Archive | October 1st, 2016

President Assad Of Syria Is Not An Evil Dictator Killing His People: The US Lied about It

What do evil dictators  look like?  What do they talk like?  Just how wicked is an evil dictator’s wife ?  Should she be toppled along with her husband?  Who am I talking about? President Assad of Syria and his wife, Asmas Al Assad.

These are the same ones boy Rubio, McCain, Lyndsay Graham, Ryan, the Bush’s, Obama, Kerry and Hillary all want to topple down to bring peace to Syria. That is THE LIE  they are and have been shouting.  What they really want to do is take over Syria in order to hurry along their New World Order agenda.  The media whores push the establishment narrative that president Assad of Syria is evil and a corrupt dictator. They fear that when you realize who these people really are, you will be sorry you ever believed any lies told about them, let alone what they have conspired to do against them and all the citizens of Syria.


The real truth is – President  Assad and his wife Asmas Al Assad, care about their people. Syria has been invaded with Islamic radicals that have terrorized their nation. We should be helping Assad, not the radical rebels who have infiltrated in the same manner the US manufactured ISIS has infiltrated throughout the entire region.  President Assad is fighting terrorists.

Meanwhile before Obama’s push to topple Assad and take over Syria, the media wrote wonderful stories about President Assad and his wife Asmas.  Vogue magazine issued a wonderful story calling Asmas the “Rose of The Desert”.  After Obama’s regime targeted Syria, the media buried any good stories and began a cut throat propaganda campaign to match their new narrative of Assad as an evil dictator.  (You know the drill).  They have taken great lengths to rewrite wonderful stories where they once called Asmas Al Assad wonderful things and were amazed at the good will being done by Asmas to people of all faiths. Now they want you to believe that she was faking her lifetime of caring and sided with her so-called evil husband dictator.

The establishment media, in support of Obama’s regime have pushed a propaganda arsenal of civil war crisis and chaos, meanwhile they hired moderate Muslims, trained them and sent them in to fight a sovereign nation.


It is a shame what is taking place there.  And a bigger shame to know that Benghazi was a gun running operation to send guns to Syrian rebels also known as ISIS. It is an evil thing they have done and are doing. Hillary believes they need taken out yesterday.  Hillary has  shamed  Congress for not allowing them to go in and bomb them where it hurts.

Does anyone recall when Rubio  at a primary debate, stated- he only voted NOT to bomb Syria because Obama said he was just going to give them a “Pin Prick”?  Rubio stood there so pompous and proudly said, “If you aren’t going to go to war and do the job then don’t go to war at all.”

It is  out in the open (and has been for some time) how Obama,  McCain, Kerry, Hillary et al were all blood thirsty and busy doing underhanded deals to recruit and train their so-called moderate Muslims to topple Syria the same as they did Libya.


The fact is, Assad is an elected President and Syria has been under an ongoing  terrorist attack; sadly with U.S. support.

I say, Praise the Lord that evil men and women who have usurped our government did not get their way.  If anything, we need to send troops to stand with Assad.



The media is full of ways to tear a person, an event, or a nation down in order to serve the purpose of the establishment in order to make the world operate and think the way they want them to.  Many do this to keep their high paying jobs, and some are in agreement with the global elite concepts.  We have all watched how the faux media does this.  It is time for all to see what has and is really taking place. The truth is Syrians are  greatful to Russia and its’ President Putin for helping to save their nation and support their President Assad!   The Obama regime has committed an act of war and should be held accountable.

Please watch the videos below and click on the links to see who they really are.




Posted in SyriaComments Off on President Assad Of Syria Is Not An Evil Dictator Killing His People: The US Lied about It

Nearly 100 Children Were Killed in Aleppo Since Friday


Image result for AL NUSRA CARTOON

As the result of the most intense battles in the nearly six-year Syrian conflict, “at least 96 children have been killed and 223 have been injured in eastern Aleppo since Friday,” according to a statement from UNICEF.

Since the start of the week, Syrian planes and Russian jets allegedly have dropped more than 1,700 bombs on the eastern half of Aleppo, which is controlled by rebel forces, reports The Guardian. As airstrikes intensified this week, a senior Iranian general, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, told The Guardian ground forces he commands gathered and supplied information to the Russian air force with the locations of their targets. According to Reuters, the governments of Russia and Syria claim they are only targeting rebel forces.

But the high civilian death toll tells a different story

“The children of Aleppo are trapped in a living nightmare,” said UNICEF Deputy Executive Director Justin Forsyth in a statement. “There are no words left to describe the suffering they are experiencing.”

UNICEF describes the remaining health care system in eastern Aleppo, as “crumbling,” with roughly 30 doctors left, barely any equipment or emergency medicine, and a rising number of trauma cases. Additionally, “a doctor on the ground told UNICEF that children with low chances of survival are too often left to die due to limited capacity and supplies.”

Forsyth noted, “Nothing can justify such assaults on children and such total disregard for human life. The suffering – and the shock among children – is definitely the worst we have seen.”

America has seen the conflict’s effect on children through shocking images, most notably of Omran Daqneesh and Alan Kurdi.

The death toll of children is part of a larger number of civilian casualties, which humanitarian groups are condemning, along with other human rights violations.

“Obviously, the humanitarian situation inside east Aleppo is going from bad to worse,” David Swanson, spokesman for the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, told ABC News. “The situation even before this recent upsurge in violence was dire with many people lacking access to food, health, shelter and water. Between 250,000 and 275,000 people are now living without proper access to running drinking water. Right now, 20 trucks are standby and ready to enter as soon as the latest round of violence improves.”

EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini has also called the air bombardment in Aleppo, a “massacre” and stated European governments were considering their response, reports Reuters. As for how Washington will respond, U.S. officials told Reuters “they are considering tougher responses to the Russian-backed Syrian government assault, including military options, although they have described the range of possible responses as limited and say risky measures like air strikes on Syrian targets or sending U.S. jets to escort aid are unlikely.”

In 2011, the Syrian civil war began when President Bashar Al-Assad violently used force to crush dissent among hundreds of thousands of pro-democracy protesters who took to the streets to demonstrate against civil rights abuses. Since then, violence escalated, sectarian conflict emerged, and rebel brigades were formed to fight government forces, with the governments of Syria, Russia, and the United States all launching air strikes on various rebel forces on the ground, resulting in the death and displacement of thousands of civilians in the process.

Eastern Aleppo, which was captured by rebel groups in cooperation with Al-Qaida forces now referring to themselves as Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham, is one of the key flashpoints in the Syrian conflict. Beyond Aleppo’s status as Syria’s largest city and a financial capital, the eastern half of the city also represents the largest victory of the entire conflict for rebel groups. As such, recapturing eastern Aleppo remains a focus of the Assad regime.

The death toll from the war in Syria is at least 470,000, according to a report released in February.

In addition to airstrikes by the governments of Syria and Russia, the U.S. has conducted 5,068 airstrikes in Syria since a U.S.-led campaign against ISIS began in 2014, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. The monitoring group Airwars reports that U.S. airstrikes have resulted in the deaths of at least 850 civilians in Syria since they began bombing.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Nearly 100 Children Were Killed in Aleppo Since Friday

The Ultimate Barack Obama Exit Interview

JPEG - 46.1 kb

His presidency is winding down. A contentious election—fought largely over his rec­ord and legacy—is about to be decided. With that in mind, Barack Obama recently invited the presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin to the White House for a long, personal, open-ended conversation. The meeting, arranged by Vanity Fair, took place in the president’s private dining room, just off the Oval Office.

Doris Kearns Goodwin is no stranger to these precincts. She has been in and out of the West Wing ever since 1967, when, as a 24-year-old White House Fellow, she worked closely with Lyndon Johnson during the last year of his presidency (and then afterward as he wrote his memoirs). She has earned a raft of literary prizes, including a Pulitzer, for books about J.F.K., L.B.J., Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and, most notably, Abraham Lincoln—the subject of her landmark history, Team of Rivals, whose title gave America’s political language a new and permanent catchphrase. (Steven Spielberg would use Goodwin’s book as the basis for his film Lincoln, and when Daniel Day-Lewis won the 2012 best-actor Oscar for his portrayal of the president, he entered the Vanity Fair after-party with the author in tow.)

Goodwin likes to tell the story of the day in the spring of 2007, when a young Illinois senator phoned her, out of the blue, requesting that they meet because he’d just finished reading Team of Rivals. That call would begin a friendship. Since taking office, Obama has occasionally invited Goodwin, along with a small cohort of presidential historians, to come to the White House to discuss past presidents, their legacies—and his. And over the years she has had the president’s ear and provided historical context and, on occasion, counsel.

