A double airstrike targeting a wedding was launched by a United States-backed coalition, killing mostly women and children—including the bride.
The post As Media Obsesses Over Royal Baby, US-Backed Coalition Bombs Wedding, Kills Bride & Children appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
Both Congress and the Department of Homeland Security have never justified the biometric scanners at airports that could cost Americans $1 billion in 2018.
"Lucky" Larry Silverstein is set to receive a $95.2 million settlement with American and United Airlines to settle claims resulting from the 9/11 attacks
(ANTIWAR.COM) — The cost of America’s global war on terror has yet to be reckoned with, and there’s a very good reason for that. By and large, the US has not been paying for all of these wars, but rather has been borrowing to pay for the conflict.
In the long run that’s going to be expensive. Paying off the war is going to mean not only paying the prices of the conflict but the massive interest accrued in borrowing the cost of those wars.
A new report suggests that just the interest on all that debt will, over the course of decades of servicing it, cost an estimated $8 trillion. So far, they say, the US has paid $534 billion in overseas contingency operations interest.
And that’s just the debt already accrued. America’s assorted wars show no sign of ending, and indeed the Pentagon has been pretty clear about the US deployment in Iraq being a permanent thing.
When the government talks about the “cost” of the terror war, they generally limit their reckoning to specific costs of overseas operations. Yet decades of veteran costs will doubtless dwarf that, and the interest on top of it will swell final costs to even higher levels.
The question of whether America can afford all of this, of course, was never addressed in the first place. Indeed, with so little of the cost being paid at all, the expectation seems to be that they’ll just keep borrowing.
By Jason Ditz / Republished with permission / ANTIWAR.COM / Report a typo
The suspect in the NYC Terrorist Attack was reportedly interviewed by federal agents in 2015 under the suspicion that he had ties to terrorists.
(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — One won’t find much mention of it in the corporate media, but in 2011 a Malaysian court found George W. Bush and Tony Blair guilty of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and genocide as a result of their roles in the Iraq war. According to the Telegraph, such a damning verdict meant their names were to be entered into a symbolic “Register of War Criminals.”
Shortly after the Iraq war was launched, then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan publicly admitted the invasion was illegal and a complete breach of the U.N. Charter. In the days leading up to the invasion, France, Germany, and Russia made a joint declaration stating they would not allow passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq. In other words, the Iraq war had no legal basis.
There are only two ways a country can launch a war against another. One is in self-defense. The other is with authorization from the U.N. Neither of these requirements were satisfied, and the result of this criminal act should shock us to the core.
At the end of May, the Washington D.C.-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) released a study concluding that the death toll from the American-led “War on Terror” could be as high as two million since the years following the 9/11 attacks — and that over one million of these deaths took place within Iraq. Even if one took into account those killed by enemy forces, PSR found that despite “all the inaccuracies…the answers still allowed for the conclusion that approximately one-third of all victims of violence had been directly killed by the occupation forces.” [emphasis added]
In its totality, the Bush administration did a lot more than simply rain bombs down on an innocent civilian population in contravention of international law. As early as May 2003, the U.S. made the single largest policy blunder of the decade by deciding to completely disband Iraq’s police and military, putting close to 400,000 servicemen out of jobs. As TIME has explained, the effects of this decision alone are still affecting the world to this day:
“It’s a jarring reminder of how a key decision made long ago is complicating U.S. efforts to fight ISIS and restore some semblance of stability to Iraq. Instead of giving Iraq a fresh start with a new army, it helped create a vacuum that ISIS has filled. Anthony Zinni, a retired Marine general and chief of U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000, said keeping the Iraqi army intact was always part of U.S. strategy. ‘The plan was that the army would be the foundation of rebuilding the Iraqi military,’ he says. ‘Many of the Sunnis who were chased out ended up on the other side and are probably ISIS fighters and leaders now.’ One expert estimates that more than 25 of ISIS’s top 40 leaders once served in the Iraqi military.”
In summary, the Bush administration invaded a sovereign nation without a legal basis, a decision that killed over one million people (one-third of that total was caused directly by American forces) and helped fuel the rise of ISIS and extremism in general.
