Monday, November 30, 2015

Stunning analysis of 9-11 and Back to the Future. You won't believe your eyes.

Stunning analysis of 9-11 and Back to the Future. You won't believe your eyes.





Stunning analysis of 9-11 and Back to the Future. You won't be...
Stunning analysis of 9-11 and Back to the Future. You won't believe your eyes.
Posted by The Change Agent: Brendan D. Murphy on Thursday, October 22, 2015






Am I alone in worrying that America today is designed to provoke chaos and corruption ?

When The Narrative Breaks

Tyler Durden's picture


 
Sometimes societies just go crazy. Japan, 1931, Germany, 1933. China, 1966. Spain 1483, France, 1793, Russia, 1917, Cambodia, 1975, Iran, 1979, Rwanda, 1994, Congo, 1996, to name some. By “crazy” I mean a time when anything goes, especially mass killing. The wheels came off the USA in 1861, and though the organized slaughter developed an overlay of romantic historical mythos — especially after Ken Burns converted it into a TV show — the civilized world to that time had hardly ever seen such an epic orgy of death-dealing.
I doubt that I’m I alone in worrying that America today is losing its collective mind. Our official relations with other countries seem perfectly designed to provoke chaos. The universities have melted into toxic sumps beyond even anti-intellectualism to a realm of hallucination. Demented gunmen mow down total strangers weekly in what looks like a growing competition to end their miserable lives with the highest victim score. The financial engineers have done everything possible to pervert and undermine the operations of markets. The political parties are committing suicide by cluelessness and corruption.
There is no narrative for our behavior toward Russia that makes sense anymore. Our campaign to destabilize Ukraine worked out nicely, didn’t it? And then we acted surprised when Russia reclaimed the traditionally Russian territory of Crimea, with its crucial warm-water naval ports. Who woulda thought? Then we attempted to antagonize them further with economic sanctions. The net effect is that Vladimir Putin ended up looking more rational and sane than any leader in the NATO coalition.
Lately, Russia has filled the vacuum of competence in Syria, cleaning up a mess that America left with its two-decade-long crusade to leave a train of broken governments everywhere in the region. A few weeks back, Mr. Putin made the point before the UN General Assembly that wrecking every national institution in sight among weak and unstable nations was probably not a recipe for world peace. President Obama never did formulate a coherent comeback to that. It’s a little terrifying to realize that the leader of our former arch-adversary is the only figure onstage who can come up with a credible story about what needs to happen there. And his restraint this week following what may have been a US-assisted shoot-down of a Russian bomber by idiots in Turkey is really estimable. It all looks like a feckless slide provoked by our side into World War III, and for what? To make the world safe for the Kardashians?
The uproars on campus before Thanksgiving are more a reflection on the astounding cowardice of college presidents than the foolishness of young minds — which, being not fully formed, are easily susceptible to idealist figments. The adults in charge ought to know better. Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber actually entertained the “demand” to erase Woodrow Wilson’s presence on campus for being an arch-segregationist by a black “social justice league” that at the very same time demanded separate (i.e. segregated) social space for blacks only. How did he reconcile these pleadings in his own mind, I wonder.
President Biddy Martin of Amherst pandered to students protesting against free speech, saying:
“Over the course of several days, a significant number of students have spoken eloquently and movingly about their experiences of racism and prejudice on and off campus.  The depth and intensity of their pain and exhaustion are evident.  That pain is real.  Their expressions of loneliness and sense of invisibility are heartrending.  No attempt to minimize or trivialize those feelings will be convincing to those of us who have listened.  It is good that our students have seized this opportunity to speak, rather than further internalizing the isolation and lack of caring they have described.”
Bottom line: hurt feelings supposedly cancel free speech. No, that’s exactly the opposite of the meaning of the First Amendment. How can a college president fail to understand that and fail to defend the campus against that sort of Jacobin despotism? The answer is they are hostage to dogmas cooked up by race-and-identity careerists who don’t really care to make distinctions between what is true and what is not true — and that is now the official tone of higher education in America. It’s a short hop from there to not knowing the difference between what is real and what is unreal.
The phenomenon of demented lone gunmen killing strangers and innocents will morph into civil insurrection, especially as the major political parties break apart and the loosed factions set out to settle their old scores by whatever means they can. History knows that violence is infectious and that social inhibitions melt away when the conditions are ripe. Groups give themselves permission to act outside the bounds of normal behavior, and all of a sudden atrocity is the order of the day.
Both Trump and Hillary have the mojo to destroy their respective parties and I think the probability is that they will. Unfortunately, we don’t live under a parliamentary system that recognizes smaller factions as legitimate parties, so we are sure to live through an era of political disorder. What emerges from that could be a very severe polity, since it will be based on the wish to restore order at all costs.
It is likely to get the shove it needs from the implosion of the financial system, which is now running on the fumes of dwindling credit. A false capitalism reigns based on false capital — notional wealth where there is really no wealth; value where there is no value. Moments like this in history beat a path straight to currency collapse, and that will open the door to a greater collapse of all our familiar arrangements.
Surely there is some kind of massive unseen sensory organ in societies that receives the signal that systems are failing. And surely it spooks the individuals who make up those societies so badly that they will believe anything and do anything.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Fucking Americans!: Why don't they just give arms to every Nazi or Terrorist Nation on Earth

Fucking Americans!: Why don't they just give arms to every Nazi or Terrorist Nation on Earth

On the eve of the anniversary of the revolution of a gidnost Ukraine has received a truly Royal gift. She finally returned to the top list of the world's news agencies. This time, the country of victorious democracy has become famous for that was one of the suppliers of weapons to the ISIS.
Member of the "Islamic state", who was detained in Kuwait, said that some weapons terrorists bought through intermediaries on the territory of Ukraine.
This is with reference to the Kuwaiti news Agency, writes the Associated Press.
According to police, the detainee also admitted that he participated in transactions for the purchase of weapons in Ukraine, and then used Turkey as a route to smuggle it to Syria controlled by the Islamists territory.
Actually, nothing surprising. Country, from the economy not in tatters, is able to replenish the budget is by weapons, transit of drugs and the legalization of prostitution.
There are several factors indicating that Kuwaiti terrorist is telling the truth. First of all, not so long ago in the network leaked the phone records of the Odessa Governor Saakashvili. They discussed the delivery to Syria anti-aircraft missile systems.
The easiest way covert supply of weapons to Syria from Ukraine — by sea. The port of Odessa the most suitable for these purposes. Now it becomes clear very controversial appointment of Saakashvili to the post of the Odessa Governor, and even more high-profile appointment to the post of the chief of customs protégé Georgian halloaed Maruszewski.
Given the fact that Saakashvili is the protege of the state Department, and not so long ago there was information that the United States buys to be sent to Syria with Soviet weapons in the former Soviet bloc, things get very interesting.
Can't leave without attention the statement of the participant of anti-terrorist operation, the Punisher of the volunteer battalion of special forces "Kiev-2" Igor Savchuk, published on the Ukrainian website on 29 October this year.
The article title is impressive: "Russian falcons" not long left to fly: the Syrian rebels have MANPADS Chinese
Further quote Savchuk presented the editors of the rag military expert:
"On arming the Syrian rebels, who are fighting against the forces of dictator Bashar Assad and are being hit hard by the Russian air force, modern man-portable air defence systems. Now the Russian air force to fly over Syria becomes unprofitable. 10 launches of MANPADS — minus 7 rashizm aircraft, in U.S. dollar equivalent of 350 million Plus the cost of training pilots. In General, h..lo and then pushed himself into a blind corner."
In his opinion, Chinese MANPADS came to Turkey through Arab intermediaries, the United States adhere to the embargo on the supply of MANPADS to conflict zones.
Of course, the "expert" had the brains not to openly announce the participation of Ukraine in the supply of MANPADS to the terrorists, however, such explicit interest in this topic, as well as awareness about the nuances of makes you wonder.
Not casual looks now and the Cabinet decision of October 28, 2015, on the termination of the agreement with Russia on exchange of information on man-portable air defence systems during the implementation of their export to third countries or import.
The adoption of this decision was to control directly the Prime Minister Yatsenyuk.
Now Ukraine has no obligation to report where and how many weapons were supplied, leaving this information is classified.
Based on the foregoing, we can safely conclude that the Ukrainian terrorism entered the international level. If the facts of MANPADS transfers will be proven, I am sure, Poroshenko and Co in addition to other regalia, will receive the honorary title of supporters of ISIS.
Can't say for sure whether this is deliberate USA merges its Ukrainian players, but now Ukraine can only pray that no aircraft of the Russian Federation HQs in Syria was not injured. Because if it is proved that the damage received because of the terrorist use of MANPADS notorious, the Ukrainian dream of a military Tribunal will become a reality.
So, finally we want to recall the recent statement of Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which he makes the warning to the terrorists and their supporters:
"We're not going to wipe the tears from our soul and heart. It will stay with us forever. But this does not prevent us to find and punish the criminals. We have to do it without a Statute of limitations, know them all by name. We'll look for them everywhere, wherever they were hiding. We find them anywhere in the world and pocharam".
So svidomyh scum who decided to not only make Russia's gross, but also decently to earn extra money now have only one choice. Or digging a hideout, or to await their fate in the nearest toilet...
Julia Vityazev

The Indian Prime Minister’s visit to the United Kingdom...BY SATYABRATA PAL

When Mr. Modi Went to London

Prime Minister Narendra Modi with his UK counterpart David Cameron at Wembley Stadium  in London on Friday. Credit: PTI Photo
The last laugh: Prime Minister Narendra Modi with his UK counterpart David Cameron at Wembley Stadium in London on Friday. Credit: PTI Photo
It’s admirable that Narendra Modi puts no premium on English, speaking instead in Hindi at his press conference in London, which no Indian Prime Minister before him has. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in every other way a far greater man, was strangely diffident on this point: struggling to respond in English to Anglophone interlocutors, he became tongue-tied. Tony Blair once told Manmohan Singh that in 2002, when he had made several trips to Delhi, and George Bush had asked him before one of them why he was going back when he had been there recently, he had said that he had put a question then to Vajpayee, to which he hoped this time to get a reply.
Modi is quick with his responses and – because he speaks in Hindi – precise. We know therefore that when a journalist asked the British prime minister if he was comfortable welcoming a person who for the first two years of his premiership was not permitted to visit Britain because of his record as chief minister of Gujarat, Modi replied that he would “keep the record straight”, he had never been banned from visiting the UK, he had been received warmly and with respect in 2003, and had not been able to visit again as CM because he was busy.
That reply reminded me of a report to the National Human Rights Commission on a man who had been choked to death in custody; the police said that he had died of breathing difficulties, which of course was not untrue.
Truth of the 2003 visit
I was  India’s deputy high commissioner to the UK at the time and the truth is a little more complicated. Throughout 2002, after the Gujarat riots, the British media was up in arms, particularly since a family of Indian origin was among the Muslim victims. The Conservatives demanded that the Labour government live up to its claim that it ran an ethical foreign policy, Amnesty and other human rights organisations were on the warpath, the NRIs were split down the middle, and the bilateral relationship came under strain. An enormous amount of the High Commission’s time, and that of the India Desk at the Foreign Office, was spent in trying to contain the damage. L.K. Advani visited in August, briefly disarming the critics by saying that he would not try to defend the indefensible, but Gujarat would not go away because the scale of the atrocity and the indifference of the state government were impossible to ignore.
It was into this simmering discontent that Modi decided in the summer of 2003 that he would immerse himself with a visit to the UK at the invitation of the Gujarati Hindu diaspora.
The British government’s reaction was neither warm nor respectful; it was deeply upset, for a number of reasons. With its Muslim population already embittered over Iraq and the Islamophobia unleashed by the War on Terror, the last thing it wanted was a visitor who would alienate them even more and drive a wedge between its immigrant communities. They would be forced to be critical of the chief minister, to whom they could issue none of the usual courtesies, and this would in turn create a needless niggle in bilateral relations, to which, as the Indian economy boomed, they were paying unprecedented attention.
The Foreign Office therefore made urgent demarches with the Indian High Commission, asking it to convey their government’s anxieties to India, and their request that the chief minister of Gujarat decline the invitation from his supporters in the UK in the larger interest of bilateral relations.
The High Commission completely shared these concerns. Having been in the eye of the storm from 2002 – and knowing from its engagement with the diaspora just how deeply divisive this visit would be, and how toxic its fallout on bilateral relations – sent a strong recommendation to the Ministry of External Affairs that the chief minister be advised against the visit. It was told the external affairs minister agreed that it would be best for him not to go, but that his advice had been brushed aside by Modi.
Vajpayee overruled
Astonishingly, the High Commission was then told that, after his rebuff, the external affairs minister had gone to Prime Minister Vajpayee, who had concurred that the visit was undesirable and must be aborted, but that it was nevertheless going ahead. The word, sotto voce, was that other voices, which could not be ignored, had insisted that if Narendra Modi had received an invitation, he must be allowed to accept it. Not to do so, after the British interventions, would be an admission of weakness and guilt.
That is how a visit that both the British and the Indian governments absolutely did not want took place. Predictably, it was a deeply polarising event, Muslims and human rights protesting as he spoke to rapturous Gujarati Hindus.
As the British government had warned, it took no official cognizance of Modi’s presence, though it kept a beady eye on it. The Home Office issued a statement in which it said, with neither warmth nor respect:
“We are aware he’s visiting the UK. He is not visiting at Her Majesty’s government’s invitation nor does the government plan to have any contact with him when he’s here. We do understand the concerns expressed but there were no appropriate grounds to refuse Mr Modi a visa.”
Fear of arrest
Two days into the visit, the Foreign Office called the High Commission in a panic to report that they had learnt that, following a precedent set during a recent visit by Robert Mugabe, an attempt would be made to put Narendra Modi under citizen’s arrest, permitted by British law, while some lawyers were approaching a magistrate for a more conventional arrest warrant.
If either of these initiatives succeeded, it would be a disaster, because the British government would either have to break its own law to let Modi go, or stand back and let the law take its course, while the bilateral relationship went down the drain, which it would if an Indian chief minister was under arrest in London. The British pleaded that Modi be urged to take the next plane out, pre-empting a possible arrest.
British panic was shared in Delhi when this was reported to them, and the High Commission was asked to relay instructions from the highest possible level that he should leave immediately. This it did, only to be told, coolly, that the chief minister would do nothing of the sort. If he was arrested, he said, he would become a martyr in India; his political stock would soar. And that was that. It was clear that to him personal ambition mattered more than anything else. The destruction of a relationship between India and the United Kingdom, that was being so carefully resurrected, meant nothing.
Luckily, the application for the warrant failed in court, and the British threw an invisible cordon around Modi to prevent the feared citizen’s arrest, so he strutted and fretted on his London stage a few days more, and left on schedule, his departure warmly welcomed by both governments.
In 2005, discretion over valour
There was a strange sequel to this. A few months later, a parliamentary under secretary (equivalent to the now defunct rank of deputy minister in India) told the High Commission that he was going to India, and after his meetings in Delhi, would fly to Gujarat to see the Akshardham temple there, since so many of his constituents were Gujaratis. He then asked if the High Commission could very discreetly get him a meeting with Chief Minister Modi (whom by then the EU, at the instance of his government, had decided to ostracise). His constituents, he said, had made it clear that if he did not seek absolution, their votes would go elsewhere. Three other junior ministers, with similar constituency pressures, made the same journey to Canossa thereafter, leading to the suspicion that someone had suggested to the diaspora that British penance and penitence might be in order.
The coda came in March, 2005, when the chief minister planned another visit, again invited by Hindu groups. This time the British government was even more insistent, to the point of being adamant, that he should not come, not least because they feared that the application for a warrant, which had failed on a technicality in 2003, would succeed, setting off a horrible diplomatic crisis. The UPA government, not beholden to the voices which had prevailed in 2003, told Mr. Modi in very clear terms that he was on his own if he ignored the advice not to go. Very prudently, he called his trip off.
The Prime Minister’s visit to the United Kingdom now has set many records, all of them meticulously detailed. It is important, though, as he said, also to “keep the record straight” on the past.
Satyabrata Pal is a former Indian diplomat. He served as India’s High Commissioner to Pakistan, and as a member of the National Human Rights Commission

A321 plane crash investigation complete | MH17 investigation findings ; Questions linger …what are they hiding?

A321 plane crash investigation complete 
“This was a terrorist act!”

Meanwhile

Ukraine government refuses to reveal its MH17 investigation findings. Questions linger…what are they hiding?

The US used MH17 to demonise Russian President Vladimir Putin and give the EU a nice excuse to impose sanctions on Russia. Whatever else happens in the ongoing MH17 investigation is irrelevant to Washington…the tragedy served its purpose.

Thoughts and theories? 
The statement from Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine on European integration, Elena Zerkal said:
“With regard to criminal investigation, we set up a joint investigation team and the investigation is still ongoing. At the same time it is classified and confidential and the results will not be presented for public discussion.”
Via Fort Russ….
Meanwhile, of course, there is talk of some kind of tribunal, where the accused will be Russia and Donbass.
I think we will not see publication of any serious evidence. Unless someone serious will jump the fence from the Ukrainian side, or something happens along those lines. From the Russian side they gave all they had. What’s the point for them to be silent? But even if they had something, what difference would it make? They would publish it and so what? They are not idiots in the EU after all and know what’s going on. They spit on the death of their citizens.
In the event of publication of absolute proof against Poroshenko and company there will be no tribunal. Under Kuchma Ukraine shot down Tu-154. Here’s what he then said:
“Look what is happening around the world, in Europe? We are not the first and not the last, no need to make a tragedy out of it. Mistakes happen everywhere, and not only of this scale, but much bigger, planetary scale. If we do not drop ourselves below a civilized level, everything will be fine. But if we pour a bucket of mud on ourselves, then go ahead.”
Was there a tribunal or any sanctions? What about the downing of an Iranian passenger jet A300, shot down by a missile launched from a US destroyer? This “civilized world” is not interested in any justice and everything they talk about so hysterically.
There will be no tribunal against Russia over the Boeing. It’s not even the lack of evidence, but the fact that today, albeit not in the best manner, but Russia can stand up for itself. This, and not having any evidence, is the main condition of the absence of any kind of tribunals, such as the Milosevic trial, during which (hello to those “crying” about Magnitsky!) he died.
Almost 300 people were killed. It is a tragedy. But the West already by and large doesn’t care. The precedent was used in order to start the hysteria on the subject “Putin killed 300 people” and push through serious economic sanctions.They needed this kind of hysteria, and not an objective investigation.
References:

Saudi's "hypocrisy" by "supporting terrorists" in Syria condemn Russian-Iranian invasion of Syria

Saudi's "hypocrisy" by "supporting terrorists" in Syria condemn Russian-Iranian invasion of Syria 

George Bush, Salman
Wish I could chop of a few heads myself Habeeb
The Human Rights Committee of the UN General Assembly on Thursday evening, November 19 adopted a draft resolution submitted by Saudi Arabia, which condemns the Russian-Iranian invasion of Syria.
Approved Resolution 115 UN member states, 51 countries "abstained" and "against" expressed the 15-member organization. In fact, the UN member states voted overwhelmingly (all in the committee registered 193 state) condemned Moscow for a special operation in the Middle East.
Russian and Iranian delegations have called "useless" and "unreasonable" the decision of the majority of representatives of the countries of the Committee.
The text, however, the direct aggression of the Russian Federation in Syria says it is only implied. Countries UN strongly condemned the attack on the Syrian opposition and called for an immediate end to the bombing. The resolution states that the actions of the Russians and the Iranians only lead to the widening influence in the terrorist organization "Islamic State", "Al-Nusra Front" and others.
Ambassador to the UN from the Kremlin's protege - Syrian President Bashar Assad - rejected the resolution, accusing the Saudis in the "hypocrisy" and "supporting terrorists" in Syria. The Iranians, in turn, said that the authors of the document text "blur the clear distinction between terrorists and those who fight them"

I wonder how long EU politicians will punish themselves following US's horrible Syria edicts?

I wonder how long EU politicians will punish themselves following US's horrible Syria edicts?

And the world is still a mess...
It seemed to me that after the horrible events that took place in November, European leaders realized that the only true solution can only be a good international cooperation in the fight against terrorism, to defeat the plague of the 21st century is possible only together, but, apparently, I misinterpreted the information.
How else to explain uncoordinated with Damascus actions of the French? You may have heard, they decided to strike at targets in Syria (citing the right of self-defence in accordance with article 51 of the UN Charter), without coordinating their actions with Syrian official authorities.
"If the first blows were inflicted on terrorist training camps in Syria and killing the upcoming "terrorists" of the French citizens, this situation could still be attracted to the concept of self-defense. Yes, if, after receiving training, they are returned, would constitute a security threat (terrorist attacks in Paris on 13 November confirmed the practical validity of this approach). But bombing the oil infrastructure seemed to assume quite other considerations and cannot be justified from the point of view of self-defense", — said the head of the Department of foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation on the issues of new challenges and threats Ilya Rogachev.
However, following Washington's edicts Europeans never made any distinctions between terrorists from the Islamic state and Assad forces. Leaves, like the Americans, whose strikes in Syria and Iraq, often result in innocent victims and played into the hands of the IG, the actions of the French can also harm the civilians of Syria.
Experts from different countries have repeatedly expressed themselves on the subject that such a policy would onlyprovoke the anger and push the local population to join the ranks of the IG. However, for rationalizations to listen nobody wants.
I wonder how long European politicians will punish themselves? How many times Russia will have to repeat that only United we can defeat terrorism. It is completely obvious, and the migration crisis that has engulfed Europe and the increasing level of terrorist threats – all caused by the policies offset unwanted regimes in the Middle East region.
How much more the Europeans will dance to threaten the whole world sounds American pipes? When you realize that danger in the first place they are exposed and not protected by two oceans the USA?

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Obama jokes while world leaders offer condolences for Russia's worst ever air disaster

Obama Cracked Jokes While the Rest of the World Mourned

President declines to join world leaders in offering condolences for Russia's worst ever air disaster

NEWARK, NJ - NOVEMBER 02: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at the Rutgers University-Newark S.I. Newhouse Center for Law and Justice on November 2, 2015 in Newark, New Jersey. Obama spoke on the difficulties formerly-incarcerated people face when re-entering society after serving time in prison and new initiatives to help support those going through the process. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
U.S. President Barack Obama (Photo: Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
On November 2, speaking at a Democratic fundraiser in New York, President Barack Obama poked fun of the Republicans, joking that if they cannot handle CNBC moderators how could they possibly handle Russia’s Vladimir Putin?
“Every one of these candidates says, ‘Obama’s weak, Putin’s kicking sand in his face. When I talk to Putin, he’s gonna straighten out.’ …and then it turns out they can’t handle a bunch of CNBC moderators!” Mr. Obama said.
“I mean, let me tell you: if you can’t handle those guys,” he continued, laughing, “I don’t think the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about you.”
While Mr. Obama had his fun, he neglected to mention more serious matters—the Russian plane crash over the Sinai peninsula on October 31 that took the lives of all 224 passengers on board.
The current American administration will go down in history as one of the most weak and unprofessional with no affinity for etiquette and good manners.
Where Mr. Obama failed, other Western and world leaders expressed their condolences—British Prime-Minister David Cameron, Polish President Andzej Duda, French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Chinese President Xi Jinping among them.
On his Twitter page, Mr. Cameron wrote: “PM expresses condolences to President Putin over Sinai plane crash. Britain shares Russia’s pain and grief.”
Mr. Hollande wrote: “[A]fter the occurred tragedy [President] sends his condolences to President Putin and expresses his solidarity with the Russian people..”
Even Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko took to Twitter with the following: “I express my personal condolences to all the families of those perished in the catastrophe of the Russian passenger plane over Egypt.”
Not Mr. Obama.
A woman lights a candle at a makeshift memorial for the victims of a jetliner crash on Dvortsovaya square in St. Petersburg on November 3, 2015. Russian airline Kogalymavia's flight 9268 crashed en route from Sharm el-Sheikh to Saint Petersburg on October 31, killing all 224 people on board, the vast majority of them Russian tourists. Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi has dismissed as "propaganda" claims by a branch of the Islamic State group that they were responsible downing a Russian plane, the BBC reported on November 3. AFP PHOTO / OLGA MALTSEVA (Photo credit should read OLGA MALTSEVA/AFP/Getty Images)
A woman lights a candle at a makeshift memorial for the victims of a jetliner crash on Dvortsovaya square in St. Petersburg. Russian airline Kogalymavia’s flight 9268 crashed en route from Sharm el-Sheikh to Saint Petersburg on October 31, killing all 224 people on board, the vast majority of them Russian. (Photo: Olga Maltseva/AFP/Getty Images)
The Kremlin isn’t worrying why Barack Obama didn’t send condolences, reported Interfax. “Probably, this should not be explained by the Kremlin,” said Dmitry Peskov, the Press Secretary to the Russian President, answering why there was no official telegram from Mr. Obama. Mr. Peskov said there were “a lot” of messages from other world leaders.
Secretary of State John Kerry expressed condolences on behalf of “all American people” to the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov—that was all, said Putin’s press secretary.
Russia’s national news service Information Agency outed Mr. Obama as “the only world leader that did not express his condolences [to Russia] on the air catastrophe A-321.”
“This is personal,” wrote Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda, adding “the current American administration will go down in history as one of the most weak and unprofessional with no affinity for etiquette and good manners.”

US experts admit that the US and its allies are all sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East

Who Are the Supporters of International Terrorism?

11.11.2015 Author: Viktor Mikhin


The highly effective Russian operation in Syria has clearly exposed the real position of the West, along with the ties it has with international terrorist groups.

As is already known, the so-called Western coalition, created by Washington more than a year ago has been “effectively fighting” terrorism in Syria and Iraq. What are the results? Desert areas with no terrorists to be found anywhere have been heavily bombed, at the same time, terrorists are regularly acquiring weapon due to “mistakenly” air-dropped crates. In any case, the terrorists are fighting with modern American weapons and they are wearing US army BDUs (battle-dress uniforms). And it seems that this outcome fully satisfies the sitting US administration, since Washington was leading the charge against international terrorism, or at least it claimed it did. However, the year of bombing nonexistent terrorist positions produced at least some results – the Islamic State has significantly increased the territory it controlled in Syria. It seems that the US could have been supporting extremists, while pretending that it fights them, until the Russian military campaign in Syria began.

