Russian Serviceman Killed in Combat Mission in Syria’s Homs

Russian soldier Anton Yerygin died of heavy injuries sustained during an insurgent attack in Syria’s Homs province, a spokesman of the Khmeimim base reported on May 11.

Anton Yerygin was escorting Russia’s Hmeymim reconciliation center vehicles, when the convoy was shelled by terrorists earlier this week.

“Performing tasks to escort vehicles of the Russian center for reconciliation of opposing sides in Syria’s Homs province, Russian soldier Anton Yerygin received serious wounds in shelling opened by militants,” the spokesperson said.

990
Russian soldiers in Syria in front of an Arabic tag saying « Syria Al-Assad »

The soldier was rushed to a Russian military hospital. But Russian medics were unable to save his life. Yerygin has been recommended for a state award posthumously.

SOUTHFRONT

 

La Russie n’interviendra pas en cas de guerre au Golan

La dernière rencontre du président de la fédération de Russie avec le premier ministre de l’Etat d’Israël semble avoir été un échec sur tous les plans.
Vladimir Poutine aurait laissé entendre à Benyamin Netanyahu que la Russie ne bougera pas le moindre petit doigt pour empêcher une riposte du Hezbollah libanais et de ses alliés (Damas et Téhéran) au Golan en cas d’une éventuelle agression israélienne contre le Liban.
En d’autres termes, la Russie dont les forces aériennes sont stationnées en Syrie, n’interviendra pas au sud d’un certain parallèle mais n’agira pas non plus pour dissuader la Syrie et le Hezbollah de réactiver le front du Golan (un territoire en partie occupé par Israël)  et du lac Tiberiade.
Cette mise en garde fut derrière la réunion précipitée du cabinet israélien au Golan. Une mise en scène un peu kitsch dans une caricature de Kibboutzim à l’issue de laquelle le gouvernement Netanyahu a pondu un communiqué grotesque digne d’une véritable dictature orientale où il est question de possession éternelle du plateau stratégique du Golan.
Éternelle? On est là en plein délire ésotérique. C’est une tendance lourde vu l’abêtissement universel mais au point d’en oublier l’ABC de toute politique, cela devient une sorte de charlatanisme à peine déguisé. Et c’est pour cela que nous répétons ici que le plus grand danger existentiel auquel fait face Israël n’est pas son environnement stratégique mais bel et bien Netanyahu.
L’Arabie Saoudite pousse indirectement Tel-Aviv à attaquer le Liban pour se débarrasser une fois pour toute du Hezbollah libanais. Et de fait, une éventuelle nouvelle aventure israélienne au Liban serait entièrement financée par Ryad à condition d’annihiler le Hezbollah.
Le problème est que toute évaluation rationnelle de la situation stratégique au Levant après plus de cinq années de guerre en Syrie et en Irak souligne non seulement la montée en puissance des capacités militaires du Hezbollah, mais un renforcement de ses alliés autour d’un axe fonctionnel et indépendant des circuits décisionnels « occidentaux ».
Loin d’être affaibli, le Hezbollah a acquis une formidable expérience de sa participation dans les vastes campagnes de guerre en Syrie. En dépit de pertes humaines assez importantes, le mouvement libanais a réussi à renforcer, grâce à Damas et Téhéran, sa capacité de frappe balistique et par dessus tout acquérir une solide base de données sur les cibles stratégiques israéliennes dont les centres de stockage d’ogives nucléaires, les dépôts d’hydrocarbures et d’ammoniac ainsi que les centres de fabrication d’armes bactériologiques et chimiques (lesquels seraient situés au centre des grandes agglomérations urbaines selon le secrétaire général du Hezbollah)
Mais c’est la capacité du Hezbollah à manoeuvrer sur des fronts étendus et à capturer des centres urbains et péri-urbains qui semble donner des cauchemars aux stratèges israéliens. Ces derniers n’écartent point un scénario dans lequel le Hezbollah, aidé par les unités de l’armée syrienne investirait non seulement le Golan mais la Galilée soit le Nord de la Palestine historique. Une perspective à résonance eschatologique mais bien réelle si l’on considère les facteurs actuels.
Lors de la guerre du Liban de juillet 2006, la Syrie avait activement assisté le Hezbollah à faire face militairement, non sans un certain succès, à une violente agression israélienne. C’est à partir de cette année qu’il fut décidé de punir Damas et d’y induire un changement de régime. Cependant personne n’avait pensé à une intervention russe. Un impondérable impossible à prévoir.
Sans s’attarder sur d’autres faits, on assiste actuellement à l’émergence d’un nouvel ordre au Moyen-Orient et certainement pas celui surgissant d’un chaos rêvé par les néoconservateurs pro-Israël au lendemain de la chute de Baghdad.
C’est dans ce contexte qu’un contre feu est allumé par les alliés à Alep, deuxième ville de Syrie et dernier espoir des bellicistes de Ryad, d’Ankara et de Tel-Aviv.

CONFIRMED: French Government Knew Extremists BEFORE Attack (LD)

As predicted and previously reported, terrorists who took part in an unprecedented attack in the center of Paris killing over a 100 and injuring hundreds more, were well-known to French security agencies before the attack took place.

The UK Daily Mail reported in its article, « Hunt for the Isis killers: One terrorist identified as ‘young Frenchman known to authorities’ – another two found with Syrian and Egyptian passports, » that:

One of the terrorists involved in last night’s attacks in Paris has been officially identified as a Parisian, according to local media reports. 

The man, who was killed at the Bataclan, was identified using his fingerprints and was from the southern Parisian neighbourhood of Courcouronnes. 

French reports say that the man, who was around 30 years old, was already known to French anti-terrorist authorities prior to last night’s attacks. 

Similarly in January 2015 in the wake of the « Charlie Hebo attack » which left 12 dead, it was revealed that French security agencies tracked the perpetrators for nearly a decade beforehand, having arrested at least one terrorist a total of two times, incarcerating him at least once, tracked two of them overseas where they had trained with known terrorist organizations and possibly fought alongside them in Syria, before tracking them back to French territory.

Astoundingly, French security agencies never moved in on the terrorists, claiming that after a decade of tracking them, they had finally decided to close their case for precisely the amount of time needed for them to plan and execute their grand finale.


More Wars and More Surveillance Can’t Help  
With a similar scenario now emerging, particularly in the wake of the « Charlie Hebo attack, » where French security agencies knew about extremists but failed to stop them before carrying out yet another high-profile attack, even with enhanced surveillance powers granted to them by recent legislation, it appears that no amount of intrusive surveillance or foreign wars will stem a terrorist problem the French government itself seems intent on doing nothing to stop.

The problem is not France’s immigration laws. Dangerous people are in France, but they are being tracked by French security agencies. The problem is not Syria. Terrorists have left to fight there, acquired deadly skills and affiliations before returning to France, but have likewise been tracked by French security agencies. Instead, the problem is that French security agencies are doing nothing about these dangerous individuals knowingly living, working, and apparently plotting in the midst of French society.

In the coming hours and days, the French government and its various co-conspirators in their proxy war against Syria will propose a plan of action they claim will stem the terrorist threat France and the rest of Europe faces. But the reality is, the problem is not something the French government can solve, because the problem is clearly the French government itself.

ISIS is Behind the Paris Attacks, But Who is Behind ISIS? 

With the so-called « Islamic State » (ISIS) emerging as being behind the attack, the question that remains is, who is behind ISIS itself? While the West has attempted to maintain the terrorist organization possesses almost mythological abilities, capable of sustaining combat operations against Syria, Iraq, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, support from Iran, and now the Russian military – all while carrying out large-scale, high-profile terrorist attacks across the globe – it is clear that ISIS is the recipient of immense multinational state-sponsorship.

