Archive | June 13th, 2017

Stop the Smear Campaign (and Genocide) Against Sunni Islam!


Eric Zeusse’s work is invariably thought-provoking, well-researched, and far more credible than most mainstream reporting. Unfortunately, in his otherwise excellent article All ‘Islamic Terrorism’ Is Perpetrated by Fundamentalist Sunnis, Except Terrorism Against Israel,” Zeusse commits two grave errors. The result is a grotesque calumny against Sunni Islam. 

Zeusse’s first error is to label the alleged perpetrators of 54 high-profile terrorist events, and their private and state sponsors, “fundamentalist Sunnis.” Both words in this expression are incorrect.

The word “fundamentalist,” deriving from the 19th-century “fundamentals of belief” movement, describes Protestant Christians who subscribe to a literal reading of scripture. There is no comparable movement in Islam. All Muslims, from the most radically esoteric Sufis to the most hidebound obscurantist Wahhabis, read the Qur’an literally and accept it as the literal word of God. (Esotericist Muslims, and to a lesser degree all Muslims, also read their scripture allegorically, but do not dispense with the literal reading in doing so.)

Christian fundamentalism is a reaction against the 19th-century “death of God” in Western post-Christian societies, and the accompanying decline of religion, especially in the public sphere. Muslim societies have experienced no such decline of religion. In the Islamic world, God is very much alive, and always has been, so there is nothing for any alleged Muslim “fundamentalism” to react against.  The alleged perpetrators of 9/11, Bali, Madrid, 7/7, the Boston bombings, Charlie Hebdo, and so on cannot be described as fundamentalists, since there is no such thing as Islamic fundamentalism.

Nor can they be accurately described as Sunnis. To the extent that any school or tendency in Islamic thought can be connected to the alleged terror perpetrators, it is Wahhabism, which is very different from Sunni Islam. Most educated Sunni Muslims, including the majority of religious scholars, view Wahhabism as a marginal sect that can arguably be classified as a form of neo-Kharajism, meaning it is outside of Sunni Islam.  (Kharajism was a sect of holier-than-thou purists who left the mainstream Islamic fold during the period of leadership controversies following the death of the Prophet of Islam.)

Wahhabis have a history of rejecting mainstream Sunni Islamic scholarship and massacring Muslims with whom they disagree. Originally a small, insignificant sect of desert bandits, they were armed and funded by the British Empire, and later the American Empire, as a weapon against mainstream Islam. Without this imperial backing, and the oil money it brought, Wahhabism would not even exist today. Wahhabism is best viewed as the artificially-sustained pseudo-religious ideology of Western mercenaries fighting against Islam and Muslims. And since almost 90% of Muslims are Sunni, it is Sunnis who are the primary targets of this ongoing war. Indeed, the vast majority of the victims of the kind of terrorism Zeusse is talking about are Sunni Muslims.

Zeusse’s second mistake is even more grave, and far more offensive. Publishing in Global Research, an outlet that has featured extensive investigative work showing that 9/11 and its follow-up events have been false flags, Zeusse nonetheless takes it for granted that the “Muslim” patsies blamed for these events are actually the “terrorists.” This false narrative has triggered the murder of 32 million Muslims, five million by direct violence and 27 million by deprivation, according to Gideon Polya, an expert on preventable mortality. By endorsing the genocidally mendacious cover stories of the 9/11-triggered series of false flags, Zeusse is making himself an accessory to the murder of 32 million people.

The facts of 9/11 have long been available to anyone willing to look at them, beginning with the obvious controlled demolitions of WTC-7 and the Twin Towers. Every aspect of the official story has been falsified.

The official narrative claims “radical Muslims hijacked planes and crashed them into buildings, which caused the Towers and WTC-7 to collapse from fire.”

Image result for Mohammad Atta

Mohammad Atta (Source: Wikipedia)

“Radical Muslims”? The alleged terrorists were not even practicing Muslims, much less extremists. Hebrew-speaking coke fiend Mohammad Atta’s favorite food was pork chops, according to his pink-haired stripper girlfriend Amanda Keller. Atta and other “hijackers” indulged in gambling junkets to Las Vegas and Jack Abramoff’s casino boats, never went near a mosque, and got drunk and left an alcohol-soaked Qur’an on the bar the night before 9/11. Evidence suggests some if not all of the alleged hijackers were impersonated by intelligence agents. For details see Daniel Hopsicker’s Welcome to Terrorland and Jay Kolar’s What We Now Know About the Alleged 9/11 Hijackers in Paul Zarembka’s The Hidden History of 9/11.

“Hijackers”? There is no evidence that any Muslims (or anyone else) manually hijacked any planes on 9/11, and abundant evidence that no such thing happened. David Ray Griffin’s excellent article Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?” provides a good summary of the evidence. Those seeking more information should read Elias Davidsson’s work including Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11, then move on to Dr. Griffin’s dozen or so books on the subject.

“Plane crashes?” The claim that all four 757 and 767 passenger airliners crashed at the advertised locations is highly debatable. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has provided abundant evidence against that hypothesis.

“The Twin Towers and WTC-7 collapsed from office fires?” This ridiculous lie has been thoroughly demolished by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. But you don’t need special expertise to see that WTC-7 was imploded — and that the Towers did not collapse, they exploded.

Yet Eric Zuesse would have us believe that “fundamentalist Sunni Muslims” committed the atrocities in New York and Washington. How can Global Research, edited by people who know better, publish such an obscene calumny?

Though I have investigated fewer than 20 of the 54 supposed “Sunni fundamentalist” terror events listed by Eric Zeusse, my conclusion that these were all likely or confirmed false flags suggests that most if not all of the others were also false flags.

My three edited books We Are Not Charlie Hebdo, ANOTHER French False Flag, and Orlando False Flag feature 55 leading public intellectuals deconstructing the myth of Islamic terror as it relates to these and several other recent false flag events. Here is a selection from my essay “Pre- and Post-9/11 False Flags” in We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo:

After a hiatus lasting most of the decade, the false flag of Islamic terror was re-hoisted in the USA following the Fort Hood shootings of November 2009. (Technically this event cannot be classified under the terrorism rubric since the victims were soldiers, not civilians.) American historian and terror analyst Webster Tarpley writes that the Fort Hood massacre attributed to Major Nidal Hasan unleashedan articulated campaign of media hysteria and mass manipulation.” Tarpley went on to question the official story of the shootings by citing reports of multiple shooters, adding: “There remains the question of whether Major Hasan’s psychosis has been artificially produced through a program of brainwashing and heavy-duty ‘Clockwork Orange’ psychological manipulation.” That question would re-emerge in 2014 in connection to another likely Manchurian Candidate terrorist, the leader of Islamic State and self-proclaimed Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

If the Fort Hood shooting was tragic, the follow-up incident involving a so-called underwear bomber was pure farce. While the American people were told that a terrorist named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had packed his underwear full of plastic explosives in hope of blowing up a jetliner, they were not told that Abdulmutallab did not have a detonator—and that plastic explosives cannot explode without a detonator. Worse, eyewitnesses saw Abdulmutallab boarding the Detroit-bound plane in Amsterdam without a passport, escorted by a “sharply-dressed man” who appeared to be some sort of security agent. A cameraman on board the plane was clearly complicit in the attack, beginning to film shortly before the attack began, and panning seamlessly to capture the entire episode as if on cue. Passenger and eyewitness Kurt Haskell, a Detroit attorney, has published convincing evidence that the whole affair was a poorly-disguised false flag operation. ABC News reported Haskell’s courtroom testimony: I am convinced that Umar was given an intentionally defective bomb by a U.S. agent to stage a false terrorist attack.”

A subsequent headline-garnering reminder of the alleged Islamic terror threat was the Times Square bombing attempt of  May 1st, 2010. Like the underwear bombing incident, the Times Square scare involved an utterly incompetent terrorist patsy and a so-called bomb that was highly unlikely to explode. According to former US intelligence insider Gordon Duff, editor of Veterans Today, the fake attack waspart of a CIA false flag against Pakistan.”

The next major American myth-maintenance operation was the Boston Marathon bombing of April 2013. If anything, this alleged Islamic terror incident was an even more crushingly obvious false flag than its predecessors. Photographs taken at the scene show that the exploded backpack the FBI claims held a bomb was not worn by either Tsarnaev brother, but instead by an unknown man wearing a cap with insignia of Craft International, a Blackwater-style outfit owned by “American  Sniper” Chris Kyle specializing in mercenary mayhem whose motto is “Sometimes violence does solve problems.” Craft and the officials who hired them hid from the media and refused to either deny or explain the mercenaries’ presence at the Marathon. Video taken at the scene reveals apparently staged carnage complete with theatrical pseudo-amputations of artificial limbs and poorly-distributed amounts of cinematic fake blood. The FBI murdered a key witness, Ibrahim Todashev, execution style while he was in custody. The Tsarnaevs’ uncle Ruslan Tsarnaev was married to Samantha Fuller, daughter of controversial CIA agent Graham Fuller, until 2004. Graham Fuller has allegedly been implicated in a number of scandals including the Iran-Contra affair and the creation of al-Qaeda. He provided support to Chechens fighting against Russia. Fuller  has advocated “guiding the evolution of Islam” and has been called the CIA controller for the ethnic Turkish USA-based Fethullah Gulen organization which controls over $20 billion in assets and has been accused of trying to overthrow the government of Turkey. While in Turkey in May 2011 I met with Turkish journalists who said Fuller, who headed the CIA station in that country in September 2001, threatened them shortly after the attacks, telling them not to question the official story of 9/11 in print.

A development of Operation Gladio to help roll out the “war on terror” by promoting US/NATO-sponsored false flag terrorism to be blamed on Muslim extremists. (Source: Wikispooks)

The above is just a small sample of the evidence that most or all high-profile “Islamic terror” acts in the West, and a great many in the rest of the world, are directed by Gladio B – a NATO program, steered mainly by assets of Israel, to create a wave of false flag terror blamed on Muslims in service to the “clash of civilizations.” What we are seeing, then, is not “Sunni fundamentalist terror,” as Eric Zeusse would have it. Instead, we are seeing a false-flag genocide campaign AGAINST Sunni Islam and Sunni Muslims, who make up the near-totality of the 32 million people murdered as a result of 9/11 and its follow-up false flag operations.

Eric Zeusse owes Sunni Muslims – especially the family and friends of the 32 million people murdered by the Big Lie that Zeusse swallows and promulgates – a monumental apology.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on Stop the Smear Campaign (and Genocide) Against Sunni Islam!

Palestine and the Unfinished Six Day War

 Open Letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu

Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu,

Since you celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the victory of the Six Day War, did you ponder what this triumph has done to the Palestinian people and to the moral character of the state of Israel? I am not sure how harshly history will judge you, but one thing is certain—I, like millions of Jews around the world, deeply believe that no prime minister of Israel has done more damage to the country’s future security and well-being than you have. The sad irony is that for you, the facts on the ground are freely expungable in your morally distorted universe.

Fifty years have passed, and as the longest serving prime minister, you have not yet articulated any vision about Israel’s future and the fate of the Palestinians. Instead, you find comfort in hypocrisy, pretending to do what is right and defending your ceaseless lying and twisted logic, making a virtue out of falsehood. Remember Mr. Netanyahu, a moral leader does not cheat or mislead, but takes a clear positon regardless of how unpopular it may be—but you have pursued policies where nothing is beyond the pale.

You profess to support a two-state solution and that you are ready to negotiate unconditionally, but everything you have said or done over the years stands in total contrast to that notion. How do you reconcile a two-state solution with your statement,

“I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state today, and evacuate areas, is giving radical Islam an area from which to attack the State of Israel”?

And when you were asked during the last elections in 2015 if no Palestinian state would be created under your leadership, you said:


In your speech to Congress in May 2011, you stated that

“This is the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace.” During the same speech, you fervently proclaimed that “In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers.”

Tell me, how do these statements conform with the idea of a Palestinian state to be established on the same land, when you have no intention of ever evacuating any settlement? You reconfirmed that in September 2016, stating:

“The Palestinian leadership actually demands a Palestinian state with one pre-condition: No Jews. There’s a phrase for that: It’s called ethnic cleansing.”

You use national security as a blank check to spread fear by portraying the Palestinians as the greatest danger that faces the nation.

“In order to assure our existence,” you stated, “we need to have military and security control over all of the territory west of the Jordan [River].”

