Archive | December 24th, 2016

Watch: Syrian Islamist parents send daughters, aged seven and nine, on suicide mission

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

We’ve all heard about Bana Alabed, the seven-year-old Syrian girl who tweets in perfect English and has become an obsession of the Western media. To date, she has 715 tweets under her belt and nearly 350,000 followers on Twitter.

She’s cute, sweet and a perfect propaganda tool for Western cynics seeking to portray the catastrophe that is consuming Syria as a struggle between the good guys and the bad guys.

In fact, only today Bana was received by the sultan of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, no less. Afterwards they exchanged sweet tweets.

“I was pleased to host @AlabedBana and her family at the Presidential Complex today. Turkey will always stand with the people of Syria,” said the sultan, who is a key supporter of the Islamist terrorists tearing Syria apart.

“Very happy to meet with Mr Erdogan,” replied little Bana – or was it one of her parents?

And they had sweet pictures to share, Bana, her brother and the sultan.

Bana Alabed, her brother and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Bana Alabed, her brother and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Meanwhile, in the real world in Syria friends of the sultan and his unholy allies, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel, were stooping to levels never before witnessed by homo sapiens.

A video has emerged showing a Syrian Islamist and his wife sending off their pre-teen daughters to carry out suicide bombings in the capital, Damascus.

In contrast to the twirling story of Bana, that of the infanticidal Islamist and his wife didn’t quite make it to the television screens, although some newspapers have reported .

In contrast to the twirling story of Bana, that of the infanticidal Islamist and his wife didn’t quite make it to the television screens, although some newspapers have reported it.In the video, shown above, the father, Abu Nimr, interviews his wife and daughters Islam, seven, and Fatima, nine, before they are dispatched to death and murder.

“Fatima, what are you going to do?” the bearded Abu Nimr asks.

“I am going to do a suicide mission!” she replies.

“Where?” the murderous father asks.

“In Damascus,” one of the girls says, dressed in a black shroud

“Damascus? You’re young, you’re only nine-years-old. Why don’t you leave this to the men? Have the men escaped? Have they left on the green buses?” the father asks, referring to the buses used to evacuate people from eastern Aleppo.

“You want to surrender so that you’re raped and killed by the infidels?” the bearded terrorist further asks, to which Fatima, her voice shaking, says “no”.

We wish Bana the best of luck – an innocent victim of cynical abusers who are using her to appeal to the emotions of Western audiences.

But it’s too late at least for the younger of the two suicide-primed sisters, Islam, murdered while on a mission to murder commissioned by her Islamist parents for an unworthy, unsavoury cause –  imposing Sharia, or the customs and practices of 7th-Century tribes of the Arabian Peninsula, on all Syrians on pain of death.

According to multiple news reports, on 16 December, a short time after the video was posted, she walked into a Damascus police station and blew up, possibly detonated remotely by her father from a safe distance, injuring three police officers.

Goodness knows what’s happened to her sister, Fatima. But we can be sure that if she’s not dead yet, she soon will be. For that, we must thank the sultan of Turkey and his friends in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel, and the powers behind them – the US and its satellite states in Europe and around the world.

Posted in Syria, TurkeyComments Off on Watch: Syrian Islamist parents send daughters, aged seven and nine, on suicide mission

Kazakhstan, Euro-Asian Integration and “The New Silk Route”

Kazakhstan – Euroasian Heart of Gold

Until recently Kazakhstan was commonly identified as an impervious, legendary and fascinating place, one of passionate, bloody dusks whose natural beauty, combined with the landscape diversity, made it the most seductive country in Central Asia. Today, though these features still distinguish it, it is placed in the new global scenario with a fully renewed guise which makes it the jewel in the area’s crown.

Over 20 years it actually managed to endow itself with its own structure and identity, doubtlessly more incisively and further reachingly than other ex USSR countries. This data may be even more appreciated if one considers its population, made up of only 17 million inhabitants, is subdivided into as many as 130 different religious confessions, which the state authorities were wisely able to harmonize, fleeing any attempt to ethnically-religiously characterize the Country. State modernization was also the fruit of smart economic choices, whose strategy did not stop on exclusively exploiting the huge energy resources available, but focussed on encouraging ambitious development projects based on the public – private partnership and attracting foreign investors tempted by the the privileged geographical position placing it near the greatest markets in Russia, China and India.

This geographical peculiarity makes Kazakhstan a transcontinental State and also a potential logistic platform for exchange between Europe and Asia and, in particular, in this moment which is recording an epochal change in geo-political, geo-economic scenarios which the greatest powers involved are also responding to via creating and planning great infrastructural works.

In fact there is no doubt that in the emerging context, continental infrastructures form an essential moment for upturn, as they can influence both the technological modernization processes and foreign policy stability. As well as broadening works in the Suez Canals and Panama, which have surely stressed the role played by maritime links, one must in no way ignore the importance of the land ones, which see the Asian continent as one of the main characters.

Indeed, Asia – “pivot of the century”, which prof. Bajrektarevic describes as the place where “demographic-migratory pressures are huge, regional demands are high, and expectations are brewing” is the continent most interested in and involved by projects to create roads, tunnels and rail, infrastructures that should cross it from one strip to another.

For example, China, which is playing a major role in this process, has for some years now got down to business, creating several strategic infrastructural projects that are useful in accompanying, protecting and raising the Country’s expansive capacities.

This surely includes the great land and sea “New Silk Route” project, devised by Beijing with the principal aim of moving China closer to the rest of the Euro-Asian continental mass, as well as developing the inland zones remaining behind the coastal strip. There can be no doubt that the full completion of this project will have weighty geo-political repercussions, if one just considers it focuses on linking Europe and Asia under an infrastructural, economic profile, and at the same time going against US replacing on the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean.

In this new picture, Kazakhstan, already identifying itself as as “bridge” and joining land between the economies of Europe and Asia, finds itself back in the heart of a new East-West efficiency logistic axis represented by the current surge of motorway, Railroad and pipeline constructions. This looks to new, ambitious business opportunities, some of them already grasped by Italian firms (like Salini Impregilo and Todini), already busy creating one of these international transit corridors, while others could be profiled following the passing of the new Nurly Zhol state development programme, “The Walk Toward the Future”.

This programme, which aims to modernize the infrastructure and internal transport apparatus, also in view of the Expo to be held in the very modern Astana in 2017, intends to encurage foreign investments in transport / logistic and industrial / energy sectors so as to make the Country more efficient and in step with the interconnection processes developing both on a global level and in the “Euro-Asian” strip. The Expo event is bound to contribute to giving gloss to the capital representing the perfect synthesis of modernizing processes launched in the last two decades as well as the last in the utopian cities chronologically.

Astana, bearing the signature of Japanese architect Kisko Kurokava with collaboration from artists and intellectuals, was devised to represent, despite its distinctive Winter temperatures, the perfect city of the future model and celebrate the growing power of Kazakhstan. A revolutionary city that expresses the vision of its its planner, man dominating nature, and also embodies environmental sustainability principles, breaking with traditional city structures. Astana was indeed planned and created in sectors, putting the zones in a row starting from the industrial one, located around the station so as to exploit transport possibilities, following with residential areas, with parks and gardens, with the government’s administrative ones and the diplomats’ zone. As well as Astana, Kazakhstan also dares on the maritime transport megastructures, suggesting a “Euro-Asian channel” so that its ships, starting from the Caspian Sea, can reach the Black Sea and from there, via the Bosphorus, the Mediterranean.

Should this proposal become reality, it could turn the Country, thanks mainly to its geographical position and its constructive big neghbours, into the great “Euro-Asia” logistic platform, a great centre to shift products and services and attract investments located in the golden “heart of the world”.

Posted in WorldComments Off on Kazakhstan, Euro-Asian Integration and “The New Silk Route”

Russian Hacking: The CIA Never Lies?


Be honest now. Did you believe the US intelligence agencies when they claimed it was a “Slam Dunk” Iraq had WMD? That bit of propaganda cost 5,000 American lives, and more than a million Iraqi lives. To make matters even more horrible, 600,000 children under 5 years old died because of brutal sanctions.

They sold that war using fake, distorted evidence, and outright lies, to support their need for a war. They even introduced “forged” documents from Niger to sell the war. Tragically the US public bought it, hook line and sinker, even though there were knowledgeable people who saw through the ruse.  Experts who knew the intelligence was baseless, were ignored by mainstream media, and the propaganda by government and its mouthpiece, mainstream media, went unchallenged. These intelligence agencies were the very same who did not foresee the fall of the Berlin wall until it was on the ground in pieces, nor did they see the destruction of the WTC until it too, was on the ground. And this would be the same CIA who this week, submitted a written apology to the Turkish government for making “false claims” about Turkey” oil trading with Daesh.

Now we are told the Russians interfered with our elections, but this time it is different. They don’t offer any evidence  or proof whatsoever, let alone fake evidence. Their claims are based on anonymous sources, unnamed sources, and terms like “consensus view”, with not a shred of absolute proof.  Based on the Iraq lies, they learned you can sell the US public anything, if you just keep repeating the lie. The “Big Lie” theory is alive and well today. If you repeat something enough, it becomes fact. The intelligence agencies refused to brief congress, and they refused to brief the electors before voting for President. Why?

There certainly are experts in the field who should know about the alleged hacking, but they are not allowed to disrupt mainstream media’s Russophobe frenzy. Bet you never saw William Binney on mainstream media.

Who is Binney?  He is the guy who put together the NSA’s elaborate worldwide surveillance system. He has publicly stated on alternative news sites, that if something was “hacked”, the NSA would instantly know who, when, and whether the info was passed on to another party.  He designed the system. He argues, there was no hacking for that very reason. Binney insists the e-mails had to have been leaked by an “insider” who had access to the data. Never heard him on mainstream media huh?

Next comes Craig Murray a former US Ambassador who claims he knows who leaked the e-mails, because he met with the individual in Washington D.C. Never heard him on mainstream media either huh?

Finally, Julian Assange, the man who released the e-mails. He insisted all along he never got the e-mails from Russia.  Another no show on mainstream media. Whatever happened to the journalistic adage of going to the source? Assange is the source, but no mainstream media journalist, and I use the term very loosely, has ventured to speak with him. The accusation has been repeated countless times, without any evidence, or consulting with any of the above three experts.

Because the big lie has been repeated so many times by corporate media, about half of the US public, according to a recent poll, believes Russia interfered, even though there is not a bit of evidence to support it. Once again they take the bait; hook, line, and sinker.

For believers of Russian hacking, I offer the following analogy. It might, but I doubt it help, because you cannot undo the effect of propaganda.  You are put on trial for murder that you did not commit. The prosecutor and judge simply say they have reached a “consensus view”, the phrase offered by intelligence agencies, that you committed the murder and are guilty. You ask for proof. They offer none. They just keep repeating that you did it. You challenge and ask how do you know I did it? Answer: we have anonymous sources, but we cannot tell you who they are, nor can we show you proof.

Just as in the fake run-up to the Iraq war, the expert voices of the opposition are not tolerated on mainstream media. Do these folks really want a war with Russia?  Are they so upset with Trump’s pronouncement that he wanted better relations with Russia?  What sane person would not?  Hmmm.

It appears there is a war already raging between the Russophobes, who do not want better relations with Russia, and are doing their best to smear and demonize Putin, and those who do. This is the same tactic used  with Manuel Noriega of Panama, Muarmar Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein, before they made war on all three. Demonize, then make war.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Shame on those who buy into propaganda without any proof.

Think about it and use a little logic.

Posted in USA, RussiaComments Off on Russian Hacking: The CIA Never Lies?

Kenya and The East African Community: Is Nairobi The Next Victim Of Hybrid War?


The first of the EAC countries to be discussed is Kenya, which is also the strongest economy of the bloc. Due to its location and history, it’s also the one that’s the most “Western-friendly” and well known, though what is much less discussed are the myriad Hybrid War vulnerabilities that it faces. Popularly conceived of in the Western imagination as a relatively stable country, that’s only true when put into relative perspective of its Somalian and South Sudanese neighbors, and recent events over the past few years indicate that it may no longer be the oasis of calm that many had previously assumed that it was.

While one could argue that the current processes which are about to be discussed in detail are occurring “naturally” and are “inevitable”, it’s much more accurate to remember the context in which they’re unfolding, which is China’s dual New Silk Road projects in the country, LAPSSET and the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR). With this in mind, the question can naturally be posed whether certain destabilization processes and latently developing threats are as “natural” and “inevitable” as they may have superficially seemed at first glance. The research is thus purposed in order to help the reader arrive at an answer to these pressing questions.

The study starts off by describing the overall strategic situation in Kenya, with topical references to its history, present leadership, and recent events. After establishing a relevant backdrop for understanding the country, it then proceeds to discussing the four greatest Hybrid War vulnerabilities facing the state. When it comes to actual or prospectively emerging threats, Kenya needs to be on the lookout for Somali terrorism and irredentism, Swahili Coast separatism, Identity Federalism, and Color Revolutions, all of which could potentially offset its ambitious Vision 2030 development plan, impede China’s Silk Road projects, and turn “exceptional” Kenya into the type of “stereotypical” conflict-plagued African state that the West imagines the rest of the continent to be.

Putting Kenya Into Context

Kenya is one of the few places in Africa to have escaped large-scale turmoil since independence, despite having a very diverse population that may have otherwise portended that it would descend into domestic conflict. There’s no majority ethnicity/tribe in Kenya, though the CIA World Factbook lists the Kikuyu has being the largest plurality at 22%, followed by the Luhya (14%), Luo (13%), Kalenjin (12%) and Kamba (11%). Altogether, these top five identity groups contribute to an estimated 72% of the population and are generally located in a southeast to northwest arc extending through coastal Mombasa, centrally located Nairobi, and Uganda-bordering Kisumu, the three largest cities in the country and incidentally also the main points along the SGR.

The key to keeping these disparate groups together has been the comparatively successful attempts at fostering a sense of composite Kenyan patriotism, tremendously helped by nearly 40 consecutive years of rule by only two strong-willed Presidents. Granted, this sentiment of civic nationalism revealed itself during the 2007-2008 electoral violence to be a lot weaker than observers had initially thought, which is one of the factors contributing to the country’s Hybrid War vulnerabilities and will be discussed later on. For now, though, it’s useful to begin by briefly talking about the Presidencies of Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel arap Moi, though not comprehensively and only in terms of emphasizing the aspects that specifically relate to the Hybrid War study.

Interested readers, as they’ve been suggested to do in previous sections, should conduct their own independent in-depth historical research if they feel inclined to do so, but the scope and scale of the present initiative does not allow for such at this time. The author is not attempting to “whitewash” any historical events or present every single angle of discussion pertaining to whatever topics are brought up, so the reader is kindly asked to bear this in mind going forward and to understand that the only intent in conducting this and other brief historical examinations is to familiarize people with countries that they may not know anything about. Having gotten the ‘obligatory preface’ out of the way, it’s now time to cut to the chase and begin Kenya’s strategic audit.

Two Presidents In Nearly 40 Years:

It was mentioned above that Kenya’s diverse ethnic-tribal identities were kept together in peace partially because of the continuous leadership the country experienced in only having two strong-willed Presidents in the first 39 years after independence. The country gained its freedom from the UK in 1963, during which time the Sultan of Zanzibar also forewent his claim to part of Kenya’s coastal territory. It’s important to not forget the role that the Muslim archipelago historically had in exercising control over some of Kenya’s seaside towns such as Mombasa, since this vague historical memory serves the basis of the latent Hybrid War threat of Swahili Separatism that will be examined later on. To get back to the main topic of discussion in this subsection, Jomo Kenyatta became President immediately after Kenya gained its freedom and continued to preside over it until his death in 1978.

Jomo Kenyatta

Recognized as the father of the nation and also of current President Uhuru Kenyatta, Jomo Kenyatta was instrumental in centralizing control of the country and preventing it from falling apart at the seams along its various ethnic-tribal identities. One of the first things that he did was order the military to engage in what has been called the “Shifta War”, which was a campaign against “Greater Somalia” insurgents in the northeastern part of the country. There’s some controversy over whether or not this territory should have been included in Kenya after independence or given to Somalia, and it’s not the author’s wish to get dragged into this debate. Instead, all that’s relevant to draw attention to at this time is that the rebels (referred to as “bandits”, or “shifta” in Somali) were defeated by 1967 and that there were no more conventional attempts to actualize the irredentist idea of “Greater Somalia” after that. Of geopolitical note, the threat that this expansionist idea posed at the time to both Ethiopia and Kenya led to them reaching a mutual defense agreement in 1964 that’s still in effect today.

Jomo Kenyatta’s passing in 1978 led to Daniel arap Moi taking his place and honoring Kenya’s pro-Western geopolitical and economic track. Moi continued to preside over the country until 2002, so he oversaw its transition from the Cold War and into the “War on Terrorism”. He was arguably faced with a lot of domestic and international challenges during these times, though he was ultimately successful in keeping the country stable and avoiding any major disturbances, especially economic ones or those related to it as the world entered into its post-1991 globalization period. Whereas other strong-willed leaders were forced or pressured to step down during this transitional global period, Moi retained his seat in office without engendering a US-supported street ‘revolution’ against him, which speaks a lot to his political acumen. Kenya and the US became closer than they ever were before after Al Qaeda’s 1998 bombing of the US Embassy in Nairobi (together with the one in Tanzania’s Dar es Salaam), which was a game-changer in drawing attention to the rise of Islamic terrorism in East Africa and a harbinger of what was to soon come.

The Dawn Of Terrorism And Identity Conflict:

Kenya has been the target of Somali terrorist groups since the advent of the 21st century, representing the return of the Somali problem after its decades of dormancy since the “Shifta War” ended in 1967, albeit in a completely different form this time. The first major Somali-related attack to strike the country during this time was the Mombasa one in 2002, in which a suicide bomber targeted an Israeli-owned hotel and other terrorists unsuccessfully tried to shoot down an Israeli passenger jet. Although organized by Al Qaeda and done on behalf of that Salafist organization, it was later revealed that the attack was planned in lawless Somalia, which had become to East Africa what Afghanistan was to the rest of the world prior to the US invasion. Ethiopia, which was threatened the most by the rise of militant Islam in Somalia, invaded its neighbor in 2007 under an anti-terrorist aegis, though this later ended up sparking the youth wing of the Islamic Courts Union to break off and form its own Al Shabaab terrorist group.

Kenya would later follow in Ethiopia’s footsteps in 2011 by launching its own anti-terrorist invasion of Somalia codenamed “Operation Linda Nchi” in coordination with that country’s internationally recognized military as a means of fighting against Al Shabaab. Although it only officially lasted for around 7 months, the Kenyan military remained in Somalia as part of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), though this has had the unintended aftereffect of spiking even more Al Shabaab Somali-based terrorist attacks against Kenya than had ever happened before. These will be listed in a moment when describing Uhuru Kenyatta’s Presidency, but it’s timely to know that such attacks are attributed to the AMISOM mission that his predecessor initially committed to.

Looters run away from police in a Supermarket in Kisumu, Kenya, 30 December 2007

In between the first Somali-related terrorist attack in Kenya and the military’s intervention into its neighbor’s affairs, the East African country was pushed to what might have turned out to be the brink of civil war after the December 2007 election. Opposition leader Raila Odinga tried pulling a Color Revolution after narrowly losing the vote to incumbent President Mwai Kibaki under contested circumstances, and the resultant mayhem killed at least 1,000 people and left over 500,000 displaced, with the real tally possibly even being larger. The disputed election and the subsequent Color Revolution push was the trigger for unleashing ethnic-tribal violence among Kenya’s diverse identity groups, threatening to unravel in the course of just two months the civic nationalism that had taken almost two generations to build. An Hobbesian conflict between Kenya’s numerous identity pluralities was thankfully averted by a last-minute political settlement which satisfied some of Odinga’s demands, but the psychological effect of what had happened during that brief period of crisis was that the citizen’s faith in the previously unifying ideal of composite Kenyan nationalism was irreparably damaged, which has thus made the country vulnerable to Identity Federalism and a forthcoming Color Revolution attempt.

In what could be interpreted as a move to ease these two fears, a new constitution was written in 2010 and approved by voters later that year which ended up dividing the former 8 provinces into 47 separate counties. Importantly, this was a decentralization and not a devolution of powers, which had the effect of preserving the central government’s formal responsibilities while holding out the hope that all governing organs could become more efficient through the new state reformulation. One could also analyze the decision to decentralize Kenya into a collection of several dozen counties as a move to preempt Identity Federalism, since it broke up the large administrative territories that might have soon have become ripe for fratricidal or federalist/separatist conflict. For example, the North Eastern Province was mostly inhabited by Somalis, while the historical Swahili Coast area was conveniently encompassed in the Coast Province, and both of these might have one day generated enough of a regional-political identity to agitate to federalism or separatism. The cosmopolitan tribal collections of the Rift Valley and Eastern Provinces could have easily been provoked into genocidal violence the next time that a national crisis similar to the 2007-2008 one occurred or was externally manufactured.

Like Father, Like Son:

One of the most crucial events in Kenya’s post-independence history was the election of Uhuru Kenyatta, the son of national founder Jomo Kenyatta, as President in the first round of the 2013 vote. Previously shunned by the US and its allies for his suspected involvement in the post-electoral violence in 2007-2008 and charged by the International Criminal Court for “crimes against humanity”, Kenyatta sorted out all of his political-legal differences with the unipolar world and its extra-judicial affiliates and had all the accusations against him dropped. Despite resolving the tensions that existed between him and the West, Kenyatta never forgot how strongly the US and its allies were initially opposed to him, and it’s for this reason why his first foreign trips outside of Africa were to China and Russia and not Kenya’s traditional Western ‘partners’. In terms of pragmatics, Kenyatta might have been seeking multipolar investment to help fund his predecessor’s Vision 2030 series of five-year development plans, and in hindsight and taking stock of China’s commitment to building two New Silk Road-related megaprojects through the country and other endeavors, he seems to have succeeded.

Just like his father was a visionary in supporting the pan-African movement, Kenyatta is on pace to be one in supporting the emerging multipolar world order via his country’s commitment to the aforementioned Chinese-funded projects of the LAPSSET Corridor and the SGR. The two major impediments standing in his way, however, are Somali terrorism and identity conflict, with the latter manifested either through targeted campaigns that might erupts amidst a forthcoming Color Revolution or a move towards Identity Federalism and/or secessionism. In pertinence to the Somali factor, Kenya has been victimized by multiple high-profile terrorist attacks ever since its “Operation Linda Nchi” and subsequent AMISOM participation. For example, these include the 2013 Westgate shopping mall attack, the 2014 attacks in NairobiGikomba, and Mpeketoni, and the 2015 Garissa University College attack, al of which were carried out by Al Shabaab.

The solution to both of these problems might lie in Kenyatta imitating the powerful centralized hand of his father in cultivating a strong sense of unifying civic nationalism (or alternatively discouraging the growth of tribal-regional identities, ergo his predecessor’s earlier decentralization) and cracking down hard on Somali terrorists. It’s clear that Kenya is not the same country that it was thought to be (perhaps even by most of its own citizens) after the 2007-2008 electoral-identity violence, and it’ll be a tremendous difficulty to restore full trust in the authorities and among the various ethnic-tribal communities. Likewise, there are a lot of challenges inherent in fighting terrorism, especially when some of Kenya’s own citizens might be misled by their dreams of a “Greater Somalia” into joining or assisting Al Shabaab and others.

Unlike his father, however, Kenyatta cannot depend on the US and Kenya’s other Western “partners” to fully stand behind him in tackling these issues, remembering how they were just recently in formal opposition to his Presidency. Furthermore, the US will not forget that Kenyatta visited China and Russia before any Western countries, just as it will never lose sight of the fact that Kenya is now a crucial component of China’s East African Silk Road.  These determinants obviously combine in making Kenya a target for Hybrid War, and the next half of the research will describe the four main ways in which the country could fall victim to this stratagem.

Is Nairobi The Next Victim Of Hybrid War?

Building off of what was just written, there’s a fair likelihood that Kenya will in fact be the US’ next Hybrid War battleground, and if Washington chooses to act, these are the handful of scenarios that it’s most likely to exploit:

Al Shabaab And The Somali Factor:

Evolving Threats

The most predictable way in which Kenya could become destabilized is through Al Shabaab, which was comprehensively analyzed in the prior regional study about the Horn of Africa. To refresh the reader’s memory, this Somalia-based terrorist group is a joint ally of Daesh and Al Qaeda, and it wages violent jihad against regional targets in order to weaken them and facilitate the creation of a transnational Sharia-adhering “state”. Being comprised mostly of ethnic Somalis, there’s clearly a nationalist component at play here too, although it hasn’t been fully exploited to its maximum potential. The earlier research forecast that Al Shabaab will eventually tap into this reservoir of potential support by blending their militant jihadist terrorism with “Greater Somalia” slogans, therefore riding the wave of nationalism that has swept across the world and diverting negative attention from their universally frowned-upon message of violently carving out a transnational Salafi state in the region. In the event that their ‘public relations’ experts decide to go forward with this new marketing approach, it’ll most directly impact on Ethiopia and its Somali Region (formerly known as Ogaden), though Kenya is of course at risk too because of the presence of millions of ethnic Somalis in the northeastern border counties that used to constitute the formerly unified North Eastern Province.

The integration of “Greater Somalia” rhetoric into Al Shabaab’s erstwhile sole jihadist messaging would create a major strategic complication for Kenya by causing Nairobi to view its own ethnic Somali citizens with even more distrust than it currently does, though not without plausible reason. It’s not the author’s purpose to justify or denigrate the Kenyan authorities for the sovereign decisions that they take in fighting the War on Terror and safeguarding the territorial integrity, but it must be said that they need to adhere to a fine line in justifiably enforcing national security measures in the Somali-inhabited regions of the country as opposed to wantonly discriminating against these demographic subsect and inadvertently fueling the anti-government dissent that they were originally trying to quell. This is a very delicate balancing act that Kenya will have to handle in order to not further ostracize its Somali citizens, though while still taking concrete measures to ensure national security for all Kenyans across the country.

Two Sides Of The Coin

Whether Al Shabaab goes with a blended jihadist-nationalist message or not, the fact still remains that Kenyan military forces are in Somalia as part of AMISOM, and that the terrorists are using this as a “justification” for attacking soft targets inside of Kenya as part of their “national liberation struggle” against “foreign occupation”. While one could argue that there’s some truth in the sense that foreign troops are indeed occupying Somalian territory under the guise of AMISOM, it should be remembered that the UNSC (which includes Russia and China, of course) is in support of this move and that there are veritably credible anti-terrorist reasons for why this is happening. Nevertheless, understanding Al Shabaab’s narrative is important since it also reveals a lot about their implied intent. What the group is in fact expressing is that they will continue to attack Kenya so long as the Kenyan military is in present in Somalia, though it can’t be discounted that they’ll “go back on their word” and keep attacking the country anyhow even if it does indeed withdrawal. From the Kenyan national security angle, the military is in the Horn of African country as part of a proactive defense in countering terrorist threats, some of which had already materialized into physical attacks on Kenyan soil even before “Operation Linda Nchi”. Obviously, however, this has created a Catch-22 in which Kenya’s national security imperatives are conversely viewed as “imperialistic occupation” by some native Somalis, which further feeds into the cycle of Al Shabaab violence and its resultant dilemma.

The False Solution

Imagining a situation where the Kenyan forces did indeed pull out of Somalia sometime in the future, there’s no way to guarantee that this would halt Al Shabaab’s attacks against the country unless the group was completely neutralized beforehand. The terrorists are using semi-legitimate complaints about the Kenyan military’s presence in Somali in order to gain “normative justification” for their attacks among some members of the Somali and broader international (Muslim, particularly Saudi, Qatari, and Turkish) communities, but they can simply change their message to one of “Greater Somalia” the moment that the Kenyans pull out, so that’s in no way a sustainable security solution for Nairobi. On the other hand, an enhanced military presence there wouldn’t be productive to guaranteeing their security either, since there’s a very real risk that it could quickly turn into a quagmire of epic proportions. Not only that, but a renewed military surge in Somalia would also deepen the impression that Kenya is behaving in a neo-colonial manner towards its disadvantaged neighbor, even if this was a legitimate response to large-scale terrorist attacks, and further work towards helping Al Shabaab “win the hearts and minds” of Kenyan Somalis in the northeast and elsewhere in the country.

Hybrid War Catalyzers

Either way that one looks at it, Al Shabaab is a very real threat to Kenya, and one that will not go away unless it is physically destroyed in full, and even then, it could still carry out high-profile “lone wolf” attacks in a desperate bid to increase its prestige and try to rebuild the group from its remnants. If it isn’t stopped, then it will continue to wage its terrorist war on the Kenyan people by attacking soft targets such as buses, shopping malls, and college universities, as it has already has a track record for doing. Worse still, whether at its climax of strength of nadir of weakness, Al Shabaab could function as the ultimate disruptive variable in upsetting Kenya’s domestic stability, particularly as it relates to the role that it could play in any forthcoming Color Revolution attempt. For example, the terrorists could attack a crowd of protesters in Nairobi and instantly catapult and otherwise non-eventful gathering into a global news event, triggering the pro-Western “opposition” to falsely allege that it was a “government false flag” (even if it was an American one) and phasing the Color Revolution into an Unconventional War as per the theory of Hybrid War.

The Real Answer

 Taking all of this into account, it begins to look like the only real way to resolve the Al Shabaab problem is through the Somalians themselves, though it should be qualified that this means responsible, enabled, and legitimate ones, or in other words, their actual government. AMISOM and other foreign interventions will indefinitely continue as long as Mogadishu is so weak that it cannot assert governance throughout all parts of the country (excluding non-terrorist-infested Somaliland, which is of course another issue in and of itself), so the answer to the country’s numerous woes lays in empowering the authorities so that they can take care of their domestic problems on their own with minimal outside help in dealing with foreign terrorist threats. Just like is happening with Libya, the removal of the UNSC arms embargo on the country could go a long way in giving its armed forces the capability to fight back against the terrorists and hold on to the territory that they liberate, all in coordination with the existing foreign African-based forces that are fighting on the ground (notably the Burundians, Ethiopians, Ugandans, and Kenyans) to ensure that no possible military retreat occurs, let alone one which results in Al Shabaab capturing these new pieces of equipment.

Until the embargo is lifted and multilateral African military support is given to Mogadishu as it carries out a nationwide campaign to cleanse the country of terrorists, the best that Kenya can do to protect itself is reinforce the ‘buffer zone’ that it’s set up in the bordering Somali region of Jubaland concurrent with strengthening security precautions in the northeastern Somali-inhabited parts of its own country. The trick, though, is to do the latter in a way which does not unintentionally provoke the locals into rebelling against Nairobi, joining Al Shabaab or other “resistance” groups, and/or passively assisting anti-government organizations of any disposition. At the same time, the Kenyan authorities must take care to increase security measures in the national and country capitals to the best of their ability, while soberly recognizing that it’s impossible to stop each and every attempted terrorist attack. However, what they can do is better their professionalism and increase their response rate so as not to suffer the same kind of public relations debacle as had recently unfolded during the 2013 Westgate shopping mall attack, when the military literally took days to substantially respond to the event and decisively defeat the terrorists.

In the absence of a Somali-led and African-supported solution inside of Somali proper, Kenya will likely have to indefinitely practice the abovementioned general recommendations in order to mitigate the threat that it urgently experiences from the Somali-based Al Shabaab terrorist group and the specter of military “Greater Somalia” nationalism.

Reconstructing The Swahili Coast:

Laying Out The Limits

The next Hybrid War scenario confronting Kenya is less imminent and more latent, though it interestingly serves as a bridge in connecting the Somali threat with the Identity Federalism one that will be described afterwards in the research. To put everything into focus, the Swahili Coast is an historical region stretching along the Kenyan, Tanzanian, and northern Mozambican coasts. It used to be a center of Islamic influence and had extensive trading relations with the Mideast. Ever since the region fell under the colonial control of the British Empire, the unique sense of identity that this currently transnational space used to have has greatly eroded, and few people consider themselves part of this historical entity. Furthermore, the Swahili Coast has also historically been conflated with the Swahili ethnic group, and because only about half a million people across this tristate area can claim to be part of this demographic, the prospects of a revived sense of separatism have largely been laughed at. On the surface of things and taking into account present-day facts, it does seem pretty farfetched for any respectable voice to even allege that this possibility could ever eventuate, but a deeper investigation into the strategic factors that could influence a reconceptualization of the Swahili Coast indicate that such a geopolitical project shouldn’t be immediately dismissed.

Islamic Influence

When thinking about the Swahili Coast, observers should pay attention to the possibility that its religious-regional understanding could one day take precedence over its historical ethnic one. After all, there is no realistic way that half a million ethnic Swahilis spread across three separate states could succeed in resurrecting their ancient entity, but there are millions of people who might be influenced to identity as “coastal Muslims”. For now, the research will only discuss how this relates to Kenya, with the pertinent Tanzanian study being carried out when the country itself becomes the subject of a forthcoming chapter in this book. Having qualified this and redirecting the focus solely to Kenya for the time being, it’s a demographic fact that Muslims comprise around 11% of the country’s population and are heavily concentrated along the coast, particularly the southern Mombasa area. Further north, some of the country’s Muslims are ethnic Somalis, which gives them a potential for holding a dual separatist identity as part of “Greater Somalia” and a reconceptualized “Swahili Coast”. This will be expanded upon very soon in the research, so it’s important for the reader to keep it in mind until then.

The “Mombasa Republican Council”

Continuing along the tangent of how most of Kenya’s Muslim population lives in the territory of the former Swahili Coast, there’s a chance that “Islamic nationalism” could take hold in the country and find an expression through Swahili Coast separatism. This would obviously be aided to a large degree by foreign NGOs and Gulf-supported Islamic preachers, but it’s exceptionally dangerous for Kenya because it would fuse religious separateness and potential militant extremism with concrete geographic demands, whether as manifested by calls for Identity Federalism (which will be talked about as the next Hybrid War vulnerability) or outright separatism. The main group advocating for this approach right now is the illegal “Mombasa Republican Council” (MRC), about which a USAID report spoke quite positively and recommended that the government reverse its harsh stance towards. For now, the MRC is thought to still be a small organization that’s actually on the verge of splintering over the question of whether or not to boycott the upcoming 2017 elections, but with the right injection of material, personnel, and financial support by foreign NGOs (whether Western- or Gulf-based), the group could feasibly become a force to be reckoned with.

Three Causes, One Front

The MRC, as its name suggests, is mostly active in the country’s vital port of Mombasa, but it could theoretically expand its operations throughout the six countries that used to comprise the Coast Province if it received enough of the external aforementioned backing to do so. This would then set the stage for these counties to agitate for a return to the Coast Province, which itself would function in whole or in part as the basis for Swahili Coast separatism, possibly galvanizing supporters around their shared faith of Islam in opposition to what might be perceived to be (or manipulated to seem like) the Christian government’s oppression of Somali Muslims, whether in the northeast or Somalia proper. The seemingly separate issues of Islam, the Coast Province (or Swahili Coast), and “Greater Somalia” nationalism could thus converge in producing a wide umbrella of “grievances” that a united anti-government front coalition could rally behind, linking together these diverse and assumedly disconnected causes into a critical mass of tangible territorial demands – the “federalization” of the Coast Province/Swahili Coast into a reconstituted Kenya or its formal separation from the Republic as an independent state.

The connection that Swahili Coast separatism would inevitably have with the Muslim identity of most of its supporters – let alone its tangential tie-ins with “Greater Somalia” nationalism – would make it an easy target of infiltration for Al Shabaab, which might use the group as a more publicly acceptable cover for its activities. This threat is even more acute in the event that the terrorists are on the retreat in Somalia, since they may then seek to disperse into anonymized cells within the Swahili Coast movement while they rebuild their organization and plot a comeback. In this manner, not only is Swahili Coast separatism a very dangerous Identity Federalism threat, but it could also be hijacked for Islamic terrorist purposes much like how Mali’s Tuareg-led “Azawad” movement was taken over by Al Qaeda in 2012. Even though there’s no public indication that this is currently the case with the MRC and Al Shabaab, the threat is indeed a latent one that would be best addressed at its incipient stages in order to preempt its development into something much more difficult for the authorities to manage. Furthermore, Nairobi should take steps to deal with any possibility of coastal separatist/federalist sentiment that might (re)arise in Mombasa and elsewhere along the former Coast Province.

From Provinces To Counties…To Federalism?:

Planting The Seeds

The next Hybrid War threat that could be exploited within Kenya is Identity Federalism, which the author wrote at length about in a previous report and which simply refers to the federalization of a country along internal and (easily) defined identity (ethnic, religious, regional, etc.) borders. Kenya is exceptionally vulnerable to this because of its diverse population and the emergence of identity tension between various groups as catalyzed by the 2007-2008 electoral violence. Additionally, as was already discussed within the research, many Somalians, and perhaps soon even some Kenyans living along the Swahili Coast, have a sense of identity separateness that could be externally manipulated to put them at odds with Nairobi. Another outbreak of ethnic-tribal violence might be all that it takes to unravel the previously unifying idea of civil Kenyan nationalism that had erstwhile held the entire republic together, which could combine with the already existing and progressively developing regional identities among the Somalian and Swahili Coast communities to engender a popular push for Identity Federalism.

The County Crucible

Key to any realistic chance of this occurring is the reorganization of the country according to its former provincial lines, whether replicated in full or only partially so. There’s no legal way for this to happen due to the 2010 Constitution that abolished this handful of former territorial-administrative units and divvied them up into dozens of new counties, but that can be both an obstacle and an advantage to Identity Federalism. Beginning with the most optimistic scenario for the government, if local services and governance are perceptively improved due to these reforms, then it’s less likely that the populace would be as susceptible to being manipulated against them in favor of a constitutional revision, but if it only serves to aggravate the problems that already exist, then the reverse would hold true and people could more easily be guided into joining anti-government demonstrations against the county reforms.  It’s possible that a mix of effects will be evident in the next couple of years after the territorial-administrative reformulation has enough time to yield indisputable results, with some areas being better off, while others might end up suffering even more.

Digging For Data

At this point, it would be necessary to conduct detailed opinion surveys in order to ascertain the general sentiments that each county holds. There would foreseeably be clusters of counties that hold one or the other opinion, thus allowing observers to assess the broad regional disposition of the population towards this aspect of the 2010 Constitution. The author does not have enough experience in studying local Kenyan politics to accurately predict which parts of the country might be more satisfied with it than others, but if a correlation develops between dissatisfied counties and former provinces, or (easily) defined ethnic-tribal boundaries, then it could indicate that the respective populations (or at least segments thereof) are ripe for NGO-sponsored indoctrination about the ideals of Identity Federalism. Whether these said counties choose to amalgamate back into larger provinces (be it in contravention to the constitution on a formally recognized de-jure level or more peacefully through a civil society and de-facto one) or decide to retain the territory that they were allocated, they can still agitate for federalism and use the examples of Somalia an South Sudan as precedents. Although the latter isn’t legally a federation, the large level of autonomy that its 28 mostly tiny states have is a model that some of the smaller Kenyan counties could try to follow, while the larger ones that seek to recreate provinces (whether in part or in whole) could look towards Somalia for an example.

Double Federalization?

The author does not believe that either of these two states should be a role model for Kenyans, but that doesn’t mean that vulnerable elements of the population (particularly those which are dissatisfied about the county reorganization or led to believe that they are) can’t be guided by NGOs and others into thinking that their country should try to emulate its neighbors’ political devolutions. Additionally, the reader should remember that the East African Community (EAC) is on track to eventually federalize into the East African Federation (EAF), so some Kenyans might wonder why their own country can’t internally federalize if the larger unit itself is going to enter into this sort of same relationship with its neighbors. The same argument can of course be applied to Uganda, which as will be explained in the next country profile, is under similar pressure to do so too, albeit for different reasons that are more historically grounded.

The Geopolitics Of Identity Federalization

By itself and in a geopolitical vacuum, federalization isn’t a threat to Kenya or its Chinese New Silk Road investment partner, but the problem arises because of the fact that the US would naturally try to exploit the prospectively federalized country in order to deepen its influence in key transit areas through which the Chinese projects are expected to pass. It could do so both to stop these said initiatives dead in their tracks (such as could be the case with “Greater Somalia” in relation to the Ethiopia-extending LAPSSET project in Kenya’s northeast) or to gain controlling influence over them (like what the US might want to do with the Standard Gauge Railroad [SGR] through the Swahili Coast or inland ethnic-tribal ‘federative’ units). Having explained all of this, the move from counties to federalism would obviously be a violent and destabilizing one in pitting local and regional forces against the central Nairobi authority (the latter of which is protecting the 2010 Constitution that the citizens themselves voted for in the referendum), which is why Hybrid War is the irreplaceable instrument that the US would have to employ in achieving this vision.

Color Revolutions In Kenya:

A Close Call

In connection with the US’ plans to spark a Hybrid War in Kenya, it would obviously have to at some point utilize the political technology of Color Revolutions. This was already tested in the violent aftermath of the controversial 2007 election and during the consequent two months of turmoil, and it proved that the erstwhile assumedly unifying ideology of Kenyan civic nationalism wasn’t as strong as many had thought. Quite to the contrary of many observers and perhaps even Kenyans themselves, the moment that a high-stakes political crisis broke out that could in any way be marketed as having ethnic-tribal contours, these said identity categories were prompted to destructively clashed with one another and push the country to the brink of civil war. It’s not known by the author the degree to which these tensions were already existing and “organically occurring” or how hard motivated groups had to work in order to provoke them, but the end result is that Kenya was on the verge of a national calamity that was thankfully averted at the last minute.

Preparing The Second Round

This unforgettable experience reshaped the national psyche and put people fearfully on edge with the persistent worry that intercommunal violence could once again break out in their country.  Just as it did during 2007-2008, it’s highly probable that any repeat of these dramatic occurrences would be sparked by a nationally significant political crisis, ergo why the author believes that another Color Revolution attempt could function as the preplanned spark for rekindling Kenya’s identity conflicts and setting the strategic East African nation ablaze with Hybrid War. Being aware of the country’s domestic political situation, any forthcoming Color Revolution push would most likely be led by Raila Odinga, who already has experience in orchestrating the original one that threw Kenya into chaos and has obvious presidential aspirations of his own. With his personal stake in wanting to one day become President via a Hybrid War coup, Odinga is more motivated than anyone else in taking charge of this movement and carrying it as far as it needs to go in order to reach his objectives.

Only he and his foreign patrons know which one of his many “protest” rallies will be the one to start the Color Revolution, and there’s no way to know in advance without the proper intelligence whether a preplanned event is just a strategic probe or actually the real thing. It does, however, look like a serious effort was made to initiate at least some form of sustained anti-government activity through the riots that he encouraged to break out against the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC). Key to the author’s assessment that this incident was supposed to herald the coming of a Color Revolution, the international (Western) media obsessed over a viral “police brutality” photo that was completely decontextualized from the reality that many of the protesters were throwing stones at the police and mugging innocent Kenyans. Images such as the one linked to above are typically circulated in ginning up domestic and international opposition to the targeted government, which was obviously the case with the picture in question.

Two Paths To Pandemonium

What can be learned from this experience is that the US and its allies will manufacture their own Color Revolution ‘trigger events’ well in advance of the traditionally electoral ones that used to mark the beginning of this regime change process, doing whatever they need to do to provoke the authorities into some kind of exploitable action (e.g. “beating a protester”) that could then be used to ‘justify’ the premeditated mayhem. The goal is in this specific case is to produce a pervasive atmosphere of anti-government hostility that remains in full force until the August 2017 election, or even ‘better’, creates the circumstances where Kenyatta is forcefully unseated before then via a Hybrid War coup. Any such event would presumably begin with a Color Revolution or proto version of this technology (as in a probing attempt that wasn’t initially expected to succeed as well as it did) led by Odinga (under whatever circumstances he can manufacture, be it the IEBC, the actual election, or something else), which then develops such a critical mass that it can easily be used to engender the same type of ethnic-tribal clashes that the post-electoral events in 2007-2008 ended up doing. This scenario branch would lead the country back to the precipice of civil war and represents the most destructive eventuality.

Another possibility that could happen is that Odinga’s Color Revolution movement serves as a magnet for the Identity Federalists to come out of the shadows and make their cause public, just like how Zoran Zaev’s anti-government counterpart functions in the Republic of Macedonia vis-à-vis Albanian “federalism”. If this happens in any significant manner, then it would greatly enhance the destabilizing potential of the incipient protests by giving them both a clear-cut nationwide agenda (provincial restoration along a federalized framework) and the appearance (operative word) of far-reaching support among a diversity of identity groups. Of course, this sort of movement could also be manipulated, or even created, for the sole purpose of stoking identity discord within Kenya, but it does objectively have a much better chance at being used for “unifying” anti-government purposes than the other abovementioned template if the “revolutionary” strategists decide that they want this to be the case. If they instead find it more useful for this diverse group of “protesters” to be slaughtered in order to draw domestic and international attention to the Color Revolution, accelerate its growth, and/or force Kenya into a fratricidal Hybrid War bloodbath, then Al Shabaab could come in handy as a terrorist conduit that would either take the blame on its own or be used to carry out a false flag attack that could then be blamed on President Kenyatta and his supporters.

To be continued…

Andrew Korybko is the American political commentator currently working for the Sputnik agency. He is the author of the monograph “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change” (2015). This text will be included into his forthcoming book on the theory of Hybrid Warfare.


Hybrid Wars 1. The Law Of Hybrid Warfare

Hybrid Wars 2. Testing the Theory – Syria & Ukraine

Hybrid Wars 3. Predicting Next Hybrid Wars

Hybrid Wars 4. In the Greater Heartland

Hybrid Wars 5. Breaking the Balkans

Hybrid Wars 6. Trick To Containing China

Hybrid Wars 7. How The US Could Manufacture A Mess In Myanma

Posted in AfricaComments Off on Kenya and The East African Community: Is Nairobi The Next Victim Of Hybrid War?

US Nuclear Proliferation: The One Trillion Dollar Doomsday Nuclear Scenario


Last summer, Obama said he “strives for a world without nuclear weapons.”

At the same time, he approved $1 trillion to upgrade America’s nuclear arsenal over the next 30 year – maybe several-fold this amount before completed, along the way perhaps preemptively using them in combat against one or more adversaries – madness if ordered.

Trump on Twitter said “(t)he United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

By phone with MSNBC, he added “let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

If the quote is accurate, it’s disturbing, even though he stressed strengthening America’s military throughout his campaign. Why when no enemies exist except invented ones.

US nuclear proliferation assures a hugely dangerous arms race. In response to Washington’s plans, Putin said “(w)e need to strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces, especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defense systems.”

We must carefully monitor any changes in the balance of power and in the political-military situation in the world, especially along Russian borders, and quickly adapt plans for neutralizing threats to our country.

At his annual year-end marathon press conference, he said “(t)he prerequisites for a new arms race were created after the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (in 2002). This is obvious.”

The 1972 ABM Treaty expressly forbids development, testing and deployment of missile defenses. Abandoning it forced Russia and China to act defensively to protect their national security.

Putin explained:

“when one party unilaterally withdrew from the treaty and said it was going to create an anti-nuclear umbrella, the other party has to either create a similar umbrella – the necessity of which we are not sure about considering its questionable efficiency – or create effective ways to overcome this anti-ballistic missile system and improve its strike capabilities.”

Obama’s 2010 and 2015 National Security Strategy calls for first-strike use of nuclear weapons against any adversary, nuclear armed or not. America will lead through strength, he said.

His brave nuke world may kill us all. Either we eliminate these weapons of mass destruction or they’ll eliminate us.

US imperial policy threatening Russia and China forced both countries to prepare for global war, risking mass annihilation without efforts to step back from the brink.

“(I)t’s not us who have been speeding up the arms race,” Putin explained. Does Trump have sense enough to slow it down? If not, perhaps we’re all doomed.


Posted in USAComments Off on US Nuclear Proliferation: The One Trillion Dollar Doomsday Nuclear Scenario

Assange and Wikileaks: “Donald? It’s a Change Anyway”


When they appeared on the scene for the first time in 2006, few noticed them. And when four years later they hit worldwide media headlines with their publication of over 700,000 secret US government documents, many assumed that Julian Assange and his organisation, WikiLeaks, would be annihilated very shortly.

Since 2010 Assange has lived first under house arrest and then confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has been granted asylum by Ecuador. The country’s officials judged  his concerns of being extradited to Sweden and then to the US to be put on trial for the WikiLeaks’ revelations well-grounded.

Repubblica met Julian Assange in the embassy, nicely decorated for the Christmas season.

These last ten years have been intense ones for his organisation, but the last two months have been truly hectic: WikiLeaks’ publication of Hillary Clinton’s and US Democrats’ emails hit headlines around the world.

The US government hit back, accusing WikiLeaks of having received these materials from Russian cybercriminals with the political agenda of influencing the US elections, a claim some experts question. In the midst of these publications, Ecuador even cut off Julian Assange’s internet connection. Finally, in November, Swedish prosecutors travelled to London to question the WikiLeaks’ founder after six years of judicial paralysis. In a matter of a few weeks, they will be deciding whether to charge or absolve him once and for all. Next February, Ecuador will be holding political elections. If Julian Assange loses asylum, will he be extradited to Sweden and then to the US?

How did it all start? Back in 2006, why did you think a new media organisation was necessary?

I had watched the Iraq War closely, and in the aftermath of the Iraq War a number of individuals from the security services, including the Australian [ones], came out saying how they had attempted to reveal information before the war began and had been thwarted. People who wanted to be whistleblowers before the Iraq war had not found a channel to get the information out. I felt that this was a general problem and set about to construct the system which could solve this problem in general.

In a famous interview, you declared that at the beginning you thought that your biggest role would be in China and in some of the former Soviet states and North Africa. Quite the opposite, most of WikiLeaks’ biggest revelations concern the US military-industrial complex, its wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq and its serious human rights violations in the war on terror. These abuses have had a heavy impact in an open and democratic society like the United States and produced ‘dissidents’ like Chelsea Manning willing to expose them. Why aren’t human rights abuses producing the same effects in regimes like China or Russia, and what can be done to democratise information in those countries?

In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum. There are also newspapers like “Novaya Gazeta”, in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn’t a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow. So my interpretation is that in Russia there are competitors to WikiLeaks, and no WikiLeaks staff speak Russian, so for a strong culture which has its own language, you have to be seen as a local player. WikiLeaks is a predominantly English-speaking organisation with a website predominantly in English. We have published more than 800,000 documents about or referencing Russia and president Putin, so we do have quite a bit of coverage, but the majority of our publications come from Western sources, though not always. For example, we have published more than 2 million documents from Syria, including Bashar al-Assad personally. Sometimes we make a publication about a country and they will see WikiLeaks as a player within that country, like with Timor East and Kenya. The real determinant is how distant that culture is from English. Chinese culture is quite far away.

What can be done there?

We have published some things in Chinese. It is necessary to be seen as a local player and to adapt the language to the local culture.

There is strict control of the web in China…

China banned us in 2007, we have worked around that censorship at various times, publishers there were too scared to publish [our documents]. The feeling is mixed within China: they of course like to see the Western critique that a number of our publications enable. China is not a militaristic society, they don’t see they have a comparative advantage in making warfare, so they presumably like general critiques of war, but it is a society that is authority-structured, which is terrified of dissidents, whereas if you compare it to Russia, it too is an increasingly authoritarian society, but one that has a cultural tradition of lionising dissidents.

Why aren’t the US and UK intelligence agencies leaking to WikiLeaks about their enemies, like Russia or China? They could do it using NGOs or even activists as a cover and they could expose WikiLeaks, if your organisation didn’t publish their documents…

We publish full information, pristine archives, verifiable. That often makes it inconvenient for propaganda purposes, because for many organisations you see the good and the bad, and that makes the facts revealed harder to spin. If we go back to the Iraq War in 2003, let’s imagine US intelligence tried to leak us some of their internal reports on Iraq. Now we know from US intelligence reports that subsequently came out that there was internal doubt and scepticism about the claim that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Even though there was intense pressure on the intelligence services at the political level to create reports that supported the rush towards the war, internally their analysts were hedging. The White House, Downing Street, the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN stripped off those doubts. If WikiLeaks had published those reports, these doubts would have been expressed and the war possibly adverted.

WikiLeaks published documents on Hillary Clinton and the US Democrats. How do you reply to those who accuse you of having helped to elect Mr. Trump?

What is the allegation here exactly? We published what the Democratic National Committee, John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, and Hillary Clinton herself were saying about their own campaign, which the American people read and were very interested to read, and assessed the elements and characters, and then they made a decision. That decision was based on Hillary Clinton’s own words, her campaign manager’s own words. That’s democracy.

Do you agree with those who say that it was a hit job, because you hit Hillary Clinton when she was most vulnerable, during the final weeks of her campaign?

No, we have been publishing about Hillary Clinton for many years, because of her position as Secretary of State. We have been publishing her cables since 2010 and her emails also. We are domain experts on Clinton and her post 2008 role in government. This is why it is natural for sources who have information on Hillary Clinton to come to us. They know we will understand its significance.

So Clinton is gone, has WikiLeaks won?

We were pleased to see how much of the American public interacted with the material we published. That interaction was on both sides of politics, including those to the left of Hillary Clinton those who supported Bernie Sanders, who were able to see the structure of power within the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and how the Clintons had placed Debbie Wasserman Schultz to head up the DNC and as a result the DNC had tilted the scales of the process against Bernie Sanders.

What about Donald Trump? What is going to happen?

If the question is how I personally feel about the situation, I am mixed: Hillary Clinton and the network around her imprisoned one of our alleged sources for 35 years, Chelsea Manning, tortured her according to the United Nations, in order to implicate me personally. According to our publications Hillary Clinton was the chief proponent and the architect of the war against Libya. It is clear that she pursued this war as a staging effort for her Presidential bid. It wasn’t even a war for an ideological purpose. This war ended up producing the refugee crisis in Europe, changing the political colour of Europe, killing more than 40,000 people within a year in Libya, while the arms from Libya went to Mali and other places, boosting or causing civil wars, including the Syrian catastrophe. If someone and their network behave like that, then there are consequences. Internal and external opponents are generated. Now there is a separate question on what Donald Trump means.

What do you think he means?

Hillary Clinton’s election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the United States. Donald Trump is not a DC insider, he is part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities. They do not by themselves form an existing structure, so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilising the pre-existing central power network within DC. It is a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States: change for the worse and change for the better”.

In these ten years of WikiLeaks, you and your organisation have experienced all sorts of attacks. What have you learned from this warfare?

Power is mostly the illusion of power. The Pentagon demanded we destroy our publications. We kept publishing. Clinton denounced us and said we were an attack on the entire “international community”. We kept publishing. I was put in prison and under house arrest. We kept publishing. We went head to head with the NSA getting Edward Snowden out of Hong Kong, we won and got him asylum. Clinton tried to destroy us and was herself destroyed. Elephants, it seems, can be brought down with string. Perhaps there are no elephants.

You have spent six years under arrest and confinement, the UN established that you are arbitrarily detained, the UK appealed against the UN decision and lost, so this decision is now final. What is going to happen now?

That’s all politics, that’s something that people cannot properly understand, unless they been through the legal system themselves in high-profile cases. This decision by the UN in my case is really an historical decision. What is someone to do when they are in a multi-jurisdictional conflict, that is politicised and involves big powers? There is too much pressure for domestic courts to resist, so you need an international court with representation from different countries which are not allied to each other to be able to come to a fair decision. That is what happened in my situation. Sweden and the United Kingdom have refused to implement this decision so far, of course it costs both Sweden and the UK on a diplomatic level and the question is how long they are willing to pay that cost.

After six years, the Swedish prosecutors questioned you in London, as you had requested from the beginning. What happens if you get charged, extradited to Sweden and then to the United States? Will WikiLeaks survive?

Yes, we have contingency plans that you have seen in action when my Internet was cut off and while I was in prison before. An organisation like WikiLeaks cannot be structured such that a single person can be a point of failure in the organisation, it makes him or her a target.

Is the internet still cut off?

The internet has been returned.

You’ve declared on more than one occasion that what you really miss after 6 years of arrest and confinement is your family. Your children gave you a present to make you to feel less alone: a kitten. Have you ever reconsidered your choices?

Yes, of course. Fortunately I’m too busy to think about these things all the time. I know that my family and my children are proud of me, that they benefit in some ways from having a father who knows some parts of the world and has become very good in a fight, but in other ways they suffer.

One of the first times we met I noticed a book on your table: “The Prince” by Machiavelli. What have you learned about power in 10 years of WikiLeaks?

My conclusion is that most power structures are deeply incompetent, staffed by people who don’t really believe in their institutions and that most power is the projection of the perception of power. And the more secretively it works, the more incompetent it is, because secrecy breeds incompetence, while openness breeds competence, because one can see and can compare actions and see which one is more competent. To keep up these appearances, institutional heads or political heads such as presidents spend most of the time trying to walk in front of the train and pretending that it is following them, but the direction is set by the tracks and by the engine of the train. Understanding that means that small and committed organisations can outmanoeuvre these institutional dinosaurs, like the State Department, the NSA or the CIA.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Assange and Wikileaks: “Donald? It’s a Change Anyway”

“The Terrorists R Us.” The Islamic State “Big Lie”


The Criminalization of the United Nations


This article was first published in September 2014 at the outset of Obama’s counter-terrorism bombing campaign allegedly directed “against the ISIS”.  These bombings were never intended to destroy the Islamic State. Quite the opposite. The “Forbidden Truth” is that the Islamic State is an instrument of Washington, a US ” intelligence asset”.

Under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council,  with president Obama chairing the Council session, the United States has called upon the international community to adopt strong measures, at national and international levels, to curtail the recruitment of Islamic State fighters.

What is not mentioned in the media reports is that the heads of State and heads of government  who have endorsed America’s campaign against the Islamic State, advised by their respective secret services,  are fully aware that US intelligence is the unspoken architect of the Islamic State, which is part of a vast network of  US supported “jihadist” terrorist entities.  Countries are either coerced into supporting the US sponsored resolution or they are complicit in the US terror agenda.

Lest we forget, Saudi Arabia, Qatar,  have been financing and training the ISIL terrorists on behalf of the United States.  Israel is harboring the Islamic State (ISIL) in the Golan Heights, NATO in liaison with the Turkish high command has since March 2011 been involved in coordinating the recruitment of  the jihadist fighters dispatched to Syria. Moreover, the ISIL brigades in both Syria and Iraq are integrated by Western special forces and military advisers.

All this is known and documented, yet not a single head of state or head of government has had the courage to point to the absurdity of the US sponsored United Nations Security Council resolution, which was adopted unanimously on September 24.

“Absurdity” is an understatement. What we are witnessing is a criminal undertaking under UN auspices.

While international diplomacy is often based on deception, US foreign policy lies are no longer credible. What we are witnessing is a total breakdown of established diplomatic practice.   The “Forbidden Truth” is that the Islamic State is an instrument of Washington, a US ” intelligence asset”. ISIL is not an independent entity, nor is it an “outside enemy” which threatens global security, as conveyed by the Western media.

While everybody knows this, the big lie prevails. The Lie becomes the Truth.

The  United Nations Security Council resolution calls upon member states to “suppress the recruiting, organizing, transporting, equipping” and financing of foreign terrorist fighters,”  Specifically, the resolution points to the “the particular and urgent need to implement this resolution with respect to those foreign terrorist fighters who are associated with ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant], ANF [Al-Nusrah Front] and other cells, affiliates, splinter groups or derivatives of Al-Qaida…” But are these not precisely the “opposition freedom fighters” trained and recruited by the Western military alliance in their quest to unseat the government of Bashar Al Assad?

United Nations Security Council Meeting, September 24, 2014, chaired by president Obama

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

John McCain with leaders of Al Qaeda entities in Syria

Political leaders present at the UN Security Council session applauded the US counter-terrorism initiative. France’s  President Francois Hollande pointed to the fact that “terrorism has taken on another dimension, and it wants to conquer territory now.”

Several US allies including Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar which are currently involved in supporting ISIL and Al Nusrah are now involved in the US sponsored air raids allegedly targeted against the ISIL inside Syria.

Turkey and Jordan have borders with Syria. Saudi Arabia and Turkey have borders with Iraq.  The direct military involvement of these countries points to a scenario of escalation and sectarian warfare extending from the Mediterranean to Central Asia.

In this regard, Turkey has already announced that it will be involved in ground operations inside Syria and Iraq. The newly-elected Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu announced (a day prior to the UN Security Council meeting) that his government will be seeking the endorsement of the Turkish Parliament to intervene militarily in both Iraq and Syria.

What is at stake is a so-called “no fly zone” in disguise, a justification  to bomb Iraq and Syria under a counter-terrorism mandate, largely targeting economic infrastructure as well as the civilian population. The political architects of the Islamic State including president Obama, prime minister Cameron and their counterparts in France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, et al, are now waging a  military campaign against the Islamic State, which they themselves created. Boots on the ground are also contemplated. According to Iraqi government sources, the US will sending some 13000 troops to Iraq.

The leaders of western countries are either utterly ignorant and stupid, or totally corrupt and complicit?  “The Terrorists R US.” Moreover, they seem totally unaware of the broad implications of their actions.

War propaganda is a criminal act under Nuremberg: Crime against the Peace. By upholding the lies and fabrications of US foreign policy, the mainstream media is complicit in war crimes.

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron is to bring the matter to the British parliament. The revocation of citizenship is contemplated in Britain as well as  in Canada for those suspected of supporting the jihadist movement.  While Britain’s Prime minister has called upon Her Majesty’s government “to restrict or rescind the passports of British jihadists … Home Secretary Theresa May has threatened to deprive those Britons already fighting with the Islamic State of their citizenship.” ,

Ironically, Prime Minister Cameron is complicit in facilitating and organizing within the UK the recruitment of British jihadists.  And indeed one might suggest, pending the formulation of criminal charges, that his passport should be revoked for “supporting the jihadist movement”.

George W. Bush stated in 2001, “you are either with us or with the terrorists.” The forbidden truth is that the US is involved in a diabolical  undertaking: it has created an Islamic terror network with a view to destroying sovereign countries and now it is waging a war against its own terror network. Without media propaganda, this military agenda under the guise of counter-terrorism would fall flat, collapse like a deck of cards.

The US president and his indefectible British ally “R the Terrorists”, they are the “state sponsors of terrorism”, with a view to waging a war of conquest.  The United Nations is complicit in this undertaking.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on “The Terrorists R Us.” The Islamic State “Big Lie”

False News By Omission Misinforms – Pointing This Out May Soon Be Censored


Some Israeli military official claim that Hizbullah is using Armored Personal Carriers in Syria, a correct claim, which it received from the Lebanese Armed Forces, a lie. The carriers in question are way out of date tracked vehicles and the LAF once received some upgraded ones from the United States. Israel makes these claims every once a while.

But as was reported when these claims were made on earlier occasions Hizbullah actually took such APCs from the Southern Lebanese Army which was an Israeli proxy force used during the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. When in 2000 Hizbullah finally kicked Israel out of Lebanon, the SLA dissolved and all the weapons Israel had delivered to it were taken into Hizbullah’s stocks. They have since been used to fight Israel and various Gulf states proxy Jihadis in Lebanon and Syria.

But you would not learn that from the main Israeli news organization in the United States, the New York Times. Its report makes no mention of the original source of the APCs:

TEL AVIV — A senior Israeli military official said on Wednesday that Hezbollah militants fighting in Syria were using American-made armored personnel carriers that were originally supplied to the Lebanese Army.

If the A.P.C.s passed to Hezbollah from the United States-assisted Lebanese Army, that might point to a broader leakage of weapons to hostile groups, and to cooperation between the Lebanese armed forces and Hezbollah.

The Israeli military official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under army rules, showed a photograph of a number of military vehicles, including what he said were the American-supplied A.P.C.s, during an intelligence briefing for reporters at military headquarters in Tel Aviv. He said that Israel had shared this information with American officials a few weeks ago.The official did not say how many of the A.P.C.s might have fallen into Hezbollah’s hands or when or how it had happened, but he said he believed they might have been “part of a deal” between the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah.

This is obviously an Israeli smear attack against the LAF and the bits of material support with outdated weapons it gets from the U.S. It is a petty smear. Just last week Israel received two F-35 fighter planes from the U.S. and dozens more will come be delivered all paid for by the U.S. taxpayers. Meanwhile one Cessna crop duster with a minimum of military equipment was delivered to the badly equipped Lebanese Armed Forces. It is in no way a threat to Israel.

The U.S. pushed back a bit against the Israeli assertions:

John Kirby, the State Department spokesman, said on Wednesday: “When this allegation was raised in November, the Department of Defense did a structural analysis of the armored personnel carriers in question at that time and concluded that these vehicles were not from the Lebanese armed forces. Our assessment remains the same now.”

That is quoted in the NYT but there is zero mention that Israel is the real source of the APCs. Now compare that to this paragraph from an AFP report which was published at about the same time:

[L]ast month some officials noted that Hezbollah is thought to have captured armored vehicles from the defunct South Lebanon Army, an Israeli-backed Christian militia that collapsed in 2000.

A later report repeats that point:

US officials privately told Defense News that the APCs now deployed by Hizbollah in Syria were very old and could very well have come from Israeli war stocks via their former ally in Lebanon, the South Lebanese Army (SLA). When Israel abruptly withdrew its forces from its security zone in southern Lebanon in 2000, Hizbollah seized a spectrum of vehicles and weaponry left behind by Israel and its SLA proxy force.

Israel blames the LAF for alleged weapon transfers when those weapons were actually coming from an Israeli proxy force after its failed occupation of Lebanon. That is classic chutzpah or rather petty malicious smearing.

But the so called prime newspaper with the motto “all the news that’s fit to print” does not find it newsworthy that Israeli officials are making obviously false claims and sees no need to set the record straight. The “news” it prints is consciously false by omission. It is not “faked” news – none of the facts printed are outright wrong, but it is false news which misinforms the readers by leaving out relevant facts.

There is a lot of recent talk about “fake news”. Most of what U.S. government proxies claim of its various “enemies” are such. Pretty much all of the NYT’s reports about the war on Syria were and are if not “fake” then false news. But there are more sources in easy reach now for people to get informed.

The current attempts to smear such alternative sources as conspiracies or Russian propaganda peddlers is a last line fight to stop the flood of reality that will wash away the NYT, other such outlets and the “senior official” liars they serve. I expect that fight to become more vicious over the next year or two. Too much money is at risk, too much self esteem of people who love to feel important is threatened with deflation.

The question now is how these alternative and hopefully more truthful and realistic news sources will be able to protect themselves from the obviously coming attacks. Big Internet companies (which are all also Defense Department contractors) are starting to downgrade blogs and alternative news sources because they, allegedly, peddle “fake news”. Outright (cyber-)attacks are coming up.  What can be done to counter such moves?

Ideas are welcome.

Posted in Middle East, SyriaComments Off on False News By Omission Misinforms – Pointing This Out May Soon Be Censored

Were “CIA Dirty Hands” Behind Assassination of Russia’s Ambassador to Turkey?


Russia’s investigation will get to the bottom of what happened, why and who was responsible.

Though unknown at this point, it has the earmarks of a CIA plot to undermine growing Russian/Turkish ties, notably their cooperation in Syria, adversely affecting Washington’s regional imperial agenda.

The assassination happened in the wake of Aleppo’s liberation, a major defeat for Washington, NATO, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

It came on the eve of Russian, Turkish and Iranian foreign ministers meeting in Moscow (America, Britain and France excluded) “to discuss in trilateral format the situation in and around Syria first and foremost,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov explained.

On Tuesday, they’ll meet in Moscow “to try to reach an agreement on a lasting ceasefire, on resolution of some humanitarian issues with eye of reaching political settlement.”

“We have the basis for that and it is United Nations Security Council resolution 2254,” he added. Cessation of hostilities and conflict resolution would be a major step toward defeating Washington’s regional imperial agenda.

If Trump normalizes ties with Russia, both countries cooperating in combating terrorism, it’ll represent a major change of US foreign policy for as long as it lasts. Deep state dark forces in Washington want it prevented.

According to Tass, Russian ambassador to Turkey Andrei Karlov “was assassinated on Monday in the country’s capital of Ankara by former special task police force officer Mevlut Mert Altintas,” citing Turkey’s interior minister Suleyman Soylu.

Karlov was killed during the opening ceremony of a photo exhibition called “Russia through Turks’ eyes,” dedicated to normalized bilateral relations between both countries.

He died later at an Ankara hospital, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova explained.

Putin commented on his assassination, calling it “undeniably a provocation aimed at derailing the normalisation of Russian-Turkish relations and the peace process in Syria, which is actively promoted by Russia, Turkey, Iran and other countries interested in the settlement of the internal conflict in Syria.”

“There can be only one response – stepping up the fight against terrorism – which the criminals will find out firsthand.”

“Russia’s Investigative Committee has already opened a case on the murder, and has been tasked with forming a working group which will promptly leave for Ankara to take part in the investigation of this crime together with Turkish partners.”

“This was just agreed during a telephone conversation with the President of Turkey. We must find out who directed the killer’s hand.”

Separately, Turkish President Erdogan said “(w)e are determined to maintain our ties with Russia.”

Karlov’s strategically timed assassination was likely aimed at undermining Russian/Turkish relations – especially after Aleppo’s liberation and US electors confirming Trump’s triumph.

The provocative scheme seems destined to fail as decisively as the campaign to deny America’s president-elect the office he won.

Posted in USA, Russia, TurkeyComments Off on Were “CIA Dirty Hands” Behind Assassination of Russia’s Ambassador to Turkey?

UN to Prepare War Crimes Cases in Syria for Prosecution


On Wednesday, US-pressured General Assembly members voted 105 – 15, with 52 abstentions, for empowering a panel to gather evidence of war crimes in Syria for prosecution. Russia, China, Iran and Syria strongly opposed the measure.

It’s clear where this is heading – a scheme intended to largely blame Syria, Russia and allied forces for high crimes committed by Washington, its rogue allies and terrorist foot soldiers.

Syrian UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari denounced the proposal, coming in the wake of Aleppo’s liberation, saying it’s intended to undermine chances for diplomatic conflict resolution. It flagrantly violates international law by interfering in the internal affairs of a UN member state, Jafaari added.

According to the resolution, a UN-established panel will “assist in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the most serious crimes” in Syria.

It’ll “collect, consolidate, preserve and analyze evidence of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights violations and abuses and prepare files in order to facilitate and expedite fair and independent criminal proceedings.”

It’s a politically motivated scheme to absolve Western and regional nations of high crimes committed against Syria and its people – blaming victims, not perpetrators.

Throughout Obama’s war, Human Rights Watch largely served as a reliable Western propaganda instrument, supporting what demands denunciation.

Its senior international justice counsel Balkees Jarrah commented on the General Assembly resolution, saying “establishing the investigative mechanism…help(s) pave the road to accountability after years of unchecked atrocities.”

“Perpetrators now know that evidence of their misdeeds will be collected to hasten the day when they find themselves in the dock.”

Russia and China will veto any one-sided Security Council resolution intended to deny Syrians the justice they deserve.

A Final Comment

Interviewed in Damascus by Vanessa Beeley, Assad’s political and media advisor Bouthaina Shaaban expressed the following important yearend thoughts, saying:

“I feel that while western children are ready to celebrate Christmas and expecting what Santa Claus will bring them, it is an appropriate time for western people to remember Syrian children, who have totally lost their childhood during this horrible war that has been launched against Syria, for no reason whatsoever, and for no crime that the Syrian people have committed or perpetrated.

In this sense, I would like to direct a message to western media that tries to take information from those who are known to be targeting Syria, from those who are known to be feeding terrorism, arming terrorism, financing terrorism – to stop that!

To try and rely upon journalists and people who look for the truth and at least take the trouble to visit Syria to see for themselves what is happening in Syria, to look for the reality, rather than try to promote all these terrorists who have been perpetrating the most heinous crimes ever, in our country.

Syria is a country that has lived through thousands of years, because the Syrian people believe in their country. They believe in belonging to this land, so we will continue to defend our land and we will continue defend our country. Honestly, terrorism is a danger to all of us. It is a danger to Humanity, to Europe, to America, to Russia, to all countries in the world.

Unfortunately I fear that the west is not going to believe us until they suffer what we have suffered and clearly we do not want them to suffer what we have suffered, because, believe me, it is a catastrophe, what the Syrian people have suffered, in the last five years.

However, I have to pray, that next year, 2017, is going to be a better year, for Syrian people, for western people and for the world at large.

All that I ask, is that now, western people just please look for the truth. I am not asking them to speak in favour of the Syrian government or the Syrian state. I am asking them to speak in favour of the truth. Please don’t promote information unless you know this is really what is going on.

I dare say, that, corporate media have played a very negative role in our lives. It has caused death and destruction in Syria, simply by circulating stories and ideas that are totally unfounded, in Syria, and made it appear as if they are the truth of what is happening in Syria.”

Throughout Obama’s aggression, some of the worst media fakes news in memory substituted for truth-telling – available only through reliable independent alternative sources.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on UN to Prepare War Crimes Cases in Syria for Prosecution

Shoah’s pages


December 2016
« Nov   Jan »