September 30, 2014

Netanyahu Declared War On The UN And Islam In The Same Speech At UNGA

This dumb ass mentioned baseball player Derek Jeter and Palestinian group Hamas in the same speech.

On Monday, September 29, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu topped the insanity and stupidity of his speech last year at the United Nations General Assembly by giving a speech in which he declared war on both the UN and Islam.

Netanyahu referred to the UN's Human Rights Council as the "terrorist" rights council and he equated ISIS with Hamas in a vain and futile attempt to legitimize his government's recent vicious onslaught against Gaza in the eyes of the international community. He is seeking to discredit the UN and all Islamic movements in the Middle East.

Netanyahu's arrogance keeps getting higher and higher year after year because diplomats, world leaders, and the press passively tolerate his obnoxious statements.

The UN's record on human rights and the representatives of political fundamentalist Islam, whether they be Hamas or the Islamic Republic of Iran, are not worthy of defense, but Netanyahu's extremist and violent rhetoric will definitely do more harm than good. He has become the voice of Jewish terrorism.

This stupid liar went on about how ISIS is wrecking Syria and the region, targeting religious and ethnic minorities, and never once mentioned the covert role that his evil government has been playing in this unfolding tragedy. Israel is militarily supporting ISIS terrorists on its border with Syria and has even treated ISIS terrorists in its hospitals.

Israel shares this criminal track record with Turkey, whose leader the other day tried to deceive the world by saying that his government will be acting against ISIS in Syria. This is a lie. It has become clear to every one who is not willfully blind that Erdogan and his ministers have been propping up ISIS in Syria in every manner possible.

Both Netanyahu and Erdogan want ISIS to succeed in Syria. Their criminal governments have quietly helped these liver-eating terrorists with arms, medical treatment, and military support.

But Netanyahu, Erdogan, and their proxy Jihadist terrorists will fail to achieve their sinister plans for the destruction of Syria and the region, just as President Obama and his morally bankrupt Arab allies will fail.

September 29, 2014

The U.S. Created, Not "Underestimated," ISIS Threat In Syria

President Obama attracts so many flies because nothing but horseshit comes out of his mouth. Flies aren't stupid, they can smell Obama's bullshit from miles away.

In an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes, the Bullshiter-In-Chief Barack Obama said that the U.S. intelligence community "underestimated" the ISIS threat in Syria.

LOL. Good one Barry.

In reality, the U.S intelligence community created the ISIS threat in Syria. They were not caught off-guard by the rise of this transnational terrorist group because they were the ones who trained, armed, and financed them.

The global alternative media has been screaming and hollering about the presence of Al-Qaeda 2.0 in Syria for over three years, saying, "Hey, look, maybe it's not such a good idea to be sending all these weapons to known transnational Jihadist terrorists in Syria who are attacking villages and communities who have nothing to do with the war and who don't even support Assad."

But those voices were not heard because the morally, politically, spiritually, financially, and intellectually bankrupt U.S. and Western mainstream media used the "conspiracy theorist" label to marginalize dissenting views about the scandalous U.S. policy in Syria.

What President Obama should do is be straight with the American people and the world, and speak honestly about his administration's direct role in the creation of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh to cause regime change in Syria.

Video Title: Obama Says 'US Underestimated ISIS Threat' In Syria! Source: DAHBOO77. Date Published: September 28, 2014.

Washington Post Editor Threatens Genocide of Alawites In Syria If They Keep Backing Assad


The Washington Post and ISIS are both advocating the genocide of Alawites, though obviously in their own different ways.

Alawites, the esoteric religious sect that Assad belongs to, is not only facing threats of genocide from terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-Nusra, but also from the radical war hawks on The Washington Post editorial board.

The Angry Arab - Deputy Editorial Page Editor of the Washington Post calls for the threat of "destruction" of Alawites:
From Mike:  "Hi As'ad,

Jackson Diehl is deputy editorial page editor of The Post. He wants to destroy the Allawite community if Assad fails to 'compromise' . Sounds like genocide.

"In the end, the Syrian political settlement Obama says he seeks will require pursuing Kerry’s original idea of tipping the military balance so that Assad’s generals and his Alawite community face a choice between compromise and destruction."  Can you imagine the outcry (and rightly so) at the international level and the street protests if this was said about Jews? 
The suggestion of "tipping the military balance" against Assad is very dangerous and irresponsible, and opens the possibility of widespread bloodletting on a scale that will make today's headlines about the casualties of innocents in the war in Syria seem insignificant.

What this chief propagandist is saying in essence is that the U.S. and its allies should bolster ISIS and other like-minded terrorist groups so that they pose a real genocidal threat to Alawites, who make up the core of the Assad regime. The U.S. and its allies will push them to the edge of the cliff, and only then put diplomacy on the table, if at all.

What he is recommending is terrorism against an innocent population, not a fair and just political solution that brings together all Syrians, especially those belonging to different religions, sects and minorities who can live peacefully with each other in a post-Assad age.

When you put people between the corners of "compromise and destruction" then they'll choose neither, and stick with resistance. That is just human psychology. Jackson Diehl is, whether he knows it or not, supporting ISIS's false narrative that the problem with Syria is not only it's current political leadership headed by Assad, but also the members of his obscure, and open-minded religious sect.

Diehl and others in the morally bankrupt U.S. media who subtlety and sneakily spread the false narratives of terrorist groups like ISIS don't want to highlight the reality that the biggest problem Syria faces today is not Assad's tyrannical rule but the massive presence of foreign religious extremists and terrorists in the country who seek only war and destruction.

The fact that the U.S. has allied itself with such evil forces means the U.S. doesn't care if the ultimate result of its policy is the genocide of Alawites and other communities in Syria.

Wikipedia:
Jackson Diehl (born 1956) is the Deputy Editorial Page Editor of The Washington Post. He writes many of the paper's editorials on foreign affairs, helps to oversee the editorial and oped pages and authors a regular column.
An excerpt from, "Syria’s Ruling Alawite Sect" by Robert Mackey, New York Times, June 14, 2011:
While many non-Muslims are now aware that there is a sectarian divide in Islam between Sunnis and Shiites, it is less commonly known that Syria is ruled largely by members of an esoteric Islamic sect, the Alawites, whose belief in the divinity of Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, is just one of the reasons that they were oppressed as infidels for centuries by other Muslims.

Fearing for their future in any Syrian state dominated by Sunni Muslims, in 1936 six leading Alawites, including Sulayman al-Assad, the grandfather of Syria’s current president, wrote a letter to Léon Blum, France’s first Jewish prime minister, explaining that their community would “refuse to be annexed to Muslim Syria because in Syria the official religion of the state is Islam, and according to Islam the Alawis are considered infidels.”

The authors of the letter even appealed to Mr. Blum’s presumed Zionist sympathies, arguing that the persecution of the Jews in Syria and Palestine would be the fate of all religious minorities if the majority Muslim population was allowed to rule. They wrote:
The spirit of hatred and fanaticism embedded in the hearts of the Arab Muslims against everything that is non‑Muslim has been perpetually nurtured by the Islamic religion. There is no hope that the situation will ever change. Therefore, the abolition of the Mandate will expose the minorities in Syria to the dangers of death and annihilation, irrespective of the fact that such abolition will annihilate the freedom of thought and belief. …

All of this makes it interesting to look back now at an essay written in 2006 by a member of the Alawite community for Joshua Landia’s Syria Comment Web site, “What Do Sunnis Intend for Alawis Following Regime Change?

