Geopolitics and Foreign Policy … english and italian
In 1991, George Bush created what was then called the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ to defeat Saddam Hussein. Yesterday, the U.S. met with members of what it hoped would be a new coalition of similarly willing nations dedicated to defeating ISIS. The problem is that it’s a fractious coalition. If George Bush thought he had it rough, Obama and Kerry have it much tougher.
The nations comprising and bordering ISIS-held territory (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Turkey) have widely disparate interests in general and specifically related to ISIS. Turkey originally encouraged the formation of Syrian rebel forces to battle Bashar al-Assad’s regime. It also allows the smuggling and sale of ISIS-harvested oil in the Turkish black market. It is terribly awkward for Erdogan to pivot from support for such rebel groups to fighting them. Nor does the U.S. have especially warm relations with Turkey, which has been disappointed by the weakness and hesitation of Obama’s Middle East policy. Our strong endorsement of Israeli interests hasn’t helped matters either.
Syria is the white elephant in the room: while the coalition members detest ISIS, they detest Assad almost as much, and don’t wish to do anything that may help him. And if ISIS is weakened or destroyed, it can’t help but bolster the Syrian regime.
Iraq is rapidly turning into a failed state. Its military practically doesn’t exist–riven as it is by poor training and supply, ethnic rivalries, and a corrupt officer corps. The only coherent fighting force in Iraq are the Kurds, and their interest is in protecting the territorial integrity of their enclaves, not necessarily the integrity of the entire country.
Iran is the country with perhaps the most to lose or gain both from the confrontation with ISIS and participation in the coalition. But there’s the rub: whatever the U.S. may want to happen regarding Iran, it has two restive Sunni powers (Saudi Arabia and Qatar) who want nothing to do with Shiite Iran. They both told Kerry that if Iran attended the Paris meeting they wouldn’t. That effectively sunk what could’ve been a constructive development.
We’ve said that we’d like Iran to play a role in the fight against ISIS. But we’ve essentially said we can’t be seen to be coordinating our strategy or tactics with the Iranians due to the antipathies of the Sunni despots. Anything that happens must be done on the sly. The Iranians are a proud people used to being trampled upon by Great Powers. That prospect doesn’t encourage them. It’s a pity we’re locked into the lose-lose proposition, because the U.S.’ long term interests in the region lie much more with Iran than the Qatari or Saudi strongmen.
Iran looks at the bind the U.S. has gotten itself into and laughs derisively. Ayatollah Khamenei dismissed any participation with the U.S. in anti-ISIS efforts saying the U.S. can’t be trusted. He tried to rub salt in the wound by publicly exposing U.S. requests that Iran join these efforts, and telling the world that he rejected them out of hand.
Though a harsh rejection, no one should be surprised. ISIS is an important issue for Iran since it threatens to overrun the Shiite regions of its neighbor, Iraq. But the nuclear issue is no less critical. And there is much unfinished business regarding it. Though negotiations toward an agreement are proceeding, and hopeful murmurings have been heard, nothing is assured. For Iran, an honorable resolution of this issue and the reopening of relations with the U.S. on mutually respectful terms, are critical. The Grand Ayatollah is in effect telling us he’s heard nothing that persuades him there will be marked changes in America’s approach to Iran in the near term. So he sits back, bides his time, and watches as the U.S. president elected to end a war, proceeds to get himself back into the one he hoped to end. When your enemy is sunk in quicksand, a cardinal rule of politics is to sit back and enjoy it. Don’t give him a helping hand.
Another lesson that the U.S. and Israel have never learned, and which is important if you want to play any role in the region, is that determining when NOT to act is sometimes more important than determining TO act. In other words, there are times when standing back and allowing your opponent to overplay his hand is the better part of valor. A nation that believes it must always DO something to advance its interests or prevent them from being threatened, is a nation that will make mistakes and blunders. Action can harm your interests. Though inaction too can bring risks, caution is often the preferred option.
There is no doubt that some form of action is needed to suppress ISIS. But going on a holy war, which seems to be the path chosen by Obama, aiming for the total eradication of ISIS, is a fool’s errand. Some of the hesitation of our putative allies may lie in their realization that more finesse and less firepower is called for.
Prime Minister David Cameron will recall MPs to parliament to outline his plans for deeper military intervention in Iraq and Syria when he returns from the UN General Assembly in New York next week. The House of Commons Library paper, however, says air strikes in Syria “will be difficult to justify legally” unless the Syrian president requests assistance from Western powers, as Iraqi President Fuad Masum has. “Any action against ISIL (ISIS) in Iraq will be inadequate without action against them in Syria and the rhetoric against the Assads may be toned down,” the paper notes. “Action in Syria will be difficult to justify legally without a request for assistance from the Assad government, and it is unlikely that the West could be seen to be responding to such a request. “The British government has said that any action in Syria will comply with international law, and the most likely way to achieve this would be to claim that military action is for humanitarian purposes, using the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. This remains controversial, however, without a United Nations Security Council resolution to authorize it.” UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond was in Paris on Monday, meeting leaders and foreign ministers from over 30 countries to discuss plans to fight ISIS militants. The summit focused on US plans to weaken the militant group by offering military support for Iraq, together with plans to stop foreign fighters joining the group, cutting its funding streams and trying to counter its ideology. Cameron says he has not “ruled anything out” and Britain could still take part in US-led airstrikes. A number of British MPs have voiced concerns about UK military intervention in Syria, as they fear such action could be construed as tacit support for the Assad government. Former British defense chief, Lord Richards, however, recently said the UK should work with Assad, Moscow and Iranian authorities to defeat Islamic State. His statement followed a previous call from Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who urged the UK government to collaborate with Damascus to defeat jihadist militants in Syria and Iraq. The UK’s hardening line on military intervention follows the execution of British aid worker David Haines, who had been held hostage by Jihadists since his abduction last year. The masked killer in the latest video, which appeared on the Internet on Saturday, claims that Haines was killed because of Cameron’s pledge to arm Kurdish forces to battle the jihadist group. The militants also threatened to kill a second British hostage, Alan Henning. Cameron said he has an “iron determination” to destroy ISIS and pledged to “hunt down” Haines’s killers. “David has been murdered in the most callous and brutal way imaginable by an organization which is the embodiment of evil,” Cameron said on Sunday. “We will hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice no matter how long it takes.”
UK airstrikes against Islamic State extremists in Syria could be illegal without the agreement of President Bashar Assad’s government or a UN Security Council resolution, according to a House of Commons Library assessment.
Prime Minister David Cameron will recall MPs to parliament to outline his plans for deeper military intervention in Iraq and Syria when he returns from the UN General Assembly in New York next week.
The House of Commons Library paper, however, says air strikes in Syria “will be difficult to justify legally” unless the Syrian president requests assistance from Western powers, as Iraqi President Fuad Masum has.
“Any action against ISIL (ISIS) in Iraq will be inadequate without action against them in Syria and the rhetoric against the Assads may be toned down,” the paper notes.
“Action in Syria will be difficult to justify legally without a request for assistance from the Assad government, and it is unlikely that the West could be seen to be responding to such a request.
“The British government has said that any action in Syria will comply with international law, and the most likely way to achieve this would be to claim that military action is for humanitarian purposes, using the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. This remains controversial, however, without a United Nations Security Council resolution to authorize it.”
UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond was in Paris on Monday, meeting leaders and foreign ministers from over 30 countries to discuss plans to fight ISIS militants.
The summit focused on US plans to weaken the militant group by offering military support for Iraq, together with plans to stop foreign fighters joining the group, cutting its funding streams and trying to counter its ideology.
Cameron says he has not “ruled anything out” and Britain could still take part in US-led airstrikes.
A number of British MPs have voiced concerns about UK military intervention in Syria, as they fear such action could be construed as tacit support for the Assad government.
Former British defense chief, Lord Richards, however, recently said the UK should work with Assad, Moscow and Iranian authorities to defeat Islamic State.
His statement followed a previous call from Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who urged the UK government to collaborate with Damascus to defeat jihadist militants in Syria and Iraq.
The UK’s hardening line on military intervention follows the execution of British aid worker David Haines, who had been held hostage by Jihadists since his abduction last year.
The masked killer in the latest video, which appeared on the Internet on Saturday, claims that Haines was killed because of Cameron’s pledge to arm Kurdish forces to battle the jihadist group.
The militants also threatened to kill a second British hostage, Alan Henning.
Cameron said he has an “iron determination” to destroy ISIS and pledged to “hunt down” Haines’s killers.
“David has been murdered in the most callous and brutal way imaginable by an organization which is the embodiment of evil,” Cameron said on Sunday. “We will hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice no matter how long it takes.”
Originally posted on the real SyrianFreePress Network:
Only the bought and paid for corporate ‘news’ media could unblinkingly repeat it was considered a good thing that the British government’s despotic unelected -Saudi- puppet regime are considering bombing Syrian people.
Behind this ‘announcement’ lies another ‘dodgy dossier’ that has British Parliament ‘researchers’ trying to ‘develop’ their (far from) legal arguments based on a U.S. ‘law’ blog!!!
in legal terms bombing syrian people is called an -act of war- which would mean the british govt. being forced to cut ties etc. with saudi arabia who are their puppet regime
(source: guardian 14.09.2014)
…read moreaboutthis articlesuggested byCem Ertürat the page…..
View original 75 more words
Originally posted on the real SyrianFreePress Network:
PARIS, 15/9/2014 ~ Russia will provide military and other assistance to Iraq and Syria in the fight against terrorism, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on the sidelines of an international conference on Iraq in Paris on Monday.
“We have spoken of our contribution to supporting the Iraqi government in their fight against terrorists, ensuring security of their state. In a similar way we provide military and other kind of assistance to Syria that is also facing a serious terrorist threat, maybe to a lesser degree. We also provide assistance to our partners in Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Jordan. So we have something to contribute to the common efforts,” Lavrov said.
No double standards in the fight against terrorists are acceptable, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on the sidelines of an international conference on Iraq in the French capital on Monday.
“We have long been raising the issue of terrorist…
View original 271 more words
Originally posted on Raghead The Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist:
CopyrightB Purkayastha 2014
Originally posted on Stop NATO...Opposition to global militarism:
September 13, 2014
Yatseniuk says about NATO membership, remembering Bible
KYIV: Only the NATO membership can protect Ukraine from Russian aggression.
Prime Minister of Ukraine Arseniy Yatseniuk said within the frames of the 11th Annual Meeting of Yalta European Strategy YES, held in Kyiv, a Ukrinform correspondent reports.
“We must clearly recognize that, in these particular circumstances, NATO is the only way to protect Ukraine,” Yatseniuk said.
According to him, not all NATO members are satisfied with this position of Ukraine.
“In the short term, NATO is not ready to accept Ukraine, but the Bible says: if knocking on the door – the door will open. So we decided to knock,” the head of the government said.
Yatseniuk is sure that Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to take over the entire territory of Ukraine: “I clearly understand what the ultimate goal is. He…
View original 31 more words
This article will probably not be for the admirers – insofar as there are still any – of Barack Hussein Obama, also known in these pages as the Nobel Peace Prizident or Drone Man.
I repeat: supporters of the blood-soaked war criminal Barack Hussein Obama shouldnot read this article. If you are offended, you have only yourself to blame.
Rather than watch the spectacle of Drone Man actually speaking, I’ve read the transcripts of his speech to the American people regarding the absolute and urgent necessity of declaring an immediate jihad-cum-crusade against the Islamic State, or Caliphate, or whatever it chooses to call itself on any given day of the week. If you have a strong stomach for lies, you can read it here.
Now, of course I wouldn’t trust Drone Man as far as I could throw him (always assuming one of his drones didn’t blow me away while I was in the act of throwing him). But, though I made allowance for the fact that Drone Man is (a) a politician and (b) even for a politician, an inveterate liar, I was struck not so much by what he said as what he didn’t say in announcing what Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com called Operation Doubletalk. I took away at least ten different points where he stayed silent – because silence, of course, was his only way of avoiding the clear facts.
What I noticed, though, is that the Dronemaster avoided talking of how al Shabaabarose only because of the American and Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in 2006 in the name of “fighting al Qaeda”. In fact, but for that invasion, Somalia would never have had a radical Islamic insurgency. And, of course, even then, al Shabaab had nothing at all to do with al Qaeda until much later when the latter had established itself in Yemen, which again was facilitated by American support to the venal government and its drone campaign.
As for Syria, the Dictator of the United States said that he had
“… ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition.”
“…strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL (sic)”.
He avoided mentioning two interesting facts. First, that his “moderate opposition” is just as much a collection of cannibal headhunters, rapists, child-killers and slavers as ISIS itself, and in many ways worse. And, secondly, said “moderate opposition” – such of it that still exists – now makes no attempt to hide the fact that it is, actually, allied with ISIS and shares weapons and finances with it.
Talking about killing children, can one swallow the instinctive nausea rush over Dronester’s silence over his Zionistani allies murdering the children of Gaza? Can evenAmericans ignore that?
The other omission he makes is the clear fact that the only force capable of beating ISIS is the Syrian Arab Army, the same government army which he claims has “lost legitimacy” and “terrorises its citizens”. The ultimate aim of the Empire is the overthrow of the government of Syria and the disintegration of that country into a Libya-like conglomeration of bitterly opposed ministates, which can be exploited or ignored as convenient.
Since the American Empire intends to bomb Syria – again, something I predictedmonths ago – without the Syrian government’s permission, it’s only a matter of time before it moves over to bombing Syrian military targets. The groundwork is already being laid. One justification will be that Assad must not be allowed to “grow too strong” and so must be attacked. The other justification will be that if Syrian army installations on the front line are not destroyed, they will be overrun and their equipment captured by ISIS, so they have to be bombed and obliterated in advance.
If Syria refuses to allow unilateral American bombing of its territory, it will be bombed anyway, and directly – because it’s stopping America from bombing ISIS. In other words, the Nobel Peace Prize Awardee’s final plan is to bomb Syria, whatever happens.
“…In acts of barbarism… took the lives of two American journalists – Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff.”
I wonder if the hypocrisy meter – even by Drone Man standards – broke on that point. Even if we assume the beheading videos of Foley and Sotloff are genuine, something which is very far from a foregone conclusion, neither of these two was exactly a journalist in the traditional sense; they were, as I mentioned here, just combatants under another name. Both had embedded themselves with the so-called “opposition” (in the case of Foley in Libya earlier as well), and Sotloff, for one, was photographed playing around with a DShK heavy machine gun on the back of a “rebel” truck.
Sotloff’s own family has stated that he was sold to ISIS by the same “moderate opposition” Drone Man is so eager to arm, train and fund even more than he already is; the same “moderate opposition” whose “vetted members” go straight from CIA camps to join ISIS. As for Foley’s mother, she said she was threatened with prosecution if she attempted to pay a ransom to get her son freed.
You’d almost think the Empire wanted these two men beheaded.
“we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding”
I’d love to see him start by cutting off his own funding of the “moderate opposition”, and by, say, attacking the primary source of jihadist funds in the world, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Want to bet when that’s going to happen?
“It is America that has rallied the world against Russian aggression, and in support of the Ukrainian peoples’ right to determine their own destiny.”
That must have gone down very well with the Eastern Ukrainians who were being shelled by Obama’s Nazis, and with the Western Ukrainians who have seen their pensions cut in half under the oligarch regime installed in the EU/US organised coup in February. Of course, it also fails to mention that the Evil Empire has, actually lost, and lost hugely, in Ukraine.
Like it or not, though, the Dronemaster gambled in Ukraine, and lost. He needs a war to appease his military-industrial complex backers, and also distract his people’s attention. Since the latter, in any case, have the attention span of a mayfly with ADHD, in three months’ time they won’t even remember Ukraine exists…until it’s time to remind them.
Another lie-in-passing was this:
‘ When we helped prevent the massacre of civilians trapped on a distant mountain, here’s what one of them said. “We owe our American friends our lives. Our children will always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to protect innocent people.” ‘
Quite naturally, the truth was somewhat different. There were only a few people on “that mountain” and, far from falling over themselves praising Amerikastan, they said they had no intention of moving, thanks.
Let me issue another warning: the “war against ISIS” can be used to cook up invasions elsewhere in the globe against other groups which can be called ISIS. Like, say, Boko Haram, for instance, in Nigeria; and Ebola, which Obama also threw in a mention of, is a handy excuse for sending forces to “protect personnel” in Africa.
And once they are there, they’ll stay there as long as the resources to be exploited last.
Of course Drone Man’s war plans will not succeed. But they are not meant to succeed. In the schemes of the Warstate, it’s only a perpetual war that matters.
That’s where the money lies, and money is the only thing ideologically blank war criminals like Barack Obama follow.
Recently, the reinforced doors of the banks in Mosul were reopened. They had been closed since June 10, when the radical jihadi group the Islamic State (IS) took over the city and put public institutions, particularly banks, under heavy guard.
Mosul – IS is behaving as though it is a state, or perhaps it fancies itself as one. Al-Bayan radio, an IS mouthpiece, announced the reopening of the banks in the city, “in order to allow current account holders to withdraw their deposits.”
Mosul, which has a population of 1.7 million, has considerable economic weight. The city has 12 branches belonging to government banks, most notably the Iraqi Central Bank, as well as private investment banks. Funds deposited in these banks are estimated to be worth $500 million, making IS one of the richest terrorist organizations in the world, according to international media.
Many people followed the news with great interest, including Youssuf Mahjoub, a contractor, who was greatly relieved at first; his family had been suffering from financial hardship for nearly two months. The following day, Mahjoub got up early and headed to downtown Mosul to the 112th branch of al-Rasheed Bank, hoping to cash tens of millions of dinars from his account to settle debts due on his contracting business.
Funds deposited in these banks are estimated to be worth $500 million, making IS one of the richest terrorist organizations in the world, according to international media.
But when Mahjoub arrived at the bank, he found huge, disorganized queues at the door, where three militants stood “organizing” the waiting lines. After some trouble, the contractor reached the customer service officer. However, he found out that the latter’s role was now limited to reading the instructions of the commission put in charge of teller operations, which consists of prominent members of IS.
The officer told Mahjoub, “Cash disbursal is limited to current accounts, and does not include the accounts of government departments and public institutions, and the private accounts of persons (natural or legal persons) who are Christian, Yezidi, Shia, or Sunni ‘apostates’,” according to the IS commission’s classifications.
Mahjoub’s hopes soon faded. He had lost all his possessions, including his family’s home, because of the failure of his business: before he could cash a bond he had long waited for, worth $250,000, Mosul fell to IS.
The man had no choice but to abide by the instructions. He went to another officer at the bank, and requested an account statement, before he went to the IS commission, which proceeded to scrutinize his account details before approving or rejecting his request to cash deposits.
In the meantime, hundreds of people were waiting outside the bank hoping to withdraw their deposits. None of them dared to protest against people jumping the queues, after one of them declared he was fighting on the front lines of the battlefields.
Not far from the 112th branch, a man stood watching what was happening outside the bank. He was one of those who felt it was best to wait until IS’ intentions became clear.
Mahjoub emerged from the bank carrying 10 million dinars ($8,000). The man outside approached him and asked him about what happened with him. Mahjoub said, “After the members of the commission interviewed me, they told me I was allowed to withdraw only 10 percent of my balance, provided that it would be no more than 10 million dinars.” He added, “When I tried to persuade them that my balance was worth 300 million dinars, one of them said firmly: You are not the only one, these instructions apply to everyone.”
Mosul residents who are still hesitant and apprehensive believe that the goal behind reopening the banks is to access details about the deposit accounts, especially since IS has shown great interest in their finances. For this reason, IS might proceed after this step to seize accounts belonging to government institutions and departments, as well as the accounts of “fugitives,” Christians, and others.
For other residents, the move is just a PR stunt by IS, with the growing resentment among the public against the radical group because of the economic downturn the city is now experiencing.
IS already levies a fee on the funds withdrawn from banks, to the tune of 10 percent of their value. But Mohammed al-Fathi, a farmer, has paid this fee twice so far: the first when he sold his wheat crops to the General Company for Grain – as farmers were told they had to pay zakat money to the Islamic State being the party in charge of providing for the ‘subjects’ and collecting and distributing zakat – and the second when he withdrew money from the bank.
Fathi had 20 million dinars. After complicated procedures that took 3 days, he returned home with only 2 million, following the same 10 percent withdrawal rule.
In the context of explaining IS’ recent procedures, we find that the US Foreign Policy Research Institute had said in its latest report that the funds seized by the organization, estimated at $500 million, would not last for a long time, because of the high cost of the conflict IS is fighting on several fronts. Furthermore, an unknown proportion of these funds is being paid to cover the salaries and pensions of government employees. Otherwise, in the event of failing to pay these wages, IS would risk antagonizing the public.
The report also stated that part of these funds could disappear into the personal accounts of some IS leaders.
Source: Al Akhbar
The rebels in Libya are in the middle of a life or death civil war and Moammar Gadhafi is still in power and yet somehow the Libyan rebels have had enough time to establish a new Central Bank of Libya and form a new national oil company. Perhaps when this conflict is over those rebels can become time management consultants. They sure do get a lot done. What a skilled bunch of rebels – they can fight a war during the day and draw up a new central bank and a new national oil company at night without any outside help whatsoever. If only the rest of us were so versatile! But isn’t forming a central bank something that could be done after the civil war is over? According to Bloomberg, the Transitional National Council has “designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.” Apparently someone felt that it was very important to get pesky matters such as control of the banks and control of the money supply out of the way even before a new government is formed.
Of course it is probably safe to assume that the new Central Bank of Libya will be 100% owned and 100% controlled by the newly liberated people of Libya, isn’t it?
Most people don’t realize that the previous Central Bank of Libya was 100% state owned. The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia’s article on the former Central Bank of Libya….
The Central Bank of Libya (CBL) is 100% state owned and represents the monetary authority in The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and enjoys the status of autonomous corporate body. The law establishing the CBL stipulates that the objectives of the central bank shall be to maintain monetary stability in Libya , and to promote the sustained growth of the economy in accordance with the general economic policy of the state.
Since the old Central Bank of Libya was state owned, it was essentially under the control of Moammar Gadhafi.
But now that Libya is going to be “free”, the new Central Bank of Libya will be run by Libyans and solely for the benefit of Libyans, right?
Of course it is probably safe to assume that will be the case with the new national oil company as well, isn’t it?
Over the past couple of years, Moammar Gadhafi had threatened to nationalize the oil industry in Libya and kick western oil companies out of the country, but now that Libya will be “free” the people of Libya will be able to work hand in hand with “big oil” and this will create a better Libya for everyone.
Of course oil had absolutely nothing to do with why the U.S. “inva—” (scratch that) “initiated a kinetic humanitarian liberty action” in Libya.
When Barack Obama looked straight into the camera and told the American people that the war in Libya is in the “strategic interest” of the United States, surely he was not referring to oil.
After all, war for oil was a “Bush thing”, right? The Democrats voted for Obama to end wars like this, right? Surely no prominent Democrats will publicly support this war in Libya, right?
Surely Barack Obama will end the bombing of Libya if the international community begins to object, right?
Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize. He wouldn’t deeply upset the other major powers on the globe and bring us closer to World War III, would he?
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has loudly denounced “coalition strikes on columns of Gaddafi’s forces” and he believes that the U.S. has badly violated the terms of the UN Security Council resolution….
“We consider that intervention by the coalition in what is essentially an internal civil war is not sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council resolution.”
So to cool off rising tensions with the rest of the world, Obama is going to call off the air strikes, right?
Well, considering the fact that Obama has such vast foreign policy experience we should all be able to rest easy knowing that Obama will understand exactly what to do.
Meanwhile, the rebels seem to be getting the hang of international trade already.
They have even signed an oil deal with Qatar!
Rebel “spokesman” Ali Tarhouni has announced that oil exports to Qatar will begin in “less than a week“.
Who knew that the rag tag group of rebels in Libya were also masters of banking and international trade?
We sure do live in a strange world.
Tonight, Barack Obama told the American people the following….
“Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.”
So now we are going to police all of the atrocities in all of the other countries around the globe?
The last time I checked, the government was gunning down protesters in Syria.
Is it time to start warming up the Tomahawks?
Or do we reserve “humanitarian interventions” only for those nations that have a lot of oil?
In fact, atrocities are currently being committed all over Africa and in about a dozen different nations in the Middle East.
Should we institute a draft so that we will have enough young men and women to police the world with?
We all have to be ready to serve our country, right?
The world is becoming a smaller place every day, and you never know where U.S. “strategic interests” are going to be threatened next.
The rest of the world understands that we know best, right?
Of course the rest of the world can surely see our good intentions in Libya, can’t they?
Tensions with Russia, China and the rest of the Arab world are certainly going to subside after they all see how selfless our “humanitarian intervention” has been in Libya, don’t you think?
In all seriousness, we now live in a world where nothing is stable anymore. Wars and revolutions are breaking out all over the globe, unprecedented natural disasters are happening with alarming frequency and the global economy is on the verge of total collapse.
By interfering in Libya, we are just making things worse. Gadhafi is certainly a horrible dictator, but this was a fight for the Libyan people to sort out.
We promised the rest of the world that we were only going to be setting up a “no fly zone”. By violating the terms of the UN Security Council resolution, we have shown other nations that we cannot be trusted and by our actions we have increased tensions all over the globe.
So what do all of you think about what is going on in Libya? Please feel free to leave a comment with your opinion below….
So, let’s add it up:
1. This guy is an exile, who lived in Virginia (Note: The CIA’s headquarters is there. Anyone with half a brain can connect the dots on that one).
2. He goes ‘home’ around the time the ‘protests’ start.
3. He quickly becomes the ‘leader’ of the ‘revolution’ (the ‘protests’ magically morphing into a ‘people’s revolutionary army’ of sorts).
4. He meets with Hillary Clinton two weeks before the bombing campaign is announced.
The CIA and the Administration has simply found someone less-crazy and more-pliable than Khaddafi. He’ll be the CIA’s Libyan puppet.
The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militant group now has about 20,000 to 31,500 fighters on the ground, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) claimed on Thursday, much higher than a previous estimate of 10,000.
Among those in Syria are 15,000 foreign fighters including 2,000 Westerners, some of whom have joined ISIS, a US intelligence official told AFP.
The figures were revealed one day after US President Barack Obama vowed to expand an American offensive against ISIS, a plan which includes US airstrikes in Syria, expanded attacks in Iraq and new support for Iraqi government forces.
“CIA assesses the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) can muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria, based on a new review of all-source intelligence reports from May to August,” CIA spokesman Ryan Trapani said in a statement.
“This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity, and additional intelligence,” he said.
ISIS has seized large swathes of territory in Iraq in recent months, displaying brutal tactics that include grizzly executions.
The White House has insisted that Obama is authorized to strike ISIS in Iraq and Syria – despite the fact that the Syrian government has said unapproved US airstrikes would be a breach of its sovereignty – under a law passed by Congress after the September 11 attacks in 2001.
However Obama learned Thursday that he may have a wait on his hands before Congress signs off on his plan to train and equip Syrian rebels, a key plank in his strategy.
Also on Thursday the Pentagon announced that US combat aircraft will soon start flying out of a base in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq as part of a “more aggressive” air campaign against ISIS.
The use of Erbil air base reflects the broadening US offensive, though attack helicopters already have been flying out of bases in Iraq.
Critics opposed to US involvement in the conflict with ISIS have pointed out that Washington in partnership with its Gulf allies, including Saudi Arabia, played a role in the formation and expansion of extremist groups like ISIS by arming, financing and politically empowering armed opposition groups in Syria.
Source: Al Akhbar
Since the advent of the Syrian Conflict in March 2011, the Turkish Government has played a proactive role in destabilizing Syria with its deregulation of border security and through channels of military intelligence provided to militants fighting in the country. In fact, the large presence of opposition fighters in northern Syria is a direct result of the Turkish Government’s political agenda. Turkish President, Recep Erdogan, was one of the most outspoken critics of Dr. Bashar Al-Assad, going as far as chastising the Syrian President and issuing public statements of condemnation for the Syrian Government. Perhaps, President Erdogan’s role as the Middle East “peacekeeper” has allowed him to form relationships with extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda. However, all of these relationships have a strikingly odd and antithetical predicament with one another: Erdogan maintains regular correspondence with the groups and countries that oppose them – except for Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and Iraq.
For a man who prides himself on delivering aide to destroyed neighborhoods in Gaza, Erdogan’s behavior is quite the paradox; after all, Turkey’s Energy Market Regulatory Agency (EPDK) revealed that the Turkish Government sold 1,584 tons of jet fuel to the Israeli Government in June 2014. Ironically, the Israeli Air Force bombarded Gaza daily in July 2014 with multiple airstrikes, killing over 2,000 civilians in the process. Yet, the political wing of Hamas offered its gratitude and sincerest “thank you” to the country that likely succored Israeli F-16s in destroying their already dilapidated residential areas – Turkey was making money, while Gaza burned. It should likely come as no surprise then that the Turkish Government – a NATO partner – has actively assisted the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) militants crossing into the neighboring countries of Syria and Iraq
The belabored claim that the Turkish Government cannot control its border with Syria and Iraq would be easily comprehensible if Turkish civilians were illegally entering the countries; this is the not the case. A wide variety of ethnically diverse ISIS fighters have entered Syria and Iraq through Turkey, likely receiving their visas from the Turkish Government. How can the Turkish Government claim to have proof that war crimes were committed in Syria, but not have any clue that thousands of ISIS fighters are traveling through your border? How did foreign ISIS fighters arrive in the Nineveh Province of Iraq? Why were foreign ISIS fighters that were wounded in Iraq and Syria treated in Turkish hospitals?
ISIS’ biggest supporter is the Turkish Government and they are not afraid to hide their support. The Turkish Government has stated that it will not comply with the request by the U.S. Government to allow NATO airstrikes to be conducted from their airbases. Furthermore, during a meeting in Jeddeh, Saudi Arabia, the Turkish Government refused to sign a joint declaration to combat ISIS inside their territory, stating that they will take a “passive” approach to deal with terrorism. Turkey has not been a victim of ISIS terrorism; however, their neighbors in Syria and Iraq are committed to an all-out war against the ISIS militants that Erdogan supports.
The Turkish Government’s complex relationships with extremist groups and those who oppose them have further complicated matters. In truth, the Turkish Government’s role in supporting ISIS is clear; but, their reasoning is hidden beneath the surface. Many political analysts will offer their opinion on ISIS’ creation, but most refrain from mentioning the state that has given the militants a safe-haven and undoubtedly consistent support. ISIS itself remains a foreign concept to those around the world: how can a group so large, manifest inside countries with the most vigilant and prudent intelligence agencies? This remains inexplicable.
Originally posted on the real SyrianFreePress Network:
An interesting article in Italian: “Obama declares to have the authority and the intention to hit the terrorists of Daesh-ISIS even in Syrian territory. Who is it for this message? And why? Brief comment”(Italian language only by TG24Siria)
OBAMA DICHIARA DI AVERE L’AUTORITÁ E L’INTENZIONE DI COLPIRE I TERRORISTI DI DAESH-ISIS ANCHE IN TERRITORIO SIRIANO. A CHI É RIVOLTO TALE MESSAGGIO? E PERCHÉ? BREVE COMMENTO
Al di lá di tutte le considerazioni strategiche e critiche, o delle dichiarazioni di denuncia e condanna che si possano fare per le irresponsabili, temerarie e arroganti frasi espresse dal burattino dei Rothshild collocato alla Casa Bianca, vorremmo solo notare ed evidenziare una cosa. E cioé che tali affermazioni pubbliche del presidente americano suonano (a chi abbia orecchie per intendere) come un chiaro messaggio rivolto ai capi mercenari di Daesh-IS presenti in Iraq e nord-est della Siria: “Guardate che stiamo per imminentemente…
View original 524 more words
Originally posted on the real SyrianFreePress Network:
President Barack Obama on Wednesday outlined his plan to authorize broader US military involvement for hunting down the fighters of the notorious Islamic State jihadist group in Iraq, Syria and “wherever they exist.”
In a public address to the American people, President Obama announced that the US will “conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists.”
“I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are,” Obama stated. “That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”
The president’s strategy in Syria will also be to support opposition forces, and he again called on Congress to give the US government “additional authorities…
View original 1,016 more words
The U.S. backed, Syrian Revolutionary Front (SRF), have signed a ceasefire agreement with members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) in the Rif Dimashq Governate. According to the ceasefire agreement, the two militant groups will not engage in violence with one another in the densely populated city of Hajar Al-Aswad, just south of Damascus. The agreement outlines the purpose of the ceasefire, alluding to their mutual interest in usurping the “Nusayri Government” (Nusayri is a derogatory word used to insult Alawi Muslims) in Damascus.
Other rebel groups involved in the ceasefire with ISIS are Liwaa’ ‘Ahrar Tukrman Al-Golan, Liwaa’ Hittin, and Liwaa’ Al-‘Ummah Al-Waheeda; these groups operate primarily in the Rif Dimashq, Al-Quneitra, and Dara’a Governates. Recently, ISIS militants have been identified in the Yarmouk Camp District and the village of Babeela in south Damascus. While, rebel group Jaysh Al-Islam has combatted ISIS militants in the East Ghouta, most rebel groups in Rif Dimashq have avoided confrontation with the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham.
This agreement was signed two days after U.S. President Barack Obama released a public statement in regards to ISIS’ presence in the region. ISIS militants are believed to have entered Syria through the Lebanese border, where they have a significant presence in the ‘Arsal District. Yesterday, the Lebanese Government arrested over 20 suspected militants in southern Lebanon, after the latter was caught entering the country from Shebaa’ Farms.
Is it just me or do you too see a few problems in US President Obama’s suggested tactics on battling ISIS?
Although I tend to agree that something forceful needs to be done to halt the expansion of ISIS, I truly fail to see the point in further arming groups in Syria that has previously sold and traded weaponry supplied by the west to Jabhat Al Nusra and ISIS alike.
Originally posted on Dogma and Geopolitics:
The US army has sent two huge cargos of heavy weaponry and ammunition from Afghanistan to the terrorist groups fighting the Syrian government via Jordan, informed sources revealed on Saturday.
“The United States sent two huge cargos of its heavy weapons and ammunitions in Afghanistan to the zionist terrorists through Jordan on June 18, the day NATO ceded control of security affairs to the Afghan army and government,” A ranking member of the US marine troops deployed in Afghanistan told FNA on Saturday.
“The cargos were sent to Jordan on two 90-ton capacity Russian cargo planes belonging to Poland,” added the source, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of his information.
Earlier this year, the same source had informed FNA that the US had started sending the artilleries, armored vehicles and different weapons systems of its troops pulled out from Afghanistan to the terrorist groups in…
View original 1,595 more words
Obama, in his speech before the nation on national television on September 10, 2014, never mentioned the fact that Qatar and Turkey, both American allies, were the lifeblood of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). To further qualify his ignorance (or maybe his treachery), he repeatedly referred to the Al-Qaeda offshoot as “ISIL” replacing the word “Syria” with “Levant”. It is proof positive that the so-called “Arabists” at Foggy Bottom have degenerated into Zionist flag-bearers with a modicum of a dilettante’s knowledge of matters Near Eastern. Let me tell you why.
The word “Levant” is French. Ou le soleil leve. Where the sun rises. It refers specifically to the coastal area of the far eastern end of the Mediterranean or Natural Syria. But, “Syria” is not only the Levant, it is also the Syrian Desert and those Euphratean areas containing cities like Dayr El-Zor, Al-Mayaadeen and Al-Raqqa where the local accents are decidedly influenced by Mesopotamian or Gulf Arabic, even Najdi in some locales. But, we can’t expect the superficially educated apparatchiks at the State Department to know that, why that might mean the U.S. has actual area experts; which, by the way, it doesn’t. What Foggy Bottom has, instead, is a coterie of spooks inextricably linked to the Company, the CIA. Shades of Robert Ford and Christopher Stephens. American diplomats are beginning to look more decidedly like saboteurs, gun runners, assassins and fifth columns, than smooth, silk-tongued boulevardiers wearing bowler hats and sporting ivory handled canes.
But, at no time did Obama stop to explain what ISIS was; how it originated in Iraq as a response to American occupation of that country. He did not tell his public that ISIS used to be linked to Al-Qaeda and that Jabhat Al-Nusra, a “legal” franchise of Al-Qaeda was an organization the U.S. supports in Syria. In other words, he used the word ISIL to conceal the word “Syria”. His handlers didn’t want to make the connection that Syria was also being fought by this vicious and nihilistic organization created by the U.S.
Obama’s short speech, therefore, may be more interesting for what it did not address than what it did. Oh, he tried to look somber, almost melancholic somehow. He made sure to mention the power points all men of superficiality need to broach in order to get themselves wired up for the nonsense they’re going to foist on a putatively ignorant public. His handlers made sure there were no important baseball games being broadcast simultaneously which might distract his audience, the men desperately channel-surfing for some sportscaster’s voice or the women checking out the latest infomercial on life extending juice blenders.
Obama did not tell Americans that Chuck Hagel could not get Turkey, an ally in NATO, to commit to fighting ISIS.
Obama did not tell Americans that Turkey provides safe haven for ISIS and arms the savages.
Obama did not tell Americans that Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE and Saudi Arabia all have a hand in the financial growth of ISIS.
Obama did not tell Americans that Jabhat Al-Nusra, supported by the U.S. even though it’s a terrorist organization, was a branch of Al-Qaeda, just like the laundry list of groups fighting to oust Dr. Assad.
Obama did not tell Americans that the Syrian Army was fighting ISIS too.
Obama did not tell Americans that Arab countries in the area did not have any interest, much less the ability, in putting soldiers on the ground in either Iraq or Syria.
Obama did not tell Americans that he might order a violation of Syrian airspace in order to strike ISIS.
Obama did not tell Americans that the Syrian government has a seat at the United Nations and is a founding member state of that organization.
Obama did not tell Americans that he did not ask Russia, Iran or Syria to join in the battle against ISIS.
Obama did not tell Americans that the Syrian president won an election by garnering 80% of the vote in an internationally observed process much more democratic than anything in Lebanon, the Zionist Settler State or Turkey.
Obama did not tell Americans that Russia and Iran sternly oppose a violation of Syrian sovereignty without coordination with Damascus.
Obama did not tell Americans that Russia will go to war if the U.S. attacks Syria. (We wouldn’t want people to start hoarding cans of pork and beans in their bomb shelters.)
Obama did not tell Americans that he was an intellectually bankrupt American president conducting their affairs under the heel of his Zionist masters.
But, here’s what his speech writers did put in:
Assad has lost legitimacy and could not be a part of Obama’s scheme.
ISIS killed 2 American reporters. (We’re not so sure)
ISIS is evil incarnate.
ISIS kills Christians. He never mentioned his terrorists killing Christians in Syria!
No American boots in combat in Iraq or Syria. Only air power.
We might suffer some losses.
The U.S. got Assad to give up his CW arsenal. No mention of Syria’s BW. (tee hee hee)
I mean, what else did he say?; “God Save these United States of America?”
The post-speech analyses were virtually comic masterpieces. Not a one mentioned the Russian nuclear fleet off the coast of Tartous. Not a one mentioned the 2006 Syrian-Iranian Mutual Defense Treaty. Nobody wanted to talk about what happens if Syria shoots down offending American bombers. Not a one mentioned Syria’s own war against ISIS and Al-Qaeda – that the Syrian government was in the same trench. No Pat Buchanan. No Ron Paul. No Lord Rifkind. No George Galloway. Only talking heads repeating the same chorus of mumbo jumbo – all designed to deflect the most incisive questions. It was an exercise in pathological lying and deceit worthy of Cagliostro.
Obama is like the Emperor Macrinus, an outsider with negligible administrative skills. He also represents that time during the descent of the great Roman Empire when provincial personalities seem to exist only to watch the glories of the past wither away in a process that is disturbingly similar to what is happening today in the U.S. capital. Obama’s speech was disturbing for its lack of depth and quality. He should never have been elected president. He’s not the one to lead any war against ISIS. ZAF
NEWS AND ENTERTAINMENT:
Erdal sends this gut-splitting send-off for ISIS. It’s a must-see and is in Iraqi dialect:
According to Stars and Stripes, the internal newspaper of the U.S. Armed Forces, the U.S. Army Contracting Command is currently recruiting contractors for an initial one-year stint on the ground in Iraq.
The newspaper points out that the Obama administration is not willing to deploy a large number of regular troops to fight against the Islamic State and plans to outsource some of their operations.
The tasks entrusted to the contractors will be geared towards Arab-Kurdish and Shiite-Sunni reconciliation, which would mark a change of tactics by the U.S. in Iraq where, in 2005, Washington had imposed the adoption of a constitution dividing the nation into regions and communities.
The extensive use of contractors was started in the early 2000s by Donald Rumsfeld, who had sought to privatize the armed forces. It gradually lost steam after the military failure in Iraq.
“In place of ‘boots on the ground’, US seeks contractors for Iraq”, by Seth Robson, Stars and Stripes, 7 September 2014.
Originally posted on the real SyrianFreePress Network:
It has been almost four years since the sponsored terrorism has invaded Syria, committing the most horrible crimes of the century: slaughtering, killing, kidnapping and torturing in the name of freedom and democracy.
Mercenaries from almost all over the world (83 countries), backed by (Turkey, Qatar, U.S, Saudi Arabia and EU) came to Syria to fight the fake Jihad against the Syrian people and government
this page at https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/?p=36992