A Two-State Solution For Europe?

Authored by Judith Bergmann via The Gatestone Institute,

• A poll conducted this summer found that 29% of French Muslims found Sharia to be more important to them than French laws. It also found that 67% of Muslims want their children to study Arabic, and 56% think it should be taught in public schools.


• A 2016 UK poll showed that 43% of British Muslims "believed that parts of the Islamic legal system should replace British law while only 22 per cent opposed the idea". Another poll from 2016 found that 23% of all Muslims supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain, 39% agreed that "wives should always obey their husbands," and 52% of all British Muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal.


• French President Emmanuel Macron blamed France, not Islam, for the increased radicalization, which he said should lead France to "question itself." According to Macron, then, the parallel Islamic societies of France, have nothing to do with Islam. They are the fault of the French republic. Did the French republic impose sharia and the subjugation of women in the suburbs, described by one female survivor as "hell"? Was the French republic behind the recent distribution of leaflets stipulating "if you meet a Jew, kill him"?

A French intellectual, Christian Moliner, recently suggested that France should establish a Muslim state-within-a-state that adheres to sharia law, inside the borders of France, to avoid a civil war. Warning against refusing to deal with the problems of Islamism in Europe because of political correctness, he stated:

"Out of the fear of appearing Islamophobic, to satisfy this bustling fringe of Muslims, governments are ready to accept the spread of radical practices throughout the country.... [some] territories are outside the control of the Republic. The police can come only in force and for limited durations... We can never convert the 30% of Muslims who demand the introduction of sharia law to the merits of our democracy and secularism. We are now allowing segregation to take place that does not say its name."

Moliner"s solution?

"... Establish a dual system of law in France... one territory, one government, but two peoples: the French with the usual laws and Muslims with Qur"anic status (but only for those who choose it)... The latter will have the right to vote... but they will apply Sharia in everyday life, to regulate matrimonial laws (which will legalize polygamy) and inheritance... They will no longer apply to French judges for disputes between Muslims... conflicts between Christians and believers will remain the responsibility of ordinary courts..."

Moliner"s proposal represents a total surrender to political Islam and is of course outrageous, especially considering that Muslims only comprise a little more than five percent of the French population. What he suggests, however, merely formalizes the status quo that already exists -- and not only in France -- even if it abandons reform-minded Muslims and eventually, with their collapsing demography, the non-Muslims there.

In France, the no-go zones with their Islamization and Islamic law, sharia, and most noticeably the subjugation of women, has already spread from the suburbs (banlieues) to the cities themselves. As Gatestone"s Yves Mamou described:

"... no-go zones are no longer relegated to the suburbs, where migrants and Muslims have usually been concentrated. No-go zones, through mass migration, have been emerging in the heart of Paris, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Marseille, Grenoble, Avignon -- districts "privatized" here and there by a mix of drug traffickers, Salafist zealots and Islamic youth gangs. The main victims are women. They are -- both Muslim and non-Muslim -- sexually harassed; some are sexually assaulted".

Last year, French TV aired a documentary about women disappearing from public view in certain areas, where parallel Islamic societies had taken hold. The program named Sevran in the district of Seine-Saint Denis -- a suburb of Paris described by French political scientist Gilles Kepel as "the capital of French Islam". There are 1.4 million people living in the district of Seine-Saint-Denis. More than 600,000 of them are Muslims. The French postal service recently said that it will no longer supply its Chronopost delivery service to Seine-Saint-Denis -- the danger to their delivery drivers is too high. Last year, 51 of its delivery drivers were reportedly attacked while doing their rounds.

Riot police muster in the northern Paris suburb of Villiers-le-Bel, France. (Photo by Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images)

In France, a poll conducted by Institut Montaigne this summer found that 29% of French Muslims found sharia to be more important to them than French laws. It also found that 67% of Muslims want their children to study Arabic and 56% think it should be taught in public schools.

A 2016 UK poll, apparently the largest poll ever done on the subject in the UK, showed that 43% of British Muslims "believed that parts of the Islamic legal system should replace British law while only 22 per cent opposed the idea". A different poll, also from 2016, found that nearly a quarter (23%) of all Muslims supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain, and 39% agreed that "wives should always obey their husbands", compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population. According to the same poll, 52% of all British Muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal.

According to a 2014 study of Moroccan and Turkish Muslims in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Sweden, an average of almost 60% of the Muslims polled agreed that Muslims should return to the roots of Islam; 75% thought there is only one interpretation of the Koran possible and 65 % said that Sharia is more important to them than the laws of the country in which they lived. The specific numbers for Germany were that 47% of Muslims believe Sharia is more important than German law. In Sweden, 52% of Muslims believe that Sharia is more important than Swedish law.

As the polls show, there already are "two peoples" in France and large parts of Europe, who wish to live according to completely different standards, as Moliner suggests. Politicians persist in ignoring these facts or downplaying them. So why be shocked at the suggestion of a "two-state solution" for France? How do these politicians, who do not even acknowledge the problems, propose to tackle the fact that large percentages of their population would rather live under sharia law? They do not propose anything. They pretend that this information does not exist.

French President Emmanuel Macron, is an example of such immunity to facts: "Radicalization has taken hold because the French Republic has resigned," Macron said recently about the Islamization of the French suburbs. Macron blamed France, not Islam, for the increased radicalization, which he said should lead France to "question itself". Macron noted that, "We allowed, in too many cities, too many districts, representatives of a distortion of a religion, which are full of hate and disenfranchisement to provide solutions that the Republic no longer gives."

According to Macron, then, the parallel Islamic societies of France, have nothing to do with Islam. They are the fault of the French republic. Did the French republic impose Sharia and the subjugation of women in the suburbs, described by one female survivor as "hell"? Was the French republic behind the recent distribution of leaflets stipulating "if you meet a Jew, kill him"? Did the French republic force the mother of Mohammed Merah, the man who killed a little Jewish girl at school by shooting her in the head, while screaming "Allahu Akbar", to say that "the prophet permits the killing of Jewish children"?

France, as well as the rest of Europe, is -- wittingly or unwittingly -- heading towards the "two-state solution" outlined by Moliner, whether it wants it or not. That fact, however, does not appear particularly to bother the political establishment.

Cops Shakedown 6yo Boy With Down Syndrome After Teacher Accuses Him of Being a Terrorist

Police descended on an elementary school after an innocent little boy who is mute and has Down Syndrome was accused of being a terrorist.

The Islamic Future Of Europe

Authored by Guy Milliere via The Gatestone Institute,

• European leaders accepted the transformation of parts of their countries into enemy territories. They see that a demographic disaster is taking place. They know that in two or three decades, Europe will be ruled by Islam.