In their conversation, the president and Goodwin exhibit an easy camaraderie, sometimes completing each other’s sentences. They touch on everything from comedy Web sites to bodysurfing in Hawaii. But the central focus is on history, and on enduring questions. What is presidential temperament? How does a leader maintain perspective? When does the job of president feel the heaviest? What is good and bad about ambition?

Obama and Goodwin spent more than an hour over coffee, water, and scones (“I won’t be eating those,” said the president), followed by a brief chat in the Oval Office. Obama, in shirtsleeves, sat in a straight-backed chair, his long frame relaxed, legs crossed, as he responded or parried—always thoughtfully, sometimes intensely. V.F.’s Annie Leibovitz photographed at the start of the session and then re-entered, periodically, but mainly let them be.

The walls of the private dining room and the hallway nearby are lined with telling mementos: images of Martin Luther King Jr.; a photo of the president with Nelson Mandela; and a Life-magazine cover showing the 1965 march on Selma, signed by civil-rights leader John Lewis (who, inside the House chamber the next morning, would lead a sit-in against gun violence). Tables in the room hold framed family photos, a bust of J.F.K., and a pair of Muhammad Ali’s boxing gloves.

Looming over everything is The Peacemakers, an oil painting of Lincoln and his war council. And in its way the picture, by George P. A. Healy, with its none-too-subtle rainbow shining above Lincoln’s shoulder, seemed to visually reinforce the discussion at hand. Obama, for his part, noted at one point that even in the nation’s darkest moments he gains strength—and perspective—by tapping into an abiding sense of optimism. It is a heartening notion in an era of blaring headlines, instant analysis, and perishable sound bites.

The conversation between Obama and Goodwin, above all else, is a conversation between two writers, each steeped in history.

GOODWIN: Preparing for this conversation to­day, I realized that it was nine years ago that you first called me on my cell phone: “Hello, this is Barack Obama. I’ve just read Team of Rivals and we have to talk about Lincoln.” Soon afterward, I came to see you in your Senate office. So what was it about him? What made you give your announcement speech in the shadow of the Old State Capitol? What spoke to you about Lincoln to make you say, “I love this guy”?

OBAMA: Well, look, I’m from Illinois, and I spent eight years down in Springfield. So the location and the announcement, to some degree, made sense optically. My particular passion for Lincoln, though, dates back from my earliest memories of politics. And we’ve talked about this before—that there’s no one who I believe has ever captured the soul of America more profoundly than Abraham Lincoln has.

Not just his biography, of somebody who genuinely rose from nothing, self-taught, striking out along the borders of our Great Frontier. Somebody who worked with his hands and then worked with his mind, and somehow became one of the greatest writers in the English language. And I think, most importantly, somebody who was able to see humanity clearly, see the fundamental contradictions of the American experiment clearly, and yet still remain hopeful and still remain full of humor, and still have a basic sympathy for the human condition, even in the midst of a terrible war and having to make terrible decisions. And having a forgiving spirit.

I mean, I could go on and on for hours about Lincoln. For me, Lincoln is like just a handful of people—a Gandhi, or a Picasso, or a Martin Luther King Jr.—who is an original and captures something essential.

GOODWIN: When Lincoln was 23 years old, and running for office the first time, he said, “Every man is said to have his peculiar ambition. I have no other so great as that of being truly esteemed of my fellow men, by rendering myself worthy of their esteem.” And then, a decade later, when he was in the midst of a depression so severe that his friends took all the knives, razors, and other dangerous things from his room, he said he was more than willing to die but that he had “done nothing to make any human being remember that he had lived.” Isn’t that incredible? So how would you describe your “peculiar ambition” that every man has? And when did it develop?

OBAMA: It’s always dangerous to amend the words of Abraham Lincoln, but let me see if this is a friendly amendment. I actually think, when you’re young, ambitions are somewhat common—you want to prove yourself. It may grow out of different life experiences. You may want to prove that you are worthy of the admiration of the demanding father. You may want to prove that you are worthy of the love of an absent father. You may want to prove that you’re worthy of other kids or neighbors who were wealthier than you and teased you. You may want to prove that you’re worthy of high expectations. But I do think that there is a youthful ambition that very much has to do with making your mark in the world. And I think that cuts across the experiences of a lot of people who end up achieving something significant in their field. I think, as you get older, that’s when your ambitions become “peculiar” …

GOODWIN: Oh, well said, sir. We can amend Lincoln.

OBAMA: … because I think that at a certain stage those early ambitions burn away, partly because you achieve something, you get something done, you get some notoriety. And then the particularities of who you are and what your deepest commitments are begin expressing themselves. You’re not just chasing the idea of “me” being important, but you, rather, are chasing a particular passion.

So, in my case, you could analyze me and say that my father leaving and being absent was a motivator for early ambition, trying to prove myself to this apparition who had vanished. You could argue that me being a mixed kid in a place where there weren’t a lot of black kids around might have spurred on my ambitions. You could go through a whole litany of things that sparked me wanting to do something important.

But as I got older, then my particular ambitions started cohering around creating a world in which people of different races or backgrounds or faiths can recognize each other’s humanity, or creating a world in which every kid, regardless of their background, can strive and achieve and fulfill their potential.

And those particular ambitions end up being rooted not just in me wanting to prove myself, but they end up being rooted in a particular worldview, a recognition that the world only makes sense to me given my life and my background if, in fact, we’re not just an assortment of tribes that can never understand each other, but that we’re, rather, one common humanity that can meet and learn and love each other.

GOODWIN: And at some point politics becomes the channel for that, right?

OBAMA: Right.

GOODWIN: For example, young F.D.R. seemed a pretty ordinary guy. At 28 he’s a clerk in a law firm. He hasn’t done anything particularly great in college or law school. He gets his first chance to run for the state legislature, and somehow, when he’s out there on the campaign trail, something clicks in. William James said, “At such moments, there is a voice inside which speaks and says, ‘This is the real me.’ ” And F.D.R. knew then that’s what he wanted to be.

OBAMA: I think F.D.R. is a great example of what I mean. If you look at his early life, it is ambition for ambition’s sake …

GOODWIN: Absolutely.

OBAMA: It’s like he’s just checking off boxes. There’s no sense of what he wants to do with power; he wants power. There’s no clarity about where he wants to take his notoriety; he just wants to be famous. And there’s a hunger there, right?

GOODWIN: And that’s partly because of Teddy Roosevelt …

OBAMA: Absolutely.

GOODWIN: Because Teddy—his distant cousin and Eleanor Roosevelt’s uncle—did this, so I’m going to be this at 25, I’m going to be this at 30; I’m going to be president. He says this at 28, but he doesn’t have that inner …

OBAMA: And some of it is his mom, right? Who’s just been telling him from day one …

GOODWIN: “You’re the best. You’re the center of the world.”

OBAMA: “You’re the center of the world” and all that. So there are all these things going on. And then he gets polio. And then suddenly there’s this intersection between a personal crisis and what is beginning to happen in the country. And that thing in him that was great but untapped suddenly is released in a way that reflects compassion …

GOODWIN: And empathy.

OBAMA: … and empathy. And the innate optimism that early on might have been cockiness now is leavened with tragedy in a way that makes that optimism that much more profound, right?

GOODWIN: There’s no question. Adversity in almost all the presidents I’ve studied changes them. For Teddy Roosevelt, in 1884, losing his wife and his mother on the same day, in the same house. He goes to the Badlands, and he’s suddenly out among people. Both he and F.D.R. had to move beyond their privileged class. Polio and his time at Warm Springs, Georgia [rehab facility], allowed F.D.R. to do that. And then they created a different sense of themselves, connected to other people—partly what you’re talking about—wanting to make other people’s lives better. Fate had dealt them an unkind hand, like it does to many, and they suddenly felt more deeply toward a wider range of people.

OBAMA: Exactly. And so I think there’s a process you go through. I found during the course of my political career on the national scene—which is relatively compressed compared to some of these other presidents—there’s a point where the vanity burns away and you’ve had your fill of your name in the papers, or big adoring crowds, or the exercise of power. And for me that happened fairly quickly. And then you are really focused on: What am I going to get done with this strange privilege that’s been granted to me? How do I make myself worthy of it?

And if you don’t go through that, then you start getting into trouble, because then you’re just [gesturing, as if climbing a ladder] clinging to prerogatives and the power and the attention. There’s an expression that my daughters use: You get thirsty.

GOODWIN: And the thirst is unquenchable.

