Showing posts with label ISIS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ISIS. Show all posts

US shoots down Syrian drone

SUBHEAD: US jet shoots down Syrian Army drone in "Dangerous Escalation" in region.

By Tyler Durden on 20 June 2017 for Zero Hedge -
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-20/us-jet-shoots-down-syrian-army-drone-dangerous-escalation)


Image above: An Iranian made Shahed drone in hanger. The craft used by Syrian military for air surveillance and attacks. This is the type of aircrarft shot down by American F-15 yesterday.  From (https://dragonsdrones.com/2017/04/11/description-hesa-shahed-129/).

An American Air Forde F-15E fighter jet shot down a Syrian regime Iranian made Shahed-129 drone on Monday near At Tanf, Syria. This is the third downing of a pro-regime aircraft this month, CNN reported.

The downing of the drone comes a day after a US jet shot down a regime aircraft that was engaging a fleeing ISIS convoy, according to the Syrian government.

An armed Shaheed-129 UAV “displayed hostile intent and advanced on Coalition forces” at 12:30 am local time on Tuesday, the coalition said in a statement. The drone was observed in the same area where another UAV was shot down on June 8th.

"The drone was downed just outside the 55 kilometer de-confliction zone, according to the officials.

It was an Iranian-made Shahed 129 and was thought to be armed and in firing range of US troops.

One official said that the drone was shot down because it was 'assessed to be a threat.'

That drone was shot down after it dropped one of several weapons it was carrying near a position where coalition personnel are training and advising partner ground forces in the fight against ISIS."

According to Fox News, this is the second time the US has shot down an Iranian drone in less than a month. It also marks the fifth time since late May the U.S. military has bombed pro-Syrian forces in southern Syria.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy described the attack as “a dangerous escalation" of tensions between the US and the main backers of the Syrian regime, Russia and Iran.

Murphy told CNN that if the US doesn't stop the attacks, the situation could escalate into an armed conflict between the two sides, who both claim to be fighting ISIS.
“I think we’re getting closer and closer to open conflict between Iran and Russia and the American public need to know that we are moving very fast towards what could be another war in the Middle East – something Donald Trump promised he wouldn’t do when he ran for office.”
The US's actions could also prompt its coalition partners to withdraw from Syria, wary of being drawn deeper into an armed conflict with Iran and Russia. On Tuesday, Australia said it would temporarily suspend fights in the conflict zone as a "precautionary measure" after Russia said it would withdraw from an air-safety agreement in retaliation for Sunday's downing of the Syrian aircraft.

On the same day that the drone was shot down by US forces, an armed Russian fighter jet buzzed a U.S. Air Force reconnaissance aircraft in the Baltic Sea, two U.S. officials told Fox News.
In the latest in a long series of close encounters, Fox News reports the Russian Su-27 jet had missiles under its wings and approached the U.S. Air Force RC-135 recon jet "rapidly," coming within five feet of the American aircraft, the officials said.

Once alongside, the Russian jet was “provocative” in its flight maneuvers and flying “erratically,” according to another official.


.

Australia suspends Syria overflights

SUBHEAD: Australia became the first coalition member to suspend flights in Syria, claiming it's too dangerous for its planes.

By Tyler Durden on 20 June 2017 for Zero Hedge -
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-20/australia-halts-flights-syria-citing-potential-threats-russia)


Image above: Royal Australian Air Force flying American made F18 Hornets began making their first strike on Islamic State forces in Syria in September 2015. From (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/09/09/first-raaf-strikes-syria-within-week).

Russia’s Monday decision to suspend a memorandum of cooperation with the US-led coalition in retaliation after a US jet shot down a Syrian Army plane has rattled some US allies, who fear escalating tensions between Russia and the coalition. In what it called a "precautionary measure," Australia became the first coalition member to suspend flights in Syria, claiming it's too dangerous for its planes to fly without the agreement, according to BBC.
“As a precautionary measure, Australian Defense Force (ADF) strike operations into Syria have temporarily ceased,” Australia’s Department of Defense said in a statement, adding its operations in Iraq would continue as part of the coalition.”



“ADF personnel are closely monitoring the air situation in Syria and a decision on the resumption of ADF air operations in Syria will be made in due course.”



“Australian Defense Force protection is regularly reviewed in response to a range of potential threats,” the Department of Defense said.
Australia has deployed about 780 military personnel as part of the US-led coalition fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria

The BBC notes that Australia has a small but highly capable contingent of six F/A-18 strike aircraft; a tanker; and an E-7A Wedgetail early warning aircraft, all based at Al Minhad in the United Arab Emirates.

Most of the Australian strikes have been in Iraq, though its aircraft do also operate over Syria. Australian commanders will reassess the situation in due course. The more fundamental question is what the Russian threat actually amounts to. Is it just rhetoric or does Moscow want to deny certain areas of Syrian airspace to US-led coalition aircraft?

Australian aircraft will continue to fly missions in Iraq.As reported yesterday, Russia suspended cooperation under the “Memorandum on the Prevention of Incidents and Ensuring Air Safety in Syria” on Monday after the US shot down a Syrian Army fighter jet. 

The Russian Defense ministry called the attack “an act of aggression,” on the part of the US-led coalition. The US military neglected to use a communication line with Russia concerning this attack, despite the fact that Russian warplanes were also on a mission in Syrian airspace at the time, the Russian Defense Ministry alleged, conflicting with the Pentagon's explanation of events.

The bilateral memorandum of understanding was signed between the United States and Russia signed in October 2015 to ensure the safety of flights during combat missions over Syria.

In retaliation for the US attack, the ministry warned that Russian missile defense would intercept any aircraft in the area of operations of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria.

The Russian Defense Ministry announced, quoted by Sputnik;
"In areas where Russian aviation is conducting combat missions in the Syrian skies, any flying objects, including jets and unmanned aerial vehicles of the international coalition discovered west of the Euphrates River will be followed by Russian air and ground defenses as air targets."
Contrary to the earlier statement by the US, according to which it "contacted its Russian counterparts by telephone via an established "de-confliction line" to de-escalate the situation and stop the firing", Russia claims the US-led coalition command didn't use the deconfliction channel with Russia to avoid an incident during an operation in Raqqa:
"Russian Aerospace Forces' jets were conducting operations in Syrian airspace that time. However, the command of the coalition forces didn't use the existing channel between the air command of the Qatari airbase al Udeid and the [Russian] Hmeymim airbase to avoid incidents over Syria."
We now wait to see which other US allies – Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Jordan and the UK also are contributing men and arms to the task of "liberating" Syria  – will announce that they're temporarily pulling out of the conflict until tensions once again de-escalate.


.

We cannot admit it's the Saudis

SUBHEAD: Trump ludicrously accuses Iran of being the source of most terrorism in the Middle East.

By Patrick Cockburn on 28 March 2017 for Strategic Culture -
(https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/05/28/we-know-what-inspired-manchester-attack-we-just-wont-admit-it.html)


Image above: Armed police in aftermath of terrorist attack at the Manchester Arena after Ariana Grande concert. From (http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/23/fundraiser-started-for-homeless-man-who-held-dying-woman-in-manchester-attack-6655996/).

[IB Publisher's note: We also cannot believe that we created Al  Qaeda (and ISIS) by funding Osama Bin Ladin and the Mujahideen to thwart the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980's.]

In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim community in Britain and the world. Certainly one of the aims of those who carry out such atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of them who will then become open to recruitment by Isis and al-Qaeda clones.

This approach of not blaming Muslims in general but targeting “radicalisation” or simply “evil” may appear sensible and moderate, but in practice it makes the motivation of the killers in Manchester or the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015 appear vaguer and less identifiable than it really is.

Such generalities have the unfortunate effect of preventing people pointing an accusing finger at the variant of Islam which certainly is responsible for preparing the soil for the beliefs and actions likely to have inspired the suicide bomber Salman Abedi.

The ultimate inspiration for such people is Wahhabism, the puritanical, fanatical and regressive type of Islam dominant in Saudi Arabia, whose ideology is close to that of al-Qaeda and Isis. This is an exclusive creed, intolerant of all who disagree with it such as secular liberals, members of other Muslim communities such as the Shia or women resisting their chattel-like status.

What has been termed Salafi jihadism, the core beliefs of Isis and al-Qaeda, developed out of Wahhabism, and has carried out its prejudices to what it sees as a logical and violent conclusion.

Shia and Yazidis were not just heretics in the eyes of this movement, which was a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, but sub-humans who should be massacred or enslaved. Any woman who transgressed against repressive social mores should be savagely punished.

 Faith should be demonstrated by a public death of the believer, slaughtering the unbelievers, be they the 86 Shia children being evacuated by bus from their homes in Syria on 15 April or the butchery of young fans at a pop concert in Manchester on Monday night.

The real causes of “radicalisation” have long been known, but the government, the BBC and others seldom if ever refer to it because they do not want to offend the Saudis or be accused of anti-Islamic bias. It is much easier to say, piously but quite inaccurately, that Isis and al-Qaeda and their murderous foot soldiers “have nothing to do with Islam”. This has been the track record of US and UK governments since 9/11.

They will look in any direction except Saudi Arabia when seeking the causes of terrorism. President Trump has been justly denounced and derided in the US for last Sunday accusing Iran and, in effect, the Shia community of responsibility for the wave of terrorism that has engulfed the region when it ultimately emanates from one small but immensely influential Sunni sect.

One of the great cultural changes in the world over the last 50 years is the way in which Wahhabism, once an isolated splinter group, has become an increasingly dominant influence over mainstream Sunni Islam, thanks to Saudi financial support.

A further sign of the Salafi-jihadi impact is the choice of targets: the attacks on the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015, a gay night club in Florida in 2016 and the Manchester Arena this week have one thing in common. They were all frequented by young people enjoying entertainment and a lifestyle which made them an Isis or al-Qaeda target.

But these are also events where the mixing of men and women or the very presence of gay people is denounced by puritan Wahhabis and Salafi jihadis alike. They both live in a cultural environment in which the demonisation of such people and activities is the norm, though their response may differ.

The culpability of Western governments for terrorist attacks on their own citizens is glaring but is seldom even referred to. Leaders want to have a political and commercial alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil states. They have never held them to account for supporting a repressive and sectarian ideology which is likely to have inspired Salman Abedi.

Details of his motivation may be lacking, but the target of his attack and the method of his death is classic al-Qaeda and Isis in its mode of operating.

The reason these two demonic organisations were able to survive and expand despite the billions – perhaps trillions – of dollars spent on “the war on terror” after 9/11 is that those responsible for stopping them deliberately missed the target and have gone on doing so.

After 9/11, President Bush portrayed Iraq not Saudi Arabia as the enemy; in a re-run of history President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of being the source of most terrorism in the Middle East.

This is the real 9/11 conspiracy, beloved of crackpots worldwide, but there is nothing secret about the deliberate blindness of British and American governments to the source of the beliefs that has inspired the massacres of which Manchester is only the latest – and certainly not the last – horrible example.

.

"Mother Of All Blowback"

SOURCE: Katherine Muzik PHD (kmuzik@gmail.com)
SUBHEAD: Trump dropped the “Mother Of All Bombs” on Nangarhar province in Afghanistan.

By Faisil Kutty on 20 April 2017 for Toronto Star -
(https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/04/20/trumps-bombings-may-elicit-the-mother-of-all-blowback-editorial.html)


Image above: For Trump the bywords are not "Hopey Changey" but "Dopey Crazy". From (https://www.freelancer.hk/contest/Alter-some-Images-611716.html).

Rather than stopping the next lone attacker in the homeland, American bombings will motivate activists. Instead of weakening resistance, it will bring together sworn enemies against a common bigger enemy.

Years ago, a young man was interviewed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) at my office. He was flagged for his “anti-Canadian” views for opposing Ottawa’s involvement in Afghanistan.

He had left Canada as an ardent supporter of Western intervention, but returned a security “threat” for his opposition.

Extended family and friends killed or injured as “collateral damage” was the game changer. Intended or unintended, the dead are no less dead because we meant well, he observed. His story of radicalization is not unique.

“With respect, you cannot continue to behave as if innocent deaths like those in my family are irrelevant,” wrote Faisal bin Ali Jabar in a letter addressed to then president Barack Obama in 2014. Jabar, who lost two relatives in a 2012 drone strike in Yemen, hit the target when he concluded, “you will defeat your own counterterrorism aims.”

The logic applies to all bombings where civilians inevitably pay a steep price, often with their lives. These sentiments echo across the Muslim world where too often bombs drop more frequently than rain.

Of course, the consequences of Western actions will not stay “there.” In fact, the reverberations from the “collateral damage” are and will continue to be felt “here” in the West. Indeed, numerous studies have confirmed that death and destruction in the Muslim world is a major recruiting tool.

Court transcripts from the infamous Toronto 18 case, for instance, show that almost all of the youth charged with “plotting” terrorist attacks in Ontario in 2006 were shaken to the core by the suffering they saw.

As the Star’s Michelle Shephard reported last year in a 10-year follow up story on some of the convicted: “They opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, rallying not against the West’s rights and freedoms but because they believed those rights weren’t applied equally to Muslims.”

As clear as this cause and effect calculus is, too many in positions of power just don’t get it. Or perhaps they don’t want to.

Indeed, last week the U.S. dropped the GBU 43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), dubbed the “mother of all bombs,” on Nangarhar province in Afghanistan. In doing so the Trump administration had to drop the “mother of all lies” as well. The bomb, sold as a precise munition that can be surgically placed on the doorsteps of the bad guys, and only the bad guys, is far from this.

Laser- or satellite-guided bombs and weapons systems may hit their intended targets for the most part. But technical glitches and human error often mean civilians and allies also pay dearly.

The sheer size and damage range is another factor. Weighing 21,600 pounds, the MOAD is the largest non-nuclear ordnance, which can kill and damage buildings within a 2.7-km radius. It causes deafness within a 3.2-km area and God only knows what else. Such a device is far from precise.

Media reports claim 96 Daesh fighters were killed but U.S. officials are mum and have not allowed anyone into the area.

How can something with such a broad point of impact be so precisely targeted when the area hit was home to thousands of non-combatants? How can officials be so sure that the bomb avoided children orphaned by previous attacks by the good guys or by Daesh and the Taliban? Will we ever learn the real human and long-term cost?

This bombing of one of the poorest, most unstable and war-ravaged countries in the world, is yet more proof that the US counterterrorism strategy is short-sighted, based on questionable assumptions, and risks escalating conflicts and increasing instability both at home and abroad.

Sadly, a generation of Canadians and Americans have also only known the parallel world view of “us” versus “them.” This dichotomous outlook only serves to radicalize many in both camps by dehumanizing the other and fuelling perpetual war. Extreme violence whether by state or non-state actors begets only more violence and fuels the vicious cycle.

Rather than stopping the next lone attacker in the homeland, these bombing runs will motivate many more. Instead of weakening the enemy, it will bring together sworn enemies against a common bigger enemy.

As former U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich wrote: “It is precisely because we have chosen to fight ‘them’ over there that we will have to fight ‘them’ over here. If we roam the world looking for dragons to slay, some will follow us home.”

• Faisal Kutty is counsel to KSM Law, an associate professor at Valparaiso University Law School in Indiana and an adjunct professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. @faisalkutty.

.

Bombs Away!

SUBHEAD: Russia claims Assad’s air force bombed a “rebel” ammo depot that had Sarin nerve gas.

By James Kunstler on 7 April 2017 for Kunstler.com -
(http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/bombs-away/)


Image above: U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Porter launches a Tomahawk land attack missile in the Mediterranean Sea at Syria on Friday.Photo by Ford Williams. From (http://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/04/07/trump-defends-attack-syria).

Close your eyes, click your heels three times, and tell me if you actually know what the fuck is happening in Syria. There’s an awful lot about the poison gas attack that doesn’t add up for the casual observer.

It was only a week ago that the US enunciated a new policy that we would be content for Bashar al Assad to remain in power presiding over the Syrian government — after years of grousing and threats against him.

 Apparently Trump Central had concluded that Assad was a better alternative than another failed state in the Middle East with no government at all.

That policy change was a yuge benefit for Assad since it removed any pretext for US subterfuge or “black box” mischief against him. He was rather busy fighting a civil war, after all.

Against whom?

A mash-up of Jihadi forces ranging from Isis (so-called), to al Qaeda and Jabhat al Nusra, its spinoff gang dedicated specifically against Assad personally.

Assad’s relations with Isis were ambiguous and complex. Isis had used Syria as a staging area for its operations next door in Iraq. It was rumored that Assad purchased oil from Isis.

Yet Isis had participated in actions against Assad. In any case, all of the Jihadis were Sunni, in opposition to Assad’s Iran-leaning regime.

Assad himself belongs to the Alawite sect of Islam, a twig on the Shia branch. Syria as a whole is a majority Sunni population, so Assad and his father Hafez before him (President 1971 – 2000) have represented a minority (12 percent) in an era of inflamed Sunni-Shia passions.

Trusting that your are not additionally confused by all this, why would Assad choose this moment — only days after the US granted him a pass on remaining in power — to do the one thing guaranteed to bring the wrath of the US down him, namely, kill a lot of civilians, including women and children, with poison gas? Either Assad is inconceivably stupid or possibly the gas attack is not exactly what happened.

Russia has claimed that Assad’s air force attempted to bomb a “rebel” (al Qaeda? Al Nusra? Isis?) ammunition depot that apparently contained supplies of Sarin nerve gas.

Neither the US government or the American media has presented any arguments to counter that hypothesis. The New York Times banged the war drum as loudly as possible in the days after the incident.

And now, of course, Trump Central has fired $60 million worth of cruise missiles at Assad’s main air force base. Assad’s spokesmen denied responsibility for the attack and the Russians are still asking for conclusive evidence via the UN Security Council.

The current incident appears to be — or was engineered to be — a replay of the August 2013 gas incident that left President Barack Obama looking weak and indecisive for not carrying out retaliation against Assad “crossing a line in the sand” against human decency.

And so you have Mr. Trump, who may feel now that he cannot afford to appear weak and indecisive — above all other considerations, including the truth about what really happened at Khan Sheikhoun, Idlib province of Syria.

So he bombed an airport, after warning the Russians to remove their personnel from the vicinity.

In the event that the world ever does learn what actually occurred at Khan Sheikhoun, and the truth turns out differently than the current narrative, Mr. Trump can say, “We only bombed some Syrian air force infrastructure… no biggie… no women and children harmed.”

The outstanding question remains: what might have possibly motivated Bashar al Assad to turn upside down a situation of great advantage to himself mere days after he achieved it? It will be interesting to see if a credible response emerges from the hall of mirrors that US policy has become.



Likely False Flag in Syria
SUBHEAD: Ron Paul says Ron Paul: "Zero Chance" Assad Behind Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria.

By Tyler Durden on 7 April 2017 for Zero Hedge - 
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-06/ron-paul-zero-chance-assad-behind-chemical-weapons-attack-syria-likely-false-flag)  

According to former Congressman Ron Paul, the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun that killed 30 children and has led to calls for the Trump administration to intervene in Syria could have been a false flag attack.

As Paul Joseph Watson details, pointing out that the prospect of peace in Syria was moving closer before the attack, with ISIS and Al-Qaeda on the run, Paul said the attack made no sense.
“It looks like maybe somebody didn’t like that so there had to be an episode,” said Paul, asking, “who benefits?”

“It doesn’t make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gases – I think there’s zero chance he would have done this deliberately,” said Paul.
he former Congressman went on to explain how the incident was clearly being exploited by neo-cons and the deep state to enlist support for war.
“It’s the neo-conservatives who are benefiting tremendously from this because it’s derailed the progress that has already been made moving toward a more peaceful settlement in Syria,” said Paul.

Many have questioned why Assad would be so strategically stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack and incite the wrath of the world given that he is closer than ever to winning the war against ISIS and jihadist rebels.

Just five days before the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, “The longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people,” implying a definite shift in U.S. foreign policy away from regime change in Syria.

Why would Assad put such assurances in jeopardy by launching a horrific chemical attack, allowing establishment news outlets like CNN to once against use children as props to push for yet another massive war in the Middle East?
.

No moderate rebels in Syria

SUBHEAD: Tulsi Gabbard has destroyed America's Deep State narrative on Syrian rebels and need for war.

By Michael Krieger on 28 February 2016 for Liberty Blitzkrieg -
(https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2017/02/28/there-are-no-moderate-rebels-tulsi-gabbard-destroys-the-deep-states-syria-narrative/)


Image above: Photo of Tulsi Gabbard posing with Syrian women during her trip to that country. From (http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2017/01/27/1013730-congresswoman-tulsi-gabbard-interviewed-after-her-trip-to-syria/).

Tulsi Gabbard has continued to impress ever since she came on the national scene last year with her courageous and very public support for Bernie Sanders in the rigged Democratic primary.

Most recently, shecontinued to demonstrate her knowledge of geopolitics and willingness to stand up to America’s unelected government, aka the Deep State, in a recent interview with CNN’s Jake Taper.

Note, the clip is about a month old, but important to watch if you haven’t. 


Video above: On 1/26/17 CNN’s Jake Tapper was crushed by Tulsi Gabbard, ‘Why is US supporting Al Qaeda? From (https://youtu.be/zE3jbbhB0eA).

If the Democrats have any hope of becoming a decent opposition party which not only resists the worst of Trump, but also rejects the perverted neoliberal/Deep State ideology currently embraced by establishment Dems, Tulsi Gabbard will have to play a key role.

As I highlighted in last February’s post, It’s Not Just the GOP – The Democratic Party is Also Imploding:

A rising star within the Democratic ranks, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, cut herself off from the party’s establishment by resigning from her post as vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee and endorsing Bernie Sanders for president.

Her position with the DNC required her to stay neutral in the primaries, but she said that “the stakes are too high.” She announced her decision on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and made a video where she explained her reasoning.

Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran, said she knows the cost of war firsthand. “I know how important it is that our commander-in-chief has the sound judgment required to know when to use America’s military power—and when not to use that power.”The importance of this move cannot be understated.

In no uncertain terms, this gesture publicly exposes the weakness of the “Clinton brand.” She clearly isn’t afraid of Hillary or of any repercussions from the Democratic Party elite, a fact that is underscored by the fact she came out with her endorsement after he got pummeled in South Carolina.
But let’s take a step back and think about this in the even bigger picture.

You don’t get to Congress by being a political imbecile. On the surface, this move looks like career suicide, particularly since Hillary is probably about to clinch the nomination. Recall, Rep. Gabbard didn’t merely endorse Sanders after a bruising loss in South Carolina, she stepped down from her official position with the DNC to do so.

This isn’t merely a statement, it’s the equivalent of dropping a neutron bomb on the Democratic establishment. So why did she do it?

While I think she genuinely agrees with Sanders on key issues, the reason she came out so aggressively is because she sees the writing on the wall. She’s playing the long game, and in the long game, Hillary Clinton represents a discredited and failed status quo, while Bernie Sanders represents a push toward the paradigm level change that will define the future.

When it comes to the Democrats, we need to see a lot less Pelosi and Schumer, and a lot more Gabbard.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Ms Gabbard goes to Syria 1/29/17
Ea O Ka Aina: Tulsi and Bernie 3/11/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Gabbard endorses Sanders 2/29/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Tulsi Gabbard on Syria 11/1/15
Ea O Ka Aina: Tulsi Gabbard Interview 11/14/12

 .

Need for New Syria Policy

SUBHEAD: The only sensible Syria policy is for the US to stop trying to overthrow their government.

By Ron Paul on 19 December 2016 for Ron Paul Insitiute -
(http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2016/december/19/after-aleppo-we-need-a-new-syria-policy/)


Image above: In Aleppo a dying child is removed from rubble after bombing. From (http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/qrsv6v2b32v/Victims+Removed+Rubbles+After+Attack+Aleppo/8e8brmHKNXv).

Over the past week, eastern Aleppo was completely brought back under control of the Syrian government. The population began to return to its homes, many of which were abandoned when al-Qaeda-linked rebels took over in 2012.

As far as I know, the western mainstream media did not have a single reporter on the ground in Aleppo, but relied on “activists” to inform us that the Syrian army was massacring the civilian population.

It hardly makes sense for an army to fight and defeat armed rebels just so it can go in and murder unarmed civilians, but then again not much mainstream reporting on the tragedy in Syria has made sense.

I spoke to one western journalist last week who actually did report from Aleppo and she painted a very different picture of what was going on there. She conducted video interviews with dozens of local residents and they told of being held hostage and starved by the “rebels,” many of whom were using US-supplied weapons supposed to go to “moderates.”

We cannot be sure what exactly is happening in Aleppo, but we do know a few things about what happened in Syria over the past five years. This was no popular uprising to overthrow a dictator and bring in democracy.

From the moment President Obama declared “Assad must go” and approved sending in weapons, it was obvious this was a foreign-sponsored regime change operation that used foreign fighters against Syrian government forces. If the Syrian people really opposed Assad, there is no way he could have survived five years of attack from foreigners and his own people.

Recently we heard that the CIA and Hillary Clinton believe that the Russians are behind leaked Democratic National Committee documents, and that the leaks were meant to influence the US presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor.

These are the same people who for the past five years have been behind the violent overthrow of the Syrian government, which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands. Isn’t supporting violent overthrow to influence who runs a country even worse than leaking documents? Is it OK when we do it? Why? Because we are the most powerful country?

We are a country sitting on $20 trillion in debt, living far beyond our means. Power can oftentimes be an illusion, and in any case it doesn’t last forever.

We can be sure that the example we set while we are the most powerful country will be followed by those who may one day take our place. The hypocrisy of our political leaders who say one thing and do another does not go unnoticed.

We should end that hypocrisy starting with Syria. That government, along with its allies, seems to be on track to take their country back from ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups.

The only sensible Syria policy is for the US to stop trying to overthrow their government, to treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves. It is a rule that is always good to remember, but perhaps especially important to recall at this time of year.

.

Tulsi meets with Trump

SUBHEAD: The cause of peace is too great to allow political disagreements to stand in our way.

By Tulsie Gabbar on 21 November 2016 in Island Breath -
(http://gabbard.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/655-gabbard-statement-on-meeting-with-president-elect-donald-trump)


Image above: Photos of Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump put together by Breitbart News. From (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/21/dem-congresswoman-meets-with-trump-to-discuss-foreign-policy/).

[IB Publisher's note: The content below is from an email sent to Tulsi Gabbard supporters and is similar to her press release on the subject linked to above.]

As you have no doubt heard by now, I met with President-elect Donald Trump earlier today.

He asked me to meet with him to discuss our current policies regarding Syria, our fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, as well as other foreign policy challenges we face.

It would have been easier for me to refuse this meeting. The establishment and social media have been talking about this all day. But I never have and never will play politics with American and Syrian lives.

In fact, like President Obama, I firmly believe that now is the time for us to put our country first, and come together, regardless of political party, and tackle the many challenges we face.

This was an opportunity to advocate for peace—and I felt it was important to take the opportunity to meet with the President-elect to counteract neocons’ steady drumbeats of war, which threaten to drag us into an escalation of the war to overthrow the Syrian government.

This war has already cost hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions of refugees to flee their homes in search of safety for themselves and their families.

It has also strengthened al-Qaeda and other violent, extremist groups in the region.  It would have been irresponsible not to accept this invitation.

I feel it is my duty to take every single opportunity I get to advocate for peace, no matter the circumstances of those meetings.

I shared with him my grave concerns that escalating the war in Syria by implementing a so-called no-fly/safe zone would be disastrous for the Syrian people, our country, and the world. It would lead to more death and suffering, exacerbate the refugee crisis, strengthen ISIS and al-Qaeda and bring us into a direct conflict with Russia – potentially resulting in a nuclear war.

We discussed my bill to end our country’s illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government and the need to focus our precious resources on rebuilding our country, and on defeating al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups who pose a threat to the American people.

Also, where I disagree with President-elect Trump on issues, I will not hesitate to express that disagreement. You didn’t send me to Washington to make friends with the political elite. You sent me to represent you, and I am committed to doing just that.

In short: I will never allow partisanship to undermine our national security when the lives of countless people lay in the balance.

If that earns me enemies in Washington or at the State Department, then so be it.

I hope you’ll continue to stand with me and stay engaged. The cause of peace is too great for us to allow political disagreements or partisanship to stand in our way.


.

WWIII has begun in Syria

SUBHEAD: A Third World War is taking place in Syria, one which is led by the US and its allies.

By Tyler Durden on 23 September 2016 for Zero Hedge -
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-22/syrian-politician-ww-iii-has-begun-and-its-being-fought-syria)


Image above: Under guise of fighting ISIS, U.S. policy in Syria is growing increasingly incoherent, say critics. From (http://occupyworldwrites.org/2016/08/25/u-s-backed-turkish-offensive-in-syria-targets-u-s-backed-kurds/).


Disastrous Error in Syria by USA 9/19/16
(http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/20/a-disastrous-error-in-syria/)


At about 5pm on Saturday, two US F-16 fighter bombers and two A-10 specialised ground attack aircraft bombed what they believed was a concentration of Isis fighters besieging pro-government forces in the city of Deir Ezzor in eastern Syria.


Whoever it was in the US Air Force who had misidentified the target as Isis made a disastrous error; the US planes were attacking Syrian Army soldiers fighting Isis at a position called Jebel Tharda close to Deir Ezzor airport. The city has been besieged by Isis for over a year and 110,000 civilians are trapped inside. By the time the US bombing raid was over it had killed at least 62 Syrian soldiers and injured another 100, enabling Isis to overrun the survivors before being forced to retreat by a counter-attack backed by Russian airstrikes.


Syrian Social Nationalist Party representative Tarek Ahmad says that the war in Syria has reached a dead end, with the intervention of foreign powers turning the situation into a chaotic mess. Moreover, the politician says that Syria is just one front in a Third World War being waged by Washington and its allies.

The Social Nationalist Party is one of Syria's oldest and largest parties. Up to 8,000 members of its armed branch, known as 'the Eagles of the Whirlwind', have successfully fought alongside the Syrian Army against Islamist militants, including Daesh. At the same time, the party has remained a key member of the Popular Front for Change and Liberation, a bloc of opposition parties in the country's parliament.

Speaking to Sputnik, party representative Tarek Ahmad said that the military situation in the country has come to an impasse, with the political crisis only fueled and intensified due to the intervention of multiple uninvited regional and global powers.

Commenting on the intensification of the conflict between Damascus, its allies, and the United States, following the US-led coalition's attack on Syrian forces in Deir ez-Zor last week, Ahmad warned that it's important to understand that the US position in Syria is tactical – not strategic.

"The US's goal is not limited to Syria," the politician emphasized. "The Syrian front is not the goal in and of itself. We need to look at this issue objectively, and to admit that a Third World War is taking place in Syria, one which is led by the US and its allies – even if these allies are simultaneously victims as well."

"America's main objective," according to Ahmad, "is to bring any world power that threatens them under control. Consequently, [Washington] is waging a war with these powers; and these powers include China and Russia."

Ultimately, Ahmad suggested that "the lies told by President Obama at the UN General Assembly are merely the continuation of the American 'television show', whose plot consists of the US desire to continue this war. Every US action takes place with the aim of continuing this war for control of the world."

With regard to the recently agreed-upon Russian-US ceasefire agreement, which is now looking less and less likely to be restored, the politician suggested that "Russia always understood that the US-Russian agreement on Syria would mean a US defeat in this conflict…if the agreement was adhered to."

Accordingly, it's only natural that the US struck Syrian forces in Deir ez-Zor, and then (baselessly) blamed Moscow and Damascus for hitting a humanitarian convoy in Aleppo. They could not afford to lose their position on the 'Syrian front' of their global conflict against the proponents of a multipolar world.

.

Lebanon is being forced to collapse

SUBHEAD: Lebanon cannot stand on its feet, anymore. It is overwhelmed, frightened and broke.

By Andre Vltchek on 9 April 2016 for Counter Currents -
(http://www.countercurrents.org/vltchek090416.htm)


Image above: These Lebanese army soldiers are ready to defend Lebanon. From original article.

Lebanon stands on the front line, facing the ISIS in the east and north, a hostile Israel in the south and the deep blue sea to the west. 1.5 million (mostly Syrian) refugees are dispersed all over its tiny territory. Its economy is collapsing and infrastructure crumbling.

The ISIS is right at the border with Syria, literally next door, or even with one foot inside Lebanon, periodically invading, and setting up countless “dormant cells” in all Lebanese cities and all over its countryside.

Hezbollah is fighting the ISIS, but the West and Saudi Arabia apparently consider Hezbollah, not the ISIS, to be the major menace to their geopolitical interests. The Lebanese army is relatively well-trained but badly armed, and like the entire country, it is notoriously cash-strapped.

These days, on the streets of Beirut, one can often hear: “Just a little bit more; one more push, and the entire country will collapse, go up in smoke.”

Is this what the West and its regional allies really want?

Top foreign dignitaries, one after another,are now paying visits to Lebanon: the U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon, World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim and the EU foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini.

All the foreign visitors are predictably and abstractly expressing “deep concern” about the proximity of the ISIS, and about the fate of the 1.5 million Syrian refugees now living in the Lebanese territory. “The war in the neighboring Syria is having deep impact on tiny Lebanon”, they all admit.

Who triggered this war is never addressed.

And not much gets resolved. Only very few concrete promises are being made. And what is promised is not being delivered.

One of my sources that attended the closed-door meeting of Ban Ki-moon, Jim Yong Kim and the heads of the U.N. agencies in Beirut, commented: “almost nothing new, concrete or inspiring was discussed there.”

The so-called international community is showing very little desire to rescue Lebanon from its deep and ongoing crises. In fact, several countries and organizations are constantly at Lebanon’s throat, accusing it of ‘human rights violations’ and of having a weak and ineffective government. What seems to irritate them the most though, is that Hezbollah (an organization that is placed by many Western countries and their allies in the Arab world on the “terrorist list”)is at least to some extent allowed to participate in running the country.

But Hezbollah appears to be the only military force capable of effectively fighting against the ISIS - in the northeast of the country, on the border with Syria, and elsewhere. It is also the only organization providing a reliable social safety-net to those hundreds of thousands of poor Lebanese citizens. In this nation deeply divided along the sectarian lines, it extends its hand to the ‘others’, forging coalitions with both Muslim and Christian parties and movements.


Image above: The once lavish streets of of Beirut are getting ready for war. From original article.

Why so much fuss over Hezbollah?

It is because it is predominantly Shi’a, and Shi’a Muslims are being antagonized and targeted by almost all the West’s allies in the Arab world. Targeted and sometimes even directly liquidated.

Hezbollah is seen as the right hand of Iran, and Iran is Shi’a, it stands against Western imperialism determinedly, alongside Russia, China and much of Latin America – countries that are demonized and provoked by the Empire and its ‘client’ states.

Hezbollah is closely allied with both Iran and with the Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria. It combats Israel whenever Israel invades Lebanon, and it wins most of the battles that it is forced to fight. It is openly hostile towards the expansionist policies of the West, Israel and Saudi Arabia; its leaders are extremely outspoken.

“So what?” many people in the region would ask, including those living in Lebanon.

Angie Tibbs is the owner and senior editor of Dissident Voice who has been closely watching events in the Middle East for the last number of years. She believes that a brief comparison between events of 2005 and today is essential for understanding the complexity of the situation:
“In a country where, since the end of civil wars in 1990, outward civility masks a still seething underbelly wherein old wounds, old wrongs, real and imagined, have not been forgotten or forgiven, the military and political success of Hezbollah has been the most stabilizing influence. Back in 2005, following the bomb explosion that killed former Premier Rafic al Hariri and 20 others, the US and Israel proclaimed loudly that "Syria did it" without producing a shred of evidence. The Syrian army, in Lebanon at the request of the Lebanese government, was ordered out by the US, and UN Resolution 1559 stated in part that all Lebanese militias must be disarmed. The plan was clear. With Syrian forces gone, and an unarmed Hezbollah, we had two moves which would leave Lebanon's southern border completely vulnerable, and then -- well, what would prevent Israel from barging in and taking over?”
Ms Tibbs is also convinced that the so-called international community is leaving Lebanon defenseless on purpose:
“A similar devious scenario is unfolding today. Hezbollah is busy fighting ISIS in Syria; the Lebanese army, though well trained, is poorly armed. Arms deals are being cancelled, the UN and IMF, and, in fact, the world community of nations are not providing any assistance, and little Lebanon is gasping under the weight of a million plus Syrian refugees. It's a perfect opportunity for ISIS, the proxy army of Israel and the west, to move in and Lebanon's sovereignty be damned.”
Indignant, several Lebanese
leaders are snapping back.The Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil even refused to meet with Ban Ki-moon during his two-day visit of Beirut and the Bekaa Valley.

One of Lebanon’s major newspapers, the Daily Star, reported on March 26th, 2016:
“Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil Saturday accused the international community of approaching the Syrian refugee crisis with a double standard; hours after U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon departed Beirut following a two-day visit.

“They create war, and then call on others to host refugees in line with human rights treaties,” he said in a televised news conference from his residence in Batroun.”

Image above: Northern city of Tripoli will soon be a war zone again. From original article.

Lebanon is collapsing. Even its once lavish capital Beirut is experiencing constant blackouts, water shortages and garbage-collection dramas. Economically, the country is in a sharp decline.
Dr. Salim Chahine, Professor of Finance, at the American University of Beirut, is usually at least moderately upbeat about his country. Developments of recent years, however, wear off his optimism.
“Although the Coincident Indicator issued by the Lebanese Central Bank, BDL, has recently suggested a slight enhancement in economic activity, several officials are sending clear warnings about further deterioration of the situation. The regional geopolitical tensions, the civil conflict in Syria, as well as their implications internally have impacted tourism, trade, and the real estate sectors. According to HSBC, deposits from Lebanon’s largest expatriate population – that usually provide the necessary liquidity for government’s borrowing – may grow at a slower rate in the near future given the worsening conditions in the Gulf. As the country enters in its sixth year of economic slump, HSBC remains skeptical about a short-term recovery. The public deficit is currently rising by around 20% per year, and the GDP growth rate is close to zero.”
Yayoi Segi, an educationalist and the Senior Program Specialist for UNESCO’s Arab Regional Office based in Beirut, works extensively in both Syria and Lebanon. The education sector is, according to her, struggling:
“The public education sector is very small in terms of its coverage in the country, reaching only about 35 percent of the school age population. The state allocation to education is less than 10 percent while the world average or benchmark is 18-20 percent. The situation is further compounded by the currently ongoing crisis in the region whereby Lebanon has had to accommodate a large influx of refugees. The public provision of education has expanded and continues to expand. However, it is impacting on quality and contributes to an increasing number of vulnerable Lebanese students dropping out of school, while it can only reach 50 percent of Syrian refugee children.”
Nadine Georges Gholam (not her real name), working for one of the UN agencies, says that lately she feels phlegmatic, even hopeless:
“What has been happening to Lebanon particularly these past five years is really depressing. I used to actively take part in protests to voice my anger and frustration. But now I don't know if they make any difference or change anything at all. There is no functioning government in sight. 300,000 tons of unprocessed trash accumulated in just 8 months. There is sectarian infighting. Regional conflicts... What else? Lebanon can't withstand such pressure, anymore. All is going down the drain, collapsing...”
But worse is yet to come. Recently, Saudi Arabia cancelled a US$4 billion aid package for Lebanon. It was supposed to finance the massive purchase of modern weapons from France, something urgently needed and totally overdue. That is, if both the West and the KSA are serious about fighting the ISIS.

The KSA “punished” Lebanon for having representatives of Hezbollah in the government, for refusing to support the West’s allies in the Arab League (who define Hezbollah as a terrorist group), and for still holding one of Saudi Arabia’s princes in custody, after he attempted to smuggle 2 tons of narcotics from Rafic Hariri International Airport, outside Beirut.

The story of the Saudi prince is truly grotesque but ‘explosive’. Lebanese authorities found some cocaine on board his private jet, most likely for the personal use of his family and friends. But most importantly there was an industrial quantity of Captagon,which is not some recreational drug, intended for the underground nightclubs of the Gulf in general, nor for the notorious private orgies in Saudi Arabia in particular.

It is, as I was told by several local experts, a “drug that makes one extremely brutal; a drug, which destroys all fear. It is a ‘combat narcotic’, which has been given mainly to the ISIS fighters.It could have been destined for Iraq and the ISIS cells there, but most likely the Saudi Prince was carrying it for the Saudi allies in Yemen. Or both… or most likely, for both.”

Lebanon obviously “crossed the line”. It refused to play by the script painstakingly prepared by the West and its partners. And now it is being slapped, brutally punished, some even say: “sacrificed”.

These are of course the most dangerous times for this tiny but proud nation. Syrian forces, with the great help of Russia, are liberating one Syrian city after another from the ISIS and other terrorist groups supported by Turkey, KSA, Qatar and other Western allies.

The ISIS may try to move into Iraq, to join its cohorts there, but the Iraqi government is trying to get its act together, and is now ready to fight. It is also talking to Moscow, while studying the great success Russia is having in Syria. For the ISIS or al Nusrah, a move to the weak and almost bankrupt Lebanon would be the most logical step.

And the West, Saudi Arabia and others, are clearly aware of it. In fact, the ISIS is already there; ithas infiltrated virtually all cities and towns of Lebanon, as well as its countryside. Whenever it feels like it, it carries out attacks against the Shi’a, military and other targets. Both the ISIS and al Nusrah do.

And the dream of the ISIS is blatant: a caliphate with access to the sea, one that would cover at least the northern part of Lebanon. If the West and its allies do nothing to prevent these plans, it is because they simply don’t want to.

There are several scenarios how the “fall of Lebanon” could occur. The simplest one is this: Israel could execute another invasion, or even a “mini-incursion” into Lebanon. It periodically does, anyway. And it keeps threatening, warning that it will again.

The Lebanese army is too weak to do anything to defend the country. Hezbollah would throw its forces from the battlefield with the ISIS (in the northeast) down to the south. There they would be tied down for at least several weeks. And that would allow the ISIS to move in, across the border, almost unopposed. Dormant cells - “5th columns” - would be immediately activated. The country could collapse within just a few days.

Now Lebanese leaders should be talking to Teheran and Moscow, immediately, while there is still at least some time left to avert absolute disaster. They should be openly asking for help. There are alwayswide-open channels with Iran.

But instead of hosting a delegation that would try to prevent imminent collapse of Lebanon, Russia had to dealwith a recent visit of Saad Hariri, former PM and the leader of “Future Movement”; a man who is openly anti-Hezbollah and, like his (assassinated) father Rafic Hariri, a staunch ally of the KSA, and on top of it, a Saudi Arabiancitizen! ‘Coincidentally’, Robert Fisk wrote, sarcastically, about Mr. Hariri, for

The Independent on 3 March 2016:
The Sunni Lebanese Future Movement’s leader and former Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, is a Saudi citizen – as was his assassinated ex-prime minister father Rafic – and is now quite taken aback by the willful actions of a nation to which he has always given as much allegiance as he has to Lebanon. The Future Movement, it seems, did not try hard enough to ameliorate Lebanon’s official criticism of Saudi Arabia in the Arab League and should have prevented Hezbollah from destabilizing Yemen and Bahrain – even though there is no physical proof that either Hezbollah or Iran have actually been involved in the Yemeni war or the Shi’a revolt against the Bahraini autarchy, where a Sunni king rules over a Shia majority.

Tiny Lebanon is finding itself in the middle of a whirlwind of a political and military storm that is consuming virtually the entire Middle East and the Gulf.

In the last decades, Lebanon has already suffered immensely. This time, if the West and its allied do not change their minds, it may soon cease to exist altogether. It is becoming obvious that in order to survive, it would have to forge much closer ties with the Syrian government, as well as with Iran, Russia and China.

Would it dare to do it? There is no united front inside Lebanon’s leadership. Pro-Western and pro-Saudi fractions would oppose an alliance with those countries that are defying Western interests.

But time is running out. Just recently, the Syrian city of Palmyra was liberated from the ISIS.

Paradoxically, the great Lebanese historic cities of Baalbek and Byblos may fall soon.

• Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. Discussion with Noam Chomsky:On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania - a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.
.

CIA opposes Trump

SUBHEAD: Former intelligence officials say billionaire could face a veritable security rebellion if elected.

By Tyler Durden on 29 February 2016 for Zero Hedge -
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-28/military-would-revolt-against-trump-former-cia-director-says)

http://www.islandbreath.org/2016Year/02/160229fascistsbig.jpg
Image above: Mash-up by Juan Wilson of Adolf Hitler riding in limousine in 1938 for meeting with Donald Trump. Click to embiggen. From (http://www.vintag.es/2013/07/hitler-meets-mussolini-1938.html)

Earlier today, we noted that America’s presumed candidate for the GOP nomination is busy retweeting Mussolini quotes.

That’s not necessarily a reflection of an explicit desire to move America towards fascism.

It’s not entirely clear that Donald Trump understands the movement he’s started. But America's entrenched political establishment is now scrambling to understand how to deal with the Trump juggernaut and it's not just politicians who are concerned.

Indeed, former intelligence officials now say the brazen billionaire could face a veritable security rebellion if he's elected.

“I would be incredibly concerned if a President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign,” Former CIA director Michael Hayden said, in an interview with Bill Maher. Hayden also says that the armed forces would simply refuse to follow Trump's orders were he to be elected and follow through on his campaign promises.

Here's what Hayden had to say about Trump's promise to kill family members of ISIS: 
"God, no! Let me give you a punchline. If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.

You cannot—you are not committed, you are not required, in fact you’re required to not follow an unlawful order. That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict. There would be a coup in this country."
Would Trump face a military coup or would Trump simply commandeer the military? You decide.
.

Down the Ratholes of the Future

SUBHEAD: It’s easy to predict that the things that got worse in the past are likely to keep getting worse in the future.

By John Michael Greer on 6 January 2016 for the Archdruid Roport -
(http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/01/down-ratholes-of-future.html)


Image above: Banned Indian coal mine (called a "Rat Hole" is dangerous to workers and damages the environment. From (http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2014/11/unprecedented-coal-shutdown-tests-authority-indias-court/).

The new year now upon us has brought out the usual quota of predictions about what 2016 has in store, and I propose as usual to make my own contribution to that theme. I’ve noted more than once in the past that people who make predictions about the future really ought to glance back at those predictions from time to time and check how well they’re doing.

With that in mind, before we go on to 2016, I’d like to take a moment to look back over the predictions I made last year. My post on the subject covered a lot of territory in the course of offering those predictions, and I’ve trimmed down the discussion a bit here for the sake of readability; those who want to read the whole thing as originally published will find it here.

In summarized form, though, this is what I predicted:

“The first and most obvious [thing to expect] is the headlong collapse of the fracking bubble [...] Wall Street has been using the fracking industry in all the same ways it used the real estate industry in the runup to the 2008 crash, churning out what we still laughably call “securities” on the back of a rapidly inflating speculative bubble. As the slumping price of oil kicks the props out from under the fracking boom, the vast majority of that paper—the junk bonds issued by fracking-industry firms, the securitized loans those same firms used to make up for the fact that they lost money every single quarter, the chopped and packaged shale leases, the volumetric production agreements, and all the rest of it—will revert to its actual value, which in most cases approximates pretty closely to zero.

“Thus one of the entertainments 2015 has in store for us is a thumping economic crisis here in the US, and in every other country that depends on our economy for its bread and butter. The scale of the crash depends on how many people bet how much of their financial future on the fantasy of an endless frack-propelled boom, but my guess is it’ll be somewhere around the scale of the 2008 real estate bust.

“Something else that’s baked into the baby new year’s birthday cake at this point is a rising spiral of political unrest here in the United States. [...] Will an American insurgency funded by one or more hostile foreign powers get under way in 2015? I don’t think so, though I’m prepared to be wrong. More likely, I think, is another year of rising tensions, political gridlock, scattered gunfire, and rhetoric heated to the point of incandescence, while the various players in the game get into position for actual conflict: the sort of thing the United States last saw in the second half of the 1850s, as sectional tensions built toward the bloody opening rounds of the Civil War. [...]

“Meanwhile, back behind these foreground events, the broader trends this blog has been tracking since its outset are moving relentlessly on their own trajectories. 

The world’s finite supplies of petroleum, along with most other resources on which industrial civilization depends for survival, are depleting further with each day that passes; the ecological consequences of treating the atmosphere as an aerial sewer for the output of our tailpipes and smokestacks, along with all the other frankly brainless ways our civilization maltreats the biosphere that sustains us all, builds apace; caught between these two jaws of a tightening vise, industrial civilization has entered the rising spiral of crisis about which so many environmental scientists tried to warn the world back in the 1970s, and only a very small minority of people out on the fringes of our collective discourse has shown the least willingness to recognize the mess we’re in and start changing their own lives in response: the foundation, it bears repeating, of any constructive response to the crisis of our era.”

What I missed, and should have anticipated, is the extent to which the failure of the fracking fantasy has been hushed up by the mainstream US media.

I should have anticipated that, too, because the same thing happened with the last energy boom that was going to save us all, the corn ethanol bubble that inflated so dramatically a decade ago and crumpled not long thereafter.

Plenty of firms in the fracking industry have gone bankrupt, the junk bonds that propped up the industry are selling for pennies on the dollar to anyone willing to gamble on them, and all those grand claims that fracking was going to bring a new era of US energy independence have been quietly roundfiled next to the identical claims made for ethanol not that many years before; still, this hasn’t yielded the sudden shock I expected.

The ripple effect on the US economy has been slower than I anticipated, too. Thus, instead of the thumping economic crisis I predicted, we’ve seen a slow grinding contraction, papered over by the usual frantic maneuvers on the part of the Fed.

In effect, instead of popping, the fracking bubble sprang a slow leak, which has played out in a muffled drumbeat of worsening economic news rather than a sudden plunge. So I missed on that one. The rest of the year’s predictions? Once again, I called it.

Now of course, as my critics like to point out, it’s easy to look at everything that’s getting worse each year, and predict that all those things are just going to keep getting worse in the year to come.

What those same critics tend to forget is that this strategy may be easy but, unlike the alternatives, it works.

Every January, with a predictability that puts clockwork to shame, people trot out the same shopworn predictions of game-changing breakthroughs and game-over catastrophes.

One blogger announces that this will be the year that renewable energy reaches critical mass, while another insists with equal enthusiasm that this will be the year when the wheels come off the global economy once and for all.

Another year passes, the breakthroughs and the catastrophes pull a no-show yet again, and here we are, 365 days further down the long ragged trajectory that leads to the end of the industrial age.

Thus my core prediction for 2016 is that all the things that got worse in 2015 will keep on getting worse over the year to come.

The ongoing depletion of fossil fuels and other nonrenewable resources will keep squeezing the global economy, as the real (i.e., nonfinancial) costs of resource extraction eat up more and more of the world’s total economic output, and this will drive drastic swings in the price of energy and commodities—currently those are still headed down, but they’ll soar again in a few years as demand destruction completes its work.

The empty words in Paris a few weeks ago will do nothing to slow the rate at which greenhouse gases are dumped into the atmosphere, raising the economic and human cost of climate-related disasters above 2015’s ghastly totals—and once again, the hard fact that leaving carbon in the ground means giving up the lifestyles that depend on digging it up and burning it is not something that more than a few people will be willing to face.

Meanwhile, the US economy will continue to sputter and stumble as politicians and financiers try to make up for ongoing declines in real (i.e., nonfinancial) wealth by manufacturing paper wealth at an even more preposterous pace than before, and frantic jerryrigging will keep the stock market from reflecting the actual, increasingly dismal state of the economy.

 We’re already in a steep economic downturn, and it’s going to get worse over the year to come, but you won’t find out about that from the mainstream media, which will be full of the usual fact-free cheerleading; you’ll have to watch the rates at which the people you know are being laid off and businesses are shutting their doors instead.

All that’s a slam-dunk at this point. Still, for those readers who want to see me taking on a little more predictive risk, I have something to offer. There’s a wild card in play in the US economy just now, and it’s the tech sector—no, let’s call things by less evasive names, shall we? The current tech bubble.

My financially savvy readers will know that a standard way to compare a company’s notional value to its real prospects is the ratio of the total price of all its stock to its annual earnings—the price/earnings or P/E ratio for short.

Healthy companies in a normal economy usually have P/E ratios between 10 and 20; that is, their total stock value is between ten and twenty times their annual earnings.

Care to guess what the P/E ratio is for Amazon as of last Friday’s close? A jawdropping 985. At that, Amazon is in better shape than some other big-name tech firms these days, as it actually has earnings.

Twitter, for example, has never gotten around to making a profit at all, and so its P/E ratio is its current absurd stock value divided by zero.

Valuations this detached from reality haven’t been seen since immediately before the “Tech Wreck” of 2000, and the reason is exactly the same: vast amounts of easy money have flooded into the tech sector, and that torrent of cash has propped up an assortment of schemes and scams that make no economic sense at all.

Sooner or later, as a function of the same hard math that brings every bubble to an end, Tech Wreck II is going to hit, vast amounts of money are going to evaporate, and a lot of currently famous tech companies are going to go the way of Pets.com.

Exactly when that will happen is a good question, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the next tech bust will be under way by the end of 2016.

That’s specific prediction #1.

Another aspect of economic reality that’s going to hit hard in the year ahead is the ongoing deflation of the fracking bubble.

Aside from the straightforward financial impact of that deflation, the failure of fracking to live up to the cornucopian fantasies piled onto it means that a lot of people who relied on it as a way of ignoring the harsh realities of planetary limits are going to have to find something else, so they can have new excuses for living the lifestyles that are wrecking the planet.

There’s no shortage of candidates just now; no doubt billions of dollars, Euros, et al, will continue to be poured down the bottomless rathole of fusion research, and the government feed trough will doubtless have plenty of other corporate swine lined up and grunting for their share, but my best guess at this point is that photovoltaic (PV) solar energy is going to be the next big energy bubble.

Solar PV is a good deal less environmentally benign than its promoters like to claim—like so many so-called “green” technologies, the environmental damage it causes happens mostly in the trajectory from mining the raw materials to manufacture and deployment, not in day-to-day operation—and the economics of grid-tied solar power are so dubious that in practice, grid-tied PV is a subsidy dumpster rather than a serious energy source.

Nonetheless, I expect to see such points brushed aside, airily or angrily as the case may be, as the solar lobby and its wholly-owned subsidiaries in the green movement make an all-out push to sell solar PV as the next big thing.

The same rhetoric deployed to sell ethanol and fracking as game-changing innovations, which of course they weren’t, will be trotted out again for PV, as the empty promises made at the recent COP-21 meeting in Paris find their inevitable destiny as sales pitches for yet another alleged energy miracle that won’t fulfill the overinflated promises made on its behalf.

There’s still some uncertainty involved, but I’m going to predict that the mass marketing of what will inevitably be called “the PV revolution” will get under way in 2016.

That’s specific prediction #2.

Meanwhile the political context of American life is heating steadily toward an explosion. As I write this, a heavily armed band of militiamen is holed up in a building on a Federal wildlife refuge in the deserts of southeastern Oregon, trying to provoke a standoff.

Clownish as such stunts unquestionably are, it bears remembering that the activities of such violent abolitionists as John Brown looked just as pointless in their time; their importance was purely as a gauge of the pressures building toward civil war—and that’s exactly the same reading I give to the event just described.

That said, I don’t expect an armed insurgency of any scale to break out in the United States this year.

The era of rural and urban guerrilla warfare, roadside bombs, internment camps, horrific human rights violations by all sides, and millions of refugees fleeing in all directions, that will bring down the United States of America is still a little while off yet, for one crucial reason: a large enough fraction of the people most likely to launch the insurgencies of the near future have decided to give the political process one last try, and the thing that has induced them to do this is the candidacy of Donald Trump.

The significance of Trump’s astonishing progress to front-runner status is large and complex enough that it’s going to get a post of its own here in the near future.

For the moment, the point that matters is that a vast number of nominal Republicans are so sick of the business as usual being marketed by their party’s officially approved candidates that they’re willing to vote for absolutely anyone who is willing to break with the bipartisan consensus of what we might as well call the Dubyobama era: a consensus that has brought misery to the vast majority of Americans, but continues to benefit a privileged minority—not just the much-belabored 1%, but the top 20% or so of Americans by income.

Hillary Clinton is the candidate of that 20%, the choice of those who want things to keep going the way they’ve gone for the last two decades or so.

More precisely, she’s the one candidate of the business-as-usual brigade left standing, since the half of the 20% that votes Democrat has rallied around her and done their best to shut down the competition, while the half that votes Republican failed to rally around Jeb Bush or one of his bland and interchangeable rivals, and thus got sidelined when the 80% made their own choice.

It’s still possible that Bernie Sanders could pull off an upset, if he trounces Clinton in a couple of early primaries and the Democrat end of the 80% makes its voice heard, but that’s a long shot. Far more likely at this point is an election pitting Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump—and though Sanders could probably beat Trump, Clinton almost certainly can’t.

Granted, there are plenty of twists and turns ahead as America stumbles through its long, unwieldy, and gaudily corrupt election process. It’s possible that the GOP will find some way to keep Trump from gettng the nomination, in which case whoever gets the Republican nod will lose by a landslide as the GOP end of the 80% stays home.

It’s possible that given enough election fraud—anyone who thinks this is purely a GOP habit should read Seymour Hersh’s The Dark Side of Camelot, which details how Joe Kennedy bought the 1960 election for his son—Clinton might still squeak through and get into the White House. It’s even possible that Sanders will claw his way over the barriers raised against him by the Democrat establishment and win the race.

At this point, though, little though I like to say this, the most likely outcome of the 2016 election is the inauguration of Donald Trump as President in January 2017.

That’s specific prediction #3.

Then there’s the wider context, the international political situation that’s dominated by a fact next to nobody in this country is willing to discuss: the rapid acceleration of America’s imperial decline and fall over the last year.

That’s something I’ve been expecting—I discussed it at length in my book Decline and Fall and also in my near-future political-military thriller novel Twilight’s Last Gleaming—but the details came as a surprise, not only to me, but apparently to everyone outside a few tightly guarded office buildings in Moscow.

The Russian intervention in Syria has turned out to be one of the few real game-changing events in recent years, shifting the balance of power decisively against the US in a pivotal part of the world and revealing weaknesses that the illusion of US omnipotence has heretofore concealed.

As a result, probably though not certainly before 2016 is over, the Daesh jihadi militia—the so-called “Islamic State”—is going to get hammered into irrelevance.

That latter may turn out to be a significant turning point in more ways than one, because the Daesh phenomenon is considerably more complex than the one-dimensional caricature being presented by the US media.

The evidence at this point makes it pretty clear that Daesh is being funded and supported by a number of Middle Eastern nations, with Turkey and Saudi Arabia probably the biggest contributors; those iconic white pickup trucks aren’t popping into being in the middle of the Syrian desert by the sheer grace of Allah, after all.

It’s also at least suggestive that the US, in a year of supposed air war against Daesh, not only failed to slow it down, but somehow never managed to notice, much less target, the miles-long convoys of tanker trucks hauling oil north to Turkey to cover the costs of jihad.

Something very murky has been going on in the northern Tigris-Euphrates river valley, and it deserves a post of its own here, since it will very likely will play a major role in the decline of American empire and the rise of a new global hegemony under different management.

Regular readers may find it helpful to review this blog’s previous discussion of geopolitics, or even find a stray volume of Halford Mackinder and read it, keeping in mind that regions and continents have Pivot Areas of their own. Still, there’s a specific consequence that’s likely to follow from all this.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a fine example of a phemomenon all too familiar to students of history: a crumbling, clueless despotism which never got the memo warning that it couldn’t get away any longer with acting like a major power.

The steady decline in the price of oil has left the kingdom in ghastly financial condition, forced to borrow money on international credit markets to pay its bills, while slashing the lavish subsidies that keep its citizens compliant.

A prudent ruling class in that position would avoid foreign adventures and cultivate the kind of good relationships with neighboring powers that would give it room to maneuver in a crisis.

As so often happens in such cases, though, the rulers of Saudi Arabia are anything but prudent, and they’ve plunged openly into a shooting war just over its southern borders in Yemen, and covertly but massively into the ongoing mess in Syria and Iraq.

The war in Yemen is not going well—Yemeni forces have crossed the Saudi border repeatedly in raids on southern military bases—and the war in Syria and Iraq is turning out even worse.

At this point, the kingdom can’t effectively withdraw from either struggle, nor can it win either one; its internal affairs are becoming more and more troubled, and the treasury is running low. It’s a familiar recipe, and one that has an even more familiar outcome: the abrupt collapse of the monarchy, followed by prolonged chaos until one or more new governments consolidate their power.

Those of my readers who know about the collapse of the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires at the end of the First World War have a heads-up on tomorrow’s news.

When that happens—and at this point, it’s a matter of when rather than if—the impact on the world’s petroleum markets, investment markets, and politics will be jarring and profound, and almost impossible to predict in detail in advance.

The timing of political collapse is not much easier to predict, but here again, I’m going to plop for a date and say that the Saudi regime will be gone by the end of 2016.

That’s specific prediction #4.

I admit quite cheerfully that all four of these predictions may turn out to be dead wrong. That the current tech bubble will pop messily, and that the House of Saud will implode just as messily, are to my mind done deals—in both cases, there’s a reliable historical pattern well under way, which will proceed to its predictable conclusion—but the timing is impossible to know in advance.

That something or other will be loudly ballyhooed as the next reason privileged Americans don’t have to change their lifestyles, and that the collision between the policies of the Dubyobama era and the resentment and rage of those who’ve paid the cost of those policies will set US politics ablaze, are just as certain, but it’s impossible to be sure in advance that solar PV and Donald Trump will be the beneficiaries.

The simple reality remains that here in America, we’ve poured nearly all our remaining options for constructive change down the ratholes of the future, and the one option that could still accomplish something—the option of changing our lifestyles now, in order to decrease the burden we place on the planet and what’s left of the industrial economy—is considered unthinkable right across the political spectrum.

That being the case, those of us who are doing the unthinkable, while we insulate our homes, sell our cars and other energy-wasting items, learn useful skills, and pursue the other pragmatic steps that matter just now, might want to lay in a good supply of popcorn, too; it’s going to be quite a show.

.

Don't Bomb Syria

SUBHEAD: There are protests across the United Kingdom against participation in bombing Syria as  vote looms.

By Staff on 28 November 2015 for Common Dreams -
(http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/11/28/dont-bomb-syria-protests-across-uk-syria-vote-looms)


Image above: Demonstrators protest against British bombing of Syria outside Downing Street in London, Britain, 28 November 2015. British Prime Minister David Cameron is calling on MP's to vote for Britain to join France with bombing raids against ISIS in Syria. From original article.

Thousands of people protested in London and around Britain Saturday against Britain joining in bombing attacks on ISIS in Syria.

The UK Parliament will vote next week on whether to join with the US and France in launching air strikes on Syria. Prime Minister David Cameron is leading the push for bombing.

The UK protests are organized by the Stop The War Coalition movement, which is also holding a string of other demonstrations around Britain.

The Stop The War Coalition said in a statement. "The proposed vote in Parliament on bombing Syria by British forces is likely to take place within the next week. The vote is more likely following the terrible events in Paris. Yet this bombing will not stop terror attacks. Stop the War is opposed to this military response."

Cameron's previous government suffered a humiliating defeat in 2013 over launching military action against the Assad government and did not push for the UK to join in bombing Syria to a vote last year.

Current Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is a founder of the Stop The War Coalition, opposes air strikes.

.

Turkish President's son funds ISIS

SUBHEAD: Turkish president Recep Erdogan son Bilal's  maritime company is doing the oil trades for ISIS and funds their efforts.

By Tyler Durden on 26 November 2015 for Zero Hedge -
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/meet-man-who-funds-isis-bilal-erdogan-son-turkeys-president)


Image above: Bilal Erdogan and his father (inset) Turkish President Recep Erdogan.  From (http://nervana1.org/2015/05/25/on-bilal-erdogans-alleged-egyptian-nationality/).

Russia's Sergey Lavrov is not one foreign minister known to mince his words. Just earlier today, 24 hours after a Russian plane was brought down by the country whose president three years ago said "a short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack", had this to say: "We have serious doubts this was an unintended incident and believe this is a planned provocation" by Turkey.

But even that was tame compared to what Lavrov said to his Turkish counterparty Mevlut Cavusoglu earlier today during a phone call between the two (Lavrov who was supposed to travel to Turkey has since canceled such plans).

As Sputnik transcribes, according to a press release from Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Lavrov pointed out that, "by shooting down a Russian plane on a counter-terrorist mission of the Russian Aerospace Force in Syria, and one that did not violate Turkey’s airspace, the Turkish government has in effect sided with ISIS."

It was in this context when Lavrov added that "Turkey’s actions appear premeditated, planned, and undertaken with a specific objective."

More importantly, Lavrov pointed to Turkey’s role in the propping up the terror network through the oil trade. Per the Russian statement:
"The Russian Minister reminded his counterpart about Turkey’s involvement in the ISIS’ illegal trade in oil, which is transported via the area where the Russian plane was shot down, and about the terrorist infrastructure, arms and munitions depots and control centers that are also located there."
Others reaffirmed Lavrov's stance, such as retired French General Dominique Trinquand, who said that "Turkey is either not fighting ISIL at all or very little, and does not interfere with different types of smuggling that takes place on its border, be it oil, phosphate, cotton or people," he said.

The reason we find this line of questioning fascinating is that just last week in the aftermath of the French terror attack but long before the Turkish downing of the Russian jet, we wrote about "The Most Important Question About ISIS That Nobody Is Asking" in which we asked who is the one "breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments, and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as long as it has?"

Precisely one week later, in even more tragic circumstances, suddenly everyone is asking this question.

And while we patiently dig to find who the on and offshore "commodity trading" middleman are, who cart away ISIS oil to European and other international markets in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars, one name keeps popping up as the primary culprit of regional demand for the Islamic State's "terrorist oil" - that of Turkish president Recep Erdogan's son: Bilal Erdogan.

His very brief bio:
Necmettin Bilal Erdogan, commonly known as Bilal Erdogan (born 23 April 1980) is the third child of Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, the current President of Turkey.

After graduating from Kartal Imam Hatip High School in 1999, Bilal Erdogan moved to the US for undergraduate education. He also earned a Masters Degree in John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in 2004. After graduation, he served in the World Bank as intern for a while. He returned Turkey in 2006 and started to his business life. Bilal Erdogan is one of the three equal shareholders of "BMZ Group Denizcilik ", a marine transportation corporation.
Here is a recent picture of Bilal, shown in a photo from a Turkish 2014 article, which "asked why his ships are now in Syria":

In the next few days, we will present a full breakdown of Bilal's various business ventures, starting with his BMZ Group which is the name implicated most often in the smuggling of illegal Iraqi and Islamic State through to the western supply chain, but for now here is a brief, if very disturbing snapshot, of both father and son Erdogan by F. William Engdahl, one which should make everyone ask whether the son of Turkey's president (and thus, the father) is the silent mastermind who has been responsible for converting millions of barrels of Syrian Oil into hundreds of millions of dollars of Islamic State revenue.

By F. William Engdahl, posted originally in New Eastern Outlook:

Erdogan's Dirth Dangerous ISIS Games 
More and more details are coming to light revealing that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, variously known as ISIS, IS or Daesh, is being fed and kept alive by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish President and by his Turkish intelligence service, including MIT, the Turkish CIA. 

Turkey, as a result of Erdogan’s pursuit of what some call a Neo-Ottoman Empire fantasies that stretch all the way to China, Syria and Iraq, threatens not only to destroy Turkey but much of the Middle East if he continues on his present path.

In October 2014 US Vice President Joe Biden told a Harvard gathering that Erdogan’s regime was backing ISIS with “hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons…”
\
Biden later apologized clearly for tactical reasons to get Erdo?an’s permission to use Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base for airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, but the dimensions of Erdogan’s backing for ISIS since revealed is far, far more than Biden hinted.

ISIS militants were trained by US, Israeli and now it emerges, by Turkish special forces at secret bases in Konya Province inside the Turkish border to Syria, over the past three years. Erdogan’s involvement in ISIS goes much deeper.

At a time when Washington, Saudi Arabia and even Qatar appear to have cut off their support for ISIS, they remainamazingly durable. The reason appears to be the scale of the backing from Erdo?an and his fellow neo-Ottoman Sunni Islam Prime Minister,
Ahmet Davuto?lu.

Nice Family Business

The prime source of money feeding ISIS these days is sale of Iraqi oil from the Mosul region oilfields where they maintain a stronghold. The son of Erdogan it seems is the man who makes the export sales of ISIS-controlled oil possible.

Bilal Erdogan owns several maritime companies. He has allegedly signed contracts with European operating companies to carry Iraqi stolen oil to different Asian countries.

The Turkish government buys Iraqi plundered oil which is being produced from the Iraqi seized oil wells. Bilal Erdogan’s maritime companies own special wharfs in Beirut and Ceyhan ports that are transporting ISIS’ smuggled crude oil in Japan-bound oil tankers.

Gürsel Tekin vice-president of the Turkish Republican Peoples’ Party, CHP, declared in a recent Turkish media interview, “President Erdogan claims that according to international transportation conventions there is no legal infraction concerning Bilal’s illicit activities and his son is doing an ordinary business with the registered Japanese companies, but in fact Bilal Erdogan is up to his neck in complicity with terrorism, but as long as his father holds office he will be immune from any judicial prosecution.”

Tekin adds that Bilal’s maritime company doing the oil trades for ISIS, BMZ Ltd, is “a family business and president Erdogan’s close relatives hold shares in BMZ and they misused public funds and took illicit loans from Turkish banks.”

In addition to son Bilal’s illegal and lucrative oil trading for ISIS, Sümeyye Erdogan, the daughter of the Turkish President apparently runs a secret hospital camp inside Turkey just over the Syrian border where Turkish army trucks daily being in scores of wounded ISIS Jihadists to be patched up and sent back to wage the bloody Jihad in Syria, according to the testimony of a nurse who was recruited to work there until it was discovered she was a member of the Alawite branch of Islam, the same as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who Erdogan seems hell-bent on toppling.

Turkish citizen Ramazan Bagol, captured this month by Kurdish People’s Defence Units,YPG, as he attempted to join ISIS from Konya province, told his captors that said he was sent to ISIS by the ‘Ismailia Sect,’ a strict Turkish Islam sect reported to be tied to Recep Erdogan.

Baol said the sect recruits members and provides logistic support to the radical Islamist organization. He added that the Sect gives jihad training in neighborhoods of Konya and sends those trained here to join ISIS gangs in Syria.

According to French geopolitical analyst, Thierry Meyssan, Recep Erdogan “organised the pillage of Syria, dismantled all the factories in Aleppo, the economic capital, and stole the machine-tools.

Similarly, he organised the theft of archeological treasures and set up an international market in Antioch…with the help of General Benoît Puga, Chief of Staff for the Elysée, he organised a false-flag operation intended to provoke the launching of a war by the Atlantic Alliance – the chemical bombing of la Ghoutta in Damascus, in August 2013. “

Meyssan claims that the Syria strategy of Erdo?an was initially secretly developed in coordination with former French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé and Erdogan’s then Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, in 2011, after Juppe won a hesitant Erdogan to the idea of supporting the attack on traditional Turkish ally Syria in return for a promise of French support for Turkish membership in the EU. France later backed out, leaving Erdogan to continue the Syrian bloodbath largely on his own using ISIS.

Gen. John R. Allen, an opponent of Obama’s Iran peace strategy, now US diplomatic envoy coordinating the coalition against the Islamic State, exceeded his authorized role after meeting with Erdogan and “promised to create a "no-fly zone" ninety miles wide, over Syrian territory, along the whole border with Turkey, supposedly intended to help Syrian refugees fleeing from their government, but in reality to apply the "Juppé-Wright plan".

The Turkish Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, revealed US support for the project on the TV channel
A Haber by launching a bombing raid against the PKK.” Meyssan adds.

There are never winners in war and Erdogan’s war against Syria’s Assad demonstrates that in bold. Turkey and the world deserve better.

Ahmet Davutoglu’s famous “Zero Problems With Neighbors” foreign policy has been turned into massive problems with all neighbors due to the foolish ambitions of Erdogan and his gang.

.