Neo-Con Propagandists Are Hiding Behind Freedom of Speech, Not Defending It

Neo-Con Propagandists Are Hiding Behind Freedom of Speech, Not Defending It

The supposed trigger for this provocation was a "draw Mohammad" contest organized by the American Freedom Defense Intitiative (AFDI), a performing Neo-Conservative propaganda troupe consisting of the Bush-era US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, full-time propagandist Pamela Gellar and Robert Spencer, and Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

Their debut performance was in 2010, where they came out to protest the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" supposedly to be built near the ruins of the destroyed World Trade Center in New York City. The mosque was never actually built, not because of the public backlash, but because the entire controversy was manufactured. The "imam" allegedly behind the mosque, was in fact a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, funded and backed by the very same corporate-funded think tanks that set out to protest against the planned "mosque." In other words, the entire scandal was manufactured on both sides by the same special interests for the purpose of manipulating the public.

Since then, with little success, AFDI and its various affiliates in North America and Europe have attempted to stoke hatred not toward "radical Islam," terrorists, or the US-backed regimes arming and funding them, but against all Muslims. Dutch politician Geert Wilders, for his part, while claiming to be defending "free speech" in Texas, has been busy trying to infringe on the rights of Muslims back in his home country. 

He has even gone as far as calling for the complete censorship of the Qu'ran. The Telegraph in their article, "Ban Koran like Mein Kampf, says Dutch MP," would report:

The Koran should be banned as a “fascist book” alongside Mein Kampf because it urges Muslims to kill non-believers, says Dutch populist MP Geert Wilders.

Wilders and the rest of AFDI are not exercising free speech, but are in fact attempting to inspire fear, suspicion, hatred, and tangible violence against not just "terrorists," but all 1 billion plus practitioners of the Islamic faith, many of whom are fighting and dying this very moment battling real terrorists, ironically armed, funded, and fully backed by the very Neo-Cons that have assembled AFDI.

Not only does AFDI hold freedom of speech in contempt and actively set out to destroy it for others, they are now hiding behind it to further strip the rights, peace, and stability away from people both in the West and abroad. The so-called "War on Terror" that AFDI's rhetoric actively supports has served as the impetus to do everything from expanding warrantless surveillance and an ever expanding police state at home, to help garner support for wars of geopolitical conquest abroad.

Not About "Free Speech" 

With these facts in mind, it is clear that "free speech" is a canard used by both the "left" and "right" to distract from the real purpose of the Garland shooting, and other acts of provocation like it. It distracts from the fact that all of the perpetrators have been well-known to security agencies for years, even sentenced and/or imprisoned by various courts, as well as investigated and kept under surveillance. It distracts from the fact that the event at the center of the attacks was organized and carried out by those who themselves have actively sought to curtail the freedoms of others, not to mention foster wars that have ended or otherwise destroyed the lives of millions. It distracts from the fact that the very Neo-Cons telling the world to fear "Islam" represent the same special interests arming and funding literal Al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists across North Africa, the Middle East, and even Central and East Asia.

The AFDI represents one insidious arm of a larger criminal conspiracy that has verifiably helped end the lives of tens of thousands in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen since 2011. It also represents the same special interests that lied to the world to justify invading Iraq in 2003, ending the lives of some 1 million people and leaving the country, to this very day, in constant deadly chaos.

The Garland shooting is not about freedom of speech, but rather about criminal special interests playing both sides of a manufactured strategy of  tension to achieve further bloodshed, death, and conquest abroad, while inviting fear, division, and a growing police state stripping us all of our rights here at home.

Neither the AFDI nor the patsies involved in the shooting deserve the public's sympathy or defense. Rather, they both demand the scrutiny and vigilance required to break the rhetorical back of this conspiracy, and strip away the support it receives from both sides of a mass-manipulated public.

Source: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/garland-shooting-gladio-texas-style.html

Abdelhakim Belhadj has extensive support from the US on overthrowing Gaddafi now leading ISIS in Libya

Who is Abdelhakim Belhadj?

Having been a member of the "Libyan Islamic Fighting Group" or LIFG for decades, he would literally travel to Afghanistan where he would fight American soldiers in the wake of 9/11. He was even captured and enrolled in the United States' infamous "rendition program." Upon release from prison in Libya, he would promptly organize and lead armed rebellion against the government Muammar Qaddafi, with extensive NATO arms, cash, and even air cover.

A 2007 West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) report examining the demographics of foreign fighters caught in Iraq fighting then occupying US troops would reveal that the NATO-backed rebels in Libya led by Belhaj were in fact fighters drawn from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) listed by both the US State Department and UK Home Office as a foreign terrorist organization.

In essence then, the United States and its NATO partners knowingly and willfully handed the nation of Libya and its people over to Al Qaeda. Despite Belhaj's documented terrorist past and present, US politicians would meet with him, showering upon him accolades, praise, and continued political and military support. Among these politicians were US Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham who met and literally shook Belhaj's hand while standing upon the ruins of Libya.


Image: US Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham pose with senior Al Qaeda leader Abdulhakim Belhaj, after NATO delivered the nation of Libya to him and his terrorist organization in 2011. Belhaj is now reportedly operating under the banner of ISIS. 

That McCain and Graham are both Republicans supporting terrorism, alongside a Democrat US President also allegedly supporting terrorism, illustrates perfectly that special interests own and control both sides of the political aisle, using opposing rhetoric to appeal members on either side, while both sides carry forward the exact same agenda. 


More recently, US news sources claimed Belhaj was now leading Libya's branch of ISIS. The Washington Times would report in an article titled, "U.S. backed rebel reportedly leads Islamic State in Libya," that:

Major news out of Libya as Abdelhakim Belhadj, the former head of the al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and a major player in the U.S.-backed overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi, has reportedly joined the Islamic State and is leading its forces there. This according to The Blaze National Security journalist Sara Carter on Twitter, and Fox News’ Catherine Herridge in a Fox News report.

Egypt has responded by supporting military factions in Libya fighting Belhaj's sectarian extremists, now operating under the banner of ISIS. Egypt has also conducted airstrikes on Libyan territory itself.  As NATO's proxies commit to ever bolder acts of provocation, the conflict is set only to expand

Why the Muslims should not forget the past

WHY THE MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT FORGET THE PAST

John Pilger Austra-British Journalist on interviewing Carne Ross:

In 2007, the senior British official responsible for the sanctions, Carne Ross, known as "Mr. Iraq", told a parliamentary selection committee,

"[The US and UK governments] effectively denied the entire population a means to live."

Three years later in an interview with Carne Ross who was consumed with regret and contrition. He said:

"I feel ashamed,"

He said. He is today a rare truth-teller of how governments deceive and how a compliant media plays a critical role in disseminating and maintaining the deception.

"We would feed [journalists] factoids of sanitised intelligence," he said, "or we'd freeze them out."


Is this still not the case today? Would the West take the moral high ground all of a sudden? I don't think so. They've use the media to deceive the public in the past on a 'war' that left over a million people dead. Today they continue to deceive the public and claim the Middle East is in the hands of the Arabs. Yet their involvement in almost every Arab Nation is both factual and evident.


Before that Dennis Halliday said:
"I was instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults."

And his successor Hans Von Sponeck UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator said:
"Imagine setting that pittance against the lack of clean water, and the fact that the majority of sick people cannot afford treatment, and the sheer trauma of getting from day to day, and you have a glimpse of the nightmare. And make no mistake, this is deliberate. I have not in the past wanted to use the word genocide, but now it is unavoidable."

It is important we remember the past. It is not history it is still present as the West are still headed by the same people they were back then. Just because the face of a leader has changed it does not mean the systems they propagate have changed. They have remained - let us not be naive in our political analysis and blame the Muslims for the instabilities in their regions.

Like John Pilger himself said:

"in a country that had no history of jihadism. The Kurds had done territorial and political deals; Sunni and Shia had class and sectarian differences, but they were at peace; intermarriage was common"

The sectarian divides were indeed created by the West.

Source: http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-anything-that-flies-on-everything-that-moves

America taking the backseat but its money is doing the talking

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/10/obama-the-war-president/

If you don’t believe me, just look at the US military budget President Obama has proposed for FY2016. At $585.3 billion, it would if approved by Congress represent an increase in spending of $24.9 billion, or about 4%, over the 2015 budget, and that is despite a decline in what, since the Bush/Cheney years, has euphemistically been called Overseas Contingency Operations spending, or spending on actual wars. The proposed OCO budget for 2016 in this “peace” president’s budget is “just” $50.9 billion, down about $13.3 billion from 2015 thanks to what the president, in one whopper offered during his State of the Union address, called the “end of combat” in Afghanistan (that war is actually continuing, with some 12,000 US troops expected to remain stationed in that country indefinitely).

The thing about OCO funding is that it is really not predictive of anything. It could soar way beyond that $50.9-billion level, for example, in a flash if the US follows through and escalates the war in Ukraine — especially if Russian troops are drawn directly into that conflict and the US responds by upping its own involvement.

Opinion: The False Light at the End of the Western Manufactured Tunnel for Muslims in Egypt

It was always inevitable that the Muslim Brotherhood had to be incorporated into Egyptian politics in some form or another due to their clout and prominence among many Egyptians, as well as their loose links with other off-shoots around the region. The West orchestrated a cunning maneuver that saw the 'Gradualist' Muslim Brotherhood self-immolate from the arena of politics by handing over the baton while regulating the rules themselves. The Muslim Brotherhood, led by shortsighted and unqualified Dr Mohammad Morsi, sent Egypt into a rapid decline leaving the population exasperated and unable to fulfill basic needs of the Egyptians.

It was Morsi who actuated the 'New Suez Canal' project that would see Egypt's revenues jump from $5bn to $12.5bn, but without the blessing of their 'master', America, Morsi was left empty handed when the institutions, such as the armed forces that were not in the dominion of Morsi, stalled progress of the project on the grounds that it threatened 'national security'. 

There were 300 alleged reports on attacks on Egypt's energy infrastructure, as well as the battle for Sinai that cut off lucrative links to Israel and Jordan which in turn crippled Morsi's attempt to provide Egyptians with consistent power. It begs the question, why do the puppets of the West such as Saudi, Kuwait and UAE decide to suddenly release the chokehold that the West had on Egypt? Their pledge of $10bn ahead of an investment conference in March comes at a time where the tarnished and degraded Muslim Brotherhood are being groomed to return to the political stage, albeit in a diluted and secular form. In addition to newly crowned King of Saudi Arabia, King Salman, who is sympathetic towards Brotherhood with close officials to the government stating it is  'better to communicate' as 'an ideology cannot be removed by force'.

Why is it that Egypt is managing to secure massive lucrative deals with energy giants such as BP, Total and Shell? Would such major corporations that are directly linked to overall Western global initiatives knowingly take a risk in investing in a country struggling to get a grip of both its economy and so called 'terrorism' which we know is only perpetuated by the West themselves.

Why is it now that the 'New Suez Canal' can finally continue with an expected date of 2019 pushed forward to 2016 by the desperate al-Sisi? 

With what assurances can the oil minister Sherif Ismael claim that the energy crisis in Egypt will be overcome in 5 years with shale gas exploration? When we know there is only one current leader in shale gas industry and that is the current world superpower that dictates the economic climate of the Middle East.

These facts lead us to believe that the West are indeed toying with the idea of a coalition in Egypt whereby all warring factions can be a part of the solution bringing stability to the region and leaving the Egyptians with a false sense that the only solution can be participatory democracy and that Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw) have no say in the realm of life.

Opinion: Forcing the Jihadis to shake hands

It is interesting to note that Jordan's response to the killing of the pilot was to kill al-Rishawi who is a prominent member of Al Qaeda as well as Ziad Karbouli also top aide to Al Qaeda's Zarqawi.

The execution would have strengthened the already growing link between Al Qaeda militants or Al Qaeda linked factions such as Jabhat al-Nusra to ISIS. The two groups have always been separate in terms of military and resources but the actions of both Syrian regime and the 'Satanic Coalition' have further pushed them together under common goals. 

We know the coalition strikes have hit al-Nusra more so than ISIS even though the intended war is on ISIS - thereby further pushing the two groups together and pulling them around like a puppet on strings, controlling their actions and emotions. 

Whereas Assad has targeted ISIS recently and thousands of armed and trained, by the West, Syrian rebels defected to ISIS rather than al-Nusra only a month or two ago. It seems there is a ploy to align the Jihadi's together in a well rehearsed Western puppet show.

We have seen in the 'Battle for Arsal' it was the first time large scale fighting from Syria spilled over into Lebanon and the Lebanese Armed Forces are battling both ISIS and al-Nusra front leaving it in a lawless state. 

The barbarism of ISIS will now be a chip in the shoulder for all those who align themselves to them in the fight against Assad as well as the coalition, allowing the West to group up the Jihadi's inside a death pen and deal with them once objectives have been achieved in the various regions. 

Sources:

http://carnegie-mec.org/2015/02/04/wider-implications-for-jordan-s-revenge-against-islamic-state/i15c?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRomrfCcI63Em2iQPJWpsrB0B%2FDC18kX3RUtJL%2Bbfkz6htBZF5s8TM3DUVtFXqBR9kEAS7M%3D

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/04/world/isis-jordan-reaction/index.html

http://iswsyria.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/the-battle-for-arsal.html#!/2014/08/the-battle-for-arsal.html

How the Jordanian revenge beheading only unites ISIS with Al Qaeda and al-Nusra for the West's proxy war on Syria and MidEast

http://carnegie-mec.org/2015/02/04/wider-implications-for-jordan-s-revenge-against-islamic-state/i15c?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRomrfCcI63Em2iQPJWpsrB0B%2FDC18kX3RUtJL%2Bbfkz6htBZF5s8TM3DUVtFXqBR9kEAS7M%3D

Neither of the jihadists executed by Jordan are connected with ISIS in its current incarnation, but with al Qaeda. For example, one of them is Ziad Karbuli, an Iraqi national linked with the late al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and who had been detained in Jordan on death row since 2006. Through their execution, therefore, Jordan has inadvertently strengthened the link between ISIS and al Qaeda.

This is significant because the two groups have been engaged in a battle over resources and legitimacy since the start of the Syrian conflict. ISIS has been trying to present itself as the "true" al Qaeda, causing the latter to increase its military activities worldwide as well as within Syria to affirm its influence. Despite initial condemnation of the brutality of ISIS, al Qaeda's Syrian offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra has recently begun engaging in similar activities itself, such as beheadings and other forms of public violence.

One reason behind this is that al-Nusra has felt upstaged by the Islamic State and has escalated its violent acts in order to assert its presence in the face of its rival. But another reason is that the actions of the international coalition set up to fight ISIS have pushed the two groups together.

The coalition airstrikes in Syria have targeted both ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, thereby presenting the groups with a common enemy. The Syrian regime's attacks on ISIS following the organization's advance in Iraq in June 2014 also shifted the position of ISIS away from the regime, aligning the organization with Jabhat al-Nusra, which still regards fighting the Assad regime as its primary objective. In the Qalamoun area bordering Syria and Lebanon, ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra have begun cooperating against the Syrian regime and Hezbollah.

The coalition's mediocre support for the moderate Syrian opposition in southern areas of Syria not only contributed to the Free Syrian Army's vulnerability to attack by al-Nusra brigades but also pushed some members of the two entities to maintain a working relationship based on material necessity and backed by sharing the mutual goal of fighting the Assad regime.

Today, several towns along Syria's south-western border witness al-Nusra presence. In the north, a number of towns have shifted their alliance from al-Nusra to ISIS due to a number of reasons, from fear to coercion to seeking material gains.

Now that ISIS and al-Nusra have been pushed towards one another even more as a result of the Jordanian executions, a similar shift of allegiance is likely in southern Syrian towns as well. If that were to happen, Jordan, which has borders with southern Syria, would find itself with ISIS on its doorstep overnight.

This bears bad news for the coalition. The south is where the Free Syrian Army retains more control than anywhere else in Syria, and where the coalition is planning on empowering the moderate opposition through training and weapons provision. Being confronted with ISIS in the area derails this plan.

The presence of ISIS in the south would also push Jordan to escalate the level of its engagement in the Syrian conflict. It will be forced to change from a supporter of its patrons, the United States and Saudi Arabia, in their fights against ISIS and into a participant in frontline warfare with the organization. This will in turn trigger further entrenchment by not just those two countries but also other members of the coalition in the war as they scramble to aid their Jordanian ally in its fight against ISIS.

Such a development would heighten the reactive nature of the coalition's strategy towards ISIS.

The Sanctions of Mass Destruction: How the US deal deadlier massacres without nuclear bombs using Petrodollars.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/03/the-sanctions-of-mass-destruction/

Fueled by Petrodollars

The Sanctions of Mass Destruction

by GARIKAI CHENGU

Under the late King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia played a role most treacherous in world affairs: its oil fueled U.S. militarism and its money funded Islamic extremists.

Saudi Arabia is perhaps the greatest inherent contradiction of U.S. foreign policy.

Prior to the 20th century, the value of money was tied to gold. When banks lent money they were constrained by the size of their gold reserves. But in 1971, U.S. President Richard Nixon took the country off the gold standard. Nixon and Saudi Arabia came to an agreement whereby the only currency that Saudi Arabia could sell its oil in was the US dollar and the Saudi Kingdom would in turn ensure that its oil profits flow back into U.S. government treasuries and American banks.

In exchange, America pledged to provide the Saudi Royal family’s regime with military protection and military hardware.

It was the start of something great for America. Access to oil defined 20th-century empires and the petrodollar agreement was the key to the ascendance of the United States as the world’s sole superpower.

The petrodollar system spread beyond oil and the U.S. dollar slowly but surely became the reserve currency for global trades in most commodities and goods. This system allows America to maintain its position of dominance as the world’s only superpower, despite being $18 trillion in debt.

Threats by any nation to undermine the petrodollar system are viewed by Washington as tantamount to a declaration of war against the United States of America.

Within the last decade Iraq, Iran and Libya have all threatened to sell their oil in other currencies. Consequently, they have all been subject to crippling U.S. sanctions.

At the height of World War Two, President Truman issued an order for American bombers to drop “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 140,000 people instantly. The gruesome images that emerged from the rubble were broadcasted through television sets across the world and caused unprecedented outrage, forcing U.S. policy makers to devise a more subtle weapon of mass destruction: sanctions.

Sanctions are often viewed as a less destructive alternative to military force. Nothing could be further from the truth. American sanctions have killed more innocent people than all of the nuclear, biological and chemical weapons ever used in the history of mankind.

The Financial Times newspaper quoted sanctions expert Geoff Simons who proved that “two-thirds of the world’s population is subject to some sort of U.S. sanctions.”

Sanctions are clearly the 21st century’s most potent weapon of mass destruction.

They told us that Iraq was a nuclear threat; Iraq was a terrorist state; Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. It all amounted to nothing. What the U.S. administration did not tell us was that the main reason for toppling Saddam, and putting sanctions on the people of Iraq, was the fact that Iraq had ditched the dollar-for-oil sales.

The United Nations estimates that 1.7 million Iraqis died due to Bill Clinton’s sanctions; 500,000 of whom were children. In 1996, a journalist asked former U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, about these UN reports, specifically about the children. America’s top foreign policy official replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.” Clearly, U.S. sanctions policy is nothing short of deliberate genocide and impoverishment.

In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Perhaps, Gaddafi’s greatest crime, in the eyes of NATO, was his desire to put the interests of local labour above foreign capital and his quest for a strong and truly United States of Africa. Central to Gaddafi’s vision for a united Africa was a common African currency made from gold and Gaddafi planned to quit selling Libyan oilin U.S. dollars. In fact, in August 2011, President Obama confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of an African Central Bank and the African gold backed dinar currency.

Had Gaddafi sparked a gold-driven monetary revolution, the Colonel would certainly have done extremely well for his people, and for the world at large. But Africa has the fastest growing oil industry in the world and oil sales in a common African currency would have been especially devastating for the American dollar, the U.S. economy, and particularly the elite in charge of the system.

It is for this reason that President Clinton signed the now infamous Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. The Libyan people were unusually vulnerable to the effects of sanctions, because Libya imports 75 percent of its food, and oil exports make up 95 percent of its revenue. The United Nations Children’s Fund reported that these sanctions caused widespread suffering among civilians by “severely limiting supplies of fuel, access to cash, and the means of replenishing stocks of food and essential medications.” Clearly, U.S. sanctions are grievous crimes against humanity.

Not so long ago, Iraq and Libya were the two most modern and secular states in the Middle East and North Africa, with the highest regional standards of living. Nowadays, intervention and sanctions have turned Libya and Iraq into two of the world’s most troubled nations.

Iran is yet another nation increasingly troubled by American sanctions. An intelligence report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around. The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the United States has engaged in over 50 military invasions and interventions.

Much like Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction”, the United States has used the imaginary nuclear threat to enforce sanctions upon the people of Iran.

In early 2007, during an OPEC meeting, the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for a “credible and good currency to take over the American dollar’s role and to serve oil trades”. By December 2007, Iran had stopped selling its oil in U.S. dollars. Three months later, the nation set up the Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB) on Kish Island, which allowed exchanges of oil, petrochemicals, and gas between countries in a basket of currencies other than U.S. dollar.

Iran’s petrodollar defiance resulted in America imposing a crippling set of sanctions on seventy-five million Iranian citizens. Sanctions of mass destruction have cost Iran $120 billion in lost revenue since 2010; and, they even include a ban on the importation of certain medicines and foodstuffs. Despite Iranian government subsidies intended to help the poor, prices for staples, such as milk, bread, rice, yogurt and vegetables, have at least doubled since the beginning of the sanctions regime, in some cases showing three and four fold increases. Senior U.S. politician, Brad Sherman, remarked, “critics of sanctions argue that these measures will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that.”

Sanctions are as morally indefensible as they are counter-productive. The more America imposes sanctions on countries for non-dollar trading, the more those countries will respond to American sanctions with increased non-dollar trading. Therefore, imposing sanctions on nations for trading crude oil in other currencies is akin to crudely attempting to put out a fire by dousing it with petrol.

Ever since 1980, the United States has steadily devolved from the status of the world’s top creditor country to the world’s most indebted country. But thanks to the petrodollar system’s huge global artificial demand for U.S. dollars, America can continue exponential military expansion, record breaking deficits and unrestrained spending. Today, a global U.S. dollar reserve currency allows Americans to enjoy some of the best standards of living.

America’s largest export used to be manufactured goods made proudly in America. Today, America’s largest export is the U.S. dollar. Any nation that threatens that export is met with America’s second largest export: weapons, chief amongst which are sanctions of mass destruction.

US Military Contractors Acting As Ukrainian Soldiers - Who is really fighting there?

http://theantimedia.org/video-surfaces-allegedly-showing-us-military-contractor-acting-as-ukrainian-soldier/

(ANTIMEDIA) Footage has recently surfaced on YouTube, showing a Ukrainian news crew reporting on events in the city of Mariupol, and making contact with what some are saying is a US military contractor dressed as a Ukrainian soldier.

The alleged soldier in the footage is the only person throughout the whole video who speaks in English, and it seems to be a distinct American dialect as well.

As the news crew approaches the soldier, he puts his hand up to the camera and tells the reporters “outta my face,” which is clearly an odd thing for a Ukrainian soldier to say. Even though many people in different parts of the world speak English as a second language, it would be very unlikely for two Ukrainians to speak in English to one another. Furthermore, it would also be highly unlikely that someone would use a slang term like that when speaking in a second language.

The soldier depicted in the video is also wearing a slightly different uniform than the standard issue for Ukrainians, and is seen wearing a baseball cap instead of a helmet or military issued hat. The way that the soldier in question was dressed is actually more common among US military contractors than it is among Ukrainian soldiers, and it is in fact fairly uncommon to see a Ukrainian soldier dressed as this man was.

The United States obviously has motives to get involved in the growing hostilities in Ukraine, to steer the revolution towards a pact with the European Union, but does that mean that they have already sent military contractors into the country?

Decide for yourself and check out the video below:

Obama's remarks at meeting with Prime Minister Modi of India

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/25/statements-president-obvama-and-prime-minister-modi-republic-india

Obama: I believe every country does, in promoting a core principle, which is, large countries don’t bully smaller countries.  They don’t encroach on their territorial integrity. They don’t encroach on their sovereignty. 

Obama's prevention of atrocities strategy by siding with dictators is hypocritical given the current alliances

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fred-hiatt-obamas-troubling-counterterrorism-allies-dictators/2015/01/25/56ad3d76-a288-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html?hpid=z3

Prevention of Atrocities Whitehouse fact sheet:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/fact-sheet-comprehensive-strategy-and-new-tools-prevent-and-respond-atro/


As President Obama stumbles in implementing his own strategy for combating terrorism, the United States is reverting, almost by default, to an earlier, failed approach: a reliance on dictators to do our dirty work.

The latest, and saddest, indication of Obama’s capitulation to this oldthink has been signals sent by his administration that the United States will no longer insist on Bashar al-Assad’s departure as leader of Syria, as Michael R. Gordon and Anne Barnard recently reported in the New York Times.

From link above:

Mr. Kerry said before the failed peace talks in Geneva last year that the United States’ goal was a transitional government in Syria that did not include Mr. Assad. But he refrained from making such an explicit demand on Wednesday, urging instead that Syria’s leaders rethink their course.

“It is time for President Assad, the Assad regime, to put their people first and to think about the consequences of their actions, which are attracting more and more terrorists to Syria, basically because of their efforts to remove Assad,” Mr. Kerry said.

Obama’s demand that Assad leave was never more than rhetorical. Still, it has to be dispiriting for the president who created the Atrocities Prevention Board (“President Obama has made the prevention of atrocities a key focus of this Administration’s foreign policy,” a White House fact sheet says) to acknowledge implicitly that he has no Syria strategy without Assad

Assad is the bloodiest butcher of this young century, but he’s hardly the only example of the United States’ reborn love of strongmen. Egypt’s new dictator has killed and imprisoned opponents with a brazenness Hosni Mubarak never dreamed of. The State Department is eager to embrace him in a new partnership.

Obama used to insist that the government of Bahrain “engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail.” Now, as Bahrain cracks down on peaceful dissidents, the United States barely notices.

In Central Asia’s Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, 76, presides over a closed society of prison camps and forced labor. But immediately after he announced he would rule for five more years — after all, he’s been in charge only since 1989 — the United States approved a shipment of weaponry for his government and counseled “a certain amount of strategic patience in how change can take place.”

From Azerbaijan to Saudi Arabia, where Obama will visit Tuesday, the United States is cozying up to dictators who share some key attributes. They agree with the United States that Islamic extremism must be fought. But they also go after nonviolent opponents — and they are most ferocious against secular, liberal critics. By destroying any moderate forces, they can present themselves as the only alternative to religious fundamentalism.

“Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder,” the president said. “[S]trategies of repression and strategies of diversion will not work anymore. . . . The status quo is not sustainable.”

Obama promised a historic shift in policy, away from the short-term comfort of alliances with dictators and toward promoting “self-determination and opportunity.”

So what happened? The Arab Spring didn’t go as hoped — and the United States began to lose the war. An al-Qaeda offshoot shockingly conquered large swaths of Iraq and Syria. Libya descended into civil war. Yemen, which Obama cited just last year as proof of his successful strategy, is on a similar downward spiral. The Taliban is gaining ground in Afghanistan. Boko Haram is carving out another space for barbarism in Nigeria.

When Obama is questioned about this picture, he generally stands up his favorite straw man: “If the assertion is, is that had we invaded Syria we would be less prone to terrorist attacks, I’ll leave it to you to play out that scenario and whether that sounds accurate,” he said during his recent news conference with British leader David Cameron.

But that is not the assertion. What critics suggest is that Obama should implement the strategy he outlined in a speech at West Point in May: not a U.S. invasion, not a subcontracting of the war to heavy-handed dictators, but “a network of partnerships from South Asia to the Sahel” with moderate forces committed to fighting extremism.

Unfortunately, Obama has put little meat on that strategy. He toppled Libya’s strongman, then abandoned the country. He pulled all advisers out of Iraq and vows to do the same to Afghanistan. He emphasizes drone strikes, but with little of the institution-building that would engender cooperation over the long term. Help for Syrian moderates has been promised again and again for four years, with little to show for it. 

Is Charlie Hebdo the French 9/11

http://journal-neo.org/2015/01/26/rus-charlie-hebdo-i-posledstviya/

In some countries (primarily Muslim) the manifestations against the provocative publications of controversial cartoons of the Prophet that mocked the religious feelings of all Muslims are still on the rise. Some experts have linked these provocative anti-Muslim cartoons with the acquisition of Charlie Hebdo by the Rothschilds in December 2014, the latter of whom are constantly worrying about their profits. But now they can be fairly content since after these tragic events the number of copies sold increased tenfold!

Another group of experts believes that the attack on French journalists was the result of direct actions of Western intelligence agencies. Therefore, the consequences of the Charlie Hebdo massacre can be compared to those of 9/11 attack, such as the tightening of security in Europe. These agencies have been seeking ways to create obstacles to the spread of Islam in Europe, along with obtaining legislative support to establish total surveillance over the activities and private lives of Europeans. Political elites behind such agencies believe that democratic rights, the protection of which has been the focal point of all populist political speeches in the West, should be narrowed. Police control in Western countries is increasingly intrusive with each passing day, as the growing distrust and discontent of the European population becomes more apparent. Western elites have failed to put forward comprehensive social and economic measures that could ease this growing angst, therefore an increase in political activity, anti-government demonstrations, and electoral control over ruling parties was inevitable.

The recent two-day meeting of Foreign Ministers of the EU in Brussels, summoned to discuss the “urgent measures to strengthen the fight against terrorism.” can be regarded as damning evidence against Western elites. It was of little surprise for experts that the topic of these discussions was the adoption of a EU version of the US Patriot Act, that is used by Washington to control not only its fellow citizens, but “allies” alike.

Thus, Paris is clearly following the lead of Washington in the use of a pretext of fighting against “radical Islam” and “terrorism” in order to tighten up national legislation by adopting a French version of the notorious Patriot Act. Somehow it doesn’t make Western intelligence agencies look less guilty as far as the attack on Charlie Hebdo is concerned. French authorities are now empowered to undermine thousands of opponents of Elysee Palace, along with progressive and pro-democracy organizations and parties, as well as members of the independent press, as has been done in the US.

What follows will be other European countries putting on a similar totalitarian hat, by handing over the personal lives of their civilians to intelligence services, both local and American.

Kerry: World Needs ‘Long-Term’ Commitment to Fighting Extremism - WSJ

http://www.wsj.com/articles/kerry-world-needs-long-term-commitment-to-fighting-extremism-1422034191

"We need a commitment to the long-term," Mr. Kerry told the forum, set in this Swiss mountain resort. "We have to do a better job of offering alternatives to violent extremism."

The chief U.S. diplomat, at times becoming emotional, drew parallels between today's fights against Islamic State, al Qaeda, and African militant groups to the emergence of European fascism leading into World War II.

Who Are The Houthis Of Yemen? : Parallels : NPR

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2015/01/23/379282727/who-are-the-houthis-of-yemen


The Houthis of northern Yemen were an obscure group until recently. But they surged to prominence in September, when the Houthi militia took over parts of Yemen's capital, Sanaa.

Yemen's president, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, was weakened by the Houthi advance and agreed to a deal that allowed the militia to keep control in a number of key areas in Sanaa.

The fragile deal fell apart this week as the Houthis seized the presidential palace and placed more demands on Hadi, who resigned on Thursday. This has plunged Yemen into uncertainty.

Letta Tayler, a senior researcher on terrorism at Human Rights Watch who has closed followed Yemen, spoke to NPR's David Greene about the Houthis, a minority in Yemen who practice an offshoot of Shiite Islam known as Zaidism.

DAVID GREENE: Who are the Houthis?

LETTA TAYLER: They are a real wild card. They're a rebel group from northern Yemen. They have rapidly morphed into the armed faction of a full-fledged political movement. And I guess the most important thing for Americans to know is that part of the Houthi slogan is "God is great." But then it continues, "Death to America, death to Israel."

Does this suggest Yemen is moving into a very dangerous place?

Well, it could indeed be moving into a very dangerous place. But despite the slogan, the Houthis have not harmed Americans, nor have they harmed Israel. It's AQAP [al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula] in Yemen ... that is kidnapping and in some cases killing, foreigners. It's not the Houthis. So again, they're a wild card. We really don't know which direction they might go.

Does the U.S. fight against al-Qaida in Yemen fall apart?

Well, ironically, the one thing that we know that the Houthis and the U.S. government have in common is that they both want to get rid of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. So it may actually work out. It may not be entirely implausible to envision the Houthis and the United States joining in the fight against AQAP. So even marginal but sincere action against the AQAP by the Houthis might be a step forward.

There's something incredibly striking about this narrative.

This is often the way Yemen is. Yemen's politics and intrigue makes the word "Byzantine" seem simplistic. We don't know if Yemen is really sliding into chaos or if it's just continuing to hover on the brink. But we do know that this is a serious challenge for the U.S. government. ...

Combating terrorism is a priority for the Yemeni people, but it is not nearly as high on the priority list as ending government corruption, creating jobs, providing a good education system, ensuring that the country does not run out of water.

So these are the concerns of Yemenis. Yes, AQAP is one of those concerns, but most Yemenis see AQAP as more of a problem for the U.S. government. And they see the U.S. government coming in, not to help fix its own problems, but rather to take out elements of AQAP that may be a threat to the U.S., but not to resolve any of the deep problems of Yemen.

Does anything give you hope for the future of this country?



Every time I go to Yemen, I think, "Can things really get worse?" And then somehow they pop back up. I think the thing that gives me the most hope is the Yemeni people. There are so many people filling the squares and the streets of Yemen who genuinely want change, who will continue to press their demands peacefully, no matter how often they are tempted to try to shed blood. Let's not cross this country off just yet as a failed state.

Saudi's King Abdullah dies and King Salman succeeds his throne vowing to continue all current relations

Sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30945324

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/22/saudi-arabia-king-salman_n_6527914.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/22/middleeast/saudi-arabia-king-abdullah-dies/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/22/king-abdullah-dies-disrupting-saudi-arabia-at-a-sensitive-time/




Key Points from BBC:




His 79-year-old half-brother, Salman, has been confirmed as the new king.

Within hours of his accession to the throne of the oil-rich kingdom, King Salman vowed to maintain the same policies as his predecessors.

"We will continue adhering to the correct policies which Saudi Arabia has followed since its establishment," he said in a speech broadcast on state television.

Saudi Arabia under King Salman faces a number of challenges. The first is ensuring the succession passes smoothly without any divisive jockeying for power within the ruling family. Then there is the ongoing threat from jihadists, both at home and across its borders.

King Salman called on the royal family's Allegiance Council to recognise Muqrin as his heir.

US President Barack Obama expressed his personal sympathies, and those of the American people, on Abdullah's death.

"As a leader, he was always candid and had the courage of his convictions. One of those convictions was his steadfast and passionate belief in the importance of the US-Saudi relationship as a force for stability and security in the Middle East and beyond," he said.

Key points from Huffington Post:

As king, Salman, 78, will have to navigate regional turmoil caused by wars in Iraq and Syria, as well as a bitter rivalry with Shi'ite Muslim power Iran and a lingering threat from an al Qaeda wing in neighboring Yemen.

The defense portfolio involved running the kingdom's top-spending ministry, which used massive arms purchases to bolster ties with allies such as the United States, Britain and France.

"He's intelligent, political, in touch with the conservative base but also quite modern-minded," said a former diplomat in Riyadh interviewed about the kingdom's succession process.

He also argued against the introduction of democracy in the kingdom, citing regional and tribal divisions, and told the ambassador that a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was necessary for Middle East stability.

Jordan said Prince Salman had initially refused to believe Saudis participated in the Sept 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, but his attitude changed in the face of increasingly solid evidence that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

"He doesn't blindly accept everything the United States says, but at the same time he understands the importance of the relationship, which goes beyond oil," Jordan said.

Key Points from CNN:

"This is a sad day. The United States has lost a friend, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and the world has lost a revered leader," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement. "He was so proud of the Kingdom's journey, a brave partner in fighting violent extremism who proved just as important as a proponent of peace."

In the context of the kingdom's conservative circles, Abdullah was seen as reformer and often came up against the more hard-line clerics.

Key Points from FP:

The king’s death comes at a delicate time for the oil-rich kingdom, which is struggling with the impact of plunging oil prices domestically, the rise of the Islamic State, and an Iran’s whose influence is growing across the Mideast as its proxies take on increasingly powerful roles in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Abdullah’s successor will also face an intensifying crisis in Yemen, whose Saudi-backed government has been effectively overthrown by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. A Saudi official said in a recent interview that Riyadh sees the future of Yemen as “an existential threat.”

Falling oil prices will present a pair of challenges to Salman. First, the kingdom has for decades effectively bought itself internal stability by putting in place a highly generous social welfare system that offers citizens free health care, education, and other perks. That will be more difficult to maintain with oil trading at its lowest price in decades.

Second, Saudi Arabia has used its oil to build one of the Middle East’s most powerful militaries by buying reams of advanced American weaponry and hiring thousands of American and Western troops to train its own forces. The kingdom has in recent years also massively ramped up its financial commitments to the rebels working to unseat Assad and to the new Egyptian government, which it sees as a bulwark against a return of the Islamists who controlled the country during the short reign of former President Mohamed Morsi.

Russian opposition Ilya Ponomarev seeking the West's blessings to overthrow Putin

Source: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/did-russian-parliamentarian-just-commit.html#more

Key Points:

The event, “Russia’s Opposition in a Time of War and Crisis,” featured prominent Russian liberal opposition parliamentarian (member of the Russian Duma) Ilya Ponomarev, a noted critic of Russian President Putin, providing a detailed presentation regarding the current political climate in Russia, and the potential for the ousting or overthrow of the Russian government. Yes, you heard that right. A Russian elected official came to the United States to give a talk about how best to effect regime change in his own country.

The most significant portion of Ponomarev’s presentation centered on a slide titled “Conditions for the Change of Power in Russia,” which laid out essentially a roadmap or blueprint for regime change in Russia. Ponomarev’s slide outlined what he believes to be the essential elements for successful overthrow of the democratically elected government. These include:

 Organized street protest (versus spontaneous one)
Appealing vision of the future presented to the majority of Russians
Leader, acceptable for all protesters and the elites
Access to some financial resources
Part of the elites should support the revolution
Trigger event

Examining these points, it is clear that Ponomarev is not merely “informing” the assembled policymakers, journalists, and guests about what should happen, but rather is making a case for what must bemade to happen. This is no educational exercise, but a thoughtfully crafted appeal to the political establishment of the US to support Ponomarev and his faction both financially and politically.

And Ponomarev is perfectly aware of this fact. Indeed, he included in the slide entitled “Conditions for the change of power in Russia” the following points:

 Unlikely – elections
Likely – revolution (non-violent or violent)
Compromise with the current elites increases probability of non-violent changes, but decreases the probability of successful reforms in the future

Here, Ponomarev is openly acknowledging a number of critical points. First, that regime change is unlikely to come through elections. This is a blatant admission that not only is Putin democratically elected and wildly popular, but that the opposition will never have anything close to enough popular support to defeat him. In other words, Ponomarev is tacitly saying that Putin must be overthrown precisely because the Russian people support him, and will likely continue to do so. Imagine: a democratically elected politician from a country supposedly run by an “authoritarian dictator” comes to the US – allegedly the world’s great champion of democracy – to advocate an anti-democratic regime change scenario. The hypocrisy is beyond words.

CSIS, with its long association with individuals such as Zbigniew Brzezinski who come from the uppermost echelons of power, is one of a small number of hugely influential think tanks that directly impact US foreign policy. CSIS, along with the Rand Corporation, Council on Foreign Relations, and a handful of other groups, are a useful barometer for measuring the pulse of the US establishment, and for individuals such as Ponomarev to get close to the levers of US power.

Third, and perhaps most telling about Ponomarev, is the fact that he openly warns against any form of compromise with the government, or the elites with influence in the government. Such a preemptively hostile, and inherently adversarial, relationship with the government precludes any possibility for dialogue or even negotiation. Considering the fact that, at best, Ponomarev and the liberal opposition represent a relatively small proportion of the Russian people (primarily the western-oriented business, finance, and media community, and the young liberals they can mobilize on the streets), the net effect of what he is advocating is that a small, foreign-backed minority with deep pockets seize control of the government in a quite possibly violent putsch. Ukraine anyone? Treason anyone?

However, when one examines key figures and institutions of the liberal establishment in Russia – both in politics and civil society – it becomes clear that some of the most influential are in fact collaborating with foreign powers (especially the US) to undermine the Russian government.

Beyond just the individuals, a number of influential “civil society” organizations deeply tied to the US establishment figure prominently in the liberal opposition. These organizations (Strategy 31, theMoscow-Helsinki Group, Levada Center, GOLOS, and many others) are either directly or indirectly funded by the United States through its myriad soft power organs, the most infamous among them being the National Endowment for Democracy. That these organizations knowingly take money from the US Government, and then present themselves as objective, disinterested civil society organizations is the height of cynicism and hypocrisy. What does one call such an organization if not an “agent of a foreign power”? I would again refer readers to the above-cited definition of “treason.”

John Kerry invites foreign ministers from the International Coalition against ISIS to a conference in London

Sources:
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/us-led-coalition-meets-british-fm-says-anti-isis-efforts-could-last-years

Key Points:
Foreign ministers from the international coalition against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) gathered for talks in London on Thursday following jihadist attacks in France, as Britain's Foreign Secretary said the coalition's efforts could last at least two years.

"This isn't going to be done in three months or six months. It's going to take a year, two years to push ISIL (ISIS) back out of Iraq but we are doing the things that need to be done in order to turn the tide," Hammond told Sky News.

"In Iraq and Syria, American leadership — including our military power — is stopping ISIS' advance," Obama said.

((But it is not destroying ISIS - it means they are controlling how far ISIS expand and how long they last in Iraq.))

Asked whether the US-led airstrikes had been helpful to him, Assad, whose army has been fighting rebel groups for over three years, told a French magazine in December that the strikes in Syria have made no difference.

"It isn't true that the strikes are helpful. They would of course have helped had they been serious and efficient,” Assad asserted.

According to Paris Match, the Syrian president said that ISIS continues to advance in territories bombed by the coalition.

"You can't end terrorism with aerial strikes. Troops on the ground that know the land and can react are essential. That is why there haven't been any tangible results in the two months of strikes led by the coalition," he said.

Damascus, Iran and other critics opposed to US involvement in the conflict with ISIS have pointed out that Washington in partnership with its Gulf allies, including Saudi Arabia, played a role in the formation and expansion of extremist groups like ISIS by arming, financing and politically empowering armed opposition groups in Syria.

Moreover, the influx in terrorist attacks all over the world, particularly in Iraq, raises questions about the effectiveness of the US "War on Terror" launched by the Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks, which included the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The campaign failed to eliminate or even reduce terrorism, as a recent report revealed a steady increase in the death toll over the last 14 years, from 3,361 in 2000 to 11,133 in 2012 and 17,958 in 2013.

The countries confirmed to be attending Thursday's conference are Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Norway, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

Syrian National Coalition (SNC) receives $6 million from the United States and criticized as it will end up in the hands of ISIS

Source: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/syrian-national-coalition-receives-6-million-us-financial-aid

Key Points:

The opposition Syrian National Coalition (SNC) said on Thursday it had received $6 million from the United States in the first direct US financial support for the rebel body.

Ahmed Tohme, the chief of the SNC’s self-proclaimed interim government, said the money would be divided into two parts, with $4.4 million devoted to reconstruction and the purchase of heavy equipment include generators, water pumps and tankers.

The remaining $1.6 million will be used to strengthen local governance in rebel-controlled areas and for emergency aid response, including food baskets and assistance to bakeries.

The SNC’s political wing said it has signed deals with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) on the dispersal of the funds.

Moderate rebel groups with ties to the Coalition have lost ground in recent months to both the Syrian army and jihadist groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al-Qaeda's al-Nusra Front.

The training program is a part of the US’ plan to field local forces in Syria. The Pentagon has estimated that it can train more than 5,000 recruits in the first year and that up to 15,000 will be needed to retake areas of eastern Syria controlled by ISIS.

The US decision to train and equip rebel groups in Syria was criticized by several of its officials who warned of dire consequences.

Former US Congressman Ron Paul denounced in an interview with Russia Today the plans, noting that these Western-backed forces have been helpful to ISIS, which since August has captured swathes of lands in Iraq and Syria.

“The Free Syrian Army (FSA) turned over the weapons, that we (the US) sent them, to ISIS,” Paul said. “It is pretty well recorded that for $50,000 the FSA turned over one of the two American journalists to ISIS.”‬‪

In September, a report by the London-based small-arms research organization Conflict Armament Research revealed that ISIS jihadists in Syria as well appear to be using US military-issued arms and weapons supplied to rebels by Saudi Arabia.

The report said the jihadists disposed of "significant quantities" of US-made small arms including M-16 assault rifles and included photos showing the markings "Property of US Govt."

It also found that anti-tank rockets used by ISIS in Syria were "identical to M79 rockets transferred by Saudi Arabia to forces operating under the Free Syrian Army umbrella in 2013."

Disarming Iran, disarming the Ummah

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/iran-us-call-speeding-nuclear-talks

Key Points:

US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday he hopes to accelerate the progress of nuclear negotiations with Iran, as Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif stated on Sunday that Iran and the US will explore ways to give impetus to the talks.

Speaking at a Tehran news conference, Zarif said the purpose of the talks with Kerry "is to see if we can speed up and push the negotiations forward."

Under the interim deal, Iran's stock of fissile material has been diluted from 20 percent enriched uranium to five percent in exchange for limited sanctions relief.