Archive | September 10th, 2017

Nazi regime remove Palestinian village’s sole water pipe


A Palestinian girl fills jerrycans with spring water in Salfit, West Bank on 27 June 2016 [Nedal Eshtayah/Apaimages].

Palestinians living near the village of Duma in the occupied West Bank district of Nablus have been told that the sole water pipeline servicing the area will be removed by Nazi occupation forces as it was deemed “illegal”.

Palestinian news agency Wafa reported that Ghassan Daghlas, a Palestinian official who monitors Nazi Jewish settlement activity in the northern occupied West Bank, said that Nazi forces had informed the residents of their intention to remove and destroy the pipeline.

Daghlas said that the pipeline is the sole water source for the area. According to Wafa, 14 Palestinian families live in the area and depend on the pipeline.


Read: Nazi reducing water supply to Palestinians in Jordan Valley

A spokesperson for COGAT, the agency responsible for implementing Nazi policies in the occupied Palestinian territory, told Ma’an that the pipe was installed in the area as “part of an attempt to build an illegal residential complex at an archaeological site where construction is prohibited.”

However, rights groups have long reported that Nazi control of water resources in the occupied West Bank has led to water shortages in Palestinian communities which force Palestinians to buy water directly from the Nazi regime. Palestinians are prevented from digging their own wells or other projects to enhance water access.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on Nazi regime remove Palestinian village’s sole water pipe

Nazi army evicts Palestinian family, hands East Jerusalem home to Jewish Nazi settlers


Image may contain: one or more people and closeup

Pictured: Fahima Shamasna, 75, sheds tears as Nazi occupation militias kick her and her family out of their home in occupied Jerusalem
The Shamasna family, including an 84-year-old man, were in the midst of a legal battle to stop the eviction

A Palestinian family was evicted from their home in occupied East Jerusalem this morning after an Nazi court rejected the family’s claim that the land they were living on was different to the land claimed by Nazi Jewish settlers as having belonged to Jews before the division of Jerusalem into Nazi and Jordanian-controlled parts.

But the eviction was not expected to be carried out until after the Muslim festival of Eid Al-Adha, which ended yesterday.

84-year-old Ayoub Shamasna was evicted from his home in occupied East Jerusalem on 5 September 2017. Because of his disability he was carried out of the property on his chair.

84-year-old Ayoub Shamasna was evicted from his home in occupied East Jerusalem on 5 September 2017. Because of his disability he was carried out of the property on his chair.

The family had been planning to pursue other legal means to prevent the eviction and activist Eyal Raz, who is working with them, said they had obtained an order that prevented them from being evicted for seven days while they took the issue to the court.

“What kind of country is this?” shouted 84-year-old Ayoub Shamasna, who is unable to walk and was carried out of the home on a chair.

Nazi police escorted a group of settlers into the house as they removed the Shamasna family, some of whom tried to re-enter the building.

Read: Settlers threaten to sexually assault Palestinian woman

“I know that the attorney is now in the district court but to be honest, it doesn’t matter. Once they took the house and they put three settlers inside, they would not take them out. I cannot believe it,” said Raz.

They evicted a family that has been here since ’64. Grandparents, parents, children. And they want to do the same with the rest of the neighbourhood.

The Shamasna family had been living in the house since 1964 but lost their fight to remain there in 2013 when the Israeli High Court rejected their appeals.

According to anti-settlement non-governmental organisation Peace Now, Israel announced four new settlements in the Sheikh Jarrah area of East Jerusalem in July.

All Nazi Jewish settlements in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank are considered illegal under international law.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on Nazi army evicts Palestinian family, hands East Jerusalem home to Jewish Nazi settlers

Jake Wallis Simons v Craig Murray

By Craig Murray 

I have been given legal advice that I am permitted to publish the formal claim and defence documents. These are much less informative than the witness statements, which I am not allowed to publish, but at least it gives you some idea what is going on.

Over 3,000 people have now contributed to my defence fund. I can not tell you how touched I am by this overwhelming support. I should add that the letters and communications from those sending good wishes but financially unable to assist are equally valuable in maintaining my morale.

This is the original Claim (view here).

This interview with Mark Lewis, the lawyer suing me, is headlined “UK’s Foremost Libel Lawyer Sets His Sights on Israel’s Enemies.” It characterises opponents of Israel as “Nazis” and opines “I am quite happy to take their homes off them… at least they can be a homeless Nazi.” I sincerely hope he does not consider me a Nazi, though plainly this case is started by my falsely being smeared as an anti-Semite. But no matter how objectionable somebody may find my views on Israel/Palestine, how does it serve justice that “at least my” wife and 8 year old son “can be homeless.” That is however precisely what Mr Lewis seeks to achieve and to be plain, he has threatened me in person with bankruptcy. The money, of course, would go to Mr Lewis and his team still more than to Mr Wallis Simons.

English libel law is recognised throughout the world as a draconian affront to democracy. Its survival is due not only to the fact that it is an invaluable tool for the wealthy to use against poor radicals, but also to the fact that libel is a very wealthy industry, feeding money to rich and influential individuals, including of course not only the libel lawyers but also the judges and court system which are all part of this massive vested interest, which is extremely well represented in the Westminster parliament.

All of which I am afraid leads me to renew my appeal for funds for my defence, which despite the extremely generous response so far, do not yet match the scale of the threat. I should say that I was extremely depressed and humiliated a few days ago in having to ask for money in this way, but the response has been so overwhelming and so kind, and accompanied by so many warm words for my work over the years, that the feelings of deep shame have been completely displaced by gratitude, friendship and affection.

Contributions toward defense at bottom of page here.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Media, UKComments Off on Jake Wallis Simons v Craig Murray

The AbuZayd-Pinheiro Committee: Systematic Misinformation on Syria


AbuZayd Pinheiro b6c44

(Karen Koning Abuzayd on the left and Sergio Paulo Pinheiro on the right. Image credit: UN Geneva/ flickr)
By Tim Anderson | American Herald Tribune 

In mid 2012, as foreign jihadists poured into Syria, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon authorised replacement of the Special Mission on Syria (UNSMIS) with a Geneva-based ‘Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria’ (IICOIOS), co-chaired by US diplomat Karen Koning AbuZayd and Brazilian Paolo Pinheiro.

Unlike UNSMIS, led by Norwegian General Robert Mood and based in Syria, the IICOIOS was based in Geneva, never visited Syria and was deeply compromised by its link to US diplomacy and its reliance on jihadist sources. The US Government, by then, was arming anti-government jihadist groups in Syria. Ban had thus embedded a deep conflict of interest in a nominally ‘independent’ UN agency.

The Abuzayd-Pinheiro group, joined by Italian lawyer Carla del Ponte, issued a series of distant reports which echoed western war propaganda against Syria. Notable amongst these were reports on the 2012 Houla massacre, a report on the 2016 liberation of Aleppo, and a recent report which seeks to blame a series of chemical weapons attacks in 2017 on the Syrian Government. Carla del Ponte, in a better moment, revealed in mid 2013 that the first use of sarin gas in Syria was by Jabhat al Nusra. But none of this appeared in the group’s reports.

In a pretence at even handedness, the group has made criticism of the terrorist groups and the US-led bombardment of Syrian cities. However when it comes to accusations against the Syrian Government it pays literally no attention to genuinely independent evidence, such as that from Syrian civilians who have blamed jihadists for ‘false flag’ massacres, and reports from the US military forensic expert Professor Ted Postol.

The result is what we might expect of a US-embedded organ: a partisan adjunct to official war propaganda, vilifying the Syrian Government and the soldiers of the Syrian Arab Army, as they struggle to defend their country. The UN group’s systematically distorted misinformation, during a war, most likely constitutes a war crime, as propaganda for war is prohibited. Let’s look at three key reports.

The Abuzayd-Pinheiro’s first report, on the May 2012 Houla massacre, set a standard for low grade but well timed war propaganda. As I document in chapter eight of my book The Dirty War on Syria (Anderson 2016), 15 independent witnesses gave great detail about the massacre of over 100 villagers in rural Homs by members of the Farouq Brigade (FSA) and several named local collaborators. The jihadists, expelled from Homs city by the Syrian Army, took revenge on families in Houla who had participated in recent elections, violating the jihadists’ call for a boycott.

UNSMIS head General Robert Mood had recognised conflicting reports coming from Houla, which was then under Farouq-FSA control. However UNSMIS was rapidly disbanded and the Abuzayd-Pinheiro group issued a report which unambiguously blamed pro-army civilian militia (‘shabiha’). Based on a few long-distance interviews, arranged by the Farouq brigade, they IICOIOS tried to blame the atrocity on the Syrian Government. However, unlike the local eyewitnesses (reported by Syrian, European and Russian media), they could provide no names, little detail and no motive (HRC 2012: 20).

Their report came before a UN Security Council meeting in which the US sought authorisation for Libyan-style attacks on Syria in the name of ‘civilian protection’ (a ‘no fly zone’). The manoeuvre failed and the report was strongly criticised at the UNSC, with Russia, China and India refusing to accept it as a basis for action. However it was used as a pretext for many other countries to downgrade their relations with Syria.

Almost five years later the AbuZayd-Pinheiro group tried to portray as a ‘crime’ the liberation of the city of Aleppo from al Qaeda aligned groups. They paid no attention to the thousands of relieved and celebrating civilians who had been rescued from al Qaeda held East Aleppo. Once again the assertions were reckless and partisan. The group falsely claimed that the liberation of the city had involved ‘daily air strikes’ on the eastern part of Aleppo city (HRC 2017: 19). Yet it was reported widely in foreign media that air strikes on the east part of the city were suspended on 18 October (BBC 2016; Xinhua 2016). NPR’s Merrit Kennedy (2016) reported ‘several weeks of relative calm’ during the ‘humanitarian pause, aimed at evacuating civilians. The ‘resumption’ of airstrikes almost one month later was aimed at the armed groups in rural Aleppo, not on the shrinking parts of the city held by the jihadists (Pestano 2016; Graham-Harrison 2016). Of course, al Qaeda aligned ‘media activists’ did claim the city was being continuously bombed (CNN 2016). However the UN commission, as Gareth Porter pointed out, ‘did not identify sources for its narrative … [but rather] accepted the version of the events provided by the ‘White Helmets’’, a jihadist auxiliary funded by the US and UK governments (Porter 2017). This report seemed to belatedly support calls by the UN Secretary General’s representative, Stefan di Mistura, for the Syrian Government to allow jihadist groups to maintain control of a lage part of the country’s second city. Syria would never allow that to happen.

In its most recent report of September 2017 the AbuZayd-Pinheiro group criticised terrorist groups and the US air strikes, in a pretence at impartiality. But it added a remarkable claim that had no basis in independent evidence: that ‘government forces continued the pattern of using chemical weapons against civilians in opposition held areas’. Abuzayd-Pinheiro claimed that 20 of 25 chemical weapons attacks in 2017 ‘were perpetrated by government forces’, referring to incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, al Latamneh and East Ghouta (HRC 2017b: 1, 14). Yet critical, independent evidence from US Professor Ted Postol had disproved the notion that the Khan Sheikhoun incident came from an air strike (Postol 2017). Indeed, the Syrian Government says the Army never once used chemical weapons during the 2011-2017 conflict, and no independent evidence contradicts this position. For example, in chapter nine of my book (Anderson 2016) I document the catalogue of independent evidence that discredited the ‘chemical weapons ‘false flag’ in the East Ghouta, of August 2013.

So, on what evidence were AbuZayd-Pinheiro’s claims based? They refer to interviews with victims and aid providers in jihadist controlled areas, some satellite images, a report of the UN’s OPCW (which did not attribute blame) and a non-response from the Syrian Government (HRC 2017b: 14-16). Clearly Damascus refuses to cooperate with AbuZayd-Pinheiro because of their previous propaganda activity. In the case of Khan Sheikhoun incident, the OPCW refused Russian invitation to visit and investigate, preferring to rely on information and samples provided by jihadist groups and their auxiliaries, such as the US-UK funded ‘White Helmets’. Once again, virtually all evidence cited by the Abuzayd-Pinheiro group came from US-backed and jihadist sources – al Nusra aka Hayat Tahrir al Sham, Ahrar al Sham, Jaish al Islam and Faylaq al Rahman (HRC 2017b: 14-16).

This latest AbuZayd-Pinheiro report came as the Syrian Army broke a three-year ISIS siege on the eastern City of Deir Ezzor. Fake chemical weapons claims at this time might briefly distract from this latest Syrian victory over the NATO-Saudi proxy armies, but they carry less import than before. Nevertheless, this US-led ‘independent’ group showed itself partisan and propagandist to the end.



Anderson, Tim (2016a) The Dirty War on Syria, Global Research, Montreal

Anderson, Tim (2016b) ‘Daraa 2011: Syria’s Islamist Insurrection in Disguise’, Global Research, 16 March, online:

BBC (2016) ‘Syria war: Russia halts Aleppo bombing for humanitarian pause’, 18 October, online:

CNN (2016) ‘Syria: Aleppo pounded by ‘heaviest bombardment’ since war began’, 21 November, online:

HRC (2012) ‘Oral Update of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic’, Human Rights Commission, 26 June, online:

HRC (2017) ‘Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic’ [Aleppo report], A/HRC/34/64, 2 February, online:

HRC (2017b) ‘Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic‘, 8 August, A/hrc/36/55, online

Porter, Gareth (2017) ‘A Flawed UN investigation on Syria’, Consortium News, 11 march, online:

Graham-Harrison, Emma (2016) ‘Aleppo airstrikes restart as Russia announces major Syria offensive’, The Guardian, 16 November, online:

Kennedy, Merrit (2016) ‘After Rocky Pause, Airstrikes Resume On Syria’s Aleppo’, NPR, 15 November, online:

Pestano, Andrew V. (2016) ‘Aleppo airstrikes resume after 3-week pause’, UPI, 15 November, online:

Xinhua (2016) ‘News Analysis: Suspended Russian airstrikes encourage rebels to unleash major offensive in Aleppo’, 29 October, online:

Posted in Syria, UNComments Off on The AbuZayd-Pinheiro Committee: Systematic Misinformation on Syria

Britain Doesn’t Need a New ‘Center’ Party, We’ve Already Got One


Leader of the opposition Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn delivers a speech laying out the plan for the party following the Brexit vote in June 2016, in London, February 24, 2017.

© AP Photo/ Alastair Grant
Neil Clark

Britain’s self-styled political “moderates” are getting very excited and it’s not just because the latest bid to prosecute Tony Blair for war crimes has been blocked by the High Court.

The talk this summer in smart metropolitan circles is of a new “center” party being formed that would fight to keep Britain in the EU and “save the country” from the supposed lurch to the extremes of both the “hard-Brexiting” Tories and “hard-left” Labour.

Last week it was revealed that James Chapman, a former spin doctor for George Osborne and David Davis, and self-described “recovering Daily Mail political editor” was planning to launch a new “centrist” party called the “Democrats.”

Just a load of “Ed Balls” and something to fill the papers with in the dead news days of August? “Chappers” says that prominent members of both main parties have been in touch — and the “Democrats” have announced a march in London on 9th September.

We’ve also read countless reports on how disgruntled Blairites were planning to back a new “Party of All the Moderates.” Back on June 23, Phil Collins (that’s Blair’s former speechwriter and not the pop star), proclaimed “Now is the moment to launch a new party,” and drew parallels with the launch of the SDP back in 1981.

Earlier Collins argued “we need not just a Labour split, but a realignment of the center.”  In the words of the other Phil Collins, there’s certainly something in the air tonight — and I’m not just referring to the strong smell of fertilizer which emanates from the fields at this time of year.

The arguments for a new center party are based on a belief that there’s a gap in the market. But is it really true?

If by ‘center’ we mean where majority mainstream public opinion is — as opposed to where elite opinion is — then surely we’ve already got a “center” party. It’s called Labour.

Corbyn hasn’t taken the party to a political Outer Mongolia, as Establishment commentators tell us on an almost daily basis, but actually moved it towards the real center ground. The center ground  of majority public opinion that is, not the phoney pro-war, pro-neoliberal center ground of the “Inside the Bastille” media, financial and political elites.

Take the re-nationalization of Britain’s rip-off railways, easily the most expensive in Europe. This is invariably branded as a “a hard-left return to the 70s” by “centrist” pundits, but in fact it’s a very popular policy endorsed by over 60% of the electorate.

Labour’s pledge to renationalize water in England has even more public backing — a Sunday Express pollin 2012 put support for it at 71%.The same percentage endorse Labour’s policy of a £10 (US$13) p.h. minimum wage by 2020. The proposal to raise the top rate of income tax is supported by 62%.

Listen to the punditocracy and you’d think only “Stalinists” want these populist economic policies, in fact they’re supported by most of the country — including people living in Tory shires.

Labour’s less hawkish line on foreign policy under Corbyn also chimes with an electoral sick and tired of British involvement in Middle East wars and US-sponsored “regime change” operations. “Liberal interventionism” may still be popular in elite circles, and among the mutually-adoring neocon Twitterati, but again, it’s not a vote-winner with ordinary folk, who care more about heating bills than toppling Assad in Syria.

It’s worth noting that when Labour was still “New Labour” and occupying the phoney elite center ground in 2010, it only obtained 29% of the vote. But since it’s moved towards the genuine center ground, it has reaped the benefit — polling 40% in June, its biggest increase in the share of the vote since 1945.

Labour’s poll surge, as I wrote here, had Establishment pundits — who were predicting electoral Armageddon for the party — in a right-old flap.

These “experts” couldn’t believe that the electorate would vote for a party whose policies they — but not the general public — regarded as “loony-left.” But despite the rude awakening they got on June 8, most “mainstream” pundits still push the line that Labour, under Corbyn, is too extreme. Even Labour’s official support for Brexit is taken as evidence of the party ditching “moderation.” Again though, Labour’s stance, namely to respect the referendum vote of June 23, 2016, while campaigning for the best possible Brexit for ordinary working people, is a genuine center ground position.

With 48% voting to stay in the EU, it would clearly be wrong to say that the concerns of Remainers don’t matter and shouldn’t be listened to. At the same time it would even more unfair to say to the 52% who voted “Out” that their votes were going to be ignored — or that a second referendum was needed.

Even if you take the line that Brexit will be the biggest disaster for Britain since the Black Death arrived in 1348, and that consequently we should be throwing a jumbo-sized spanner in the works, it’s still hard to see the pressing need for a brand new “center” party to oppose it. The Liberal Democrats, after all, “passionately believe” Britain is better off in Europe. They have pledged to give the British people a “final say” on whether we accept the government’s Brexit deal or stay in Europe. For passionate Europhiles, why bother to start a new party, when you can put on a yellow tie and link arms with The Cable Guy and his crew?

All in all, its hard not to see the calls for a new “center” party as a desperate rear-guard action from those unhappy with the dramatic political upheavals of the last few years, which have seen Labour ditch Blairism, the Bullingdon Boys Cameron and Osborne lose power, the British public vote to end our 40-odd year membership of the EU, and the exciting rise of grassroots “Power to the People!” organizations like Momentum.

James Chapman, (whose commitment to the cause you can’t help admiring), tweets: “We lecture other countries but truth is our political and media establishment is rotten,” but the “Democrats,” by putting their faith in “Parliamentary democracy” and banning referendums would essentially be endorsing Establishment-friendly, anti-populist, Westminster-bubble old-style politics. That’s even allowing for their support for proportional representation.

While promoting themselves as progressive agents of change, the new “centrists” are actually quite reactionary.

Their aim seems to be to turn the clock back to the sort of politics we had somewhere around 2006.  But the real center ground now is elsewhere, and the bad news for those seeking a political realignment is that a man with a beard, wearing a white short-sleeved shirt, emerald green shorts, black socks and a rucksack slung over his shoulder, has already pitched his tent on it.

Posted in UKComments Off on Britain Doesn’t Need a New ‘Center’ Party, We’ve Already Got One

Why Jihadism Won’t Be Allowed to Die


Flag of the Islamic State in the conflict zone in Latakia, Syria

© Sputnik/ Andrey Stenin

A serious working hypothesis is being discussed for a while now among independent geopolitical analysts. Here it is, in a nutshell.

Daesh may be dying – but the world is still encumbered with its walking corpse. Plan B of Daesh’s masters may have been to indoctrinate repeated waves of misguided youth across the EU and “seduce” them into D.I. Y. jihadi terror, creating fear and insecurity in Europe. I’ve just been to Barcelona — and that’s not happening. No Fear.

Daesh can also manipulate its brand name to stake a claim into what we may call the New War Belt in Southwest Asia. That’s also not happening, because the “4+1” – Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, plus Hezbollah – with the addition of Turkey, and with China in a “leading from behind” role, are all working together.

The unfinished war across “Syraq” coupled with spasms of jihadism in Europe could certainly still metastasize into a massive Eurasian cancer, spreading like a plague from Afghanistan to Germany and vice-versa, and from the South China Sea to Brussels via Pakistan and vice-versa.

What would happen under this cataclysmic scenario is the complete derailment of the Chinese-driven New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI); its integration with the Russia-driven Eurasia Economic Union (EAEC); and a massive security threat to the domestic stability of the Russia-China strategic partnership, with uncontrollable bellicose scenarios developing very close to their borders.It’s no secret which elements and institutions would very much cherish internal political chaos in both Russia and China.

Charlie gets stronger

Dr. Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski may be dead, but geopolitics is still encumbered with his corpse. Brzezinski’s life obsession is that no peer competitor to the US should be allowed to emerge. Imagine as he lay dying contemplating the ongoing, ultimate nightmare; a Russia-China pan-Eurasian alliance.

The less disastrous scenario in this case would be to seduce either Moscow or Beijing into becoming a US partner, based on which one would pose a lesser “threat” in the future. Brzezinski focused on Russia as the immediate threat and China as the long game threat.

Thus the obsession of the US deep state and the Clinton machine in demonizing all things Russia – like an infantile neo-McCarthyism on steroids. Inevitably, what this geopolitical back hole has precipitated is China’s even more rapid advance on all fronts.Not to mention that the Russia-China strategic partnership kept getting stronger every day – an eerie echo of Capt. Willard’s line in Coppola’s Apocalypse Now; “Every minute I stay in this room I get weaker, every minute Charlie squats in the bush, he gets stronger”.

And yet Charlie is not squatting; he’s conquering via trade and investment. And he’s not in the bush; he’s all over the Eurasian plains.

A basket of Hobbesian flare-ups

The other American dalang, Henry Kissinger, is still alive, at 94. Advising President Trump before the January inauguration, and posing as the supreme gray eminence on China matters, he suggested Russia should be courted.

But then came the clincher. Clearly identifying that the Russia-China-Iran alliance holds the key to Eurasia integration, Kissinger revealed his true colors; it’s the weakest link – Iran – that should be neutralized.Thus his recent proclamation/warning about an “Iranian radical empire” developing/stretching from Tehran to Beirut as the “vacuum” left by Daesh is filled by the Persians.

And here we have Kissinger once again as the unreconstructed Cold Warrior that he is; exit Communism, enter Khomeinism as the supreme “evil.” And may the Lord bask in praise of the Wahhabi matrix of jihadism enablers; the House of Saud.

The Kissingerian recipe sounds like music to the US deep state; Daesh should not be routed, it should be “realigned” as a tool against Iran.