The author, who used the pseudonym Khudr, observed that many younger members of his community “have not lived the unjust circumstances that our fathers and grandfathers were subjected to by the Sunnis. As such, we do not have the same appreciation as our fathers of the Alawite rule that the late president Hafez al-Assad brought.” He added that there were many reasons to argue for an end to Alawite rule, but also criticized the Syrian opposition for not explaining clearly, “What exactly are your plans for the Alawis after we give up power?”

September 28, 2014

War Photographer Comes Back From Syria To Show You The Truth

Title: War Photographer Comes Back From Syria To Show You The Truth. Source: We Are Change. Date Published: September 28, 2014. Description:
In this video Luke Rudkowski talks to Benjamin Hiller who's an German American free lance journalist who recently came back from Ukraine and Syria.

September 27, 2014

Assad Should Stop Flattering Himself; Erdogan Should Stop Deluding Himself; Obama Should Stop Congratulating Himself

1. An excerpt from, "Obama Struggles to Strike ISIS Without Helping Assad" by Melanie Batley, Newsmax, September 26, 2014:
President Barack Obama faces a difficult challenge to target the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria without inadvertently bolstering the authoritarian regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, The New York Times reported.

After three days of American airstrikes in the country, pro-government Syrians are boasting that despite assurances by Obama otherwise, Assad and the Syrian Army stand to gain from the offensive.

"The U.S. military leadership is now fighting in the same trenches with the Syrian generals, in a war on terrorism inside Syria," a Syrian diplomat told a pro-government newspaper, according to the Times. "The Syrian Army will certainly benefit from the American airstrikes."
Angry Arab - "Syrian regime brags: America is bombing us," September 27, 2014:
The headline of the Syrian regime daily is: "Washington and its allies are in the same trench with the Syrian army to combat terrorism".
If the House of Assad honestly believes that Washington is a co-partner in its war against ISIS terrorism then it has bigger problems than these terrorists, and its biggest is its illusory grip on reality.

Also, it is nothing to brag about when a hostile foreign power sponsors liver-chewing terrorists in your country and then turns around the next day and says it must attack your territory day and night to get rid of the threat that they say they pose not to the local neighbourhoods in which they're raping and pillaging but cities thousands of miles away, on the other side of the world.

Assad and his diplomats and journalists need to stop flattering themselves like fools, take a long, hard look in the mirror and realize that Washington is a wolf whose appetite in Syria won't end with ISIS and whose claws are long enough to swipe their necks if they get too complacent and greedy about their battlefield fortunes.

This is just more proof that pro-regime media anywhere in the world, especially those that are full-blown police states with secret spies and trained assassins at their disposal, are laughing stocks who do not deserve to be paid any attention.

2. An excerpt from, "Turkey's Erdogan Calls for No-Fly Zone in Syria" by Suzan Fraser, Associated Press, September 26, 2014:
"A no-fly zone must be declared and this no fly-zone must be secured," Erdogan said, adding that he had discussed the issue with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

In addition, Erdogan said a "secure area" should be created on the Syrian side of the Turkish border, where tens of thousands of Syrians have fled the fighting as refugees. Turkey could probably protect such an area with its artillery.

In Washington, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey did not rule out the possibility of enforcing a buffer zone for Turkey's borders with Iraq and Syria, but they would not discuss the potential of supporting a no-fly zone over Syria.
The idea that Erdogan's Turkey will be the saviour of the Kurds and others who are battling ISIS in northern Syria when his government has been sponsoring and sheltering these terrorists for the last three years is ridiculous.

A no fly zone in Syria is not politically doable, whether the excuse given is to protect refugees fleeing from ISIS's terror campaign, help the Kurds, help the FSA, or stop the humanitarian catastrophe from getting even worse.

It's laughable that the same terrorist states who have created this humanitarian disaster somehow believe they can get away with establishing a no fly zone in Syria based on humanitarian grounds. These regimes have no legs to stand on in their faux fight against ISIS.

