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/

ISIL Oil Bought by EU Countries

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or Daesh) currently controls eleven oil-fields in northern Iraq and in the region of Rakka in Syria.

Du pétrole de l’Etat Islamique acheté par des pays européens

According to the Andalou News Agency, Jana Hybášková, Ambassador of the European Union in Iraq, oil tankers filled with oil purchased from ISIL had arrived in European countries. She refused to go into further detail or give a list of the countries concerned.

Meanwhile, the site Atlantico has indicated the ISIL sells its oil at around 25 to 50 dollars per barrel (it sells for 100 dollars per barrel on the international market) via its network of smugglers in Jordan, Turkey, Kurdistan and Iran, and that it cannot be ruled out that this crude oil then comes into the US or into Europe.

As for the supply of weapons to the Kurds, the ambassador claimed that it was impossible to verify whether the true recipients were still the Peshmerga or “Kurdish terrorist groups”. According to her, moreover, support for Kurdish independence would trigger “the complete collapse of the Middle East”.

22 September 2014


Translated from French

The original author was Gilles Munier

Source : France-Irak Actualité

http://www.france-irak-actualite.com/2014/09/du-petrole-de-l-etat-islamique-achete-par-des-pays-europeens.html


See also: “ISIL: Are we honestly fighting against the terrorists?”

https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/are-we-honestly-fighting-against-the-islamic-state-isil/

Terrorism

Terrorism – A Geopolitical Perspective

Who will tell you about the origins of the different forms of terrorism ? Who will explain the geopolitical role of this destructive logic in the confrontation between the two opposing blocks in the world? So far, sociologists and other experts have not been able to usefully categorise the different types of terrorism, according to their geostrategic role, and place them in a historical perspective.


The Clash of Civilisations – A Messianic Strategy 

Some people know, superficially at any rate, Samuel Huntington’s pseudo theory which has been greatly promoted by the media. The “clash of civilisations” divides the world according to religion and civilisation and presents the diversity of cultures as the root cause of geopolitical conflict. It therefore implies that only cultural and political unification will eliminate all conflict.  This is in line with Francis Fukayama’s idea of the end of history, which is constantly proven wrong by reality

.

Few know that this so-called theory was taken from Bernard Lewis who, in 1957, developed his clash of civilisations concept. According to this, the Christian world and the Muslim world are, by their very nature, destined to confront each other until the end of “history” or rather until both of these civilisations destroy each other in an eschatological war which will be to the benefit of a third party… (see https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/the-eschatological-war/)

My latest historical research (1), which identifies the origins of Zionism and this clash of civilisations strategy, shows that what Lewis had put forward as theoretical conflict between the most important religions in the world is in fact a messianic strategy, which was developed during the Middle Ages as part of the project to re-establish the Kingdom of Israel. This project gave birth to political Zionism in its atheist form at the end of the 19th century.

Bernard Lewis – who holds Israeli, Britsh and Amerian passports – is not just an historian. He also a strategist who has worked at the heart of both the British and American state, and has done so ultimately for the benefit of Israel. He is, moreover, one of those influential stateless people who are members of, or allies to, the powerful American pro-Israel lobby, which pushed the American administration to destroy Iraq (2) to the benefit of Israeli expansionism. Lewis will go down in history as having given a scientific facade, a theoretical disguise, to this messianic strategy. History will recognise that Huntington brought this strategy to the masses in order to justify global chaos, which is not a natural state of affairs, but is encouraged by powerful forces (3).

Terrorism has not always been international. Nor has it always had that shade which certain ideologues close to Zionist and neo-conservative circles describe as “green-fascism”+. Neither has terrorism always benefited from Hollywood-style media promotion on a global scale.

What we describe as being terrorism, sometimes wrongly, can take a large number of forms and have many definitions.

We can draw a parellel between the terror linked to the expansion of the Cromwell regime in the 17th century with that of Wahhabism in the Arab peninsula in the 18th century. We can also make a comparison with the French revolution of 1789, which preceded the social-anarcho revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries.