• Ten years ago, describing what he called "the last days of Europe," the historian Walter Laqueur said that European civilization was dying and that only old monuments and museums would survive. His diagnosis was too optimistic. Old monuments and museums might well be blown up. Look nowhere else than what the black-hooded supporters of "Antifa" -- an "anti-fascist" movement whose actions are totally fascistic -- are doing to statues in the United States.

The terrorist attack in Barcelona received the same reaction as all the large-scale terrorist attacks in Europe: tears, prayers, flowers, candles, teddy bears, and protestations that "Islam means peace ". When people gathered to demand tougher measures against the rising influence of Islamism across the continent, they were confronted by an "anti-fascist" rally. Muslims organized a demonstration to defend Islam; they claimed that Muslims living in Spain are the "main victims" of terrorism. The president of the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Societies, Mounir Benjelloun El Andaloussi, spoke of a "conspiracy against Islam" and said that terrorists were "instruments" of Islamophobic hatred. The mayor of Barcelona, ?? Ada Colau, cried in front of the cameras and said that her city would remain an "open city" for all immigrants. The governor of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont, used almost the same language. Spain"s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, a conservative, was the only one who dared to call jihadist terrorism by its name. Almost all European journalists said Rajoy"s words were too harsh.

After the attack in Barcelona, Spain, when people gathered at the site to demand tougher measures against the rising influence of Islamism across the continent, they were confronted by an "anti-fascist" rally. Pictured: "Anti-fascists" beat a man who they claimed is a "right-wing sympathizer" at Las Ramblas, Barcelona, on August 18, 2017. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)

Mainstream European newspapers describing the horror once again sought explanations to what they kept calling "inexplicable". The leading Spanish daily newspaper, El Pais, wrote in an editorial that "radicalization" is the bitter fruit of the "exclusion" of certain "communities," and added that the answer was more "social justice". In France, Le Monde suggested that terrorists want to "incite hatred", and stressed that Europeans must avoid "prejudice". In the UK, The Telegraph explained that "killers attack the West because the West is the West; not because of what it does" -- but it spoke of "killers", not "terrorists" or "Islamists".

Anti-terrorism specialists, interviewed on television, said that the attacks, carried out across the continent at an ever-faster pace, will become deadlier. They noted that the original plan of the Barcelona jihadists had been to destroy the Sagrada Família Cathedral and kill thousands of people. The specialists parroted that Europeans will just have to learn to live with the threat of widespread carnage. They did not offer any solutions. Once again, many said that terrorists are not really Muslims -- and that the attacks "had nothing to do with Islam".

Many leaders of Western European countries treat Islamic terrorism as a fact of life that Europeans must get used to -- as some kind of aberration unrelated to Islam. They often avoid speaking of "terrorism" at all. After the attack in Barcelona,?? German Chancellor Angela Merkel issued a brief reproach about a "revolting" event. She expressed "solidarity" with the Spanish people, and then moved on. French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted a message of condolence and spoke of a "tragic attack."

Throughout Europe, expressions of anger are conscientiously marginalized. Calls for mobilization, or any serious change in immigration policy, come only from politicians scornfully described as "populist."

Even the slightest criticism of Islam immediately arouses almost unanimous indignation. In Western Europe, books on Islam that are widely available are written by people close to the Muslim Brotherhood, such as Tariq Ramadan. Books that are "politically incorrect" also exist, but are sold under the counter as if they are contraband. Islamic bookstores sell brochures calling for violence without even hiding what they do. Dozens of imams, similar to Abdelbaki Es Satty, the suspected mastermind of the attack in Barcelona, continue to preach with impunity; if they are arrested, they are quickly released.

Submission reigns. The discourse everywhere is that despite increasing threats, Europeans must live their lives as normally as possible. But Europeans see what threats exist. They see that life is not even slightly normal. They see policemen and soldiers in the streets, proliferating security checks, strict controls at the entrance of theaters and shops. They see insecurity everywhere. They are told just to ignore the source of the threats, but they know the source. They claim they are not afraid. Thousands in Barcelona shouted, "No tinc por" ("We are not afraid"). In fact, they are scared to death.

Polls show that Europeans are pessimistic, and think the future will be bleak. Polls also show that Europeans no longer have confidence in those who govern them, but feel they are left with no choice.

This shift in their lives has occurred in such a short time, less than half a century. Before then, in Western Europe, only a few thousand Muslims were present -- mostly immigrant workers from former European colonies. They were supposed to be in Europe temporarily, so were never asked to integrate.

They soon numbered hundreds of thousands, then millions. Their presence turned permanent. Many became citizens. Asking them to integrate grew unthinkable: most seemed to consider themselves Muslim first.

European leaders gave up defending their own civilization. They slipped into saying that all cultures should be viewed the same way. They appear to have given up.

School curricula were altered. Children were taught that Europe and the West had plundered the Muslim world -- not that the Muslims had, in fact, invaded and conquered the Christian Byzantine Empire, North Africa and the Middle East, most of Eastern Europe, Greece, Northern Cyprus, and Spain. Children were taught that Islamic civilization had been splendid and opulent before colonization supposedly came to ravage it.

Welfare states, established in the post-war period, began to create a large underclass of people permanently trapped in dependency, just when the number of Muslims in Europe redoubled.

Social-housing neighborhoods suddenly were Muslim neighborhoods. The rise in mass unemployment -- mainly affecting less qualified workers -- transformed Muslim neighborhoods into mass-unemployment neighborhoods.

Community organizers came to tell unemployed Muslims that after purportedly looting their countries of origin, Europeans had used Muslim workers to rebuild Europe and were now treating them as useless utensils.

Crime took root. Muslim neighborhoods became high-crime neighborhoods.

Extremist Muslim preachers arrived; they reinforced a hatred of Europe. They said that Muslims must remember who they are; that Islam must take its revenge. They explained to young, imprisoned Muslim criminals that violence could be used for a noble cause: jihad.

Police were ordered not to intervene lest they aggravate the tension. High-crime areas became no-go zones, breeding grounds for the recruitment of Islamic terrorists.

European leaders accepted the transformation of parts of their countries into enemy territories.

Riots took place; leaders made even more concessions. They passed laws restricting freedom of speech.

When Islamic terrorism first hit Europe, its leaders did not know what to do. They still do not know what to do. They are prisoners of a situation they created and cannot control anymore. They appear to feel helpless.

They cannot incriminate Islam: the laws they passed make it illegal to do that. In most European countries, even questioning Islam is branded as "Islamophobia". It leads to heavy fines, if not trials or prison time (as with Lars Hedegaard, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Geert Wilders or George Bensoussan). They cannot re-establish law and order in no-go zones: that would require the intervention of the army and a shift towards martial law. They cannot adopt the solutions proposed by parties they have pushed into opposition at the margins of European political life.

They cannot even close their borders, abolished in 1995 with the Schengen agreement. Re-establishing border controls would be costly and take time.

