Turkey, Russia, China Following U.S. Plan for Syria

READ THIS ON MY NEW WEBSITE: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/08/26/turkey-russia-china-following-u-s-plan-for-syria/

There are often key moments in the world of geopolitics where if missed, leave one detached from the reality and consumed by the false narrative portrayed by the media.

After the intentionally flawed coup attempt in Turkey, you would have come across vast analysis by independent journalists who talk about the Russia vs America paradigm and often we get consumed by this narrative when trying to fish for information that isn't Fox News or the BBC. It’s the narrative the American neocons want us to believe, so that if "America doesn't get there first, Russia will".

Articles and analysis were posted hours after the coup explaining that Turkey will swing to the East and create a stronger Russian block or even Chinese considering they’re now involved in the Syrian quagmire.

However now we can see quite clearly that Russia, China, and Turkey are all following the American plan for the region. The Americans were the ones who drafted a Kurdistan region. The Americans were the ones who drafted autonomous "safe zones" in Syria, i.e. carving sectarian lines between the Kurds, Alawites and the rest of the Sunni population.

What are they getting by following the U.S plan?

This plan goes against Turkey’s territorial integrity because the Kurdish region directly threatens Turkey. It won’t be long before the issues in Turkey will escalate into chaos and they’ll have to draw concessions with the Kurdish State and let them annex the Kurdish area within Turkey - or simply keep Turkey in check through constant warfare and border issues.

So how does Turkey benefit from following the American plan? The fact is, they don’t. Turkey is under the thumb and if America wanted it can stage a real coup and take away Erdogan’s position. The purposefully flawed coup was a hint to Erdogan to say “We have more control in your country than you’d think”.

However, Erdogan did get something out of it, even if he loses some part of Turkey in the process. He has consolidated his position, removed his opposition, destroyed the judiciary that would have never let him continue with the American plan and he’s now going to finish his White Palace and live in it as a Presidential figure while the country is run by his ex-party. America rewards their agents from time to time if it suits them to do so.

Let’s look at Russia. If they’re some huge superpower people think them to be, why did they do a tactical retreat when they were on the verge of reclaiming Syria for Assad? Because this was not the American plan and whenever they do manoeuvres that are against American wishes, their own internal issues “coincidentally” flare up.

America’s watchful eye is ever present on Russia and they’ve held them by the proverbial for far too long — Crimea is just one of many choke-holds.

The other Baltic regions will be consumed by NATO if Russia doesn't play ball. In fact, Russia know that if they did not get involved in Syria which was always seen as a Russian-allied state historically, then they’d have nothing left there as America would have consumed it and replaced the government with Western puppets. It will still be the case, but this time, Russia would like to at least maintain their arms deals, trade, and semi-influence there.

Finally, it is well known that ISIS are trading with the likes of Turkey and exist through illicit financing from the West and if Turkey were honestly upset about American involvement in the coup, they wouldn't kiss and make up over a single Joe Biden visit. The institution misled the Turkish people by using anti-Americanism as a smokescreen while they shake hands behind closed doors.

Instead, anti-Americanism should have led to anti-American vision for Syria by cutting the supply routes for ISIS so they can no longer function, closing Incirlik airbase to both Russia and America, intercepting more airplanes that kill Muslims indiscriminately in Syria and calling for unity in the Muslim world.

READ THIS ON MY NEW WEBSITE: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/08/26/turkey-russia-china-following-u-s-plan-for-syria/

The Attack in Nice - Think Rationally not Emotionally

Read this on my new website: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/07/15/the-attack-in-nice-think-rationally-not-emotionally/

﷽

The truck attack in Nice will no doubt be linked to "Islamic Extremism" in the first 24 hours before the truth is actually revealed. Let's be clear, the attack is horrific and in no way affirmed by Islam or the Muslims - but leaving emotion to the side we must understand the outcomes of such attacks and the similar ones leading up to this.

If you follow the media trend on such attacks you will see that within the first 24 hours of the attack, the attackers identity will be revealed as a Muslim and that he most likely has links to ISIS or another terrorist/militia group. The government will announce their commitment to fighting terrorism and in effect get the public opinion on their side for further military action in the Middle East. However, the following hours after the first 24 hours you will find that the attackers true identity will be revealed, usually a deranged psychopath that would be easily misled or goaded into doing such attacks. You will find that the official narrative is weak and contradictions begin to appear from the over exaggerated initial reports. But it's too late, by this time the entire world has linked this attack to Islam and Muslims, and 99% of the population have switched off the news and moved onto more "important" matters in their life. The 1% that haven't are you, the one reading this article right now. That 1% doesn't really matter now as they have no power or voice.

This was the case with the San Bernardino shooting, the Orlando nightclub shooting, and now this one and many others before.

We understand that these attacks most likely were carried out, putting conspiracy theories aside. And even if they didn't happen it doesn't make the outcome null and void because the whole world believed it to have happened in the way the media has portrayed. What we have to understand is the outcome of such attacks.

1. It sways public opinion against Islam and Muslims further isolating them.
2. It supports the idea of further military intervention by European States, through NATO, of the Muslim world.
3. It amplifies the voice of those on the far right, i'm sure Marie Le Pen is loving this.
4. It endorses the idea of an 'extremist watchlist' which has been an issue of contention in many countries that say it is against ones freedoms. This attacker was known by the police but not on the official 'watchlist' so therefore he "wasn't tracked".

Finally, let us also remember the millions that have died through the wars that the Western nations committed and the Muslims dying in Kashmir right now as we speak that have no voice or media attention, and the Muslims in Burma that are persecuted to the point of extinction, and the 14,000 Muslims arrested in Bangladesh just because they oppose the government.

There are many Muslims dying right now due to their involvement in our lands and will continue to die until we wake up and do something to help.

#DontBeFooled

For those who thought Iran was not under the will of America

Read this on my new website: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/07/11/for-those-who-thought-iran-was-not-under-the-will-of-america/

﷽

There are many who believe Iran have held firmly against the tide of American dominance in the Middle East. They believe Iran to be an underdog who will soon compete on a global scale with America alongside Russia and China. They claim their will is independent and Islamic. It is now starkly clear that their hopes have been dashed and the reality has settled to whom Iran serves. This article hopes to highlight recent actions by Iran after the JCPOA and to whom these actions benefit the most.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)[1] is an agreement between Iran and US, UK, China, Germany and France to disarm Iran of any nuclear capability that could be used for military purposes. It is seen as one of Obama's biggest achievements.

It states under the JCPOA that:

Iran welcome this historic Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which will ensure that Iran’s nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful, and mark a fundamental shift in their approach to this issue. They anticipate that full implementation of this JCPOA will positively contribute to regional and international peace and security. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.

