War Against Russia For Israel; Hell No We Won’t Go!

Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government (to weaken Iran)

In Russia Today’s recent Crosstalk program on Syria, guest James Morris was brave enough to incisively point out the taboo fact that the Israel lobby has been in the forefront in pushing a hardline interventionist approach for the US toward that divided country.

The host and the two other guests on the show pooh-poohed the idea on the grounds that (in their minds) it would not be in Israel’s national interest to topple the secular Assad regime and possibly bring about an Islamist state that could be even more hostile to Israel.

But when one moves from speculation to an analysis of the actual position of members of the Israel lobby, one can see that Morris was completely correct.

Moreover, Morris was completely correct in pointing out that the Israel lobby’s position has nothing to do with ending oppression, and everything to do with Israeli security, as members of the Israel lobby have perceived Israel’s interest (which might not be the same as the Crosstalk threesome.)

The neoconservatives, the vanguard of the Israel lobby, have especially been  ardent in their advocacy of a hardline, interventionist position toward  Syria.

Evidence abounds for this finding, but it is best encapsulated by an  August 2011 open letter from  the neoconservative Foundation for the Defense  of Democracies (an organization which claims to address any “threat facing  America, Israel and the West”)  to  President Obama, urging  him to take  stronger measures against Syria.

Among the  signatories of the letter are  such neocon luminaries  as: Elliott Abrams (son-in-law of neocon “godfather”  Norman Podhoretz and a former National Security adviser to President George  W. Bush); the Council on Foreign Relations’ Max Boot; “Weekly Standard”  editor Bill Kristol;   Douglas Feith (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy  under George W. Bush and an author of the “Clean Break” policy paper);  Joshua Muravchik (affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute [AEI],  the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and “Commentary”);  Frederick W. Kagan (AEI, co-author of the “surge” in Iraq);  Robert Kagan  (co-founder of the Project for the New American Century PNAC); James Woolsey  (head of the CIA under Clinton and chair of  the  Foundation for Defense of  Democracies); Randy Scheunemann (former President of the Committee for the  Liberation of Iraq and foreign affairs adviser to John McCain in his 2008  presidential campaign); Reuel Marc Gerecht (former Director of the Project  for the New American Century’s Middle East Initiative and a former resident  fellow at AEI); Michael Makovsky (advisor to the propagandistic Office of  Special Plans, which was under Douglas Feith); John Hannah ( senior fellow  at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy [WINEP] and a former  national security adviser to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney); and  Gary  Schmitt (AEI and former President for the Project for a New American  Century).

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/19/conservatives_suggest_syria_next_steps_0

As Morris notes in his presentation, elimination of the Assad regime in  Syria was not an idea conceived by either  the neocons or the broader Israel  lobby; rather it  can be traced back to the Israeli  Likudniks, being  articulated by Oded Yinon in his 1982 piece, “A Strategy for Israel in the  Nineteen Eighties.”

In this article, Yinon called for Israel to use  military means to bring about the dissolution of  Israel’s neighboring  states and their fragmentation into a mosaic of ethnic and sectarian  groupings.

Yinon believed that this would not be a difficult undertaking  because nearly all the Arab states were afflicted with internal ethnic and  religious divisions. In essence, the end result would be a Middle East of  powerless mini-statelets that could in no way confront Israeli power.  Lebanon, then facing divisive chaos, was Yinon’s model for the entire Middle  East.

Yinon wrote: “Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves  as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and  the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution  of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such  as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long  run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as  the primary short term target.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 51)

What stands out in the stark contrast to the debate taking place  today is that Yinon’s rationale for  eliminating the dictatorial regimes in  Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East had absolutely nothing to do with  their oppressive practices and lack of democracy, but rather was based  solely on Israel’s geostrategic interests-the aim being to permanently  weaken Israel’s enemies.

The neoconservatives took up the gist of the  Yinon’s position  in their 1996 Clean Break policy paper, whose authors  included neocons Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Douglas Feith, which was  presented to then incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It  urged him  to use military force against a number of Israel’s enemies, which beginning  with Iraq would include  “weakening, containing, and even rolling back  Syria.”

Once again the fundamental concern was Israeli security, not  liberty and democracy for the people of those countries. (“The Transparent  Cabal,” p. 90)

Numerous neocons before and after 9/11 expressed the need to  confront Syria in order to protect the security of both the United States  and Israel, whose interests they claimed coincided.  And this position on  Syria was concurred in  by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who, one  month before the US invasion of Iraq,  identified it, along with Libya and  Iran,  as an ideal target for  future US action.