OBAMA: And the thirst is unquenchable. And that’s what you see, I think, sometimes with somebody like a Nixon—a brilliant person who, early on, had ambitions that probably were not that different from an F.D.R., certainly not that different from an L.B.J. But that thirst overwhelms everything, and you start making decisions based solely on that.

GOODWIN: So that brings us to the question of temperament, which is probably the greatest separator in presidential leadership. There’s that quote when [retired Supreme Court justice] Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who met with F.D.R. after his inauguration, famously said Roosevelt had “a second-class intellect but a first-class temperament.” How would you describe your temperament and why it’s fit for this office if, in fact, you think it is?

OBAMA: Well, whether it’s fit for this office or not is up to historians like you to determine. I think it’s fair to say that my temperament is [pause, seemingly in search of the right word] steady—and on the buoyant side.

GOODWIN: Do you think of yourself as an extrovert?

OBAMA: No. On the spectrum of successful politicians, I’m not introverted the way some have been, but I’m not an F.D.R. or a Bill Clinton, who are just constantly …

GOODWIN: Needing the people all the time.

OBAMA: … in a crowd and just relishing it. I like my quiet time. There is a writer’s sensibility in me sometimes, where I step back. But I do think that I am generally optimistic. I see tragedy and comedy and pain and irony and all that stuff. But in the end I think life is fascinating, and I think people are more good than bad, and I think that the possibilities of prog­ress are real.

GOODWIN: I think people are born with that spirit. My father was orphaned when he was 10. My mother died when I was young. But despite these sorrows my father remained an optimist. And that optimism was the greatest gift he gave to me—a sense of excitement about life that has carried me through everything.

OBAMA: Yes . . . . I think it’s up to the American people and historians, et cetera, to decide. But I can tell you what I think served me well in this office, and that is this basic optimism and a capacity to take the long view on things. I don’t buy the hype when everybody is saying how wonderful things are and how great I am, and I don’t get too down when people say, “This is a disaster and he’s done for.”

I think I’ve said this before. Early in my presidency, I went to Cairo to make a speech to the Muslim world. And in the afternoon, after the speech, we took helicopters out to the pyramids. And they had emptied the pyramids for us, and we could just wander around for a couple hours [at] the pyramids and the Sphinx. And the pyramids are one of those things that live up to the hype. They’re elemental in ways that are hard to describe. And you’re going to these tombs and looking at the hieroglyphics and imagining the civilization that built these iconic images.

And I still remember it—because I hadn’t been president that long at that point—thinking to myself, There were a lot of people during the period when these pyramids were built who thought they were really important. And there was the equivalent of cable news and television and newspapers and Twitter and people anguishing over their relative popularity or position at any given time. And now it’s all just covered in dust and sand. And all that people know [today] are the pyramids.

Sometimes I carry with me that perspective, which tells me that my particular worries on any given day—how I’m doing in the polls or what somebody is saying about me … for good or for ill—isn’t particularly relevant. What is relevant is: What am I building that lasts?

And here in the United States, hopefully, what we’re building are not just pyramids, are not icons to one pharaoh. What we’re building is a culture and a way of living together that we can look back on and say, [This] was good, was inclusive, was kind, was innovative, was able to fulfill the dreams of as many people as possible. And that part of my temperament I think has served me well.

GOODWIN: So when you think about the importance of that part of temperament in a president, how do you view what’s happening with [Donald] Trump right now?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I see Trump as a phenomenon of an expression of certain fears, certain resentments, that have been a running thread in American history.

GOODWIN: Yes, not unlike the turn of the 20th century, when so many of those same anxieties and fears had developed in the wake of the Industrial Revolution—immigration, technological change, people moving from farms to cities.

OBAMA: Right. And so there are always going to be figures who become symbols and expressions of those fears and resentments. So he’s not unique in that sense. I don’t think it’s a surprise for me to say that I don’t think his temperament is suited for this office. But it’s not something that I have to emphasize because I think the majority of the American people have figured that out.

GOODWIN: And the people are looking at his opponent, Hillary Clinton, as well. I’m reminded of another moment that had to do with Team of Rivals—and you. You were in Boca Raton late in May of 2008, and somebody asked you if you’d really be willing to put into your inner circle one of your chief rivals, even if his or her spouse were an occasional pain in the butt. [Laughter.] And then you referred to Lincoln. You said, “I don’t want to jump the gun, [but] I will tell you, though, that my goal is to have the best possible government.” And you explained: “Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his Cabinet because, whatever personal feelings there were, the issue was ‘How can we get this country through this time of crisis?’ ” And then when you chose Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state, of course, “team of rivals” emerged as a term to characterize her selection.

It came full circle when I was at the Vernon Jordan party the night before your inauguration. Hillary came up to me and said, in a teasing way, “Doris, this is all your fault. You’re responsible for my being secretary of state.” [Laughter.] She meant Lincoln, of course, not me. But obviously your successor matters a great deal to you, as does the importance of carrying out the things that you care about. It’s like a relay race, as you’ve said, so the next person will take over. And that’s an important part of what you need to think about now.

OBAMA: Absolutely. I am a firm believer that you don’t do anything significant by yourself. Again, maybe there are exceptions. There’s the Picasso or the Mozart.

GOODWIN: Yes, Teddy Roosevelt wrote that there are certain geniuses, of which he was not one. But Lincoln was one. Keats could write a poem that nobody else could write.

OBAMA: I don’t fall in that category. I marvel at those people who are true geniuses of that sort. But what I’ve seen in my own life is that when I get something important done it’s because of a lot of other people—some who get credit, some who don’t.

You look at something like health care, the Affordable Care Act. And for all the controversy, we now have 20 million people who have health insurance who didn’t have it. It’s actually proven to be more effective, cheaper than even advocates like me expected. But I still view it as a starter home, in the same way that when L.B.J. started Medicare and Medicaid, or F.D.R. started Social Security, there were a series of refinements and incremental improvements that overall made the system more sturdy.

GOODWIN: L.B.J. used to say about his domestic anti-poverty programs that made up the Great Society that it was a process, from crawling to walking to running.

OBAMA: I think about this being a relay race in that way. I welcome the next president saying, “This is a good start. Here are some additional things we shouldn’t or should be doing. Here are the things that we’ve learned from the first phases of this that could stand improvement.” That’s a good thing. To me that’s not a failure on my part. That’s not a criticism of me. That’s the nature of how social change comes about.

So in that sense I don’t see myself doing this alone. But in a more granular way I think about all the people who were involved in getting that thing passed. There were staff people here, whose names nobody knows, who worked tirelessly to make this happen.

GOODWIN: They know, they know.

OBAMA: Legislative folks, who were up on the Hill till four in the morning trying to get a particular provision done. Teams here who were crunching the numbers to figure out how we could pay for it. Members of Congress who voted for this thing knowing that the politics were really tough for them, and that they might lose their race[s].

There were just a lot of people who ended up making enormous sacrifices—and I’m the front man of the band. But it doesn’t work without them. And that’s why I was always amused that people were either skeptical or surprised that I would choose a Hillary Clinton as a secretary of state. To my mind, having somebody smart, tough, capable with her own stature, who could travel around the world and command the stage, was a huge asset. What I also knew—partly by virtue of her having served as First Lady, and partly just because I knew her and had observed her—was [that] her dedication to the country would lead her to operate with great loyalty regardless of …

GOODWIN: Her own ambitions.

OBAMA: … whatever ambitions she may have had or lingering aggravations that carried over from the campaign.

GOODWIN: I detected a note of wistfulness in the speech you gave at Springfield last February. You talked about what it was like in the legislature there when you could cross party lines and share drinks and play poker, making it harder to call your opponents fascists or idiots. It makes me want to ask: Did you absorb, back in 2010, the full impact of what Senate minority leader Mitch Mc­Connell meant when he said that his party’s “most important” objective would be to make you a “one-term president”? Did you realize how polarized it was going to become?

OBAMA: No. I would say that’s one of the things that surprised me, mainly because we were in the midst of [an economic] crisis. And I was politically aware during the Clinton presidency, so I’d watch the ways in which slash-and-burn politics had come to be the norm nationally—some of the things that [former House Speaker] Newt Gingrich had unleashed with his revolution. But that was during a period of relative quiet and prosperity.

GOODWIN: Right. So there was more freedom to play around.

OBAMA: And so that kind of reality-TV game playing you could forgive. I expected when we were undergoing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression that there would be at least a span of time on the front end in which people would rally. And the fact that that was missing probably showed my naïveté. I didn’t anticipate that fully. But I got educated pretty quick on it.

And I do think that there has been a degree of venom and viciousness and anger that has been unleashed in our national politics that is qualitatively different in at least our modern history.

GOODWIN: And why do you think it happened?

OBAMA: It’s a combination of things. We’ve talked about these things before. Political gerrymandering makes the incentive for most members of Congress to play to the extremes of their base rather than to the center. The Balkanization of the media means that nobody is having a single conversation with a single set of agreed-upon facts and assumptions the way you had as recently as the 90s. The influence of not just big money, but dark money. The collapse of party structures. The fact that most legislators now, most members of Congress, don’t live here but travel back and forth. Yeah, all these things have contributed.

GOODWIN: So when you get upset with this lack of discourse, what do you do? When F.D.R. was very upset about isolationists, when he knew we had to deal with World War II, he would actually write drafts of speeches where he would call them out by name.

OBAMA: Yes. [Laughter.]

GOODWIN: And then he would do Draft Two, Draft Three, Draft Four, and one of his young speechwriters said, “Oh, my God, you can’t say this.” And then by Draft Six, the offending phrase was gone. Lincoln, as you know, wrote hot letters to people. And then he’d cool down and didn’t send them. Have you ever written any drafts of speeches or hot letters?

OBAMA: I do it all the time.

GOODWIN: What do you mean you do it all the time?

OBAMA: I do it all the time. I will write a response—a full rant.

GOODWIN: No kidding? [Laughter.]

OBAMA: And then I’ll crumple it up. Every once in a while, my team here will hear me go on a rant. Generally speaking, people who know me will tell you that my public persona is not that different from my private persona. I am who I am. You sort of get what you see with me. The two exceptions are that I curse more than I should, and I find myself cursing more in this office than I had in my previous life. [Laughter.] And fortunately both my chief of staff and my national-security adviser have even bigger potty mouths than me, so it’s O.K. And the second thing is that I can be much more sarcastic and, I think, sometimes withering in my assessments of things than I allow to show in my public life.

GOODWIN: Well, we see it sometimes. [Laughter.]

OBAMA: Yes, every once in a while you see it.

GOODWIN: You’ve said you’d rather be alive now than any other time. But do you ever wish you had been president in another era? Suppose you’d been around in Lincoln’s time, when your written word would be pamphletized, when everybody would be reading the entire speech and they’d be talking to each other about it. And Teddy Roosevelt was right for the era when punchy language worked. F.D.R. was perfect for conversational style on radio, J.F.K. and Reagan for the big TV networks. And you’re governing in the age of the Internet, with its divergent voices and sound bites.

OBAMA: It’s an interesting question. As I said earlier, there is a big part of me that has a writer’s sensibility. And so that’s how I think. That’s how I pursue truth. That’s how I hope to communicate truth to people. And I know that’s not how it is always received. Because it gets chopped up. Or if it’s too long, then it’s dismissed as being professorial, or abstract, or long-winded.

But I tell you what, though. [Long pause.] I’m named Barack Hussein Obama. I’m African-­American. And I’ve been elected twice to this office with the majorities of the American people. So something is working.

GOODWIN: And you can tell yourself that. [Laughter.]

OBAMA: Somebody is reading some of these speeches. And it’s interesting: I just had an exchange with a columnist who I like, but it was on the topic of using the phrase “radical Islam,” and the criticism that’s come from some of the Republicans. And this is a columnist who is generally sympathetic and a thoughtful person but actually thought that I was underestimating the importance of having this pithy phrase that includes “Islam” to accurately label the nature of the threat. And he said, “Well, you acknowledge all these truths, but you do it in long paragraphs, and that’s not sufficient.”

And I took the criticism to heart. But I responded to him, saying, “I refuse to give in to the notion that the American people can’t handle complicated information.” Because I know the American people. I’ve met a lot of them. I’ve met a lot more of them than any columnist has, or any talking head on TV has. And they’re pretty sophisticated. They’re not always paying attention, and there’s a lot of noise out there, but when they have the time, they’re not looking to be spoken down to and there’s no requirement to dumb things down. They get it.

You think about the race speech that I gave in Philadelphia [in 2008] when the Jeremiah Wright stuff broke [regarding the Obamas’ Chicago pastor]. That was a pretty complicated piece of business, but I think people heard me. Now there are filters, there are a lot of filters there, and so sometimes it’s hard to get at folks. What I miss is just the fact that there’s not a single conversation, but there is just this …

GOODWIN: It would have been easier if there were just three television networks.

OBAMA: Right. So I don’t need to go back to Lincoln. If I just had [the benefits of] what Reagan had, then the concentrated power of the bully pulpit would be an enormous advantage.

I think part of the reason that I have been successful, though, despite maybe not always fitting my message into the pre-packaged formulas, is there is this whole other media ecology out there of the Internet and Instagram and memes and talk shows and comedy, and I’m pretty good at that. I [give] maybe the long-winded speeches that not everybody reads, but I can also do a slow jam on Jimmy Fallon better than most. [Laughter.]

GOODWIN: You’re proud of that, aren’t you? [Laughter.]

OBAMA: No, no, no, I mean—

GOODWIN: I’m teasing you.

OBAMA: I mean, I have fun with it sometimes. But it actually serves a purpose because I can—I think I have a pretty good take on popular culture that maybe makes up for the fact that I’m not a sound-bite politician for the nightly news. And as a consequence I think I’m able to reach a lot of folks, despite the fact that the conventional news media sometimes says, “You know, this speech is too long,” or “It’s too complicated,” or “He needs to have better sound bites,” or what have you. Because they’re not seeing me on Between Two Ferns [laughter] trying to sell the Affordable Care Act to young people, and the fact that we’re getting millions of hits on something that is not on conventional TV.

GOODWIN: So what do you regret the most that you wish you had done—or that you might have been able to deal better with?

OBAMA: Oh, look, the list of things I wish I had gotten done is long.

GOODWIN: I don’t mean what you didn’t get done, but what you might have done differently.

OBAMA: What I might have done differently. Yes, even that list is perpetually renewing itself because each day I say, Maybe if I had done that just a little bit different or that a little bit better. I know there are problems that I say to myself, If maybe I was a little more gifted I might have been able to solve. But that’s not because I believe what I did was a mistake. It’s that maybe it required the talents of a Lincoln.

So when I think about the polarization that occurred in 2009 and 2010, I’ve gone back and I’ve looked at my proposals and my speeches and the steps we took to reach out to Congress. And the notion that we weren’t engaging Congress, or that we were overly partisan, or we didn’t schmooze enough, or we didn’t reach out enough to Republicans—that whole narrative just isn’t true.

GOODWIN: But that narrative took hold, right?

OBAMA: What I can say is maybe if I had the genius of an Abraham Lincoln, or the charm of F.D.R. …

GOODWIN: Or, like Lyndon Johnson, you had them over every night for dinner.

OBAMA: Or the energy of Teddy Roo­se­velt, or the legislative acumen of L.B.J., or all those things wrapped into one, maybe things would have turned out differently. On the other hand, when I read history, I [see] what typically happens to presidents and the other party during tumultuous times and how … people react when the economy is collapsing and they’re losing their homes, losing their pensions—it sort of tracks, what ended up happening, because some of that is human nature.

So I guess my point is that there are always things that I think I wish I could have done better. I wish I could have persuaded the public more or my colleagues more, here in Washington, around a particular course of action. But there aren’t a lot of situations where I look back and I say, The decision I actually made or the course we actually pursued was the wrong course.

GOODWIN: That’s what F.D.R. used to say: “I think of the things that have come before me during the day and the decisions that I have made, I say to myself—well, I have done the best I could and turn over and go to sleep.”

OBAMA: Exactly. Another good example of that is the situation in Syria, which haunts me constantly. I would say of all the things that have happened during the course of my presidency the knowledge that you have hundreds of thousands of people who have been killed, millions who have been displaced, [makes me] ask myself what might I have done differently along the course of the last five, six years.

The conventional arguments about what could have been done are wrong. The notion that if we had provided some more modest arms to Syrian rebels—that somehow that would have led to [Syrian president Bashar al-] Assad’s overthrow more decisively. The notion that if I had taken a pinprick strike when the chemical-weapons issue came out, as opposed to negotiating and getting all those chemical weapons out—that that would have been decisive. All those things I tend to be skeptical about.

But I do ask myself, Was there something that we hadn’t thought of? Was there some move that is beyond what was being presented to me that maybe a Churchill could have seen, or an Eisenhower might have figured out? So that’s the kind of thing that tends to occupy me when I have the time to think about it—mainly because I think that in this job one of the things you realize is there are problems that just end up being really hard and by definition the only problems that come to my desk are the ones that nobody else can solve.

Usually, I’m pretty good about sorting through the options and then making decisions that I’m confident are the best decisions in that moment, given the information we have. But there are times where I think I wish I could have imagined a different level of insight.

GOODWIN: Was there ever a time, at the beginning of your presidency, when you were haunted? The night F.D.R. was first elected, he told his son James, “All my life I have been afraid of only one thing—fire…. I’m just afraid that I may not have the strength to do this job.” He was a paralyzed man, so he never locked his door. Did you ever feel that? When confronting the explosion that you came into, with the recession and the difficulty we were facing?

OBAMA: [Long pause.] Honestly, no.

GOODWIN: And that’s the only time I think F.D.R. felt it, too. And then by the next day he was O.K.

OBAMA: Anybody who gets into bed and turns out the lights the first night in the White House probably feels a little bit of a start, where you say, “Goodness … ”

GOODWIN: “This is me, and I’m here.”

OBAMA: Right. “And I’ve got to make a bunch of decisions.” And so there’s a little bit of a jolt that you feel.

There wasn’t a time where I felt fearful that I couldn’t make the best decisions possible. The times where I had been anguished almost exclusively had to do with deploying our men and women overseas. The first Afghan decision to surge additional troops there because the situation was deteriorating. I remember giving a speech at West Point and seeing all those amazing young people and knowing that some would be sent and not every one of them would come back. Weighing that—those never get easy.

But that’s a feeling different than fear. It’s a feeling of the weight of the decision. And a different feeling, but related, is the decisions I’ve had to make to launch strikes. I don’t want ever to be a president who is comfortable and at ease with killing people. I don’t want my generals or my defense secretary or my national-security team to ever feel deploying weapons to kill people as routine or abstract, even if the targets are bad people. And that weighs on me.

GOODWIN: So what is it going to be like when this weight is lifted? What are you going to be able to do that you haven’t been able to do for eight years?

OBAMA: Well, I’m hoping I can take a walk. [Laughter.] And …

GOODWIN: Somewhere else, not just with …

OBAMA: Yes, not just around and around the South Lawn with my chief of staff and my team and my dogs. [Laughter.]

GOODWIN: What else? You drove around in a car in that comedy video with Jerry Seinfeld, right? You hadn’t done it for a while.

OBAMA: I’m looking to negotiate to see maybe if I can take a drive somewhere at least on some open road.

GOODWIN: You mean before the end of your term?

OBAMA: Yeah.

GOODWIN: You know, the other guys could. Franklin Roosevelt drove Churchill almost to the edge of a cliff, in Hyde Park—and Churchill was so afraid. L.B.J. had his amphibious car when he was president. He tricked me and took me in his car one day, and the Secret Service collaborated with him. L.B.J., behind the wheel, warned me, “Be careful, we’re going toward a lake. The brakes aren’t working.” Well, we go into the lake: the car became a boat. Then he got so mad at me because I didn’t get scared. I’d figured, He’s not going to die. And he said, “Don’t you Harvard people have enough sense to be scared?” So these earlier presidents could do things like that. It seems like things have tightened.

OBAMA: Oh, absolutely. I think since the systematic emergence of terrorism and the assassination attempts, everything has tightened. My hope is that it loosens back up once I leave.

There are a couple of particular bodysurfing beaches that I’ve not been to in Hawaii for a long time that I want to go back to. [Laughter.] And there are places I want to visit where if I’m wearing a baseball cap and some sunglasses I think I can get away with and mingle in a crowd.

But, you know, when I leave I’ll be 55, and I’ll have an entirely new chapter of my life—the work I want to do with a presidential-center library, creating a platform for the next generation of young leaders across disciplines to work together … [and other] things that in some ways I suspect I’m able to do better out of this office.

GOODWIN: You mean, having had this office.

OBAMA: Having had this office has given me this incredible perch from which to see how the world works. The power of the office is unique and it is a humbling privilege. With that power, however, also comes a whole host of institutional constraints. There are things I cannot say. There are things that …

GOODWIN: You mean now, but you will later.

OBAMA: … that I cannot say, not out of any political concerns, but out of prudential concerns of the office. There are institutional obligations I have to carry out that are important for a president of the United States to carry out, but may not always align with what I think would move the ball down the field on the issues that I care most deeply about.

GOODWIN: It must be so freeing, I think—because you now have this foundation to do the stuff you want to do, but also you’re going to become more of a human being without this.

OBAMA: That’s the hope. And, look, I have no doubt that there will be moments as the next inauguration approaches where I’ll feel melancholy or nostalgic.

GOODWIN: And leaving all these people.

OBAMA: And the team that you build here, the family that you build here, is powerful. But there is a reason why George Washington is always one of the top three presidents, and it’s not because of his prowess as a military leader; it’s not because of the incredible innovations in policy that he introduced. It’s because he knew when it was time to go. And he understood that part of the experiment we were setting up was this idea that you serve the nation and then it’s over, and then you’re a citizen again. And that “office of citizen” remains important, but your ability to let go is part of the duty that you have.

GOODWIN: It’s as important as taking hold of the office. That’s part of our democracy.

OBAMA: As important as taking hold of the office is letting go of the office. And they’re of a piece—it is an expression of our fidelity to the ideals upon which this nation was founded.

GOODWIN: I agree. There will be perks that you’ll miss, I’m sure.

OBAMA: I will miss Air Force One. I will miss Marine One.

GOODWIN: I think I told you the story about Eisenhower, that he had not personally dialed a phone call for so long that when he finally was out of the presidency he picked up the phone and he hears this buzz, and he said, “What’s this buzz?” It’s the dial tone, Mr. President. [Laughter.]

OBAMA: I will say that, having a couple of teenage daughters, I’m a little more plugged into [laughter] technology than maybe Ike was.

Vanity Fair (USA)

Posted in USAComments Off on The Ultimate Barack Obama Exit Interview

Russia says US inviting terrorists to attack its cities


Image result for CIA AND ISIS CARTOON

Russia has denounced US projection of possible attacks on Russian cities by terrorists fighting in Syria, saying the statement amounts to an invitation to terrorism.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was outraged on Thursday after US State Department spokesman John Kirby said terrorists in Syria could launch attacks “against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities.”

“We cannot interpret this as anything else apart from the current US administration’s de facto support for terrorism,” Ryabkov was quoted as saying.

“These thinly disguised invitations to use terrorism as a weapon against Russia show the political depths the current US administration has stooped to in its approach to the Middle East and specifically to Syria.”

Russia has been supporting the Syrian government in its push to take back Aleppo from Takfiri terrorists. The US also carries out airstrikes as well as operations on the ground through its special forces against what it calls Daesh targets.

However, with Syrian advances on Aleppo gaining momentum, US officials said on Wednesday that Washington had begun considering tougher responses to the assault on Aleppo, including military options.

Syrian army advances were interrupted first when the US brokered a ceasefire agreement with the Russians. The truce collapsed after US aircraft bombed Syrian army positions in Dayr al-Zawr, killing 82 soldiers.

The airstrike, which helped Daesh briefly overrun government positions in the area, was characterized by Washington as unintentional but Syria rejected the allegation.

“How could they (Daesh) know that the Americans are going to attack that position in order to gather their militants to attack right away and to capture it one hour after the strike?” Assad asked during an interview with the Associated Press last week.

Supply of new weapons

On Wednesday, a militant commander said foreign states have given extremists surface-to-surface Grad rockets of a type not previously supplied to them in response to the Aleppo offensive.

The Grad rockets with a range of 22 km and 40 km have been supplied in “excellent quantities” and will be used on battlefronts in Aleppo, Hama and the coastal region, militant commander Colonel Fares al-Bayoush told Reuters.

While Grad missiles have previously been supplied to militants, Bayoush said it was the first time this particular type had been delivered. Militants had previous stocks of the rocket captured from army stores, he added.

The Reuters news agency this week reported anonymous US officials as saying that the Obama administration was considering allowing Qatar and Saudi Arabia to arm militants with man-portable missiles.

The Middle East Eye news portal cited a source close to militants as saying that the US was resolved to prevent the fall of Aleppo and was preparing to allow its Persian Gulf allies to flood the city with shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft missiles.

“The US confirmed the green light to begin sending them to rebels through supply routes still open through Jordan and Turkey,” the source said.

“The US won’t let Aleppo fall. We can expect to see Syrian helicopters falling from the sky within weeks.”

On Wednesday, the US State Department warned it was considering the suspension of “bilateral engagement” in Syria “unless Russia takes immediate steps to end the assault on Aleppo and restore the cessation of hostilities.”

Ryabkov said Moscow saw no alternative to the original US-Russia plan to try to get a ceasefire in Syria and that Washington should focus on implementing it.

He said a seven-day ceasefire plan proposed by the United States was unacceptable however and that Moscow was proposing a 48-hour “humanitarian pause” in Aleppo instead.

Support for Fateh al-Sham Front

Meanwhile, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Thursday US failure to separate “moderate” militants from terrorists is blocking the entire package of agreements.

Under the agreement, the US had undertaken to segregate the militants under its support from Takfiri groups such as the al-Qaeda-linked Fatah al-Sham Front but it has dragged its foot on the plan.

On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told US Secretary of State John Kerry during a phone conversation that Fateh al-Sham Front had been receiving foreign support and American weapons.

In an earlier interview with German-language daily Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger, a Fateh al-Sham commander identified only as Abu al-Ezz confirmed that the US is supporting the terror group, saying, “The Americans are on our side.”

In his conversation with Kerry, “Lavrov drew attention to the fact that a number of anti-government units which Washington calls moderate… were instead merging with Jabhat Fateh al-Sham,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

Earlier this year, the US blocked a Russian move in the United Nations to blacklist Ahrar al-Sham militants as a terrorist group.

Posted in USA, RussiaComments Off on Russia says US inviting terrorists to attack its cities

Turkey says ready for work with Iran, Russia on Syria


Image result for ERDOGAN CARTOON

Turkey says it is “more than ready” to work with Russia and Iran on a Syrian ceasefire and the delivery of humanitarian aid to the war-torn country.

Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Thursday he discussed the issues of ceasefire and humanitarian aid with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif.

“We are discussing the same issues with our ally Russia,” he said.

“We have to try harder for a ceasefire and political resolution. If Russia is prepared to cooperate with us on the ceasefire and humanitarian aid, we are more than ready,” he said.

Zarif had stopped in Ankara on Wednesday on his way back to Tehran from New York, where he attended the 71st Session of the United Nations General Assembly.

He held closed-door talks with Cavusoglu and Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim during the visit.

An unnamed Turkish diplomatic source said the conflict in Syria was among topics on the agenda of Zarif’s discussions.

This is the third round of talks between the Iranian and Turkish foreign ministers over the past two months.

Iran and Turkey differ over the crisis in Syria. Turkey supports militants, while Iran and Russia assist the Syrian government in its fight against foreign-backed terrorist groups, including Daesh.

Russia has been conducting airstrikes against Daesh and other terrorist groups in Syria at the Syrian government’s request since September 2015. Iran has also been providing advisory assistance to the Syrian government.

On Thursday, Russia said there is a trend for cooperation with Turkey on Syria to be “constructive” now that Moscow and Ankara are mending their ties.

“If need be, joint actions are possible,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, without elaborating.

Earlier this month, Turkish troops entered the Syrian territory in a sudden incursion which resulted in the occupation of Jarablus after Daesh left the city without resistance.

On Sunday, Cavusoglu said Turkey was planning to send troops deeper into Syrian territory to establish what it calls a safe zone.

Kurdish witnesses said on Wednesday Turkey had killed six children and three women in an airstrike in the Syrian border town of Kahila.

Posted in Iran, Syria, TurkeyComments Off on Turkey says ready for work with Iran, Russia on Syria

Former Palestinian minister of detainees’ affairs sentenced to Nazi camp



Wasfi Qabha, former Palestinian minister of detainees and ex-detainees in the government of Ismail Haniyeh, was sentenced to twelve months in Nazi camp by Nazi military court on Wednesday, 28 September. Qabha, a prominent leader in Hamas, has been repeatedly arrested by Israeli occupation forces and has spent a total of 12 years in Nazi camp.

Qabha was arrested from his family home in Jenin by illegal Nazi occupation forces in May; his wife stated that he was charged with a number of charges in the military courts related to his public activities in campaigns supporting Palestinian prisoners in Nazi camps. His sentence was accompanied with an 18-month suspended sentence and a 2,000 NIS (approximately $500) fine.

Also on Wednesday, member of the Palestinian Legislative Council Mohammed Jamal Natsheh was arrested among 43 others in pre-dawn arrest raids carried out by Nazi occupation forces throughout the West Bank. Natsheh was released from Nazi camp after his previous arrest less than seven months ago.  He was previously imprisoned without charge or trial under administrative detention. A member of the PLC representing the Change and Reform bloc associated with Hamas, Natsheh has repeatedly been arrested since his election in 2006, usually ordered to administrative detention without charge or trial.

Among the pre-dawn raids included the seventh day in a row of violent Nazi occupation military raids on Shuafat refugee camp and nearby Beit Hanina in Jerusalem, where 13 Palestinians were detained by occupation forces as over 20 homes were invaded and ransacked. The Palestinians arrested were Bilal Eid, Ahmad Imran Muhammad Ali, Mohammed Maher al-Mimi, Muhannad Bilal Anati, Bilal Awwad Anati, Ahmad Tartir, Fadi Eid, Ahmad Bilal Eid, Muayyad Jaber Muheisen, Hamoudeh Jamal Abdel-Qader, Adham al-Sharqawi, Saddam Joudeh and Hamoudeh al-Kirri.

Also arrested in Jerusalem area were Areen Za’anin, Fathi Nasser, Hussam Jamzawi, Ahmad Sajidiya, Fares Aslan, Khalil Qureia and Medhat Khalil, the last a guard of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Bilal Eid is only 16 while Ahmad Ali is only 15 years old; they are among over 370 Palestinian children held in Nazi camps.

In al-Khalil, alongside Natsheh, also arrested were Mohammed Imam, Mohammed al-Durra, Said Zughayyer, Alaa Abu Ajamieh, Abdel-Rahim Fatafta and Abdul-Qader al-Titi, as well as Abdel-Nasser Abu Maria, 17 years old.

Five Palestinians from Budrus, near Ramallah, were arrested: Malek Marrar, Mohammed Hasan, Hosni Khalifa, Mahmoud Khalifa and Yahya Salama. Wissam Ali, Mohammed Jaber, 17, and Oday Jaber were arrested from the Nur Shams refugee camp near Tulkarem. In Jericho, three Palestinians were seized by occupation forces, including 15-year-old Mohammed Shalalfa, alongside Haitham Shalalfa and Shtayyen Shalalfa; in Qabatiyeh, two Palestinians, Mohammed Assaf and Suheib Abu al-Rub, were arrested. Occupation forces seized Mahmoud Qashmar in Qalqilya and Rashad Issa from al-Khader, near Bethlehem.

On Thursday morning, at least 10 more Palestinians were reported arrested in violent raids by occupation forces, including former prisoners Amin Hamed, 60, and his son Abdelhadi Hamed, 30, arrested in Silwad east of Ramallah in a violent raid on their home, including the explosion of the door of their homes. Abdulhadi’s brother, Abdullah’s, home was raided as well by occupation forces. Their brother Akram is serving a 17-year sentence in Nazi camps.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on Former Palestinian minister of detainees’ affairs sentenced to Nazi camp

Is “the Holocaust” Eurocentric?

And will the University of Lethbridge ban non-Westerners from its campus?

By Kevin Barrett 

The holocaust cartoon contest in Iran was attacked in the West, but immensely popular throughout the non-Western world

The holocaust cartoon contest in Iran was attacked in the West, but immensely popular throughout the non-Western world

“East is East
and West is West
and never the twain shall meet.”

– Kipling’s famous lines certainly apply to “the Holocaust.”

In the West – Europe and the temperate lands it genocidally colonized and settled – most people believe that six million Jews, and uncounted others, were systematically exterminated, mostly in hydrogen cyanide gas chambers, by the government of Nazi Germany between 1942 and 1945.

In the East and South – those lands victimized by European imperialism and colonialism where the victims survived in considerable numbers – the great majority does not believe in “the Holocaust.”


The above figures  from the ADL’s Global 100 survey show that only about one in five Asians – and one in ten Middle Easterners and Africans – knows of and believes in “the Holocaust.”

(For the story of how I was forced to confront this issue, see my article: Holocaust History Denial: A Clear and Present Danger)

I first became aware of this “Holocaust gap” when I lived in Morocco doing Ph.D. research on a Fulbright scholarship in 1999-2000. My Moroccan colleagues, whether professors or graduate students, sometimes brought up questions like: “What do you think of Robert Faurisson?” I soon learned that Faurisson, who is reviled as a “Holocaust denier” by mainstream Western institutions of power, is an intellectual hero in Morocco – and, as I later learned, the rest of the Islamic world.

No matter how strongly you may disagree with Faurisson and his vast following of North African and Middle Eastern admirers, you must admit that we live in a wildly diverse world in which conflicting beliefs and historical interpretations must coexist, at least until free and open debate leads to consensus.

If Moroccan universities made agreement with Faurisson a litmus test for admission and employment, we North Americans would rightly complain. Yet we are blind to the disgust we evoke in the vast majority of MENA intellectuals by our own refusal to allow Faurisson and those who agree with him to state their actual beliefs, and present their cases, in the North American and European academies.

As I write this, Professor Tony Hall of the University of Lethbridge is under attack by a criminal conspiracy of slanderers and false-evidence-planters who have absurdly framed him as a “holocaust denier.” These individuals appear to have manufactured a hideous “kill all Jews” image, then arranged to have it planted, unbeknownst to Professor Hall, as an obscure comment on his Facebook page. After manufacturing and planting the offensive image, they appear to have conspired with Facebook to have FB blatantly violate its own guidelines by initially refusing to take down the image – a refusal that allowed B’nai Brith to manufacture a scandal.

(For details about this outrageous attempt to smear Professor Tony Hall, read Rafiq’s article Canadian professor libelously targeted as “anti-semite” in coordinated attack)

Since it has emerged that Professor Hall’s detractors, rather than Professor Hall, appear to have manufactured and disseminated the offensive image, they have had to resort to a fallback attack. B’nai Brith Canada, the leaders of the anti-Hall lynch mob, just published an article headlined Academic Freedom Does Not Include Holocaust Denial.” They label/libel Hall as a “holocaust denier” because, they say, he is “a staunch advocate of launching an ‘open debate on the Holocaust’.”

How is being an advocate of “debating” an issue equivalent to “denying” it?! The claim is self-evidently absurd. The obvious implication is that it is B’nai Brith, not Tony Hall, that doesn’t believe in the holocaust, since they apparently believe the official Western version of the story will implode if debate on it is ever allowed.

B’nai Brith mouthpiece Bernie Farber, in an outrageously libelous article smearing Hall, charges:

In commenting on Menuhin’s Holocaust-denial book Tell The Truth And Shame The Devil, Hall explained, “So, I’m reading that text and having to reassess a lot of ideas.” He went on to say that the book is a “very dramatic re-looking at what happened in Europe in World War Two.”

How is “reassessing ideas” equivalent to “denial” of anything?! Farber, like B’nai Brith, seems to believe that anyone who reads Menuhin’s arguments, and is open to “re-assessing ideas” when exposed to new evidence, will automatically become a “holocaust denier.” So ironically, it seems that the defenders of holocaust orthodoxy are actually closet holocaust deniers! They appear to be terrified that the official Western narrative is so flimsy that it cannot stand even the merest hint of critical scrutiny. What else could possibly explain their behavior?

These Zionist lobbyists are apparently so convinced that the holocaust narrative is fraudulent that they not only feel the need to destroy the reputations and careers of anyone who questions it, but actually make such questioning illegal – and send revisionist historians to prison!

According to Nick Kollerstrom, thousands of people have been prosecuted for “holocaust thoughtcrimes” in Germany alone. The first people who should be imprisoned, I submit, are the Zionists who pushed through these laws – because the fact that they feel the need for these laws proves they do not actually believe in the historicity of the holocaust, and are therefore “holocaust deniers” themselves. If they actually believed what they say they believe, they would obviously be eager to clobber their opponents in a free and fair debate… not with criminal charges and imprisonment.

In fact, I would go one step farther, and assert that anyone who charges anyone else with “holocaust denial” must themselves be a “holocaust denier.” If they actually believed in their version of the holocaust, they would not feel the need to resort to name-calling. Instead, they would muster empirical arguments and evidence.

The rest of the world thinks the West, with its “holocaust denial” obsession, is completely insane. After all, the rest of the world knows that the biggest holocaust of all time has been the Western holocaust of non-Western peoples. For an introduction to that subject, one could do worse than read Professor Tony Hall’s books Earth into Property and The American Empire and the Fourth World. Other key sources include Vltchek and Chomsky’s On Western Terrorism, which documents the 50 to 60 million people murdered by the USA’s CIA and military interventions since World War II; Alfred Crosby’s Ecological Imperialism, which covers the past millennium of Western planetary genocide and ecocide; and Sven Lindqvist’s “Exterminate All the Brutes”: One Man’s Odyssey into the Heart of Darkness and the Origins of European Genocide.

Read these five books, and you will understand how “the holocaust” looks to a non-Westerner.

No wonder they don’t believe Western mainstream “victors’ history.” The West cranks out  outrageous lies to disguise its own crimes. Why should World War II historiography be different?

Because they start out as natural skeptics, approaching the holocaust debates with a jaundiced eye, non-Westerners are likely to avoid being swept away by mass-media-orchestrated Hollywood-style emotions and the Western mainstream narrative. Because they have so much emotional distance from the Western history of persecutions between Christians and Jews, non-Westerners can think dispassionately about such things. And because they have seen the outrageous lies the Zionists have used to construct “Israel” (a euphemism for “genocide in Palestine”) they are naturally skeptical about any and all self-serving Zionist assertions.

If the University of Lethbridge expels Professor Tony Hall, it will either have to (1) ban all students and professors from non-Western nations and/or backgrounds, especially the MENA region and the rest of Africa, or (2) force all people from non-Western backgrounds to sign a statement that they will never express their true beliefs about “the holocaust” while they are working or studying at the University.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Is “the Holocaust” Eurocentric?

Nazi Peres – Obituary of a Peace Politician


Image result for Shimon Peres CARTOON

Shimon Peres – Obituary of a Peace Politician

By Ludwig Watzal

“De mortuis nil nisi bene” is commonly translated in English with “Speak no ill of the dead”. The headlines of German obituaries on Shimon Peres outbid themselves in adulation. President Obama, however, outbid even the Germans. He praised Peres without irony as “a champion of peace. […] As Americans, we are indebted to him”, he said. He even got metaphysical: “A light has gone out, but the hope he gave us will burn forever.” The US president should have really known better, that even “Peace Angel” Peres was only interested in peace with the Palestinians on Israeli conditions, namely, their subjugation under an Israeli peace diktat. Obama’s hypocrisy was topped off by Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, who had fought fiercely against the “peace policy” of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres.

Two Germans, former Germany’s President Christian Wulff and Charlotte Knobloch, former President of the Central Council of Jewry in Germany, outbid even the general adulation of Peres. Christian Wulff wrote: “[Peres] outshone his time, with his empathy, his great heart, his philanthropy and his courage, his apparently unshakeable belief that Good is possible. Shimon Peres has shown what the world so desperately needs and what it simultaneously so sorely lacks.” Ms. Knobloch said: “He was a symbol of the Zionist dream”, undoubtedly believing that she was thereby praising the deceased. This “dream” had however turned out to be a nightmare for the Palestinians. Peres’ entire political life was, according to her, a “struggle for peace”. Was he really a “smart bearer of hope, a tireless reconciler”? It seems that such delusions characterize the public image of a politician, the reality of which he had created on the ground had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with such eulogies. I need not dwell here upon the assessments of the official political class, as they are drafted in the same vein.

Peres’ career is well known to everybody: He drew his nimbus as a confidant of David Ben-Gurion; he was the main initiator of the Israeli nuclear program, friend of German CSU leader Franz Josef Strauss; he spent two stints as Israel’s Prime Minister; he held almost every government post, crowning his long career as “President of the State of Israel”. He was not elected to this function by the population but by the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. In each election, Peres always came out second. He was nicknamed by the public the “eternal loser”. An important reason for that, is that Israelis deeply distrusted him.

Without much ado, it can be said that he has served the Zionist entity until the last breath. This is not to be equated with the cause of peace with the Palestinians. His image in the West has always been that of a “liberal” or a “good Israeli”. Less known is the fact that Peres was a Zionist hardliner who managed to garb his ideas in the rhetoric of the so-called “Zionist Left”. His vision was not different than that of Ariel Sharon or Netanyahu, but he knew how to present it in a less confrontational manner, designed for a Western audience. On this point, the contrived visions of Peres resemble political obituaries of political leaders in the US and Germany.