It is mind-boggling that George W. Bush has not only been hailed as some sort of anti-Trump warrior recently but that countries who don’t engage in this sort of behavior (think North Korea, Iran, and Syria) are universally branded as unstable risks to global security. It’s as if Bush’s illegal wars are now forgotten about by the media because he has become vocal against Donald Trump.
According to AlterNet, Benjamin Ferencz, a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg trials who successfully convicted 22 Nazi officers for their role in killing more than one million people once said a “prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.”
Ferencz’s words directly referenced international legal doctrine. Specifically, it was the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg that stated:
“[T]o initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Donald J. Trump may be one evil, twisted, and dangerous man. But if we want to send a message to him that there are limits to what one president can do, we should surely start with Bush and Obama before him, both of whom were found to have been guilty of some of the worst crimes imaginable.
As the Guardian explained:
“And he [Bush] caused far more harm to the country and planet than Trump has so far, and maybe ever will. It was under Bush that America invaded Iraq, murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians, and destabilized the Middle East so thoroughly that it may take the entire 21st century to recover.
“More than 4,000 American soldiers died. He stocked his cabinet with warmongering neoconservatives far more cunning and apocalyptic in outlook than any of the amateurs who populate Trump’s gang. These were men who dreamed of civilization-annihilating wars and found a president willing to transform their dreams into crackling reality.
“The blood on Bush’s hands will never dry. Under the guise of spreading democracy, his administration brought suffering to the world and strangled civil liberties at home.”
Op-ed / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo
On this day 16 years ago, less than one month after 9/11, President George W. Bush delivered a televised address from the White House announcing the beginning of the Afghanistan War.
“On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan,” he said.
What Bush did not say was the fact that the War in Afghanistan would become the longest war in United States history. Thousands of American lives and billions of taxpayer dollars would be wasted at the expense of the U.S. war machine, and the “War on Terrorism” would only create more terrorism as a result.
Advertisment
Over 31,000 civilian deaths have been documented in Afghanistan following the U.S. invasion. It should be noted that over the last few years, civilian deaths have substantially increased—which serves as a reminder that the situation is only getting worse.
The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan began documenting civilian casualties in 2009. The combined number of civilians who were killed and injured that year was nearly 6,000. The number has steadily increased over the years, and in 2016, it reached a record high with nearly 3,500 killed and nearly 8,000 injured.
Image via al-JazeeraA report from the UNAMA noted that in 2017, the death rate for children has increased by 9 percent over the previous year, and the death rate for women has increased by 23 percent. The report also claimed that an increase in airstrikes has led to a 43 percent increase in causalities.
Before the United States invaded Afghanistan, the production of opium poppies was significantly low, thanks to the Taliban. Not only did the presence of the U.S. military lead to a rise in opium production—because U.S. Marines were literally guarding fields of poppy plants—it led to a drastic increase that has done wonders for the illegal drug trade.
READ MORE: US Gov"t Proves Love for ISIS as Bill to "Stop Arming Terrorists" Gets Only 13 Supporters
According to a report from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, between 2015 and 2016, opium production in Afghanistan increased by 43 percent, and the area used to farm the poppy plant increased by 10 percent to 201,000 hectares. In response to the report, UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov said the figures were “a worrying reversal in efforts.”
After 16 years of war and a price tag of over $1 Trillion, the United States has not only helped Afghanistan to become the largest producer of opium in world, it has ensured that the war-ravaged country produces around 90 percent of the world’s opium supply.
When former President Obama ran for office in the 2008 election, he campaigned on the promise of ending the Afghanistan War—which resonated with a number of Americans who were hopeful that a fresh face in the oval office would bring about the “change” needed to finally end the war.
However, while Obama promised to end the war and increased it instead, President Trump has been much more blunt about the fact that the war in Afghanistan is not coming to an end anytime soon, and while the U.S. may have a strategy in mind, it does not appear to include an “exit.”
The longest War in United States history turns 16 years old today, and in just two years, brand new military recruits will have the opportunity to fight in a war that has been ongoing for as long as they have been alive. While there are many Americans who support the concept of military intervention—including in countries that have done nothing to the U.S.—even they should be asking the question of why the United States continues to fight a war that has only created an increase in terrorism, innocent civilian deaths and illegal drug production.
Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
The UK’s home secretary, Amber Rudd, is the latest bureaucrat to highlight the increased global trend of governments going completely insane.
