US Manipulating & Instrumentalizing Takfiri Jihadism to Defeat The Resistance

by Amal Saad - 28 June 2014

"Resistance versus Jihad is the new faultline in the region. It has now become patently obvious that the US is manipulating and instrumentalizing takfiri jihadism to defeat the Resistance. The hope is that ISIS can achieve what decades of Zionist aggression failed to deliver, by means of a policy of implosion, fragmentation and [strategically employed] terror, dealt by a heavily sectarianized Islamism which is devoid of any anti-imperialist content.

Forget Clinton's infamous "we created al-Qaeda" quote, and Seymour Hersh's 2007 exposé of the US-Saudi role in funding al-qaeda affiliated militants in Lebanon, several developments this week reveal that ISIS has effectively become the US' (and of course Saudi's) new weapon of choice in confronting the Iran- Hizbullah-Syria-Iraq Axis:

Obama acknowledges that the notion of a "ready-made moderate Syrian force that was able to defeat Assad" was a "fantasy", and only days later, requests $500 million from Congress to fund this fantasy; the following day, the leader of one of the leading "moderate" Islamist groups Obama was alluding to, the Syrian Revolutionary Front, tells The Independent that the fight against al-Qaeda was “not our problem” and admits that his fighters conduct joint operations with al-Qaeda's representative in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra; a Kurdish intelligence source reveals to The Telegraph that his people had informed the US and British governments of an imminent ISIS takeover of Mosul but that the warning "fell on deaf ears;" PM Maliki blames the US' delayed delivery of 36 F16s Iraq had purchased for ISIS' advance into northern and western Iraq; Netanyahu warns Obama against military intervention in Iraq, arguing “when your enemies are fighting one another, don’t strengthen either one of them. Weaken both;” ISIS declares war on Lebanon.

The facts speak for themselves." 

~ 28 June 2014 - by Amal Saad

Bombing for Peace in Iraq 3.0

Bombing for Peace in Iraq 3.0 – Repeating the Same Actions Over and Over Expecting Different Results

Once again the United States war machine is hard at work, conditioning the American public to accept another war. This time it appears Iraq has been selected to receive a fresh round of bombings for peace. Third time’s a charm?

Somehow I don’t believe peace will be magically appearing out of the rubble the U.S. would be leaving behind. Never has, never will.

The landscape has drastically changed from what it was last year when thousands of ‘No War With Syria’ rallies were successfully organized by Americans across the country, just days before the New York Times featured an op-ed on Syria by Putin on September 11th.

We're about to find out why the U.S. government and mainstream media has been waging a war on RT’s legitimacy since the Winter Olympics in Sochi.

Those of us who have followed the Syrian crisis from the beginning knew the U.S. was never going to just ‘walk away’ from their war plan after they reluctantly accepted  Putin’s ‘get out of jail free card’, agreeing to not bomb Syria if al-Assad’s regime destroyed their chemical weapons.

Trust me, no one in the U.S. government was celebrating this public relations disaster. Approval ratings plummeted across the board and President Obama was mocked by his critics. They lost control of the Syrian plot and before they knew what hit them, the American people were too informed to continue being so misled.

The people didn’t want to start another war. We didn’t think it was a good idea to arm Islamic jihadists with weapons. Why would we? An bombing campaign would have meant the U.S. was essentially acting as the jihadists air force. We were right to oppose military strikes on Syria. We were right for questioning where the lethal and non-lethal aid was going.

RT, along with dozens of other alternative media sources, played a vital role in exposing who the U.S. was actually funding and arming in Syria with weapons, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Almost exactly one year ago, Putin made headlines around the world when he warned the U.S. against arming Syrian rebels “who kill their enemies and eat their organs”.

“I believe you will not deny that one should hardly back those who kill their enemies and eat their organs. … Do you want to support these people? Do you want to supply arms to these people?” Putin asked, speaking to reporters in London after meeting with British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Putin was right. This would also explain why Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his government accused Saudi Arabia of backing the ISIS “genocide” in his country.

“We hold them responsible for supporting these groups financially and morally and for its outcome – which includes crimes that may qualify as genocide: the spilling of Iraqi blood, the destruction of Iraqi state institutions and historic and religious sites,” a government statement said.

Even the U.S. admitted that back in 2012 most of the weapons Saudi Arabia was supplying to the Syrian rebels had fallen into the hands of Islamic jihadists. That would be the same group which has evolved into ISIS.

“The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” said one anonymous American official to the New York Times.

Did you notice the U.S. now wants al-Maliki to resign to make way for a new Iraqi government? Apparently we’ve already come a long way from where we were just last week, when al-Maliki was requesting U.S. air support in his fight against ISIS. Do you think he ever suspected Obama would turn around and demand his resignation?

This is exactly what Saudi Arabia wants to see unfold next. Al-Maliki should have known better than to request American support in Iraq. It wasn’t an accident that Obama agreed to a $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia a year before the crisis in Syria broke out. The Saudis are the U.S. government’s strongest ally in the region, yet they’re consistently the world’s leading exporter of militant terrorists year after year.

Think of it this way… Today we have al-Assad’s military battling ISIS in Syria while al-Maliki’s military is battling the same group in Iraq.

The U.S. has stated it wants to see regime change established in both countries. Isn’t regime change something ISIS would want in Syria and Iraq? Something smells like fish.

Meanwhile, there are warnings of ‘American al-Qaeda’ coming home from Syria to launch terrorist attacks on the homeland. Will ISIS plan a 9/11-style terror plot against the U.S.? The fear porn just keeps piling up. I feel sorry for the Fox News generation right about now…

I don’t know if ISIS is planning a 9/11-style attack, Lindsey Graham, but will you please explain to me why the U.S. didn’t think of this before arming these terrorists with weapons in Syria?

If the U.S. really wants to stop the spread of Islamic terrorism in the region, shouldn’t they stop funding and arming jihadists in Syria? Even U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged the Security Countil earlier today to impose an arms embargo on Syria.

Now would be better than never!

The U.S. wants to see administrations in place that are friendly to Saudi Arabia, not Iran. Earlier today we heard Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal warn Iran to not intervene in Iraq to defend their neighbors from ISIS. Meanwhile, Israel warned the U.S. against cooperating with Iran on Iraq. Did they really think Iran would want to cooperate with the U.S. military?

Hassan Firouzabadi, the chief of the general staff of Iran’s armed forces, stated Iran would never cooperate with the U.S. in a war on ISIS. Firouzabadi claims ISIS is a military reaction to the victory of al-Assad in the Syrian presidential election. He thinks they are under the influence of the United States.

As if all of this was not enough to make your head explode, ISIS seized Saddam’s chemical weapons stockpile yesterday. The world of public opinion has had a wide range of reactions to this development. I’ve noticed a couple of common questions that keep popping up:

“Wait, I thought we failed to find any WMD’s in Iraq…”

That is certainly what most of the world believes!

2004: Closing an investigation into Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq has declared the hunt for WMD’s has “gone as far as feasible” and found nothing resembling the purported programs the U.S. government claimed existed, which were used to justify the invasion in 2003.

2014: ISIS has seized Saddam Hussein’s premiere chemical weapons production facility. The U.S. is reporting the facility still contains a stockpile of old weapons, but claims they are ‘probably useless’ because they are ‘too large’ and cannot be transported.

“Okay, so why didn’t the U.S. military destroy all of Saddam’s chemical weapons?”

Good question. The United States was ready to bomb Syria last September unless al-Assad agreed to destroy all of Syria’s chemical weapons. Why didn’t the U.S. destroy all of Saddam’s weapons while we occupied Iraq for 8 years?

Last year the U.S. casually ignored the U.N. inspector who concluded the first chemical attack was carried out by Syrian rebels and not the Syrian government. We knew in 2012 that most of the weapons sent to the rebels ended up in the hands of the worst Islamic jihadists, and we knew in May 2013 that the Syrian rebels used chemical weapons.

