Il gioco preferito degli Statunitensi è il poker, per i Russi gli scacchi e per noi Italiani?

Potrebbero interessarti anche...

16 Risposte

  1. stefano.dandrea ha detto:

    IN FATTO: Il Califfato NON VUOLE rovesciare Assad. E’ rimproverato da tutti gli altri gruppi e da Al Nusra in particolare di dedicarsi a costruire uno stato anziché combattere contro Assad. Il califfato mira a consolidarsi, a fare arrivare altre 200-300 mila persone, non solo guerrieri ma tecnici e lavoratori, da ogni parte delmondo; a riconquistare Baghdad, a mettere basi in Afghanistan e in Libia e a sfidare sul proprio terreno USA e Russia per combattere contro di loro, cercando di fare in modo che scendano: uccidere 50000 statunitensi e russi a costo di subire 500000 morti è l’obiettivo del califfato per i prossimi 10 anni. Questo vuole il caiffato. basta leggere ciò che dicono. Basta indagare ciò che vogliono i guerrieri e i seguaci del califfato, coloro che si aggregano perché ne condividono l’ideologia. Basta non essere razzisti e credere che gli islamisti internazionalisti siano milioni di idioti che, pur avendo visto la foto di presunti membri del califfato con Mccain, non hanno dato ad essa riievo. Le cose sono due in effetti.O sono idioti milioni di islamisti internazionalisti, che certamente hanno visto quella foto, o è ingenuo qualche migliaio di “controinformati” occidentali che razzisticamente crede presuntuosamente (e in modo stratosferico) idioti gli milioni di islamisti internazionalisti. Io propendo per la seconda. Una analisi dei fatti che non condivido. Gli USA hanno lasciato fare e poi si sono limitati a contenere il califfato. Essa finge che il califfato non abbia combattuto contro al nusra una guerra da 4000 morti,nonché contro la maggior parte delle altre frazioni dei ribelli siriani. I soggetti sono tre non due. Punto. Ci sono frazioni della resistenza siriana che sono state sterminate dall’IS e nemmeno sclafite da Assad. I soggetti sono tre.ormai lo ammettono tutti.Lo emmette la russia Lo ammette Assad (che però inserisce al nusra con IS). Non lo ammettono soltanto gli ingenui assadiani-putiniani.
    Detto questo – ognuno a questo punto resta della propria opinione – e passo al GIUDIZIO, lasciamo che Putin combatta per i prossimi 30 anni,come ha scelto di fare,per ora in Siria poi in Iraq e direi per 5-10 anni in Siria e Iraq. Poi di nuovo in Daghestan e in tutto il Caucaso. In particolare di nuovo in cecenia e in qualcune dalle repubbliche ex sovietiche. Voler seguire Putin in questa ridicola avventura (ridicola per noi,non per lui che persegue un interesse nazionale) significa essere servi e stupidi. Lasciamo che si scontri con gli stati uniti. E andiamo avanti per la nostra strada, separandoci sempre più dagli USA. Vedrai che tra trenta anni saremo “liberi”,come può esserlo uno stato della nostra dimensione. Per astenerci nella guerra contro l’IS non abbiamo bisogno di dire: appoggiamo la Russia. Dobbiamo soltanto argomentare per quale ragione quel problema lo devono risolvere USA e Russia. Noi abbiamo sbagliato in passato a partecipare. Ora non sbagliamo più. Voler essere vicini alla russia è la ennesima manifestazione di servile esterofilia. E’ la ennesima manifestazione di bamboccionismo. E’ la ennesima posizione da macchiette comiche. Noi ci asteniamo. Gli altri si scannassero. Noi ne trarremo soltanto vantaggi.

  2. stefano.dandrea ha detto:

    In definitiva noi dovremmo giocare a un nostro gioco, direi a scopa, con carte rigorosamente napoletane, dopo esserci a lungo esercitati a contare il 48 a immensa velocità, e a saper individuare tutte le informazioni possibili da rapidissimo e regolare sguardo di una regolare mischiata. Noi siamo italiani e quindi giochiamo a scopa.Ma ci sediamo al tavolo tra dieci venti anni. Per ora lasciamo giocare gli altri e ci alleniamo.

  3. Durga ha detto:

    Anche chi ritiene che la Russia fa benissimo a cercare di contrastare la politica criminaloide dell’America in Medio Oriente non credo che auspichi l’intervento di qualche Divisione dell’esercito italiano al fianco dei Russi o di Assad e neppure della Francia. Vorrei pero’ sapere come faremo a separarci sempre di piu’ dagli USA, se non riusciamo neppure a uscire dalle sanzioni alla Russia.

    • stefano.dandrea ha detto:

      Uscire dalle sanzioni alla Russia è giustissimo e sacrosanto ma non per avvicinarci alla russia, bensìper il nostro interesse nazionale e perché oggettivamente è stata una decisione ingiusta.