Who cares that the notion of an “Iranian radical empire” per se does not even qualify as a joke? Lebanon is multicultural. Syria will continue to be ruled by the secular Baath Party. Iraq rejects Khomeinism – with tremendously influential Ayatollah Sistani privileging the parliamentary system.

The “4+1” – backed by China — have forged a serious alliance in the fire of the Syrian war. None of this will change by a Kissinger decree. As for “filling the vacuum”, the alternative is Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria. “But wait!” — say the neocons/neoliberalcons of the War Party. “We like that!”

And that brings us full circle to the initial working hypothesis. Daesh won’t be allowed to die – as much as the geopolitical re-engineering of what Dr. Zbig used to call the “Eurasian Balkans” refuses to die.ISIS-Khorasan, or ISIS-K – that regroup in Afghanistan – can be so handy to wreak havoc in the intersection of Central Asia and South Asia, so close to key BRI development corridors.

Moscow and Beijing though, know exactly what’s goin’ on. The phony Caliphate was useful in an attempt to break off BRI across “Syraq”, as much as Maidan in Ukraine was useful to break off the EAEU. Other war fronts will follow – from the Philippines to Venezuela, all bent on disrupting regional integration projects under a Divide and Rule strategy of US satraps manipulated into Hobbesian asymmetrical flare-ups.

Sixteen years after 9/11, the name of the game is not GWOT (Global War on Terror) anymore; is how, under the cover of GWOT, to disturb geostrategic expansion by the people who matter; “peer competitors” Russia and China.


‘Jihadimobile Anatomy’: A Look at Daesh’s Most Deadly Weapons in Syria
Islamist Terror Triggers Fears of Far Right Adopting Jihadi Methods
‘We’re Up for Several More Years of Increased Jihadi Terror in Europe’

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on Why Jihadism Won’t Be Allowed to Die

Putin Calls Out US Folly


Russian President Vladimir Putin attends the Dialogue of Emerging Market and Developing Countries on the sideline of the BRICS Summit in Xiamen, China, Sept. 5, 2017

© AP Photo/ Wu Hong

Speaking at the BRICS summit this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin deplored the “low political culture” of American leaders.

“It is difficult to dialogue with such people,” said Putin, adding: “You can do nothing about it.”

Less diplomatically, what the Russian president was lamenting is this: the incorrigible stupidity of US leaders.

To say that is not merely about making a facetious swipe at American politicians. Far more seriously, it points to how difficult and dangerous international relations are when a major party is so evidently obtuse to reason and facts.

As if to illustrate the point, while Putin was castigating American low political culture, the US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, was opening her mouth to release more of her habitually inane remarks.Haley told the UN Security Council on Monday that North Korea “was begging for war” and she affected a hilariously innocent pose, saying: “War is never something the United States wants.”

What? This is from an envoy whose country has been in a state of permanent war over the past two decades, and which at times has been bombing seven countries simultaneously in flagrant violation of international law.

For the American envoy to make such a patently false rendering of reality is beyond stupid. It is dangerously delusional. This is what Putin was referring to when he said it is difficult to dialogue with such people. It’s like trying to reason with someone who’s psychotic.

American cognitive disconnect with reality stems from various factors. Ignorance, arrogance, deception, propaganda, parochialism. But a shorthand term for the cognitive impairment is “stupidity”.

The trouble too with the Americans is that they seem to think that everyone else is stupid.

On the looming crisis over Korea, the US is pushing China and Russiato impose evermore stringent sanctions on North Korea over its nuclear weapons program. Last weekend the country carried out its sixth and largest underground nuclear test explosion since 2006.The Americans have set a deadline next Monday for the UNSC to vote for a new round of economic punishments on Pyongyang. Washington wants the drastic sanction of cutting off fuel oil supplies to the country just as the harsh Korean winter approaches. That move is tantamount to an act of war, and yet Washington expects China and Russia to go along with an attack on the vital interests of North Korea.

The stupid arrogance of the Americans is staggering. The US has slapped numerous rounds of sanctions on Russia over dubious claims about interfering in Ukraine and US election meddling. Just last weekend, the Trump administration provocatively seized more Russian diplomatic properties in San Francisco, New York and Washington.

And yet the Americans expect Russia, as well as China whom it is also sanctioning over trade disputes, to go along with its agenda of strangulating North Korea.

As Putin remarked at the BRICS conference: “It’s ridiculous to put us on the same sanctions list as North Korea and then ask for our help in imposing sanctions on North Korea.”

Economic warfare and ramping up military threats is a road to nowhere, added the Russian leader, warning that to keep pushing on that direction, as the Americans are doing, is risking a global catastrophe.Many people around the world, including many ordinary American citizens, would agree. They can see the blindingly obvious. That the Korean crisis must be resolved peacefully through diplomacy and dialogue. All that is required is for all parties to sit down and talk to each other as equals without preconditions. China and Russia are indeed proposing such a roadmap for a peaceful settlement.

But the American leaders are so inebriated with their own self-righteousness and hubris they refuse to comply with this basic process of diplomacy. A process mandated by international law.

US ambassador Nikki Haley even lambasted the Chinese and Russian proposals as “an insult”.

“When a rogue regime has a nuclear weapon and an ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] pointed at you, you do not take steps to lower your guard. No one would do that. We certainly won’t,” said Haley.

Therein lies the kernel of the problem. The Americans call others a rogue regime not worthy of respect when it is they who constitute the biggest rogue regime on Earth, possessing an arsenal of 5,000 nuclear weapons and willing to use them to annihilate other nations, as they themselves have openly stated on numerous occasions.

On the basis of hyper-sanctimony, the Americans declare that they are not willing to talk with North Korea and that the “only options” are either intensifying sanctions or war.

But who are the Americans to order such an ultimatum? An ultimatum that is surely disastrous and with which the rest of the world has to subordinate to.

The arrogant, ignorant Americans are so besotted with their own hubris that they cannot even conceive of their outrageous hypocrisy. They bomb countries all over the world, point nuclear missiles at every corner of the planet, break countless laws, threaten Armageddon like ordering a hamburger, and yet they claim to be “exhausting diplomacy”.Obdurate American leaders don’t even know their own history; how they obliterated North Korea during the Korean War (1950-53) killing up to three million civilians. Is it any wonder North Korea has felt compelled to build nuclear weapons as a matter of survival against the genocidal American behemoth?

As Putin said: “North Koreans would rather eat grass than give up their nuclear weapons program.”

North Korea has wholly legitimate security concerns. It wants to be left in peace and not continually threatened by the genocidal United States, which never signed a peace treaty at the end of the Korean War. Despite American and Western demonization of North Korea, it is not offensive. All its actions are about deterrence and defense.

There is a simple and urgent way back from the precipice. Comprehensive talks on all concerns, with North Korea’s existential concerns in particular given full recognition.It is not rocket science. It is a matter of treating other nations with respect.

But this is the thing. The American political leaders are so dense, so stupid, they only know how to drive toward conflict and war, and to sell billions of dollars-worth of weapons. They are so stupid they don’t even see how their mentality is putting the whole world in grave peril of final destruction.

The world is being held hostage by idiots. It’s like being on a bus careering along cliff top roads, and the driver of this bus is a drunken imbecile.

China and Russia must take world leadership in spite of the Americans. Beijing and Moscow have to reject the US unilateral diktat of sanctions and militarism. As Putin said, there is no use trying to reason with such low-level people. They are beyond reason.

Resolute action is the only way to deal with them. No more sanctions, no military aggression, insist on full compliance with international law. America has gotten away with waging wars of aggression with impunity for far too long. China and Russia must make any US military action over North Korea a red line.

Posted in USA, RussiaComments Off on Putin Calls Out US Folly



Image result for HAITI CARTOON


Haiti was the first country in history where the slaves threw out their rulers.

It was also the first country in the world to outlaw slavery.

The result?

They’ve been under attack non-stop every since.

Why is Haiti so poor?

Because it’s been ripped off non-stop for over two hundreds years right up to the present day with the Clintons currently leading the looting.

Posted in HaitiComments Off on Let’s remember Haiti THE MOST RIPPED OFF COUNTRY IN THE WORLD

US Sponsored “Regime Change” in Cambodia?


Opposition Leader Bragged About US-backed Sedition

Featured image: Cambodian opposition leader Kem Sokha (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Cambodian opposition leader Kem Sokha was recently arrested on charges of treason. While the Western media has attempted to portray the charges as politically motivated, Sokha’s treason is not only quite real, he openly, eagerly bragged about it on the Australian-based “Cambodia Broadcasting Network” (CBN).  

The Phnom Penh Post in its article, Kem Sokha video producer closes Phnom Penh office in fear,” would quote Sokha who claimed (emphasis added):

And, the USA that has assisted me, they asked me to take the model from Yugoslavia, Serbia, where they can change the dictator Slobodan Milosevic,” he continues, referring to the former Serbian and Yugoslavian leader who resigned amid popular protests following disputed elections, and died while on trial for war crimes.

“You know Milosevic had a huge numbers of tanks. But they changed things by using this strategy, and they take this experience for me to implement in Cambodia. But no one knew about this.”

Sokha is referring to the openly admitted US-engineered regime change mechanism known as “color revolutions” and in particular the successful overthrow of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic in 2000.

It is also mentioned in the article that Sokha has traveled to the United States every year since 1993 to “learn about the democratization process.” A video of Kem Sokha with US Senator Ed Royce in Washington DC openly calling for the deposing of the Cambodian government has also been published by CBN.

US Regime-Change Represents Destabilization and Destruction, Not Democracy 

As admitted by the New York Times in its article,Who Really Brought Down Milosevic,” the United States, not the people of Serbia, overthrew the Serbian government – not in favor of the Serbs’ best interests, but for Washington’s own self-serving interests.

The New York Times would write:

American assistance to Otpor and the 18 parties that ultimately ousted Milosevic is still a highly sensitive subject. But Paul B. McCarthy, an official with the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy, is ready to divulge some details…

…McCarthy says, ”from August 1999 the dollars started to flow to Otpor pretty significantly.” Of the almost $3 million spent by his group in Serbia since September 1998, he says, ”Otpor was certainly the largest recipient.” The money went into Otpor accounts outside Serbia. At the same time, McCarthy held a series of meetings with the movement’s leaders in Podgorica, the capital of Montenegro, and in Szeged and Budapest in Hungary. Homen, at 28 one of Otpor’s senior members, was one of McCarthy’s interlocutors. ”We had a lot of financial help from Western nongovernmental organizations,” Homen says. ”And also some Western governmental organizations.”

The successful overthrow of the Serbian government by agents working on behalf of Washington served as a template for other, similar operations including the 2011 “Arab Spring” that has left North Africa and much of the Middle East ravaged by war, failed states, and human catastrophe.

In an April 2011 article also published by the New York Times titled, U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,” it was stated:

A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington.

The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):

The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department.

Those participating in overthrowing their nation’s government with foreign aid are by definition traitors – and with Cambodia’s Kem Sokha and his entire Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) implicated in and admitting to an identically foreign-organized conspiracy against their own nation as took place in Serbia and across the Arab World, it seems that charges of treason are more than warranted.

Readers should take note that nations targeted by US-engineered regime change – from Serbia to Ukraine, to Georgia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen – all have suffered immeasurably since. For the Cambodian government not to follow through with uprooting Sokha and the US networks built up across Cambodia to support foreign subversion, would be the height of irresponsibility, inviting nothing less than the same sort of destabilization and destruction in Cambodia still unfolding in other nations targeted by US political interference.

Kem Sokha’s eagerness to indenture himself – and were he come to power, his entire nation – to US interests is perhaps the greatest indicator that he in no way represents the sort of democratic progress he claims to be bringing to Cambodia. Democracy – a process primarily of self-determination – cannot exist if Cambodia’s future is being openly determined in Washington D.C. instead.

Posted in Colombia, Far EastComments Off on US Sponsored “Regime Change” in Cambodia?

“The Palestinians cheered” hoax NO THEY DIDN’T ‘VIDEO’


Image result for PALESTINE MAP


It was one of the most successful hoaxes of 9/11, so much so that one presidential candidate swore he saw it.

What he saw was a well engineered hoax run on the American people with such speed, it’s hard to believe it wasn’t pre-planned.

While the Twin Towers were still burning, someone in Palestine closed off a single block and started handing out candy and other gifts to unsuspecting people on the street.

In exchange, they were told to clap their hands and cheer, sort of like the silly things that go on on the US TV show “The Price is Right”.

This video was then rushed to NYC network television newsrooms and played over and over again with the caption: “Palestinians cheer 9/11”

Afterwards, the handful of people who’d been duped in this way expressed horror. They knew nothing about the attacks.

Look at the logistics here.

Someone had to:

1. Come up with the plan in the first place
2. Close down a street without pissing off local law enforcement
3. Arrange the services of a news quality videographer
4. Get the video to all the television networks
5. Convince the networks to even look at it, let alone air it repeatedly
6. Get away scot-free after running this hoax without being identified

That’s some fast thinking and fast action.

At a minimum it was a despicable fraud. At a maximum it was something much more sinister.


It was one of the most successful hoaxes of 9/11, so much so that one presidential candidate swore he saw it.

What he saw was a well engineered hoax run on the American people with such speed, it’s hard to believe it wasn’t pre-planned.

While the Twin Towers were still burning, someone in Palestine closed off a single block and started handing out candy and other gifts to unsuspecting people on the street.

In exchange, they were told to clap their hands and cheer, sort of like the silly things that go on on the US TV show “The Price is Right”.

This video was then rushed to NYC network television newsrooms and played over and over again with the caption: “Palestinians cheer 9/11”

Afterwards, the handful of people who’d been duped in this way expressed horror. They knew nothing about the attacks.

Look at the logistics here.

Someone had to:

1. Come up with the plan in the first place
2. Close down a street without pissing off local law enforcement
3. Arrange the services of a news quality videographer
4. Get the video to all the television networks
5. Convince the networks to even look at it, let alone air it repeatedly
6. Get away scot-free after running this hoax without being identified

That’s some fast thinking and fast action.

At a minimum it was a despicable fraud. At a maximum it was something much more sinister.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USAComments Off on “The Palestinians cheered” hoax NO THEY DIDN’T ‘VIDEO’

Shoah’s pages