These revolutions, which were accompanied by territorial conquest, all had one point in common : mass extermination as a means of achieving ideological domination. The goal was to construct modern institutions on the ruins of the traditional society.

The socialist ideology behind these historical catastrophes also gave birth to the Haganah, created in the early 1920s, which in turn led to the creation of the Irgun. These Jewish homeland (Yishuv) terrorist organisations, which formed the basis of what was to become the IDF, were created to support and expand the Jewish settlements in Palestine.

Wahhabi Terrorism, Zionist Terrorism and False Flag Attacks

It is necessary to distinguish two types of terrorism, the analysis of which will allow us to see geopolitics from a different perspective:

  • Wahhabi terrorism, directed by America, whose aim is territorial conquest and the disintegration of nations.
  • Zionist terrorism which aims to divide and provoke.

Although the British created a Jewish homeland for the Zionists at the end of the First World War, the Irgun led a violent campaign against the British in order to drive them out of Palestine (4).

This culminated with the bombing of the British administrative headquarters in the Hotel King David on the 22 July 1946. An important detail : the Irgun terrorists dressed as Arabs for the occasion so that the Palestinians would be blamed for the attackThis is an excellent example of a “false flag” attack.

The Israelis carried out several disguised attacks of this sort in order to drag their allies into armed conflicts:

  • In 1954, Israeli agents attempted to blow up several American buildings in Egypt in order to turn the Americans against the Egyptians.
  • In 1967, the Americans avoided intervening in the Six-Day War as the Soviet Union was an ally to Syria and Egypt. The Israelis attempted to draw the Americans into the war by attacking their reconnaissance ship, the USS Liberty. The Israelis attempted to pass this off as an attack by the Egyptians, in the same way as they had done in 1954.

The same pattern can be found with the 9/11 attacks which led the United States into a permanent war with one part of the Muslim world, in accordance with the clash of civilisations strategy and the Israeli project to redraw the boundaries of the Muslim world (5). The World Trade Centre attacks were viewed with suspicion by various analysts, scientists and politicians.

Certain facts lead me to believe that we are dealing with the same strategy as that deployed in 1946, 1954 and 1967.

Among the stack of evidence highlighting the implication, albeit indirect, of the Israeli secret services in these spectacular attacks, we have the fact that five Israelis were arrested by the New York police: they were caught rejoicing while taking photos of each other in front of the burning towers.  The police had discovered documents in their possession which proved that they knew the exact time and location of the attacks. It turned out that they were Mossad agents. Their names: Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari.

Some thirty other Israeli agents, who went undercover as art students in America, lived close to 15 of the supposed hijackers (6).

An article in the New York Times, published on the 18 February 2009, revealed that Ali al-Jarrah, who was a cousin of Ziad al-Jarrah, the hijacker of flight UA93, had been a Mossad spy for 25 years and had infiltrated the Palestinian resistance movement in 1983.

Moreover, the US Army School for Advance Military Studies published a report, quoted in a Washington Times article *, which stated that Mossad “has the capability to target US forces and make it look like an Arab/Palestinian act”.

What’s more, journalists working for Le Monde revealed on February 2015 that a Mossad agent in Panama, Shimon Yalin Yelinik, had confessed to having funded the 9/11 terrorists.

Benjamin Netanyahou, the current Israeli Prime Minister, gladly admitted that the terrorist attacks benefitted Israel. The Israeli newspaper Maariv quoted Netanyahou, who declared the 9/11 attacks had been “good for Israel” and added: “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq. These events have swung American public opinion in our favour”

When interviewed by a French journalist for I-Télé on the 7 August 2014, Netanyahou implied, somewhat menacingly, that terrorists would attack France if it did not support Israel in its policy with regard to the Palestinians.