Since the first days of Russian airstrikes in Syria, when militants got a taste of real bombs falling on their heads, and while fortifications, equipment, and command bunkers were being obliterated, Washington suddenly became quite vocal in claiming that the wrong terrorists were under fire. A whole new media campaign has been started with the money provided by the regimes of the Persian Gulf and the West, in a desperate attempt to convince the world that Russian air strikes are having no military success, and that they are killing civilians in droves. The major advancement launched by the Syrian Arab Army is now portrayed as a sort of a deal between the Islamic State and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, so, we are being told, terrorists are not running for their lives, and instead are just handing over their positions to the Syrian army. Such publications are usually published with unclear “open source” pictures and videos, so that nobody can confirm or deny this evidence.

Under these circumstances, it’s only natural for any honest analyst to conclude that Washington and some of its Arab allies are closely linked to terrorist groups and it doesn’t take long to locate those militants. There’s not a lot of people left today who would try deny the fact that Al-Qaeda was created, financed and armed by Washington and its allied reactionary regimes of the Persian Gulf. Al-Qaeda then gave birth to the Islamic State, which has now seized vast territories in Syria and Iraq. The Islamic State or “ISIL” is a Wahhabi organization and it was created by Washington during the days of the Iraq occupation, for them to fight against Iraq’s Shia’a instead of against their Western and Persian Gulf sponsors.

When Russia started the fight against terrorism, radical Islamists vowed to wage war against it, but not against the West that has allegedly been fighting them for over a year. In early October, Jabhat al-Nusra along with Jaish al-Islam announced that they’re at war with Russia, while the so-called Free Syrian Army, which is claimed to be a part of the “moderate opposition” in the West, contacted the countries of the region with a proposal to create a military alliance against Russia.

However, despite the ongoing anti-Russian rhetoric, Russian airstrikes have led to the intensification of the struggle between terrorists in Syria which has been confirmed by Western experts. Because of destroyed infrastructure, Islamists encountered numerous problems with getting their much needed supplies. As the fear of being punished by warlords weakened among ISIL terrorists, they decided that it was easier to obtain weapons and supplies by killing other terrorists.

While witnessing its assets being destroyed, the United States rushed to help. On October 31, Deputy U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken stated at a regional security summit in Bahrain that the U.S. was stepping up its efforts in Syria on all fronts. According to Blinken, the US government will allocate 100 million dollars to the opposition forces in Syria. Thus, the total official funding of “those opposing Assad” will reach 500 million dollars spent over the last 3 years. The US administration stressed that the money would allegedly be given only for peaceful purposes, namely to support of “civil society representatives” that have in reality served as cover for the butchering of the Syrian population for years.

Moreover, the White House has announced that it is going to deploy a limited number of special forces in Syria, without obtaining any sort of official permission from Damascus. Those NATO troops will be tasked with training the so-called “moderate opposition” and will also coordinate airstrikes from the ground. In other words, we are witnessing the creation of a new military alliance in Syria, that will include NATO, the United States, and all sorts of terrorists. The latter are entrusted with a single task: to get rid of President Bashar al-Assad by any means possible.

Saudi Arabia, for its part, didn’t leave ISIL Islamists waiting for help long either. General Mayhub said:


On October 26, according to the reconnaissance data, four planes from Turkey arrived to the airport of the city of Aden (Yemen). Two of them belong to Turkish Airlines, one — to Qatar Airways and one more aircraft owned by an airline of the United Arab Emirates,” said the Syrian army spokesman. “There were more than 500 militants of the Islamic State terrorist organization on board, they were taken from Syria to save them from Russian airstrikes.

It’s been reported that the militants should take part in operations conducted by the Saudi coalition in Yemen, that has suffered huge losses in battles against the Houthis. Syrian officials are convinced that redeployment of terrorists from Syria will continue, as Russia carries on with its airstrikes.

Some US experts openly admit that the leading US allies in the Middle East are sponsors of terrorism. Experts from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted that the Ministry of Finance of the United States recognizes that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are openly sponsoring terrorist groups in Syria. In 2014 the US Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, David Cohen, announced that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups have received millions of dollars from their sponsors in the Persian Gulf, Pakistan and Turkey. Money supporting terrorists is still being raised in Kuwait and Qatar on a daily basis.

According to RIA Novosti, on November 4 the U.S. Representative for California, Dana Tyrone Rohrabacher directly accused the US of double standards and hostility towards Russia, adding that this policy has caused a lot of damage to the United States, especially in the Middle East. Rohrabacher underlined that Russia is a great world power that has its own interests, just like the US has. During the hearings on Russia before Congress, Rohrabacher stressed the fact that the US is confronting Russia because it is defending Bashar al-Assad, who is allegedly a terrible dictator, but the Saudi monarchy is also a dictatorial regime prepared to kill thousands of people to stay in power, and the same can be said about other Persian Gulf states.

Rohrabacher has underlined that the United States would not listen to Russia’s proposals on Syria since the outbreak of the conflict, which has resulted in the severe deterioration of the situation on the ground. The US Congressman stressed that Putin had been seeking a compromise with the US for five years in order to find some form of stability in Syria, yet Washington turned him down each time. He also added that should radical Islamists come to power in Syria, it will be a veritable nightmare for Washington.

Nevertheless, Washington keeps on pushing for major escalation in Syria, while excusing true state sponsors of terrorism. As it has been announced by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia all refused to coordinate their actions in Syria. Following the meeting in Vienna, Lavrov said he invited the representatives of those three countries to coordinate military operations in Syria, as Russia does with Jordan. Cooperation, he said, could be established through a formal agreement on the list of organizations that are to be regarded as terrorist. Lavrov regretted the decision of the above mentioned states not to work together with Russia, while adding that in Amman, Jordanian and Russian military experts will be working together to carry out combat operations against terrorism. Yet, shortly after the meeting, Saudi Minister Of Foreign Affairs , Adel Al Jubeir announced that his country would still be supporting the “moderate opposition”, or in other words, the terrorists. It seems there’s no other way to put it more clearly.

The question as to why Washington occupies such a non-constructive stance in Syria can be partially explained by US opinion polls. The Wall Street Journal has recently published a survey according to which 56% of respondents believe that Syria could become a threat to the United States. Another 23% said Syria is an imminent threat, while Russia is called a long-term military threat by 60% of all respondents.

Apparently, as long as the media in the US is dominated by certain political circles, Washington’s policies in a number of regions, including the Middle East, will not be determined by the best interests of the American people, but only by delusional ideas of those Washington politicians nostalgic of the Cold War who imagine themselves sitting in the trenches awaiting inevitable war.

Victor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Natural Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
First appeared:
http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/11/who-are-the-supporters-of-international-terrorism/

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

US intelligence officials seek Russia-ISIL war: Report says

Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:51PM
Russian President Vladimir Putin
US intelligence officials hope the crash of a Russian passenger jet in Egypt, which was apparently caused by a bomb, would force Russian President Vladimir Putin to take a tougher line against the Daesh (ISIL) terrorist group, according to a report.
A growing number of US intelligence, military, and national security officials have indicated in recent days that the Airbus A321 was brought down by a bomb planted on the plane by ISIL terrorists.
The Russian airliner, which was on its way to Saint Petersburg, disintegrated over the Sinai Peninsula on October 31, minutes after it took off from the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm al-Sheikh, killing all 224 people aboard.
Ever since Russia began bombing militant positions in Syria, US officials have argued that President Putin committed a major “strategic blunder,” and that most of the airstrikes have been directed at US-backed militants instead of the Daesh terrorists.
With permission from the Damascus government, Russia launched an air campaign on September 30 to destroy Daesh and other militants wreaking havoc in Syria.   
Now, six US intelligence and military officials told The Daily Beast that they hoped the apparent attack on the Russian passenger jet would force Putin’s hands to target the ISIL group.
“Now maybe they will start attacking [Daesh],” one senior military official said. “And stop helping them,” referring to Daesh gains in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo that US officials said came because the terror group took advantage of Russian strikes on rival militant outfits.
“I suppose now he’ll really let ISIS have it. This should be fun,” one senior intelligence official told The Daily Beast, using another acronym for the terrorist network.
The crash site of the A321 Russian airliner in a mountainous area of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, November 1, 2015. (AFP photo)

Some Obama administration officials are also wondering if a terrorist attack would prompt Putin to expand his military involvement in Syria, drawing Russia deeper into a “quagmire.”
When the Russian airliner went down, some US officials privately delighted that Russia had to pay for its military engagement in Syria, The Daily Beastsaid.
Two US officials told the news website they hoped that Russia did plunge into the “quagmire” of Syria. “If he [Putin] wants to jump into that mess, good luck,” one official said.
The United States has revamped its strategy in Syria more than a year after it launched a bombing campaign against purported Daesh positions in Iraq and Syria.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford (L) and Carter (C) listen while President Obama makes a statement in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, October 15, 2015. (AFP photo)

President Barack Obama authorized the deployment of dozens of special forces to Syria on October 30, reneging on a longstanding pledge not to put “boots on the ground” in the war-torn country.
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Sunday that more US troops could "absolutely" be deployed to Syria if the Pentagon identifies more "capable local forces" on the ground.
The United States - with assistance from its regional allies especially Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia - has been arming and training “moderate” militant units to combat the Syrian government and the Daesh group.