The only way a no-fly zone could maybe work in northern Syria is if there is a Turkish-PKK military alliance against ISIS, and that is never going to happen. The Turkish government is not going to double-cross ISIS because it will soon find themselves the victims of their attacks. They'll end the peace process with the PKK before taking away the welcome mat for ISIS. It is fighting a different war than America and the West, and it will use ISIS terrorism to its advantage as long as it is necessary.

The media never expands on any possible escalation of the war in Syria. What will be the consequences of a NATO no-fly zone in Syria with heavy involvement from Turkey? A Turkish military occupation of northern Syria/Western Kurdistan? That would escalate the war tenfold.

Unlike in Iraq, where there are pro-America, pro-West, pro-Israel, and business friendly Kurdish political parties who benefited from the US/UN imposed no fly zone in the 1990s, there are no political groups with actual constituencies in Syria who are willing to become political slaves of Washington in exchange for a no fly zone, supportive airstrikes, and arms.

The political exiles who represent the pseudo-rebel group the FSA have no political power, no popular support, and no social and cultural relevance in the country. So the truth is that the U.S. has no political allies on the ground in Syria to work with on a long-term basis in a post-Assad age, which is needed to ultimately defeat ISIL.

The PKK is one potential partner, but it will not sacrifice its political beliefs, vision, and morals to advance a US/NATO/Turkey agenda in Syria. And the U.S. will never arm the PKK, which would tremendously help in the war against ISIS, because they don't want to strengthen a force that won't advance its interests or anger an ally that is more useful to them and has served them reliably in the past.

Washington throws all kinds of high-level arms at ISIS terrorists in their fight against Assad because they know they will kill them all later on, one way or another, and it's easy to do because they are so demonizable, unlike the PKK. 

3. An excerpt from, "Obama vows more strikes on ISIL in Syria" by Al Jazeera, September 24, 2014:
Barack Obama has said that the participation of five Arab nations in air raids against ISIL in Syria "makes it clear to the world this is not America's fight alone".

The US president on Tuesday promised to continue the fight, which he said was vital to the security of his country, the Middle East and the world.
It is not a political achievement to get regimes on board to bomb terrorists who threaten them on another country's soil whose leader they hate even more than the terrorists, so President Obama is patting himself on the back a little too much.

Also, having Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, and Kuwait as allies is nothing to be too proud about. There is an end-date for these regimes, and it's sooner than they think.

These countries are not military powerhouses, they don't have a political or spiritual voice, they're not helping the region progress towards greater tolerance and understanding, they're not investing their oil-money in renewables, they're not thinking ahead, they're basically wasting away their wealth. So Washington's allies against ISIS in Syria are pretty much worthless.

September 26, 2014

The U.S. And Its Allies Are Putting On A Big Show In Syria And Not Really Bombing ISIS


An excerpt from, "Obama Is Wrong That ISIS Is 'Not Islamic'" by Alastair Crooke, Conflicts Forum, September 18, 2014:
A number of Gulf and Arab states have signed up with Washington to fight ISIS, but only because they plan to insert a Trojan Horse into the “war” agenda.

Their troops hidden in the belly of the wooden “horse” are gathered — not to fight ISIS — but to fight a quite different war. They want to turn it into a renewed offensive against President Assad and Syria. Indeed, at their preliminary summit in Jeddah, the Arab States agreed to a new Arab security architecture that would subvert the “war on ISIS” into war not just on ISIS, but also on President Assad and all Islamists (plainly they hope to pull the West into a larger war with the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.).
.
.
Saudi Arabia will — as its contribution to defeating ISIS — then train and arm 5,000 “moderate” Syrian oppositionists to return to Syria. The U.S. understands full well that its (and its Saudi sponsor’s) objective will be to bring down Assad — and not to fight ISIS (with whom the Syrian “moderates” reportedly coordinate in battle and have a non-aggression pact).

Syria’s army is 130,000 strong, plus a further 100,000 auxiliaries. It is not likely that Saudi’s Syrian brigades — which have had a dismal record so far — will bring down President Assad, but they will make U.S. policy incoherent and Syria more bloodstained.

If there are two main protagonists in Syria — the Syrian Army and ISIS — then America has no choice: It must prefer Assad, but it cannot be seen to be doing so, without offending Saudi Arabia. So America enters the conflict with one arm tied behind its back (by its own Gulf allies).
The U.S. and its allies have spend over three years training, recruiting, funding, coordinating, and arming a proxy army of thousands of Jihadist terrorists, knowing who exactly they were, with a clear mission to take down the Syrian government, and now we're supposed to believe that they are going to bomb them into oblivion when the job is still incomplete?

You don't build and train a mercenary army just to then destroy it because they suddenly roused the world's attention with their brutal acts. That would be stupid.

The U.S. and its allies will not "degrade and destroy" ISIS before they finish the job of degrading and destroying the Syrian regime. They will tip ISIS off, and let this gang of thieves walk off into the Syrian sunset with their loaded six shooters still on their hips, for the exact same reason Bin Laden was not pursued in the Tora Bora region immediately after the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001: living terrorists are more useful than dead ones.

The American government is not in the business of killing Jihadist terrorists, although it does that on a part-time basis, but in making them and training them to terrorize the Middle East and their own population.

Some people have this idea of the U.S. as the old time sheriff with the white hat chasing after the black hats when the sun goes down and things get scary, but America is the devil, evil to the core, and it will destroy Syria to a million little pieces before even thinking about going after their proxy army ISIS.

But it will still put on a big fake show about how they're really attacking them because that's what the criminal lunatics in Washington do best. They manage perceptions, they don't actually solve problems, or resolve conflicts and crises diplomatically and peacefully because that would require honesty and accountability on their part.

Video Title: US Caught Bombing 'Empty Buildings' in Airstrikes on ISIS in Syria! Source: DAHBOO77. Date Published: September 25, 2014.

The Five Biggest Flaws Of President Obama's Anti-ISIS Strategy

"Fellow delegates, we come together as United Nations with a choice to make. We can renew the international system that has enabled so much progress, or allow ourselves to be pulled back by an undertow of instability. We can reaffirm our collective responsibility to confront global problems, or be swamped by more and more outbreaks of instability. For America, the choice is clear. We choose hope over fear. We see the future not as something out of our control, but as something we can shape for the better through concerted and collective effort. We reject fatalism or cynicism when it comes to human affairs; we choose to work for the world as it should be, as our children deserve it to be." - President Barack Obama, United Nations General Assembly speech, September 24, 2014.
1. The Free Syrian Army, a key component of President Obama's anti-ISIS strategy in Syria, doesn't exist in real life.

President Obama has conducted airstrikes against ISIS in Syria without officially partnering with the logical participants on the ground who can be of much-needed assistance and who have been fighting the barbaric terrorist group for over three years.

They are the Syrian army led by Bashar al-Assad, and the YPG, a popular Kurdish militia that is connected to the PKK, a Turkish-based Kurdish group which is designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization for no other reason than because Turkey remains a NATO member and a top U.S. ally in the region.

There are also other local militias in Syria that represent other minorities and have partnered with the YPG in some battles, but they do not view themselves as part of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The FSA (Fictitious Syrian Army) is a fig leaf, and no amount wishful thinking and propaganda will bring it into existence.

2. The Iraqi Government is neither inclusive nor united, and it will expire before ISIS does.

The much-touted post-Maliki government is not an ally that can be counted on in the regional fight against ISIS. It is a regime that was built on shaky foundations in the aftermath of the invasion in 2003. We know its army is useless, and we also know its politicians are worse.

What is the Iraqi government, really? The Shiite militias are the real muscle of the government, the Kurds were forced into joining the circus in Baghdad by the U.S. and UN, and the Sunnis who revolted weren't satisfied with Maliki's decision to voluntarily step down in the face of international and regional pressure. This only made them more ambitious.

