Turkey ‘Enters Into a War’…On the Side of ISIL

24 Nov

Sputniknews.com 24.11.2015

Turkey has entered the war on the side of the Islamic State, the Vice President of the Italian Senate Roberto Calderoli said after a Russian Su-24 jet was downed over Syria with an air-to-air missile launched by a Turkish F-16 fighter.

On Tuesday morning a Russian Su-24M bomber jet crashed in Syria with two people aboard. Ankara claims Turkish F-16s shot down the plane because it violated the country’s airspace. Contrary to Turkey’s accusations, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the aircraft was 0.6 miles away from Turkey when it was shot down.

“Turkey has officially entered the war on the side of ISIL by downing at the order of [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan a Russian aircraft which has participated in operations against Islamic terrorists in Syria,” the leading member of the Northern League (Lega Nord) Party wrote on his Facebook page.

According to Calderoli, Turkey is a “’Trojan Horse’ with which assistance the Islamic fundamentalism would like to take a clear shot at the West.”

“Why is Turkey still in NATO after what happened? What else can be expected of the UN apart from taking a strong stand on ISIL and its allies?” Calderoli wondered.

The politician has also criticized Rome’s official stance.

“The Government [of Matteo Renzi] is on the wrong side with [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel, instead of taking the side of Putin in this war to defend our values, our freedom and our traditions,” Calderoli wrote.

Nine Ways to Stop TerrorismIf We Want To Stop Terrorism, We Should Stop SUPPORTING Terrorists

20 Nov

By Washington’s BlogGlobal Research, November 19, 2015, Washington’s Blog 18 November 2015

Nine Ways to Stop Terrorism
In the wake of the barbaric Paris terror attacks, everyone is arguing over what we should do to stop further terrorism.
Some say we need more war against Islamic countries … or more spying … or more crackdowns on our liberties.
In reality – despite what the talking heads may say – the methods for stopping future attacks are well known …
I. Stop Overthrowing the Moderates and Arming the Crazies
We know it’s a difficult concept to grasp, but if we want to stop terrorism we should – wait for it – stopsupporting terrorists.
Specifically, we’re arming the most violent radicals in the Middle East, as part of a really stupidgeopolitical strategy to overthrow leaders we don’t like (more details below). And see this, this, this, thisand this. And – strangely – we’re overthrowing the moderate Arabs who stabilized the region and deniedjihadis a foothold.
Indeed, the U.S. and its allies are directly responsible for creating and supplying ISIS. As an internal Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document produced recently shows, the U.S. knew that the actions of “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey” in Syria might create a terrorist group like ISIS and an Islamic CALIPHATE.
Indeed, the former head of the DIA explained:
It was a willful decision [by America] to … support an insurgency that had salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood ….
If we want to stop terrorism, we need to stop supporting the terrorists.
II. Stop Supporting the Dictators Who Fund Terrorists
Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest sponsor of radical Islamic terrorists. The Saudis have backed ISIS and many other brutal terrorist groups. And the most pro-ISIS tweets allegedly come from Saudi Arabia.
According to sworn declarations from a 9/11 Commissioner and the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry Into 9/11, the Saudi government backed the 9/11 hijackers (see section VII for details).
Saudi Arabia is the hotbed of the most radical Muslim terrorists in the world: the Salafis (both ISIS and Al Qaeda are Salafis).
And the Saudis – with U.S. support – back the radical “madrassas” in which Islamic radicalism was spread.
And yet the U.S. has been supporting the Saudis militarily, with NSA intelligence and in every other way possible for 70 years.
In addition, top American terrorism experts say that U.S. support for brutal and tyrannical countries in the Middle east – like Saudi Arabia – is one of the top motivators for Arab terrorists.
U.S. and NATO-supported Turkey is also massively supporting ISIS, provided chemical weapons used in the jihadi’s massacre of civilians, and has been bombing ISIS’ main on-the-ground enemy – Kurdish soldiers – using its air force. And some of the Turkish people also seem to be unsympathetic to the victims of terrorism.
The U.S.-backed dictatorships in Qatar and Bahrain also massively fund ISIS.
So if we stop supporting the tyrannies in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Bahrain, we’ll get a two-fold reduction in terror:
(1) We’ll undermine the main terrorism supporters
And …
(2) We’ll take away one of the main motivations driving terrorists: our support for the most repressive, brutal Arab dictatorships
What a concept!
III. Stop Bombing and Invading When a Negotiated Settlement Is Offered
The U.S. rejected offers by Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to surrender … and instead proceeded to wage war.
Security experts – including both conservatives and liberals – agree that waging war in the Middle Eastweakens national security and increases terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.
For example, James K. Feldman – former professor of decision analysis and economics at the Air Force Institute of Technology and the School of Advanced Airpower Studies – and other experts say that foreign occupation is the main cause of terrorism. University of Chicago professor Robert A. Pape – who specializes in international security affairs – agrees.
So negotiating peaceful deals will drain the swamp of terrorists created by war and invasion.
IV. Stop Imperial Conquests for Arab Oil
The U.S. has undertaken regime change against Arab leaders we don’t like for six decades. We overthrew the leader of Syria in 1949, Iran in 1953, Iraq twice, Afghanistan twice, Turkey, Libya … and other oil-rich countries.
Neoconservatives planned regime change throughout the Middle East and North Africa yet again in 1991.
Top American politicians admit that the Iraq war was about oil, not stopping terrorism (documents from Britain show the same thing). Much of the war on terror is really a fight for natural gas. Or to force the last few hold-outs into dollars and private central banking.
And the U.S. military described terror attacks on the U.S. as a “small price to pay for being a superpower“:
A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes characterized more than once by colleagues as a “small price to pay for being a superpower”.
We’ve fought the longest and most expensive wars in American history … but we’re less secure than before, and there are more terror attacks than ever (update).
Remember, Al Qaeda wasn’t even in Iraq until the U.S. invaded that country. And the West’s Iraq wardirectly led to the creation of ISIS.
If we want to stop terrorism, we have to stop overthrowing Arab leaders and invading Arab countries to grab their oil.
V. Stop Drone Assassinations of Innocent Civilians
Top CIA officers say that drone strikes increase terrorism (and see this).
The CIA – the agency in charge of drone strikes – even told Obama that drone kills can increase terrorism.
If we want to stop creating new terrorists, we have to stop the drone strikes.
VI. Stop Torture
Top terrorism and interrogation experts agree that torture creates more terrorists.
Indeed, the leaders of ISIS were motivated by U.S. torture.
Once again, we have a very current example: Charlie Hebdo-murdering Frenchterrorist Cherif Kouchitold a court in 2005 that he wasn’t radical until he learned about U.S. torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
If we want to stop creating new terrorists, we have to stop torturing … permanently.
VII. Stop Mass Surveillance
Top security experts agree that mass surveillance makes us MORE vulnerable to terrorists.
Indeed, even the NSA admits that it’s collecting too MUCH information to stop terror attacks.
Stop it.
VIII. Stop Covering Up 9/11
Government officials agree that 9/11 was state-sponsored terrorism … they just disagree on which state was responsible.
Because 9/11 was the largest terror attack on the U.S. in history – and all of our national security strategies are based on 9/11 – we can’t stop terror until we get to the bottom of what really happened, and which state was behind it.
Many high-level American officials – including military leaders, intelligence officials and 9/11 commissioners – are dissatisfied with the 9/11 investigations to date.
The Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham – and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “permanent 9/11 commission” or a new 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it.
The Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee (Bob Graham) said that the Paris terror attack, ISIS, and other terrorist developments are a result of failing to stand up to Saudi Arabia and declassify the 9/11 investigation’s report about Saudi involvement in 9/11:

The 9/11 chairs, Ron Paul, and numerous other American politicians have called for declassification, as well.
Again, others have different ideas about who was behind 9/11. But until we get to the bottom of it, terror attacks will continue.
IX. Stop Doing It Ourselves
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom said:
By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.
(audio here).
The Washington Post reported in 2010:
The United States has long been an exporter of terrorism, according to a secret CIA analysis released Wednesday by the Web site WikiLeaks.
Wikipedia notes:
Chomsky and Herman observed that terror was concentrated in the U.S. sphere of influence in the Third World, and documented terror carried out by U.S. client states in Latin America. They observed that of ten Latin American countries that had death squads, all were U.S. client states.
They concluded that the global rise in state terror was a result of U.S. foreign policy.
In 1991, a book edited by Alexander L. George [the Graham H. Stuart Professor of Political Science Emeritus at Stanford University] also argued that other Western powers sponsored terror in Third World countries. It concluded that the U.S. and its allies were the main supporters of terrorism throughout the world.
Indeed, the U.S. has created death squads in Latin America, Iraq and Syria.
Some in the American military have intentionally tried to “out-terrorize the terrorists”. As Truthoutnotes:
Both [specialists Ethan McCord and Josh Stieber] say they saw their mission as a plan to “out-terrorize the terrorists,” in order to make the general populace more afraid of the Americans than they were of insurgent groups. In the interview with [Scott] Horton, Horton pressed Stieber:
“… a fellow veteran of yours from the same battalion has said that you guys had a standard operating procedure, SOP, that said – and I guess this is a reaction to some EFP attacks on y’all’s Humvees and stuff that killed some guys – that from now on if a roadside bomb goes off, IED goes off, everyone who survives the attack get out and fire in all directions at anybody who happens to be nearby … that this was actually an order from above. Is that correct? Can you, you know, verify that?
Stieber answered:
“Yeah, it was an order that came from Kauzlarich himself, and it had the philosophy that, you know, as Finkel does describe in the book, that we were under pretty constant threat, and what he leaves out is the response to that threat. But the philosophy was that if each time one of these roadside bombs went off where you don’t know who set it … the way we were told to respond was to open fire on anyone in the area, with the philosophy that that would intimidate them, to be proactive in stopping people from making these bombs …”
Terrorism is defined as:
The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
So McCord and Stieber are correct: this constitutes terrorism by American forces in Iraq. And Americanofficials have admitted that the U.S. has engaged in numerous false flag attacks.
Indeed, many top experts – including government officials – say that America is the largest sponsor of terror in the world … largely through the work of the CIA. And see this.
Stop Throwing Bodies In the River
Defenders of current government policy say: “we have to do something to stop terrorists!”
Yes, we do …
But we must also stop doing the 9 things above which increase terrorism. We have to stop “throwing new bodies in the river.”
But the powers-that-be don’t want to change course … they gain tremendous power and influence through our current war on terror strategies.
For example, the military-complex grows rich through war … so endless war is a feature – not a bug – of our foreign policy.
Torture was about building a false justification for war.
Mass surveillance is about economic and diplomatic advantage and crushing dissent.
Supporting the most radical Muslim leaders is about oil and power … “a small price to pay” to try to dominate the world.
A leading advisor to the U.S. military – the Rand Corporation – released a study in 2008 called “How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa’ida“. The report confirms what experts have been saying for years: the war on terror is actually weakening national security (see this, this and this).
As a press release about the study states:
“Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism.”
We, the People, have to stand up and demand that our power-hungry leaders stop doing the things which give them more power … but are guaranteed to increase terrorism against us, the civilian population.
Postscript: It’s not yet clear whether any of the terrorists were “refugees”, and some say that ISISWANTS to stop all refugees from leaving Syria and Iraq. However, we also take the risk of infiltration of refugee groups by terrorists very seriously.
The bottom line is that we have to stop throwing new bodies in the river, so that we drastically reduce the amount of terrorists in the first place.
The original source of this article is Washington’s Blog

Truth in Media: The Origin of ISIS

19 Nov

By Ben Swann -Mar 12, 2015

To know the truth you mat watch the YouTube Report 
Click here to watch

In the latest episode of Truth in Media, Ben Swann investigates the origins of the militant group referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
“The name ISIS is one that every American knows,” Swann said “The biggest threat to our national security since Al-Qaeda, right? They are a brutal, savage group known for public beheadings and mass executions. They are the face of the new war on terror.”
Swann pointed out that while the U.S. Military is currently conducting airstrikes in Syria, in a supposed attempt to take out ISIS targets, the White House and U.S. military leaders are discussing possible boots on the ground in Iraq. These talks are arising just three years after President Obama declared that the war in Iraq was over.
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told USA Today that in order to defeat ISIS, he believes the United States is looking at “a 30-year-war.”
As the U.S. goes to war in an attempt to defeat yet another terrorist group, the biggest question is: Who exactly is ISIS and where did they come from?
Angela Keaton, the founder of Antiwar.com, said that ISIS is “entirely a creation of the United States’ behavior in Iraq.”
“That’s how we got to where we are, because of war, because of occupation, because of torture,” Keaton said. “The United States government completely destabilized and wrecked Iraq. They caused it to fail miserably and that is entirely the fault of the United States government. There is no one else to blame.”
Swann explained that when the U.S. first invaded Iraq, it “blew the country apart.” By destroying the existing government, toppling Saddam Hussein, and destroying the infrastructure, the U.S. “left behind a power vacuum” that would never have existed under Hussein.
Daniel McAdams, the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, said that the impact caused by the actions of the United States is a “historical fact that media just won’t discuss.”
“This has to do with U.S. action in the region, which destroyed the infrastructure, which destroyed Iraq society, which destroyed the Iraqi government,” McAdams said. He explained that while there were a lot of people who weren’t “as happy as larks” while living under Saddam Hussein, they also weren’t at odds with Hussein in the same way they were with the government established by the U.S.
The militant group ISIS was formed as a small insurgent group in Iraq in 2006. Swann noted that while they tried to create problems for the U.S. military, they had no money and no real ability to recruit.
“It wasn’t until 2009 that ISIS shifted its focus from Iraq, where it was largely unsuccessful in developing a foothold, and focused on the civil war in Syria,” Swann said.
While in Syria, ISIS still struggled to gain a foothold. Swann attributed this to the fact that two larger groups fighting against President Bashar al-Assad were overpowering them: al-Nusra Front – or al-Qaeda – and the Free Syrian Army.
“Then, came a pivotal moment that most Americans aren’t even aware of,” Swann said. “In June 2013, a Northern General for the Free Syrian Army spoke out on Al Jazeera Qatar and stated that if international forces did not send weapons, the rebels attempting to overthrow Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would lose their war within a month.”
Swann noted that just months before this occurred he had personally confronted President Obama on the issue of why the U.S. was covertly funding Syrian rebels. Although Obama acted as if he was proceeding with caution, politicians such as Senator John McCain demanded action.
“Within a matter of weeks of the Syrian general making his plea for international help, the U.S., the Saudis, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey and Israel began providing weapons, training and money to so-called rebel groups like the Free Syrian Army,” Swann said.
In September 2013, American media outlets began reporting that weapons were being given to Syrian rebels. CNN reported that while the weapons are not “American-made,” they were “funded and organized by the CIA.”
However, Swann said that things began to fall apart when less than one year after the U.S. supplied Syrian “freedom fighters” with weapons, those weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS fighters.
Those ISIS fighters came from the group McCain insisted would help the U.S. overthrow Assad: the Free Syrian Army. Swann explained that the army was not only sending the Islamic State weapons, it was also sending them fighters.
“The Free Syrian Army has lost most of the land that it ever claimed and it’s entirely incompetent,” Keaton said. “The only thing that it has been good at is currying favor with western leaders.”
Swann said that it wasn’t until June 2014 that ISIS went from being a “no-name group in Syria” to a group that was “heavily armed and trained by U.S. and Coalition Special Forces.” This revitalized group made a dramatic entrance by crossing back over the Syrian border into Iraq and capturing Mosul and much of the northern part of the country.
“One of the most important facts that mainstream media ignores time and time again is that ISIS was able to grow so fast, because of all the U.S. military equipment they were able to seize – equipment that our military left in Iraq,” said Swann. “Truckloads of Humvees, tanks and weaponry that instead of taking or destroying, the U.S. government simply decided to leave behind.”
However, even when the U.S. government became aware that ISIS fighters were capturing U.S. equipment, it did nothing. Swann attributed the lack of action to the fact that ISIS fighters were taking the equipment back into Syria to continue fighting Assad, which was what the U.S. government wanted.
“How is it that the United States, with all of its intelligence capabilities, didn’t know this threat was coming?” McAdams said. “How many billions did we spend, maybe a hundred billion on total intelligence community budge over the year? How did they have no idea?”
Swann said that the answer is simple: “The U.S. did know who ISIS was, but the so-called Islamic State was doing what the Obama administration wanted.”
The ISIS fighters continued to do what the Obama administration wanted, and in late summer 2014, they were labeled what Swann called, “the new boogeyman in the war on terror.”
“Over the past few months, the U.S. government, who acted like they had never even heard of ISIS, suddenly, with the help of media has turned the Islamic State into the new focus of the war on terror,” Swann said. “Now, as ISIS has continued its rise, recruitment is exploding and the group is becoming stunningly wealthy.”
Swann noted that in response to the “ISIS threat,” the U.S. began “conducting airstrikes on Syrian oil fields, instead of going after those buying the oil.”
McAdams pointed out that ISIS makes $2 million a day off of selling oil, and the United States’ response, of “undercutting the competition” by blowing up oil fields makes no sense. He questioned why the U.S., which is known for sanctioning “anything that moves,” when it’s angry, is not placing sanctions on the banks or the oil companies that are involved.
Swann added that in addition to those questions, Americans should also be asking, “Why is the U.S. sending $500 million to the Free Syrian Army to fight ISIS when the FSA is one of the biggest suppliers of fighters and weapons to ISIS?” and “Why are we sending new and more powerful weapons to the FSA like anti-aircraft missiles – weapons that we know will be in the hands of ISIS?”
Swann maintained that while the mainstream media will say that ISIS is the “creation of American inaction,” the reality is that they are the “product of direct action.”
This direct action started with “the action of creating a power vacuum in Iraq” and manifested into the “arming violent Jihadists, hoping they would overthrow a leader in a neighboring Middle Eastern country.”
McAdams described the U.S. government as a victim of its own insane policies, due to the fact that it is “very good at blowing things up, but really bad at putting them back together.”
In determining whether or not McAdams’ statement was true, Swann listed three facts:
Fact #1: “Our government armed Osama bin Laden and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and created al-Qaeda.”
Fact #2: “Our government put Saddam Hussein into power – we helped supply and create chemical weapons for him to use against Iran in 1980 – and then we overthrew him in 2003.”
Fact #3: “Our government trained rebel fighters in Syria who would become the group today known as ISIS. We have watched them commit every violent atrocity you can imagine to people living in Iraq and Syria, and now we want American taxpayers to fund a 30-year war with them.”
Swann came to the conclusion that it isn’t the U.S. government being held hostage by crazy policies; rather it is the American people.
“It is time that we reject the destruction of people groups around the world for the sake of foreign policy that makes so-called defense contractors rich, and perpetuates violence, death, and the destruction of entire people groups,” Swann said. “This is the central issue of our time – because humanity is greater than politics.”

Source: http://truthinmedia.com/flashback-ben-swann-truth-in-media-syria/

France is a state that support terrorism and the French people are the victims 

18 Nov

The French Republic taken hostageby Thierry Meyssan

Voltairenet.org 18.11.2015

The war which has now spread to Paris is incomprehensible for those French citizens who are ignorant of practically all the secret activities of their government in the Arab world, of its unnatural alliances with the Gulf dictators, and its active participation in international terrorism. These policies have never been discussed in Parliament, and the major media have rarely dared to take an interest in them.

The French Republic taken hostage:

For the last five years, the French people have been hearing about distant wars, but without ever understanding what they meant. The Press informed them about the engagement of their army in Libya, but never about the presence of French soldiers on mission in the Levant. My articles on this subject are widely-read, but perceived as some sort of Oriental aberration. Despite my personal history, it remains quite acceptable to qualify me as an « extremist », or a « conspiracy theorist », and to point out that my articles are reproduced by Internet sites of all political colours, including those which are in fact authentically extremist or conspiracist. Yet nobody seems to have any quarrel with what I write. But neither do they pay any attention to my warnings about the alliances concluded by the French governement.

Now, suddenly, the unheeded truth surfaces.

France was attacked on the night of Friday 13th November 2015 by several commandos who massacred at least 130 people in five different areas of Paris. The state of emergency was decreed for a period of 12 days over the whole territory, and may be extended by act of Parliament.

No direct link with the Charlie Hebdo affair

The French Press interprets these acts of war by linking them to the attack made on Charlie Hebdo, although the operational modes were completely different. In January, the attack was aimed at killing specific people, while in this case, it was a co-ordinated attack on a large number of people chosen at random.
We know today that just before the January attack, the editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo had received a « gift » of 200,000 Euros from the Near East in order to continue his anti-Muslim campaign [1] ; that the killers were linked to the French intelligence services [2] ; and that the origin of their weapons is covered by the Official Secrets Act [3]. I have already demonstrated that the attack was not an Islamist operation [4], that it was immediately recuperated by a state [5], and that this recuperation had raised echoes in populations hostile to the Republic [6] – an idea which was brilliantly developed a few months later by the demographer Emmanuel Todd [7].
To get back to the war which has just spread to Paris, it has been a shock for Western Europe. It can not be compared to the attacks in Madrid in 2004. In Spain, there were no shooters, no kamikazes, but 10 bombs placed in 4 separate locations [8]. The type of horror which has just exploded in France is the daily lot of many populations of the « Wider Middle East », and has been since 2001. And comparable events can be found elsewhere, like the three days of attacks in six distinct locations, in Bombay, 2008 [9].
Even if the assaillants of the 13th November were Muslims, and even if some of them shouted « Allah Akbar ! » as they killed passers-by, there is no link to such earlier attacks, to Islam, or to an eventual « war of civilisations ». These commandos had clearly received the order to kill at random, without first enquiring as to the religion of their victims.
In the same way, it is absurd to take at face value the motive claimed by Daesh against France – even if there is no doubt about its implication in this attack. Indeed, if the terrorist organisation had wanted to « avenge » itself, it would have struck at Moscow.

France has been a terrorist state since at least 2011

The interpretation of these events is unclear, because behind non-state groups there are always states which sponsor them. In the 1970’s, the Venezualan Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, known as « Carlos » or « The Jackal » aligned himself by conviction with the Palestinian cause and the Revolution, and was offered the discrete support of the USSR. In the 1980’s, the example of Carlos was revived by mercenaries working for the highest bidder, like Sabri al Banna, known as « Abou Nidal », who carried out terrorist attacks for Libya and Syria as well as Israël. Today, there exists a cloudy network of terrorism and secret actors implicating a large number of states.
In principle, states always deny their participation in terrorist groups. However, the French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, declared in December 2012, during the « Friends of Syria » conference in Marrakesh, that Al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of Al-Qaïda, had « done a good job » [10].
Because of his status, M. Fabius knew that he did not risk being taken to court to answer for supporting an organisation listed as « terrorist » by United Nations Security Council, but he took a serious risk for his country by dropping them into the cauldron of terrorism with this statement.
In truth, France had been implicated on the side of Al-Qaïda at least since the beginning of 2011. At that time, the United Kingdom and France had signed up for the US project called « the Arab Spring ». The goal of this operation was to overthrow all the secular Arab régimes and replace them with dictatorships run by the Muslim Brotherhood. Although London and Paris had discovered this operation while it was on-going in Tunisia and in Egypt, they had previously been solicited for Libya and Syria [11]. In Libya, with the help of the Italian Special Forces, they organised the massacres in Benghazi, and then, with the help of Al-Qaïda, the capture of the Libyan arsenals. I can attest to the fact that in August 2011, while I was under the protection of Khamis el-Kadhafi, NATO assaulted the capital, and the Hotel Rixos, where we were staying, was seiged to cries of « Allah Akbar ! » by a unit of Al-Qaïda. They were called the Tripoli Brigade, and were commanded by Mahdi al-Harati and supervised by operational French officers. The same Mahdi al-Harati was present with his commanding officer, Abdelhakim Belhaj, the founder of the so-called « Free Syrian Army » which was in reality a section of Al-Qaïda, fighting under the French colonial flag.
In Syria, the presence of French officers supervising armed groups while they were committing crimes against humanity is widely attested.
France then went on to play an extremely complex and dangerous game. In January 2013 – in other words, one month after Laurent Fabius’ public support for Al-Qaïda in Syria – France launched an operation in Mali against the same Al-Qaïda, provoking the first reaction against its agents infiltrated in Syria.
You, of course, have never heard anything about all that, because although France has democratic institutions, its current policy in the Arab world has never been publicly discussed. In violation of article 35 of the Constitution, it decided to enter into war with Libya and Syria after only a few hours of superficial parliamentary debate – at the most – and without a vote. The French parliamentarians thus discarded their mandate to excercise control over the Executive as far as foreign policy was concerned, apparently believing that this was a private domain of the President, and without real consequence for daily life. However, as anyone can now see, on the contrary, peace and security, one of the four « Human and Citizens’ Rights » of 1789 (article 2), depend upon it directly. The worst is yet to come.
In the beginning of 2014, while the liberal US hawks were working on their plan for the transformation of the Islamic Emirate in Iraq and Cham into what was going to become Daesh, France and Turkey transported munitions to Al-Qaïda so that they could fight the Islamic Emirate – this point is attested by a document presented to the Security Council on the 14th July 2014 [12]. However, France later joined this secret operation, and participated in the international anti-Daesh Coalition, which, as everyone now knows, contrary to its name, did not bomb Daesh, but delivered weapons to it for a year [13]. The situation evolved further after the signature of the 5+1 agreement with Iran. The United States suddenly turned on the terrorist organisation and pushed it back to Al-Hasakah (Syria) [14]. But it was only in mid-October 2015 – a month ago – that France began to fight Daesh. Not to stop the massacres, but to conquer part of the territory it occupies in Syria and Iraq, and install a new colonial state which is to be called « Kurdistan », even though the Kurdish population will be largely in the minority [15].
In this perspective, France sent its aircraft-carrier – which has not yet arrived – to support the Marxist-Leninists of the Kurdish party YPG against its ex-ally Daesh. But what does this polititcal reference mean when the project is to create a colonial state ?.
We are currently witnessing the second reaction. Not from al-Qaïda in Syria this time, but from Daesh in France, on the instructions od France’s unmentionable allies.
Who directs Daesh
Daesh is an artificial creation. It is nothing more than the instrument of the policies of several states and multinationals.
Its principal financial resources come from petrol, Afghan drugs – of which the French have not yet understood the implications on their own territory – and Levantine antiques. Everyone agrees that the stolen petrol freely crosses Turkey before being sold in Western Europe. Given the quantities involved, there can be no possible doubt about Turkish support for Daesh [16].
Three weeks ago, a spokesperson for the Syrian Arab Army revealed that three planes, respectively chartered by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, had exfiltrated Daesh combatants from Syria and taken them to Yemen. Once again, there can be no possible doubt concerning the links between these three states and Daesh, in violation of the pertinent resolutions of the UN Security Council.
Following the first Geneva Conference in June 2012, I explained in depth that a faction within the US state apparatus was waging its own policy, contrary to that of the White House. At first, this conspiracy was directed by the head of the CIA, which was the co-founder of Daesh in 2007 (« The Surge ») [17], General David Petraeus, until his removal in handcuffs the day after the re-election of President Barack Obama. Then it was the turn of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was prevented by an unfortunate « accident » from completing her mandate during the period of presidential transition. Finally, the combat was continued by ambassador Jeffrey Feltman from his offices at the UNO, and by General John Allen, at the head of the phoney anti-Daesh Coalition. This group, a part of the US « deep state », which had never ceased from opposing the 5+1 agreement with Iran and fighting the Syrian Arab Republic, maintains its members within the Obama administration. Above all, it can count on the multinational corporations, whose budgets are greater than those of the states themselves, and who can finance their own secret operations. In particular, this is the case of the petrol company Exxon-Mobil (the true owner of Qatar), the investment fund KKR, and the private army Academi (ex-Blackwater).
France has thus become a mercenary state working for these multinationals.

France, object of blackmail

On the 11th November 2015, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared that France was engaged against terrorism [18].
On the 12th November, the Observatoire national de la délinquance et des réponses pénales (National Observatory for Delinquency and Legal Response) – attached to the Ministry of the Interior – published a report stating that terrorism has become the second preoccupation of the French people, after unemployment [19].
On the morning of the 13th November, in Nanterre, the Minister for the Interior, Bernard Cazeneuve, presented a 20-part plan to limit the arms traffic [20].
Clearly, the government was expecting the worst, which implies that France was in negotiation with the organisation that attacked it. France made engagements that it did not respect, and is now certainly the victim of blackmail by the terrorist leaders it has betrayed.
An excercise simulating terrorist attacks was carried out on the very morning of the attack by the hospital emergency services [21]. A coïncidence that had already been revealed during the attacks of the 11th September 2001 in New York and Washington, those of the 11th March 2004 in Madrid, and also the 7th July 2005 in London.

Provisional Conclusion

The successive French governments have created alliances with states whose values are opposed to those of the Republic. They have successively engaged in secret wars on their behalf, and then retreated. President Hollande, his private Chief of Staff, General Benoit Puga, his Minister for Foreign Affairs, Laurent Fabius, and Fabius’ predecessor Alain Juppé, are today the objects of blackmail from which they can not extricate themselves without revealing the mess in which they have implicated their country, even if this exposes them to the High Court of Justice.
On the 28th September, at the tribune of the United Nations, President Putin, addressing the United States and France, exclaimed: « I would like to ask those responsible for this situation – “Are you at least aware of what you have done ?” But I fear that this question will remain unanswered, because these people have not renounced their politicies, which are based on an exaggerated self-confidence and the conviction of their exceptional nature and their impunity » [22]. Neither the United States nor France listened to him. It is now too late.
Keep in mind 

– The French government has progressively distanced itself from international legality. It has perpetrated political assassinations and supported terrorist actions since at least 2011. 

 – The French government has created unnatural alliances with the petrol dictatorships of the Persian Gulf (mainly Saudi Arabia & Qatar. It is working with a group of US personalities and multinational companies to sabotage the politicies of appeasement advanced by Presidents Obama and Putin. 

 – The French government has entered into conflict with some untrustworthy allies. One of these organisations sponsored the attacks in Paris.

France Cannot Fight Terrorism if in Union With Qatar, Saudi Arabia

18 Nov

Sputniknews.com, 18.11.2015

DAMASCUS (Sputnik) — On Monday, French President Francois Hollande called for a broad coalition including the United States and Russia to tackle ISIL which claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks.

The following day, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia and France’s navies must develop a joint plan of action for their operations in Syria.

“France cannot fight terrorism as long as it remains Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s ally,” the Syrian president said as quoted by Almayadeen news agency.

On November 13, eight extremists wearing explosive belts attacked several venues across Paris, killing some 130 at restaurants, the Bataclan concert hall and in the vicinity of the Stade de France stadium.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151118/1030312087/france-terrorism-qatar-saudi-arabia-assad.html#ixzz3rqPOVg3T

Realizing Gravity of ISIL Threat, US Acquiesces to Russian Mission in Syria.

10 Nov

Sputniknews.com 16.10.2015

Commenting on the situation in Syria and its impact on Russian-US relations, Alexei Arbatov, a leading Russian scholar of international relations, believes that the US has quietly come to accept Russia’s campaign of airstrikes, realizing that ISIL today is the main threat to world peace.

Speaking to Kommersant journalist Svetlana Suhova in an interview published on the website of Carnegie Moscow Center, where he serves as a scholar in residence, Arbatov noted that if Russia and the US could agree to coordinate their activities in Syria, they could also come to an agreement on other issues, including the crisis in Ukraine. 
Arbatov, who also heads Russia’s influential Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), suggested that such agreement could even help lead to the West eventually rolling back its anti-Russian sanctions. He also noted, however, that now is not the time for leaders in Moscow and Washington to rest on their laurels, with several important issues, including the danger of nuclear war, still outstanding.

Why Putin Will Stop at Nothing to Smash ISIL

“Judging by the recent turn of events, the US did not object to Russia’s participation in the fighting in Syria,” Arbatov noted.

In his words, Russian and US “actions in Syria must be coordinated: It’s important for them not to hit one another. Syria is a real patchwork, where the positions of Assad’s forces, the armed opposition, Islamic State militants and the Kurds overlap with one another.” 
The analyst suggested that in order for head-to-head clashes to be averted, US and Russian operations “must be conducted at least parallel to one another, if not united –to be coordinated.” Arbatov suggested that the establishment of a direct link between Russia’s defense ministry and the Pentagon was a good place to start.

From ‘Assad Must Go’ to ‘Meh’
New Syria Policy Reveals Confusion Among Obama Policymakers

Commenting on the fate of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, long serving as a point of contention between Moscow and Washington’s positions on Syria, Arbatov noted that “it has become clear that the US has softened its position in relation to Assad, and has stopped demanding his immediate departure. It was the right thing for them to do.” 

“After all,” the analyst explained, in “insisting on his departure, Washington never could explain who would come to succeed him ahead of elections. It seems that the US has finally realized that the alternative to Assad is not the moderate opposition, but radical Islamists, if not outright terrorists.”
Commenting on Assad’s fate as Syria’s leader, Arbatov pointed out that “as soon as the fighting between government and opposition forces can be halted, it will be possible to hold elections (under international control, of course).” These elections, in his words, “will decide Assad’s fate. Perhaps he will be forced to leave, but maybe he could even win the election. Who knows? History has known such precedents, and more than one.”

Precedents for Establishing Lasting Peace Exist

New Syria Policy Reveals Confusion Among Obama Policymakers

Commenting on the fate of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, long serving as a point of contention between Moscow and Washington’s positions on Syria, Arbatov noted that “it has become clear that the US has softened its position in relation to Assad, and has stopped demanding his immediate departure. It was the right thing for them to do.” 

“After all,” the analyst explained, in “insisting on his departure, Washington never could explain who would come to succeed him ahead of elections. It seems that the US has finally realized that the alternative to Assad is not the moderate opposition, but radical Islamists, if not outright terrorists.”
Commenting on Assad’s fate as Syria’s leader, Arbatov pointed out that “as soon as the fighting between government and opposition forces can be halted, it will be possible to hold elections (under international control, of course).” These elections, in his words, “will decide Assad’s fate. Perhaps he will be forced to leave, but maybe he could even win the election. Who knows? History has known such precedents, and more than one.”
Precedents for Establishing Lasting Peace Exist
This photo taken on august 11, 2014 shows a US soldier, part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), manning a machine gun onboard a Chinook helicopter over the Gardez district of Paktia province

© AFP 2015/ SHAH Marai

US Media Analysis: Can US and China Find Common Ground in Afghanistan?

Commenting on the oft-suggested notion that peace negotiations and elections would be difficult if not impossible to organize, given that the 4 year old war in Syria has led to tremendous destruction and to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, Arbatov noted that while it will be difficult, “precedents exist.”

The academic noted that “it’s worth only to remember Tajikistan. In the early 1990s, the country faced a terrible civil war, invisible to the rest of the world, which resulted in the deaths of over 120,000 people. It seemed that we could not even dream of a peace settlement being reached, but it was made possible, and two factors helped. One was the existence of a common enemy, the Taliban, which had massacred both Tajiks and Uzbeks in Afghanistan and emerged along the Panj River border between Tajikistan and Afghanistan. The other was the strong diplomatic pressure from Russia, Iran and the US. As a result, the Tajiks formed a national unity government, which continues to exist to this day, while the Northern Alliance coalition, together with the air support of its foreign allies, helped to defeat the Taliban.”
In fact, Arbatov noted, “were it not for the American adventure in Iraq in 2003, which destroyed the anti-terrorist coalition, we would have an entirely situation in Afghanistan, and not the one which exists at present, where the Taliban has been carrying out its revenge following the departure of the US and its allies.”

US and Russia Should Form Coordinated Coalition in Syria – Stephen Cohen

Responding to a question about whether Obama had “traded” Syria for Ukraine, Arbatov emphasized that “such a Machiavellian scheme” is the wrong mentality to hold. “We should not forget that Ukraine, Syria and the European Union are not just pawns in a game between two superpowers, which can be moved on the board or ‘traded’, but active actors in world politics.”

Instead, the analyst suggested that “events in Ukraine could go smoothly without any ‘trades’ – if passions were to fall in the course of cooperation in Syria.” Arbatov recalled hopefully that the conflict in eastern Ukraine has been dormant since early September, and that an agreement has even been reached on the withdrawal of 100mm weapons from the conflict zone. Noting that the Russian president’s position provided an important incentive for the two sides to compromise, he suggested that “now it’s time for the Norman Quartet to agree on the timing of elections and the other political parameters of the Minsk Agreement.” 
The scholar suggested that if agreement in Syria is reached, and the peace process continues to advance in eastern Ukraine, “part of the anti-Russian sanctions could be lifted before the end of the year, particularly their financial portion.” These, in his words, would not end the Russian economic slump, “but they would help to slow economic decline or even to stop it by reviving economic activity, job creation, and the replenishment of the budget.”
Iran Deal a Boon Both for Russia and for Syria
Commenting on the fortunate timing of the West’s ‘rehabilitation’ of Iran in connection with the agreement reached on the country’s nuclear program, Arbatov suggested that common goals in the battle against ISIL is sure to work not only to strengthen the Russian-Iranian partnership, but to rub off favorably on the West’s perception of Syria and Assad as well.
“After all, Arbatov noted, “once Washington and, to a lesser extent, Tel Aviv, came to be convinced that Iran’s new leadership, in the face of President Rouhani, actually wants to improve relations with the West, much has changed. Earlier, [one of the main accusations] against Assad was that he and Hezbollah, which operates on his territory, were Iranian puppets in the country’s struggle against Israel. Now, with Tehran shifting away from its anti-Israeli and anti-American policy, US attitudes toward Assad are also changing; perhaps not in words, but in practice.”

Syria: US Alliance flying out terrorists in order to protect them from the Russians.

5 Nov

southfront.org4 Nov 2015


The United States is said to have evacuated their allies IS terrorists from Syria. Apparently the US government wants to prevent the IS-fighters fall into the hands of the Russians. The deployment of 50 US elite soldiers apparently also serves the withdrawal from the Russians.

Originally appeared at Deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten, translated by Karin exclusively for SouthFront
The Russian state news agency TASS reported, citing an Syrian army spokesman that the US allies have built an “airlift” for the evacuation of IS-terrorists in the region over the past week. Accordingly, on October 26th two aircrafts of Turkish Airlines, and one from Qatar and one from the Emirates landed in Aden in Yemen. There they handed over about 500 Islamist fighters to Saudi officers. They were flown out to protect the fighters from the Russian air strikes. The fighters then were transported to Yemen and to Saudi Arabia.
Independent confirmation for this report does not exist. However the Russian state broadcaster RT speculates that the use of 50 US elite soldiers serve exactly this purpose: The United States tried to evacuate allied fighters, so they will not fall into the hands of the Russians. In that case it would actually prove whether the US cooperates with known Islamist terror groups or not. So far it is only known that the United States supports the al-Nusra Front that belongs to Al Qaeda. The Russians had also bombarded positions of the al-Nusra Front and is pointing out to fight against all terrorists in Syria.
This thesis is surprisingly clearly confirmed by the Washington Post: A source from the military told the newspaper that the task of the special units was to support the US-fighters where it makes sense, and to leave those “initiatives that do not work “. The US has explicitly said that the 50 men are to instruct the fighters and not to intervene directly in the fighting. This description suggests a logistic support for the retreat.
The US president stated a few days ago that the Syrian mission had failed. Obama wants to pull out of the affair with decency and has therefore agreed with Russian President Vladimir Putin on cooperation in Syria. The surprising progress on the Vienna Peace Conference now brings the US intelligence and mercenary companies in a tight spot. They will probably do everything possible to get as quickly as possible out of the Russian sphere of influence. For this the elite soldiers can provide valuable help.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,117 other followers

%d bloggers like this: