Satan in Hollywood: A Documentary by Hervé Ryssen

A covert war has been declared against the Christians of this world in general, and the Catholic Church in particular. Indeed, on television and in cinema, Christians are frequently depicted as being bigoted, sectarian, racist, and homophobic, while the clergy – especially the Catholic clergy – is commonly portrayed as a den of paedophiles, psychopaths and killers.Résultat de recherche d'images pour

In this compelling documentary, Hervé Ryssen decodes the messages hidden in Hollywood productions, demonstrating that images on the big screen are all too often used as means to stigmatise Christianity.

We learn that it is no coincidence that Christianity, as opposed to all the other religions in the world, is systematically targeted by Hollywood directors and producers, the vast majority of whom belong to one particular religious community which, by its very nature, is virulently anti-Christian.

As Ryssen demonstrates, Hollywood films are not just innocent entertainment. Indeed, big-budget films are in fact a very effective means of propaganda, the ultimate aim of which is to discredit Christian values, which constitute the foundation of European nations.  In this way, Hollywood productions psychologically condition minds for the unification of the world, which is considered by some to be a prerequisite for the coming of their messiah.

The documentary has been translated into English by Jim Warburton. The English version can be downloaded for free:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/1918a4dmb3g6tc6/SAH-EN+allégé.mp4


Résultat de recherche d'images pour

In the following interview, Hervé Ryssen talks to Jérôme Bourbon (Rivarol magazine) about the documentary:

Many of our readers are already familiar with your work as each year we review your latest book. Regarding Judaism, you have said yourself that you have “covered all the issues”. So what have you been working on over the past few months?  

Over recent years, I have written seven books, all running to some 400 pages, on Judaism and the Jewish mind. This work constitutes the most comprehensive study of this subject ever carried out. So you are right to point out that I have “covered all the issues”. I continue my research by reading books and watching films produced by Jewish intellectuals, and I can’t see that there any new themes to add. Any new literature would just confirm what has already been explained, whether it concerns the globalist project inherent in Judaism or that mind-set which is highly singular and so very different from ours.

I am, however, obliged to continue to create if I wish to make a living from my research. This year I took a risk: I put aside writing to focus on a documentary on “the image of Christians in cinema”. Indeed, this will form part of the title.

For some time now, I have noticed that Christians, and especially Catholics, are badly treated by many film makers, though, admittedly, not all of them are Hollywood directors. So I embarked upon a systematic review. I took all the scenes which illustrated the point in the clearest fashion and organised them according to themes, in exactly the same way as I had done for my books. And I can assure that, once again, the result is quite incredible!

What do you mean?

By this I mean that these scenes, most which have been taken from mainstream films, demonstrate a deep and systematic hatred of Christianity. If we were talking about minor films which occasionally appeared on our screens to be greeted with indignation or sarcasm, then we could just about tolerate this, provided that other religions were treated in the same way.

But I see that Christianity and Catholicism – especially Catholicism, this must be stressed – have been systematically attacked for decades by film directors whose films attract multi-million dollar budgets. When you see all the scenes I have compiled, you will be alarmed by the extent to which the religion of our parents has been vilified and blackened.

What are themes that have you been able to identify? How have you gone about presenting this overview of Christianophobia to the public?

Remaining faithful to my methodology, I begin with what’s most visible and then go beyond the surface in order to show the viewer what may have escaped him. As we are dealing with video images, I began my documentary by looking at “big-budget” films with a certain picture quality. The very first film I examine is Jean-Jacques Annaud’s “The Name of the Rose”, which opens the chapter devoted to “historical” films.

Here we see that certain film directors convey their hatred of Christianity with carefully crafted scenes and tailor-made characters, whether the film is set in the Antiquity period, the 18th century or during the Second World War.

I then examine a dozen or so films in which Christianity today or in the future is portrayed as being an omnipresent and oppressive force. I then review the films in which the Christian character plays the role of the bastard, when he is not portrayed as being narrow-minded, uptight or ridiculous. Indeed, the Christian can also be bigoted, racist, anti-Semitic, a kidnapper of children, a child abuser or quite simply a dangerous psychopathic killer. And let’s not forget the killer monks as well as the bitter and twisted nuns.

In the fourth part of the documentary, I review the scenes in which Catholic ceremonies are deliberately interrupted. In several of the films examined in the early part of the documentary, the viewer is so disgusted by what he has seen of Christianity that he is delighted to see the priest or the bishop get killed. And here, I assure you, we are not talking about small-budget films.

All this lead to the logical conclusion: the best way to make people abandon Christianity is to glorify sexuality. This is based purely on the films reviewed in the documentary, but this is sufficient to understand the intentions of the film directors in question.

What did you want to show with this documentary? What conclusions can we come to regarding this hatred of Christianity? To put it bluntly, do the people who make these films all belong to one particular community?

There are violently anti-Christian films which have been made by directors from Christian families. But they had turned aggressively atheist either because they had become Marxist or just by a desire to conform. From what I have observed, the hatred of Christianity can also be rooted in homosexuality.

But it appears to me that these cases are fairly rare. The fact is that the majority of these films have been produced by filmmakers who are not Christian and who do not come from Christian families. But what is really important to understand – and this is what I explain when I make one of my appearances in the documentary – is that the producer also takes part of the blame. The producer finances the film right from the start and stipulates his terms and conditions, and is more likely to do so if the director does not enjoy great fame.

In the US, the film belongs entirely to the producer, who alters the message of the film according to his wishes. If the director is not happy, he can always release a DVD of his own version: this is what’s known as the “director’s cut”. Anyway, to answer your question in the most consensual fashion possible and without taking too many risks, I would say that these directors come from all communities and all walks of life. Nevertheless, film directors from a particular community, well-known for its influence in the world of media, do form a clear majority.

And I do believe it’s not the Muslims this time!

The aim of this documentary is not just to open the eyes of Catholics to the true nature of those who attack them. It is true that the problems which the West encounters with the Muslim world mean that many of our fellow citizens see Islam as being the biggest danger. In the spirit of objectivity, I wanted to show that the attacks against our ancestral religion do not stem from Islam. Muslims suffer the same treatment as Catholics in Hollywood films, albeit on a more moderate scale, because it really is Catholics, and not Muslims, who are insulted the most.

I also wanted to show Catholics that those who denigrate their religion are also the most fervent supporters of the “liberation of morals”: the destruction of the patriarchal family, homosexuality, “transgenderism”, mixed marriages and the multicultural society.

It’s all linked. At several points in the documentary – between film extracts – I explain the details of this egalitarian fanaticism which corresponds precisely to the hope that a messiah will one day come to this earth. In this way, I hope to gain the support of honest Catholics for our cause, which is not merely the defence of Christianity but the defence of our entire civilisation.

You are now a film director as well as a writer. As this not your specialism, did you encounter any technical problems?

I have been working on this project for a year, and I can tell you that there have been numerous problems. Seeing the time I wasted to solve a problem which an expert could have solved in a few hours, I would say to myself I could have already written a book and that I would never try this again. And then, because I kept working at it, I succeeded.  The guiding rule is the same for my books: it is essential not to say everything but to lead the reader or the viewer to the conclusion, to hold their attention right to the end.

A video will undoubtedly allow you to reach a much wider audience, in particular young people, who watch videos more than they read books.

I don’t entirely agree. Indeed, I don’t get the impression that the young generation reads less. Most of the people who ask me to sign books at the end of a conference are young people. True, I would have more readers if the internet and Youtube with its millions of free videos did not exist. But everyone knows the empty feeling after having spent hours on the internet as opposed to the feeling of fulfilment and tranquillity after having read a few pages of a good book. It is true that the documentary will allow me to reach a new audience. But I also hope, in this way, to find new readers, because I believe that my books are essential to understanding the operation of this system and the “matrix” in which we live.

You have, I believe, finished your documentary but that the DVD has not yet been produced…

Indeed, the DVD has not yet been produced. But I publically launched the project some weeks ago, giving people the possibility people to make a pre-production order of the DVD. In other words, readers of Rivarol can now order the DVD, bearing in mind that I will send it to them once I have raised the funds necessary to produce the disc and the accompanying booklet. As I’d explained in a recent video, I would prefer that the DVD be packaged in a booklet rather than a plastic box, so that the appearance is in keeping with the books that our readers already have on their shelves. In this way, I hope to raise a sum equivalent to 300 pre-production sales at 22 euros each (20 euros + 2 euros for postage and packaging). As over a hundred orders have already been placed, I am hopeful.

A quick word by way of conclusion?

Well, precisely, hope. That’s what’s so essential.


Translated from French

Hervé Ryssen was interviewed by Jérôme Bourbon, editor-in-chief of Rivarol magazine.

Source: http://herveryssen.hautetfort.com/herve-ryssen-satan-a-hollywood.html

SYRIA : Direct clash between Moscow and Washington. Who’s pulling the strings?

Following the American bombing of a humanitarian convoy in Syria (on the 20th September 2016) and five long hours of relentless bombardment of Syrian army positions by the US air-force, a violation of the cease-fire agreement signed on 9 September, Moscow is taking a harder line.

During a BBC interview, the Russian foreign affairs minister, Sergueï Lavrov, dropped diplomatic language and openly accused the US of protecting terrorists belonging to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formerly the Al-Nusra Front) when he pointed out that “The Americans have never attacked a single position belonging to the Al-Nusra Front”. (1)

This was confirmed by a commanding officer of the Al-Nusra Front in an interview granted to the German newspaper Stadt-Anzeiger : “Yes, the US support the opposition (in Syria), but not directly. They support the countries which support us. But we are still not satisfied with this support”. (2) What’s more, he revealed that the terrorist group had won battles thanks to American TOW anti-tank missiles which were “directly given” to his troops and added that “thanks to these missiles, the situation in several (Syrian) regions is under control”. Regarding heavy artillery, he explained that “our tanks and rocket-launchers came from Libya via Turkey”.

In order to prevent any future error being made by the American air-force, and thereby protect the Syrian army and Russian ground units, Russia has deployed its defensive missile systems (S300 and S400). Washington’s reaction was swift. Pentagon spokesman, Peter Cook, warned the Russians: “It must be clear for the Russians and all those operating in Syria that we take very seriously the safety our pilots”. In response, the spokesman for the Russian ministry of defence, Igor Konachenkov, stated: “we reiterate that the S-300 is uniquely for defence purposes and threatens nobody”. (3)

It should be made clear that the Russians decided to deploy their defensive systems following news that Washington was considering carrying out air-strikes against the Syrian army. Igor Konachenkov added in a press statement that “We have to be aware of the fact that the Russian systems will not have time to identify the precise trajectory of the missiles and their origin. And those who claim that invisible airplanes exist are heading for a big disappointment” (4)

We have perhaps come to a point of no return in this stand-off between America and Russia. A direct confrontation between the two great military powers in Syria could cause a world war. But one question, which has never been asked, remains: who would benefit from this possible world war? In order to identify the guilty party and the ultimate beneficiary of this coming world war, it is necessary to go back to the origins of the Syrian conflict and those who created it.

ARCHITECTS OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MIDDLE EAST

In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Israeli leaders and the Israeli lobby in America jumped into action to use these attacks as a justification for a series of war against their Arab neighbours, a war which the Americans were to wage on their behalf. In statement which Netanyahou had published in the Chicago Sun-Times on the 7 January, we see very clearly that 9/11 was nothing other than a pretext for the reconstruction of the Middle East: “Should America overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the Al-Qaida network would fall apart on its own accord. The United States must now act in the same way for the other regimes of terror – Iran, Iraq, the dictatorship of Yasser Arafat, Syria and several others” (5)

In 2002, the very powerful pro-Israeli lobby group, AIPIC, held their annual conference, the theme of which was “America and Israel against Terrorism”. Discussions focused on the common threats to Israel and the US: the old and tired Yasser Arafat (who, poisoned, would die two years later), the former CIA employee Ossama bin Laden, the Taliban (armed and supported by the CIA via the Pakistani special forces), Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. (6)

In April 2002, the American neoconservative think-tank PNAC (Project for the New American Century) published a letter addressed to president Bush. This letter was signed by several Jewish figures (William Kristol, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Eliot Cohen, Norman Podhoretz) and non-Jewish Zionists (William Bennet, R James Woosley) together with 28 other prominent neoconservatives figures: “Nobody should doubt that the United States and Israel have a common enemy. Our two countries are the target of what you have rightly called the ‘axis of evil’. As the secretary of state for defence, Donald Rumsfeld, pointed out, Iran, Iraq and Syria encourage a culture of political assassination and terrorist attacks against Israel, just as they have supported terrorist campaigns against the US. Mr President, you have declared war against international terrorism. Israel is fighting the same war”. (7)

Looking at the chronology of the statements, we can clearly see that the neoconservatives have in fact merely followed a plan which was drawn up well in advance by Israeli strategists, their American followers and by their agents of influence planted at the heart of the citadel of American power…

In the US, the promoters of this project to destroy Arab countries are the neoconservatives. But make no mistake: the roots of neoconservatism are essentially Jewish. (8)

It’s worth noting that the hard core of American neoconservatives is dominated by Jews, who occupy key posts in influential organisations, foundations and political institutions, such as:   Elliott Abrams, Keneth Adelman, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz. In journalism, we find David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Bret Stephens and Norman Podhoretz.

Among the Jewish neoconservative university professors, we find Eliot Cohen, Aaron Fridberg, Ruth Wedgwood and the highly influential Bernard Lewis, a pro-Israeli Jewish historian (father of the “theory” of the clash of civilisations, popularised by his assistant, Samuel Huntington).

Note that among the experts we have Max Boot, David Frum, Reuel Gerecht, Robert Kagan, Michael Ledeen (father of the “constructive chaos” doctrine), Joshua Maravchik, the ineffable Daniel Pipes, Danielle Pletka, Michael Rubin and Meyra Wurmser.

The Jewish neoconservative Max Boot stated very clearly that “support for Israel is one the key principles of neoconservatism”. (9) As renowned American professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt point out: “neoconservatism is a sub-set of the pro-Israeli movement. Jewish Americans are at the heart of the neoconservative movement, in the same way that they form the majority of the (pro-Israeli) lobby”. (10)

Résultat de recherche d'images pour

BACK TO THE ORIGINS OF THE SYRIAN WAR

American strategic aims in Syria are based on the Israeli plan written in 1982 by Oded Yinon (11), who was an official at the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs.  This primarily targeted Iraq and made a plan to disintegrate the country before subjecting it to the same treatment as Syria. The Israelis, via the intermediary of the United States, have indeed followed the Oded Yinon plan to the letter. As soon as Baghdad fell, the Israeli leaders began to prepare for the future war against Syria, making accusations of a Syrian chemical weapons programme.

In April 2003, when Baghdad had just fallen, the Israelis started to push the United States to attack the Syrian regime. (12)

In an interview granted to the newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth on the 15 April 2003, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, stated that Bashar Al-Assad was “a dangerous man, incapable of sound judgement”. The Israelis had already said the same thing about Saddam Hussein who, according to them, had hidden “weapons of mass destruction” in Syria in collusion with Damascus just before the outbreak of the conflict. Is there really any need to explain why such an accusation is ludicrous?

Sharon called for the United States to put “great pressure” on Syria to force it to stop supporting Hamas and Islamic Jihad. He also demanded that Lebanon: drive out the Iranian Revolutionary Guards from the Beqaa Valley; stop all cooperation with Iran; force Hezbollah to withdraw from its positions on the border with Israel; replace Hezbollah with the Lebanese army; and remove its short-range missiles targeting Israel. (13)

In other words, Sharon demanded that all barriers to Israeli expansion in the region be removed; he wanted the Levant served on a plate. Even an Israeli diplomat criticised Sharon’s excessive demands, inviting him to be more discreet regarding the relations between Damascus and Washington. (14)

Sharon was not an isolated case among the Israeli leaders. The minister of defence, Shaul Mofaz, declared on 14 April 2003 that: “We have a long list of demands regarding the Syrians, and it seems appropriate that they be communicated via the Americans” (15). Like Sharon, the minister of defence demanded that Syria break all links with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and that Hezbollah be disbanded.(16)

Two weeks later, Sharon’s national security adviser, Ephraïm Halevy, came to Washington to push American leaders to take decisive action against Syria. He deployed the well-known Israeli argument; according to him, Syria had weapons of mass destruction and they were in the hands of Bashar al-Assad, who was described as being “irresponsible” and “arrogant”. (17)

For its part, Syria – whether it be under Hafez (1930-2000) or under Bashar al-Assad, throughout the 90s and from the year 2000 onwards – has sought peace with both the Israelis and the Americans. But the Israelis – who, as usual accepted to enter negotiations in order to better deceive – systematically derailed negotiations or simply did not comply with the agreements made. For instance, in December 2003, Assad proposed a peace deal and Haaretz’s military correspondent, Ze’ev Schiff, made the following comment: “The most surprising thing about the Syrian president’s proposal to resume peace talks with Israel is the Israeli leaders response…Prime minister Ariel Sharon has remained silent. Not a single word has passed his lips… We in the press have always held up hopes that such an offer would be made” (18)

This policy of mistrust towards Syria, promoted by the Israelis in the United States, did not please the American administration. The CIA and the State Department, in particular, stressed that the policy of confronting Syria was a strategic error. But Israel and the pro-Israel lobby convinced the American government to follow them down this road. (19) They used the same argument that they had previously used for Iraq, namely that Syria was not only a severe threat to Israel but also to the United States (20). It could well be asked in what sense Syria could possibly be a threat to the United States? No lie is too big for the Israeli leaders. By destabilising the region and beyond, these falsehoods have serious consequences.

Following the fall of the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Israelis declared that Syria was, at the very least, just as dangerous as Iraq. The Israeli strategists, Yossi Alpher, giving the Israeli point of view on Syria, explained that “Syria had a great ability to do harm, much more so than Iraq”. In April 2003, the Washington Post reported that Sharon and Mofaz strove to fuel the anti-Assad campaign by swamping the United States with secret reports on the misdeeds of president Bashar al-Assad (21) and the concealment of his Iraqi weapons.(22)  Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States began their anti-Syrian campaign as early as 1996. (23) The current situation is merely the direct consequence of this.

For those who believe that attempts to overthrow the Syrian government began in 2011 following the supposed “massacres” of Syrian civilians by Assad, here’s something that will make them think again. In April 2003 (eight years before the Arab Spring), Paul Wolfowitz, a Jewish neoconservative, declared that “regime change in Syria is essential”. Speaking to a journalist, Richard Perle, also a Jewish neoconservative, said that “we will be able send a short message, five words long, to other hostile regimes in the Middle East: now it is your turn”. (24)

In the light of these facts, and given Israel’s constant aggression towards Syria together with its open support of terrorists, it is obvious that the potential war between the United States and Russia will ultimately be to the exclusive benefit of Israel. Its goal is to have its insane project completed by the United States, which is supposed to destroy the Syrian army and drive Russia out of the region, in order to finally clear the way for Greater Israel, which will stretch to the Euphrates. In other words, Greater Israel will be built on the corpse of the Syrian nation.

When the great global catastrophe happens, we shouldn’t forget who the true culprits are.


Article Translated from French

The original author was Jean Terrien

Source: Rivarol, n°3253, 13/10/2016

http://www.rivarol.com/Rivarol.html


REFERENCES

  1. Lavrov : Les Etats-Unis protègent un groupe jihadiste en Syrie : <http://aa.com.tr/fr/monde/lavrov-les-etats-unis-prot%C3%A8gent-un-groupe-jihadiste-en-syrie-/655943>.
  2. Russia Today, 27/09/2016.
  3. 20 minutes, Syrie : L’armée russe déploie des systèmes de défense antiaérienne S-300, 05/10/2016.
  4. Sputnik News, Moscou annonce ses intentions d’abattre tout missile menaçant en Syrie, 06/10/2016.
  5. Benjamin Netanyahou, Three Pinciple Keys to Defeat Terrorism, Chicago Sun-Times, 7 January 2002.
  6. Dana Hearn, AIPAC Policy Conference, 21-22 April 2002, Journal of Palestine Studies 31, n° 4, summer, 2002, pp. 66-79.
  7. Letter to President Bush on Israel, Arafat, and the World on Terrorism, Project for the New American Century, 3 avril 2002, www.newamericancentury.Org/bushletter-040302.htm
  8. Murray Friedman explains that neoconservatism is a Jewish invention in: The Neoconservative Revolution : Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy. See also the article written by Gal Beckerman in The Forward, The Neoconservative Persuasion, 6 janvier 2006.
  9. Max Boot, What the Heck is a Neocon ?, Wall Street Journal, 30 December 2002.
  10. Walt and Mearsheimer, La politique étrangère américaine et le lobby pro-israélien, 2007, La Découverte.
  11. Oded Yinon’s A strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties, 1982. New French translation, Le Plan sioniste pour le Moyen-Orient, Sigest, Paris, 2015.
  12. Seymour Hersh, The Syrian Bet, art. cit. ; Molly Moore, Sharon Asks U.S. Pressure Syria on Militant, Washington Post, 17 avril 2003 ; Ori Nir, Jerusalem Urges Bush ; Next Hezbollah, Forward, 11 avril 2003 ; Ori Nir, Sharon Aide Makes the Case for U.S. Action against Syria, Forward, 18 avril 2003 ; Marc Perelman, Behind Warnings to Damascus : Reassessment of Younger Assad, Forward, 18 avril 2003 ; Daniel Sobelman and Nathan Guttman, PM Urges U.S. to keep on Syria, Calls Assad “dangerous”, Haaretz, 15 avril 2003.
  13. Daniel Sobelman and Nathan Guttman, PM Urges U.S. to Keep Heat on Syria. See also Molly Moore, Sharon Asks U.S., article quoted in Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 299.
  14. Herb Keinon, Sharon Criticized for Public Declaration on Syria-U.S. Tension, Jerusalem Post, 16 avril 2003.
  15. Ori Nir, Sharon Aide Makes the Case. See also DeYoung, U.S. Toughens Warning, quoted in Molly Moore, Sharon Asks U.S.
  16. Walt et Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 299.
  17. Forward, quoted par Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 299.
  18. Ze’ev Schiff, The Peace Threat from Damascus, Haaretz, 8 december 2003. See the details of Syrian peace offers in Walt et Mearsheimer, op. cit., chap. 9.
  19. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 298.
  20. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 298.
  21. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 300.
  22. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 300. See note 51, p. 475.
  23. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 300.
  24. Wolfowitz quoted in Nathan Guttman, Some Senior U.S. Figures Say Syria Has Crossed the Red Line, Haaretz, 14 avril 2004 ; Perle quoted in Michael Flynn, The War Hawks : The Right Flexes Muscle with New U.S. Agenda, Chicago Tribune, 13 avril 2003.

Obama rescues ISIS

The US president will soon take his leave but, before joining the 100 000 dollar a speech conference circuit, he will have committed another heinous crime in Syria. On the 17th September, his air-force killed some 80 soldiers belonging to the Syrian army in Deir Ezzor. Far from being accidental, this attack was carried out at the very moment when the Syrian national army was being attacked by ISIS.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour

The Pentagon declared that it was an error. But who can believe such a lie? Besides, this official version was modified by the American UN ambassador. She admitted to the Security Council that the US was behind this attack, but she minimised its importance by comparing this “unintentional” error with the “deliberate attacks” carried out by Damascus against civilians. What a bizarre explanation!

The theory of an accident doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You just have to look at the facts to realise this.

First of all, we have the modus operandi of the attack. According to witnesses, the attack lasted 45 minutes, and successive bombardments were carried out by several fighter jets.  Therefore it cannot be the act of a stray pilot who had misunderstood orders.

Secondly, consider the location of the attack. The position targeted was Jebel Tudar, 4km to the south of the town’s airport. This is a strategic high-point for the defence of the entire zone, where 100 000 civilians are surrounded by ISIS. It’s a fixed position, which has been visibly occupied by the Syrian army for months.

Thirdly, there is the triumphant press release made by ISIS. Indeed, the ISIS propaganda agency “Amaq” confirmed that the jihadist group had taken control of the hill where the supposed “anti-terrorist” coalition had carried out the attack. This superb coordination between the US and their unofficial mercenaries is worth highlighting.

Finally, it is highly unlikely that the US air-force would support the Syrian army. If it were a blunder, this would be the only possible explanation, but it is absurd. NATO forces have never lent air support to the Syrian army. Why would they? This is the question that the Russian ambassador recently asked at the UN. The answer is obvious: the aim was not to help the Syrian army but to help ISIS.

Indeed, attacking the Syrian army for ISIS allows the US to achieve three objectives. By relieving the Aleppo front, this new front in the far east of the country crushes the dream of of recapturing national territory. It weakens the Syrian state. But it also sends a clear message to the Takfiri extremists, who were in a bad position ever since the neighbourhoods in the south of Alep were recaptured. Furthermore, it strengthens Washington’s regional allies in the implementation of the deadly “constructive chaos” policy, at a time when the end of Obama’s term in office could lead to fears of a softening in the Washington line.

We knew that American cynicism was limitless. But they have just a made a quantum leap. This is the first time that the US has directly attacked the Syrian army. This new infringement is a test case, and it cannot be too long before the Moscow-Damascus axis retaliates. This support for the terrorist group shows that the neo-cons do not intend to let go of the Middle East. The fact that this attack coincides with the American donation of 38 billion dollars of military aid to Israel is revealing. Contrary to what one sometimes reads, Washington is not withdrawing from the region. It will continue to spread chaos in the region by arming all sorts of assassins.


Article Translated from French

The original author was Bruno Guigue, a political analyst and author, whose works include Les raisons de l’esclavage (L’Harmattan, 2001) et Aux origines du conflit israélo-arabe, l’invisible remords de l’Occident, (L’Harmattan, 2002).

Source : Agoravox

http://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/obama-au-secours-de-daech-184756


See also: Are we honestly fighting against ISIS? https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/are-we-honestly-fighting-against-the-islamic-state-isil/