Archive | March 20th, 2015

UK to spend even more money to “protect Jewish institutions”


About a week ago, we reported that on a trip to Europe, Ira Forman, America’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism and a leading Jewish activist, declared that “many Jewish bodies in Europe are being bankrupted by the growing need for security measures.” While visiting Stockholm, Forman went on to tell European journalists:

Every Jewish community in western Europe certainly needs security support. Many of them are being bankrupted by the money they have to spend to protect their institutions.

The organized Jewish community and the Jewish owned and controlled mass media constantly hypes, exaggerates, and even manufactures the threat of “anti-Semitism” in order to generate sympathy for the Jewish people, perpetuate their status as a benevolent, harmless, persecuted minority, and to ensure Jews continue to receive special privileges, including government funding for security.

As if on cue, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced on Thursday the Unite Kingdom would increase spending on security for Jewish institutions, organizations, and schools. San Diego Jewish World reports:

The World Jewish Congress (WJC) on Thursday, March 19, welcomed an announcement by British Prime Minister David Cameron to increase spending to better protect Jewish institutions in the UK against potential terror attacks. “The measures Mr. Cameron proposed are exemplary, and will no doubt make a difference,” said WJC President Ronald S. Lauder.

“We welcome the British government’s strong commitment to the protection of the Jewish community, and we hope that other European governments make similar commitments soon. Islamist terror and anti-Semitism must be stopped if we want to preserve a vibrant Jewish life in Europe,” said Lauder.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the WJC’s member in the UK, also welcomed Cameron’s promise to increase funding. “We hope that this will provide a model to tackle other forms of hate and violence in UK society, including Islamophobia, homophobia and violence against disabled people. We will continue to work alongside other groups in order to tackle all forms of hatred in our society,” the Board declared in a statement.

In Wednesday’s speech to the Community Security Trust in London,Cameron pledged “to fight anti-Semitism with everything we have got,” adding that “no disagreements on politics or policy can ever be allowed to justify racism, prejudice or extremism in any form.” Cameron said an additional £3 million ($4.4 million) a year would be allocated to the protection of synagogues and other potentially vulnerable Jewish community buildings, in addition to the £7 million ($10.3 million) provided in Wednesday’s budget to fund guards for all Jewish private schools and colleges.

“If the Jewish community does not feel secure then our whole national fabric is diminished. It is not just about the enormous contribution you all make to our society – it is more profound than that. It is a measure of the vigor of our institutions and the health of our democracy that the Jewish community feels safe to live and flourish here. It is about the strength of the values that we stand for,” Cameron said.

He also made it clear that while Britain was a tolerant country, Islamist hate preachers would be expelled. He also defended Israel: “When people talk of trying to boycott Israel – you will never be alone,” Cameron said, adding: “When students on campus are afraid, when shechita is under threat, when Jewish institutions need extra security – you will never be alone.”

Pointing out the right of “Israel to defend its citizens, a right enshrined in international law, in natural justice and fundamental morality,” Cameron praised Israel as “an extraordinary nation.”

Cameron’s promises to increase government funding specifically to “protect Jewish institutions” comes at a time when thousands of White British children – young boys and especially girls – are being groomed, trafficked, raped, and abused, largely by Muslim immigrants Jewish politicians, pundits, and public policy makers worked so hard to allow into the United Kingdom. Has Cameron said anything publicly about the abuse of White British children by hostile Third World aliens, let alone indicate he is willing to spend government funds and resources on their well-being?

Can it be any more obvious how traitorous the entire Western political establishment is? Can it be any more obvious how completely subservient our politicians and political parties are to international Jewry and the Jewish state of Israel?

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UK1 Comment

Iran’s Nuclear Program: Diplomacy, War, and (In)Security in the Nuclear Age


by Richard Falk

Perhaps, Netanyahu deserves some words of appreciation, at least from the Israeli hard right, for the temporary erasure of the Palestinian ordeal from national, regional, and global policy agendas. Many are distracted by the Republican recriminations directed at Obama’s diplomatic initiative to close a deal that exchanges a loosening of sanctions imposed on Iran for an agreement by Tehran to accept intrusive inspections of their nuclear program and strict limits on the amount of enriched uranium of weapons grade that can be produced or retained.

We can only wonder about the stability and future prospects of the United States if 47 Republican senators can irresponsibly further jeopardize the peace of the Middle East and the world by writing an outrageous Open Letter to the leadership of Iran. In this reckless political maneuver the government of Iran is provocatively reminded that whatever agreement may be reached by the two governments will in all likelihood be disowned if a Republican is elected president in 2016, or short of that, by nullifying actions taken by a Republican-controlled Congress. Mr. Netanyahu must be smiling whenever he looks at a mirror, astonished by his own ability to get the better of reason and self-interest in America, by his pyrotechnic display of ill-informed belligerence in his March 2nd address to Congress. Surely, political theater of sorts, but unlike a performance artist, Netanyahu is a political player whose past antics have brought death and destruction and now mindlessly and bombastically risk far worse in the future.

What interests and disturbs me even more than the fallout from Netanyahu’s partisan speech, are several unexamined presuppositions that falsely and misleadingly frame the wider debate on Iran policy. Even the most respected news sites in the West, including such influential outlets as the NY Times or The Economist, frame the discourse by taking three propositions for granted in ways that severely bias our understanding:

                        –that punitive sanctions on Iran remain an appropriate way to prevent further proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, and enjoyed the backing of the United Nations;

                        –that Iran must not only renounce the intention to acquire nuclear weapons, but their renunciation must be frequently monitored and verified, while nothing at all is done about Israel’s arsenal of nuclear weapons;

                        –that there is nothing intrinsically wrong about Irael’s threats to attack Iran if it believes that this would strengthen its security either in relation to a possible nuclear attack or in relation to Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas.


