Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Has anyone "Something Nice" to say about the Jews...?

Has anyone "Something Nice" to say about the Jews...?

I grew up knowing a fair amount of Jews. I was even a best friend to a few of them (this was before I knew anything about their historical subversion efforts on gentile cultures) and I saw that many are decent enough people unless you questioned the 'sacredness' of the holocaust deception and their tribal 'supremacism' .

I never really got into that conversation with them at the time because I had been programmed by this Orwellian occult society to view all whites and only whites as the source of all suffering on the planet. As I am sure you know, the anti-European gentile narrative starts as early as elementary school where it is subtly introduced into social studies and history classes.

They'll never talk about their role in the trans Atlantic slave trade, the occupation of Spain by the Moors, the Barbary pirates enslaving over a million Europeans, the enslavement and massacre of Slavic people at the hands of the Ottoman Turks and how Jews have historically held aristocratic positions in all the host European countries they were supposedly 'persecuted' in.

They'll never give you the context in which they were persecuted which was due to them generally being the economic and social buffer between the gentile peasant masses and the minority ruling elites (who, granted, weren't necessarily Jews but gave the Jews great administrative, financial and legal power) It was more often than not Jews who controlled commerce throughout Europe and they did the dirty work of the Elites which gave them a privileged status. Eventually many Europeans got hip to their treachery and saw how they were loyal to their own kind above all and second to the ruling monarchs.

This would obviously create a sentiment of hatred for the Jews among the peasant masses; this is only medieval Europe we're talking about now. Jumping ahead into pre-WWII Europe again we see the Jews selfishly controlling the banking systems and destroying European economies through inflation and the imposition of communism (which was for the gentiles, while the Zionist Jews were still able to enrich themselves via capitalist monopolies; this has always been the case with communism) Anyway, they were especially focused on forcing communism on Europeans and Hitler (although not a saint, in my opinion) was the only one who stood against them.

Some say Hitler was even financed by certain Jews and that he was in on their agenda, which I'll never know if it's true or not, but still he was, on the surface at least, the only one to defy their moral, cultural and financial subversion of Germany. Stereotypes exist for a reason; Jews controlling media and international monetary institutions is because they, in fact, do own and control these institutions by majority. They are currently in full anti-European gentile warfare no doubt about it.

I've noticed how our media, academia and our foreign policy plus our immigration reform have been increasingly bent on replacing the dominant position of Europeans in their own countries while at the same time preserving the ethnic and cultural interests of Jews and Israel. Everyday Jewish shmucks just trying to make ends meet are irrelevant in this equation; they are harmless to the Jewish elites and will most likely defend their cause anyway.

Saudi Grand Mufti Al Sheikh said that Daesh jihadists were part of the Israeli army.

Saudi Grand Mufti Al Sheikh said that Daesh jihadists were part of the Israeli army.
Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, the Saudi grand mufti listens to a speech of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the Consultative Council in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tuesday, March 24, 2009.
Saudi Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz Al Sheikh urged increased Islamic cooperation against Daesh, claiming that the militant group was a “part of the Israeli army.”
File Photo: Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, left, meets with Saudi King Salman, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey Agree to Set Up Strategic Cooperation Council
The Mufti's statements followed remarks attributed to secretive Daesh leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a 24-minute audio recording released last week. In the recording Al-Baghdadi called the new Saudi-led alliance a US ‘puppy' and threatened to turn Israel into a "graveyard," saying Daesh has "not forgotten Palestine for a single moment."
During a telephone interview with the Saudi Gazette, Al Sheikh spoke in support of an Islamic anti-terrorism military alliance and vowed to defeat the Daesh extremists, claiming that the actions of the violent religious group are heretical and un-Islamic.
"They cannot be considered as followers of Islam," he said. "Rather, they are an extension of Kharijites, who rose in revolt against the Islamic caliphate for the first time by labeling Muslims as infidels and permitting their bloodletting."
As for al Baghdadi's pledge to attack Israel, the 72-year old Al Sheikh said that it was a lie and that Daesh jihadists were part of Israeli army.
"Actually Daesh is part of the Israeli soldiers," he stated, asserting an alliance between the Israeli army and Daesh militants.
The pronouncements by both Al Sheikh and al-Baghdadi make it obvious that Israel remains a politically charged issue in the kingdom.
Saudi Arabia on December 15 announced the formation of a coalition to counter terrorism, created by Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Prince Muhammed bin Salman. Member states include Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Malaysia, Pakistan and Gulf Arab and several African states.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Moscow's Dealing with NATO is... "Heads We Win---Tails You Lose" against ISIS/Daesh