Her latest plan is to threaten the British population with up to 15 years in prison for the crime of watching “terrorist material.” Yes, you read that right.
The Guardian reports:
People who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars in a move designed to tighten the laws tackling radicalisation the home secretary, Amber Rudd, is to announce on Tuesday.
A new maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment will also apply to terrorists who publish information about members of the armed forces, police and intelligence services for the purposes of preparing acts of terrorism.
The tightening of the law around viewing terrorist material is part of a review of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy following the increasing frequency of terrorist attacks in Britain this year.
“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” said Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded.
According to the Home Office the updated offence will ensure that only those found to repeatedly view online terrorist material will be guilty of the offence, to safeguard those who click on a link by mistake or who could argue that they did so out of curiosity rather than with criminal intent. A defence of “reasonable excuse” would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material.
The UK is clearly embracing pre-crime here, since it’s clear someone watching terrorist propaganda in the privacy of their own home does not harm anyone else.
Thus, this is a victimless crime, and as I’ve maintained on many occasions, I do not believe such a thing exists. If there’s no victim, there’s no crime.
What the UK is arguing here is that watching “terrorist material” increases the likelihood of someone committing a violent terrorist attack in the future. So you’re actually being punished for what you might potentially do in the future.
This is pre-crime and it’s totally insane.
Beyond that, we can pretty much guarantee that the definition of “terrorist material” will expand over time to whatever politicians don’t want the rabble exposed to.
But it gets worse still. Here’s what Rudd had to say about her government’s demented crusade against technology itself.
Rudd also caused some consternation at the fringe meeting by criticising the tech industry for their “patronising” attitude that “sneered” at politicians who did not always get it right.
She claimed it was not necessary for her to understand how end-to-end encryption worked to know that it was helping criminals.
It’d be funny if it weren’t so incredibly sad.
* * *
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.
The War on Terror is a concoction to manipulate you out of your rights and allow an endless war against a faceless enemy.War on Terror has become a catchcry phrase after the biggest of all false flag operations, September 11th. While it’s true that 9/11 became the pretext for the War on Terror™, and catapulted the doctrine from an idea to official US policy (and a preeminent Western ideology going into the 21st century), the idea didn’t originate with the George W. Bush Administration. The origins of the phrase War on Terror can actually be traced back to around 1979 and to another infamous New World Order agenda-pusher by the name of Benjamin Netanyahu, the current Prime Minister of Israel. The War on Terror™ has become such a hackneyed phrase that it’s worthy of being trademarked and corporatized, if the Military Industrial Complex hasn’t done so already. Think of how much carnage, death and destruction have been wrought in the name of fighting the War on Terror™ and its various offshoots such as Radical Islamic Terrorism™ – millions of people killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Palestine and more – and there’s no sign of it stopping. The War on Terror™ is the ultimate abstract endless war against a nebulous faceless enemy. It’s not going to stop until enough people see through the deception.
Netanyahu is more than just an Israeli politician. Netanyahu’s father, Benzion Netanyahu, was a leader of Revisionist Zionism, a colonialist, aggressive, xenophobic and expansionist form of Israeli nationalism founded by Ze’ev Jabotinsky in the early part of the 20th century. Netanyahu was already talking about terrorism in 1979 when he wrote his book International Terrorism: Challenge and Response that year. He wrote another book on terrorism in 1995, a major work entitled Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorism. The book explains all sorts of themes that have now become public knowledge and household terms and ideas: terrorism, radical Islamic suicide attacks and Iran pursuing a nuclear program. He repeatedly uses the phrase “Weapons of Mass Annihilation” throughout the book – now you know where the term “WMD” (Weapons of Mass Destruction) originated from! Netanyahu is not a prophet but rather a driver of these agendas. Using the immense power of Zionism, Jewish lobbies in America and the Jewish international banking cabal, he persuaded the US to align itself with Israel and view Islam as the next great enemy.
According to this source, Netanyahu made a speech in Israel at the Jewish Agency Assembly Plenary meeting held in Israel on June 24th, 2001 (2-3 months before 9/11) where he made these points:
“1. The Palestinians are to blame for the conflict in the Middle East, and specifically Yasser Arafat.
2. It is legitimate for established states to engage in wars, because the societies are imperfect.
3. Palestinians are not waging a legitimate war (like established states using regular armies) and are terrorists.
4. The Palestinian terrorists deliberately attack civilians.
5. The Israelis are responding in self-defense.
6. When the Israelis respond, they respond against combatants.
7. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority are committed to the destruction of the State of Israel.
8. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority are using the illegitimate and criminal means of terrorism.
9. The Palestinian are wrong and the Israelis are right.
10. Terrorism invariably comes from terrorist regimes.
11. Terror is useful, only if the cost of waging terrorism, the cost of that regime is lower than the benefits of waging terrorism.
12. To stop terrorism, one must make the terrorist regime pay very very heavily.
13. The root core of the Middle East conflict is the existential opposition by a great many in the Arab world still, and certainly by the Palestinian leadership to Israel’s very existence.
14. The first way of ensuring Israel’s existence is that the Arabs simply understand that Israel is so powerful, so permanent, so unconquerable in every way that they will simply abandon by the force of the inertia of Israel’s permanence all opposition to Israel.
15. The second way [of ensuring Israel’s existence] is for the forces of democratization get to the Arab regimes.
16. Using propaganda techniques, like broadcasting American television serials (which Netanyahu sees as subversive material) will ultimately bring down regimes like the Ayatola regime and the Khoumeni regime in Iran.
17. In the 21st century, you cannot achieve a military victory unless you achieve a political victory to accompany it; and you cannot achieve a political victory unless you achieve a victory in public opinion; and you cannot achieve a victory in public opinion unless you persuade that public that your cause is just.
18. It doesn’t make any difference if you are on the side of the angels or on the side of the devil. Anyone fighting in the international arena for public opinion must argue the justice of his cause. Hitler argued for the justice of his cause and Stalin argued for the justice of his cause. They all had propaganda machines. Whether you are right or you are wrong you must argue the justice of your cause.”
Note how he was already setting up a distinction between “legitimate” war and “illegitimate” war, thus trying to provide a legal and moral justification for war (which is legalized violence and mass murder) that would be initiated by Israel, the US and allies in the years to come against the Palestinians and other Muslim-majority nations. He made the point that states using regular armies can engage in legitimate war, but not loose bands of fighters which he brands terrorists.
Soon thereafter, George W. Bush declared the Netanyahu doctrine of War on Terror as official US policy on September 20th, 2001:
“We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime … the civilized world is rallying to America’s side. They understand that if this terror goes unpunished, their own cities, their own citizens may be next. Terror, unanswered, can not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments.”
This speech included the famous “you’re either with us or with the terrorists” ultimatum, a manipulative way to force other nations to take sides and to make a complex issue black and white. It also echoed Netanyahu’s concept of “legitimate” nations, “legitimate” war and “legitimate” government. In this way, the US tried to claim the moral high ground and granted itself the tyrannical power of being able to list any individual or group as “terrorists” and justify killing them them on those grounds, as well as branding any nation as a ”terrorist haven” and justify invading them on those grounds – both in stark violation of international law.
It wasn’t long before Netanyahu expanded this now official War on Terror doctrine to include Israel. Netanyahu now expanded upon the childish “Us” vs. “Them” demarcation set up by Dubya to make it “US, Israel and the civilized democracies of the world” vs. “Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and other Arab and Muslim dictatorships of the world.” Here are the main points of his speech on April 10th, 2002 in front of the US Senate, from the same source:
“1. The American victory against terror in Afghanistan is only the first step in dismantling the global terrorist network. The other terrorist regimes must now be rapidly dealt with in similar fashion.
2. Israel, a democratic government that is defending itself against terror should not be equated with the Palestinian dictatorship that is perpetrating it.
3. Israel should not be asked to stop fighting terror and return to a negotiating table with a regime that is committed to the destruction of the Jewish State and openly embraces terror.
4. Israel has the right to defend itself.
5. The government of Israel must fight not only to defend its people, restore a dangerously eroded deterrence and secure the Jewish State, but also to ensure that the free world wins the war against terror in this pivotal arena in the heart of the Middle East.
6. Israel must dismantle Arafat’s terrorist regime and expel Arafat from the region.
7. Israel must clean out terrorists, weapons, and explosives from all Palestinian controlled areas.
8. Israel must establish physical barriers separating the main Palestinian population centers from Israeli towns and cities to prevent any residual terrorists from reaching Israel.
9. There can never be a political solution for terror. The grievance of terrorists can never be redressed through diplomacy. That will only encourage more terror. Yasser Arafat’s terrorist regime must be toppled, not courted. The Oslo agreements are dead. Yasser Arafat killed them.
10. A political process can only begin when this terrorist regime is dismantled.
11. The urgent need to topple Saddam is paramount. The commitment of America and Britain to dismantle this terrorist dictatorship before it obtains nuclear weapons deserves the unconditional support of all sane governments.
12. America must show that it will not heed the international call to stop Israel from exercising its right to defend itself. If America compromises its principles and joins in the chorus of those who demand that Israel disengage, the war on terror will be undermined.
13. For if the world begins to believe that America may deviate from its principles, terrorist regimes that might have otherwise been deterred will not be deterred. Those that might have crumbled under the weight of American resolve will not crumble. As a result, winning the war will prove far more difficult, perhaps impossible.
14. To assure that the evil of terrorism does not reemerge a decade or two from now, we must not merely uproot terror, but also plant the seeds of freedom.
15. It is imperative that once the terrorist regimes in the Middle East are swept away, the free world, led by America, must begin to build democracy in their place.
16. We simply can no longer afford to allow this region to remain cloistered by a fanatic militancy. We must let the winds of freedom and independence finally penetrate the one region in the world that clings to unreformed tyranny.”
Some key themes are introduced here, which those who follow Middle Eastern and Zionist affairs will notice. Firstly, Netanyahu pushes for the US to invade Iraq, a wish was fulfilled a short time later. Secondly, Netanyahu pushes back against calls for Israel to stop its harsh and barbaric treatment of the Palestinians, by simply declaring that Israel has a right to defend itself – even if Israel attacks first and uses missiles and bombs against Palestinian Arabs who throws sticks and stones at it. Thirdly, diplomacy doesn’t work with terrorists so Israel must keep fighting and killing its enemies (note the dehumanization that comes along with the word terrorist and the big lie that there’s no point talking or negotiating). Lastly, Netanyahu even promotes the idea of US seeding “democracy” (which has always been a big con – see US infiltration through NGOs) in other nations after the invasions – i.e. more permanent US occupation and military bases abroad, which only serve to expand the US (NWO) Empire! Time for the world to learn that when America or its allies say “democracy”, it’s a codeword for forced regime change.
If you are thinking that the term and concept itself of “War on Terror” has all the hallmarks of a New World Order scheme, you’re right. This article by Christopher Bollyn provides further background:
“The War on Terror is essentially an Israeli war strategy. It was first promoted on the world stage by Benjamin Netanyahu and Menachem Begin (of the terrorist Likud party) at the Jerusalem Conference hosted by the Netanyahu Institute in July 1979.
According to the War on Terror doctrine advocated by Netanyahu, “Islamic terrorists” attack Israel because it is a Western state with Western values. The West, Netanyahu says, is the real target so the U.S. must lead the West in waging a global War on Terror to destroy Islamic terrorists and the regimes that support them. This is exactly what the United States has done since 9/11, at incredible expense to its own population, leaving a trail of devastated nations in its wake.”
The War on Terror™ has been used by Israel to bring in the US (and the West) to help destroy Israel’s enemies by branding them as terrorists. The Zionist State has been fundamental in the creation of fake Islamic terrorism (Zio-Islamic Terrorism™) and in the manufacturing of scary enemies (al Qaeda, Daesh/ISIS, etc.) to serve as an excuse to target sovereign Arab and Muslim-majority nations surrounding them. Needless to say, the Zionist-controlled MSM has dutifully played its part by selling the fraudulent War on Terror to a largely unsuspecting public.
The War on Terror™ is an all-encompassing concept with which the NWO is expanding its Empire across the world. It’s a war that can never end. It’s a war whose success or failure can never be measured. It’s a war that leaders can always invoke to justify more money, power and regulation. 16 years on, have enough people woken up to the propaganda in order to break its spell?
