Print Contact Articles by Subject The Middle East

Their Nakba is Our Nakba

 May 15, 2018



Nakba 1948 - Palestinian at 
Jaramana Refugee Camp, Damascus, Syria
 
 
Today - Palestinians at Yarmouk Refugee Camp, Damascus, Syria
 
The Many Faces of Zionism - Our Common Enemy

Today, May 15, is Nakba Day - Nakba being Arabic for "catastrophe" or "disaster”. On Nakba Day Palestinians commemorate their displacement, dispossession, and dispersal by armed Zionist forces in 1948.

Using massacres and terrorism, Zionist militias ethnically cleansed hundreds of Palestinian villages and towns during the war (1947-1949), which erupted after the United Nations partitioned Palestine in November 1947 giving more than half of the country to Zionist invaders from Europe. Around 80 percent of the Palestinian population, an estimated 700,000 people, were expelled from their homes on land that became Israel.

The "ethnic cleansing" and dispossession of Palestinians was carried out by Zionist forces of Russian and Polish Jews that had invaded Palestine and conquered much of the country in 1948.

Zionism is also the hidden hand driving the current devastation of Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and Libya, among other nations -- including our own. The false-flag terrorism of 9/11 and the War on Terror are two sides of an utterly fraudulent Zionist construct designed to impoverish the United States and facilitate the conquest of the Middle East and displacement of millions of people.

More than one million of these refugees have been settled in Germany, a nation that is itself an occupied nation. More than seven decades after the war in which it was conquered by Zionist-led forces, Germany has neither a peace treaty nor a constitution while its people remain quietly burdened under draconian laws and proclamations of the occupying power.

Grasping that Zionism, a racial doctrine of Jewish supremacism, is the common factor behind much of the chaos and chronic injustice that afflicts the world today is essential to understanding and solving the most serious political problems of our time.

In a world in which Zionism is allowed to prevail we are all Palestinians.


 The War on Terror:  The Plot to Rule the Middle East explains the real strategy behind the War on Terror - a covert Zionist plan to redraw the map of the Middle East.  Available for a $20 donation via PayPal to bollyn@bollynbooks.com or www.bollyn.com/donate/ 

 

The Good Friday Massacre was Intentional

April 2, 2018


March 30, 2018 - Hundreds of Palestinian protesters were shot by Israeli snipers who were sent to Gaza with orders to use live fire.


Eighteen of those shot were killed in what was a planned "bloodbath".

The Israeli military under Benjamin Netanyahu planned and prepared for a "Land Day" massacre of Palestinians on March 30, which was also Good Friday. It needs to be understood that the Israeli massacre of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip was intentional.

The clearest evidence that the massacre was intentional is the murder of the Palestinian farmer Omar Wahid Samur in the early morning on Friday, several hours before the protests began. Omar was murdered by a tank shell while he was picking parsley in the pre-dawn hours in a field one kilometer from the border.

As reported by CBS News on Friday:

"The Palestinian killed Friday was identified as 27-year-old Amr Samour. The Palestinian Health Ministry said he was struck by an Israeli tank shell in the southeastern corner of Gaza.

Yasser Samour, a relative and fellow farmer, said Amr Samour was harvesting parsley before dawn, in hopes of selling it fresh in the market later in the day.

"I was working on the next field," Samour said. "We heard shelling landing on the field where Amr works. We ran there and found him hit directly with a shell. We were more than a kilometer (.6 miles) away from the border."

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-palestinian-farmer-gaza-strip-tank-fire-hamas-protests-blockade/
 

Omar Wahid Samur kisses his father on his wedding day...

and being grieved over in the morgue on Land Day 2018.

Omar Wahid Samur was murdered by the Israeli military to provoke Palestinian fury. There is no other possible explanation.

Israel had positioned more than 100 snipers to fire on the protesters from the sand berms they have raised near the border fence. These snipers fired on the protesters with live ammunition, killing 18 and wounding more than 700.
 
Two days before the massacre, Newsweek.com posted a brief article warning that Israel's deployment of snipers "could cause a bloodbath in Gaza."
 
Human rights advocates have expressed concern that the upcoming rallies could devolve into a bloodbath. “It looks like the Israeli army is preparing a massive firing squad to unleash on Palestinian civilian protesters and have been given orders to use live fire,” Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, a Washington, D.C.-based coalition of organizations that oppose Israel's policies toward Palestinians, told Newsweek.
Source:  "Trump's Jerusalem Embassy Could Cause a Bloodbath in Gaza as Israeli Military Deploys Sharpshooters," Newsweek.com, March 28, 2018

The Israeli Foreign Ministry said the protest was a "deliberate attempt to provoke a confrontation with Israel" and that "responsibility for any clashes lies solely with Hamas and other participating Palestinian organisations".

The fact that Gazans live in a complete state of siege, imposed by the Israeli army, and that the Israeli army killed Omar Wahid Samur (and others) hours before the protests began, exposes the lie of the Israeli government.

Although the Zionist-controlled U.S. government will seek to block it, there must be an independent and unbiased investigation of this massacre.

#Gaza #Palestine #LandDayMassacre #LandDay #RightofReturn 

Rare Photos of Palestine in 1931

May 20, 2017

President Donald Trump will arrive in Palestine on Monday to meet with Israeli leaders in occupied Jerusalem. An Israeli official said on Monday that Israel wants the White House to explain why a U.S. diplomat preparing Trump's visit to Jerusalem said the "Wailing Wall" is part of the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Most likely the diplomat holds that position because that is, in fact, the legal status of Jerusalem:  Israeli-occupied territory.

Israel seized the Old City of Jerusalem in 1967 by force and passed a bill in 1980 to annex the Old City. Israeli's annexation of East Jerusalem was condemned by the United Nations Security Council as "a violation of international law" and declared "null and void" in United Nations Security Council Resolution 478. Israel's claim to Jerusalem has not been recognized by the international community; no country has its embassy in Jerusalem.

To mark the occasion of President Trump's visit and fifty years of Israeli occupation, I am presenting some rare photos of Jerusalem and Palestine from 1931, when it was under British control. (Source: The Holy Land - A collection of 66 coloured photographs with explanations, Uvachrom A.G., Munich)


A map of southern Palestine with Jerusalem in the center


The map of Jerusalem, 1931


Damascus Gate - a main portal to the Old City


A view from Damascus Gate to the South-East


Entry to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre


The Via Dolorosa - the route Jesus Christ walked to Golgotha with his cross


Place of the Temple; North-West corner of the platform


Al Aqsa mosque interior


Al Aqsa mosque

Support the truth. 
Support Christopher Bollyn's work. 
Donate by PayPal to:  bollyn@bollynbooks.com
or click here: www.bollyn.com/donate/

 

Zionism - The Root Cause of the Wars in the Middle East

November 1, 2016


The Palestinian refugee population of the Yarmouk Camp near Damascus, Syria, was targeted by the U.S.-armed militia known as ISIS. Allowing the displaced Palestinians to return to their homeland is the key issue that needs to be solved in order to bring peace to the Middle East. The wars that are being waged across the Middle East are caused by the Zionist maximalists who refuse to accept that the Palestinian problem has to be solved with justice for the Palestinian people. 

The world is in turmoil. People live in fear of nuclear war like they did during the worst days of the Cold War.  Europe is flooded with refugees and wars of terrorism rage across the Middle East.  People wonder if there is something they can do to alleviate the strife and turmoil that afflicts our world today – and lessen the chances of a nuclear war. 

The good news is, yes, there is in fact something everyone can do – once we understand the real source of the wars and conflicts our nations are engaged in.

The people of America and Europe are greatly disturbed and generally confused by the wars and turmoil raging in the Middle East, Ukraine, and Africa.  One of the most obvious consequences of the wars in the Middle East is the massive flow of refugees and migrants coming into Europe, a flow of desperate humans coming in numbers that have not been seen since the Second World War.


The flood of refugees coming into Europe was created by the illegal wars of aggression being waged in Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

As NATO aggressively sends military forces and missiles to the states that border Russia, the controlled media wages a blatant fear-mongering campaign against the people of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe scaring them with propaganda stories that threaten the population with the idea of a Russian invasion.


The Jewish-owned (Bonniers AB) Expressen tabloid wages psychological warfare against the Swedish population, pushing anti-Russian propaganda on a daily basis.

This issue claims that Russia has plans to release nuclear weapons over Sweden.

What is peculiar about the nations that feel most threatened by a Russian invasion is that they themselves are proud members of the U.S.-led coalition that illegally invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya during the fifteen-year-old War on Terror. The fact that these invasions, like the U.S. intervention in Syria, fall into the category of illegal wars of aggression is never discussed in the controlled media that promotes the fear of a Russian invasion.

Sweden, for example, just announced that it would double its military forces fighting in the Kurdish part of northern Iraq, where the Rothschild family owns the largest oil company. Why is Sweden, who has a long history of neutrality, engaged in an illegal war of aggression in Iraq?

The Americans and Europeans are confused and perplexed about these matters because the controlled media does not give them the information or analysis they need to make sense of the wars their nations are engaged in.

A good example comes from a current news story from Reuters about Syria, and Russia’s military support for the Syrian government:

Russia backs Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria's civil war, and its military operation in Syria, now in its second year, has shored up Assad's position. That has put Moscow on a collision course with Washington and its allies who want Assad removed from office. 
– “Russia says resumption of Syria peace talks delayed indefinitely,” Reuters, November 1, 2016

COLLISION COURSE?

So, Reuters tells us that Moscow is “on a collision course with Washington and its allies who want Assad removed from office,” but gives no explanation why Washington wants Assad removed from power. The Western reader is left to assume that removing the Syrian leader from power must be a good thing and that there must be good reasons to do so, because, of course, Washington and its allies would only want something that is good. Furthermore, removing Assad from power must be worth risking war with Russia otherwise why would the U.S. pursue a policy that carries such risks?

There is, however, nothing good at all about the U.S.-led effort to overthrow the government of Syria. The reality is that the war that has devastated much of Syria during the past five years is not a true civil war at all, but is in fact an illegal war being waged by armies of mercenary terrorists who have been funded and trained by the U.S. (C.I.A.) and some of its allies in the region on behalf of the Israelis, who are the real masterminds behind the War on Terror and the U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and Syria.


A screen shot from a video showing a long convoy of ISIS fighters coming into Syria from Iraq - with a U.S. Apache helicopter bringing up the rear.
"US Apache helicopter escorts ISIS convoy into Syria" 
Video URL: youtu.be/X7LerTUhxxI

Americans have been led to believe that the U.S. is trying to overthrow the elected leader of Syria because he is waging war on his own people, which is simply not true. The Syrian government is waging war against armies of foreign terrorists who are funded and trained by the U.S. government, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, with help from Jordan, Turkey, Israel, and some European allies. These foreign-funded terrorists base themselves in civilian areas, like Eastern Aleppo, and then use the civilian population as human shields.


There are numerous reports documenting the use of the civilian population of Eastern Aleppo as human shields by the terrorist groups supported by the U.S. administration.

There is, however, no valid U.S. national interest to justify President Obama’s war against the government of Syria. The U.S. has spent more than one billion dollars per year since 2011 to wage war against the government of Syria because it is in Israel’s interest, not ours.

As then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in 2012, the “best way to help Israel” is to “use force” in Syria to overthrow the government. Her email clearly reveals that as Secretary of State, Clinton was working to oust the Syrian government because it was in Israel’s interests — not America’s.


A leaked Clinton email from 2012 reveals that the U.S.-led war in Syria is being waged because it is "the best way to help Israel."

Likewise, a simple diagnosis of all of the wars currently being waged by the United States in the Middle East reveals that they are all part of an Israeli strategy known as the Yinon Plan to dominate the region by Balkanizing the large Arab states and breaking them up along ethnic and religious fault-lines. This is what has been done in Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, and Sudan, and what is currently being done in Syria.


The Israeli plan to dominate the Middle East by breaking up the Arab states into ethnic statelets is known as the Yinon Plan (1982).

A diagnosis to identify the real cause of the wars in the Middle East reveals that the Zionist plan to dominate the region is behind the U.S.-led wars that have been waged in the region since the false-flag terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

As my research into the false-flag attacks of 9/11 shows, Israeli military intelligence and Zionist agents were behind the attacks and cover-up, as well as the false narrative that was used to take the United States to war. The 9/11 attacks were, in fact, a well-planned and sophisticated false-flag operation that was designed to kick-start the Global War on Terror, an Israeli war agenda that was rolled out onto the world stage at the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism in July 1979 – at the Jonathan (Netanyahu) Institute.

The purpose of the Jerusalem Conference was to start a global propaganda “offensive” to blame the Soviet Union for “training, funding, and equipping” international terrorism. The masterminds of this offensive were the Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, the “Father of Terrorism,” and the heads of Israeli military intelligence.


Menachem Begin, the founder of the Likud Party that currently rules Israel, considered himself to be "The Father of Terrorism" - in all of the world.

For Begin and his military intelligence planners it was “most important” to “maintain anti-Soviet hostility in Washington” because this tension between the super-powers prevented a settlement from being imposed on Israel and the Palestinians, “a development the Begin administration wished to avoid at all costs.”

Menachem Begin’s right-wing political party of Jewish terrorists (Likud) is still in power today, as it has been for most of the past four decades, and Israeli military intelligence is still using the same anti-Russia strategy to prevent a super-power settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The fact that Victoria Nuland (Mrs. Robert Kagan), the Asst. Secretary of State for Eurasia, played a key role in organizing and funding the coup d’état that overthrew the elected government in Ukraine is a key point to understand the anti-Russian posture being assumed by the U.S. government and its allies.


Asst. Secretary of State Victoria Nuland played a key role in fomenting the violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government.


Nuland then chose Arseniy Yatsenyuk, an anti-Russian politician, to be the next 
prime minister. This was a choice that was certain to cause civil strife in a nation with a large Russian minority population. Crimea, for example, is more than 90 percent Russian-speaking.


Victoria Nuland is also a Zionist of the most extreme kind. This is not merely a coincidence.

Victoria Nuland (Kagan) is a member of the Zionist Neo-Con family that brought us the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the war against Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003.  The Kagan family, along with the rest of the Zionist Neo-Cons, is at the center of the anti-Russian policy being pursued by the United States and its European allies. As with Syria, there is absolutely no valid U.S. national interest in having hostile relations with Russia. It is rather in the best interest of the United States and the European nations to have friendly relations with Russia.

So, when we diagnose the most serious political problems afflicting the Western world today we find that these problems are all caused by the Zionist state of Israel and its allies and supporters in the United States and Europe. The mainstream media won’t tell you that but that is what we find when an honest diagnosis of these problems is done.

When we understand that Zionism and the State of Israel is behind:

- the false-flag terrorism of 9/11, the cover-up, and the fraudulent War on Terror;

- the miserable plight of millions of Palestinian refugees;

- the wars of terrorism in the Middle East (e.g. Syria, Iraq), and;

- the rabid anti-Russia politics and fear-mongering...

then the real cause of these problems is understood and the solution becomes quite clear.

While our politicians are forced to support the Zionist state, we are not. Anyone who understands that the Likud party of Jewish terrorists and the intransigent policies of the State of Israel are causing these problems, and still supports Israel - is clearly part of the problem.

