Showing posts with label Benghazi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Benghazi. Show all posts

Sunday, 24 May 2020

American Mercenaries Soiled Themselves In Failed Venezuela Coup (Ruslan Ostashko)



American Mercenaries Soiled Themselves In Failed Venezuela Coup (Ruslan Ostashko)

Translated by Sasha and subtitled by Leo.
For anybody wondering why there are two links, we are trying to get into the habit of posting videos on both YouTube and Dailymotion. Since the subtitle process is different on Dailymotion than on YouTube, it may take a while to perfect it.
Translated by Sasha and subtitled by Leo.
For anybody wondering why there are two links, we are trying to get into the habit of posting videos on both YouTube and Dailymotion. Since the subtitle process is different on Dailymotion than on YouTube, it may take a while to perfect it.



Over 1,200,000 infected, 70,000 dead by COVID-19, food shortage – the US has serious problems. But the democracy peddlers from Washington don’t have time for that. Instead of fighting the epidemic, the American elite keeps trying to establish marionette regimes in the countries where they can carve up natural resources, and they soiled themselves, as it happened again in Venezuela.
The less opportunity the US has to solve problems in their customary manner – by flooding it all with money, the more often they result in all sorts of embarrassments. For instance, the recent disgrace of the supposedly 5th generation aircraft F-35. This is the very case of whatever the amount of money you pour in it doesn’t help. Because the school of engineering has degraded and the real achievements have been replaced by imitation for the sake of redistribution of billions.
The American foreign policy is in a similar situation. Washington has always relied on force, and on a usual scheme of buying out parts of the local elites, so they would help to overthrow the unwanted government. Very recently this again yielded results in the South American Bolivia. Because the overthrown president Evo Morales behaved exceedingly vegetarian. But there is also Venezuela which for the US plays the role of a bone in their throat. Our [Russian] strategic bombers fly over there. Rosneft is working there. There also sits Nicolas Maduro, whom they attempted to overthrow by force a few times but to no avail. And now we have more public self-soiling.
RIA Novosti: “On 3 May, the Interior Minister Nestor Reverol announced that a naval invasion staged by Colombian militants from the direction of La Guiara in the north of the country was thwarted. According to him, the militants tried to invade the country on high speed boats. The Speaker of Venezuelan National Assembly Diosdado Cabello clarified that 8 attackers were killed and two captured.” “He also announced that one of the captured was an agent of the US Drug Enforcement Administration. Later Cabello informed that on Monday, the military and the police in the Northern Sate of Aragua captured another 8 participants of the Sunday naval invasion, including their leader Antonio Sikea.”
The mercenaries were recruited by the Americans among the former members of Venezuelan security forces, who had deserted earlier to the side of the so-called pro-Western opposition, while their American leader has rich experience of participation in conflicts unleashed by the US; from invasion of Iraq to operations in Libya and Syria. Is it then surprising that in Washington they immediately sang denial – the man wasn’t theirs and the US had nothing to do with it?
The American DEA denies that its operative was detained during an armed assault attempt in Venezuela, asclaimed by the country’s authorities.” “The Agency did not take any part in the events of the past weekend, stated the agency’s press service, having advised to also inquire in the State Department.”
The humor in the situation is such that the US media themselves already wrote about the US’ part in yet another attempt to overthrow Maduro.
Iron Curtain (Telegram account): “The Head of PMC ‘Silvercorp USA’ Jordan Goudreau claimed that on Sunday, 3 May he initiated the operation of overthrowing President Nicolas Maduro. However it failed. As The New York Times stated, the group was tasked with penetrating into Venezuela ‘with heavy weapons’, seizing the government buildings within 96 hours, and arresting of the country’s president Nicolas Maduro. The bet was made on ‘demoralization’ of the army, but the Venezuelans managed to defeat the mercenaries.”
It’s no matter whether the American was a DEA operative or had a different ‘roof’. It is clear that now, as he got caught, he is being retroactively removed from any US governmental structure and they will claim that it was his private initiative. Although, if the published information about his work in the White House Secret Service is correct, it is also clear that the operation was sanctioned by the highest ranks of the American state. And that the US has been trying to openly overthrow Maduro for two years is a generally recognised fact. The events demonstrate that the American capabilities for forcible influence over uncomfortable governments are withering away. And the American elites themselves contribute to it enormously while preparing for the autumn battle for the presidential post.
This is why it is not surprising that The New York Times quickly seized the topic of the failure in Venezuela. This will be presented as Donald Trump’s failure and he, in turn, will surely remind the Democrats their disgrace in Benghazi, where during Obama, the American nurtured terrorists killed US citizens. In general, they keep gnawing on each other in Washington. In the meantime, the star-stripped hegemony weakens month by month. And this is good, because the world will be able to breath more freely, when the democracy exporters will spend all their efforts on fighting each other inside their own state.

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!

Wednesday, 14 September 2016

UK Parliament Committee: Cameron’s Intervention in Libya Led to Daesh’s Rise

A key British parliamentary committee has said former Prime Minister David Cameron’s military intervention in Libya was misguided and helped spur the rise of the extremism there.
cameron

The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee said Wednesday the 2011 decision to intervene was based on “erroneous assumptions” and an “incomplete understanding” of the ramifications of removing Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
The disastrous results were “political and economic collapse”, tribal warfare, the refugee crisis, widespread human rights abuses and the rise of Daesh [Arabic Acronym for the terrorist “ISIS”/ “ISIL” group] in North Africa, fuelled by weapons abandoned by the Gaddafi regime.
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee concludes: “Through his decision-making in the National Security Council, former Prime Minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.”
The oil-rich North African country descended into chaos after the intervention and parts of it have become a bastion for Daesh extremists.
The parliamentary report criticizes Cameron for turning an operation designed to protect Libyan civilians in the port of Benghazi into a full-scale push for regime change.
Cameron stepped down as prime minister in July and resigned from Parliament this week.
Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team
14-09-2016 | 12:12

Related articles

Related Video

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!

Thursday, 11 August 2016

2012 Documents Show State Department Aware Of Weapons Shipments To Terrorists In Syria, Hillary Lied In Testimony

AUGUST 6, 2016
7_1_2015_b3-napo-hillary-war8201
While so many rumors, accusations, and scandals surround the 2013 incident in Benghazi where a number of U.S. ambassadorial staff as well as Ambassador Chris Stevens were murdered by Islamic extremists, the question almost always arises “How much was known about Stevens’ mission of supporting terrorists in Syria and who knew it?”
While discussion of how Stevens was killed, how he was killed, or if anyone knew what was going to happen to Stevens is outside of the scope of this article, the question of whether or not it was known that Stevens was essentially working as a conduit between terrorists in Libya and those in Syria, as well as a facilitator of arms to those terrorists, is well worth mentioning. Indeed, it is important to note that documents obtained by Judicial Watch from the Department of Defense and Department of State reveal that the Obama administration as well as the State Department, i.e. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, were all well aware of the fact that weapons were being shipped to terrorists in Syria via Benghazi, Libya.
One such document which was obtained from the Department of Defense, more specifically the Defense Intelligence Agency was dated October, 2012 and stated clearly that not only were weapons being shipped to Syria but that the shipments themselves were being monitored.
Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.
During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.
. . . . .
The weapons shipped from Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea – 125mm and 200ea – 155 mm.]
While, in 2016, the documents may not be considered bombshell information, many alternative researchers and writers were condemned as tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists in 2012 for suggesting that the State Department and the Obama administration were complicit in and facilitating the arming of terrorists in Syria.In addition, the documents are a direct contradiction to the testimony of a number of American officials, including Hillary Clinton herself, who claimed in sworn public testimony that the U.S. had no role in the arming and support of the Syrian “rebels” early on in the Syrian crisis.
For instance, Clinton herself claimed she had no knowledge of any such program when she was questioned by Senator Rand Paul at a Congressional hearing in 2013. The exchange went as follows:
RAND PAUL: It has been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and they might have weapons. What I would like to know, is the annex that was close by [in Benghazi]. Were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries — to any countries, Turkey included.
HILLARY CLINTON: Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.
RAND PAUL: You’re saying you don’t know.
HILLARY CLINTON: I do not now. I don’t have any information on that.
Although the document did not specify that the United States was the responsible party regarding organizing the weapons shipments or that it had a direct role in facilitating them (the responsible party is redacted), it does make clear that the United States was aware of and monitoring these shipments. At the very least, this proves that Clinton’s testimony is false. At worst, it adds to the pile of evidence that the United States was not only a supporter but the architect of the Syrian crisis from day one.
Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutionsand Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 2The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

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!

Sunday, 10 July 2016

Will Americans elect a 'congenital liar' president?

Dauthor-imageoes Hillary Clinton possess the integrity and honesty to be president of the United States? Or are those quaint and irrelevant considerations in electing a head of state in 21st-century America?
These are the questions put on the table by the report from FBI Director James Comey on what his agents unearthed in their criminal investigation of the Clinton email scandal.
Clinton dodged an FBI recommendation that she be indicted for gross negligence in handling U.S. security secrets, a recommendation that would have aborted her campaign. But Director Comey dynamited the defense she has been offering the country.
Comey all but declared that Clinton lied when she said she had State Department approval for the email server in her home.
He all but declared that she lied when she said she had only one server, and that no classified or secret material was transmitted. He also implied that she lied when she said she had used only one device and had turned over all of her work-related emails to State. The FBI found “several thousand” more.
Clinton said her emails were stored in a secure area. This, too, was false. Hostile actors and hostile regimes, said Comey, had access to email systems of those with whom she communicated.
Comey said he found no criminal “intent” in what Clinton did.
Yet, he charged her with having been “extremely careless” with U.S. national security secrets, a phrase that seems synonymous with the gross negligence needed to indict and convict.
While recommending against prosecution, Comey added,
“This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequence. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”
Translation: Were Clinton still the secretary of state and were such recklessness with secrets to be discovered, she could have been forced to resign and stripped of her security clearance forever.
Yet if Clinton is elected president, our commander in chief for the next four years, and her confidantes Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, will all be individuals the FBI has found to be reckless and unreliable in the handling of national security secrets.
We will have security risks running the armed forces of the USA.
Nor is this the first time Clinton’s truthfulness has been called into question. Twenty years ago, she fabricated a tale about crossing a tarmac in Bosnia “under sniper fire,” and running with “our heads down.” Photos showed a peaceful arrival featuring a smiling little girl.
Family members of the dead heroes of Benghazi’s “13 Hours” say Clinton told them she would see to it that the creator of the anti-Islamic video that incited the mob that killed their sons would be run down, all the while knowing it had been a planned terrorist attack.
In 1996, the New York Times’ William Safire went over all of the statements Clinton had made in Whitewater and related scandals of Bill Clinton’s first term, compared them with subsequently revealed truth, and pronounced Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar.”
She has claimed she tried to join the Marines in 1975, and long contended she was named for famed mountaineer Edmund Hillary, who conquered Mount Everest. Only Sir Edmund climbed Everest when Hillary was 6 years old. The perfect running mate for this serial fabricator would be the Cherokee lass Elizabeth Warren.
Still, a question arises as to Comey’s motives in airing the findings of an FBI investigation. Normally, the bureau passes on the evidence it has found, along with its recommendation, to the Justice Department. And Justice decides whether to prosecute.
Instead, Comey called a press conference, documented the charge that Clinton was “extremely careless,” contradicted, point by point, the story she has told the public, then announced he was recommending against prosecution.
What was behind this extraordinary performance?
By urging no prosecution, but providing evidence for a verdict of criminal negligence in handing classified material, Comey was saying:
I am not recommending prosecution, because, to do that, would be to force Hillary Clinton out of the race, and virtually decide the election of 2016. And that is not my decision. That is your decision.
You, the American people, should decide, given all this evidence, if Clinton should be commander in chief. You decide if a public figure with a record of such recklessness and duplicity belongs in the Oval Office.
Comey was making the case against Clinton as the custodian of national security secrets with a credibility the GOP cannot match, while refusing to determine her fate by urging an indictment, and instead leaving her future in our hands.
And, ultimately, should not this decision rest with the people, and not the FBI?
If, knowing what we know of the congenital mendacity of Hillary Clinton, the nation chooses her as head of state and commander in chief, then that will tell us something about the America of 2016.
And it will tell us something about the supposed superiority of democracy over other forms of government.
Read more 
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!

Wednesday, 15 June 2016

Despite Being Funded by Saudis, Clinton Calls KSA, Qatar, Kuwait to Stop Funding Terrorism...

In what may be the pinnacle of hypocrisy, Hillary Clinton, while speaking live on national security and addressing the Orlando shooting took some time from her constant bashing of the Second Amendment and calling for a ban on assault rifles, to say some less than kind words about Saudi Arabia which it said continues to support terrorists. This is what she said:
Hillary Clinton and Sauid King Salman
“The third area that demands attention is preventing radicalization and countering efforts by ISIS and other international terrorist networks to recruit in the United States and Europe. For starters, it is long past time for the Saudis, the Qataris and the Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism. We also have to use all our capabilities to counter “jihadist” propaganda online. This is something that I spend a lot of time on at the State Department.”
There is nothing wrong with that statement, as it is the whole truth – Saudi Arabia’s involvement in supporting terrorism stretches from Sept 11 all the way through to Daesh [Arabic acronym for “ISIS” / “ISIL”] – however, where there is a big, and potentially law-breaking, problem is what Jordan’s official news agency,Petra News Agency, reported on Sunday citing the Saudi crown price, namely that Saudi Arabia is a major funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next president of the United States.
As MEE notes, the Petra News Agency published on Sunday what it described as exclusive comments from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman which included revelations that Riyadh has provided 20 percent of the total funding to the prospective Democratic candidate’s campaign.
The report was later deleted and the news agency has not responded to requests for comment from Middle East Eye. However, the deletion took place too late, as the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs managed to capture the report and has re-published the original Arabic Petra report, which quoted Prince Mohammed as having said Saudi Arabia had provided with “full enthusiasm” an undisclosed amount of money to Clinton.
Below is a screenshot of the English report published, and then quickly deleted, by the Petra News Agency:
As a reminder, It is illegal in the United States for foreign countries to try to influence the outcome of elections by funding candidates. That appears not to have stopped the Saudis, however.
“Saudi Arabia always has sponsored both Republican and Democratic Party of America and in America current election also provide with full enthusiasm 20 percent of the cost of Hillary Clinton’s election even though some events in the country don’t have a positive look to support the king of a woman (sic) for presidency,” the report quoted Prince Mohammed as having said.
According to the US Federal Election commission, over the past two years Clinton has raised a little more than $211.8 million. 20% of this sum is $42.4 million.
The report was published [and then mysteriously deleted] on the eve of Prince Mohammed making an official visit to the United States. The Saudi Press Agency reported on Monday that the senior royal was due to fly to Washington where he will meet officials to discuss US-Saudi ties.
He will remain in the American capital until 16 June, when he will travel to New York for meetings with financial companies, the Saudi Gazette reported.
Links between Saudi Arabia and the Clinton family, including with Hillary’s campaign, are well reported. In 2008, it was revealed that the Gulf kingdom had donated between $10m and $25m to the Clinton Foundation, a charity set up by Hillary’s husband and former US President Bill Clinton.
Last year the Centre for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court paid public relations firm the Podesta Group $200,000 for a month-long project to provide “public relations services”.
The Podesta Group was founded in 1988 by brothers John and Tony Podesta. John Podesta is the chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next US president.
Finally, in connection to the Orlando shooting, the WSJ reported that according to a spokesman for Saudi Arabia’s interior ministry, the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen visited the kingdom twice.
Mateen visited Saudi Arabia in 2011 and again in 2012 to perform umrah, a religious pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca. The trips lasted eight and 10 days each.
Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team
14-06-2016 | 10:44
Related Videos
Saudi’s are FUNDING Hillary Clinton 2016 with 9/11 BLOOD MONEY 28 Pages Congressional Report on 9/11
Saudi Arabia and UAE fund Hillary Clinton’s Foundation
Hillary’s Private Emails Show Saudi Arabia Funded Benghazi Attack

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!

Tuesday, 14 June 2016

NO FRIEND OF MUHAMMAD ALI OR PALESTINE: RABBI LERNER, LIKE ALL ZIONISTS, IS A STAIN ON HUMANITY

rabbi michael lerner edited
Question for all my Muslim brothers and sisters: Have all of you lost your goddamn ability to think? Have you? Clearly you have. You MUST have. Because if you didn’t, you wouldn’t be drooling and tripping over yourselves to praise this dirty, devilish, Zionist pig of pigs Michael Lerner over his speech at Muhammad Ali’s funeral procession, which was, for all intents and purposes, a total sideshow based solely on the presence of this corroded rabbi, the neocon Mormon Orrin Hatch and the Imperialist-In-Chief and slaughterer of Iraqis, Sudanese and Yugoslavs Bill Clinton.
Did y’all even hear what this filthy rabbinical subverter actually said? Because it damn sure wasn’t“LIBERATE PALESTINE FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA!” or “All Zionists Out!” or “DEATH TO ‘ISRAEL!’” No! What Rabbi Lerner toothlessly declared was, “We call on the United States to stand up to the part of the ‘Israeli’ government that is oppressing Palestinians”.
A PART of the ‘Israeli’ GOVERNMENT, huh Rabbi? There is no “part” of ‘Israel’ oppressing Palestinians, Rabbi, ALL of ‘Israel’ is oppressing the Palestinian people, from the Dead to the Med, because the very existence of ‘Israel’ is a crime against humanity. And there is no “government”, i.e. a legitimate ruling authority, in ‘Israel’.There is only an ILLEGITIMATE Jewish supremacist REGIME set up by the ILLEGITIMATE Jewish supremacist SETTLERS who stole Palestine and then ILLEGITIMATELY called it ‘Israel’.
EVERY ‘Israeli’ is a settler, a terrorist and a murderer, male or female, “religious” or “secular”, “Reform Jew” or “Orthodox Jew”, Ashkenazi (minority) or Mizrahi (majority), none of it matters.
They are all in the genocidal occupation army, they’re all usurpers, and they all have privilege as colonizers within the Judaic colonial construct, even those precious “leftists” so many “Palestine Solidarity Movement” activists love fawning over, i.e. those hipster, “human rights”-loving ‘Israelis’ who come to the West Bank and Al-Quds for a little “aren’t the Goyim so adorable?” charity and some “look how bad the Goyim are suffering!” tourism before prancing back over to their posh, fancy cribs built on stolen land in “Tel Aviv”.
Rabbi Lerner’s speech gets even more laughable and Orwellian when he tells y’all EXACTLY WHAT HIS DAMN POSITION IS, but yet, somehow, y’all are still enamored with this putrid creature! Here, in the Rabbi’s own words:
“… tell Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu the way to get security is for ‘Israel’ to stop the occupation of the West Bank and help create a Palestinian state!”
Well, there you have it folks. So the “good rebbe” thinks the invading Jews should keep 90% of the Palestinians’ lands stolen during the Nakba and even in the half-century of colonization prior to that, and simply grant the indigenous a sliver of what was taken during the Naksa, and not even based on the principle of justice–because this is about as just as a woman being raped and then being forced to shack up with her rapist in a one-bedroom apartment–but based on concern for the Zionist entity’s security. And this really shouldn’t be surprising, if Muslims would only get their heads out from underneath the Yahoudlings’ jackboots and do some damn homework.
Rabbi Lerner has spent his life attempting to silence anti-Zionists, he even wrote a book about it called “The Socialism of Fools: Anti-Semitism on the Left”, and has also penned two books–“Healing Israel/Palestine: A Path to Peace and Reconciliation” and “The Geneva Accord: And Other Strategies for Healing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”– about the best way to preserve the ‘Israeli’ entity. In other words, this charlatan is a pure liberal Zionist, the worst kind of Zionist, through and through. What the f*** are Arabs, Muslims and friends of the Palestinian cause doing promoting him?!
I chuckled out loud when he called his publication, Tikkun Magazine, “liberal and progressive”, when it’s nothing more than another Zionist front for Jewish supremacy and fake unity. Yes! Yes! Let’s unify! All faiths and all peoples! Just don’t criticize the blatant anti-Gentile bigotry of Judaism or any aspect of Jewish wealth, power and influence and then we can like totally be best pals FOREVER! Please. And on that note, I chuckled out loud in even more cartoonish fashion when Rabbi Lerner said “1% who own 80% of the wealth of this country” need to share the wealth. It’s too RICH–pun intended–not to find comedic. When he speaks of the “1%”, he’s speaking of the billionaires, right? Well. Just about 50%, 48% to be exact, of the billionaires in the United Snakes of IsraHell are Jews–Zionist Jews with deep ties to the cancerous ‘Israeli’ tumor putrefying Palestine and our whole region.
Was Rabbi Lerner suggesting that his wealthy coreligionists go against the teachings in their Talmud and corrupted Torah and simply fork over their hard-earned (read: outright STOLEN) money to lowly Gentiles? HIGHLY DOUBTFUL. Y’all know about “Newspeak” from 1984, right? Then consider Lerner’s words “Jewspeak”, a language spoken by Jewish “elites” to Gentiles as a means of totally undermining and de-fanging the aforesaid Gentiles who are pursuing liberation, as well as misdirecting them off the path of uncovering and exposing the pinnacle of the global conspiracy to enslave humanity: World Zionism.
It was particularly nauseating when this Zionist rat said that Jews stand in solidarity with Muslims all around the world in the face of Islamophobia when Jews are in fact the primary financiers, disseminators and facilitators of Islamophobia. Jews, through the usurping Zionist entity which Rabbi Lerner loves so much, also are the biggest backers of the single-greatest cause of Islamophobia in the world today alongside their crypto-Jewish Saudi allies: Daesh and other Takfiri terrorist groups. When Jews of the “activist” sort do in fact participate in the struggle against Islamophobia, it isn’t out of genuineness but again, to undermine, de-fang, de-radicalize and misdirect it, no different than their participation in the African-American Civil Rights struggle against Jim Crow apartheid actually. So it’s rather telling, FREUDIAN even, that Lerner brought this up in his speech too.
Malcolm X (R.A.) told y’all about the poisonous nature of Jewish liberals, but y’all ain’t listen. Kwame Ture did the same, but y’all ain’t listen to him either. Israel Shahak broke it down in “Jewish History, Jewish Religion” that Jews were only throwing their weight behind the Civil Rights Movement because they wanted Black support for the illegitimate ‘Israeli’ regime, but y’all ain’t pay him any mind!
Additionally, ANYONE who knows ANYTHING about the dynamics between Blacks and Jews vis-a-vis the Civil Rights struggle knows that the moment Jim Crow was repealed and Black folks began to better themselves and move out of the slums into the ‘burbs near their so-called Jewish allies, those very same Jews–who reprehensibly refer to Blacks as “Schvartze” in Yiddish and “Kushi” in Hebrew–departed with the QUICKNESS. It happened all over New York, Philly, Maryland, Chicago and numerous other places. This is undoubtedly because Judaism is inherently anti-Black. Ever heard of the “Curse of Ham”? No? Then you sure have a whole lot of reading to do.
I also found it quite interesting that Lerner would condemn Erdogan for “killing the Kurds”… But of course he would, wouldn’t he?! Because Kurdish separatism is part and parcel of the Zionist entity’s project against our region, i.e. the Oded Yinon plan of balkanizing all Arab and Islamic states on ethno-sectarian lines to make it easier for the ‘Israeli’ tumor to eventually gobble them up. And Lerner’s main concern is preserving ‘Israel’.
The hypocrisy of the “good rebbe” is further compounded by the fact that whatever Kurdish women and children are in fact being killed by the tyrant Erdogan’s bombs are being done so with ‘Israeli’ assistance because the Zionist occupation army and the Neo-Ottoman regime’s military maintain the absolute coziest relationship. It’s a classical case of ‘Israel’ pitting two sides of “Goyim” against each other to further its own designs. Something the faux-revolutionary rabbi would NEVER be caught dead saying.
With all this noted however, the most obvious and rhetorical question of all is: WHY THE F*** WAS THIS ZIONIST YAHOUDLING AT ALI’S FUNERAL TO BEGIN WITH?! He met him one time! ONE TIME! DECADES AGO! They weren’t friends! They didn’t have a “special relationship” as this rabbinical demon claimed! And the cover story being spread in the Zionist media that Ali apparently told his lawyer that he was an admirer of Lerner’s, and then his lawyer apparently went to the rabbi who was ELATED to know such a magnificent “Goy” appreciated his rabbinic wondrousness, sounds like utter bullshit.
This is a typical case of a liberal Jew sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong in an attempt to control the discourse and distract from the radical nature of the cause/figure at hand, in this case Muhammad Ali, for all the reasons discussed above. A Zionist squatting on something that doesn’t belong to him… hmmm… where have I ever seen THAT before?!
Besides! Lerner’s mere presence is an insult to the Champ of Champs’ position on Palestine! Muhammad Ali didn’t want to protect ‘Israel’ like this Zionist rabbi, he wanted the Zionists gone! The Greatest in his own words:
“In my name and the name of all Muslims in America, I declare support for the Palestinian struggle to liberate their homeland and oust the Zionist invaders.”
Eat your heart out Lerner, you atrocious hypocrite.
For me, the most disturbing and exasperating part of this Zionist ape’s speech was the following passage:
“We as Jews understand that our commitment is to recognize that God has created everyone in God’s image and everyone is equally precious. And that means the Palestinian people as well as all other people on the planet.”
WOW. Thanks rabbi. Seriously. Shukran kteer. We like, appreciate you recognizing that we, no different than you Jews, surprisingly enough, also happen to be human beings. I am like, WOW. Like, truly yo, I’m like, SO honored that you actually consider us persons. You’re like, so revolutionary that I can barely breathe. But seriously, even this halfhearted and tremendously insulting attempt at humanity from the rabbi is another another bald-faced lie.
Lerner is a practitioner of the anti-Gentile teachings in the Talmud–which permits pedophilia, says that Jesus (A.S.) is rotting in boiling excrement in Hell, condemns Jesus’s holy mother Maryam (A.S.), calls for killing even the best of the Gentiles, etc.–the corrupted Torah–a book of genocide and criminality with far, FAR too many passages to recount in this piece here–and the Kabbalah–which encourages Satan-worship and teaches that Muhammad (S.A.W.W.) is being kept alive for worms to feast on his flesh for all-time–and thus, his claim that he sees all people as “equally precious” is borderline-hilarious, and ultimately, null-and-void.
Above and beyond all of these uncomfortable truths however, I can’t for the life of me comprehend why so many so-called “anti-Imperialist” Muslims are so up-in-arms about this Yahouding’s legerdemain-filled speech when he RESOUNDINGLY ENDORSED KILLARY CLINTON.
Y’all do remember Killary, don’t you?
The same warmongering psychopath who annihilated Libya and cackled with glee over Muammar Qadhafi’s death?
The same warmongering psychopath who helped nurture the Takfiri scourge in Syria?
The same warmongering psychopath who is owned inside and out by Zionist gazillionaires Haim Saban and George Soros?
The same warmongering psychopath who voted for the genocidal invasion of Iraq and now is being wholeheartedly backed by the neocons who planned it?
The same warmongering psychopath who backed the murderous ‘Israeli’-led coup in Honduras against Chavez-ally Manuel Zelaya? Any of this ringing a bell?
Yeah, that bloodthirsty maniac. This in and itself renders every word Rabbi Lerner spoke about “peace” and “love” and “equality” and bla, bla, ZioJewYidHasbaraBLABLABLA, utterly worthless. No backer of a lunatic warmonger like Clinton can ever be considered the ally of Muslims, regardless of whatever the hell flies out of his mouth.
In conclusion, Rabbi Michael Lerner, like all Zionists–and especially liberal Zionistswho come at us like friends while slithering like green snakes in the greenest grass to camouflage themselves before striking us–is a stain on humanity.
He, like all Zionists, and especially liberal Zionists, is our enemy and will always be so. No person who presents ‘Israel’ as something less than an abomination can ever find a home among the true lovers of the Palestinian cause. And most important of all, no Jew, let alone a Halakhic-Talmudic-Kabbalistic-Zionist rabbi like Lerner, can ever be a leading voice for this struggle because it is the Jew who is the oppressor. The more that Muslims look to the Jew for approval, the less militant, the less revolutionary, the less defiant, and, worst of all, the less Islamic they become, because they are substituting the Sole Authority In The Universe, i.e. ALLAH (SWT), for a fake, temporal, satanic, hegemonic authority, i.e. the Jew. Muslims look to Jewish and ‘Israeli’ academics, “spiritual” figures, “activists” and celebrities because they feel that they need affirmations of the Palestinian cause’s legitimacy in the mainstream sphere, which is, whether they know it or not, a staunch confirmation of how much power and control Jews wield over mainstream discourse. Muslims are literally subordinating themselves to Jews to make a cause that needs no such approval or legitimization “acceptable”.
All the affirmation is already right here within the confines of our Arab-Islamic Ummah. You have all the voices you will ever need for guidance on the Palestinian cause, they’re called PALESTINIANS, from their Resistance to their Intelligentsia,
Hizbullah led by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Ansarullah led by Sayyed Abdul Malik al-Houthi, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iraqi Resistance and millions upon millions of Gentiles across the globe who adore Palestine and who will sacrifice their lives for it and its most wonderful, most heartfelt, most generous people. Liberation is the goal and we shouldn’t be afraid to articulate this eloquently and categorically, no matter how much the Jews, be they neocons or liberals like Rabbi Lerner, screech and shriek.
As I rhymed on “Heartbeat Of Humanity” , the intro track to my debut EP “Enemy Of The Entity” dedicated to Palestine from October 2014, “Drive every Zionist from whence they came, muhf***** right I mean removing ‘em, they’re a ruinous scourge/You think it’s too old school, a little too obtrusive and raw/Well a solution that has to be approved by the oppressor first isn’t a solution at all/” And in regards to those who will take this piece and this position as affronts, as expressions of “vile anti-Semitism”, as a shocking display of “bigotry” and whatever other colonized, Judaized, cowardly nonsense they can concoct, that is to be expected and it really matters not, for I have tongue-in-cheek bars for that too, also off “Heartbeat of Humanity”. Let it rip: “And to the rest of you money hungry cowards, yeah y’all who salivate for splendid lives/Enjoy that traitorous hype, you say that we’re type, terrorist, then here, just watch as we calibrate the terror ties/‘Cause unlike y’all who sold out, we don’t need a Jewish voice to validate the genocide/” Got it?! Good! ‘Nuff said.

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!

Saturday, 30 April 2016

World played with fire in Syria, scholar says

The BRICS Post
April 26, 2016, 7:21 pm
Smoke rises from a building struck by artillery in north Damascus [Xinhua]
Smoke rises from a building struck by artillery in north Damascus [Xinhua]
John Rosenthal is a European-based journalist and political analyst who writes on European politics and transatlantic issues.
He has also written extensively about the Syrian Civil War.
His articles have appeared in such publications as Al-MonitorWorld AffairsThe Wall Street Journal EuropeLes Temps Modernes, and Die Weltwoche. He is the author of the recent book The Jihadist Plot: The Untold Story of Al-Qaeda and the Libyan Rebellion.
The BRICS Post recently interviewed Rosenthal about developments in Syria.
TBP: The Syrian military delivered ISIL it’s greatest defeat in two years by recapturing the ancient city of Palmyra on March 27. But Robert Fisk criticized Western powers for not cheering ISIL’s demise in Palmyra.
Coming a week after ISIL’s brutal attack in Brussels, shouldn’t the EU at least have seen this as payback?
Rosenthal: Like the United States, the major European powers have put themselves in an impossible position. For five years now, they have been telling us that Bashar al-Assad and the Assad “regime”, as they say, are the root of all evil in Syria – so awful that it was even worth facilitating the rise of openly jihadist forces in Syria, in order to hasten the regime’s demise.
The most extreme variant of this “root-of-all-evil” hypothesis is the idea that the Assad regime itself was responsible for the rise of ISIL and has continued, in one form or another, to collude with it.
This idea has become commonplace on both sides of the Atlantic. If ISIL is responsible for the Brussels attacks, as it claims, then, of course, Western leaders should be celebrating ISIL’s defeat at Palmyra.
But since that defeat has come at the hands of regime forces, this would be to admit they were wrong. And one thing these people will never do is admit they are wrong.
Hence the embarrassed silence vis-à-vis Palmyra.
There has been much criticism in the past few years of how Western press have covered the Syrian civil war.
As a journalist who has written about the conflict, is this criticism warranted?
Absolutely. In fact, even though my writing is 99 per cent just factual, I was less and less able to write about the conflict, because the media did not want to publish the facts in question.
One of the publications to which I had been a regular contributor – National Review Online, the website of the American conservative weekly National Review – went so far as to “bar” me from publishing.
In other words, they blacklisted me. At least this is what the journalist Michael Weiss claims, and I think Weiss is right.
The editors at National Review did not tell me I was “barred,” but they never again accepted a submission from me and eventually ceased responding altogether.
Weiss, incidentally, is one of the main American proponents of the “Assad-as-root-of-all-evil” view of the Syrian conflict, and he clearly believes that my barring was well deserved.
The reason for my barring was an article I published in June 2012 on the Houla massacre. The massacre represented a major turning point in the Syrian conflict.
Responsibility was almost instantaneously attributed to regime forces and/or affiliated militias, and Western governments responded by cutting off diplomatic relations with Damascus.
Two weeks later, however, Germany’s paper-of-record, Die Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, published a report suggesting that these initial attributions were mistaken and that the perpetrators of the massacre were in fact rebel forces.
I am a specialist in European languages and politics, and it struck me as normal, under the circumstances, to try to make the gist of this report accessible to the English-speaking public.
But very quickly I heard from a contact at National Review that my sources were suspected of being “beholden to Assad”.
The notion that the leading paper of Europe’s richest and most powerful nation is somehow “beholden to Assad” is downright laughable.
But it is a measure of the parochialism of some of America’s would-be “opinion-makers” that it appears to have been taken seriously by the editors at National Review.
Such insinuations – and, I suppose, the fact that I had the temerity to defend the credibility of the report against irrelevant smears – was enough to get me barred.
Another example: As you know, in April 2014 the Dutch priest Father Frans van der Lugt was killed in a rebel-controlled Christian neighborhood of Homs.
Father Frans’s death made headlines around the world and he was widely eulogized for his good works in Syria. Examining Father Frans’s publications in Dutch, however, I discovered that his own first-hand observations of the beginnings of the anti-Assad rebellion contrasted sharply with the standard view in the Western media.
Undoubtedly most significantly, Father Frans insisted that the protests that sparked the rebellion in 2011 were not strictly peaceful, as they have been almost universally presented to the Western public, but rather contained an armed and violent element from the start. He also accused rebel forces of committing atrocities and then blaming them on the regime.
By this time, needless to say, I could not even have dreamed of pitching an article on Father Frans’s observations to National Review. But I could not place one in any other Stateside outlet either, including venues with which I had an established relationship.
Despite their obvious relevance and newsworthiness – or rather: precisely because of the latter – Father Frans’s views were taboo.
If he had still been alive and his observations had become known, he would surely have been attacked as an Assad “propagandist” – as other Syria-based Christian clergy who made similar observations in fact have been.
I could give numerous other examples.
Once Washington and its European allies had established the terms of the politically “correct” narrative of the Syrian crisis, facts that failed to jibe with that narrative were unwanted and anyone who tried to report them was inevitably attacked as “pro-Assad”.
European intelligence services are now chasing ISIL veterans who returned from the Middle East to roost at home.
You’ve been writing about these networks and how ill informed European agencies have been about their sheer numbers.
Could the Brussels attack have been thwarted?
A publicly distributed picture from the Aleppo Media Centre shows rebel fighters evading government troops [AMC via AP]
A publicly distributed picture from the Aleppo Media Centre shows rebel fighters evading government troops [AMC via AP]
Well, if we consider just the immediate background to the attacks, it is hard to say. There is some evidence that these guys acted when they did precisely because they believed they were about to be caught.
Obviously, one cannot say that Belgian authorities have been incredibly efficient about breaking up terror plots. But neither can one say that about the French.
Although it tends to escape notice, a major component of the November Paris attacks – namely, the attack on the Bataclan Theatre – was a strictly French operation. And, of course, there was the Charlie Hebdo attack and numerous other recent attacks in France – almost all of them carried out by French jihadists.
But if we take a longer view, the answer is already implicit in your question, and I’m afraid your formulation is entirely apt. These guys have indeed come home to roost.
With the sole exception of Salah Abdeslam, all the known perpetrators of the November Paris attacks were returnees from Syria.
Four of the five suspected perpetrators of the Brussels attacks are known to have either been in Syria or attempted to get there.
By providing moral and diplomatic and, in some cases, material support to the anti-Assad jihad in Syria, and by allowing jihadist safe havens to be carved out of Syrian territory, the European powers helped to create the most important incubator of terror that the world has yet seen.
Obviously, Belgium bears less responsibility in this regard. It is not small states like Belgium that lay down the broad lines of European foreign policy. It is the major EU powers: France, Germany and, for the moment, the UK.
The problem is not one of nuts-and-bolts counter-terrorism. The problem is one of policy. By fomenting jihad in Syria, the European powers and the US have been playing with fire.
Citizens of Europe are now paying the price.
How does media coverage of Syria compare with coverage of before/after the 2003 Iraq war?
At least as concerns the US media, the situation today is incomparably worse. There was a long debate in the run-up to the war, and in the aftermath no one had any problems questioning the grounds for intervention or even indeed outright accusing the Bush administration of having lied.
This became entirely commonplace. The stifling of debate and the homogenization of the media as regards hot-button foreign policy issues really began under the Obama administration: most notably, in the context of the Libyan war.
But at the time, it was at least still possible to bring up conflicting information in “new” media and indeed in some conservative media.
I published numerous articles on the Islamist roots of the Libyan rebellion and the presence in it of Al-Qaeda-linked militants precisely at National Review Online.
In the aftermath of the war – i.e. when it no longer mattered to policy – even the mainstream US media would to some extent acknowledge this presence; and then, of course, the US experienced its own sort of “chickens-coming-home-to-roost” moment in the form of the September 2012 attack on the US mission in Benghazi.
I suppose it is because the Syrian “playbook”, so to speak, so closely resembled the Libyan one that the screws had to be turned even tighter.

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!