Europe"s leaders seem to have neither the will nor the means to oppose the incoming waves of millions of Muslim migrants from Africa and the Middle East. They know that terrorists are hiding among the migrants, but still do not vet them. Instead, they resort to subterfuges and lies. They create "deradicalization" programs that do not work: the "radicals," it seems, do not want to be "deradicalized."

Europe"s leaders try to define "radicalization" as a symptom of "mental illness"; they consider asking psychiatrists to solve the mess. Then, they talk about creating a "European Islam", totally different from the Islam elsewhere on Earth. They take on haughty postures to create the illusion of moral superiority, as Ada Colau and Carles Puigdemont did in Barcelona: they say they have high principles; that Barcelona will remain "open" to immigrants. Angela Merkel refuses to face the consequences of her policy to import countless migrants. She chastises countries in Central Europe that refuse to adopt her policies.

European leaders can see that a demographic disaster is taking place. They know that in two or three decades, Europe will be ruled by Islam. They try to anesthetize non-Muslim populations with dreams about an idyllic future that will never exist. They say that Europe will have to learn to live with terrorism, that there is nothing anyone can do about it.

But there is a lot they can do; they just do not want to -- it might cost them Muslim votes.

Winston Churchill told Neville Chamberlain, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, you will have war." The same is true today.

Ten years ago, describing what he called "the last days of Europe," the historian Walter Laqueur said that European civilization was dying and that only old monuments and museums would survive. His diagnosis was too optimistic. Old monuments and museums might well be blown up. Look nowhere else than what the black-hooded supporters of "Antifa" -- an "anti-fascist" movement that is totally fascistic -- are doing to statues in the United States.

Barcelona"s Sagrada Família Cathedral was spared only thanks to the clumsiness of a terrorist who did not know how to handle explosives. Other places may not be so fortunate.

The death of Europe will almost certainly be violent and painful: no one seems willing to stop it. Voters still could, but they will have to do it now, fast, before it is too late.

Europe: Burkini War Continues

Authored by Soren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

• Those in favor of the burkini argue that women should be allowed to wear whatever they choose. Critics of the garment say it is an Islamic religious and political symbol which impedes integration and is incompatible with the liberal principles of secularism and gender equality. In recent months, the debate has added another dimension: public health and hygiene.


• "Secularism and religion are irrelevant here. The burkini is not a Koranic prescription, but another manifestation of political Islam, militant, destructive, seeking to question our way of life, our culture, our civilization." — French commentator Yves Thréard in Le Figaro.


• Europe"s burkini debate has now spread to the Middle East. In Algeria, thousands of women have joined a "bikini revolt" to reclaim the public space from Islamists who oppose the bikini as a symbol of Western values.

A woman who wore a burkini to swim in a pool in southern France has been charged €490 ($580) to pay for cleaning costs at the facility. The incident, which sparked accusations of Islamophobia, is the latest salvo in an ongoing debate over Islamic dress codes in France and other secular European states.

Those in favor of the burkini argue that women should be allowed to wear whatever they choose. Critics of the garment say it is a religious and political symbol which impedes integration and is incompatible with the liberal principles of secularism and gender equality. In recent months, the debate has added another dimension: public health and hygiene.

The woman was vacationing with her family at a bed and breakfast near Marseille when the owner spotted her in the swimming pool wearing a full-body swimsuit, according to the Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF). He subsequently had the pool emptied and cleaned and charged the family for the costs and compensation for the days the pool was out of service. When they refused to pay, the owner allegedly charged them anyway.

The woman reported the incident to the CCIF, which said the burkini could not have caused a hygiene issue as the swimsuits are specifically adapted for swimming. "I was disappointed, shocked, wounded by the fact that someone could be so hypocritical and wicked because of a burkini," the woman said.

Elsewhere in France, the mayor of Lorette, Gerard Tardy, banned burkinis and other Muslim clothing at a new outdoor swim park, also for reasons of public health:

"Monokinis, burkinis, partial veils or veils which totally conceal the face, or a combination thereof, are prohibited on the beach. Any breach of this provision will lead to the immediate expulsion (which may cover the entire swimming season) of the offenders by security or, if necessary, by the police."

Aldo Oumouden, spokesman of a mosque in Saint Étienne, responded:

"France is multicultural and banning the veil at this facility is an attack on the individual freedom of Muslims and does not even distinguish between burkini and headscarf. How is it that the veil is aggressive or dangerous for the population? It does not represent any health problem, and there is no interference with the freedom of others. Does Mayor Tardy not realize that this decision will further stigmatize Muslims? It is not only unnecessary but also devastating for community harmony."

In July, an appeals court in Marseille validated the ban on burkinis in Sisco, a town in Corsica, in the interests of maintaining public order. Mayor Ange-Pierre Vivoni argued the ban was necessary to avoid a repeat of fighting between local youths and Muslims in August 2016, when five people were hurt. Muslims went on a rampage after a tourist took a photograph of several burkini-clad women swimming in a creek. More than 400 people eventually joined the brawl, in which local Corsicans clashed with migrants from North Africa. The following day, more than 500 Corsicans marched through the town shouting "To arms! This is our home!"

In May, a dozen Muslim women were arrested for holding a pro-burkini protest during the Cannes International Film Festival in Cannes. The women were wearing red, white and blue burkinis along the town"s famous promenade. Police said the women did not have a permit to protest.

In March, the frontrunners in the French presidential election clashed over the burkini in a television debate. Marine Le Pen accused Emmanuel Macron of "defending the burkini." Macron accused Le Pen of "dividing society." According to Le Pen, the burkini is a "fundamentalist uniform."

This year"s controversies harken back to the summer of 2016, when more than 30 cities and towns on the French Riviera banned burkinis from local beaches. In August 2016, the Council of State, France"s highest administrative court, ruled that the bans — which were issued after the July 2016 jihadist attack in Nice — were a "serious and manifestly illegal attack on fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of movement and the freedom of conscience." The judges ruled that local authorities could only restrict individual liberties if there was a "demonstrated risk" to public order. There was, they said, no evidence of such a risk.

Patrice Spinosi, a lawyer for the Human Rights League (LDH), said that in the absence of a demonstrated threat to public order, the high court "has ruled and has shown that mayors do not have the right to set limits on wearing religious signs in public spaces. It is contrary to the freedom of religion, which is a fundamental freedom."

Writing for Le Figaro, French commentator Yves Thréard argued that burkinis are political, not religious, garments:

"Secularism and religion are irrelevant here. The burkini is not a Koranic prescription, but another manifestation of political Islam, militant, destructive, seeking to question our way of life, our culture, our civilization. Veils in schools, street prayers, halal school menus, sexual apartheid in swimming pools, hospitals, driving schools, niqab, burqa... for thirty years this infiltration has been undermining our society, seeking to destabilize. It"s time to slam the door in its face."

(Image source: Eric Baker/Flickr)

Opinion polls show broad public support for bans on burkinis. According to an Ifop poll published by Le Figaro in August 2016, 64% of people in France are opposed to the burkini on beaches; only 6% support it. Ifop director Jérôme Fourquet said:

"The results are similar to those we measured in April about the veil and headscarf on public streets (63% opposed). Beaches are equated with streets, where the wearing of ostentatious religious symbols are also rejected by two-thirds of the French."

The debate over burkinis is not limited to France.

In Portugal, two British tourists said they were "humiliated" after being told to leave a communal swimming pool in Albufeira, a popular holiday destination, because they were wearing burkinis. A member of the hotel staff reportedly told the women to abide by Portuguese norms or leave.

In Italy, a Moroccan family caused a stir at a public swimming pool in Montegrotto. Not only were the women wearing burkinis, but the men jumped into the pool wearing street clothes. Photos of the incident went viral after being posted on social media. At a public pool in Pontedera, a Muslim woman was observed swimming, not in a burkini but in a burka. The pool mangers said: "All people of every religion, culture and school of thought are welcome in this facility provided that they observe hygienic and sanitary norms." Elsewhere, a Muslim woman caused a polemic by wearing a burkini at a municipal pool in Ferrara.

In Austria, the Neuwaldegger Bad, a private outdoor swimming pool in Vienna, announced a burkini ban: "Only swimwear which is customary for us, bathing suits and bikinis, are permitted." The burkini has also been banned at the Wachaubad in Melk, Lower Austria. A water park in rural Kirchberg requires patrons to wear "local bathing clothing." Mayor Anton Gonaus said this rule has been in place for 25 years and that there have been no problems because up to now there have been no burkini wearers. "This puts Muslim women in a corner and tells them that they do not belong," complained Carla Amina Baghajati, the women"s commissioner of the Islamic Community in Austria (IGGiÖ).

In July, a Muslim journalist named Menerva Hammad went to a public swimming pool in Vienna in a burkini to gauge reactions. She was confronted by an Austrian woman who said: "This is unhygienic. This is not Turkey." The pool manager sided with Hammad and asked the Austrian woman to leave the premises. Hammad says she has received hate mail from across Austria by people accusing her of setting off a burkini trend at pools across the country.

Europe"s burkini debate has now spread to the Middle East. In Algeria, thousands of women have joined a "bikini revolt" to reclaim the public space from Islamists who oppose the bikini as a symbol of Western values.

In Morocco, where burkinis are banned at many tourism hotspots, the government in January outlawed the sale and production of burkas, evidently in a bid to crack down on Islamic extremism.

In Lebanon, a woman wearing a burkini was escorted off the beach at a luxury resort in Tripoli; the action was apparently taken to discourage the trend from spreading and harming tourism.

In Egypt, the Ministry of Tourism issued an order requiring hotels and resorts to welcome women wearing the burkini. The government backtracked after hoteliers complained about the potential impact on tourism; hotels and resorts may now decide for themselves whether or not to allow women to wear burkinis.

In Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has announced plans for a Red Sea beach resort where the law will be changed to allow women to wear bikinis. The project is part of a plan to transform part of the Saudi coastline into a beach resort for the international market. Some observers say the plan is unlikely to succeed.

Mainstream Media Caught Exploiting Children in Psy-Op to Sell War to America—It Worked

Shameless aptly describes the dirty dealings of modern war, from drone bombing human targets from afar in denial of all due process and invasions into sovereign lands, to pro-armed aggression propaganda — often brazen fabrications disseminated across media to engender support for otherwise untenable conflict — including that exploiting young children, who could not possibly possess the critical thinking necessary to grasp the messages their words send to the world.

And no better example of this puppetry of children for war profiteering and Western imperialist agenda-pushing exists than in the case of seven-year-old Bana al-Abed — proffered as the voice of innocent victims of the Syrian government’s bombardment of Aleppo — whose Twitter following just surpassed 386,000, after she featured in a corporate media-touted video promoting the United States’ goal of deposing Bashar al-Assad.

A child was chosen by propagandists for a reason.

September 2016 marked the creation of the Bana al-Abed Twitter account, which exploded in popularity by tweeting express “calls early on for action against the Syrian president, and Russia, and with a glaring absence of information or mention of the terrorist factions occupying eastern areas of Aleppo,” as independent journalist, Eva Bartlett, points out.

In one since-deleted tweet — a prime example of the supposed seven-year-old’s keenly bellicose thinking — al-Abed (sometimes spelled, Alabed) putatively implored,

“Dear world, it’s better to start 3rd world war instead of letting Russia & Assad commit #HolocaustAleppo”

Then, on December 13, a ceasefire agreement saw the purging and transfer of terrorist factions and their families from eastern Aleppo — an action which also triggered a flurry of tweets from ostensively unrelated accounts claiming to be in such a perilous state, their words should be considered a “last message” from inside the besieged city. al-Abed, among them, tweeted,

“I am talking to the world now live from east #Aleppo. This is my last moment to either live or die. -Bana”

Advertisment

My name is Bana, I"m 7 years old. I am talking to the world now live from East #Aleppo. This is my last moment to either live or die. – Bana

— Bana Alabed (@AlabedBana) December 13, 2016

Of course, the child and her family survived after safely absconding from Aleppo, stopping in Idlib, and ultimately settling in Turkey, where Bana shortly set to work vilifying the Assad regime and its ally, Russia — not exactly typical, seven-year-old, conflict refugee behavior.

Indeed, the child’s tweets appeared so sophisticated in tone and sentence construction, nuanced in idiomatic expression, and generally complex, Fatemah al-Abed, her mother, eventually had to admit to assisting on the first of the year, tweeting,

“For those wondering how can 7 year old tweet, I help her compose the tweets while she’s with me. I let her read all the replies & she enjoys”

For those wondering how can 7 year old tweet, I help her compose the tweets while she"s with me. I let her read all the replies & she enjoys

— Fatemah Alabed (@FatemahAlabed) January 1, 2017

Ultimately, the mother insisted she would allow Bana to compose social media posts, though suspicions remain that has not happened. Some believe, understandably under the circumstances, Bana may never have composed any tweets herself.

Once she arrived in Turkey, Western media ravenously championed the tear-jerking font of propaganda from the obviously-coached little girl, with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota eagerly extending a microphone, camera, and world stage to Bana.

All told, the platform given Bana comprised a potent elixir for anyone harboring misgivings about the continued dropping of bombs in populated areas of Syria — after all, if this small child pled the case for regime change across international air waves, her story had to be credible, right?

Not so much.

About Bana’s interaction with Camerota, independent journalist, Caitlin Johnstone, points out,

“It was scripted, and Bana was phonetically sounding out words that she did not understand in order to manufacture public support for more US interventionism in Syria.

READ MORE:  5 Stories From 2015 That The Government Wants You To Forget About

“The interview was scripted, and what for me is most shocking is that Alisyn Camerota necessarily had the other half of the script. Bana wouldn’t have been able to improvise answers to unscripted questions, so Camerota was necessarily knowingly acting out a staged, scripted scene and deceiving her audience about its nature. She lied to the American people for the most despicable reason imaginable, and exploited a little child to do it.”

Of all the pro-war propaganda justifying the military-industrial machine’s mere existence, the exploitation of Bana al-Abed and the tellingly similar manipulation of Omran Daqneesh — child victims of conflict championed by the U.S., with goals having next to nothing to do with humanitarianism as so proclaimed — could arguably be deemed the most abominable use of innocents for imperialist purposes in morass in Syria.

Bana’s CNN appearance led to others — including TIME Magazine, which named her one of the top 25 most influential people; the advocacy of CNN journalist, Jake Tapper, who suggested Bana as a viable news source; and, recently, a book deal with Simon & Schuster — despite her inability to form reliably coherent sentences in English.

Another keen example of these discrepancies between written words ostensively belonging to Bana and her statements on video — a collection of misspelled basic words and sophisticated syntax even the casual observer could theorize issued from two, separate people — surfaced in January, when the BBC republished what was said to be her letter to President Donald Trump.

“I lived in Syria my whole life before I left from besieged East Aleppo on December last year. I am part of the Syrian children who suffered from the Syrian war,” Bana al-Abed — a seven-year-old child, putatively writing in her second language — wrote to the president, with bolding added to highlight the more glaringly adult syntax.

“I am very sad about them and wish they were with me because we would play together by right now. I couldn’t play in Aleppo, it was the city of death. …Right now in Turkey, I can go out and enjoy. I can go to school although I didn’t yet. That is why peace is important for everyone including you. …However, millions of Syrian children are not like me right now and suffering in different parts of Syria. They are suffering because of adult people.”

READ MORE:  Putin Calls Out Assassination of Ambassador as "Clearly Provocative" to "Undermine Peace in Syria"

But if the pro-regime change propaganda in the supposed authentic letter weren’t off-putting enough, the BBC implores Trump to consider succumbing emotionally to the child’s pleas to depose Assad — albeit without explicitly stating as much.

“Turkey, where Bana and her family now live, supports the Syrian opposition. But President Trump’s position is not yet clear,” the BBC notes, suggesting that, were the president not to support the U.S.-armed, funded, and trained ‘moderate Syrian rebels’ in opposition to the elected administration of Assad, he would be acting single-handedly against Syria’s war-weary children.

Simple manipulation by the media, a refined vocabulary, and disparities in written and spoken comprehension of the English language obviate only superficially something amiss with the story of Bana al-Abed.

Leery of the niggling details, Bartlett, the journalist, previously interviewed Syrian colleague, Khaled Iskef, on the exploitation of Daqneesh — and revisited the topic in reference to Bana al-Abed. She writes:

“For his research, Iskef did more than look at the social media accounts of the family. He went to their home, which happened to be just meters around the corner from an al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda) headquarters, and less than 400 meters down the street from the main Al-Qaeda headquarters in Aleppo.”

Iskef learned Ghassan al-Abed, Bana’s father, describes himself on Twitter as an “Independent lawyer, Activist against terrorism and ISIS” — but that, as well as any pretense the family randomly became the face of pro-interventionist policy, falls apart upon inspection. Bartlett writes,

“In the al-Abed home, Iskef found a notebook documenting Ghassan’s work with terrorists over the years. According to the notebook (and coinciding with photos formerly on his social media pages) Ghassan Al-Abed was a military trainer for the Islamic Sawfa Brigade, and worked in the Shariah Council in the occupied state Eye Hospital, under the control of ISIS for a time until 2014, and al-Nusra for all of the time that al-Abed was there. The Shariah Council which al-Abed worked with passed decisions on imprisonment and assassination of the captured civilians being tried.”

From the location near vital al-Qaeda headquarters where photos were taken of Bana to her father’s and grandfather’s direct ties to the terrorist group, nothing about this little Syrian girl with massively popular social media accounts is as simple as made to appear.

When extenuating circumstances shred the thin semblance of innocence from an innocent child’s plea, the pro-war propaganda is working precisely as designed — precisely to engender your support for continued Western intervention in a sovereign nation’s conflict.

To propagandists, a child’s lips can do more to rile public outrage against nebulous geopolitical conflicts than any studied presentation on the merits of an aggressive military campaign ever could.

This is not a condemnation of Bana al-Abed. Rather, that condemnation is reserved for the unscrupulous adults eagerly proffering an innocent, photogenic face of the Syrian war — when they know the contrary to be true — to enjoin support for yet more bombs to be dropped on countless other innocent children who will never know the perks of a timely book deal.

Active-Duty Soldier Speaks Out: The Tip-Toe Toward WW3 Has Now Turned Into Giant Steps

Everything you thought you knew about U.S. involvement in Syria — and animosity toward Russia — has instead flourished from confusion wrought by intentional miscommunication and birthed from the minds of avid propagandists.

We know this with a degree of certainty, thanks to award-winning investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, obtained perhaps the most naked evidence of hapless government duplicity resulting in an unknowable number of deaths and, astonishingly, even a preposterously harrowing likelihood of world war.

Communications between an active duty U.S. soldier and a security adviser, both unnamed by Hersh, prove the narrative proffered by corporate media and establishment politicians for months — that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had carried out an horrific and deadly chemical weapons attack against Syrian civilians in Khan Sheikhoun — was a lie.

Should that not seem impactful enough, consider it was the assertion of a gruesome chemical attack by Assad against his own civilian populace which provided the putative impetus for U.S. retaliation in the firing of 59 missiles into the sovereign nation of Syria near Khan Sheikhoun, also resulting in a wholly unjustified number of civilian casualties.

Ineffectively destroying parts of a mostly-dormant airbase and killing innocents indeed, at the time, seemed a peculiar mission accomplished as broadcast news belched repetitively — and for good reason.

Beyond the determination Assad had not gassed his own, the U.S. knew there had been no chemical weapons incident, at all — and had been privy to cooperative intelligence among the warring parties that an airstrike would be carried out against a cache of weapons — characterized as a “legitimate military target” by the active duty soldier chat protocol with the adviser.

On April 6, 2017 — Hersh reported for German outlet, Die Welt — the American soldier seemed near panic in a communiqué to the security adviser, imploring,

“We got a fuckin‘ problem.”

“What happened?” the adviser asks. “Is it the Trump ignoring the Intel and going to try to hit the Syrians? And that we’re pissing on the Russians?”

