Wednesday, 19 October 2016

620 Syrian Terrorists Quit Besieged Town Near Damascus

October 19, 2016
Daraya evacuation of militants
Around 620 terrorists and their families began evacuating a besieged town southwest of the Syrian capital on Wednesday under a deal with the government, a local official told AFP.
“The buses of terrorists have begun moving,” said Hassan Ghandour, a member of the local committee overseeing the deal in Moadamiyet al-Sham.
He said the buses held terrorists as well as their family members and would head to Idlib province, northwest of Damascus.
Source: AFP

In Pictures: Militants in southwest Damascus transferred to Idlib under evacuation deal


 An evacuation deal held earlier between the Syrian government and rebels in the southwestern town of Al-Moadamiyah has entered into force today with hundreds of militants leaving the longtime rebel bastion.Local sources reported that around 700 militants with their families (1800 in total) have initiated a one-way trip to the northwestern province of Idlib.
Those who choose to stay will have their status settled by the Syrian authorities.
The sources said that approximately 200 out of the 700 militants are originally from the adjacent Darayya and Kafarsouseh towns.
Eye witnesses said that dozens of the government ‘green buses’, accompanied by the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, have entered the town early this morning to prepare for the evacuation process.
Last week, rebels in western Damascus left Al-Hama and Qudsaya to Idlib under a similar agreement.
2

Zen Adra | Al-Masdar News



3Zen Adra | Al-Masdar News
militantsZen Adra | Al-Masdar News

Related Videos


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!

لعبة التكتيك.. تفاصيل خطة إخراج “داعش” من الموصل إلى سوريا.. وخطة التنظيم للبقاء

MOSUL

لعبة التكتيك.. تفاصيل خطة إخراج “داعش” من الموصل إلى سوريا.. وخطة التنظيم للبقاء


مثل لعبة شطرنج، يبدو الطرفان الأساسيان المشتبكان في مدينة الموصل العرقية وقد استعدا تماما بخطط تفصيلية لتحقيق أهدافهما الميدانية، ونرصد فيما يلي عددا من التكتيكات التي تستخدمها القوات التي تحاصر المدينة بهدف إخراج عناصر داعش منها إلى الصحراء باتجاه سوريا، كما نرصد التكتيكات المضادة التي أعدها التنظيم لضمان معركة طويلة داخل المدينة.

القوات العراقية والكردية وقوات التحالف كانوا قد بدأوا صباح الإثنين 17 أكتوبر/تشرين الأول 2016 عملية عسكرية لاستعادة مدينة الموصل من تنظيم “الدولة الإسلامية” (داعش)، وهي ثاني أكبر مدن العراق، وآخر المعاقل الكبرى للتنظيم هناك.

وكان مقاتلو التنظيم قد سيطروا على المدينة بسهولة، بعدما تخلى الجنود العراقيون عن أسلحتهم في يونيو/حزيران 2014، ويقطن الموصل 1.5 مليون نسمة، وبعد سيطرة التنظيم عليها أعلن عن “دولة خلافة إسلامية” جديدة على أراض من سوريا والعراق، والآن تشهد المدينة معارك تخوضها قوة من حوالي 30 ألف جندي تهاجم لإخراجهم منها، وفقاً لما ذكرته وكالة رويترز.

ويشير تقرير لصحيفة “نيويورك تايمز” إلى أنه مع بداية أولى مراحل العملية العسكرية التي يُحتَمل أن تستمر لشهور، تحرك حوالي 4000 فرد من قوات البيشمركة الكردية يوم الإثنين لاستعادة عشر قرى شرقي المدينة.

 

خطة المعركة

 

social media

ومن المتوقع أيضاً أن تشارك قوات مكافحة الإرهاب العراقية -التي تعمل بشكل وثيق مع قوات العمليات الخاصة الأميركية في العراق- مع القوات الكردية في خلال الأيام القادمة.

كما يتوقع أن يتم تنفيذ خطة المعركة على مراحل عديدة. فالقوات التي احتشدت في قواعد عسكرية حول المدينة تخطط أولاً لمحاصرة المدينة من جميع الجهات، ثم تضييق دائرة الحصار شيئاً فشيئاً، وبالتالي تقطع طرق الإمداد عن التنظيم وتعزل المنطقة عن الخارج.

في اليوم الأول للهجوم، تقدمت قوات الحكومة العراقية والقوات الكردية من الشرق ومن الجنوب، وتركت القوات مساراً لهروب مقاتلي التنظيم من المدينة غرباً إلى سوريا.

وقال كولوم ستراك –المحلل بمجموعة IHS لمراقبة النزاعات والتي تراقب الصراع في العراق وسوريا- إن القوات تهدف بإتاحة الفرصة لمجاهدي التنظيم للهروب إلى تقليل الإصابات بين المدنيين، وقال إنَّه “إن كانت هناك طريقة لدفع التنظيم إلى الانسحاب والهروب إلى الصحراء، فلِمَ نقاتلهم وسط منطقة حضرية كالموصل؟”.

social media

وسوف تقوم القوات الخاصة العراقية التي دربتها القوات الخاصة الأميركية بتنفيذ الهجوم النهائي على المدينة، وربما تشترك معها في التنفيذ قوات الشرطة العراقية وبعض وحدات الجيش.

 

موصل الشرقية والغربية

 

ويقسم نهر دجلة مدينة الموصل إلى ضفتين، شرقية وغربية. ويتوقع بعض المسئولين أن مقاتلي التنظيم سينسحبون من المنطقة الشرقية ويركزون دفاعهم في الضفة الغربية بالمدينة، حيث يتواجد مركز الحكومة.

social media

كما يحتوي الجانب الغربي للمدينة على العديد من الشوارع الضيقة، مما سيجعل اشتراك الدبابات والمدفعية في الهجوم أمراً صعباً.

 

كيف سيرد التنظيم؟

 

ودارت تكهنات حول الطريقة التي يتوقع أن تقاوم بها قوات داعش، وأثار ذلك أسئلة عدة: هل سيتخذ المسلحون موقفاً نهائياً في القرى، أم سينسحبون إلى الموصل للقتال في يوم آخر؟، فيما أشارت أصوات المعركة التي سُمعت صباح الاثنين، إلى وجود مُقاومة.

ونشرت صحيفة الإندبندنت البريطانية تقريراً نشرته، أمس الاثنين، وتحدثت فيه عن استعدادات التنظيم من أجل إبقاء السيطرة على المدينة، وقالت إن “داعش تتحضر للمعركة التي قد تستمر لأشهر للحفاظ على السيطرة على الموصل من خلال زرع العديد من القنابل على نطاق واسع في الشوارع، وتجهيز عشرات الانتحاريين، وملء الخنادق حول النقاط الرئيسية لدخول المدينة بالنفط القابل للاشتعال”.

 

social media

كما أنشأ التنظيم شبكة واسعة من الأنفاق تحت الأرض للحماية ونقل كل من المعدات والمقاتلين، فضلاً عن مراقبة الميليشيات لأهل المدينة وانتشار القناصة أعلى أسطح المنازل ليلاً؛ لسحق أي بوادر تمرد من السكان.

وأوضح أحد المدنيين لـ الإندبندنت عبر تطبيق واتساب أنه تم نشر مجموعات من أطفال لا تتجاوز أعمارهم ثمانية أعوام مسلحين في بعض الأحيان بالمسدسات والسكاكين؛ لرصد السكان والإبلاغ عنهم. كما يُجند هؤلاء الأطفال أطفالاً آخرين لنفس المهمة.

وقال أيضاً “إنهم (رجال داعش) يشعرون باليأس، وقد يجبرون حتى الأطفال على القتال بمجرد تواجد القوات الحكومية على أبواب الموصل”.

 

أزمة إنسانية تلوح في الأفق

وطبقاً للأمم المتحدة، من الممكن أن تؤدي المعركة إلى تهجير 1.2 مليون شخص من المدينة. ويعيش حالياً حوالي 213 ألف شخص من مدن الموصل والفلوجة والقيارة بمخيمات اللاجئين في شمالي العراق، بحسب “نيويورك تايمز”

ومن المتوقع أن يهرب 200 ألف شخص من مدينة الموصل خلال المراحل الأولى للهجوم. ولهذا قامت الأمم المتحدة بتوسعة مخيمات اللاجئين، وبناء العديد من المخيمات الجديدة في شمالي العراق لاستيعاب تدفق السكان أثناء الهجوم.

وتم إنشاء مخيمين آخرين بديباغة جنوب شرقي الموصل في شهري يوليو/تموز وأغسطس/آب لاستيعاب السكان الفارين من القرى شرقي نهر دجلة. وقد تضاعف عدد سكان مخيمات ديباغة منذ افتتاحها العام الماضي.

وذكرت صحيفة الإندبندنت أنه أملاً في تفادي النزوح الجماعي للمدنيين والذي قد يفضي بهم الحال إلى التواجد في وسط منطقة إطلاق النيران، ناشدت الحكومة العراقية في بثها الإذاعي المدنيين بالبقاء في منازلهم، وأيضاً ومن خلال إسقاطها لآلاف المنشورات على المدينة.

أوضحت المنشورات قائمة طويلة من التعليمات، والتي تقول:

قم بلصق شريط على النوافذ على شكل علامة “إكس X” لحمايته من الكسر.

قم بفصل أنابيب الغاز

قم بإخفاء المجوهرات والأموال.

ابق في الطوابق المنخفضة، وقل لأطفالك إن أصوات القنابل المدوية ليست سوى أصوات الرعد.
وأما شباب الموصل، فقد طالبتهم الحكومة بمحاربة داعش عندما تبدأ المعركة.

 

عامان تحت حكم التنظيم المتشدد

 

كانت مدينة الموصل ذات الأغلبية السنية تمتلك مجموعة متنوعة من السكان من بينهم عديد من الشيعة والمسيحيين، إلا أنها وقعت تحت سيطرة مقاتلي التنظيم السنّة في شهر يونيو/حزيران من عام 2014، عندما ترك جنود الجيش العراقي أسلحتهم وخلعوا زيهم العسكري ولاذوا بالفرار، على الرغم من أن الولايات المتحدة الأميركية دعمتهم بمليارات الدولارات.

في البداية، رحب عديد من أهل السنة المقيمين في الموصل بالمسلحين؛ وذلك من جراء شعورهم بالغضب الشديد من معاملة الحكومة التي يقودها الشيعة في بغداد.

بيد أنهم سئموا بعد أكثر من عامين من الحكم الوحشي للمجموعة الإرهابية بسبب فرضهم لقواعد صارمة، وعمليات إعدام وقطع رؤوس في الطرق العامة، فضلاً عن منع التدخين وإجبار النساء على ارتداء النقاب في المناطق العامة.

وقد ظهرت علامات على تزايد المعارضة لداعش في الأشهر الأخيرة، بما في ذلك رسوم الجرافيتي المناهضة لـ “داعش” على الجدران، بالإضافة إلى التقارير عن مخاطرة بعض السكان بحياتهم لتوفير القوى الموجودة خارج المدينة بالمعلومات الاستخباراتية المفيدة للهجوم المتوقع.

لا شك أن الموصل تحظى بأهمية رمزية كبرى لدى التنظيم، إذ إن أبا بكر البغدادي، زعيم “داعش”، أعلن إقامة “الدولة الإسلامية” التي امتدت حدودها عبر العراق والشام، من فوق منبر الجامع الكبير في الموصل، لذا فقد يشكل فقدان السيطرة على المدينة ضربة معنوية شديدة للتنظيم

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!

“Will my foot grow back?” asks girl bombed by Syrian terrorists

So who supplied the shell that exploded and tore off this girl’s foot? Was it the US? Saudi Arabia? Turkey? Israel? And the children left brain damaged in this Aleppo hospital? Who do we thank for their plight? Where are the humanitarian concerns professed by Western leaders like John Kerry? Or that new British court jester, Boris Johnson?
There is some good news, though. Goldman Sachs has reported a 47% increase in quarterly earnings.
As bad as the people of Syria have it, the terrorists Americans have to deal with are in some  respects far worse.
By the way, you can go here to read the full text of the three speeches Hillary Clinton gave to Goldman Sachs in 2013. One thing bankers can be sure of. Hillary feels their pain.
“I mean, right now,” she said, “there are so many places in our country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they’re scared of regulations, they’re scared of the other shoe dropping.”
That bit about “regulations” she seemed particularly keen to drive home, informing her golden-sachsian audience that:
“There’s nothing magic about regulations. Too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.”
In other words, better let Wall Street regulate itself.
Clinton also admitted that imposing a no fly zone on Syria would “kill a lot of Syrians,” as she put it…
“To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting out pilots at risk–you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians. So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.”
…as is, of course, what happened two years earlier in Libya.
But regardless of how things might turn out in the Middle East, Clinton has had, and presumably will continue to have, a great working relationship with the financial industry.
“I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it, but I do–I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in ’08, you know, were devastating, and they had repercussions throughout the world.”
Interestingly, the political establishment seems to be growing alarmed over the possibility of an “armed rebellion” should Clinton win the election in November. Trump’s talk about the election being rigged has stoked their fears, it seems. Here is an excerpt from an article published at the pro-Clinton website Politico two days ago:
Even after the election, many Democrats and Republicans fear, Trump could keep showing up at rallies. He’s all but certain to keep up his near-constant claim of a “rigged election” on Twitter and in friendly news interviews, casting doubts and stoking a toxicity that, at least as of now, relatively few in his party have explicitly rejected.
A measure of where things stand already: Asked Saturday whether there could be an armed rebellion if Clinton wins, South Carolina Lt. Gov. Henry McMaster at first pegged the chances of it only at “highly unlikely.”
“There’s going to be a rebellion, yeah. Everybody’s tired of the system,” said Fred Steadman, a 57-year-old semi-retired man who was at Trump’s Saturday night rally in New Jersey, sure already that the election is rigged.
If Clinton does win, most agree that the immediate burden will likely fall on Republican leaders — particularly House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — to quickly and vocally insist on the legitimacy of her election.
“What this would be is an assault on the foundations of the long-established traditions of the country, an assault on democracy, vandalizing it,” said Steve Schmidt, the Republican strategist who led John McCain’s 2008 campaign. “It would be incumbent finally on national leaders in the Republican Party to speak clearly, unequivocally about not just the situation, but the totality of it.”
Ari Fleischer, who worked for George W. Bush on the 2000 campaign and later as his White House press secretary, contrasted how “Al Gore graciously accepted the outcome” to Trump’s rhetoric that has him “disgusted.”
“If he never calls to concede, he’ll go down as one of the sorest of sore losers,” Fleischer said, but “if Donald Trump loses and fights the outcome, it will make many of his followers, which means millions of people, question the legitimacy of our American government. That’s destructive and corrosive.”
Tony Fratto, a former aide to George W. Bush, said, “You hate to have to fight something like this, but it is very corrosive, so you do have to fight it. You don’t want it to even pick up with a small segment of the population. Reince [Priebus, the Republican National Committee chairman] and Ryan and McConnell will have to concede for him, for the party. They just have to take things out of his hands.”
Only Republicans — and maybe leaders from the right who aren’t going to be suspected to be part of the “establishment” — will be able to move the country forward if Trump won’t, many agree.
“This is on them. They’ve created this. They need to defuse,” said a senior Democrat on Saturday evening.
But that probably won’t be near enough to prevent Trump’s most determined supporters, some of whom are as suspicious of Republicans as Democrats, from challenging the results.
One of the most prominent characteristics of life in America these days is the amount of pretense we see in the public statements of officials. If one is going to speak of the “destruction” and “corrosion” of democracy, it is of paramount necessity to pretend that such corrosion and destruction have not already occurred. And that is likely what we will see should this trend continue and Trump end up contesting the election.
But of course for the world’s great pretenders, such fronts are not hard to maintain, and all in all, I suppose, it won’t be much different from pretending, with a wink and a nod, that America is not supporting terrorists in Syria.

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!

America Losing Its Grip on Southeast Asia

asean-map-960x569

By Wayne Madsen, Strategic Culture Foundation

The recent diplomatic row between the Philippines and the United States has come as a shock to U.S. State Department and Pentagon policy wonks but for astute observers of Southeast Asian politics, the decision of Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte to «pivot» to China and Russia was long in the making.
Ever since the so-called «Yellow Revolution» that saw Corazon Aquino replace the Philippines autocratic ruler Ferdinand Marcos, the majority of Filipinos have roiled under one corrupt American-blessed president after another.
Duterte, the fiery former mayor of Davao City in Mindanao, has channeled the disgust of many in the Philippines to adopt a hostile attitude in the face of a renewed U.S. military presence in Southeast Asia designed to counter China.
philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte
The 1986 «People Power Revolution», also known as the Yellow Revolution, was crafted by the United States as a way to ease President Ferdinand Marcos out of power. The revolution followed by three years the assassination of Senator Benigno «Ninoy» Aquino, who was shot to death by as was deplaning from his aircraft at Manila International Airport after returning to the Philippines from exile in the United States.
Marcos, who was blamed for the Aquino assassination, was forced out by the combined pressure of the Catholic Church, the pro-U.S. Philippines Armed Forces, and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
Aquino’s widow, Corazon «Cory» Aquino, succeeded Marcos as president and what followed her were a series of corrupt and pro-U.S. presidents. General Fidel Ramos, a committed globalist, succeeded Mrs. Aquino as president and he, in turn, ensured the presidencies of his two successors, Joseph Estrada and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, both of whom were dogged by corruption scandals.
Macapagal-Arroyo was the daughter of America’s Cold War ally, President Diosdado Macapagal who served in office from 1961 to 1965 and saw troops from the Philippines committed to fight alongside American troops in the Vietnam War.
At the time of the committal of Philippines troops to the U.S. war effort in South Vietnam, the most outspoken opponent of the move was Macapagal’s political adversary, Ferdinand Marcos, something that is not lost on Duterte as he steers the Philippines away from Barack Obama’s military «pivot to Asia».
Macapagal-Arroyo was succeeded by another corruption-plagued president, Benigno «Noynoy» Aquino, the son of the assassinated Ninoy Aquino and Cory Aquino. The Philippines has been plagued by presidents from the same families serving in office, not much unlike what the United States has seen in recent decades.
Macapagal-Arroyo and Estrada were both impeached for corruption but only Estrada resigned from office. Duterte is the first fresh face to live in the Malacañang Palace in quite some time and the Philippines electorate gives him high marks for his plain-speaking persona.
Duterte has decided that the policies of his predecessors, who all sought close relations with Washington, is not in the best interest of the Philippines. Duterte has followed up on his independent foreign policy by inviting China and Russia to establish bases in the Philippines, canceling further U.S.-Philippines military exercises in the region, and calling President Barack Obama a «son of a whore».
Durtete also told the United States, «Do not treat us like a doormat because you’ll be… We aren’t ‘little brown brothers of America». 
duerte-obana
The Obama administration’s trouble with Duterte began after U.S. ambassador to the Philippines Philip Goldberg began interfering in the domestic affairs of the Philippines, including the election that propelled Duterte into office.
Goldberg has a history of involving himself in the affairs of countries where he is posted and he made no exception to this policy during the Philippines election campaign, in which he spoke out against Duterte.
In 2008, the Bolivian government of President Evo Morales expelled Goldberg, then the U.S. ambassador in La Paz, for stoking secessionist movements in four Bolivian provinces. In August of this year, Duterte called Goldberg a «’bakla’ son-of-a-bitch». «Bakla» is Tagalog for «gay».
With news of the death of the long-reigning King of Thailand, Bhumibol Adulyadej, who was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts and ensured that no Thai government veered too far from being allied with the United States, Thailand may follow the Philippines in a marked policy of independence from Washington.
Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, the heir to the throne, is known to be close to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister, former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, both of whom were ousted in military coups engineered by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Thaksin was overthrown in 2006 and Yingluck in 2014. Yingluck, who was accused of corruption by Thailand’s «anti-graft» agency, saw essentially the same «constitutional coup» treatment as meted out to Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, and Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo.
Today, rather than use tanks and military juntas to overthrow leaders it does not like, the CIA relies on phalanxes of lawyers and judges, all controlled by the CIA, to bring about «constitutional coups».
This strategy has been a hallmark of the Obama administration and could be called the «Obama Doctrine».
Thaksin, who lives in exile in Cambodia, and Yingluck continue to enjoy wide support from the largely rural-based «Red Shirt» movement of Thailand. Vajiralongkorn is not popular with the loyal subjects of his father. In order to garner support for his reign, Vajiralongkorn may have to conclude a pact with not only Thaksin and Yingluck but also the Red Shirts, among whose ranks are a number of anti-monarchists. The Red Shirts are also opposed to American hegemony over Thailand and are suspected of receiving support from China. Just as the Obama Doctrine has not been lost on Duterte, it will not be lost on King Vajiralongkorn.
Like many of the past presidents of the Philippines, Thai prime ministers, since the end of World War II, have largely been approved by the CIA power brokers in Langley. Bhumibol succeeded to the throne on the death of his brother, King Ananda Mahidol.
At 9:00 am on June 9, 1946, Bhumibol visited his brother in his bedroom at the Royal Palace in Bangkok. At 9:20 am, a shot rang out from the king’s bedroom. Ananda was found lying face up in bed with a fatal gunshot wound to the head. The cause was determined to be accidental suicide caused by the young king playing with a loaded pistol.
The U.S. ambassador to Thailand was Edwin Stanton, Ironically, his namesake, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, continues to be accused of involvement in the conspiracy to assassinate Abraham Lincoln.
Ambassador Stanton worked closely with the Japanese-appointed Regent of Thailand, Pridi Banomyong, who ruled the country during Ananda’s exile during World War II and who became prime minister after the war, to absolve Bhumibol and the United States and Britain of any involvement in the king’s death.
The British Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, thought Ananda was a «pathetic» figure and not worthy of being a king. In any event, after Field Marshal Plaek Pibulsonggram, the pro-Japanese military leader of Thailand during the war, overthrew Prime Minister Pridi in 1947, the government charged two royal pages with the assassination of the king. Both of the pages were ultimately found guilty after a dubious trial and executed.
Stanton had successfully convinced Prime Minister Pridi that Communists disguised as students, Buddhist monks, journalists, and academicians were invading Thailand with the intent of overthrowing the monarchy. Stanton’s warnings were a ruse and none of the reports of Communist «infiltration» were true.
Many people in Thailand know that it was the pre-CIA Office of Strategic Services (OSS) that carried out the 1946 assassination of Ananda with the connivance of U.S.james-jim-thompsonambassador Stanton, U.S. chargé d’affaires Charles Yost, the British MI-6 station in Bangkok, and the OSS chief in Bangkok James «Jim» Thompson.
After «officially» leaving the OSS, Thompson founded the Thai Silk Company, Ltd., which helped to revitalize Thailand’s war-ravaged silk industry. Thompson was also a notorious pedophile whose house guests in Bangkok always included a number of Thai and Burmese children. The house, itself, was adorned with a number of phallic statues. Authors Truman Capote; Somerset Maugham; and Margaret Landon, the author of Anna and the King of Siam, upon which the movie «The King and I» was based. were among Thompson’s famous guests in Bangkok. In 1967, Thompson, who knew where many of the CIA «skeletons» were buried throughout Southeast Asia, disappeared without a trace in the Cameron Highlands in Pahang, Malaya.
For seventy years, the Thai people have only been able to whisper about the events of 1946. With the king’s passing, there are several scores to be settled by Thailand with the United States, just as Duterte is currently settling past scores in the Philippines.

SOURCES:
By Wayne Madsen, Strategic Culture Foundation
Submitted by SyrianPatriots
War Press Info Network at:
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/usa-losing-grip/
~
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!

Major shot fired by U.S. regime towards Russia [delivered by the UK]: Royal Bank of Scotland [owned by British govt.] shuts down all of RT’s bank accounts



russia_today

RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan said that all the company’s accounts in the UK have been blocked

The RT broadcaster’s accounts have been blocked in the United Kingdom, Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan said Monday, suggesting that the move stifles free speech. “Our accounts in the UK have been closed. All Accounts. ‘The decision is not subject to revision’. Long live freedom of speech!” Simonyan said in a Twitter post.
Following Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan’s statement on Twitter earlier in the day, RT UK said it had been informed by the National Westminster Bank that it “will no longer provide” banking arrangements with the broadcaster.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova commenting on the RT blocked accounts said that it seems like London has abandoned all of its freedom of speech obligations.
“It seems that leaving the EU, London has left all its freedom of speech obligations in Europe. As they say, a new life without bad habits,” Zakharova said in a Facebook post.
RT UK added that National Westminster Bank said its parent organization Royal Bank of Scotland Group would refuse to service the broadcaster without “any discussion.”
“We have recently undertaken a review of your banking arrangements with us and reached the conclusion that we will no longer provide these facilities,” NatWest said in a letter to RT’s London office.
uk-shuts-down-rt-bank-accounts

RELATED:

Backtracking from ‘no discussion’?
UK bank says it will review closure of RT accounts

rt-team
The announcement that RT’s UK bank accounts will be frozen is part of a coordinated EU policy aimed against Russian-linked organizations, John Laughland, Director of Studies at the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation in Paris, told RT.
Laughland noted that the British government took over the Royal Bank of Scotland Group in 2008, at the time of the financial crisis, and still owns approximately 75 percent of its shares…(more)…

SOURCES:
Sputnik News
submitted by Lone Bear (Lone_Bear)
War Press Info Network at:
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/uk-block-rt-bank-account/
~
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, 18 October 2016

The Real Humanitarian Crisis Is Not Aleppo. The Crisis is Washington Loosing its ISIS Mercenaries

Global Research, October 18, 2016
aleppo
Why do we hear only of the “humanitarian crisis in Aleppo” and not of the humanitarian crisis everywhere else in Syria where the evil that rules in Washington has unleashed its ISIL mercenaries to slaughter the Syrian people?  Why do we not hear about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen where the US and its Saudi Arabian vassal are slaughtering Yemeni women and children?  Why don’t we hear about the humanitarian crisis in Libya where Washington destroyed a country leaving chaos in its place?  Why don’t we hear about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, ongoing now for 13 years, or the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan now 15 years old?
The answer is that the crisis in Aleppo is the crisis of Washington losing its ISIL mercenaries to the Syrian army and Russian air force.  The jihadists sent by Obama and the killer Hillary (“We came, we saw, he died”) to destroy Syria are being themselves destroyed.  The Obama regime and the Western presstitutes are trying to save the jihadists by covering them in the blanket of “humanitarian crisis.”
Such hypocrisy is standard fare for Washington.  If the Obama regime gave a hoot about “humanitarian crisis,” the Obama regime would not have orchestrated humanitarian crisis in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen.
We are in the middle of a presidential campaign in the US and no one has asked why the US is determined to overthrow a democratically elected Syrian government that is supported by the Syrian people.
No one has asked why the White House Fool is empowered to remove the president of Syria by siccing US-supplied jihadists, which the presstitutes misrepresent as “moderate rebels,” on the Syrian people.
Washington, of course, has no acceptable answer to the question, and that is why the question is not asked.
The answer to the question is that Washington’s strategy for destabilizing Iran and then the Muslim provinces of the Russian Federation, former Soviet central Asia, and the Muslim province of China is to replace stable governments with the chaos of jihadism.  Iraq, Libya, and Syria had stable secular societies in which the government’s strong hand was used to prevent sectarian strife between Muslim sects. By overthrowing these secular governments and the current effort to overthrow Assad, Washington released the chaos of terrorism.
There was no terrorism in the Middle East until Washington brought it there with invasions, bombings, and torture.
Jihadists such as those that Washington used to overthrow Gaddafi appeared in Syria when the British Parliament and the Russian government blocked Obama’s planned invasion of Syria. As Washington was prevented from directly attacking Syria, Washington used mercenaries.  The prostitutes that pretend to be an American media obliged Washington with the propaganda that the jihadist terrorists are Syrian democrats rebelling against “the Assad dictatorship.”  This transparant and blatant lie has been repeated so many times that it now is confused with truth.
Syria has no connection whatsoever to Washington’s original justification for introducing violence into the Middle East.  The original justification was 9/11 which was used to invade Afghanistan on the fabrication that the Taliban was shielding Osama bin Laden, the “mastermind,” who at the time was dying of renal failure in a Pakistani hospital.  Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset who was used against the Soviets in Afghanistan.  He was not the perpetrator of 9/11.  And most certainly, neither were the Taliban.
But the Western presstitutes covered up for the Bush regime’s lie, and the public was deceived with the phrase that we must “defeat them abroad before they attack us at home.”
Of course, Muslims were not going to attack us at home. If Muslims are a threat, why does the US government keep bringing so many of them here as refugees from Washington’s wars against Muslims?
9/11 was the neoconservatives “new Pearl Harbor” that they wrote they needed in order to launch their wars in the Middle East. George W. Bush’s first Secretary of the Treasury said that the topic of Bush’s first cabinet meeting was the invasion of Iraq.  This was prior to 9/11.  In other words, Washington’s wars in the Middle East were planned prior to 9/11.
The neoconservatives are zionists. By reducing the Middle East to chaos they achieve both of their goals.  They remove organized opposition to Israeli expansion, and they create jihadism that can be used to destabilize countries such as Russia, Iran, and China that are in the way of their exercise of unilateral power, which, they believe, the Soviet collapse bequeathed to the “indispensable nation,” the USA.
Osama bin Laden, the alleged 9/11 mastermind, was dying, not directing a terror war against the US from a cave in Afghanistan. The Taliban were focused on establishing their rule in Afghanistan, not on attacking the West. After blowing up weddings, funerals, and childrens’ soccer games, Washington moved on to Iraq.  There was no sign of Iraqi beligerance toward the US. UN weapons inspectors said that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but Washington did not hear.  The whores who comprise the American media helped the Bush regime create the image of a nuclear mushroom cloud going up over America if the US did not invade Iraq.
Iraq had no nuclear weapons and everyone knew it, but facts were irrelevant.  There was an agenda at work, an undeclared agenda.  To advance its agenda that the government did not dare reveal, the government used fear.  “We have to kill them over there before they kill us over here.”
So Iraq, a stable, progressive country was reduced to ruins.
Libya was next. Gaddafi would not join Washington’s Africa Command.  Moreover, China was developing the oil fields in eastern Libya.  Washington was already troubled by Russia’s presence in the Mediterranean and did not want China there also.  So Gaddafi had to go.
Next Assad was set up with faked evidence that he had used chemical weapons against the rebellion that Washington had started.  No one believed the transparant Washington lie, not even the British Parliament.  Unable to find support to cover an invasion, Killary the Psychopath sent the jihadists Washington used to destroy Libya to overthrow Assad.
The Russians, who until this point had been so naive and gullible as to trust Washington, finally figured out that the instability that Washington was brewing was directed at them.  The Russian government decided that Syria was their red line and, at the request of the Syrian government, intervened against the Washington-supported jihadists.
Washington is outraged and is now threatening to commit yet another criminal violation of the Nuremberg Standard with blatant aggression against Syria. Such an ill-advised step would bring Washington into military conflict with Russia and by implication with China.  Before Europeans enable Washington to initiate such a dangerous conflict, they had best consider the warning from Sergey Karaganov, a member of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Foreign Policy and Defense council:  “Russia will never again fight on its own territory. If NATO initiates an encroachment against a nuclear power like ourselves, NATO will be punished.”
That the government of the United States is criminally insane should frighten every person on earth.  Killary-Hillary is commited to conflict with Russia.  Regardless,  Obama, the presstitutes, and the Democratic and Republican establishments are doing everything in their power to put into the Oval Office the person who will maximize conflict with Russia.
The life of the planet is in the hands of the criminally insane. This is the real humanitarian crisis.
Notes: 
Lt. General Michael Flynn, director of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency stated in an interview that the creation of ISIS was “a willful Washington decision.”  See, for example:
The DIA warned that ISIS would result in a Salafist principality over parts of Iraq and Syria. http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf   The warning went unheeded as the neoconservative Obama regime saw ISIS as a strategic asset to be used against Syria.

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!

Russia clearing terrorist from Aleppo is bad, USA clearing terrorists from Mosul is good, although civilians get hurt in both cases

Guardian front page channels Orwell’s 1984

By Jonathan Cook | Dissident Voice | October 17, 2016
Reading the “liberal” press has become a truly Orwellian experience. What was true yesterday is a lie today. What was black today will be white tomorrow. Two reports on today’s front page of the Guardian could easily be savage satire straight from the pages of the novel 1984.
Report one: The Guardian provides supportive coverage of the beginning of a full-throttle assault by Iraqi forces, backed the US and UK, on Mosul to win it back from the jihadists of ISIS – an assault that will inevitably lead to massive casualties and humanitarian suffering among the civilian population.
Report two: The Guardian provides supportive coverage of the US and UK for considering increased sanctions against Syria and Russia. On what grounds? Because Syrian forces, backed by Russia, have been waging a full-throttle assault on Aleppo to win it back from the jihadists of ISIS and Al-Qaeda – an assault that has led to massive casualties and humanitarian suffering among the civilian population.
Remember, as was prophesied: “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.”

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!

UK Govt. trying to control which TV channels we can & cannot watch, reminds me of the old USSR

RT bank accounts blocked in UK – editor-in-chief

RT | October 17, 2016
… The National Westminster Bank has informed RT UK that it will no longer have the broadcaster among its clients. The bank provided no explanation for the decision.
“We have recently undertaken a review of your banking arrangements with us and reached the conclusion that we will no longer provide these facilities,” NatWest said in a letter to RT’s London office.
The bank said that the entire Royal Bank of Scotland Group, of which NatWest is part, would refuse to service RT.
The letter said the decision was final and that it is “not prepared to enter into any discussion in relation to it.”
“We have no idea why it happened, because neither yesterday nor the day before yesterday, nor a month ago, nothing special happened to us, nobody threatened us in any way. Hypothetically, this may have something to do with new British and American sanctions against Russia, which may be announced soon. It may not. Our legal department is dealing with the issue now,” Margarita Simonyan told RBK business news website. … Full article

Cancellation of RT UK’s bank account ‘crude British state propaganda’ – Galloway

RT | October 17, 2016
Former MP George Galloway has waded into the row over the cancellation of RT UK’s bank accounts by NatWest, dubbing the move “crude British state propaganda.”
The politician and establishment critic commented that the decision by the bank, of which the British state is a significant shareholder, to close all of the broadcaster’s accounts was “shocking but not surprising.”
“It comes at a time when it’s been obvious in parliament and in the ‘deep state’ that there is a state of anxiety over the influence and popularity of RT in the country,” Galloway told RT International. “This coincides with a simultaneous fall in the credibility of the British state broadcaster the BBC.” (Full video)
“It’s just crude British state propaganda. They’ve been nervous about RT for some time,” he added.
According to Galloway, the bank is unlikely to give RT any explanation for the decision, since it is largely owned by the British government.
NatWest is part of the Royal Bank Scotland Group, which was saved from bankruptcy by British state injections of up to £37 billion ($64 billion). The recapitalization worked out to the equivalent of £617 ($752) per British taxpayer.
“It flows from the discussions from the last few weeks, about intensifying the sanctions against Syria and Russia,” Galloway said. “It does pose the question: what does Russia do vis-a-vis the BBC, the British state broadcaster. Are there grounds for retaliatory measures against the BBC in Moscow and in Russia? I would have thought yes.”
Downing Street has denied any involvement of the government in the NatWest decision.
“It’s a matter for the bank and it’s for them to decide who they offer services to, based on their own risk appetite,” spokeswoman for Prime Minister Theresa May told reporters, as cited by Reuters.

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!