Sharon stated:  “These are  irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons [of] mass  destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make  that easier to achieve.” ( Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,”  p. 172)

A month after Bush’s 2004 re-election,  Bill Kristol would emphasize  the key position of Syria in the “war on terrorism.”  He wrote in the  “Weekly Standard” that because Syria was allegedly interfering with  America’s efforts to put down the insurgency  in Iraq,  it was thus  essential for the United States “to get serious about dealing with Syria as  part of winning in Iraq, and in the broader Middle East.” (Quoted in “The  Transparent Cabal,” pp. 253-254)

The close ties  between Syria and Iran would begin to provide a  fundamental reason for the neocons’ desire to take action against Syria.  It  was this factor that shaped neocon thinking on the Israel’s July 2006  incursion into Lebanon.  Some months after the Israeli invasion, neocon  Meyrav Wurmser would affirm that it was neocon influence in the Bush administration that  was setting US policy on Lebanon, with the aim being a direct Israeli  confrontation with Syria. “The neocons are responsible for the fact that  Israel got a lot of time and space,” Wurmser stated. “They believed that  Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that  Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah. It  was obvious that it is impossible to fight directly against Iran, but the  thought was that its strategic and important ally should be hit.”  Furthermore, “If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow  for Iran that it would have weakened it and [changed] the strategic map in  the Middle East.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 278)

And any action by Iran to protect its Syrian ally would provide a  casus belli for the United States to attack Iran, which is what the neocons  sought.  Michael Ledeen opined, “The only way we are going to win this war  is to bring down those regimes in Tehran and Damascus and they are not going  to fall as a result of fighting between their terrorist proxies in Gaza and  Lebanon on the one hand, and Israel on the other. Only the United States can  accomplish it.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 279)  Bill Kristol argued the same point in his article,  “It’s Our War,”  underscoring the need for direct American involvement in the ongoing  conflict. America “might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression  [arms provided to Hezbollah]  with a military strike against Iranian nuclear  facilities.” ( Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 279)

As can be seen, the goal of eliminating the Assad Baathist regime  has existed among Israeli Likudniks and the neocons for some time.  And it  currently propels the demand for militant action  against the Syrian  government.    Moreover, action taken against Syria has become viewed as a  way of seriously weakening Iran (perceived as a much more dangerous enemy),  or even leading to war with it.    That Israel might not benefit from regime  change in Syria, and that some in Israel might actually fear such a  development, does not alter the obvious fact that the neocons and much of  the overall Israel lobby support it.  And it is they who affect the policy  of the United States.

Ending NATO, a Monstrous Institution

Image result for israel enters NATO

Israel is on the march where it really counts. Soon after the de facto Saudi recognition of Israel last month now comes this further step making Israel a de facto member of NATO. As of this month Israel has “Official Representation” at NATO HQ in Brussels.

US led NATO and its allies, including Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and Apartheid Israel, are perpetuating these crimes beneath ridiculous banners of “humanitarian interventions” and/or the “Global War On Terror”

The coercive strategies being used include these:

  • Destroying hospitals and infrastructure
  • Starvation
  • Disinformation campaigns/erasing “history”
  • Balkanization/partitioning
  • Bombing civilian populations
 

The end-game is to de-populate and to destroy target countries and to subjugate the remaining population.

• June 5, 2017

Their anxiety about the future of NATO, recently on full display again when the American president was in Europe, could not be bettered as a measure of the incapacity of Europe’s top politicians to guide their continent and represent its populations.

Through its provocations of Moscow, NATO systematically helps increase the risk of a military confrontation.

By thus sabotaging its declared purpose of preserving collective security for the countries on either side of the Atlantic, it erases its fundamental reason for being and right to exist.

Grasping these facts ought be enough to fuel moves aimed at quickly doing away with NATO. But it is terrible for more and easily overlooked reasons.

NATO’s survival prevents the political entity that is the European Union from becoming a significant global presence for reasons other than its economic weight.

If you cannot have a defense policy of your own you also deprive yourself of a foreign policy.

Without a substantive foreign policy, Europe does not show anything that anyone might consider ‘a face’ to the world.

