November 25, 2015

The Stupidity of Erdogan's Provocation Against Russia Summed Up In Two Paragraphs

An excerpt from, "Putin will respond: Russians feel betrayed as Turkey stabs them in the back" by Bryan MacDonald, RT, November 25, 2015:
Russia is Turkey’s second largest source of tourists (four million ever year) and its second biggest trade partner. Additionally, Russia accounts for a fifth of Turkey’s entire energy supply. There were plans for Rosatom to build Turkey’s first nuclear plant next year and Ankara and Moscow were supposed to team up for a new gas pipeline called Turkish Stream. 
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has already advised Russians not to visit Turkey and the Federal Tourism Agency has called on Tour Operators to halt sales to the country. This is probably just the start. Russians feel betrayed by Turkey. Erdogan will, most probably, reap a whirlwind. Putin has many options.
What sort of madness has possessed the mind of Erdogan and the current Turkish leadership as a whole? Is the continued existence of a gang of drugged-out-of-their-minds pig fuckers called ISIS more inportant to Turkey than their economic, cultural, and political relationship with Russia? Russia isn't going anywhere but ISIS is a fading blip on history's radar so you have to choose your friends and enemies wisely.

And do these war-loving fools realize that elections do not automatically give a regime moral authority and political credibility? Erdogan won the last popular vote with such a wide margin due to two things: state terrorism and vote rigging. He is not popular enough to lead Turkey let alone the Muslim world as he imagines himself to be. How popular can he be when he is publicly defending the highly unpopular ISIS terrorists? Public support for his government has been dwindling in the last few years. His government murdered people at peaceful rallies to sway political opinion inside the country. Assad never did that, despite publicized reports to the contrary.

So the result of the recent election that emboldened Erdogan means nothing. It certainly doesn't give the Erdogan cabal carte blanche to attack Russia and draw NATO further into a losing fight on the side of ISIS.

Washington and Europe would be wise to take Turkey out of NATO for this latest provocation and get out of the business of regime change in the Middle East altogether.

November 20, 2015

Tarpley On The Paris Attacks: Not A False Flag

 Photo Source: ABC.

An excerpt from, "ISIS Must Be Quickly Destroyed to Prevent Degenerate Elites from Using Its Terrorism to Impose Police-State Dictatorships in the Western World", November 20, 2015:
The French police have now gone three for three when it comes to eliminating suspects who might have become extremely effective witnesses in the dismantling of terrorist networks. They may realize they are protecting Saudi Arabia and Turkey, or they may be trying to protect the mechanisms of state-sponsored terrorism.

The ongoing attempts at analysis of this event have been impeded by a widespread tendency to fall back on clichés which have been around for a decade and a half. Many analysts feel obliged to use words like false flag or Gladio, despite the fact there is much evidence that these notions do not apply. We are dealing to be sure with state-sponsored terrorism, but we must be prepared to entertain the possibility that the states involved are less those of NATO than countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to say nothing of nonstate actors like the Moslem Brotherhood.

One indispensable principle of any terrorism analysis is the issue of cui bono or cui prodest — who benefits from this event, since the one who benefits is the prime suspect.

As we have attempted to outline in recent days, ISIS must be viewed as having suffered very serious defeats recently, including the bombing of Raqqa, the killing of the notorious butcher Jihadi John, the siege of Ramadi by the Iraqi Army, the crisis of ISIS manpower in the Aleppo to Palmyra area, the lifting of the siege at a key Syrian Army air base, and the capture of Sinjar by Kurdish ground forces backed up by US combat aviation. With many demoralized and disillusioned ISIS veterans now returning to their homelands, it is clear that ISIS is threatened by a crippling shortfall in the recruiting of new fanatical patsies. In order to maintain recruiting, ISIS needs victories, so that the young dupes can be made to see the caliphate as somehow invincible. Despite the best efforts of the corrupt Western media, the myth of ISIS invincibility has been torn to shreds, which means that new and spectacular victories are indispensable. That, we would submit, is the most likely explanation for what happened in Paris. This is also probably the motive for the bombastic threats coming from ISIS over the last few days about their grandiose and megalomaniac plans for attacking Washington DC, New York City and Rome, Italy.
Video Title:  Paris Attacks, False Flags & ISIS’ True Leadership with Webster Tarpley. Source: Enter The Buzzsaw. Date Published: November 20, 2015. Description: 
Questions of the Paris attack being a false flag event, and who is really directing ISIS are answered by Webster Tarpley. Is Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the leader of Daesh? Has the CIA and the US government been using ISIS as an extension of the military in Iraq and Syria? We look at the ‘false war’ against ISIS, the truth about Obama ‘the Muslim,’ and take a closer look at Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Allen’s involvement in the region in this Buzzsaw interview, hosted by Sean Stone.

The Failure of Political Islam

"The Failure of Political Islam" by Olivier Roy (1998, Harvard University Press).

Video Title: Olivier Roy, Professor at the European University Institute in Florence. Source: France 24 English. Date Published: November 18, 2014. Description:
Olivier Roy is a French expert on political Islam. But he is also an original academic, who criss-crossed Afghanistan in the 1970s and later during its war against the Soviet Union, and who has also visited Iran and Central Asia numerous times. This unusual journey is recounted in a book-length interview, published in French and entitled "Looking for the Lost Orient."

"Political Islam as a political ideology is dead. It's dead simply because it doesn't work. The concept of an Islamic state never works. It doesn't work in Iran. We have the most secular society now in Iran if we compare with thirty years ago. It doesn't work in Saudi Arabia. . . and it didn't work in Tunisia and Egypt one year ago when the Islamists were in charge. They have been elected, they won the election, so it's not the failure of Islamist parties, but it's the failure of the political project." - Olivier Roy.

November 19, 2015

For Washington, Defeating ISIS Would Mean Upsetting "Strategic Allies" Turkey And Israel

From Washington's tangled perspective, tolerating the existence of ISIS, and containing its territorial footprint to designated areas in Iraq and Syria, is preferable to upsetting strategic allies Turkey and Israel who depend on ISIS to fight their decades-long battles with Hezbollah and the PKK.

Since the militaristic leaderships of Turkey and Israel don't want to reach a peace deal with the PKK and Hezbollah then why not go to war with them with their professional armies? We always hear how the Israeli army is the best in the region, and that the Turkish army is a disciplined juggernaut. Okay, very well. Then why rely on a bunch of barbaric Jihadis to fight your enemies and carry out your political goals? Why use ISIS as a proxy army?

The answer is that neither the Israeli army nor the Turkish army are powerful enough to subdue what are basically people movements. The PKK and Hezbollah have grassroots support who can't be defeated militarily. They have to be engaged politically. They arose in reaction to injustices and insults, and will only disarm if the states of Turkey and Israel change their behaviour.

The militaristic leaderships of Turkey and Israel have tried for decades to eliminate these two groups with state force but have failed miserably. The Israeli army lost in 2006 when it invaded Lebanon. And the Turkish army has not been able to defeat a gureilla group in its own backyard, which counts as a loss.

So these two losing states figured that the tool of terrorism in the form of ISIS might work better at subduing their stateless and politically popular enemies than their traditional armies. And, tactically speaking, they're not wrong. ISIS has the effect of driving populations out of their homes by terrorizing and brutalizing entire towns. This is a barbaric practice the Turkish and Israeli armies would not be able to get away with politically in the international media. So ISIS really has been a godsend for the leaders of Turkey and Israel.

Now, what is Washington supposed to do in this crazy situation? It will upset Turkey and Israel if it chooses to destroy ISIS, which it is fully capable of doing.

Russia does not have such complicated ties to either Turkey or Israel, plus it is genuinely threatened by the spread of radical Islam on its borders, which is why it has acted so energetically in Syria.

Who knows, maybe the Obama administration is secretly happy that Putin decided to take action in Syria. Numerous reports have been published over the years that say President Obama is not on the best of terms with either Erdogan or Netanyahu. Could Putin be doing him a personal favour by hitting ISIS so hard? Again, who knows. Anything is possible.

People assume that President Obama is protecting ISIS with his soft-touch policies in Syria, but in reality he's protecting Turkey and Israel. They would be the biggest losers if ISIS comes under Uncle Sam's full wrath. The terrorists in ISIS should thank their lucky stars that Washington is on the side of Turkey and Israel in their respective fights.

November 18, 2015

Paris Attacks: William Engdahl Explains the Past, Present and Future of the War in Syria

Title: Paris Attacks: William Engdahl Explains the Past, Present and Future of the War in Syria. Source: corbettreport. Date Published: November 18, 2015. Description: 
F. William Engdahl of joins us today to give his perspective on the Paris attacks. We discuss the historical background to what is taking place now in Syria, how it plays into the current geopolitical agenda of the US/NATO military powers, and what it means for France, Syria and the world moving forward.

Genocidal U.S. And Israeli Leaders Want A Bloody Stalemate In Syria, Or, Better Yet, A Total ISIS Victory

 The terrorists in ISIS have friends in the highest of places. 

You want to stop terrorism in Damascus, Beirut, Washington, New York, and Paris? Then help bring the genocidal leaders of Israel and America to account in a global public court. They have to politically pay for their policies of chaos and destruction. It's foolish to take the anger and aggression out on refugees. If you're not willing to hold the highest political leaders accountable then save your tears for the victims of state terrorism and save your hatred for the scapegoats. Tears and hate don't solve anything. Obama and Netanyahu will take your tears and hate, bottle it up, repackage it, and sell it back to the world in the form of another war. 

Demagogues of every race, creed, and nation politically feed on trauma, mass hysteria, and public ignorance. It is not shocking in the least that in the wake of both the Ankara and Paris state terror attacks the governing clique became more powerful, more authoritarian, more popular, and more bold. That's how all criminal governments roll. Bad rulers need either fear or religion to rule. And it is safe to say that state terrorism works every time, no matter the country, and no matter the party in charge.

An excerpt from, "Neocon ‘Chaos Promotion’ in the Mideast" by Ray McGovern, Consortiumnews, April 13, 2015:
The neocons also can take some solace from their “success” at enflaming the Middle East with Shia and Sunni now at each other’s throats — a bad thing for many people of the world and certainly for the many innocent victims in the region, but not so bad for the neocons. After all, it is the view of Israeli leaders and their neocon bedfellows (and women) that the internecine wars among Muslims provide at least some short-term advantages for Israel as it consolidates control over the Palestinian West Bank.

In a Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity memorandum for President Obama on Sept. 6, 2013, we called attention to an uncommonly candid report about Israeli/neocon motivation, written by none other than the Israel-friendly New York Times Bureau Chief in Jerusalem Jodi Rudoren on Sept. 2, 2013, just two days after Obama took advantage of Putin’s success in persuading the Syrians to allow their chemical weapons to be destroyed and called off the planned attack on Syria, causing consternation among neocons in Washington.

Rudoren can perhaps be excused for her naïve lack of “political correctness.” She had been barely a year on the job, had very little prior experience with reporting on the Middle East, and – in the excitement about the almost-attack on Syria – she apparently forgot the strictures normally imposed on the Times’ reporting from Jerusalem. In any case, Israel’s priorities became crystal clear in what Rudoren wrote.

In her article, entitled “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria,” Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria’s (then) 2 ½-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome:

“For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

“‘This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,’ said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. ‘Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.’”

Clear enough? If this is the way Israel’s leaders continue to regard the situation in Syria, then they look on deeper U.S. involvement – overt or covert – as likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict there. The longer Sunni and Shia are killing each other, not only in Syria but also across the region as a whole, the safer Tel Aviv’s leaders calculate Israel is.

Favoring Jihadis

But Israeli leaders have also made clear that if one side must win, they would prefer the Sunni side, despite its bloody extremists from Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren’s article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad.

“The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc,” Oren said in an interview. “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” He said this was the case even if the “bad guys” were affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. “From Israel’s perspective, if there’s got to be an evil that’s got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail,” Oren said.

Netanyahu sounded a similar theme in his March 3, 2015 speech to the U.S. Congress in which he trivialized the threat from the Islamic State with its “butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube” when compared to Iran, which he accused of “gobbling up the nations” of the Middle East.

That Syria’s main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out.

As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn’t all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated, politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress.
An excerpt from, "West Leverages Paris Attacks for Syria Endgame" by Tony Cartalucci - NEO, Land Destroyer Report, November 18, 2015:
NATO's intervention and regime change in Libya did not avert a refugee crisis, it helped create one. NATO's intervention and successful regime change in Libya did not make the region or the world safer, it turned the entire nation into a breeding ground for terrorist organizations with so-far unprecedented reach and operational capacity. NATO's goals in Libya did not prevent the refugee crisis, it helped start it. And with all of this in mind, having seen this and taken full stock of Libya's outcome, the West has nonetheless moved forward with precisely the same agenda in Syria.

In all reality, the West has no intention of bringing peace or stability to Syria. Their goal is to leave Syria as divided and destroyed as Libya, and to use the chaos and instability fostered there as a springboard for other targets of the West's proxy warfare - most likely Iran, Russia, and targets deeper in Central Asia.

The West promises that it will end the chaos in Syria, just like they promised it would end in Libya. It will not end in either.

November 17, 2015

The Corbett Report: Paris Attacks Truth: ISIS is a False Flag

Title: Paris Attacks Truth: ISIS is a False Flag. Source: corbettreport. Date Published: November 17, 2015. Description:
As The Corbett Report community continues to track the latest updates on the Paris attack investigation, let us not forget the essential underlying truth: ISIS is a creation of the US, Turkey, Israel and the Gulf States, and they are fostered, funded, equipped, armed, trained and protected by the NATO allies and the GCC, France included.