  4. Max Bonelli ha detto:

    Non vedere i flussi di soldi che tengono in piedi il califfato, non voler vedere l´evidente gioco delle
    parti condotto dagli Usa, questo non fara´ bene al movimento sovranista italiano.
    Nessuno ha detto d´intervenire ma di smarcarci ora ed adesso da una politica servile masochista
    altrimenti ci “scopano” e´ di adesso la notizia che la Ue paghera´ il pizzo alla Turchia per non mandarci gli immigranti ed invadere la Siria…http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/11/29/migranti-vertice-ue-turchia-a-bruxelles-3-miliardi-ad-ankara-per-bloccare-il-flusso-dei-rifugiati-verso-leuropa/2263171/

    • stefano.dandrea ha detto:

      E allora questo è il problema. Non bisogna intervenire, nemmeno se agli attacchi dei bombardamenti terroristici della russia l’IS rispondesse avvelenando le condotte dell’acqua a Mosca e uccidendo centinaia di migliaia di persone. E’ questo il giudizio che deve unirci. Punto. E’ più che sufficiente.
      Poi se l’IS sia un terzo soggetto sul terreno o sia come tutti gli atri gruppi di ribelli, ciò riguarda l’analisi. Fino a non poco tempo fa non pochi “controinformati” putiniani-assadiani affermavano che “l’IS non esiste” o che gli USA avrebbero potuto farlo fuori con bombardamenti di una settimana o due mesi (poi è intervenuta la Russia e gli ha appena fatto il solletico in due mesi: 500 kilometri quadrati in due mesi sono 3000 in un anno, poco meno della provincia di Rieti). Mai sentiti questi “controinformati” tentare di darsi una ragione degli intensissimi bombardamenti USA contro l’IS a Kobane, quandol’ IS ha attaccato i più fedeli alleati degli usa:i curdi separatisti. Ciò avrebbe imposto di articolare il giudizio sul rapporto USA/IS ma loro preferendo una versione semplificata e da sempliciotti glissano. Poi c’è lo scemo Varoufakis secondo il quale basterebbe far morire di fame l’IS, tagliando i rifornimenti. Non ha capito le scemo che nei territori amministrati dall’IS vivono alcuni milioni di persone, forse dieci, non lo so. E poi ci sono quelli che vedendo la foto di Mccain con alcuni capi guerrieri, oltre a riconoscere mccain, che tutti hanno visto in mille altre foto, si sono detti certi della identità delle quattro o cinque persone presenti nella foto, senza aver mai visto altre foto di quelle persone e nonostante somiglianze vaghssime con le foto con le quali hanno proceduto ai raffronti, direi vaghe somiglianze solo di tratti orientali e di barbe (tra l’altro la stessa persona è stata indicata in articoli di “controinformati” ora come Abu Musa ora come Al baghdadi!). Max questi sono fanatici tifosi, prendine atto. Se ad essi chiedi quali sono i gruppi che attaccano Assad, quale composizione hanno in stranieri e nazionali, quale ideologia perseguono, quali sono contro l’IS quali hanno addirittura combattuto contro l’IS, se l’IS possieda omeno i missili TOW (èl’unica formazione che non lipossieda, tra le grandi), NON SANNO NULLA. Non sono persone che si chiedano: ma i milioni di seguaci o simpatizzanti dell’IS l’hanno vista la foto di Mccain? Se si, sono stupidi o sono io un razzista a credere che essi siano stupidi perché in realtà quella foto non rappresenta Al baghdadi? Una domanda del genere non se la pongono i “controinformati” assadiani-putiniani. La loro tifoseria li spinge ad essere simili a minorati mentali. Noi dobbiamo combattere contro questa tifoseria, dalla quale non nasce una classe dirigente ma soltanto una schiera di servi o schiavi.
      Il “gioco delle parti” degli USA esiste soltanto verso il “pubblico” americano. Gli USA hanno ammesso di aver collaborato con l’ESL, inizialmente il perno della rivolta. Hanno ammesso che il loro programma è fallito. Hanno ammesso di aver ritentato ma le persone addestrate appena entrate in Siria sono passate armi e bagagli con Al Nusra. L’altro gruppo appena addestrato, formato da YPG e “siriani democratici”, è stato colpito da un kamikaze dell’IS che ne ha uccisi 70, due giorni dopo la presentazione ufficiale della formazione. Gli USA vendono armi all’arabia saudita ben sapendo che in parte finiscono ai Ribelli. Gli USA hanno dichiarato mille volte che Assad deve cadere. Obama ha teorizzato il “contenimento” dell’IS (teorizzazione ben ricostruita tempo fa in un articolo de Il Foglio molto critico con Obama). Mccain è andato persino a farsi fotografare con i capi di 5-6 degli oltre 100 gruppi ribelli.
      Che l’IS venda petrolio mi sembra una cosa normale. Vende energia eletrica o acqua (non ricordo bene adesso) persino ad Assad. Non mi è chiaro per quale ragione USA, Turchia o Arabia Saudita dovrebbero fermarlo (nel loro interesse ovviamente, nell’interesse di Assad la cosa è ovvia; ma loro vogliono che Assad cada). Fa bene la Russia, nel tentativo di colpire un nemico di Assad (il più forte militarmente ma quello attualmente meno pericoloso, visto che è dedito ad amministrare le zone conquistate, più che a cercare di avanzare) a cercare di interrompere o limitare i traffici. Ci sono molte guerre in Siria e ognuna delle parti coinvolte fa ciò che reputa opportuno nel proprio interesse, relativamente al conflitto o ai conflitti (due o tre o quattro) che la riguardano.

