other way while the Nusra Front and armed groups on the ground, some of which are getting help from us, have coordinated in military operations against the regime.”

Reflecting the views of some well-placed administration officials, he added, “I think the days of us looking the other way are finished.” But instead of breaking with the deception that the CIA’s hand-picked clients were independent of Nusra, the Obama administration continued to cling to it.

Nusra and its allies were poised to strike the biggest blow against the Assad regime up to the time – the capture of Idlib province. Although some U.S.-supported groups participated in the campaign in March and April 2015, the “operations room” planning the campaign was run by Al Qaeda and its close ally Ahrar al Sham.

And before the campaign was launched, Nusra had forced another U.S.-supported group, Harakat Hazm, to disband and took all of its TOW anti-tank missiles.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia and Qatar were financing the “Army of Conquest,” commanded by Nusra, and were lobbying the administration to support it. U.S. strategy on Syria was then shifting toward a tacit reliance on the jihadists to achieve the U.S. objective of putting sufficient pressure on the Assad regime to force some concessions on Damascus.

But the idea that an independent “moderate” armed opposition still existed – and that the United States was basing its policy on those “moderates” – was necessary to provide a political fig leaf for the covert and indirect U.S. reliance on Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise’s military success.

When the fall of Idlib led to the Russian intervention last September, the U.S. immediately resorted to its propaganda line about Russian targeting of the “moderate” armed opposition. It had become a necessary shield for the United States to continue playing a political-diplomatic game in Syria.

As the current Russian-Syrian-Iranian offensive between Aleppo and the Turkish border unfolds, the Obama administration’s stance has been contradicted by fresh evidence of the subordination of non-jihadist forces to the Nusra Front. In late January, Nusra consolidated its role as the primary opposition military force in the eastern part of Aleppo City by sending a huge convoy of 200 vehicles loaded with fighters, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in London.

BBC reported that “thousands of troops” had just arrived in Aleppo for the coming battle. Ahrar al-Sham confirmed on Feb. 2 that its ally, the Nusra Front, had deployed a large convoy of “reinforcements” to Aleppo. The pro-Assad Beirut daily As-Safir reported that the convoys also included artillery, tanks and armored vehicles, and that Nusra had taken over a number of buildings to serve as its headquarters and offices.

How Al Qaeda Controls

An assessment published on Saturday by the Institute for the Study of War, which has long advocated more U.S. military assistance to Syrian anti-Assad groups, provides further insights into the Nusra Front’s system of control over U.S.-supported groups. One way the jihadist organization maintains that control, according to the study, is Ahrar al Sham’s control of the Bab al Hawa border crossing with Turkey, which gives Nusra and Ahrar power over the distribution of supplies from Turkey into Aleppo City and surrounding areas.

ISW points out that another instrument of control is the use of “military operations rooms” in which Nusra and Ahrar al Sham play the dominant role while allocating resources and military roles to lesser military units.

Although the Nusra Front is not listed as part of the “Army of Aleppo” formally announced to combat the Russian offensive, it is hardly credible that it does not hold the primary positions in the operations room for the Aleppo campaign, given the large infusion of Nusra troops into the theater from Idlib and its history in other such operations rooms in the Idlib and Aleppo regions.

Yet another facet of Nusra’s power in Aleppo is its control over the main water and power plants in the opposition-controlled districts of the city. But the ultimate source of Nusra’s power over U.S.-supported groups is the threat to attack them as agents of the United States and take over their assets. Al Qaeda’s franchise “successfully destroyed two U.S.-backed groups in Northern Syria in 2014 and early 2015,” ISW recalls, and initiated a campaign last October against one of the remaining U.S.-supported groups, Nour al Din al Zenki.

The official U.S. posture on the current offensive in the Aleppo theater and the proposed ceasefire obscures the fact that a successful Russian-Syrian operation would make it impossible for the external states, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, to resupply the Nusra Front and Ahrar al Sham and thus end the military threat to the Syrian government as well as the possibility of Al Qaeda’s seizure of power in Damascus.

Russian-Syrian success offers the most realistic prospect for an end to the bloodletting in Syria and would also reduce the likelihood of an eventual Al Qaeda seizure of power in Syria.

The Obama administration certainly understands that fact and has already privately adjusted its diplomatic strategy to take into account the likelihood that the Nusra Front will now be substantially weakened. But it cannot acknowledge any of that publicly because such a recognition would infuriate many hardliners in Washington who still demand “regime change” in Damascus whatever the risks.

President Obama is under pressure from these domestic critics as well as from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other GCC allies to oppose any gains by the Russians and the Assad regime as a loss for the United States. And Obama administration must continue to hide the reality that it was complicit in a strategy of arming Nusra – in part through the mechanism of arming Washington’s “moderate” clients – to achieve leverage on the Syrian regime.

Thus the game of diplomacy and deceptions continues

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on Obama’s ‘Moderate’ Syrian Deception

America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group

NOVANEWS
Global Research
isistroops

Incisive article originally published by GR in September 2014

Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.

The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.

The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.

The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”

During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.

The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.

In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.

There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.

America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.

ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.

The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.

America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.

By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Mr. Obama’s government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens’ power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt.

The so-called “War on Terror” should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military. The two most powerful groups in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are the Israel lobby, which directs U.S. Middle East policy, and the Military-Industrial-Complex, which profits from the former group’s actions. Since George W. Bush declared the “War on Terror” in October 2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have also raked in billions of dollars for Washington’s military elite.

In fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity. According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these private companies had employees or board members, who either served in, or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels of the military.

In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles.

Posted in Middle East, USAComments Off on America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group

Washington’s Machiavellian Game in Syria

NOVANEWS
Global Research
engdahl

Image. F. William Engdahl

One of my often-cited sayings is around 2,500 years old. It’s from the respected Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu in his small masterpiece, The Art of War. For centuries it’s been one of the most influential strategy writings not only in Asia, but also the Western world. It goes as follows:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

In geopolitical analysis, when I examine a major political or economic development, it’s very important that I first look into myself, to feel if I’m blurring my analysis because of deep-felt personal wishes for a peaceful, more harmonious world, blurring the reality of a given nation or groups of nations. Similarly, if I take those malevolent patriarchs who dominate American and NATO policies today, I must be certain I know, not merely the surface of what an American President or Secretary of State might say on a given day. It can be a lie, a slick maneuver or it can be even honest. The work of any serious analyst is to sort out which it is, to go deeper, to “mine” the lode in order to see the real strategic implications.

Such is the case with finding out what is the real Washington policy—the economic and foreign policy today. For example, what is the real meaning and purpose behind the journey of the 92-year-old Henry Kissinger to Moscow to meet Vladimir Putin and others recently? What’s the real purpose of John Kerry when he appears to follow a policy more friendly towards Russia than, say, his Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland or Secretary of Defense Ash Carter? Is it the voice of a significant faction within the foreign policy establishment that genuinely seeks a shift in Washington policy with Moscow from confrontation and war towards detente, diplomacy and a policy of peace and economic cooperation? What’s the real intent of the Roman Pope in wanting to come together with the Orthodox Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, the first such meeting between those two churches–east and west–since the Great Schism of 1054? Is that a positive step towards world peace or is it something ominous?

Washington: confusion or deception?

It’s a widespread notion, fostered by US and European mainstream and other media, even by media in Russia and China that Washington is in confused disarray, a Superpower or hegemon which has lost its bearings. Media analysts write of a policy clash or internal factional battle that renders any US action in destroying DAESH or ISIS in Syria and Iraq a ludicrous, bumbling joke.

From years of looking at US foreign policy, I’ve learned to bring a certain respect in to my assessment. The respect is not at all admiration but an appreciation that, after all, the world’s most powerful Superpower did not come to that position of power without extraordinary skills, cunning, a remarkable ability to lie convincingly, to deceive, to very precisely manipulate the weaknesses of their opponents.

That deception has been the hallmark of American foreign policy for the entire post-1945 period, as towards the Soviet Union of Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989, when Gorbachev trusted his American interlocutors who solemnly promised that the West would never advance NATO to the East. The deception is the hallmark of US economic policies since Bretton Woods in 1944 established the Dollar as supreme, and which destroyed any potential challenge to the domination of the US dollar as reserve currency—the most strategic of the American pillars of power aside from that of the US military.

Some years ago I was told by a former West Point officer that the cadets of West Point who go on to become America’s future colonels, generals and military strategists, are steeped in Sun Tzu as well as in Italian Renaissance diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, which teaches “the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct.”

In international politics, it’s unwise to believe your enemy is stupid. It can be fatal. Mistakes, of course, they continuously make, only to re-program and correct or push on another front in their obsession with world power and control.

More useful is to assume they have a well-thought-through strategy behind a veil of Machiavellian lies and deception, rather than to assume stupidity as our operating premise. So, amid a most incredible array of contradictory indications out of Washington, what’s going on between the actors in the war against Syria and the entire Middle East today, in February 2016?

Using Russia in Syria

If we look at current US policies in the Middle East, especially in Syria and in Iraq, and assume it is a very well-thought-out strategy to reach a specific, well-defined goal, the situation looks very different.

My current conclusion is that under a smokescreen of apparent policy confusion and incompetence on the side of Washington, of the Pentagon, of the State Department and their backers on Wall Street, there is a carefully-planned strategy to ignite a war in the oil-and-gas-rich Middle East that will dramatically alter the political and geopolitical oil map of the world. Yes, another war about oil like so many of the wars of the last century, a Century of War as one of my books calls it.

The Washington-Wall Street think tanks behind the coming change are orchestrating the actions of state actors in the Middle East who, blinded by their own greed or desire for empire, Ottoman or Saudi, see not that they are falling into a fatal trap.

They apparently haven’t studied Sun Tzu, much less, even a thought of such deep themes as knowing themselves and knowing their enemy. They are mostly driven by burning hate, as with Erdogan and his Turkey today–hate for the Syrians, for the Kurds, for the Europeans, even for the Saudis with whom Erdogan claims to be allied. In Erdogan’s Kasbah, everyone has their daggers ready behind their backs.

Washington sets the trap

What can be the true strategy of Washington and their patrons in Wall Street in the present Middle East chaos called the “war to defeat DAESH” or IS?

It’s useful to go back to the end of September, 2015 when Russia surprised not only Washington, but the entire world, with the swiftness and effectiveness of its requested military intervention against DAESH and other terror groups destroying Syria.

It’s clear from the lack of an effective Washington response, and from subsequent Washington actions, that their policy strategists took time to recalculate their original regime change strategy for Syria. What emerges is the clear evidence that they decided to actually use that Russian military intervention to advance their original strategic plan for the region, much like classical martial arts teaches–use your opponent’s force against them. It smacks of Churchill’s strategy of luring Hitler into a Polish invasion in 1939 so Britain could declare war on Germany, but waiting until Germany invaded the Soviet Union before seriously acting, the period of so-called Phony War.

Washington has orchestrated events, including the apparent US-Russian accord around the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 of December 18, 2015 that led to Geneva III “peace” talks. The Geneva III talks were sabotaged from the outset by Washington’s control of the UN “peace” mediators, including US diplomat, now UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Jeffery D. Feltman, and his subordinate, Staffan de Mistura, the Machiavellian United Nations Envoy to Syria and the Arab League. Washington acceded to Saudi demands that the large Syrian Kurdish minority, who are in the firing lines of DAESH in Syria, be excluded, and that Syrian “opposition” be determined by the oil-hungry Saudis.

Now, following the Munich talks of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) on February 12, co-chaired by Kerry and Lavrov, Russia and the USA have on paper agreed that, “cessation of hostilities will commence in one week, after confirmation by the Syrian government and opposition, following appropriate consultations in Syria.” Further, “The members of the ISSG reaffirmed that it is for the Syrian people to decide the future of Syria.”

Now there are two points that I find flashing red. The “cessation of hostilities” means that Russian highly-effective air support to the Syrian National Army and Hezbollah and other pro-Assad forces will stop or be significantly reduced at a critical point. Russian parliamentarians claim cessation will not apply to the areas around Aleppo controlled by DAESH or Al-Nusra Front, but that remains to be seen. In either case it is a trap.

That ceasefire will happen just as Syrian forces, backed by Russia are on the brink of a major victory in Aleppo, breaking the DAESH supply lines to Erdogan’s Turkey, the oatron of DAESH along with the Saudi monarchy. Second, there is no demand that DAESH or Al-Nusra cease “hostilities.” That means Russia has agreed to stop support of Assad but DAESH is no party to the deal, leaving it free to rearm with Turkish and Saudi support. Now the plot thickens and gets very dangerous.

Janus-faced Washington

Washington policy–the policy of the USA military-industrial complex and their Wall Street bankers– has in no way changed. That’s clear. I find no convincing evidence to the contrary. They plan to destroy Syria as a functioning nation, to finish the destruction of Iraq begun in 1991, and to spread that destruction now to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, and across the entire oil and gas-rich Middle East. They are simply using other means to that end given the “game-changing” presence of Russia since September 30.

While State Secretary John Kerry was working the “soft cop” routine with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the run-up to the February 12 Munich talks, on February 10 a Pentagon spokesman falsely accused the Russian military of hitting two hospitals in Aleppo, even though, by prior agreement, it was US aircraft that operated over the city on that day. The US Pentagon spokesman, Colonel Steve Warren, charged that Russian aircraft in Syria were using “dumb” bombs, “indiscriminately scattering those bombs across populated areas regardless of whether those populated areas have women and children, civilians or hospitals,” charges denied by Moscow.

Two days later in Munich, Lavrov, on behalf of Moscow, apparently compromised on its offer to impose a ceasefire in three weeks and instead accepted one week, a potentially devastating setback for the near-victory of the Syrian National Army forces to retake Aleppo and seal the Turkey DAESH supply route. It’s interesting that that decision came only nine days after Henry Kissinger met with Putin in Moscow. We may never know if there was a connection. Then on February 12, Vladimir Dzhabarov, first deputy chairman of the committee for international affairs at the Federation Council, told TASS that the areas still occupied by terrorists such as DAESH and Al-Nusra were not covered by the Munich ceasefire.

The Pentagon is also quietly putting “boots on the ground” in Iraq. War jargon in Washington has become so dehumanized in the era of drone warfare that we no longer speak of the soldiers, merely their “boots.” They are preparing a major military move in Syria whether through Turkish and Saudi proxies or direct, or both, despite the nice sounding words about humanitarian aid and UN supervised Syrian elections in 18 months. At the same time, US military veterans are preparing the propaganda in the US for a ten-year siege before the US could drive the last DAESH terrorist out of the oil-rich Mosul, the heart of north Iraqi oil production.

On January 22 in an interview with CNBC Defense Secretary Ash Carter stated that the US intends to defeat Islamic State’s greatest strongholds: the northern Iraqi city of Mosul and the IS “capital” Raqqa, in Syria.

“We’re looking for opportunities to do more and there will be boots on the ground, and I want to be clear about that. But it’s a strategic question whether you are enabling local forces to take and hold rather than trying to substitute for them,” Carter said. “We’re prepared to do a great deal because we have the finest fighting force the world has ever seen. We can do a lot ourselves,” Carter said.

The US says it has already sent 50 special operations forces to northern Syria to gather intelligence and maintain contacts with local forces. “It is a keyhole through which one gets a lot of insight, and thereby allows us more effectively to bring the huge weight of coalition military power to bear on the battlefield in an effective way,” he stated. A leading Russian Duma parliamentarian, Vladimir Soloyvov, head of the Russian parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee, dismisses Carter’s statements as a Washington publicity move to “steal thunder in fighting terrorism in the Middle East,” a sign that some at least in the Russian policy establishment do not really know their enemy.

A spreading world war

I’m going to make a prediction which you can verify as accurate or, hopefully, not. In about two months I estimate, around late March or April it will be clear. The US Machiavellians have lured not only Turkey’s Erdogan and Saudi Arabia’s Prince Salman, but now Moscow into their trap in the Middle East. The initial losers in this unfolding deadly game will be Saudi, Turkey, Syria, Iraq and likely Russia. The ultimate losers, eventually, will also be the American Patriarchs or oligarchs behind these incessant wars of destruction, but not immediately, short of a miracle.

Look carefully at the little-reported statements in recent days of two key Washington war actors–Joe Biden and John Kerry. On January 24, Vice President Joe Biden, the one who orchestrated the US coup d’ etat in Kiev in February 2014, met with Turkish President and would-be Sultan of a neo-Ottoman imperium, Recep Erdogan. Biden told Erdogan and Prime Minister Davotoglu that Washington wanted Turkey and Iraq to “coordinate” on an emerging US military plan to take back the Iraqi city of Mosul from DAESH or the so-called Islamic State. An Obama Administration official described the Mosul attack as in “hard-core planning” stages, though not imminent.

The unnamed US “senior” official, most likely Biden, stated that the US is also selecting several hundred Sunni Arabs in Syria, as well as some Turks, who Turkey says its government has identified as “potential fighters,” to help the US close the roughly 60 miles of border with Syria that remains under Islamic State control. The source added that Washington is hoping to finalize a package in coming weeks of new technological assistance for Turkey to aid in securing that stretch of border.

Biden also strongly backed Turkey’s fight against the Turkish Kurdish PKK and said that the US would strengthen its military campaign against ISIS if there is no agreement on a political solution in Syria. Joe Biden well knows that Erdogan and Turkish MIT intelligence head, Hakan Fidan fully back DAESH and fully are out to create ethnic cleansing against the Kurds in Turkey, and in Syria. He knows because the CIA worked with Fidan, a US educated Turkish military veteran, at secret Turkish bases over the past two years to train DAESH terrorists in the Washington war against Assad.

If you are beginning to smell a big skunk here, you have a healthy sense of smell.

So now we have Washington and Erdogan bringing undesired US and Turkish troops into Iraq’s Mosul region to prepare a major military operation, with or without the agreement of Iraq’s Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi, who has repeatedly and impotently demanded the Turkish army leave Mosul.

Why Mosul?

You may fairly ask, why Mosul? To paraphrase Bill Clinton in his 1992 famous retort to George H.W. Bush, “It’s the oil, stupid.” The US failed operation dubbed Arab Spring, the failed CIA and Obama Administration backing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and across Middle East oil states, and now their operations with Turkey in Mosul and Syria are all about the oil.

This time, however it isn’t about taking over the rich oilfields of Iraq and Syria. It’s about destroying them. The US-engineered, French-executed destruction of Qaddafi’s Libya is the model. Iraq, as Dick Cheney’s 2001 Energy Policy Task Force discovered, holds the world’s third largest proven conventional oil reserves, on a par with Iran, with Saudi reserves the largest. The area around Mosul and the Kurd-controlled Kirkuk fields nearby are the current focus of the US military strategy. In Syria, DAESH terrorists control most all Syrian oilfields, where they illegally export with aid of Erdogan’s family to world markets to finance their terror campaign against Assad’s regime.

An ominous wire report sent a shiver down my spine when I read it. On January 28, US Army Lieutenant General Sean MacFarland, head of the US-led coalition against Daesh (ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, said that the US military was on site at the Mosul Dam to assess “the potential” for the collapse. Were it to be blown up, it would send a flood of water down the heavily populated Tigris river valley. “The likelihood of the dam collapsing is something we are trying to determine right now… all we know is when it goes, it’s going to go fast and that’s bad,” MacFarland told reporters in Baghdad. The US State Department estimates up to 500,000 people could be killed and over one million rendered homeless should Iraq’s biggest dam collapse.

It would likely flood the large oilfields of Kirkuk on its path, rendering them inoperable. Whoever controls the Mosul Dam, the largest in Iraq, controls most of the country’s water and power resource. The dam holds back over 12 billion cubic meters of water that is crucial for irrigation in the farming areas of Iraq’s western Nineveh province. In a 2007 letter, US General David Petraeus, a key figure in the destruction of Iraq and in the creation of what became DAESH, warned Iraq’s government that “A catastrophic failure of Mosul Dam would result in flooding along the Tigris River all the way to Baghdad.”

Washington Proxy War Builds

Combine this statement by General MacFarland, head of the US-led coalition against Daesh (ISIL) in Iraq and Syria on that Mosul Dam, the Biden talks to get Turkey’s military invasion accepted by Iraq “in the war against DAESH” and the encouragement by State Secretary John Kerry of Prince Salman’s Saudi war against Yemen, as well as the recent Davos statements by Ash Carter. Add to that the fact that the Saudi and Turkish militaries just announced plans undertake joint military actions to “cooperate against common threats.”

On February 13, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu confirmed a joint Turkish-Saudi joint attack plan for invading Syria, telling press, “If we have such a strategy, then Turkey and Saudi Arabia may launch a ground operation.” xvi

Now add to that the fact that Turkish military began shelling a Syrian airbase and village recently retaken by Syrian Kurds, with the argument that the Kurds of Syria were “terrorists” like the Turkish PKK Kurds. Turkish Prime Minister Davutoglu confirmed the cross-border mortar shelling into Syria territory on February 13: “We will retaliate against every step (by the YPG),” he told state broadcaster TRT Haber. “The YPG will immediately withdraw from Azaz and the surrounding area and will not go close to itagain.”

Now add the fact that this week Washington repeated that it does not regard the Syrian Kurds as terrorists and that the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) have just opened its first foreign representative office in Moscow and we begin to see the outlines of Washington’s strategy of steering heated-up and hated-up Turkey and Saudi Arabia to trigger Washington’s surrogate war, a war where Turkey, a NATO member, Saudi and the Gulf Arab oil states, find themselves in a direct military confrontation with Russia in Aleppo province of Syria. The Turkish shelling at present is clearly a testing of the waters of a war with Russia to see how, in the wake of their ceasefire agreement, they will react. Will Russia retaliate by hitting Turkish military targets, in a NATO country?

Combine all that with the quiet but strategic Pentagon deployments inside Syria and Iraq with “boots on the ground,” and we have the combination for an explosion across the oilfields of the entire Middle East that would rock the world. Truly, as the old Greek saying goes, whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

I can imagine a disgusted world turning on those American Patriarchs and their proxy partners in war, telling them, to use the words of the great Freddy Mercury song, the one about rocking certain people.

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on Washington’s Machiavellian Game in Syria

Cold War Redux. Dishing it to the Russkies. “The US Government is Staffed by Lunatics”

NOVANEWS
US to Quadruple Military Spending in Europe
Global Research
Russian-tank-600x387

One of the most astonishing news stories I have read of late appeared in Business Insider at the beginning of February entitled “ ‘ The Russians are going to have a cow’: the U.S.’s message to Putin ‘is a really big deal.’” The article described how the Barack Obama Administration has decided to build up “its military presence in Eastern Europe in an effort to deter Russian aggression in the region.” The “cow” and “big deal” verbal effusions were attributed to Evelyn Farkas, who, until recently was the Pentagon’s “top policy official on Russia and Ukraine.” Farkas, for what it’s worth, is of Hungarian descent and has made a career out of being suspicious of Russia. She has the usual credentials in academia so admired by the Obamaites and has served in host of government bubbles but never been in the military. As is all too often the case she and her peers will not be wearing the boots on the ground if the United States goes to war over giving Moscow a “cow.”

According to the article, the U.S. will quadruple its military spending in Europe up to $3.4 billion for fiscal year 2017. The extra money will provide heavy weapons and armored vehicles, including tanks, to America’s Eastern European associates in NATO and also to non-allies including Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Unlike previous assistance to Ukraine, the new weapons are both lethal and capable of being used offensively. The United States has also committed itself to bolstering its own presence in former Warsaw Pact states to include Poland, Hungary, and the Baltic Republics through an increase in bi- and multi- lateral training exercises in those countries. American soldiers will be eye-to-eye with those of Russia in a confrontation not seen since the Cold War ended.

The article cites Tony Badran of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), who claims that “Russia is of course trying to leverage the entire intervention [in Syria] as a way to lap up as much real estate in the Middle East as possible.” The FDD is, of course, a neocon outfit, which is not noted in the article, and the implausible suggestion that Moscow wants to obtain “real estate” in the Middle East which would be an enormous burden and liability is given a pass without even the slightest editorial objection or contrary comment.

The article also quotes an anonymous senior administration official who explains that the more aggressive approach “reflects a new situation, where Russia has become a more difficult actor,” referring again to Syria and also to Ukraine. Well, maybe so if one reads the New York Post or watches a steady diet of Fox news it would be possible to come to that conclusion, but there are other issues at play, including genuine western threats on Russia’s own doorstep combined with the inability of a financial stretched Russia to engage in imperial ventures anywhere.