Understanding that the Zionist State of Israel is the cause of the wars being waged across the Middle East enables us to see through the disinformation being provided by our governments and the controlled media. Only with a clear understanding of the root cause of these wars will the public be able to create a popular movement to take the political actions required to rectify these problems which are becoming more urgent every day.


This bumper sticker is made by Henry Herskovitz who has maintained a vigil in front of his former synagogue, Beth Israel, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for more than a decade, to raise Jewish awareness of the grave injustice the Zionist state of Israel represents and its corruption of Jewish values in America.


The world needs more righteous Jews like Henry Herskovitz of Ann Arbor.

What is the U.S. Goal in Afghanistan?

June 11, 2016


Fifteen years after 9/11, what is the goal of the U.S. war in Afghanistan? 

On its current path, Afghanistan runs the risk of becoming fifty or more separate kingdoms. Foreign extremists have begun to move in, buying houses and weapons. Afghanistan may become unique in being both a training ground and munitions dump for foreign terrorists and at the same time the world’s largest poppy field.
- Abdul Haq in a letter to Ambassador Peter Tomsen, U.S. Special Envoy to the Afghan Mujahideen, 1992

Why are the Arabs here? The U.S. brought the Arabs to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Washington gave them money, gave them training, and created ten or 15 different fighting groups. The U.S. and Pakistan worked together. The minute the pro-Communist regime collapsed, the Americans walked away – and didn't even clean up their shit. They brought this problem to Afghanistan.
- Abdul Haq to Newsweek, October 26, 2001 (shortly before he was killed)

The undeclared and illegal war that the U.S. and its allies are waging today against the elected government of Syria is very similar to the covert war the U.S. and the same allies waged against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. While that effort succeeded in expelling the Red Army from Afghanistan, it also created a cadre of Islamist militants against which the U.S. is still waging war.

The fifteen-year-old U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, the first act in the Global War on Terror, has utterly failed to produce peace or democracy, but has yielded large increases in terrorism and opium. If the same pattern is now being applied in Syria, would it be logical to expect a different outcome?

In March, after my lecture in Manhattan, an English woman named Lucy Morgan Edwards presented me with a signed copy of her book, The Afghan Solution:  The Inside Story of Abdul Haq, the CIA, and How Western Hubris Lost Afghanistan

 

Edwards’ book is a hardbound book of 365 pages with a dust jacket and extensive endnotes, which she said was “a labor of love.” Having spent several years in Afghanistan, Edwards worked as a country advisor for the European Union and served in several other similar positions.  During her years in Afghanistan, she became personally acquainted with many of the key players and the multi-faceted political game that has been playing out in that war-torn nation since the Soviet Union withdrew its forces in the late-1980s.

After reading The Afghan Solution the reader is left with one perplexing question:  Why did the CIA give so much support to radical anti-Western mujahideen like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and so little to capable and intelligent men like Abdul Haq, a leader with a sensible Afghan plan to end the fighting?

Much of the book is devoted to this question. As one can see from Edwards’ choice of words she suggests that “Western hubris lost Afghanistan,” i.e. that the quagmire in Afghanistan was not intentional.

Edwards explains how the Pashtun fighter Abdul Haq offered a viable Afghan solution to remove the Taliban and al Qaida factions from power in the aftermath of 9/11 – a plan in which the U.S. military would not play a major role, as it has since 2001.

Unfortunately, the path presented by Abdul Haq was the road not taken. With more than 3,517 American lives lost and 20,000 wounded in nearly fifteen years, Abdul Haq’s Afghan solution certainly looks like it was the wiser choice.  The fifteen-year U.S. war in Afghanistan has cost the American taxpayer more than $737 billion and consumes another $4 million per hour, every day that it continues.

As Ken Guest, former British marine and Afghan observer, wrote to Edwards in 2009:

In 2001 there was a far better option on the table that offered an honest and strong Afghan leader, the use of the tribes, sealing the border to prevent escapes and virtually no U.S. footprint, other than discreet use of Special Forces as observers for report back needs. In effect an Islamic rejection of terrorism as un-Islamic, exactly what we, in the West, should have been looking for and supporting.

In 2001 the West advanced without proper contextual understanding… We favoured wide bombing, often wide of the mark, ever expanding U.S./Allies ground force deployment, installing a weak leader, resulting in no government capacity and massive corruption. What we got is what you see now. It isn’t pretty but it was all perfectly predictable, and it is the sort of thing that happens when we fail to properly consider all the options.

The most obvious question raised by Edwards is why?  Why did the U.S. reject the most sensible path?  It seems obvious that the plan presented by Abul Haq would have been the most prudent and most likely way to succeed, if the U.S. goal really were to remove the Taliban from power and eliminate Al Qaida fighters from Afghanistan. So, why did the U.S. reject the Haq plan?

I wrote to Edwards and asked her if she thought it is possible that the CIA rejected the Abdul Haq plan because they did not want a peaceful Afghanistan, but a weak and destabilized country where opium and terrorism could flourish.

CHAOS AS A STRATEGY

As political journalist and writer Dan Glazebrook told RT recently:

We really have to understand that the key goal of the U.S. in Afghanistan is to keep it weak, destabilized, prevent it from becoming a peaceful stable country at peace with its neighbors. Because if that were to happen, that would mean very likely making agreements with Russia, China. It’s a very important country geo-strategically, potentially being a gas supply route and its geographical proximity to Russia, China, India and so on means that the U.S. doesn’t want to risk it becoming a stable, peaceful country. 

Edwards gives the CIA the benefit of the doubt in concluding that the U.S. agency lost Afghanistan due to hubris and incompetence. The historical record, however, suggests that the CIA rejected the Haq plan because the agency’s real aim, at the highest level, was not to eradicate Islamic terrorist groups, but to foment and support them in order to create an Islamic enemy, the opposition against whom the next war, the War on Terror, would be fought.

Israel in Afghanistan & Ehud Barak's $300 Million Rip-Off

April 29, 2016


In July 2015, in what was described as "a startling move," Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar of Hizb-e-Islami advised his supporters to help Islamic State (ISIS).  Since the 1980s, Hekmatyar's organization has been funded by the C.I.A. and armed and trained by Israel.  Surprise, surprise.


May 1992:  Ahmad Shah Massoud signs agreement with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the most wanted criminal in Afghanistan, in presence of their Pakistani and Arab masters. Now, consider that Hekmatyar's group was armed and trained by Israeli military intelligence.

Israel played a secret, but central role, in the Soviet-Afghanistan war, in particular by arming and training a very radical Islamic Party faction - the Hezb-e Islami of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.  As Wikipedia reports in its "Afghanistan-Israel Relations" entry:

During the 1980s, Israel provided armament and training to mujahideen forces who were fighting the Soviet-backed Afghan government. Thousands of mujahideen fighters, particularly from the Hezb-e Islami faction of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, were trained by Israeli instructors. The head of Pakistan's ISI agency, Akhtar Abdur Rahman, apparently allowed the Israeli trainers into his country.

The details of the Israeli role in arming and training radical Islamic fighters during the Soviet-Afghanistan war are generally not well known. This is largely due to the fact that "of all the members of the anti-Soviet coalition, the Israelis have been the most successful in concealing the details and even the broad traces of a training role," according to John K. Cooley, author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism (2000).

One reason it is important for us today to understand Israel's role then in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran, is because the radical Islamic faction, Hezb-e Islami, which was armed and trained by the Israelis, went on to become al Qaida. It is also important to note that the Israeli covert operation to arm and train Hezb-e Islami was carried out by Ehud Barak, the head of Israel's Military Intelligence Directorate, AMAN (1983–1985).

When Hekmatyar's radical "Islamic Party" lost Saudi support, after it supported Saddam Hussein; and Pakistani support after 1994, "the remainder of Hezb-i Islami merged into al-Qaida and the Taliban," as per The Columbia World Dictionary of Islamism. This is shortly before Al Qaida emerged on the world stage as the alleged source of terror atrocities in Africa and Yemen.

Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister and chief of defense, also happens to be the first person on 9/11 to blame Osama bin Laden and al Qaida, something he did from the London studio of BBC World television - before the towers were even demolished. How very odd, when one considers that it was Barak himself, as head of Israeli military intelligence, who had overseen the arming and training of the Islamist group he blamed on 9/11 for the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C.


BEFORE THE TOWERS FELL - Ehud Barak was in the BBC World studio in London blaming Osama bin Laden and his Islamist group in Afghanistan - the very same radical Islamist group that Barak had armed and trained as head of Israeli military intelligence (AMAN) from 1983 through 1985. One of the last operations Barak's team in Pakistan carried out was double-dealing to Iran a $300 million consignment of weapons paid for by the U.S. and intended for the anti-Soviet Afghan 
mujahideen. Did Vice-President George Bush know that his ally in the Iran-Contra operation was ripping the U.S. off?

BARAK'S $300 MILLION AFGHAN RIP-OFF

In 1985, when Shimon Peres was Israel's prime minister and Ehud Barak was head of the AMAN, the Military Intelligence Directorate, the Israelis pulled a fast one and sold Iran a $300 million consignment of weapons that had already been purchased for the Afghan resistance fighters. Ari Ben-Menashe, the Israeli agent on the ground in Pakistan, said the Israeli weapons were sold twice, creating a surplus in the Israeli account of $300 million.


THE TROIKA OF TERROR - Shimon Peres (left) and Ehud Barak (right) were the key players in the $300 million rip-off as they armed and trained the radical Islamist group in Pakistan that became Al Qaida.

This means that the same Israelis, Peres and Barak, who played key roles in the events of 9/11, had ripped off the U.S. government and its allies in the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan for $300 million in 1985.  No wonder the Israelis have worked so hard to conceal the details of their business in Pakistan. The Israeli military could not have carried out such an outrageous operation without the knowledge and approval of both the head of military intelligence, Ehud Barak, and the prime minister, Shimon Peres.

The best information I have found about the details of Israel's double dealing in Pakistan is in A.Z. Hilali's book, US-Pakistan Relationship: Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (2005).  The following extracts from Hilali's book provide the basics about how Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres ripped off $300 million in 1985:

 

Support Christopher Bollyn's efforts to expose the deception of our time.
Donate here or by PayPal to bollyn@bollynbooks.com

Sources:  "Afghanistan–Israel Relations," Wikipedia, April 29, 2016

"Enemy of enemy: Hekmatyar support for IS stuns observers" by Tahir Khan, Express Tribune (Pakistan), July 7, 2015

The Columbia World Dictionary of Islamism, Olivier Roy, Antoine Sfeir (2007)

Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism by John K. Cooley, Pluto Press (2000) 

US-Pakistan Relationship: Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan by A.Z. Hilali, Aldershot, Ashgate (2005) 

Why is the U.S. Waging War in Syria?

May 4, 2016


On April 25, President Obama announced that the U.S. would send 250 more troops to Syria. But why is the U.S. military engaged in Syria, a nation where we have no national interest and with whom we are not at war?

Why is the U.S. waging war in Syria? Why are U.S. troops in a country where the United States has no national interest? Who are we fighting for? Why is the U.S. training, funding, and arming rebel groups that are fighting to overthrow the democratically elected government of Syria? Why is the U.S. waging war on ISIS, a group that is armed and supported by our allies? 

If you take U.S. policy in Syria at face value it makes no sense whatsoever. To understand what is going on in Syria requires grasping the fact that there is a secret Zionist policy being applied to divide and conquer the nation, but this is an utterly destructive policy that will only increase terrorism and instability in the region. 

Just before President Obama announced that the United States would be sending 250 more soldiers to fight in Syria, he said we are living in the most peaceful time in human history.  “We are fortunate to be living in the most peaceful, most prosperous, most progressive era in human history," Obama said in Hannover, Germany, on April 25.

Obama went on to say that the Islamic State (ISIS) organization, which is openly supported and armed by our allies, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, is the "most urgent threat" facing the West. So, why is the Obama White House playing such a duplicitous game in Syria?

As Obama said:

Right now, the most urgent threat to our nations is ISIL, and that’s why we’re united in our determination to destroy it. And all 28 NATO allies are contributing to our coalition -- whether it’s striking ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq, or supporting the air campaign, or training local forces in Iraq, or providing critical humanitarian aid. And we continue to make progress, pushing ISIL back from territory that it controlled.

And just as I’ve approved additional support for Iraqi forces against ISIL, I’ve decided to increase U.S. support for local forces fighting ISIL in Syria. A small number of American Special Operations Forces are already on the ground in Syria and their expertise has been critical as local forces have driven ISIL out of key areas. So given the success, I’ve approved the deployment of up 250 additional U.S. personnel in Syria, including Special Forces, to keep up this momentum. They’re not going to be leading the fight on the ground, but they will be essential in providing the training and assisting local forces that continue to drive ISIL back.

The first thing to grasp about Syria is that the so-called civil war would be over tomorrow if Obama and his allies were to stop supporting the rebels that are trying to overthrow the Assad government in Damascus. ISIS would also cease to exist if Obama were to demand that the U.S. allies that are supporting it to stop.  If Obama were serious about ISIS (or ISIL) being "the most urgent threat to our nations", why would he allow his regional allies to support it and keep it armed with U.S. weapons?


John Kerry seems completely preoccupied with regime change in Syria, where there is no U.S. national interest whatsoever. "As long as Assad is there, the opposition is not going to stop fighting him, one way or the other," Kerry said on May 3. The opposition he refers to is armed and supported by the U.S.


The war that the U.S. has waged by proxy in Syria has fragmented the nation in line with the Zionist Yinon Plan to "Balkanize" the Arab states, i.e. to break them up into ethnic statelets as was done in Yugoslavia. The Syrian government (red) is currently trying to oust the U.S.-supplied rebels (green) from Aleppo, Syria's largest city and commercial center. ISIS (black) controls a large stretch along the border with Turkey, across which men and weapons freely flow to the terrorist group that is "the most urgent threat" facing the West, according to Obama. ISIS and anti-Assad rebel groups also control Syrian territory along the border with the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.


THE YINON PLAN is the Israeli strategy to dominate the Middle East. It was written in the early 1980s when the Likud party came to power. The Yinon plan calls for the "dissolution of all the existing Arab states" by breaking them up into small ethnic enclaves. This is exactly what U.S. military intervention had done to Iraq and Syria.

The U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, as part of the "War on Terror", has resulted in an unprecedented increase in terrorism in all three nations and around the world. This indicates that either the U.S. policy is utterly counter-productive due to incompetence or, more likely, that a secret Zionist policy is at work.

The dissolution of Iraq and Syria is exactly what the Israeli strategy for the region has called for since the early 1980s. If the nations of Iraq and Syria are partitioned into ethnic enclaves, as Israeli military leaders are now calling for, there will no longer be a nation of Syria, which will allow Israel to keep the Golan Heights, which it occupied in 1967. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, recently declared that Israel will never leave the water and mineral-rich occupied Golan Heights.


The Rothschilds own the largest oil company in Iraqi Kurdistan and, along with Rupert Murdoch and others, an oil company in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. The legal challenges they face to exploiting the mineral resources of the Golan Heights would vanish if Syria ceased to exist as a nation.

The United States is certainly not waging war in Syria for any noble cause or U.S. national interest. The evidence and results indicate that the U.S. is waging war in Syria in order to advance the Zionist strategy of breaking up the Arab states into weak ethnic statelets, but this is a policy that will only increase terrorism, not defeat it. 