We do not have solid proof to hand of Mossad involvement in the terrorist attacks against France, carried out in 2012 and 2015. Nevertheless, Georges Malbrunot, journalist for Le Figaro, stated in a Tweet 17 days after the November attacks that: “A military official confides that the DGSI (the French secret service) refused Israeli assistance in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks” and adds that “Mossad took advantage of the honeymoon between Sarkozy and Israel to reinforce its presence in France”. He concludes with the DGSI’s own words: “Mossad already has an active presence on French soil and we must not reinforce it”

This confirms the statement of the former French minister for foreign affairs, Roland Dumas. In his book, Coups et Blessures, he delared that: “The Israelis do what they like in France and manipulate the French intelligence service, the DST, in any way which suits them … The Jewish lobby, as Mitterrand used to call it, was extremely active”.

This Zionist form of terrorism combines perfectly with the nihilistic Wahhabi form of terrorism, a product of two ideologies which appear foreign to one another. From an historical and geopolitical point of view, they merge within the framework of the clash of civilisations strategy.

What is extraordinary is the fact that Wahhabism and Zionism, as incarned by a nation state, appeared at the same time and were both backed by the British armed forces.

The British, who supported at arms’ length the accomplishment of the Zionist project in the aftermath of the First World War, also encouraged Saudi-Wahhabi expansionism in the Arab peninsula in the early 1920s.

In 1945, the Americans took over from the British in their support for Saudi Arabia, in the same way as they did for the state of Israel, and contributed to the spread of the Wahhabi doctrine across the world (7).

Wahabbi terrorism was, right from the very start, a geostrategic weapon used by the British and Americans against their enemies. As mentioned previously, this form of terrorism is used by the Anglo-Saxons as a corrosive to fragment target nations.

Indeed, in the late 1970s, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was at the time National Security Advisor to President Carter, masterminded the coordination of the CIA with the Pakistani and Saudi intelligence services in order to finance future terrorists, including Bin Laden, in order to draw the Soviet Union into Afghanistan.

In the late 1990s, this strategy was again deployed in Chechnya in order to trigger the collapse of the Russian Federation. It was then used in Iraq (in 2003) and again in Libya, in Syria and in Yemen. And, perhaps, it will again be used in Algeria.

This fact was finally admitted by the New York Times on the 23 January 2016: “US relies heavily on Saudi money to support Syrian Rebels” **

Geopolitical Conclusion – America versus Russia in the Struggle to Control Eurasia

Let’s put this into a geostrategic perspective. The key issue in the geopolitics of opposing continental blocks is the control of Eurasia, the centre of which is the Middle East.

The Atlanticist policy, whose strategy for the year 2000 onwards was developed by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997, consists of penetrating deeply into Eurasia by making Europe one of the vital pillars of an American-sponsored Eurasian structure of security and cooperation (8).

This strategy aims to destroy, or at least weaken, Russia by pushing for Ukrainian independence. This would change the very geostrategic nature of Russia: “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire (9)”.

Russia is the main target. It is having to cope with a double strategy, as explained in article published in 2015 (10). First, there is the Brzezinski strategy, which serves American imperial interests. Secondly, there is the more covert Zionist strategy, epitomised by Henry Kissinger. This consists of disconnecting Russia from its allies in the Middle East, in particular Iran and Syria.

So far, Putin’s Russia has withstood the Kissinger strategy. On 11 May 2014, Kissinger declared that “we should not isolate Russia and it’s in everybody’s interests that it be maintained in the international system.” As far back as 2008, he reached out to Russia, claiming that the United States should seek agreement with Russia, while describing Iran as being a danger for the region, in accordance with the Israeli geopolitical doctrine. This sent a clear message to the Russians : you will remain in the international system provided that you abandon your Middle Eastern allies in favour of Israel. But this geopolitical deal is a trap, the ultimate goal being to weaken Russia.

The conclusion is obvious: the stabilisation and the continued existence of the Middle East, the Maghreb and Europe depend on the formation of a mutually beneficial strategic axis, stretching from Brest to Vladivostock, running through Rabat and Alger. This would lead to Brezinski’s worst nightmare: the loosening of transatlantic ties which would bring an end to America’s primacy in Eurasia.