This cooperation between Washington and Tehran raised many eyebrows in Iran where the population have historically been anti-American. Many knew from the onset that a deal with America would never be favourable for Iran. In fact, Rouhani publicly praised the lifting of the sanctions [2] and regularly mentioned that Iran had the better deal out of the two, in order to quell any concerns from the Iranian public. Officials in the U.S. as well as the Israeli's were quick to notice this and hounded Obama for the first couple of weeks [3], suggesting that he hastened into a deal and that Iran would continue with their nuclear aspirations.

It's not about the nuclear weapons...

The world was duped into thinking the JCPOA is just about halting nuclear proliferation but they failed to understand the bigger picture behind the agreements. Yes, the JCPOA will indeed hamper Iran's nuclear capability and remove yet another Middle Eastern and more importantly Muslim country from the list of nuclear weapon holders, but the main purpose behind it is to relieve Iran economically and allow Her to follow America's demands subserviently, namely to become the face of Shi'itism in order to spread deathly sectarianism across the Muslim world, leading to the Muslims utter destruction and demise.

US Officials promised that they would hold Tehran accountable if they continued to support terrorism yet it was conveniently left out of the JCPOA dispute resolution mechanism as an action that could reintroduce the sanctions. John Kerry said:

"If we catch them funding terrorism, they're going to have a problem with the United States Congress and with other people, obviously." [4]

The Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said :

"Iran, the foremost state sponser of terrorism -- continues to exert its influence in regional crises in the Middle East through the International Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), its terrorist partner Lebanese Hezbollah, and proxy groups...Iran and Hezbollah remain a continuing terrorist threat to U.S. interests and partners worldwide." [5]

How does it benefit the West if Iran continue to support terrorist activities? And where is the proof that they are doing such?

Tehran has made it clear that they are supporting groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Palestine. In the November report issued by Congressional Research Service "Iran has apparently sought to rebuild the relationship with Hamas by providing missile technology that Hamas used to construct its own rockets, and by helping it rebuild tunnels destroyed in the [2014] conflict with Israel." [6]

Counter air-strikes by "Israel" have frequently hit Hezbollah or IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) members, such as IRGC Gen. Mohammad Ali Allahdadi in the January 2015 Mazraat Amal Incident. Last month, the group's secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, bluntly declared that "Hezbollah gets its money and arms from Iran, and as long as Iran has money, so does Hezbollah."[7]

As mentioned before, Iran's role as the Shi'ites protector and leader is to further sectarianism in the Muslim lands, and it is evident from their explicit support for the Houthi's in Yemen, Shi'ite militia's in Iraq and Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

It comes as no surprise when CENTCOM Chief Gen. Joseph Votel said

Iran has become "more aggressive in the days since the agreement". [8]

If Iran indeed had its own will then it would have turned the game plan of the U.S. upside down by supporting Palestine militarily and removing the occupation rather than meagre token gestures of underhand arms deals with Hamas and PIJ. As the Head of the Revolutionary Guards Aerospace Division Ali Hajizadeh said "Israel is surrounded by Islamic countries and it will not last long in a war" [9]. They would stop all funding of armed Shi'a militias that are going around slaughtering Muslims. They would disobey their masters in Washington and unite the Muslims under Islam and not an "infallible" spiritual leader.

This article featured on http://voiceoftheummah.com

[1] JCPOA - https://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/iran_joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action_en.pdf
[2] President Rouhani hails lifting of Iran sanctions - http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/president-rouhani-hails-lifting-iran-sanctions-160117104307664.html
[3] A Bad Deal Off to a Worse Start - http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-01-21/obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-is-a-bad-deal-off-to-a-worse-start
[4] Iran's Support for Terrorism Under the JCPOA - http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-support-for-terrorism-under-the-jcpoa
[5] Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community - http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20160225/104550/HHRG-114-IG00-Wstate-ClapperJ-20160225.pdf
[6] CRS - Iran’s Foreign Policy - https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R44017.pdf
[7] Terrorist Chief: ‘As Long as Iran Has Money, We Will Have Money’ - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/hezbollah-chief-our-budget-income-weapons-all-come-iran
[8] COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE - http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/16-26_3-09-16.pdf
[9] Iran test fires missiles branded with words 'Israel must be wiped out' - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/12188431/Iran-test-fires-missiles-branded-with-words-Israel-must-be-wiped-out.html

Iraq Invasion - Stopping Saddam or Stopping the Islamic Revival?

Read this on my new website: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/07/08/iraq-invasion-stopping-saddam-or-stopping-the-islamic-revival/

﷽

We will without doubt be hearing how the Iraq Invasion in 2003 was a failure and mismanagement by Tony Blair now that the Chilcot Report has affirmed what we already knew was an unfounded case for WMD's. However, this article will give you an entirely different narrative to what you may find on the mainstream news channels and papers.

The Iraq Invasion was a failure only in terms of establishing Iraq as the model democratic nation in the Middle East for the rest of the nearby Muslim countries to follow suit, and this was undoubtedly "Plan A" for Iraq under the Greater Middle East Initiative of 2004. However, this does not mean there was not a "Plan B". In fact when John Kerry mentioned Plan B for Syria he was not only speaking of Syria but rather a Plan B in moving towards Plan A, democratisation and secularisation of the Middle East.

The Islamic sentiment during the latter years of Saddam's reign was strong and this is evident from the fact that he used this sentiment a number of times, whether that be falsely claiming that he is a descendent of the Prophet ﷺ or filling his speeches with references to the Qur'an. The only reason one would feel obliged to ride the Islamic wave would be due to the fact the people held Islam as more than just a mere religion. Especially when we know that the Ba'ath party was not born on religious grounds but on a secular one.

If Saddam had stepped down without a fight and left U.S. and Britain to install a new leader, they would have undeniably had to replace him with a leader that called for Islam. This is due to the fact the peoples thoughts and emotions were leaning towards Islam at this time.

This is definitely apparent when we look at the way in which Saddam held to power. He used government money to promote mandatory Qur'an studies in school. He built training centres for Imams including Saddam University of Islamic Studies. Radio stations were being dedicated to airing Qur'anic lessons and alcohol banned in restaurants. Ba'ath party members were made to take courses in Qur'an and Saddam was being shown in prayer in the media. There was a rise in mosque attendance and more women began to dress more modestly - especially  considering the fact that Baghdad was the most secular of all the surrounding areas before. With all of these actions he felt that the population would support him from any incoming foreign invasion or occupation.

Plan B is in fact the steps preceding Plan A. Plan B is to engulf the Middle East in bloody sectarian conflict whereby a Muslim is recognised based on their affiliations to a certain sect (Shia, Sunni) rather than their religion. It is to partition the Middle East with more than just a mere line in the sand, but rather a deep bloody scar that will not heal with time.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice stated during a press conference that:

“what we’re seeing here in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do we have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one." 

They wish for a New Middle East that will not see Islam as its solution because Islam will be seen as something barbaric and unable to govern, as is the case with post-Iraq ISIS.  They wish to show that political parties that have any connection to Islam are simply incapable of handling the power and with one fell swoop can be destroyed.

It is through destruction and chaos that the West will start to prop-up and fund secular democratic groups as an alternative to the mayhem that they have endured. They hope that the majority would seek stability and safety rather than revolutions and uprisings.

It was not a failure for the West in Iraq but a pre-requisite to entering the Middle East, inserting their influence and averting the Islamic revival which would unmistakably challenge their dominance at a world stage.

The Chilcot Inquiry will later be seen as a waste of public money and a way to appease the mass that were against the war from the very beginning. They wish to pull the wool over the peoples eyes, so that the real motive is left unrevealed. It is surely easier to lay the blame on one individual rather than the ideology itself.

Balkanisation of Syria: Starving the Population into Perpetual War

On 23 February, US Secretary of State John Kerry disclosed to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee that separating Syria into multiple states is 'Plan B' if the ceasefire does not work. However it was evidently clear that the ceasefire was inconceivable, if not impossible to achieve due to there being more than 40+ factions on the ground fighting and vying for power. The fighting would rage on through the ceasefire. Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS were not even included in this, leaving the U.S. with plenty of fingers to point at the rebel factions with.

One must realise that Russia were aware of this 'Plan B' from the very moment they stepped into the arena. Russia's sudden withdrawal when the Syrian Regime were in the strongest position they've been in 5 years. They had the ability to take back vast swathes of land from the rebels. This was evident by the fact many of these factions surrendered to the ceasefire to get a break from the Russian onslaught that didn't discriminate between combatant and non-combatants.

This is in line with the U.S. Department of Intelligence document leaked in 2015 in regards to the Syrian campaign. The document mentions that Russia will be there to 'support' the regime. Yet reporters, politicians and neoliberals feigned shock when Russia declared their military intervention - and they had to, as Russia are still the bogeyman for the U.S. to push through foreign policies on the basis of "otherwise Russia will take it".

The withdrawal of Russia has left the Syrian regime in a position whereby if they do not accept the U.S. plan then the rebels will slowly gain back the territory that Russia had helped them recapture. It also left the opposition factions with a threat that air support will not be withdrawn and therefore it is a case of 'take it or leave'. A perfect position for the U.S. proposed plan of balkanising Syria.

Read the full article at: http://kamkashem.com/2016/03/30/balkanisation-of-syria-starving-the-population-into-perpetual-war/

Equilibrium Warfare in Syria - U.S. using ISIS as the sectarian spearhead and Russia as the equalizer

In 2015 a document by the U.S. Department of Intelligence (DIA) was leaked with some astonishing details that were not redacted. You don't want to go away without knowing this!

It starts off with the general situation in Iraq and Syria and explains that they are both heading in the sectarian direction, failing to mention this to be a negative aspect of the war. We will conclude at the end of this article whether or not the U.S. seek a sectarian war or not.



Interestingly, this report was drafted in 2012 and released in 2015, way before Russia's involvement in the Syrian crises. At the time of Russia's involvement we heard many American diplomats and opposition politicians bombarding the media with this narrative that Russia are stealing America's thunder and Obama is incapable in his policies in Syria. A lot of people saw this role of Russia in Syria contrary to what America wanted and this narrative is still played out today. The report actually documents that Russia will be involved in this conflict and will side with the Assad regime - they knew this from the very beginning it was planned, drafted and agreed upon.



You can clearly read from that, that the U.S. require an equilibrium in Syria and from the very onset they knew that the Russians were only there to kill off the opposition that the West, Gulf and Turkey have been supporting to maintain an equal playing ground. If the U.S. sought to resolve the Syrian crises then surely it would solve its issues with Russia, China and Iran to stop them from supporting the regime, right?

Who are the opposition you ask? Well from the media we know that the West are supporting the Free Syrian Army and anyone linked to the Syrian National Coalition however it clearly denotes in this document that without the work of AQI (now known as ISIS), they could not play a pivotal role in uniting the Sunni Muslims under the sectarian card to fight the dissenters who they call the Jibha al-Ruwafidh (Forefront of the Shiites)



It goes on to say that the flow of fighters and ammunition comes through the border between Iraq/Syria and it depends on AQI (now ISIS) as it has major pockets and bases on both sides. This spells out that without ISIS, the West could not support the opposition against Assad or keep the equilibrium going to destroy the infrastructure, people and livelihoods of Syria and Iraq.



It mentions that the future holds a safe haven for the Syrian regime, i.e. Assad and the Alawi's. This is reaffirmed by the recent plans drawn up by RAND and the Brookings Institute explaining the greater plan for a federalized Syria into three regions.



Now the key for the next point is in the wording. The U.S. have maintained that they want a peaceful solution to the Syrian crises and they'll take every opportunity to demean Russia's actions in Syria, but make a note of the wording on this next point in the document.



Did you spot it?

Try again....



That's right the development of a proxy war WITH SUPPORT from Russia, China and Iran. This proxy war is undoubtedly and undeniably a proxy war that doesn't see the Americans, Russians, Chinese or even Europeans losing their lives. It is the MUSLIMS who are being targeted and it is the Muslims who are losing their lives for a war that is not even their own.

The report finally goes onto 'prophesies' if I may use that term loosely, that the opposition which the West support will use Iraq as a launch pad and safe haven for the Salafists, i.e. ISIS - whom they fully support and whom without the equilibrium could not be sustained without marring their own faces and sending in their own troops as was the case in the Iraq war.

And just to top all of this off they kindly mention that 'if the situation unravels' in the West's favour there is a 'possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared salafist principality' - and what is the form of interpretation of Islam ISIS are following? ... how convenient.. it's Salafist.



Finally it decides to redact the part about facilitating the terrorist organisations into entering the Iraqi arena.



If this section were to take the angle that other powers out of America's control were facilitating the terrorist elements to enter the Iraqi arena then it surely wouldn't have redacted this part out. It leads one to believe that this section was in fact talking about how the West can renew the facilitation of rounding up the Jihadi organisations from around the world and push them into Iraq. Exactly what ISIS are doing today with many groups pledging their allegiances to them and flocking to join their ranks.

Now if you still believe ISIS are not their to serve the agenda of the West, then you're truly and utterly naive. This is a sectarian war headed by the U.S with its allies Russia, Iran and China to bring the Muslims to their knees and destroy whatever they have left in their capability, i.e. nuclear, manpower or resources and ultimately their religion that binds them.

Thank you for reading this, share this widely with others.

Jazakamullah Khairan

The Three Types of Sectarianism - Washington Institute

A recent article published by the Washington Institute interestingly separates sectarianism into three types.

1) Institutionalized Sectarianism
2) Incidental Sectarianism
3) Exploitative Sectarianism

Institutionalized Sectarianism
"Some groups and states have integrated sectarian themes into the very fabric of their political, cultural, and educational systems. Sectarianism, in other words, has been institutionalized. "
Institutionalized Sectarianism is by far the most dangerous and most difficult form of sectarianism to counter. Examples of this include the likes of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism and Iran's 'Governance of the Jurists', meaning a regime overseen by scholars. The article goes on to say that this is something ISIS is also seeking to achieve.

Incidental Sectarianism
"...as its name implies, does not involve a deliberate effort to implement a sectarian agenda. Sectarianism does not play a central role in a state or group's objectives, even if there are overtones of it."

Incidental Sectarianism is a form of sectarianism that is evident in conflicts even if that was not the reason for the conflict. The Syrian civil war is an example of this whereby the struggle is not to eradicate the Alawite, but rather the Alawi regime from leadership - but at the same time the opposition uses sectarianism to bolster their ranks. 

Exploitative Sectarianism

"Finally, there is exploitative sectarianism, a category that characterizes the tactics and nature of many of the most violent actors in the region."

The article suggests that most of the larger Jihadi organisations today exploit sectarianism to recruit and to achieve political goals however one could argue that the West not only exploit sectarianism but help in institutionalizing it for their own gains in the Middle East. 

Grand Imam of al-Azhar refuses a fatwa to allow takfir of ISIS

It may come as a surprise that the grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmed el-Tayeb has refused to issue a fatwa to excommunicate ISIS members, i.e. a fatwa to allow the takfir (excommunication from Islam) of ISIS members.

Either they don't wish to engage in heated dialogue which would only clarify the issue of making takfir on another brother or they're succumbing to a public opinion that regards the aims of ISIS to be noble but the method to be incorrect and fatal, i.e. the concept of Khilafah is correct however the method of establishing it via force to be incorrect.

My opinion would be the former. Al-Azhar is still seen to many Muslims around the Middle East to be the voice of reason and truth. Their fatwa's are followed by millions even though they lack political gain for Islam. In fact, it is known that many of the fatwa's issued by these big renowned Islamic institutions come at a time where America requires the Muslims blood to boil and rise to fight America and the West's wars. It remains silent for the cause of the Muslims dying in Palestine to the hands of the Israeli's who have stolen the land and reaped its resources, it remains silent for those suffering at the hands of brutal monks in Burma, it remains silent when the West intervene in the Muslims affairs, it remains silent when the dictators slaughter the believers and it remains silent when it is so badly needed to unite the Ummah and lead it forth into liberation.

If they were to entertain the discussion of takfirism which they so desperately need in order to split the Ummah on sectarianism then it would only clarify and crystallise the understanding of making takfir on another brother. Many Muslims would give a brother 70 excuses before excommunicating them from Islam as the severity of such words could cost them their own success in the hereafter.

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "If a man says to his brother, O Kafir (disbeliever)!' Then surely one of them is such (i.e., a Kafir). "

The Different Types of Salafi's

A new article recently published on WarOnTheRocks raised some interesting points regarding the two types of Salafi's the West need to deal with.

I've collated some of the main points here:

If we want to stop the self-proclaimed Islamic State’s recruitment to violence, a better question is how does the group transform centuries-old theological concepts into real and present threats?

Answering that question requires that we begin by stipulating that the Islamic State is a Salafi organization. Salafism is based on an exclusive adherence to this early Islamic Sunni theology. Next, we must recognize the historical division of Salafism between violent and non-violent strains in the 20th century under specific political conditions. Finally, and perhaps most urgently, we might consider the lessons of this history for our own strategic planning today.

Because of its emphasis on redefining Islamic faith and practice, Salafis — both violent and non-violent ones — prioritize their attention on fellow Muslims (Sufis, Shi‘is, even non-Salafi Sunnis) for promoting what they regard as “deviant” interpretations of the faith.

So why do some use this to attack others violently, while others only do so rhetorically? There is only one conceptual factor that drives this decision: the reason why others, in the eyes of different Salafis, fail to adopt their worldview. To non-violent Salafis, the reason they give is misinformation and misunderstanding — not having been exposed to their theological views. Innocence by omission. For violent ones, the reason is because of a deliberate resistance to it — an expression of the internal “unbelief” in God’s monotheism (kufr). Guilt by commission, and commission of the religion’s gravest sin, violating God’s “oneness.”

This divide is nearly as old as the religion itself, and was a core question underlying the evolution of early Islamic theology. On the one hand there stood Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (d. 855CE) and his circle (the so-called People of Hadith), who held that one’s faith is expressed in one’s “heart, tongue and limbs.” On the other, the more rationalist schools argued that this faith is only in the heart and tongue and need not be confirmed by actions of the limbs.

This debate surfaced in the 20th century as a fault line between violent and non-violent Salafis, who — unlike other Sunnis — ostensibly all identified with the People of Hadith in their theology, but who, in practice, came to different conclusions about the practical implications of this theology. The watershed moment came in 1986, when one Safar al-Hawali (b. 1950) put the finishing touches on his dissertation for the Saudi Umm al-Qura University. In it, Hawali — who, although not a jihadist, would be later regarded as something of their intellectual ally — attacked one Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani (d. 1999) for the latter’s view that one’s failure to pray was not a sign of “unbelief,” but rather could have been caused by laziness, oversleeping, or some other non-doctrinal factor. For Hawali, a Muslim’s neglect of proper Islamic conduct was evidence of ceasing to be Muslim. For Albani, who would later become the doyen of the so-called “quietist” strain of Salafism, a Muslim’s neglect of prayer was a sin but did not change one’s Muslim status.

In the 1990s, these positions became the core kernel of a new and broader debate on the issue of takfir (excommunication of other Muslims). Specifically, under what circumstances may Muslims excommunicate other Muslims, and thereby justify engaging in violence against them? On the one hand there were those who believed, as Hawali did, that failure to act in an Islamic way nullified one’s Islamic identity — these formed the intellectual nucleus of jihadism. On the other stood the quietists, Albani’s progeny, who resisted drawing the link between the need to behave in an Islamic way and the reasons for not doing so.