Syria Shatters Pentagon Dream

shutterstock_327353750 (1)
No wonder Full Spectrum Dominance practitioners in the Beltway and beyond are consumed by deep denial.
They look at the Syrian chessboard and as power projection goes, they see Russia comfortably settling down, with a serious land and air base, to conduct all sorts of operations across MENA (Middle East-Northern Africa) in the near future. The Pentagon obviously never saw it coming.
And that’s just the beginning. Further on down the road there’s bound to be increased military interaction between Russia, China and Iran across Southwest Asia. The Pentagon qualifies Russia, China and Iran – the key nodes of Eurasia integration – as threats.
Russia getting deeper into Syria – and in the long run MENA – progresses just as Moscow insists on dealing with assorted NATO members as «partners» in the war against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. Some stab Moscow in the back, like Turkey. Some may share sensitive military intel, like France. Some may profess the desire to collaborate, like Britain. And some are a geyser of ambiguity, like the US.
Amidst all the ambiguities, «partners» could not be a more delightfully diplomatic way to mask what is a stunning fact in the skies: with its current mix of sophisticated surface-to-air, sea-to-air and air-to-air defenses, from cruise missiles launched out ofsubmarines to the S-400s, the de facto no-fly zone over Syria is now decided by Moscow – not Washington and much less Ankara.
Pick your coalition
Those S-400s, by the way, will soon move up north around the vastly complex Aleppo theatre, as the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) progressively gains ground.
In the first half of 2016 we should be contemplating a situation where the S-400s will be targeting and covering the whole Turkish-Syrian border. This will be the moment when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will completely lose his marbles. Russia’s air cover for the SAA advances – and soon Syrian Kurd YPG advances – is methodically preparing the terrain for the end of all Ankara’s elaborate plans for a no-fly zone disguised as a «safe zone», fully paid by the 3 billion euros disbursed by the EU to Turkey to settle Syrian refugees.
So the logic in the battlefield from now on is clear; the Turkmen – Ankara’s fifth column, heavily infiltrated by Turkish Islamo-fascists – are being pushed back to Turkish territory, all across the spectrum. And the YPG will soon have a chance to unite all three Syrian Kurdish cantons across the border.
When that happens, call it, in a nutshell, the victory of one coalition – the «4+1» (Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq plus Hezbollah) – against another (the pared-down NATO-GCC combo) in this surrealist war of two different coalitions against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.
And every Full Spectrum Dominance practitioner not blinded by ideology will clearly see why the «4+1» is winning; it’s a graphic case of a small but highly motivated and perfectly streamlined air force positioned in the right place with the right weapons and counting on good ground intel. The US-led coalition, which I chose to call Coalition of the Dodgy Opportunists (CDO) have none of the above.
Team Mediocrity in action
Washington is in a quagmire of its own making. And virtually everything has to do with the astonishing mediocrity of the Obama administration’s so-called «senior» foreign policy team.
Team Obama always neglected Erdogan’s love affair with Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, as Ankara allowed their Jihad Express through the Turkish-Syrian border. And Team Obama always neglected ISIS/ISIL/Daesh’s Stolen Syrian Oil Express flowing via a huge, easily satellite-detectable fleet of truck tankers.
Team Obama was incapable of decoding NATO ally Turkey’s sleazy, slippery agenda; and in that they were hostages of Full Spectrum Dominance, as for the Pentagon Ankara is the proverbial «anchor of stability» and the key Full Spectrum Dominance pawn in the region.
Thus Team Obama’s inability/incompetence in smashing those oil tanker convoys; Ankara’s feathers could not be possibly ruffled.
Team Obama always neglected how Riyadh and Doha, directly, and then via «private donors» – coordinated by the notorious Bandar Bush in person – financed both al-Nusra and Daesh.
Instead, Team Obama rode the merry weaponizing of al-Nusra and Ahrar ash-Sham, via the CIA’s supplies to the Free Syrian Army (FSA); all those weapons were captured by al-Nusra and Ahrar ash-Sham. Team Obama, never surrendering to their own myopia, duly branded al-Nusra & co. «moderate rebels».
Team Obama always derided Iran as a «hostile» nation, a «threat» to the GCC vassals and Israel. So everyone allied or supported by Tehran was also «hostile» or a «threat»: the government in Damascus, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shi’ite militias trained by Iran, even the Houthis in Yemen.
And to top it off, there’s «Russian aggression», manifested in Ukraine, and then with Moscow «interfering» in Syria, via what was interpreted by Team Obama as a crude power play in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Amidst all the current shadow play, the true test of the Obama administration’s intentions is whether the US coalition will really fight Daesh, al-Nusra and Ahrar ash-Sham (which harbors a lot of jihadists from Chechnya, Dagestan and Uzbekistan), with no reservations.
This would imply Team Obama telling both Ankara and Riyadh, in no uncertain terms, to back off. No more Jihad Express. And no more weaponizing. Without these red lines, the Syrian «peace process» juggling between Vienna and New York does not even qualify as a joke.
No one should be holding their breath. As no one should be reasonably expecting that an astonishing mediocre, lame duck Team Obama would have the balls to confront Wahhabism as the true ideological matrix of all strands of Salafi jihadism, «moderate rebels» included.
Which brings us back to all that angst simmering across the Beltway. With or without Team Obama, the fact remains: no conquered – or at least balkanized – Syria, no Full Spectrum Dominance.
This article first appeared at Strategic Culture Foundation.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).  His latest book is Empire of ChaosHe may be reached at

Christine Lagarde has been ordered to stand trial in France

IMF chief Lagarde to face trial in France corruption case

Image result for Court spokesman: IMF chief Lagarde to stand trial over 400-billion-euro arbitration ruling
PARIS (AP) — International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde has been ordered to stand trial in France over her role in a 2008 arbitration ruling that handed 400 million euros ($434 million) to French businessman Bernard Tapie.
Lagarde was French finance minister at the time. She has denied wrongdoing, and after years of investigation, a prosecutor in September argued that the case against her should be dropped.
But the Court of Justice of the Republic on Thursday announced it has decided to send her to trial. It is a special court for trials of government ministers.
Her lawyer, Yves Repiquet, said on i-Tele television that he plans to appeal the decision.

Sanctions Extended even though it's Ukrainians who are not implementing the Minsk Accords

EU Sanctions on Russia to be Extended – No Veto or Discussion Allowed

December 16, 2015

This article was originally written for Russia Insider:

In conversations with Russian news agency TASS EU diplomats and officials outline the undemocratic means whereby the decision to extend the sanctions will be imposed.

by Alexander Mercouris

Recently I wrote a piece for Russia Insider discussing how the EU really works.

I pointed out that the veto small states supposedly have over key EU decisions is a fiction.

Decisions are made by a small group who decide things between themselves and who because they control the EU’s bureaucracy can impose their decisions on everyone else. 

An EU official – someone described as “close to the European Council” (the EU’s main policy making body) has basically confirmed as much in an interview with the Russian news agency TASS.

The subject discussed was the sectoral sanctions the EU has imposed on Russia, which are due to expire on 31st January 2016.

A political decision to extend the sanctions was made by the five big EU states – France, Germany, Italy, Britain and Spain – after consultations with the US at the G20 summit at Antaliya in Turkey.

Italy subsequently delayed announcement of this decision saying more discussion was needed.

In my piece I said Italy’s decision should not be taken seriously. The Italians were simply putting a marker down.

The source who has spoken to TASS has all but said the same thing. These are his words as TASS reports them:

“It is as simple as this: the EU Council has related the limiting measures with implementation of the Minsk accords.

It is not an issue to be discussed, it is a political objective we have now. By and large, the Minsk accords are not implemented as of today, thus sanctions are to be extended. They say, for another six months.

At present, the work continues at the level of working groups. The plans are, the EU ambassadors approve it (decision) in a written procedure, though later on the procedure was postponed (at Italy’s insistence – AM) as the work still continues.

Nobody is really in a hurry, since the sanctions expire only in late January.

No, this topic is not on the agenda (of the European Council meeting on 14th December 2015 – AM).

I do not think any discussion will take place, and the reason is very simple: the agreement is the sanctions will remain until the Minsk accords are implemented. In fact, there is nothing to discuss, which is clear to everyone.

It is tough to say now on what day, as it is not clear yet what procedure will be used. But I do not think it will happen very soon. Anyway, there is quite a time to January 31.

The very fact of the sanctions’ extension is a ready decision now.

Right, some EU countries speak for discussing the sanctions package at the level of ministers (including Italy, Luxembourg – TASS), others are ready to extend them automatically so that not to waste time discussing the Ukrainian crisis at the last meetings of this year, which will be aimed at settlement of many problems related to migration; however, as of today not a single EU country out of the list of 28 has spoken against extension of the limitation measures.”

Though these comments say no more than what I previously reported, their cynicism still takes the breath away.

The sanctions are to go on being extended until the Minsk Accords are “fully implemented”.

No explanation is given as to what “fully implemented” means or who will decide that – especially since there is to be no discussion of the question (see below).

It is the Ukrainians who are not implementing the Minsk Accords – a fact now acknowledged by everyone including the German and French governments. Nonetheless it is the sanctions on Russia that are to be extended.

Taken literally this gives Kiev a veto over when the sanctions will be lifted.

No discussion of whether or or not the sanctions are to be extended is to take place.

The only question to be decided – by whom one wonders since there is to be no discussion? – is the purely bureaucratic one of whether there will be a simple announcement that the sanctions have been extended, or whether there will be a statement to that effect following a meeting of the EU Council of Ministers – where however the subject of the sanctions will not be discussed.

The source does say that no EU member state has “spoken against extending” the sanctions.

Since there is no discussion one wonders how he knows?

TASS also reports another almost identical conversation with another European diplomat:

“Another European diplomat also confirmed to TASS the sanctions “are bound to be extended.”

He said the issues of milder or tougher sanctions “even have not been raised.”

“Nobody is going to review each of the sanctions. This work is very effort-consuming, and it is not reasonable to begin it under the conditions, where the situation in the zone of the Ukrainian conflict has not changed radically in either direction,” he said.”

Apparently even relaxing the sanctions is not going to be discussed because this is “very effort-consuming” – a bizarre comment given the pain the sanctions and Russia’s counter sanctions are causing European businesses and European agriculture.

Though information about how the EU works today is abundant, it still surprises me that there is still so little awareness of this. Even alternative media rarely touches on the question.

Instead one repeatedly comes across meaningless head counts of which countries supposedly oppose the sanctions as if that really mattered.

If the big five states agree that sanctions are to be extended, extended they will be. A decision to that effect will be published by the EU bureaucracy – which they control – as if all the EU states had agreed to it.

