Archive | June 21st, 2017

Spoiling for a Wider War in Syria

Image result for War in Syria CARTOON
By Robert Parry | Consortium News 

The U.S. mainstream media’s near universal demonization of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin – along with similar hatred directed toward Iran and Hezbollah – has put the world on a path toward World War III.

Ironically, the best hope for averting a dangerous escalation into a global conflict is to rely on Assad, Putin, Iran and Hezbollah to show restraint in the face of illegal military attacks by the United States and its Mideast allies inside Syria.

In other words, after the U.S. military has bombed Syrian government forces on their own territory and shot down a Syrian warplane on Sunday – and after Israel has launched its own strikes inside Syria and after Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies have financed and armed jihadists to overthrow Assad – it is now up to the Syrian government and its allies to turn the other cheek.

Of course, there is also a danger that comes from such self-control, in that it may encourage the aggressors to test the limits even further, seeing restraint as an acceptance of their impunity and a reason to ignore whatever warnings are issued and red lines drawn.

Indeed, if you follow The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and other big U.S. news outlets, perhaps the most striking groupthink that they all share is that the U.S. government and its allies have the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world. Their slogan could be summed up as: “International law – that’s for the other guy!”

In this upside-down world of American hegemony, Assad becomes the “aggressor” when he seeks to regain control of Syrian territory against armed insurgents, dominated by Al Qaeda and Islamic State (ISIS), or when he protests the invasion of Syrian territory by foreign forces.

When Assad legally seeks help from Russia and Iran to defeat these foreign-armed and foreign-backed jihadists, the U.S. mainstream media and politicians treat his alliances as improper and troublemaking. Yet, the uninvited interventions into Syria by the United States and its various allies, including Turkey and Israel, are treated as normal and expected.

Demanding Escalation

The preponderance of U.S. media criticism about U.S. policy in Syria comes from neoconservatives and liberal interventionists who have favored a much more ambitious and vigorous “regime change” war, albeit cloaked in prettier phrases such as “safe zones” and “no-fly zones.”

So, you have Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal editorial, which praises Sunday’s U.S. shoot-down of a Syrian military plane because it allegedly was dropping bombs “near” one of the U.S.-backed rebel groups – though the Syrians say they were targeting an Islamic State position.

Although it was the U.S. that shot down the Syrian plane over Syria, the Journal’s editorial portrays the Russians and Syrians as the hotheads for denouncing the U.S. attack as a provocation and warning that similar air strikes will not be tolerated.

In response, the Journal’s neocon editors called for more U.S. military might hurled against Syria and Russia:

“The risk of escalation is real, but this isn’t a skirmish the U.S. can easily avoid. Mr. Assad and his allies in Moscow and Tehran know that ISIS’s days are numbered. They want to assert control over as much territory as possible in the interim, and that means crushing the SDF [the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces].

“The Russian threat on Monday to target with anti-aircraft missiles any U.S. aircraft flying west of the Euphrates River in Syria is part of the same intimidation strategy. Russia also suspended a hotline between the two armed forces designed to reduce the risk of a military mistake. Iran, which arms and assists Mr. Assad on the ground, vowed further Syrian regime attacks against SDF, all but daring U.S. planes to respond amid the Russian threat.

“The White House and Pentagon reacted with restraint on Monday, calling for a de-escalation and open lines of communication. But if Syria and its allies are determined to escalate, the U.S. will either have to back down or prepare a more concerted effort to protect its allies and now U.S. aircraft.

“This is a predicament President Obama put the U.S. in when his Syrian abdication created an opening for Vladimir Putin to intervene. Had the U.S. established a no-fly or other safe zone to protect refugees, the Kremlin might have been more cautious.”

As senior U.S. commanders have explained, however, the notion of a sweet-sounding “no-fly or other safe zone” would require a massive U.S. military campaign inside Syria that would devastate government forces and result in thousands of civilian deaths because many air defenses are located in urban areas. It also could lead to a victory for Al Qaeda and/or its spinoff, Islamic State, a grisly fate for most Syrians.

Propaganda Value

But the “safe zone” illusion has great propaganda value, essentially a new packaging for another “regime change” war, which the neocons lusted for in Syria as the follow-on to the Iraq invasion in 2003 but couldn’t achieve immediately because the Iraq War turned into a bloody disaster.

Instead, the neocons had to settle for a proxy war on Syria, funded and armed by the U.S. government and its regional allies, relying on violent jihadists to carry out the brunt of the fighting and killing. When Assad’s government reacted clumsily to this challenge, the U.S. mainstream media depicted Assad as the villain and the “rebels” as the heroes.

In 2012, the Defense Intelligence Agency, then under the direction of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, warned that the U.S. strategy would give rise to “a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria.”

Flynn went further in a 2015 interview when he said the intelligence was “very clear” that the Obama administration made a “willful decision” to back these jihadists in league with Middle East allies. (Flynn briefly served as President Trump’s national security adviser but was ousted amid the growing Russia-gate “scandal.”)

Only in 2014, when Islamic State militants began decapitating American hostages and capturing cities in Iraq, did the Obama administration reverse course and begin attacking ISIS while continuing to turn a blind-eye to the havoc caused by other rebel groups allied with Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, including many outfits deemed “moderate” in the U.S. lexicon.

But the problem is that almost none of this history exists within the U.S. mainstream narrative, which – as the Journal’s neocon editors did on Tuesday – simply depicts Obama as weak and then baits President Trump to show more military muscle.

What U.S. National Interests?

The Journal editorial criticized Trump for having no strategy beyond eradicating ISIS and adding: “Now is the time for thinking through such a strategy because Syria, Russia and Iran know what they want. Mr. Assad wants to reassert control over all of Syria, not a country divided into Alawite, Sunni and Kurdish parts. Iran wants a Shiite arc of influence from Tehran to Beirut. Mr. Putin will settle for a Mediterranean port and a demonstration that Russia can be trusted to stand by its allies, while America is unreliable. None of this is in the U.S. national interests.”

But why isn’t this in U.S. national interests? What’s wrong with a unified secular Syria that can begin to rebuild its shattered infrastructure and repatriate refugees who have fled into Europe, destabilizing the Continent?

What’s the big problem with “a Shiite arc of influence”? The Shiites aren’t a threat to the United States or the West. The principal terror groups – Al Qaeda and ISIS – spring from the extremist Saudi version of Sunni Islam, known as Wahhabism. I realize that Israel and Saudi Arabia took aim at Syria in part to shatter “the Shiite arc,” but we have seen the horrific consequences of that strategy. How has the chaos that the Syrian war has unleashed benefited U.S. national interests?

And so what that Russia has a naval base on the Mediterranean Sea? That is no threat to the United States, either.

But what is the alternative prescription from the Journal’s neocon editors? The editorial concludes: “The alternative would be to demonstrate that Mr. Assad, Iran and Russia will pay a higher price for their ambitions. This means refusing to back down from defending U.S. allies on the ground and responding if Russia aircraft or missiles attempt to take down U.S. planes. Our guess is that Russia doesn’t want a military engagement with the U.S. any more than the U.S. wants one with Russia, but Russia will keep pressing for advantage unless President Trump shows more firmness than his predecessor.”

So, rather than allow the Syrian government to restore some form of order across Syria, the neocons want the Trump administration to continue violating international law, which forbids military invasions of sovereign countries, and keep the bloodshed flowing. Beyond that, the neocons want the U.S. military to play chicken with the other nuclear-armed superpower on the assumption that Russia will back down.

As usual, the neocon armchair warriors don’t reflect much on what could happen if U.S. warplanes attacking inside Syria are shot down. One supposes that would require President Trump to authorize a powerful counterstrike against Russian targets with the possibility of these escalations spinning out of control. But such craziness is where a steady diet of neocon/liberal-hawk propaganda has taken America.

We are ready to risk nuclear war and end all life on the planet, so Israel and Saudi Arabia can shatter a “Shiite arc of influence” and so American politicians don’t have to feel the rhetorical lash of the neocons and their liberal-hawk sidekicks.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Spoiling for a Wider War in Syria

Qatar: ‘Neighbors’ leading economic siege hacked our news agency

Image result for Qatar CARTOON

Qatar says it has evidence showing the same “neighboring” countries that are leading a boycott campaign against Doha had a hand in the alleged hacking of its state news agency, an incident that triggered an unprecedented diplomatic crisis in the Persian Gulf region.

Attorney General Ali bin Fetais al-Marri Ali bin Fetais al-Marri told a press conference in Doha on Tuesday that the hacking incident originated in “neighboring countries,” without naming them.

“We have evidence to show that iPhones originating from the countries laying siege to us have been used in this hacking. We have enough evidence to point the finger of blame at these countries,” Marri said.

Last month, the Qatar News Agency (QNA) released comments attributed to Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, describing Iran as an “Islamic power,” praising the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas and criticizing US President Donald Trump.

Qatar said hackers had broken into the QNA website and published the fake news, but the denial did not convince the Riyadh regime and its Persian Gulf Arab allies.

Elsewhere in his remarks, the Qatari attorney general said it was “very soon” to give specific phone numbers for those he said were responsible for the hacking.

He also noted that Qatari investigators had traced the internet service providers used to the Saudi-led allied countries.

“We have sent the information to the countries concerned and we are awaiting their response,” Marri pointed out, adding, “As far as we are concerned, the case is very clear.”

Following the hacking report, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt severed diplomatic ties and cut off transport links with Qatar in early June, accusing Doha of supporting terrorism, an allegation rejected by the Qatari government.

They put 12 organizations and 59 people associated with Qatar on a terror sanctions list.

Marri said the blacklist was “baseless” and stressed that Qatar would legally pursue those who had done harm to it.

Qatar has long been at odds with other Arab countries about the Muslim Brotherhood, which the UAE and Egypt regard as a terrorist group.

Back in March, 2014, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain temporarily recalled their ambassadors from Doha after alleging that it has been interfering in their domestic affairs. The diplomatic relations resumed eight months later when Qatar ordered some Muslim Brotherhood members to leave the country.

The recent dispute, however, is said to be the worst to hit the Persian Gulf since the formation of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in 1981.

Observers say the fresh rift surfaced in the wake of Qatar’s break with past policies and its leaning toward Russia and Iran.

Qatar’s Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani said lately that Doha would not “surrender,” vowing to keep “the independence of our foreign policy.”

Posted in QatarComments Off on Qatar: ‘Neighbors’ leading economic siege hacked our news agency

UN raises alarm over rise in contacts between Nazi troops, Syria militants


United Nations

Image result for Nazi troops CARTOON

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has expressed concerns about a spike in contacts between Israeli armed forces and Syria militants in recent months.

In a report released recently, Guterres warned that the growing interactions between the two sides could lead to escalation and cause harm to members of the UN Disengagement Observer Force deployed to the Golan Heights.

According to the report, UN observers listed 16 meetings between the Israel forces and the Syria militants in the border area, including on Mount Hermon, in proximity to UN outposts in Syria’s Quneitra Province and the Golan Heights, from March 2 to May 16.

“Relative to the previous reporting period, there has been a significant increase in interaction” between Israeli soldiers and individuals from the Syrian side of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, “occurring on four occasions in February, three in March, eight in April and on one occasion in May,” the report said.

In its previous report released in March, the UN listed at least 17 interactions between the two sides between November 18, 2016, and March 1, 2017.

The figures show a significant increase when compared with only two such meetings recorded between August 30 and November 16, 2016.

The report said people likely affiliated with the militant groups, some of them armed, arrived at an Israeli outpost accompanied by mules and were greeted by the soldiers.

“In some instances, personnel and supplies were observed to have been transferred in both directions. On all occasions, the unknown individuals and mules returned to the Bravo (Syrian) side,” it added.

The UN chief said such interactions have “the potential to lead to clashes between armed elements and the Syrian Arab Armed Forces.”

“All military activities in the area of separation conducted by any actor pose a risk to the ceasefire and to the local civilian population, in addition to the United Nations personnel on the ground,” he wrote.

Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel has been providing Takfiri terrorists in Syria’s Golan Heights with a steady flow of funds and medical supplies.

Citing militant commanders and people familiar with Israel’s thinking, the paper said Israel’s “secret engagement” in the war aims to install a buffer zone on the Syrian border with elements friendly to Tel Aviv.

The Tel Aviv regime regularly attacks positions held by pro-Damascus forces in Syria, claiming that the attacks are retaliatory.

The Syrian army has on several occasions confiscated Israeli-made arms and military equipment from terrorists fighting the government forces. There are also reports that Israel has been providing medical treatment to the extremists wounded in Syria.

In April, Israel’s former minister of military affairs Moshe Ya’alon admitted to a tacit alliance with Daesh, saying the terrorist group had “immediately apologized” to Tel Aviv after firing “once” into Israel.

Read more:

Israel secretly aiding Syria militants: US paper

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UNComments Off on UN raises alarm over rise in contacts between Nazi troops, Syria militants

Resist This: The United States Is At War With Syria


By Jim Kavanaugh | The Polemicist 

The United States is at war with Syria. Though few Americans wanted to face it, this has been the case implicitly since the Obama administration began building bases and sending Special Ops, really-not-there, American troops, and it has been the case explicitly since August 3, 2015, when the Obama administration announced that it would “allow airstrikes to defend Syrian rebels trained by the U.S. military from any attackers, even if the enemies hail from forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.” With the U.S. Air Force—under Trump, following Obama’s declared policy—shooting down a Syrian plane in Syrian airspace, this is now undeniable.  The United States is overtly engaged in another aggression against a sovereign country that poses no conceivable, let alone actual or imminent, threat to the nation. This is an act of war.

As an act of war, this is unconstitutional, and would demand a congressional declaration. The claim, touted by Joint Chiefs’ Chairman, Gen. Dunford, that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al-Qaeda provides constitutional justification for attacking the Syrian government is patently false and particularly precious. In the Syrian conflict, it’s the Syrian government that is the enemy and target of al-Qaeda affiliates; it’s the U.S. and its allies who are supporting al Qaeda. The authorization to fight al-Qaeda has been turned into an authorization to help al-Qaeda by attacking and weakening its prime target!

Will President Trump ask for a relevant congressional authorization? Will any Democratic or Republican congresscritter demand it? Is the Pope a Hindu?

Would it make any difference? Why should Trump bother? Obama set the stage when he completely ignored the War Powers Act, the Constitution, Congress, and his own Attorney General and legal advisers, and went right ahead with a war on Libya, under the theory that, if we pretend no American troops are on the ground, it isn’t really a war or “hostilities” at all. Which I guess means if the Chinese Air Force starts shooting down American planes in American airspace in defense of Black Lives Matter’s assault on the White House, it wouldn’t really be engaging in an act of war.

It’s impossible to overstate the danger in these executive war-making prerogatives that Obama normalized—with the irresponsible connivance of his progressive groupies, who pretend not to know where this would lead. In 2012, referring to the precedent of Obama’s policies, Mitt Romney said: “I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now.” Following Obama, for Trump, and every Republican and Democratic president, it now goes without saying.

In terms of international law, as an aggressive, unprovoked aggression against a country that makes no threat of attack on the U.S., it is also patently illegal, and all the political and military authorities undertaking it are war criminals, who would be prosecuted as such, if there were an international legal regime that had not already been undermined by the United States.

Syria is now under explicit attack by the armed forces of the U.S., Turkey, and other NATO states. Sixteen countries have combat aircraft buzzing around Syrian airspace under the effective command of the United States, and a number of them have attacked Syria’s army.

Americans, and certainly self-identified “progressives,” have to be crystal clear about this: American armed forces have no right to be in Syria, have no right to restrict the Syrian government from using any of its airspace, or to prevent it from regaining control of any of its own territory from foreign-backed jihadi armies.

The Syrian state and its allies (Iran and Russia), on the other hand, are engaged in the legitimate self-defense of a sovereign state, and have the right to respond with full military force to any attack on Syrian forces or any attempt by the United States to balkanize or occupy Syrian territory, or to overthrow the Syrian government. Whether and how they do respond will depend on their own military/political calculus, about which they have so far been quite careful and restrained. It would be the height of foolishness, as well as arrogance, for Americans to presume they can bully these actors into submission with an infinite series of discrete aggressions, with no sharp counterattack. Unfortunately, the world has not yet seen the limits of American arrogance.