This became the debate between violent Salafis (or jihadists) and the non-violent ones (quietists), and the labels they used to attack one another are revealing of the sensitivities of each. Quietist Salafis almost universally refrain from referring to jihadists by their proper ideological designation as “Salafi-jihadists,” but rather use the term “takfiri” or “extremist,” referring to their singular focus on using takfir as a justification for wanton bloodletting. Quietist Salafis further argue that they too have principles of takfir and jihad, but that these are enshrined in a “methodology” — i.e. there is a time and a place for them. The names of early Islamic sects are also commonly invoked as labels for each group, but these are used strategically in a derogatory way and do not, as we saw earlier, reflect the actual theological positions on which each relies (examples include “Kharijites” for jihadists, and “Murji’ites” for quietists). In other words, their use is akin to how Westerners would freely use the “Fascist” label to describe any form of bigotry, despite its frequently ahistorical use.

It goes on to interestingly state that the Salafi's are not different to those who compromise their deen and enter into the political framework. The author recognises himself that this is in itself unislamic yet the Salafi's do not?

In Egypt, perhaps noting Sisi’s wide-ranging crackdown on journalists, Salafis continue to lament the “media campaigns” against them as their primary concern. Salafis have even competed in elections — a violation of one of their cardinal principles of rejecting modern institutions — since that, for them, was a mechanism of survival within the specific context of Egyptian politics under Sisi. Indeed, over the last year, Egypt’s Salafi Nour Party was able to navigate the country’s political turbulence by branding itself an ally of the state in combatting terrorism, rather than siding with their pro-Morsi Salafi counterparts in demanding Sisi’s ouster. In short, these examples demonstrate that the survival of Salafi groups within local political circumstances are just as much expressions of their pragmatic skills as they are of their ideological commitments. However, since their ideology is often used as justification for the decisions they make, one might also conclude that, just as with the divide between non-violent and violent Salafism at the end of the last century, the practical implications of Salafi ideology in the present century is equally conditioned by local contexts as it is by long-established theological concepts.

RAND's peace plan for Syria

RAND Report: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE182/RAND_PE182.pdf

It is important to know that the RAND corporation are no ordinary think-tank. They are one of the leading think-tanks in America that have shaped policy and decision making at the highest level. This is why any analysis that come out of RAND, you can be sure that it is the direction the politicians will take in America.

This recent report by RAND regarding the peace plan for Syria agrees with much of the Brooking's Institutions report on deconstructing Syria towards a regionalized strategy.

The report starts off by recognising the two paths that can be taken in Syria, them being:

1. Concentrate on brokering a comprehensive political arrangement among the warring Syrian parties and their external sponsors, including the reform of state institutions, the formation of a new government, and a plan for elections, accompanied by a ceasefire and the beginning of a process of reconstruction.
2. The second approach would be to secure agreement to an immediate ceasefire, which would be followed by further negotiations on the shape of a reconstituted Syrian state and government.

We can see that the West are currently aiming for the first path by gathering the opposition to come to an agreement. However whether or not Assad stays or leaves is the main sticking point for most of the warring factions - something that Russia also wish to have a say in. 

RAND suggest that path one is unrealistic now that sectarianism is as rife as ever. 

"pitting the regime against the opposition, Shi’a against Sunni, Arab against Kurd, and moderate against extremist. It has attracted tens of thousands of foreign fighters from Europe, North America, and Africa; exacerbated geopolitical rivalries among Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, the United States, and others; and drawn in the armed forces of nearly a dozen external states. There may have been a time, early on, when it could be argued that the benefits of overthrowing Assad would be worth the human, strategic, political, and economic costs of achieving that goal, but that time has long past. At this point, whether President Assad stays or goes in the near term should be regarded as a matter of pure expediency"

Whereas the second path seems to be more achievable according to both RAND and the Brooking's Institute. The most telling point of this report is the acknowledgement of three safe zones for Syria. RAND writes:

"Were the fighting to be halted on the basis of the territory currently held, Syria would find itself divided into roughly four zones—one controlled by the government; one controlled by the Kurds; one controlled by diverse elements of the Sunni opposition; and one controlled largely by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).1 As ISIS has no foreign sponsors, is largely immune to external influence, and is certain to reject any ceasefire, Syria would effectively be divided into three “safe” zones in which the parties agreed to stop fighting, and one zone in which all other parties would be free to wage war on ISIS."

 RAND's proposal acknowledges three difficult realities.

1. The first is that four years of fighting and more than a quarter million dead have left Syria intensely divided by sect and ethnicity. It should be a goal to mitigate those divisions in the long run, but they must be acknowledged in the short run.
2. Second, ousting the current regime by building up the military power of the opposition—the basic approach of the United States and its partners for the past four years—is unlikely to succeed. Russia and Iran have proven so committed to the regime’s preservation that escalation of the conflict has not led to Assad’s capitulation, but rather a significant counter-escalation, more killing and refugees, and radicalization of the opposition.
3. Third, the current battle lines on the ground, while hardly ideal, would have to be the fundamental basis of any armistice. Limited territorial swaps may be necessary to facilitate the disengagement of combatants and assist in ceasefire implementation.

It goes on to state that the war in Syria has ruined the intermixing of  ethnicities and sects within Syria, thus forming regions based on them or creating lines in the sand, what some would call Sykes-Picot Part 2.

 "Like most countries in the Middle East, Syria’s ethno-sectarian breakdown is far from clean. Syria’s communities have historically intermixed, so there is no such thing as a solid stretch of land inhabited by a single community. In addition, Sunni Arabs constitute more than 60 percent of the country’s total population. They are present throughout the country, comprise A ceasefire may not be a sufficient condition for an eventual political settlement, but it is likely to be a necessary one. 3 a majority even in regime-held areas, and in many cases remain loyal to the Assad regime.4 These important caveats aside, Syria’s longstanding ethnosectarian map does reflect regional groupings, which have been consolidated by internal displacement"

Without the war in Syria it would have never been possible to split Syria up on ethnic and sectarian lines. One could call this the sickest method of separating the Ummah of Muhammad (pbuh).

The map above shows the clear zones that RAND are suggesting in their proposal for Syria. In the full report you will find more maps relating to sects within Syria before and after the war. 

It is also interesting to note how RAND suggest each of these players are backed by international support to secure its own interests.

Thus, Russia and Iran would guarantee the regime’s adherence; the United States would guarantee Kurdish adherence; and Turkey and Jordan would guarantee the Sunni opposition’s adherence. All external parties would collaborate to dislodge ISIS. 

