Archive | December 23rd, 2016

Listen: Former UK ambassador to Syria says British government “has gotten Syria wrong every step of the way”


Nureddin Sabir, Editor, Redress Information & Analysis, writes:

A former UK ambassador to Syria has castigated officials and the media in Britain for their selective moralising and reporting of the armed conflict in Syria.

“There were no green buses in Gaza. There were no green buses after the NATO bombing in Yugoslavia”

In an interview with BBC Radio 4’s flagship “Today” programme on 23 December, Peter Ford, who served as British ambassador to Syria from 2003 to 2006, said:

Allow me to say that we’re very selective in our indignation about the Aleppo campaign. Similar bombing is going on in Mosul and in Yemen, and we gave people there a path. We didn’t talk about atrocities. We didn’t talk about war crimes, although they are indisputably being committed in both theatres. We didn’t talk about genocide or holocaust. We’d be lucky if these campaigns end with green buses [a reference to the buses provided by the Syrian government to evacuate rebels and their families from eastern Aleppo]. There were no green buses in Gaza. There were no green buses after the NATO bombing in Yugoslavia. I think we need to give the [Syrian] government a little bit of credit for what has been a relatively peaceful end to this terrible period…

What happened in Syria was “imminently foreseeable to anyone who was not intoxicated with wishful thinking”

Mr Ford said that in his judgement Britain should have “refrained from encouraging the opposition from mounting a doomed campaign which has only led to hundreds of thousands of civilians being maimed and killed. We have made the situation worse,” he said.

Replying to questions, Mr Ford said that his analysis of the situation in Syria now is not just wisdom gained with the benefit of hindsight. He said that five years ago he predicted precisely the outcome that has materialised. What has happened was “imminently foreseeable to anyone who was not intoxicated with wishful thinking,” he said.

“The British Foreign Office… has gotten Syria wrong every step of the way”

Mr Ford said that British policy towards the conflict in Syria had been ill-conceived and ill-thought-out.

The British Foreign Office, to which I used to belong, I am sorry to say has gotten Syria wrong every step of the way. They told us at the beginning that [President Bashar] Assad’s demise was imminent. They told us he’d be gone by Christmas – they didn’t say which Christmas… But then they told us the opposition was still dominated by the so-called “moderates”, which has proved not to be the case. Now they are telling us another big lie – that Assad can’t control the rest of the country. Well, I’ve got news for them: he’s well on the way to doing so.

Asked to comment on allegations that the Syrian government had committed war crimes because its forces had bombed hospitals, resulting in the death of many children, Mr Ford said:

It was also a war crime to use hospitals as command centres, which is what the jihadis did. It was also a war crime to use schools to store ammunition, which is what the jihadis did.

Peter Ford has shone a rare light on the lies, double standards and deceptions of the British government and the ignorance, bias and disinformation of the British media in respect of the conflict in Syria.

If you care about the truth in what is undoubtedly the cruellest and bloodiest conflict since World War II, then please spare ten minutes to listen to the full interview, a recording of which is below.

Posted in Syria, UKComments Off on Listen: Former UK ambassador to Syria says British government “has gotten Syria wrong every step of the way”

Burma: Govt Investigation Commission Concludes First Trip to Arakan State


Image result for Arakan State Investigation Commission PHOTO

RANGOON — A government commission examining a series of militant attacks and human rights violations by security forces in northern Arakan State wrapped up their first investigation trip to the area on Tuesday.

The Arakan State Investigation Commission, led by Burma’s military-appointed vice president U Myint Swe, toured villages in Maungdaw Township on Sunday. They visited the police outposts that were attacked by militants on Oct. 9 and Muslim villages where rights groups have reported that abuses including rape, extrajudicial killings and arson were committed by government troops.

The 13-member commission was formed in earlier this month by Burma’s President U Htin Kyaw to look into the causes of attacks on police in Maungdaw Township, to investigate outside allegations of crimes committed during area clearance operations, as well as to document deaths, injuries, destruction and other damage.

On Tuesday, Human Rights Watch said the commission’s composition and mandate raised serious doubts that it would conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the alleged abuses, including those of murder and sexual violence. The organization added that since October 9, 2016, at least 1,500 buildings had been destroyed, driving thousands of ethnic Rohingya from their homes in northern Arakan State.

State-run newspapers reported that as of Monday, the commission’s delegation had visited at least eight such villages, interviewing locals and carrying out on-the-ground inspections.

Commission member Dr. Aung Tun Thet told state-run newspapers that they would try to submit a report that would be acceptable to both local and international parties.

“We learned that Muslim villagers there were in fear. The commission will expose the truth based on our findings,” he said.

Posted in Asia, Far EastComments Off on Burma: Govt Investigation Commission Concludes First Trip to Arakan State

Jewish or a democratic state?


The left should welcome Donald Trump’s nomination of David Friedman as US ambassador to Israel, writes Tony Greenstein

David Friedman: with Donald and Ivanka Trump

If you listen to the pro-Israel lobby group J-Street, which was formed in 2007 as a more ‘liberal’ alternative to the pro-Likud American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other liberal mainstream Zionists, then the nomination of bankruptcy lawyer, David Friedman, as the new US ambassador to Israel marks the beginning of the end of the world as we know it.

Friedman is on record as calling J-Street ‘worse than kapos’. In an article for the settler news agency Arutz Sheva,1 he responded to criticism by a liberal Zionist, Peter Beinart, by asking rhetorically: ‘are J-Street supporters really as bad as kapos?’  The answer, actually, is no. They are far worse than kapos – Jews who turned in their fellow Jews in the Nazi death camps.’

In the same op-ed, Friedman spoke of “how dangerous the Jewish left is to the State of Israel”, describing them as “the lost souls who blame Israel for not making a suicidal ‘peace’ with hateful radical Islamists hell bent on Israel’s destruction.” Bear in mind that what Friedman terms “the Jewish left” is not what most people would consider as being on the left.

The term ‘kapos’ is a favourite insult of Zionists. It used to be reserved for Jewish anti-Zionists but is now increasingly used against liberal Zionists. Anyone who is not an out-and-out racist or Jewish supremacist is in danger of being accused of being a ‘kapos’. The kapos, for those unfamiliar with the term, were prisoners in the Nazi extermination or concentration camps who were made trustees or foremen. In return for a little more food or favourable treatment, they were expected to supervise other inmates, and some of them, not all, developed a reputation for cruelty. If they didn’t beat others, they were beaten instead.