Why would the U.S. continue to arm jihadists who used chemical weapons, while threatening to bomb the Syrian government for using chemical weapons?

“We don’t restrict potential U.S. action to a specific geographic space,” a senior administration official said yesterday during a press conference.

Did the Obama administration really think we wouldn’t notice this response when questioned on whether the military campaign in Iraq would be extended into Syria?

Why isn’t anyone talking about how the Syrian government is going to react to this? What about Iran? Russia?

On Wednesday, members of the Independent US Observer Mission who monitored the Syrian election declared President Bashar al-Assad’s victory as legitimate during a press conference at the United Nations in New York. Does this put things in perspective?

If the U.S. expands airstrikes against ISIS into Syria, why wouldn’t they include Syrian military targets? Just last year ISIS was receiving lethal and non-lethal aid from us, leading the Syrian rebels against al-Assad’s regime. Would the mainstream American public even notice the difference between the two targets? Would they even care? Doubtful.

If alternative media outlets such as RT continue to be ignored and/or demonized by the U.S. government and mainstream media during this round of the crisis, it’s doubtful Russia will be in a position to take an active role in the debate over Iraq. Considering everything they’ve got on the table involving Ukraine, who can blame them?

Last year, Russia and China warned the U.S. against military intervention in Syria. Russia even threatened that it could lead to a nuclear conflict. I don’t think anyone can predict what type of reactions to expect during round two.

Of course, President Obama has already declared he does not need approval from Congress to strike Iraq, yet in the same speech he said he’ll consult with Congress on Iraq. Over the last 6 years we’ve come to expect this type of doublespeak with Obama. It’s pretty terrifying to witness.

Any chance Putin had to influence the outcome diplomatically has already likely been nullified. It’s up to us now…

If you’d like to hear what you’re not being told about the Fall of Iraq, I highly recommend you watch the mini documentary below:


Iraq, ISIS, Maliki, US - by Eric Draitser

17 June 2014

Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki (left) and US president Barack Obama in more congenial times in 2009. 

Before all the self-righteous leftists out there go on and on about how Maliki is bad and brought this upon himself and his country, just hold on one second...

Yes, Maliki is not a great guy, and his policies and corruption have alienated many Sunnis and Kurds. But the notion being presented by some analysts, especially on the left, that Maliki is some kind of US puppet and that US military intervention is merely an attempt to prop up a client regime, is simply not in keeping with the facts. You know, those stubborn little things that get in the way of warmongering demagogy...

Allow me to present a few points about Maliki and the US that might add a little wrinkle to the pre-packaged narrative that many seem to be running with...

1. The US never wanted Maliki in power in the first place. For those of us who paid attention beyond just the "US war" part of the Iraq tragedy, we remember that Maliki was absolutely not the US choice. Initially they wanted Chalabi, the neocon darling who was supposed to rule Iraq as a viceroy or US satrap. When that failed, they tried to shoehorn the utterly corrupt moderate Sunni, and occupation collaborator, Ayad Allawi. Allawi was made the first puppet PM. He was pushed to the side by the more popular Shia Maliki who still retained Allawi's Iraqiya Bloc as an important ally.

2. Maliki moved Iraq much closer to Iran. After the decade of war and the Saddam and post-Saddam period, Maliki was finally moving the country closer to its natural ally in Iran. When I say natural, I mean in the sense that they are neighbors, both with energy reserves, deep animosity toward the US, ethnic/religious ties (Iraq is majority Shia), etc. Maliki was a vocal advocate of the proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline which would have made both Iran and Iraq major players in the European market directly, rather than through the Western oil majors as intermediaries.

3. Maliki kicked out Exxon-Mobil and threatened other oil majors who were trying to cut Baghdad out of the profits of its own resources. BP and Exxon each made deals illegally with the Kurdish Authorities in Arbil. Now, I'm not suggesting that Maliki wasn't also interested in lining his pockets and those of his friends, but it's also true that he wanted that revenue to pay for much needed infrastructure, education, and other budgetary expenses. With tax revenue being what it is in Iraq, oil revenue is lose billions to the Kurds in the North was unthinkable.

4. Maliki chose to purchase large scale advanced military equipment from Russia. The US certainly does not allow true client states the freedom to make such deals, cutting out Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop-Grumman, etc.

5. Maliki was the primary reason that US troops left Iraq. Liberals will credit Obama, conveniently leaving out the fact that Obama and the Pentagon asked Maliki to let them keep forces there indefinitely, which Maliki refused.

6. Maliki was the target of numerous assassination attempts in the lead up to US withdrawal. I've always contended that these were made with the tacit (or overt) approval of the US, whether to send a message to Maliki not to get too comfortable and independent, or as genuine attempts to create chaos and justify the maintenance of US troops in the country. The attempts failed and the US pulled out. I have no hard evidence to back up this claim of US involvement, just a suspicion I have...naturally, there would be no evidence of that sort of thing.

7. Maliki was also the victim of numerous international propaganda campaigns. Remember that Hashemi, formerly the Iraqi Vice President, was allegedly running an assassination-for-hire ring using his bodyguards as assassins. Now, whether this was true or was simply fabricated by Maliki and Hashemi's political opponents, is still not 100% clear. What is clear however is the fact that, once charged, Hashemi fled the country and into the arms first of Turkey, then Qatar. What does this tell you about the alignment of Hashemi and, conversely, Maliki.

There are many more points I could make, but I'll leave it there for now. The funny thing is, I wrote about a lot of this stuff in my very first article back in 2012. I guess I was a little early...

Eric Draitser
Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City and the founder of He is a regular contributor to Russia Today, Counterpunch, the Center for Research on Globalization, Press TV, and many other news outlets. Draitser also produces the 'Stop Imperialism' podcast available on iTunes and, as well as 'The Reality Principle,' available exclusively at Visit for all his work.

US should aid Syria to get rid of ISIS: Analyst

Press TV has conducted an interview with Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley, an author and historian from Washington, to discuss the recent events in northern Iraq and how the US is responsible for the way that some Iraqi army forces acted in the region.

The following is an approximate transcript of the interview.

Press TV: What are we looking at here; I don’t know if you heard the US President Barack Obama who just spoke at the White House, he said that he is going to be sending 300 additional military advisors to train the forces there. This is, of course, after announcing 275 Marines that are going to protect the Baghdad embassy. Clarify for us the term “advisors” because many are saying that’s boots on the ground. It sounds awfully like what they said about Libya in terms of advisors not to mention what they are going to leave in Iraq – when they left – again using the term “advisors”?

Tarpley: I think Obama is extremely reluctant to become involved and that what he’s doing is the character of a concession to the raving warmongers from the Republican Party who, this morning, were popping off in the Senate. That includes McCain, Lindsey Graham, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and a bunch of others who want large-scale bombing and they want in many cases actual infantry brigades.

But let’s just step back. This ISIS or ISIL is a very artificial creation. According to all the intelligence we have, it is first of all financed and commanded by Prince Abdul Rahman Faisal of Saudi Arabia. He is the brother of Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Foreign Minister and also Prince Turki al-Faisal who had been ambassador to London and the United States here.

So, it’s a Saudi operation and it comes out of a training camp which the US, the British and the French, in other words NATO, had established in Jordan, quite a few months ago, to train guerrilla fighters, death squads that would be used principally against Assad in Syria but now they’ve been retasked.

The leader of this ISIS is a fellow called Baghdadi. He has a four-year diploma, four-year degree as an asset of the CIA which he got by being in a prison camp and getting brainwashed and becoming a double agent as a condition for coming out. And the goal of this entire thing is multiple.

It is to try to save the Syrian rebels from ultimate defeat which is otherwise facing them. To overthrow the government of Maliki in Iraq with the excuse that it’s too pro-Iranian. To try to bring in then Ayad Allawi, the classic US puppet inside Iraq and perhaps if they can start bombing, when you listen to Senator McCain and Lindsey Graham, they say the bombing can begin in Iraq but it should then extended to Syria which is extremely dangerous and then, of course, if you begin in Iraq maybe you might venture into Iran which is even more dangerous. So, I would recommend obviously not doing any of that.