+Islamic extremism. Green is the colour of the cloth used to cover coffins in Islamic funerals.
*See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/sep/10/20010910-025319-6906r/
**See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0

Translated from French

The original author was Youssef Hindi

Source: Arret Sur Info


References:

(1) Youssef Hindi, Occident et islam – Sources et genèse messianiques du sionisme, éd. Sigest, 2015.

(2) Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, 2008

 (3) Youssef Hindi op. cit.

(4) Henry Laurens, L’Orient arabe, Arabisme et islamisme de 1798 à 1945, éd. Armand Colin, 1993, p. 353.

(5) Oded Yinon’s “A strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”, Published by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc., Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982, Special Document N° 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8).

(6) Youssef Hindi, op. cit.

(7) Hamadi Redissi, Le pacte de Nadjd, ou comment l’islam sectaire est devenu l’islam, 2007, éd. Seuil.

(8) Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997.

(9) Zbigniew Brzezinski, op. cit.

(10) Youssef Hindi, La Russie, l’Europe et l’Orient, Revue Europe & Orient, N° 21, 2015.

Governing by Chaos

Following yet another tragic and avoidable terrorist attack on French soil, it is salutary to remember that sometimes not is all what it seems and that chaos and carnage attributed to an enemy, either real or imagined (the victims, sadly, are always only too real), can in fact be a way of maintaining power. The following extract from Lucien Cerise’s Gouverner par le Chaos (Governing by Chaos), details the psychological operations used by governments in order to crush any opposition to their rule.


Afficher l'image d'origine

Counter-insurgency warfare

In their work on the virtualisation of politics, social engineers have drawn much inspiration from the methods of counter-insurgency warfare. Manufacturing the population’s consent demands the ability to side-step, counteract and eliminate the risk that it stages a rebellion.

Faced with the various civil insurrections which have marked the 20th century – colonial wars, revolutions, guerrilla warfare, uprisings and social conflict – military officers of various countries have sought to formalize counter-insurgency tactics. By counter-insurgency tactics we mean proven coercive methods to prevent any form of popular resistance to government power, ideally nipping it in the bud even before it appears.

The most famous manuals are :

Modern Warfare by Roger Trinquier

Counter-Insurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice by David Galula

Low Intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency and Peacekeeping by Frank Kitson.

The retired British army general, Frank Kitson, held the most prestigious posts (he was Commander in Chief of UK land forces) and gained the highest distinctions (he was awarded Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire).

With many years of experience gained in operations on the ground (Kenya, Malaysia, Northern Ireland, Falklands), he wrote a manual which provides a summary of the tactics to be deployed by an armed unit seeking to prevail over a rebellious local population.

This book was never published in French and we only know of five copies in the French university library system. In fact, the mere publication of this book in larger numbers could radically shift the world’s geopolitical balance of power.

The investigative journalist, Michel Collon, summarises the content of this holy grail of political thought :

“Though a general, Kitson considers that conventional police and military tactics have no chance of working in a campaign for  ‘hearts and minds’, what he terms strategic psychological warfare”.

What lies behind this obscure term, “strategic psychological warfare” ?

It becomes clearer once we examine the range of techniques advocated and used by Kitson :

  • Give all government chiefs (in the army, ministry of foreign affairs, etc) training in the methods of psychological operations or “psy ops” (the psychological manipulation of public opinion)
  • Form “psuedogangs” to gather a maximum amount of intelligence. More importantly, by carrying out operations attributed to the enemy, these gangs will discredit the opposition.
  • Create diversions by, for example, fermenting religious wars.
  • Create false documents (“black propaganda”) and attribute these to the enemy in order to discredit him.
  • Place agents in the opposition groups or incite members to betray the group (either by using blackmail or corruption) in order to discredit these organisations or even create splits.
  • Militarise the news and completely censure all opposing opinion. Control the international news and ensure collaboration. Provide photos to influence public opinion. Use journalists on the ground as spies.
  • Use music to attract young people with a message which appears non-political.
  • Set up and promote artificially “spontaneous” groups, presented as being neutral and independent but which are in fact financed and controlled with the aim to weaken support for the opposition.

Thus Kitson reviews the entire arsenal of weapons used by political leaders today: create false enemies, false friends, false problems and false solutions by means of erroneous perceptions induced by false terrorist attacks (what’s termed “false flag” attacks in the military jargon) and false news (black propaganda, which is entirely false, or grey propaganda, which is mixture of both truth and lies, in order to make the population accept what is not true). All these techniques can be categorised as “psy ops”.

As Christian Harbulot higlights in his Cognitive Warfare, manipulation, lies, decoys and deception are age-old political techniques when it comes to controlling minds via images and words. In the very first chapter of his manual, Sun Tzu declares “All warfare is based on deception.” More recently, general Francart explains in great detail how propaganda should emulate advertising techniques in order to gain the approval of, or even curry favour with, the target population.

The ‘derealisation’ of politics has reached its high point thanks to mass media, especially the television, a fabulous tool of social control, a spy which has penetrated as far as the bedrooms of our teenage children. Television alters perceptions and shapes the way that millions of citizens see the world. The most important tool in psychological operations, the television has placed whole populations in an artificial reality, which has been completely constructed by the government.


Translated from French

Source: Gouverner par le Chaos (Governing by Chaos), written by Lucien Cerise and published by Max Milo. Pages 58-61.

 

 

 

Terrorism in France : Who’s really guilty?

Yet again, France is deep in mourning following an atrocious crime carried out by a savage.

Obviously, our first thoughts are for the victims and their families to whom we express our most sincere condolences and who are in our prayers.

But we must also call for the French to be clear-headed. Neither candles nor cartoons are an appropriate response to what is happening before our eyes.

It is vital to identify where the responsibility lies by going back to the causes of terrorism and everything that goes with it.

Those who are truly guilty are the politicians, whether they be left or right-wing, from Nicolas Sarkozy to François Hollande, along with Bernard-Henry Lévy and Laurent Fabius, who orchestrated the chaos in the Middle East in the name of interests which are not those of France and who supported Islamist groups, which now operate here.

Also guilty are those organise mass immigration into Europe. Terrorists hide among the groups of immigrants. Two scourges, in collusion with our government, join forces to hit our continent hard.

Also guilty are those who are in charge of protecting the French and who continue to serve the anti-France ideology, such as Patrick Calvar, head of the French intelligence service (DGSI), who, during his address at the parliamentary inquiry into the 2015 terrorist attacks, stated that further terrorist attacks were to be expected and, at the same time, asked for additional resources to “deal with the extreme right”.

Also guilty are those who, in a Machiavellian fashion, use the terrorist attacks to introduce more laws to restrict our freedoms, laws which are not designed to put the terrorists out of action but which aim to put the French under surveillance in order to silence any real opposition.

Also guilty are the self-righteous who, honouring the principle of “we mustn’t make generalisations”, oppose basic measures aimed at protecting us from all those in our country who have been identified as supporting ISIL/ISIS, the Al-Nusra Front and other Islamic extremist groups of this sort. This principle of “we mustn’t make generalisations” is in fact the most effective way to ensure that people make generalisations.

True political courage begins by telling the French the truth.


Article Translated from French

The original author was Alain Escada, president of Civitas

Source: Egalité et Réconciliation

https://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Terrorisme-en-France-qui-sont-les-veritables-coupables-40441.html

Turkey transports weapons and ammunition to jihadist armed groups in Syria

On 3 June 2016, the Russian ministry of defence made public video images taken from a reconnaissance aircraft. The video shows long lines of lorries transporting ammunition and weapons from Turkey to armed groups in Idleb, Syria.

It is not yet possible to precisely identify these armed groups. At best we know that the West currently supports the Turkmen, the Kurds as well as former Arab members of the Free Syrian Army.  According to Russian and Syrian defence ministers, the majority of the armed individuals are members of the Al-Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of Al-Qaida.

On the same day, the Pentagon had itself dropped weapons and ammunition into Marea*. We do not know which armed group took these supplies.

The liberation of Idlib would allow Syria and Russia to free Alep, which would spell the end of plans to overthrow the Syrian republic and establish an Islamic fundamentalist government.

*See https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/syria-pentagon-drops-weapons-to-armed-groups/

See also “Are we honestly fighting against the Isamic State (ISIL)?”

https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/are-we-really-fighting-against-isis/

 

Translated from French

Source: Réseau Voltaire

http://www.voltairenet.org/article192146.html

 

Assad – Portrayed as Tyrant to Serve Western Interests

Interview with Fahad Al Masry, member of the Syrian opposition and coordinator of the Syrian National Salvation Front

Fahad al-Masri

 

The US and Russia have intensified their military efforts in Syria with the help of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG). Do you think an end to the crisis is now near?

You must remember that during the ISSG meeting, held last May in Paris, there were many disagreements, caused by the difference in Russian and American policies. This also led to the creation of two different groups: one supported the US and Russia, while the other supported Europe, led by Germany and France (and also included Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar). They created a European, Arab and Muslim coalition; the dozen or so Arab and European countries which formed the Group of Friends of the Syrian People continues to declare its support for the opposition.

This situation is due to Obama’s disastrous Middle East policy which left Russia free to intervene in the conflict, while sidelining Turkey and the Gulf countries. This split within the support group can be clearly seen because, during the Paris meeting, there was tension between the Europeans (France and Germany) and the other countries.

There are a number of unresolved issues, even if all parties claim that the target date for political transition is a real goal. The Vienna talks aimed to strengthen relations between the partner countries and to rebuild alliances which had became too narrowly focused during the Paris meeting.  Russia, an ally of Bashar al-Assad, reported in early May on active negotiations aimed at bringing an end to the conflict in Aleppo.

Moscow, however, had warned that it did not intend to put pressure on Damascas to stop carrying out air strikes on the city, even though that’s what had Washington’s demanded. All these alliances and disagreements make the Syrian issue very complicated. An alliance, or several alliances even, within the same support group does not necessarily help attempts to find a resolution to the crisis. The post-Geneva period is only just beginning, and the hope is that we do not go down the road of a Geneva V, Geneva VI…etc

The United States does not see a future for Bashar al-Assad in Syria, it is one of their priorities: remove him from power. What’s your opinion on this matter?

As Lakhdar Brahimi once put it, Bashar al-Assad is finished. This declaration can be justified given that Bashar al-Assad had supported the Iranian and Russian attacks on civilians demanding freedom and respect.

History will remember that Obama was the worst American president ever because his policy pushed Syria and the entire region into endless conflict. From the beginning, Washington severly criticised Assad’s policy. But while Assad was free to transgress all limits, the US did nothing but interfere in our internal affairs rather than finding a solution to both the conflict and Bashar al-Assad.

The image of Bashar as a tyrant merely served the interests of certain world powers who aim to destroy our country and destabilise the entire region to serve interests beyond our own. Syria is not the only target. This strategy of destruction targets other countries, too, in particular the countries in Northern Africa, such as Algeria.

Do you think that recapturing Rakka from ISIL could have an impact on other towns in the country?

The liberation of Rakka is important and, without a doubt, constitutes a defeat for ISIL. The international media distracted us with “the destruction of archaeological sites” in order to conceal an international illegal trade in archaeological treasures, supported by both the Syrian and Iranian government.  By destroying a country’s memory, you destroy its future. The other problem in Rakka is that the US had brought Kurdish militia forces into Syria to help liberate the city. We can now expect a civilian massacre.

Translated from French

The original author was Faten Hayed

Source: France-Irak Actualité

http://www.france-irak-actualite.com/2016/05/interview-de-fahad-al-masri-opposant-syrien-et-coordinateur-du-groupe-salut-national-en-syrie.html

 

SYRIA – Palmyra and the Limits of Propaganda in the War against ISIL

Russia and Iran pulled out all the stops to make Bashar al-Assad “the liberator of Palmyra” before the continuation of the Geneva talks in April. Syrian government forces would have been incapable of this task without support from Spetsnaz, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and members of the Iraqi Shia militia. By mid-March, the Russians declared that their air-force was carrying out “20-25 air-strikes per day” and that they had destroyed “158 ISIL targets”. We can imagine the sheer scale of the devastation in the oasis.

Palmyre et les limites de la propagande de guerre anti-Etat islamique

(Photo of Palmyra taken before the civil war)

So “Syrian government troops” regained control of Palmyra (Tadmor in Arabic), a town which they let fall into the hands of ISIL in May 2015, after having offered practically no resistance. We will continue to wonder for a long time to come about the curious blindness of Russian and American spy satellites which failed to spot the columns of jihadi troops moving towards “the pearl of the desert” and its terrifying prison where over a thousand opponents to the government, most of whom were members of the Muslim Brotherhood, were shot dead at point-blank range in 1980. Anyone would think that the occupation of the ancient ruins was advantageous from a media point of view for the Assad regime, which was in desperate straits at the time.

Archaeologists the world over breathed a sigh of relief when the Syrian government regained control of Palmyra.  They will never forget that ISIL destroyed the Temple of Bel (comparable to the God Zeus) and the Temple of Baalshamin (Lord of the Heavens) in order to again wipe out the traces of pre-Islamic religions. Nor will they forget that they smashed the Lion of Athena statue and blew up three towers in the Valley of Tombs. This is obviously excessive. But UNESCO, which refers to “war crimes” when talking about the damage caused, should not forget that the jihadi terrorists are not the only ones to have exploited this site.

From about 2012, rumours began to circulate that gangs obtained archaeological permits in exchange for their support for the Syrian regime. Many ancient treasures were stolen during this period. A group of armed rebels once seized control of the site and raided the tombs to finance their activities. In 2013, following the liberation of the town by Bashar al-Assad’s army and the Shabiha militia (Alawaite mercenaries), photos of soldiers carrying Palmyrene busts were published.

This time, the damage caused by ISIL would appear to be not as extensive as the Western war propaganda claimed, which is good news. In any case, ISIL had shown the damage it caused in its videos.

According to the head of Syrian antiquities, it will take five years to restore the damaged treasures.

Translated from French

The original author was Gilles Munier

Source: France-Irak Actualité

http://www.france-irak-actualite.com/2016/03/palmyre-et-les-limites-de-la-propagande-de-guerre-anti-etat-islamique.html

 

SYRIA – Towards an Islamic Emirate in Idlib Province?

Ayman al-Zawahiri, the chief of Al-Qaida, had previously opposed the creation of a Syrian Islamic emirate in the areas controlled by the Al-Nusra Front and its allies. Today he supports the idea, believing that the conditions on the ground would allow this.

Syrie : Vers un émirat islamique dans la province d’Idlib?

With this in mind, he is reported to have sent a delegation of leaders from his group to the Idlib province in order to assess the feasibility of the project. Among the delegation was Saif al-Adel, a former colonel of both the Egyptian Special Forces and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. He was accused by the American government of having participated in the 1988 US embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) and in Nairobi (Kenya).

Imprisoned in Iran, Saif al-Adel was apparently released in 2015, along with four other Al-Qaida members, within the framework of an exchange of prisoners with AQAP (Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula) and the Taliban.

An Arab Spring which is on the right track…

In a message broadcasted last May, Ayman al-Zawahiri declared: “Syria today represents hope for the faithful….the only Arab Spring revolution which is on the right track”. He also declared that jihadi fighters should unite “to defeat the war machine of the eastern and western crusades” and that this is “a matter of life or death for them”. He added that the West “aims to create a regime in Syria which will appear to be Islamic but which will be based on a corrupted version of Islam”. And he described the members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), an organisation which he considers to be illegitimate, as “extremists” and “renegades”

The entire world has risen up against Muslims

The initiative taken by Ayman al-Zawahiri is backed by Hamza ben Laden – the 23 year-old son of Osama – who also urged all jihadi fighters to unify their ranks, stating that “there are no longer any excuses for those who still want to argue and divide, now that entire world has risen up against Muslims…”

Hamza ben Laden reminded jihadi fighters that the purpose of their combat is the “liberation of Al-Qods” and that “the path to the liberation of Palestine is today shorter thanks to the revolution in Syria”.

The Al-Nusra Front, led by Abou Muhammad al-Joulani, has not yet come to a decision because its allies within the Jaish al-Fatah (The Army of Conquest, which comprises several Islamic groups) fear that news of the creation of an Islamic state in the Idlib province will lead to division in its ranks.

Translated from French

The original author was Gilles Munier

Source: France-Irak Actualité

http://www.france-irak-actualite.com/2016/05/syrie-vers-un-emirat-islamique-dans-la-province-d-idlib.html

 

 

A Note to all ‘Charlies’ : Wars Feed on Fear and Ignorance

If outrage was the most immediate reaction to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris, the question now, one month after the event, is whether the French really want to understand what is currently happening before their very eyes.

After the crowds of demonstrators eager to defend their ‘freedom of speech’, Søren Kierkegaard’s words remind us that  “people demand freedom of expression to compensate for the freedom of thought which they prefer to avoid”.

The ease with which people can be manipulated by the skilful use of emotion is, however, nothing new, since it is the root of all dictatorships: “Terrorism is the best political weapon because nothing drives people harder as the fear of a sudden death” (A. Hitler).

So the 3.7 millions ‘Charlies’ should not forget the following point :  wars feed on ignorance, and this is just as true in France as it is elsewhere in the world.

Do we remember what happened 12 years ago? The Americans were easily whipped up when ‘freedom fries’ replaced ‘French fries’ and French wine was poured down the drains of Manhattan. On the grounds of international law, the miscreant French had said no to a war in Iraq. We had understood, it seemed, that grotesquely exaggerated information is suspicious.

But what about today? The fear-inducing media onslaught against Islamic extremism cannot make us forget that, since 2011, France has been lending militarily support to Syrian and Libyan fighters, who are not known for their humanist values. So when Laurent Fabius, minister for foreign affairs, claimed to be pleased with the results in Syria, he was effectively condoning jihadi fighters.

The result of this? The Islamic State has threatened further attacks against France. Worst still, with the death of King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, there is now a real risk that war could spread to the entire Middle East, as perfectly illustrated by President Hollande’s speech made on the Charles-de-Gaulle aircraft carrier as it set sail for operations.

But what’s the motive? This war is based on a lie which deliberately equates Islam with Wahhabism, whose only credo is violence. But who knows the true origins of Wahabbism? Today the media succeed in portraying Wahhabism as Islam, but in fact it is a total forgery of true Islam!

There is, however, a book which is remarkably clear and concise that every ‘Charlie’ should read in order to be able better direct his anger. In surprisingly few pages, it conveys the essential point: that Wahhabism is a total distortion of Islam and its expansion is historically linked to the Anglo-American control of oil.

The book shows how Wahhabism has replaced the Communist threat in the global ‘strategy of tension’; a very useful tool for destroying recalcitrant nations, according to the whims of an unnatural alliance with the world’s only two official Wahabbist states– Saudi Arabia and Qatar- both of which are great allies to the jihadists.

The author, Jean-Michel Vernochet, a former foreign correspondent for Le Figaro Magazine, has the courage to ask the right questions. Now that the forces of destruction have been carelessly unleashed, will we be able to contain them in the future? Crucially, what price are we in the West prepared to pay for our individual freedoms?

The book has everything to clarify a topic that has been wilfully confused. After reading this historical essay, we can no longer say that we “didn’t know”…

11 February 2015


Article translated from French

The original authors were Jean-Maxime Corneille and Jan Varoujan, both journalists at Le Huffington Post

Source: Le Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/jan-varoujan/consequences-attentats-charlie-hebdo-societe_b_6658396.html