In the first part of a series, Brandon Martinez of Non-Aligned Media unravels the murky origins of ISIS and unveils how the group’s meteoric rise in Iraq and Syria is a continuation of US psychological warfare designed to facilitate the Zionist-Neocon agenda of toppling seven sovereign Middle Eastern and North African States.
Part 2 on the US-Israeli-Saudi nexus behind ISIS coming soon…
The post The ISIS Conspiracy: Origins (Part 1) appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
This must be emphasized as the primary driving factor behind the “refugee crisis”. If these Western-led wars and proxy wars had not taken place, there would be no “refugee crisis” at all.
The post Ben Swann: U.S. Policies In Middle East Responsible for Refugee Crisis In Europe appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
Ted Galen Carpenter / Washington Post
The surge of unaccompanied minors coming across America’s southern border has given rise to a humanitarian crisis, and with it, debates about immigration policy and border security. Lost in these discussions, however, is the role the American drug war has played in creating the crisis. And this is only the latest crisis. For decades, Washington’s crusade against illegal drugs has destroyed lives, destabilized civil society and generally wreaked havoc on Mexico and the countries of Central and South America.
Since October, more than 50,000 children and adolescents (mainly from Central America) have successfully made the trek through Mexico to reach the United States. Others have perished at the hands of the drug gangs that control the trafficking routes. Extortion, kidnapping and rape are all-too-common along these routes. Traffickers frequently force refugees passing through Mexico to become drug mules — they’re forced to smuggle small shipments of drugs as they make their way to the United States.
The refugees are fleeing not only grinding poverty but widespread carnage, inflicted mostly by powerful Mexican-based drug cartels and other criminal gangs. Journalists, politicians and pundits have had no qualms about connecting the refugee crisis to the drug cartels. Daily Beast columnist Caitlin Dickson is correct that drug traffickers have made those countries “virtually unlivable for its poorest citizens.” She’s also correct that this creates “an incentive to flee, thereby providing themselves with more clientele for their human smuggling business.” NBC correspondent Luke Russert blamed casual drug users, not just for this crisis but for the widespread devastation the illicit drug trade has inflicted on Latin America.
READ MORE AT WASHINGTON POST
The post Latino migrant crisis linked to America’s deadly “war on drugs” appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
Brandon Martinez
Non-Aligned Media
October 4, 2015
So Russia has launched an air campaign in Syria to allegedly defend the embattled Assad regime. While this action will undoubtedly tickle the fancy of Putin’s diehard supporters in anti-Zionist circles, it does not undermine the logical, factual inferences I laid out in my recent essay.
The bottom line is this: Putin is not an “anti-Zionist.” He has never been one and he will never truly be one. As I noted in the essay, Russia and Israel have much more in common than Russia has with any Arab, Muslim-majority state.
Russia’s alliance with Syria and Iran is based on economic pragmatism, not ideological kinship. It is essentially no different than the Kremlin’s strong partnership with Erdogan’s Turkey, Al-Sissi’s Egypt, and Modi’s India, the only difference being the latter three countries are not being threatened by the West or Israel at the moment because they are all neutralized on the Palestine question and submit to Western economic and geopolitical demands.
At no point has Putin expressed support for the principled rhetoric emanating from Tehran with regards to Israel. He has in fact condemned it as “irresponsible and counterproductive.” Putin has extremely friendly and cordial relations with Israel and hardly ever criticizes the belligerent Netanyahu regime. And when he does it is exceedingly mild in tone and narrow in scope, resembling the kind of feeble, politically correct stuff we hear from official opposition parties in Britain, Canada and elsewhere in Europe.
The claim that Putin is a secret anti-Zionist working against Israel is undermined by Russia’s strong economic, political and military cooperation with Israel. It is undercut by Putin’s own statements to the contrary, most especially his characterization of Israel as a “special state to us” whose “struggle” he “supports.” It is discredited by virtue of the fact that Putin himself has identified Israel’s large Russian population as holding a special place in his heart, whose well-being he “will always care about.” With these facts in mind, it is relatively straightforward to conclude that Putin’s Russia will never confront or seek to undermine the existence of Israel in its current configuration.
While paying lip service to the two-state solution, Putin has never suggested that Israel should even retreat back to its 1967 borders, as many ‘pragmatic’ pro-Palestinian activists advocate. The Palestinian “state” that Putin envisions is the same one that the Zionist-subservient Western regimes foresee: a totally disarmed, rump state with no capacity to resist aggression from Israel. Putin would not even dream about suggesting Israel pay reparations to Palestinians nor will he likely ever champion the “right of return” of the Palestinian refugees currently scattered across the Levant.
On Syria and Iran, the best we can attribute to Putin is a desire to maintain a quasi “balance of power” between them and Israel, but he is definitely content with Israel having the upper hand over all of its neighbours, militarily speaking. Putin has never pressured Israel to abandon its nuclear or chemical weapons stockpiles, nor would he ever do so because 1) he’s not opposed to Israeli military supremacy, and 2) that would call into question Russia’s own possession of such weapons. Moreover, it was Russia that spearheaded the effort to disarm Syria of its advanced chemical weapons, which was advantageous to Tel Aviv.
Putin’s foreign policy is motivated by business concerns and power politics, not moralism or idealism. Putin is not acting against ISIS in Syria because it’s the “right thing to do” or because he actually has an aversion to terrorism. Like all self-serving statesmen, Putin disingenuously decries terrorism and violence that jeopardizes the interests of his regime, whilst concurrently employing terrorism, violence and coercion which buttresses it. In all likelihood, Putin and his FSB henchmen masterminded false flag terrorist bombings in Russian apartment complexes in 1999, thereby securing Putin’s position as a neo-Czar and perennial ruler of Russia. Putin’s political trump card was his Israeli-modeled ‘war on terror’ in Chechnya – a heinous and dirty conflict rife with Russian duplicity, deception, false flags, agent provocateurs and all the usual imperial dirty tricks. That murderous and savage campaign extinguished the lives of around 100,000 Chechens. But for some peculiar reason, Chechen lives mean little to Putin’s diehard groupies, even the ones who claim to be anti-imperialists. Palestinian lives matter; Iranian, Afghani, Syrian, Libyan and Iraqi lives matter; but not Chechens.
The reality is that Putin is pursuing this campaign in Syria because it is a sure way for him to boost his global prestige, and perhaps to pressure Washington to lay off its support of anti-Russian elements in Ukraine. Anything that irritates the Washington/EU consensus is beneficial to Putin’s political game at this point. So it makes sense, from the standpoint of Putin’s self-interest, for him to finally – after four long years of inaction and straddling the sidelines – intervene in Syria in support of Assad as a jab at Washington.
Of course, the naysayers and complainers who deplore my reasoned critiques of Putin predictably level false accusations at me, such as that I’m “with the West” or some such nonsense. The skewed logic here is that since the West and Russia are, at least on the surface, at logger-heads right now, then not supporting Putin somehow equals an endorsement of Western policy. This is not only bad logic but it’s dishonest and obviously a misrepresentation of my views. One can simultaneously critique the West, Israel and Russia. It is perfectly reasonable and consistent to view them all unfavourably.
Secondly, I don’t endorse or support Western belligerence towards Russia. But a consistent anti-imperialist would also condemn Russia’s aggression and belligerence in its own sphere of influence, which is where Putin’s ugly side is the most potent. And, as is typical of the Kremlinites, it’s not a sufficient excuse to write-off all of Moscow’s misconduct as over-reactions to Western intrigue. That’s a convenient excuse that Moscow uses to commit crimes and run roughshod on its neighbours. It would be akin to Washington justifying all of its invasive and coercively criminal policies in Latin America under the pretense that Russia was influencing the region and cultivating pro-Russian, anti-US outposts. In fact, that’s exactly how Washington rubber-stamped its crusade of coups and proxy wars across Latin America during the Cold War. Russia did the same and continues to do it today.
From the other angle, NATO was ostensibly established to counter Russian expansionism in Europe, which was clearly a reality post-WW2 as Stalin consumed half the continent under the Red Army jackboot. Despite the apologetics of zealous Russophiles, Soviet imperialism was a real phenomenon, and NATO was set-up as a competing gang.
Western hostility towards Putin is an illustration of globalist gangwars. The criticism of Putin and Russia that appears on Fox News or from the mouth of the reprobate John Mccain is insincere and obviously comes from an amoral place. It is mostly stupid, American exceptionalist chest-beating and jingoistic crap. Gangsters, crooks and criminals badmouth their competition all the time. Gangs and organized criminal groups war with each other. Criminal states also do battle against each other. The US is a criminal state, Britain is a criminal state, Israel is a criminal state; Russia and China are also criminal states.
On the other hand, my critiques of Putin and Russia are obviously not coming from a pathetic jingoistic Western perspective, but from an anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist, moralist vantage point.
It’s understandable that people disaffected with Western foreign policy find it refreshing to see a world leader stand up to the Washington-NATO axis and not kowtow to their crazy agenda. But it should not go unstated that on a smaller level, those who refuse to bend to Moscow’s regional ambitions meet a similar dismal fate to those who fall afoul of the West. Few have heard the name of Dzhokhar Dudayev, the first Chechen President who was assassinated by Russia in a laser-guided missile attack in 1996, or Aslan Maskhadov, the second President of Chechnya also killed by Russian special forces thugs.
Exposing and critiquing Western and Zionist foreign policies has been my forte, so any suggestion that my opposition to Putin’s Russia stems from sympathy for the West falls completely flat. These simpletons and Kremlinites not only impute false motives onto me but they ignore Putin’s history of complicity with the West, such as his initial embrace of the West’s “war on terror,” as well as his cooperation with and appeasement of Israel.
With that said, Syria’s predicament is such that Assad is looking for help from anywhere he can get it. And if it comes from a gangster like Putin, then so be it. As an outside observer I’m able to critique all of the bad actors and hold them all to a high moral standard, whereas Assad simply doesn’t have that luxury, especially in the precarious position he finds himself in.
However, Putin’s sordid past and corrupt ascent to power on the Zionized “anti-jihadist” warrior ticket should matter to those who presently support him and his duplicitous politics. Putin’s dodgy activities in the KGB, his use of false flag terrorism, his war crimes in the North Caucasus and involvement in the murders of many dissident Russian journalists and whistleblowers should be a cause for concern and skepticism of the former KGB spy.
It’s unlikely that those in desperate search for a “saviour” will heed my warnings though.
Copyright 2015 Brandon Martinez
The post On Russia’s Campaign in Syria appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
Here is my latest interview with Deanna Spingola about ISIS, Israel and Putin’s Russia.
The post Deanna Spingola & Brandon Martinez on ISIS, Israel and Putin’s Russia appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
Non-Aligned Media / Brandon Martinez
Reports are now surfacing showcasing the extensive foreknowledge of last week’s attacks in Paris by multiple foreign countries.
Iraq says it warned coalition countries of imminent attacks one day before last Friday’s lethal assaults. Associated Press reported:
Senior Iraqi intelligence officials warned members of the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State group of imminent assaults by the militant organization just one day before last week’s deadly attacks in Paris killed 129 people.
Turkish officials have come out with embarrassing revelations that they notified their French counterparts about one individual who has been named as a participant in the attack more than a year ago, but nothing was done. A Huffington Post report titled, “Turkey Says It Warned France Twice About Paris Attacker,” explained:
Turkish authorities had warned France twice about the threat posed by one of the Paris terrorist attackers, a Turkish official said Monday. Ismaël Omar Mostefaï, a 29-year-old French citizen, was identified Sunday as one of the attackers at the Bataclan concert hall, where at least 89 were killed on Friday. A senior Turkish official told The Huffington Post that the country turned up Mostefaï’s name when investigating four other terror suspects in 2014. “During the official investigation, the Turkish authorities identified a fifth individual, Omar Ismail Mostefai, and notified their French counterparts twice — in December 2014 and June 2015,” the official said. Turkey shared information on Mostefaï with France, but didn’t hear anything back — until after Friday’s events.
Tellingly, Israeli sources are now reporting that security officials in the French Jewish community had foreknowledge of the attack. “For months, security officials in France’s Jewish community have been warned of the very real possibility of an impending large terrorist attack in the country,” noted a Times of Israel report. And Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has himself claimed to have provided detailed intelligence about the Paris attackers to France.
Strangely, the Bataclan theatre that was the main target of the lethal attacks was owned by Zionist Jews who often held pro-Israel events and fundraisers at the premises. Conveniently the Jewish owners sold the venue two months before last Friday’s attacks. The Times of Israel, in its article titled “Jewish owners recently sold Paris’s Bataclan theater, where IS killed dozens,” noted:
The Bataclan theater, targeted in Friday night’s Paris terror attacks, was Jewish-owned for decades, but was sold two months ago, its former owners said. French magazine Le Point said early Saturday that the Bataclan, where at least 80 people were massacred by Islamic State gunmen on Friday night, has for years been the target of anti-Zionist groups as the Jewish owners often put on pro-Israel events.
So once again we have evidence of Israeli and Jewish prior knowledge of a major terror spectacle that significantly benefitted Israel and the Zionist agenda.
Despite all of these warnings, and a vast Orwellian surveillance apparatus in place, the French authorities somehow missed all the signals and bungled all of the intelligence.
At the very least, the French regime, notorious for its subservience to the Israeli agenda, allowed the attacks in Paris to take place, and most likely aided and abetted them.
The post Everybody Knew But the French? Foreknowledge of Paris Attacks Widespread appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
I talked about some of the anomalies surrounding the Paris attacks with Deanna Spingola.
The post Brandon Martinez Discusses Paris Attacks on Spingola Speaks appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
Non-Aligned Media / Brandon Martinez / Dec. 7, 2015
Alex Jones’ Infowars has undertaken a spooky “nation-wide investigation of Islamic compounds.” Infowars sleuth “reporter” Joe Biggs has allegedly discovered scary “Islamic compounds” (i.e. mosques) run by “known terrorists.” In one report he appears in an “undisclosed location in the northeastern part of America” and reads off a paper with terrifying “facts” about radical Mooslims running wild in America, right under the noses of authorities! Oh boy, bust out the Pulitzer Prize for Mr. Joe Biggs and his unprecedented sleuthing exposing the “rise of the American Caliphate”!
Right on cue, Alex Jones has tapped on his longtime bum-boy Paul Joseph Watson to ramp up the Muslim bashing. In his latest video, “The Truth About Islam,” Watson bravely defied the “politically correct pro-Muslim mainstream media,” declaring: “There’s no such thing as moderate Islam. It is a violent, intolerant religion… By its very nature Islam is an intolerant, radical, extremist belief system… Islam itself is the problem!” Such a rebel this Watson, saying what the Western mainstream media and political establishment dares not say, only that they have been saying that for the past 15 years and continue to incessantly push that line every chance they get.
Much of this Fox News-style fear mongering and neocon-inspired disinformation emanating from Infowars seems timed to coincide with Alex Jones’ recent interview with Donald Trump wherein the egomaniac presidential candidate talked a lot about that “radical Mooooslim stuff” and how those crafty and ever-elusive radical Moooslims are readying more terror attacks on the innocent nation of America. Trump told Jones that he is not only a successful businessman but a prophet too, having “predicted” the menace of CIA-asset/patsy/bogeyman Osama bin Laden. Trump was also keen to emphasize that Bin Laden really did orchestrate 9/11 from his cave hide-out and presumably planned the controlled demolition of Building 7 too. Mr. 9/11 Truth Alex Jones simply nodded along with all of Trump’s baloney, telling him “90 percent of my listeners support you.”
Infowars had been pegged as a Zionist operation years ago and Jones has since embraced the accusation by transforming his network from a bastion of 9/11 half-truths and Zionist-shielding disinformation to a sleazy pro-Israeli, anti-Muslim cuckservative sock puppet.
Copyright 2015 Non-Aligned Media
The post Infowars Goes Full Cuckservative, Ramps Up Fear Campaign About “Waddical Mooslims” appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
I joined Deanna Spingola again to continue our discussion on the Paris attacks and the latest events surrounding Syria. We also touched on Donald Trump, Alex Jones and the kosher nationalism being cultivated by the Zionist elite.
The post Brandon Martinez On Spingola Speaks Radio: Paris attacks, ISIS, Donald Trump appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
In addition to saying “thank God for ISIS” for providing the US with a renewed pretext to continue to occupy the Middle East, former US General Jerry Boykin told the audience:
“There’s another reason that we’re never going to get out of the Middle East, and that’s this little spec of land there called Israel. We made a commitment to Israel in 1948 that we’d be there if they needed us. This president [Obama]… I want you to understand that my children are Jewish, their mother is a Jew, so I’m very passionate about Israel. But the idea that this president has not been anti-Semitic is absolute nonsense.”
The post Zionist US Ex-General: ‘Thank God for ISIS… We’ll be in Middle East forever to protect Israel’ appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
A refutation of the putrid Ziocon disinformation narrative that Obama is a “secret Muslim” and has implemented pro-Muslim policies during his presidency.
The post Obama is Not a Secret Muslim or Even Pro-Muslim appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
My criticism of alt-media double standards when it comes to coups and the “legitimacy” of certain governments.
The post Russian-Backed Coups and Interventionism is ‘Good’? appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
Brandon Martinez / Non-Aligned Media
President Obama issued criticisms of Saudi Arabia in an Atlantic Magazine interview, further refuting ludicrous claims from some sectors of the retard right-wing that the American president is a “secret Muslim” operating at the beck and call of the Saudi king.
Obama rebuked the sectarian politics of the Saudis, denouncing their activities in financing the spread of Wahhabism to other Muslim-majority countries, including to Indonesia where Obama spent time as a child.
“The Saudis and other Gulf Arabs have funnelled money, and large numbers of imams and teachers, into [Indonesia] In the 1990s, the Saudis heavily funded Wahhabist madrassas, seminaries that teach the fundamentalist version of Islam favoured by the Saudi ruling family,” Obama told The Atlantic’s Jonah Goldberg.
The notion that Obama is a “puppet” of Saudi Arabia, as some disinformation pushers contend, dissolves under scrutiny. Obama’s nuclear agreement with Shiite Iran (a major foe of Saudi Arabia) and recent decision to release 28 classified pages of a congressional report on 9/11, which reportedly ties elements of the Saudi government to the attack, scatters that claim to the four winds. Obama’s release of the controversial 28 pages this year was not done under any serious pressure, and must have been a personal choice. Obama’s criticism of the Saudis and his decision to publicly unearth the 28 pages are actions that show hostility, and not fealty, to the kingdom.
In a broader sense, Obama’s willingness to throw the Saudis under the bus for 9/11 by releasing documents that implicate them but which don’t address the multitude of other glaring problems and inconsistencies of the official story, as well as the compelling evidence of CIA and Israeli Mossad involvement in the attacks, signifies that the Western elite may be mobilizing for regime change in Riyadh.
As Kevin Barrett articulated in a Press TV interview, the Saudis are bit-part players on the global power structure who have “absolutely no capacity” to rule if the US decided to stop supporting the monarchy. “Their army, navy and airforce have no ability to” function if not for US-UK patronage and sponsorship, Barrett said.
Those who choose to emphasize “Saudi” involvement in 9/11 above the more damning evidence of complicity and involvement of rogue elements within the highest authorities in the White House, Pentagon, CIA and Israeli military-intelligence establishment, have rightly been criticized as gatekeepers promoting a ‘limited hang-out’ analysis which aims to deflect culpability from the king-pins by placing blame on lower level accomplices, stooges, dupes and front-men.
The gatekeeping around this issue doesn’t stop with the Saudis. Likewise, many 9/11 truth activists and researchers have attempted to put the lion’s share of blame for the attacks on Bush, Cheney and other non-Jewish figure heads in the White House, carefully maneuvering the discourse away from the Israelis and their Neocon-Zionist loyalists within the Bush administration and Pentagon. Focusing on the Bush-Bin Laden family connections and Saudi intrigue vis-a-vis the 19 Oswaldian patsies who were, most likely, not even on the planes, lets the Israeli and American planners and executioners of the operation off the hook.
The 28 pages are a piece of bait dangled out in front of truthers so they can naively proclaim “victory” and go back to sleep. The US government can also now pretend that it’s actually transparent on the issue, when in fact it continues to withhold and suppress the most damning evidences of US and Israeli participation in the September 11 events. A win-win for the Zio-American establishment.
The post Obama Criticizes Saudis In Interview appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
Brandon Martinez / Non-Aligned Media
A former CIA chief has advocated “covertly” killing Russians and Iranians fighting alongside the Syrian army in order to make them “pay a price” for supporting Assad.
In an outrageous interview with PBS’s Charlie Rose, the CIA’s former deputy director Michael Morell proposed stepping up support to Syrian rebels by giving them “the things they need to both go after the Assad government” as well as allied Iranian and Russian forces on the Syrian battlefield.
Morell elaborated that the “price” the Russians and Iranians would be made to pay for their role in the Syrian civil conflict is death.
“I ran the CIA now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton and I want Hillary to kill lots of Russians and Iranians in Syria”:https://t.co/Ka7oSby9kk
— Christoph Germann (@newgreatgame) August 9, 2016
“We make them pay the price by killing Russians and killing Iranians?” Rose asked. “Yes,” said Morell emphatically, arguing that the action should be covert. “You don’t stand up at the Pentagon and say ‘we did this,’ but you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.”
Morrell then outlined his desire to attack Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s powerbase, saying he wants to “go after his presidential guard” and “bomb his offices in the middle of the night.” “I wanna destroy his presidential aircraft on the ground, I wanna destroy his presidential helicopters, I wanna make him think we’re coming after him,” the hawkish ex-intelligence chief said, stopping short of advocating Assad’s assassination.
“I want [Assad] to think … ‘this is not going to end well for me.'”
Morell served as deputy director of the CIA from 2012 to 2013 under the Obama-Clinton White House. In a New York Times op-ed, Morell threw his weight behind warmonger Hilary Clinton for president, who shares his militarist views towards the governments of Syria, Iran and Russia. Clinton has in the past made clear her intention to “attack Iran” and “completely obliterate them” if Tehran ever threatened Israel.
The CIA has been for some time the world’s leading state-sponsor of terrorism, a title the perennially hypocritical Americans and Israelis often throw at Iran, but which is actually true of themselves.
As Morell plainly revealed in the Rose interview, it is CIA bosses like himself who support and continue to advocate for terrorism in other countries.
Not only has the CIA engaged in covert terrorism abroad, but also on the homefront. According to the stellar research of author Michael Collins Piper, the CIA and Israeli Mossad conspired to bring together the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 because the late president was diplomatically “at war” with Israel over its covert nuclear weapons development program (which Kennedy was trying to stop) and promised to “splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces.”
The post Former CIA Chief Wants to “Scare” Assad, Kill Iranians and Russians in Syria appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton “founded ISIS” together, said Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in his latest skewering attack.
“ISIS, in many respects, honors President Obama… Obama founded ISIS…. and the co-founder is crooked Hilary Clinton,” Trump told a crowd in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. He repeated the suggestion in subsequent interviews, refusing to back down after pressure to retract.
Trump’s accusation has largely proven correct. ISIS directly grew out of a failed US-led policy to overthrow Syria’s Assad. From 2011 onwards, the CIA has coordinated weapons and money flows to Syrian rebels who, eventually, formed ISIS and a number of other groups with an extreme Salafist-Takiri orientation – something that the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) spoke about openly in internal memos sent to the White House in 2012, yet the policy of supporting the militants continued. The former head of the DIA, Michael Flynn, told Al Jazeera that the decision to arm radicals in Syria was a “willful decision” on the part of the Obama White House, and not an unintended consequence or “mistake,” as some apologists would have us believe.
While Trump will lay the blame for ISIS and the woes of US Middle East policy at the feet of Obama and Clinton – two figureheads for the Zionist power structure – he still refuses to identify Israel’s central role in destabilizing the Middle East – using American military muscle to do it – in pursuit of its Oded Yinon reconfiguration plan. That plan, which Netanyahu is undoubtedly pursuing to this day, endeavors to carve up Arab states into smaller ethnic and religious enclaves that are easier for Tel Aviv to dominate and bully.
Trump is carefully directing blame away from Israel and towards the front-men and window dressing, like Obama and Clinton, who are simply taking orders from their Zionist bosses. Now that Obama is on his way out of the White House, it is convenient for the Zionist elites who put him in power to scapegoat the president for what is a strategy conceived and spearheaded by Benjamin Netanyahu, who happens to be friends with Donald Trump.
The post Trump: Obama and Hilary ‘Founded ISIS’ appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
Brandon Martinez / Non-Aligned Media
Recall the October 2015 crash of Metrojet Flight 9268 over Egypt’s Sinai, killing all 224 passengers and crew on board. The plane was carrying mostly Russian vacationers on their way back home. The crash occurred about one month after Putin ordered Russian air forces to enter the Syrian civil war on the side of Assad.
A month or so went by without an official storyline explaining what happened, but some quarters of the mainstream media – drawing on speculation from Western intelligence sources and terror analysts – began hypothesizing about an ISIS revenge attack following the entrance of Russia into the air war against the militant group in Syria.
Russia eventually settled on the narrative that ISIS somehow smuggled and detonated a bomb on the plane, causing it to tear apart in mid-air shortly after takeoff. But curiously, during the Russia-Turkey spat after the Turks shot down a Russian military jet that crossed into their airspace from Syria, the Kremlin spuriously tried to implicate a militant Turkish nationalist group called the Grey Wolves in the Metrojet crash. At this time the Russian media was on an all-out propaganda offensive digging up any dirt it could find on Turkish President Erdogan to avenge the downing of the Russian fighter jet in November 2015.
ISIS officially did not initially put out any serious claims of responsibility for the Metrojet disaster during the first few weeks when authorities were treating it as an accidental or mechanical malfunction-caused crash, but once the Kremlin and others officially declared it terrorism, ISIS was happy to take credit for it as it has done with just about any act of violence in countries that belong to the Western anti-ISIS coalition. ISIS later published an official claim of responsibility accompanied by a laughable photo of an improvised “pop can bomb” in their magazine Dabiq, claiming that was the device used to bring down the Metrojet flight. An ISIS affiliate in the Sinai did put out an early claim of responsibility, but suggested that they shot it down with a rocket launcher from the ground (which is not what happened) and did not explain how they knew this particular commercial plane (which was at cruising altitude of 31,000 feet when it suddenly fell out of the sky) was Russia-bound and had mostly Russians on board. In other words, it was disinformation.
It was not sufficiently explained how explosives made it through airport security in a highly-militarized police state like Egypt. Nearly all of the passengers and crew on board were Russians, so if a “pop can bomb” really did cause the destruction, then how did it get onto the flight in the first place? Was it slipped into a traveler’s bag and that person unwittingly brought the bomb on board with them? Either that or ISIS had a mole embedded within the baggage handling staff at the Egyptian airport. But such a person has never been identified. No evidence for any of this was presented by Russia, the Egyptian authorities, or anyone else. The claim of responsibility alone is not sufficient, especially considering ISIS’s proven overeagerness to claim credit for just about anything foreign governments are willing to attribute to it.
An interesting article published in Britain’s Daily Mail lays out another possibility: Putin ordered the bombing of the plane to elicit international support for Russia’s nascent military campaign in Syria as well as a generalized sympathy for Russia just as it had become increasingly isolated via Western-led economic sanctions in response to Putin’s seizure of Crimea and interference in Ukraine. The murder of hundreds of Russian tourists would indeed provide a powerful incentive for the international community to rally behind Russia. The effect was similar to that of the massacre of British vacationers on a Tunisian beach (allegedly by an ISIS-linked gunman) in June of 2015. That attack exponentially raised international opprobrium against ISIS and educed more public support for British military intervention in Syria and Iraq.
The Mail interviewed a former high-ranking KGB major now living in exile somewhere in England, Boris Karpichkov, who claimed to have in his possession a secret dossier through his contacts in Russia’s intelligence community which proved a Russian FSB hand behind the Metrojet disaster. The Mail outlined the boon to the Kremlin’s global standing resulting from the crash thusly:
Islamic fanatics soon claimed responsibility for this horrific act of mass murder, subsequently publishing a photograph of a drinks can concealing a timer and explosives, which the extremists claimed had been smuggled on to the aircraft, and detonated after it took off.
Yet, intriguingly, the [ISIS] extremists initially seemed to have as little detail about what actually happened as authorities on the ground, who, in the first hours after the disaster, were unsure of the cause.
Instead, in a brief and strikingly vague statement, IS condemned ‘Russian crusaders’ for their involvement in Syria, and warned that infidels ‘neither have safety in the lands of Muslims nor in their air’ and that ‘soldiers of the Caliphate were able to down a Russian airplane over Sinai province’.
If anything, the implication seemed to be that they had shot down the plane from the ground, not sabotaged it with a bomb. What’s not in dispute is that the atrocity prompted an extraordinary, seismic shift in world politics between former foes.
Even though sanctions had been imposed on the Moscow regime over its intervention in Ukraine, David Cameron immediately made efforts to improve relations with Russia by phoning President Vladimir Putin to tell him that the British people ‘shared the pain and grief’ of the Russian people.
Putin was said to have been ‘gladdened’ by the call, and welcomed Cameron’s offer to help Russia track down the perpetrators, as other world powers — including France, Germany and China — pledged their solidarity with Russia over the outrage.
Public opinion, both in Russia and internationally, swung behind Putin after he swore to take ruthless revenge on Islamic State. Moscow started bombing Syria (where ISIS is taking on the ruling Bashar al-Assad government) within days of the aircraft being downed.
Karpichkov opines that Putin,
cynically authorised the tragedy not only to obtain worldwide sympathy at a time when Russia was being treated as a pariah because of its aggression towards Ukraine, but also to gain support for its ostensible belligerence against ISIS, which Putin would use as a cover to attack rebel groups in Syria who were sworn enemies of his ally President al-Assad.
Furthering the argument, the Mail writes:
The major claims his information comes from a general lieutenant in GRU (one of Russia’s numerous military intelligence wings).
This man told him, he says, that around the time of the plane’s crash, Putin had been expressing his concerns to Kremlin allies about ‘possible losses of political influence’ in Syria and the Middle East. Putin, he went on, was worried about the fate of his traditional ally in the region, President al-Assad, given the West’s support for rebel groups trying to depose him.
A plan was allegedly hatched by officials within GRU to reverse Russia’s declining influence in the region and — as Major Karpichkov claims he was told by a senior source — to ‘kill two rabbits with one bullet’.
The aim was to get ‘at least silent international approval’ for massive military operations against Assad’s enemies under the guise of a campaign against the IS terrorists blamed for bombing the Russian passenger jet; and to bolster Russia’s multi-billion-pound weapons business with the Middle East.
This was all summarised in a dossier compiled by the former KGB spy: ‘In order to accomplish all these aims and to get Western consent to fighting Islamic State (which was, essentially, official support for keeping the Assad regime in power), the Kremlin desperately needed the kind of justification which would generate worldwide attention and full international sympathy and approval for military action.’
The article does caution that Karpichkov assumed a new identity after having a falling out with his former KGB bosses over money the agency failed to pay him, a dispute that lead to his exile. This could lead some to question his objectivity and it is worth noting, but his logic is sound and his theory is not far out of left field considering the KGB’s notorious track record of extreme deception, lies and terrorism against its own people to maintain power.
Conclusive evidence confirming Karpichkov’s theory has not yet been uncovered, but the thesis’ general logic is compelling and it is as plausible as any of the other theories, with the official Western and Kremlin-backed narrative of the ISIS pop can bomb being the most dubious of all.
During the aftermath of this event the “alternative” media was confused as to which way to spin it. Alt-media outlets were initially skeptical of the ISIS narrative because its loudest early proponents were Western governments and intel sources, but as soon as the Kremlin endorsed that theory the Kremlin-loyal alt-media fell right in line.
The fact that no major alt-media outlet even aired out the possibility of a Russian false-flag demonstrates the Kremlin’s pervasive influence over the charlatans, hacks and opportunists at the helm of the compromised industry. These same outlets frantically pour over every minute detail of every high-profile terrorist attack or shooting that occurs in any Western country trying to find the slightest flaw or crack in the narrative. They jump to conclusions of “false flag” and “staged event” involving crisis actors, fake blood and green screens extraordinarily quickly, often within hours of any given incident. Yet when an international terror spectacle involves Russia, none of these alt-media outlets or personalities raise the most basic cui bono type questions, let alone studiously investigate, which they are notoriously overeager to do when following up on major occurrences in the West.
This is not the first plane that some suspect was downed by Putin’s Kremlin for political reasons. There was the curious crash of the Polish presidential plane in 2010, killing the entire upper echelons of the Polish government and military who were en route to Russia for a memorial service commemorating the Katyn forest massacre, the slaughter of more than 20,000 Polish POWs by the Soviets during World War II. One cannot help but reflect on the eerie coincidence surrounding the suspicious crash: the Polish presidential plane met its demise in a wooded area in Smolensk, a city in the West of Russia, not far from where the original Polish victims of the Katyn forest massacre were shot and then buried by their Russian NKVD executioners. A frightening amateur video surfaced showing the immediate aftermath of the crash in which what appear to be gun shots can be heard ringing out near the wreckage of the downed plane – the implication being that Russian police or military quickly swept in and executed survivors of the crash, thus eliminating any witnesses who could have revealed what actually brought down the aircraft. As James Corbett notes in his stellar reporting below, Vladimir Putin took “personal control” of the investigation of the tragedy, ensuring that anything anomalous was kept from public view and out of official reports.
There was the 2002 helicopter crash that killed former Russian general and politician Alexander Lebed, a rival of Putin who had publicly accused the Kremlin of orchestrating the 1999 apartment bombings. Then there was the July 2014 shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH-17 over war-torn Eastern Ukraine, killing all 300 passengers and crew, which investigators believe was perpetrated by Russian-backed rebels. Although in this case the Kremlin-loyal alt-media has heavily pushed the theory, taking its cues from RT, that Ukraine’s military shot it down as a false-flag to blame Russia. Whatever the truth of that event, if Putin’s key role in the 1999 apartment bombings tells us anything, it’s that the Machiavellian Kremlin ruler is very much capable of killing his own people for political gain.
The post Ex-KGB Agent: Russia Sabotaged Own Metrojet Plane Over Sinai appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
Non-Aligned Media / Brandon Martinez
Donald Trump has condemned Bradley Manning, the US army analyst who leaked thousands of documents to Wikileaks, as an “ungrateful traitor” and criticized Obama’s recent decision to commute Manning’s 35-year prison sentence on espionage charges.
Ungrateful TRAITOR Chelsea Manning, who should never have been released from prison, is now calling President Obama a weak leader. Terrible!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 26, 2017
So Trump was all for Wikileaks when it was releasing damning material on Hillary Clinton during the campaign, but now he’s publicly ravaging Manning and opining that he should still be rotting in prison for exposing US army abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, according to Trump, Wikileaks was bad when it was making the US military look bad, but became “good” when it was making his political rival Clinton look bad.
Typical Trump: no true principles, just vein self-interest.
Wikileaks itself is a biased and untrustworthy organization. During the election Wikileaks made selective leaks damaging to the Clinton campaign, while avoiding any scrutiny of Trump, in a bid to take down the Democratic contender who Assange had a personal grudge with due to her joking about sending a drone after him.
But now that Trump is in power Wikileaks is calling on leakers to target him, bolstering their image as transparency stalwarts holding all those in power accountable. The organization has notably released almost nothing of significance about the misdeeds of any government other than the US, UK and EU bloc, as well as Western aligned countries in the Middle East like the Gulf states and Turkey. Wikileaks has yet to publish anything damaging to the governments of Russia, China or Israel, leading some to believe they are controlled opposition.
Assange himself is basically a Chomskyite who sees no other evil in the world except the US and its allies, deflecting criticism from the BRICS block on the basis that they are a “lesser evil”. Assange was even given his own television show on Russia Today, the Kremlin-backed network, called “The World Tomorrow” where he interviewed mostly left-wingers of the Chomsky variety on geopolitics.
If Assange ever decided to champion Russian dissidents and whistleblowers, RT would promptly cease favourable coverage of the cyber revolutionary and cast him asunder.
The post Trump Says US Army Whistleblower Bradley Manning is “Ungrateful Traitor” appeared first on Non-Aligned Media.
“Islam and the West at War,” reads a recent New York Times headline.
It would certainly seem that way if one were to take at face value the putrid assertions of Western governments that are not particularly known for their honesty or integrity. But astute observers of history and geopolitics can spot a deception when they see one, and the latest theatrical performances being marketed to the masses as real, organic occurrences remind one of a Monty Python sketch.
In the past week we have witnessed a number of expedient events that were designed to legitimize the West’s imperialist foreign policies in the minds of the masses. On Feb. 15 the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) released another highly choreographed and visually striking video depicting the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians. Shortly following the video’s release, the Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sissi launched air strikes against ISIS targets in Libya where the execution video was allegedly filmed, although experts are now saying that the production was faked.
ISIS’s continued provocations in the form of carefully crafted, emotionally impactful execution videos (real or faked), such as the recent immolation of a caged Jordanian pilot, cannot possibly be the work of rational actors seeking a military victory in any capacity. The videos only ever work to ISIS’s disadvantage, solidifying the resolve of their current ‘coalition’ opponents as well as creating new enemies upon every release.
Sixty-two countries and groups are presently fighting in the dubious ‘coalition’ against ISIS, most of which have modern militaries with advanced air and ground forces. Why in the world does ISIS continue to entice more countries to join the already over-crowded alliance against them? Why a group that purports to want to establish a ‘state’ which will ostensibly govern millions of people is deliberately seeking more and more enemies and a constant state of war with them beggars belief.
Does ISIS think it can do battle with the whole planet and achieve victory, culminating in world domination? How do people who harbor such ridiculous delusions have the wherewithal and resources at their disposal to organize and recruit thousands of fighters from around the world to an utterly ludicrous cause doomed to sheer failure? How can this be anything but a contrived prank of an operation?
The only logical conclusion that many analysts have come to is that ISIS does not represent a grassroots, organic movement, but rather operates entirely as a cat’s paw of Western foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa, which is concurrently under the domination of Israel. ISIS’s actions expressly benefit Muslims least of all and Israel/the West most of all, the extent of which increases with every new atrocity and outrage ISIS inflicts upon innocents in Iraq and Syria that gets endless play in Western media. In fact, the Western media’s obsession with ISIS is in and of itself an effective form of PR for the group. Western media outlets are consciously performing an unqualified service for ISIS’s recruiting efforts by affording the terrorist group ‘premium level branding’ that will attract criminally-inclined degenerates, Wahhabist religious zealots and disaffected, suicidal lowlifes from around the world to join a cause predestined to abject failure.
This senile ‘ISIS vs. The World’ spectacle is little more than a melodramatic screenplay engineered in a boardroom by professional propagandists and marketing aficionados. It resembles a classic ‘problem, reaction, solution’ dialectic of deceit. Who in their right mind believes the rancid mythology surrounding this orchestrated ‘good vs. evil’ Hollywood blockbuster?
Proxy Warriors: Cannon Fodder for the Empire
The West is not sincerely at odds with ISIS nor is it seeking to “degrade and destroy” the group, as US President Barrack Obama claims. One piece of information that undermines this good cop/bad cop puppet show is the West’s clandestine support of ISIS beginning with the artificial uprising in Libya. In 2011, the West openly sought to depose Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi, and did so by backing ISIS and al-Qaeda-affiliated rebel groups to do it. The maniac rebels who sodomized and then murdered Gaddafi in the street like a dog were hailed as ‘freedom fighters’ by the repellant thugs in Washington, Paris and London, and were fully aided and abetted with NATO air strikes against Gaddafi’s forces. The rebel victory in Libya was only made possible through Western military intervention. “We came, we saw, he died,” said Obama’s former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in reference to the assassination of Gaddafi by Washington’s foot soldiers, cackling like a witch at the demise of the Libyan potentate.
In a Nov. 19, 2014, article for Global Research, analyst Tony Cartalucci noted that the “so-called ‘rebels’ NATO had backed [in Libya] were revealed to be terrorists led by Al Qaeda factions including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).” During the manufactured ‘uprising’ Gaddafi routinely declared in public speeches that al-Qaeda was leading the way. “Gaddafi blames uprising on al-Qaeda,” read one Al Jazeera headline from February 2011. A March 2011 Guardian report spoke of how “hundreds of convicted members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an al-Qaida affiliate, have been freed and pardoned” under a “reform and repent” program headed by Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam. The same article acknowledged that the LIFG, which was established in Afghanistan in the 1990s, “has assassinated dozens of Libyan soldiers and policemen” since its founding and that Britain’s MI6 had previously supported the group. That group formed the backbone of the anti-Gaddafi insurgency, and received all manner of support from the West and allied Gulf sheikhdoms.
In the aforesaid Global Research article, Cartalucci outlines how the synthetic insurrection in Libya was spearheaded by al-Qaeda franchises that were later subsumed into ISIS. A February 2015 CNN report entitled “ISIS finds support in Libya” revealed that since the fall of Gaddafi, ISIS has established a large and menacing presence throughout the North African country. “The black flag of ISIS flies over government buildings,” according to CNN’s reportage. “Police cars carry the group’s insignia. The local football stadium is used for public executions.” It adds that, “Fighters loyal to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are now in complete control of the city of Derna, population of about 100,000, not far from the Egyptian border and just about 200 miles from the southern shores of the European Union.”
NATO effectively carpet-bombed Libya into rubble, paving a path of blood for ISIS and al-Qaeda death squads to seize power and institute their medieval ideology. That’s the reward for falling afoul of ‘the West’ and whatever drives it. Cartalucci further proved in another report entitled “Libyan Terrorists Are Invading Syria” that as soon as Gaddafi’s regime collapsed and rebel gangs emerged triumphant, thousands of battle-hardened and fanatical jihadist fighters took their Western training and weapons over to Syria to fight Bashar al-Assad in accordance with Washington’s ‘bait and switch’ scheme. Apparently, these hired mercenaries behave a lot like wild dogs chasing a piece of raw meat.
An absolutely identical scenario unfolded in Syria where Washington and its regional puppets led by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have been subsidizing the Islamist guerrillas from the outset. “Do you know of any major Arab ally of the US that embraces ISIL?” US Senator Lindsey Graham facetiously asked General Martin Dempsey at a Senate Armed Services Committee in 2014. To Graham’s surprise, Dempsey responded: “I know major Arab allies who fund them.” US Vice President Joe Biden himself confirmed this in an October 2014 speech wherein he told students at Harvard University that America’s Gulf allies – the Saudis and Qataris especially – were backing ISIS and Jahbat al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate) with substantive sums of arms and funds. A former US General, Thomas McInerney, told Fox News that the US government helped “build ISIS” by “backing some of the wrong people” and by facilitating weapons to al-Qaeda-linked Libyan rebels which ended up in the hands of ISIS militants in Syria. Retired US General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Wesley Clark, repeated this view in a February 2015 interview with CNN, saying that “ISIS got started through funding from our friends and allies [in the Gulf]” who sought to use religious fanatics to assail the Shia alliance of Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. “It’s like a Frankenstein,” he concluded.
A June 17, 2014, World Net Daily report highlights how Americans trained Syrian rebels who later joined ISIS in a secret base located in Jordan. Jordanian officials told WND’s Aaron Klein that “dozens of future ISIS members were trained [in a US run training facility in Jordan] at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.” Reports in Der Spiegel, the Guardian, Reuters and other mainstream outlets all confirmed that the US, Britain, France and their regional allies were training militants in secret bases in Jordan and Turkey as part of the West’s proxy war against the Assad regime.
The West has attempted to cover-up its support of ISIS and al-Qaeda elements by running a ‘two degrees of separation’ gambit. Washington claims to only provide support to ‘moderate, vetted’ rebel groupings, namely the Free Syrian Army (FSA), but this amounts to a calculated ruse to confound the credulous masses. FSA is the nom de gerre of a loose collection of rebel bandits who don’t operate under a central command framework or authority, rather acting independently or under the umbrella of other factions. Aron Lund, an expert on Syrian rebel groups, discerned in a March 2013 article titled “The Free Syrian Army Doesn’t Exist” that from the very beginning the FSA has been nothing more than a fictional branding operation.
During the initial stages of the insurgency, any militant faction in Syria looking for Western military aid called itself FSA and then took the weapons they received from the West straight to ISIS and Jahbat al-Nusra. The FSA functions as a conduit between Western governments and the Takfiri terrorists fighting Assad as well as an arms distribution network for them. In the aforesaid article, Lund explains that the FSA’s General Staff was set up in Turkey in 2012 “as a flag to rally the Western/Gulf-backed factions around, and probably also a funding channel and an arms distribution network, rather than as an actual command hierarchy.” Thousands of militants fighting under the FSA rubric have since joined or pledged allegiance to ISIS and al-Nusra.
Western governments know this and are apparently totally comfortable with it, revealing their bare complicity and collaboration with the Takfiri insurgents hell-bent on beheading their way to power in Syria and Iraq.
The Counterfeit Campaign
This inevitably creates confusion for people not studied in imperial geopolitics, especially after the West and its Gulf allies ‘declared war’ on ISIS in late 2014. The counterfeit campaign cannot be seen as anything other than a convenient, disingenuous volte-face maneuver designed to whitewash all of the aforementioned facts about the West’s dirty hands behind ISIS. Average plebs who receive all of their information from TV news channels won’t know about the West’s clandestine activities that effectively spawned ISIS and facilitated its rise to prominence in Iraq, Syria and Libya, so they will naturally take the West’s phony confrontation with ISIS at face value.
The West’s crusade to “degrade and destroy” ISIS is a preposterous hoax. In fact, evidence suggests that the West continues to covertly support ISIS with airdrops of weapons and supplies, whilst concurrently ‘bombing’ them in sketchy and deliberately ineffective air strikes.
Iran’s President Hassan Rohani called the US-led anti-ISIS coalition ‘a joke’ considering how many of its participants significantly helped bolster the terrorist group since its inception. In a January 2015 report, Iran’s Fars News Agency quotes a number of Iranian generals and Iraqi MPs who believe that the US is continuing to surreptitiously support ISIS with airdrops of weapons caches and other supplies. General Mohammad Reza Naqdi, a commander of Iran’s Basij (volunteer) Force, said that the US embassy in Baghdad is the “command center” for ISIS in the country. “The US directly supports the ISIL in Iraq and the US planes drop the needed aids and weapons for ISIL,” General Naqdi told a group of Basij forces in Tehran. Fars News cited Majid al-Gharawia, an Iraqi Parliamentary Security and Defense Commission MP, who said that the US are supplying ISIS with weapons and ammunition in a number of Iraqi jurisdictions.
An Iraqi security commission spoke of unidentified aircraft making drops to ISIS militants in Tikrit. Another senior Iraqi lawmaker, Nahlah al-Hababi, echoed these claims about US planes and other unidentified aircraft making deliveries to ISIS. She opined that, “The international coalition is not serious about air strikes on ISIL terrorists and is even seeking to take out the popular Basij (voluntary) forces from the battlefield against the Takfiris so that the problem with ISIL remains unsolved in the near future.” General Massoud Jazayeri, the Deputy Chief of Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces, called the US-led coalition against ISIS a farce. “The US and the so-called anti-ISIL coalition claim that they have launched a campaign against this terrorist and criminal group – while supplying them with weapons, food and medicine in Jalawla region (a town in Diyala Governorate, Iraq). This explicitly displays the falsity of the coalition’s and the US’ claims,” the general said.
The US military claims these air deliveries are mistakenly ending up in ISIS’s possession and that they were intended for Kurdish fighters, but such a ridiculous assertion rings hollow among the true opponents of ISIS – Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Shiite volunteers in Iraq. Meanwhile, the laughable nature of Washington’s anti-ISIS gambit is underscored by the fact that its initial air strikes against ISIS’s stronghold in Raqqa, Syria, in September 2014 did little more than destroy a bunch of empty buildings. CNN let slip that ISIS fighters had evacuated their command centers in the city 15 to 20 days before US air strikes commenced, indicating that they were probably tipped off. A Syrian opposition activist told ARA News that “the targeted places [in Raqqa], especially refineries, were set on fire, pointing out that IS militants evacuated their strongholds in the last two days to avoid the U.S.-led strikes.”
The Hidden Hand of Zionism
The sham rebellion in Syria was devised and executed by outsiders to serve a nefarious anti-Syrian agenda. All of this seems very confusing if one doesn’t take into consideration the destructive proclivities of the state of Israel in the region.
Israel has essentially used the United States as a cat’s paw in the Middle East, manipulating America’s Leviathan military to smash up her enemies. The formidable Israeli lobby inside the US and its neoconservative lackeys who are a dominant force in the war-making apparatus of the US Military Industrial Complex is a key factor driving the Washington foreign policy establishment’s intransigent approach to the Middle East. When it comes to Middle East policy, the Israelis always get their way. “America is a thing you can move very easily… in the right direction,” Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu once bragged. “Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We control America,” the former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon boasted.
The destruction of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt and other Middle Eastern and North African states is a long-standing Zionist policy plan dating back to the 1950s. In 1982 a stunning Israeli strategy paper was published which outlined with remarkable candor a vast conspiracy to weaken, subjugate and ultimately destroy all of Israel’s military rivals. The document was called “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” authored by Oded Yinon, a prominent thinker in Israeli Likud circles. In the vein of the Ottoman millet system, Yinon envisioned the dissolution of Israel’s neighbors and a new Middle East made up of fractured and fragmented Arab/Muslim countries divided into multiple polities along ethnic and religious lines. In Yinon’s mind, the less unified the Arabs and Muslims are the better for Israel’s designs. Better yet, have the Arabs and Muslims fight each other over land and partition themselves into obscurity. Yinon suggests a way to accomplish this, primarily by instigating civil strife in the Arab/Muslim countries which will eventually lead to their dismemberment.
In the document, Yinon specifically recommended:
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. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.
He later singled out Iraq as Israel’s most formidable enemy at the time, and outlined its downfall in these terms:
Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.
Yinon’s vision seems to be unfolding rapidly in Iraq which is today on the verge of partition with the Sunni extremists of ISIS seizing vast swaths of territory for their ‘caliphate’ and the Northern Kurds still battling for independence from Baghdad which is ruled by a Shia clique headed by Haider al-Abadi and Nour al-Maliki. Syria too looks to be falling victim to Yinon’s venomous whims as ISIS has wrested control of large chunks of Syrian territory and presently enforces its brutal sectarianism on the Eastern population of the country.
The themes and ideas in Yinon’s Machiavellian manifesto are still held dear today by the Likudnik rulers in Israel and their neocon patrons in the West. Pro-Israel neocons basically replicated Yinon’s proposals in a 1996 strategy paper intended as advice for Benjamin Netanyahu, although in less direct language. Their report titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” spoke of “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq” as an “important Israeli strategic objective” that serves as a means of weakening Syria. The Clean Break authors advised that Israel should militarily engage Hezbollah, Syria and Iran along its Northern border. They go on to suggest air strikes on Syrian targets in Lebanon as well as inside Syria-proper. They also stipulate that, “Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.”
These neocon recommendations seem to be playing out today like a perfectly gauged game of chess. The Syria crisis has unveiled Israel’s plans for destabilizing the region to their benefit. At many points since the unrest in Syria began in 2011, Israel has conducted air strikes on Syrian military sites, just as the Clean Break criminals encouraged. In a January 2015 interview with Foreign Affairs magazine, Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad made note of Israel’s incessant attacks against Syrian army installations during the conflict: “[Tel Aviv is] supporting the rebels in Syria. It’s very clear. Because whenever we make advances in some place, they make an attack in order to undermine the army.” Assad further described Israel as “al-Qaeda’s air force.”
Israel’s support of the Takfiri militants inside Syria goes beyond periodic air strikes in their favor. According to a 2014 UN report, Israel has been providing sanctuary and hospital care to thousands of anti-Assad terrorists, including those of ISIS and al-Nusra, and then dispatching them back into the fight. A Russia Today report on the issue headlined “UN details Israel helping Syrian rebels at Golan Heights” noted: “Israeli security forces have kept steady contacts with the Syrian rebels over the past 18 months, mainly treating wounded fighters but possibly supplying them with arms, UN observers at the Israeli-Syrian border reported.”
Israel’s gains in this situation are manifold. Tel Aviv has been using the fog of war to weaken its primary adversary in Damascus and consequently draw its other foes – Iran and Hezbollah – into the quandary, thereby diminishing their collective resolve to fight Israel itself. The Zionist regime not only views the Takfiris of ISIS and al-Nusra as a “lesser enemy,” but also as proxy mercenaries against Damascus, a strategy explicated in the neocons’ Clean Break document. In fact, Tel Aviv doesn’t view the Takfiris as much of a threat at all; a point that was validated by ISIS itself which declared that it is “not interested” in fighting Israel. “ISIS: Fighting ‘Infidels’ Takes Precedence Over Fighting Israel,” reads an August 2014 headline in Arutz Sheva, an Israeli news outlet.
The former Israeli ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, substantiated all of this in a September 2013 interview with the Jerusalem Post. “’Bad guys’ backed by Iran are worse for Israel than ‘bad guys’ who are not supported by the Islamic Republic,” he told the Post, adding that the “greatest danger” to Israel is “the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go.” Oren further remarked with glee about the total capitulation of the Gulf sheikhdoms – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates – to Israel’s itinerary vis-à-vis Syria, Iran and the Palestinian issue, observing that “in the last 64 years there has probably never been a greater confluence of interest between us and several Gulf States. With these Gulf States we have agreements on Syria, on Egypt, on the Palestinian issue. We certainly have agreements on Iran. This is one of those opportunities presented by the Arab Spring.”
Roland Dumas, France’s former foreign minister, confirmed Israeli intrigue behind Syria’s internal woes. In a June 15, 2013, article for Global Research, journalist Gearóid Ó Colmáin quotes Dumas who told a French TV channel that the turmoil in Syria, which has cost the lives of more than 100,000 Syrians, was planned several years in advance. Dumas claimed that he met with British officials two years before the violence erupted in Damascus in 2011 and at the meeting they confessed to him “that they were organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria.” When asked for his support in the endeavor, Dumas declined, saying, “I’m French, that doesn’t interest me.’’ Dumas further pinpointed the architects of the madness as Israeli Zionists, suggesting that the Syria destabilization operation “goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived and planned [by the Israeli regime].” Dumas noted that Syria’s anti-Israel stance sealed its fate in this respect and also revealed that a former Israeli prime minister once told him “we’ll try to get on with our neighbours but those who don’t agree with us will be destroyed.”
“Israel planned this war of annihilation years ago in accordance with the Yinon Plan, which advocates balkanization of all states that pose a threat to Israel,” writes Gearóid Ó Colmáin in the aforesaid piece. “The Zionist entity is using Britain and France to goad the reluctant Obama administration into sending more American troops to their death in Syria on behalf of Tel Aviv.”
Ó Colmáin argues that the West “are doing [Israel’s] bidding by attempting to drag [the United States] into another ruinous war so that Israel can get control of the Middle East’s energy reserves, eventually replacing the United States as the ruling state in the world. It has also been necessary for Tel Aviv to remain silent so as not to expose their role in the ‘revolutions’, given the fact that the Jihadist fanatics don’t realize they are fighting for Israel.”
ISIS: A Repository of Patsies for the False Flaggers
At long last, this brings us to the ‘second phase’ of the ISIS psyop: scaring Westerners into submission.
It’s no coincidence that the notorious belligerence of ISIS in its quest for a ‘caliphate’ aligns perfectly with the neocon agenda which aims to inculcate in the minds of the masses the myth of a ‘clash of civilizations’ between the West and Islam. In its official magazine, Dabiq, ISIS ideologues advanced a parallel attitude with the neocon desire for a civilizational conflict. Is that merely happenstance? Or has ISIS been manufactured by the neocons to serve as the ultimate boogeyman and straw man caricature of ‘Islamic radicalism’?
The godfather of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, espoused a dogma of deception, stipulating that in order to corral society behind the wishes of an elite vanguard an ‘external enemy’ must be fashioned. This ‘enemy’ could be real, but enemies usually exist in the eye of the beholder and in the minds of those seeking opposition. Strauss made it clear that if this societal ‘enemy’ did not exist or was not formidable enough to generate an adequate amount of fear required to paralyze and manipulate the masses, then one should be invented or inflated and then advertised to the populace as a real, pressing danger.
For the neocons, this phantom nemesis forms the crux of their strategy of subjugation. Without it, the public would never consent to their lunatic foreign policies, nor would anyone feel threatened enough to willingly relinquish their freedoms in the name of security. This is what ISIS is all about.
As demonstrated earlier, ISIS was cultivated by our own governments to destabilize and ultimately overthrow various regimes in the Middle East and North Africa that fell astray of the Globalist-Zionist program. The Western media has purposely marketed the ISIS ‘brand’ across the globe, making it a household name. The Zionist globalists built up ISIS to do their bidding abroad, but despite media sensationalism the group is not nearly strong enough to pose any serious threat to Western countries. So while ISIS represents no legitimate military threat to the West, its global reputation for brutality and obscene violence is seen as a fantastic propaganda tool to frighten Western populations into consenting to the extirpation of their freedoms at home.
The Zionist globalists have put that carefully crafted ISIS image to work, fabricating a series of perfectly timed ‘terror events’ inside Western countries which have been used to curtail freedoms under the guise of ‘keeping us safe from the terrorists.’ What the gullible commoners don’t realize is that these ‘terrorists’ are controlled by our own governments and are being wielded against us to vindicate the construction of an Orwellian police state.
The string of ‘lone-wolf’ attacks that hit Ottawa, Sydney, Paris and now Copenhagen over the past five months since the West first ‘declared war’ on ISIS are all part of an organized neocon strategy of tension. The intelligence agencies of the West and Israel stand behind them all. In every case, the ‘terrorists’ had long histories of mental illness and/or frequent run-ins with the law; the standard rap-sheet of a patsy whose innumerable weaknesses are exploited by government agents to produce a type-cast ‘fall guy’ to play the part of the ‘wily gunman’ who ‘hates our freedoms.’ ISIS therefore in effect provides the false flag con artists who control our governments with an inexhaustible wellspring of patsies for their operations.
As the researcher Joshua Blakeney pointed out, “Some peasant in Yemen may be angry [enough at the West to want to harm it] but he [could] never [physically carry out] such an attack without it being made possible by the false-flag planners.” A ‘let it happen’ or a ‘made it happen’ scenario amounts to the same thing – without the connivance of the government in question there is no ‘attack’ to even discuss. Since ISIS is a ‘global’ phenomenon, according to our controlled media, authorities don’t even have to prove that these deranged individuals are members of the group. All they have to say is that they were ‘inspired’ by the group’s message which can be accessed online, and that’s enough to indict them in the court of public opinion. Even if all that were true, it still wouldn’t eliminate potential state involvement, which usually comes in the form of equipping the dupe with the necessary armaments to execute the plot and preventing well-meaning police and intelligence people from intervening to stop it. These are the kinds of queries the West’s big media patently refuses to pursue, knowing full well that the state is almost always complicit with, and keen to exploit, whatever tragedy befalls their population.
All of the latest traumatic terror events in Western capitals have been instantly branded by lying, cynical politicians as attacks on ‘free speech’ and the ‘values of Western civilization,’ a familiar trope first trotted out by George W. Bush and his neocon puppet masters after the false flag attacks of 9/11.
However, what many are starting to realize is that whatever threat some mind controlled junkie might pose to our lives, our own governments are a markedly more dangerous menace to our liberties, well being and way of life. They prove this point every single day with a manifold of new freedom-busting laws that they pass using the comical excuse of protecting us from their own Frankenstein.
That’s the simple truth of the matter that the neocon false flaggers seek to suppress at all costs as they desperately hold up the façade of their artificial power which will inevitably collapse under its own weight.
Many are hailing the recent nuclear agreement between the P5+1 powers and Iran as “historic” and a political “breakthrough,” the turning of a new leaf of peace and reconciliation between the West and the Islamic Republic.
Such sentiments, while good intentioned, are naïve at best. As we learned all too clearly with the US-led deposition and destruction of numerous regimes once held up as allies, such as those of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Panama’s Manuel Noriega among others, the US-led West has never been an honest broker in international relations, but rather a habitually deceitful and untrustworthy wildcard.
Geopolitical analyst Tony Cartalucci mined a prescient quote from a June 2009 strategy paper produced by the Zionist-dominated Brookings Institution, an influential foreign policy think tank.[1] The paper titled “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran,” a virtual manifesto for regime change in Iran, outlined a plethora of duplicitous and downright criminal strategies to effect the downfall of Tehran, including the sponsoring of terrorists within Iran’s borders to weaken the regime, financing opposition groups and protestors to cause internal strife, instigating and backing a military coup, economic sabotage and outright military invasion. Cartalucci discovered that the authors of the paper also proposed an elaborate ploy involving a too good to be true “deal” that would be offered to Iran but which would be surreptitiously scuttled so that Washington could then portray the Iranians as belligerent, and thereby win public support for a “military solution” as the only viable option against an “uncompromising” Tehran.
They wrote:
“… any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians ‘brought it on themselves’ by refusing a very good deal.”[2]
Such a scenario fits nicely with the current predicament. As suggested by the Brookings neocons years ago, a “deal” with Iran such as the one just signed and dated in Vienna could be intentionally sabotaged at a later date as a prelude to instigate future aggression against the Iranian government under the pretext that it did not uphold its end of the bargain.
Signals in that direction have already begun to manifest. Immediately following the conclusion of the P5+1-Iran negotiations, Hilary Clinton, the top Democratic contender in next year’s American election, issued a veiled threat against Iran, suggesting that regardless of the new deal “military options” are still on the table should Iran fail to live up to its obligations under the new arrangement.[3]
In a display of solidarity with the Zionist extremists, Clinton has pledged to invite the Israeli leadership to Washington immediately if she becomes president next year to allegedly ‘strengthen ties’ (as if such ties weren’t already engraved in stone). A more plausible motive for the hurried potential meeting may be an effort by Clinton to coordinate with the Israelis some sort of exit strategy out of the nascent US-Iran accord.
Clinton’s hawkish position on Iran echoes the bellicose line taken by Israeli Zionists who have, since at least the 1990’s, sought to weaken and ultimately overthrow the government in Tehran. A 1996 strategy paper authored by Jewish neocon stalwarts (and later Bush Administration officials) Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser under the auspices of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), a Jerusalem-based pro-Israel think tank[4], contained some telling prescriptions which would presage later developments in the region. For example, it specifically called for a regime change in Iraq as well as destabilization operations directed towards undermining Syria and Iran.
In the document, which was titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” and offered as advice for the Likud regime of Benjamin Netanyahu,[5] the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was hailed as an “important Israeli strategic objective” that would serve to precipitate the demise of both Syria and Iran. The Zionist militarist thinkers encouraged proxy warfare against Syria using Israeli-controlled “proxy forces” emanating from Lebanon to launch attacks against Damascus – a near exact foreshadowing of what is currently transpiring with ISIS and its affiliates rampaging across the Levant. They further advised that Israel should conduct air strikes against Syrian targets to weaken the regime as insurgents lay siege to the country from within. That suggestion has come to pass exactly as inferred, which has prompted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to refer to Israel as “al-Qaeda’s air force.”[6]
In a March 2007 report published in the New Yorker, award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh revealed a US-Israeli-Saudi conspiracy to organize and execute a rebel invasion of Syria.[7] Hersh’s reportage disclosed that the Americans and Israelis, using the Wahhabi regime of Saudi Arabia as a conduit for plausible deniability purposes, planned to finance and bolster “Sunni extremist groups” and other malcontents that would be thrust against Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, serving as a precursor to a confrontation with Iran. The interested parties looked upon removing Iran’s principal ally in Damascus as a necessary precondition to clear the way for military action against Tehran.
2007 was also the year that the Bush Administration initiated a covert war against Iran. In a May 2007 article titled “Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran,” ABC News unveiled that the American CIA “received secret presidential approval to mount a covert ‘black’ operation to destabilize the Iranian government.”[8] Citing then-current and former US intelligence officials, the investigative report explained that Washington commenced a CIA sabotage operation against Iran that “include[d] a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions.” The White House plan further instructed the CIA to provide largesse and other forms of support to anti-Iranian terrorists, primarily the Jundullah and People’s Mujahideen of Iran (MEK) terror groups that have vowed to destroy the “clerical regime” in Tehran. A related ABC News report from a month earlier noted that the Jundullah terror group was “responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran” and “has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005.”[9]
Seymour Hersh confirmed much of this in a July 2008 report for the New Yorker. In the article titled “Preparing the Battlefield,” Hersh explained:
“Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.”[10]
Hersh elucidated that while clandestine activities against Iran were not new (as of 2008) “the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded.” Hersh also mentioned that the MEK, an organization that was for years on the US government’s list of proscribed ‘terrorist groups,’ was benefitting from American largesse and received weapons caches and logistical support from the CIA to coordinate attacks against Iranian targets.
A February 2012 NBC News story highlighted the substantial support given to MEK by Israel’s secret service, Mossad, which has for years been sponsoring the militant group to conduct assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. US officials told NBC News that “[d]eadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group [MEK] that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service.”[11] The Israeli-backed assassinations, the NBC article continued, “which have killed five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 and may have destroyed a missile research and development site, have been carried out in dramatic fashion, with motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior of the victims’ cars.”
Such unscrupulous scheming against the sovereignty and well-being of Iran is designed to weaken its resolve and force it to capitulate if not collapse entirely. While US and Israeli officials spew absurd canards about the ‘threat’ Iran poses, the shadow policy makers in the Washington ‘think tank’ community freely acknowledge that Tehran’s foreign policy is purely security-oriented and defensive in nature.[12] It is the Islamic Republic’s ability to maintain its territorial integrity and stave off foreign aggression that truly worries the imperialists in Washington and Tel Aviv who seek to convert Iran into just another subservient appendage of the American-Zionist imperium.
Unlike the Persian nation, which has not attacked any of its neighbours in hundreds of years, it is the war-makers in the West and Israel who represent the real ‘threat’ to global peace and stability, having perpetually invaded and interfered in the internal affairs of sovereign states for decades.
The aforementioned “Which Path to Persia?” strategy document lays bare who the true aggressors are.[13] In the absence of any legitimate rationale for the US to launch an invasion of Iran, the warmongers behind the report advised that “it would be best to wait for an Iranian provocation.” Conceding that such a provocation was unlikely to manifest any time soon, if at all, they recommended that Washington “could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would” do something that could be used as a justification for war. They went even further with this line of thought, stating that,
“it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)”[14]
In plain words, the Brookings strategists shamelessly advocate breaching international law to deliberately provoke a peaceful nation into a retaliatory action that would then be propagandistically used to rubber-stamp a pre-arranged military assault designed to expedite US-Israeli imperial purposes. Should these people not be on trial for pre-meditated mass murder and incitement to genocide?
The reprehensible anti-Iranian document was published under the patronage of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy[15], established in 2002 by Israeli-American media mogul Haim Saban, a man who has said that his primary commitment in life is “to protect Israel” by “strengthening the United States-Israel relationship.”[16] At a 2009 conference in Israel, Saban outlined his winning strategy aimed at harnessing the American Empire in Israel’s favour: “make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets.”[17] Of the six contributors to the “Which Path to Persia?” paper, four are Jewish: Kenneth M. Pollack, Daniel L. Byman, Bruce Riedel and Martin Indyk (the former US ambassador to Israel).[18]
Richard Clawson, another neocon foreign policy hawk from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP)[19], publicly advocated similarly treacherous tactics as the folks at Brookings. In a 2012 speech he forthrightly called for the US or Israel to engineer a false-flag ‘war trigger’ incident to ignite a full-scale military collision with Iran. “Crisis initiation is really tough. And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran,” Clawson said with demented hubris.[20] He then outlined how nearly every major American war was precipitated by a calamitous “event” that plunged the nation into combat: the attack on Fort Sumter (US Civil War), the explosion on the USS Maine (Spanish-American war), the sinking of the Lusitania (World War I), Pearl Harbour (World War II), the Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnam war). He implied that all of these episodes were tacitly desired (and perhaps provoked) by various US administrations that otherwise had paltry grounds to involve America in those conflicts. Clawson further remarked that if the Iranians refuse to bow to American pressure by way of economic sanctions, then “covert means” of subversion could be employed to escalate the situation. Specifically, he said:
“So if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war. One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean, look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down, and some day one of them might not come up. Who would know why? We can do a variety of things if we wished to increase the pressure. I’m not advocating that, but I’m just suggesting that this is not an either or proposition… We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that.”
Clawson’s think tank employer WINEP is an offshoot of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington. WINEP was founded by AIPAC’s former Deputy Director of Research Martin Indyk who now serves as Vice President and Director for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution.[21] Former AIPAC member MJ Rosenberg described WINEP as an “AIPAC controlled think-tank that would disseminate the AIPAC line but in a way that would disguise its connections.”[22]
In early 2007, foreign policy veteran Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former advisor to ex-US President Jimmy Carter, warned a Senate Foreign Relations Committee that these Zionist neocons might be preparing a false-flag provocation to kick-start the pre-planned war with Iran, which he opposed.[23] Whether Brzezinski had been drawing from the odious output of Zionist-sponsored think tanks like PNAC, Brookings and WINEP or had inside information through his contacts in the US intelligence community is unknown.
Some geopolitical analysts have over-emphasized Brzezinski’s role in recent US foreign policy gambits, even today portraying him as the ‘master strategist’ behind the Obama presidency. This effort appears designed to assist disinformation intended to shift attention and focus from Israel and US-based Jewish Zionists who are the driving force, and indeed the ideological godfathers, behind neoconservatism itself.[24] While Brzezinski and other US foreign policy “realists” are contemptible in their own right, the ever more adventurous and militant Jewish-Zionist faction of the elite appears to have sidelined the likes of Brzezinski and other “traditional” US imperialist types. The analysts who do this should perhaps be scrutinized for undisclosed sympathies with Israel and Zionism.
All in all, it is incontestable that the US and Israel are the foremost belligerents, aggressors and destabilizers throughout the world. These imperial forces relentlessly target countries like Iran that simply seeks to exercise its right to self-determination. This self-evident truth is plainly discernable and hidden in open view if one took the care to read through the hubristic musings of imperial-oriented think tanks that have set the West on an endless warpath towards Armageddon.
Notes
[1] Tony Cartalucci, “Warning: Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not ‘Breakthrough’,” Land Destroyer Report, July 14, 2015. http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ca/2015/07/warning-nuclear-deal-with-iran-prelude.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] “Clinton: Military options against Iran ‘not off the table’ if necessary,” Press TV, July 15, 2015. http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/07/15/420301/Clinton-Military-options-Iran
[4] http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Institute_for_Advanced_Strategic_and_Political_Studies
[5] Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 1996. Full paper: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm
[6] “Assad: Israel is al Qaeda’s air force,” Ynet News, Jan. 25, 2015. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4619141,00.html
[7] Seymour Hersh, “The Redirection,” The New Yorker, March 2007. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection
[8] Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, “Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran,” ABC News, May 24, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20080331070405/http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html
[9] Brian Ross and Christopher Isham, “ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran,” ABC News, April 9, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20100328134429/http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html
[10] Seymour Hersh, “Preparing the Battlefield,” The New Yorker, July 7, 2008. https://web.archive.org/web/20150714110051/http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/07/07/preparing-the-battlefield
[11] “Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran’s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News,” NBC News, Feb. 9, 2012. https://web.archive.org/web/20130310042855/http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02/08/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-group-to-kill-irans-nuclear-scientists-us-officials-tell-nbc-news
[12] Tony Cartalucci, “Brookings’ ‘Which Path to Persia?’”, Land Destroyer Report, 2011. http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ca/2011/02/brookings-which-path-to-persia.html
[13] Tony Cartalucci, “Which Path to Persia?: Redux,” Land Destroyer Report, May 18, 2011. http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ca/2011/05/which-path-to-persia-redux.html Original document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/108902116/Brookings-Institution-s-Which-Path-to-Persia-Report
[14] Ibid.
[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Middle_East_Policy
[16] Connie Bruck, “The Influencer: An entertainment mogul sets his sights on foreign policy,” The New Yorker, May 10, 2010. http://web.archive.org/web/20110606231320/http:/www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/05/10/100510fa_fact_bruck
[17] Ibid.
[18] http://www.scribd.com/doc/108902116/Brookings-Institution-s-Which-Path-to-Persia-Report
[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy
[20] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfoaLbbAix0
[21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Indyk
[22] Geoffrey Ingersoll, “Lobbyist Says Israel Should Create A ‘False Flag’ To Start A War With Iran,” Business Insider, Sept. 26, 2012. http://www.businessinsider.com/top-researcher-suggests-israel-get-nastier-with-iran-sink-sub-illicit-false-flag-2012-9
[23] Paul Watson, “Brzezinski Suggests False Flag Event Could Kick-Start Iran War,” Prison Planet, Feb. 6, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20110428203445/http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/060207falseflag.htm
[24] Gal Beckerman, “The Neoconservative Persuasion Examining the Jewish roots of an intellectual movement,” The Forward, Jan. 6, 2006. https://web.archive.org/web/20120304145938/http:/galbeckerman.com/crit9/
So Russia has launched an air campaign in Syria to allegedly defend the embattled Assad regime. While this action will undoubtedly tickle the fancy of Putin’s diehard supporters in anti-Zionist circles, it does not undermine the logical, factual inferences I laid out in my recent essay.
The bottom line is this: Putin is not an “anti-Zionist.” He has never been one and he will never truly be one. As I noted in the essay, Russia and Israel have much more in common than Russia has with any Arab, Muslim-majority state.
Russia’s alliance with Syria and Iran is based on economic pragmatism, not ideological kinship. It is essentially no different than the Kremlin’s strong partnership with Erdogan’s Turkey, Al-Sissi’s Egypt, and Modi’s India, the only difference being the latter three countries are not being threatened by the West or Israel at the moment because they are all neutralized on the Palestine question and submit to Western economic and geopolitical demands.
At no point has Putin expressed support for the principled rhetoric emanating from Tehran with regards to Israel. He has in fact condemned it as “irresponsible and counterproductive.” Putin has extremely friendly and cordial relations with Israel and hardly ever criticizes the belligerent Netanyahu regime. And when he does it is exceedingly mild in tone and narrow in scope, resembling the kind of feeble, politically correct stuff we hear from official opposition parties in Britain, Canada and elsewhere in Europe.
The claim that Putin is a secret anti-Zionist working against Israel is undermined by Russia’s strong economic, political and military cooperation with Israel. It is undercut by Putin’s own statements to the contrary, most especially his characterization of Israel as a “special state to us” whose “struggle” he “supports.” It is discredited by virtue of the fact that Putin himself has identified Israel’s large Russian population as holding a special place in his heart, whose well-being he “will always care about.” With these facts in mind, it is relatively straightforward to conclude that Putin’s Russia will never confront or seek to undermine the existence of Israel in its current configuration.
While paying lip service to the two-state solution, Putin has never suggested that Israel should even retreat back to its 1967 borders, as many ‘pragmatic’ pro-Palestinian activists advocate. The Palestinian “state” that Putin envisions is the same one that the Zionist-subservient Western regimes foresee: a totally disarmed, rump state with no capacity to resist aggression from Israel. Putin would not even dream about suggesting Israel pay reparations to Palestinians nor will he likely ever champion the “right of return” of the Palestinian refugees currently scattered across the Levant.
On Syria and Iran, the best we can attribute to Putin is a desire to maintain a quasi “balance of power” between them and Israel, but he is definitely content with Israel having the upper hand over all of its neighbours, militarily speaking. Putin has never pressured Israel to abandon its nuclear or chemical weapons stockpiles, nor would he ever do so because 1) he’s not opposed to Israeli military supremacy, and 2) that would call into question Russia’s own possession of such weapons. Moreover, it was Russia that spearheaded the effort to disarm Syria of its advanced chemical weapons, which was advantageous to Tel Aviv.
Putin’s foreign policy is motivated by business concerns and power politics, not moralism or idealism. Putin is not acting against ISIS in Syria because it’s the “right thing to do” or because he actually has an aversion to terrorism. Like all self-serving statesmen, Putin disingenuously decries terrorism and violence that jeopardizes the interests of his regime, whilst concurrently employing terrorism, violence and coercion which buttresses it. In all likelihood, Putin and his FSB henchmen masterminded false flag terrorist bombings in Russian apartment complexes in 1999, thereby securing Putin’s position as a neo-Czar and perennial ruler of Russia. Putin’s political trump card was his Israeli-modeled ‘war on terror’ in Chechnya – a heinous and dirty conflict rife with Russian duplicity, deception, false flags, agent provocateurs and all the usual imperial dirty tricks. That murderous and savage campaign extinguished the lives of around 100,000 Chechens. But for some peculiar reason, Chechen lives mean little to Putin’s diehard groupies, even the ones who claim to be anti-imperialists. Palestinian lives matter; Iranian, Afghani, Syrian, Libyan and Iraqi lives matter; but not Chechens.
The reality is that Putin is pursuing this campaign in Syria because it is a sure way for him to boost his global prestige, and perhaps to pressure Washington to lay off its support of anti-Russian elements in Ukraine. Anything that irritates the Washington/EU consensus is beneficial to Putin’s political game at this point. So it makes sense, from the standpoint of Putin’s self-interest, for him to finally – after four long years of inaction and straddling the sidelines – intervene in Syria in support of Assad as a jab at Washington.
Of course, the naysayers and complainers who deplore my reasoned critiques of Putin predictably level false accusations at me, such as that I’m “with the West” or some such nonsense. The skewed logic here is that since the West and Russia are, at least on the surface, at logger-heads right now, then not supporting Putin somehow equals an endorsement of Western policy. This is not only bad logic but it’s dishonest and obviously a misrepresentation of my views. One can simultaneously critique the West, Israel and Russia. It is perfectly reasonable and consistent to view them all unfavourably.
Secondly, I don’t endorse or support Western belligerence towards Russia. But a consistent anti-imperialist would also condemn Russia’s aggression and belligerence in its own sphere of influence, which is where Putin’s ugly side is the most potent. And, as is typical of the Kremlinites, it’s not a sufficient excuse to write-off all of Moscow’s misconduct as over-reactions to Western intrigue. That’s a convenient excuse that Moscow uses to commit crimes and run roughshod on its neighbours. It would be akin to Washington justifying all of its invasive and coercively criminal policies in Latin America under the pretense that Russia was influencing the region and cultivating pro-Russian, anti-US outposts. In fact, that’s exactly how Washington rubber-stamped its crusade of coups and proxy wars across Latin America during the Cold War. Russia did the same and continues to do it today.
From the other angle, NATO was ostensibly established to counter Russian expansionism in Europe, which was clearly a reality post-WW2 as Stalin consumed half the continent under the Red Army jackboot. Despite the apologetics of zealous Russophiles, Soviet imperialism was a real phenomenon, and NATO was set-up as a competing gang.
Western hostility towards Putin is an illustration of globalist gangwars. The criticism of Putin and Russia that appears on Fox News or from the mouth of the reprobate John Mccain is insincere and obviously comes from an amoral place. It is mostly stupid, American exceptionalist chest-beating and jingoistic crap. Gangsters, crooks and criminals badmouth their competition all the time. Gangs and organized criminal groups war with each other. Criminal states also do battle against each other. The US is a criminal state, Britain is a criminal state, Israel is a criminal state; Russia and China are also criminal states.
On the other hand, my critiques of Putin and Russia are obviously not coming from a pathetic jingoistic Western perspective, but from an anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist, moralist vantage point.
It’s understandable that people disaffected with Western foreign policy find it refreshing to see a world leader stand up to the Washington-NATO axis and not kowtow to their crazy agenda. But it should not go unstated that on a smaller level, those who refuse to bend to Moscow’s regional desires meet a similar dismal fate to those who fall afoul of the West. Few have heard the name of Dzhokhar Dudayev, the first Chechen President who was assassinated by Russia in a laser-guided missile attack in 1996, or Aslan Maskhadov, the second President of Chechnya also killed by Russian special forces thugs.
Exposing and critiquing Western and Zionist foreign policies has been my forte, so any suggestion that my opposition to Putin’s Russia stems from sympathy for the West falls completely flat. These simpletons and Kremlinites not only impute false motives onto me but they ignore Putin’s history of complicity with the West, such as his initial embrace of the West’s “war on terror,” as well as his cooperation with and appeasement of Israel.
With that said, Syria’s predicament is such that Assad is looking for help from anywhere he can get it. And if it comes from a gangster like Putin, then so be it. As an outside observer I’m able to critique all of the bad actors and hold them all to a high moral standard, whereas Assad simply doesn’t have that luxury, especially in the precarious position he finds himself in.
However, Putin’s sordid past and corrupt ascent to power on the Zionized “anti-jihadist” warrior ticket should matter to those who presently support him and his duplicitous politics. Putin’s dodgy activities in the KGB, his use of false flag terrorism, his war crimes in the North Caucasus and involvement in the murders of many dissident Russian journalists and whistleblowers should be a cause for concern and skepticism of the former KGB spy.
It’s unlikely that those in desperate search for a “saviour” will heed my warnings though.