Sunnis won't settle for anything less than the retaking of Baghdad, which is to be the capital of a new Caliphate, and they will do everything to realize this dream. So the whole "united, inclusive Iraqi government" rhetoric belongs in the dustbin of history. President Obama sounds like a fool every time he repeats this BS.

3. None of the Persian Gulf partners in President Obama's anti-ISIS coalition in Syria have the political credibility to rebuke ISIS's narrative, and prevent the radical group from winning the hearts and minds of alienated young Sunni Muslims.

Let's leave aside the fact that ISIS is a vile, intolerant, discriminatory, and barbaric terrorist group.  The reality is that it has received a lot of traction and support because of its successful military operations in Iraq and Syria, its sleek propaganda, its hostility towards Iran, Shiites, the corrupt Arab monarchies, and Israel, and its vitriolic rhetoric against America and the West.

Those are all popular positions in the Sunni Muslim world. And there are enough stupid, bloodthirsty, unemployed, angry, ambitious, and bored young Sunnis in the Middle East and the world who can be deceived by the group's attractive propaganda and join it with total commitment to the group's cause, regardless of the methods that they use.

Former National Security Council member Flynt Leverett says:
"Obama can declare all he wants that the Islamic State isn’t Islamic.  But the fact is—as evidenced in polls, in social media across the Sunni Arab world—is that this movement has a lot of sympathy and support, even among constituencies that don’t like some of its tactics, don’t like prisoner beheadings.  By launching this military campaign against them, the United States is basically—in the eyes of a lot of Sunni Muslims—it is basically re-launching a post-9/11 war against Islam.  And the one thing we know, over thirteen years since 9/11, is that that drives jihadi recruitment more than anything.  It is going to make the problem vastly worse. 
4.  President Obama has ruled out using the U.S. military in the fight on the ground, and barring a spectacular false flag terrorist attack on U.S. soil to be blamed on ISIS to galvanize public opinion in support of a ground operation, it most likely won't commit U.S. troops to the anti-ISIS coalition.

There are currently no ground forces in Washington's anti-ISIS coalition. So it is a little hard to beat an army when your side lacks one, it makes the whole "war" thing a one-sided affair. This joke of a coalition relies on air-power to their own detriment. They have already given half of the victory to ISIS and the war has barely begun.

But even the use of U.S. soldiers won't make a difference in the fight because the Washington-led anti-ISIS coalition lacks the political credibility and the moral authority to beat ISIS. No one questions the professionalism, expertise, and will to fight of American soldiers. The one thing that America does right is train soldiers to be tough and not cut and run, a trait that the Iraqi army clearly does not have. But it hurts their reputation when President Obama says the U.S. military captured and killed Bin Laden in Pakistan, when in reality that never happened, and everyone knows it is a lie. This false event has been used as a trophy and a template. But it takes away from the very real successes of the U.S. military when false stories are held up as glorious victories.

5. The biggest military victories against ISIS have been achieved by Washington's enemies, and groups it deems "terrorists" for political reasons.

The Syrian army, Iranian-backed Iraqi Shiite militias, Hezbollah, and the PKK all share two things in common. 1) They have been the most successful fighting forces against ISIS on the battlefield, and 2) they are all labeled as enemies of the U.S. The latter two, specifically, are listed as terrorist groups for political reasons.

The U.S. relationships to Turkey and Israel, who are supporting ISIS/Daesh in Syria, one from the North, and the other from the South, are more important than "degrading and destroying" Daesh.

If the U.S. was genuinely interested in "degrading and destroying" Daesh then it would take Hezbollah and PKK of its terrorist list before tomorrow morning, and arm them by the afternoon. But that will never happen. Let's face facts. The U.S. terrorist list is meaningless, and the U.S. government is not really serious about "degrading and destroying" Daesh.