Search This Blog

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Real reason why Obama was not as eager as Trump to “knock the hell out of Daesh”

putin-voice-of-moral-authority-990x260
In the follow up to the phone conversation between Presidents Putin and Trump, where they agreed that a top priority in bilateral relations between Russia and the US is joining efforts in fighting their main threat, international terrorism, Russian political analyst Elena Suponina reviews why Barack Obama failed to pursue this agenda.
putin-with-obama-at-bingo
(SputnikNews, 29/1/2017) ~ On Saturday, Presidents Putin and Trump spoke over the phone in their first discussion about international issues since Trump was sworn in.
According to the announcement on President Putin’s official website,“the two leaders emphasized that joining efforts in fighting the main threat – international terrorism – is a top priority. The presidents spoke about the close coordination of actions between Russia and the USA aimed at defeating ISIS [Islamic State, Daesh] and other terrorists groups in Syria.”
Earlier on Friday, the 45th US president had a sit-down interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, where he elaborated on the threat of radical Islam and how he plans to defeat it.
The American leader has called the Islamists “sneaky, dirty rats” for blowing people up in shopping centers and in churches.
“I don’t know Putin, but if we can get along with Russia, that’s a great thing. It’s good for Russia, it’s good for us. We go out together and knock the hell out of ISIS, because that’s the real sickness, you know the whole ISIS thing is the real sickness. But if we get along with Russia and other – not just we should get along with everybody if we can. Now, in some cases you won’t be able to but we’ve got to try,” the president then said.


Russian political analyst and expert on Asia and the Middle East, Elena Suponina delved into why Obama, Trump’s predecessor, was so reluctant to actually take on the terrorists directly.
“Nobel peace prize winner Obama repeatedly spoke about the importance of the fight against terrorism, however something always seemed to get in the way of actually doing anything practical,” reads Suponina’s article for RIA Novosti.
“Sometimes it was his indecision, sometimes – excessive caution and shortsightedness. However at times it was a deliberate intention to use the terrorists for his own purposes,” she elaborates.
obama-dishonesty-incompetence
The political analyst further recalls that when in the summer of 2015 Daesh terrorists were conquering one Iraqi settlement after another, setting sights on the capital Baghdad, the Americans were inactive, doing nothing to stop them, regardless of all the desperate pleas for help from the then-Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki.
She further describes how the Americans were disappointed in the policies of al-Maliki and wanted to put someone else in his place, and were thus not very eager to help. They were using the advance of Daesh terrorists as a punishment and to put tremendous pressure upon the out-of-favor prime minister.
truth-has-been-spoken
As the result, she says, Nouri al-Maliki turned to the Kremlin and received, if not great, at least very timely military assistance.
Then-Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Hoshyar Zebari then noted to Suponina that the “helping hand from Moscow was stretched just in time, when the situation had become desperate, otherwise the terrorists who had captured Mosul and other cities would have entered into the capital Baghdad.”
The situation in Syria, she says, was even more complicated. The Americans had not concealed that their main priority there was not the fight against terrorism but an overthrow of President Assad. However officially the US and its allies have been fighting against terrorism since 2014, both in Iraq and Syria.
Suponina then refers to a number of US politicians, generals and political analysts who were vocally critical of the US policies in the Middle East.
General Jack Keane, she said, criticized Obama for not having any strategy to stop or defeat ISIS. He then said that the US combat jets, which made sorties in Syria, then returned back to the base fully loaded, dropping no bombs.
The general then calculated that only 25 per cent of sorties ended up with airstrikes.
Suponina was later able to ask one of the US generals about this issue, who responded that there was no bombing either due to the lack of intelligence or due to the danger of hitting non-military targets.
She also refers to a number of analytical works of some experts and political analysts on the US strategy in Syria.
Among others, she refers to Lebanese politician Wiam Wahhab who insisted that the US has repeatedly attempted to adapt radical Islam to its own needs, in other words to use the extremists in its own interests.
Or to Stephen M. Walt, a professor of international affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, who once urged to “to live with ISIS.”
“… only a large-scale foreign intervention is likely to roll back and ultimately eliminate the Islamic State [which is not about to] happen unless a coalition of Arab states agrees to commit thousands of their own troops to the battle, because the United States will not and should not do the fighting for states whose stake in the outcome exceeds its own,” he wrote in his article What Should We Do if the Islamic State Wins? for Foreign Policy magazine back in 2015.
Elena Suponina however hopes that with the more decisive Trump in office, the fight against terrorism will finally begin to bear fruit.

RELATED:


SOURCES:
Sputnik News - 29/1/2017
Submitted by Lone Bear
War Press Info Network at :
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/obama-trump-daesh/
~

Paul Craig Roberts: ‘The Left is Self-Destructing’

Posted on January 30, 2017
[ Ed. note – The above video shows protestors at JFK Airport protesting Trump’s ban on travelers from certain countries. But of course one wonders: why weren’t these people out protesting when Obama was in the White House spending his days bombing Libya, supporting terrorists in Syria, carrying out drone strikes in Pakistan, or waging what seems to be an endless war in Afghanistan? What is worse, refusing to allow refugees from war-torn countries into the US–or starting the wars which turn them into refugees in the first place? This is the point Paul Craig Roberts makes, and it’s a rather good one.
Another good point, and one which Roberts fails to make, is why wasn’t Saudi Arabia included in Trump’s ban? But then Roberts seems to be rather reserved when it comes to voicing criticisms of the new president, or at least so far he’s been. But consider the list of countries to which the travel bans apply: IraqIranLibyaSomaliaSudanSyria, and Yemen. Conspicuously absent is Saudi Arabia. If you’re going to have such a list to begin with, would it not make sense to include the very country that is the epicenter of the takfiri religious ideology–an ideology which declares people of all other faiths, including other Muslims, as infidels–and which has been a major source of funding for terrorists in Syria? A country which, by the way, also has invaded Yemen, where it is waging war against the Houthi Ansurallah rebels, who, as in the case of Assad in Syria, have been one of the principle forces opposing Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists in their region?
So what to make of all this? Well, perhaps it’s simply another case of “Trump the chameleon.” On the other hand, readers might be interested in an article published a few days ago by the Jerusalem Post under the headline “Meet the Top Jewish Officials in the Trump Administration.” The article names eleven in all. You can read about it here. One thing is for certain, though, as Roberts correctly points out: there is a great deal of “mindlessness” in the left today. ]
The Left is Self-Destructing
The mindlessness is unbearable. Amnesty International tells us that we must “fight the Muslim ban” because Trump’s bigotry is wrecking lives. Anthony Dimaggio at CounterPunch says Trump should be impeached because his Islamophobia is a threat to the Constitution. This is not to single out these two as the mindlessness is everywhere among those whose worldview is defined by Identity Politics.
One might think that Amnesty International should be fighting against the Bush/Cheney/Obama regime wars that have produced the refugees by killing and displacing millions of Muslims. For example, the ongoing war that Obama inflicted on Yemen results in the death of one Yemeni child every 10 minutes, according to UNICEF. Where is Amnesty International?
Clearly America’s wars on Muslims wreck far more lives than Trump’s ban on immigrants. Why the focus on an immigration ban and not on wars that produce refugees? Is it because Obama is responsible for war and Trump for the ban? Is the liberal/progressive/left projecting Obama’s monstrous crimes onto Trump? Is it that we must hate Trump and not Obama?
Immigration is not a right protected by the US Constitution. Where was Dimaggio when in the name of “the war on terror” the Bush/Obama regime destroyed the civil liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution? If Dimaggio is an American citizen, he should try immigrating to the UK, Germany, or France and see how far he gets.
The easiest and surest way for the Trump administration to stop the refugee problem, not only for the US but also for Europe and the West in general, is to stop the wars against Muslim countries that his predecessors started. The enormous sums of money squandered on gratuitous wars could instead be given to the countries that the US and NATO have destroyed. The simplest way to end the refugee problem is to stop producing refugees. This should be the focus of Trump, Amnesty, and Dimaggio.
Is everyone too busy hating to do anything sensible?
It is very disturbing that the liberal/progressive/left prefers to oppose Trump than to oppose war. Indeed, they want a war on Trump. How does this differ from the Bush/Obama war on Muslims?
The liberal/progressive/left is demonstrating a mindless hatred of the American people and the President that the people chose. This mindless hatred can achieve nothing but the discrediting of an alternative voice and the opening of the future to the least attractive elements of the right-wing.
The liberal/progressive/left will end up discrediting all critics, thereby empowering those to whom the liberal/progressive/left are most opposed.

The Political Scene: Astana Talks

Astana Talks
Astana talks have come to a general result that could be described as satisfactory, especially to the Syrian government and its allies and supporters.  The talks ushered in a new era and represented  a very important shift in the Syrian scene.
The main conclusion of the conference proved a salient progress of the government on both military and political levels. Meanwhile, the event was an excellent demonstration of the descending and dwindling capacities of the takfiri military groups, and caused a huge division and fierce fighting among them.
The talks succeeded in achieving its announced goals:
1- the enacting of a total ceasefire.
2- the stoppage of military operations, in preparation for the anticipated international conference towards the end of February to solve the Syrian crisis.
One of the basic remarks in the conference, was the inability of the military  opposition to be represented by a unified and coherent delegation, in contrast to the government delegation which proved high competition and exemplary efficiency.
Moreover, the recent developments represented by the US plans to implement safe zones in Syria would not cause any disturbance to the Syrian strategic plan. The situation has dramatically changed  as  especially after the liberation of Aleppo. As  such, no positive  results would be yielded by the takfiris.
To sum up, the situation in Syria has come to a point where the takfiri groups lost all hope to tip the balance in the foreseeable future, which was translated with more successful reconciliation operations where hundreds of militants handed their arms to the government forces. If the prevailing situation continues,  which is more likely, the chances of a lasting and comprehensive political settlement would be a tangible reality for  the first time in years.
Source: Al-Manar Website

Hasbara is Desperate to stop David Icke (video)

But with Goldman Sachs and Soros destroying one country after another, they do not stand a chance. By now we are all Palestinians.  David Icke knows it and he is not alone!!!
The following pathetic video was produced by the Campaign Against Antisemitism, an Israeli Hasbara unit operating in Britain. This video won’t hurt David Icke. Instead, it proves once again that Jewish power is the ability to silence discussion on Jewish power.  This power is proving less effective by the day.
Related

Trump’s Policies Ruining America’s Image

Trump's policies
Related

Israeli Company Offers Its Services to Help Build Trump’s Wall

Posted on January 30, 2017
 photo wall_zpsve8wmakk.jpg
Israel-based Magal Security Systems Ltd. seeks this week to persuade officials in Washington to grant it a contract to take part in the construction of the wall the new US administration is planning to build on the American-Mexican borders.
According to Bloomberg News, Magal’s US-based Senstar branch will present its FiberPatrol product at a conference on border security which will be held on Tuesday in Alexandria, Virginia.

Double Standards: Where Were the Liberal Protestors During Obama’s Wars?

Mike Whitney — CounterPunch Jan 26, 2017
President Obama addresses a press conference on August 1, over the abduction of Israeli 2nd Lt. Hadar Goldin by Hamas
President Obama addresses a press conference on August 1, 2001. Click to enlarge
The election of Donald Trump has sent millions of people pouring out onto the streets to protest a man  they think is a racist, misogynist, xenophobic bully who will destroy US democracy in his quest to establish himself as supreme fascist ruler of the country.
Maybe they’re right. Maybe Trump is a fascist who will destroy America. But where were these people when Obama was bombing wedding parties in Kandahar, or training jihadist militants to fight in Syria, or abetting NATO’s destructive onslaught on Libya, or plunging Ukraine into fratricidal warfare, or collecting the phone records of innocent Americans, or deporting hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers, or force-feeding prisoners at Gitmo, or providing bombs and aircraft to the Saudis to continue their genocidal war against Yemen?
Where were they?
They were asleep, weren’t they? Because liberals always sleep when their man is in office,  particularly if their man is a smooth-talking cosmopolitan snake-charmer like Obama who croons about personal freedom and democracy while unleashing the most unspeakable violence on civilians across the Middle East and Central Asia.
The United States has been at war for eight straight years under Obama, and during that time, there hasn’t been one sizable antiwar march, demonstration or protest. Nothing. No one seems to care when an articulate bi-racial mandarin kills mostly people of color, but when a brash and outspoken real estate magnate takes over the reigns of power, then ‘watch out’ because here come the protestors, all three million of them!
Can we agree that there is at least the appearance of hypocrisy here?
Indeed. Analyst Jon Reynolds summed it up perfectly over at the Black Agenda Report. He said:
“If Hillary had won, the drone strikes would have continued. The wars would have continued. The spying would continue. Whistleblowers would continue being prosecuted and hunted down. And minorities would continue bearing the brunt of these policies, both in the US and across the world. The difference is that in such a scenario, Democrats, if the last eight years are any indication, would remain silent — as they did under Obama — offering bare minimum concern and vilifying anyone attacking their beloved president as some sort of hater. Cities across the US would remain free of protests, and for another 4-8 years, Democrats would continue doing absolutely nothing to end the same horrifying policies now promoted by a Republican.” (“Delusions Shattered“, Jon Reynolds, The Black Agenda Report)
He’s right, isn’t he? How many of the 800,000 protesters who marched on Sunday would have flown to Washington to express their contempt for would-be President Hillary Clinton?
Zero, I’d wager, and yet it’s Hillary who wanted to implement the no-fly zones in Syria that would have put Washington in direct confrontation with Moscow, just like it was Hillary who wanted to teach Putin a-thing-or-two in Ukraine.  But is that what the people want? Would people prefer to be led into World War 3 by a bonefide champion of liberal values than concede the post to a brassy billionaire who wants to find common ground on fighting ISIS with his Russian counterpart?
It seems like a no-brainer to me. And it’s not like we don’t know who is responsible for the killing in Syria either. We do.
Barack Obama and his coterie of bloodthirsty friends in the political establishment are entirely responsible. These are the people who funded, armed and trained the Salafist maniacs that have decimated the country and created millions of refugees that are now tearing apart the EU. That’s right, the spillover from America’s not-so-covert operation is ripping the EU to shreds. It’s just another unfortunate side-effect of Obama’s bloody Syrian debacle.  As journalist Margaret Kimberly says in a recent post at The Black Agenda Report: “All of the casualties, the sieges, the hunger and the frantic search for refuge can be placed at America’s feet.”
Amen, to that.  All the violence can be traced back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, home of Barack Hussein Obama, Nobel peace prize winner. What a joke. Here’s how analyst Solomon Comissiong sums it up in another article at the BAR:
“Supporters of Barack Obama, and liberals in general, are disingenuous frauds. They had no issues protesting the likes of the amoral warmongering George W. Bush or the racist xenophobe, Donald J. Trump, however when it comes to Barack Obama they can find no reason to protest his mass murdering escapades. Obama supporters were recently nostalgic and teary eyed after he gave his last major speech as president of the United States, yet can find little reason to shed tears over the masses of civilians who were destroyed directly as a result of Obama’s policies. Where were the emotions and tears when men, women and children were getting blown to bits by USA drone attacks, indiscriminate air strikes and bombs?…Those who protested the racist and xenophobic Trump, but not Obama or Clinton, are nothing more that disingenuous frauds and amoral cowards.”  (As Obama Exits the White House, Never Forget His Destructive Imperialist Legacy“, Solomon Comissiong, Black Agenda Report)
Let’s be honest, Obama got a pass from his supporters strictly because of appearances; because he looked and sounded like a thoroughly reasonable bloke who only acted on the loftiest of principles. Obama was hailed as a moral giant, a political rock star, a leader among leaders. But it was all fake, all make-up and glitz behind which operated the vicious national security state extending its tentacles around the world, toppling regimes wherever it went, and leaving anarchy and destruction in its wake. Isn’t this Obama’s real legacy when you strip away the sweeping hand gestures and pompous rhetoric?
Of course it is. But Trump won’t have that advantage, will he? Trump is not a public relations invention upon which heartsick liberals pin their highest hopes. Trump is Trump warts and all, the proverbial bull in the china shop. That’s not to say Trump won’t be a lousy president. Judging by the Wall Street cutthroats and hard-edged military men he’s surrounded himself with,  he probably will be. But the American people are no longer asleep, so there’s going to be limits to what he can hope to achieve.
So the question is: How should one approach the Trump presidency?  Should we denounce him as a fascist before he ever sets foot in the Oval Office?  Should we deny his “legitimacy” even though he was elected via a process we have honored for over 200 years?  Should we launch impeachment proceedings before he’s done anything that would warrant his removal from office?
Veteran journalist Robert Parry answers this question in a recent piece at Consortium News. Here’s what he said:
“The current danger for Democrats and progressives is that – by bashing everything that Trump says and does – they will further alienate the white working-class voters who became his base and will push away anti-war activists.
There is a risk that the Left will trade places with the Right on the question of war and peace, with Democrats and progressives associating themselves with Hillary Clinton’s support for “endless war” in the Middle East, the political machinations of the CIA, and a New Cold War with Russia, essentially moving into an alliance with the Military (and Intelligence) Industrial Complex.
Many populists already view the national Democrats as elitists disdainful of the working class, promoters of harmful “free trade” deals, and internationalists represented by the billionaires at the glitzy annual confab in Davos, Switzerland.
If — in a rush to demonize and impeach President Trump — Democrats and progressives solidify support for wars of choice in the Middle East, a New Cold War with Russia and a Davos-style elitism, they could further alienate many people who might otherwise be their allies.
In other words, selectivity in opposing and criticizing Trump – where he rightly deserves it – rather than opportunism in rejecting everything that Trump says might make more sense. A movement built entirely on destroying Trump could drop Democrats and progressives into some politically destructive traps.” (“Selectivity in Trashing Trump“, Robert Parry, Consortium News)
Right on, Bob. A very reasonable approach to a very thorny situation.
Bravo!
MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com

Bahrain …. toward the resistance البحرين… الى المقاومة

Bahrain …. toward the resistance

يناير 27, 2017
Written by Nasser Kandil,
Six years ago, the people of Bahrain were facing all the provocations of Al-Jazeera shield led by Saudi Arabia, but they remained sticking to the peaceful path. The people of Bahrain who are led today by Islamic movement have sacrificed a lot in all stages, under the banners of Liberalism in the forties, when they were demanding of elections, under the banner of Gamal Abdul Nasser in the fifties, when they were demanding of liberation, and under the banner of the Left, when they were leading the struggle of the trade union which is the most avant -grade in the Arab world. The people of Bahrain did not leave the arenas and no one can call their revolution as the sectarian awakening.
The people of Bahrain insist on the peaceful path despite the cascade of blood that is shed by the Saudi intervention and despite the semi-complete negligence of what is so-called the International Community, comparing with the allegations of the defense for the human rights where the West has interests, so the killers of Al-Qaeda organization become martyrs and its fighters become the heroes of freedom as described by Laurent Fabius the Former French Foreign Minister on the Turkish-Syrian borders. Here the insistence is more than a historic patience; it is a strategic choice and may be it reaches its final stages.
What has happened in Bahrain as a remorseless killing, a felony that did not get an investigation or a trial of youths who were arrested in the movement of the Bahraini street; they were accused of bombing a vehicle of Al-Jazeera Shield’s vehicles, and a summary execution  without an actual trial said that Saudi Arabia which has ordered of killing is drawing a red line for accepting the settlements in the region, it is the recognition of making the people of the Gulf countries slaves for the family of Saud as a precondition for settlements outside the Gulf, otherwise there is no objection by Saudi Arabia from keeping the agitating wars and spending all the money to bring the extremists and the mercenaries to wage them. This means the transformation of Saudi Arabia to a greater opportunity for the dominance of ISIS practically and gradually.
The dominance of ISIS on Saudi Arabia geographically, demographically and militarily as well as the rootedness of its project in it seems as a salvation of ISIS in the light of the defeats which affected it in Iraq, and the difficulty of resilience in the war of Syria, and in the light of the European Russian race to prevent ISIS from the stability in Libya as an expected substitute for ISIS after Iraq and Syria. So it is logical that ISIS will aspire to Saudi Arabia for the next two years. It seems that the rulers of Saudi Arabia do not mind that or they are not aware of it, on the contrary they say to the world; you have to choose between our dominance with our savagery on oil and ISIS’ dominance on it with its brutality.
Saudi Arabia puts the region and the world between the two options of the recognition of humiliated bondage for the people of the Gulf or giving the sources of oil to ISIS. The comparison between what has happened in Iraq and what might happen in Saudi Arabia makes the matter logical, since the background is ready popularly and the devotions to extremism, atonement, and the blood according to the sheikhs of Wahhabism are shown through their public fatawas.
Between the two parts of this duality, it is no longer possible for anyone to address the people of Bahrain by asking them to be patience and to endure. The resistance has become an option that no one can denounce it or considered it a haste or emotion. If the Saudis want to weaken the influence of Iran in the Gulf, they are succeeding because they make the people rebel against the advices of Iran to be calm and sticking to the peaceful path because they kill every call for wisdom.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

البحرين… الى المقاومة

ناصر قنديل

– منذ ست سنوات يقف شعب البحرين في الشوارع يواجه كل استفزازات درع الجزيرة بقيادة السعودية، متمسكاً بالمسار السلمي. وشعب البحرين الذي تقوده اليوم حركة إسلامية لم يبخل على النضال العربي بالتضحيات في المراحل كلها. فكان تحت شعارات الليبرالية في الأربعينيات يطالب بالانتخابات، وتحت لواء جمال عبد الناصر في الخمسينيات يطالب بالتحرر، وتحت لواء اليسار يقود النضال النقابي الأشدّ طليعية في العالم العربي، فشعب البحرين لم يغادر الساحات ولا يمكن لأحد تسمية ثورته بالصحوة الطائفية.

– بقي إصرار شعب البحرين على المسار السلمي، رغم شلال الدم المسال بتدخّل سعودي، ورغم التجاهل شبه التام لما يُسمّى بالمجتمع الدولي قياساً بمزاعم الدفاع عن حقوق الإنسان حيث للغرب مصالح، فيصير قتلى تنظيم القاعدة شهداء ويصير مقاتلوها أبطال حرية، كما وصفهم لوران فابيوس وزير خارجية فرنسا الأسبق على الحدود التركية السورية. وهذا الإصرار أكثر من صبر تاريخي، بل هو خيار استراتيجي، ربما يكون قد بلغ مراحله النهائية.

– ما جرى في البحرين من قتل بدم بارد بجرم لم ينل تحقيقاً ولا محاكمة لشبان اعتقلوا من حراك الشارع البحراني، ووجّهت لهم الاتهامات بتفجير آلية من آليات درع الجزيرة، وتنفيذ حكم الإعدام بهم من دون محاكمة فعلية، يقول إن السعودية التي أمرت بالقتل ترسم خطاً أحمر لقبولها بالتسويات في المنطقة. وهو التسليم بجعل شعوب بلاد الخليج عبيدا لآل سعود كشرط مسبق لتسويات خارج الخليج، وإلا فلا مانع لدى السعودية من بقاء الحروب مشتعلة وإنفاق كل المال والمجيء بكل المتطرفين والمرتزقة لخوضها. وهذا يعني تحويل السعودية عملياً وتدريجياً إلى أكبر فرصة لسيطرة داعش.

– سيطرة داعش على السعودية جغرافياً وسكانياً وعسكرياً، وتجذُّر مشروعه فيها يبدو خشبة خلاص داعش في ضوء الهزائم التي يُمنَى بها التنظيم في العراق، وصعوبة الصمود عندما تدور آلة الحرب عليه في سورية، وفي ضوء التسابق الأوروبي الروسي على منع داعش من الاستقرار في ليبيا، كبديل متوقع لداعش بعد العراق وسورية، فيصير المنطقي أن يبني التنظيم خطته نحو السعودية للسنتين المقبلتين، ولا يبدو أن حكام السعودية يمانعون بذلك أو لا يدركونه، بل يقولون للعالم عليكم أن تختاروا بين سيطرتنا بهمجيتنا على النفط، أو تسليمه لداعش بوحشيته.

– السعودية تضع المنطقة والعالم بين خيارَيْ التسليم بعبودية ذليلة لشعوب الخليج أو تسليم منابع النفط لداعش. والمقارنة بين ما جرى في العراق، وما قد يجري في السعودية يصير الأمر منطقياً. فالبيئة جاهزة شعبياً والولاءات للتطرف والتكفير والدم لدى مشايخ الوهابية تُظهرها فتاوى علنية.

– بين حدَّيْ هذه الثنائية لم يعد ممكناً لأحد مخاطبة شعب البحرين بطلب الصبر والتحمّل. فالمقاومة صارت خياراً لا يمكن لأحد استهجانه واعتباره تسرّعاً أو انفعالاً، وإذا كان السعوديون يريدون إضعاف نفوذ إيران في الخليج فهم ينجحون، بأن يجعلوا الشعوب تتمرّد على نصائح إيران بالتهدئة والتمسك بالسلمية، لأنهم يغتالون كل نداء للحكمة.

Related Videos

Related Articles


Saudi, U.S., NATO genocide in Yemen threatens lives of 18 million Yemenis

RSFP
The United Nation’s aid chief has warned that Yemen is facing the risk of all-out famine this year… Warning, you may find the images in the follwing reports disturbing.

Related Videos


Related Articles

Monday, January 30, 2017

Russian Mercenaries In Syria And Around The World

Written and produced by SF Team: J.Hawk, Daniel Deiss, Edwin Watson
The December 9, 2016 Kremlin celebration of the Fatherland Heroes’ Day brought attention to one of obscure components of Russian clandestine paramilitary capabilities, when a photo featuring President Vladimir Putin and the leadership of the so-called Vagner Private Military Company surfaced on social media.
Vagner is the pseudonym of Dmitriy Utkin, a retired member of the Russian Armed Forces who at the time of his discharge commanded the 700th Special Operations Detachment of the 2nd Separate Special Operations Brigade of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense.  He has gained experience in PMC operations while employed by the Moran Security Group where he participated in Somalia counter-pirate operations. Vagner’s deputy commander is also a Russian military veteran, Vadim Troshev.
Vagner represents Russia’s most ambitious experiment with the PMC concept. Elsewhere in the world, PMCs such as the Executive Outcomes and Erik Prince’s original Blackwater, which began as  corporate security outfits, have evolved into de-facto extensions of national military power, occupying the niche between covert action and the deployment of regular special operations and elite forces.
As of this writing, the Russian government has not yet adopted a clear policy concerning the existence of PMCs in Russia. While a bill was introduced before the State Duma that  would have provided a legal framework for Russian PMCs, it was tabled after some discussion. It would appear that the Russian government is in a “wait and see” mode, and the ultimate decision will depend on a number of factors. The first is the nature of Russia-West relations in the era of Trump, Brexit, and prospective wins by anti-globalist parties in the EU. Should the relationship evolve in the direction of cooperation rather than confrontation, it would reduce the need for PMCs. The second factor is the Syria experience, which is the the largest and most overt demonstration of the Russian PMCs to date, even though PMCs have been employed in achieving Russian state objectives for over a decade. Their usefulness has been demonstrated in Crimea and the Donbass, where a high number of quasi-PMCs were incorporated into the general concept of operation in order to fulfill missions that could not be performed by the Novorossia militias or regular Russian military forces for military or political reasons.
Syria is not only a more protracted and high-intensity operation, but also an opportunity to evaluate the relative advantages and drawbacks of relying on PMCs, as opposed to regular special operations forces and other elite formations. In that respect, Syria shows the evolutionary maturation of the PMC concept that gradually came of age during various operations in Central Asia, Caucasus, Crimea, and Donbass.  In contrast to the US experience which adopted a top-down model of PMC use, the precursors of the current Russian PMCs arose spontaneously, in response to market demands, as it were, both around Russia’s borders and around the world, and which tapped into a large pool of trained veterans of Afghanistan and Chechnya. Ironically, Russian PMCs owe a lot to the United States or other Western powers which used Russian “privateers” in a variety of operations, including in Iraq. Even Vagner’s operations in Syria are the result of Dmitriy Utkin’s initiative. It is only in the last few years that the Russian Ministry of Defense decided to weave PMCs into the broader array of forces at its disposal, and Vagner’s effectiveness has provided an additional stimulus toward formally institutionalizing the relationship between PMCs and the Russian MOD.
Since Vagner’s existence or participation in the Syria operation has not been officially acknowledged, there are no reliable reports on the number of Vagner operators or the functions they perform. Some estimates run into as many as 400 operators in the country where they are more likely to see frontline combat than the active duty Russian troops.  Vagner also suffered an unspecified number of casualties, including fatalities.
Finally, there is the question of what relationship will exist between the PMCs, the covert operations community, and the special operations formations on which the PMCs will naturally rely for recruits. The heavy US reliance on relatively undisciplined security contractors during its infamous Global War on Terror had the effect of increasing the death toll among the Iraqi and Afghan civilians who perished at the hands of PMC operators who were not accountable to either US or local laws, and of provoking an outflow of trained cadres from the US special operations units who opted for the far higher salaries and personal freedom that the US PMCs offer.
What that formalized relationship will look like may never be publicly known, for there are good reasons to maintain a certain level of secrecy surrounding what is, after all, an instrument of clandestine paramilitary action, which may also be a reason why a PMC law has not been formally adopted. However, considering that Vagner operators have received high military decorations for their contributions in Syria, it appears that Russian PMCs are here to say, and that they will enjoy a high level of prominence in the future. The recent talks with Libyan military leaders aboard the Admiral Kuznetsov suggest that Syria is not going to be the last battlefield for Russian PMCs.

The End Of Mingling - "Moderate Rebels" Join Al-Qaeda In Syria


The End Of Mingling -
EDITOR’S CHOICE | 30.01.2017

The End Of Mingling – “Moderate Rebels” Join Al-Qaeda In Syria


Moon of Alabama
Lots of confusion about the infighting in the “rebel” held Idleb governate in Syria, the situation is now clearing up. After other tricks, like renaming the group, did not work to deceive al-Qaeda finally pulled back the veil. It is no longer hiding between the “moderate rebels” but is now (again) a clearly identifiable groups. Groups near to al-Qaeda integrated with it, other groups split with significant parts joining the al-Qaeda organization.
Qalaat Al Mudiq @QalaatAlMudiq
N. #Syria: Tahrir Al-Sham Corps is born. Zinki, #JFS, Jaish Al-Sunna, Ansar Al-Din & Liwa Al-Haq merged under unified leadership (Abu Jaber)
The Zinki (Zengi) group had CIA support and received anti-tank weapons from the U.S. and its Gulf proxies. JFS is the short form of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the official al-Qaeda group in Syria. It is the strongest “rebel” group on the ground. Abu Jabar is a former Ahrar al-Sham leader who had long argued for integrating both groups. The Turkish and U.S. supported Ahrar al Sham has now officially split. The probably larger part under Abu Jabar is now joining al-Qaeda.
The “new” Tahrir Al-Sham is not a coalition of the various groups but THE new al-Qaeda group on the ground with a unified command and ideological structure. The operative military leader is Abu Jabar while the founder of al-Qaeda in Syria, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, will stay in the background as the overall emir of the group. Tahrir Al-Sham has a military alliance in Idleb with the smaller local ISIS group Jund al-Aqsa. Joining with them is not (yet) convenient.
The now further enlarged al-Qaeda formation under the new name Tahrir Al-Sham is by far the biggest “rebel” dog in the Idleb-region town with now many more than its previous 10,000 active fighters. Of all other groups the “moderate” side of the split Ahrar al-Sham is the biggest one. Left beside it are just splinters of those groups (like Zinki) that mainly crossed over to al-Qaeda. Some local warlords and their small gangs are also still around. These groups will probably continue to receive Turkish and U.S. support. But they will have no chance against the much more powerful al-Qaeda collective.
The leader of al-Qaeda in Syria al-Julani made a huge mistake by initiating this open split from the “moderates”. The group can now no longer hide by “mingling” with the CIA supported “moderates”. When it is attacked by the Syrian government it can no longer claim to be a victim. As it is a UN designated terrorist group it will receive no significant outside support. It can not even go into guerrilla mode because the “fish” (the guerrilla) will have no “water” (a sympathetic local population) to swim in.
This plays well into the Russian hands which initiated the Astana peace conference exactly for this purpose. The U.S. under Obama and Kerry had declared it impossible to separate al-Qaeda in Syria from the “moderate rebels” it supported. The Astana conference and in its consequence the now open al-Qaeda conflict with the “moderates” achieved the separation. The “moderates” left now can only join al-Qaeda, make peace with the Syrian government and its allies or flee the country to survive.
* * *
In other news the Syrian government forces have finally recaptured the Ayn al-Feejah in Wadi Barada that supplies Damascus with drinking water. 5.5 million people were cut off from tap water when the Takfiris captured, poisoned and blocked the spring 44 days ago. After three earlier deals had failed the now defeated Takfirs agreed to being transported to Idleb.

Recaptured vital water supply in Wadi Barada ~ General Command of the Syrian Army: “Security restored to towns and villages of Wadi Barada”

SAA recaptures vital water supply in Wadi Barada

Syrian Arab Army soldiers recaptured Ain al-Fijah’s main pumping station, which vitally provides water for the capital Damascus, in Wadi Barada, Sunday.
Engineers are scheduled to arrive in the town this week, to carry out repairs on the facility, which was damaged during fighting between the Syrian Army and the mercenary armed gangs of terrorists.
When the terrorist groups had control over the area, they cut water supplies to Damascus, leaving more than 6 million residents without water.
(Damascus, 29/01/2017, H. Said) ~ The General Command of the Army and the Armed Forces announced that the Syrian Arab army and the popular defense groups and the supporting forces have accomplished their mission of restoring security and stability to the towns and villages in Wadi Barada area in the western countryside of Damascus after a series of successful military operations.
saa-logo-2017

In a statement on Sunday, the General Command said the military operations in Wadi Barada took place in an area of a very complex geography and were carried out with accuracy to avoid civilian casualties.
It pointed out that these operations have contributed to creating the favorable conditions to allow the achievement of settlement and reconciliation agreements in a number of these villages and towns, citing those of Bassima, Ein al-Khadra, deir Muqren, Ein al-Fijeh, Deir Qanoun, Kafr al-Zeit, al-Husseiniyeh, Kafr al-Awamid, Birhalia, Afra and Wadi Barada Souq.
The total area that was liberated in Wadi Barada amounts to 400 km2, according to the Army’s General Command.
The Command reaffirmed in the statement its determination to continue carrying out its national mission of fighting terrorism, expressing its appreciation of the “sincere” efforts played by several national figures and forces that contributed to the restoration of security to Wadi Barada area.



Related Articles