However I do believe that the final point about all external parties collaborating to defeat ISIS is only mentioned due to the fact ISIS have been used as a pretext for all this change in the Muslim world and also to contain the Muslims from seeking an alternative system. It will be interesting to see how long ISIS remain after the Syria end game is played out. They will either cease to exist or kept like Al Qaeda as a pretext into other parts of the Muslim world where the West require change. So far they have become the golden egg for the West and so easily allowed them to dictate the situation for the rest of the world under the guise of "terrorism".

It goes on to mention that it could become somewhat similar to Lebanon's sectarian power sharing model including the international oversight on the Bosnia model using U.N forces to implement ceasefire and support. If this is the case, the Muslims should look back at what happened to the Bosnian Muslims as the Serbs slaughtered them in U.N's presence. It would be a disaster to allow them to "protect" the Muslims.

"International oversight of the ceasefire and support for the political process would be undertaken by a Peace Implementation Council, on the Bosnia model, made up of the above-mentioned states plus others ready to contribute significantly. "

It clearly admits that support for Al Nusra and other groups currently receive support and will stop receiving it once the above actions have been taken.

"It would have to be clear to all groups that external support will be cut off for groups that violate the ceasefire."

 In conclusion it is clear to see that this second path is on its way already as Russia have now become a key player in the Syria end game, and was needed in order to support Assad in a alawi region and be their main guarantor.

Kam Kashem

The "Islamic" Military Alliance by Abu Usaid

Observers of the research released by the US strategic centres can perceive clearly the policies America pursues in our lands. They have determined that in order to prevent the rise of an "Islamic State", or in case the current regimes failed, the US should move away from the "soft power" and the "idealist approach"  and resort to "hard power" and "realpolitik". As for the "Jihadi" movements, it is imperative to deal with them according to the following steps: they should be contained and recruited; and if the containment failed, it is imperative to provide their opponents with "Indirect Military Support" then resort to "Indirect Military Intervention" against them and then resort to "Keeping Them Out."  

If the Muslims wished to engage in a struggle against their enemies in order to achieve liberation and revival, they ought to perceive the doctrine of the enemies, their plans and their adopted styles and means of execution. Capitalism is the doctrine upon which Western thought is built and expediency is the viewpoint towards life and the criterion that determines their behaviour, and colonialism, in all its forms, is the method through which they acquire the benefits, repel the detriments and achieve their interests. Their strategy towards the Muslims involves eroding the political feature of Islam from the life of the Muslims and confining it to the rituals which does not influence ruling matters, especially in respect of the Ummah's relationship with other nations and peoples. Once the Ummah has accepted the doctrine of separating religion from life, even with her own acknowledgment and approval, her mentality will be hijacked, her volition will be forfeited  and her intellectual compass will be deviated; she will then think like her enemies do, accept what they decide and head to wherever they want. As for the styles and means, these are numerous and they vary according to the conditions and situations and they include direct and indirect "hard power" as we mentioned earlier, or "soft power" which includes the diplomatic activities and the generating of influence through agents, rulers, armies, media, judiciary, scholars and movements.   

These issues are among the most important political concepts the Muslims should acquire in order to perceive the political activities of their enemies. Hence, we may through such activities pass judgement on the political situation in the "Arab Spring" countries. In Syria, the American political activities towards the armed movements are still at the stage of recruiting some of them and attempting to contain the others; all the movements are recruited to fight the Syrian regime with the backing of America's agents in the Gulf and Turkey. However, some of the movements are yet to be contained and some of their members are yet to be tamed into accepting the post-Assad phase.

Hence, the categorising process took place at the Riyadh conference in order to implement the strategies of "Containment", "Indirect Military Support", "Indirect Military Intervention" and "Keeping Them Out". The decision to establish the "Islamic Military Alliance" to combat terror after the Riyadh conference has come to epitomise the American strategy of "Indirect Military Intervention" to isolate and keep  the opponents out. The task of this alliance will include areas in Syria, Iraq and Libya. As for Yemen, the situation is different on the ground since al-Houthi group is undertaking the role of servant for the American plan to fragment Yemen, while the Saudi military machine works towards maintaining an equilibrium among the Yemeni warring factions and preventing the fireball from reaching Saudi Arabia. If the alliance were compelled to intervene in Yemen against the Houthis, it would merely be to tame them and keep them under control rather than to destroy them.

Establishing  a military alliance with an "Islamic" flavour will undoubtedly justify the rejection of the undesirable foreign military interventions in the future, such as the Russian intervention. America managed to drag Russia into the Syrian quagmire and implicate her with the Muslims, so that her belligerence may turn into anger and resentment among the Islamic constituent of 25 million in Russia, thus weakening the coherence of the Russian Federation and threatening its existence.

The "Islamic" military alliance is also set to end or scale down the military services offered by Europe who always seeks a slice of the oil pie in return; France and Britain had demanded a third of the oil and building contracts before the military operation against the Gaddafi regime in Libya started. Those who think that the prospective  "Islamic" alliance will be in the interest of the Muslims are woolgathering because most of the Arab states have open and covert ties and treaties with the "Israeli" entity and are involved in military alliances with the world powers which means that such an alliance would target the Muslims rather than their enemies.

The "Islamic" alliance aims also to sidestep the Russian military campaign that has affected the efficacy of the aerial military campaign led by the US. There may also be an American plan to curtail the role of Daesh in Syria and Iraq through the "Islamic" alliance in order to nullify the pretexts of the Russian military campaign upon which Putin is relying to sustain his popularity inside Russia. Furthermore, the intervention of the alliance would dampen the aspirations of Iran in Syria and Iraq and prevent Hezbollah from achieving political gains to consolidate its domestic influence and increase its stake in the Lebanese regime.

"And if they had intended to march out, certainly, they would have made some preparation for it, but Allah was averse to their being sent forth, so He made them lag behind, and it was said (to them), "Sit you among those who sit (at home)." [9-46]

"Had they marched out with you, they would have added to you nothing except disorder, and they would have hurried about in your midst (spreading corruption) and sowing sedition among you, and there are some among you who would have listened to them. And Allah is the All-Knower of the evildoers." [9-47]

"Say: "Nothing shall ever happen to us except what Allah has ordained for us. He is our Lord And in Allah let the believers put their trust." [9-51]

"They swear by Allah that they are truly of you while they are not of you, but they are a people who are afraid." [9-56]

16 December 2015

Abu Usaid

https://www.facebook.com/abu.usaid.35/posts/550734741751596

Beyond the Rome Conference on the Libyan Crisis - by Abu Usaid

The Rome conference on the Libyan crisis aims at fragmenting the General National Congress and replacing it with an entity that would lend legitimacy to the Western military intervention to strike the opponents under the guise of fighting terrorism. It also aims to ensure the expansion of the movements affiliated to the West into the power vacuum and besiege or isolate their rivals to prevent them from influencing the design of the forthcoming regime. Daesh has become the "secret code" for activating all the political files and for imposing the foreign agendas in the region. During the Rome conference US Secretary of State John Kerry announced: "We cannot allow the status quo in Libya to continue. It is dangerous for the viability of Libya, it is dangerous for Libyans, and now, because of the increase of the presence of Daesh [Isis] purposefully migrating there, it is dangerous for everyone.... reaffirm support for a new Government of National Accord....So we say that those who persist in trying to disrupt the agreement will pay a price for their actions.... to address the problem of security – security in Tripoli to bring the government, which must be based at the end of the day in Tripoli..."  The way was paved for these statements in the previous week by circulating the rumour that the ISIS leader al-Baghdadi had moved to Libya and by hyping up the activities of the organisation in Sirte and Ajdabiya. The fragmentation became evident among the ranks of the General National Congress when Misrata and the forces of Fajr Libya backed the outcomes of the Tunis meeting and the Rome conference in addition to  when the forces of the General National Congress differed over who would represent it in signing the agreement of al-Sukhayrat in a few days. The General National Congress are most probably conspiring to effectuate the agreement since the difference over their representative is inconsequential, especially that they had agreed on forming a government of national unity.t Furthermore, the struggle between the Libyan  political forces is not ideological but rather based on partisan interests, and because most of the influential movements on the ground are linked to foreign agendas executed through the US agents in the gulf and Libya's neighbouring countries.

The main problem of the masses in the region is their inability to view the solution to their problems outside the frameworks imposed by the world order, though it has been the cause of their crisis and misery and though it only takes into account the interests of the influential powers. Instead of taking the international interests into account when thinking about her system in her quality as an Ummah with a message who does not wish to harm other nations, the Ummah is working towards establishing a system and solving her problems according to the exigencies of the other nations' interests under the pretext of her inability to confront the world order and the major powers. In fact, the powerlessness of the Ummah stems from her thinking rather than her reality. She is capable of achieving liberation and revival more than any other nation because she possesses the doctrinal and material forces. She is the only nation capable of leading the world, muzzling capitalism and achieving justice and happiness in the world if she perceived her mission in life and what her message necessitates in terms of sacrifices.   

This Ummah will not achieve liberation until she perceives that Allah (swt) has not created her for the objective generated by the capitalist ideology that has halted her productive way of thinking and her will to achieve liberation. The Ummah will not recover her volition until she is prepared to endure boycott, blockade, hunger and deprivation like the Messenger of Allah (saw) and his noble Sahaba (ra) did; they accepted the challenge and their weakness and poverty produced power and prosperity, and they ruled the world with their good-hearted Shari'ah. The history of our Ummah is rich with parables for those who wish to take heed.
 
"And unto everyone who is conscious of Allah, He grants a way out and provides for him in a manner beyond all expectation; and for everyone who places his trust in Allah, He alone is enough. Indeed Allah always attains to His purpose and indeed, unto everything has Allah appointed its term and measure."

14 December 2015

By Abu Usaid

https://www.facebook.com/abu.usaid.35/posts/550077131817357

The confederal and autonomous zones of Syria - Master Plan by the U.S.

In June 2015 Brookings Institution released a  paper titled Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country that detailed the policy that the U.S. should take in solving the Syrian crises that was unsurprisingly fomented by them. In this short post I will look at some of the key actions that was suggested and see whether they are being played out today.

In the introduction to the paper it mentions the overall strategy being:

The new approach would seek to break the problem down in a number of localized components of the country, pursuing regional stopgap solutions while envisioning ultimately a more confederal Syria made up of autonomous zones rather than being ruled by a strong central government. It also proposes a path to an intensified train and equip program. Once that program had generated a critical mass of fighters in training locations abroad, it would move to a next stage. Coupled with a U.S. willingness, in collaboration with regional partners, to help defend local safe areas using American airpower as well as special forces support once circumstances are conducive, the Syrian opposition fighters would then establish safe zones in Syria that they would seek to expand and solidify.

At the time, this sort of solution seemed far fetched and ambitious, but we can see today that with the help of Russia, and "U.S. willingness" to this, they can indeed target those factions unfavourable to a permanent solution for Syria after Assad is deposed. It also serves in segregating the Islamic world further by smaller nations already divided on lines in the sand, to a more aggressive sectarian division that is not only based on culture, colour or language but on fundamental religious values and war.

The paper goes on to mention how the confederal arrangement for Syria could be merged using Kurdish region and Jordan:

The strategy would begin by establishing one or two zones in relatively promising locations, such as the Kurdish northeast and perhaps in the country’s south near Jordan, to see how well the concept could work and how fast momentum could be built up. Over time, more might be created, if possible. Ultimately, and ideally, some of the safe zones might merge together as key elements in a future confederal arrangement for the Syrian state.

This may not be apparent right now but certainly is leading up to such a scenario after reports from the Institute of Study of War (ISW).

It is clear that without the support of Turkey and Jordan, these autonomous regions cannot be sustained and therefore they both will have a big role to play in dividing Syria, the report suggests:

Creation of these sanctuaries would produce autonomous zones that would never again have to face the prospect of rule by either Assad or ISIL. They would also constitute areas where humanitarian relief could be supplied, schools reopened, and larger opposition fighting forces recruited, trained, and based. U.N. agencies and NGOs would help in the effort to the extent possible, focusing on health, education, and basic economic recovery in the first instance. Governing councils would be formed, more likely by appointment than election, to help international agencies make decisions on key matters relevant to rudimentary governance. Regardless of details, relief could certainly be provided far more effectively than is the case today. At least one such area should be contiguous to Jordan and one to Turkey, and be created in cooperation with Amman and Ankara. These locations would allow secure transportation lines for humanitarian as well as military supplies. They would also provide bases from which to attack ISIL in its strongholds, a mission that western forces could carry out in conjunction with local allies. 

In the end, the Alawites will be given a zone whereby they can control, leaving Russia and Iran a part of the cake so that they take something away from this end-game. 

The ultimate end-game for these zones would not have to be determined in advance. The interim goal might be a confederal Syria, with several highly autonomous zones. One of those zones might be for Alawites. But none could be for ISIL, al-Nusra, or Assad and his inner circle

The report interestingly goes on to say what Russia and Iran get from this plan of action:

This strategy might soften the opposition to the basic approach by Iran and Russia as well—perhaps reducing their inclination to escalate support for Assad and also possibly even enlisting them in a future negotiated deal about Syria’s ultimate future. Indeed, the strategy strikes a balance in its approach to Iran and Russia. It would grant neither a major role. But it would seek to mitigate the risks of escalating rivalry with them by holding out political hope and the prospect of an autonomous region for Alawites (even those previously associated with the Assad regime, as long as they were not from his inner circle). This approach may appeal even more to Moscow and Teheran to the extent that battlefield dynamics go clearly against Assad in a sustained way, as they have been already in the spring of 2015. 4 Damascus and Moscow would be much more likely to support a confederal Syria to the extent they believe that the alternative had probably become the complete overthrow of Assad and his government—and the elimination of meaningful Alawite influence in a future government—or, in a best case, protracted civil war of indefinite duration. 

Is this not the case today? The invisible handshake between America and Russia clearly states that there is an agreement in place. Iran has also become a major player in the region.

It's worth reading the full PDF here: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/06/23-syria-strategy-ohanlon/23syriastrategyohanlon.pdf

Engineered Refugee Crisis to Justify "Safe Havens" in Syria

Engineered Refugee Crisis to Justify "Safe Havens" in Syria

September 7 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - While the Western media attempts to portray the sudden influx of refugees suddenly appearing out of no where at Europe's gates, the reality is that for years they have been gathering in expansive, well-funded refugee camps in Turkey.

Image: Turkey has eagerly invited 2 million refugees into their country to stay at camps funded by upward to 6 billion USD, not out of altruism, but to use refugees together with the US, NATO, and the EU, as a geopolitical weapon. 

In fact, Turkey has brought in over 2 million refugees with a suspiciously eager "open door" policy and has spent upward to 6 billion USD on building and maintaining these immense camps. They have done so as part of a long-standing strategy to justify creating "safe havens" in northern Syria - essentially NATO invading and occupying Syrian territory, protecting their terrorist proxies within Syria's borders so that they can strike deeper toward Damascus and finally topple the government of President Bashar Al Assad.

US plans to carve out a "safe haven" or "buffer zone" in northern Syria stretch back as far as 2012 - before a real crisis even existed. In their "Middle East Memo #21," "Assessing Options for Regime Change," it was stated specifically (emphasis added):

An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.

Brookings would elaborate upon this criminal conspiracy in their more recent report titled, "Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country." It states (emphasis added):

The  idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would act in support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via the  presence  of  special  forces  as  well. The  approach would  benefit  from  Syria’s open desert  terrain  which  could  allow  creation  of  buffer  zones  that could  be  monitored  for possible  signs  of  enemy  attack  through  a  combination  of  technologies, patrols,  and other methods that outside special forces could help Syrian local fighters set up.

Were Assad foolish enough to challenge these zones, even if he somehow forced the withdrawal  of  the  outside  special  forces,  he  would  be  likely  to  lose  his  air power  in ensuing  retaliatory  strikes  by  outside  forces,  depriving  his  military  of  one  of its  few advantages over ISIL.Thus, he would be unlikely to do this.

Unfortunately for US policymakers, little justification or public support underpins any of these plans to intervene more directly in Syria in pursuit of what is obviously regime change dressed up as anything but.

Bring in the Refugees 
However, in hopes of solving this lack of public support, the West appears to have taken a huge number of refugees created by its years of war upon the Middle East and North Africa, and suddenly releasing them in a deluge upon Europe. The Western media itself implicates Turkey as the source of these refugees, and reports like that from the International New York Times' Greek Kathimerini paper, in an article titled, "Refugee flow linked to Turkish policy shift," claims (emphasis added):

A sharp increase in the influx of migrants and refugees, mostly from Syria, into Greece is due in part to a shift in Turkey’s geopolitical tactics, according to diplomatic sources. 

These officials link the wave of migrants into the eastern Aegean to political pressures in neighboring Turkey, which is bracing for snap elections in November, and to a recent decision by Ankara to join the US in bombing Islamic State targets in Syria. The analyses of several officials indicate that the influx from neighboring Turkey is taking place as Turkish officials look the other way or actively promote the exodus.

This wasn't done until after years of staged terror attacks across Europe, in attempts to ratchet up fear, xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia. Every attack without exception involved patsies tracked by Western intelligence agencies in some cases for almost a decade. Many had traveled to and participated in NATO's proxy war on Syria, Iraq, and Yemen before returning home to carry out predictable acts of violence.

Image: Even Western "international" organizations find it difficult to hide NATO's role in the refugee crisis with most migrants transiting through NATO-destroyed Libya, and NATO-member Turkey. 

In the case of the infamous "Charlie Hebo" massacre, French security agencies followed the gunmen for years - even arresting and imprisoning one briefly. This surveillance continued up to but not including the final six months needed for them to plan and carry out their final act of violence. When asked why French security agencies ended their surveillance of known terrorists, they cited a lack of funds.


With Europeans intentionally put into a state of fear at home and in hopes of eliciting support for wars abroad NATO appears to now be undulating Europe with a tidal wave or refugees intentionally accumulated and cared for in Turkey either to flood back into NATO-established safe zones in Syria or into Europe to extort from the public backing for further military aggression.

The Big Reveal 

The Huffington Post's article, "David Cameron Facing Pressure To Bomb Islamic State In Syria After Lord Carey Calls To Group To Be 'Crushed'," in covering the political discourse in England provides us with the final reveal of what was really behind this sudden "crisis."

Image: The Western media ensures that articles discussing the possibility of using the refugee crisis as justification to further decimate Syria includes lots of pictures of desperate refugees struggling to burst into Europe. 

It state (emphasis added):

David Cameron is facing growing pressure to extend RAF air strikes into Syria as the worsening conflict threatened to drive increasing numbers of desperate refugees to seek sanctuary in Europe. 

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey became the latest senior figure to call for a renewed military effort to "crush" Islamic State (IS) in its Syrian heartlands. 

He also backed calls for British military intervention to help create "safe enclaves" within the country where civilians would be protected from attack by the warring parties in Syria's bloody civil war.  

The Huffington Post's report would also state (emphasis added):

His intervention came after Chancellor George Osborne acknowledged that a comprehensive plan was needed to tackle the refugee crisis "at source". 

Speaking to reporters at a meeting of G20 finance ministers in Turkey on Saturday, he said that meant dealing with the "evil" regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad as well as the militant jihadists of IS.

At the end of the day, the "refugee crisis" is yet another contrivance by the same special interests who first sought to intervene in Syria to back "freedom fighters," then to stop the use of "WMDs," and most recently to fight "ISIS." Now with all three failing to justify what is otherwise naked military aggression openly pursuing regime change in Syria as a basis for wider confrontation with Iran, Russia, and even China, "refugees" are being used as human pawns to provoke fear and rage across Europe.