The Zionist use of the term ‘kapos’ is somewhat ironic since Zionism was a movement that voluntarily co-operated and collaborated with the Nazis. The kapos behaved as they did under extreme coercion and fear for their lives. Their life expectancy was not a great deal more than that of other prisoners. Many of them were not Jewish anyway, but ordinary German criminals.

Not only did the Zionist movement enter into a trade agreement, Ha’avara, with the Nazis in August 1933, undermining the international Jewish boycott of Nazi Germany in return for effectively free German industrial goods paid for by German Jews, but it opposed, and did its best to undermine, any attempt to rescue Jews if the destination was other than Palestine. David Ben Gurion, chair of the Jewish Agency and first prime minister of Israel, explained, in the wake of the Nazi pogrom Kristallnacht on November 9-10 1938, in a memo sent to the Jewish Agency executive on December 17 1938, that:

if the Jews are faced with a choice between the refugee problem and rescuing Jews from concentration camps on the one hand, and aid for the national museum in Palestine on the other, the Jewish sense of pity will prevail and our people’s entire strength will be directed at aid for the refugees in the various countries. Zionism will vanish from the agenda and indeed not only world public opinion in England and America but also from Jewish public opinion. We are risking Zionism’s very existence if we allow the refugee problem to be separated from the Palestine problem.2

Ben Gurion was true to his word. The Zionists fought ceaselessly against what they termed ‘refugeeism’, the separation of the refugee question from Palestine. When the British government agreed to accept 10,000 Jewish children from Nazi-occupied Europe, the kindertransport, the Zionists were beside themselves. Ben Gurion told the central committee of Mapai, the Israeli Labour Party, in December 1938 that

If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel.3

Friedman is an out-and-out supporter of the settler right in Israel. He is closer to the far-right Habayit HaYehudi (Jewish Home) party of Naftali Bennett, which is part of the governing coalition, than to the Likud Party of prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He is ‘a darling of the Israeli right’ and is head of the American Friends of Beit El, an illegal Israeli settlement.4

Although all American presidents have said, before they took office, that they would move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which Israel proclaims as its capital, none have done so. This is because the status of Jerusalem is supposed to be the subject of a final status agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Trump and his nominee, however, have made it clear that moving the US embassy, desired by all Zionist governments in Israel, is something that is likely to happen.

According to Abe Foxman, former national director of the Anti-Defamation League, a centrist Zionist group in the United States, “the bad news may be that he has espoused publicly positions which may be to the right of the Israeli society and the current Israeli government position on a two-state solution”.

J-Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami declared that “This nomination is reckless, putting America’s reputation in the region and credibility around the world at risk”. The Union for Reform Judaism spokesman, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, likewise criticised the appointment because: “Mr Friedman’s personal connection to and support of a number of organizations committed to building additional settlements in the West Bank certainly suggests that he will not be an advocate for a two-state solution”. Jacobs described Friedman as “more extreme than any government of Israel”.5

J-Street issued as statement urging US Senators to veto the appointment, as is within their right, arguing that he was “beyond the pale.”6 It is quite possible, if three Republican senators defect, that Friedman’s nomination could be in jeopardy.

In an interview with Ha’aretz in June, Friedman was asked whether Trump would support an independent Palestinian state. His response was: “not without the approval of the Israelis.” In Friedman’s opinion it is not “an American imperative” for there to be an independent Palestinian state.7

According Daniel Kurtzer, former US ambassador to Israel and Egypt and a Princeton professor, the importance of Friedman’s appointment cannot be overstated. “Everything an ambassador says and does has an impact on policy.” The problem is compounded in his eyes because, whereas usually it is the administration that sets the policy and the ambassador who puts it into practice, there is every sign that Friedman is going to make policy. “The president hasn’t been sworn in yet, the secretary of state hasn’t spoken about this, and he’s already talking about the policy he is going to change,” said Kurtzer. “This is unheard of.”8

The settlers, however, have been effusive in welcoming him. According to Oded Revivi, spokesman for the Yesha settlement council, “Friedman has a deep love for all of the land and people of Israel, including those in Judea and Samaria.”9

Ha’aretz, Israel’s sole liberal paper, is beside itself. In an article by Chemi Shalev, which suggests, somewhat unfairly, that Friedman makes Netanyahu “look like a J-Street lefty” it suggests that, but for his diplomatic immunity, he might be arrested by the Israeli police for incitement. Unfortunately, in a state where the call to set fire to mosques and churches by Benny Gopstein, leader of the fascist Lehava, is met with equanimity by Israel’s forces of law and order, this is a case of hyperbole.10 Of course if Friedman were an Arab, then his feet wouldn’t have touched the floor.11 Chalev lays out the bill of indictment against Friedman thus:

He opposes a two-state solution, supports settlements and advocates annexation, has denigrated president Obama as an anti-Semite, questioned the citizenship of Israeli Arabs, compared J-Street to Holocaust-era kapos and so on. It’s good he’ll be coming with diplomatic immunity. This is not an ambassador that a rational US administration would send if it had any plans whatsoever to advance the peace process. This is an ambassador who will please evangelicals, delight Jewish settlers and bring pleasure to Land of Israel zealots far and wide.

Why therefore do I welcome the proposed appointment of Friedman? Clearly he is not a pleasant individual, either personally or politically. He fits in well with the racism and alt-right anti-Semitism of the Trump administration, to say nothing of its fanatical pro-Zionism.

The reason is quite simple. For over 40 years there has been a ‘peace process’ in the Middle East and in that time, not one inch of Palestine territory has been liberated and in the meantime more than 600,000 settlers have become rooted in the West Bank. The Palestinians of Gaza today live in an open-air prison and the openly far-right in Israel are established in government. The conditions for Palestinians get steadily worse, the occupation tightens, settler attacks on Palestinian civilians are undertaken often with the protection of the Israeli military – and yet we have a ‘peace process’. The chances of a two-states solution are minus zero. Anyone with half a brain should see that. The chances of even a cut-down version of a Bantustan are minimal.

The illusion of a two-states solution is a smokescreen, a cover for continued Israeli military rule over the Palestinians. It also perpetuates the continuation of the quisling administration of the Palestine Authority of Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah. The same Abbas who declared that co-operation with the Israeli military is sacred.12 When there was the beginnings of an uprising against Israeli occupation earlier this year, the PA stretched every muscle to put an end to it. It arrested, tortured and drove off the streets, wherever it could, any opposition to Israel’s rule. The PA is a subcontractor to the Israeli military and the sooner it is put out of existence the better. It is time that the two-states solution was buried, as it is an obstacle to liberation. Partition, even if it were feasible, would lead to, in the words of James Connolly, a ‘carnival of reaction’ on both sides of the border.

Without this illusion there can be no doubt in peoples’ eyes that Israel is an apartheid state. There is no possibility that the Palestinians in the occupied territories will be given the vote or any measure of political or civil liberties, and Israel can continue to call itself a Jewish state.

This is precisely what the liberals of J-Street, the ADL and Ha’aretz fear above all. Once the two-states cat is out of the bag then people have to confront a very simple question. Is Israel a Jewish state or a democratic state?


1. ‘Read Peter Beinart and you’ll vote Donald Trump’, June 5 2016,

2. Y Elam Introduction to Zionist history Tel Aviv 1972, pp125-26. See also: Ot, paper of youth cadre of Mapai No2, winter 1967, cited by Machover-Offenburg p58, and Brenner, p149; John Quigley, The case for Palestine: an international law perspective, pp26-27, Duke University Press 2005.

3. Ben-Gurion at the Mapai Central Committee, December 7 1938: Yoav Gelber Zionist policy & the fate of European Jewry 1939-42 p199; Tom Segev The 7th million p28;  Shabtai Teveth The burning ground p855; Gabriel Piterberg The returns of Zionism p99.

4. Jewish Journal December 16 2016

5. ‘From dismay to jubilation, Trump’s pick of David Friedman as Israel envoy splits Jewish response’ Ha’aretz December 16 2016.

6. ‘Trump Picks David Friedman As Ambassador To Israel’,

7. ‘Trump’s pick for envoy to Israel expects embassy in Jerusalem’, 16.12.16.

8. ‘Jewish storm builds over David Friedman’s appointment as Israel ambassador’, Nathan Guttman, Jewish Forward December 18 2016.

9. ‘PLO chief warns of chaos and extremism if US moves embassy to Jerusalem’, Middle East Eye, December 16 2016,

10. ‘Burning of Christian churches in Israel justified, far-right Jewish leader says’,

11. David Friedman, ‘Trump’s radical-right ambassador makes Netanyahu look like a J Street lefty’, Ha’aretz, December 17 2016,

12. ‘Mahmoud Abbas: collaboration with Israeli army, secret police is “sacred”’, Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada, May 30 2014. .

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jewish or a democratic state?

Nazi regime to hold bodies of Hamas


Security cabinet decides to return bodies of all Palestinian fighters – except for those affiliated with Hamas.

Image result for Nazi Avigdor Lieberman CARTOON

Nazi Avigfor Liberman

Nazi regime will hold the bodies of terrorists from Hamas, but will return the bodies of other terrorists to their families, Haaretz reported Friday morning.

According to the report, the new policy comes after a disagreement between Nazi Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman and Major General Nazi Nitzan Alon regarding the issue of returning the bodies of Palestinian fighters. Nazi Liberman expressed complete opposition to the return of the bodies and said that holding the bodies establishes a deterrent against future Palestinian attacks.

Nazi Gen. Alon disagreed and argued that holding the bodies only increases tension with the Arabs in the PA and Gaza. He said that it does not deter attacks, but instead encourages them,

The dispute occurred at a security cabinet meeting Wednesday. Nazi regime is currently in possession of five Palestinian fighters who were killed while carrying out attacks against the Nazi illegal occupation. Nazi court required the state to explain why it was still holding the bodies after a petition by the families of the terrorists to have the bodies returned.

A compromise was reached where it was decided to return the bodies of the three Palestinian fighters who were not affiliated with Hamas while continuing to hold the bodies of those that were.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi regime to hold bodies of Hamas

Nazi Barak: ”Right-wing nationalism greatest threat to Israel”


Former Nazi Defense Minister Ehud Barak says right-wing leaders obsessed with existential threats, including PM, are the greatest threat to to the Nazi regime.

Ehud Barak

Nazi Ehud Barak

Former Nazi Defense Minister Ehud Barak criticized Binyamin Naziyahu Monday night for what he said was the Prime Minister’s pandering to a dangerous stream of nationalism.

“Blind nationalism is not a natural identity, and it is not a disease without a cure.” Nazi Barak said. He accused “politicians, cynical [people], demagogues, populists, and insecure [people]” of attempting to rile up base nationalist passions in order to stay in power.

He said that the Nazi Prime Minister and other right-wing politicians are obsessed with perceived existential threats to the State of ‘Israel’. “Fear blinds the eyes and cripples freedom of thought. They look and see existential threats” everywhere, paralyzing them.

“The nationalist obsessions of the leaders of the right, with Netanyahu at their head, are the greatest threat to Israel’s future. This needs to be fixed, and the fixing begins at home.” he added. “I would like to see us form a massive movement to call for change in the country.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi Barak: ”Right-wing nationalism greatest threat to Israel”

Arakan Attacks Linked to Group in Saudi Arabia


RANGOON — The International Crisis Group (ICG) said that militant attacks in northern Arakan State were linked to a Muslim insurgent group based in Mecca, Saudi Arabia and were aiming to secure the rights of the Rohingya as citizens within Burma.

In an article published in Time magazine on Tuesday, the ICG said that a group called Harakah al-Yaqin, or “Faith Movement” in Arabic, was involved in the attacks against Burma government forces in Arakan State in October and November, based on interviews the ICG conducted with members of the armed group.

“This new armed group is overseen by a committee of Rohingya émigrés based in Mecca. The public face of its operations in northern Arakan, also called Rakhine, is Ata Ullah (known by several aliases), who is the main speaker in several videos released by the group. He was born in Karachi to a Rohingya father and grew up in Mecca. He is part of a group of 20 Rohingya who have international experience in modern guerrilla warfare and are leading operations on the ground in northern Arakan,”  the article reads.

The ICG is an international NGO based in Brussels, Belgium. Tim Johnston and Anagha Neelakantan, the directors of ICG’s Asia Program, wrote the report.

The story added that, “It [the “Faith Movement”] has spent at least two years training hundreds of local recruits in guerilla warfare and explosives. Several hundred Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh have also traveled to Arakan in recent weeks to join up.”

On Oct. 9, militants attacked three border guard posts in Maungdaw Township in northern Arakan State, killing nine police officers and stealing weapons and ammunition.

On Oct. 14, the government announced that the attacks were “assisted by foreign funding and the support of members of foreign terrorist organizations,” based on the interrogations of four captured militants.

Burmese authorities also accused Havistoohar, the leader of the Aqa Mul Mujahidin group, of carrying out the Maungdaw attacks. Havistoohar had completed a six-month Taliban training course in Pakistan and received funding from Middle Eastern organizations, authorities claimed.

It is not clear if Havistoohar is related to Harakah al-Yaqin, the organization mentioned in the latest ICG article.

Posted in Far EastComments Off on Arakan Attacks Linked to Group in Saudi Arabia

Burma: Rape and Murder of 5-Year-Old Stirs Outrage


Image result for BURMA A photo campaign against child sex abuse

RANGOON — A 61-year-old man raped and choked to death a 5-year-old girl in Sarni Taung village, Thandwe Township, southern Arakan State on Tuesday evening, according to the Thandwe police.

The little girl went outside of her home around 6 p.m. on Tuesday, and by 8 p.m., her parents began to search for her. The parents discovered their daughter’s dead body in the house belonging to their neighbor, U Han Maung, according to the Thandwe police.

The police arrested the suspect on Wednesday morning as he was riding his bicycle on the Thandwe-Taungup highway. Investigators believe that the perpetrator was trying to flee.

“He confessed his wrongdoings to the investigator. We transferred him to Thandwe prison yesterday,” said a Thandwe police officer.

Police charged U Han Maung with sexual abuse and murder, in accordance with articles 376 and 302 of Burma’s Penal Code.

This rape marks the second notorious case in Arakan State this year.

In February, a man raped a 7-year-old girl in Kan Seik village, Pauktaw Township. That case concluded on Dec. 12, when the judge sentenced the offender to 20 years in prison with hard labor.

The total number of reported rape cases in 2016 is significantly higher than in previous years, and social activists have been voicing their concerns.

On Wednesday, lawmaker Daw Khin San Hlaing of the National League for Democracy (NLD) asked in Parliament whether the government was willing to assign the harshest possible penalties to the culprits.

Gen Aung Soe, the deputy minister for home affairs, responded that his ministry would be drafting new laws to protect children’s rights and to prevent violence against women.

The deputy minister also said that child rape statistics are rising in Burma. In 2016, child rape cases made up 61 percent of all reported rapes. In 2015, that number was only 46 percent.

Since the start of the year, authorities have sentenced 206 offenders to prison after they were convicted of rape. Of those 206 cases, 24 were sentenced to 10-20 years in prison, 72 were sentenced to 8-10 years, 46 were sentenced to 6-7 years, and 65 were sentenced to 1-5 years.

Gen Aung Soe said the courts have received 517 total rape cases in 2016.

Posted in BurmaComments Off on Burma: Rape and Murder of 5-Year-Old Stirs Outrage

Burma: Militancy in Arakan State


Ongoing violence in Arakan State has captured the attention of the outside world in a way that no other ethnic conflict in Burma has ever done. But are Muslim communities in the northwestern corner of the state subjected to ethnic cleansing verging on genocide — or is it, as two writers from the International Crisis Group (ICG) suggested in an article in Time magazine, and elaborated in a longer report, “the world’s newest Muslim insurgency?” Either way, the events that have unfolded in Arakan State since conflict erupted in June 2012 are a tragedy, and widespread allegations have circulated regarding severe human rights abuses committed by Burma’s security forces during counterinsurgency operations. Satellite images of the area show that entire villages were burned and thousands of people fled to neighboring Bangladesh since militants launched a series of attacks against border police stations on Oct. 9, prompting the Burma Army to intervene.

The militants, who killed nine police officers and captured more than 50 guns from the outposts, were poorly armed, but the manner in which they carried out the attacks showed clear signs of coordination and knowledge of basic military tactics. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that there is more to the conflict than that the Muslims in the northwestern corner of Arakan State—known as the Rohingya—are the most persecuted minority in the world, as they are often described in the international media. Without ignoring the suffering of the local people, evidence is emerging of a more organized, Islamist-inspired militancy in the area — and the army’s ferocious response to it could have far-reaching consequences. “The authorities are playing with fire,” said a diplomat familiar with the issue. “There’s widespread sympathy for the militants in the Muslim world.” Or, as the ICG says, unless properly handled, this could well be the beginning of a new religiously motivated insurgency with outside support.

A central figure behind the scenes in the conflict is said to be a man called Abdus Qadoos Burmi, a Pakistani of Rohingya descent. Based in Karachi, Pakistan, he has appeared in videos that have spread on social media as well as in bulletins issued by his group, Harkat ul Jihad Islami-Arakan (HUJI-A), which may be part of a broader network usually transcribed from the name in Arabic as Harakah al-Yaqin, or “the Faith Movement”. Qadoos Burmi, who was born in Pakistan to parents from Arakan State, is reported to be closely associated with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), “the Army of the Righteous” and its political wing, Jamat ud Dawah (JuD). Both organizations are banned in Pakistan but continue to operate more or less openly. According to a US diplomatic cable dated as early as Aug. 10, 2009, and made public by Wikileaks, LeT and its “alias” JuD are affiliated with the international terrorist network al-Qaida and have raised funds for its activities from so-called charities in Saudi Arabia.

Shortly after the first bout of violence in June 2012, LeT and JuD initiated a movement called the Difa-e-Musalman e-Arakan Conference to highlight the Rohingya issue. In August the same year, two senior JuD operatives, identified by intelligence agencies as Shahid Mahmood and Nadeem Awan, visited Bangladesh to make contact with Rohingya in camps near the Burmese border. Religious and some military-style training is said to have been provided. At the same time, LeT-linked operatives visited the Mae Sot area in Thailand, where training was also provided to potential militants.

Using social media, the Rohingya support network has been busy releasing photos and videos of alleged atrocities committed by the security services in Arakan State. While not denying that atrocities have been carried out, veteran human rights observers are appalled by the dissemination of a flood of fake images coming from the area. Most recently, pictures of a Cambodian child being tortured by a Dutch man and two Cambodian men appeared in the British newspaper the Daily Mail claiming that it was a Rohingya toddler being tortured by Burmese soldiers. Pictures of victims of the May 2008 Cyclone Nargis and an earthquake in the Chinese province Sichuan, also in May 2008, have been peddled as evidence of violence against the Rohingya as well. Pictures of Christians laid in an open field and killed by Islamic militants in Nigeria were said to be dead Rohingya. Even a picture of a Muslim man killed in a traffic accident in Thailand was portrayed as a victim of violence in Arakan State.

Human Rights Watch (HRW), which has released genuine pictures of villages that have been burned down in Arakan State and other confirmed reports of abuses, has had to be careful to sort fact from fiction. According to David Mathieson, who has covered human rights abuses for HRW for 15 years, said many photos and videos they had been sent were “crude fakes.” By doing so, some Rohingya-support groups are actually undermining the work of internationally-recognized human rights organizations such as HRW. “One bad set of reporting gives the government ammunition to smear serious rights reporting and discredit professional reports,” said Mathieson. “It also shows that social media can be misused as a platform for transmitting information of complex human rights issues and users should automatically question every report and image instead of immediately posting anguish and invective. Too often people feed off their emotions during crises, and don’t rely on balanced reporting.”

The violence in Arakan State—accurate reports and rumors included—has been the main focus of the international media to the extent that many foreign reporters have equated ethnic conflicts in Burma with the Rohingya issue — while a fiercer and much more serious civil war between government forces and several armed ethnic groups is raging in the north of the country. The Kachin Independence Army (KIA), which signed a ceasefire agreement with the government in 1994, has been under attack since June 2011. More than 100,000 people have been internally displaced and are living in makeshift camps in Kachin State while KIA camps and outposts, as well as civilian villages, have been bombed from the air. In central and northern Shan State, fighting is raging between government forces and the KIA, as well as the Palaung, Kokang and Shan rebel forces. Helicopter gunships, attack aircraft and heavy artillery have been used in the heaviest fighting Burma has seen since the 1980s—at the same time the government has announced a “peace process.” Burmese journalists who tell foreign colleagues that they cover the country’s decades-long ethnic conflicts frequently get the response, “ah, so you are writing about the Rohingya!”

It is uncertain whether the conflict in Arakan State will become a full-fledged insurgency like those in the north, and it all depends on what kind of outside support local militants can muster from their foreign allies. So far, militant activities in the Muslim-dominated townships of northwestern Arakan State have not been particularly successful. The first Muslim resistance army in the area was set up on Aug. 20, 1947 — even before Burma’s independence from Britain in Jan. 1948 — in Buthidaung Township. The leader, Jafar Hussain aka Jafar Kawwal was a local, popular singer who wanted to merge the area with the then newly-proclaimed independent country of Pakistan. Pakistan achieved its independence on Aug. 14, 1947, comprising a western as well as an eastern part, separated by India, which became independent on Aug. 15. The eastern part, formerly the Indian province of East Bengal, broke away in 1971 and became Bangladesh.

The first rebellion spread quickly in Maungdaw, Rathedaung and Buthidaung townships, but when it was clear that Pakistan was not going to accept the insurgents’ demands, they began to advocate for local autonomy. Burmese Muslim leaders also disowned the rebels in the westerns border areas. As early as May 20, 1946, U Razak, a Muslim and one of Burma’s national heroes who was assassinated along with Gen Aung San in July of that year, published a warning in the Burmese press to the country’s Muslim communities not to show any sympathy towards the then-proposed state of Pakistan. U Razak wanted all Burmese Muslims to be a strong and respected community in the country of their birth, and that has been the stance of Burmese Muslims ever since. Muslim separatism and armed rebellion has always been confined to those townships in what now constitutes Arakan State.

Jafar Hussain, the leader of the rebellion, was assassinated in 1950 and replaced by a man called Cassim. The rebellion petered out in the mid-1950s, especially after a military campaign in 1954 called “Operation Monsoon.” In 1961, the last remaining rebels surrendered after an agreement was reached with the government. They were going to get their self-governing area, called the Mayu Frontier Administration.

Those early rebels did not call themselves Rohingya but mujaheeds. It was not until the late 1950s that the name Rohingya came into use and the government recognized the designation. U Nu, who had resigned as prime minister in 1958 to give way to a military caretaker government headed by Gen Ne Win, wanted to get the Muslim vote when he sought re-election in 1960—and the creation of the Mayu Frontier Administration as well as the recognition of the name Rohingya was part of that campaign.

The origin and meaning of the name Rohingya is uncertain. Support groups often refer to writings by the Scottish geographer, botanist and zoologist Francis Buchanan-Hamilton who in 1799 wrote that a people called “Rooinga” lived in what is now northwestern Arakan State. But it far from certain that those “Rooinga” are the same people as those who today call themselves Rohingya. According to Moshe Yegar, the author of The Muslims of Burma: A Study of a Minority Group, published in Germany in 1972 and still one of the best sources on Burma’s Muslim communities, the meaning could be “the compassionate ones” or perhaps a distortion of the words rwa-haung-ga-kyar, “tiger from the ancient village” which equals “brave” and was the name given to Muslim soldiers who settled in the area after the Burmese conquest in the 1780s. Until 1784, Arakan was an independent kingdom and the Burmese king Bodawpaya used his Muslim soldiers to conquer the area. If that theory is correct, there is no connection between the “Rooinga” of 1799 and today’s Rohingya, who speak the Chittagonian dialect of Bengali. The Muslim soldiers who remained behind in the area soon adopted Burmese names and their descendants speak Burmese or the Arakan dialect, although they have retained their religion.

The area between Chittagong and Sittwe has always been a typical frontier area where the Indian Subcontinent ends and Southeast Asia begins, and there have always been Buddhists and Muslims living on both sides of what is currently the border between Bangladesh and Burma. The Buddhists on the other side speak the Arakan dialect but are called Marma, a term coined by Maung Shwe Prue, the raja of Bohmong, in the late 1940s. Marma is how Arakan people would pronounce Myanmar, as the consonant ya gaut is still an “r-sound” in their language, not a softened “y” as in standard Burmese. After Pakistan and Burma gained independence and the border between the two countries became an international boundary, the question of ethnic identity became important. The Arakan Buddhists in East Pakistan decided that they were Marma and, a decade later, the Muslims in northwestern Arakan, who throughout the British period was categorized as Chittagonians, resurrected the old designation Rohingya and gave it new meaning. But while the Marmas in East Pakistan/Bangladesh became citizens of that country, the Rohingya have not managed to achieve a similar status in the country where they live. Most Arakan and Burmese activists refer to them as “illegal immigrants from Bangladesh,” although most of them settled in the area during British colonial time.

Long-standing frictions between the two communities became severe during the Japanese occupation in the 1940s. The Arakan Buddhists sided with the Japanese and Aung San’s Burma Independence Army while nearly all the Chittagonian Muslims, according to what C.E. Lucas Phillips writes in his book about the war, The Raiders of Arakan, “were completely loyal to the British, who protected them from Mugh (Arakan) oppression.” Both communities carried out acts of violence against one another and when the war was over, 50,000 or perhaps as many as 80,000 Chittagonians from Burma fled to East Bengal, where they were interned in camps. They did not return after independence, and many of them continued to West Pakistan, where they settled in and around Karachi. Later in the 1950s, some continued to Sharjah in what is now the United Arab Emirates, marking the beginning of what has become a large exile community from which today’s militants are drawing support.

The 1962 military takeover, which brought Gen Ne Win back to power — now permanently — meant that the Mayu Frontier Administration was abolished and all Rohingya organizations, among them the Rohingya Students’ Union and the Rohingya Youth League, were outlawed. Some of the activists, among them the leader of the student union, Mohammad Jafar Habib, went underground in March 1963 and set up the Rohingya Independence Force (RIF), the first rebel group to use the name Rohingya. In 1974, it became the Rohingya Patriotic Front (RPF), but like the RIF before it, it did not carry out many activities inside Burma. It was based in Chittagong, where it published bulletins, newsletters and booklets about the Rohingya struggle.

International interest in the issue came after the Burmese government in March 1978 launched a campaign code-named Naga Min (“Dragon King”) in Arakan State, ostensibly to “check illegal immigrants.” By June, at least 200,000 Rohingya had fled to Bangladesh, causing an international outcry. Eventually, most of them were allowed to return, but thousands found it safer to remain on the Bangladesh side of the border. The immensely wealthy Saudi Arabian charity Rabitat-al-Alam-al-Islami began sending aid to the refugees during the 1978 crisis, and it also built a hospital, a mosque and a madrasa at Ukhia south of Cox’s Bazar.

As a consequence, more militant elements broke away from the RPF in the early 1980s to set up the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO). Led by a medical doctor from Arakan State, Muhammad Yunus, it soon became the main and the most militant organization among the Rohingya in Bangladesh. Given its more rigid religious stance, the RSO soon enjoyed support from like-minded groups in the Muslim world. These included the fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh and its even more radical youth organization, Islami Chhatra Shibir as well as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami in Afghanistan, Hizbe-ul Mujahideen in Kashmir and Angkatan Belia Islam sa-Malaysia, the Islamic youth organization in Malaysia. Afghan instructors were seen in RSO camps near Ukhia, while nearly 100 RSO militants went to Afghanistan to undergo training Hizb-e-Islami in the province of Khost.

The rise of the RSO coincided with another Burmese government operation in northwestern Arakan State, which forced people to flee across the border. By April 1992, more than 250,000 Rohingya had taken refuge in Bangladesh and, at that time, Prince Khaled Sultan Abdul Aziz, commander of the Saudi Arabian contingent in the 1991 Gulf War, visited the Bangladeshi capital Dhaka and recommended a Desert Storm-like (the name of the US-led campaign to drive Iraq out of Kuwait) action against Burma, “just what was done to liberate Kuwait.” That, of course, did not happen and the Burmese government, under pressure from the United Nations, eventually agreed to take most of the refugees back.

The RSO acquired weapons such as automatic rifles, machine guns and even rocket launchers on regional black markets, and, in the early 1990s, Bangladeshi media gave extensive coverage to the rebel build-up near the border. But it soon became clear that it was not only Rohingya who underwent training in the RSO’s camps. Many, it turned out, were members of Islami Chhatra Shibir and came from the University of Chittagong, who used the RSO camps as a cover for their own militant activities. The RSO was, in fact, engaged in little or no fighting inside Burma. Videotapes from those camps later showed up with al-Qaida in Kabul, where the US cable TV network CNN obtained them after the American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. The tapes were marked “Burma” in Arabic and were shown worldwide in August 2002. It was assumed that they were shot inside Burma instead of across the border in Ukhia.

There is little doubt that extremist groups in Bangladesh, Pakistan and beyond took advantage of the disenfranchised Rohingya, recruiting them as cannon fodder for al-Qaida in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In an interview with the Karchai-based newspaper Ummat on September 28, 1991, Osama bin Laden himself said, “There are areas in all parts of the world where strong jihadi forces are present, from Bosnia to Sudan, and from Burma to Kashmir.” He was most probably referring to the RSO in Ukhia.

Many of the Rohingya recruits were given the most dangerous tasks in the battlefield, clearing mines and portering. According to intelligence sources, Rohingya recruits were paid 30,000 Bangladeshi taka (US$525) on joining and then 10,000 taka (US$175) per month. The families of recruits killed in action were offered 100,000 taka (US$1,750). Recruits were taken mostly via Nepal to Pakistan, where they were trained and sent on further to military camps in Afghanistan.

But there was also a more moderate faction among the Rohingya in Bangladesh, the Arakan Rohingya Islamic Front (ARIF), which was set up in 1986, uniting remnants of the old RPF and a handful of defectors from the RSO. It was led by Nurul Islam, a Rangoon-educated lawyer. However, it never had more than a handful of soldiers equipped with old weapons, and based well inside Bangladesh. In 1998, it became the Arakan Rohingya National Organization (ARNO), maintaining a moderate stance and barely surviving in exile in Chittagong and Cox’s Bazar.

Today, the RSO as well as ARIF/ARNO are more or less defunct after Bangladeshi government drives to assume better control over the border areas. But, as the recent attacks in Arakan State show, it is evident that a new, even more militant generation of Rohingya militants has emerged and the highly publicized attacks in October were not the first attempts to enter Burma with armed personnel. In February and May 2014, militants from across the border carried out deadly attacks on Border Guard Force police in Maungdaw, events that were hardly reported in local media. At least four, some say more, policemen were killed in those attacks.

Training of more militants is being carried out in remote border areas in Bangladesh, and in Pakistan, and funds for the jihad, or “holy war” are coming from wealthy financiers in Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries, mainly Qatar. The new groups are also reported to have links with Islamic fundamentalists in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. Exact numbers of militants, trained, armed or otherwise, are not known and the names of the groups are unclear and identities of their leaders still a bit of a mystery with most of them using different aliases. It is also not known whether today’s militants, as suggested, want to establish an Islamic state in northwestern Arakan State, or are looking only for new havens for operations in the region, including perhaps even India. But it is clear that it is a growing movement that international observers only now are beginning to take seriously. And the ICG might well be right. It could be the beginning of a new Islamic-inspired insurgency in Burma, which could have a significant impact on peace and stability in other countries in the region as well.

Posted in BurmaComments Off on Burma: Militancy in Arakan State

Nazi regime Military Shipment to Burma


Israel Urged to Suspend Military Shipment to Burma

Image result for JEWISH CARTOON

Human rights activists and lawyers in Israel have urged the Ministry of Defense to nullify or suspend a military shipment ordered by the Burma Army, stating that the country still commits human rights abuses against minority groups.

They wrote to Racheli Chen, head of the Israeli Ministry of Defense’s export control department, and called for a review of all defense export licenses purchased by the Burma Army under the authority granted to her in Clause 9 of the 2007 law on defense export control.

“It is surprising that the State of Israel, while struggling for continued sanctions against Iran, has no qualms about ignoring the US and EU sanctions against Burma for the most severe crimes being committed there,” read the letter dated Dec. 11.

It stated that the Burma Army still wages war with ethnic minorities in northern and eastern Burma, while also committing serious human rights violations against the Rohingya Muslim minority in western Burma.

Eitay Mack, a human rights attorney in Jerusalem told The Irrawaddy, “The military hardware hasn’t shipped yet [to Burma]. We want to stop it. We hope that we can do something by using our authority.”

During his visit to Israel last September, Snr-Gen Min Aung Hlaing along with military officials from Burma’s Air Force and Navy toured Elbit Systems, an Israel-based defense manufacturing company. They also toured an Israeli naval base, the country’s Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv and a memorial to fallen soldiers in the Gaza Strip.

Reports and pictures of the trip were revealed on the Burma Army chief’s Facebook, saying that he had spoken with Israeli representatives about purchasing military equipment and training.

The activists’ letter also said that despite the positive transition in Burma, the Burma Army and its officials continue to retain control. Representatives of the junta are assured 25 percent of the seats in parliament, which reserves them the right to veto any reform measures. The military also continues to control three key ministries: defense, border affairs and home affairs.

The letter stated that Burma Army forces and related militias continue to arrest, torture and murder ethnic and religious minorities, opposition and human rights activists, farmers opposed to dispossession of their land, journalists and students.

“This is both a violation of international law, and of basic human morality,” read the letter.

According to various reports, Israel has maintained defense ties with the Burmese junta for decades, even if not continuously. Last June, the head of Israel’s defense export department Gen Michel Ben Baruch visited Burma and met with leaders of the Burma Army.

Posted in BurmaComments Off on Nazi regime Military Shipment to Burma

Russian Ambassador to Turkey Was Killed in the “Parallel Universe”


The Russian ambassador was killed in Ankara on the evening of Dec. 19 .  The killer, a 22-year-old Turkish graduate of the police academy who had been fired in July after being deemed untrustworthy, fired 11 bullets into the ambassador’s back as he finished addressing the attendees at the opening of the Russia Through Turkish Eyes photo exhibit.

Since the murderer was killed by a detachment of police who arrived a few minutes after the tragedy, the upcoming investigation is unlikely lead back to those who ordered this crime.  Obviously this was not the work of the Turkish government – this murder was specifically intended to disrupt the process of rebuilding the dialog between Russia and Turkey spanning a wide range of issues – from resolving the situation in Syria to shipping natural gas to Europe.

Many point to Daesh’s underground network in Turkey – but it should be understood that that is under the full control of the Turkish authorities and the cover operation now being conducted by the authors of this campaign of intimidation is intent on convincing the world that the Islamists are beyond anyone’s control and too reckless to be kept in check.  The gunman was likely an agent from Mossad or a Western intelligence service who was passing himself off as a covert terrorist, which would be an entirely plausible story for a young man who had found himself in difficulties.  The shots that rang out in an Ankara gallery of contemporary art a few minutes after a plane carrying Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu turned toward Moscow were also intended to overshadow his visit (which turned out not to have been worthwhile, based on the negotiations).

By and large this act of terrorism was a desperate, angry move by figures at the backstage in the global theater who have lost this round in Syria.

Back in October we wrote about how the events in Syria are in no way a local conflict, but rather reflect a clash between powerful forces, one demanding “freedom of capital” and the other – protecting freedom of the soul.  These high stakes explain the unprecedented campaign of lies that major transnational news outlets have launched in recent weeks concerning the state of affairs in Aleppo with their baseless accusations that the Syrian army and its allies have committed war crimes.  The propaganda has become so ferocious that Syrian, Russian, and alternative sources of information that report on the real situation in Syria have been accused of fabricating a “parallel universe.”  It’s hard to believe, but people who are well aware that  the “documented evidence” that they are presenting as “proof of the regime’s atrocities” was actually filmed say,  somewhere in Egypt still have the audacity to claim that their reporting reflects “reality” and that anything inconsistent with that is something “parallel.”

The fanatical faith of the devotees of “freedom of capital” in the “sanctity” of their “civilizing” mission, which they see as the only path, can be attributed to nothing but this entirely Trotskyist psychic phenomenon (that the end justifies the means).

The result of the astonishing intellectual selectivity of these blind guides (or Intellectual Yet Idiots, as the Lebanese-American scholar Nassim Taleb has called them) was recently clearly exhibited by a US correspondent for the Norwegian mainstream newspaper Aftenposten.  He was covering the press conference held by Eva Bartlett, a Canadian journalist and activist with the International Syria Solidarity Movement, in the United Nations building in New York on Dec 9.  That Norwegian correspondent challenged her on one point and her reply resonated throughout social networks for the next few days.

Among other things, she declared that the volunteer group known as the White Helmets, although so renowned in the West, is entirely unknown in Aleppo (another activist with the Syria Solidarity Movement, Vanessa Beeley, recently published a detailed investigation of these terrorist accomplices).  Aftenposteninterweaves its usual propaganda with photos and videos from highly dubious sources supporting the insurgents and condescendingly notes, referring to UN humanitarian official Jan Egeland, that “no one in Aleppo has ever heard of the UN either.”

To Russians, who continually find themselves up against a similar lack of coherence in the way Europeans think of their country (whether in the imaginary “Russian threat” to the Baltics, “aggression in the Donbass,” or the “occupation of Crimea”), such metamorphoses are interpreted as “Russophobia.”  But it seems that the problem goes much deeper.

A favorite catchphrase for most US and European politicians is “Western values.”  This slogan is invariably trotted out whenever they need to force someone else to agree to some decision that is essential to the West, while anyone who opposes them is declared an enemy of these values and is subjected to ostracism, sanctions, condemnation, or even destruction.  Few realize that the concept is now widely used within a context that has nothing to do with axiology (the study of values), but which is at its heart merely a political mythology.  An impartial analysis of Western values, especially in comparison with those held by Russians, gives a very clear answer to the question as to why Russia, although it seems to no longer have any fundamentally new ideological project to offer the world, is emerging as the new “shining city upon a hill” for a growing number of people across the globe.

First of all, when Western ideologues attempt to define the concept of Western values, they usually cite a dozen or so stock phrases such as “democracy,” “tolerance,” “a strong civil society,” “the rule of law,” and “political pluralism,” all of which were divorced from their original meanings long ago.  In fact, only provincial Europhiles and American students in liberal arts colleges believe in these mottos anymore.  On the contrary, the difference between the word (“democracy”) and the deed (utterly suppressing dissent and ordering the overthrow of legitimate regimes in objectionable countries) has become one of the most important tools used by the West to promulgate its quasi-values, which are actually fronts for its true expansionist interests.

Let us turn to a comparative table of the actual value systems of the contemporary West vs.  Russia:

The  West

 Russian (Eurasian) civilization

  • globalism
  • a multi-polar world
  • universality
  • the diversity of identities
  • the superiority of the Western world (Western civilization as a model)
  • all civilizations are equal and sovereign
  • limitless progress
  • movement forward without destroying the old
  • material prosperity
  • spiritual and social development
  • multiculturalism
  • internationalism (the brotherhood of nations)
  • a society that is open to migrants
  • (at the expense of the native-born population)
  • a strict migration policy
  • (the protection of the interests of the native-born population)
  • political pluralism
  • the spiritual communion of an entire society (“sobornost”)
  • a strong civil society
  • a society in solidarity
  • the bourgeoisie (the primacy of the propertied classes)
  • communitarism (the primacy of the majority)
  • agnosticism, atheism, and secularization
  • faith (traditional religions)
  • a preference for newly formed religions and sects
  • a preference for traditional religions and a rejection of sects
  • gender equality (the feminization of men and masculinization of women)
  • the preservation of natural gender differences and traditions
  • same-sex marriages and surrogate motherhood
  • the traditional family
  • sex “education” in schools
  • moral education in schools
  • support of the LGBT community at the expense of the traditional majority
  • the identification of non-traditional sexual orientation as an abnormality
  • juvenile justice that includes the legal protection of children from their parents
  • the exclusive right of parents to raise their children as they see fit, up to a certain age
  • the right to euthanasia
  • a ban on euthanasia and a focus on improving pain relief
  • the right to clone
  • a ban on cloning
  • individualism
  • various forms of collectiveness
  • freedom defined as the utmost rejection of social taboos
  • freedom defined as alignment with the (Divine) ideal
  • the law means justice
  • justice above the law
  • formal tolerance
  • genuine forbearance and compassion
  • political correctness
  • truth
  • transparency
  • openness (in the sense of “honesty”)
  • a “free” press
  • an accurate press
  • shame
  • conscience
  • a preference for private ownership
  • all types of ownership are equal
  • an open economy
  • a balance between openness and sovereignty
  • the “free market” as the primary regulator of economic relationship
  • the state determines the national priorities for the economy
  • the right to the unilateral use of force in the name of democracy
  • non-violence
  • social safety nets for those who are loyal to the system
  • social safety nets for all
  • an army of paid professionals
  • the universal conscription of citizens
  • wars are justified and essential in order to bring democracy to the “barbaric” part of the world
  • only defensive wars are acceptable

It is important to note that the values listed in the right-hand column of the table of values are merely ideals that are professed and are not officially approved Russian imperatives – they are understood identities that Russians have adopted (and these are being retained even amidst the atmosphere of the aggressive recoding emanating from the West, which, however, has not been very successful over the last 25 years).  Since the onset of the Ukrainian crisis in 2014, the process of re-traditionalizing Russian society has greatly accelerated, and this now seems irreversible and is even having a clearly beneficial effect on the West.  The hysteria unleashed by the owners of a number of international media outlets communicating only a single, primal thought – “Russia is the world’s greatest evil” – is tied to this Russian renaissance and the subsequent frustration of the hopes of Western elites to build a totalitarian super-society in the foreseeable future based on pseudo-liberal slogans.  But what kind of “evil” can Western civilization speak of when it has placed its bets on Hominid immoral in its classical, Biblical delineation?

Amb. Andrey Karlov became the real victim of aggressive imposing of false values and world-views on entrapped individuals, vainly wishing to find the Truth in distorting mirrors of the lavishly financed Western propaganda machine. They never realize that consuming Daily News or Al-Jazeera, they are turning into a Mevlut Mert Altintas themselves…


Posted in Russia, TurkeyComments Off on Russian Ambassador to Turkey Was Killed in the “Parallel Universe”

Shoah’s pages


December 2016
« Nov   Jan »