Sanctions are a form of coercion expressly imposed in this case to exert pressure on Iran to negotiate an agreement that would provide reassurance that it was not seeking to acquire nuclear weaponry. Supposedly, Iran’s behavior made such a reinforcement of the nonproliferation treaty regime a reasonable precaution. Such measures had never been adopted or even proposed in relation to either Germany and Japan, the two main defeated countries in World War II, who have long possessed the technical and material means to acquire nuclear weapons in a matter of months. Iran has repeatedly given assurances that its nuclear program is peacefully aimed at producing energy and for medical applications, not weapons, and has accepted a willingness to have its nuclear program more regulated than is the case for any other country in the world.

It should be appreciated that Iran has not been guilty of waging an aggressive war for over 275 year. Not only has it refrained in recent years from launching attacks across its borders, although it has itself been severely victimized by major interventions and aggressions. Most spectacularly, the CIA-facilitated coup in 1953 that restored the Shah to power and overthrew a democratically elected government imposed a dictatorial regime on the country for over 25 years. And in 1980 Iraq invaded Iran with strong encouragement of the United States. Additionally, Iran has been subject over the years to a variety of Western covert operations designed to destabilize its government and disrupt its nuclear program.

Despite their UN backing, the case for sanctions seems to be an unfortunate instance of double standards, accentuated by the averted gaze of the international community over the years with respect to Israel’s process of acquisition, possession, and development of nuclear weaponry. This is especially irresponsible, given Israel’s behavior that has repeatedly exhibited a defiant attitude toward international law and world public opinion. I would conclude that Iran the imposition of harsh sanctions on Iran is discriminatory, more likely to intensify that resolve conflict. The proper use of international sanctions is to avert war or implement international law, and not as here to serve as a geopolitical instrument of hard power that seeks to sustain a hierarchical nuclear status quo in the region and beyond.


Iran is expected not only to forego the option to acquire nuclear weapons, but to agree to a framework of intrusive inspection if it wants to be treated as a ‘normal’ state after it proves itself worthy. As indicated, this approach seems discriminatory and hypocritical in the extreme. It would be more to the point to acknowledge the relative reasonableness of Iran’s quest for a deterrent capability given the extent to which its security and sovereignty have threatened and encroached upon by the United States and Israel.

It is relevant to note that the Obama presidency, although opting for a diplomatic resolution of the dispute about its nuclear program, nevertheless repeatedly refuses to remove the military option from the negotiating table. Israel does little to hide its efforts to build support for a coercive approach that threatens a preemptive military strike. Such an unlawful imprudent approach is justified by Israel’s belief that Iran poses an emerging existential threat to its survival if it should acquire weapons of mass destruction. Israel bases this assessment on past statements by Iranian leaders that Israel should not or will not exist, but such inflammatory rhetoric has never been tied to any statement of intention to wage war against Israel. To assert an existential threat as a pretext for war is irresponsible and dangerous.

From Iran’s perspective acquiring a nuclear weapons capability would seem a reasonable response to its security situation. If deterrence is deemed a security necessity for the United States and Israel, given their military dominance in conventional weaponry, it should be even more so for Iran that is truly faced with a genuine, credible, and dangerous existential threat. Few countries would become safer and more secure if in possession of nuclear weapons but Iran is one state that likely would be. Again what is at stake most fundamentally is the challenge to the nuclear oligopoly that has been maintained since the early stages of the Cold War when the Soviet Union broke the American nuclear monopoly. More immediately threatened if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons at some future point is Israel’s regional nuclear weapons monopoly that serves both as a deterrent to others and helps clear political space for Israel’s expansionist moves in the region. I would not argue that Iran should acquire nuclear weapons, but rather that it has the strongest case among sovereign states to do so, and it is a surreal twist of realities to act as if Iran is the outlier or rogue state rather than the nuclear weapons states that refuse to honor their obligation set forth in Article VI of the NPT to seek nuclear disarmament in good faith at a time. The most urgent threat to the future in this period arises from the increasing risk that nuclear weapons will be used at some point to resolve an international conflict, and thus it should be a global policy imperative to demand efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament rather than use geopolitical leverage to sustain the existing hierarchy of states with respect to nuclear weaponry.


Israel’s military threats directed at Iran clearly violate the international law prohibition contained in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter that prohibit “threats or uses” of force except for self-defense against a prior armed attack or with an authorization by the Security Council. Despite this threat to international peace in an already turbulent Middle East, there is a widespread international acceptance of Israel’s behavior, and in fact, the most persuasive argument in favor of the sanctions regime is that it allays the concerns of the Israeli government and thus reduces the prospect of a unilateral military strike on Iran.


Overall, this opportunistic treatment of Iran’s nuclear program is less indicative of a commitment to nonproliferation than it is a shortsighted expression of geopolitical priorities. If peace and stability were the true motivations of the international community, then we would at least expect to hear strident calls for a nuclear free Middle East tied to a regional security framework. Until such a call is made, there is a cynical game being played with the complicity of the mainstream media. To expose this game we need to realize how greatly the three presuppositions discussed above misshape perceptions and discourse.  

Posted in IranComments Off on Iran’s Nuclear Program: Diplomacy, War, and (In)Security in the Nuclear Age





ميدانيDAMASCUS:  The new tactics, new technology and new recruits are all having a massive influence on the battlefield.  Intercepted communications are now proving that the Saudi-Jordanian-Turkish-American-Zionist operations center in Al-Mafraq and Amman, is disconnected both intellectually and morally from the rodent killers who receive their instructions from this band of inept foreign degenerates.  Used as cannon fodder, many of the terrorists are having second thoughts about the campaign and are saying so on unsecure cellphones.  Calls to family members indicate a breakdown in morale as carcasses mount.

Between Doumaa and Misraabaa:  The SAA crushed a group of rodents belonging to ‘Alloosh’s degraded Jaysh Al-Islam and killed these:

‘Aql Ahmad Dirbaas (LIBYAN NUTRIA)


Qaassim Al-Shahhaal

Daawood Al-Zahra

Another 5 could not be identified.

Doumaa:  A group calling iteself Liwaa` Al-Islam (a branch of ‘Alloosh’s Saudi franchise) was annihilated near the Noria Park, the Al-Ansaar Mosque, the Medical Tower and the Al-Rahmaan Mosque.  Details of this great victory for the SAA are just coming in.  We know only that 8 vehicles were destroyed and a confirmed 11 rodent carcasses counted so far.

‘Aaliya Farms on the north edge of Doumaa:  The SAA killed these ‘Allooshi freaks of nature:

Jamaal Khalaf

Mustafaa Al-Shahroor

Sameer Ahmad

‘Abduh Beetaar

Ahmad ‘Abdul-‘Azeez

Haarith Razzooq

Zaahir Al-Baashaa

Muzhir Al-Khaffaash

Ghiyaath Karaawiyaa

Another 3 could not be identified.  16 were taken prisoner and are warbling.

Al-Zabadaani: At the Al-‘Aara Neighborhood.  The SAA and PDC killed these:

Basheer Khareeta

Muhammad Shabbaara

‘Abdul-Rahmaan Al-Ashrafaani

Bizayna Village in the Al-Nishaabiyya Farms area:  This was all Nusra/Alqaeda and it took a big loss:

Saalih Abu-Saalih (LIBYAN CAT VOMIT)

Muhallab Al-Shummayri (SAUDI WEASEL EXCREMENT)

Fu`aad Al-Hassan

‘Aadil Al-Tahhaan

Waleed Al-Sayrawaan

Nidhaal Al-Dibs

Haaroon Al-Mudallal

The other 17 killed could not be identified.  All appeared foreign from their looks and literature in their pockets.

Marj Al-Sultaan Village:  A nest belonging to Faylaq Al-Rahmaan was completely destroyed.  No details.

Ayn Turmaa:  A total of 15 hyenas from the hilariously named “Kateebat Al-Difaa’ Al-Jawwi” (Air Defense Brigade) were taken down here including the leader:

“Abu-Al-‘Abbaas”  (Id pending)

Al-Qaarra Town area at the Zamraani, Roomiyyaat and Al-Sahreej Crossings in the Qalamoon on the Lebanese border, several nests were destroyed along with weapons and ammunition and the complete disintegration of 2 pickups with 23mm cannons.  Monzer tells me the vehicles split into a thousand pieces after being struck by multiple rockets.



الجيش يقتل أكثر من 40 إرهابياً في الزبداني والغوطة والقلمون بريف دمشقHasyaa`:  Smugglers working for the Hareeri group of gangsters using the name “Al-Mustaqbal Movement” (Future) were caught when locals reported them to the MoI.  All rats were arrested just after they crossed from Waadi Khaalid in Lebanon trying to make it to Jibaab Hamad to supply ISIS!  I am told they were very informative about their principals.

Waadi Al-Nasaasiba west of Hasyaa`:  A Nusra/Alqaeda mini-caravan with heavy weapons was destroyed completely.  No other details.

Hirsh Qubaybaat Al-’Aassi Village on the Orontes River in the Al-Rastan Area:  An attempted infiltration by rodents was foiled by alert PDC militia personnel.  No details.

East of Jubb Al-Jarraah:  An armored car was destroyed by SAA:

Mu’aadh Baqdoonis

Sameer Ahmad

Raaghib Shammaama

Jibaab Hamad and Ruhoom:  Heavy fighting pitting SAA against ISIS.  The latter is taking unsustainable losses.

Al-Kinn Mountain:  Nusra/Alqaeda, Faylaq Homs, Kateebat Al-Faarooq rats devastated here with a total count of 27 foreigners killed.  Only one Syrian:

Ahmad Mahmoud Al-Rayyaan


Al-Mazbal near Jubb Al-Jarraah: (Not a great name for town).  Rats moving between East Salaam and Sultaaniyya were exterminated.  No other details.

Skirmishing reported here:  Al-Ghantu, Al-Za’faraana, Al-Qunaytiraat, ‘Izzeddeen, Rajm Al-Qasr, Umm Sahreej, ‘Unq Al-Hawaa.