Support Christopher Bollyn's efforts to expose the deception of our time.
Donate here or by PayPal to bollyn@bollynbooks.com

Turkey's Planned Provocation of Russia

Updated December 4, 2015 


Russian honor guard carry the coffin with the body of Russian Lt. Col. Oleg Peshkov, after being transported from Turkey, at a mourning ceremony in Chkalovsky military airport outside Moscow. November 30.

“We have serious doubts this was an unintended incident and believe this is a planned provocation.” 
- Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister, November 25, 2015

"There were no warnings. Not via the radio, not visually. There was no contact whatsoever... If they wanted to warn us, they could have shown themselves by heading on a parallel course. But there was nothing. And the rocket hit our tail completely unexpectedly. We didn't even see it in time to take evasive maneuvers."
- Captain Konstantin Murakhtin, flight navigator of the Russian Sukhoi Su-24 bomber shot down by a Turkish fighter

Sergey Rudskoy, a top official with the Russian General Staff, condemned the attack on the Russian bomber in Syrian airspace by a Turkish fighter jet as “a severe violation of international law”. Rudskoy stressed that the Su-24 was downed over Syrian territory. Rudskoy said the Russian warplane did not violate Turkish airspace. According to the Hmeymim airfield radar, it was the Turkish fighter jet that actually entered Syrian airspace as it attacked the Russian bomber.
Russia Today, November 24, 2015


A Russian SU-24, like the plane that the Turkish military shot down over Syria.

 
The Russian plane after being shot down by Turkish F-16 fighter jets over Syria.


Both Russian pilots parachuted safely from the plane. One was shot by rebels as he fell to the Earth. His crewmate was reported to have been rescued in good condition and returned to the Russian base.

This event is beyond the normal framework of fighting against terrorism. Of course our military is doing heroic work against terrorism... But the loss today is a stab in the back, carried out by the accomplices of terrorists. I can’t describe it in any other way.
- Vladimir Putin, in Sochi, November 24, 2015

"THE ACCOMPLICES OF TERRORISTS"

The shooting down of a Russian bomber jet is a clear provocation by Turkey against Russia. Turkish military claims that it had warned the Russian plane 10 times in five minutes simply do not make sense when we consider the tiny sliver of Turkish territory that the plane is said to have crossed. 

As the New York Times reported:

The Turkish military did not identify the nationality of the plane but said in a statement on its website that its pilots fired only after repeated warnings to the other warplane.

“The aircraft entered Turkish airspace over the town of Yaylidag, in the southeastern Hatay province,” the statement read. “The plane was warned 10 times in the space of 5 minutes before it was taken down.”

As the Guardian reported:

The Turkish military said it scrambled two F-16 fighter jets after a plane penetrated Turkish airspace in the province of Hatay at 9.20am on Tuesday morning, warning it to leave 10 times in five minutes before it was shot down.

Radar tracks, supposedly from the Russian bomber, reportedly released by the Turkish military, show a track crossing a very small sliver of Turkish territory sticking into Syria.  If this is truly the track of the Russian plane it would have only been in Turkish airspace for a few seconds - nowhere near the five minutes it was supposedly warned by the Turks.  

Furthermore, this data is not complete because we don't see the radar tracks of the Turkish fighters nor do we know where the Russian jet was fired on.  For that matter, we can't even be sure that this is correct data for the Russian jet. The Turkish military is, after all, the party responsible for the downing of the jet.

If the Turkish jets fired on the Russian bomber as it crossed the tiny sliver that juts into Syria it would seem that the Turkish move is more of a provocation than a legitimate act of defense.  Where were the Turkish jets all this time?  Were they in Turkish or Syrian airspace? Where was the Russian jet during the five minutes it was supposedly warned by the Turkish fighters?


"Flight radar track on downed warplane issued by Turkish military"
Source:
  twitter.com/CNNTURK_ENG/status/669098577524822016/photo/1


The data from the Turkish military apparently shows that the Russian plane was shot down as it transited (from East to West; 
giriş means entry; çıkış means exit) a narrow finger of Turkish land less than 2 miles wide. The Russian plane would have crossed this sliver of land in about 12 seconds; nowhere near the five minutes claimed by the Turkish military statement. But did the Russian plane even enter Turkish airspace?


The radar track provided by the Turkish military with a map laid over. The red line is the border between Turkey (above the line) and Syria (below the line). The Turkish military statement, “The aircraft entered Turkish airspace over the town of Yaylidag," does not match the radar data seen here. Yayladağı is the town on the yellow line in Turkey. At no point in this radar track does the Russian plane fly above Yayladağı.


THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY - Russian radar data from their base in Syria shows a much different story, with the Turkish jet (blue line) firing on the Russian plane (red line) in Syria. According to this radar track the Russian plane never even entered Turkish airspace, which makes sense. Why would Russia violate Turkish airspace? Source (click to view the radar loop): pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/CUmhK33WEAAEKcb.mp4


This graphic from the New York Times compares the two radar tracks of the Russian bomber: the Turkish military track is in purple; the Russian in red. NATO, as one might expect, claims the Turkish radar track is correct, but is it?  Why would Russia violate Turkish airspace?  It makes no sense, like the rest of the Turkish story. If Turkey is lying then NATO is also lying.

The two Russian pilots both ejected from the plane safely.  One was evidently killed by rebels who fired on them as they parachuted to the ground. The other was rescued and returned to the Russian base.

Sergey Rudskoy, a top official with the Russian General Staff, condemned the attack on the Russian plane in Syrian airspace by a Turkish fighter jet as “a severe violation of international law”.  Rudskoy stressed that the Su-24 was downed over Syrian territory. The crash site was four kilometers away from the Turkish border, he said.

Rudskoy said the Russian warplane did not violate Turkish airspace. According to the Hmeymim airfield radar (Russian base), it was the Turkish fighter jet that actually entered Syrian airspace as it attacked the Russian bomber. This is a crucial point. 

The Turkish fighter jet made no attempts to contact Russian pilots before attacking the bomber, Rudskoy added.

“We assume the strike was carried out with a close range missile with an infra-red seeker,” Rudskoy said. “The Turkish jet made no attempts to communicate or establish visual contact with our crew that our equipment would have registered. The Su-24 was hit by a missile over Syria’s territory.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about the incident in the early afternoon:

This event is beyond the normal framework of fighting against terrorism. Of course our military is doing heroic work against terrorism... But the loss today is a stab in the back, carried out by the accomplices of terrorists. I can’t describe it in any other way. Our aircraft was downed over the territory of Syria, using air-to-air missile from a Turkish F-16. It fell on the Syrian territory 4km from Turkey.

Neither our pilots nor our jet threatened the territory of Turkey. This is obvious. They are fighting terrorists in the northern areas around Latakia, where militants are located, mainly people who originated in Russia, and they were pursuing their direct duty, to make sure these people do not return to Russia. These are people who are clearly international terrorists.

Taking into account that we signed an agreement on deconflicting with the US, and as we know Turkey was among the ones that has joined the US coalition. Since Isis has such huge resources of hundreds of millions and billions of dollars coming from illicit oil sales, and they are protected by the armed forces of other states, then it’s clear why they are so brazen, why they are killing people, why they are carrying out terrorist attacks throughout the world including in the heart of Europe.

We will analyse everything, and today’s tragic event will have significant consequences, including for Russia-Turkish relations. We have always treated Turkey as a friendly state. I don’t know who was interested in what happened today, certainly not us. And instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours.
- Vladimir Putin, in Sochi, November 24, 2015

Dear Reader,
If you appreciate my articles, 
please support my research and writing. 
Click here to donate 
or donate via PayPal to:  bollyn@bollynbooks.com

Sources:  

"Putin calls Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists' after Russian jet shot down" by Matthew Weaver, Guardian (UK), November 24, 2015
www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/24/russian-jet-downed-by-turkish-planes-near-syrian-border-live-updates#block-56545c41e4b00f67a4bed947

"Russia deploys missile cruiser off Syria coast, ordered to destroy any target posing danger," Russia Today (RT.com), November 24, 2015
www.rt.com/news/323329-russia-suspend-military-turkey/

"Sorting Out What Russia and Turkey Say Happened in the Sky," New York Times, November 24, 2015
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/24/world/middleeast/russia-turkey-jet-shoot-down-maps.html

"Su-24 navigator rules out possibility of plane having entered Turkey" by Igor Rozin, Russia Behind the Headlines, November 25, 2015
rbth.com/international/2015/11/25/su-24-navigator-rules-out-posibility-of-plane-having-entered-turkey_544413

"Turkey downs Russian warplane near Syria border," Guardian (UK), November 24, 2015
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/turkey-shoots-down-jet-near-border-with-syria

"Turkey Shoots Down Russian Warplane Near Syrian Border" by Ceylan Yeginsu and Ivan Nechepurenkonov, New York Times, November 24, 2015
www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/world/europe/turkey-syria-russia-military-plane.html 

The Zionist War on Terror Creates More Terror

December 3, 2015

If there’s one thing the “war on terror” has excelled at, it is creating more war – and if there is a second, it is creating more terror.
"The entire ‘war on terror’ has been a lie – and these charts prove it" 
by 
Rebecca Sumner, TheCanary.co, November 28, 2015


The "War on Terror" has created more war – and more terror...
(Graphics: R. Sumner) 


in Iraq...


in Afghanistan...


and in Syria, among other places.


So, in reality, what is the "War on Terror"?  Where did it come from?


AN ISRAELI WAR STRATEGY - The "War on Terror" is a massive Zionist/Israeli fraud that has been based on lies and deception since it was first conceived by Benjamin Netanyahu and his 'institute of terrorism' in Israel in the 1970s. The "War on Terror" deception is the subject of my Solving 9-11 books.


NETANYAHU'S MISSION - From 1976 to 1978, Benjamin Netanyahu worked for the Boston Consulting Group, a firm connected to the Rothschild family.  In 1979, 
with his father, Benzion, Netanyahu co-founded an institute on terrorism.  They then organized an international conference in Jerusalem that emphasized the need for Western nations to fight terror groups (the groups opposed to Israeli occupation) - and the regimes supporting them.  The terrorism data that Netanyahu used to make his case at the conference was exaggerated and fraudulent.  George H.W. Bush spoke at the conference.

THE JERUSALEM CONNECTION 
from my 2013 article 
"Obama's Trip to Birthplace of War on Terror"

"In the summer of 1979, a group of powerful and influential people joined to launch an international propaganda offensive to promote and exploit the issue of 'international terrorism'," Philip Paull of San Francisco State University wrote in his 1982 thesis on the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism. "The propaganda 'blitz' originated in Jerusalem. The conspiratorial network included present and former members of the Israeli and United States governments...

"This 'anti-terrorist' propaganda campaign was and is being conducted in a style reminiscent of wartime 'psychological warfare' by journalists serving as conduits and spreaders of misinformation originating in Jerusalem," Paull wrote in his thesis...

As Paull demonstrates in his thesis, "the entire notion of 'international terrorism' as promoted by the Jerusalem Conference rests on a faulty, dishonest, and ultimately corrupt information base." This is equally true of the official versions of the terror attacks of 1993 and 2001. They are nothing more than packs of lies designed to place the blame on Arabs and Muslims.

The American people have been the primary target of the vicious 'psychological warfare' waged by the Israeli government. The purpose of the Israeli psychological warfare is to create fear through false-flag terrorism like 9-11 in order to impose the Zionist fraud known as the "War on Terror". I have done my utmost to provide an antidote to this fear and deception with my book, Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World.

...

"The heightened global media coverage of 'international terrorism'", Paull wrote, "was for the most part a result of a deliberate, well-financed, international propaganda campaign initiated by the Israeli government."

The theme of 'international terrorism' "was used to portray the 'Free World', including Israel, as essentially on the defensive before a virtual epidemic of terrorism which treatened the very fabric of civilization," Paull wrote. "But in order to transfigure 'international terrorism' into a political bubonic plague, it was necessary to produce false and misleading 'information', or misinformation." Paull's thesis explains how the Netanyahu institute and the Israeli government used misinformation to "deliberately exploit the emotions of fear and anxiety."


MEET THE MILEIKOWSKY'S - Benjamin Netanyahu and his father, Benzion Mileikowsky from Warsaw, Poland. Benzion was the executive secretary for Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism, which calls for the military conquest of all of Palestine and expulsion of the non-Jewish population. His son, Bibi, has furthered these goals. 9-11 was an essential part of the Zionist deception, a terror spectacle designed to change U.S. public opinion and drag the United States military into the Middle East - to fight Israel's enemies. 


NETANYAHU THE ARCHITECT OF TERROR - Netanyahu's first book, International Terrorism: Challenge and Response, is based on the speeches given at the Jerusalem conference in 1979.  Netanyahu has made a career of pushing the Israeli war strategy known as the "War on Terror". It is a strategy of conquest in which the United States and its allies fight wars in the Middle East on behalf of the Zionist state and its war agenda.  Creating a greater state of Israel, a goal of the terrorist groups that created the Likud party in the 1970s, is part of the plan.


This is why Ehud Barak, Netanyahu's former commander in the Sayeret Matkal covert commando force, was ready in the BBC World television studio in London on 9-11 - ready to prompt the world to begin "an operational, concrete, war against terror" before either of the Twin Towers had even collapsed. Co-incidence?  Not a chance.


This is why "Solving 9-11 Ends the War" is the theme of my presentations. This is because when enough people understand that the "War on Terror" is a massive Zionist/Israeli deception that is actually designed to create more war and terrorism, we can put an end to the whole evil madness.  But, we can't end it as long as so many people are deceived and do not understand the real source of the problem. 
Photo: Mike Chickey

Dear Reader,
If you appreciate my articles, 
please support my research and writing. 

Click here to donate 
or donate via PayPal to:  bollyn@bollynbooks.com

Sources:

"Despite 14 Years of the US War on Terror, Terror Attacks Have Skyrocketed Since 9/11" by Paul Gottinger, Reader Supported News, September 11, 2015
readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/32339-focus-despite-14-years-of-the-us-war-on-terror-terror-attacks-have-skyrocketed-since-911

Mike Chickey, photographs of Bollyn at The Oscars 2015, February 22, 2015
wemustspeak.smugmug.com/9-11TRUTH/Oscars-2015/ 

"Obama's Trip to Birthplace of War on Terror" by Christopher Bollyn, March 19, 2013
www.bollyn.com/obamas-trip-to-birthplace-of-war-on-terror-2/

"The entire ‘war on terror’ has been a lie – and these charts prove it" by Rebecca Sumner, The Canary, November 28, 2015 
www.thecanary.co/2015/11/28/entire-war-terror-lie-charts-prove/

Syria: Obama's Criminal Policy on the Ropes

Updated October 18, 2015


Barack Obama during a news conference in which he said that the Syrian government is "not legitimate", October 16, 2015.

And now the Russians have come in, and Iran is going to send more people in.  But it’s also not going to work because they are trying to support a regime that in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the Syrian people is not legitimate.
- Barack Obama on foreign support for Syrian president Bashar al Assad, October 16, 2015


Bashar al Assad and his wife voting in June 2014. In an election with three candidates, al Assad won 88 percent of the votes.