So please, do not pretend to be shocked, shocked, if Syria and its allies fight back, inflicting American casualties. Don’t pose as the morally superior victim when Americans are killed by the people they are attacking. And don’t be preaching about how everyone has to support our troops in a criminal, unconstitutional, aggressive attack on a country that has not threatened ours in any way. American soldiers and pilots executing this policy are not heroes, and are not fighting to protect America or advance democracy; they are the international equivalent of home invaders, and as such are legitimate targets with no claim to “self-defense.” The only heroic act they could do is refuse their superiors’ illegitimate orders to engage in this aggression.

In response to American attacks, the Syrian Army has every right to strike back at the American military apparatus, everywhere. Every casualty of this war, however big it gets, is the ethico-political responsibility of the attacking party – US. The first responsibility of every American is not to “support our troops,” but to stop this war. Right now. Before it gets worse.

It’s quite obvious, in fact, that the United States regime is deliberately making targets of its military personnel, in the hopes of provoking a response from Syrian or allied armed forces that will kill some Americans, and be used to gin up popular support for exactly the kind of major military attack on Syria and/or Russia and/or Iran that the American people would otherwise reject with disgust. Anyone who professes concern for “our troops” should be screaming to stop that.

It’s also quite clear now that the War on ISIS is a sham, that ISIS was always just a pretext to get the American military directly involved in attacking the Syrian army and destroying the coherence of the Syrian state. If the U.S. wanted to defeat ISIS, it could do so easily by coordinating their actions with, and not against, the forces who have been most effectively fighting it: the Syrian Arab Army, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.

Instead, it’s attacking the Syrian army precisely because it has been defeating ISIS and other jihadi forces, and regaining its own territory and control of its own border with Iraq. The U.S. does not want that to happen. At the very least—if it cannot immediately engender that massive offensive to overthrow the Baathist government—the U.S. wants to control part of the border with Iraq and to occupy a swath of eastern Syria. It wants to establish permanent bases from which to provision and protect jihadi armies, achieving a de facto partitioning of the Syrian state, maintaining a constant state of armed attack against the Damascus government, and reducing Syria to a weakened, rump state that can never present any effective resistance to American, Israeli, or Saudi designs on the region.

This is extremely dangerous, since the Syrians, Russians, and Iranians seem determined not to let this happen. Consistent with his own incompetence and his admiration for tough guys, Trump seems to have abrogated authority to his generals to make decisions of enormous political consequence. Perhaps that’s why aggressive actions like the shoot-down of the Syrian plane have been occurring more frequently, and why it’s not likely they’ll abate. There’s a dynamic in motion that will inevitably lead each side to confront a choice of whether to back down, in a way that’s obvious, or escalate. Generals aren’t good at backing down. A regional or global war is a real possibility and becomes more likely with every such incident.

Though most American politicians and media outlets do not want to say it (and therefore, most citizens cannot see it clearly enough), such a war is the objective of a powerful faction of the Deep State which has been persistent and determined in seeking it. If the generals are loath to back down in a battle, the neocons are adamant about not backing down on their plans for the Middle East. They will not be stopped by anything less than overwhelming popular resistance and international pushback.

The upside of these attacks on Syrian forces is that they wipe the lipstick off the pig of the American project in Syria. It’s a regime-change, nation-destroying war that has nothing to do with democracy or human rights, and everything to do with the anti-democratic, chaos-creating designs of the most nefarious regimes in the region and the world. Everyone—European countries who profess concern for international law and stability, and the American people who are fed up with constant wars that have no benefit for them—can see exactly what kind of blatant aggression is unfolding, and decide whether they want to go along with it.

In that regard, any self-identified “liberal” or “progressive” American—and particularly any such American politician—who spent (and may still spend) their political energy attacking Bush, et. al., for that crazy war in Iraq, and who goes along with, or hesitates to immediately and energetically denounce this war, which is already underway, is a political hypocrite, resisting nothing but the obvious.

Posted in USAComments Off on Resist This: The United States Is At War With Syria

Ever Closer to War


By Brian CLOUGHLEY | Strategic Culture Foundation 

The Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has warned that the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear war is closer than since 1953. As explained by the Bulletin, in 1947 it devised the Doomsday Clock «using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet».

Each year «the decision to move (or to leave in place) the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock is made by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 15 Nobel laureates». In 1953 the Clock was at two minutes to midnight. In the worst years of the cold war it was at 3 minutes to midnight when, in 1984 it was recorded that «US-Soviet relations reach their iciest point in decades. Dialogue between the two superpowers virtually stops. Every channel of communications has been constricted or shut down; every form of contact has been attenuated or cut off…»

And now, in 2017, it is apparent that channels of communication with Russia are being deliberately cut off — and the hands of the Doomsday Clock have been placed at just two-and-a-half minutes from midnight.

Disaster looms.

And as it looms, the United States Senate is heightening its global confrontational approach and announced that it intends to penalise Russia for a number of supposed misdemeanours.

Senator Lindsey Graham told CBS News that the Senate will «punish Russia for interfering in our elections» — concerning which allegation there has not been one shred of proof provided by anyone. All-embracing inquiries are under way, of course, but be assured that if there were the slightest, tiniest, most microscopic morsel of actual proof of any interference, it would by now have been leaked to the media and made headline news.

Senator Graham excelled himself by telling President Trump, via CBS News, that «You’re the commander in chief. You need to stand up to Russia. We’re never going to reset our relationship with Russia until we punish them for trying to destroy democracy. And that starts with more sanctions».

Then the CBS interviewer brought up the subject of the many inquiries into allegations of Trump-Russia plotting and mentioned that a Democrat had said the investigations were a «fishing expedition… What’s your response to that?»

The Senator replied «That’s not your, none of your business. We’re going to do what we think is best. The Russians interfered in our election. They’re doing it all over the world. No evidence yet that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. I don’t believe the president colluded with the Russians, just because of the way he behaves. There’s zero evidence that President Trump did anything wrong with the Russians. There’s overwhelming evidence that Russia is trying to destroy democracy here and abroad. And if you forgive and forget with Putin, you’re going to get more of the same and you’re going to entice Iran and China to come in 2018 and 2020».

The US Senate believes there is «zero evidence» that President Trump had help from Russia in his election campaign — which is true — but also thinks there is «overwhelming evidence» that Russia is trying to influence voting in America, although there is not a shred of proof to that effect.

The Senator spoke with the authority, force and majesty of the US Senate, and the world has to accept that his pronouncements represent the wishes of the legislators of his mighty nation which is intent on imposing harsher sanctions on Russia. As observed by Forbes, the new Bill «punishes Russian oil and gas firms even more than the current sanctions regime… Russia has no friends on Capitol Hill».

It is intriguing that the sanctions focus on oil and gas production, and Bloomberg reported that Germany and Austria consider «the measures sought to bolster US economic interests and included an unacceptable intervention in the region’s energy sector». In an unprecedented expression — indeed, explosion — of disapproval, Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austria’s Chancellor Christian Kern said in a joint statement that «Europe’s energy supply is a matter for Europe, not the United States of America… instruments for political sanctions should not be tied to economic interests» and that the Senate’s amendment heralded a «new and very negative quality in European-American relations».

As London’s Financial Times reported, «the Russia sanctions outline opposition to Nord Stream 2, a pipeline that will double capacity for Gazprom… to supply gas to Europe under the Baltic Sea. The measures could affect European energy companies, including Shell, Engie and OMV, which are financing the pipeline. Shares in all four companies tumbled on Thursday».

Washington’s mission of lucrative destruction was partly achieved, but that’s where we come to the essence of the matter. The part of the Sanctions Bill involving Russia was an add-on to a series of vindictive measures against Iran, but it seemed a good idea to also sanction Russia’s oil and gas production, because nobody would benefit more than the oil and gas companies of the United States.

Bloomberg explained that the Nord Stream pipeline «would compete with US exports of liquefied natural gas to Europe». And the Senate made it plain that the US government «should prioritize the export of United States energy resources in order to create American jobs, help United States allies and partners, and strengthen United States foreign policy».

It’s difficult to see how the Senate’s arrogant dabbling might «help allies and partners,» but those in America who own energy resources and want to continue making vast profits continue to help their allies and partners in the Senate and the House. Without their financial support, many legislators would never have got to Washington.