None of the smaller EU states can veto this decision because – since it is not going to be discussed by the European Council or by the EU Council of Ministers – they are not being provided with a proper forum where they could exercise such a veto.

If they publicly objected to the way the decision was made – or if they ever were to try to impose a veto whether through their permanent representative or at a meeting of the European Council or of the Council of Ministers – their objection and their veto would be simply ignored and would go unreported.

There would however be serious repercussions, with threats made in private that their structural funds might be cut if they continued to rock the boat by publicly defying the official line.

Only two EU states are powerful enough to ensure their vetoes are always respected. These are Germany and France. Precisely because these two states control the EU they scarcely ever need to wield a veto since it barely conceivable that the European Council or the Council of Ministers would ever take a decision they objected to.

Italy and Spain are strong enough to be listened to, but are not strong enough to veto a decision by themselves without some support from other EU states save in very exceptional circumstances which scarcely ever arise.

Britain is in an intermediate position. It has shown that it can veto decisions relating to the EU’s budget – to which it is a major contributor – but that it cannot veto anything else. The British have been unhappy about the process of EU integration the Germans and the French have been pursuing for the last twenty years (“ever closer union”) but despite possessing a veto they have been unable to prevent it.

None of the other EU states has any power of veto at all. Even when their electorates have voted against EU decisions in elections or referendums their objections have been ignored.

What invariably happens is that if the results of such elections or referendums go against what the EU authorities want, they simply overrule them (as was the case with Greece) or instruct the state that held the elections or the referendums to hold them again (as happened with Denmark and Ireland) until their people vote the “right” way.

This is how the EU works. To dispute it is to engage in denial.

It is why for all their cynicism the EU officials TASS spoke to are right: the sanctions against Russia will be extended before they expire on 31st January 2016 whatever objections some of the EU’s smaller countries may have against them.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Australian investigation of the crash of Malaysian Airlines #MH17 exposes (DSB) tampering

MH17: Australia Say Russia Not To Blame, Evidence Tampered With

Australian investigation into MH17 crash says that Russia is not to blame as they continue to investigate the real cause
The official Australian investigation into the cause of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 have accused the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) of failing to provide “conclusive evidence” of what exactly destroyed the aircraft, and say that Russia did not shoot down the plane despite accusations to the contrary from DSB. 
The senior Australian policeman investigating the MH17 crash, Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghue, testified in an international court recently saying that a “tougher standard than the DSB report” is required before the criminal investigation can identify the weapon that caused the crash.
Donoghue also testified that ten months after the crash, only half of the planes fuselage fragments were handed over for inspection and that “some fragments were not consistent with debris of the aircraft”. reports:
Their criminal investigation will continue into 2016, Donoghue told the Victorian Coroners Court (lead image) on Tuesday morning. He and other international investigators are unconvinced by reports from the US and Ukrainian governments, and by the DSB, of a Buk missile firing. “Dutch prosecutors require conclusive evidence on other types of missile,” Donoghue said, intimating that “initial information that the aircraft was shot down by a [Buk] surface to air missile” did not meet the Australian or international standard of evidence.
The Coroners Court in Melbourne is the first in the world to hold an inquest into the MH17 crash on July 17, 2014, and the cause of death of those on board. Iain West (right), the deputy state coroner presided, after the state coroner, Judge Ian Gray, withdrew at the last minute. The inquest opened for a single hour of hearing on Tuesday. A second hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, when West will announce his findings. In the UK, where an investigation into the death of 10 British nationals, is being supervised by Leicestershire coroner, Catherine Mason, all court proceedings have been suspended without a date being set for inquest. It was reported in the Melbourne court that British post-mortem experts participated in the Dutch investigations, alongside Australian, Dutch, and German teams, plus a joint Indonesian-Malaysian group.