The high participation rate (73 percent) in June’s presidential elections, despite the war, was at least as significant as the strong vote (88 percent) Bashar received… Participation rates are nowhere as near in the U.S.; indeed no western leader can claim such a strong democratic mandate as this ‘dictator’. The size of Bashar’s win underlines a stark reality: there never was a popular uprising against this man; and his popularity has grown.
- Prof. Tim Anderson, “Why Syrians Support Bashar al Assad”, September 30, 2014


Syrians in Lebanon hold posters of Syrian President Bashar Assad, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, and Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, with Arabic that reads "Lions of the time," during a rally to thank Moscow for its intervention in Syria, in front of the Russian embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, Sunday, Oct. 18, 2015. (AP Photo/Bilal Hussein)

Barack Obama’s comment that Syrian president Bashar al Assad is “not legitimate” is disturbing for two reasons.  First, because it is utterly false; and secondly, because it comes from a politician from Illinois, the “Land of Lincoln.”

As most Americans learn in school, Abraham Lincoln was re-elected in 1864, during the height of the U.S. Civil War, in an election in which the electoral votes of eleven Southern states were not even counted. Lincoln won with 55 percent of the popular vote. Voter turnout was about 74 percent.


President Abraham Lincoln, 1864

One hundred and fifty years later, in the middle of a similar civil war with foreign participants, the people of Syria voted in a multi-candidate presidential election and elected Bashar al Assad in a landslide, with a very similar turnout of 73 percent.

Why then does Obama say that Assad’s rule is “not legitimate”?

To be sure, Obama does not call Bashar al Assad’s rule illegitimate because the Syrian election system lacks legitimacy.  The U.S. election system, in which more than 99 percent of the votes are not even counted by the citizens, is certainly no better - and most likely much worse.

The Obama White House, like the controlled governments in London and Canada, is opposed to the rule of Bashar al Assad simply because the “administrators” are reading from a script they have been handed by their Zionist masters.

The name of the game the Rothschild-controlled governments are playing is “War and Chaos Leads to Regime Change” – but their evil game of regime change has stumbled on a very serious obstacle – Russian and Iranian support for the Assad government.

It now appears most likely that the ‘Islamist’ terrorist armies, trained and supplied by the C.I.A. and financed by Saudi Arabia, will be defeated.  In most cases, the ‘rebels’ will simply disappear into the shadows as the Syrian army, bolstered by Russian and Iranian support, take back the towns and villages they have held. Mercenaries are not willing to sacrifice themselves. They will simply join the flow of refugees to Germany, as many of them already have done.

Where will this leave Obama & Co., the quislings who have waged war, illegally, against the government of Bashar al Assad?

If the Russian intervention succeeds in routing the terrorist forces out of Syria and the war is concluded, Obama will look like a traitorous fool. He supported the overthrow of the government of Syria using illegal means and methods – and he lost. How can he defend his criminal actions in this case?

We can’t say with certainty that this will be the outcome, but it seems to be the most likely at this point.  If it does happen, it will be a huge set-back for the Zionist fraud known as the “War on Terror” with ramifications that could lead to significant changes for the better – in the United States and around the world.

Sources:

Remarks by President Obama and President Park of the Republic of Korea in Joint Press Conference, The White House, October 16, 2015
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/16/remarks-president-obama-and-president-park-republic-korea-joint-press

“Why Syrians Support Bashar al Assad” by Prof. Tim Anderson, Global Research, September 30, 2014

http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-syrians-support-bashar-al-assad/5405208 

Syria: Archbishop calls on West to back President Assad

October 16, 2015


From the land where the Christian church began, the head of the church in Aleppo tells the British (and the Americans) that they are making a huge mistake to be supporting the "jihadis and mercenaries" who are trying to overthrow the government of Syria. So, we should ask, exactly why are London and Washington working so hard to remove the leader of Syria?
 

Syrian Archbishop Pleads for Britain 
to Stop Backing Anti-Assad Islamist Groups

The Archbishop of Aleppo says the UK is 'investing in jihadis and mercenaries' and bringing about the destruction of the country

by Paul Gallagher, The Independent (UK)


The Syrian Archbishop Jean-Clément Jeanbart, from Aleppo, says it is a 'big lie' to say that the forces opposed to Assad are "moderate" and "in support of freedom". 

A Syrian archbishop has pleaded for the British Government to stop backing Islamist rebel groups who he said were in fact “fundamentalist jihadis who want to kill everyone who is not similar to them”.

Jean-Clément Jeanbart, the Archbishop of Aleppo, said the UK was inadvertently helping to bring about the destruction of Syria by funding such anti-President Assad groups. 

He also said Britain is “investing in jihadis and mercenaries who are killing anyone who is saying anything about freedom, citizenship, religious liberty and democracy”.

It was a “big lie” that moderate rebel forces in support of freedom and democracy were at war with the Assad regime, the Archbishop told MPs at a House of Lords meeting this week organised by Aid to the Church in Need, a charity set up to help persecuted Christians.

He said the four-year civil war was a contest between a modern secular state and jihadis who were destroying its culture and massacring religious minorities.

Archbishop Jeanbart accused the Western media of presenting an inaccurate depiction of the conflict. “Please, I ask you, I beseech you to have another look at our situation to see what is underneath what is happening,” he told a meeting organised by Aid to the Church in Need, a charity set up to help persecuted Christians.

“It is terrible for us to see all the marvellous things we had, destroyed for pretend democracy and freedom,” the Melkite Archbishop said. “Our country was fighting for 50 to 60 years to become a secularist regime, a pluralistic country, to give citizens their rights of religion and freedom of choice . . . and you are destroying this work and pushing on us fundamental jihadis who want to kill everyone who is not similar to them.

“They don’t accept anyone who is different. Anyone who is not a fundamentalist Muslim has no rights: no right to live, no right to be in society, no right to be a citizen.”

“We are suffering because they [the jihadi rebel groups] have destroyed everything — our economy, our industry, our churches, everything. The most important thing we are suffering from is that they are destroying man. They are taking away our right to choose what we want to be.”

The Archbishop said the Syrian representative to the UN had written 258 letters to the UN presidency protesting about the plight of his country without receiving a single reply.

David Cameron is expected to again put his case to Parliament for British military intervention in the Syrian civil war within the next few weeks.

Sources:

"Syrian archbishop pleads for UK to stop backing anti-Assad Islamist groups" by Paul Gallagher, The Independent (UK), October 16, 2015
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-archbishop-pleads-for-uk-to-stop-backing-anti-assad-islamist-groups-a6697226.html
 

"Aleppo Archbishop warns: 'You are arming our enemies'" by Simon Caldwell and Paul Wilkinson, churchtimes.co.uk, October 16, 2015
www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2015/16-october/news/uk/aleppo-archbishop-warns-you-are-arming-our-enemies

"Archbishop of Aleppo: Save Syria from fundamentalist, jihadist mercenaries" by Florence Taylor, christiantoday.com, October 14, 2015
www.christiantoday.com/article/archbishop.of.aleppo.save.syria.from.fundamentalist.jihadist.mercenaries/67605.htm

"Syria archbishop calls on West to back President Bashar al-Assad in war against Islamist rebels" by Colin Freeman, The Telegraph (UK), October 13, 2015
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11929694/Syria-archbishop-calls-on-West-to-back-President-Bashar-al-Assad-in-war-against-Islamist-rebels.html

Syria: The Russian Move - Changing the Game

October 6, 2015

“Without a doubt, Russia will win this race. I have no doubt at all, and the reason behind that is practical and simple: it’s because Russia is coordinating with the Syrian Arab Army, which is the only force in Syria that is confronting terrorism.”
- Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem, October 5, 2015

“How can the United States and its allies fight terrorism or ISIS in Syria and Iraq while their closest allies in the government of Erdogan and Davutoglu are supporting terrorists and enabling them to cross the borders and bring weapons, money, and volunteers through Turkey?” 
- Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, October 4, 2015

Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest and frank approach on Russia’s part has been recently used as a pretext for accusing it of its growing ambitions — as if those who say that have no ambitions at all. However, it is not about Russia’s ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world. What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests rather than by ambitions. Relying on international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism.
- Russian President Vladimir Putin speaking at the UN General Assembly, New York City, September 28, 2015


Putin's move in Syria is like a brilliant move in a game against an opponent who doesn't follow the rules.

If we look at the Middle East conflict like a game of chess, we would have to say that Russian president Vladimir Putin’s military intervention to support the government of Syria is a brilliant and perfectly-timed move that could change the whole game. If Putin’s move succeeds it may very well bring an end to the war in Syria in the very near future.

Putin’s move comes very late in the game, after more than four years of war in Syria, but the timing is perfect, coming shortly after U.S. policy in Syria was exposed on Capitol Hill to be a complete and very expensive failure. Furthermore, since the government of Syria requested military support from the Kremlin, Russia’s intervention in Syria is perfectly legal under international law, while U.S. intervention is not.

If Russia succeeds in defeating ISIS and bringing peace to Syria, the game will be over for the C.I.A.-trained mercenaries who are fighting against the Syrian government headed by Bashar Al Assad. A Russian victory over ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria will expose the duplicity of U.S. policy in the fraudulent “War on Terror.”


The ranks of ISIS are primarily foreign mercenaries.

It remains to be seen how the U.S. and other nations supporting the mercenary forces fighting in Syria will respond to the Russian intervention. Unlike chess, this game has no rules.

The question that Americans should be asking is:  Why is the Obama administration fighting a covert and illegal war against Syria and demanding that its leader be removed from power?

Firstly, Barack Obama and his Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, are not acting as Americans who put America’s national interests first. These men are actually working as administrators for the Rothschild family and the Zionist establishment. Ashton Carter has a long history of serving as an administrator for the Rothschild family. Carter, for example, is on the board of the Belfer Center at Harvard, where Nathaniel Rothschild is on the Advisory board.

Carter was also a Senior Partner at Global Technology Partners, LLC, (GTP) "an exclusive affiliate of Rothschild North America, formed to make acquisitions of and investments in technology, defense and aerospace-related companies."

Carter, a long-time agent of the Rothschild family, went on to serve as Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics from April 2009 to October 2011, with responsibility for procurement of all technology, systems, services, and supplies, bases and infrastructure, energy, and environment, and more than $50 billion annually in R&D. He then served as Deputy Secretary of Defense from October 2011 to December 2013, serving as the chief operating officer of the Defense Department, overseeing more than $600 billion per year. 


U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter made his career serving the Rothschild's Zionist agenda.

When he worked for the Rothschild affiliate, GTP, Carter wrote an article, with John M. Deutch and Philip D. Zelikow, entitled "Catastrophic Terrorism." This article appeared in the last issue ofForeign Affairs in 1998. The article begins with the strange subtitle "Imagining the Transforming Event," as if something like 9-11 was actually desired by the authors in order to bring about a transformation of the U.S. government and the way Americans live.

Understanding Carter’s connection to the Rothschild family is essential to understanding his hawkish position on Syria, Iran, and Russia.  He is clearly not acting in America’s best interest; he is simply following orders given by his Zionist patrons, who are the real masterminds of the fraudulent “War on Terror.”

Sources and Recommended Reading:

 

“Al-Moallem: Russian airstrikes were being prepared for months,” Syrian Radio & TV, October 5, 2015
http://www.syriaonline.sy/?f=Details&catid=12&pageid=18764 

Ashton Carter, Wikipedia, October 5, 2015
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Carter

"President al-Assad: New anti-terrorism coalition must succeed, otherwise the whole region will be destroyed," Syrian Arab News Agency, October 4, 2015
sana.sy/en/

"The Zionist Network behind 9-11" by Christopher Bollyn, December 7, 2006
www.bollyn.com/the-zionist-network-behind-9-11/

"Vladimir Putin’s Address to the United Nations Security Council" by Russian President Vladimir Putin, GlobalResearch.ca, October 02, 2015
www.globalresearch.ca/vladimir-putins-speech-to-the-united-nations-security-council/5479334
 

Relevant articles on Syria from Bollyn.com: 

“9-11 and the War in Syria” by Christopher Bollyn, September 11, 2013
http://www.bollyn.com/9-11-and-the-war-in-syria-2/

“Obama Has NO Authority to Attack Syria,” Bollyn.com, September 10, 2013
http://www.bollyn.com/obama-has-no-authority-to-attack-syria-2/

“Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothschild: The Oil Barons of Occupied Syria” by Christopher Bollyn, September 2, 2013
http://www.bollyn.com/rupert-murdoch-and-lord-rothschild-the-oil-barons-of-occupied-syria-2/

“The Massacres in Syria and Israel's ‘War of Terror’” by Christopher Bollyn, June 19, 2012
http://www.bollyn.com/the-massacres-in-syria-and-israels-war-of-terror/

“UN: Israel Supporting Syrian Rebels” by Christopher Bollyn, December 8, 2014
http://www.bollyn.com/un-israel-supporting-syrian-rebels-2/ 

Video: The Children of Gaza

July 27, 2014

Jon Snow of Britain's Channel 4 News recounts the scene in Gaza's al-Shifa hospital, where doctors struggle to treat adults and children wounded by Israeli attacks.  This short video of 3 minutes is highly recommended viewing.


Video Link - youtu.be/ACgwr2Nj_GQ

Israel Does Not Want Peace - Gideon Levy

July 5, 2014


A Palestinian looks at Har Homa, an illegal Israeli settlement next to Bethlehem. "The single most overwhelming item of evidence of Israel’s rejection of peace is, of course, the settlements project," as Gideon Levy writes. "The builders of settlements want to consolidate the occupation, and those who want to consolidate the occupation do not want peace. That’s the whole story in a nutshell."

Every home built in the territories, every light pole and every road are like a thousand witnesses: Israel does not want peace; Israel wants occupation. Whoever is serious about peace and a Palestinian state does not put up even a shed.

From Oslo through Camp David and on to the road map, Israel has not put an end to the most criminal enterprise in its history. A short memory refresher: In Article 7 of the Oslo Accords, Israel promised that "no party would undertake unilateral steps to alter the situation on the ground, prior to the completion of negotiations for the final status." That really made an impression on Israel. During the 10 years that followed, the number of settlers doubled. What about the heroic peace efforts of Ehud Barak as prime minister? During the 18 months of his government, Israel began the construction of 6,045 residential units in the territories.
- Gideon Levy, "What do you mean when you say 'no'?", Ha’aretz, November 18, 2007

Israel Does Not Want Peace
By Gideon Levy
Ha’aretz (Israel), July 4, 2014

Rejectionism is embedded in Israel's most primal beliefs. There, at the deepest level, lies the concept that this land is destined for the Jews alone.

 


Gideon Levy (born 1953) is an Israeli journalist who writes for the newspaper Ha’aretz. Levy often focuses on the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. He was awarded the Leipzig Media Award in 2003, the Euro-Med Journalist Prize for Cultural Dialogue in 2007, and the Peace Through Media Award at the eighth annual International Media Awards in 2012.

Israel does not want peace. There is nothing I have ever written that I would be happier to be proved wrong about. But the evidence is piling up. In fact, it can be said that Israel has never wanted peace – a just peace, that is, one based on a just compromise for both sides. It’s true that the routine greeting in Hebrew is Shalom (peace) – shalom when one leaves and shalom when one arrives. And, at the drop of a hat, almost every Israeli will say he wants peace, of course he does. But he’s not referring to the kind of peace that will bring about the justice without which there is no peace and there will be no peace. Israelis want peace, not justice, certainly not anything based on universal values. Thus, “Peace, peace, when there is no peace.” Not only is there no peace: In recent years, Israel has moved away from even the aspiration to make peace. It has despaired utterly of it. Peace has disappeared from the Israeli agenda, its place taken by the collective anxieties that are systematically implanted, and by personal, private matters that now take precedence over all else.

The Israeli longing for peace seemingly died about a decade ago, after the failure of the Camp David summit in 2000, the dissemination of the lie that there is no Palestinian partner for peace, and, of course, the horrific blood-soaked period of the second intifada. But the truth is that even before that, Israel never really wanted peace. Israel has never, not for a minute, treated the Palestinians as human beings with equal rights. It has never viewed their distress as understandable human and national distress.

The Israeli peace camp, too – if ever there was such a thing – also died a lingering death amid the harrowing scenes of the second intifada and the no-partner lie. All that remained were a handful of organizations that were as determined and devoted as they were ineffectual in the face of the delegitimization campaigns mounted against them. Israel, therefore, was left with its rejectionist stance.

The single most overwhelming item of evidence of Israel’s rejection of peace is, of course, the settlements project. From the dawn of its existence, there has never been a more reliable or more precise litmus test for Israel’s true intentions than this particular enterprise. In plain words: The builders of settlements want to consolidate the occupation, and those who want to consolidate the occupation do not want peace. That’s the whole story in a nutshell.

On the assumption that Israel’s decisions are rational, it is impossible to accept construction in the territories and the aspiration to peace as mutually coexisting. Every act of building in the settlements, every mobile home and every balcony, conveys rejection. If Israel had wanted to achieve peace through the Oslo Accords, it would at least have stopped the construction in the settlements at its own initiative. That this did not happen proves that Oslo was fraudulent, or at best the chronicle of a failure foretold. If Israel had wanted to achieve peace at Taba, at Camp David, at Sharm el-Sheikh, in Washington or in Jerusalem, its first move should have been to end all construction in the territories. Unconditionally. Without a quid pro quo. The fact that Israel did not is proof that it did not want a just peace.

But the settlements were only a touchstone of Israel’s intentions. Its rejectionism is embedded far more deeply – in its DNA, its bloodstream, its raison d’être, its most primal beliefs. There, at the deepest level, lies the concept that this land is destined for the Jews alone. There, at the deepest level, is entrenched the value of “am sgula” – God’s “treasured people” – and “God chose us.” In practice, this is translated to mean that, in this land, Jews are allowed to do what is forbidden to others. That is the point of departure, and there is no way to get from there to a just peace. There is no way to reach a just peace when the name of the game is the dehumanization of the Palestinians. No way to achieve peace when the demonization of the Palestinians is hammered into people’s heads day after day. Those who are convinced that every Palestinian is a suspicious person and that every Palestinian wants “to throw the Jews into the sea” will never make peace with the Palestinians. Most Israelis are convinced of the truth of both those statements.

In the past decade, the two peoples have been separated from each another. The average young Israeli will never meet his Palestinian peer, other than during his army service (and then only if he does his service in the territories). Nor will the average young Palestinian ever meet an Israeli his own age, other than the soldier who huffs and puffs at him at the checkpoint, or invades his home in the middle of the night, or in the person of the settler who usurps his land or torches his groves.

Consequently, the only encounter between the two people is between the occupiers, who are armed and violent, and the occupied, who are despairing and also turn to violence. Gone are the days when Palestinians worked in Israel and Israelis shopped in Palestine. Gone is the period of the half-normal and quarter-equal relations that existed for a few decades between the two peoples that share the same piece of territory. It is very easy, in this state of affairs, to incite and inflame the two peoples against one another, to spread fears and to instill new hatreds on top of those that already exist. This, too, is a sure recipe for non-peace.

So it was that a new Israeli yearning sprang up: the desire for separation: “They will be there and we will be here (and also there).” At a time when the majority of Palestinians – an assessment I allow myself to make after decades of covering the territories – still want coexistence, even if less and less, most Israelis want disengagement and separation, but without paying the price. The two-state vision has gained widespread adherence, but without any intention to implement it in practice. Most Israelis are in favor, but not now and maybe not even here. They have been trained to believe that there is no partner for peace – a Palestinian partner, that is – but that there is an Israeli partner.

Unfortunately, the truth is almost the reverse. The Palestinian non-partners no longer have any chance to prove that they are partners; the Israeli non-partners are convinced that they are interlocutors. So began the process in which Israeli conditions, obstacles and difficulties were heaped up, one more milestone in Israeli rejectionism. First came the demand for a cessation of terrorism; then the demand for a change of leadership (Yasser Arafat as a stumbling block); and after that Hamas became the hurdle. Now it’s the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Israel considers every step it takes – from mass political arrests to building in the territories – to be legitimate, whereas every Palestinian move is “unilateral.”

The only country on the planet with no borders is so far unwilling to delineate even the compromise borders it is ready to be satisfied with. Israel has not internalized the fact that, for the Palestinians, the borders of 1967 are the mother of all compromises, the red line of justice (or relative justice). For the Israelis, they are “suicide borders.” This is why the preservation of the status quo has become the true Israeli aim, the primary goal of Israeli policy, almost its be-all and end-all. The problem is that the existing situation cannot last forever. Historically, few nations have ever agreed to live under occupation without resistance. And the international community, too, is one day apt to utter a firm pronouncement on this state of affairs, with accompanying punitive measures. It follows that the Israeli goal is unrealistic.

Disconnected from reality, the majority of Israelis pursue their regular way of life. In their mind’s eye the world is always against them, and the areas of occupation on their doorstep are beyond their realm of interest. Anyone who dares criticize the occupation policy is branded an anti-Semite, every act of resistance is perceived as an existential threat. All international opposition to the occupation is read as the “delegitimizing” of Israel and as a provocation to the country’s very existence. The world’s seven billion people – most of whom are against the occupation – are wrong, and six million Israeli Jews – most of whom support the occupation – are right. That’s the reality in the eyes of the average Israeli.

Add to this the repression, the concealment and the obfuscation, and you have another explanation for the rejectionism: Why should anyone strive for peace as long as life in Israel is good, calm prevails and the reality is concealed? The only way the besieged Gaza Strip can remind people of its existence is by firing rockets, and the West Bank only gets onto the agenda these days when blood is shed there. Similarly, the viewpoint of the international community is only taken into account when it tries to impose boycotts and sanctions, which in their turn immediately generate a campaign of self-victimization studded with blunt – and at times also impertinent – historical accusations.

This, then, is the gloomy picture. It contains not a ray of hope. The change will not happen on its own, from within Israeli society, as long as that society continues to behave as it does. The Palestinians have made more than one mistake, but their mistakes are marginal. Basic justice is on their side, and basic rejectionism is the Israelis’ purview. The Israelis want occupation, not peace.

I only hope I am wrong.

Source:  “Israel does not want peace” by Gideon Levy, Ha’aretz (Israel), July 4, 2014
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-peace-conference/1.601112 

How Will the False-Flag Kidnapping Scenario End?

June 27, 2014  

"False flag operations, while not new, are the new norm."
- a reader comments on
 “Is the Israeli Kidnapping Real - or False-Flag?” 

"I am certain that Marwan and Amer were detained by Israeli Special Forces and that the Israeli occupation government will eventually kill them and say the settlers were freed – just to score internal political gains." 
- Omar Abu Eisha, father of Amer Abu Eisha, who along with Marwan Qawasmeh, is accused by Israel’s Shin Bet of kidnapping the three missing Israeli settlers.

Source: “Israel kidnap claim 'stunt,' say families of suspects” by Qais Abu Samra in Ramallah, Anadolu Agency, June 27, 2014  


The terrain around Hebron is rugged and has many caves. Much of the area has been ethnically cleansed of its native Palestinian inhabitants and turned into closed military zones. Will the final scenario of the false-flag kidnapping end in a cave in the rugged hills of Hebron? 
Photo - Campaign for abolition of 'Firing Zone 918' in South Hebron Hills


Two weeks after three Israeli settlers were kidnapped near Hebron on the West Bank, the Israeli Shin Bet announced that two suspects had been identified. These two Palestinian men, said to be members of Hamas, disappeared on the same day as the three Israelis. Were the two Palestinians kidnapped in order to be sacrificed as scapegoats in a false-flag operation? Will the kidnapping scenario end with the deaths of these two men in a cave in the hills south of Hebron?


"HUNDREDS ARRESTED" - Hundreds of Palestinians have been arrested across the West Bank as Benjamin Netanyahu exploited the false-flag kidnapping as an excuse for a massive military crack-down and kidnapping of Palestinian kids.

THE STAGE IS SET

In what appears to be an Israeli-orchestrated fake kidnapping plot designed to vilify Hamas, the stage is now set for what appears to be its imminent final scene. The setting of the stage came with the announcement on June 26 that the Israeli authorities had identified two suspects from Hebron. This suggests that the climax is near. 

As the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported on June 27:

Israel's defense establishment believes it has narrowed down the identities of the two Hamas militants who kidnapped three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank two weeks ago, it emerged Thursday after a gag order was lifted.

The Shin Bet security service revealed the two militants' names in a statement: Marwan Qawasmeh and Amar Abu Aisha, two known operatives in the Hebron area.

In a statement on Qawasmeh and Abu Aisha, the Shin Bet security service said the two were considered suspects immediately after the abduction, adding that ever since, “the Shin Bet and the Israel Defense Forces have pursued the men, first and foremost in order to locate the kidnapped teens.”

Both men were known to be missing from the day of the kidnapping, two weeks ago. Their homes were raided about three days after the abduction, and many of their relatives were arrested. The Shin Bet said in its statement that both were involved with Hamas in the Hebron area. According to Palestinian sources, both men’s wives — Qawasmeh’s wife is eight months’ pregnant — were arrested and detained briefly.

THE FINAL SCENE

I have suspected all along that this kidnapping scenario would end in a cave in the hills around Hebron and that the blame would then be fixed on Hamas. I see it happening something like this:  Israeli forces will locate the kidnappers and boys being held in a cave, probably on or near a closed Israeli military zone. A shoot-out between the kidnappers and the Israeli military results in the kidnappers being killed and the three Jewish students being released, perhaps even on the sabbath. The Israeli population is greatly relieved, celebrates the sabbath and sings praises to the military and their brave leader, Bibi Netanyahu.


LIVING IN A CAVE - Some Palestinian families, like this one near Jerusalem, have been forced to live in caves after the Israeli army destroyed their homes. Source - “Palestinian family moves to cave after home demolished,” Times of Israel, August 28, 2013

The dead kidnappers are identified as members of Hamas from Hebron, a Turkish connection may also be found, and Benjamin Netanyahu is praised for having been right about the evil Hamas and its connection to the kidnapping. Netanyahu is vindicated and King Bibi demands Hamas be banned from any future political role in the Palestinian government.

HAIL KING BIBI


THE SHIN BET (or Shabak) is the Israeli "security" agency that is engaged in "counter-terrorism activities" in both Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

The announcement by the Shin Bet that these two Palestinian men from Hebron have been missing since the day of the kidnapping is "news" that is meant to set the stage for the final scene of the kidnapping scenario.  That final scene could happen today already, which would be a special dose of "good news" for the Israeli public on the eve of the sabbath.

Regardless whether it happens today or tomorrow, something like the scenario I have described is bound to happen soon and the arch-terrorist Benjamin Netanyahu will then be praised as a hero of Israel. That is, after all, one of the reasons for the whole exercise.

If, however, "Netanyahu the psychopath" is exposed as being the political mastermind behind the false-flag kidnapping operation, and if - and when - the Israeli people and others understand that he arranged the whole operation to achieve his strategic and personal goals, it will be "game over" for him and his partners in false-flag terrorism. For the victims of 9-11 and other acts of Israeli terrorism, that day cannot come soon enough.


HERO? - or TERRORIST PSYCHOPATH? 
King Bibi tells Palestinian president Abbas: Break off pact with Hamas terrorists

Video Link - youtu.be/xKoLdmlqyUk

Sources and Recommended Reading:

 

“Israel kidnap claim 'stunt,' say families of suspects” by Qais Abu Samra in Ramallah, Anadolu Agency, June 27, 2014
http://www.aa.com.tr/en/rss/351032--israel-kidnap-claim-stunt-say-families-of-suspects 

“Palestinian Cave Culture: Underground Cities and Cave Dwellings in the Mountains of Hebron” by Dr. Ali Qleibo, ThisWeekinPalestine.com, March 2011
http://thisweekinpalestine.com/details.php?id=3351&ed=192&edid=192 

“Palestinian family moves to cave after home demolished,” Times of Israel, August 28, 2013
http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-home-demolished-family-moves-to-cave/

"Rescue units rushed to Hebron, searching wells and caves," Ynetnews.com, June 21, 2014
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4532764,00.html

"Shin Bet names two Hamas militants as West Bank kidnappers,"Ha'aretz (Israel), June 27, 2014
www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.601560 

Is the Israeli Kidnapping Real - or False-Flag?

June 22, 2014

"Netanyahu, I can’t stand him. He’s a liar."
- French President Nicolas Sarkozy to Barack Obama, November 2011


The recent unity pact between Hamas and Fatah brought the two long-divided factions together to create a strong and united Palestinian government. The Israeli government, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu of the far-right Likud, a coalition of Zionist terrorists, condemned the new Palestinian government with Hamas as being united with "terrorists".


On June 12, three teenagers from an illegal Israeli settlement on the occupied West Bank disappeared.  Netanyahu blames Hamas, which has denied any involvement.


Based on nothing but unproven allegations, Netanyahu has cracked down across the West Bank, killing at least 4 Palestinians.  Israeli and Palestinian critics alike, however, suspect that Netanyahu has committed another false-flag operation to allow him to wage war on the new Palestinian government. How will this sordid affair end? Will it mean the end for Netanyahu?

It was a major development for the Palestinian people when the two leading Palestinian political parties, Fatah and Hamas, announced a unity pact in late April 2014.  Predictably, the Israeli government and U.S. State Department condemned the unity pact that brought the two factions together after seven years of division.

The Israeli government, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu of the far-right Likud coalition of former terrorist parties, called for the world to reject the united Palestinian government:  "I call on all responsible elements in the international community not to rush to recognize a Palestinian government which has Hamas as part of it and which is dependent on Hamas," Netanyahu told his cabinet, according to Reuters.

Faced with a stronger and more united Palestinian government, Netanyahu desperately sought for ways to convince the international community that Hamas is a terrorist organization that cannot be dealt with.  The reported abduction of three Israeli teens, yeshiva students from illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank, south of Jerusalem, gave Netanyahu the excuse he needed to crack down on Palestinians across the whole expanse of occupied territories.

While Netanyahu blames Hamas for the abduction of the three teens, the Israeli and international press, such as The Economist, point out that “it is unclear who did the deed”:

The abduction of three young Jewish settlers on June 12th near the city of Hebron, in the south of the West Bank, has stirred Israeli emotions as viscerally as the kidnapping of a young Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, by militants of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement, eight years ago. This time it is unclear who did the deed… Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has blamed Hamas, which, to his fury, has recently sealed a Palestinian unity government with its more secular rival, Fatah.

…Israeli politicians and generals say they are certain Hamas is behind the kidnapping. But the movement has denied it.
The Economist, “Stirring bad blood,” June 21, 2014

While Netanyahu blames Hamas, senior Palestinian officials think the kidnapping story may be a fabrication; a false-flag operation designed to vilify Hamas and provide an excuse for Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people.  This line of thinking is supported by well-known Israeli critics like Gilad Atzmon and such skeptical opinions are widely reported in the Israeli and international press:

Senior officials from both the United Nations and the Palestinian Authority on Tuesday suggested that Israel might have fabricated the story that three Jewish youths - Eyal Yifrach, Gilad Shaar and Naftali Frenkel - were abducted by Hamas terrorists last week.
-  “UN, PA Suggest Israel Made Up Abduction Story” by Ryan Jones, Israel Today, June 18, 2014

It hasn’t been clearly established that the 3 Israeli settler teenagers were abducted. As time has passed, more and more analysts believe that the recent affair may be another Israeli false flag operation. Remember that the Mossad’s motto is ‘By Way of Deception.’ As we review the available evidence, we see that the ‘kidnap’ provides Israel with an opportunity to hit hard at Palestinian civilians and leadership.
- Gilad Atzmon, “Ed Miliband: A Shameless Zionist,” June 19, 2014

"I have no credible information that Hamas was behind the kidnapping.  Does Netanyahu have such information? I do not intend to punish anyone based off suspicions or because Netanyahu claims something.”
- Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, “Abbas to Haaretz: Netanyahu should denounce deaths of three Palestinian teenagers” by Jack Khoury and Barak Ravid, Ha’aretz, June 22, 2014

"Let's think well of the growing possibility that all what's happening is a play that wasn't produced well and that no one was kidnapped in the first place."
- Mahmoud al-Aloul, “Fatah official: Kidnapping of Israeli boys nothing but an Israeli 'play'” by Khaled Abu Toameh, Jerusalem Post, June 18, 2014

"He cannot keep blaming one side without showing evidence. When you go to court if you don't show evidence you lose your case.  Three kids have disappeared, but in exchange for that the Israeli army has taken 300 Palestinians... Their reaction went beyond logic. They have destroyed more than 150 Palestinian homes since last week… if Netanyahu has any evidence, he has to put it on the table."
-Palestinian foreign minister Riyad al-Malki, “Palestinian FM: Israel overreacting on abducted teens,” AFP, June 20, 2014

If the kidnapping of the three teens is an Israeli false-flag operation designed to allow Netanyahu to crack down on Hamas and the Palestinian people, it certainly would not be the first time.  The way that Netanyahu has exploited the situation to try and force the international community to reject the new Palestinian government suggests that this is the real purpose behind the abduction. 

In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas (Fatah) asks why Netanyahu does not apologize for the killings of three Palestinian teens during the recent crackdown:

“I said the kidnapping was a crime, but does that justify the killing of three Palestinian teens in cold blood? What does Netanyahu have to say about the killings? Does he condemn it? Look at what’s happened all over the West Bank over the past days, the violence and the destruction of homes. Is that justified?”

Abbas continued that Netanyahu needed to “see how his soldiers behave toward Palestinians. What will I tell the families of the three Palestinian teens who were killed? Why were they killed? We’re human beings, just like you. Can the Israeli government demonstrate the same feelings and say they are human beings and deserve to live? The Palestinian people are frustrated over how they are treated. As if the Israelis were human beings and the Palestinians are not. We don’t want terror and we don’t want war. We want peace.”

The Prime Minister’s 
Office stated in response, “Abu Mazen’s words would have substance if he dissolved his alliance with Hamas, the organization behind this abduction and which calls for the destruction of Israel.”
- Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, “Abbas to Haaretz: Netanyahu should denounce deaths of three Palestinian teenagers” by Jack Khoury and Barak Ravid, Ha’aretz, June 22, 2014
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.600256

Is the kidnapping of the three teens real or is it a false-flag operation?  There are a number of things that indicate that neither Hamas nor any other Palestinian group is behind the abduction:

1.  After 10 days, Netanyahu has not presented any evidence to support his allegation that Hamas is behind the kidnapping.

2.  Neither Hamas nor any other Palestinian group has taken responsibility for the kidnapping. Hamas, for its part, has officially denied being involved.

3.  No demands, such as an exchange of prisoners, have been presented by any such group. Why would a Palestinian group kidnap Israelis and make no demands while the Israeli army wreaks havoc and kills innocent people in the occupied territories?

If Netanyahu has real evidence that Hamas is behind the kidnapping, why doesn’t he show it?  Why would he hold back with the evidence that would make his allegations credible? 

If this ends with the missing teens being rescued, how will Netanyahu try to convince the world that Hamas was truly behind the kidnapping?  If Netanyahu cannot prove his case against Hamas with solid and indisputable proof that the Palestinian organization was really behind the kidnapping this could very well be the last such hoax that Netanyahu pulls.  

Who is Behind the Chaos in Iraq?

June 18, 2014

The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.
"The Zionist Plan for the Middle East" by Oded Yinon, translated and edited by Israel Shahak


Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Shaam (ISIS) with senior commander Abu Waheeb.  Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has accused U.S. allies, namely Saudi Arabia and Qatar, of funding the Sunni Muslim insurgents.  Who is really behind the chaos in Iraq and what is the goal?  If these men are truly Iraqi fighters, why do they hide their faces?
Photo: The Telegraph

In yesterday's opinion piece in the Washington Post entitled, "Where is the accountability on Iraq?" Katrina vanden Heuvel asks, "Can someone explain to me why the media still solicit advice about the crisis in Iraq from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)?  Or Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)?  How many times does the Beltway hawk caucus get to be wrong before we recognize that maybe, just maybe, its members don’t know what they’re talking about?"

Vanden Heuvel continues:

Certainly Politico could have found someone with more credibility than Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy in the George W. Bush administration and one of the architects of the Iraq war, to comment on how the White House might react to the rapidly deteriorating political situation in Iraq today. Certainly New York Times columnist David Brooks knows what folly it is to equate President Obama’s 2011 troop removal with Bush’s 2003 invasion, as he did during a discussion with me last Friday on NPR?

Just a reminder of what that 2003 invasion led to: Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes authoritatively priced Bush’s war at more than $3 trillion. About 320,000 U.S. veterans suffer from brain injury as a result of their service. Between 500,000 and 655,000 Iraqis died, as well as more than 4,000 U.S. military members.

Yet as Brooks’s words reveal, the prevailing mindset in today’s media is to treat the 2003 invasion as if its prosecution were an act of God — like Hurricane Katrina, an inevitability that could not have been avoided. Seen this way, policymakers can ignore the idiocy of the decision to invade in the first place and can instead direct all of their critical attention to how to deal with the aftermath. It’s almost as though the mainstream media have demoted themselves from a corps of physicians, eager and able to diagnose, prognosticate and prescribe, to one of EMTs, charged instead with triaging, cleaning and cauterizing a catastrophe without investigating its underlying cause. 

WHY DOES THE MEDIA PROMOTE THE ZIONIST WAR AGENDA?

So, after decades of disastrous policies that have utterly wrecked the nation of Iraq, why does the media still solicit advice about the crisis in Iraq from war hawks like Sen. John McCain, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and Douglas Feith?  


Sen. John McCain is the leading supporter of the Zionist war agenda in the U.S. Congress.  Here he meets with Islamic insurgents in Syria.  If these insurgents were not part of the Zionist war agenda McCain would not support them.

The answer is quite simple:  The big media outlets in the United States give time and space to war hawks like John McCain because he is a leading advocate of the Zionist war agenda.  Like McCain, the big media outlets are also controlled by Zionists who support the war agenda.  They are simply using people like McCain, Graham, and Feith to promote it.

The real question is what is the Zionist war agenda?  Is the current crisis caused by the ISIS insurgency in Iraq part of this agenda?  To answer these questions we need to understand that the Zionist agenda calls for the destruction and "Balkanization" of the large secular Arab states in the Middle East, like Iraq.  Balkanization is the strategy of fomenting sectarian divisions in order to break up nations in the same way that Yugoslavia was divided into a half-dozen poor and weak ethnic statelets. This has been Israel's strategy for the Middle East since the early 1980s when the Zionist Balkanization plan, known as the Oded Yinon paper, was leaked to the media.


The Zionist plan for Iraq (as articulated in Oded Yinon's "Balkanization" paper) is to foment sectarian conflict in order to divide the country into smaller ethnic statelets that would be easy to control and exploit.  Under Saddam Hussein's secular Ba'ath regime there was no conflict between the various ethnic or religious groups in Iraq.  The ethnic tensions were created by false-flag terrorism - after the U.S. invasion of 2003.

A second part of the Zionist war agenda is to keep the United States military engaged in the region on a permanent basis.  The crisis caused by the Islamist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant or Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIL or ISIS) is meant to bring the U.S. military into Syria and Iraq.

A third goal of the Zionist war agenda (and the media outlets it controls) is to increase fear in the West of Islam, which the current crisis is doing.

A fourth element of the Zionist war agenda is to maintain the highest possible levels of defense spending in order to profit from the war industries and the government borrowing that is required by the increased defense spending.

To help people understand the Zionist plan to create sectarian divisions in Iraq in order to break the country into weak ethnic statelets, I am re-publishing my article, "The Zionist Strategy to Balkanize Iraq" from October 2005. 

The Zionist Strategy to Balkanize Iraq

October 3, 2005

The arrest of two British agents disguised as Shiite "terrorists" with a car full of explosives in Basra suggests that British occupation forces are involved in Iraq's so-called sectarian terror bombings, which, until now, have been mysterious, unclaimed and unexplained acts of senseless violence. The on-going wave of "false flag" terror bombings is the realization of the Zionist strategy and is meant to foment civil strife leading to the Balkanization of Iraq.
 
After shooting and killing Iraqi police and civilians in Basra, two British agents from the Special Air Service (SAS) or a branch organization of the special forces, disguised as suicide bombers from the Mehdi Army, were caught "red-handed" in a car loaded with explosives. Unable to secure the release of the two disguised terrorists from the local police, British forces took extraordinary action and bulldozed the police compound and jail in Basra and threatened Iraqi police officers at gunpoint until the British agents were turned over.
 
The front pages of the leading British papers on Sept. 20 carried dramatic photos of a burning tank involved in the first attempt to release the men, but the more significant and largely obscured story was in the details of the two British terror agents "whose arrest set Basra ablaze," as the Daily Mail wrote.
 
The International Herald Tribune, the American paper published abroad by the New York Times, did not even mention the important events in Basra that have apparently exposed a source of the so-called sectarian terrorism in Iraq. Unclaimed and seemingly random car bombings have claimed hundreds of Iraqi lives in the past month, and thousands have perished in similar senseless bombings in the 30 months since the Anglo American occupation of Iraq began. This wave of apparent "false flag" terror attacks is actually the realization of a long-held Zionist strategy to foment sectarian violence leading to the Balkanization of Iraq into three ethnic statelets.
 
BOMBING MARKETS
 
Many of these car bombings are not carried out by suicide bombers, but are simply parked cars loaded with explosives, like that driven by the two arrested British "soldiers." These car bombs are usually left near crowded areas, such as markets, and kill many innocent civilians. On Sept. 30, for example, a car bomb detonated near a fruit and vegetable market in the town of Hilla, killing 8 and wounding 41. Similar car bombs killed 110 Iraqi Shiite civilians in the two days prior to Sept. 30.
 
On Sept. 29, three pick-up trucks packed with explosives detonated in quick succession in Balad, 80 km north of Baghdad. The first bomb went off at the open-air market. Ten minutes later, the second car bomb detonated across the street, just as emergency workers were arriving. The third bomb exploded 10 minutes later in a residential area reported to be predominantly Shiite. "There were no police there, no American patrols, only innocent people shopping at the market," a high-ranking Balad police official told the New York Times.
 
Likewise, on Sept. 18, a car bomb killed 30 people at the market in Nahrwan, about 45 km from Baghdad. "It was not a suicide bomb," a police spokesman said. "A car parked in the middle of the square, and later it blew up." In the week of the Nahrwan market bombing more than 200 Iraqis were killed in bombings and shootings in and around Baghdad.
 
On Sept. 16, a "suicide" car bomber struck worshippers leaving a Shiite mosque in Tuz Khormato, 130 km north of Baghdad. Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, speaking in New York, said the bomber was a Syrian, without providing any evidence to support his claim.
 
BRITISH BOMBERS EXPOSED
 
The Washington Post reported that the two Britons had been accused "of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives." The governor of Basra, Mohammed al-Waili, said the British agents had been arrested after shooting two policemen and killing one. "They were driving a civilian car and were dressed in civilian clothes when a shooting took place between them and Iraqi patrols," an official said. "We are investigating and an Iraqi judge is on the case questioning them."
 
"The men were said to have had guns and explosives with them," the BBC and British papers reported. Paul Wood of the BBC said the two British agents were probably on a covert mission to get intelligence needed to stop further attacks on British troops. "Their weapons, explosives and communications gear are standard kit for British special forces," Wood said. Wood did not mention if the wigs and Arab disguises are also considered "standard kit" for British special forces.
 
However, it seems highly unlikely that the two non-Arab British agents wearing black bushy wigs could have gotten past the front door in any infiltration attempt. Their disguises would have failed to fool any Iraqi who got close enough to speak with them.
 
In a statement, British Brigadier John Lorimer said that under Iraqi law the "soldiers" should have been handed over to coalition authorities. When negotiations failed to secure the release of the British agents, a British armored personnel carrier flattened a wall of the prison. The attack on the prison involved a dozen military vehicles and helicopters. The British command was clearly urgently concerned about what the men might have revealed to Iraqi police under interrogation. Gov. al-Waili called the operation a "barbaric act of aggression."
 
While the significance of the British terrorists in disguise was not discussed in the mainstream media, it was more fully investigated by Socialist Worker, an on-line news site of the Socialist Party of Britain. Sheikh Hassan al-Zarqani, a Basra-based spokesperson for rebel Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, told the Socialist Worker that the two British agents had been armed with explosives and a remote control detonator. The two bearded British agents had been wearing black wigs and disguised as members of Sadr's militia, the Mehdi Army, when they were caught. This is a commonly employed tactic of "false flag terrorism" often used by the Israeli secret services in the occupied Palestinian territories.
 
The Arab disguises are meant to provide eyewitness accounts that whatever terror operation the men were involved in would be reported as having been carried out by Iraqis.
 
The incident in Basra, according to Sheikh Hassan, began when a senior official of Sadr's movement, Sheikh Ahmad Fartusi, was arrested on Sunday, Sept. 18. "We called a protest outside the mayor's office on Monday demanding the Sheikh be released," Hassan said. "This protest was peaceful. But events in our city took a sinister turn when the police tried to stop two men dressed as members of the Mehdi Army driving near the protest. The men opened fire on the police and passers-by. After a car chase they were arrested," Hassan said.
 
"What our police found in their car was very disturbing - weapons, explosives and a remote control detonator," he said. "These are the weapons of terrorists. We believe these soldiers were planning an attack on a market or other civilian targets, and thanks be to God, they were stopped and countless lives were saved.
 
"The two men were taken to the police station to answer questions about their activities. That afternoon the British army came in tanks and armored cars demanding the two be released. The police refused as they were considered to be planning terrorist attacks, and as they were disguised as members of the Mehdi Army, the police wanted to know who their target was.
 
"Thousands of people gathered to defend the police station. British troops opened fire and the crowds responded with stones and fire bombs. Why were these men dressed as Mehdi Army?" Hassan asked. "Why were they carrying explosives and where were they planning to detonate their bomb? Were they planning an outrage so that they could create tensions with other communities? Were they going to kill innocent people to put the blame on Al Qaida, who do not have any support in our city?
 
"The soldiers drove a tank into the police station and threatened to kill the police officers if they did not hand over the two terrorists," Hassan said. "It is only then, to save any further loss of life, that the men were released."
 
On Sept. 22, Judge Raghib al-Mudhafar, chief of the Basra Anti-Terrorism Court, reissued homicide arrest warrants for the two British soldiers. Britain says its troops, in disguise or otherwise, are not legally bound by Iraqi law or warrants. "All British troops in Iraq come under the jurisdiction of Britain," a defense spokesman said in London.
 
Five days before the arrest of the two British agents in Basra, Al Jazeera had reported on the growing suspicion that the occupation forces are the real perpetrators of bomb attacks in Iraq in an interview with Iran's top military commander, Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr.
 
Zolqadr said the United States and Israel were behind the so-called sectarian bombing attacks that have killed thousands of civilians in Iraq.
 
The occupation forces, Zolqadr told senior officials, need these attacks to justify the continuation of their military presence in Iraq.
 
"The Americans blame weak and feeble groups in Iraq for insecurity in this country. We do not believe this and we have information that the insecurity has its roots in the activities of American and Israeli spies," Zolqadr said. "Insecurity in Iraq is a deeply-rooted phenomenon. The root of insecurity in Iraq lies in the occupation of this country by foreigners," Zolqadr said. "If Iraq is to become secure, there will be no room for the occupiers".
 
The U.S. wanted to remain in Iraq to "plunder the country's wealth, bring the Middle East under its control, and create security for Israel, which is on the verge of annihilation," according to Zolqadr.
 
BALKANIZING IRAQ
 
The most obvious strategy of the "false flag" terrorism is to foment civil strife in Iraq to advance a divide and conquer policy known as Balkanization. This strategy is aimed at dividing Iraq into three ethnic statelets, as was done with the former Yugoslavia. British forces have employed "false flag" terror tactics as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy in other conflicts in the past.
 
The mainstream news reports of the seemingly senseless terror bombings in Iraq always carry a refrain of explanation pointing to the long-held Zionist strategy of Balkanization in the Middle East, such as: "The overwhelming violence in recent days appeared designed to further split the country along ethnic and religious lines."
 
The so-called sectarian bombings in Iraq, however, are never claimed by actual Iraqi organizations. The evidence, rather suggests these are outside agencies, such as the Israeli Mossad and British MI6, working closely with the occupation forces.
 
In 1982, Oded Yinon, an Israeli foreign policy advisor, articulated the Zionist strategy to Balkanize the Middle East by breaking up the Arab states of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria," Yinon wrote. "In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces."
 
Yinon's article, "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties," written in Hebrew, appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. The article is considered one of the most explicit and detailed statements of Zionist strategy in the Middle East. The Yinon essay was translated by the late Israel Shahak shortly in 1982 and can be found in Shahak's work entitled "The Zionist Plan for the Middle East."
 
The Yinon essay "represents the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states," Shahak wrote in his forward to the translated article. The Zionist vision for the Middle East rests on two essential premises: To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states.
 
An Israeli official was quoted in the July 26, 1982, issue of Newsweek: "Ideally, we'd like to see Iraq disintegrate into a Shi'ite, Kurdish and Sunni community, each making war on the other."
 
"The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking," Shahak wrote. "For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent for Ha'aretz wrote on June 2, 1982 about the 'best' that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: 'The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part.'"
 
"The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes," Shahak wrote. "But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the 'defense of the West' from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest."
- See more at: http://www.bollyn.com/the-zionist-strategy-to-balkanize-iraq#sthash.gA4NiRva.dpuf

The Zionist Strategy to Balkanize Iraq
by Christopher Bollyn
October 3, 2005


WHAT A REAL TERRORIST LOOKS LIKE - Two British SAS men dressed as Shiite "terrorists" were caught in Basra, Iraq, in September 2005 after having committed a terrorist act.  They were caught in a car they had loaded with explosives and were prepared to detonate.  The British Army attacked the Iraqi jail to get these terrorists released before they could appear in a court of law. 

The arrest of two British agents disguised as Shiite "terrorists" with a car full of explosives in Basra suggests that British occupation forces are involved in Iraq's so-called sectarian terror bombings, which, until now, have been mysterious, unclaimed and unexplained acts of senseless violence. The on-going wave of "false flag" terror bombings is the realization of the Zionist strategy and is meant to foment civil strife leading to the Balkanization of Iraq. 

After shooting and killing Iraqi police and civilians in Basra, two British agents from the Special Air Service (SAS) or a branch organization of the special forces, disguised as suicide bombers from the Mehdi Army, were caught "red-handed" in a car loaded with explosives. Unable to secure the release of the two disguised terrorists from the local police, British forces took extraordinary action and bulldozed the police compound and jail in Basra and threatened Iraqi police officers at gunpoint until the British agents were turned over. 

The front pages of the leading British papers on Sept. 20 carried dramatic photos of a burning tank involved in the first attempt to release the men, but the more significant and largely obscured story was in the details of the two British terror agents "whose arrest set Basra ablaze," as the Daily Mail wrote. 

The International Herald Tribune, the American paper published abroad by the New York Times, did not even mention the important events in Basra that have apparently exposed a source of the so-called sectarian terrorism in Iraq. Unclaimed and seemingly random car bombings have claimed hundreds of Iraqi lives in the past month, and thousands have perished in similar senseless bombings in the 30 months since the Anglo American occupation of Iraq began. This wave of apparent "false flag" terror attacks is actually the realization of a long-held Zionist strategy to foment sectarian violence leading to the Balkanization of Iraq into three ethnic statelets. 

BOMBING MARKETS 

Many of these car bombings are not carried out by suicide bombers, but are simply parked cars loaded with explosives, like that driven by the two arrested British "soldiers." These car bombs are usually left near crowded areas, such as markets, and kill many innocent civilians. On Sept. 30, for example, a car bomb detonated near a fruit and vegetable market in the town of Hilla, killing 8 and wounding 41. Similar car bombs killed 110 Iraqi Shiite civilians in the two days prior to Sept. 30. 

On Sept. 29, three pick-up trucks packed with explosives detonated in quick succession in Balad, 80 km north of Baghdad. The first bomb went off at the open-air market. Ten minutes later, the second car bomb detonated across the street, just as emergency workers were arriving. The third bomb exploded 10 minutes later in a residential area reported to be predominantly Shiite. "There were no police there, no American patrols, only innocent people shopping at the market," a high-ranking Balad police official told the New York Times

Likewise, on Sept. 18, a car bomb killed 30 people at the market in Nahrwan, about 45 km from Baghdad. "It was not a suicide bomb," a police spokesman said. "A car parked in the middle of the square, and later it blew up." In the week of the Nahrwan market bombing more than 200 Iraqis were killed in bombings and shootings in and around Baghdad. 

On Sept. 16, a "suicide" car bomber struck worshippers leaving a Shiite mosque in Tuz Khormato, 130 km north of Baghdad. Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, speaking in New York, said the bomber was a Syrian, without providing any evidence to support his claim. 

BRITISH BOMBERS EXPOSED 

The Washington Post reported that the two Britons had been accused "of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives." The governor of Basra, Mohammed al-Waili, said the British agents had been arrested after shooting two policemen and killing one. "They were driving a civilian car and were dressed in civilian clothes when a shooting took place between them and Iraqi patrols," an official said. "We are investigating and an Iraqi judge is on the case questioning them." 

"The men were said to have had guns and explosives with them," the BBC and British papers reported. Paul Wood of the BBC said the two British agents were probably on a covert mission to get intelligence needed to stop further attacks on British troops. "Their weapons, explosives and communications gear are standard kit for British special forces," Wood said. Wood did not mention if the wigs and Arab disguises are also considered "standard kit" for British special forces. 

However, it seems highly unlikely that the two non-Arab British agents wearing black bushy wigs could have gotten past the front door in any infiltration attempt. Their disguises would have failed to fool any Iraqi who got close enough to speak with them. 

In a statement, British Brigadier John Lorimer said that under Iraqi law the "soldiers" should have been handed over to coalition authorities. When negotiations failed to secure the release of the British agents, a British armored personnel carrier flattened a wall of the prison. The attack on the prison involved a dozen military vehicles and helicopters. The British command was clearly urgently concerned about what the men might have revealed to Iraqi police under interrogation. Gov. al-Waili called the operation a "barbaric act of aggression." 

While the significance of the British terrorists in disguise was not discussed in the mainstream media, it was more fully investigated by Socialist Worker, an on-line news site of the Socialist Party of Britain. Sheikh Hassan al-Zarqani, a Basra-based spokesperson for rebel Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, told the Socialist Worker that the two British agents had been armed with explosives and a remote control detonator. The two bearded British agents had been wearing black wigs and disguised as members of Sadr's militia, the Mehdi Army, when they were caught. This is a commonly employed tactic of "false flag terrorism" often used by the Israeli secret services in the occupied Palestinian territories. 

The Arab disguises are meant to provide eyewitness accounts that whatever terror operation the men were involved in would be reported as having been carried out by Iraqis. 

The incident in Basra, according to Sheikh Hassan, began when a senior official of Sadr's movement, Sheikh Ahmad Fartusi, was arrested on Sunday, Sept. 18. "We called a protest outside the mayor's office on Monday demanding the Sheikh be released," Hassan said. "This protest was peaceful. But events in our city took a sinister turn when the police tried to stop two men dressed as members of the Mehdi Army driving near the protest. The men opened fire on the police and passers-by. After a car chase they were arrested," Hassan said. 

"What our police found in their car was very disturbing - weapons, explosives and a remote control detonator," he said. "These are the weapons of terrorists. We believe these soldiers were planning an attack on a market or other civilian targets, and thanks be to God, they were stopped and countless lives were saved. 

"The two men were taken to the police station to answer questions about their activities. That afternoon the British army came in tanks and armored cars demanding the two be released. The police refused as they were considered to be planning terrorist attacks, and as they were disguised as members of the Mehdi Army, the police wanted to know who their target was. 

"Thousands of people gathered to defend the police station. British troops opened fire and the crowds responded with stones and fire bombs. Why were these men dressed as Mehdi Army?" Hassan asked. "Why were they carrying explosives and where were they planning to detonate their bomb? Were they planning an outrage so that they could create tensions with other communities? Were they going to kill innocent people to put the blame on Al Qaida, who do not have any support in our city? 

"The soldiers drove a tank into the police station and threatened to kill the police officers if they did not hand over the two terrorists," Hassan said. "It is only then, to save any further loss of life, that the men were released." 

On Sept. 22, Judge Raghib al-Mudhafar, chief of the Basra Anti-Terrorism Court, reissued homicide arrest warrants for the two British soldiers. Britain says its troops, in disguise or otherwise, are not legally bound by Iraqi law or warrants. "All British troops in Iraq come under the jurisdiction of Britain," a defense spokesman said in London. 

Five days before the arrest of the two British agents in Basra, Al Jazeera had reported on the growing suspicion that the occupation forces are the real perpetrators of bomb attacks in Iraq in an interview with Iran's top military commander, Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr. 

Zolqadr said the United States and Israel were behind the so-called sectarian bombing attacks that have killed thousands of civilians in Iraq. 

The occupation forces, Zolqadr told senior officials, need these attacks to justify the continuation of their military presence in Iraq. 

"The Americans blame weak and feeble groups in Iraq for insecurity in this country. We do not believe this and we have information that the insecurity has its roots in the activities of American and Israeli spies," Zolqadr said. "Insecurity in Iraq is a deeply-rooted phenomenon. The root of insecurity in Iraq lies in the occupation of this country by foreigners," Zolqadr said. "If Iraq is to become secure, there will be no room for the occupiers". 

The U.S. wanted to remain in Iraq to "plunder the country's wealth, bring the Middle East under its control, and create security for Israel, which is on the verge of annihilation," according to Zolqadr. 

BALKANIZING IRAQ 

The most obvious strategy of the "false flag" terrorism is to foment civil strife in Iraq to advance a divide and conquer policy known as Balkanization. This strategy is aimed at dividing Iraq into three ethnic statelets, as was done with the former Yugoslavia. British forces have employed "false flag" terror tactics as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy in other conflicts in the past. 

The mainstream news reports of the seemingly senseless terror bombings in Iraq always carry a refrain of explanation pointing to the long-held Zionist strategy of Balkanization in the Middle East, such as: "The overwhelming violence in recent days appeared designed to further split the country along ethnic and religious lines." 

The so-called sectarian bombings in Iraq, however, are never claimed by actual Iraqi organizations. The evidence, rather suggests these are outside agencies, such as the Israeli Mossad and British MI6, working closely with the occupation forces. 

In 1982, Oded Yinon, an Israeli foreign policy advisor, articulated the Zionist strategy to Balkanize the Middle East by breaking up the Arab states of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria," Yinon wrote. "In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces." 

Yinon's article, "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties," written in Hebrew, appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. The article is considered one of the most explicit and detailed statements of Zionist strategy in the Middle East. The Yinon essay was translated by the late Israel Shahak in 1982 and can be found in Shahak's work entitled "The Zionist Plan for the Middle East." 

The Yinon essay "represents the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states," Shahak wrote in his foreword:

The Zionist vision for the Middle East rests on two essential premises: To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. 

An Israeli official was quoted in the July 26, 1982, issue of Newsweek: "Ideally, we'd like to see Iraq disintegrate into a Shi'ite, Kurdish and Sunni community, each making war on the other." 

"The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking," Shahak wrote. "For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent for Ha'aretz wrote on June 2, 1982 about the 'best' that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: 'The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part.'" 

"The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes," Shahak wrote. "But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the 'defense of the West' from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest."  

Sources and Recommended Reading:

"Exposing the Zionist Hidden Hand Ruling Britain and the United States" by Christopher Bollyn, December 20, 2007
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/read/115519

“Greater Israel: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East" by Oded Yinon, translated and edited by Israel Shahak, Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc., Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982
http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

"The Zionist Strategy to Balkanize Iraq" by Christopher Bollyn, October 3, 2005
http://www.bollyn.com/the-zionist-strategy-to-balkanize-iraq

Stopping the War Agenda in Syria

Updated September 17, 2013


AMERICANS STRONGLY OPPOSE U.S. INTERVENTION IN SYRIA
Source: Newsmax.com, September 17, 2013
http://www.newsmax.com/Surveys/Results/id/90
 

The U.S. government insists it has the intelligence to prove it, but the American public has yet to see a single piece of concrete evidence — no satellite imagery, no transcripts of Syrian military communications — connecting the government of President Bashar Assad to the alleged chemical weapons attack last month that killed hundreds of people.
"Lingering doubts over Syria gas attack evidence” by Zeina Karam and Kimberly Dozier, AP, September 8, 2013
 


Dennis Kucinich Warns of Regional War if Obama Rushes to Strike
Video URL - youtu.be/L9LM0IHgLNg

U.S. officials have not presented any evidence to the public of scientific samples or intelligence information proving that sarin gas was used or that the Syrian government used it.
-
 "Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S." by Mark Hosenball, Reuters, September 7, 2013

Our motto is: 'By way of deception, thou shalt do war.'
- “Confessions of an Ex-Mossad Agent” from Victor Ostrovsky's book By Way of Deception

It’s very possible that Obama is trying to provoke a strong reaction from Syria to give the U.S. public a reason to escalate the war. Any attack on Syria also has the possibility of bringing Iran into the conflict, since Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact. And this may be the ultimate goal: to provoke Iran into getting involved militarily, so that the U.S. would have a justification to expand the war into Iran, which has been in the U.S. crosshairs for years.
- “The Lie of ‘Limited War’ in Syria” by Shamus Cooke

Americans are understandably weary after the fiasco in Iraq and over a decade of war.  How can this administration make a guarantee that our military actions will be limited? How can we guarantee that one surgical strike will have any impact other than to tighten the vise grip that Assad has on his power, or allow rebels allied with al Qaeda to gain a stronger foothold in Syria?
- Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico

Public opinion polls in the United States indicate that the public is strongly opposed to the Obama administration’s proposed military strikes against Syria.  The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll found that about 60 percent of the American population is opposed to the use of force.


Source: "Most in U.S. oppose Syria strike, Post-ABC poll finds"
Washington Post, September 3, 2013

It should be noted, however, that about 53 percent of the U.S. population believes there is "clear evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians."  This is, however, an allegation which has not been proven, despite Secretary of State John Kerry’s vociferous claims that he has the evidence. 


Source:  "Public Opinion Runs Against Syrian Airstrikes" 
Pew Research, September 3, 2013

What this figure represents is the power of propaganda, for this is what the controlled media wants the U.S. public to believe.  The U.N. inspectors have not yet finished their work and the world has not seen any evidence to prove these serious allegations against the Syrian government, but only one-in-four Americans seem to understand that.

If a larger percentage of the U.S. public understood that we are being deceived about who used chemical weapons in Syria, a larger percentage would certainly be opposed to the Obama proposal to use military force against Syria.  Once again, the U.S. is being deceived into waging war on allegations and fabrications.

There are two very good reasons to oppose any U.S. military action in Syria, the first being that there is no clear and indisputable evidence that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against civilians.  The people who are calling for military action against Syria now are the same people who deceived the U.S. into war with Afghanistan and Iraq. 

In both cases the United States went to war based on a moral outrage and threat – without showing the proof.  Since 9-11, the U.S. has invaded two nations, killed an untold number of innocent people, and ruined the lives of thousands of American families, all based on fabricated evidence.  This is why more than 80 percent of the British population demands that any military strikes against Syria be sanctioned by the United Nations, and 73 percent of those over age 65 is opposed to attacking Syria.  The British remember very well what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq and don’t want to see it happen again.

The second reason is that any U.S. military action against Syria is likely to result in very serious consequences that cannot be predicted.  Syria would be justified to strike back and has advanced weapons systems to do so.  Syria has very powerful allies, including Russia, and has a mutual defense pact with Iran.  This is why the Russians and Iranians are strongly urging the Obama administration not to attack Syria.  They certainly don’t want to become embroiled in a war with the United States and hope that common sense will prevail, as it did in Britain when the Parliament rejected a similar use of force proposal put forward by Prime Minister David Cameron.

Today, Americans have a better understanding of how a small group of Zionist extremists dedicated to a misguided notion of Greater Israel can deceive the United States into waging disastrous and costly wars.  We are at a very crucial point where Americans and Europeans need to stand shoulder-to-shoulder and firmly and openly reject the Zionist deceptions that are designed only to further their insane war agenda.  We must stop the Zionist war agenda before it destroys the world.

Sources:

"CIA commandos, US special forces entered Syria: Report," PressTV, August 23, 2013
www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/23/320094/us-forces-cia-men-enter-syria/

"Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S." by Mark Hosenball, Reuters, September 7, 2013
http://news.yahoo.com/direct-between-assad-gas-attack-elusive-u-022850951.html

"Lingering doubts over Syria gas attack evidence” by Zeina Karam and Kimberly Dozier, AP, September 8, 2013
news.yahoo.com/lingering-doubts-over-syria-gas-attack-evidence-072755287.html

"Most in U.S. oppose Syria strike, Post-ABC poll finds," Washington Post, September 3, 2013
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/03/most-in-u-s-oppose-syria-strike-post-abc-poll-finds/

"Public Opinion Runs Against Syrian Airstrikes," Pew Research Center, September 3, 2013
www.people-press.org/2013/09/03/public-opinion-runs-against-syrian-airstrikes/

"Russia's President Putin warns US over Syria action," BBC News, September 4, 2013
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23955655

"Syria crisis: The British public has its say as two-thirds oppose strikes," The Independent, September 3, 2013
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-crisis-the-british-public-has-its-say-as-twothirds-oppose-strikes-8795319.html

"The Lie of 'Limited War' in Syria," by Shamus Cooke, The Workers Action, September 2, 2013
www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18548-the-lie-of-limited-war-in-syria

"U.S. public opposes Syria intervention as Obama presses Congress," Reuters, September 3, 2013
www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-syria-crisis-usa-idUSBRE97T0NB20130903

Syria: Another War for Israel

September 11, 2013

Anthony Lawson has a new video titled "Another War for Israel."


Video Link - youtu.be/5rrQAY6gEJA

Dankof on the Israeli Role in 9-11 & Egyptian Coup

Updated September 1, 2013

Added link to review of Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World by Robert A. Sungenis, Sr., Ph.D., Culture Wars, May 11, 2012

Let me take 9/11, for example. I will simply quote Dr. Alan Sabrosky, the Jewish professor, by the way, at the National United States Army War College, who says that 9/11, in fact, was an Israeli Mossad operation from start to finish... I would point people to Christopher Bollyn’s work on 9/11 and Dr. Robert Sungenis' review on Mr. Bollyn’s book for E. Michael Jones Culture Wars [July/August & September 2012] so that people can look at all of these sources and see what the evidence actually is. 
Mark Dankof on Press TV, August 18, 2013

Israel... is planning to intensify a diplomatic campaign urging Europe and the United States to support the military-backed government in Egypt despite its deadly crackdown on Islamist protesters, according to a senior Israeli official involved in the effort. Israeli ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels and other capitals planned to advance the argument that the military was the only hope to prevent further chaos in Cairo.
"Court said to order Mubarak's release," International Herald Tribune (New York Times), August 20, 2013

Mark Dankof of San Antonio appeared on Press TV to discuss the Israeli role in the turmoil and bloodshed affecting the Middle East - and 9-11. Dankof debated the subject of Israeli involvement with Jihad Mouracadeh, a Lebanese banker with close ties to Britain and the ruling families of Saudia Arabia and the Gulf States.

The fact that the Israelis are using their diplomats, according to theNew York Timesto support the military coup in Egypt speaks volumes about who is really behind the bloodshed and instability in the region.

Sources and Recommended Reading:

"Egyptian Court Is Said to Order That Mubarak Be Released,"International Herald Tribune, August 20, 2013
http://news.gnom.es/news/egyptian-court-is-said-to-order-that-mubarak-be-released

"Israel meddling in Mideast affairs: Mark Dankof," Press TV (Iran), August 18, 2013
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/18/319297/israel-meddling-in-mideast-affairs/

Jihad Mouracadeh, Linkedin.com, accessed August 20, 2013
http://lb.linkedin.com/pub/jihad-mouracadeh/22/52/691 

Sungenis, Robert, Review of Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the WorldCulture Wars, May 11, 2012

Sungenis, Robert, two-part interview with Mark Dankof regarding Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Based on Sungenis' comprehensive two-part review of Christopher Bollyn's book Solving 911: The Deception that Changed the World

Part One:
Mark Dankof’s America July 11, 2012 « The Ugly Truth

Takfiri (definition), Wikipedia, accessed August 20, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri

"Turkey's Erdogan sees Israel's hand in Egyptian overthrow," Reuters, August 20, 2013
http://news.yahoo.com/turkeys-erdogan-sees-israels-hand-egyptian-overthrow-133718989.html

The Apartheid State of Israel

August 26, 2013

Anthony Lawson has made an excellent video about the apartheid state of Israel and how the institutional racism of "the Jewish state" is defended by hypocritical Jews in high places.


Video URL - youtu.be/ATHVGwMzg0E

 

Syria Chemical Mayhem: Another Israeli False-Flag?

August 22, 2013

It would be very peculiar if it was the government to do this at the exact moment the international inspectors come into the country. 
- Rolf Ekeus, a retired Swedish diplomat who headed a team of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq in the 1990s on the latest use of chemical weapons in Syria

On Wednesday - just hours after the massacre of hundreds of Syrians with chemical weapons - Israeli Minister of Military Affairs Moshe Yaalon claimed he knew who did it: the Syrian government…Like Ehud Barak minutes after 9/11, Moshe Yaalon stood up just hours after the Syrian chemical weapons tragedy and provided an apparently pre-scripted narrative.
- Kevin Barrett, "Syria Chemical Mayhem: Another Israeli False-Flag?" PressTV, August 22, 2013

Kevin Barrett has an excellent piece on the latest use of chemical weapons in Syria. It begins with these observations:

Other world leaders, including U.S. President Barack Obama, did not rush to judgment. Instead, they called for a United Nations investigation. Many experts, including the BBC's Frank Gardner, former UN weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus, and Swedish chemical weapons expert, Ake Sellstrom, ridiculed or cast doubt on the notion that Syrian President Assad would launch a chemical attack at the exact moment weapons inspectors arrived in Syria. The Russian Foreign Ministry came right out and called the chemical attack “a provocation planned in advance.”

But planned by whom?

To answer that question, we must ask: How could Israel immediately know who was behind the Syrian chemical attack?

Israeli leaders have amazing powers of clairvoyance. Whenever a huge, history-steering terror attack happens, the Israelis immediately know who did it. Before the dust settles, they stand up and tell the world exactly what it all means - and provide the script for the way they want the world to react.

Barrett's complete article can be read at:

http://presstv.com/detail/2013/08/22/319918/chem-mayhem-another-israel-falseflag/

Source:  "Syria chemical mayhem: Another Israeli false-flag?" by Kevin Barrett, PressTV (Iran), August 22, 2013
http://presstv.com/detail/2013/08/22/319918/chem-mayhem-another-israel-falseflag/ 

Iran and the Zionist-Controlled U.S. Congress

August 3, 2013


As Iran's new president Hassan Rouhani (center in white turban) is inaugurated, the U.S. Congress threatens to impose new sanctions that would economically strangle the nation of 80 million people.  Who is Congress really serving with such belligerent policies - and what will they lead to?

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native criminal class except Congress.
- Mark Twain

Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) is reportedly cooking up a sanctions bill that would make Iran’s transition to a “free and democratically elected government” – in short, regime change – a precondition for sanctions to be lifted. You don’t have to be a historian to know that we followed the same procedure not long ago with Iraq and know how it ends: war.
- Mark Jansson, “The making of an Iraq sequel with Iran” The Hill, July 31, 2013

When it comes to job approval ratings, the U.S. Congress consistentlygets the lowest marks among the three branches of the federal government.  A Gallup report from July 30, 2013, finds that only 15 percent of the American people approve of the job being done by Congress, and that’s a high number.  Other recent polls have found that less than 10 percent of the American population approve of the job Congress is doing.

The fact that Congress gets such low approval ratings from the American people indicates that there is a serious breakdown in the American system of government.  When 85-90 percent of the people consistently don’t think their representatives are doing a good job, there is obviously something wrong with our democratic republic.

When we consider that Congress utterly failed to investigate 9-11, but then passed legislation that allowed the nation to be dragged into two extremely costly and disastrous wars in the Middle East based on a pack of lies about who was responsible for the terror attacks, we can appreciate the depth of the disgust the American people have for the U.S. Congress.  The nation has been bankrupted and tens of thousands of Americans have been killed or maimed in these unnecessary and illegal wars in the Middle East.

A bill concerning Iran, passed in the House of Representatives on July 31 (400-20), shows just how corrupt Congress has become, and how disconnected from the needs and desires of the American people.  The bill calls for tightening the already extremely severe sanctions on Iran, and aims to cut Iran’s oil exports by a further 1 million barrels per day (bpd). 

Iran, however, with the world's fourth largest proven oil reserves, is currently exporting less than 1 million bpd.  In May 2013, for example, Iran’s crude exports fell to 700,000 bpd.  This means that our representatives in Congress want to completely strangle Iran by preventing it from selling any of its oil, which is its most significant export product.  Such severe and punitive measures are a form of economic warfare, and usually lead to war.

ECONOMIC STRANGULATION

About the proposed new sanctions, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said:  “Additional sanctions are actually aimed at the economic strangulation of Iran, but not at solving the problem of non-proliferation.”

The only nation that actually supports increased sanctions on Iran is Israel, which is the not-so-hidden power behind the vote in the U.S. Congress.  When it comes to Iran, the most aggressive Members of Congress are, like Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), those who receive outrageous amounts of money from supporters of Israel.  Sen. Kirk has received more than $1.3 million from “pro-Israel” industries, according to OpenSecrets.org, but that is nothing compared to the cost of his reckless policies to the Iranian and American people.

The burning question facing the American people is this:  Do we want to go to war with Iran in order to support the Zionist war agenda? 

Our supposedly elected representatives are taking us down a path that will surely lead to war and disaster if we let them continue with these belligerent policies.  World War II was preceded by similar sanctions against Germany and Japan.  The B’nai B’rith and world Jewry, for example, imposed sanctions on Germany in 1933, six years before the outbreak of war.  The U.S. imposed severe oil sanctions on Japan long before the attack on Pearl Harbor.  The Iraq War of 2003 was preceded by 12 years of punitive sanctions that caused extreme suffering for the Iraqi people. We need to recognize that sanctions are the prelude to war.

As Americans or Europeans, we need to realize that we cannot allow our politicians to recklessly lead us into an utterly unnecessary conflict with Iran.  Iran is neither a threat nor an enemy of the West.  A normalization of relations with Iran would greatly benefit both nations, economically and otherwise.

We must not allow our foreign policy to be hijacked by Israel, an outlaw state that illegally possesses scores of nuclear weapons.  We need to understand who is really behind the war agenda and must not let the Zionist mini-state drag our nations into a catastrophic war with Iran.  To pursue the Zionist war agenda against Iran would be a foolish mistake with the most severe consequences. 

McCain's Terrorists and Mohammed

Updated June 11, 2013
added link to McCain's visit with gangsters involved in kidnapping


THE PRO-DEMOCRACY PROTESTER Mohammed Qataa, a 14-year-old coffee vendor in Aleppo, was murdered in front of his parents by a gang of foreign terrorists. His parents said Mohammed had taken part in pro-democracy demonstrations.


SEN. JOHN McCAIN visited the leadership of the terrorist gangs and kidnappers during his recent trip to Syria. When asked about their documented record of terrorism and war crimes McCain dismissed these as "Isolated incidents of people who have just gotten