As recorded by Open Secrets, companies closely associated with oil and gas production gave US politicians over fifty million dollars in 2015-2016 to help their democratic election:

Top Contributors, 2015-2016

Contributor Amount
Koch Industries $9,501,803
Chevron Corp $5,116,216
Ariel Corp $4,809,612
Stewart & Stevenson $4,127,231
Western Refining $4,067,802
Petrodome Energy $3,000,000
Chief Oil & Gas $2,977,493
Hunt Companies $2,709,917
Marathon Petroleum $2,398,781
Edison Chouest Offshore $2,198,872
Energy Transfer Equity $2,164,853
Kinder Morgan Inc $2,112,160
American Petroleum Institute $2,085,345
Exxon Mobil $2,065,787
Occidental Petroleum $1,855,908
Devon Energy $1,811,364
Otis Eastern $1,733,017
Honeywell International $1,461,284
Anadarko Petroleum $1,343,741
Red Apple Group $1,218,312

Source: By kind permission of the Center for Responsive Politics

And Senator Lindsay Graham was given a bundle by many commercial organisations, headed by Nelson, Mullins, whose $254,247 in 1993-2016 no doubt helped him along the way. Nelson Mullins, incidentally, has attorneys who «have experience in advising electrical and pipeline providers on legal matters». Then he got $175,605 from SCANA, which is «a $9 billion energy-based holding company, based in Cayce, South Carolina… Its businesses include… natural gas utility operations and other energy-related businesses». Another of Senator Graham’s generous sponsors is the Fluor Corporation ($94,801) which «understands the critical success factors driving onshore oil and gas production and terminal businesses, providing practical solutions to maximize project investment».

It doesn’t matter to these people, or to the legislators they’ve bought with their donations, that the Doomsday Clock has ticked closer to the midnight of Armageddon, and that the hostile approach of the United States is alienating a proud nation that can take only so much before it reacts against Washington’s aggressive confrontation. The sleazy hypocrisy of US legislators is legendary, but it is their ignorance greed and arrogance that are worrying.

While Senator Graham was dancing to the tune of his oil angels, the Washington Post reported that seven percent of American adults believe chocolate milk comes from brown cows. That is «16.4 million misinformed, milk-drinking people». The representative of FoodCorps which encourages sensible nourishment said this was unfortunate, and «We still get kids who are surprised that a French fry comes from a potato, or that a pickle is a cucumber. Knowledge is power. Without it, we can’t make informed decisions».

Just like the US Senate.

Posted in USAComments Off on Ever Closer to War

Islamist Extremism & White Supremacists


Islamist Extremism & White Supremacists: Understanding the ‘Coming Civil Wars’ or Predicted Societal Breakdown

In regard to the Finsbury Park attack on Monday, a lot of talk has resurfaced regarding recurring fears of ‘civil war’ type scenarios in the not-distant future or a ‘race war’ type of situation: one that might not just threaten England, but occur elsewhere too, like in France or the United States.

I want to explore that subject here: and particularly how the key players on both sides of the extremist divide are being cleverly used to try to plunge our societies into sectarian turmoil.

In doing so, we need to look at, among other things, the funding for the highly influential ‘Islamophobia Network’, the overt hijacking of alternative media by very devious psy-op merchants, and the nature and danger of the Far-Right movement and its new, modern figureheads and techniques.

After most terror attacks or false-flag ops, I’ve talked about the divide-and-conquer programme or ‘strategy of tension’ designed to play off different parts of society against each other – and this is a big part of where that programme appears to be heading. 

In the title above, I put ‘coming civil wars’ in inverted commas because it’s become such a common meme (particularly in US online media) that it qualifies now as something of a cliche; I also often wonder, as mentioned once or twice before, whether the entire thing is itself a psy-op involving predictive programming or self-fulfilling prophecy (I previously suggested that Info Wars, Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson were playing this psy-op from one side, with COINTELPRO-style elements of things like the Black Lives Matter movement playing it from the other).

I still think there’s a strong possibility that the entire theme is a manufactured psy-op – the expectation being programmed into us so that it can be manipulated. However, I also know that there are various groups and platforms that *want* that scenario to unfold – and are, in fact, excited about it.

Concerning the events in London, however (particularly the London Bridge ‘ISIS’ attack and the Finsbury Park ‘revenge’ attack), I said yesterday that ‘what concerns me most is this: whether this was a sudden, random ‘revenge’ attack or whether it was something more orchestrated – the danger being that this entire, toxic paradigm is edging towards a ‘race war’ or, at least, massive civil unrest: something that begins with a series of tit-for-tat acts of violence or targeted attacks and then spirals into something else.’

And not just in England, but in multiple countries, particularly France and the United States.

In those two countries in particular, the fears or rhetoric around the ‘race war’ or ‘civil war’ meme have been building for some time. In France, this centers chiefly (and with some good justification) on the issues of radicalisation within parts of the (North African origin) Muslim community; in the US, a lot of the language does center (without any justification at all) on Muslims, but also more broadly involves more traditional race/culture dynamics and immigration.

The Donald Trump presidency almost seems designed to amplify all of that and bring it to a head at some point.

In England, the dynamics are closer to France’s problems: though it is always worth noting that the ‘Islamic extremism problem’ in the UK has always been tied either to British foreign policy (illegally invading Iraq, for example, or hosting a community of Libyan jihadists in Manchester) or to a minority of extremist preachers who often turn out to be involved with MI5 or British intelligence, with most of the ideological infrastructure coming from British allies like Saudi Arabia.

I’m not quite with former British Ambassador, Craig Murray, who says that the entire ‘Islamic extremism’ thing in the UK is ‘total bollocks‘ built up by MI5 – I do believe (and know) that there actually is a major problem with radicalised young Muslims and with an extremist ideology. However, Murray is right to highlight the MI5 connection to that problem.

Most informed people know that the majority of the Muslim radicalisation problem goes hand-in-hand with both foreign/Wahhabi money/influence and/or the fraudulent ‘War on Terror’ that began in 2001.

The Far-Right problem, however, goes back much further, and most anti-fascist campaigners explain that we really need to understand the following dynamics: that the emergence of liberal politics and political correctness in the last 30 years or so was a massive blow to white nationalists, Neo-Nazi groups and the Far-Right, who had previously been allowed to operate out in the open and not feel like a marginalised or ridiculed section of society.

What 9/11 and the War on Terror‘ did was begin to provide those people with a legitimate path back into mainstream consciousness or ‘legitimacy’ – in other words, where simple, old-school racism or fascism was no longer being tolerated, they could instead narrow their focus just to ‘Muslims’ and re-frame the pre-existing Far-Right ideologies in the newer context of opposing ‘terrorism’ or ‘Islamisation’.

9/11 was, of course, a false-flag and the ‘War on Terror’ was a fraud: but it didn’t matter – the whole emergence of the ‘Muslim problem’ meant that, given time, the Far-Right and Neo-Nazis could cleverly re-brand themselves as ‘patriots’ speaking out against a seemingly tangible threat to the country (even though most of the ‘terror attacks’ were false-flags).

Donald Trump was the consummate example of this – I am not classifying Donald Trump as Far-Right; merely citing his campaign as a very well played strategy of riding the Islamophobia wave and simultaneously playing to all of the old, pre-liberal sensibilities of the extreme right-wing.

What the actual extreme Far-Right does is to use all of this to legitimize itself and to seem like they’re part of a valid argument that has nothing to do with the old Far-Right or Neo-Nazism.

And it helps too that much of their new support base among the general public doesn’t actually remember or have any knowledge of the past – and a lot of them probably don’t even remember a pre-9/11 world in which no one was worried about Muslims and the Far-Right was generally seen as a joke.

The other dimension to this, which various researchers have found, is that a lot of radicalised Muslims are people who’d grown up in the 70s or 80s and had experienced a lot of racism, some of them with direct experience of Far-Right groups or the skinhead gangs of those times – and that this background, in many cases, contributes to their susceptibility to radical forms of Islam (I’m talking about the UK specifically here – I can’t speak for France or elsewhere).

So the whole thing can, in many ways, be seen as a vicious cycle.

None of this is making excuses for radical Islam, by any means – or for those who subscribe to it. But, given the sheer frequency, volume and breadth of coverage – both in mainstream media and in online or alternative media – of the ‘Muslim Problem’ and the comparative lack of coverage of Far-Right networks and Neo-Nazi radicalisation, there’s a good reason I’m focusing slightly more here on the latter and not the former.

But, getting back to the point: that all of this is in danger of descending into a ‘civil war’ type scenario. The term ‘civil war’ is probably an exaggeration, as it won’t really fit that mold in the classic sense. However, I’m using that term because it is the term others – mostly those who *want* it – had been pushing for some time.

The predictions or fears of ‘race wars’ or mass societal breakdown have been appearing for some time. And not just on alt-right psy-op platforms like InfoWars, but also in mainstream commentary. The Huffington Post, for example, warned last year that the UK was ‘headed for civil war with UK Muslims’. Their source, rather dubiously, was the ‘Britain First’ group – but Britain First is part of the international Islamophobia Network  too (a network I will get to in a moment).

Patrick Calvar, chief of the Directorate General of Internal Security, told members of a French parliamentary commission that “We are on the brink of civil war.” Calver was talking about what he feared was an inevitable confrontation between the Far Right and Muslims.

Professor Gilles Kepel told German newspaper Die Welt not long ago that the aim of the Islamic State group is to incite hatred towards Muslims from the rest of the society which would eventually radicalise others to the point that Europe could enter into full-blown civil war.

Kepel, a specialist on the Islamic and contemporary Arab world, argued that ISIS fanatics seek not just to harm Europe but to make life impossible for mainstream, non-extremist Muslims in the West.

Kepel published a book last year in which he explained how Islamists and the Far Right were essentially working hand-in-hand to promote jihad in France.

He explains how jihadists in France were jubilant about the National Front’s recent successes – because the party is so anti Muslim that its policies could force even moderate, well-integrated parts of the Muslim community to feel existentially threatened and therefore be more likely to drift over to the extremists in their own communities. “That way there will be pogroms, all Muslims will be able to group under their banner of jihadism, and civil war will begin,” he says.

In the ‘Seeds of Fascism’ article (which I would recommend reading as a companion to this article), I also quoted extensively from an academic study that investigated the Far-Right nationalists in the context of the widespread Islamophobia and how the way Muslims are currently being talked about is an exact replication of the way European Jews were being talked about before the Holocaust.

The professor in that study declared “Armageddon will be fought on European soil.” 

There’s no question that the tensions are so high now that we’re on a knife-edge. That was evident not just from these latest terror attacks, but from the brutal murder of Jo Cox a year ago. At the time of her murder, Jo Cox hadn’t just been campaigning to stay in the EU, but had been preparing a report on Far-Right nationalists and rise of Islamophobia.

We are told that the Labor MP was preparing to address Parliament on the rising dangers of aggressive nationalist radicals and Far Right extremism.

I noted last year, concerning the online reaction to Jo Cox’s murder, how dangerous and how widespread the Far Right ideologies had become and how ominous it was: because it seemed very much like this act – Tommy Mair going out and murdering an MP – caused a lot of excitement among people who were thrilled to see someone actually taking *action* rather than just Tweeting or spouting rhetoric (read ‘Jo Cox & the True Nature of the Far Right‘).


Again, after most terror attacks or false-flag ops, I’ve talked about the divide-and-conquer programme or ‘strategy of tension’ designed to play off different parts of society against each other.

Some of this may be natural, accumulated reaction to events (reaction, for example, to Islamist terror attacks or the ‘ISIS’ propaganda/psy-op, or Muslim reaction to things like the Iraq War) that builds up over time, creating division and strong feelings. Some of it is also just basic tribalism – which is arguably the root of all racism.

A lot of it, however, is manufactured and deliberately nurtured – which is something I’ve written about here before.

This occurs on multiple levels. Some of it plays out over many years in right-wing media and newspapers (a constant, daily flood of ‘Muslim’ stories and demonisation for the last fifteen years), some of it plays out over many years in more covert fashion (radicalisation, extremist Islamist preachers and brainwashing, etc), and a lot of it is created over time via carefully placed figures and ‘influencers’ who are able to incite hatred or sow division on a large scale.

On the one side, this incitement comes from the so-called ‘Islamic State’ group, which calls on Muslims to strike out against Western targets in the name of jihad or the ‘caliphate’ (however, it’s always worth remembering the highly questionable origins and nature of ‘ISIS’, along with such leaks as the fact that some ISIS social media accounts were previously traced to British government or Saudi sources: or the fact a US General said two years ago that ISIS ‘caliph’ or leader – Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – doesn’t actually exist and was a fictional character invented by the US).

Predictably, ‘ISIS’ social media accounts have apparently called for revenge attacks in the UK after the Finsbury Park incident. It’s part of the script. Just as Britain First, Tommy Robinson, and various Far-Right figures are calling for ‘patriots’ to ‘rise up’ – they’re simply the other side of the same equation.

Far more dangerous than traditional right-wing media is the phenomenon of the ‘alt-right’ – a hugely popular, anti-Muslim, anti liberal, pro-Zionist network of platforms and individuals that have hijacked and infected what used to be proper ‘alternative media’.

Two very good examples of the latter are Paul Joseph Watson and Tommy Robinson. Paul Joseph Watson – who, I’ve been convinced for ages was imposed onto Alex Jones by Israeli agencies – gets an average of about half-a-million views per video (often more than that) and he posts an angry, anti-Muslim video or diatribe every time an incident occurs.

J.K Rowling was right to lash out about the Finsbury Park attackers’ ‘radicalisers’ – but she picked the wrong target: Nigel Farage isn’t the problem, the problem is people like Paul Joseph Watson, who is essentially a hugely influential hate-preacher who convinces his millions of viewers that this is some kind of life-and-death struggle for the white race and posts under hashtags like #StopIslam or #EndIslam.

In effect, Paul Joseph Watson and Anjem Choudary are simply two cheeks on the same arse. The only difference is that Anjem Choudary is in jail and Paul Joseph Watson is probably on his way to becoming a millionaire by now.

I could do a whole article on Paul Joseph Watson – but I’ll avoid that for now. The point is that he is part of a well-funded, well organised Islamophobia network that includes people like Tommy Robinson, Pamela Gellar, David Horowitz, etc.

Tommy Robinson – of the EDL, Pegida, BNP, etc – has collaborated with Watson a number of times; but, while Watson is very careful about hiding his own affiliations, Robinson is on record as a staunch, passionate Zionist with connections to Israel. His real name being ‘Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon’, like Geert Wilders, he appears to be a fully paid up Zionist agent.

Here he is (above) proudly pictured with a weapon, standing with an Israeli tank on the Syrian border (Golan Heights) – a proud Zionist in support of the Middle East agenda.

And, just as Watson speaks to half a million people every time an ‘Islam’-related incident occurs and immediately reinforces his regular calls for white populations to fight against ‘evil Islam’ (as well as, bizarrely, evil feminism, evil LGBT rights and evil liberalism), it has appeared increasingly as though Tommy Robinson is always on hand as soon as something happens.

I mean literally – he was somehow on the scene of the Westminster attack in March, with his full Israeli-funded ‘Rebel Media’ crew filming another call-to-arms and he was in Manchester as soon as the recent Ariana Grande concert incident happened – he seems to have a prophetic knack for being in the right place at the right time.

‘New Order Agenda’ actually did a very funny (and revealing) take-down of Robinson, ‘Rebel Media’ and the whole gang after the Westminster attack (watch here).

I’ve talked about the Zio-funded fake ‘alt media’ (‘alt-right’) before and its incestuous nature. I also previously touched on the ‘Islamophobia Network’ in relation to Geert Wilders’ political campaign, but didn’t go into much detail.

But the literal existence of an ‘Islamophobia Network‘ has been properly documented by now, particularly in the report Fear, Inc. 2.0: The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America, which exposes the “over $57 million that’s been contributed to this fear-mongering, anti-Muslim, anti-Islam organisations by eight very wealthy donors.”

CJ Werleman covers this subject, summarising that ‘Since 2001, a group of shadowy groups and individuals have spent millions to disseminate misinformation about Muslims into the mainstream media, body politic and public consciousness. The objective? Provide political cover for both the US’s war on terror and Israel’s war on Palestinians…’

I have covered this area before at great length (in the ‘Seeds of Fascism’ article here): and how a manufactured clash of civilisations and return to fascism are being manipulated for very dubious reasons.

In terms of the United States – unlike in the UK or France (where there is a genuine radicalisation problem among a number of young Muslims) – there is no Muslim problem.

There is literally no Islamist terrorist threat in the US and there never has been: the entire thing is a fake propaganda industry, funded by some very wealthy figures, pushed by alt-right/Zionist platforms like InfoWars and Breitbart, and aided by fake terror plots built up by the FBI (see here, or see the background to the Orlando nightclub shooting here or try this).

The real terrorist danger in America, as is well attested, comes from the extreme right-wing groups. In the UK, the situation is slightly different: we do have both extreme Far-Right groups and networks and an extreme Islamist network.

At the Islamist end of the ugly spectrum, we’ve had extremist Islamist preachers and recruiters in their shady networks, working to radicalise disenfranchised young Muslims into hatred of ‘the West’ for some years.

In terms of where the funding and covert support for this comes from, we’re all fairly sure we know what sources need to be looked at – but you’ll have to ask the current British government why it has refused to publish its own report on this matter (read about it).

It should also be noted that some of the main extremist preachers/radicalisers and (alleged) recruiters in the UK – particularly Anjem Choudary and Abu Hamza – were, at one time or another, working for MI5 and British intelligence. Choudary, who is linked to alleged London Bridge attacker Khuram Butt and allegedly also to Lee Rigby’s killers and who apparently sent hundreds of radicalised youngsters to join the so-called Islamic State group in Syria, was openly exposed as having worked with MI5 by the police.

In response to the Finsbury Park incident, both Tommy Robinson and Britain First posted that “Finsbury Park Mosque was notorious as a haven for Islamist terrorists and extremists” as a justification for the attack – and of course cited the former extremist preacher, Abu Hamza, who once operated at the mosque.

However, Hamza has had nothing to do with Finsbury Park since 2004. And, as I’ve already pointed out before, Hamza too was working with MI5 at at least one point.

All of which should prompt us to question whether – if any kind of mass civil unrest or ‘race war’ does happen – will it be simply an accumulative reaction to events, or is it something that has been sought and orchestrated by powerful parties with vested interests in the divide-and-conquer strategy?

Often, the Far-Right groups like to paint themselves as relatively small, simple ‘patriotic’ clubs looking out for the interests of their community or country – as opposed to the more coordinated, insidious nature of international Islamist networks.

This isn’t true, however.

Far-Right groups and Neo-Nazis are an international movement – with shared ideologies, shared sources of funding, shared goals, and coordinated operations.

They are, in that sense, the same as the extremist Islamist groups. If they were the ‘simple, salt-of-the-earth patriotic folk’ engaged in purely local concerns, you’d have to explain what Tommy Robinson was doing with an Israeli military tank on the Syrian border.

You’d have to explain why Robinson, Geert Wilders, the Austrian FPO, and others have all been invited to Israel, and why Israeli flags kept appearing at EDL rallies. You’d have to explain why Robinson opened and led a British branch of a German organisation (PEGIDA). You’d have to explain why Far-Right and Neo-Nazi groups, followers and fans not just in England but all over Europe and America gloried in the murder of Jo Cox and saw it not as a British event but an international ‘victory’ of the Far-Right (see here).

You’d also have to explain why foreign Neo-Nazi activists were in recent years found to be training right-wing Brits for ‘a race war’ in ‘secret hate camps across the UK.’ Anti-terror police were reported to be monitoring the ‘Sigurd Legion mob’, fearing that they were using the camps to prepare a wave of attacks against Muslims and Jews.

The Far-Right/Neo-Nazi group ‘National Action’ was reported to have sent all of its members to those camps for training.

‘National Action’, which reveled in the murder of Jo Cox and called for the murder of Sadiq Khan, has been called the ‘British equivalent to Islamic State’ and has referred to itself as a ‘White Jihad’. In essence, white supremacist groups like National Action are the other side of the same coin.

In fact, as some experts have argued, the jihadist/Islamist ideology and the white supremacist ideology feed off each other and need each other in order to thrive.

We also know that, for example, the Europe-wide, violent Fascist/Neo-Nazi movement called ‘Blood and Honour’ – a hold-over from Nazi Germany – is also an umbrella organisation for British racist groups such as the National Front and National Action; it is, in fact, known to have members and networks (I’m tempted to call them ‘cells’) in every country in the Western world.

One Hungarian-based Blood and Honour activist, Tompos Von Wewelsburg, called for all Syrian refugees to be massacred. ‘Blood and Honour’ activists in the Czech Republic have been charged with attempted murder following arson attacks on ethnic minorities.

Jo Cox’s killer, Thomas Mair, is pictured below giving a Nazi salute and wearing a ‘Blood and Honour’ shirt.

The warnings have been sounded over and over again in recent years. A Morning Star article from a couple of years ago, for example, warned about “The growth of a Euro-league in a time of economic crisis threatens to resurrect fascist street armies such as those that destroyed European democracies in the 1930s. The development of this network allows fascists and right-wing populists to share ideas, finance and experience in a way that should worry us all.”

In describing these networks in a post two years ago on the refugee crisis, I wrote; ‘They are the basis of our very own, European ‘ISIS’ some dark day in the future… or perhaps simply a rebirth of the kinds of forces and ideologies that shaped Nazi/Fascist Europe eighty years ago.’ I wrote that the Far-Right’s hijacking of the refugee crisis was sending us ‘towards an age of nasty sectarianism and polarisation that will soon make Europe as toxic as the Middle East’ and that ‘conscience and morality might be extremely warped or even lost entirely.’

The fact that this resurgence of Neo-Nazism can happen in Europe (and have nothing to do with Muslims) was demonstrated by the Nazi battalions in Ukraine.

All of Europe has these Nazi/Far-Right groups and violent gangs – they’re just generally very hidden from view and, unlike Muslim extremists, they aren’t given a lot of coverage except for when they kick off (usually at football events, like last year).

The only reason the Nazi militias in Ukraine were able to act more openly and substantively is because the situation in that country went in a direction that enabled them to do so. Were suitable circumstances to emerge anywhere else – Poland, France, Russia, England, Slovakia, anywhere – the same sort of things could happen very easily.

The flourishing, likewise, of extremist/Islamist thugs in Iraq, Libya and Syria didn’t happen in a vacuum – foreign military invasions or interventions removed the existing governments, order and stability, leaving a vacuum into which extremist networks could step in and take control of vast areas.

That’s why we have the ‘Islamic State’ (and the current ‘terror wave’) in the first place – plain and simple.


There are groups, ideologies and parties right now that want to push all of civilisation into a civil war scenario – a sectarian-based societal breakdown in Europe and the West to mirror the one that has already been inflicted on the Middle East.

Groups like the Islamic State group, as well as Blood and Honour, National Action and all the Far-Right/Neo-Nazi groups, are all aiming for that scenario and trying to push us towards it.

But even more influential figures like certain alt-right demagogues are working hard to dupe as many people as possible into accepting the narratives and falling into the trap, while morally bankrupt international plotters are covertly supporting such activity and movements.

As I’ve said over and over again after various false-flag terror attacks, the only way to try to avoid this kind of catastrophic direction is for all of us to refuse to fall for the scam.

It’s worth noting too that any mass civil unrest or breakdown won’t necessarily be all about Radical Islam versus the Far Right. In the US, there are other sources of tension and division too (the old-fashioned race divide and the police issue, the Trump/Bannon issue and the BLM movement). In Britain, the Brexit/EU paradigm also created massive tension – and I heard someone warn recently that, if the government was at any point to ‘reverse Brexit’, it might unleash major civil unrest too.

Some of the ill feeling and anger that has erupted since the Grenfell Tower fire is also an indicator of how quickly anger and unrest can develop, relating to class warfare rather than race warfare.

But Radical Islam and Far-Right Nationalism are the easiest and most ideologies to play off each other – because both insidious ideologies and their adherents are generally so stupid and so volatile. 

But both are also – and this is very important to understand – being funded and supported by powerful agencies and backers.

Posted in UKComments Off on Islamist Extremism & White Supremacists

Quick Notes on the FINSBURY PARK Attack


A quick post here on the Finsbury Park attack – because what I actually want to talk about more is the so-called ‘race war’ meme or the widespread predictions/fears of a ‘civil war’ type scenario on the streets of England, as well as France, the US and elsewhere.
That, however, is such a big, important and complex subject, that I just want to talk quickly and solely about Finsbury Park first – and I will publish that bigger, broader article tomorrow.

As with the June 3rd attack in London Bridge, I was listening to a couple of hours of live radio as the story was breaking. As I have a habit of leaving the radio on when I’m trying to fall asleep, I happened to hear a number of live eyewitness callers from Finsbury Park – and it is clear that this was a real incident, just as London Bridge was probably a real incident.

Where I’m presently located is right next to Seven Sisters Road and quite close to Finsbury Park, in fact, and I heard from someone in the area – who isn’t Muslim and isn’t related to the mosque or the group that was targeted – who was adamant that the assault did happen.

I’m also not surprised, as I’ve been expecting some form of ‘retaliation’ attack against the Muslim community for some time and I’m actually surprised it hasn’t happened sooner, given how much this stuff has been going on for.

On the surface of it, the story of someone striking out against ‘the Muslims’ after the recent attacks in London and Manchester appears to make sense. Even the idea of him using the same method that alleged jihadis have used makes sense – both as tit-for-tat symbolism and because weaponising a van is so easy to do.

And the extent of anti-Muslim sentiment and feeling is genuinely so high that it isn’t at all unlikely for this to happen. So I can entirely accept that this is probably what happened.

However, as always, we should take note of a few things.

The biggest alarm bell for me came from the reports that the attacker/driver allegedly said “my bit is done” or “I did my bit” when he was surrounded by angry locals. There were other claims that he’d said something along the lines of “I’m here to kill Muslims” or “I want to kill all Muslims” – but this sounds very scripted to me, along the same lines as previous ‘battle cries’ like ‘This is for Allah’ (London Bridge) or ‘This is for Syria’ (Paris attacks).

On the other hand, “my bit is done” or “I did my bit” sounds suspicious. It could, of course, just be that he was drowning in anti-Muslim, alt-right propaganda and felt like attacking people in Finsbury Park was somehow him ‘doing his bit’ for his country, his race, or his society. But it’s also something that might be said by someone who has been coerced into something or who was part of a bigger organisational structure.

This is reinforced by the multiple claims that there were two other people with him and that they managed to run off and escape.

Some of this could always be false testimony, people making things up, or people’s perceptions playing tricks on them. But a number of supposed witnesses said they saw three people get out of the van. And the earliest callers I was listening to on the radio (this would’ve been between about 1.00 and 1.30 am) said there were three people, not one.

Now, again, this could be misinformation or misperception: but if it’s true, it suggests either that two people are at large and the nature of the incident is being covered up by authorities, or that the (alleged) two other people with him were his handlers and that they left him there with the mob and ran off.

There were also disparities between official statements and (supposed) eyewitnesses as to the amount of time it took for the police to arrive. Some at the scene claimed it took at least half-an-hour for police to arrive and up to 45 minutes for ambulances to arrive: official statements, however, are that the police arrived in minutes.

Again, there could be people at the scene either exaggerating or having a skewed perception of how long it took.

The Guardian report is curious. As is widely reported, the imam from the Muslim centre came out and intervened to stop the crowd from doing serious harm to the attacker, Darren Osbourne: however, according to this report, the imam says he and others ‘managed to flag down a passing police van’.

Which is odd language, as it suggests the police van just happened to be passing by and wasn’t arriving in response to the incident.

But, as I said, I’m generally willing to accept the official story of what happened: and to put some of these inconsistencies down to misperception or skewing of events.

But, as always – and given numerous past precedents – I’m also open to the possibility this may have been a staged event involving people other than just the lone driver. In that scenario – just as with the London Bridge attack – an attack did happen, as reported by witnesses, but the orchestration or source might be more complex than the official story.

What concerns me most, however, is this: whether this was a sudden, random ‘revenge’ attack or whether it was something more orchestrated – the danger being that this entire, toxic paradigm is edging towards a ‘race war’ or, at least, massive civil unrest: something that begins with a series of tit-for-tat acts of violence or targeted attacks and then spirals into something else.

That subject – the ‘race war’ that has been predicted for a long time, specifically centering on Islamist radicalisation and Far-Right white nationalism – was what I was going to explore here in terms of the Finsbury Park incident.

But I’ve decided to do that in a separate article tomorrow – partly because it’s such a complicated subject and partly also because I don’t think the Finsbury Park attacker, Darren Osbourne, was linked directly to any Far-Right organisation and so I don’t want to conflate him with those entities or further sensationalize this incident beyond the current narrative.


Posted in UKComments Off on Quick Notes on the FINSBURY PARK Attack

Living on Borrowed Time in a Stolen Land

By Gilad Atzmon

Communicating with Israelis may leave one bewildered. Even now when the Israeli Air Force is practicing murder in broad daylight of hundreds of civilians, elderly persons, women and children, the Israeli people manage to convince themselves that they are the real victims in this violent saga.

Those who are familiar intimately with Israeli people realise that they are completely uninformed about the roots of the conflict that dominates their lives. Rather often Israelis manage to come up with some bizarre arguments that may make a lot of sense within the Israeli discourse, yet make no sense whatsoever outside of the Jewish street. Such an argument goes as follows: ‘those Palestinians, why do they insist upon living on our land (Israel), why can’t they just settle in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon or any other Arab country?’ Another Hebraic pearl of wisdom sounds like this: ‘what is wrong with these Palestinians? We gave them water, electricity, education and all they do is try to throw us to the sea’.

Astonishingly enough, the Israelis even within the so-called ‘left’ and even the educated ‘left’ fail to understand who the Palestinians are, where they come from and what they stand for. They fail to grasp that for the Palestinians, Palestine is home. Miraculously, the Israelis manage to fail to grasp that Israel had been erected at the expense of the Palestinian people, on Palestinian land, on Palestinian villages, towns, fields and orchards. The Israelis do not realise that Palestinians in Gaza and in refugee camps in the region are actually dispossessed people from Ber Shive, Yafo, Tel Kabir, Shekh Munis, Lod, Haifa, Jerusalem and many more towns and villages. If you wonder how come the Israelis don’t know their history, the answer is pretty simple, they have never been told. The circumstances that led to the Israeli Palestinian conflict are well hidden within their culture. Traces of pre-1948 Palestinian civilisation on the land had been wiped out. Not only the Nakba, the 1948 ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinians, is not part of the Israeli curriculum, it is not even mentioned or discussed in any Israeli official or academic forum.

In the very centre of almost every Israeli town one can a find a 1948 memorial statue displaying a very bizarre, almost abstract, pipe work. The plumbing feature is called Davidka and it is actually a 1948 Israeli mortar cannon. Interestingly enough, the Davidka was an extremely ineffective weapon. Its shells wouldn’t reach more than 300 meters and would cause very limited damage. Though the Davidika would cause just minimal harm, it produced a lot of noise. According to the Israeli official historical narrative, the Arabs i.e., Palestinians, simply ran away for their lives once they heard the Davidka from afar. According to the Israeli narrative, the Jews i.e., ‘new Israelis’ did a bit of fireworks and the ‘Arab cowards’ just ran off like idiots. In the Israeli official narrative there is no mention of the many orchestrated massacres conducted by the young IDF and the paramilitary units that preceded it. There is no mention also of the racist laws that stop Palestinians[1] from returning to their homes and lands.

The meaning of the above is pretty simple. Israelis are totally unfamiliar with the Palestinian cause. Hence, they can only interpret the Palestinian struggle as a murderous irrational lunacy. Within the Israeli Judeo- centric solipsistic universe, the Israeli is an innocent victim and the Palestinian is no less than a savage murderer.

This grave situation that leaves the Israeli in the dark regarding his past demolishes any possibility of future reconciliation. Since the Israeli lacks the minimal comprehension of the conflict, he cannot contemplate any possible resolution except extermination or cleansing of the ‘enemy’. All the Israeli is entitled to know are various phantasmic narratives of Jewish suffering. Palestinian pain is completely foreign to his ears. ‘Palestinian right of return’ sounds to him like an amusing idea. Even the most advanced ‘Israeli humanists’ are not ready to share the land with its indigenous inhabitants. This doesn’t leave the Palestinians with many options but to liberate themselves against all odds. Clearly, there is no partner for peace on the Israel side.

This week we all learned more about the ballistic capability of Hamas. Evidently, Hamas was rather restrained with Israel for more than a long while. It refrained from escalating the conflict to the whole of southern Israel. It occurred to me that the barrages of Qassams that have been landing sporadically on Sderot and Ashkelon were actually nothing but a message from the imprisoned Palestinians. First it was a message to the stolen land, homes fields and orchards: ‘Our beloved soil, we didn’t forget, we are still here fighting for you, sooner rather than later, we will come back, we will start again where we had stopped’. But it was also a clear message to the Israelis. ‘You out there, in Sderot, Beer Sheva, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Tel Aviv and Haifa, whether you realise it or not, you are actually living on our stolen land. You better start to pack because your time is running out, you have exhausted our patience. We, the Palestinian people, have nothing to lose anymore’.

Let’s face it, realistically the situation in Israel is rather grave. Two years ago it was Hezbollah rockets that pounded northern Israel. This week the Hamas proved beyond doubt that it is capable of serving the South of Israel with some cocktail of ballistic vengeance. Both in the case of the Hezbollah and the case of the Hamas, Israel was left with no military answer. It can no doubt kill civilians but it fails to stop the rocket barrage. The IDF lacks the means of protecting Israel unless covering Israel with a solid concrete roof is a viable solution. At the end of the day, they might be planning just that (link).

But this is far from the end of the story. In fact it is just the beginning. Every Middle East expert knows that Hamas can seize control of the West Bank within hours. In fact, PA and Fatah control in the West Bank is maintained by the IDF. Once Hamas takes the West Bank, the biggest Israeli population centre will be left to the mercy of Hamas. For those who fail to see, this would be the end of Jewish Israel. It may happen later today, it may happen in three months or in five years, it isn’t a matter of ‘if’ but rather a matter of ‘when’. By that time, the whole of Israel will be within firing range of Hamas and Hezbollah, Israeli society will collapse, its economy will be ruined. The price of a detached villa in Northern Tel Aviv would equal a shed in Kiryat Shmone or Sderot. By the time a single rocket hits Tel Aviv, the Zionist dream will be over.

The IDF generals know it, the Israeli leaders know it. This is why they stepped up the war against the Palestinians into extermination. The Israelis do not plan upon invading Gaza. They have lost nothing there. All they want is to finish the Nakba. They drop bombs on Palestinians in order to wipe them out. They want the Palestinians out of the region. It is obviously not going to work, Palestinians will stay. Not only they will they stay, their day of return to their land is coming closer as Israel has been exploiting its deadliest tactics.

This is exactly where Israeli escapism comes into play. Israel has passed the ‘point of no return’. Its doomed fate is deeply engraved in each bomb it drops on Palestinian civilians. There is nothing Israel can do to save itself. There is no exit strategy. It can’t negotiate its way out because neither the Israelis nor their leadership understand the elementary parameters involved in the conflict. Israel lacks the military power to conclude the battle. It may manage to kill Palestinian grassroots leaders, it has been doing it for years, yet Palestinian resistance and persistence is growing fierce rather than weakening. As an IDF intelligence general predicted already at the first Intifada. ‘In order to win, all Palestinians have to do is to survive’. They survive and they are indeed winning.

Israeli leaders understand it all. Israel has already tried everything, unilateral withdrawal, starvation and now extermination. It thought to evade the demographic danger by shrinking into an intimate cosy Jewish ghetto. Nothing worked. It is Palestinian persistence in the shape of Hamas politics that defines the future of the region.

All that is left to Israelis is to cling to their blindness and escapism to evade their devastating grave fate that has become immanent already. All along their way down, the Israelis will sing their familiar various victim anthems. Being imbued in a self-centred supremacist reality, they will be utterly involved in their own pain yet completely blind to the pain they inflict on others. Uniquely enough, the Israelis are operating as a unified collective when dropping bombs on others, yet, once being slightly hurt, they all manage to become monads of vulnerable innocence. It is this discrepancy between the self-image and the way they are seen by the rest of us which turns the Israeli into a monstrous exterminator. It is this discrepancy that stops Israelis from grasping their own history, it is that discrepancy that stops them from comprehending the repeated numerous attempts to destroy their State. It is that discrepancy that stops Israelis from understanding the meaning of the Shoah so can they prevent the next one. It is this discrepancy that stops Israelis from being part of humanity.

Once again Jews will have to wander into an unknown fate. To a certain extent, I myself have started my journey a while ago.

[1] Jews only law of return-

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Living on Borrowed Time in a Stolen Land

Qatar hacked by Arab neighbor states, not Russia, as previously reported by CNN

CNN busted by Qatar for spreading more fake news

Image result for CNN QATAR CARTOON

By Alex Christoforou 

The reason cited by CNN for the ongoing Saudi-Qatari conflict, in which a coalition of Saudi-led states cut off diplomatic and economic ties with Qatar, originates with a CNN report (via its always handy anonymous sources bullwhip), that Russia is believed to have been behind a Qatar news hack.

CNN propaganda word-play is highlighted in bold…

US investigators believe Russian hackers breached Qatar’s state news agency and planted a fake news report that contributed to a crisis among the US’ closest Gulf allies, according to US officials briefed on the investigation.

The FBI recently sent a team of investigators to Doha to help the Qatari government investigate the alleged hacking incident, Qatari and US government officials say.

Intelligence gathered by the US security agencies indicates that Russian hackers were behind the intrusion first reported by the Qatari government two weeks ago, US officials say. Qatar hosts one of the largest US military bases in the region.

The alleged involvement of Russian hackers intensifies concerns by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies that Russia continues to try some of the same cyber-hacking measures on US allies that intelligence agencies believe it used to meddle in the 2016 elections.

The goal of Russian hackers, according to CNN’s unnamed US officials…

US officials say the Russian goal appears to be to cause rifts among the US and its allies. In recent months, suspected Russian cyber activities, including the use of fake news stories, have turned up amid elections in France, Germany and other countries.

It’s not yet clear whether the US has tracked the hackers in the Qatar incident to Russian criminal organizations or to the Russian security services blamed for the US election hacks. One official noted that based on past intelligence, “not much happens in that country without the blessing of the government.”

The FBI and CIA declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the Qatari embassy in Washington said the investigation is ongoing and its results would be released publicly soon.

Russian officials immediately denied the allegations, and they were correct to do so, as moments ago Qatar announced that the news agency cited by CNN as being “hacked by Russian” was in reality hacked by states linked to the boycott and blockade of Qatar.

According to a report cited by Reuters, Qatar’s attorney general has stated that Arab neighbor states (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates) were responsible for the hacking of Qatar’s state news agency…

Qatar’s attorney general said on Tuesday his country has evidence that the hacking of Qatar’s state news agency was linked to countries that have severed ties with Doha.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates cut their ties with Doha earlier this month over comments alleged to have been made by the Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani and posted briefly on the Qatar News Agency’s website on May 23 which Doha said had been hacked.

The comments quoted Sheikh Tamim as cautioning against confrontation with Iran and defending the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas and Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shi’ite movement allied with Tehran.

U.S. and European officials have said that while U.S government agencies and experts were convinced that the news agency and the Qatari government’s Twitter feed were hacked, they have not yet determined who did the hacking.

“Qatar has evidence that certain iPhones originating from countries laying siege to Qatar were used in the hack,” the Qatari Attorney General Ali Bin Fetais al-Marri told reporters in Doha.

Marri said it was too early to explicitly name the countries responsible for the hacking and declined to comment when he was asked if individuals or states were behind it.

Posted in QatarComments Off on Qatar hacked by Arab neighbor states, not Russia, as previously reported by CNN

US police arrest anti-nuclear weapons activists at UN

Image result for nuclear weapons CARTOON

A number of anti-nuclear weapons activists have been arrested in New York during a protest against Washington’s decision to boycott negotiations on a nuclear weapons ban treaty.

The arrests were made after the activists chanting slogans such as “US join the talks, ban the bomb,” blocked the entrances to the US mission to the United Nations.

The protesters sat in front of the doors before the police moved in. police said they warned the demonstrators that they would be arrested if they did not leave the place.

In March, US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced that the United States, Britain and France had decided not to join talks on a nuclear weapons ban treaty.

The United Nations is currently holding a second round of negotiations about the issue.

The world body adopted a resolution in December to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading toward their total elimination and encouraged all member states to participate.

A total of 113 nations voted in favor of the resolution but 35 countries, including the United States, Britain and France, voted against it. Thirteen countries abstained.

According to the US military’s recent declaration, the United States has 806 deployed ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missile), SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missile), and heavy bombers as well as 1,722 deployed nuclear warheads.

The Pentagon is also equipped with a multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV), a highly advanced version of the intercontinental nuclear missile carrying several independent warheads.

Posted in USA, UNComments Off on US police arrest anti-nuclear weapons activists at UN

Shoah’s pages