The rise of ISIS was revealed as early as 2007 in interviews conducted by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 9-page report « The Redirection. » The interviews revealed a plan to destabilize and overthrow the government of Syria through the use of sectarian extremists – more specifically, Al Qaeda – with arms and funds laundered through America’s oldest and stanchest regional ally, Saudi Arabia.

A more recent Department of Intelligence Agency (DIA) report drafted in 2012 (.pdf) admitted:

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

The DIA report enumerates precisely who these « supporting powers » are:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

And to this day, by simply looking at any number of maps detailing territory held by various factions amid the Syrian conflict, it is clear that ISIS is not a « state » of any kind, but an ongoing invasion emanating from NATO-member Turkey’s territory, with its primary supply corridor crossing the Turkish-Syrian border between the Syrian town of Ad Dana and the western bank of the Euphrates River, a supply corridor now increasingly shrinking.

In fact, the desperation exhibited by the West and its efforts to oust the Syrian government and salvage its proxy force now being decimated by joint Syrian-Russian military operations, is directly proportional to the diminishing size and stability of this corridor.

Just last week, Syrian forces reestablished firm control over the Kweyris military airport, which was under siege for years. The airport is just 20 miles from the Euphrates, and, as Syrian forces backed by Russian airpower work their way up toward the Turkish border along the Syrian coast, constitutes a unified front that will essentially cut off ISIS deeper inside Syria for good.

Should ISIS’ supply lines be cut in the north, the organization’s otherwise inexplicable fighting capacity will atrophy. The window for the West’s « regime change » opportunity is quickly closing, and perhaps in a last ditch effort, France has jammed the spilled blood and broken bodies of its own citizens beneath the window to prevent it from closing for good.

The reality is that France knew the « Charlie Hebo » attackers, they knew beforehand those involved in the most recent Paris attack, and they likely know of more waiting for their own opportunity to strike. With this knowledge, they stood by and did nothing. What’s more, it appears that instead of keeping France safe, the French government has chosen to use this knowledge as a weapon in and of itself against the perception of its own people, to advance its geopolitical agenda abroad.

If the people of France want to strike hard at those responsible for repeated terrorist attacks within their borders, they can start with those who knew of the attacks and did nothing to stop them, who are also, coincidentally, the same people who helped give rise to ISIS and help perpetuate it to this very day.

Tony Cartalucci

The Land Destroyer

Bangkok Blast: Who Has Ax To Grind With Thailand?

The bombing on Monday evening, August 17, 2015, has killed up to 20 people, injured over 100 more, and stands as one of the worst single terrorist attacks in Thailand’s capital of Bangkok in recent memory. The attack targeted a religious shrine popular with Asian tourists – particularly from China – who now comprise the largest demographic group of visitors to Thailand.

It is clear the attack was a precision strike on Thailand’s economy, and specifically against a very precise segment of Thailand’s tourist market. Commentators have admitted that many other targets with higher concentrations of tourists exist throughout Bangkok. Terrorists specifically struck the Erawan Shrine in downtown Bangkok to target Thailand’s Asian tourists.

The Western media has already begun spinning theories as to who carried out the attack – focusing on separatists in Thailand’s southern most provinces who have been waging a low-level insurgency for years. Many note, however, that violence rarely unfolds outside of these provinces, and has never been carried out on this scale – especially in Bangkok.

Deposed dictator Thaksin Shinawatra and his supporters have also been cited as possible suspects. While southern separatists have never visited violence upon Bangkok, Shinawatra’s followers have – and often. They carried out riots that left two shopkeepers dead in 2009. In 2010, they fielded some 300 heavily armed militants on Bangkok’s streets, triggering gun battles that left nearly 100 dead and culminated in city-wide arson. They again fielded these same terrorists throughout 2013-2014 to target protests aimed at Shinawatra’s regime. This latest episode left nearly 30 dead and hundreds injured.

While no single attack by Shinawatra’s followers has rivaled Monday’s blast, the total death toll and carnage carried out by his militants in 2010, and again in 2013-2014 certainly exceeded it.

The foreign media also speculated terrorists linked to either China’s Xinjiang province or even the so-called « Islamic State » (ISIS) may have potentially been involved – perhaps because of the large number of Chinese tourists hit in the attack, and because terrorists from China’s Xinjiang province have been trafficked by NATO to Syria to fight along side ISIS.

It has been previously reported how the US and its allies have supported both Shinawatra’s regime over the past decade Also reported were US-Saudi ties with Thailand’s southern separatists and US-Turkish ties with China’s Uyghur separatists.

With US foreign policy serving as the singular common denominator between all possible suspects, one may be led to ask, « why Thailand? » What ax has the US to grind against Thailand?

Thailand’s Deadly Sins

While Thailand is perceived by many to be a stanch US ally, this originates in Cold War history, not modern reality. During the Vietnam War, Thailand found itself in the middle of a deadly regional conflict and opted to make concessions with the US rather than array itself against it. Thailand had previously used a similar strategy during World War II to mitigate war with Japan at the temporary cost of its sovereignty.

However, recently Thailand has drifted from Washington – and not just in terms of US-Thai relations alone, but within the greater context of US ambitions in Asia and in particular, in regards to its long-laid plans to encircle, contain, and « integrate » China in its American-made « international order. »

In understanding this drift, one can clearly see the means, motivation, and opportunity implicating the US in the recent terrorist attack.

(1.) Thailand’s ruling establishment has steadily resisted, eroded, and finally has ousted the US-backed client regime of Thaksin Shinawatra over a decade of political chaos. 

In the late 1990’s Shinawatra was an adviser to notorious US private equity firm, the Carlyle Group and described himself as a personal friend of the Bush political dynasty. He pledged upon taking political office that he would continue to serve as « matchmaker » between US interests and Thailand’s resources. In 2001 he privatized Thailand’s resources and infrastructure including the nation’s oil conglomerate PTT – which was sold off to foreign interests including Western oil companies, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell.

In 2003, Shinawatra would commit Thai troops to the US invasion of Iraq, despite widespread protests from both the Thai military and the public. Shinawatra would also allow the CIA to use Thailand for its abhorrent rendition program.

In 2004, Shinawatra attempted to ramrod through a US-Thailand Free-Trade Agreement (FTA) without parliamentary approval, backed by the US-ASEAN Business Council who just before the 2011 elections that saw Shinawatra’s sister Yingluck Shinawatra brought into power, hosted the leaders of his « red shirt » « United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship » (UDD) in Washington DC.

Since the first coup in 2006 aimed at his regime, Shinawatra has been represented by US corporate-financier elites via their lobbying firms including, Kenneth Adelman of the Edelman PR firm (Freedom House, International Crisis Group,PNAC), James Baker of Baker Botts (CFR, Carlyle Group), Robert Blackwill (CFR) of Barbour Griffith & Rogers (BGR), Kobre & Kim, Bell Pottinger (and here) and currently Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Partners (Chatham House).
And from 2006 until now, both Western political and media circles have continuously provided favorable spin for Shinawatra and his political proxies. This includes the use of the above mentioned Freedom House and its umbrella organization, the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to fund and back nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and academics in Thailand to provide rhetorical and operation support for Shinawatra and serve as a constant source of sociopolitical subversion aimed at Thailand’s ruling establishment.

Recently, with the appointment of Glyn Davies as US Ambassador to Thailand, a War College graduate specializing in nonmilitary use of force to upturn the sociopolitical order of a targeted nation, it is clear that America is still committed to installing Shinawara into power.

(2.) Thailand’s ruling establishment, in the wake of ousting Shinawatra from power, has pursued its own foreign policy, and in particular is seen as aligning closer to China. 

Since the 2006 coup which sent Shinawatra fleeing, and the 2014 coup which finally began the process of fully uprooting his entire political network, Thailand has moved steadily away from the « American Pacific Century » and toward the rise of China.

In terms of military cooperation, Thailand has invited China to participate for the first time in its long running annual Cobra Gold military exercise. Once solely a joint US-Thai exercise, it has evolved over the years to reflect Thailand’s shifting foreign policy – with China’s inclusion indicating Bangkok’s recognition of Beijing’s growing regional clout.

And while Thailand is often accused of having an all-American made military arsenal, most of its US-made weapons are antiquated, including aging M60 tanks. Before the NATO-backed coup in Ukraine, Thailand had attempted to procure T-84 main battle tanks from Kiev. It also possesses nearly 400 Type-85 armored personal carries from China and over 200 Ukrainian BTR-3 armored personal carriers to complement its aging US-made M113 carriers.

Perhaps most significant of all is Thailand’s plans to procure a small fleet of Chinese Type 039A diesel-electric attack submarines. Defense News in its article, « Thai Chinese Sub Buy Challenges US Pivot, » would claim:

Thailand’s move to purchase Chinese submarines has exacerbated tensions with the US and poses a challenge to Washington’s « pivot » to the Pacific. 

The military junta, which declared a coup in May 2014 and created the National Council for Peace and Order, could turn to China for political and military support and cooperation, analysts said. The junta-led Cabinet approved the purchase of three Type 039A (Yuan) attack submarines in early July.

It is clear that Thailand has been in the process of gradually escaping out from under American hegemony for years, with the recent ousting of Thaksin Shinawatra and his regime, along with strengthening ties with China creating an almost palpable desperation for American hegemony in Asia.

(3.) Thailand’s ruling establishment refuses to take part in America’s South China Sea strategy of tension. 

Part of America’s « pivot toward Asia » was creating conflict in the South China Sea between Beijing and the nations of Southeast Asia. By creating a security crisis Southeast Asia would be unable to solve alone, the US anticipated it would accentuate military and political dependence on the West. Nations including Japan and the Philippines have elected to walk into this conflict fully, expending themselves politically, militarily, and economically to confront and contain China while maintaining America’s current regional hegemony.

Other nations including Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia have asserted themselves amid the conflict, but often with a much more balanced stance between Beijing and Washington. Thailand too has attempted to avoid the conflict. The Nation in their article, « Thailand walks a tightrope on South China Sea, » would report:

The high-power visit from all branches of Thai military top brasses to China recently – first in 15 years – was a show-case sending a strong message to the US and the region, Cambodia in particular, that the Thai-China defense and security ties are rock solid and must not be the [subject] of speculations.  

In essence, Thailand serves as a speed bump within ASEAN preventing the supranational bloc from adopting a more belligerent stance toward China regarding South China Sea tensions. This has forced America’s proxies to act more unilaterally toward China than with the collective US-backed ASEAN front envisioned throughout decades of US policy papers.

Thailand: A Hole in America’s Great ASEAN Wall 

Since the Vietnam War, it was clear that American foreign policy in Asia hinged on containing the rise of China and « integrating » it into an « international order » US policymakers admit is an order created by the West, for the West. It was amid the leaked « Pentagon Papers » that this was unequivocally laid out – setting the stage for decades of foreign policy to come.

The papers contained three important quotes regarding this, the first stating:

…the February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China.

It also claims:

China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30′s, and like the USSR in 1947—looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.

Finally, it outlines the immense regional theater the US was engaged in against China at the time by stating:

…there are three fronts to a long-run effort to contain China (realizing that the USSR “contains” China on the north and northwest): (a) the Japan-Korea front; (b) the India-Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.

The conspiracy to encircle and contain China originating in the 1967 Pentagon Papers would be reaffirmed throughout the decades within various successive US policy papers.

In 1997, key US policymaker Robert Kagan – co-author of multiple war plans featuring extraterritorial US aggression – would pen a piece in the Weekly Standard titled, « What China Knows That We Don’t: The Case for a New Strategy of Containment. » In it, Kagan reveals the US is still pursuing a China-containment strategy and claims (emphasis added):

The present world order serves the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it. And it is poorly suited to the needs of a Chinese dictatorship trying to maintain power at home and increase its clout abroad. Chinese leaders chafe at the constraints on them and worry that they must change the rules of the international system before the international system changes them.

He continues on by explaining how the Chinese correctly perceive America as using Southeast Asia as a united front against Beijing (emphasis added):

But the Chinese understand U.S. interests perfectly well, perhaps better than we do. While they welcome the U.S. presence as a check on Japan, the nation they fear most, they can see clearly that America’s military and diplomatic efforts in the region severely limit their own ability to become the region’s hegemon. According to Thomas J. Christensen, who spent several months interviewing Chinese military and civilian government analysts, Chinese leaders worry that they will « play Gulliver to Southeast Asia’s Lilliputians, with the United States supplying the rope and stakes. »

Indeed, the United States blocks Chinese ambitions merely by supporting what we like to call « international norms » of behavior. Christensen points out that Chinese strategic thinkers consider « complaints about China’s violations of international norms » to be part of « an integrated Western strategy, led by Washington, to prevent China from becoming a great power.

Kagan’s column represented more than merely his own observations. The policy of containing China by projecting American power and influence across China’s peripheries – including Pakistan, India, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Japan, and Korea would be a reoccurring theme in the 2006 « String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral, » report put out by the Strategic Studies Institute.

It featured a map indicating China’s « String of Pearls, » a geostrategic corridor the United States would need to disrupt in order to control China’s development.

Beyond Thailand, political subversion funded by the US State Department and low-intensity terrorism can be found throughout this corridor, with NED-funded political fronts and their terrorist wings attempting to disrupt China’s Gwadar Port in Baluchistan, Pakistan, to NED-funded supporters of Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi attempting to overthrow the Sino-aligned government there, to Malaysia and NED-backed street mob Bersih and its leader Anwar Ibrahim, to the South China Sea where US Pacific Command is directly agitating relations across the region.

The most recent affirmation of US designs versus China come in the form of a paper co-authored by the above mentioned Robert Blackwill – a Bush-era administrator and lobbyists of Thaksin Shinawatra. In his CFR paper titled, « Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China, » it states:

Because the American effort to ‘integrate’ China into the liberal international order has now generated new threats to U.S. primacy in Asia—and could result in a consequential challenge to American power globally—Washington needs a new grand strategy toward China that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy.

It is no coincidence that US policymakers charged with devising containment strategies for China are also serving as « lobbyists » for US client regimes in Southeast Asia meant to assist in the implementation of this « grand strategy. »
Thailand’s Bombing Amid a Larger Struggle 

Thus, the bombing in Bangkok, whether it was carried out by the US-backed regime of Shinawatra itself, US-Saudi linked terrorists from the south, or terrorists the US imported from Chechnya, the Middle East or China’s Xinjiang where the US is currently trying to foment yet another violent insurrection, was an act of coercion to steer Thailand away from its own foreign policy, and back toward serving American foreign policy.

In terms of military cooperation, economic trade, and political ties, Thailand is not the only nation attempting to escape out from under American hegemony. Malaysia and Myanmar have been fighting very visible battles against US-backed proxies. Should one or more of these states fully escape, it will create a cascading effect that will topple all of America’s « Great ASEAN Wall. »

For BRICS – a geopolitical alliance promoting the emergence of a multipolar world – they must recognize ASEAN’s struggle out from under Western hegemony and assist them if even only through the media – exposing to the world the ties between the US and various regional political factions and ties between the US, its allies, and regional terrorist organizations used when staged protests are impossible.

For ASEAN states themselves, they must resist the urge to capitulate in the face of terrorism and support neighboring nations in their bid to preserve national sovereignty.

It is clear who has an « ax to grind » against Thailand. The only question that remains is how big that ax is, and how many times it will fall upon Thailand before those wielding it can be disarmed.

Tony Cartalucci

TIME Admits ISIS Bringing Arms, Fighters in From NATO Territory

Late last year, Germany’s broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) investigated what turned out to be hundreds of trucks a day carrying billions of dollars in supplies, flowing across the Turkish border into Syria and directly into the hands of the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS).

The border crossing near the Turkish city of Oncupinar, approximately 100km west of the Syrian city of Kobani, is apparently only one of many such crossings where ISIS fighters, weapons, and materiel move directly under the watch and apparent assistance of NATO.

Image: The summation of ISIS' supplies come from NATO and US-allied territory, primarily Turkey and Jordan. Turkey in addition to being a NATO member since the 1950's also hosts a US air base. No efforts have been made, nor any calls even, to secure Turkey's border and deny what is alleged to be an implacable enemy of the West billions in supplies passing through the West's own territory and into the theater of conflict ISIS is operating in.
Image: The summation of ISIS’ supplies come from NATO and US-allied territory, primarily Turkey and Jordan. Turkey in addition to being a NATO member since the 1950’s also hosts a US air base. No efforts have been made, nor any calls even, to secure Turkey’s border and deny what is alleged to be an implacable enemy of the West billions in supplies passing through the West’s own territory and into the theater of conflict ISIS is operating in.

TIME in their recent article titled, « ISIS Fighters Kill 200 Civilians in Syrian Town, » reported that:

The attacks also came after the group [ISIS] suffered a series of setbacks over the past two weeks, including the loss last week of the Syrian border town of Tal Abyad — one of the group’s main points for bringing in foreign fighters and supplies.

Tal Abyad, a Turkish-Syrian border crossing east of Kobani, is now a second, confirmed point of entry into Syria used by ISIS to supply its ongoing campaign within the country.

Reports of confirmed, extensive logistical networks passing through NATO and US-ally territory, into Syria, contradict the current prevailing narrative that ISIS is an « indigenous » terrorist organization, funded and self-sustaining within the territory it currently holds in both Syria and Iraq. The Western media has attempted to claim with little evidence that ISIS’ immense, global operations are somehow underwritten by « ransom payments » and « black market oil » it has seized in eastern Syria.

Clearly, not only are these reports as untenable as they are untrue, the Western media itself has reported precisely how ISIS has been sustaining its impressive fighting capacity – with billions of dollars of state-sponsored aid flowing through NATO territory, directly to their front lines.

Were the supplies flowing over the Syrian-Iraqi border, it may be possible to argue plausible deniability – with the governments of either nation unable to control either side of the border. However, Turkey, a NATO member since 1952 and host of the United States Air Force’s Incirlik Air Base, has full control of its borders meaning that ISIS-bound convoys not only pass over its borders with the apparent approval of Turkish border guards, but are assembled somewhere within Turkey itself before arriving at the edge of Syrian territory.

No effort has been made to stem the flow of supplies to ISIS from NATO territory, with the Turkish government officially denying the trucks DW videotaped and reported on even exist. This indicates clear NATO complicity in the arming and supplying of ISIS and other Al Qaeda affiliates who are in fact invading Syria from NATO-territory, as well as from US-ally Jordan.

For the West, which feigns indignation in the wake of recent ISIS attacks on France, Tunisia, and Kuwait, while posing as the primary force engaged in war with ISIS directly, it would be a simple matter to close the Turkish-Syrian border with NATO troops to ensure ISIS was shut off completely from the supplies it depends on to maintain its fighting capacity. That the borders are intentionally left open for this extensive daily torrent of supplies, weapons, and fighters to pass over unopposed, is proof positive that ISIS is and has been from the beginning a proxy force intentionally created to stoke fear and support at home for unending war abroad.

Without the threat of ISIS and the chaos it is creating across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, the ability for the West to wage war on its enemies and justify extraterritorial meddling would be severely limited. In fact, the very ISIS forces clearly being armed and supplied by NATO directly, are being used as a pretext by US policymakers to execute recently laid plans to incrementally invade and occupy Syria with US military forces.

The Brookings Institute from which these plans originated, recently used an ISIS assault on Kobani to call for « US boots on the ground » in Syria, an assault which would have been logistically impossible were it not for the daily torrent of supplies the US and its NATO-ally Turkey have themselves intentionally enabled for years to cross into Syria.

To defeat ISIS, its supply lines must be cut – a simple matter to perform that requires only Turkish and other NATO troops to move in and disrupt overt ISIS logistical networks running within their own territory. Instead, the US State Department and US-operated NGOs have even gone as far as condemning what little attempts have been made to control Turkey’s border with Syria. The US State Department’s Voice of America in their article, « Turkish Border Crackdown Imperils Syrian Refugees, » used the pretext of « human rights » to condemn Turkey for what meager control measures it has attempted to put in place.

The fact that the US, with a military base in Turkey itself, has elected not to call for or attempt to implement stricter border security to stem the flow of ISIS supplies, and instead has gone as far as bombing Syrian territory in feigned efforts to « fight ISIS, » proves that the terrorist organization is both a proxy and a pretext. No serious military campaign would be launched against an enemy without identifying and cutting off its supply lines, especially when those supply lines run through that military’s own territory.

The general public across the West, if they truly desire an end to ISIS and its atrocities, will demand what least the West can do – shutting the borders of Turkey and Jordan and ending the flow of supplies to ISIS. This will never happen, thanks to both elementary but effective « divide and conquer » rhetoric miring the Western public in endless circular debate, and the fact that the average Westerner’s understanding of modern warfare and military logistics is derived from Hollywood and television, not maps, history, and basic knowledge.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

Direct link to the article: Land Destroyer

Charleston Shootings Trigger Confederate Lynching Jihad

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this, If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth.” – Dr. Carl Sagan

Time for a true American Revolution against slavery and Zionism...
Time for a true American Revolution against modern day slavery and  Zionism…

Before the bodies of the unfortunate victims in Charleston were cold, the usual “exploiteers” were rushing to use the tragedy to their own advantage, with the political manipulators wanting to rekindle past social divisions in another chapter of divide and conquer as we head into the 2016 election season.

I was beginning to wonder if the Olympics had created a new gold medal competition… Who Can Exploit a Mass Killing the Best and the Quickest. America would certainly vote for such an award expansion, as it would be sure to win.

You all know about the tragic slaughter of the nine praying church members in Charleston by the quite clearly deranged and immature 21-year-old man. The father that bought him the murder weapon is lying low, and for good reason. “Dear Dad, if you have another son, give him a skydiving gift certificate so only one will die.”

We got an early warning that there was a smell to this case when Obama was already milking the tragedy before the bodies were cold. He used these killings to make another run at pushing his gun control pet peeve, which has been rejected at all previous attempts. I can hear the “two bit” staff member whispering in his ear, “Mr. President, you can still go out a winner on this issue if you move fast.”

And mind you, this is the president that is training and arming terrorists in Syria, and backed a Neo-Nazi led coup in Ukraine. “Sorry Mr. President, you are not a legitimate leader of an anti-gun violence crusade in my book. The almost a quarter million dead in Syria would agree with me.”

Once the president waived the green flag, the race was on. We saw the usual Facebook photos with all the stage-managed props for a white supremacist background story, like the ever present Confederate flag. If Mr. Roof had Facebook photos with an American flag, somehow I don’t think he would have been smeared as an American supremacist. The term is used VERY selectively.

Then things took a stranger turn with one particular photo, with the Rhodesia patch on Dylann’s leather jacket that was too new and too bright. The swampy background was in crisp focus, whereas Dylann was in soft focus. We smelled a Photoshopped image, which was quickly confirmed.

The pixel density varies when different parts of photos are used and altered, and even more obvious when an item is “blown up” for proper scaling. Dylann’s photo was cut out from another picture and dropped in, and then the apartheid Rhodesia patch added. The bells and whistles began going off.

Gordon Duff debunked what we concluded was a faked Manifesto in his June 27 NEO article, Church shooter more than an Enigma. The “why I did it” letter is also a traditional psyops ruse, but one used rarely so as not to wear it out. This one was amateurish in its overkill, showing that no major state intelligence operatives were involved. The sloppiness here would embarrass them.

But those of us from the South who fought two decades of culture wars against contrived attacks on Southern heritage were quick to spot a new anti-Confederate Jihad coming, but this one came on at light speed. In the old days, Dylann would have needed some KKK relatives, or maybe to have been a past Klan boy scout, or something to have linked him to an established group and profile.

This ninth grade high school dropout has come up quite bare on his social skills — a loner son freeloading off a father who probably felt bad for not having raised a son with some grounding in reality. If I had not had a job at 21 years of age, my mother would have beaten me to a pulp.

There are countless young kids like this in America today who are fantasy world misfits in a modern time warp, with their anger growing every day. If Dylann had been Black or Hispanic, he could have joined a gang, and then whatever horrible things he did would only be local news. The political spinmeisters have never found the gangs to be exploitable material.

When several Dylann photos with Confederate flags were published, which might have been Photoshopped, too, the jackals were let loose. Collective guilt was brought back in fashion, and Confederate heritage was going to be nailed to a cross and burned, after dangling from a rope for the required entertainment.

The first moves were retailers who had been selling Southern heritage products for decades, and where all past boycotts attempts never took root, not only began taking inventory off the shelves, but doing so with a lot of media coverage which we have not seen in the past. The reason became evident quickly, when other retailers began to follow suit with the herd mentality. No one wanted to be caught with Confederate goods on the shelves and get singled out for the Jihadi’s attention.

We expected there to be calls for removing the historical Confederate flag from the South Carolina Capitol grounds, but that requires the legislature to change the law. In Georgia, Confederate historical markers are protected from exploitative harassment, as are all other historical symbols. I was part of a Georgia Heritage Council team to help lobby for this, along with a descendant of President Jefferson Davis, whose name was really Jeff Davis.

The legislators who worked with us to get it passed were tired of having their time wasted by civil rights hustlers stirring up hatreds to get more public attention for themselves. The new law cooled down the monument heritage attacks, and civil rights politicians had to go back to work serving their constituents’ real needs versus these showboating Confederacy bashing ones.

I never talked to a single media reporter during those battles who was aware that Confederate soldiers were officially American veterans by act of Congress — something done to bury the hatchet and end the second class status for the disproportionate numbers of Southerners who have always served in America’s military.

These include many famous ones like General George Patton, and Medal of Honor recipients Audie Murphy of WWII and Sgt. Alvin York of WWI fame. York’s grandfather was dragged to death behind a horse by Yankee sympathizers during our Civil War. Alvin got over it. To this day, when an unmarked Confederate soldier’s grave is found, he is entitled to a taxpayer-funded standard white CSA marker from the Veterans administration.

Next to join the anti-Confederate lynch mob were some of the state license tag people, who announced they would stop issuing the Confederate specialty tag, one like many other groups have where the extra fees charged are refunded once a year to support their work. The Georgia Sons of Confederate Veterans have used these funds for years to maintain and build new monuments with no controversy whatsoever.

As mass media continued to push the Confederate flag issue, we knew the usual vandalism would begin, and after the reports of those, there would be copycat defacing of monuments and cemeteries. They began all across the South. The next step will be random killings, when some gang kids want to play the big man by whacking a few white southerners for the good of the cause. But the real story on that twist the US media will not touch with a ten foot pole.

That has to do with black on black and black on white violent crime which has long been an epidemic in America — one censored out of our news. Black Americans know by whom they are most likely to be killed, and that certainly is not a white man, but a young brutal black man who has been taught to take what he wants as a way of proving he is a man.

Black on white crimes figures, compiled annually from national statistics, are so shocking that they have been ignored and censored out of mass media, as it casts a shadow on their favorite victim class. I first became aware of the shocking statistics from the 1999 report.

Of 1.7 million interracial crimes involving blacks and whites, 90% were committed by blacks against whites, which comes out to a ratio of blacks being 250 times more likely to commit an interracial crime on a white victim than vice versa. The rape stats were even worse. The black on white rape rate was 100 times higher than white on black. So now you know why these statistics are buried.

I have shared these official statistics in the past with bleeding heart liberal reporters and a lot of black folks. Virtually all were totally unaware of them and had absolutely no interest in cranking up a public campaign to stop black on white crime… no marches, no legislative resolutions nor condemnation from the church pulpits. Their interest in civil rights went down to zero when the victim was not the right color.

Even the Hispanic figures were manipulated. When a Hispanic is a victim of hate crime, he is listed as Hispanic. But when he is a perpetrator, he is listed as White. I will let you think about that for a moment. Are you wondering why? The answer is that trick bumps up the white hate crime statistics (which are not high) by 20%. You just can’t make this stuff up.

Those behind defiling these church victims for their partisan political advantage are Dylann Roofs themselves, a different version of mass murderers. Whereas ISIL Jihadis dress its victims up in orange jumpsuits and force them to kneel before cutting their heads off, these anti-Confederate Jihadis want to execute an entire people and heritage for the terrorism shock value, just like ISIL does. But Confederate heritage kneels to no one and never will. And while many have tried, we have kept our heads and will continue to do so.

The difference in class between us and the heritage haters can be represented by what Georgia media was told when calling the Georgia SCV to get comments on the Charleston shootings. They were told that the Georgia Division would have nothing to say until the victims were buried out of respect for the families. Yes, we are different than some other Americans, and we intend to stay that way.

For full disclosure, I will share with you that from just my Culpepper branch of Southern ancestors, eighteen fought for the South, and were virtually all the men between 16 and 45. They died at Vicksburg, Lookout Mountain, Resaca, and in Point Lookout Prison.

I have not had time to count the Hodges, Yarbroughs and Etheridges who fought. Many innocent victims continue to die unjustly around the world today, where once again we find the Yankee ”commercial interests “ hand involved. So as Robert Frost once wrote, “I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep.” At Veterans Today, we honor our dead, but those who have been targeted to die, get to cut in line.

Jim W. Dean, managing editor for Veterans Today, producer/host of Heritage TV Atlanta
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/07/04/charleston-shootings-trigger-confederate-lynching-jihad

The Prosecution of Zionist Torturers

Top U.N. officials have recently said that “All senior U.S. officials and CIA agents who authorized or carried out torture like waterboarding as part of former President George W. Bush’s national security policy must be prosecuted.”

Wouldn’t it be nice to see people like Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, among others, in the court room?

Wouldn’t it be entertaining to hear their defense as to why they water-boarded “suspected terrorists”—a practice that was unknown to the American psyche prior to the Neo-Bolsheviks taking over the U.S. foreign policy?[1] Didn’t we execute Japanese war criminals for water-boarding American POWs?[2]

Even John McCain, the “founding father of ISIS,” as Gordon Duff rightly put it last month, declared explicitly,

“The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding.”[3]

The Zionist puppet moved on to say, “I know from personal experience that torture doesn’t work.”

If we executed the Japanese who water-boarded American POWs, what is the fate of those who practiced the same thing during the Bush administration? And what if those Neo-Bolsheviks—both members of the Dreadful Few and some Goyim—turn out be guilty of committing what Seumas Milne of the Guardian has called “torture orgy”[4]?

That would be really fun to watch because prior to the invasion in Iraq, Bush was postulating that Saddam was torturing his own people. As Andrew Napolitano has pointed out, while Bush was trying to shape public opinion with lies like this, he was setting up his own torture chambers, buying his time to electrify so-called terrorist.

We know that there are some damning things about the recent torture report and the Dreadful Few and their puppets do not want the average American to know.  And we know that even prior to the report, the CIA destroyed at least 92 videotapes documenting water-boarding.[5]

If water-boarding was not torture, as Cheney keeps mouthing, why would the CIA go to great length to destroy evidence? And how about torturing people who had absolutely and positively nothing to do with terrorist organizations? You remember Khaled el Marsi?

The C.I.A. kept him for months after realizing that he was the wrong man, and then dumped him by the side of the road. When he got home, he found that his wife had moved away. Apart from the ethical issues, the incident created diplomatic difficulties with Germany.”[6]

Here are at least sixteen of the terrible things that most Americans do not know about torture:

  1. Torture did not lead the CIA to the courier who ultimately helped capture Osama bin Laden.
  2. CIA personnel objected to torture techniques, but were “instructed” by the CIA headquarters to continue.
  3. Colin Powell was not briefed on CIA interrogation methods because he would “blow his stack”.
  4. The CIA used rectal feeding on detainees.
  5. CIA leadership refused to punish an officer who killed a detainee during torture session.
  6. The CIA tortured innocent people.
  7. The CIA held an “intellectually challenged man” to use as leverage against his family.
  8. The CIA intentionally mislead the media to “shape public opinion.”
  9. CIA officers threatened to kill and rape detainees’ mothers.
  10. The CIA dismissed information that wasn’t obtained through torture, even though it proved to be true.
  11. CIA torture techniques included mock burials and use of insects.
  12. Some interrogators had previously admitted to sexual assault.
  13. One interrogator played Russian roulette.
  14. The CIA tortured its own informants by accident.
  15. The CIA tortured detainees in a dungeon.
  16. The CIA spent hundreds of millions of [taxpayer] dollars on the torture program.

So, let us ask some basic questions. What did we get from torturing at least 100 people “in U.S. detention?”[7] Nothing.  In fact, the Senate Intelligence Committee admitted that the torture program was unnecessary.[8]

Yet even President Obama, despite his Zionist leanings and despite the fact that he is withholdings “hundreds, perhaps even thousands of photographs showing the U.S. government’s brutal treatment of detainees,”[9] admitted that “some of the actions that were taken were contrary to our values.”[10]

And where did the CIA learn their techniques? Well, take it from the Jerusalem Post:

“On November 26, 2001, soon after the September 11 attacks on the US, the CIA general counsel wrote that ‘the Israeli example’ could serve as ‘a possible basis for arguing… regarding terrorist detainees that ‘torture was necessary to prevent imminent, significant, physical harm to persons, where there is no other available means to prevent the harm.’”[11]

If you think that the CIA officials were kidding, keep in mind that this is not new at all. As the noted British journalist Robert Fisk meticulously pointed out a few years ago, “Abu Ghraib torture trail leads to Israel.” Fisk wrote then:

“The actual interrogators accused of encouraging U.S. troops to abuse Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib jail were working for at least one company with extensive military and commercial contacts with Israel.

“The head of an American company whose personnel are implicated in the Iraqi tortures, it now turns out, attended an ‘anti-terror’ training camp in Israel and, earlier this year, was presented with an award by Shaul Mofaz, the right-wing Israeli defense minister.

“According to J.P. London’s company, CACI International, the visit of London — sponsored by an Israeli lobby group and including U.S. congressmen and other defense contractors — was “to promote opportunities for strategic partnerships and joint ventures between U.S. and Israeli defense and homeland security agencies.

“The Pentagon and the occupation powers in Iraq insist that only U.S. citizens have been allowed to question prisoners in Abu Ghraib but this takes no account of Americans who may also hold double citizenship.

“The once secret torture report by U.S. Gen. Antonio Taguba refers to “third country nationals” involved in the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq.

“Taguba mentions Steven Staphanovic and John Israel as involved in the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Staphanovic, who worked for CACI — known to the U.S. military as ‘Khaki’ — was said by Taguba to have ‘allowed and/or instructed MPs (military police), who were not trained in interrogation techniques, to facilitate interrogations by ‘setting conditions’ … he clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse.’

“One of Staphanovic’s co-workers, Joe Ryan — who was not named in the Taguba report — now says he underwent an ‘Israeli interrogation course’ before going to Iraq.

“We know the Pentagon asked Israel for its ‘rules of engagement’ in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Israeli officers have briefed their U.S. opposite numbers and, according to The Associated Press, ‘in January and February of 2003, Israeli and American troops trained together in southern Israel’s Negev desert …

“Israel has also hosted senior law enforcement officials from the United States for a seminar on counter-terrorism.’”[12]

Fisk concluded the article by saying that

“it is clear the torture trail at Abu Ghraib has to run much further than a group of brutal U.S. military cops, all of whom claim ‘intelligence officers’ told them to ‘soften up’ their prisoners for questioning. Were they Israeli? Or South African? Or British? Are we going to let the story go?”[13]

Now here is the thing—and you may want to hold on to something: the Zionist regime is now telling us that torture never worked, despite the fact that Zionist films such as Zero Dark Thirty literally sanitized torture in 2012.[14]

Think about that for a moment. If torture never worked, why did we spend billions of dollars at Guantanamo, at Abu Ghraib, and other slaughter houses? Why did a U.S. officer end up “fucking a kid” and committing literal sodomy at Abu Ghraib?

And here is the vital contradiction: you remember how the Zionist empire initiated the NSA and how they wanted to know everything about you and your family—including your grandmother’s underwear? And you remember how the neoconservative Looney Tunes defended the NSA program, despite the fact that it was against the U.S. Constitution?

Now the Zionist kingdom is furious because they do not want the public to know about the torture reports. The report explicitly declared that waterboarding

“was physically harmful, inducing convulsions and vomiting. During one session, Abu Zubaydah—’a Saudi Arabian who is still being held at Guantánamo Bay—”became ‘completely unresponsive with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth.’ Internal CIA records describe the waterboarding of Khalid Shaykh Mohammad as evolving into a ‘series of near drownings.’

“In addition to waterboarding, the report says, the C.I.A. used a variety of aggressive techniques on its prisoners, including isolating them, depriving them of sleep, stripping them of their clothes and keeping them naked, subjecting them to loud music, and pinning their arms above their heads.

“The report also says that the C.I.A. “placed detainees in ice water ‘baths.’ The CIA led several detainees to believe they would never be allowed to leave CIA custody alive, suggesting to one detainee that he would only leave in a coffin-shaped box.

“One interrogator told another detainee that he would never go to court, because, ‘we can never let the world know what I have done to you.’ CIA officers also threatened at least three detainees with harm to their families.

“According to the report, one prisoner, Ridha al-Najjar, identified as a former bodyguard for Osama bin Laden, was ‘left hanging—which involved handcuffing one or both wrists to an overhead bar which would not allow him to lower his arms—for 22 hours each day for two consecutive days, in order to ‘break’ his resistance.’”[15]

Fire-breathing dragon Dick Cheney continues to declare that there was no such thing as torture at all. None whatsoever!  In fact, Cheney said, “I’m perfectly comfortable that they [torturers] should be praised, they should be decorated.” The torture report, Cheney continued, is “full of crap.”

According to this Zionist dragon, he  “would do it again [torturing people] in a minute”!

In a similar vein, Thomas Sowell continues to insult reason and facts when he keeps using just stupid arguments to marshal the idea that one has to succumb to the Jewish way of torturing people in order to get so-called information.  Listen to Sowell here:

“If you knew that there was a hidden nuclear time bomb planted somewhere in New York City — set to go off today — and you had a captured terrorist who knew where and when, would you not do anything whatever to make him tell you where and when?

“Would you pause to look up the definition of ‘torture’? Would you even care what the definition of ‘torture’ was, when the alternative was seeing millions of innocent people murdered?”[16]

Why does Sowell have to stop there? Does he mean to tell us that George Washington did not have enough legitimate reasons to torture his enemies? Didn’t he uphold the moral law on that issue? And if Sowell is implicitly trying to make a case for torture here, why did we have to hang some Japanese after World War II for waterboarding Americans? Can Sowell be serious here?

 As we have already seen, the C.I.A. gained no serious information from torturing “terrorists.” Sowell indeed has the intellectual and political sophistication to analyze this, but since he has been bamboozled by the neoconservative agenda for much of his entire academic career, he simply has no other choice but to support his neocon brethren. After all, he writes for “Jewish World Review.”

While Cheney is mouthing nonsense, the man who crafted the legal rational for the torture program, John Yoo, admitted that the C.I.A. went too far. He said,

“If these things happened as they’re described in the report … they were not supposed to be done. And the people who did those are at risk legally because they were acting outside their orders.”

Let it be known that Yoo is moving to this new position because it seems that his own craftiness is getting him into trouble, not because he did not know what he was doing. A man of his statue cannot be that stupid.

The simple fact is that torture, as Sam Husseini rightly says, provided some political leverage and stupid justification for the war in Iraq:

“The truth is that torture did work, but not the way its defenders claim. It worked to produce justifications for policies the establishment wanted, like the Iraq war.”

Paul Craig Roberts declares almost the same thing:

“One purpose of the torture program was to produce self-incriminated ‘terrorists’ to justify and feed the hoax ‘war on terror.’ The ‘war on terror’ was public cover for secret agendas that the American people would have rejected. This is disturbing enough.

“Even more disturbing, the torture program shows that no one in the US and European governments who knew of the program and participated in torture has an ounce of humanity, integrity, compassion, and morality. They are evil people, and the ones who inflicted the torture enjoyed the pain and suffering that they inflicted on others.”

Both Husseini and Roberts are quite right, for we know that the

The CIA tortured al-Qaeda suspects because it wanted evidence that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11 in order to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“The agency was under intense pressure from the White House and senior figures in the Bush administration to extract confessions confirming co-operation between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda, although no significant evidence was ever found.”[17]

Noted journalist Patrick Cockburn points out that torture “probably killed more Americans than 9/11.” How?

“‘The reason why foreign fighters joined al-Qa’ida in Iraq was overwhelmingly because of abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and not Islamic ideology,’ says Major Matthew Alexander, who personally conducted 300 interrogations of prisoners in Iraq.

“It was the team led by Major Alexander [a named assumed for security reasons] that obtained the information that led to the US military being able to locate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qa’ida in Iraq.

“Zarqawi was then killed by bombs dropped by two US aircraft on the farm where he was hiding outside Baghdad on 7 June 2006. Major Alexander said that he learnt where Zarqawi was during a six-hour interrogation of a prisoner with whom he established relations of trust.

“In his compelling book How to Break a Terrorist, Major Alexander explains that prisoners subjected to abuse usually clam up, say nothing, or provide misleading information.

“In an interview he was particularly dismissive of the ‘ticking bomb’ argument often used in the justification of torture. This supposes that there is a bomb timed to explode on a bus or in the street which will kill many civilians.

“The authorities hold a prisoner who knows where the bomb is. Should they not torture him to find out in time where the bomb is before it explodes?

“Major Alexander says he faced the ‘ticking time bomb’ every day in Iraq because ‘we held people who knew about future suicide bombings.’ Leaving aside the moral arguments, he says torture simply does not work. ‘It hardens their resolve. They shut up.’

“He points out that the FBI uses normal methods of interrogation to build up trust even when they are investigating a kidnapping and time is of the essence. He would do the same, he says, ‘even if my mother was on a bus’ with a hypothetical ticking bomb on board. It is quite untrue to imagine that torture is the fastest way of obtaining information, he says.

“A career officer, Major Alexander spent 14 years in the US air force, beginning by flying helicopters for special operations. He saw combat in Bosnia and Kosovo, was an air force counter-intelligence agent and criminal interrogator, and was stationed in Saudi Arabia, with an anti-terrorist role, during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Some years later, the US army was short of interrogators. He wanted to help shape developments in Iraq and volunteered.

“Arriving in Iraq in early 2006 he found that the team he was working with were mostly dedicated, but young, men between 18 and 24. ‘Many of them had never been out of the States before,’ he recalls. ‘When they sat down to interrogate somebody it was often the first time they had met a Muslim.’

“In addition to these inexperienced officers, Major Alexander says there was ‘an old guard’ of interrogators using the methods employed at Guantanamo. He could not say exactly what they had been doing for legal reasons, though in the rest of the interview he left little doubt that prisoners were being tortured and abused. The ‘old guard’s’ methods, he says, were based on instilling ‘fear and control’ in a prisoner.

“He refused to take part in torture and abuse, and forbade the team he commanded to use such methods. Instead, he says, he used normal US police interrogation techniques which are ‘based on relationship building and a degree of deception.’ He adds that the deception was often of a simple kind such as saying untruthfully that another prisoner has already told all.

“Before he started interrogating insurgent prisoners in Iraq, he had been told that they were highly ideological and committed to establishing an Islamic caliphate in Iraq, Major Alexander says.

“In the course of the hundreds of interrogations carried out by himself, as well as more than 1,000 that he supervised, he found that the motives of both foreign fighters joining al-Qa’ida in Iraq and Iraqi-born members were very different from the official stereotype.”[18]

I must take my hat off and salute Major Alexander for his decent work. You see, in the American psyche, torture is still a wicked thing. But since the Dreadful Few exert an enormously powerful influence in the media, some Americans, with the help of Goyim such as Cheney, began to believe that torture is the way to go.


 What, then, should be done? Simple: prosecute the torturers. Show them we mean business. If Peter Beinart is right, that “torture is who we [Americans] are,”[19] then there is a way we can turn things around: uphold the rule of law by prosecuting the Zionist torturers.  Bush should not be going around and doing interviews at this present moment; he should be in the court room with his tailor-made uniform.

We lied about torture,[20] we lied about Iraq, we lied about Guantanamo, we lied about Syria, we lied about Afghanistan, we lied about Libya, we lied virtually about anything serious.

America has progressively become a nation of lies precisely because we have been following the Dreadful Few for quite awhile. Christ had some damning things to say about those liars and the lies they continue to produce:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (John 8:44).

Jonas E. Alexis

Source: Veteranstoday


[1] See for example David Hackett Fischer, Washington’s Crossing (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).

[2] See for example Jonathan Stein, “Yes, We Did Execute Japanese Soldiers for Waterboarding American POWs,” Mother Jones, April 27, 2009; Nick Turse, “The Hidden History of Waterboarding,” Mother Jones, February 23, 2013; Paul Begala, “Yes, National Review, We Did Execute Japanese for Waterboarding,” Huffington Post, May 25, 2009.

[3] Quoted in Jonathan Stein, “Yes, We Did Execute Japanese Soldiers for Waterboarding American POWs,” Mother Jones, April 27, 2009.

[4] Seumas Milne, “Sending troops to protect dictators threatens all of us,” Guardian, December 10, 2014.

[5] Amy Davidson, “The Torture’s Report: Inhumane Scenes from the C.I.A.’s Prisons,” New Yorker, December 9, 2014.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Seumas Milne, “Sending Troops to Protect Dictators Threaten All of Us,” Guardian, December 10, 2014.

[8] Taylor Wofford, “What CIA Torturers Did to Their Captives,” Newsweek, December 9, 2014.

[9] Noah Schachtman, “The Detainee Abuse Photos Obama Didn’t Want You To See,” Daily Beast, December 14, 2014.

[10] Quoted in Kathy Gilsinan, “America Trades Torture for Drones,” Atlantic, December 9, 2014.

[11] Yonah Jeremy Bob, “US Senate Report: CIA Used Israeli Courts as Precedent to Justify Torture,” Jerusalem Post, December 10, 2014.

[12] Robert Fisk, “Abu Ghraib Torture Trail Leads to Israel,” The Independent, May 26, 2004.

[13] Ibid.

[14] See Peter Van Buren, “How Zero Dark Thirty Sanitizes Torture,” Mother Jones, January 2, 2013; Kevin Drum, “Lying About Torture, Hollywood Style,” Mother Jones, December 10, 2012.

[15] John Cassidy, “America’s Shame: What’s in the Senate Torture Report?,” New Yorker, December 9, 2014.

[16] Thomas Sowell, “Tortured Reasoning,” Jewish World Review, December 16, 2014.

[17] Patrick Cockburn, “CIA ‘torture report’: Agency conduct was driven by pressure to link Iraq to al-Qaeda following 9/11,” The Independent, December 14, 2014.

[18] Patrick Cocburn, “Torture? It Probably Killed More Americans Than 9/11,” Counter Punch, April 7, 2009.

[19] Peter Beinart, “Torture is Who We Are,” Atlantic, December 11, 2014.

[20] Kevin Drum, “Senate Report: We Tortured Prisoners, It Didn’t Work, and We Lied About It,” Mother Jones, December 9, 2014.

Putin displays Ukraine chess mastery…by Pepe Escobar

Russia’s celebrations of the 69th anniversary of the defeat of fascism in World War II come just days after Ukrainian neo-fascists enacted an appalling Odessa massacre. For those who know their history, the graphic symbolism speaks for itself. 

And then a geopolitical chess gambit added outright puzzlement to the trademark hypocrisy displayed by the self-proclaimed representatives of « Western civilization ». 

The gambit comes from – who else – Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is now actively mixing chess moves with Sun Tzu’s Art of War and Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching. No wonder all those American PR shills, helpless State Department spokespersons and NATOstan generals are clueless. 

Unlike the Obama administration’s juvenile delinquent school of diplomacy – which wants to « isolate » Putin and Russia – a truce and possible deal in the ongoing Ukrainian tragedy has been negotiated between adults on speaking terms, Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, then discussed and finally announced in a press conference by the president of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Didier Burghalter. 

The deal will hold as long as the regime changers in Kiev – which should be described as the NATO neo-liberal, neo-fascist junta – abandon their ongoing « anti-terrorist operation » and are ready to negotiate with the federalists in Eastern and Southern Ukraine. [1]

Putin’s gambit has been to sacrifice not one but two pieces; he’d rather have the referendums this Sunday in Eastern Ukraine be postponed. At the same time, changing the Kremlin’s position, he said the presidential elections on May 25 might be a step in the right direction. 

Moscow knows the referendums will be erroneously interpreted by the misinformed NATOstan combo as an argument for Eastern Ukraine to join Russia, as in Crimea. They could be used as pretext for more sanctions. And most of all Moscow is keen to prevent any possible false flags. [2] 

Yet Moscow has not abandoned its firm position from the start; before a presidential election there should be constitutional changes towards federalization and more power for largely autonomous provinces. It’s not happening anytime soon – if at all. 

With the Kiev NATO junta making an absolute mess of « governing »; the International Monetary Fund already running thedisaster capitalism show, Russia cutting off trade and energy subsidies, and the federalist movement growing by the minute after the Odessa massacre, Ukraine is so absolutely toxic that Moscow has all the time in the world on its side. Putin’s strategy is indeed Tao Te Ching meets Art of War: watch the river flow while giving enough rope for your enemy to hang himself. 

You’re with us or against us
Putin asking the people in the Donbass region to postpone the referendum – which will take place anyway [3] – unleashed a fierce debate, in eastern Ukraine and across Russia, over a possible Russian betrayal of Russian speakers in Ukraine. 

After all, the NATO neo-liberal, neo-fascist junta has unleashed an « anti-terrorist operation » against average Ukrainians where even the terminology comes straight from the « you’re with us or against us » Cheney regime. 

And once again the Disinformer-in-Chief is – who else – US Secretary of State John Kerry, who is « very concerned about efforts of pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk, in Lugansk to organize, frankly, a contrived, bogus independence referendum on May 11 ». It’s « the Crimea playbook all over again and no civilized nation is going to recognize the results of such a bogus effort ». 

It’s hopeless to expect Kerry to know what he’s talking about, but still: the people in Donbass are not separatists. These are average Ukrainians – factory workers, miners, store clerks, farmers – who are pro-democracy, anti-NATO junta and – oh, the capital crime – Russian speakers. 

And by the way, you don’t need to be Thomas Piketty to identify this as classic class struggle; workers and peasants against oligarchs – the oligarchs currently aligned with the NATO junta, some deployed as regional governors, and all planning to remain in charge after the May 25 elections. 

The people in Donbass want federalism, and strong autonomy in their provinces. They don’t want to split from Ukraine. Against the US-prescribed, Kiev-enforced « anti-terrorism » onslaught, they have their popular defense committees, local associations and yes, militias, to defend themselves. And most of all « bogus » referendums to make it absolutely clear they won’t submit to a centralized, oligarch-infested junta. 

So the referendums will go ahead – and will be duly ignored by the NATOstan combo. The May 25 presidential election will go ahead – right in the middle of an « anti-terrorist operation » against almost half of the population – and will be recognized as « legitimate » by the NATOstan combo. 

Way beyond this cosmically shameful behavior of the « civilized » West, what next? 

Nothing will make the ironclad hatred the NATO neo-liberal neo-fascist junta with its Western Ukraine neo-nazi Banderastan supporters feel against the eastern Donbass go away. But then, in a few months, all Ukrainians will feel in their skins what the IMF has in store for them, irrespective of location. And wait if the new president – be it chocolate billionaire Petro Porashenko or holy corrupt « Saint Yulia » Timoschenko – doesn’t pay Gazprom’s US$2.7 billion energy bill. 

Once again, Putin does not need to « invade » anything. He knows this is not the way to « rescue » eastern and southern Ukraine. He knows the people in the Donbass will make life miserable for the NATO junta and its May 25 offspring. He knows when Kiev needs real cash – not the current IMF self-serving Mob-style loans – nobody in his right mind in the political midget EU will be forthcoming. Nobody will want to rescue a failed state. And Kiev will have to beg, once again, for Moscow’s help, the lender of first and last resort. 

Lao Tzu Putin is far from going to checkmate. He may – and will – wait. The exceptionalist empire will keep doing what it does best – foment chaos – even as sensible Europeans, Merkel included, try somewhat for appeasement. Well, at least Washington’s prayers have been answered. It took a while, but they finally found the new bogeyman: Osama Bin Putin. 

Pepe Escobar

Asia Times

 

Notes:

1. Putin-Burkhalter talks: an elusive chance for Ukraine, Oriental Review, May 8, 2014.
2. Ukrainian forces prepare provocation against Russia in Donetsk, Voice of America, May 6, 2014.
3. 2 southeast Ukrainian regions to hold referendum May 11 as planned, RT, May 8, 2014.