The one interesting thing the US government could do, would be to issue an ultimatum to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the Emirates, Oman and the rest of those Persian Gulf States to stop their financing and logistical support for this ISIS.

The Turkish government is also very heavily involved. This ISIS operated out of a sanctuary in Turkey. Last summer, they made a big attack on Latakia in Syria, killed a lot of people. It’s reported that those cadavers of children were used then in August of last year for the Ghouta, so-called chemical weapons scare which was, of course, orchestrated but that some of the grisly human remains were actually  brought in by ISIS. After that ISIS was transferred across southern Turkey to Ar-Raaqqah in Iraq and then they have been retold for the current mission.

The other thing I have to say is that members of the Iraqi army, the officers, generals were quite obviously bribed by the CIA, told that they should run away. Remember the Nazi Blitzkrieg against France in 1940. It turns out that a lot of those French generals were on the payroll of Hitler. And in this case, it looks to me like the Iraqi generals that ran away were on the payroll of the US, the CIA and NATO.

So, we are being faced with a very artificial situation but of course this can lead to a real tragedy on a tremendous level. I think the US government really ought to cooperate with Assad. If you want to stop ISIS, you should cooperate with Assad because he can destroy the basis of ISIS.
Press TV: You talk about the US engagement in terms of multiple fronts such as when you said that the US is actually responsible for the way that the Iraqi army acted, pretty much fleeing the scene that they were… well in whatever shape and form influenced by the US and that’s in sharp contrast to what many have deduced to have been Saudi Arabia’s role as playing a hand in that along with the fact that obviously they have been the ones who are supporting the ISIL. Even though the Saudi Arabia is saying they are not, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has come out, blame them and also we’ve heard other countries blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting these ISIL. Is the US playing double face here? I mean would it sounds like based on the assessment that you made?

Tarpley: What I am trying to point out is this is an opportunity to educate the American people in the idea that Saudi Arabia is actually an enemy, that Saudi Arabia is responsible for these destabilizations and civil wars. And, of course, I know that the US foreign policy establishment does not want to do anything for Assad. But, since they are telling us that the ISIS is the end of the world, right that it’s literally the apocalypse, personified with these supermen about to sweep down on Baghdad. Well, in that case Assad is certainly a lesser evil.

The other question though, the US politics on this, the other coup in addition to the anti-Maliki coup, that is the goal of this operation is a cold coup around Obama and McCain came out and said it last week. He demanded that Obama fire all of his own loyalists and, of course, these are in my view bad people but still those are Obama’s people and bringing General Petraeus. General David Petraeus, of the Pentagon and the CIA and Wall Street, he now works for Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. He has got a financial angel with multi-billion-dollar deep pockets.

And, of course, Petraeus personifies the danger of bonapartism here in the United States, of a kind of a dictatorial seizure of power. And we know that this clique is now super active. The neo-cons are mobilized as never before. And I am talking about Kimberly Kagan at the Institute for the Study of War, Frederick Kagan at the American Enterprise Institute, Donald Kagan at the Brookings Institution and his charming wife Victoria Nuland who has disgusted the world with her vulgarity.

The goal of this is, coming on the heels of Benghazi, which was an anti-Obama October surprise, designed to bring in Romney and the neo-cons, but it failed, after this Bowe Bergdahl hysteria which we’ve had. This is now the third wave of a neo-con counteroffensive, designed to push out whoever Obama has, that doesn’t want to go along with it and put in neo-cons.

And I will also add Kerry of skull and bones, the Secretary of State and Samantha Power, the humanitarian bomber, who represents the US at the United Nations, these are people who have been skimming to get a way to bomb Syria, now for months, and it’s been on the front page of the Washington Post and they’ve actually brought in Petraeus and this General Keen who is a friend of this entire group, to try to find ways to push Obama towards war with Syria.

Press TV: There’s obviously a spillover that has happened by some accounts over what has occurred in Syria, I mean this situation, this ISIL ,60 miles or kilometers away from Baghdad, and you have the threats that they have set against holy Shia shrines in Iraq such as Karbala and so forth so on, and that puts another dimension of the dangerous predicament that it puts the region in when you are talking about, for example, the Shia shrines. Iran has come out and said, “We will defend the Shia shrines.” If they were to carry out on that threat, everything would change, wouldn’t it? What direction would that go, how will things play out, do you think?

Tarpley: That, of course, would be extremely dangerous. I am afraid though that I don’t share the idea that democracy will guarantee happy ending and I think it’s wrong to impute a rationality to the process here, Washington, that it does not have.

What we have is a war psychosis in the entire elite, neo-cons and the humanitarian bombers or responsibility to protect the crowd, the Samantha Power types. They are horrified, they wanted to bomb Syria, they didn’t get to bomb Syria. They never wanted to negotiate with Iran. They wanted to bomb Iran and the other question, of course, Putin.

They are humiliated there, they are apoplectic about Ukraine. They are afraid to confront Putin in Ukraine because of Russia’s Topol-M Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and therefore we have the line coming Anne-Marie Slaughter, formerly at the State Department saying, “If you want to confront Putin, you confront him in Syria where he is much weaker than he would be in Ukraine.”
And one other, I think, big danger is, in the State Department now, there is this idea that Maliki has to go. This takes me back to Vietnam in 1963.

When Averell Harriman and a couple of other people in the State Department decided that president Diem was counterproductive and they arranged to have a coup and his assassination. Of course, the people that they brought in were perfectly incompetent and indeed set the stage for these military debacles. So, these are people who have learned nothing.

One of the things that Professor Steven Cohen was saying the other day at a Russian seminar is an anti-war opposition in the United States is nonexistent compared to the Cold War and compared to the time ten years ago when you had George Bush in the White House. So, the doors are relatively open to adventurers and it means the neo-cons surrounding Obama, be who is a weak and passive figure, of course, a puppet president of Wall Street but, surrounding him and pushing him into direction of something unthinkable.


For whom does bell toll in Ukraine?

President Petro Poroshenko

Thu Jun 19, 2014  | By Jim W. Dean

Related Interviews:

‘West seeks to destabilize Ukraine’
‘US attempts to dominate world’

The theater of the absurd continues unabated in Ukraine. The latest act has the chocolate king Western-approved Poroshenko claiming to soon start a unilateral truce. But there is one catch. He wants to keep the Kiev forces with their guns pointed at the breakaway new republics, while demanding they disarm, civilians leave the combat areas, and the army cut off a 2000-mile border with Russia.

Color me suspicious but I think the new president has been told to stall for time, pretend he wants to negotiate while the army builds up for a blitzkrieg strike at the right time. So we checked with our on the ground sources, and we find that the armament plants under Kiev's control are working full steam to get anything that will shoot, finished or refurbished as fast as possible.

We were told the Kharkov Tractor plant is upgrading a large number of tanks, and in Odessa they are quickly repairing previously unserviceable aircraft. This is not something that a bankrupt country can easily do. Outside money, parts and manpower are on the ground contributing to this.

But why? For what is all this needed... a truce? It certainly is not needed to defend against an attack from East Ukraine who has its hands full with defense.

Poroshenko had said right after the election that the retaking of Crimea would be his top priority. It surprised me that he would make such an aggressive statement right off the bat...unless the plan was to continue an eternal conflict with Russia for some reason. Who would benefit from that?

Taking Crimea of course would mean a war with Russia, one that Kiev can certainly not pay for. So who would? And who would pay for all the damage to Ukraine in such a war where the Russian army would chop the Ukrainian army to pieces? Frankly, I don't think the troops would commit suicide at the behest of the Kiev coup-meisters.

We have seen solid signs that the Kiev King is following a jointly-designed Western plan, seeing how the West is paying for it all. The puppet is now playing his roll and following his cue cards. The gas talks have gone nowhere as Kiev has stuck to its creative role of demanding to set the price for the gas it wants to buy with the threat of non-payment of past debts or blocking European shipments for its own use to create more supply and pricing disruption. Again, the EU and the West are up to their eyeballs in backing Kiev's hardball tactics that could never be sustained without their backing.

As expected Russia has cut off its unpaid for the gas pipeline supplies, and Kiev had charged this as political extortion of the EU. We went through this with Poland once before, which seems forgotten now. Moscow has told its European customers that they will push more gas through the other pipelines to make up for any gas pilfering by Kiev. So much for the claim that Russia blackmails its customers. Moscow is taking the diplomatic high road in every instance, while the West takes the low.

The Russians are heavily invested in the East Ukraine industrial sector and a major buyer of its products. If the IMF ever wants to see its Ukraine loans paid back, the bankrupting of a lot of these companies, or Russia resourcing its former Ukraine imports elsewhere due to even a short war would torpedo those loans. So these major risks are being taken because there is something bigger that the West wants that it is willing to take that risk.

The IMF chief said early on that the loan rollovers to Ukraine would have to be “carefully managed”, as a default would not only threatened the EU banking system, but the world's. This statement was ignored by corporate media despite its being such a shocking statement. Who waived them off doing any post analysis of that threat? Is not the collapse of the world banking system a rather important story?

Is Russia being set up as a scapegoat for a possible financial collapse of Europe's banking house of cards? We hear about some mega fraud cases being brought against some large banks for huge sums. But the recovery of those funds would actually help the books. More of this huge fraud money is being hunted now due to the huge recovery reward fees that are paid. And a lot of high level retired Intel people are involved in this, as they have the sources to know how it was done and where the money was stashed.

Is the West trying to take the wind out of the sails of Russia's energy infrastructure by creating major unproductive economic drains on its economy, like war? Our bankster leadership showed us what talent they have by the two trillion whizzed away on the US dumb wars and more from the financial looting at home. I am getting the Western banksters would like Russian to join in with us...being buried under in hopeless debt.

We are in a replay of pre-WWI, where a number of provocations are in play, any one of which could blow up and have consequences worse than anything the airhead manipulators and schemers could have imagined, just like what happened back then.

Veterans Today has been running a series of articles on nuclear proliferation, where top American officials ran a trade in the early outdated US nuclear weapons pits that went to Israel to be re-machined into weapons they needed, especially after the Dimona accident that rendered it useless, producing only low grade material. Some of those weapons were re-marketed and got into the hands of some very nasty people, who have been using them for blackmail.

I mention this because more than a few parties are in a position to do a nuclear false flag attack if they feel there was a desired need to get something they wanted, or to stop something from being done to them. Forget about nuclear launched weapons. The false flag weapons are already disbursed in too many cities to mention, done before the technology to tracking any nukes moving on the surface was not as good as it is now.

This has the Intel community on pins and needles. After 911, aerial sweeps at helicopter level of every square inch of NY City were made with the biggest ping coming from the Israeli embassy there. Since then all incoming diplomatic pouches are scanned for nuclear signatures. The public was of course told nothing of this.

Could Ukraine be the perfect place for such an event? Yulia Tymoshenko said on the phone she would like to nuke all the Russians and East Ukraine, and then do the Russians proper. Did that threat come out of nowhere? As the former president, was she aware of some of these proliferation problems that the public was never told about so as not to scare them?

Our governments had failed miserably to protect us from such a Jericho threat. On the contrary, some were involved in it. And then you see we poured two trillion into the phony al-Qaeda wars, and pushed for a war with Iran based again on a phony nuclear threat, while the real one was never discussed. Who could benefit from that?
Frankly, when I see countries doing really stupid things with huge downside risks and no visible upside, I begin to get very concerned. Corporate media has completely ignored our VT series, nothing really unusual there, but we did get some notice of a different kind.

A national security letter was put on one of the sources. That is not done for make-believe things. So they validated the series by doing that, something they should have thought of beforehand.

So the showdown continues. The East Ukrainian miners marched and pledged today that if Kiev does not stop its military attacks on the region, they will put down their shovels and pick up their guns to defend their homes and families. They view the situation with no confusion.

The idiot Poroshenko actually said, and I am not kidding, that he is waiting a few more days to get the Russian border locked down before declaring a ceasefire. He has about 90% of the 2000 miles of border yet to do... in a few days.

You see why I used the word idiot. You just can't make this stuff up. Poroshenko is just another one of these totally incompetent leaders who do not get where they are by accident. Someone wanted an idiot in the Ukraine presidency, and it looks like they got one. He and his backers are a major threat to international security.


ISIS Terror Group Controlled By Saudi Royal Family

Brandon Turbeville  |  Activist Post

As ISIS marches across the sands of Iraq, the vast majority of Americans are no doubt convinced yet again that what amounts to a coordinated fighting army is merely the product of bearded fanatics hiding in caves hating America “for its freedoms.”

Although the overwhelming majority of the American public will never look any closer than a variant of the cleverly crafted description provided above, those that do pay some modicum of attention to current events will discover that, according to the mainstream media and Western governments, the leader of ISIS is none other than Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi, the alleged creator of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

However, upon further study, it is revealed that the true leader is not Baghdadi at all. Indeed, the leader is not even an Iraqi.

The commander of ISIS is none other than Saudi Prince Abdul Rachman al-Faisal, the brother of Prince Saud al-Faisal and Prince Turki al-Faisal.

Of course, information regarding Faisal’s control over ISIS has been known for some time, yet the Western media has conveniently neglected to report on it.

In a 2007 article published by Reuters entitled “Senior Qaeda Figure In Iraq A Myth: U.S. Military,” Dean Yates writes that a senior al-Qaeda operative informed U.S. Military interrogators that the Islamic State of Iraq was nothing more than a front for another organization and that its leader, Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi was himself a fictional person.

In fact, Brigadier General Kevin Bergner told a news conference that Baghdadi did not exist and that “he” was merely an attempt to put an Iraqi face on what was a “foreign-driven network.”

Bergner stated that “In his [Khalid al-Mashadani – the captured al-Qaeda fighter] words, the Islamic State of Iraq is a front organization that masks the foreign influence and leadership within al Qaeda in Iraq in an attempt to put an Iraqi face on the leadership of al Qaeda in Iraq.”

Bergner further stated that Mashadani informed the U.S. Military that the fictional leader Baghdadi was played by an actor whenever his character surfaced on the Internet.

Yet, while Mashadani confessed that Baghdadi was indeed a fictional character, very little was revealed regarding the true leader of the group, at least nothing that was reported by Reuters. However, while this may lead many to believe that Mashadani and his Egyptian colleague Abu Ayyab al-Masri were the mastermind behind al-Qaeda in Iraq or the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS), the rabbit hole goes somewhat deeper.

Still, Baghdadi does apparently have some real history pointing to the fact that, at least at some point, he may have truly existed. As Voltaire Net has reported,
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is an Iraqi who joined Al-Qaeda to fight against President Saddam Hussein. During the U.S. invasion, he distinguished himself by engaging in several actions against Shiites and Christians (including the taking of the Baghdad Cathedral) and by ushering in an Islamist reign of terror (he presided over an Islamic court which sentenced many Iraqis to be slaughtered in public). After the departure of Paul Bremer III, al-Baghdadi was arrested and incarcerated at Camp Bucca from 2005 to 2009. This period saw the dissolution of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, whose fighters merged into a group of tribal resistance, the Islamic Emirate of Iraq.

On 16 May 2010, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was named emir of the IEI, which was in the process of disintegration. After the departure of U.S. troops, he staged operations against the government al-Maliki, accused of being at the service of Iran. In 2013, after vowing allegiance to Al-Qaeda, he took off with his group to continue the jihad in Syria, rebaptizing it Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant. In doing so, he challenged the privileges that Ayman al-Zawahiri had previously granted, on behalf of Al-Qaeda, to the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, which was originally nothing more than an extension of the IEI.Of course, all of the information above could indeed be nothing more than information dreamed up and served to a gullible public for the purposes of a propaganda narrative as well as the creation of a leader for prospective members of ISIS.
Regardless, false assumptions surrounding the true leadership of ISIS would be called into question in January of 2014 when Al-Arabiya, a Saudi-owned and operated news agency, published an article as well as a video of an interrogation of an ISIS fighter who had been captured while operating inside Syria.

