Archive | June 10th, 2017

Who Was Behind the Tehran Terrorist Attacks?


Key is asking who most has motive? Who benefits most? Why was Iran attacked? Why now?

Perpetrators of incidents like Wednesday’s twin terrorist attacks in Tehran likely have backers – planning and orchestrating things with specific objectives in mind.

The Tehran attacks killed at least 16, injuring dozens more, the severest incident in many years, targeting key symbols of the 1979 revolution, suggesting more of the same may follow.

Heavy security protecting Iran’s Majlis (parliament) was penetrated. Henceforth, Ayatollah Khomeini’s shine will be more diligently guarded.

Attacking it was the equivalent of terrorists targeting the Statue of Liberty, Lincoln Memorial or Washington Monument in America.

Security always is heavy in Tehran and other key areas in the country, likely to be stepped up henceforth. Since its 1979 revolution, Iran has been targeted by America and Israel for regime change.

Saudi Arabia is a key adversary. On Wednesday, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) issued a statement, saying Wednesday’s attacks came days after Trump’s meeting with “the rulers of a regional reactionary regime” involved in supporting takfiri terrorists – blaming Riyadh and Washington for what happened, adding:

The “IRGC has proved that it would not leave unanswered the shedding of innocent blood.”

The IRGC’s second-in-command General Hossein Salami said

“(w)e will remain steadfast in fighting terrorists, and we will surely take revenge on terrorists, their affiliates and their supporters for the blood of the martyrs of today’s two terrorist attacks.”

President Hassan Rouhani (credits to the owner of the photo)

A statement by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said

“(t)he Iranian nation…will prove once again that it will crush any plot or scheme by ill-wishers through unity and solidarity and its powerful security structure.”

Iranian Islamic Revolution leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei made similar comments, expressing resolve to defend the nation effectively.

Hours before the attacks, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said

“Iran must be punished for its interference in the region.”

Weeks earlier, Saudi deputy crown prince Mohammad bin Salman vowed to battle Iran in its territory, not the kingdom’s homeland.

Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of regional terrorism sponsored by rogue Arab states. Following Wednesday’s incidents, al-Jubeir turned truth on its head, saying

“(w)e condemn terrorist attacks anywhere they occur and we condemn the killing of the innocent anywhere it occur” – denying Riyadh involvement.

ISIS claimed responsibility for the incidents – the group supported by Washington, NATO, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel and other regional rogue states.

They all have motive to destabilize Iran. They benefit from weakening Tehran if achieved.

Iran is targeted for its sovereign independence, its vast oil and gas reserves Washington wants to control. It’s Israel’s key regional rival.

It’s involved in defending Syria from US-orchestrated aggression, wanting regime change in both countries.

Wednesday’s incidents followed President Rouhani’s reelection. It came at a time when Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and government forces continue making progress against America’s imperial project in Syria.

Trump outrageously blamed Iran for what happened, a White House statement turning truth on its head, saying

“states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote.”

Washington, NATO, Israel and Saudi Arabia are its leading perpetrators – Iran one of its key opponents.

It’s opposition to the imperial projects of America and Israel leaves it vulnerable to hostile acts by both countries and their rogue allies.

Terrorism doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Without foreign backing, it can’t exist.

Incidents similar to Wednesday’s coordinated attacks in Iran can happen anywhere sponsors of ISIS and like-minded groups wish to target.

Washington seeks unchallenged global dominance, using these groups as imperial foot soldiers.

As long as its ruthlessness persists, the scourge of terrorism will continue threatening humanity.

A Final Comment

On Thursday, Iran’s Security Ministry said five of the terrorists involved in Wednesday’s coordinated incidents in Tehran “earlier left Iran and conducted terrorist activity in Raqqa and Mosul.”

“Last year, they returned to the country under the leadership of the commander, Abu Aish, to carry out terrorist attacks in the holy places of Iran.”

Iranian “security services eliminated Abu Aish.” Its intelligence ministry said three teams were involved in Wednesday’s attacks, some of their members arrested before the incidents occurred.

Posted in IranComments Off on Who Was Behind the Tehran Terrorist Attacks?

Former FBI Head James Comey Testimony More Spectacle Than Substance


US cable and broadcast channels scheduled its coverage. So did PBS, NPR, the BBC and CBC.

All or parts of it can be watched on C-Span, local TV stations nationwide, YouTube, Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire and various web sites.

Bars in DC and elsewhere opened early to air it. The Capitol Hill Union Pub offered a free drink every time Trump tweets about his testimony. Schoolteachers intend discussing his testimony with young students.

Trump, his lawyers and other aides tuned in, preparing to respond as necessary.

It’s more spectacle than substantive, much ado about nothing, a tempest in a teapot. Comparing it to the Army-McCarthy hearings or Nixon tapes is pure nonsense.

No smoking guns exist, no blockbuster revelations, nothing to claims about another Watergate or worse, no evidence of obstruction of justice or other wrongdoing in Trump’s face-to-face and telephone conversations with Comey.

The most highly anticipated hearing in decades is all smoke and no fire, all hype and no meat. The most “(un)trust(ed) name in news” headlining “James Comey just went nuclear on Donald Trump” made CNN more of a laughing stock than already.

The hype and surreal atmosphere are bizarre, nothing like it in decades on Capitol Hill.

Law Professor Jonathan Turley mocked it, saying

“(t)he only thing missing is a Vegas betting line and bunting. No doubt children got up this morning screaming “it’s Comey day, it’s Comey day!”

Releasing his prepared remarks in advance created a media firestorm – twisting and misinterpreting what he said – anything to denigrate Trump, making stuff up out of whole cloth.

He had nothing on Lyndon Johnson, his political career built on a foundation of massive electoral fraud. He was intimidating in dealings with others, bullying them to get his way.

Historian Robert Dallek said he

“viewed criticism of his policies as personal attacks.” He called political opponents “disloyal to him and the country.”

He insulted reporters, acting uncivilized much of the time. His press secretary George Reedy called him

“a miserable person…a bully, sadist, lout…egoist (and) colossal son-of-a-bitch.”

His bigger than life persona got things done. Trump is a business tycoon elevated to the nation’s highest office.

LBJ was a longtime politician, both involved in imperial wars. Vietnam was Johnson’s undoing. Trump is at odds with America’s deep state.

After trouncing Barry Goldwater in 1964, Johnson was too roundly disliked to run for reelection. Trump entered office widely despised.

Though unclear if he’ll avoid impeachment and removal from office, it won’t be from Comey’s testimony if happens.

Posted in USAComments Off on Former FBI Head James Comey Testimony More Spectacle Than Substance

Tories Jump into Bed with “Corrupt, Homophobic, Racist, Religious Bigots of the Worst Kind”


Tories Leap Into the Unpopularity Abyss – The official Conservative party spokesman, Laura Kuenssberg, has just announced that Theresa May will remain as Prime Minister, supported by the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland. Now the DUP are probably the most unpleasant bunch of individuals in organised politics in the UK. The “No Surrender” arch protestant bigot party founded by Ian Paisley.

It is fascinating that, after an election in which the Tories and their mainstream media acolytes attacked Jeremy Corbyn at every opportunity for his alleged sympathies with the IRA, the Tories have come to an arrangement with a party that was from its inception and still is the political wing of the loyalist terrorism. The mainstream media never even mentioned the existence of Loyalist terrorism during its sustained attack on Jeremy Corbyn.

The loyalist terrorists murdered 1,016 people in the period 1969-2001. They shot someone dead in a supermarket car park in an internecine dispute actually during the election campaign. In all the media attacks on Corbyn about the IRA, there was no acknowledgement that Loyalist terrorism even existed. I think we can be pretty certain that the media are not going to start digging into the terrorist links of the Tories’ allies now. But social media is going to discredit them.

The DUP are corrupt, homophobic, racist and above all religious bigots of the worst kind. The nastiest people in politics. The utterly discredited Theresa May refuses to resign and intends to continue to rule over us with the support of this ugly faction. Popular support for the Tory government is going to plunge to unprecedented levels. This gruesome malformation of a bigots’ alliance between Brexiteers is not going to last long as a government, and the popular retribution will be massive.

Posted in UKComments Off on Tories Jump into Bed with “Corrupt, Homophobic, Racist, Religious Bigots of the Worst Kind”

UK Elections in a Cauldron of Terror: Dissecting the Outcome


Global Research News Hour Episode 185


“…and I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they are a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court. And if our human rights laws stop us from doing it, we’ll change the laws so we can do it.” – Prime Minister Theresa May (June 6, 2017)[1]


For this writer, one of the more astonishing aspects of last Thursday’s live coverage of the election in the United Kingdom was the lack of reference to the violent attacks, deemed terrorist and ISIS inspired, over the last three months.

On March 22, almost a month before the Prime Minister called the snap election, dozens were injured and five, including the perpetrator, killed when a man in a truck mowed down pedestrians on the Westminster Bridge outside the British Houses of Parliament, proceeding to then enter the Parliament Yard stabbing a police officer before being shot dead. [2]

Two months later, a blast at the Manchester Arena, near the end of US singer Ariana Grande’s concert claimed the lives of 22 and was attributed to suicide bomber Salman Abedi, a Manchester man of Libyan descent. The Prime Minister announced the threat level had been raised from ‘severe’ to ‘critical.’ Almost 1000 troops were dispactched to ‘key locations’ in response. [3]

And on the weekend leading up to the election day, three men in a van ploughed into pedestrians on London Bridge, before going on a stabbing rampage in nearby Borough market. Seven were killed and 48 injured in the attacks. Armed police called to the scene unloaded an ‘unprecedented’ 50 rounds of bullets into the men. [4]

As we saw with 9/11, which freed the US president’s hand in introducing regressive anti-terrorism measures, attacks with a high body count typically result in the increase in popularity of the leaders demanding a decisive and authoritarian response. This is precisely what incumbent Prime Minister Theresa May delivered. [5][6]

Yet May’s opposition rival Jeremy Corbyn connected the incidents with the United Kingdom’s foreign wars, and in spite of calling for more dedicating more resources for police, he stood by a much more pacifistic foreign policy in his election platform. [7]

This stance notwithstanding, polls turned very much in the Labour leader’s favour, and the expected landslide for the Conservatives, became a ‘hung’ Parliament with the Prime Minister barely holding onto power with the help of a rump of elected members of Parliament belonging to the Northern Ireland based DUP.

On the heels of the ‘shock’ election result, the Global Research News Hour radio program places a special emphasis on examining the terror attacks themselves and the election campaign in which they were situated.

In part one, guest Patrick Henningsen joins us by skype (see below) to expose suspicious aspects of the attacks, how they impacted the campaign and how the mechanisms being put in place in their wake will have repercussions for the nation and the Western world. Patrick Henningsen is the founder and executive editor of 21st Century Wire.

In part two, J. Michael Springmann digs into his own research and experience to reveal the long-standing and well established practice of CIA and other intelligence agencies utilizing, training and incorporating extremist Islamist terrorist assets. He puts what is known about the UK attacks in that context. Springmann is a former diplomat and whistle-blower. He formerly worked as an officer at the Visa Office in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he saw CIA officials routinely approving unqualified candidates granted visas for travel to the United States. He is the author of the 2014 book Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked The World – An Insider’s View . Springmann has also authored the recently released book Goodbye, Europe? Hello, Chaos? Merkel’s Migrant Bomb (2017).

Near the end of the show, Professors Radhika Desai and Alan Freeman, co-directors of the University of Manitoba based Geopolitical Economy Research Group, interprets the June 8th election results themselves and what they mean for the future of policy for the UK and the West.


The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at . The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at Listen in everyThursday at 6pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at


  2. Emily Allen and Barney Henderson (March 26, 2017) ‘Westminster attack: Everything we know so far about the events in London’, The Telegraph;
  3. Chiarra Palazzo and Emily Allen (May 26, 2017) ‘Manchester terror attack: Everything we know’, The Telegraph;
  4. Harriett Alexnder (June 6, 2017), ‘London Bridge attack – everything we know’, The Telegraph;
  5. Jennifer Merolla and Elizabeth Zechmeister (June 12, 2016), ‘How terrorist attacks can change opinions and elections — including the 2016 election’, Washington Post;
  6. Jane Merrick (June 4, 2017), ‘May’s authoritarian response to the London Bridge attack’ , CNN;
  7. Heather Stewart and Rowena Mason (May 26, 2017), ‘Jeremy Corbyn links foreign policy to growing terror threat’ The Guardian;

Posted in UKComments Off on UK Elections in a Cauldron of Terror: Dissecting the Outcome

Syrian Army Has Reached the Iraqi Border, Cutting Off the Americans at Al-Tanf – Russian MoD


A major move to cut off the US in southern Syria from taking more territory


The Syrian Army has reached the Iraqi border, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense. 

While we don’t have a lot of details yet, here’s what we can say: this is a brilliant move if true. Not exactly a checkmate yet, but definitely a check on US ambitions in southern Syria. 

: and allies reached for the first time the Syrian-Iraqi borders north-east al-Tanaf.

Hezbollah media announced that reached Al Tanf&Iraqi border
Waiting for official confirmation

Liwa al Quds also reported same thing.
Sources say that SAA liberated +5000 km2 but all aren’t official for now

Russian MoD confirmed this news

View image on Twitter

In essence, as Americans were busy bombing small Syrian groups entering their declared exclusion zone via the main road, a separate Syrian force staged a lightning-quick advance through roadless desert, well to the east of the “deconfliction” zone enveloping the Americans.

The Syrians drove eastwards towards al-Bawda, then cut south to the border (Source: Russia Insider)

If the US forces are not cut off from ISIS they no longer have an excuse to continue occupying this part of Syria. (Or will they insist they get to leapfrog over the Syrian army?)

Russians are saying it will be them and the Syrians — rather than the Americans — who will be advancing along the Iraqi border towards al-Bukamal (the major border crossing in the Euphrates valley coveted by the Pentagon):

Source: Russia Insider

Russian officers also accused the US of hindering the Syrian war effort against ISIS, by blocking its military from opening a new front against the group:

“The coalition air forces and the strongholds of the forces of New Syrian Army have blocked the way of the government forces, tasked with defeating IS groups.”

“This is a violation of the sovereign right of Syria to protect it borders.”

The new, and improved, map with the Americans and dependent forces (green) now boxed-in by the Syrian army (red) (Source: Russia Insider)

There is a video of the Russian briefing, but so far not yet translated (except for an incomplete summary at RT).

UPDATE — Apparently in sync with the Syrian army move south, Iraqi forces likewise advanced against ISIS from their side and met on the border. Thus Syria has not just reached the formal Iraqi border, but actually re-established an actual link to Iraq:

FIRST VIDEO: Syrian Army+allies bypassed US proxies/forces in Al Tanf and reached the Iraqi border meeting up with Al Hashd Al Shaabi today

Syrian Army reporter confirms Syrian Army securing border post 40 km from Al Tanf and Al Hashd Al Shaabi advanced to secure other side today

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

UPDATE #2: We now have the video of the briefing at Russian MoD with English subs. The most relevant part starts at 15:27 into the clip:

The Syrians advanced 184 kilometers in a single day!

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syrian Army Has Reached the Iraqi Border, Cutting Off the Americans at Al-Tanf – Russian MoD

Syrian Army Advancing in Raqqa Province, Withdrawal of ISIS ”Video”


ISIS terrorists have lost large chunks of territories to Syrian government forces in the provinces of Raqqa and Homs.

In the province of Raqqa, the Syrian Army’s Tiger Forces reached the area controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) west of Tabqa after liberating about two dozens of villages, including Rumthan, Bir Mulayhan, Shatnah, al-Qusur, al-Muhaddad, Jubb al-Khafi and Husayn al-Mikhallaf, south of Maskanah.

The government forces made this advance after a full withdrawal of ISIS members from the area. Now, the Tiger Forces are able to develop momentum in the direction of the Ithriyah-Tabqa road, further clearing areas east of Khanasir. This will allow to shorten the frontline and to set a foothold for the operation against ISIS at the Salamiyah-Palmyra road.

The army expansion in the Raqqa province may also push the SDF to encircle the ISIS-held provincial capital from the southern direction, preventing ISIS from fleeing the besieged city.

In the province of Homs, the army liberated the al Abbasiyah area, the Hamamt Zenobia area and the Olayanieh village south of Palmyra. The army advance was massively supported by airstrikes from the Russian and Syrian air forces.

In the Damascus desert, government forces took control over the Dawka area, creating conditions for an advance on Bir Qassab and al-Safa controlled by US-backed militants.

On Thursday, the US-led coalition once again bombed the army and its allies near the area of at-Tanf. The airstrikes destroyed technical vehicles in the Khibrat al-Shami area at the Damascus – Baghdad highway, 40 km away from the US garrison.

According to the statement, coalition warplanes also downed a medium-sized unmanned aerial vehicle that had targeted area near the US-led forces positions. The drone appears to be an Iranian-made Shahhed-129.

Meanwhile, the SDF captured the 17th Division base north of Raqqa and continued developing momentum in the city. According to the US-led coalition, there are about 2,500 ISIS members inside the city.

Voiceover by Lance Ramsay

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syrian Army Advancing in Raqqa Province, Withdrawal of ISIS ”Video”

All “Islamic Terrorism” Is Perpetrated by Fundamentalist Sunnis, Except Terrorism Against Israel


My examination of 54 prominent international examples of what U.S. President Donald Trump is presumably referring to when he uses his often-repeated but never defined phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” indicates that it is exclusively a phenomenon that is financed by the U.S. government’s Sunni fundamentalist royal Arab ‘allies’ and their subordinates, and not at all by Iran or its allies or any Shiites at all. Each of the perpetrators was either funded by those royals, or else inspired by the organizations, such as Al Qaeda and ISIS, that those royals fund, and which are often also armed by U.S.-made weapons that were funded by those royals. In other words: the U.S. government is allied with the perpetrators. 

Related image

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani and Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad (Source:

Though U.S. President Donald Trump blames Shias, such as the leaders of Iran and of Syria, for what he calls “radical Islamic terrorism,” and he favors sanctions etc. against them for that alleged reason, those Shia leaders and their countries are actually constantly being attacked by Islamic terrorists, and this terrorism is frequently perpetrated specifically in order to overthrow them (which the U.S. government supports even overtly, such as in the case of Bashar al-Assad). Furthermore, all of that terrorism and those attacks, not only against the U.S. and Iran but against all nations except for Israel, are perpetrated not by Shia such as the U.S. President alleges, but instead by fundamentalist Sunnis, and they are financed by the very same fundamentalist Sunni Arab leaders that President Trump calls America’s allies against “radical Islamic terrorism.” 

My review of well-known Islamic terrorist incidents shows that, other than terrorism inside and against Israel, all Islamic terrorism is perpetrated by fundamentalist Sunnis, none of it is perpetrated by Shia, either fundamentalist or not, though the U.S. government and its allies blame Shia countries for “radical Islamic terrorism” — even while the U.S. government and its officials know full well that only  fundamentalist Sunnis are actually behind it. Israel, the Sauds, and their client-nations — and U.S. weapons-manufacturing firms such as Lockheed Martin — benefit, but the publics get slaughtered by these terrorist groups, which are financed by America’s ‘allies’, and armed largely by the U.S.

The exceptional case is Israel. Specifically in that country, Al Quds Brigades in the Gaza Strip are “majority funded by Iran”, but, even in Israel, America’s allies contribute to the terrorism. The dominant Hamas in the Gaza Strip is not Shiite, but is instead strictly fundamentalist Sunni, with the “donor bodies located in Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Germany, the United States, United Arab Emirates, Italy and France”. (That’s most of the strongly U.S.-allied countries.) The other major terrorist organization in Israel is Hezbollah, which is fundamentalist Shia, and is funded by Shia throughout the world, not only in Iran (such as the U.S. government frequently implies, though it’s false to attribute Hezbollah to Iran, instead of to the world’s wealthy Shia everywhere). 

However, outside Israel, all of the Islamic terrorism is perpetrated by fundamentalist Sunni groups, such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and their regional affiliate organizations, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba in India.

The countries that the U.S. government rails against and imposes economic sanctions against, are the non-sponsors of radical Islamic terrorism (except in Israel), and are themselves the chief victims of it, such as Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Those countries’ governments, and Shia populations, are purely victims of Islamic terrorism (sometimes beheaded for being so), not perpetrators of it (except, occasionally, against Israel — but, even there, they don’t have any monopoly, whereas Islamic terrorism against countries other than Israel is virtually, if not entirely, a Sunni fundamentalist monopoly). 

Wikipedia keeps a “List of Islamist Terrorist Attacks”, which currently describes 479 Islamic terrorist incidents. I have looked into the perpetrators of 54 of these incidents that struck me as having been especially publicized in the U.S., and that thus might reasonably be expected to have formed the American public’s general impression of Islamic terrorism, if the U.S. is a democracy (and so the public in the U.S. would be informed by an honest press), but I excluded all incidents that were against Israel, because if the U.S. is a democracy, then the U.S. public wouldn’t be focused on any single foreign country’s experience with Islamic terrorism, but would instead be concerned mainly about the national (U.S.), and then secondarily the global international, problem — no one foreign country. Every one of the perpetrators, so far as I was able to determine from the news-reports, has been fundamentalist Sunni (affiliated with, or else inspired by, known fundamentalist Sunni terrorist organizations). In none of the 54 instances was any connection at all indicated to the Shiite terrorist organization, Hezbollah, which group focuses solely against Israel, nor connected to any other Shia organization. 

Here are those 54 incidents (and for the basic details about each one, see that wikipedia list of all 479 attacks), all of which would reasonably be referred to by the phrase (if used by an American) “radical Islamic terrorism,” if any terrorist attack would be referred to by that commonly-used-by-Trump phrase:

U.S., 11 September 2001, 4 hijacked airliners

U.S., 4 July 2002, shooting at Los Angeles International Airport

Indonesia, 12 October 2002, Bali bombings

Russia, 23 October 2002, Moscow theater hostage crisis

Russia, 12 May 2003, Znamenskoye Grozny suicide bombing

Indonesia, 5 August 2003, Marriott Hotel bombing in Mega Kuningan, South Jakarta

Turkey, 15-20 November 2003, Istanbul bombings

Philippines, 27 February 2004, sinking of Super Ferry by Abu Sayyaf

Turkey, 9 March 2004, pipe-bomb attack in Istanbul restaurant

Spain, 11 March 2004, Madrid train bombings

Russia, 31 August 2004, Moscow Metro bombing

Russia, 1-3 September 2004, Beslan school hostage crisis

Indonesia, 9 September 2004, Australian Embassy bombing in Jakarta

UK, 7 July 2005, London bombings

Indonesia, 1 October 2005, Bali, Jimbaran, and Kuta, bombings

India, 11 July 2006, Mumbai train bombings

India, 13 May 2007, Jaipur bombings

India, 26 July 2008, Ahmedabad bombings

India, 13 September 2008, Delhi bombings

India, 26 November 2008, Mumbai attacks in the financial center

U.S., 1 June 2009, Little Rock recruiting office shooting

Indonesia, 17 July 2009, Marriott and Ritz-Carlton bombings in Mega Kuningan

U.S., 5 November 2009, Fort Hood shooting

Russia, 29 March 2010, Moscow Metro bombings

Iran, 15 July 2010, Zahedan bombings

Egypt, 1 January 2011, Alexandria bombing

Russia, 24 January 2011, Domodedovo International Airport bombing

Egypt, 7 May 2011, Attacks on Imbaba Coptic church

China, 30 July 2011, Knife and bomb attacks in Kashgar

Bosnia and Herzogovina, 28 October 2011, U.S. Embassy shooting

Nigeria, 25 December 2011, church bombings in four cities

Russia, 3 May 2012, Makhachkala attack

Libya, 11 September 2012, Benghazi attack on U.S. Consulate

U.S., 15 April 2013, Boston Marathon bombings

Syria, August 2014, ISIS massacres 700 residents of Deir Ezzor

France, 7-9 January 2015, Charlie Hebdo shootings

Nigeria, 8 January 2015, Baga massacre

Denmark, 14 February 2015, Copenhagen shootings

Nigeria, 26-30 June 2015, Boko Haram rampage kills 200+

France, 13 November 2015, Paris bombings and shootings

Belgium, 22 March 2016, Brussels bombings

Iraq, 3 July 2016, Baghdad bombings

France, 14 July 2016, Nice truck-attack

Germany, 18 July 2016, Wuerzburg knife-hatchet attack

Germany, 24 July 2016, Ansbach suicide-bombing

France, 26 July 2016, Rouen church attacks

U.S., 28 November 2016, Ohio State U. car-attack

Sweden, 7 April 2017, Drottninggatan truck-attack

Egypt, 9 April 2017, Coptic churches attacked in several cities

France, 20 April 2017, Champs-Élysées shooting-rampage

UK, 22 May 2017, Manchester Arena massacre

Egypt, 26 May 2017, Minya shootings of Copts

UK, 3 June 2017, Knife-attacks on London Bridge

France, 6 June Notre Dame knife attacks

100% of those attacks were by fundamentalist Sunnis.

That is not intended to constitute an all-inclusive count of all terrorist instances, but to be instead a count of instances that I, an American, recollected seeing reported since the time of the 11 September 2001 attacks against America, and, thus, as being reasonably what is referred to by Trump’s often-repeated phrase, “radical Islamic terrorism.” 

Image may contain: 3 people, people standing and indoor

President Donald Trump and King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia sign a Joint Strategic Vision Statement for the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, during ceremonies, Saturday, May 20, 2017, at the Royal Court Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (Official White House Photo Shealah Craighead)

The conclusion that I draw from those 54 instances is that U.S. President Trump is himself strongly allied with the chief international funders of what he calls “radical Islamic terrorism”. For example, when ISIS on June 7th did deadly gun and suicide-bomb attacks against Iran’s parliament in Tehran, Trump immediately responded by blaming Iran’s government for that, by saying,

“We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote.”

Later that same day, the pro-Saud, anti-Shiite, CNN reported,

“Iran’s Revolutionary Guards say Saudi Arabia supported ISIS in the deadly twin attacks in Tehran on Wednesday, an accusation likely to infuriate the Saudi kingdom amid high tensions in the region.”

(In other words: if the Sauds attack Iran afterward, they’ll just be doing what the Iranian government should have expected — and the Sauds would not, in that case, be doubling-up on their own hatred and aggression against Iran and against Shia generally, such as in Yemen and Syria.) 

Contrast this Trump-response versus the way Iran had responded to the 9/11 attacks against Americans:

“After 9/11, Iran not only denounced the attacks and cooperated with the United States in Afghanistan, but also offered to negotiate a comprehensive resolution of differences with no preconditions.”

(George W. Bush responded to that initiative by Iran, only slightly less hostilely than Trump did to the attacks by ISIS in Tehran. The names of U.S. Presidents change far more frequently than U.S. government policies do. Trump, Obama, and Bush, are merely different brand-names for the same basic governmental product. The U.S. aristocracy remains much the same regardless of the nominal President etc.)

In addition, however, I should note that Trump’s phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” presumes the existence of such a thing as “moderate Islamic terrorism,” and that Trump’s remaining admirers evidently don’t care about, nor even notice, such ugly, or even stupid, implications of this phrase that he often uses. He would be better advised to remove the term “radical” from it. He might as well distinguish between “radical” versus “moderate” genocides, as talk about “radical” versus “moderate” terrorism. But there is no evidence that his followers even notice that ugly absurdity from him.

The evidence is clear and overwhelming, that the U.S. government is allied with the people who fund international Islamic terrorist groups, except for the few Islamic terrorist groups that perpetrate their attacks in or otherwise against Israel. At least in this regard, the U.S. government is clearly anti-American (i.e., against the American people), but the owners of U.S. weapons-manufacturing firms benefit from it, and so too do Israel and the owners of the fundamentalist Sunni countries that are treated by the U.S. government as ‘allies’ but might perhaps more accurately be referred to (along with Israel’s aristocracy) as America’s “masters.”

Just in as this was being written, came the news, “Saudi Soccer Team Refuse To Observe Minute’s Silence For London Terror Attack Victims”.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on All “Islamic Terrorism” Is Perpetrated by Fundamentalist Sunnis, Except Terrorism Against Israel

Tehran Was Always America’s Final Destination, the Target of the ISIS Terror Attack

Several were left dead and many more injured after coordinated terror attacks on Iran’s capital of Tehran. Shootings and bombings targeted Iran’s parliament and the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini.

According to Reuters, the so-called “Islamic State” claimed responsibility for the attack, which unfolded just days after another terror attack unfolded in London. The Islamic State also reportedly took responsibility for the violence in London, despite evidence emerging that the three suspects involved were long-known to British security and intelligence agencies and were simply allowed to plot and carry out their attacks.

It is much less likely that Tehran’s government coddled terrorists -as it has been engaged for years in fighting terrorism both on its borders and in Syria amid a vicious six-year war fueled by US, European, and Persian Gulf weapons, cash, and fighters.

Armed Violence Targeting Tehran Was the Stated Goal of US Policymakers

The recent terrorist attacks in Tehran are the literal manifestation of US foreign policy. The creation of a proxy force with which to fight Iran and establishing a safe haven for it beyond Iran’s borders have been long-stated US policy. The current chaos consuming Syria and Iraq – and to a lesser extent in southeast Turkey – is a direct result of the US attempting to secure a base of operations to launch a proxy war directly against Iran.

Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward

Source: Amazon

In the 2009 Brookings Institution document titled,Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” the use of then US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) as a proxy for instigating a full-fledged armed insurgency not unlike that which is currently unfolding in Syria was discussed in detail.

The report explicitly stated:

The United states could also attempt to promote external Iranian opposition groups, providing them with the support to turn themselves into full-fledged insurgencies and even helping them militarily defeat the forces of the clerical regime. The United states could work with groups like the Iraq-based National council of resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), helping the thousands of its members who, under Saddam Husayn’s regime, were armed and had conducted guerrilla and terrorist operations against the clerical regime. although the NCRI is supposedly disarmed today, that could quickly be changed.

Brookings policymakers admitted throughout the report that MEK was responsible for killing both American and Iranian military personnel, politicians, and civilians in what was clear-cut terrorism. Despite this, and admissions that MEK remained indisputably a terrorist organization, recommendations were made to de-list it from the US State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization registry so that more overt support could be provided to the group for armed regime change.

Based on such recommendations and intensive lobbying, the US State Department would eventually de-list MEK in 2012 and the group would receive significant backing from the US openly. This included support from many members of current US President Donald Trump’s campaign team – including Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and John Bolton.

However, despite these efforts, MEK was not capable then or now of accomplishing the lofty goal of instigating full-fledged insurrection against Tehran, necessitating the use of other armed groups. The 2009 Brookings paper made mention of other candidates under a section titled, “Potential Ethnic Proxies,” identifying Arab and Kurdish groups as well as possible candidates for a US proxy war against Tehran.

Under a section titled, “Finding a Conduit and Safe Haven,” Brookings notes:

Of equal importance (and potential difficulty) will be finding a neighboring country willing to serve as the conduit for U.S. aid to the insurgent group, as well as to provide a safe haven where the group can train, plan, organize, heal, and resupply.

For the US proxy war on Syria, Turkey and Jordan fulfill this role. For Iran, it is clear that US efforts would have to focus on establishing conduits and safe havens from Pakistan’s southwest Balochistan province and from Kurdish-dominated regions in northern Iraq, eastern Syria, and southeastern Turkey – precisely where current upheaval is being fueled by US intervention both overtly and covertly.

Brookings noted in 2009 that:

It would be difficult to find or build an insurgency with a high likelihood of success. The existing candidates are weak and divided, and the Iranian regime is very strong relative to the potential internal and external challengers.

A group not mentioned by Brookings in 2009, but that exists in the very region the US seeks to create a conduit and safe haven for a proxy war with Iran, is the Islamic State. Despite claims that it is an independent terrorist organization propelled by black market oil sales, ransoms, and local taxes, its fighting capacity, logistical networks, and operational reach demonstrates vast state sponsorship.

The Ultimate Proxy, the Perfect Conduit and Safe Haven

The Islamic State reaching into Iran, southern Russia, and even as far as western China was not only possible, it was inevitable and the logical progression of US policy as stated by Brookings in 2009 and verifiably executed since then.

Credits to the owner of the photo

The Islamic State represents the perfect “proxy,” occupying the ideal conduit and safe haven for executing America’s proxy war against Iran and beyond. Surrounding the Islamic State’s holdings are US military bases, including those illegally constructed in eastern Syria. Were the US to wage war against Iran in the near future, it is likely these assets would all “coincidentally” coordinate against Tehran just as they are now being “coincidentally” coordinated against Damascus.

The use of terrorism, extremists, and proxies in executing US foreign policy, and the use of extremists observing the Islamic State and Al Qaeda’s brand of indoctrination was demonstrated definitively during the 1980’s when the US with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan – used Al Qaeda to expel Soviet forces from Afghanistan. This example is in fact mentioned explicitly by Brookings policymakers as a template for creating a new proxy war – this time against Iran.

For the US, there is no better stand-in for Al Qaeda than its successor the Islamic State. US policymakers have demonstrated a desire to use known terrorist organizations to wage proxy war against targeted nation-states, has previously done so in Afghanistan, and has clearly organized the geopolitical game board on all sides of Iran to facilitate its agenda laid out in 2009. With terrorists now killing people in Tehran, it is simply verification that this agenda is advancing onward.

Iran’s involvement in the Syrian conflict illustrates that Tehran is well aware of this conspiracy and is actively defending against it both within and beyond its borders. Russia is likewise an ultimate target of the proxy war in Syria and is likewise involved in resolving it in favor of stopping it there before it goes further.

China’s small but expanding role in the conflict is linked directly to the inevitability of this instability spreading to its western Xianjiang province.

While terrorism in Europe, including the recent London attack, is held up as proof that the West is “also” being targeted by the Islamic State, evidence suggests otherwise. The attacks are more likely an exercise in producing plausible deniability.

In reality, the Islamic State – like Al Qaeda before it – depends on vast, multinational state sponsorship – state sponsorship the US, Europe, and its regional allies in the Persian Gulf are providing. It is also sponsorship they can – at anytime of their choosing – expose and end. They simply choose not to in pursuit of regional and global hegemony.

The 2009 Brookings paper is a signed and dated confession of the West’s proclivity toward using terrorism as a geopolitical tool. While Western headlines insist that nations like Iran, Russia, and China jeopardize global stability, it is clear that they themselves do so in pursuit of global hegemony.

Posted in IranComments Off on Tehran Was Always America’s Final Destination, the Target of the ISIS Terror Attack

London Wolves: Third London Bridge Attacker Was on EU Watch List – Talked Terrorism with Security

The London Bridge attack story continues to spin wildly out of control, as the third attacker named in the terror atrocity, another known wolf, was placed on an EU-wide database and according to security officials, openly acknowledged the will to carryout terror in March of 2016. 

The UK’s prior warning of the third London attacker only raises more questions about the intelligence world at large and the true nature of terror in the West. Here at 21WIRE, we’ve outlined key elements in the London Bridge attack narrative and have analyzed the last three UK attacks in great detail, as the relationship between MI5 British security services and the European Union was found to be inextricably linked to two of the three terrorists involved in the London Bridge terror event.

Let’s take a look at some of the latest details in this case, while examining the historical bond between terror, security and media…


‘PRIOR WARNING’ – The London Bridge attack revealed two Known wolf terrorists (Photo Illustration 21WIRE’s Shawn Helton)

After two identities of the three involved in the London Bridge terror event were released earlier this week, British authorities announced the identity of the third attacker, an individual already well-known to security, 22 year-old Youssef Zaghba. In addition to being another ‘known wolf’ Zaghba, also openly acknowledged his ambition to commit an act of terror to airport security officials.

The NY Times reported the following development:

“Two former European intelligence officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case, confirmed that Mr. Zaghba had been stopped by the authorities at the airport near Bologna, Italy, in March 2016 while he was trying to travel to Turkey and on to Syria to fight for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. He was carrying an electronic device with Islamic State propaganda, they said.

Mr. Zaghba told a security guard that he was “going to be a terrorist,” according to Giuseppe Amato, the chief prosecutor in Bologna. The police arrested him, and also flagged Mr. Zaghba as a “suspicious person” to the British and Moroccan authorities, according to Mr. Amato, but there was not enough to justify criminal charges.”

According to Giuseppe Amato, the chief prosecutor in Bologna, Italy, authorities did everything they could, as Zaghba was only a “suspicious person” and “there was no proof he was a terrorist.” This prompted the media to focus their attention on alleged ISIS propaganda on the attacker’s cell phone as his main offense, most likely in an effort to rally public support for new sweeping security changes, as well as gain further access into personal devices as pursued in the aftermath of the dubious San Bernardino shooting case.

This directly dovetails PM Theresa May‘s recent declaration’s concerning ‘online extremism’ – a vague concept that could be loosely applied to all kinds of acts, beliefs or statements – whether criminal or not.

During the apparent encryption saga between Apple and the FBI, we stated that there are no guarantees in the security world, especially if a digital master-key were to be used, as it would potentially make it easier for invaders (either the government, or various hackers) mining for data moving forward into the future.

While prosecutor Amato attempted explain the release of Zaghba over the perception of Italian law, it appears according to Italian anti-terror measures on the books since 2015, police may have been able to prevent Zaghba. Most notably, Italian officials may have had the ability to detain him for further questioning, in addition to potentially drafting charges for his attempt to join and support ISIS, as well as withdrawing his passport. One could argue that a tough prosecutor could have made this case.

Here’s a screenshot of the anti-terror legislation in Italy for review…

Italian laws

Given Zaghba’s terror declarations and his plan to join ISIS, it seems based on Italian law, one of the main suspects in the London Bridge attack very well could have been charged with a serious crime prior to committing terror.

While mainstream media outlets appear to deflect security responsibility over Zaghba, as he was not a ‘subject of interest’ to MI5 or London police, the fact remains he was on an EU-wide database, and based on what we’ve shown above, should have had his passport revoked at the very least, in addition to being detained with the threat of other terror-related charges. While the legal wrangling may have not entirely prevented a crime, it would have certainly been a huge roadblock for Zaghba’s involvement in the London Bridge attack.

In addition to the unexplained security links to known wolves in the UK and the laws that failed to prevent terror, it appears that once again Britain’s Channel 4 is at the forefront after revelations of Zaghba’s accomplice, Khuram Butt (well-known to MI5), had been featured in the documentary ‘The Jihadist Next Door’ that aired in the UK in 2016. Not only was this whole aspect to the case reminiscent of the Orlando shooting saga, where the apparent Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen, was found to have been featured in two high-profile documentaries, it also recalled Channel 4’s links to Mohammad Emwazi, the man purported to be the terror avatar Jihadi John in 2015. Curiously, we find UK mainstream media outlet Channel 4 at the center of the known wolf web. Here’s a passage from our unmasking of Jihadi John in 2015 for comparison:

“Back in 2009, UK intelligence services in partnership with Metropolitan Police, announced the existence of a covert social engineering effort known as the The Channel Project, which was being run in hopes to target children with traits which may indicate an attraction to “extreme” views and a susceptibility to being groomed by “radicalisers” in the future. It goes without saying, that a secret program of this kind could just as easily be used to groom future ‘radicals’ and informants too.”

Here’s a video provided by Britain’s Channel 4, that depicted a camera shy Emwazi in his teenage years…

Surrounding many large-scale terror incidents in the West these days is the strange existence of suspected terrorists being attached to the entertainment industry, other past terror connections, while simultaneously linked to various ongoing terror operations.

This was certainly the case as Emwazi’s longtime West London associate, former UK rapper (turned Jihadist) Abdel Bary, the initial ‘Jihadi John’ suspect, had also been linked to the ‘London Boys’ terror network, along with Emwazi.

In early 2013, we were told that Emwazi hadfled the gaze of MI5” to head for Syria, at that same time the BBC Radio 1 featured Bary, disappeared from London – as another high-profile suspect, Ahmed Mohamed (tied to Somali militant group al-Shabab), the man who allegedly recruited Emwazi in 2012, gave MI5 the slip after changing into a ‘burka’ at a mosque.

In 2011, the Daily Mail reported the following regarding the sleeper cell known as the London Boys:

“A group of terrorists who trained in Somalia returned to Britain to carry out a wave of attacks which were demanded by Osama Bin Laden before his death.

The gang, dubbed the ‘London Boys’, were taught by a top Al-Qaeda explosives expert in the war-torn country and include Reza Afsharzadegan, a former IT student from Ladbroke Grove, West London.”

The article continued, stating the following:

“Leaked documents reveal how the ‘sleeper operatives’ were trained by an Al-Qaeda official who is wanted by the FBI with a £3m ($5m) reward for his capture.”

As we’ve stated many times, Western political leaders and their media publicly discuss the idea of so-called terror ‘sleeper cells’ hiding in a nation near you, but none of them acknowledge the historical fact that they themselves have helped to harbor, grow, foment and radicalize individuals through various secret counter-terrorism operations. Allied nations of course, will bring up the fact that Western intelligence regularly uses double agents and informants, under the banner of ‘security’ to obfuscate the true intentions of such programs – always careful as to how they paint Western foreign policy aims.

QUESTION: Are we seeing a new network of London and ‘Manchester Boys’ sleeper cells in the UK today, if so, why?

Recently the well-known Australian journalist and documentary film maker John Pilger also weighed in on the collusion of terror and security in an article that was republished here at 21WIRE:

“In 2011, according to Middle East Eye, the LIFG in Manchester were known as the “Manchester boys”. Implacably opposed to Mu’ammar Gadaffi, they were considered high risk and a number were under Home Office control orders – house arrest – when anti-Gadaffi demonstrations broke out in Libya, a country forged from myriad tribal enmities.

Suddenly the control orders were lifted. “I was allowed to go, no questions asked,” said one LIFG member. MI5 returned their passports and counter-terrorism police at Heathrow airport were told to let them board their flights.

The overthrow of Gaddafi, who controlled Africa’s largest oil reserves, had been long been planned in Washington and London. According to French intelligence, the LIFG made several assassination attempts on Gadaffi in the 1990s – bank-rolled by British intelligence.  In March 2011, France, Britain and the US seized the opportunity of a “humanitarian intervention” and attacked Libya. They were joined by Nato under cover of a UN resolution to “protect civilians”.”

The London Bridge attack leaves a number of questions unanswered – will we ever know the complete story for an event that lasted only 8 minutes total?

Posted in UKComments Off on London Wolves: Third London Bridge Attacker Was on EU Watch List – Talked Terrorism with Security

Shoah’s pages