In the Melbourne courtroom press reporters outnumbered representatives of the families of several of the victims. Of the 28 Australian citizens killed, 11 were from Victoria state; 10 were permanent residents of Australia; and 3 had close ties to Australia. A local newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch reported from the courtroom “the Kuala Lumpur-bound Malaysia Airlines flight… was hit by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile over eastern Ukraine”. In fact, Donoghue of the AFP said this was an unverified claim by the DSB for “a missile of a type previously provided to Ukraine.”
In court, in addition to members of the Coroner’s staff, there was one government intelligence agent who kept his official identification tag inside his coat, and refused to say whether he was an Australian or American national.
Donoghue was the lead witness. He continues to direct a team of 22 Australian police, forensic specialists and intelligent agents stationed in The Netherlands and Ukraine. He was followed by Dr David Ranson (right), a Victorian pathologist who led a team of 4; they worked at the Dutch military base at Hilversum in July and August of 2014, after the bodies of the MH17 victims were taken there for identification and forensic analysis. Donoghue said a full report by the AFP had been included in the coroner’s evidence. Ranson has filed two reports with the coroner – one of August 25, 2014, and one on December 16, 2014. So far the Coroner has classified these documents as secret.
Testifying on oath, Donoghue revealed for the first time that the Australian government had quietly negotiated two agreements to investigate the crash site in eastern Ukraine. The first, he said, was with the Ukrainian government in Kiev for security around the crash site. The second was with Novorussian leaders in order for the Australians to carry out their searches for victims’ bodies, personal property and other evidence, as well as to run a command post in Donetsk city. Political recognition by the Australians of the separatists has never been acknowledged before. Donoghue refused to say who signed the agreement for the Novorussians.
For the first time also, Donoghue acknowledged publicly that the international investigators had had “no ability to collect aircraft parts or other debris”. It was not until May 2015, he added, that forensic examination of the aircraft began.
The recovered aircraft wreckage was first photographed and registered in The Netherlands by the DSB. Image-1 shows the first DSB photograph, with a single hole visible. Image-2 shows that a new photograph published by DSB reveals a second hole.See here.
In his testimony Donoghue said that ten months after the crash, and after Kiev officials had handed over less than half the fuselage fragments to the Dutch, the discovery was made of “some fragments not consistent with debris of the aircraft”. Had he found shrapnel from an explosive device, missile or cannon? Donoghue refused to answer. The deaths of the passengers, he testified, had been caused by “inflight breakup [of the aircraft] and immediate decompression”, not by munitions. The lack of shrapnel as evidence of cause of death is analysed here.
Australian police calls for Ukrainian witnesses on the ground, who may have seen or heard what happened on the fateful day, were issued in March 2015, and then again in June. Some of those who came forward to testify refused to do so, Donoghue said Tuesday, unless the Australian and Dutch police protected them in “a safe location”; excluded Ukrainian government officials; and kept the identities of the witnesses secret.
Asked whether there had been any evidence of disrespect towards the victims’ bodies on the ground – as has been claimed in reporting by the Murdoch media — Donoghue testified: “there was no evidence of disrespect towards the bodies.”
Ranson, who is an associate professor of forensic pathology and deputy director of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, told the court he and his team had spent two and half weeks studying the victims’ bodies at Hilversum. There, he confirmed, X-rays and CT scans were carried out and more than 700 autopsies. He testified that when the Australian victims’ bodies were repatriated to the morgue at the Coroners Court, another CT scan was taken of each body, and matched against the scan taken at Hilversum. Ranson’s reports ruling out the presence of shrapnel from a missile strike in any of the MH17 bodies have been kept secret to date.
On oath, Ranson told Coroner West the deaths of the passengers had been caused by the aircraft breaking up. He dismissed the possibility that an oxygen mask found on a body on the ground had been worn by the victim. There was no DNA evidence to support that, and little likelihood, Ranson said, that the high-speed airflow through the aircraft at decompression would have left oxygen masks on the victims, if they had time to put them on. Death came too fast, Ranson believes.
The court heard that the survivors of the crash victims have been regularly briefed and counselled by Australian Government officials. They have also been coached not to answer press questions, although one admitted his family had been allowed to meet lawyers. Three statements were given in evidence at the inquest by representatives of the victims. One from members of the Van Den Hende family — Shaliza Dewal, her husband Hans Van Den Hende and their three children Piers, 15, Marnix, 12, and daughter Margaux, 8, were killed – said media reports of the crash were unreliable and unconvincing: “we are unsure who or what to believe.”

British military sources told the Telegraph Britain to support Muslim nations...

Britain to support Muslim nations' 

UK facing the prospect of being dragged further into the war in Syria by providing command and control, intelligence and air support to troops from the new coalition of Muslim nations against Islamic State jihadis

Britain faced the prospect of being dragged further into the war in Syriaon Tuesday night, as it was poised to support a newly-formed "ground army" from Muslim nations who could attack Isil within weeks.
The coalition of 34 largely Sunni Muslim nations on Tuesday night said it was planning to send special forces into Syria to help defeat Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
British forces, alongside the United States and other Nato allies, are already bombing Isil in both Iraq and Syria, but military sources said they would have to provide command and control, intelligence and air support to troops from the new coalition.
fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) marching in Raqqa, SyriaFighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) marching in Raqqa, Syria  Photo: AP
On Tuesday night Downing Street welcomed the proposals from the Gulf-led nations but declined to comment on military support.
British military sources told the Telegraph that while the UK would not provide boots on the ground, they were on standby to provide air support and "command and control".
But any Gulf or other forces would clearly add to or take the place of the 70,000 “moderate rebels” whom David Cameron, the Prime Minister, wants to be the "boots on the ground" to displace Isil in Syria but who say they already have their hands full fighting the Assad regime.
The Saudis and their Sunni Muslim allies would also be intent on preventing any vacuum being filled by the Bashar al-Assad regime, or its Shia Iranian allies, against whom the Gulf is facing off across the region.
That raises the prospect of the West being drawn directly into the confrontation between the two rival sectarian blocs.
Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, was speaking after the country’s powerful new deputy crown prince, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, unveiled the coalition in the capital Riyadh.
"There are discussions, countries that are currently part of the coalition (like) Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain, about sending some special forces into Syria, and those discussions are ongoing," Mr Jubeir said. "It's not excluded."
The Gulf states, some of which have been accused of supporting militants, are attempting to prove their loyalty to western allies and their determination to take on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil). They also face their own threats from Isil, including from returning "foreign fighters".
Mr Jubeir said the new alliance would share information and train, equip and provide troops. "Nothing is off the table," he said.
A 16-month bombing campaign led by the United States has failed to crush Isil and military planners say victory will require the assistance of a unified ground force that can hold territory and progress under cover of air strikes.
Britain already has some special forces in place, providing training and co-ordinating "spotters" calling in air strikes.
Earlier this month, following a vote in parliament, it extended air operations from Iraq to Isil positions in Syria, though last night it said it had not struck targets in the latter country since December 6.
Since then, the jets involved, Tornado GR4s and Typhoon FGR4s, along with unmanned Reaper drones, have just struck in Iraq.
Afzal Ashraf, a former senior RAF officer and now a fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said in principle the coalition was an excellent idea.
He said: “It’s a departure from the Saudi and Gulf players’ mindset which has tended to look to the West for security. It’s good that they are now beginning to address regional security concerns themselves.”
The purchasing power and weapons of the Gulf nations, coupled with the Nato training of Turkey and the long combat experience of Pakistan suggested that on paper they could mount a powerful force, he said.
But he said they would have to work “hand in glove” with Western forces, and cautioned that the Muslim world had a poor record of military cooperation.
Mr Cameron has previously raised the idea of working with Syria’s estimated 70,000 moderate rebels, but most of those groups say they are already engaged across an array of different front lines, fighting forces loyal to the Syrian regime.
The West’s most effective allies to date, the Kurds, have now reached the limits of their ethnic heartland in both Syria and Iraq and are reluctant to advance further.
A Sunni international ground force could solve this problem, as it would be called upon to re-take majority Sunni areas such as Raqqa, Isil’s de facto Syrian capital.
The likelihood of this outcome would become clearer in the coming weeks, Mr Jubair said on Tuesday, adding that it “depends on the requests that come, it depends on the need and it depends on the willingness of countries to provide the support necessary.”
The alliance would have a joint operations centre in Riyadh to “coordinate and support military operations”, said the Saudi state news agency SPA. Members would include Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey, it said.
It would also present a united Sunni front against the influence of Saudi Arabia’s greatest foe, Iran, with which it is engaged in bitter proxy wars across the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia and many of its allies would be determined to prevent a situation whereby if Raqqa, or other Isil-held territory in Syria, fell, the regime and its Iranian backers simply took its place.
The new alliance was immediately welcomed in Washington, which has been urging a greater regional involvement in the campaign against the militants.
Speaking on a visit to the Incerlik air base in Turkey at the start of a regional tour designed to drum up support for Washington’s military campaign, the US defence secretary, Ashton Carter, said: "We look forward to learning more about what Saudi Arabia has in mind."
The Prime Minister's official spokeswoman said: "We welcome countries in the international community doing more to work together to look at fighting terrorism. I think we are still waiting to understand a bit more of the details of it and how it's going to work."
Syria: timeline of British involvement
A timeline of Britain’s involvement in Syria since 2013
August 2013
Parliament recalled to discuss UK response to Syria

A Syrian victim who allegedly suffered a chemical attack at Khan al-Assal village
Following the confirmed use of chemical weapons against civilians near Damascus, Prime Minister David Cameron announces Parliament is being recalled to discuss the UK’s response to Syria.
August 2013
MPs reject military action in Syria
After eight hours of parliamentary debate, MPs reject the government’s motion in support of military action in Syria. Following the vote, Mr Miliband said: “Military intervention is now off the agenda for Britain. There would have been nothing worse than intervention without full international support.”
September 2013
Miliband criticised for Syria position
Former party leader Ed Miliband is criticised for hardening his position over Syria by saying that Labour would only support military action against the Assad regime if Britain’s national security was threatened. A concerned Labour MP said: “I am very worried that this could lead us to a position where Britain is not able to mount a military response if needed.”
September 2014
Cameron: “Strong case” for UK military intervention inSyria
The Prime Minister says military intervention in Syria would be lawful on the grounds of intervening to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. He adds the government would seek Parliamentary approval for the extension of air strikes against IS extremists in Iraq to Syria.
February 2015
UK to play a "leading role" in fight against IS
The UK says that no decision had been made about how it would be involved in the fight against IS, but that it would play a "leading role".
June 2015
Britain moves a step closer to bombing IS targets in Syria

A man prays after laying flowers on Marhaba beach where 38 people were killed
Labour says it would consider backing any military response to the Tunisian beach shootings in which 30 Britons were killed by gunman Seifeddine Rezgui.
July 2015
Public learn that British pilots have been killing IS fighters

British military pilots conduct air strikes over Syria for first time
British ministers are accused of deceiving the public after it emerged that at least three Royal Navy pilots had been killing IS fighters in Syria, even though MPs voted against military action there.
August 2015
First targeted UK drone attack on a British citizen in Syria

British jihadist boasts of fighters preparing for 'martyrdom'
Cardiff-born Reyaad Khan, 21, and Ruhul Amin, from Aberdeen, are reported to have died in Raqqa, in the first targeted UK drone attack on a British citizen. In reference to Khan, David Cameron says: “There was a terrorist directing murder on our streets and no other means to stop him.”
November 2015
Britain works "hand in glove" with US to kill Jihadi John
David Cameron praises British intelligence agencies and armed forces for working "hand in glove" with the US to carry out an air strike in Raqqa, targeting Mohammed Emwazi - the Isil executioner known as Jihadi John.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Washington again squandering a historic opportunity with post-Soviet Russia, again to the detriment of US

US and NATO Double Down on the Cold War Versus Russia

In the aftermath of the Paris and San Bernardino attacks, Washington and Brussels still reject a coalition with Moscow against international terrorism.