Soldier: “This is bad…Things are spooling up.”

Adviser: “You may not have seen trumps press conference yesterday. He’s bought into the media story without asking to see the Intel. We are likely to get our asses kicked by the Russians. Fucking dangerous. Where are the godamn adults? The failure of the chain of command to tell the President the truth, whether he wants to hear it or not, will go down in history as one of our worst moments.”

Soldier: “I don’t know. None of this makes any sense. We KNOW that there was no chemical attack. The Syrians struck a weapons cache (a legitimate military target) and there was collateral damage. That’s it. They did not conduct any sort of a chemical attack […]

“And now we’re shoving a shit load of TLAMs (tomahawks) up their ass.”

Adviser: “There has been a hidden agenda all along. This is about trying to ultimately go after Iran. What the people around Trump do not understand is that the Russians are not a paper tiger and that they have more robust military capability than we do.”

Soldier: “I don’t know what the Russians are going to do. They might hang back and let the Syrians defend their own borders, or they might provide some sort of tepid support, or they might blow us the fuck out of the airspace and back into Iraq. I honestly don’t know what to expect right now. I feel like anything is possible.  The russian air defense system is capable of taking out our TLAMs.  this is a big fucking deal…we are still all systems go…

Adviser: “You are so right. Russia is not going to take this lying down.

“Who is pushing this? Is it coming from [General Joseph L. Votel, Commander of United States Central Command]?”

Soldier: “I don’t know. It’s from someone big though. . . . This is a big fucking deal.

“It has to be POTUS.

“They [the Russians] are weighing their options.  Indications are they are going to be passive supporters of syria and not engage their systems unless their own assets are threatened..in other words, the sky is fucking blue.’”

***

READ MORE:  JFK"s Nephew Blows the Whistle on Syria -- ISIS is a Product of US Intervention for Oil

In case you missed it, the unnamed security adviser brazenly suggests feckless U.S. military aggression in Syria pertains to a murky, but penultimate, goal with Iran — that, and the altogether foreboding indication Russia, a foe who should not be and the object of Western provocation, would outperform American forces should hostilities flare.

Communications between the pair of insiders continued the following day, April 7:

Adviser: “What are the Russians doing or saying  Am I correct that we did little real damage to Russia or Syria?”

Soldier: “We didn’t hit a damn thing, thankfully. They retrograded all their aircraft and personnel. We basically gave them a very expensive fireworks display.

“They knew where ships were and watched the entire strike from launch to end game.

“The Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real Intel and know the truth about the weapons depot strike.

“They are correct.

“I guess it really didn’t matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump. Fuck.

“No one is talking about the entire reason we’re in Iraq and Syria in the first place. That mission is fucked now.”

Adviser: “Are any of your colleagues pissed or is everyone going along with it and saying this is OK.”

Soldier: “It’s a mad house. . . .Hell we even told the Russians an hour before impact.”

Adviser: “But they clearly knew it was coming.”

Soldier: “Oh of course.

“Now Fox is saying we chose to hit the Syrian airfield because it is where the chemical attacks were launched from. Wow. Can’t make this shit up.”

Adviser: “They are. I mean, making it up.”

Soldier: “It’s so fuckin evil.”

Adviser: “Amen!!!”

And, again, on April 8:

Soldier: “Russians are being extremely reasonable. Despite what the news is reporting they are still trying to deconflict and coordinate the air campaign.”

Adviser: “I don’t think the Russia yet understands how crazy Trump is over this.  And I don’t think we appreciate how much damage the Russians can do to us.”

Soldier: “They’re showing amazing restraint and been unbelievably calm. They seem mostly interested in de-escalating everything. They don’t want to lose our support in the help with destroying Isis.”

Adviser: “But I get the get the feeling are simply trying this approach for as long as they feel it might work. If we keep pushing this current aggressive stance they’re going to hit back.”

***

Die Welt ostensively withheld only information considered sensitive, including details pertaining to precise location and nature of operations — but, considering Hersh’ itinerant adherence to journalistic principles, the report should be examined with more than a grain of salt.

If, indeed, the communications prove true, the documents could reveal more about censorship, a possibly-rogue media establishment, and an undeniable foolishness — and, more keenly, helplessness — in the haphazard rush to many wars in the fulfillment of anachronistic goals.

We don’t need to be at war in Syria — nor should we be. And these communications prove, above all, those of us sounding the alarm for a year this addled Syrian conundrum would befall the U.S. had not done so in alarm — rather, in a growing awareness of the unscrupulous tactics possessed by an imperialist State circling the drain.

Father of Famous Aleppo Boy Just Exposed How the US & White Helmets Lied to the World

Covered in dust and bruises with hair disheveled from having survived a blast, the blood beginning to crust over half his face, a seeming placidity — hands anchored on his legs, all-but unmoving — could not mask the stoic trauma in little Omran Daqneesh’s eyes.

Gazing hauntingly from the back of an ambulance in Aleppo in August 2016, Omran’s image snared the heartstrings of the world — even those previously hardened to the hopelessly tangled morass in Syria — transmogrifying into a single human form the suffering of innocent Syrians at the whims of entire nation-states embroiled in proxy war upon war in the name of political squabbles.

But, while the West took up Omran’s cause, Westerners did so under the pretense the child had been bloodied by an airstrike or missile launched by the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or their allies from Russia — his image rekindling the fire of contention propaganda designed to support the United States’ goal of regime change.

But it was a lie — from mass media’s parroted claims the boy had escaped an airstrike within an inch of his life, to bandages eventually wrapped around Omran’s head — virtually none of the narrative stemming from the starkly persistent image bore the weight of truth.

“We did not find out how the incident happened,” Mohamad Kheir Daqneesh, Omran’s father, told reporter Kinana Alloush and others in interviews this week. “I pulled my family members out of debris. Omran was with me, while White Helmets took him away and started taking photo of him.”

Daqneesh, noting the sound of fighter jets or missiles did not precede the blast which ultimately killed Omran’s 10-year-old brother, explained he had to shave the boy’s head and ferret him away from overwhelming media attention — and from rebel fighters and sympathizers who sought perhaps to wrest the symbolic child from the relative safety of his family.

READ MORE:  US Admits Using Radioactive Weapons in Syria that Left Thousands of Iraqi Babies Deformed

Journalists allied with al-Nusra Front — variously, Fatah al-Sham or Levant Liberation, an offshoot of al-Qaeda — demanded the father adhere to the narrative Assad was responsible for Russians bombing the neighborhood, and, thus, their suffering and tragic predicament. They even offered sizable sums to sweeten the pot.

He refused — on principle, as well as on the basis of knowledge likely some contrary was true.

