Search This Blog


Saturday, 1 October 2016

Russia Responds to Kirby’s ‘Body Bags’ Comments; US Bombs Euphrates River Bridges

Posted on 
The remarks by State Department spokesperson John Kirby that the world may soon see Russian troops going home in “body bags” has prompted a rejoinder from his counterpart in Moscow, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova.
“Don’t you think that such ventriloquism about ‘body bags,’ terrorist attacks in Russian cities’ and ‘loss of aircraft’ sounds more like a ‘get’em’ command, rather than a diplomatic comment?” Zakharova asked in a Facebook post.
As reported yesterday, Kirby’s remarks, including his prediction that “Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags,” sounded like a veiled threat.
“Extremist groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which will include attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities. Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and they will continue to lose resources, even perhaps more aircraft,” said the State Department official.
He added that if the war continues “more Russian lives will be lost, more Russian aircraft will be shot down.”
The fact that the “extremist groups” spoken of by Kirby are being supported in large measure by the US obviously is not lost upon Zakharova.
“And those [acts of terrorism] will be perpetrated by ‘moderate’ [Syrian opposition groups]?” Zakharova inquired. “Just the ones that Washington has been unable to separate from Al-Nusra for as long as six months?”
“[What about] Terrorist attacks in France,” she went on, “America and other countries; the beheadings of people of all nationalities by Islamic State militants in Syria – is this all kind of a different paradigm? Perhaps another ‘parallel reality?’”
In case you missed it, Secretary of State John Kerry, in an acrimonious exchange at the UN last week, suggested Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is living in a “parallel universe.” What the US State Department is doing publicly is engaging in childish finger pointing: “It’s all your fault!” they are essentially saying.
What they are doing privately, behind the scenes, is providing support for terrorist outfits such as Nour al-Din al-Zenki, which beheaded a 12-year-old boy back in July. Why they continue to do this, even as increasing numbers of people are beginning to see through the charade, is a mystery, though perhaps it’s a sign of desperation.
Another Russian official who has responded to Kirby’s undiplomatic remarks is Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov.
“Once again we declare that we are fully prepared to continue the dialogue with the American side and carry on with the joint actions to combat terrorists in Syria,” he said. “However, even the slightest hints of a threat to our soldiers and Russian citizens must be excluded from this dialogue. The matter of safety of Russian citizens, wherever they may be, is not up for bargaining. It is our main and unconditional priority.”
Kirby says the State Department is considering non-diplomatic options, and there are indications it has already found them. In what may be the first step toward partitioning eastern Syria, the US coalition carried out airstrikes yesterday that destroyed two bridges over the Euphrates River, bridges that large segments of the population depend upon for transportation. The following is from Press TV:
Syria has slammed the US-led coalition purportedly fighting Daesh for destroying two bridges over Euphrates River in the eastern province of Dayr al-Zawr, where the same alliance recently killed 83 Syrian soldiers.
The attacks “confirm the so-called international coalition’s intent to bomb and destroy Syrian infrastructure and economic and social establishments through repeated aggressive acts,” state TV quoted the Syrian Foreign Ministry as saying Thursday.
The official SANA news agency reported that the bridges of al-Asharah and al-Mayadin in the eastern countryside of the provincial capital city of Dayr al-Zawr were hit by the coalition’s warplanes on Wednesday.
Syria’s ambassador to the UN Bashar Ja’afari said the bridges had been used by hundreds of thousands of civilians in the area.
Meanwhile, the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based rights group advocating militants in Syria, said the two bridges are now unusable, a situation which would impede aid deliveries and hamper movement of civilians.
It may well be that the US is now opting for a different game plan–that of leaving Assad in power in Damascus while imposing what in effect could be a partitioning off of eastern Syria. This would still achieve the aim of balkanizing the country as well as make it possible to route a pipeline through Syrian territory for purpose of transporting natural gas from Qatar to Turkey and then into the EU. The question, of course, is whether Russia would allow it to happen.
If Syrians are not willing to see their country split apart, and if Russia and Iran continue to support them–with maybe China actively joining the alliance as well–we could be looking at World War III.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Nahed Hatter and Mahmoud Abbas .. The antithesis of honor and shame ناهض حتر ومحمود عباس.. نقيضا الشرف والعار

ناهض حتر ومحمود عباس.. نقيضا الشرف والعار

مصافحة القاتل في جنازة قاتل

ناهض حتر ومحمود عباس.. نقيضا الشرف والعار

هاني الحلبي

الشهيد المقاوم ناهض حتر.. ومحمود عباس، رئيس ما سُمّيت بالسلطة الفلسطينية، نقيضان لا يلتقيان!

يعتذر حتر عن أن في عنقه ديناً يصعب عليه أن يفيه، فبندقيته ليست إلا من كلمات وأحبار، وهو في خندق دمشق التي يتم حصارها وتجويعها وتشليع بلدها الشامي السوري مرة ثانية، بعد تشليع أول منذ أكثر من مئة عام، وتشريد أجيالها لقماً لأسماك القرش البحري ومَن يصل يتلقفه القرش الأوروبي لابتزازه واغتصابه والتسويق به قيمه السلعية المتهالكة..

بينما عباس قرر، بعناد حاد، 077b7-abbأن يشارك بشيخوخته في جنازة المجرم شيمون بيريز ليكشف سوءات دوره كله، وليمسح آخر حرف عربي فلسطيني من سيرته الملتبسة.

لا يحفل عباس بالرجاء المتكرر من حماس ومن الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين ومن غيرهما، أن يعيد النظر في استعداده للدخول إلى القدس تحت حراسة البوليس الصهيوني، فيؤكد أنها عاصمة كيان العدو ويقبل بأن تكون مقبرة مغتصبي فلسطين حتى الآن!

مفارقتان من النقيض إلى النقيض، تفرضان على العقل والوجدان حضورهما، ولا يمكن لأي مواطن صالح ولا يمكن لأي محلل فاحص أن يتخطاهما..

هاتان خطتان متعاكستان كأنهما ثنائية صراع أبدي. ثنائية العقل وضده.

ثنائية المسيح الفادي ويهوذا المنكر أنه المسيح.

ثنائية النور الذي يفتتح ثنايا الظلمة المتكالبة على ذاتها وعلى ضحاياها المستسلمين، غير المأسوف عليهم، لأنهم أدواتها.

ويقدّم حتر نفسه للمحاكمة غير مكابر ولا مستسلم. لا يرفض للقانون طلباً ما دام القانون نظام حياة مجتمع وسياق دولة ينبغي ان ينشد العدل وأن يثبت الحق. ولا يضعف أمام التهديدات. تهديدات الغوغاء والسابلة والعامة التي قد تُشترى بأبخس من ثلاثين من تنك صدئ. بل يتمسّك بموقفه، برباطة جأش نادرة،

يوضح ولا يعتذر. يعيّن مقاصده بنبل وكرامة كما ينبغي لأي مثقف وعارف ومقاوم في بلادنا أن يعي مسؤولياته التاريخية نحو تحدي الراهن وتحديات المستقبل فينبري للمواجهة، ولو بالكلمات والموقف المسؤول والرفض العاتي بالحق.

فليس كل مثقف كفارس سعيد يبرر لذات رذيلتها ليعم فسادها ويبرر للعميل حرية تعبيره، ليكون شعبنا مجرد أتباع أجهزة مخابرات ومخبري سفارات على أهلهم قبل غيرهم.

ليس كلّ مثقف كنديم قطيش الذي يطلق سخريته، كلما ساد صمت ليطرد كابوس فراغه، فينفث في وجه الكبار إن تكلموا ليفضح نفسه انه لا يعي ولا يفقه سوى وشوشات زوجه لتتم برمجته مجدداً..

وليس كل قائد كعباس السلطة، يريق ماء وجهه، يقف على تراب أجداد شعبه وثراهم باكياً في حضرة قامة المحتل التي تترامى من جنوب النيل في جبال أثيوبيا إلى جبال كردستان، بحيث لا يُرى عندما يدور في فلك أخطبوطها الدولي العالمي، ولا يكبر إلا إذا انزرع زيتونه في بيارات نابلس وفي كروم غزة وفي بساتين يافا وفي تلال القدس.

فيا هؤلاء.. لماذا تتصاغرون؟
44433-abbasماذا تقول عن أوراق القوة التي حرقتها دفعة واحدة من اول جلوس على مقعد ما سمي مفاوضات، ولم تكن سوى جلسات تفريط مذل تحت يافطات مبرمجة؟ ماذا بقي لديك بعد التنسيق الأمني مع العدو لتصبح سلطتك أحد أجهزته تقتل شعبها وتحاصره وتطارده وتثخن جراحه وتشي به؟

ماذا بقي لديك عندما ترى في صواريخ المقاومة مؤامرة حقيرة تستهدف فلسطين إذا طالت مغتصبة للمحتل؟
Israel Likely Killed Arafat
لم يبق لديك ما تتستر به سوى بقية زمن يودي بك إلى مهلكة التفريط الكامل، التي افتتحتها مع سلفك، وها هو القطيع يلحق بكما وفي إثركما سريعاً…

بالمقابل، سيد عباس، ماذا بقي للشهيد ناهض حتر؟

تأمّل معي: بقيت له رفعة النبل وسمو الكرامة وشرف الموقف ومرتبة الشهادة، والتفاف شعبنا حوله، والتخلق بخلقه، وتسرّبه إلى ذاكرة الأجيال والانتماء للمستقبل وعصر الانتصار!
..لك الله يا فلسطين!

..ولك رجاله قادمون!

Related Articles
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

A Veiled Threat? State Department’s Kirby Predicts Russia Will ‘Send It’s Troops Home in Body Bags’

 photo jkirby_zpspb2nhvsi.jpg
[ Ed. note – Some pretty non-diplomatic words were spoken today by the State Department’s John Kirby:
“Extremist groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which will include attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities. Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and they will continue to lose resources, even perhaps more aircraft,” Kirby said.
He added that if the war continues “more Russian lives will be lost, more Russian aircraft will be shot down.”
These things will happen, Kirby said, unless Russia “stops the violence” in Syria.
Given that the “extremist groups” Kirby refers to are being supported in large part by the US, one can’t help wondering if Kirby’s words about Russian troops going home in body bags were not intended as a veiled threat. His comment about “more Russian aircraft” being shot down are significant also insofar as reports are now emerging of Syrian terrorists being armed with MANPADS, shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles capable of bringing down planes:
The US State Department is threatening to “suspend US-Russia bilateral engagement” on Syria unless Russia rolls over and allows the proxy forces backed by the US and its allies to move ahead and complete the American-initiated regime change operation. Failing that, Russian soldiers will be going home in body bags–this is the gist of the State Department spokesman’s comments in today’s press briefing.
Maybe I’m reading too much into Kirby’s words–maybe they weren’t intended as a veiled threat. On the other hand, I’m guessing the innuendo wasn’t lost on the Russians.
An interesting analysis on the Syrian conflict and the collapse of the ceasefire has been posted on Counterpunch by Mike Whitney, whose thesis is that in sabotaging the ceasefire, the US has set the stage for its own defeat in Syria. Below is an excerpt. Follow the link to access the full article. ]
By Mike Whitney
“Syria is the summation of all the errors of a dysfunctional empire collapsing upon itself. History forgotten. Science ignored. Facts denied. Propaganda cannot hide that West is supporting and killing Islamists at the same time in a World War that risks escalating into a nuclear holocaust.” Vietnam Vet, comments-line,  Sic Semper Tyrannis
The attack on Deir Ezzor was a flagrant act of betrayal. For the first time in the five year-long war,  US warplanes targeted an SAA military outpost killing 62 Syrian regulars. The surprise attacks — which lasted for the better part of an hour and were followed by a coordinated ground assault by members of ISIS– were intended to torpedo the fragile ceasefire agreement and send a message to Moscow that the US was prepared to achieve its strategic objectives in Syria whether it had to launch direct attacks on defenders of the regime or not.
The attacks–for which the Pentagon eventually accepted responsibility–were followed by a callous and thoroughly-unprofessional tirade by the administration’s chief diplomat at the United Nations, Samantha Power. Power dispelled any doubt that either she or anyone else in the Obama administration cared at all about the people who lost their lives in the bombing raid.  She also made it clear that she didn’t care if the US had violated the terms of the ceasefire just two days before critical parts of the agreement were scheduled to be implemented.
Naturally, Moscow was taken aback by Washington’s reaction, it’s blatant disregard for the soldiers they killed, and its obvious determination to sabotage the ceasefire. Having reflected on Obama’s de facto rejection of the agreement, Putin pursued the only viable option left open to him;  more war.   As a result, he has intensified his efforts on the battlefield particularly around Aleppo where the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and crack-units from Hezbollah have launched a three-prong attack that will dispose of the US-backed jihadists that have destroyed much of Syria over the last half-decade  and displaced over 7 million civilians.
Bottom line: Having foreclosed the political option for reducing the violence, the Obama administration will now face the consequences for its rejection.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

American Message (Please Spread): We Are supplying weapons to such Moderate Opposition

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The war against Syria: both sides go to “plan B”

The war against Syria: both sides go to “plan B”
September 30, 2016
Unz ReviewThis article was written for the Unz Review
In view of the total failure the US policy to regime-change Syria and overthrow Assad, the time has now come for the United States to make a fundamental choice: to negotiate or double down.Apparently, Kerry and others initially tried to negotiate, but the Pentagon decided otherwise, treacherously broke the terms of the agreement and (illegally) bombed the Syrian forces. At which point, Kerry, Power and the rest of them felt like they had no choice but to “join” the Pentagon and double down. Now the US “warns” Russia that if the Aleppo offensive continues, the US will not resume negotiations. This is a rather bizarre threat considering that the US is clearly unable to stick to any agreement and that the Russians have already concluded that the USA is “not-agreement-capable”. The Russia reaction was predictable: Lavrov’s admitted that he could not even take his American colleagues seriously.
Okay, so both sides are fed-up with each other. What comes next?
The US will send more weapons to Daesh, including MANPADs, TOWs and Javelins. The effect of that will be marginal. Russian fixed-wing aircraft fly at over 5’000m where they are out of reach from MANPADs. They are currently the main provider of firepower support for the Syrians. Russian combat helicopters, while probably not immune to MANPADs, are still very resistant to such attacks due to three factors, survivability, weapons range and tactics: Mi-28s and Ka-52 have missiles with a maximum range of 10km and the way they are typically engaged is in a kind of ‘rotation’ where one helicopters flies to acquire the target, fires, immediately turns back and is replaced by the next one. In this matter they all protect each other while presenting a very difficult target to hit. Russian transport helicopters would, however, be at a much higher risk of being shot down by a US MANPAD. So, yes, if the US floods the Syrian theater with MANPADS, Syrian aircraft and Russian transport helicopters will be put at risk, but that will not be enough to significantly affect Russian or Syrian operations.
Russian escalatory options are far more diverse: Russia can send more T-90 tanks (which TOWs, apparently, cannot defeat), more artillery (especially modern multiple rocket launchers and heavy flamethrower systems like the TOS-1). The Russian Aerospace forces could also decide to engage in much heavier airstrikes including the use of cluster and thermobaric munitions. Finally, Russia could send in actual ground forces ranging in size from a few battalions to, in theory, a full-size brigade. The problem with that option is that this would mark a major increase in the commitment of Russian forces to this war, something which a lot of Russians would oppose. Still, since the Iranians and, especially, Hezbollah have been used like a “fire brigade” to “plug” the holes in the front created by various defeats of Syrian army units, it is not impossible that the Russians might commit a combined-arms battalion tactical group to a crucial segment of the front and then withdraw it as soon as possible. The purpose of this strategy would be double: to support the struggling Syrians with as much firepower as possible while, at the same time, slowly but surely bleeding the Daesh forces until the reach a breaking point. Basically, the same strategy as before the ceasefire.
So why did the Russians agree to that ceasefire in the first place?
Because of the long held belief that a bad ceasefire is better than a good war, because Russia is trying hard not to escalate the confrontation with the USA and because Russia believes that time is on her side. I am pretty sure that the Russian military would have preferred to do without that ceasefire, but I am equally sure that they were also okay with trying it out and see. This is the old contradiction: westerners also want results *now*, while the Russians always take their time and move very slowly.That is why to a western audience the Kremlin under Putin is always “late” or “hesitant” or otherwise frustrating in what appears to be almost a lack of purpose and determination. Where this typically Russian attitude becomes a problem is when it signals to the leaders of the US deep state that Russia is not only hesitant, but possibly frightened. In a perverse way, the lack of “show of force” by Russia risks giving the Americans the impression that “the Russkies have blinked”. I am always quite amazed when I see western reactions to the soft, diplomatic language used by Russian diplomats. Where the Americans openly compare Putin to Hitler and demand the imposition of a (completely illegal) no-fly zone over Syria, the Russians respond with“my friend John” and “our partners” and “negotiations must proceed”. More often than not, when Americans hear the diplomatic language of the Russians, they mistake it for weakness and they feel further emboldened and they make even more threats. It is in part for this reason that Russia and the United States are, yet again, on a collisions course.
Once the US comes to realize that its policy sending MANPADs to Syria did not work, it will have only one last card to play: attempt to impose a no-fly zone over Syria.
The good news is that judging by this exchange, US generals understand that any such US move would mean war with Russia. The bad news is that the Neocons seem to be dead-set on exactly that. Since such an event has now become possible, we need to look at what exactly this would entail.
The way the US doctrine mandates to impose a no-fly zone is pretty straightforward: it begins with an intensive series of USAF and USN cruise missile strikes and bombing raids whose aim is to disable the enemy air defenses and command and control capabilities. At this stage heavy jamming and anti-radiation missile strikes play a key role. This is also when the Americans, if they have any hope of achieving a tactical surprise, will also typically strikes at enemy airbases, with a special emphasis on destroying landed aircraft, runways and fuel storage facilities. This first phase can last anything between 48 hours to 10 days, depending on the complexity/survivability of the enemy air defense network. The second phase typically includes the deployment of air-to-air fighters into combat air patrols which are typically controlled by airborne AWACS aircraft. Finally, once the air defense network has been destroyed and air supremacy has been established, strike fighters and bombers are sent in to bomb whatever can be bombed until the enemy surrenders or is crushed.
In Syria, this ideal scenario would run into several problems.
First, while there are only a few S-400/S-300 systems in Syria, the US has never had to operate against them, especially not against the Russian version of these formidable systems. Worse, Russia also has very long range radars which will make it impossible for the USA to achieve a tactical surprise. Last but not least, Russia also has deployed powerful electronic warfare systems which are likely to create total chaos in key US command, control, communications and intelligence systems.
Second, these S-400/S-300 systems are mostly located on what is legally “Russian territory”: the Khmeimim airbase and the Slava-class or Kuznetsov-class cruisers off the Syrian coast. The same goes for the key nodes of the Russian communications network. If the Americans were crazy enough to try to hit a Russian Navy ship that would open up the entire USN to Russian attacks.
Third, while Russia has deployed relatively few aircraft in Syria, and while even fewer of them are air-to-air interceptors, those which Russia has deployed (SU-30SM and SU-35) are substantially superior to any aircraft in the US inventory with the possible exception of the F-22A. While the US will be able to overwhelm the Russians with numbers, it will be at a steep cost.
Fourth, the use of USAF AWACS could be complicated by the possibility that the Russians would decide to deploy their anti-AWACS very-long range missiles (both ground launched and air launched). It is also likely that Russia would deploy her own AWACS in Iranian airspace and protect them with MiG-31BMs making them a very difficult target.
Fifth, even if the USA was somehow able to establish something like an general air superiority over Syria, the Russians would still have three formidable options to continue to strike Daesh deep inside Syria:
1) cruise missiles (launched from naval platforms of Tu-95MS bombers)
2) SU-34/SU-35 strike groups launched from Russia or Iranian
3) supersonic long range bombers (Tu-22M3 and Tu-160)
It would be exceedingly difficult for the US to try to stop such Russian attacks as the USAF and USN have not trained for such missions since the late 1980s.
Sixth, even a successful imposition of a no-fly zone would do little to stop the Russians from using their artillery and attack helicopters (a difficult target for fixed-wing aircraft to begin with). Hunting them down at lower altitudes would further expose the USAF/USN to even more Russia air defenses.
Seven, last but not least, today is not 1995 and Syria is not Bosnia: nowadays the Europeans don’t have the stomach to fight the Syrians, nevermind Russia. So while some European leaders will definitely send at least some aircraft to show their loyalty to Uncle Sam (Poland, Germany, Holland and maybe one 2nd hand F-16 from a Baltic state), the regimes that matter (France, UK, Italy, etc.) are unlikely to be interested in a dangerous and completely illegal military intervention. This is not a military problem for the USA, but would present yet another political difficulty.
To sum all this up I would simply say that if the Americans and their allies have a huge advantage in numbers, in terms of quality they are outgunned by the Russians pretty much at all levels. At the very least, this qualitative edge for the Russians makes the imposition of a (completely illegal!) no-fly zone over Syria an extremely risky proposition. Could they do it? Yes, probably, but only at a very substantial cost and at the very real risk of a full-scale war with Russia. As I have said it many times, Syria is smack in the middle of the CENTCOM/NATO area of “responsibility” end at the outer edge of the Russian power projection capability. Where Russia has tens of aircraft, the Americans can bring in many hundreds. So the real question is not whether the Americans could do it, but rather whether they are willing to pay the price such an operation would entail.
At a political level it is important to repeat the following here:
1) The US presence in Syria – all of it – is completely illegal and has no UNSC mandate
2) Any and all US military operations in Syria are also completely illegal
3) The imposition of a US enforced no-fly zone would also be completely illegal
While this has not stopped the Empire so far, this might offer the Europeans a perfect excuse not to participate in any such operation. Of course, the Americans don’t need any European air force to try to impose a no-fly zone on Syria, but politically this would definitely hurt them.
Finally, there is one more problem for the US to deal with: the imposition of a no-fly zone over Syria is a very large operation which would require hundred of aircraft. Where would the US operate from? I might be naïve here, but I don’t think that Erdogan would let the US use Incirlik for that purpose. Iraq would most likely at least try close its airspace to any aircraft participating in such operation, especially if Syrian or Russian forces are hit. This leaves Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and US aircraft carriers to launch from. None of them are very suited for that: Jordan does not have the infrastructure and is too close, Israel would not help the US against Russia and neither would Egypt. And while the Saudis have excellent facilities, they are far away. As for aircraft carriers, they are the best option, but they are far from ideal for a sustained air campaign (which the imposition of such a no-fly zone would be).
Again, none of that is a show-stopper, but it very substantially complicates the work of US planners.
The risk of a US attempt to impose a no-fly zone over Syria will remain very real for the foreseeable future unless, of course, Trump beats Hillary to the White House. If Hillary wins – then that risk will sharply escalate. As for Obama, he probably does not want to stick a big stick in such a hornet’s nest right before leaving the White House (at least I hope so). Finally, regardless of who actually sits in the White House, the idea of imposing a no-fly zone over Syria would have to be measured against the so-called “Powell doctrine” of military interventions. So let’s see how this plan would measure up to the series of questions of the Powell doctrine:
Q: Is a vital national security interest threatened?
A: No
Q: Do we have a clear attainable objective?
A: Kinda
Q: Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
A: Yes, and they are potentially extremely high
Q: Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
A: No
Q: Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
A: No
Q: Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
A: Yes, and the biggest risk is WWIII against Russia
Q: Is the action supported by the American people?
A: No
Q: Do we have genuine broad international support?
A: No
As we can easily see, this plan fails to meet the minimal criteria of the Powell Doctrine on most points. So as long as somebody mentally sane is in the White House all this talk should remain what it has been so far – empty threats. Of course, if Hillary makes it into the White House and then nominates a maniac like Michèle Flournoy as Secretary of Defense along with a national security team composed of rabid warmongers then all bets are off.
Please consider that before you go to vote.
Related Videos
Syrian War Report – September 29, 2016: US Deploys Troops near Aleppo City
Syrian War Report – September 28, 2016: US & Allies to Arm ‘Opposition’ with MANPADS
Syrian War Report – September 27, 2016: Diplomatic Deadlock over Syria
حروب المنطقة : مشروعان .. ميدان واحد .. | الاتجاه

Related articles
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Friday, 30 September 2016

Jewish Groups Plotted to Kill British Official in 1946

Posted on September 28, 2016

[ Ed. note – This is actually an old story. What’s new is that you can now visit theUK National Archives and, for a fee, see the documents that have been released concerning these plots. The attempt on Bevin’s life is only part of the story. There was also a plot to carry out an aerial bombing of London organized by followers of an American rabbi by the name of Korf. The documents on the latter remain under heavy censorship. H/T Miriam. ]
By Neil Tweedie and Peter Day
Jewish terrorist groups plotted to assassinate Ernest Bevin, the Foreign Secretary in the post-war Labour government, as part of a bombing campaign on the British mainland inspired by the IRA.
MI5 warned Clement Attlee, the prime minister, that the Stern Gang and Irgun intended to establish five terrorist cells in London to mount a bombing campaign aimed at driving Britain out of Palestine. Bevin, who was opposed to the creation of the state of Israel, was a prime target.
Security Service files also contain details of an outlandish plan by the followers of an American Zionist rabbi to bomb London from the air. Details of that plot have been heavily censored.
The warnings came in 1946 from James Robertson, head of the Security Service’s Middle East Section.
He wrote: “Our Jerusalem representative has received information that the Irgun and Stern groups have decided to send five cells to London to work on IRA lines. To use their own words, the terrorists intend to ‘beat the dog in his own kennel’.
“The Stern group has been steadily recruiting in recent months and may now number 600 followers, most of whom are desperate men and women who count their own lives cheap.
“In recent months it has been reported that they have been training selected members for the purpose of assassinating a prominent British personality. Special reference has been several times made to Mr Bevin.”
The plot to bomb the capital from the air was said to be the product of followers of one Rabbi Korff.
Londoners were to be convinced of the rightness of the terrorists’ cause with leaflets dropped from the same aircraft as the explosives. The plot was foiled by MI5 and a number of arrests made in Paris.
The report was written shortly after 18 men had been sentenced to death for a sabotage attack on the railway workshops at Haifa. Stern and Irgun warned that there would be 100 terrorist outrages in retaliation if the 18 were hanged. Their sentences were later commuted to life.
Robertson identified Menachem Begin, the future Israeli prime minister, as leader of the 5,000-strong Irgun.
Bevin was a hated figure among all the Jewish groups trying to establish a homeland, arguing that Jews needed to be re-assimilated into the nations of Europe in the aftermath of the Holocaust. He accused the United States of encouraging illegal migration to Palestine in contravention of British quotas.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Jewish Bigotry on Speed? Just Check Out Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

by Gilad Atzmon
Last week, Britain’s veteran chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks lectured to the European Parliament on antisemitism. The rabbi’s mission was to define antisemitism, but instead he just demonstrated some of the most problematic symptoms of Jewish supremacy, tribal arrogance and even crude Goy-hatred. Unwittingly, the rabbi didn’t make the Jews look too good.
“The hate that begins with Jews doesn’t end with Jews.” was the Rabbi’s starting point. Here, I tend to agree with the rabbi. The rabbi probably knows a lot about hate. Hate can so easily backfire. Hate is dangerous territory. Hate spreads fast. The Zionist project, initially driven by moderate animosity towards the Palestinians, quickly evolved into hate towards Arabs, then Islam, then Black migrant communities and eventually to Goyim in general.  The Jewish anti-Zionist Left follows the exact same pattern. They are now hating the ’White’ and the ‘redneck.’ All in all, it’s pretty clear that the rabbi’s presentation is mere projection – he simply attributes Jewish cultural symptoms onto the Goyim.
It didn’t take long for the rabbi to manifest his supremacist inclinations. “Antisemitism is not about Jews, antisemitism is about antisemites.” and if you really want to know who the antisemites are, the rabbi was quick to provide the answer. It is the failures and the losers in society. Antisemites are the“people who can’t accept their own failure and instead have to blame someone else (the Jews).” 
Yes, you’ve got it. For Rabbi Sacks, those who dare to criticise Jewish power and Israeli criminality are just a bunch of frustrated losers driven by jealousy. But here I can perhaps help the rabbi. Such an outrageously chauvinist statement is itself uniquely arrogant and dangerous and is not going to help the Jews defeat antisemites. On the contrary, it provides Jew haters with a rationale.
 “Antisemitism is symptom of a disease” the rabbi continues.  So basically, if you feel any  indignation whatsoever towards the rabbi’s disgusting remarks above, it means only that you are ill as well as being a ‘failure’ and ‘envious’. You’d better seek help.
But what is antisemitism? The rabbi answers. “Antisemitism means denying the right of Jews to exist collectively as Jews with the same rights as everyone else.” Well, in the world in which we live, no one denies Jews the right to exist or to enjoy every universal right. Trouble is, more and more people are repulsed by the Jewish State (for instance) celebrating its so called ‘rights’ at the expense of others.
And how exactly does the rabbi support the idea that antisemitism is on the rise?  Simple,  he points on an increase in Jewish anxiety. (Note how Jews constantly demand more and more police presence around their cultural and spiritual centres.)  But here is a problem. Analysing Jewish anxiety in Freudian terms may suggest that Jews may be fearful because they feel guilty. Jews understand very well that Zionist wars, Israeli criminality and the forceful Jewish lobby bear responsibility for many of our current humanitarian disasters. Is it possible, for instance,  that the rabbi is, likewise,  fearful of the ‘Goyim’ because he calls them failures and losers?
The rabbi detects a progress in the antisemitic discourse, “In the past antisemitism could be explored through religion (Christianity), then science (race), now it is human rights, ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide,”  and the Rabbi concludes that “anti Zionism is the anti Semitism of our time.” 
The rabbi is wrong: ethically, methodically and historically. Ethically, because if Israel attempts genocide and engages in ethnic cleansing then we, the rest of humanity, must and often do, oppose it.  But the rabbi is also mistaken methodically and historically because the opposition to Jewry extends far beyond Israeli criminality. It is really an ongoing battle against a choseness that fuels dissentto Jewish culture and spirit. This opposition is not new, it is, in fact, as old as the Jews and has been explored by the Hebrew prophets, by Christ, by Marx and even by early Zionists who were repulsed by the attitude of their brethren’s chauvinism. The opposition to choseness is driven by a humanist and universal intent. But if Christ, Marx and the Zionist Boruchov were entitled to criticiseJewish exceptionalism, shouldn’t the rest of humanity enjoy the same elementary right? Or maybe the rabbi thinks that criticism of Jewish culture and politics should be remain a Jews’-only territory?
Lying can be an act of courage but it takes a whole lot of courage for a celebrity rabbi to boldly spin the entire European Parliament.  “When bad things happen to a group,” the rabbi says, “its members can ask one of two different questions: 1, what did we do wrong 2, who did this to us?” This sounds like a beginning of a monumental Jewish confession on the rabbi’s part.  “Self criticism is essential for a free society. If a society asks who did this to us it defines itself as a victim and seek a scapegoat.”
Don’t hold your breath. This is not Jewish remorse. Rabbi Sacks, once again, projects his own symptoms onto the Goyim. It is in fact the Jews (Rabbi Sacks included) who never ask themselves‘what did we do wrong?’ It is the Jews who never self-reflect and try to identify what it is in their culture that invokes so much animosity in others. It is the Jews who block any attempt to verify, once and for all, why their history is an endless chain of holocausts with just a few tea breaks. The only Jews who ever attempted to address these crucial questions in the modern era were the early Zionists, people like Bernard Lazare, Borochov, A.D Gordon and just a few others and, as we know, their kind of Zionism wasn’t at all popular amongst the Jews at the time.
The rabbi warns the European Parliaments that if Jews leave Europe, liberty will come to an end. But reality suggests the complete opposite. No one asks Jews to leave Europe – it is actually Jewish institutions that prevent Europeans from thinking freely let alone revise their memory of their past. I suggest that rather than preaching to Europeans about the importance of Jews and Jerusalem, Rabbi Sack should take some time off from Jerusalem to study Athens.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!