Stephen F. Cohen
The John Batchelor Show, December 8.

Washington again squandering a historic opportunity with post-Soviet Russia, again to the detriment of US
Nation contributing editor Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. Cohen frames recent developments in the context of the now nearly month-long proposal by French President Hollande and Russian President Putin for a US-European-Russian military and political coalition against the Islamic State in Syria, Iraq, and possibly Libya.

Even though such an alliance is necessary and might serve also to resolve the Cold War confrontation in Ukraine, Cohen argues, recent US-led or -influenced events suggest that the Obama administration has rejected any such “grand coalition” with Moscow. Each of those events is discussed, including escalation of the Ukrainian crisis and Vice President Biden’s visit to Kiev; the Turkish shooting down of a Russian warplane; NATO’s sudden announcement that it is adding tiny Montenegro to its expansion toward Russia; the IMF’s violation of its own rules in order to give Kiev more billions of dollars; and the establishment media’s continuing vilification of Putin’s leadership, even his six-week air war against ISIS.

The overarching question posed: Is Washington again squandering a historic opportunity for a partnership with post-Soviet Russia, again to the detriment of US national security?

What Are the USA and Its NATO Allies Fighting for in Syria and Iraq? (Answered)

What Are the USA and Its NATO Allies Fighting for in Syria and Iraq?

Posters Comment:
The short story is that they are poorly advised to the reality of the true disadvantages of de-friending Russia. Israel has entrenched the US political rulers with agents working for the Mossad. Now that the EU and NATO along with the UN have sealed sinister activities that would bring down the whole of the western empire, they must by continue their illegal and immoral terrorism to save their skins.
If anything close to the unraveling of their web of deceit begins, they will end it in nuclear waste sooner than face their demise. Watch this 3-1/2 hr. video to the end, then share it to all of your social media sites.
It answers this articles question and more.

Back to the article

On December 7, the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Syria filed a note of protest to the UN Security Council regarding the Air Force attack of the international coalition headed by the USA on a facility of the Syrian army in Deir Ezzor. The SAR Ministry confirmed that four coalition aircrafts fired nine missiles on the Syrian army facility in the evening of December 6. According to the Syrian news agency SANA, three people were killed and three were injured.

“Syria strongly condemns this act of aggression by the US-led coalition that contradicts the goals and provisions of the UN Charter. The Foreign Affairs Ministry sent letters to the UN Secretary General and the UN Security Council,” the news agency quotes the Ministry’s statement. In turn, a representative of the US Air Forces, Colonel Steve Warren, denies the US army involvement. “We have seen the Syrian reports, but we did not carry out any air strikes on this area in Deir Ezzor yesterday. We see no direct evidence of the US army involvement,” AFP quotes the Colonel. However, on December 7, it was reported that the US-led Western coalition Air Forces mistakenly bombed the camp of the Syrian government troops in the province of Deir Ezzor about 2 km away from the zone controlled by the terrorist organization Islamic State.

Earlier, the United Kingdom and Germany joined the military operation in Syria. On December 1, the German government approved Bundeswehr participation in the antiterrorist operation in Syria. It is noted that up to 1.2 thousand soldiers can be involved in the operation. The British Air Forces started to carry out air strikes on the Isil positions in Syria on December 3. The House of Commons of the British Parliament approved the operation the day before. Germany is operating from the Inzhirlik military base on Turkish territory, while Britain is bombing the Syrian territory from its base in Cyprus. From the international and legal point of view, these actions are illegal, as there is no UN Security Council resolution that must be adopted in such cases in accordance with Article 7 of the UN Charter. In addition, there is no official approval from Damascus for the use of its air space by the Air Forces of Germany, or the USA and France either. In simple terms, Western countries and their Arabian allies are engaged in piracy in another country’s sky. Then, there is an attack on the government troops, which led to the death of Syrian soldiers.

The question arises of whether the US-led coalition members are fighting against Isil or continuing to weaken the authorities of Damascus. The latter seems to be the case. All these actions are taking place amid the fact that yet another NATO ally – Turkey – has repeatedly led its special forces onto Syrian territory, including the attempt to capture the navigator of the Russian SU-24 shot down in a dishonourable strike by Ankara and get rid of the unwanted witness.

Moreover, Baghdad is protesting against the fact that Ankara has sent 150 soldiers with artillery to the Iraqi territory close to Mosul for the supposed training of fighters of the Kurdish peshmerga troops to use heavy machine guns without the consent of the Iraqi government. It was only in response to the official protest of Haider al-Abadi, the prime minister of Iraq, demanding that the Turkish troops be removed within 24 hours, that prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu responded to the call of Baghdad thereby recognizing that Turkey had sent their troops to the neighboring country without the permission of its authorities. References to the Kurds are out of place as all the three provinces of northern Iraq are part of a single state, though they have autonomous status. But this status does not cover defense and foreign policy. They are not able to invite foreign troops to Iraqi territory.

Therefore the statements of some Kurds become clear. They state that the Russian Aerospace Forces bombed not Turkish but Kurdish gasoline trucks engaged in oil smuggling from the Isil territory to SAR near Deir Ezzor. Does the corresponding resolution of the UN Security Council allow the Kurds to trade oil with terrorists and finance Isil? The UN Security Council resolution says nothing about that. However, it is well known that the Iraqi Kurds, especially those from the Barzani tribe, and the former foreign affairs minister of Iraq, a Kurd H. Zibari actively violated the UN embargo in the time of Saddam Hussein’s rule by trading oil products through the Turkish territory in circumvention of the sanctions introduced by the UN Security Council against Baghdad. They shared a part of their proceeds with Saddam and Ankara.

There are rumours about US special operations forces being sent to Iraq to liquidate the heads of terrorists, moreover the number of soldiers has been specified at 1.5 thousand. Washington immediately refuted this information. Baghdad also asserted that no American soldiers would appear in Iraq without the consent of the Iraqi government. Nevertheless, there are still rumours that last week, heavy troop-carrying aircraft of the US Air Forces landed close to Ramadi delivering special operations troops and military weaponry. But they seem to have dissolved in the desert.

Thus, the following picture of what is happening in the Middle East amid the war with Isil is formed:

NATO is actively interfering in the Syrian conflict violating international law. It knows that with the continued operations of the Russian Aerospace Forces in the skies and the ground offensive of the Syrian army with the support of Iranians and Hizballah, Damascus has a real chance to put an end to the presence of Isil in its territory. Thus, it will be the acting government of Damascus, Moscow, and Teheran that will be crowned victors and will earn the right to determine the SAR future without the participation of the West, in particular Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the so-called “Syrian armed opposition.” This means Russia gets the “grand prix” as the winner in the fight against terrorism in Syria. As Barack Obama repeated in his state of the nation address (for the third time during his presidency) on December 6, the USA would not interfere in the Syrian war. By the time of the next US Presidential election, the situation with Isil and SAR is likely to be settled. But it’s not the president who is in control in the US, but those who pay for the show, and those people are kin to bleed Russia till its fall. To achieve this goal, ultimately, all sorts of tricks are deemed to be allowed: sanctions, droping of oil prices, or traps in a form of an exhausting war in foreign countries.

It looks like Washington and its major NATO allies are trying to draw Turkey into war thus colliding it with Russia in a military clinch (which can be true) or to ensure Moscow’s greater role in determining the future of Syria. But the second scenario doesn’t look like the case, since Kiev is amassing troops near Crimea and Donbass, while manifesting no idea to carry on pretending that it’s going to respect the Minsk II protocol. This would allow Washington to prolonge sanctions against Russia, while the Persian Gulf monarchies will keep pushing oil prices down. After the recent OPEC statement the prices droped to 41 dollars per barrel, which sent Russia’s currency into a new plunge.

The events in Iraq keep heating up too. The USA is interested in what will happen to Iraq, but obviously not that much. Washington is evidently ready to divide Iraq into three entities – Shiahstan, Kurdistan and Sunnitostan, in the latter of which the last of Isil will be defeated from the air and ground with the participation of Iran. But they do not plan to admit Moscow into Iran.

Moreover, the acting Shia authorities of Baghdad are obviously ready for the country’s split. It is obvious that the Shias do not want to fight outside the territories under their control. And this option is likely to be acceptable for Iran. In addition, no one opposes the expansion of the Kurdish autonomy territory in Iraq, including areas of compact settlement of the Arabs near Mosul and Kirkuk. It means the Sunnis will get a deserted western Iraq and part of the provinces of the central part of the country such as Salah ad-Din. The Kurds are going to be the instrument of choice for the West, since the Shia government in Baghdad is of little interest to the White House. It can become somewhat relevant again, if Russia is to be demanded to strike ISIL in Iraq. But Russia won’t be allowed to do that, by both the US and Iran. But in the present situation, it has little interest in going there anyway.

Many Isil troops started to relocate in Libya and North Africa, and have vanished in the flow of refugees to Europe, apparently in preparation for terrorist acts on the EU territory. It is easier to organize attacks from the southern Mediterranean than from the Middle East.

We can only recall the recent words of the foreign minister of the United Kingdom Philip Hammond, who said that only one person in the world was able to put an end to the “madness” of the civil war in Syria instantly – the Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, the US and NATO cannot easily come to terms with this fact. Although they will have to. What’s imperative for Russia today is to stay away from the ground operation in Syria, no matter how promising it looks. Another scenario – a military confrontation with Turkey is no better, even though some experts voice their believes that Russia’ must seek retribution. It has been punished already by the Economic sanctions Russia introduced. The West can’t help to wait to get Russia stuck in a military conflict somewhere, which will allow the US to carry on its criminal activites in the Middle East.

Alexander Orlov, political scientist and expert Orientalist, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.