In fact, the attempt to wrangle a narrative favorable to the U.S.-led coalition hasn’t ceased — even amid the emergence of the family’s actual plight, pro-Western media outlets like the Guardian and Washington Post maintained speculation and withheld details disputing the original maudlin horror evinced in the August 17, 2016, image of Omran in the ambulance’s orange chair.

Where Alloush and other journalists, interviewing Daqneesh with Omran by his side — now clean cut and hinting smiles — listened intently to the man fed up with misinformation circulating for almost a year, Western corporate media insisted there could be no way to verify whether coercion forced him to speak out.

Mohamad — gasp — supports the rule of Assad.

But where eagerness to paint the Syrian war in the broad strokes of good versus evil might have fabricated the story to the benefit of shared goals possessed by the West and barbarous militants, reality is never so simple.

Nor is it so verily sterile and concrete, even when tinged with hollow tears from a world audience eager to pin blame and continue dropping bombs as usual.

War’s messes cannot be encapsulated so facilely in the resigned, dusty face of a single child — not when thousands of children whose stability, limbs, life, and homeland have been ripped to shreds — but go unnoticed by the same corporate media backing interventionist policy wreaking that havoc in the first place.

Omran, it turns out, suffered only minor injuries — not even severe enough to warrant head bandages, much less a footnote in history as the poster child for why the West must oust Assad — and he left the hospital after receiving first aid to return to whatever remained of their home in Aleppo.

“He only sustained minor injuries, but the militants exaggerated this fact. They said on numerous occasions via their media that he died, until finally admitting that he’s alive. They are not to be trusted,” the elder Daqneesh asserted.

“While I was rescuing my family the militants filmed my kin getting out of the house, in order to use these images for propaganda … I never had any dealings with their organizations and I never accepted their so-called humanitarian aid.”

Months of hiding, dodging further unwanted attention, plagued Daqneesh — until ire at brazen manipulation of his son boiled over into statements with journalists clarifying Assad and the Russians should not bear blame.

Terrorists — some armed, trained, backed, and laughably reclassified by the West and its allies as ‘moderate rebels’ — still aim to depose Assad and dominate Syria. In some places, they do.

And while it would be equally as farcical to sterilize atrocities committed by Syrian and Russian forces, denying Western and American complicity in the horrors besieging civilians belies a pomposity in politicized warring — with children like Omran unknowingly symbolizing two fundamentally differing justifications for its continuance.

Omran isn’t Syria. But because he is Syrian, the ugliness of conflict in the Middle East — stoked by a laundry list of geopolitical, religious, and other conniving agendas — found shameless solace in emblazoning his image on propaganda conveniently supporting each, individually.

And shamelessly so.

If Omran Daqneesh is to be a poster child of this war, then let the five-year-old grace only posters calling for its end — for a return to a life Westerners might not be familiar in its normalcy, but which suited the majority of Syrians.

Until, that is, the time the otherwise insular conflict took on proxy outgrowths and began using traumatized children as pawns.

If you wish only to never see another Omran — less so, his counterparts, who were fortunate enough to escape the additional burden of  the international floodlight, but who suffered worse fates — then war must end. Troops must be delivered back to their families. Death must cease to be a commodification of the need to intervene in affairs of sovereign nations.

Diplomacy, even that not fully in sync with either warring party, must return as a viable alternative to the murder writ large in pro-war arrogance and propaganda.

Otherwise, there will be more Omrans — worse, there will be an interminable list of children lost to war, whose names and faces only their families will mourn.

That, not a situation manipulated to appear as something more, is the true horror of war.

UK Terrorist’s Motive Revealed: Family Says He Wanted Revenge for US Killing Children in Syria

Jomana Abedi, sister of Manchester attacker, Salman Abedi — whose improvised, shrapnel-laden bomb detonated after a concert, killing himself and 22 people, and injuring dozens more — has now disclosed the irrefutable, trenchant reason for the deadly attack, in her brother’s own words.

Blowback.

“I think he saw children — Muslim children — dying everywhere, and wanted revenge. He saw the explosives America drops on children in Syria, and he wanted revenge,” she told the Wall Street Journal. “Whether he got that is between him and God.”

However telling, the United States engaging in perpetual warfare throughout the Middle East comprises just one straw on the back of a camel overburdened with possible motivations that Salman Abedi sought annihilation as an act of revenge.

Born in Manchester on New Year’s Eve 1994, the WSJ reports, Abedi had a fairly ordinary childhood — though neighbors found the family to be insular.

Ramadan Abedi, Salman’s father, regularly attended a nearby mosque, and occasionally performed the call to prayer. Older brother, Ismail, also was a regular attendee, but neighbors suggested Salman only joined them sporadically.

In 2011, Abedi traveled to see his father in Libya — both parents hail from the conflict-ravaged North African nation — where they fought in a militia with designs on ousting Muammar Gaddafi, as the revolutionary ripple known as the Arab Spring gripped much of the region.

Called the Tripoli Brigade, the rebel militia fought in western Libya and were key in the eventual taking of the Libyan capital, a victory aligning with the United States’ plot to depose Gaddafi — an utter disaster in the making, as far as mutterings of blowback, and a change in regime ultimately damning the now-decimated nation to interminable conflict.

Abedi and his mother returned to Manchester in 2014, an unnamed person claiming to be a friend of the family told the Wall Street Journal, where, the following year, he began studying business administration at the University of Salford.

He lasted just one year before all-but dropping out.

Then, reports the WSJ,

“In May 2016, an 18-year-old friend of Salman Abedi’s, Abdul Wahab Hafidah, a Briton of Libyan descent, died after being run down by a car and then stabbed in Manchester. Six men and a 15-year-old boy are on trial in a Manchester court this month charged with murder in connection with the killing, which prosecutors have argued was gang-related. The defendants deny wrongdoing.”

Already having grown embittered against mistreatment of Muslims in Britain, Abedi deemed the killing a hate crime, and — whether or not he knew at the time — one of the weightier straws on the allegorical camel’s back. To wit,

“I remember Salman at his funeral vowing revenge,” the Abedi family friend said.

However, hours before he was detained by Libyan authorities, Bloomberg interviewed Ramadan Abedi, who could not imagine his son responsible for the heinous act against innocents.

“I was really shocked when I saw the news, I still don’t believe it,” the patriarch explained from Tripoli.

Ramadan Abedi, according to Bloomberg, first came to Manchester during the 1990s, and left for Libya in 2008 — three years before father and son would fight side-by-side in the rebellion against Gaddafi.

“My son was as religious as any child who opens his eyes in a religious family,” he insisted, suggesting Abedi more devoted than his Manchester neighbors witnessed.

“As we were discussing news of similar attacks earlier, he was always against those attacks, saying there’s no religious justification for them,” Ramadan continued, this time, vaguely echoing his daughter’s description of the young man as ‘kind’ and ‘loving.’

“I don’t understand how he’d have become involved in an attack that led to the killing of children.”

Emphatically, he added, “We condemn these terrorist acts on civilians, innocent people.”

Whatever Salman Abedi’s demented rationale for slaughtering victims as young as eight, a cursory examination of his experiences as a Muslim — split between a life in the West, pockmarked crimes committed against adherents of his faith, and one in his parents’ homeland, a nation shredded by Western so-called foreign policy — evince raw despair at the unlikelihood violence will ever cease.

Abedi, in short, is blowback — transmogrified into rageful human form.

He, the Manchester disaster, is U.S. hegemonic imperialism — pompous in its pillaging and merciless in wanton killing — collateral murder of innocents, moot.

Signing the permission slip to wage war against a tactic has instead brought innovation in the perfection of terrorism — wrought by individuals like Abedi, manipulative quasi-nation-states of militants, and military superpowers, alike.

Fighting this ludicrous war on terror succeeds phenomenally in two areas — providing fertile ground for further terroristic acts, the seeds of which are fertilized with corporate media’s seeds of fear, as well as fomenting anti-Western sentiment into atrocity, and fueling the military industrial complex.

In an unfortunately ironic footnote, it was Muammar Gaddafi, himself, who extended an olive branch of sorts, to former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair — who offered only a deaf ear.

Lamenting that his forces could not withstand the onslaught from al-Qaeda fighters, the Libyan leader pleaded with Blair not to ignore Western interventionism would result in attacks — in Europe.

“They [jihadists] want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe,” Gaddafi admonished in 2011, shortly before the West succeeded in deposing and killing the leader, whose plans for a gold-based currency conflicted with the worldwide U.S. petrodollar-dominated marketplace.

No one in a position to do so heeded that prognostication.

Explaining the potency of blowback has earned sharp rebuke from the still-mourning citizens of Manchester as somehow condoning the attack — but slipping the mourning veil over truth cannot shroud the ugliness of innocents in coffins.

But terror and its war don’t claim only the innocence of their victims — witnesses to carnage on the scale of war cannot unsee the callousness of collateral death. Innocence lost to indiscriminate casualty never returns.

Until the United States-led West reins in its monstrously flawed foreign operations — or, at least, attempts coordination there, with longstanding foes — there will be more Abedis.

In fact, basic principles of blowback guarantee it will be so.

Gaddafi Predicted and Tried to Stop this Terror Wave in UK, So the US Murdered Him

Outspoken critic of Big Government and former U.S. presidential candidate, Dr. Ron Paul, blasted the West for ignoring admonishments from deposed, late, Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, who asserted prior to his death, the rise of U.S.-supported Islamic extremists would lead to attacks on Europe — years before Salman Abedi detonated an explosive device, killing 22 at a concert in Manchester.

Children, adolescents, and adults had gathered for a concert by pop superstar Ariana Grande and had begun to exit the Manchester venue when Abedi exploded a shrapnel-laden device — causing pandemonium, severely injuring scores, and killing 22 people.

Could the Manchester attack have been prevented — even long before MI5 also warned an incident may be forthcoming?

On the Liberty Report, Daniel McAdams noted,

“Gaddafi — when the radicals had started rising in Eastern Libya, when the U.S. was supporting them — he said, ‘I’m telling you guys, these are radical Islamists, these are terrorists, if you keep supporting them, there’s gonna be trouble.’”

McAdams and Dr. Paul cited an article from January, 2016, from the Telegraph, titled, “Colonel Gaddafi warned Tony Blair of Islamist attacks on Europe, phone conversations reveal,” in which the content of communications between the two leaders revealed how precisely the ill-fated leader of Libya prognosticated future blowback from current Western support of radicals.

Apparently lucid enough to grasp the ramifications Western support would effect throughout Europe — in the aiding terrorists to fit its own ends — on February 25, 2011, Gaddafi portended the dark turn in a phone conversation with former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, cautioning,

“They [jihadists] want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe.”

Gaddafi, in the half hour call, insisted repeatedly he only wished to shield Libyan civilians from an onslaught of violence wrought by al-Qaeda fighters — a battle in which government forces were unable to make headway. Quoting transcripts of Gaddafi’s comments during the call, the Telegraph continued,

“We are not fighting them, they are attacking us. I want to tell you the truth. It is not a difficult situation at all. The story is simply this: an organisation has laid down sleeping cells in North Africa. Called the Al-Qaeda Organisation in North Africa… The sleeping cells in Libya are similar to dormant cells in America before 9/11.

“They have managed to get arms and terrify people. people can’t leave their homes… It’s a jihad situation. They have arms and are terrorising people in the street.”

Then, in a subsequent call four hours later, he added,

“I will have to arm the people and get ready for a fight. Libyan people will die, damage will be on the Med, Europe and the whole world. These armed groups are using the situation [in Libya] as a justification – and we shall fight them.”

In fact, Abedi’s very family fought Ghaddafi during the revolt in 2011.

As Dr. Paul notes, Gaddafi’s desperate words weren’t intended as a threat, rather, as counsel to Blair on the deleterious repercussions manipulation by the U.S. and Western allies would reap — not only across northern Africa and the Middle East, but in Europe.

Gaddafi, Dr. Paul said, was “saying, ‘this could have bad consequences.’ And it turned out, he was absolutely right.”

Indeed, today saw headlines plastered with news Abedi’s family twice approached British Intelligence with concerns their loved one had begun entertaining terrorist fantasies.

“Abedi’s support for terrorism was reported this year to the security services, and friends had called,” The Times reports. “Britain’s anti-terrorist hotline five years ago with concerns about his views, it was claimed. He was reported for violent statements, including a claim that being a suicide bomber was ‘OK.’”

While it remains unclear whether Abedi garnered targeted surveillance from MI5, what has been made apparent is even direct and unequivocal warnings on specific persons of interest doesn’t necessitate an open and willing ear from perpetually — if ostensively, only — suspicious Western Intelligence agencies.

Abedi’s brother, now having been arrested in Tripoli, allegedly affirmed Salman and himself to be members of the pernicious, self-titled Islamic State — and that his brother told of his plans for the Manchester attack.

However, when it comes to insidious dealings of Intelligence services, the ends — and not warnings with immediacy — seem far too often to play into State decision-making.

Not long after Gaddafi’s pleas to Blair and other Western leaders, his and Libya’s tragic fates were sealed.

With his ouster and killing, plans to supplant the U.S. petrodollar with the gold-based African dinar — which could have brought the continent into economic relevance — could not come to fruition.

And his warnings of impending doom throughout Europe — resulting from years of meddling in the affairs of cultures governments of sovereign nations and the manipulation of terrorist groups to serve hegemonic plunder — can now only echo in the minds of those most guilty for turning a deaf ear.