Without such a face to the outside, the inside cannot come to terms about what it stands for, and substitutes meaningless platitudes for answers to the question as to why it should exist in the first place.

shutterstock_119677318 NATO is an example of an institution that has gotten completely out of hand through European complacency, intellectual laziness, and business opportunism. As a security alliance it requires a threat.

When the one that was believed to exist during the Cold War disappeared, a new one had to be found.

Forged for defense against what was once believed to be an existential threat, it only began actually deploying its military might after that threat had disappeared, for its illegal war against Serbia.

Once it had jumped that hurdle, it was encouraged to continue jumping toward imagined global threats.

Its history since the demise of its original adversary has been deplorable, as its European member states were made party to war crimes resulting from actions at Washington’s behest for objectives that have made a dead letter of international law.

It has turned some European governments into liars when they told their populations that sending troops to Afghanistan was for the purpose of assorted humanitarian purposes like reconstructing that country, rather than fighting a war against Taleban forces intent on reclaiming their country from American occupation.

Afghanistan did not, as was predicted at the time, turn into a graveyard for NATO, next to that of the British Empire, the Soviet Union and – farther back – Alexander the Great.

Having survived Afghanistan, NATO continued to play a significant role in the destruction of Gaddafi’s Libya, and in the destruction of parts of Syria through covertly organising, financing, and arming ISIS forces for the purpose of overthrowing the Assad government.

And it continues to serve as a cover for the war making elements in Britain and France. America’s coup in the Ukraine in 2014, which resulted in a crisis in relations with Russia, gave NATO a new lease on life as it helped create an entirely uncalled for and hysterical fear of Russia in Poland and the Baltic states.

NATO repudiates things that we are said to hold dear. It is an agent of corruption of thought and action in both the United States and Europe.

Through propaganda that distorts the reality of the situation in the areas where it operates, and perennial deceit about its true objectives, NATO has substituted a now widely shared false picture of geopolitical events and developments for one that, even if haphazard, used to be pieced together by independent reporters for mainstream media whose own tradition and editors encouraged discovery of facts.

This propaganda relies to a large extent on incessant repetition for its success. It can generally not be traced to NATO as a source of origin because it is being outsourced to a well-funded network of public relations professionals.

The Atlantic Council is NATO’s primary PR organization. It is connected with a web of think tanks and NGO’s spread throughout Europe, and very generous to journalists who must cope with a shrinking and insecure job environment.

This entity is well-versed in Orwellian language tricks, and for obvious reasons must mischaracterise NATO itself as an alliance instead of a system of vassalage.

Alliance presupposes shared purposes, and it cannot be Europe’s purpose to be controlled by the United States, unless we now accept that a treasonous European financial elite must determine the last word on Europe’s future.

An influential policy deliberation NGO known as the International Crisis Group (ICG), is one of the organizations linked with the Atlantic Council.

It operates as a serious and studious outfit, carrying an impressive list of relatively well-known names of associates, and studies areas of the world harbouring conflicts or about-to-be conflicts that could undermine world peace and stability.

Sometimes this group does offer information that is germane to a situation, but its purpose has in effect become one of making the mainstream media audience view the situation on the ground in Syria, or the ins and outs of North Korea, or the alleged dictatorship in Venezuela, and so on, through the eyeballs of the consensus creators in American foreign policy.

NATO repudiates political civilisation. It is disastrous for European intellectual life as it condemns European politicians and the thinking segment of the populations in its member states to be locked up in what may be described as political kindergarten, where reality is taught in terms of the Manichean division between bad guys and superheroes.

While Europe’s scholars, columnists, TV programmers and sophisticated business commentators rarely pay attention to NATO as an organization, and are generally oblivious to its propaganda function, what it produces condemns them to pay lip service to the silliest geopolitical fantasies.

NATO is not only terrible for Europe, it is very bad for the United States and the world in general, for it has handed to America’s elites important tools aiding its delusional aim of fully dominating the planet.

This is because NATO provides the most solid external support for sets of assumptions that allegedly lend a crucial moral dimension to America’s warmaking.

NATO does not exist for the sake of indispensable European military prowess, which hardly has not been impressive. It exists as legal justification for Washington to keep nuclear weapons and military bases in Europe.

It obviously also exists as support for America’s military-industrial complex.

But its moral support ought to be considered its most significant contribution. Without NATO, the conceptual structure of a ‘West’ with shared principles and aims would collapse.

NATO was once the organisation believed to ensure the continued viability of the Western part what used to be known as the ‘free world’. Such connotations linger, and lend themselves to political exploitation.

The ‘free world’ has since the demise of the Soviet Union not been much invoked. But ‘the West’ is still going strong, along with the notion of Western values and shared principles, with ‘the good’ in the form of benevolent motives automatically assumed to be on its side.

This gives the powers that be in Washington a terrific claim in the realm of widely imagined moral aspects of geopolitical reality.

They have inherited the mantle of the leader of the ‘free world’ and ‘the West’, and since there has not been a peep of dissension about this from the other side of the Atlantic, the claim appears true and legitimate in the eyes of the world and the parties concerned.

In the meantime the earlier American claim to speak and act on behalf of the free world was broadened and seemingly depoliticised by a substitute claim of speaking and acting on behalf of the ‘international community’.

There is of course no such thing, but that doesn’t bother editors who keep invoking it when some countries or the bad guys running them do things that are not to Washington’s liking. Doing away with NATO would pull the rug from under the ‘international community’.

Such a development would then reveal the United States, with its current political system and priorities in international affairs, as a criminal power and the major threat to peace in the world.

I can hear an objection that without this resonance of moral claims the activities serving the ‘full spectrum dominance’ aim would have been carried out anyway.

If you think so, and if you can stand reading again what the neocons were producing between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraqi in 2003, subtract all references to moral clarity and the necessity for the United States to serve as moral beacon for the world from that literature, and you will see that preciously little argument remains for American war-making that ensued.

shutterstock_591252749 The spinelessness of the average European politician has added up to huge encouragement of the United States in its post-Cold War military adventurism.

With forceful reminders from Europe about what those much vaunted supposedly shared political principles actually stood for, American rhetoric could not have been the same.

Strong European condemnation of the shredding of the UN Charter, and the jettisoning of the principles adopted at the Nuremberg trials, would have made it much more difficult for George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and the neocons to go where blind fanaticism and hubris, with imagined economic advantage, took them.

Perhaps more importantly, it might have given a relatively weak American protest movement the necessary added energy to rise to the level of effectiveness once attained by the anti-Vietnam activists as they imprinted themselves on the political culture of the 60s and 70s.

European dissent might not have halted but could have slowed the transformation of much of the mainstream media into neocon propaganda assets.

As it is, NATO exists today in a realm of discourse in which revered post-World War II liberal conditions and practices are still believed to exist.

It is an apolitical and ahistorical realm determined by hubris and misplaced self-confidence, in which powers that have utterly altered these practices and negated its positive aspects are not acknowledged.

It is a realm in which America’s pathological condition of requiring an enemy as a source of everlasting profit is not acknowledged. It is a realm in which America’s fatuous designs for complete control over the world is not acknowledged. It is a realm of foreign policy illusions.

NATO is supposed to guard putative Western values that in punditry observations have something to do with what the Enlightenment has bestowed on Western culture.

But it deludes staunch NATO supporters, who cannot bring themselves to contemplate the possibility that what they have long trusted to be an agent of protection, has in fact become a major force that destroys those very qualities and principles.

There is a further more tangible political/legal reason why NATO is monstrous. It is steered by nonelected powers in Washington, but is not answerable to identifiable entities within the American military system.

It is not answerable to any of the governing institutions of the European Union. Its centre in Brussels exists effectively outside the law. Its relations with ‘intelligence agencies’ and their secret operations remain opaque.

Who is doing what and where are all questions to which no clear, legally actionable, information is made available.

NATO has thereby become a tool of intimidation lacking any compatibility with democratic political organisation. An autocrat aspiring to unfettered rule with which to operate anywhere in the world would find in NATO the ideal institutional arrangements.

All this should be of our utmost concern. Because all this means that NATO is now one of the world’s most horrible organizations that at the same time has become so politically elusive, apparently, that there is no European agent with enough of a grip on it to make it disappear.

US Didn’t “Change Priorities” in Syria, It Lost

The document would then openly admit that – failing to overthrow the Syrian government – bleeding the nation would be an acceptable alternative

April 18, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – The United States – according to Western media sources – has shifted priorities in Syria, no longer focusing on regime change aimed at Damascus. 

However, in reality, it is not a shift in priorities, it is recognition that US ambitions in the Middle East have been thoroughly disrupted by Syrian, Russian, and Iranian resolve.

The US must now resort to pursuing secondary courses of action – no less malicious in intent or ultimate outcome than its original plan which has left a region at war since 2011, killed tens of thousands, and displace or otherwise disrupted the lives of millions more.

A Reuters report titled, “U.S. priority on Syria no longer focused on ‘getting Assad out’: Haley,” would claim:

The United States’ diplomatic policy on Syria for now is no longer focused on making the war-torn country’s president, Bashar al-Assad, leave power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said on Thursday, in a departure from the Obama administration’s initial and public stance on Assad’s fate. 

The view of the Trump administration is also at odds with European powers, who insist Assad must step down. The shift drew a strong rebuke from at least two Republican senators.

And while some have taken this recent announcement as “proof” that the White House has made good on its promise to withdraw from American adventurism abroad,  US ambassador to the UN AIPAC darling Nikki Haley would go on to claim:

Do we think he’s a hindrance? Yes. Are we going to sit there and focus on getting him out? No. What we are going to focus on is putting the pressure in there so that we can start to make a change in Syria.

That “change in Syria,” however is verbatim the partitioning of the nation that began under the previous administration of former US President Barack Obama. It is essentially the secondary objective laid out by corporate-financier funded US policymakers as early as 2012 when initial attempts at lightning-fast regime change failed and the Syrian conflict transformed into a protracted, highly destructive war.

A 2012 Brookings Institution document titled, “Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change” (PDF), revealed US policymakers openly declaring their intentions to create “safe havens” stating (emphasis added):

An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.

The document would then openly admit that – failing to overthrow the Syrian government – bleeding the nation would be an acceptable alternative, claiming (emphasis added):

The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention.

Reaffirming US commitment to this 2012 policy is US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. The Guardian’s article, “Rex Tillerson says US will set up safe zones for refugees from Isis,” notes:

Rex Tillerson has said the United States would set up “interim zones of stability” to help refugees return home in the next phase of the fight against Islamic State and al-Qaida in Syria and Iraq. The US secretary of state did not make clear where these zones were to be set up. He was addressing a meeting of 68 countries and organizations gathered in Washington to discuss accelerating the battle against Isis.

The notion that the US is in Syria to “fight the Islamic State” is a documented absurdity. It was the US and its allies, by their own admission, who sought the creation of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria precisely where the Islamic State now exists. The militant proxy maintains an immense fighting capacity possible only through equally immense, multinational state sponsorship – provided by the US and Europe and laundered through their regional allies in the Persian Gulf – primarily Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Funneling weapons, supplies, and additional fighters to the Islamic State has been for years carried out by NATO-member Turkey which maintained extensive logistical networks connecting the Islamic State’s foreign sponsors to the Syrian territory it was occupying.

Funneling weapons, supplies

Upon Russia’s entry into the conflict in late 2015, these logistical networks have been targeted by Russian air power, disrupting them and contributing directly to the Islamic State’s now waning strength across the region. US intervention now serves two purposes, to maintain the defacto partitioning of Syrian territory the Islamic State’s presence contributed to by replacing defeated Islamic State forces with US forces – and to portray the US as having “defeated” the very terrorist proxy front it created in the first place and perpetuated as long as logistically, politically, and militarily possible.

US Secretary of State Tillerson’s reaffirmation of US policy rolled out during the Obama administration is yet another illustration of “continuity of agenda,” and how special interests on Wall Street, not politicians in Washington, steer US policy at home and abroad and explains how two apparently politically diametrically opposed presidents have maintained virtually the exact same policy over the course of six years and counting.

And while the US clearly lost in its bid to outright overthrow the government of Syria, it continues pursuing an agenda that will divide and destroy the Syrian state through every means available. Continued exposure and resistance to both this agenda and the special interests ultimately driving it is essential to ensure this aspect of US ambitions in the Middle East fails as well.

Many Syrian families are calling their newborns Putin

 

21 Apr, 2017

Syrian parents are naming their children after the Russian President as a sign of gratitude, while millions of students, including Bashar Assad’s own children, are learning Russian, Syria’s Ambassador to Moscow Riad Haddad said.

“Thanks to the efforts of the Moscow embassy, and with the approval of President Assad, Russian is the second language taught in Syrian schools. We have opened Russian faculties in all of the country’s universities, while children receive tuition from the seventh grade,” said the official, addressing Russia’s upper chamber of parliament, the Federation Council, in Moscow.

Russian was first put on the curriculum in government-controlled schools in 2014, and has been prioritized since then.
Read more
Students attend a class at a school in Aleppo’s Bustan al-Qasr (Reuters/Mahmoud Hassano) Syrian schools to offer Russian as second foreign language

“Making Russian a second language in the country is a gesture of gratitude to the Russian people from Syria,” said Haddad, who has been in his post since the Syrian conflict broke out in 2011.

“Many families have even named their sons Putin. And it is no secret that the President’s own children are learning Russian,” said the official.

Although Russia has recently stepped up its support for the Syrian government, its strategic relationship with Damascus goes back to Soviet times, and many top Damascus officials, including Haddad himself, were educated in Russia, either as foreign students, or army officers.

Russia has maintained a naval base in Tartus since the 1970s, and though the diplomatic relationship between the two countries waned after the collapse of Communism, and the rollback of Moscow’s international reach, the base, alongside an aerial facility in Khmeimim, built in 2015, have played a key role in the conflict.

Meanwhile the tradition of naming children after leaders’ surnames and other ideological charged terms took root in the early Soviet Union, where names such as Vladlen (Vladimir Lenin) and Elem (Engels, Lenin, Marx) became popular.

There was widespread media coverage of Kosovar Albanians named Toni and Tonibler after the former UK Prime Minister who endorsed their statehood, but the fate of the children named George Bush after the US-led coalition toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq remains under-documented, though there are several reports of children subsequently being renamed, as the former US president fell out of favor.

It’s Imperialism, Stupid

Western Imperialism for Dummies 3 min vid

I roll my eyes every time I read the words “fighting ISIS”… it’s merely euphemism for perpetual war.
The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, also known as the Yinon Plan, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.
Saudi Arabia believes “ISIS” cannot be “defeated” unless Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is removed from power. Turkey has just convinced NATO nations that the war against “ISIS” can only be “won” if Turkey’s traditional Kurdish opponents are neutralized first. The US “fights ISIS” for Israel. Israel sees only one way to “defeat” “ISIS” is to destroy Iran. Russia is “fighting ISIS” [imperialist props] = power struggle against western imperialism where Russia has interest. It’s all called “fighting ISIS”.

https://i2.wp.com/media4.giphy.com/media/xKxLWmeiSfJ8Q/giphy.gif?w=545

Israeli commandos save Islamic militants from Syria | Daily Mail

Israel acknowledges it is helping Syrian rebel fighters | Times of Israel

UN Reveals Israeli Links With Syrian Rebels | Haaretz

Exclusive: Israel Is Tending to Wounded Syrian Rebels | Foreign Policy

Israel Helps ISIS Recruit Militants In Syria | Middle East Press

Israel Key Link in Exporting ISIS Oil | The Real News Network

Image result for isis NEWS animated gif

“Fight ISIS” for Israel

Lavrov Deep-Fries Merkel

“We love this man”

Lavrov Deep-Fries Merkel: US Tapped Your Phone, But You’re Whining About ‘Russian Hacking’?

Russia’s Foreign Minister points out the obvious. Again.

A gentleman and a scholar
A gentleman and a scholar
 

It’s not even up for debate — Sergei Lavrov is in a league of his own. Russia’s Foreign Minister mutilates NATO press releases  in his sleep and eats Washington soundbites for breakfast — no salt.As you are well aware, Sergei dropped a payload of painful truth on Mike Pence’s smug, smarmy face during the Munich Security Conference on Saturday. But that was just a warm-up. Pence is a small fish in a big ocean of idiots.

On the sidelines of the Munich conference, Lavrov participating in a meeting with top diplomats from the Normandy Four (Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine).

Angela Merkel used this opportunity to lecture Lavrov and the rest of the audience about the dangers of Russian hacking.

You think Lavrov just sat there and took it on the chin? No. When it was his turn to speak, he reminded the entire world that Angela Merkel’s phones were tapped by her “ally”, and that this is a confirmed fact, and that Angela Merkel is a sad puppet:

The German story was shown to be a fact. You know when it happened, several years ago. It was confirmed that top officials had had their phones tapped. And the other day there was a leak showing that the 2012 presidential election campaign in France coincided with cyber-espianage on the part of the CIA. And talking to a journalist today, a CIA representative said that he had no comments to offer.

 So I repeat: show us the facts.

So basically Lavrov can check “told Merkel to her face that she’s a miserable witch” off his bucket list.

A true hero. Watch (starts around 6:40):