How much weight should the Palestinians put on your presumed readiness to negotiate a two-state solution, when in the same breath you emphatically demand from Abbas that he must first recognize Israel as a Jewish state? As you said,

“the real core of this conflict… is not this or that settlement, or this or that community, it’s the persistent and enduring [Palestinian] refusal to recognize a Jewish state in any boundary.”

Both claims are untrue and unfounded.

If the negotiations were to start without any pre-conditions, how could you claim that

“Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people”?

On another occasion, you stated that:

“[Israel] didn’t occupy Jerusalem fifty years ago, it liberated it…I want to the tell the world in a loud and clear voice: Jerusalem has always been and always will be the capital of Israel.”

If you remove the future of Jerusalem from the negotiating table, isn’t that a pre-condition?

You continue to proclaim that the settlements are not an obstacle to peace. Can you explain by what miracle the settlements will not prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state with a contiguous landmass, especially when you continue their expansion and rule out the evacuation of existing settlements?

To be sure, Mr. Netanyahu, your desperate need for reaffirmation of your dubious schemes and bigoted attitude leads you to create an atmosphere of uncertainty and a sense of vulnerability among the Israelis so you can rally the political support to stay in power. If this is not the trademark of a demagogue, then what is? Aristophanes put it well when he stated that:

“You [demagogues] are like the fishers for eels; in still waters they catch nothing, but if they thoroughly stir up the slime, their fishing is good; in the same way, it’s only in troublous times that you line your pockets.”

You demand the Palestinians behave and dare not resist the occupation, but what have you offered in return? You refuse to release political prisoners; you refuse to halt the expansion of settlements; you refuse to provide the Palestinians permits to build, and you refuse unrestricted mobility of Palestinians, not to speak of the daily ordeal to which they are subjected. If you wanted real peace, Mr. Netanyahu, shouldn’t you have used the fiftieth anniversary to make at least a good-will gesture, such as releasing a few hundred Palestinian political prisoners to give hope that new, brighter, and happier days may dawn?

You ought to recall what Frederick Douglas once observed:

“where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.”

To blame the Palestinians for the lack of peace is hypocritical at best. What is it that you want from them? They are at Israel’s mercy; they have nothing left to give. You, Netanyahu, have the power to propose a framework for peace. No country or combination of countries in the Middle East can expect to defeat Israel militarily for the foreseeable future. If you do not negotiate peace from strength now, then when?

Peace based on a two-state solution is not a favor to the Palestinians—it is fundamental to Israel’s long-term national security. Without peace, you jeopardize the Jews’ nationhood for which so many have suffered and died.

Remember this, Mr. Netanyahu: nearly 80 percent of Palestinians and roughly 70 percent of Israelis were born under occupation. What sort of Jewish state are you creating? A state which is in the business of oppressing other people, because people like you portray them as the eternal enemy?

Haven’t the Jews lived long enough to know the meaning of being persecuted, incarcerated, segregated, expelled, and sentenced to death? Are you suggesting that the Palestinians are an irredeemable foe, and we the Jews must oppress and humiliate them to be safe and secure?

No, Mr. Netanyahu. What you are subjecting the Palestinians to day in and day out defies Jewish values, defies what is moral and right, defies logic, and defies the very reason why the Jews struggled to survive for millennia to have a home of our own.

You and your blind zealots are utterly ignorant of what we must stand for. They are destroying brick-by-brick the only country that offers a refuge to every Jew who seeks to live in a free, democratic Jewish state. The occupation does not make Israel a free, safe, and independent state, but a prison with fences and wall and bunkers and shelters, with tens of thousands of soldiers on the ready to kill, to raid, to destroy.


Because you want to make the Palestinians the eternal enemy, only to support a warped ideology that wantonly ignores their unmitigated reality. Yes, the existence of the Palestinian people is a fact that you cannot wish away. Does it ever occur to you that they want to live a normal life without fear, without dread, and without anxiety and concerns? Does it ever occur to you that the continuing occupation feeds into the frenzy of extremism? Would we the Jews have acted any differently under brutal occupation?

As one who claims to represent not only Israel but world Jewry, don’t you have the obligation to offer a vision as to where you are leading the people of Israel? And what should Jews around the world, in whose name you claim to speak, expect five or ten years down the line?

Given the continuing tense and dire situation in the territories, it is only a matter of time when the next bloody conflagration will happen. The blood of every Israeli and Palestinian man, woman, and child will be on your hands. No one else is to blame for your paralysis to act but you.

You cannot blame your lunatic and outrageous hardcore ideologues partners like Bennett, Shaked, and Lieberman, who refuse to see the light and choose to live in the dark, not knowing what’s in store for them. They put a leash around your neck and you welcome it because you hypocritically use them to provide you with the political cover you need to pursue your twisted scheme. It is you, and only you, who can change direction by getting rid of them and forming a new government committed to peace, if you only will it. But you don’t.

I wonder, Mr. Netanyahu, what kind of legacy do you want to leave behind? To reap the real fruits of the Six Day War is to make peace. Nothing short of peace will make the Six Day War a triumph, because the war is continuing. You, more than any other human living in Israel, will be responsible and accountable to the next generation who will be asking, why? Why must we live in a prison of our own creation when the state of Israel was created to liberate us?

History will not be kind to you, Mr. Netanyahu, unless you change course. It is time to reflect, because the destiny of the nation of Israel is in your hands.

This letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu will be followed next week with an open letter to Palestinian President Abbas.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Palestine and the Unfinished Six Day War

Why Are We Attacking the Syrians Who Are Fighting ISIS?

Just when you thought our Syria policy could not get any worse, last week it did. The US military twice attacked Syrian government forces from a military base it illegally occupies inside Syria. According to the Pentagon, the attacks on Syrian government-backed forces were “defensive” because the Syrian fighters were approaching a US self-declared “de-confliction” zone inside Syria. The Syrian forces were pursuing ISIS in the area, but the US attacked anyway.

The US is training yet another rebel group fighting from that base, located near the border of Iraq at al-Tanf, and it claims that Syrian government forces pose a threat to the US military presence there. But the Pentagon has forgotten one thing: it has no authority to be in Syria in the first place! Neither the US Congress nor the UN Security Council has authorized a US military presence inside Syria.

So what gives the Trump Administration the right to set up military bases on foreign soil without the permission of that government? Why are we violating the sovereignty of Syria and attacking its military as they are fighting ISIS? Why does Washington claim that its primary mission in Syria is to defeat ISIS while taking military actions that benefit ISIS?

The Pentagon issued a statement saying its presence in Syria is necessary because the Syrian government is not strong enough to defeat ISIS on its own. But the “de-escalation zones” agreed upon by the Syrians, Russians, Iranians, and Turks have led to a reduction in fighting and a possible end to the six-year war. Even if true that the Syrian military is weakened, its weakness is due to six years of US-sponsored rebels fighting to overthrow it!

What is this really all about? Why does the US military occupy this base inside Syria? It’s partly about preventing the Syrians and Iraqis from working together to fight ISIS, but I think it’s mostly about Iran. If the Syrians and Iraqis join up to fight ISIS with the help of Iranian-allied Shia militia, the US believes it will strengthen Iran’s hand in the region. President Trump has recently returned from a trip to Saudi Arabia where he swore he would not allow that to happen.

But is this policy really in our interest, or are we just doing the bidding of our Middle East “allies,” who seem desperate for war with Iran? Saudi Arabia exports its radical form of Islam worldwide, including recently into moderate Asian Muslim countries like Indonesia. Iran does not. That is not to say that Iran is perfect, but does it make any sense to jump into the Sunni/Shia conflict on either side? The Syrians, along with their Russian and Iranian allies, are defeating ISIS and al-Qaeda. As candidate Trump said, what’s so bad about that?

We were told that if the Syrian government was allowed to liberate Aleppo from al-Qaeda, Assad would kill thousands who were trapped there. But the opposite has happened: life is returning to normal in Aleppo. The Christian minority there celebrated Easter for the first time in several years. They are rebuilding. Can’t we finally just leave the Syrians alone?

When you get to the point where your actions are actually helping ISIS, whether intended or not, perhaps it’s time to stop. It’s past time for the US to abandon its dangerous and counterproductive Syria policy and just bring the troops home.

Featured image: U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Matthew Bruch/Released

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Why Are We Attacking the Syrians Who Are Fighting ISIS?

SCO Summit: Fighting Terrorism is at Top of Agenda


Fighting Terrorism is at the Top of the Agenda at the SCO Summit

by Sophie Mangal

In the capital of Kazakhstan, Astana, a meeting of the defense ministers of the member countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was held on June 7. At the meeting, the members of the delegations made a number of statements concerning both the situation in Syria and the fight international terrorism in general.

First of all, all the representatives agreed that Indian and Pakistani membership that will become true tomorrow will enhance SCO’s security capabilities.

Referring to international problems, the SCO participants concurred that the terrorism in a short time turned into the biggest threat to the global security. At the same time, all the members of the delegations noticed that the situation is aggravating with every passing day by numerous local conflicts in the world and by inability of the Western countries to overcome differences, to form a common and united front against this evil and to work together to build a bastion against terrorism.

In this regard, the Syrian issue has become a key topic of the agenda during the meeting. The SCO-countries gave the highest priority to the question. A detailed briefing session was held for new

Member States (India and Pakistan) on the common attitude of the participating countries to the key crisis in the Middle East. As it was noted at the meeting, it is in the Syrian Arab Republic the main forces of the Islamic State are concentrated. It was also stated that the Syrian Arab army coordinating its activities in order to ensure the success operations undermined in the end the potential of the IS fighters and Syria has been “at the forefront of fighting international terrorism” for a long time.

Special attention was paid to the creation of de-escalation areas in Syria, which could contribute to ending the civil war and thus intensifying efforts to combat ISIS and Al-Nusra.

The representatives of SCO-Member countries also noticed that practical steps are being taken to implement the agreements reached at the moment. The priority tasks, namely ensuring the monitoring of all the commitments undertaken, as well as creating conditions for the restoration of the destroyed infrastructure were also highlighted.

The countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization agreed to provide support to each other in Syria and to exchange military experience in conducting counter-terrorism operations.

Interaction within the SCO in the future was decided to focus on identifying and anticipating any terrorist activities.

Inside Syria Media Center‘ experts reasonably assume that the Member states will need to create joint effective managing tools to stop penetration of terrorism and radicalism into the SCO’s area of responsibility. A fair guess would be that the special attention would be paid to an operative exchange of the information available on the activities of terrorist groups.

Such a summit is clearly useful for Syria from the point of view of practicality. People in Syria hope the talks will equip the SCO-members better to meet the challenges of terrorism. Syria needs support to be able to tackle the difficulties and to take the steps necessary for a just and lasting peace.


To be noted is that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), or Shanghai Pact, is a Eurasian political, economic, and military organization which was founded in 1996 in Shanghai by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. These countries, except Uzbekistan, had been members of the Shanghai Five, founded in 1996; after the inclusion of Uzbekistan in 2001, the members renamed the organization. On 10 July 2015, the SCO decided to admit India and Pakistan as full members. India and Pakistan signed the memorandum of obligations on 24 June 2016 at Tashkent, thereby starting the formal process of joining the SCO as the full members. Now in Astana the countries are going to become full members.

The meeting of the SCO-defense ministers takes place once a year and the heads of the military departments have the opportunity both to share their views on the events taking place in the world and to work out a common strategy. In addition it is possible to hold bilateral meetings to discuss in detail the plans of military cooperation on the margins of the meeting.

Follow the latest developments by reading Inside Syria Media Center.

Posted in Health, PoliticsComments Off on SCO Summit: Fighting Terrorism is at Top of Agenda

TRUTH JIHAD: Today is 50th anniversary of USS Liberty massacre

TRUTH JIHAD: Today is 50th anniversary of USS Liberty massacre – survivor Phil Tourney speaks out!

First hour: Dave Gahary and Phil Tourney discuss their new book Erasing the Liberty, published in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the vicious Israeli attack on the unarmed American spy ship. (They’re also working on a movie project.) Phil Tourney, a USS Liberty survivor, writes:

“This is dedicated to my fallen shipmates and to all patriotic Americans who, when they read this book, come away shocked and dismayed as to how the U.S. government lied to the American people about the cold-blooded murder of Americans on the high-seas, a cover-up perpetrated not just by them but by the government of Israel as well. Fifty years is far too long. From LBJ to Barack Obama to all the congressmen and women who bow down to Israel first and could care less about taking care of America—which they took an oath to do—all have become bootlickers to the Zionist state of Israel.”

Second hour: Ian Greenhalgh joins us from the UK to discuss the likely Manchester false flag, whose perp/patsy, Salman Abedi, has been linked to the British Intelligence (MI6) mercenary outfit “Libyan Islamic Fighting Group” (LIFG). Was the Manchester bombing designed to stop 9/11 truth supporter Jeremy Corbyn’s surge, and deliver the upcoming UK elections to Theresa May? It sure looks that way…

We also discuss related issues, including Zionist power in the US and UK; the Israelis’ and others’ use of miniature nuclear weapons; and the 9/11 nuclear demolition hypothesis, as explained in the VT Nuclear Education Series.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on TRUTH JIHAD: Today is 50th anniversary of USS Liberty massacre

Trump/Bannon Scuttle Paris Agreement – Go Rogue


What’s next, Steve ?

Now that Trump has abdicated his leadership of the free world ~ by scuttling the Paris climate accords ~ we may well be witnessing the next self- destructive step in the Bannon/Trump long range agenda which Bannon once described as “We want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today’s establishment”  which is now one step closer including the Trump administration ~ as Global warming and the search for truth march on. The Cloud over the White House has now become a full fledge thunder storm if not a hurricane named Mueller: Allen L Roland, PhD

 Antonio Gramsci wrote his “Prison Notebooks” at a time not dissimilar to our own. The political parties led by the liberal class, because they had detached themselves from the working class, were weak or irrelevant. The radical left had been neutered and had failed to articulate a coherent alternative vision to capitalism. There was a “crisis of authority.” Fascism was ascendant and a state repression was becoming steadily more severe and totalitarian”  Chris Hedges

A decision to leave the Paris agreement doesn’t fundamentally change any of the Paris Accord but Trump wasn’t planning to aggressively tackle global warming before, and he still won’t ~ for Trump has not only damaged his world leadership role but has gone rogue and isolated himself in the process as he continues to self-destruct.

But Frank Rich, the New Yorker, hits the nail on its head;

 “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” Trump declared when he marked his reckless decision with a bizarre Rose Garden celebration (complete with a military band playing jazz).

It’s not certain that he even understood that the pact was no more a Parisian invention than Freedom Fries. But facts were always beside the point in making this move: his only goal was to pander to a political base that buys Steve Bannon’s brand of America First populism. In the process Trump alienated virtually the entire world, all of America’s key allies included; the majority of Americans who (polls show) support the Paris accord; corporate leaders from nearly every sector of American business (from Google to Goldman Sachs to GE); and the governmental and civic leaders of every state and municipality eager to protect the citizenry from climate change and/or to cash in on the expanding green economy.  What could possibly go wrong?

Not to minimize Trump’s threat to the planet but leadership outside of Washington is now finally energized to fill the vacuum he’s left behind, and the elections of 2018 and 2020 are likely to further hinder this administration’s assault on environmental regulation.

Meanwhile, the Trump base is once again being played for the patsies they are.  As Richard Painter, the former chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush White House, tweeted last night: “This White House is creating more jobs for criminal defense lawyers in Washington than it will ever create for steelworkers in Pittsburgh.”

Regarding Donald Trump, we are all watching a known falsifier of facts and deeply insecure President being slowly dissembled by the truth ~ in real time and in true citizen Kane fashion much as Richard Nixon was in the early 1970’s.

In that regard, Mark Z Barabak, LA Times, interviews John Dean on June 1st ~ regarding the current Trump cover up in the in comparison to the Nixon administration;

Excerpt of John Dean interview:

John Dean is a connoisseur of cover-ups, a savant of scandal, so he can more than imagine what it’s like inside the Trump White House right now.

“It’s a nightmare,” he said, presiding in a high-backed leather wing chair off the lobby of the Beverly Hills Hotel. “Not just for those in the headlines ~ political strategist Stephen K. Bannon, jack-of-many-duties Jared Kushner ~ but for their unsung assistants and secretaries as well.”

They don’t know what their jeopardy is. They don’t know what they’re looking at. They don’t know if they’re a part of a conspiracy that might unfold. They don’t know whether to hire lawyers or not, how they’re going to pay for them if they do,” Dean said in a crisp law-counsel cadence. “It’s an unpleasant place.”

Dean was careful to say he has no inside information on the Trump administration, no Deep Throat, the famous Watergate leaker, funneling him tales of intrigue from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. But, he said, he knows the odor of malfeasance, even from 3,000 miles away.

I’ve been inside a cover-up. I know why we could make certain things go away and other things not go away. And that’s because some things, you just couldn’t make them disappear,” he said. He might have been roughing out a verbal draft of “Scandal Containment for Dummies.”   See LA Times article ~

Here are some facts about the Paris climate accords ~

  1. California Gov. Jerry Brown has characterized Trump’s move as “deviant behavior” and “insane” ~ and the governor is correct.
  2. Trump, by his action, has turned the United States into a rogue nation. Apparently, Trump’s White House Rasputin, senior advisor Steve Bannon, and climate quacks like EPA Secretary Scott Pruitt sold him on the preposterous fallacy that the U.S. is a deeply aggrieved party in the deal.
  3. Paris is popular. And there’s no reason to expect a broader exodus. China and Europe are openly reaffirming their commitments. Among the major polluters, only Russia and Turkey have dithered, but even their departure probably wouldn’t suffice to unravel the treaty.

      4.This isn’t really about climate policy. It’s all about asserting Trump power !

Leaving the Paris accords, however, would give Trump a big symbolic victory, burnishing his credentials as America’s true defender against the out-of-touch concerns of the global elite ~ but it was in reality an empty symbolic victory.


We are now also witnessing the sad spectacle of our President exhibiting many of the classic traits of NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) whereas his need for excessive admiration as well as his inability to accept criticism and deal with failure are cause for genuine global concern.

It appears that Donald Trump’s late night tweets are taking its toll on his mental balance as the Moeller Probe closes in on the Trump administration ~ for example Trump’s recent early morning Tweet ~ COVFETTE ~ could well be his subliminal awareness of his cover up in his tired late night state. (See keyboard and note how close E and F as well as R ~ where he perhaps tried to write Cover up / Fed up, before he succumbed to sleep.

Experts have been writing letters making this claim to a number of publications. One letter was published by the Huffington Post claiming that Trump’s grandiosity and impulsivity suggests that he may have a mental illness, while another psychologist who wrote to U.S. News and World Report said Trump may have malignant narcissism.

And a letter to the New York Times that was signed by several psychologists says that the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trump’s speech and actions makes him incapable of serving safely as president.”

We are writing to express our grave concern regarding the mental stability of our President-Elect,” reads the letter submitted to then-President Obama by three psychologists and published in the Huffington Post.

“Professional standards do not permit us to venture a diagnosis for a public figure whom we have not evaluated personally. Nevertheless, his widely reported symptoms of mental instability ~ including grandiosity, impulsivity, hypersensitivity to slights or criticism, and an apparent inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality ~ lead us to question his fitness for the immense responsibilities of the office. We strongly recommend that, in preparation for assuming these responsibilities, he receive a full medical and neuropsychiatric evaluation by an impartial team of investigators.”   See APA criteria ~

 Now, let’s take a closer look at Trump’s principle advisor ~ Stephen Bannon ;

“I’m a Leninist,” Bannon once told the Daily Beast. Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

Whether speaking to supporters of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin or to listeners on his former radio show, Bannon has long employed the revolutionary language of a political insurgent.

And like political insurgents through history, including Lenin, Bannon and other like-minded ideologues in the Trump White House view disruption and polarization as means of pressing ahead with their agenda and rallying their core supporters.

But Bannon’s radical approach carries big risks and amounts to a high-stakes gamble that Trump can deliver sufficiently on his ambitious promises to satisfy both his loyal supporters and those ready to roll the dice who voted him into office.

The result has been chaotic and often disorganized, prompting satiric television sketches and accusations from veteran Washington hands that the administration is amateurish and inept Trump’s approval ratings fall by the day.

 But what by conventional measures looks like a string of setbacks and misfires could to an ideologue like Bannon be proof that the administration is on the right track to achieving its goal ~ destroying what he calls the Washington “establishment.”  

What’s less clear is what might take its place.

It will not be a stretch to witness a false flag event or war to utilize the media to reinforce more lies, similar to Iraq ~ which will then cost even more unnecessary lives. See Amy Goodman video ~ YouTube Video ~ 3 minutes ~  


Posted in USAComments Off on Trump/Bannon Scuttle Paris Agreement – Go Rogue

Nostalgia and British Politics


Labour is gaining power by marketing nostalgia

So, seventy-five per cent of Brits realize that it is those immoral interventionist wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya that have contributed to the terror that now haunts their country.

But ‘interventionist wars’ is just a politically correct term for Israeli-driven global conflicts promoted by the worldwide Zionist lobby: AIPAC in the USA, CRIF in France and the LFI/CFI in Britain. So the next question is unavoidable. How many of these Brits, who obviously know the truth about Britain’s ‘interventionist wars’, also grasp who it is who triggers these genocidal conflicts?

Today’s British election results provides us with a clear answer.

Theresa May has been made a fool by the British voter while Jeremy Corbyn, who was subject to constant smearing by the same lobby that pushed us into Iraq, Libya, Syria and even Iran, came out as the big winner.

The conclusion is inevitable: the more the Jewish and Zionist  institutions (BOD, JC, Jewish Labour Movement, LFI etc.)  rubbished Corbyn, the more the Brits loved him. The more the Daily Telegraph pointed at Corbyn’s ties with so-called ‘Holocaust deniers’ the more the Brits saw him as a genuine human being and an entirely suitable Prime Ministerial candidate.

This should not surprise us. Exactly the same dynamic led to the election of Donald Trump in the USA last November. The more the Jewish institutions and media castigated Trump as an ‘anti-Semite,’ the more Americans saw him as a their liberator.

The truth of the matter is that Trump is far from being an anti-semite. On the contrary, he is, as some Jewish journalists pointed out, probably the ‘first Jewish president.’ The same applies to Corbyn. He is certainly no ‘racist’ nor an ‘anti-semite.’ No, his crime is all-too-obvious: He thinks  Jews are ordinary, people like all other people. He refuses to buy into the ‘chosen people’ mantra.

I have been anticipating Corbyn’s imminent success for more than two weeks now, but how did I know? Simple, the Jewish Chronicle and the Guardian of Judea changed their tone. They began to accept the possibility that Corbyn may well take up residence in 10 Downing Street for a while.  Pretty much, out of the blue, somehow, they decided to make friends.

Corbyn performed very well in this election. But he could have won it just by pointing at the lobby and the people behind the institutional smear campaign against him. He could have done what Trump did and performed what the Jewish press refer to asdog whistling.

He could have chastised the Israeli Sayanim within his party – after all, the evidence was fully documented.  He could  have taken a stand and stood for his party comrades who were victims of the Jewish Labour purge. But he didn’t. Corbyn isn’t Trump.  Being an overwhelmingly nice person, he turned the other cheek – something I myself find frustrating, probably due to my own Jerusalemite origin.

In my new book Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto I point out that for working people, utopia is but nostalgia. It was Trump’s promise to ‘make America great again’ that secured his election.  Similarly, the surge in popularity of Jeremy Corbyn, an old-style Lefty who speaks about a unity that goes beyond sectarianism and identity politics is due to the nostalgic impact of his message, that yes, once upon a time, we were united by the Left.

Is it really a coincidence that, in Britain, it is Labour that is gaining power by marketing nostalgia while Theresa ‘conservative’ May is punished for her attempt to frog-march Britain ‘forward’ into the brutal and merciless hands of murky City mammonites and New World Order merchants?

Posted in UKComments Off on Nostalgia and British Politics

False flags backfire in Britain – voters repudiate lying establishment


Will Corbyn gain power in UK and become an even more serious thorn in Establishment’s side?

Watch False Flag Weekly News above – click HERE for story links

By Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

Have false flags been so thoroughly exposed that they no longer work? That is the lesson of yesterday’s British elections, which delivered a stinging rebuke to incumbent PM Theresa May, and a high-octane boost to 9/11-truth-supporting anti-Zionist challenger Jeremy Corbyn.

For the second year in a row, Britain held critically-important elections in June. For the second year in a row, those elections were preceded by one or more false flags designed to terrorize voters and stampede them into the Establishment camp. And for the second year in a row, the voters rebelled.

Last year it was Brexit, preceded by the Jo Cox false flag “murder by a crazy pro-Brexit fanatic.” This year it was general elections, preceded by a series of false flags attributed to “ISIS-inspired Muslim fanatics.”

The question of whether last year’s  Jo Cox murder was a false flag was hotly debated before the Brexit vote, with the right wing (generally more pro-Brexit) voters leaning in favor of that thesis. This year’s Manchester and London attacks also inspired heated debate across Britain concerning the false flag thesis, with left-wing Corbyn supporters leaning toward the false flag interpretation.

So the whole British political spectrum, from left to right, now features so many people who are cognizant of the Elite’s bloody manipulative spectacles that the bad guys can’t seem to get away with it any longer. For the second year in a row, the false-flagging establishment lost.

My VT colleague Ian Greenhalgh notes:

We have only four degrees of separation between Israel and the London attackers

  1. IDC Herliza (Mossad training centre)
  2. ICSR in London (main centre for ‘expertise’ on combatting Islamic terrorism, IDC is one of four financiers of the ICSR)
  3. Ahmad Musa Jibril (Muslim hate preacher in Dearborn, MI, whose entire mythos/legend is based on ICSR reports)
  4. London attackers were ‘radicalised’ by Jibril via his online preachings bingo, there, in a nutshell is the Israeli ‘Islamic Terror’ operation from top to bottom

In this week’s False Flag Weekly News (scroll all the way up to watch) we covered a slew of stories analyzing the British “false flag fail” including:

Is False Flag Weekly News becoming a serious thorn in the side of the Establishment? I would like to think so. Maybe that’s why we’re getting so much pushback:

  • Prof. Hall suspended from his university
  • My GoFundMe database nuked
  • Censored at the Left Forum

And so on…

Will Jeremy Corbyn eventually gain power in the UK and become an even more serious thorn in the Establishment’s side? I hope so, and am praying for his success…and his safety.

Posted in UKComments Off on False flags backfire in Britain – voters repudiate lying establishment

A “Liberal” who never trusted “Main Stream Media”



Not so sure if you are like me, but I am a liberal, not a Democratic or Republican liberal, but liberal in the sense that I feel the government must represent and must be at the service of the people, All the people, not only Wall Street, the Lobbyists and Washington Think Tanks.

I am a Liberal who believes that the purpose of government is to service and protect. To service by providing all the basic services citizens need from education to health care, to roads, to infrastructure, to science and research, to social services among others. To protect by providing for national defense with priority on national domestic defense and providing good quality police and fire services to its citizens. Not so sure if we need to have 70 bases all over the world.

I am liberal because I believe citizens have a duty and must contribute to the political process by not a contribution to the corrupt and failing two party system, but to vote in every single election irrespective of the quality or stupidly of the candidates.

I am a liberal who believes that citizens have an equal obligation toward to the state in the same way the state has an obligation towards its people. There is nothing for free; and if you want services, you better pay for it.

There is No free lunch.

I am also a liberal who never trusted or believed in America’s Main Stream Media – from CNN to MSNBC, to Fox News, CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times or Chicago Tribune among others. I also don’t believe in the lies and incitement coming out of the like of Rush Limbaugh, who gets paid $40-million a year to make a fool of himself and to make greater fools of those who listen and believe in the “bullshit” that comes out of his mouth.

You see, I do have a major and serious problem with Main Stream America, because it was never honest about any coverage, and its stories always fit the political or ideological values and opinions of its managing editors. To stay the Main Stream Media is the guardian of the nation and people’s interest is a big lie; and it stretches the truth to make it “fake news”.

You see, my problems with American media began in the late 60’s, when I was unable to get even a “letter” to the editor published that spoke of the Israeli Occupation, while seeing comments and editorials from the other side having so much space in all major media. The Palestinians simply did not exist and are denied a voice or a forum to tell their story – only Jews and Israel have the right to tell their stories. The same story continues today. My files are full of rejected comments and letters to the editors of newspapers, such as the New York Times, Washington Post even the Chicago Tribune.

Of course, I learned to know better. Perhaps the best statement I read about America’s Main Stream Media came from someone who knows much better than I.

Dean Ben Bagdikian, former Dean of the Graduate School of Journalism, UC Berkeley said it best:

“With a country’s widest disseminators of news, commentary and ideas firmly entrenched among a small number of the world’s wealthiest corporations. It may not be surprising that their news and commentary is limited to an unrepresentative narrow spectrum of policies.”

As we watch the news these days, with a major Cold War going on between President Trump and Main Stream Media, one would think that Main Stream media is the most powerful branch of government, really “the Fourth Branch”.

Why is our media and Congress so upset about Russia’s interference in our elections, when our “friend and ally” Israel has been doing it for 50 years, determining and controlling our national and international agenda and paying hundreds of millions to our national and state representatives? No one wants to talk about that of course.

You see, the “Fourth Branch” is unelected and never accountable to the people, yet it decides for us and for the nations. It decides whom we should vote for, and it decides which wars we should support, and it decides which criminal regime or countries we should support. We are never free to make up our mind. Main Stream media got us hyped up to go to war on Iraq and it sold us a bill of lies, and it gave us “imbedded journalists” with invading US troops, as if it were a reality show. The recent GCC conflict showed it best when “opinion makers” are on the payroll of one country or the other.

You see, I do have a problem and I am sure you do the same thing. Think about this. “In 1983, 50 corporations controlled most of the American media” from the magazine to movies, to books and publications houses, to radios among other media.

That number dropped to almost in half decade later. By 1992 only six corporations became the major owners of Main Stream media like Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany and Viacom.

It is true that major newspapers such as the New York Times and Washington Post continued to be owned by a public corporation, but the editorial board continues to follow certain political and ideological lines. It is true of the Chicago Tribune, LA Times and San Francisco Chronicle.

Now add to this. The largest 100 media corporations like Time Warner, which owns AOL and CNN, own 80% of the top 20 online news sites.

Now imagine that someone like Rush Limbaugh earns $40 million a year to spew his bullshit and tell the people who earned less than $30,000 a year how good they have it and how bad the politics is in the country. And think that someone like Megan Kelly or Bill O’Reilly getting over $20 million a year for few hours of media time only to tell us what we should think. How can the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly or Megan Kelly or Rachel Maddow represent our best interests?

Yes, I do have a major problem with Main Stream media – never liked it, never trusted it, and certainly never felt it represented my best interests. I hope it does not represent your best interests too. They are not our guardians and certainly, no one appointed them as our trustees or the trustees for the nation. They speak for their bosses and only for their bosses and never for the general interests of the American public.

We all should be glad that the Internet so far allows me to publish and exchange my thoughts with you. You and I never have a chance to be published in Main Stream media, never.

Your thoughts… ?

Posted in MediaComments Off on A “Liberal” who never trusted “Main Stream Media”

Persian Gulf – What is happening in the region?

by Viktor Mikhin, … with New Eastern Outlook, Moscow

[ Editor’s note: Viktor Mikhin gives us an analysis of the intricate affairs in the region… Jim W. Dean ]


The Persian Gulf region continues to surprise and keep the entire world community on its toes. Yet again, a dangerous tension in relations between a number of countries and Qatar has developed.

Six Arab countries, namely Yemen, Libya, Bahrain, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Maldives, have announced their severance of diplomatic relations with Qatar, accusing Doha of supporting terrorist organizations such as Islamic State, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, as well as destabilizing the internal situation in the Arab States.

In addition, except for Oman, member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council have interrupted air and land communication with their neighbour. If you look at the map, it becomes clear that, with the exception of its maritime borders with Iran, Qatar is literally under siege.

At the same time, the Yemeni government has accused Qatar of supporting Yemeni radical groups.

The interim Libyan government has also announced its severance of diplomatic relations with Doha. In an interview with Sky News Arabia, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Libya Mohammed Al-Deri stressed that Qatar had been the main source of arms supply to the Libyan branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist armed groups since 2012, and was a threat to the national security of the Arab world.

It should be recalled that this small Emirate is the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). For example, in 2015, Qatar exported 106.4 billion cubic meters of LNG, with another 19.8 billion cubic metres through natural gas pipelines. The Arab state currently ranks third in the world after Russia and the United States in gas reserves. According to BP, in 2015 alone, gas production in Qatar amounted to 181 billion cubic meters per year, with domestic consumption of 19 billion cubic meters. Being an OPEC country, Qatar produces 620 thousand barrels per day.

If in an attempt to protect their country from outside interference, the government of Qatar decided to withdraw from the agreement with OPEC to limit oil production, or ceased to comply with it, in the medium term, this may lead to an increase in the supply of oil on the market and a fall in its price.


After all, events in the region traditionally always affect oil prices, and the discord between the large manufacturers may possibly intensify the downward pressure on prices, since the OPEC member states have to maintain unity under the terms of an agreement to cut production.

In other words, under pressure from Saudi Arabia, a number of Arab countries have accused Doha of conniving in and financing terrorist activities, notwithstanding the fact that the international community has long known about these allegations. If the plain truth were to be told, Riyadh is currently fighting at least two wars: indirectly in Syria by destroying the Syrian people, and by direct aggression in neighbouring Yemen, where Saudi “hawks,” in the absence of even a primordia Yemeni air defence, are brazenly shooting civilians from the air – women, children and the elderly.

Many in the world are asking a number of legitimate questions on Saudi terrorist activities in the region. For example, could gangs of mercenaries and terrorists have been tormenting the Syrian people for many years and doing terrible things without the financial, military and political support of Riyadh? Of course not. And if the innocent blood of civilians is still pouring on Syrian land, the responsibility for these crimes should be borne by Riyadh, Doha and some other Arab monarchies of the Middle East region.

On the other hand, if we analyse the course of events, it turns out that the deterioration of the situation and its escalation began on the initiative of Riyadh after the visit of the President of the United States Donald Trump. Mr. Trump authorized the Saudi rulers’ sole discretion in their continued rule of the Arab world. Nevertheless, it is correct to say that it cost Riyadh a fortune to receive such authorization by winning off the President of “the most democratic country” Donald Trump.

This is the Saudi regime that has established medieval laws in its kingdom that do not even smell of democracy, and it is only for mentioning this foreign word that the subjects of the king are imprisoned or publicly beheaded so that the others are dissuaded from perusing a foreign way of life.

Oil production

Another question thus arises: why has Qatar got its head under the Saudi chopping block? The answer is quite simple. Wherever possible, Doha seeks to protect its own interests in defiance of the Saudi interests. For example, it is sponsoring its own terrorist group in Syria and is playing its own game in Yemen.

But the main issue is that the Qatari ruler placed his main political bet on the European powers, with which he has established good economic and political relations. It is quite natural that Mr. Trump, who is somehow criticized for lack of experience and knowledge in conducting foreign policy, could not tolerate this, and during his visit to the Kingdom, made a “personal errand” to the king’s son Muhammad Ibn Salman to deal with Doha. And we are already seeing the first rounds of this “boxing match.”

However, not everything is as simple as it might seem at first glance. A number of the closest allies of Riyadh, namely Jordan, Oman and Kuwait (the latter two are members of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf) have refused to follow the Saudi lead and preserve their national interests. In addition, and this is perhaps not quite the last fact, Qatar has supported Iran, which has maintained good relations with the small Emirate.

For example, the dispute between Qatar and the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf began with the alleged hacking of the State News Agency. That time, the Agency gave a speech on behalf of the Emir in support of relations with Iran. However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Emirate later said that the Agency’s website had been hacked. Despite this, the rulers of Saudi Arabia have not found these arguments convincing and, therefore, continue to assert that the Emir announced the normalization of relations with Tehran.

In fact, Riyadh perceives it as a challenge to its leadership in the region, even as a betrayal, since, earlier, during a summit of the Gulf Arab states and the USA, on behalf of all the guests, the Saudis issued a message condemning the Iranian policy.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that the severance of diplomatic relations between six Arab countries and the Republic of Maldives with Qatar was their internal political affair. According to him, Russia is interested only in maintaining good relations with all states in the Middle East region.

It is quite clear that Qatar has become a scapegoat in the war against terrorism that must be used as a cover for all the Saudi shady affairs. On the other hand, it is also obvious that the leadership game has been accelerated on the Gulf region. In this match, Riyadh is determined not to surrender its positions under any conditions. Rather, it is seeking to harness the help of the United States to strengthen its foreign policy based on medieval ideas about life and the surrounding world.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on Persian Gulf – What is happening in the region?

Shoah’s pages