Moscow is in Syria because the rise of a new Islamic militancy close to its own heavily Muslim federate states in the Caucasus is a definite threat. It did not initiate the crisis in that region which was instead the fault of Washington due to its ill-advised 2003 invasion of Iraq, creating a power vacuum and empowering terrorist groups seeking to take advantage of the chaos.

Nor did Moscow initiate the political crisis in Ukraine, which was also enabled by the United States. Russia admittedly subsequently annexed Crimea, which is a vital strategic interest as it includes Moscow’s major warm water naval base, but it can hardly be seen as a move motivated by desire to be expansionistic. Crimea was, in fact, Russian territory for over two hundred years before it was administratively ceded to Ukraine by the old Soviet Union in 1954 so it is not as if there was no legitimate claim to the area when Ukraine turned hostile to Moscow egged on by the State Department’s Victoria Nuland and others.

Moscow is guilty of not playing by America’s rules. As former senior CIA officer Graham Fuller puts it

…today, although neocons in Washington will disagree, it is hard to build a credible case that Russia—under Putin or any likely leader—is gearing up to invade Eastern much less Western Europe. But yes, Russia is determined to maintain regional sway—as other great powers do in their backyards, especially when distant powers intrude.”

Simplistic analysis that leads to a preordained conclusion contrary to what Fuller has cogently observed is expected in the mainstream media but the foreign policy consensus promoted by Washington is striking in terms of its internal contradictions. Indeed, if anyone at this late date really needed any evidence that the United States government is staffed by lunatics this article about delivering cows should have been enough to change the mind of even the most stalwart advocate of the progressive nirvana launched by the pledge of “Change We Can Believe In.”

Frequenters of this site are no doubt already aware that when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the western powers, most notably the United States, pledged not to take advantage of the situation by initiating a military expansion into Eastern Europe, which Russia would have to correctly perceive as threatening given its own vulnerability at that time. The dauntless globalist Bill Clinton broke that promise, enabling the 1999 accession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic followed by the addition of seven Central and Eastern European countries: Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Estonia and Slovenia in 2004. Russia protested but did otherwise not react.

In 2008, Georgia, bolstered by pledges of support from neocons in the U.S. as well as from demented Senators like John McCain, fought Russian troops over two disputed enclaves South Ossetia and Abkhazia. McCain was led to declare that “We are all Georgians now” but a cease fire was quickly arranged by France and Russia withdrew its soldiers. Fortunately, most Americans did not see that fighting Russia over Georgia was much of a priority and the U.S. avoided another foreign policy disaster, but more was to come in Ukraine starting in late 2013.

Ukraine was deliberately destabilized by Washington by way of the infusion of $5 billion supporting “democracy building.” Again the cry went up that “we are all Ukrainians.” The second time around worked out better for the hawks and the Ukrainian cause has been surfacing in the presidential debates. Hopefully it will eventually go the way of the manufactured Georgian crisis.

It might also be noted that it is just possible that Washington is seeking to repeat its destruction of the Soviet Union by outspending Moscow in hopes that President Vladimir Putin will seek to compete and bankrupt his country. If that is so, the crafty Putin is unlikely to take the bait and it is more than likely that the net result will be the U.S. going even deeper in debt for no purpose whatsoever, reminiscent of any number of foreign policy failures over the past fifteen years. And meanwhile the wealthy European countries will breathe a sigh of relief as Washington again rides to the rescue in defending the continent from the Red Menace.

What Farkas and company fail to see is that the United States might well have some outstanding issues with Vladimir Putin’s Russia but Moscow does not pose a threat to the U.S. On the contrary, it is Washington that poses a threat to Russia and any number of other countries through its presumption that it has a right to intervene in the affairs of other nations whenever it is so inclined. Moscow is neither able nor disposed towards become an enemy unless it is backed into a corner and something goes nuclear. That would, incidentally, destroy the United States so where is the frisson of excitement in Russia being presented with a “cow?” Beats me.

Posted in USA, Europe, RussiaComments Off on Cold War Redux. Dishing it to the Russkies. “The US Government is Staffed by Lunatics”


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

February 2016
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
29