November 28, 2014

USrahell & NATO Love Supporting Islamic Radicalism In The Name of Democracy And Human Rights

The problems in Syria won't ever be fixed by the morally and politically bankrupt U.S. government and NATO. All they have the power to do is set fire to the country and tear it to pieces using their well-trained Jihadist barbarians, as they did to Libya. 

U.S officials are like the outsiders in Ferguson who come into town preaching the gospel of revolution and leave behind them nothing but fires that have to be put out by the real residents who have built up businesses and made the community worth living in. 

USrahell is good at starting fires, creating riots, and terrorizing countries. Its demonic leaders have a spirit of destruction and hatred. They are not interested in building the world up like the BRICS nations but in tearing it down and seeing it burn. Their disposition is like ISIS terrorists but they are way more dangerous because they possess a massive nuclear arsenal and a huge media empire that unfortunately reaches the whole world. 

ISIS doesn't scare me, USrahell does. ISIS isn't destroying Syria, USrahell is doing that. ISIS didn't create the catastrophic refugee crisis in Syria, the biggest since WWII, USrahell did. The Syrian regime also shares some of the blame. Assad isn't a prophet sent by God who is beyond criticism, but scumbag officials and politicians in Washington have no right to make up lies about the man in order to portray him as the second coming of Hitler. 

What have the global fire starters in Washington actually achieved in Syria in the last three years? These thugs and terrorists who give themselves the titles of Secretary of State, President, and Chief of Staff, are stuck between ISIS, a monster they created, and Assad, a monster they want to destroy. 

But the reality is Assad is Ghandi compared to ISIS so the logic of choosing one monster to defeat another monster doesn't apply in this case. 

Covertly, Washington has aligned itself with ISIS since the start of the war, throwing much cash and weapons its way, but publicly it has no choice but to at least put on a show that it is fighting these terrorist mercenaries. Appearances must be kept up.

But appearances is all USrahell cares about. USrahell doesn't give a damn if it gives birth to a radical and expansionist Islamist state in Damascus. They are doing everything to make this happen. USrahell did the 9/11 crime and never looked back, so the idea that they will stop their support for ISIS terrorists just because a few of their citizens got beheaded is naive. The CIA has killed more Americans than these Jihadi knockoffs can ever dream of so a couple of dead journalists and aid workers in the Syrian desert doesn't bother them all that much. 

They still have their eye on the one monster they want to kill in Syria and they don't care if they happen to create a thousand other, more dangerous monsters in the process.

We should remember that Mossad created Hamas and the CIA put Saddam in power, so creating monsters is something that they know all too well how to do.

November 27, 2014

Volunteers Peacefully Protect Ferguson Small Businesses



On this American Thanksgiving day we should be thankful for the Oath Keepers.

November 26, 2014

Clumsy CIA Drone Strikes Kill 41 Bad Guys Over A Span of Years, Angry Afghan Mother Kills 25 Bad Guys In One Battle Alone


The two articles below sum up the U.S/NATO fiasco in Afghanistan.

An Afghan mother, with little means but great motivation, put the Afghan army, NATO, and the CIA drone operators to shame. She and a few other family members killed 25 Taliban members in a seven-hour battle to avenge her son's murder. 

The Taliban will only be defeated by fed-up local Afghans like her, not indifferent foreigners who created the conditions that gave rise to this barbaric group, and religious radicalism in general.

The Afghan army will fold just like the Iraqi army did when the U.S. leaves and the Taliban gets more ambitious. The fight will be left to spirited Afghans like this mother.

An excerpt from, "41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground" by Spencer Ackerman, The Guardian, November 24, 2014:
Finally, on 15 October 2010, Hellfire missiles fired from a Predator or Reaper drone killed Hussain, the Pakistani Taliban later confirmed. For the death of a man whom practically no American can name, the US killed 128 people, 13 of them children, none of whom it meant to harm. 

A new analysis of the data available to the public about drone strikes, conducted by the human-rights group Reprieve, indicates that even when operators target specific individuals – the most focused effort of what Barack Obama calls “targeted killing” – they kill vastly more people than their targets, often needing to strike multiple times. Attempts to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people, as of 24 November.
An excerpt from, "Afghan woman kills 25 Taliban rebels to avenge her son’s murder" Khaama Press, November 24, 2014:
An Afghan woman has killed at least 25 Taliban militants to avenge the murder of her son who was a police officer in western Farah province.

According to reports, Reza Gul was forced to pick up arms after her son was shot dead by Taliban militants in front of her eyes.

She was supported by her daughter and daughter-in-law during the gun battle which lasted for almost 7 hours that left at least 25 Taliban militants dead and five others injured.

November 20, 2014

India Has An Economic Vision For Afghanistan, Pakistan Only Has Bullets And Bombs To Offer


An excerpt from, "India and Pakistan 'battle' for Afghanistan" by Shamil Shams, DW, November 19, 2014:
"There is nothing new about Pakistan's Afghanistan policy though. The country's military and civil establishment, analysts say, still consider the Taliban an important strategic ally, who they think should be part of the Afghan government after the NATO pullout. Observers say that the Pakistani military hopes to regain the influence in Kabul it once enjoyed before the United States and its allies toppled the pro-Pakistan Taliban government in 2001.

"Kabul is friendlier towards New Delhi now, whereas Islamabad continues to back the Taliban, as now officially admitted by Sartaj Aziz. Pakistan wishes to change this scenario and turn Afghanistan into its political backyard once again," London-based journalist and researcher Farooq Sulehria told DW."

Matt Waldman, a researcher on the Afghanistan conflict at Harvard University, believes that Pakistan won't relinquish its support for the Taliban until the regional dynamics undergo a transformation. "The evidence indicates that the Pakistan hasn't fundamentally changed its Afghanistan policy," Waldman told DW.

Siegfried O. Wolf, a political science expert at Heidelberg University, is of the same view. He told DW that he was convinced that several elements within the Pakistan security apparatus still believe that the Taliban could be used as a strategic tool to counter Indian presence in Afghanistan.

Earlier this year, New Delhi announced a two billion USD aid package for Afghanistan - the biggest India has ever given to another country.

While India has been active in rebuilding Afghanistan since 2001, Pakistan's role has been negligible in this regard, says Sulehria. "By backing the Taliban, Islamabad has contributed to the country's destruction. I frequently visit Kabul and I can say that Pakistan is very unpopular in Afghanistan. Sadly, Islamabad is not ready to change course," the expert added.
An excerpt from a speech by Indian diplomat G. Parthasarathy at the "2013 Securing Asia conference":
So what have we done? We've come to a basic conclusion. We want to integrate Afghanistan with the rest of South Asia, to provide access of South Asia to Central Asia, and to be a developmental partner of South Asia. What we're looking at within South Asia is a free trade area ranging from Kabul to Dhaka and Colombo, and externally westwards to the Maldives, to link up with India's larger policy of a free trade area extending through Asean (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and up to Japan, an integrated market from Manila to Kabul. That is a vision which is the only way forward, not at looking at Kabul and Afghanistan isolated in a South Asia, India-Pakistan context."

November 18, 2014

Former Top NATO Official General Harald Kujat: Turkey Wants To Drag NATO Into Syria


"General Harald Kujat (born 1 March 1942) is a retired German general officer of the Luftwaffe. He served as Chief of Staff of the German armed forces, the Bundeswehr, from 2000 to 2002, and as Chairman of the NATO Military Committee from 2002 to 2005" (Wikipedia).

"Turkey basically wants to drag NATO into this situation because the actual goal of Turkey is to neutralize Assad. And if a war broke out in Syria, then Turkey would of course take the opportunity. But alone it's too weak for that. That's the situation we are currently in. And therefore ISIS's actions and what's happening to the Kurds are subsidiary. It isn't in accordance with Turkey's geostrategic goals.

And it has to be clearly said that an ally who behaves like this doesn't deserve the protection of this alliance, an ally who doesn't intervene for protection in a such tragic situation doesn't deserve protection himself. And that's why I am very skeptical towards the mutual defense clause. Even if Turkey would provoke it, I doubt that NATO would be willing to declare the mutual defense clause in such a situation." - General Harald Kujat.  

Turkey wants to drag NATO into Syria. Source: MiddlEast Videos. Date Published: November 18, 2014.

Will ISIS Ever Get Its Hands on Battlefield Nukes?

"President Obama has been unwavering and definitive in declaring he will not deploy U.S. ground troops into combat to fight ISIS militants. Period.

But for the first time since the start of then anti-ISIS offensive dubbed Operation Inherent Resolve, the president volunteered a scenario which he said would change his mind.

“If we discovered that [ISIS] had gotten possession of a nuclear weapon, and we had to run an operation to get it out of their hands, then, yes,” the president told reporters at a news conference in Brisbane, Australia, on Sunday. “I would order it.”

There is no indication that ISIS currently possesses or could easily obtain a nuclear weapon, officials say.

Still, Obama’s declaration of a nuclear weapon in the hands of ISIS is a noteworthy new “red line” – and a very high bar for a U.S. offensive role on the ground." - Devin Dwyer, "Obama 'Would Order' US Troops Into Combat If ISIS Got Nuclear Weapon" ABC News, November 17, 2014.
President Obama would be a madman not to order soldiers to get nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists, whether they be ISIS or anyone else. That's pretty much a no-brainer. Every person on the planet, from the Ayatollah to that Duck Dynasty dude, would stand behind him if an Islamist terrorist group ever got nukes.

But ISIS with nukes? That's not going to happen.

The greatest danger of nuclear weapons going missing and ending up in the hands of Islamist militants is not in Iraq and Syria, but in Pakistan. And the chances of that happening are below one percent. Never say never, as they say, but, still, it won't happen under the watch of the greedy generals in Pakistan. The Pakistani military knows its legitimacy will be finished if its ill-gotten nukes are ever stolen by Islamist terrorists. Their survival depends on their nukes staying secure.

Jihadis are too stupid to successfully steal nukes from Pakistan. The only way Pakistan's nukes end up in the hands of a radical terrorist group is if the Mossad or Blackwater or the CIA steal those nukes in a secret operation and hand them over to their chosen terrorists. They will then instruct them to pose with the nukes in propaganda videos, threaten Israel and the West, and shout and scream in the name of Jihad. They will then use this event to scare the bejesus out of the world, blame Pakistan for the nukes falling into the hands of terrorists, and advance their various political aims.

Of course, the chosen terrorists will never use the nukes on anyone because Washington and Tel Aviv will be in direct control of them from behind the scenes throughout the duration of the propaganda show.

But the threat will be there, and much of the world will believe it, at least for the time necessary for the CIA and Mossad to accomplish their goals. And if you think the Mossad and CIA are not diabolical or clever enough to pull off such a crazy trick then just look at their history. They do out of the box shit and make it look normal. Stealing Pakistan's nukes and handing them over to their chosen terrorists who will then use the nuclear platform to threaten Israel and the West will be another propaganda masterstroke for these evil bastards.

Caspian Report: Feasibility of the US strategy against ISIS

Video Title: Feasibility of the US strategy against ISIS. Source: Caspian Report. Date Published: November 17, 2014. Description:
Back in the month of September the American President, Barack Obama, said that the US intends to destroy the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS for short. Obama managed to assemble an impressive coalition against ISIS, including countries such as France, Germany, the UK and even Saudi Arabia. But at the same time the coalition lacks certain key players. Notably Iran and Turkey. Furthermore the coalition’s military interventions are limited to airstrikes. So just how feasible is the military intervention against ISIS. And what will put an end to the transnational jihadist threat.