      • Durga ha detto:

        Naturalmente e’ molto azzardato affermare che l’ISIS potrebbe essere eliminato in 2 settimane o mesi, pero’ e’ vero che l’atteggiamento degli USA verso il fondamentalismo islamico e’ stato almeno molto ambiguo, fin dai tempi dell’Afghanistan (per fare quello che loro ritengono il loro interesse, naturalmente). E per l’Italia l’ideale e’ essere un Paese neutrale militarmente, pero’ un certo avvicinamento alla Russia e’ forse inevitabile, lo e’ lo stesso ritiro delle sanzioni, e come potrebbe la Russia collaborare con noi anche solo economicamente se facciamo una politica a lei ostile? E come uscire dalla NATO, se almeno la Russia non indebolisce la leadership USA? E se non usciamo dalla NATO non potremo restare neutrali; faremo quello che ci ordinano i nostri comandanti.

  5. max.bonelli ha detto:

    Non voler vedere gli enormi flussi di denaro e di petrolio che dall´ISIS va in Turchia, i flussi di
    armi che da questa vanno al califfato, la protezione manifesta nei confronti di questo degli Usa
    la si puo´ leggere come incompetenza o complicita´. In entrambi i casi non fanno bene
    ad un movimento sovranista il cui principale obbiettivo deve essere l´Indipendenza
    politico ed economica dell´Italia. Che Nato e comunita´ Europea sono strettamente
    connesse non lo scopro io, e´ di questa mattina che Bruxell, dara 3 miliardi di euro
    alla Turchia per occupare militarmente il nord della Siria e gestirci i profughi.
    Uscire dalla Nato e´ un obbligo non per orgoglio ma per necessita´ e la necessita´crea i modi.
    Siamo nella situazione di necessita´, il primo passo e´ convincere noi stessi di questo imperativo

    • Durga ha detto:

      Purtroppo penso che molti Italiani non ne siano ancora convinti

    • Mourad Imanebasta ha detto:

      Sono in sintonia con Max Bonelli. E si potrebbe aggiungere che non ci sono stati soltanto i ricordati flussi di denaro e petrolio…
      Un pensiero sovrano su questa questione non può stare al di sotto di una comprensione che includa anche altri aspetti ugualmente importanti, se non forse più importanti e decisivi di questi…
      Non avete notato di che tipo è l’apparato mediatico messo su dall’IS? Non avete dato nemmeno un’occhiata alla loro rivista di punta, “Dabiq”?
      E’ quasi tutta farina del sacco delle cosiddette “agenzie situazioniste” della Cia, le stesse che a suo tempo avevano presieduto alla creazione e al ricicleggio del brand di Al-Qaeda, le stesse che hanno dato il la alle varie ONG impegnate nella fabbricazione delle rivoluzioni colorate e della “primavera araba”…
      Creare il proprio futuro “nemico”, formarlo, istruirlo ecc. e poi mandare a morire sotto i suoi colpi anche una parte dei propri soldati, continuare a controllarlo tramite consiglieri ed agenti per dirigerlo verso i propri obiettivi geopolitici (non estemporanei ma di lunga data, fra l’altro)…
      Tutto questo è un frame che le élite finanziarie che dominano negli Usa conoscono ed applicano da molto tempo. Possibile che anche in questo blog girino ancora delle persone che non familiarizzano almeno un po’ con questo tipo di cose?
      Per non farla troppo lunga e a titolo di documentazione, riporto qui di seguito un breve elenco di articoli che parlano della vera natura dell’IS.

      1) America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group (L’America ha creato Al-Qaeda e il gruppo terroristico dell’ISIS)
      By Garikai Chengu
      Global Research, November 14, 2015
      Global Research 19 September 2014

      2) ISIS Leaders Arrested by Iraqi Forces Confess to Receiving Intelligence and Logistical Support from US
      (Leader dell’ISIS arrestati dalle forze irachene confessano di ricevere intelligence e supporto logistico dagli Stati Uniti)
      By Fars News Agency
      Global Research, October 26, 2015

      3) Obama’s “Fake War” against the Islamic State (ISIS). The Islamic State is Protected by the US and its Allies
      (La “finta guerra” di Obama contro lo Stato islamico (ISIS). Lo Stato islamico è protetto dagli Stati Uniti e dai suoi alleati)
      By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
      Global Research, August 23, 2015
      Global Research 23 February 2015

      4)The ISIS Islamic Terrorists are Supported by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia
      (I terroristi islamici dell’ISIS sono sostenuti dagli Stati Uniti, da Israele e dall’Arabia Saudita)
      By Washington’s Blog
      Global Research, September 20, 2015
      Washington’s Blog 16 August 2014

      5) ISIS “Made in USA”. Iraq “Geopolitical Arsonists” Seek to Burn Region
      (ISIS “Made in USA”. In Iraq gli “incendiari geopolitici” cercano di dar fuoco alla regione)
      By Tony Cartalucci
      Global Research, June 18, 2014
      New Eastern Outlook

      6) Logistics 101: Where Does ISIS Get Its Guns?
      (Logistica 101. Dove prende le sue armi l’ISIS?)
      By Tony Cartalucci
      Global Research, November 26, 2015
      New Eastern Outlook 9 June 2015

      7) Syrian War-Islamic State (ISIS) Creation Timeline
      (Cronologia dell’inizio della guerra in Siria da parte dello Stato islamico – ISIS)
      By Kevin Borge
      Global Research, August 29, 2015

      8) The Insidious Relationship between Washington and ISIS: The Evidence
      (Una prova della subdola relazione esistente tra Washington e l’ISIS)
      By Prof. Tim Anderson
      Global Research, September 03, 2015

      9) ISIS is America’s New Terror Brand: Endless Propaganda Fuels “War on Terror”
      (L’ISIS è iI nuovo marchio del terrore americano. Una propaganda senza fine alimenta la “guerra al terrore”)
      By Prof. James F. Tracy
      Global Research, September 03, 2015

      • max.bonelli ha detto:

        Mi hai dato spunti di approfondimento interessanti…in fondo e´ lo stesso gioco che hanno fatto in piccolo con gli infiltrati nelle BR…Moretti e compagnia…sono maestri gli Usa in questo

        • Mourad Imanebasta ha detto:

          Per approfondire ancora, verso una nostra sovranità di pensiero…
          Un articolo di Tony Cartalucci di qualche giorno fa. E’ in inglese ma non è un testo proibitivo, anzi.
          Finora, che io sappia, nessuno si è nemmeno impegnato a “smentire” la “circostanza” riportata dall’autore.
          Ma del resto chiedo: chi può ragionevolmente credere che i militari dirigenti e consiglieri Usa, dalle loro basi turche assai tecnologicamente equipaggiate, non abbiano visto le scene dell’approvvigionamento quotidiano dell’IS e non abbiano potuto far niente per costrastarlo?
          Coltiviamo un minimo di logica e di intelligenza: la sovranità – magari – verrà. Forse. Chissà.
          Ci dobbiamo provare, accada qualiasi cosa.

          “Humanitarian Supplies” for the Islamic State (ISIS): NATO’s Terror Convoys Halted at Syrian Border
          By Tony Cartalucci
          Global Research, November 29, 2015
          New Eastern Outlook 29 November 2015

          For years, NATO has granted impunity to convoys packed with supplies bound for ISIS and Al Qaeda. Russian airstrikes have stopped them dead in their tracks. If a legitimate, well-documented aid convoy carrying humanitarian supplies bound for civilians inside Syria was truly destroyed by Russian airstrikes, it is likely the world would never have heard the end of it.

          Instead, much of the world has heard little at all about a supposed “aid” convoy destroyed near Azaz, Syria, at the very edge of the Afrin-Jarabulus corridor through which the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) and Al Qaeda’s remaining supply lines pass, and in which NATO has long-sought to create a “buffer zone” more accurately described as a Syrian-based, NATO-occupied springboard from which to launch terrorism deeper into Syrian territory.

          The Turkish-based newspaper Daily Sabah reported in its article, “Russian airstrikes target aid convoy in northwestern Syrian town of Azaz, 7 killed,” claims:

          At least seven people died, 10 got injured after an apparent airstrike, reportedly by Russian jets, targeted an aid convoy in northwestern Syrian town of Azaz near a border crossing with Turkey on Wednesday.

          Daily Sabah also reported:

          Speaking to Daily Sabah, Serkan Nergis from the Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) said that the targeted area is located some 5 kilometers southwest of the Öncüpınar Border Crossing.

          Nergis said that IHH has a civil defense unit in Azaz and they helped locals to extinguish the trucks. Trucks were probably carrying aid supplies or commercial materials, Nergis added.

          Daily Sabah’s report also reveals that the Turkish-Syrian border crossing of Oncupinar is held by what it calls “rebels.” The border crossing of Oncupinar should be familiar to many as it was the scene of Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle’s (DW) investigative report where DW camera crews videotaped hundreds of trucks waiting at the border, bound for ISIS territory, apparently with full approval of Ankara.

          The report was published in November of 2014, a full year ago, and revealed precisely how ISIS has been able to maintain its otherwise inexplicable and seemingly inexhaustible fighting capacity. The report titled, “‘IS’ supply channels through Turkey,” included a video and a description which read:

          Every day, trucks laden with food, clothing, and other supplies cross the border from Turkey to Syria. It is unclear who is picking up the goods. The haulers believe most of the cargo is going to the “Islamic State” militia. Oil, weapons, and soldiers are also being smuggled over the border, and Kurdish volunteers are now patrolling the area in a bid to stem the supplies.

          The report, and many others like it, left many around the world wondering why, if the US is willing to carry out risky military operations deep within Syrian territory to allegedly “fight ISIS,” the US and its allies don’t commit to a much less riskier strategy of securing the Turkish-Syrian border within Turkey’s territory itself – especially considering that the United States maintains an airbase, training camps, and intelligence outposts within Turkish territory and along the very border ISIS supply convoys are crossing over.

          Ideally, NATO should have interdicted these supply convoys before they even crossed over into Syria – arresting the drivers and tracking those who filled the trucks back to their source and arresting them as well. Alternatively, the trucks should have been destroyed either at the border or at the very least, once they had entered into Syria and were clearly headed toward ISIS-occupied territory.

          That none of this took place left many to draw conclusions that the impunity granted to this overt logistical network was intentional and implicated NATO directly in the feeding of the very ISIS terrorists it claimed to be “fighting.”

          Russia Steps In

          Obviously, any nation truly interested in defeating ISIS would attack it at its very source – its supply lines. Military weaponry may have changed over the centuries, but military strategy, particularly identifying and severing an enemy’s supply lines is a tried and true method of achieving victory in any conflict.

          Russia, therefore, would find these convoys a natural target and would attempt to hit them as close to the Syrian-Turkish border as possible, to negate any chance the supplies would successfully reach ISIS’ hands. Russian President Vladmir Putin noted, regarding the Azaz convoy in particular, that if the convoy was legitimately carrying aid, it would have been declared, and its activities made known to all nations operating military aircraft in the region.

          The trucks hit in the recent airstrikes, just as they were during the DW investigation, were carrying concrete and steel, not “milk and diapers” as the West would lead audiences to believe. That the supplies were passing through a “rebel” controlled crossing means that the supplies were surely headed to “rebel” controlled territory – either Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front in the west, or ISIS in the east.

          Russian airstrikes insured that the supplies reached neither.

          Strangling NATO’s Terrorists at the Border

          Russia’s increased activity along the Syrian-Turkish border signifies the closing phases of the Syrian conflict. With Syrian and Kurdish forces holding the border east of the Euphrates, the Afrin-Jarabulus corridor is the only remaining conduit for supplies bound for terrorists in Syria to pass. Syrian forces have begun pushing east toward the Euphrates from Aleppo, and then will move north to the Syrian-Turkish border near Jarabulus. Approximately 90-100 km west near Afrin, Ad Dana, and Azaz, it appears Russia has begun cutting off terrorist supply lines right at the border. It is likely Syrian forces will arrive and secure this region as well.

          For those that have criticized Russia’s air campaign claiming conflicts can’t be won from the air without a ground component, it should be clear by now that the Syrian Arab Army is that ground component, and has dealt ISIS and Al Qaeda its most spectacular defeats in the conflict.

          When this corridor is closed and supplies cut off, ISIS, Nusra, and all associated NATO-backed factions will atrophy and die as the Syrian military restores order across the country. This may be why there has been a sudden “rush” by the West to move assets into the region, the impetus driving the United States to place special forces into Syrian territory itself, and for Turkey’s ambush of a Russian Su-24 near the Syrian-Turkish border.

          What all of this adds up to is a clear illustration of precisely why the Syrian conflict was never truly a “civil war.” The summation of support for militants fighting against the Syrian government and people, has come from beyond Syria’s borders. With that support being cut off and the prospect of these militants being eradicated, the true sponsors behind this conflict are moving more directly and overtly to salvage their failed conspiracy against the Syrian state.

          What we see emerging is what was suspected and even obvious all along – a proxy war started by, and fought for Western hegemonic ambitions in the region, intentionally feeding the forces of extremism, not fighting them.

          Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.
          The original source of this article is New Eastern Outlook
          Copyright © Tony Cartalucci, New Eastern Outlook, 2015

  6. ndr60 ha detto:

    Sono completamente d’accordo con quanto scritto da Mourad; le foto di McCain con veri o presunti capi dell’ISIS non sono certamente l’unica prova di legami inconfessabili tra USA e ISIS, ora IS. Credo piuttosto che, anche in USA, ci sia in atto una “guerra per bande” tra gruppi che hanno obiettivi diversi; Obama è un presidente politicamente debole ed è probabile che i neocons sionisti ne stiano approfittando.

    • Mourad Imanebasta ha detto:

      Sì, certo, la guerra per bande all’interno dell’establishment c’è e dura da molto tempo. L’importante è intuire le mosse e i colpi di mano che più degli altri segnano i percorsi e le “crisi” che vengono messi in opera. Non dimentichiamoci, però, che su alcuni aspetti fondamentali fanno presto a ricompattarsi tra loro e dietro/sotto il medesimo ombrello di obiettivi.
      Riporto qui di seguito un altro contributo che mi è parso interessante, perché insiste sulla logica sottesa a tutte le vicende che riguardano l’Isalmic State.

      Why ISIS Exists: The Double Game
      Joe Giambrone 11.29.15
      Unternational Policy Digest

      The western press laments the near impossibility of defeating an organization that didn’t even exist a couple of short years ago. Brand ISIS, the unconquerable, may actually become a truism if the people of the western nations continue to listen to the lies and propaganda of their own governments.

      You’ve been told a lot of things about the war in Syria, and clearly most of it is finely crafted war propaganda, which seeks to obscure the forest by showing you an endless series of trees. The trees are gunshots, explosions, and dead bodies. The forest is elusive, vast, covers several continents, and we are only ever given small samples of the terrain. The section of the forest that receives some of the latest scrutiny is not necessarily the crucial part of the story. Beneath the entire forest lies an aquifer, a vast ocean of water that feeds the trees invisibly, silently, yet persistently. Without this water supply there would be no forest to speak of.

      But here is where the metaphor breaks. Unlike an underground reservoir, which is impossible to eradicate, the money and weapons transfers to fundamentalist militants can be stopped. The problem is that western so-called “leaders” have done absolutely nothing to stop them. In fact they rarely mention these sources of terrorist arms, training and funding at all, in public anyway. When acknowledged these become theater, hand wringing, vague excuses rather than concrete action. At other times intelligence services themselves willingly hand over sophisticated weapons to terrorists, such as TOW anti-tank missiles and surface to air “MANPADS” capable of bringing down commercial airliners. The nations most responsible for creating the extremist armies on the ground—Turkey and the Persian Gulf tyrannies—are close allies and even “friends” to US and European political masters.

      Establishing the Grand Fraud

      So what in the hell is really going on? Well, war of course. This is what modern war looks like. In particular this latest proxy war targets the multi-cultural, yet authoritarian regime of Syria’s Bashar Al Assad. NATO dislikes Assad because he is an ally of Iran, Russia and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Oil and gas pipeline routes also factor in. Western powers and Gulf States that don’t like Assad have, like a pack of wild jackals, been ripping at Syria since 2011. The primary supporter of ISIS and the Al Nusrah Front is Turkey, which by any objective measure should be considered a state sponsor of international terrorism and isolated immediately.

      Sometimes we are even provided short glimpses of the reality, by our own so-called leaders. Vice President of the United States Joe Biden said: “[Erdogan…the Saudis, the Emiratis, etc.]…poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad, except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra, and al Qaeda, and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.”

      Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: “Still, donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

      Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said: “I know major Arab allies who fund them [ISIS].”

      Former Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said: “It’s unbelievable and unacceptable that more than 60 nations comprising this coalition that have the most modern aircraft and weapons at their disposal have been conducting their campaign in Iraq for 14 months and IS still remains in the country.”
      Don Pollard

      Don Pollard

      Former Defense Intelligence Agency head Michael Flynn said: “I think it was a decision, a willful decision.”

      The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) said: “The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria…The West, the Gulf Countries, and Turkey support the opposition.”

      Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan said: “The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the [Olympic] games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us.”

      The U.S. State Department said, “Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT-groups that are also aligned with al-Qa’ida and focused on undermining stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan…Al-Qa’ida and other groups continue to exploit Kuwait both as a source of funds and as a key transit point…UAE’s role as a growing global financial center, coupled with weak regulatory oversight, makes it vulnerable to abuse by terrorist financiers and facilitation networks…[Qatar has] been hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals.”

      No concrete steps are taken against these state supporters of terrorism. Far from it, they are intimate partners with the United States and form a coalition of the willing to use proxy terrorists to destroy Syria. ISIS has been a main component of this effort for years. It was not until they attacked targets in Europe (Paris), that Western leaders finally decided that they needed to appear to do things differently.

      What this coalition does and what it clearly does not do are the telltale signs for understanding these current events. These will require more scrutiny.

      The US has manufactured terrorist armies before, notably in Afghanistan, beginning in 1979. And when their Mujahadeen brigades defeated the Soviets, in the late 1980s, many champagne bottles were popped over at the Langley CIA headquarters. Such a wonderful victory for them, Zbigniew Brzezinski was quite proud of his handiwork. Coincidentally, Brzezinski emerged recently to shriek at the Russians, “to convey to Moscow the demand that it cease and desist from military actions that directly affect American assets.” Those “assets” have been the subject of much obfuscation and deceit over these past four years, despite seas of bloodshed. In Syria today, just who is an “American asset,” and who is not?

      The most jaw-dropping and damning revelation of the entire Syria fiasco to date is hosted right on the whitehouse.gov website. It’s received zero mention by the “free” US corporate press, and here it is: “President Obama spoke by phone today from California with Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey, at the Prime Minister’s request, about developments in Syria and Egypt. The President and Prime Minister discussed the danger of foreign extremists in Syria and agreed on the importance of supporting a unified and inclusive Syrian opposition. The President and Prime Minister expressed concern about the situation in Egypt and a shared commitment to supporting a democratic and inclusive way forward. The two leaders agreed to have their teams continue to coordinate closely to promote our shared interests. The President gave his best wishes to the Prime Minister and the Turkish people on the beginning of their Ramazan holiday.”

      That is exhibit A for the treason trial. I’m quite shocked that I’ve been nearly alone in referencing this outrageously criminal admission concerning US policy in Turkey and Syria. You now have been informed of whom the White House considers an “asset.” The Russians know it too, all too well.

      Exhibit B for the prosecution would likely be Barack Obama’s tinkering with the Arms Export Control Act, reported on September 15th of 2013: “The president, citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, announced today that he would waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A…The prohibitions contained in this section apply with respect to a country if the Secretary of State determines that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.”

      This action can only be described as Orwellian hypocrisy, as the weapons Obama ships to Syrian insurgents meet the stated criteria. The United States is clearly supporting “international terrorism,” with glee. US arms and ammunition have gone to Jihadists all over Syria and Iraq through many pathways. They have murdered many civilians there, and they continue to do so daily. Further, attacking the government of Syria by arming a proxy army is the “Supreme International Crime,” a Crime Against the Peace, a blatant breach of the UN Charter, but it’s happening.
      (Screengrab)

      (Screengrab)

      The entire world knows that Syria’s radical terrorists are supported by outside states, and yet no sanctions are ever proposed by our “democratic” leaders against those states. When Russia did things in Ukraine that Washington disapproved of immediate trade sanctions attacked its economy and certain named individuals. No such actions are even entertained against Turkish, Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti, Jordanian or other supporters of the ISIS terror state. This is clearly because the US, and Barack Obama specifically, consider these terrorists “American assets.” It is the Brzezinski plan for regime change, and it has always been the Brzezinski plan.

      They know exactly what they’re doing. Obama’s own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) told them in 2012 that their actions would lead to an Islamic Caliphate. “ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create a grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”

      It’s not ignorance, and it’s not a mistake. It has been the deliberate policy of the United States and its partners to tolerate―and to even support―a terror Caliphate in Syria and Iraq.

      Redirections, Red Lines & Rat Lines

      The most important investigative article of the post 9/11 era is arguably Seymour Hersh’s March 2007 expose in The New Yorker: “The Redirection.” Just what was being redirected?

      Short answer: everything. The so-called “war on terror” flipped 180 degrees as the US partnered with Sunni extremists to redirect the fight and target Shi’ite Muslims: specifically Assad’s Syria, Maliki’s Shi’ite Iraqi regime, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the big one: Iran. “[The Saudi] message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at―Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”

      As Americans went back to sleep, the American empire partnered up with the sponsors of the 9/11 attacks: Saudis and their Wahabbi friends, who can always be counted on to supply money and fanatical fighters. The formula that brought down the Soviets in the 1980s was to be “New American Century” Plan A.

      “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them,” Seymour Hersh writes in “The Redirection.”

      By the time Syria exploded into chaos in 2011, Obama was in charge, and the strategy had steadily evolved. So had the clampdown on dissenting voices. Seymour Hersh was exiled to the London Review of Books, where his damning revelations would not be broadcast to the American public. In “The Red Line and the Rat Line” Hersh helped expose what was going on in Syria: “A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdogan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria.”

      In 2011 Obama destroyed Libya by acting as “Al Qaeda’s Air Force” in violation of the Constitution and the UN Charter. He then set his dogs to work moving weapons and fighters from Libya across to the next target on the hit list: Syria.
      Sign Up For Our Newsletter
      Follow US

      By June 20, of 2013: “[Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)]…stated that al-Nusra maintained a sarin production cell: its programme, the paper said, was ‘the most advanced sarin plot since al-Qaida’s’ pre-9/11 effort.” (Hersh)

      Meaning that the White House was lying throughout that period as to the Syrian rebels’ chemical weapons capabilities. When a staged sarin attack killed numerous civilians in Ghoutta, on August 21 of 2013, Obama was quick to jump at the chance for military action and a new war. That was the “red line” cassus belli that his own administration had floated the previous year. But the actual perpetrators turned out to be Al Nusrah Front working with chemical suppliers in Turkey, aided by Turkish intelligence.

      That the Jihadis were the Ghoutta chemical attack perpetrators was confirmed in a Turkish indictment as well as by rebel fighters on the ground near Damascus.

      The actions of the White House over this issue betray its hypocrisy, yet again. When Assad was the perpetrator, all the military might of the NATO bloc was to come down on Syria to punish it for its “red line” use of chemical weapons. When the actual perpetrators are Al Nusrah terrorists, working closely with Erdogan’s Turkey, as well as Pentagon and CIA trainees, and ISIS too, there is only a deafening silence. Inaction reveals much when it comes to this Syrian charade. The sarin issue was kicked from history, and the actual deaths of those 500 or so children and civilians remain as meaningless to those in Washington as do any other deaths in their ongoing Middle East blood frenzy.

      As for the Benghazi-Gate fiasco, and the death of the US ambassador, the obvious reason for the White House cover-up was disclosed in Seymour Hersh’s piece: “The [Benghazi] consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’”

      Clearly the illegal foreign support to the insurgency in Syria is the reason ISIS exists. It did not spring from nowhere. It did not magically take over parts of two countries overnight. The fact that it is a genocidal, fanatical monstrosity is one of those distasteful qualities that western leaders tend to distance themselves from, but not enough to actually eradicate the quite useful proxy group.

      The Fake “War” on ISIS

      As we bob from fraud to fraud in this age of manufactured terror and covert everything, we must remain significantly more vigilant than our predecessors in order to comprehend the schizophrenic nature of US foreign policy today.

      As for ISIS we bomb them occasionally but an excuse lingers that bombing is not sufficient. We are told that we will need to take over Syria, with large infantry armies that is if the Jihadists can’t do it successfully on their own. Unfortunately, for people like Zbigniew Brzezinski, John McCain, Bandar bin Sultan, and Barack Obama, the Russians saw the writing on the wall and stepped in to bomb back the terrorist militias. With a legitimate invitation from the government of Syria the Russian air campaign has been quite successful so far.

      Back in September of 2014 the NY Times claimed that Barack Obama’s Administration was “Struggling to Starve ISIS of Oil Revenue.” Over a year later Obama had still not bombed the long lines of tanker trucks illegally selling the black market oil to the neighboring countries: that coalition again, with Turkey being the main recipient. Neither did the Times even bother mentioning the obvious US option of bombing the tanker trucks, oil wells and refineries under ISIS control.
      (Reuters)

      (Reuters)

      Echoing what Nuri al-Maliki had said, Vladimir Putin wielded the big monkey wrench at this last G20 summit, on November 15th: “Channels of finance for terrorist activity must be cut off…This financing, as we found out, comes from 40 countries, including some in the G20.”

      Gloves off, Russian President Putin had already accused Washington of backing terrorism across the Middle East. Not stopping there, Putin literally handed Obama Russian satellite photos of 1,000 ISIS oil tanker trucks stretching for “dozens of kilometers.”

      The very next day, November 16, “U.S. Warplanes Strike ISIS Oil Trucks in Syria.” For some reason only 116 trucks out of the “1,000” were hit by the US mission. Then the effort mysteriously stopped as soon as the headlines had gone to print. With the policy firmly established in the media, the reality on the ground became irrelevant again.

      Russia took up the slack on the 18th destroying “500 fuel tank trucks” controlled by ISIS and used to fund their insurgency. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov phrased it: “[T]he analysis of those [US-led] airstrikes during over a year lead to conclusion that they were hitting selectively, I would say, sparingly and on most occasions didn’t touch those IS units, which were capable of seriously challenging the Syrian army.”

      In addition to avoiding the illegal oil trade occurring right beneath USAF fighter/bombers for over a year, there is also the matter of approximately 60 ISIS training camps. No training camps have been bombed to date, despite continually churning out “1,000” radical Islamic fighters per month. We can make some educated guesses as to why that is.

      Foreign intelligence and special forces (British and Qatari), and potentially US personnel, have operated inside Syria since at least February of 2012. The CIA admits to spending $1Bn per year training Syrian insurgents and boasts that it has “trained and equipped nearly 10,000 fighters sent into Syria over the past several years.” If US personnel aren’t actually inside the territory of Syria, their pets surely are.

      We know that ISIS, Al Nusrah, al Sham and Free Syrian Army (FSA) are all allies and work closely together. The FSA Colonel Abdel Jabbar al Olkaidi has plainly told us so. Olkaidi was the direct link to US Ambassador Robert Ford, and so there is no longer any plausible deniability on the subject. There is no legitimacy left for US claims of a “moderate” opposition that somehow exists separate from the genocidal terror armies of head-chopping extremists.

      Conclusion

      I would be remiss if I ignored mentioning the oil and gas supplies of the Middle East. The routes into Europe are hotly contested. With the Ukrainian gas pipelines coming from Russia, western leaders want alternatives in order to weaken the bear. Other proposed energy routes to the south include Syrian territory, that same territory ISIS now claims as its “Caliphate.”

      It also needs to be mentioned that German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere has admitted: 760 German citizens have joined ISIS and 200 of them have returned home to Germany. Earlier this year it was reported that 100,000 fake Turkish passports had gone to ISIS fighters.

      Turkey remains the headquarters and logistical center of ISIS. The west, NATO, and their Gulf tyranny partners, have opened Pandora’s Box. It still hangs wide open.

  7. ndr60 ha detto:

    Articolo molto interessante, come gli altri, del resto. Ti consiglio di leggere anche counterpunch.org, che spesso offre molti spunti.

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *