Archive | March 30th, 2017

Nigel Farage celebrates. Mysterious sign warns London tube passengers


Freedom and sovereignty feels good…


Farage is all smiles, as London tube riders are warned of press freedom. Here is the face of a man who has finally accomplished his goal of getting the UK out of the corrupt EU.

Meanwhile on the London tube this mysterious message appeared, WARNING passengers of UK propaganda press, owned by globalist billionaires.


The Duran readers: What is going on here?

Posted in Media, UKComments Off on Nigel Farage celebrates. Mysterious sign warns London tube passengers

3 countries which stand to gain from Kurdish separatism


Speaking in Geneva, Gennady Gatilov, Sergei Lavrov’s deputy at the Russian Foreign Ministry, gave a brief statement to the press, clarifying Russia’s much misunderstood position regarding a Syrian peace settlement.

Gatilov is a gentle, soft spoken man.  At times he is too gentle, as many in Russia tend to be when faced with the onslaught of both western imperial aggression as well as the terrorist aggression of foreign fighters, currently plaguing the territory of their Syrian ally.

Nevertheless, he reiterated an important position, that the future of post-war Syria is up to the Syrian people and the Syrian people alone. Gatilov also confirmed Russia’s commitment to preserving Syria’s territorial integrity

Practically, this means that if Syria rejects Kurdish demands to seize Syrian territory or carve it out as an autonomous region, Russia would not contradict Syria in such an event.

This is an inconvenient fact for many.

Here are the three main countries who would not be comfortable with Syria maintaining both her sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

1. America

Syrian sovereignty is an inconvenient fact for the United States which under Donald Trump has largely given up on funding the jihadists terrorists that Barack Obama had supported in his desire for regime change. Having given up on blood soaked ‘moderate’ throat cutters, America is now fully backing the Kurds who have territorial and regional geo-political ambitions. They too threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria in their desire to either federate or secede from the Syrian Arab Republic. The majority of the Syrian population opposes Kurdish ambitions and traditionally so too has the Syrian government.

2. Turkey

Under President Erdogan, Turkey has been desirous for regime change in Damascus since the beginning of the conflict. Erdogan’s neo-Ottomanism seeks the re-conquest of territories in the Arab world, including much of northern Syria and northern Iraq. This puts him in a two way battle between Syria and what is left of a sovereign Iraq on the one hand and Kurds who themselves seek to declare the Turkish borderlands as their own Kurdish state.

One of the strange ironies of the conflict is that in trying to expand Turkey and recapture erstwhile Ottoman territories, there is a chance that Kurds within Turkey (the largest Kurdish population in the world), may now be more emboldened than ever to succeed from Turkey.

Even if this does not happen, the formation of a Kurdish state on Turkey’s borders would  be unacceptable for any Turkish leader, not just the unhinged Erdogan.

3. Israel 

Under both Hafez al-Assad as well as Bashar al-Assad, Syria has been a constant supporter of the restoration of Palestine on land occupied by Israel. Because of this, Israel has long sought the removal of both father and son in Syria.

Because the ‘Assad must go’ brigade have largely admitted (however quietly) that regime change is no longer a possibility, Israel is now equally desirous of a Kurdish state on Syrian territory. Israel has long supported Kurdish separatism against secular Arab states, particularly Iraq and Syria. A Kurdish state in place of parts of Syrian and/or Iraqi territory would, be a rare regional ally for Israel which remains a regional pariah, in spite of recent reconciliation efforts with Ankara.

If Israel comes out and publicly backs Kurdish separatism, they will lose any good will from Turkey, but they will gain a possible military outpost in the legitimate territory of an Arab state. Many in Tel Aviv salivate at such an opportunity.

Each of these states stand to gain from Syria’s loss, whether her loss manifests itself in the form of Syrian weakness through federation or the destruction of Syrian territorial integrity in the form of a Kurdish state.

Although counter-intuitive, Turkey stands to gain as well. Erdogan cares less for peace than for power and a Kurdish state next to Turkey would give Erdogan the excuse he needs to consolidate power even further and put Turkey on a war footing. Erdogan never asked for permission before illegally invading Syria, so it can be safely assumed that no such permission would be asked in respect of a Kurdish state.

The wildcard in this is Russia. Unlike Syria and Iran who roundly oppose Kurdish separatism. Russia has generally enjoyed good relations with the Kurds. Sharing a traditional regional enemy in the form of Turkey is the basis of this relationship.

It would however be highly foolish if Russia were to back aspirant Kurdish nationalism at the expense of an actual state, one which has been a Soviet and Russian ally for many decades, namely Syria. It would be equally foolish for Russia to back the creation of a state or autonomous province in a Balkanised Syria that would alienate Iran. The fact that Iran and Russia seem to be deepening their relationship is a positive development in respect of Russia not putting its weight behind separatist Kurds.

Finally, one has to consider Russia’s relationship with Turkey. Turkey is in many respects, an enemy of Russian interests but Turkey is not an enemy of Russia itself per se.

Both countries have an important economic relationship and in spite of Erdogan’s illegal occupation of Syria which is roundly against Russian interests, if Russia were to stand against America in opposing a Krudish state, it would not only be an aid to Russia’s real ally in Syria but would help ease tensions with Turkey who for economic reasons and reasons of regional security, Russia needs more than it needs the United States. This will be even more important when the tyrant Erdogan finally goes, which may happen sooner rather than later. His nine lives may fast be running out.

Because Russia has good relations with both the Syrian government and with Kurds in Syria, Moscow has an upper hand in future negotiations that it ought not to misname. If Russia plays its hand right, it can satisfy the just desires of the majority of Syrians, show loyalty to an important Arab ally, reaffirm good future relations with Iran, get Turkey to climb down from its increasingly ludicrous position and humiliate the legacy of Obama’s policies on the world’s stage, something which may even help guide Trump back to his position of peace and reconciliation with Russia. At the same time, Russia can help reconcile Kurds to a healthy but not separatist position within the Syrian Arab Republic.

Russia has everything to gain from standing by Syria. Other less ethical states, by contrast, stand to gain from Syria’s destruction.



Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, Syria, TurkeyComments Off on 3 countries which stand to gain from Kurdish separatism

BREAKING: Turkey claims Euphrates Shield a ‘success’



Turkey’s illegal invasion and occupation of Syria is known by Ankara as Operation Euphrates Shield. It formally commenced on the 24th of August, 2016. According to Turkey, Euphrates Shield was aimed at fighting ISIS as well as Kurdish YPG forces near the Turkish border.

In reality, Turkey has trained, armed and funded members of the jihadist Free Syrian Army in what Syria classifies as a war of aggression. In recent months, the operation became far more about fighting Kurdish forces in Syria than about any of Turkey’s other wider goals such as regime change in Damascus.

Turkey’s operation had no basis in international law.

From seemingly out of the blue, Turkey’s National Security Council today announced that Euphrates Shield has been completed.

This could mean several things.

It could be yet another one of Turkey’s many bluffs on the international stage. Whilst Turkey’s National Security Council claims the operation has ended successfully, there is every possibility that both direct Turkish aggression against Syria as well as aggression from its FSA proxies could continue into the foreseeable future.

But if the statement turns out to actually be backed up by realities on the ground, there are two distinct possibilities behind it.

Although Syria has complained before the UN and other international bodies of the illegal nature of Turkey’s aggressive invasion and occupation of Syrian territory, such expressions of frustration with Turkey have largely fallen on deaf ears.

However, if Russia or America made their private views known to Turkish President Erdogan, this could have impacted Turkish decision making.

For slightly different reasons, both Trump’s United States and Putin’s Russia have desired an end to Turkish meddling in Syria. Russia is privately and to some extent publicly, angry at Turkey’s totally destabilising role in Syria. Russia speaks from the perspective of both an integral ally of the Syrian Arab Army’s campaign against terrorism, but also as a power which has looked favourably to Krudish efforts to fight various jihadist groups including both the Turkish backed FSA and the Saudi/Qatari backed ISIS.

America, even under Trump, has no real time for the legitimate government in Syria but is instead, hellbent on utilising Kurds to both fight the war against militant Salifism. Additionally Washington wants Kurds to form the nexus of a post-war settlement. Because of this, America would not want a putative ally (and fellow NATO member) in Turkey to be fighting against their favourite proxies in the Syrian conflict.

In terms of destabilising Syria, emboldening pro-Turkish terrorists and prolonging conflict, Euphrates Shield has indeed been a success. But in terms of making gains against Kurds, making meaningful gains against the Syrian Arab Army, getting America and Russia to change their thinking and most importantly to help oust President al-Assad, Euphrates Shield has been a colossal failure for Turkey.

In this sense, there is a distinct possibility that Erdogan has proclaimed ‘mission accomplished’ for domestic consumption ahead of his referendum for extra Presidential powers set for the 16th of April. Erdogan is no stranger to using external events in order to bolster his domestic popularity.

The biggest question remains, will Turkey actually now leave Syrian territory, taking their FSA fighters with them? Or inversely, is this yet another meaningless statement from a Turkish regime known for half-truths and downright lies?

Time will tell.

Posted in Syria, TurkeyComments Off on BREAKING: Turkey claims Euphrates Shield a ‘success’

Fliers accusing Jews of creating anti-Semitic hoaxes


Image result for cartoon of a Jewish man with hooked nose

Fliers accusing Jews of creating anti-Semitic hoaxes dropped in Arizona

Fliers accusing Jews of creating anti-Semitic hoaxes were left in neighborhoods of Scottsdale, Arizona.

The fliers reference the fact that a teen in ‘Israel’, believed to be Jewish, was arrested in connection with the threats made to nearly 150 Jewish community centers and Jewish institutions in the U.S. “Why do Jews feel the need to create fake anti-Semitism hoaxes?”  the flier reads, and directs people to the website of the neo-Nazi and white supremacist Daily Stormer website.

The flier also features a cartoon of a man with a very large and slightly hooked nose wearing a hat and trench coat spray painting a swastika on the side of a building with the caption “Hey Rabbi. Watcha’ Doing?”

The fliers were dropped throughout this week near the Valley of the Sun Jewish Community Center in Scottsdale, according to the Arizona Republic.

Scottsdale police are investigating the fliers, though they told local media that the fliers do not violate any criminal statutes and do not contain a specific threat.


Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Fliers accusing Jews of creating anti-Semitic hoaxes

41st Land Day

On 30 March 1976, Israeli police killed six Palestinian citizens of Israel during protests against the government’s expropriation of massive tracts of Arab-owned land. This tragic event is commemorated annually as Land Day.

Forty-one years later, the land and housing rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel remain under threat.

As official data about land tenders in 2016 reaffirms, the land and housing crisis in Arab communities is not the result of specific failures or unintentional neglect, but the product of a systematic and deliberate policy of inequality and racism since 1948.

Ahmad Abu Al-Qi’an, for example, was forced by Israel to destroy his own home in the unrecognized Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran, and to move his family to the impoverished township of Hura. The state is seeking to demolish Umm al-Hiran in order to build a new Jewish town called Hiran on its ruins. Watch this short video to learn Ahmad’s story.

Ahmad is one of tens of thousands of Bedouin citizens from unrecognized villages in the Naqab (Negev) who will be dispossessed and displaced under a new version of the “Prawer Plan”, which the government is expected to push forward in the coming months.

The government has also proposed the Kaminitz Bill, which would increase the power of Israeli authorities to demolish thousands of Arab homes across the country while restricting judicial review. The bill would also impose severe penalties on Palestinian citizens who build without permits (which are nearly impossible to obtain), and who refuse to demolish their own homes.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on 41st Land Day

Syrian Battleground: Why Russo-Israeli Relations are ‘Essential’ for Tel-Aviv


Amid growing tensions over Israeli airstrikes in Syria, Seth J. Frantzman, a Jerusalem-based commentator on Middle Eastern affairs, emphasized the importance of Russo-Israeli cooperation and warned against Tel-Aviv getting itself mired in the Syrian conflict in his article for The Jerusalem Post.

Russo-Israeli relations are at their warmest point in history, Seth J. Frantzman, an Israeli commentator on Middle East politics, stressed in his recent article for The Jerusalem Post.

The commentator emphasized that both countries understand each other’s boundaries and are cooperating on other fronts, regardless of the tensions in the region over Israeli airstrikes inside Syria on March 16.

About two weeks ago, the Israeli Air Force conducted several airstrikes inside Syria, prompting fierce criticism from Damascus.

“Syria calls on the UN Secretary General and the President of the UN Security Council to condemn this Israeli blatant aggression and oblige Israel to stop supporting terrorism in Syria and to implement all Security COuncil resolutions on counter-terrorism,” the Syrian Foreign Ministry stated, commenting on the matter.

For its part, Tel-Aviv said that the airstrikes were aimed against a convoy which carried weapons to Hezbollah, which has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel.”Our policy is very consistent. When we identify attempts to pass modern weaponry to Hezbollah, when we have intelligence data and operational capabilities, we act to prevent this,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated last Friday.

It was also reported that Moscow summoned Israeli Ambassador to Russia Gary Koren to inquire about airstrikes on Syrian troops.

However, speaking to Sputnik last Monday, Ambassador Koren expressed hope that Russia will help ease tensions in the region.

“We hope that Russia and Syria’s allies will use their influence to bring Damascus to reason,” Koren said, commenting on the recent jet accident.

Koren’s comment came after Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman threatened to destroy Syria’s air defense systems if they target the Israeli jets. Earlier, the Syrian Arab Army said in a statement that it had downed one of the Israeli jets that violated its airspace. However, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) denied these claims, when speaking to Sputnik.In his interview with Radio Sputnik, Professor Eyal Zisser, an expert on Syria from Tel Aviv University, explained that Moscow and Tel-Aviv made an agreement that military equipment transferred from Iran to Hezbollah to fight against Daesh (ISIS/ISIL) would not be used to attack Israel.

Zisser admitted that the escalation of tensions between Syria and Israel may threaten Russia’s military positions in the region.

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Russian President Vladimir Putin only a week ago and they discussed those issues. Of course I think now there is an open channel aimed to avoid incidents like these,” Zisser told Radio Sputnik on March 20.

On March 22, however, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told journalists that Moscow will judge the implementation of the Russian-Israeli cooperation agreement on Syria “by Israel’s actions.”

“During his second to latest visit to Moscow, Israel’s Prime Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] and [Russian] President Putin achieved a clear agreement about the way Russian and Israeli militaries could cooperate in relation to the situation in Syria,” Lavrov said, commenting on the Israeli airstrikes. He added that Russia “will judge how accurately this arrangement is carried out by our Israeli partners; not on the basis of what they say but how they act.”

Amid the growing tensions over the Israeli airstrikes in Syria, Jerusalem-based commentator Frantzman signals that for Israel “the Russian connection is essential in the current Middle East.””Russia is the dominant player in Syria,” Frantzman underscored, adding that for Israel it is important to maintain close relations with Moscow to ensure the country’s security.

“Both Hezbollah and some among the Syrian rebels might like to see Israel dragged into the Syrian conflict,” the commentator warned, “In general, in the Middle East Russia is seen as an increasingly powerful player, as opposed to the erratic policies coming from Washington.”

The commentator reiterated the importance of Russo-Israeli relations, stressing that their cooperation will help determine major issues in the region and also “likely cement Israel’s attempts to build a foreign policy on stronger relations with countries outside the US-EU orbit.”

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syrian Battleground: Why Russo-Israeli Relations are ‘Essential’ for Tel-Aviv

Brexit Served: UK, EU to Face Off Over Exit Details, €60 Bln Debt


British Prime Minister Theresa May invoked Article 50 of the EU treaty on Wednesday, formally launching the Brexit process. The Brexit letter was later delivered by the UK’s Permanent Representative to the EU Tim Barrow to European Council President Donald Tusk.

Nine months after the June 2016 referendum on Britain’s exit from the European Union, London is bracing for tense talks with Brussels on the exit deal that could cost it hundreds of billions of euros.

It is estimated that Brexit would cost the United Kingdom around 60 billion euros ($65 billion) that London would have to pay to the European Union under the existing agreements.

Hard Brexit

Prime Minister Theresa May has opted for a tougher exit from Europe. London is opposed to the free movement of labor, refuses to pay anything to the EU and wants to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

As a result, it risks being frozen out of the common European market of an estimated 500 million consumers.Several non-EU countries like Norway still enjoy access to the European market in exchange for allowing in labor migrants from the EU.

In a worst-case scenario, Britain could end up having even less ties with the EU than Switzerland, which has never planned to join the European Union.
Pessimists warn about the possibility of a recession setting in after 2019 even though economically the United Kingdom is doing just fine.

French leave

Meanwhile, UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has said it would be “perfectly OK” for Britain to fail to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU and crash out of the bloc on the hardest World Trade Organization terms.

“We have a very strong, very robust economy and we have a chance now to do free trade deals… with countries we have not been able to engage with properly for 44 years,” he added.

“Brexit without a deal” would result in mutual taxation and falling expert revenues for both Britain and its trading partners in the EU. France alone stands to lose 4 billion euros and Germany could lose even more.

Less radically-minded supporters of Brexit still hope that Britain could retain some of its trade benefits with the EU.

Meanwhile, many in the EU leadership, including European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and to a lesser extent, French President Francois Hollande, are holding out for “hard” Brexit.

France could “punish” Britain by nixing a 2003 agreement with the UK under which checks for migrants trying to illegally cross into Britain are carried out by British border guards at French ports.Where to now?

Now that Britain has formally announced its decision to leave the EU on March 29, the ball is in Brussels’ court. European Council President Donald Tusk has said  that he would formally respond to the notification on Friday.

During their emergency summit scheduled for April 29, the EU leaders will try to agree upon a concerted action plan before they sit down with the UK delegation to work out a final deal, which needs the approval of all the 27 remaining EU members.

According to the trade credit insurance company Euler Hermes, the discussion of the details of Britain’s exit could drag out until 2021, which is way beyond the two-year limit set by the Treaty of Lisbon, which serves as the EU’s unofficial constitution.

Never miss a story again — sign up to our Telegram channel and we’ll keep you up to speed!

Posted in UKComments Off on Brexit Served: UK, EU to Face Off Over Exit Details, €60 Bln Debt

Daesh, Creature of the West

Pepe Escobar

James Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Emerging Threats at NATO – now that’s a lovely title – recently gave a talk at a private club in London on the Islamic State/Daesh. Shea, as many will remember, made his name as NATO’s spokesman during the NATO war on Yugoslavia in 1999.

After his talk Shea engaged in a debate with a source I very much treasure. The source later gave me the lowdown.

According to Saudi intelligence, Daesh was invented by the US government – in Camp Bacca, near the Kuwait border, as many will remember — to essentially finish off the Shiite-majority Nouri al-Maliki government in Baghdad.

It didn’t happen this way, of course. Then, years later, in the summer of 2014, Daesh routed the Iraqi Army on its way to conquer Mosul. The Iraqi Army fled. Daesh operatives then annexed ultra-modern weapons that took US instructors from six to twelve months to train the Iraqis in and…surprise! Daesh incorporated the weapons in their arsenals in 24 hours.In the end, Shea frankly admitted to the source that Gen David Petraeus, conductor of the much-lauded 2007 surge, had trained these Sunnis now part of Daesh in Anbar province in Iraq.

Saudi intelligence still maintains that these Iraqi Sunnis were not US-trained – as Shea confirmed – because the Shiites in power in Baghdad didn’t allow it. Not true. The fact is the Daesh core – most of them former commanders and soldiers in Saddam Hussein’s army — is indeed a US-trained militia.

True to form, at the end of the debate, Shea went on to blame Russia for absolutely everything that’s happening today – including Daesh terror.

Mr. Sykes and Monsieur Picot, you’re dead

Now let’s go back to the proclamation of the Daesh Caliphate in June 29, 2014. That was choreographed as a symbolic abolition of the Sykes-Picot border that split the Middle East a century ago. At the same time, abandoning the option of a military push to take Baghdad, Daesh chose to regionalize and internationalize the fight, creating their own transnational state and denouncing regional states as “impostors”. All that coupled with the amp up of any chaos strategy capable of horrifying Western public opinion.For large swathes of a Sunni Arab audience, this was powerful stuff. Daesh was proclaiming themselves, in a warped manner, as the sole real heir of the different Arab Springs; the only totally autonomous regional movement, depending exclusively on its own local base, made up of numerous Bedouin tribes.

But how did we get here?

Let’s go back once again – now to Iraq in the 1990s, during the Clinton era. The strategic logic at the time spelled out an instrumentalization of UN resolutions — with Washington de facto controlling Iraq’s oil, manipulating the price as a means of pressure over trade competitors much more dependent on Iraqi oil such as China, Japan and selected European nations.9/11 turned this state of affairs upside down – leading to the 2003 neocon ideological stupidity and subsequent amateurism managing an occupation in total ignorance of history and the ultra-complex dynamics between the Iraqi state and society. Saddam Hussein was the de facto last avatar of a political arrangement invented by imperial Britain in 1920. With the invasion and occupation, the Iraq state collapsed. And the Cheney regime had no clue what to do with it.

There was no Sunni alternative. So Plan B, under major pressure by Shiites and Kurds, was to give voice to the majority. The problem is political parties ended up being religious and ethnic parties. The partition of power, Lebanese-style — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds – turned out to be a dysfunctional nightmare.

Between 2005 and 2008, this American attempt to rebuild the Iraqi state yielded a horrendous confessional civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. The Sunnis lost. And that largely explains the subsequent success of Daesh in creating a “Sunniland”.

The US occupation-Arab Spring love affair

Now let’s turn to the Syrian version of the Arab Spring in February/March 2011. Initial protests against Assad’s iron rule were peaceful – multi-communitarian and multi-confessional. But soon anti-Alawite rancor started to radicalize a significant part of the Sunni majority.

As historian Pierre-Jean Luizard, a specialist in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon at the French CNRS reminds us, Syria was the favorite land of Hanbalism – a most conservative branch of Sunni Islam that highly influenced the emergence of Wahhabism in the Arabian Peninsula. That implies a virulent anti-Shiism. Thus the emergence among the Syrian armed opposition of multiple Salafi-jihadi groups, most of all Jabhat al-Nusra – a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria.

Meanwhile, Assad fine-tuned a message to the West and his own Sunni bourgeoisie oscilating between allegiance and dissidence; it’s me, or chaos. Chaos ensued, anyway; horrendous structural violence, all-around institutional decrepitude, total territorial fragmentation.

So it’s fair to argue that both US occupation and the Syrian Arab Spring ended up producing the same result. With some differences; in Iraq, Daesh enjoys the (silent) support of a majority of Sunni Arabs. In Syria, Sunnis are divided; Daesh may rule the desert — Bedouin culture, but it’s Jabhat al-Nusra that captured significant Sunni support in big urban centers such as Aleppo. In Iraq, the borders between the three large communities – Sunni, Shiite, Kurd – are more or less frozen. In Syria, it’s a never-ending jigsaw puzzle.

What happens next is a mystery. The de facto independence of Iraq Kurdistan may solidify. The Baghdad government may increasingly represent only Shiites. Yet it’s hard to see Daesh consolidating its control of Sunni Iraq – not with the ongoing Battle of Mosul.

Blowback rules the wilderness of mirrors

It’s easy to dismiss Daesh as the apex of barbarian cultural idiosyncrasies. Even wallowing in gruesomeness, Daesh has been able to project a universalist dimension beyond its Sunni Arab Middle Eastern base. It’s like the clash of civilizations playing in a wilderness of mirrors. Daesh amplifies the clash not between East and West, or the Arab world and the Atlanticist hegemon, but mostly between a certain (warped) conception of Islam and assorted infidels. Daesh “welcomes” everyone, even Catholic Europeans while persecuting Arab infidels and bad Muslims.

It’s no wonder the Caliphate — a concrete utopia on the ground – finds an echo among young lone wolves living in the West. Because Daesh insists on the colonial Franco-British – and then neocolonial American — history of Muslims being trampled upon by a dominating, infidel West, they manage to channel a diffuse sentiment of injustice among the young.

Everyone – US, France, Britain, Russia, Iran — is now at war with Daesh (Turkey only half-heartedly, as well as the House of Saud and the GCC petrodollar gang; for them this not a priority.)But this is a war without a serious political long-term perspective. No one is discussing the place for Sunni Arabs in an Iraq dominated by the Shiite majority; how to put the Syrian state back together; or whether private donors to Daesh from Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates will simply disappear.

The encirclement of Raqqa and the re-conquest of Mosul will mean absolutely nothing if the causes of Daesh’s initial success are not addressed. It starts with the West’s mission civilisatrice as the cover story for unbounded colonial domination, and it straddles the methodical, inexorable, slow motion American destruction of Iraq. Blowback will continue to reign over the wilderness of mirrors; an attack near the British Parliament by a knife-carrying lone wolf “soldier answering “its call” killing four people mirrored by US jets bombing a school near Raqqa killing thirty-three civilians.

Petraeus may have trained them in the deserts of Al-Anbar. But most of all that rough beast, slouching towards Camp Bacca to be born, bore the touch of a Western mind.

Posted in Middle East, USA, EuropeComments Off on Daesh, Creature of the West

BREXIT: Full text of Britain’s farewell letter


Yesterday British Prime Minister Theresa May signed a letter addressed to the EU, informing the EU that Britain is invoking its right under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to quit the EU, thereby formally commencing Britain’s Brexit process

Article 50 letter

Today that letter was hand delivered by the British government to Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, and to the rest of the EU leadership in Brussels

article 50 tusk

Here is the full text of the letter:

On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. As I have said before, that decision was no rejection of the values we share as fellow Europeans. Nor was it an attempt to do harm to the European Union or any of the remaining member states. On the contrary, the United Kingdom wants the European Union to succeed and prosper. Instead, the referendum was a vote to restore, as we see it, our national self-determination. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe – and we want to remain committed partners and allies to our friends across the continent.

Earlier this month, the United Kingdom Parliament confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. The Bill was passed by Parliament on 13 March and it received Royal Assent from Her Majesty The Queen and became an Act of Parliament on 16 March.

Today, therefore, I am writing to give effect to the democratic decision of the people of the United Kingdom. I hereby notify the European Council in accordance with Article 50 (2) of the Treaty on European Union of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union. In addition, in accordance with the same Article 50(2) as applied by Article 106a of the Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, I hereby notify the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Atomic Energy Community. References in this letter to the European Union should therefore be taken to include a reference to the European Atomic Energy Community.

This letter sets out the approach of Her Majesty’s Government to the discussions we will have about the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union and about the deep and special partnership we hope to enjoy – as your closest friend and neighbour – with the European Union once we leave. We believe that these objectives are in the interests not only of the United Kingdom but of the European Union and the wider world too.

It is in the best interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that we should use the forthcoming process to deliver these objectives in a fair and orderly manner, and with as little disruption as possible on each side. We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats. We want the United Kingdom, through a new deep and special partnership with a strong European Union, to play its full part in achieving these goals. We therefore believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the European Union.

The Government wants to approach our discussions with ambition, giving citizens and businesses in the United Kingdom and the European Union – and indeed from third countries around the world – as much certainty as possible, as early as possible.

I would like to propose some principles that may help to shape our coming discussions, but before I do so, I should update you on the process we will be undertaking at home, in the United Kingdom.

The process in the United Kingdom

As I have announced already, the Government will bring forward legislation that will repeal the Act of Parliament – the European Communities Act 1972 – that gives effect to EU law in our country. This legislation will, wherever practical and appropriate, in effect convert the body of existing European Union law (the “acquis”) into UK law. This means there will be certainty for UK citizens and for anybody from the European Union who does business in the United Kingdom. The Government will consult on how we design and implement this legislation, and we will publish a White Paper tomorrow. We also intend to bring forward several other pieces of legislation that address specific issues relating to our departure from the European Union, also with a view to ensuring continuity and certainty, in particular for businesses. We will of course continue to fulfil our responsibilities as a member state while we remain a member of the European Union, and the legislation we propose will not come into effect until we leave.

From the start and throughout the discussions, we will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking due account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK as we do so. When it comes to the return of powers back to the United Kingdom, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration.

Negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union

The United Kingdom wants to agree with the European Union a deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security cooperation. To achieve this, we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.

If, however, we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened. In this kind of scenario, both the United Kingdom and the European Union would of course cope with the change, but it is not the outcome that either side should seek. We must therefore work hard to avoid that outcome.

It is for these reasons that we want to be able to agree a deep and special partnership, taking in both economic and security cooperation, but it is also because we want to play our part in making sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats. And we want the United Kingdom to play its full part in realising that vision for our continent.

Proposed principles for our discussions

Looking ahead to the discussions which we will soon begin, I would like to suggest some principles that we might agree to help make sure that the process is as smooth and successful as possible.

We should engage with one another constructively and respectfully, in a spirit of sincere cooperation. Since I became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I have listened carefully to you, to my fellow EU Heads of Government and the Presidents of the European Commission and Parliament. That is why the United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market: we understand and respect your position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no “cherry picking”. We also understand that there will be consequences for the UK of leaving the EU: we know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect the European economy. We also know that UK companies will, as they trade within the EU, have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we are no longer a part – just as UK companies do in other overseas markets.

We should always put our citizens first. There is obvious complexity in the discussions we are about to undertake, but we should remember that at the heart of our talks are the interests of all our citizens. There are, for example, many citizens of the remaining member states living in the United Kingdom, and UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union, and we should aim to strike an early agreement about their rights.

We should work towards securing a comprehensive agreement. We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. We will need to discuss how we determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of the United Kingdom’s continuing partnership with the EU. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.

We should work together to minimise disruption and give as much certainty as possible. Investors, businesses and citizens in both the UK and across the remaining 27 member states – and those from third countries around the world – want to be able to plan. In order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses in both the UK and the EU would benefit from implementation periods to adjust in a smooth and orderly way to new arrangements. It would help both sides to minimise unnecessary disruption if we agree this principle early in the process.

In particular, we must pay attention to the UK’s unique relationship with the Republic of Ireland and the importance of the peace process in Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is the only EU member state with a land border with the United Kingdom. We want to avoid a return to a hard border between our two countries, to be able to maintain the Common Travel Area between us, and to make sure that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU does not harm the Republic of Ireland. We also have an important responsibility to make sure that nothing is done to jeopardise the peace process in Northern Ireland, and to continue to uphold the Belfast Agreement.

We should begin technical talks on detailed policy areas as soon as possible, but we should prioritise the biggest challenges. Agreeing a high-level approach to the issues arising from our withdrawal will of course be an early priority. But we also propose a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. This should be of greater scope and ambition than any such agreement before it so that it covers sectors crucial to our linked economies such as financial services and network industries. This will require detailed technical talks, but as the UK is an existing EU member state, both sides have regulatory frameworks and standards that already match. We should therefore prioritise how we manage the evolution of our regulatory frameworks to maintain a fair and open trading environment, and how we resolve disputes. On the scope of the partnership between us – on both economic and security matters – my officials will put forward detailed proposals for deep, broad and dynamic cooperation.

We should continue to work together to advance and protect our shared European values. Perhaps now more than ever, the world needs the liberal, democratic values of Europe. We want to play our part to ensure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats.

The task before us

The task before us is momentous but it should not be beyond us. After all, the institutions and the leaders of the European Union have succeeded in bringing together a continent blighted by war into a union of peaceful nations, and supported the transition of dictatorships to democracy. Together, I know we are capable of reaching an agreement about the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, while establishing a deep and special partnership that contributes towards the prosperity, security and global power of our continent.

Posted in Europe, UKComments Off on BREXIT: Full text of Britain’s farewell letter

US hackers target Czech Republic President with child pornography files

A hack traced to the state of Alabama caused files containing child pornography to be stored on the computer of Czech Republic president.

Czech news Právo is reporting that a computer belonging to the president of the Czech Republic, Milos Zeman, was hacked Monday, resulting in the installation of content containing child pornography.

On the US hacker attack, the Czech president stated…

“I turned on my computer and looked in disbelief for about 10 seconds at what was happening, before I realized that it was a hacker attack.”

We are certain that the Czech Republic or the EU, will find a way to blame the US hacker attack on Russian hackers.

Via Sputnik News Agency

Members of the president’s IT team were able to track the source of the hack to somewhere within the state of Alabama, in the United States, according to Nigerian news website No further details were offered.

Known as a populist-leftist and an avowed climate-change denier, Zeman, 72, supports an end to the current sanction regime by the West against Russia and is a strong critic of Islamic extremism. He recently announced his intention to run for a second five-year term in the upcoming 2018 presidential elections.

Posted in USA, EuropeComments Off on US hackers target Czech Republic President with child pornography files

Shoah’s pages