When asked why ISIS was following the movement of the Free Syrian Army and who had given him the orders to do so, the fighter stated that he did not know why he was ordered to monitor the FSA’s movement but that the orders had come from Abu Faisal, also known as Prince Abdul Rachman al-Faisal of the Saudi Royal Family.

An excerpt from the relevant section of the interrogation reads as follows:
Interrogator: Why do you (ISIS) monitor the movement of the Free Syrian Army?

ISIS Detainee: I don’t know exactly why but we received orders from ISIS command.

Interrogator: Who among ISIS gave the orders?

ISIS Detainee: Prince Abdul Rachman al-Faisal, who is also known as Abu Faisal.Such revelations, of course, will only be shocking news to those who have been unaware of the levels to which the Saudis have been involved with the funding, training, and directing of death squad forces deployed in Syria. Indeed, the Saudis have even openly admitted to the Russian government that they do, in fact, a number of varied terrorist organizations across the world.
Even tired mainstream media organizations such as Newsweek (aka The Daily Beast) can no longer ignore the facts surrounding the Saudis’ involvement with the organization of terrorist groups across the world.

Clearly, the American public would do well to ignore the typically peddled stories handfed to them by the American corporate media outlets. The narratives suggesting that terrorism is made up of cave-dwelling religious lunatics is not simply insufficient to explain current developments, it is inaccurate and entirely misleading.

With the close relationship held between the United States and Saudi Arabia, if the U.S. wishes to stop the spread of terrorism in Iraq, it will immediately demand that the Saudis cease funding it.

Unfortunately, however, for a number of reasons, such a request is not likely to happen.


Western media spews propaganda - John Pilger

On big politics, Western media spews propaganda - war correspondent John Pilger

June 13, 2014

The Ukraine government has stepped up its assault in the eastern part of the country. Tensions are running high between the NATO bloc and Russia, as both sides carry out military exercises. Journalists are being arrested and deported from the battlefields in Ukraine. The media war goes full speed. What will the conflict bring in the future? Will the civil war in Ukraine spill over the borders? Today we ask these questions to a veteran journalist and war correspondent. John Pilger is on Sophie&Co.

Sophie Shevardnadze: John Pilger, veteran journalist, war correspondent, author, director – welcome, its really great to have you on our show today. Now, we’re just going to go ahead and start with Ukraine. Not a week goes by without journalists detained and assaulted in Ukraine – so why aren’t we hearing any condemnation of these incidents from the West?

John Pilger: I think in your part of the world you must be used to a pretty one-sided view coming from here. Over here in the West we don’t believe we’re biased at all – in fact, we believe we’re the essence of objectivity and impartiality, but of course when it comes to great power politics, that simply is not true. Ukraine has been presented here generally as an act of Russian manipulation and aggression. There has been some better reporting than that, but that generally is the view.

SS: Do you think we’re getting reliable information from the conflict zone in Ukraine? I mean, apart from Western media, the world media is involved in covering this conflict. You worked as a war reporter in Africa – is there such thing as one truth?

JP: No, it’s impossible to get an informed cover of pretty well anywhere [in] the world, unless you navigate your way through, these days, through the internet. If you don’t navigate, and you sit in front of your television set, then you’re likely to be given propaganda. It’s always been that way – it’s probably now more intense, but we do have alternatives now. We do have the internet, but as I say, it requires that research. Otherwise, we sit in front of the TV, or we pick up a newspaper, and we’re not so much informed as when we’re monitoring it or deconstructing it – that’s what I do as a journalist. We live in an age of intense propaganda.

SS: You have also said that the US is threatening to take the world to war over Ukraine – but there is already a civil war going on in Ukraine. Do you think it could get any more serious?

JP: Yeah. Well, we’ve just seen recently these nuclear strategic bombers arriving here at an Air Force base from the US. I mean, clearly, there’s a lot of news about that, and that’s clearly a statement – you know, it used to be called “saber rattling.” We used to have it year after year, during the Cold War, and yes, the civil war has been triggered in Ukraine, and that civil war could spill over into Russia. Those are the real problems, but behind this is an old American design – and that is the control of resources and trade and strategic areas right across the European and Asian landmass. That is not a secret, that has been going on pretty well since the US discovered itself as a great world power, right around the time of the Korean War.

SS: Now President Obama has approved $23 million worth of military aid to Ukraine since March. He has recently announced that the US is sending advisors and gear to the country, while the newly elected Ukrainian president wants more military aid from the US – what more can he expect?

JP: Well, what you can...I mean, it’s all an aggressive provocation. It seems almost incredulous that they should be doing this, to be on Russia’s border and provoking in the way they’re doing. It is almost as if NATO, Obama and the rest are trying to set a trap for Vladimir Putin. It’s an incredibly difficult time for Russia. As we all know we’re about to celebrate, we are about to commemorate the centenary of the First World War that began, yes, partly by design, but it also was triggered by a number of incidents. And any war can happen that way, that’s my experience as a war correspondent, although there may be a policy, a design, an aim, a strategy, but there can be incidents that can start the war without people wanting it to start. Now, when you have military exercises being conducted in Ukraine, which is essentially and always has been a buffer state, next to the Russian Federation, that is very, very dangerous.

SS: You know, since March, there also have been reports that US mercenaries are involved in operations in eastern Ukraine. Are you inclined to think that’s true?

JP: Well, I have no evidence of that, but I would think it’s almost certainly true. Ukraine has become a kind of awful theme park for those agencies which we know so well – CIA, FBI...The director of the CIA has dropped in, along with Vice President Biden…And the mercenaries – the successors of the infamous Blackwater organization – are said to be there. As I said, I don’t know, I don’t have evidence if they are, but this is an extraordinarily important operation and I repeat – operation – for the US. They finally gained access to the buffer state, to Ukraine. That almost is the last hurdle, if you like, before Russia.

SS: So you’re saying that Washington had foreseen a military standoff when it was supporting the opposition on Maidan? It was something that was planned, in your opinion?

JP: Well, yeah. Of course it was planned. We had the tapes of Victoria Nuland, boasting of the US spending several billion dollars to get rid of the regime that it didn’t like in Kiev, and install another regime. This is a US-installed regime.

SS: You’ve also written that Washington actually had plans to seize Russia’s naval base in Crimea, and the plans have failed – why do you think so? Do you have evidence of that?

JP: What is there in Ukraine for the US? Above all, there is strategic position, there is a toehold, more than a toehold, in a part of the world where it has only recently, relatively recently, been able to gain access. And the most important prize in that was undoubtedly Crimea. This was the home of the Russian Fleet. This was Russia’s access. This is where we now see US ships exercising within sight of the Russian base. I think, certainly, getting hold of that would have been...If the Kiev regime would have gotten hold of that, that would have meant the US would have got hold of that – there is no question about that. It was all part of, as I’ve said, a provocation. It’s a very intriguing mix – all the reasons why the US has behaved the way it has in Ukraine. Partly it is about strategic influence, partly it is about business, partly it is about provocation. They’re all different ingredients. This administration in Washington has been doing some very strange things. Also, it may have been, and I’m only guessing here, an attempt by the Obama administration to reassert itself, having really been trumped by Russia over Syria.

SS: You’ve also said that Obama is currently seeking a budget for nuclear weapons greater than during the Cold War – but where are you getting this information from, and what do you need it for?

JP: You just look it up! It’s all there, there’s no secret, the rising of the manufacture of warheads and of nuclear strategic materials has been steadily increasing over recent years. In many ways, that’s whether or not it is academic, because the US has many, many nuclear warheads, just as Russia still has nuclear warheads. That means when a so-called superpower and regional power, like Russia, finds themselves looking down each other’s gun barrels, and that’s a situation that we’ve got at the moment.

SS: So you think Obama is reinforcing its nuclear budget to confront Russia, is that it?

JP: There always is a chance. You know the nuclear clock has been at five minutes to midnight for many years now. There has always been a chance of nuclear war, there always will be while there is this kind of dangerous situation. I’m of course not going to predict there will or won’t be one, but the dangers are obvious. You only have to look or read what general Butler, the former head of the US Strategic Air Command, said – and I’ll paraphrase him. He said “the dangers are there every day.” But when you have a flashpoint with two nuclear powers engaged, even indirectly engaged – they are not directly engaged at the moment, but they are indirectly engaged – that’s extremely dangerous.

SS: But remember when there was a lot of talk about whether America should strike Syria with local strikes? The prospect of action in Syria got a very cold response from both Congress and the public – so what makes you think that Americans are as gung-ho over Ukraine as the military is?

JP: Well, I didn’t quite hear the beginning of the question, but I’ve heard the last bit. It’s very simple – American foreign policy is run pretty well in the straight line, since about 1950 – and you only have to consult the documentary record to answer that question. There is always a danger, but something else has happened recently. Certainly during the Bush years the military – the Pentagon in the US now is in the ascendancy – it has much greater power than it used to have. It has influence in the State Department, it has influence right throughout all the institutions of government in Washington. There is a military sense all the time about American foreign policy at a higher level than it used to be.

SS: The first part of my question which you didn’t hear was precisely about the American foreign policy that failed in terms of striking Syria. Because remember when there was talk about whether America would bomb Syria or not, it didn’t get any support from Congress or the general public...

JP: In many ways this is an administration that contradicts itself, which makes it even more dangerous. Syria seemed to be almost the design of the intelligence agencies of the US, the support for a lot of the radical groups came from the intelligence and what is called a “deep state” in the US. Whether or not the White House agreed with that, I have no idea. I mean that is one of the great contradictions – in Washington there is always a great deal of competition, and as a result, the White House was made to look rather foolish over Syria. It staked a lot on the allegation that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons. Well, according to Seymour Hersh, they didn’t use chemical weapons, and there is not a great deal of evidence to suggest that they did use chemical weapons. There is evidence to suggest that those whom the Americans were supporting used chemical weapons. So, into this contradictory and confusing and rather tumultuous situation, the almost “black and white” of the US foreign policy doesn’t work. Doesn’t work in their own terms.

SS: Since we’ve started talking about Syria. The issue of Syria has been completely eclipsed by Ukraine lately. No one seems to mention it anymore. Meanwhile, the American administration is still providing arms to the opposition...

JP: Unless you are Syrian!

SS: ...Yeah. Could it be that the US is getting free reign there while Russia is busy?

JP: Possibly, possibly. I read the other day that there was going to be non-lethal and lethal aid to some of the opponents, the jihadists opposing the Assad regime. Yes, the world looks the other way, and things happen. I think that’s very possible. Where that is heading – it's almost impossible to know, because my understanding is that the US actually would like to have a settlement with Iran. That seemed to be the way it was heading, and that would mean kind of settlement with Syria. And then it could concentrate on what is really close to this administration’s heart – and that is confronting China, and perhaps also confronting Russia – certainly, dealing with its grand design on the Eurasian continent. Now, if for example, as I understand it, two-thirds of the US naval forces are going to be transferred to the Asia-Pacific region by the year 2020, that will mean the US will have to tidy up all these unfortunate problems that it has: Syria, Iran and so on. All I’m saying is that the US policy as it has acted out in Syria, is very, very confusing, because they don’t seem to be wanting to resolve matters there. They seem to want to stroke it instead of play some kind of broker role, calm it, and deal with it.

SS: I want to get back a little bit to NATO and war games that just took place in Eastern Europe, like the most recent ones in Latvia. So, do you think those are aimed at intimidating Russia? Is that their sole goal?

JP: I’ve thought about why this intimidation of Russia is going on, and I think it is partly historical. The Soviet Union was deeply resented just for existing, because it was getting in the way of an enormous part of the world that the US and its western allies had previously had a great deal to do with and they exploited it, and wanted to do that again. I think there is almost a historical sense of unfinished business. There is no question that US foreign policy finds its opponents or enemies in those governments that effect any form of independence. That is a rule that runs right through it. Now, the Russian government is independent – it’s a very powerful and very important independent government. And there is a history between Russia and the US – you can never underestimate this history.

SS: Where do you think the US' European allies' interests are in all of this? In the whole US vs. China, US vs. Russia? Can Europe act independently, or are they completely under US influence?

JP: Well, that’s a very good question. What are their interests? I don’t know! I mean, you know, the interests of trading peacefully with Russia and with China are demonstrable! Gas from Russia and every manufactured good we could think of from China! What is the problem, you might ask. And for Europeans to go along with this kind of Wild West kind of foreign policy is absurd. But Europe is divided. Europe in terms of foreign policy, often reluctantly, but it does – it falls in with the US. You only have to read the German press to see this. There is a kind of ambivalence, almost – what do we do? Oh, well, we’d better go with the US. Europe has never spoken with one voice that has been entirely representative or reflecting its own interests.

SS:Alright, Mr. Pilger, thank you so much for this interview. We were talking to John Pilger – author, journalist, war correspondent. We were talking about America’s interests in Ukraine, and also what NATO is going to do next. Thank you very much, that’s it for this edition of SophieCo, and we’ll see you next time.

"My position on Iraq" by Sukant Chandan

ISIS are a death squad infiltrated and covertly germinated by western covert forces, and ISIS' actions directly serve western strategic interests which are basically to violently divide communities and countries. ISIS has been pushed from Syria due to the Syrian government led Resistance there. Hence ISIS have done this big push in Iraq, which will in turn help (through looting, new weapons captured) their dirty work in Syria. IN THIS DYNAMIC I am in support of all forces in Iraq to defeat them. At the same time, we have a total sectarian mess in Iraq which is QUALITATIVELY different to Syria:

In Syria there is a socialist and independent country to defend, which pre 2011 with all its problems is an inspiring model that motivates our masses there to defend it. In Iraq, we dont have that. We have a tragically traumatised country for at least 25 years if not longer.

Unlike Iraq, in Syria we have an anti-imperialist Resistance which is, despite all the lies and nonsense out of the western mainstream and their non-white hangers on, we have a cross sectional unity in struggle against the nato/GCC death squads, we have a Syrian Arab Army of majority Sunnis, and we have lots of Shia, Sunni, Christian, Socialist, Armenian, Kurdish and many other formations UNITED in life or death struggle against a common enemy. We have nothing of the sort in Iraq.

Unlike the contending forces in the Syrian war, in Iraq we have contending forces (aside from ISIS for a second) the former Iraqi Baathist forces, and then Tehran-aligned forces. BOTH these forces built/have built functional models of society for their peoples, BOTH are anti-imperialist and fought the usa and uk occupation of Iraq, BOTH were/are under direct attack from imperialism. However, the historical Iraqi-Baath and Islamic Republic of Iran schism is still playing itself out and its results are that sectarian division and violence which ONLY benefits the west and its Guif allies are winning.

THIS is the strategic and concrete basis for unity in Iraq. We do NOT have that with the forces of the death squads (loosely called 'AlQaeda'), nor the Muslim Brotherhood wo have generally always been and remain hugging nato directly or indirectly with great intimacy as a means by which they seek power for themselves. Hence there is NO concrete basis between anti-imperialist forces and forces which have shown nothing but collaboration for generations with the common enemy (the west and the zionist state).

We can see amongst anti-imperialists that they are split on the question of Iraq now. Many anti-imperialists respect one of the sections of the Resistance against the occupation in Iraq which is led by the Iraqi Baath in the form of the JRTN (read more about them here: ).

However, despite their heroism against the occupation, as long as they term Iran as the 'Safavid Persian empire', there will be no progress out of the empire-interested schism on that front. Also, we have Iraqi PM Maliki, who is close to Iran AND also the Syrian government and Lebanese Hizbullah. However, similarly to JRTN etc, there will be no real move forward out of this awful mess until Iran allows or/and facilitates a historical and strategic rapprochement between the Baathist and Shia or pro-Iranian forces in Iraq. Is there any chance for such? Actually, many of the Iraqi Baathists are in support f the Syrian government against the nato covert operation there, and this is very much an opening that can be worked on, but all parties must develop mutual confidence building measures rather than the zero sum total games they are playing out currently. 

The sieges of Fallujah by the yankee occupation was a chance for this Sunni-Shia unity to take place. It did not. The siege of Najaf by the yankee forces could have seen such a unity develop. It did not. Going further back, after Iraq was laid to a terrible siege of war by imperialism post 1990 there could have been a thaw in Iran-Iraq relations that could have trumped the sectarian-promoting agenda of the 'west'. That thaw never took place, although there WAS a thaw between the Syrian Baath and Iraqi Baath governments in the lead up to 2003. Interestingly, in the split of the Iraqi Baath after the demise of Saddam Hussein, one faction was said to be very close to the Syrian government intelligence services. Unlike the death squads of nato and the pro-nato Muslim Brotherhood, these forces in Iraq have a basis for unity, for the sake of God they were all shooting in all the same direction against the occupation forces for many years, and have good experience in socialist, anti-imperialist and anti-zionist state building!

Here we can see one of these Baathist armed leaders saying that they are stronger than ISIS and consider them "barbarians" ( ). OK, so perhaps these people should consider opening up a strategic unity program with Iran and some of the Shia forces in Iraq to defeat the death squads, protect ALL Iraqis from them and imperialism and also defend the Syrian government? Might be far fetched, but this to my mind is the only realistic course of action before we fall of the massive cliff edge falling into the yankee canyon to our collective deaths which is at the same time is giving oxygen to the empire.

It's a small consolation that I am not the only one who is asking for this. Many anti-imperialists across the world who have supported the Iranian, Syrian, Libyan, Iraqi and ALL of our peoples in the region struggle against imperialism and zionism and who are not bias and partial to any section of our people are also in agreement that this must be the only course that we can pursue to thwart the enemy's plan. In this regard, I am in total agreement with the wise strategic analysis and suggestions of sister Amal Saad Ghorayeb, who calls for a new pro-Resistance contract:
"... Just as Maliki squandered away Sunni tribal [Sahwa] support with his sectarian discourse and negligence, he has succeeded in alienating Sunni officers in the US-funded and trained army, and antagonized mainstream Sunnis with his oppressive rule and aggrandizement of power.

"At the end of the day, we in the Resistance Axis are strategically aligned with a regime born of the very same invasion and occupation we are attempting to thwart in Syria. While we can rationalize this alliance on strategic and pragmatic grounds, we need to call for its drastic reform, beginning with a new social contract between Sunnis and Shia, as Nasrallah proposed in the midst of the US invasion of Iraq. In the absence of such a contract, any military offensive risks degenerating into a full-scale civil war which will drag our region even further into the sectarian morass so desired by the US-Israel-Arab Gulf." (source: )

Yes, I positively see the priority of defeating ISIS forces which only exist to soften up our lands for the benefit of nato, and hence the primary contradiction to focus on and make our political position clear is in relation to the Syrian arena. However, there are intense and violent contradictions at play here engineered by the west and internalised to some extent in Iraq. Is another better 'Muslim world' possible than the mess we have? Of course it is. But that requires us to step back, not to step back from militant anti-imperialism, but to really work out if we are interested more in the common liberation of ALL our peoples in the region, or are we going to remain loyal to one section at the expense of another all of which will only benefit our common enemy."

---Sukant Chandan

ISIS' takeover of Mosul & Tikrit

Amal Saad: "There is no doubt that ISIS' takeover of Mosul & Tikrit requires an Iraqi-Iranian coordinated military response to prevent the fragmentation of Iraq, secure Iran's borders, and ensure that none of the hard-won military gains made by the Syrian Army & Hizbullah in neigbouring Syria are reversed. But any security strategy is doomed to fail so long as we remain oblivious to the fact that the Maliki government is little more than a mirror image of its Syrian opposition nemesis: sectarian, weak, corrupt, divided, treacherous, and above all, eager for the US to drone its enemies into submission. That 75 per cent of of Lebanese Shia respondents did not view the Shia- dominated government in Iraq as a legitimate national entity, according to an opinion poll I conduced with the reputable Beirut Center for Research & Information in 2007, testifies to this perception.

"If we are to learn anything from the circumstances which enabled 1500 ISIS fighters to overun a 52 000 soldier garrison, it is that Sunni (Baathist & Nashqabandi) sympathies for the attackers, both within & outside the army, can no longer be ignored nor can their long-held grievances, irrespective of the sectarian machinations of ISIS' Saudi backers. Just as Maliki squandered away Sunni tribal [Sahwa] support with his sectarian discourse & negligence, he has succeeded in alienating Sunni officers in the US-funded & trained army, and antagonized mainstream Sunnis with his oppressive rule & aggrandizement of power.

"At the end of the day, we in the Resistance Axis are strategically aligned with a regime born of the very same invasion & occupation we are attempting to thwart in Syria. While we can rationalize this alliance on strategic & pragmatic grounds, we need to call for its drastic reform, beginning with a new social contract between Sunnis & Shia, as Nasrallah proposed in the midst of the US invasion of Iraq. In the absence of such a contract, any military offensive risks degenerating into a full-scale civil war which will drag our region even further into the sectarian morass so desired by the US-Israel-Arab Gulf."

15 - Jun - 2014

Graphic - Mass Execution of Iraqi Soldiers & Civilians by ISIS Terrorists

Horrific Mass Execution of Iraqis in the hands of ISIS monsters..

GRAPHIC: ISIS releases PHOTOS of Mass Executions

Mass execution photos of Iraqi soldiers/civilians by jihadi savages. Photos show hundreds of Iraqis (majority Shias & Alawites) being transported in trucks and executed by ISIS. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, were transported and met the same brutal fate. (It is reported to be 1700)

A couple of days ago, ISIS declared that they had captured 4,500 Iraqi soldiers in Tikrit.

These photos were released by ISIS — they are not doing this under cover of night or in hiding. They are proud of their slaughter in the cause of their -twisted and sick- Takfiri belief..

WARNING: Many of the images below are graphic. The intent of publishing these photographs is to document the war crimes committed by the ISIS.
The images are a selection of more than 60 published by the ISIS' Salahaddin Division. You can view all the photographs here

ISIS butchers leave 'roads lined with decapitated police and soldiers'

The full horror of the jihadists’ savage victories in Iraq emerged yesterday as witnesses told of streets lined with decapitated soldiers and policemen.

Blood-soaked bodies and blazing vehicles were left in the wake of the Al Qaeda-inspired ISIS fanatics as they pushed the frontline towards Baghdad.

They boasted about their triumphs in a propaganda video depicting appalling scenes including a businessman being dragged from his car and executed at the roadside with a pistol to the back of his head. The extent of the carnage came as:
  • Images from captured cities such as Mosul and Tikrit showed deserted streets, burnt out vehicles and discarded uniforms left by government troops fleeing the brutal fanatics;
  • ISIS leaders urged their bloodthirsty followers to continue their march and warned that battle would rage in Baghdad and in the holy city of Karbala;
  • Thousands of residents in the capital answered a call to arms to repel the invaders amid fears the government’s own troops were not up to the job.
  • Aid groups warned of a new refugee crisis after half a million terrified Iraqis left their homes to escape the jihadists..


VIDEO: ISIL Capture thousands of Iraqi soldiers in Tikrit, Iraq. (11 June 2014)


Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch Director (and unofficial al-Qaeda spokesman, it seems) Kenneth Roth is watching ISIS' back. He is full of praise for the head cutters/ mass executioners.. Below is his Twitter post:

No, Mr Roth, no, of course, they are not "alienating" the local population.. No alienation. Just beheadings and summary executions!!. ..
ISIS butchers beheading Iraqi Soldier



ISIS photographs detail execution of Iraqi soldiers

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham's administrative division in Salahaddin proudly displayed photographs of the capture and execution of Iraqi soldiers after it took over a base in the province.

The graphic photographs were released today on the Twitter account belonging to Wilayat Salahaddin, or Salahaddin Division. The ISIS has divided its "state" in Iraq and Syria into 16 administrative units, or wilayats.

The stream of photographs begins by showing ISIS fighters in dirt-caked pickup trucks with machine guns mounted in the beds traveling to Tasfirat prison in the city of Tikrit, and then launching an assault with dismounted troops. Tikrit fell to the ISIS earlier this week.

After capturing the base, the ISIS takes photographs of dozens of US-supplied armored Humvees, Ford and Chevy pickup trucks, and various military transport and supply vehicles that were left behind.

ISIS fighters are then photographed posing over the bloodied and mutilated corpses of the slain soldiers. The ISIS photos show the capture, transport, and execution of scores of Iraqi soldiers. Most of the soldiers are in civilian clothes, but some are seen wearing civilian clothes over their uniforms.

Iraqi soldiers had reportedly shed their uniforms and deserted en masse as the ISIS blitzkrieg advanced from Mosul to Tikrit and on to the outskirts of Samarra in the course of one week. At least four Iraqi Army divisions are said to have melted away during the ISIS onslaught.

In the photos, the Iraqi soldiers are rounded up at gunpoint and placed on flatbed trucks, some of which appear to have been captured from the base. Some of the ISIS fighters are seen holding US-made M-16 assault rifles, which had been issued to the Iraqi Army and police forces.

The ISIS fighters then order the frightened soldiers to lie face down in shallow ditches, with their hands behind their backs. ISIS fighters then open fire on the unarmed prisoners of war.

The ISIS is said to have executed thousands of Iraqi soldiers during its southward advance to Baghdad. Several Iraqi military bases are believed to have been overrun. Forward Operating Base Speicher, which once was a major US military hub in Salahaddin province, was reportedly seized by the ISIS during its southward push.

Over the past week, the ISIS took control of Ninewa and most of Salahaddin province, as well as parts of Diyala province. Most of Anbar province fell under ISIS control in January.

By BILL ROGGIO June 15, 2014



Related: ISIS/ISIL Atrocities in Syria

In Ukraine, the US is dragging us towards war with Russia

Washington's role in Ukraine, and its backing for the regime's neo-Nazis, has huge implications for the rest of the world

John Pilger

The Guardian, Wednesday 14 May 2014

A pro-Russian activist with a shell casing and a US-made meal pack that fell from a Ukrainian army APC in an attack on a roadblock on 3 May in Andreevka, Ukraine. Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty

Why do we tolerate the threat of another world war in our name? Why do we allow lies that justify this risk? The scale of our indoctrination, wrote Harold Pinter, is a "brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis", as if the truth "never happened even while it was happening".

Every year the American historian William Blum publishes his "updated summary of the record of US foreign policy" which shows that, since 1945, the US has tried to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democratically elected; grossly interfered in elections in 30 countries; bombed the civilian populations of 30 countries; used chemical and biological weapons; and attempted to assassinate foreign leaders.

In many cases Britain has been a collaborator. The degree of human suffering, let alone criminality, is little acknowledged in the west, despite the presence of the world's most advanced communications and nominally most free journalism. That the most numerous victims of terrorism – "our" terrorism – are Muslims, is unsayable. That extreme jihadism, which led to 9/11, was nurtured as a weapon of Anglo-American policy (Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan) is suppressed. In April the US state department noted that, following Nato's campaign in 2011, "Libya has become a terrorist safe haven".

The name of "our" enemy has changed over the years, from communism to Islamism, but generally it is any society independent of western power and occupying strategically useful or resource-rich territory, or merely offering an alternative to US domination. The leaders of these obstructive nations are usually violently shoved aside, such as the democrats Muhammad Mossedeq in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala and Salvador Allende in Chile, or they are murdered like Patrice Lumumba in the Democratic Republic of Congo. All are subjected to a western media campaign of vilification – think Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, now Vladimir Putin.

Washington's role in Ukraine is different only in its implications for the rest of us. For the first time since the Reagan years, the US is threatening to take the world to war. With eastern Europe and the Balkans now military outposts of Nato, the last "buffer state" bordering Russia – Ukraine – is being torn apart by fascist forces unleashed by the US and the EU. We in the west are now backing neo-Nazis in a country where Ukrainian Nazis backed Hitler.

Having masterminded the coup in February against the democratically elected government in Kiev, Washington's planned seizure of Russia's historic, legitimate warm-water naval base in Crimea failed. The Russians defended themselves, as they have done against every threat and invasion from the west for almost a century.

But Nato's military encirclement has accelerated, along with US-orchestrated attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine. If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role will justify a Nato-run guerrilla war that is likely to spill into Russia itself.

Instead, Putin has confounded the war party by seeking an accommodation with Washington and the EU, by withdrawing Russian troops from the Ukrainian border and urging ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine to abandon the weekend's provocative referendum. These Russian-speaking and bilingual people – a third of Ukraine's population – have long sought a democratic federation that reflects the country's ethnic diversity and is both autonomous of Kiev and independent of Moscow. Most are neither "separatists" nor "rebels", as the western media calls them, but citizens who want to live securely in their homeland.

Like the ruins of Iraq and Afghanistan, Ukraine has been turned into a CIA theme park – run personally by CIA director John Brennan in Kiev, with dozens of "special units" from the CIA and FBI setting up a "security structure" that oversees savage attacks on those who opposed the February coup. Watch the videos, read the eye-witness reports from the massacre in Odessa this month. Bussed fascist thugs burned the trade union headquarters, killing 41 people trapped inside. Watch the police standing by.

A doctor described trying to rescue people, "but I was stopped by pro-Ukrainian Nazi radicals. One of them pushed me away rudely, promising that soon me and other Jews of Odessa are going to meet the same fate. What occurred yesterday didn't even take place during the fascist occupation in my town in world war two. I wonder, why the whole world is keeping silent." [see footnote]

Russian-speaking Ukrainians are fighting for survival. When Putin announced the withdrawal of Russian troops from the border, the Kiev junta's defence secretary, Andriy Parubiy – a founding member of the fascist Svoboda party – boasted that attacks on "insurgents" would continue. In Orwellian style, propaganda in the west has inverted this to Moscow "trying to orchestrate conflict and provocation", according to William Hague. His cynicism is matched by Obama's grotesque congratulations to the coup junta on its "remarkable restraint" after the Odessa massacre. The junta, says Obama, is "duly elected". As Henry Kissinger once said: "It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but what is perceived to be true."

In the US media the Odessa atrocity has been played down as "murky" and a "tragedy" in which "nationalists" (neo-Nazis) attacked "separatists" (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine). Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal damned the victims – "Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says". Propaganda in Germany has been pure cold war, with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung warning its readers of Russia's "undeclared war". For the Germans, it is a poignant irony that Putin is the only leader to condemn the rise of fascism in 21st-century Europe.

A popular truism is that "the world changed" following 9/11. But what has changed? According to the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, a silent coup has taken place in Washington and rampant militarism now rules. The Pentagon currently runs "special operations" – secret wars – in 124 countries. At home, rising poverty and a loss of liberty are the historic corollary of a perpetual war state. Add the risk of nuclear war, and the question is: why do we tolerate this?

• The following footnote was appended on 16 May 2014: The quotation from a doctor who says he was "stopped by pro-Ukrainian Nazi radicals" was from an account on a Facebook page that has subsequently been removed.