Naziyahu “showed his true colors” during election

NOVANEWSImage result for Netanyahu CARTOON

The results are in: Zio-Nazi Prime Minister and international war criminal Benjamin Naziyahu, a key architect of the false flag attack on 9/11 which initiated the Orwellian, never-ending Jewish concocted “Global War on Terror,” and his fanatical right-wing Likud Party scored a “decisive victory” in the latest I$raHell elections, thus ensuring he will remain Prime Minister of I$raHell.The Jewish Telegraph Agency recently published an article outlining some key conclusions that can be drawn from the election, including the fact that Naziyahu“showed his true colors” during the election. The article argues:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did two things in the final hours of Israel’s election campaign that make it difficult to see how he’d repair Israel’s image overseas – and its frayed relationship with the United States.

One was his open acknowledgment in an interview published Monday that he opposes Palestinian statehood.

“I think anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state and to evacuate territory is giving radical Islam a staging ground against the State of Israel,” Netanyahu told the Israeli website NRG. “This is the reality that has been created here in recent years. Anyone who ignores it has his head in the sand.”

When asked point-blank “If you are a prime minister, there will be no Palestinian state?” Netanyahu responded, “Indeed.”

The second was Netanyahu’s brazen warning on Election Day that Likud supporters ought to rush to the polls because Israeli Arabs were turning out in large numbers.

“Right-wing rule is in danger. The Arab voters are coming in huge numbers to the polls. The left-wing organizations are bringing them in buses,” Netanyahu said in a message posted on social media Tuesday urging followers to vote for Likud.“With your help, and with God’s help, we will establish a patriotic government that will safeguard the State of Israel.”

Both remarks provide ample fodder for critics of Netanyahu – and of Israel: that he (and by extension is Israel) is disingenuous about pursuing a peace deal with the Palestinians, and that he (and by extension Israel) is racist.

Of course, regular readers here recognize that the statements highlighted by theJewish Telegraph Agency are typical comments and sentiments expressed by Netanyahu (and other key Israeli political, military, and religious figures) on a regular basis. It still amazes me that the vast majority of Americans still do not recognize Israel and her leadership for the murderous, duplicitous, hypocritical psychopaths they truly are.

Netanyahu openly states that he is not interested an independent Palestinian state (i.e., the two state solution advocated and supported by various American presidential administrations over the years). Netanyahu and the Israeli political and military establishment are not interested in genuine peace with the Palestinians, and never will be. That should be clear to all Americans at this point.

Also, we see once again the blatant, outrageous hypocrisy coming from the organized Jewish community and the state of Israel. Netanyahu proudly proclaims that right-wing, extreme nationalistic rule in Israel is “in danger,” and that he wishes to “establish a patriotic government that will safeguard the State of Israel,” maintaining Jewish domination and rule over the land, government, and economy.

I’m not necessarily opposed to a Jewish state for the Jewish people, but when the leading advocates of “multiculturalism,” “diversity,” and massive non-White immigration into Western countries (and only Western countries) – all of which are Jewish, Marxist-inspired strategies to displace and destroy White European and European-derived nations – are Jewish radicals who largely support the idea of a Jewish state for the Jewish people (i.e., Israel), I have a had time swallowing the hypocrisy and double standards, especially considering the manner in which the Israelis treat the Palestinians.

Netanyahu did indeed “show his true colors” during the latest Israeli election. I wonder when the American people will finally recognize the true nature of this man and his kinsmen?

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Naziyahu “showed his true colors” during election




الجيش السوري يستهدف مواقع المسلحين بريف دمشقALEPPO:  The Syrian Army has expanded outwards from Handaraat to the outlying farming areas killing scores of vicious hyenas belonging to Nusra/Alqaeda, Ahraar Al-Shaam and other terrorist organizations supported by the criminal regime of Erdoghan and the pre-Neolithic cabal in Wahhabist Saudi Arabia.   This movement into the northern rural countryside further erodes the terrorists’ ability to resupply or reinforce.  A major victory for the SAA.


image:×3301-620×330.jpg Village in the Salamiyya area:  Yesterday, Al-Qaeda/Nusra vermin tried to execute a plan to break into this village in order to exterminate the largely Ismaa’eeli population.  Ismailis are Sevener Shi’is who are viewed by the Nusra cannibals as “Apostates”.  The rodents, who came out of Al-Mubaarakaat Village, planned to use 2 armored trucks loaded with military-grade TNT and C-4 provided by the Saudi monkeys and delivered by the Turkish Erdoghani swine.  Each truck had a suicide driver at the wheel.  The first truck was intended to penetrate the fortified entrance to the village at the northeast.  Once that one exploded killing all the SAA soldiers and PDC volunteers, the second truck would barrel through and strike the bridge in the town making it impossible for SAA reinforcements to arrive.  The plan was then to begin killing everyone.

The soldiers manning the checkpoint were very alert and saw the dust kicked up at night by the speeding trucks.  When the first truck kept charging at a speed estimated at 60 mph, the second truck stopped and waited.  The sergeant in charge at the checkpoint knew instantly what the terrorist plan was.  He called up 4 Kornet operators who focused in on the 2 trucks which were at that point about a third of a mile away.  He ordered them to fire their rockets.  All 4 rockets, 2 for the first and 2 for the second, struck pay-dirt with explosions illuminating the night sky.  The explosions were so violent the trucks actually flew up in the air as the drivers were being quickly dry-roasted in their seats.

When the dust settled, so to speak, a unit of SAA backed by militia scoured the area and arrested 14 bearded rodents who warbled animatedly about how wrong they were to attack and how much they wanted to shave their beards off. Wael tells me the SAA gladly obliged and gave each rodent a shave so close they had to use a ton of alum.

The governor of Hama Province, Dr. Ghassaan Khalaf, visited the area to learn from the residents what they knew.  They praised the Syrian Army for its valor and thanked God they did not fall prey to the morbid fantasies of Islamist Wahhabist apes.

Fighting reported here during the last 3 days:  Al-Turkmaaniyya Village, ‘Adla Village, Al-Khudhayra, Al-Sayyaad, Jina Al-‘Ilbaawi, Abu Hubaylaat, Qulayb Al-Thawr, Kafr Zaytaa, ‘Atshaan, ‘Aabdeen, Jurooh Al-‘Awaayid, Rasm Al-‘Awaayid, ‘Uqayrabaat, West Al-Qastal.  



مقتل إرهابي أسترالي بعد التحاقه بتنظيم AL-HASAKA PROVINCE:  He is Suhan Rahman from Melbourne, Australia.  He is reportedly of Bangla Deshi origin.  He vowed to take the battle to Australia a la Charlie Hebdo.  Fortunately for the people of the Land Down Under, our army put him to death.  His body was left lying on the ground for the vultures.  May he rot in Hell.



Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem, Sr

From the Islamic State (ISIS) family album

“ISIL”, “Isil”, “ISIS”, “Daish” and “Daesh” redirect here. For other uses, see ISIL (disambiguation)Isis (disambiguation) and Daish (surname)
“Islamic State group” redirects here. For other Islamic states, see Islamic state (disambiguation).
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام (Arabic)
ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fīl-ʿIrāq wash-Shām

Participant in: the Syrian CIA WarIraq CIA  War (2003–2011)Iraqi insurgencySecond Libyan CiA WarBoko Haram insurgency, and other conflicts

Primary target of: The Global War on Terrorism and of the Military interventions against ISILin Iraqin Syriain Libya, and in Nigeria.

Black Standard adopted by ISIL
Motto: باقية وتتمدد
Bāqiyah wa-Tatamaddad
“Remaining and Expanding”
Anthem: أمتي قد لاح فجر
Ummatī, qad lāha fajrun
“My Nation, Dawn Has Appeared” 
Military situation as of 15 March 2015, in Iraq and Syrian conflicts.  Controlled by Iraqi Government forces  Controlled by Syrian Government forces  Controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant  Controlled by Iraqi Kurdistan forces  Controlled by Syrian Kurdistan forces  Controlled by Syrian Opposition forces  Controlled by al-Nusra Note: Iraq and Syria contain large desert areas with limited population. These areas are mapped as under the control of forces holding roads and towns within them. Map of the current military situation in IraqMap of the current military situation in SyriaMap of the current military situation in Libya
Military situation as of 15 March 2015, in Iraq and Syrian conflicts.
  Controlled by Iraqi Government forces
  Controlled by Syrian Government forces
  Controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
  Controlled by Iraqi Kurdistan forces
  Controlled by Syrian Kurdistan forces
  Controlled by Syrian Opposition forces
  Controlled by al-Nusra
Note: Iraq and Syria contain large desert areas with limited population. These areas are mapped as under the control of forces holding roads and towns within them.

Map of the current military situation in Iraq

Administrative center Ar-RaqqahSyria
(de facto)
35°57′N 39°1′E
Largest city MosulIraq
Ideologies Salafist jihadism
Type Rebel group controlling territory
Current control in
Former control in
Military strength & operation areas Inside Iraq and Syria
200,000 (Kurdish claim)
20,000–31,000 (CIA estimate)
Outside Iraq and Syria
29,000–46,800 (SeeMilitary of ISIL for more-detailed estimates.)
Estimated total
 – Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
 – Deputy leader in Iraq Abu Muslim al-Turkmani
 – Deputy leader in Syria Abu Ali al-Anbari
 – Head of Military Shura Abu Ayman al-Iraqi
 – Spokesman Abu Mohammad al-Adnani
 – Field commander Abu Omar al-Shishani
 – Formation (as Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād) 1999
 – Joined al-Qaeda October 2004
 – Declaration of an Islamic statein Iraq 13 October 2006
 – Claim of territory in the Levant 8 April 2013
 – Separated from al-Qaeda
3 February 2014
 – Declaration of Caliphate 29 June 2014
 – Claim of territory in Libya, Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan 13 November 2014

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈsəl/Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎), also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (ISIS /ˈsɪs/) or Islamic State, is an Islamic extremist rebel group controlling territory in Iraq and Syria, with operations in LebanonLibya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and other areas of the Middle EastNorth AfricaWest Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. The group is known in Arabic asad-Dawlat al-Islāmiyah fī al-ʿIrāq wa sh-Shām, leading to the Arabic acronym Da’ish or DAESH (داعش, Arabic pronunciation:daːʕiʃ). On 29 June 2014, the group proclaimed itself to be a worldwide caliphate with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi being named its caliph and also renamed itself Islamic State (الدولة الإسلامية, ad-Dawlat al-Islāmiyah). The new name has been widely criticised and condemned, with the UN, various governments, and mainstream Muslim groups refusing to acknowledge it. As caliphate, it claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide and that “the legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organisations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah’s (caliphate’s) authority and arrival of its troops to their areas”. Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam.

The United Nations has held ISIL responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes, and Amnesty International has reported ethnic cleansing by the group on a “historic scale”. The group has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Syria, Egypt, India, and Russia. Over 60 countries are directly or indirectly waging war against ISIL.

The group originated as Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which was renamed Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—when the group pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. As Jama’atand later AQI, the group participated, from August 2003, in the Iraqi insurgency which had followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which in October 2006 proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). ISI gained a significant presence in Al Anbar Governorate,Diyala Governorate and Baghdad Governorate.

Under the leadership of al-Baghdadi, ISI sent delegates into Syria in August 2011 after the Syrian Civil War had begun in March 2011. This group named itself Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahli ash-Shām or al-Nusra Front and established a large presence in Sunni-majority areas of Syria within the governorates of Ar-RaqqahIdlibDeir ez-Zor and Aleppo. In April 2013, al-Baghdadi announced the merger of his ISI with al-Nusra Front, and announced the name of the reunited group was nowIslamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). However, both al-Julani and al-Zawahiri, the leaders of al-Nusra and of al-Qaeda, rejected the merger. After an eight-month power struggle al-Qaeda cut all ties with ISIL in February 2014—citing its failure to consult and “notorious intransigence”. On 29 June 2014, the group renamed itself the Islamic State (IS).

ISIL is known for its well-funded web and social media propaganda, which includes Internet videos of the beheadings of soldiers, civilians, journalists, and aid workers, as well as the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage sites. To finance its activities, the organisation is also stealing ancient artefacts from Syria and Iraq.

The group gained notoriety after it drove the Iraqi government forces out of key western cities in Iraq. In Syria, it conducted ground attacks against both government forces and rebel factions in the Syrian Civil War. It gained those territories after an offensive, initiated in early 2014, which senior US military commanders and members of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs saw as a re-emergence of Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda militants. This territorial loss implied a failure of US foreign policy, and almost caused a collapse of the Iraqi government that prompted renewal of US military action in Iraq.



Posted in Middle East, Iraq1 Comment

Sanctions against Russia To Remain Until Full Implementation of Minsk Agreements

Adelina Marini

European Council chief Donald Tusk is preparing a new proposal for today’s EU summit which envisages the sanctions against Russia to remain in force until the full implementation of the Minsk peace agreements, said a senior EU source. The former prime minister of Poland has been holding consultations with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande to support the proposal in their capacity as participants in the negotiations of the two truces in the Belarus capital. Donald Tusk is of the opinion that if Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande stand behind the idea this would ensure the support of the other member states as well. Not every detail is agreed upon yet but Tusk is convinced an agreement is possible, according to the source.

So far, the member states have failed to agree on extending the sanctions against Russia introduced last year in response to Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula Crimea. Moreover, an extension or expansion of the sanctions is an issue of debates, as Bulgarian Foreign Minister Daniel Mitov explained on Monday (16 March) after the meeting of the EU foreign ministers. His and other ministers’ statements made it clear that there is no agreement on whether the Minsk agreements are being respected or not. Lithuania’s top diplomat Linas Linkevicius said before the Monday meeting that the agreements are not at all respected. According to Mr Mitov, however, the number of violations is on the decline and this is a trend. The Minsk agreements are the only instrument the EU has at the moment to maintain a dialogue with Russia, he said.

If it comes to an escalation of the conflict the EU is ready to act, assured the foreign minister of Bulgaria. Within the Council there are various opinions, some of which see things in more optimistic colours whereas others are more suspicious. Bulgaria is among the moderates who stick to the facts, Daniel Mitov emphasised. At the moment no one wants to discuss the option of extending the existing sanctions or introducing new ones. No other message should be conveyed to Russia than the readiness for political and diplomatic solution to the conflict, Mr Mitov added. He quoted the latest opinion poll by Alfa Research, according to which 76% of the Bulgarians support the Bulgarian government’s moderate foreign policy. Around the conflict in Ukraine some 30% have changed their attitude to Russia in a negative direction, keeping, however, their sympathies for the Russian people, Daniel Mitov said and underlined that the Bulgarians have proved in this situation to be “very smart” making a distinction between their sympathies for the Russian people, “which we all have”, and for certain policy.

In such an atmosphere Donald Tusk will table his proposal to keep the sanctions against Russia in force until the full implementation of the Minsk agreements if it is unequivocally supported by France and Germany. According to the Bulgarian foreign minister, there will be no disagreements regarding what exactly means a full implementation of the truces because there are certain numbers that are being monitored.

Concerning the military exercises Russia is conducting along EU borders, it is possible this to be raised as an issue by one or two leaders, an EU source said. However, this is an EU meeting not a NATO summit, so the issue will not be a leading one, the source added. On this issue, the Bulgarian top diplomat said that NATO had no intentions to interfere neither in the Ukrainian conflict nor anywhere else, but whenever there are conflicts near the NATO borders exercises are taking place to increase the capacity of national armies. At the moment, the terrorist organisation Islamic State is a threat as well, which has already spread into Libya which will be one of the main topics on the agenda of the spring EU summit.

A very large part of the talks will be dedicated on the Eastern Partnership which involves six countries from the post-Soviet space – Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia and Azerbaijan. The discussions will focus on the preparation of the summit in Riga in May with these countries. European Council President Donald Tusk is expected to propose to the 28 leaders the current course to the partnership to be maintained. Now is not the time for more ambitious initiatives but it is not the time to make a step back either, is Tusk’s logic. He will propose, however, a differentiation of the countries in the partnership because three of them have more serious ambitions to deepen their partnership with EU by concluding comprehensive free trade agreements, whereas the others have no such ambitions. In the first group are Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. The lessons from the work on the Eastern Partnership so far is that more work is needed to strengthen the state structures and this should be the motto of the Riga declaration, Tusk believes.

This means to use the same approach which EU, in cooperation with the IMF, has applied in Ukraine – Russia to be isolated with democratic means. It is important to note in this context, however, that the Council adopted last week its negotiating stance with the European Parliament regarding Juncker’s investment plan. According to the position, this plan should spread to cover also the countries form the European Neighbourhood Policy, the enlargement countries and those which EU has free trade agreements with.

Posted in USA, Europe, RussiaComments Off on Sanctions against Russia To Remain Until Full Implementation of Minsk Agreements

Is violent change inevitable in Ethiopia?

Ethiopia non-violent resistance

By Graham Peebles

As the Ethiopian government intensifies its violent suppression of the populace in the lead up to the illusion of national elections in May, there are many within the country and in the diaspora who believe a popular armed uprising is the only way to bring about change in the country.

The people’s frustration and anger towards the government is understandable as is their bewilderment at the neglect and complicity of Ethiopia’s major donors. America, the European Union and Britain collectively give almost half of Ethiopia’s federal budget in various aid packages and are well aware of the regime’s brutal form of governance but shamefully do and say nothing.

Old habits

The ruling regime, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), came to power in 1992 when they overthrew the People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (PDRE). The ideologically-driven group of freedom fighters led by Meles Zenawi ousted the military dictatorship and drew up a new liberal constitution based on democratic principles of freedom and human rights. Once enthroned in Addis Ababa, however, they swiftly followed in their predecessor’s repressive footsteps and all democratic ideals where neatly filed away, to be forgotten about.

The government has imprisoned almost all major opposition leaders, as well as large numbers of troublesome journalists. An array of repressive laws has been passed to suffocate dissent and virtually criminalise freedom of expression and assembly – all contrary to their own constitution and in violation of a plethora of international conventions which they have dutifully signed up to.

With the major opposition party leaders behind bars and the regime maintaining total control of the electoral process, the result of the forthcoming May election is a forgone conclusion. It is a hollow piece of democratic theatre, which the EU has refused to legitimise with a team of observers, a mistake in my view, but understandable given the distorted result of the past two elections which the EU observed but did not validate.

Unite and act

Given the repressive picture in the country and the regime’s total intransigence, the frustration of huge numbers of people inside and outside the country is unsurprising.

But is an armed uprising the way forward? Would it be successful in ousting the ruling regime, or would there be a tightening of repressive legislation: the “rebel group” branded as terrorists, large numbers of deaths and arrests, and perhaps a long-drawn-out civil war igniting conflicts between one ethnic group and another? Is violence and hate ever the way to counter violence and hate? Not according to Martin Luther King, who presided over a largely peaceful civil rights movement in America, against an extremely violent, not to say ignorant, adversary. “Darkness,” he said, “cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

That other giant of non-violence, Mohandas Gandhi’s civil disobedience movement, undermined the British, united the population and was crucial in bringing about independence in India. As the United Nations secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon,  has said, his His legacy is vital “in today’s world where the rights of too many people are still violated”. So is his means of achieving his goal.

As with all repressive regimes, the EPRDF follows a systematic methodology of divide and rule, so the answer to such crude means of control is unity.

We are living in unprecedented times, times of tremendous opportunity and potential change. The days are numbered for regimes like the EPRDF – it is a question of when they collapse, not if.

The people of Ethiopia, and those who make up the diaspora in Europe, America and elsewhere, need to come together, and overcome their apathy and fear, organise themselves and take responsibility for their own destiny, be creative, be heartened and learn from movements in Tunisia, Hong Kong, Egypt, Turkey, Brazil and elsewhere. They need to be inspired by the strategic actions successfully employed in the non-violent struggle led by Gandhi, and find the courage to act peacefully, to unite against what is a brutal group of men who are despised by the people and have no legitimacy to govern Ethiopia, and act with love not hate, to bring lasting change to their country.

Posted in AfricaComments Off on Is violent change inevitable in Ethiopia?

Naziyahu’s victory: Now what President Obama?

Decision time for Obama

By Alan Hart

“Love him [Binyamin Netanyahu] or hate him, this is the face of Israel.”

That’s how Uriel Heilman concluded an article for the JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) on Netanyahu’s election victory, after noting that he had shown his true colours by declaring that there would be no Palestinian state while he is in charge.

What President Obama now has to decide is whether or not he will allow Netanyahu to remain in charge of American policy for Israel-Palestine.

If Netanyahu had not shown his true colours in the final hours before Israelis voted, Obama would have had some wriggle room. I mean that he could have gone on pretending that it was still worth putting effort into trying to get a peace process going with Netanyahu’s Israel. But Netanyahu’s outright rejection of a Palestinian state and his promise to  go on building more and more illegal settlements leave Obama without any wriggle room.

It is clear and ought to be obvious to all that Obama now as only two options.

What President Obama now has to decide is whether or not he will allow Netanyahu to remain in charge of American policy for Israel-Palestine.

One is to wash his hands of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel and walk away from it. If he does this he will no doubt seek to cover up his complicity by default in Zionism’s crimes by saying, as he has said on several occasions during his presidency, that he can’t want peace more than the parties themselves.

Obama’s only other option is to say publicly to Israel that enough is enough and that America will now use its leverage to cause (or try to cause) Israel to end its defiance of international law.

I think Saeb Erekat, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s Executive Committee and the Palestinian Authority’s chief negotiator, spoke the unvarnished truth when he said this:

The Israeli elections show the success of a campaign platform based on settlements, racism, apartheid and the denial of the fundamental human rights of the Palestinian people. Such a result would not have been possible had the international community held Israel to account for its systematic violations of international law.

A first small step by Obama in the direction of publicly telling Israel that enough is enough would be a statement that on what is left of his time in the White House America will not veto UN Security Council resolutions which condemn Israel’s policies and actions and demand a halt to settlement activity and an end to occupation.

And hand-in-hand with that could be a statement that the Obama administration will not obstruct or seek in any way to influence investigation of Israel’s policies and actions by the International Criminal Court.

Mitchell Plitnick, Programme Director of the Foundation for Middle East Peace and one of the still relatively few American and European Jews who promote the truth, wrote this in his first reaction to Netanyahu’s victory:

The only, very thin, hope is that the United States and Europe are finally so fed up with Netanyahu and the Israeli right’s adamant refusal of peace that they are finally willing to exert significant pressure. Although it seems likely that the US and EU will do something, it is far less likely that they will do anywhere near enough for either the Israeli government to feel the pressure or for the Israeli populace to grow concerned enough to take action.

And Antony Lerman, a British Jewish writer I respect for his outspoken support for a one-state solution (with equal rights for all), wrote this:

With Obama on his way out, the EU preoccupied with internal matters, Putin keeping the West  busy with his aggressive pursuit of a Russia-first foreign policy, ISIS taxing both the foreign and domestic security policies of so many diverse states, who will be able to stop Bibi continuing to consolidate and strengthen the de facto single [Zionist apartheid] state?

Whether we should be thankful for it or not, one thing we certainly get from this election result is clarity: the Palestinians will know what to expect, European Jews will know what to expect, the Obama administration will know what to expect, the entire population of Israel will know what to expect. Yet the consequences of the stasis this implies are far more unpredictable. Change was expected. Now there’ll be none, it’s as if a vacuum has suddenly appeared in the centre of the polity. And as the old cliché goes, “nature abhors a vacuum”. Filling it could be a third intifada, as Palestinian anger understandably erupts. It could be another major Israeli military assault, with huge casualties and the inevitable fallout in anti-Jewish hostility for Europe’s Jews. It could be a pre-emptive strike of some kind on Iran. It could be formal annexation of Area C of the West Bank. And it could be a major growth in the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement: more action and a widening of the basis of support for the campaign.

Equal rights for all seems to be further away than ever. But without a viable statist solution of any kind, the equal rights agenda as the basis for achieving real change gains added importance and legitimacy.

Unless Obama can summon up the will and the courage to publicly tell Israel that enough is enough and then back his words with actions, the answer to Lerman’s question is that nobody can stop Netanyahu advancing the doomsday clock.

My guess is that Obama will wash his hands of the conflict and walk away from it. In that event he’ll deserve a place in history as the American president who gave Zionism the green light to take the region and possibly the whole world to hell.

I hope, Mr President, that I am wrong about you and your intentions.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Naziyahu’s victory: Now what President Obama?

Zio-Wahhabi Rat’s congratulate Naziyahu’s election victory

The file photo shows Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shaking hands with a militant in an Israeli field hospital in Syria’s occupied Golan Heights.

The file photo shows Nazi Prime Minister Benjamin Naziyahu shaking hands with Zio-Wahhabi RAT in Zionist field hospital in Syria’s occupied Golan Heights.

Leaders of various Zio_Wahhabi groups operating against the Syrian government have sent congratulatory messages to Nazi Prime Minister Benjamin Naziyahu on his victory in the Zionist elections, urging Zio-Nazi regime to continue its support.

The messages have been passed on through Mendi Safadi, a recently re-elected Knesset (Zio-Nazi parliament) member, who has acted as a mediator between the militant groups and I$raHell.

“We received with great hope and joy the news of your victory,” the message sent by one of Zio-Wahhabi groups read.

In one of the messages, Zio_Wahhabi leader congratulated the Nazi regime , the mediator and Naziyahu on the victory, calling for support from the Nazi regime as well as building “the best of relations on all levels” with I$raHell.

Safadi also told Zionist media that he had received two official letters and numerous other calls from many Zio-Wahhabi groups, including the Western-backed so-called Free Syrian Army.

Results released by the Nazi Central Elections Committee on Thursday showed Naziyahu’s ruling right-wing Jewish Likud party had won in the general elections.

The “almost final” figures released on Thursday indicate that Jewish Likud party won 30 of the 120 parliament seats, while the opposition Zionist Union gained 24. Official results are expected to be published on March 25, after complaints of voting irregularities are investigated.

In October 2014, Zionist political commentator, Ehud Yaari, said the Tel Aviv regime has provided medical treatment for over 1,400 wounded militants from Syria.

Zionist Yaari added that some militant groups operating inside Syria maintain contact with the Nazi military and have had secret meetings with Nazi military figures.

Last month, Muhammad Badie, a Syrian anti-government leader told Nazi media outlets that the Syrian opposition was grateful to Naziyahu for his tour to a field hospital in the occupied Golan Heights on February 18, 2014.

Nazi Channel 2 News aired footage of a secret Nazi field hospital in Golan that has treated over 700 Syrians, including militants.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, SyriaComments Off on Zio-Wahhabi Rat’s congratulate Naziyahu’s election victory

Shoah’s pages