In Peres’ various political positions, he always supported the colonization of the occupied territories. After his “partner in peace”, Premier Minister Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated in November 1995 by Yigal Amir, a Jewish right-wing extremist, Peres followed Rabin in the Premiership. Peres had never served in the Israeli military, hence, in the May’s election of 1996, opposing Netanyahu, he tried to make a showing of a “strong” leader by, inter alia, authorizing Operation “Grapes of Wrath” against the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon. In that operation Israel’s army bombed the UN base at Qana. In this attack, 106 Lebanese were killed and an equal number were injured. As usual, the Peres government “regretted” the massacre. Despite playing the strongman, Peres lost the elections for Netanyahu.

Ten years earlier, in 1985, Peres as the then serving Prime Minister of Israel, was responsible for an act of aggression against Tunisia that killed 75 Tunisians and Palestinians. According to international law, Israel’s aggression violated “the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or (was) in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations”, wrote Elias Davidsson, a native of Palestine, as far back as 1993. As there existed no international enforcement mechanism at the time, which would allow “the arrest, trial and punishment of criminals such as Mr. Peres”, Davidsson urged “authorities of civilized nations to refuse any official dealings with persons for which there is prima facie evidence of implication in such crimes”, including Shimon Peres.

Shimon Peres received together with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat the Nobel Peace Prize for the so-called Oslo peace process, which brought only havoc and desperation upon the Palestinian people. It’s not unusual in our world that former terrorists such as Menachem Begin or war criminals such as Henry Kissinger will be bestowed with this distinction. Immediately after taking office, Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, i.e. before he reneged on his promise to close Guantánamo and started extra-judicial executions around the world.

In obituaries, only good and beautiful things are written about the deceased. May mine only serve to complete the picture of a man who authentically personified Zionism.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi Peres – Obituary of a Peace Politician

The Nobel Peace Laureate who was far from peaceful


Peres: The Nobel Peace Laureate who was far from peaceful

Image result for Shimon Peres CARTOON

The world saw him as a friendly diplomat who called for peace and talked about the importance of future generations in his speeches, using phrases such as “the future of our children and their children”. Well, Shimon Peres went AWOL and we can all see what became of the political “peace” project, which reinforced the dominance of the Israeli occupation over the land and destroyed the chances of the Palestinians ever having a bright future, or even a viable state.

The truth is that Israel’s occupation could not have done without a politician like Peres, who climbed the ladder to a civil role that is usually reserved for retired generals holding leadership positions. He was forced, in the autumn of his life, to take a lead on Israeli diplomacy, even when a vengeful, racist and arrogant man – Avigdor Lieberman – was the foreign minister.

Peres was keen on being seen in the corridors of power in the guise of a peacemaker and he seemed to be a political visionary who spoke about the future in the way of a dreamer. He spoke tirelessly about the culture of forgiveness and he wanted his name to be associated with peace by means of multiple acts, including an eponymous centre dedicated to peace.

However, the reality speaks another language. Shimon Peres was always an example of those Israeli officials who ignore throughout their decades in prominent positions the rights of the Palestinian people, international humanitarian law and UN resolutions. He completely disregarded the Geneva Conventions and continuously and repeatedly violated them at the cost of innocent lives and human rights.

Peres was Israel’s president – head of state – during successive military offensives against the Palestinian people, such as the so-called Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009) against the civilians of Gaza. He never shied away from the atrocities committed by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). Indeed, he often publicised them, even at the World Economic Forum in Davos. He gave his backing to the appalling attacks on civilians, and always sought to justify them. In this, he played a part in Israel’s propaganda machine; you will not find a single example of him being critical of the violations committed by the IDF.

As prime minister, Peres ordered the invasion of Lebanon in spring 1996, which was known as Operation Grapes of Wrath, during which Israeli troops shelled a UN base at which refugees were sheltering. The bloody massacre killed 106 civilians and UN peacekeepers from Fiji, and wounded many more. Peres remained as prime minister even after the massacre for which he was ultimately responsible. This set a precedent for him to act with impunity, as was the case with his predecessors and successors. The same base was attacked by Israel a decade later.

Two years before the Qana massacre, Peres was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but for what exactly? For his role in reaching the Oslo Accords with a weakened and exhausted Palestinian leadership. The agreement promoted slogans of peace and security, but it lacked important terms such as human rights, fairness and justice for the Palestinian people. There is no need for me to explain, today, what Israel meant by peace in this agreement, because the reality on the ground is enough to explain what ultimately resulted from the implementation of the agreement. The occupation has been entrenched even further, with ongoing settlement expansion under an Apartheid-style government. The Palestinians, meanwhile, fell for it and were trapped; Israel restrains them with Oslo’s unfair clauses.

Peres was hailed as a visionary in his view of “The New Middle East”, which was the title of his 1995 book. The idea around which his theory revolved was that the volatile region should allow Israel to act as the intelligent brain with the others following its instructions. This is basically what one can conclude given the overtones of superiority that are consistent with the logic upon which the Israeli state was founded.

After that, Peres remained an implicit partner of the extreme right-wing Israeli governments made up of ministers who adopted neo-fascist policies and positions; he acted in his capacity as Israeli president in a manner that reinforced the programmes of such governments. The “patron of peace” did not object to the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, despite international condemnation, including that from the “Quartet” – the UN, EU, US and Russian Federation.

Similarly, Peres colluded with the construction of the Apartheid Wall built by Israel on Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, despite the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in The Hague and the decision of the UN General Assembly (2005) against the construction of the structure. Peres also played a part in the suffocating siege, collective punishment and closure imposed on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, despite the fact that this entails serious violations of international human rights law, the UN Charter and the logic of peace itself. All of this is just the tip of the iceberg of his support for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine throughout his long political career.

Within Israel he made no objections known to the series of racist laws introduced by the Israeli government or passed by the Knesset (parliament) since 2009. Nor did he oppose the measures to restrict independent human rights organisations and gag civil society organisations that are opposed to occupation policies and record and document Israeli government violations.

Despite all of this, Peres will be honoured after his death and will be glorified as a patron of peace. However, before believing what you see, hear or read about him in the mainstream, why not ask the Palestinians what they think about him, or the people of Lebanon? He may have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but Shimon Peres was far from peaceful.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on The Nobel Peace Laureate who was far from peaceful

Bahraine: Zionist puppet praise for Nazi Peres



Zionist puppet Bahrain Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa

Zio-Wahhabi Bahraini foreign minister’s surprising tribute to former Nazi president Shimon Peres who died Wednesday has triggered a wave of outcry in the region where he is known as a criminal.

“Rest in Peace President Shimon Peres, a Man of War and a Man of the still elusive Peace in the Middle East,”  Zio-WahhabiKhaled bin Ahmed al-Khalifa posted on his Twitter account.

The tribute drew the ire of many online users as well as opposition figures, given that a large number of Arabs view Nazi Peres as the man responsible for the successive wars that have rocked the Middle East.

“The foreign minister is paying tribute and praying for the Zionist terrorist and the killer of children,” complained former opposition lawmaker Jalal Fairooz.

Another critic, Khalil Buhazaa, tweeted, “Diplomacy does not mean rudeness.”

Manama does not have diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv but some Arab states, chiefly Saudi Zio-Wahhabi regime, have recently moved to warm relations with the Nazi Jewish regime.

Bahrain Zio-Wahhabi regime is under the heavy influence of Saudi Arabia which is spearheading the push for rapprochement with the Nazi regime of ‘Israel’.

Among Arab Zionist puppet leaders, only Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Ab-A$$ has offered condolences to Peres’s family, describing him as a partner in peace.

However, many across the world would remember Peres as a “war criminal” especially in light of the 1996 Qana massacre. In that Nazi attack on a southern Lebanese village, at least 106 people were killed. Nazi Peres was then prime minister.

Born in Poland in 1923, Nazi Peres emigrated to what was then British-mandated Palestine when he was 11. He joined the Zionist movement and met David Ben-Gurion, who would become his mentor and Nazi first prime minister.

Nazi Peres became director general of the nascent ministry of military affairs at just 29. He was also seen as a driving force in the development of the Nazi undeclared nuclear program.

Palestinians say Peres has their blood on his hands. Like other Zionist leaders, Peres also allowed illegal Nazi Jewish settlement construction to take place in Palestinian land during his years in leadership positions.

The impoverished Gaza Strip witnessed two full-scale wars under Nazi Peres’s tenure as president, which claimed the lives of more than 3,700 Palestinians in total.

The Palestinian resistance movement Hamas has called on Palestinians to hold a “Day of Rage” on Friday which will coincide with the funeral of Peres.

The call is meant to mark the one-year anniversary of the beginning of what is described as the third Intifada throughout the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem al-Quds.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, BahrainComments Off on Bahraine: Zionist puppet praise for Nazi Peres

Shoah’s pages


October 2016
« Sep   Nov »