*http://www.truth-and-justice.info/origwat.html
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CSPbzitPL8
*http://tapnewswire.com/2016/05/how-israel-created-the-fiend-for-the-war-on-terror/
Create your own review
Sept. 11, 2001, is remembered for a number of reasons, and one of the most important, which often goes unnoticed, is that it was used as an excuse to degrade the liberties of Americans through the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act.
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on Oct. 26, 2001—just 45 days after 9/11. The act passed in the Senate with a vote of 98-1, and it passed in the House with a vote of 357-66.
Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul was one of the few who voted against the act when he was in the House of Representatives, and he has been speaking out against it ever since. Paul is also known for his presidential campaigns, and when he was seeking the Republican nomination in the 2012 election, he reminded the world of one of the most crucial aspects of the PATRIOT Act.
“The PATRIOT Act was written many, many years before 9/11,” Paul said during a speech in Ames, Iowa, in December 2011. He noted that the attacks simply provided “an opportunity for some people to do what they wanted to do.”
Advertisment
The PATRIOT Act contained a number of provisions, which included bypassing the Fourth American, giving unprecedented power to the National Security Agency, and letting the Federal Bureau of Investigation search telephone, email and financial records of American citizens without court orders.
As the American Civil Liberties Union noted, a law that was passed in the name of fighting terrorism, instead worked against Americans by turning regular citizens into terrorist suspects:
“Hastily passed 45 days after 9/11 in the name of national security, the Patriot Act was the first of many changes to surveillance laws that made it easier for the government to spy on ordinary Americans by expanding the authority to monitor phone and email communications, collect bank and credit reporting records, and track the activity of innocent Americans on the Internet. While most Americans think it was created to catch terrorists, the Patriot Act actually turns regular citizens into suspects.”
The final version of the USA PATRIOT Act was 342 pages long and it changed more than 15 existing laws. Before signing it into law, Bush claimed the bill was so heavily approved because “it upholds and respects the civil liberties guaranteed by our Constitution. This legislation is essential not only to pursuing and punishing terrorists, but also preventing more atrocities in the hands of the evil ones.”
In addition to the question of how the House and Senate came together in such a short time to pass a law that had such a massive impact on the nation, there is also the question of how many members of Congress actually read the 342-page bill in full—and then there is the question of how the bill was written in the first place.
READ MORE: America"s Delusional — Lightning Far More Likely to Kill You Than Foreign Terrorists
Ron Paul’s claim that the PATRIOT Act was written many years before 9/11, was echoed by former Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke. According to one report, Clarke told Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig:
The USA PATRIOT Act was not the only thing the government pushed for right after 9/11 that would continue to impact the United States for years to come. As Paul noted in 2011, the attacks were also used as an excuse to invade Iraq, and to create a “War on Terror” that is still ongoing today.
“Think of what happened after 9/11, the minute before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq, and so the war drums beat,” Paul said.
On the 16th anniversary of 9/11, it is important to remember that the United States government used fear and propaganda to capitalize on the loss of nearly 3,000 innocent lives, and it has gone on to take the lives of hundreds of thousands in the name of maintaining “freedom.”
The U.S. also used fear and propaganda to interfere with the civil liberties of millions of innocent Americans by hastily passing the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act—a law that has only created more terrorism, and while it has taken Americans’ liberties, it has also taken away their security.
READ MORE: Iraqis Say US Created ISIS, Threaten Military Force if New Wave of US Troops Doesn"t Leave Now
A diplomatic and military source within Syria is reporting that the United States Air Force evacuated 20 ISIS commanders from Deir ez-Zor as Syrian forces liberated the city from terrorist control.
“Amid successful actions by Syrian government troops in the eastern part of Syria in late August, a number of field [Daesh] commanders backed by US special services, had been promptly evacuated from Deir ez-Zor to safer regions in order to use their experience in other directions,” the source reported to Sputnik.
The press office of the Combined Joint Task Force of Operation Inherent Resolve, which is the Joint Task Force established by the US-led international coalition against the Islamic State, set up by the US Central Command to coordinate military efforts against ISIS, and is composed of US military forces and personnel from over 30 countries with a stated mission to “degrade and destroy” ISIS, called the allegations “false.”
The initial extraction of ISIS commanders reportedly took place on August 26, with a “United States Air Force helicopter” airlifting two ISIS field commanders of “European origin,” along with members of their families, from an area northwest of Deir ez-Zor during the night, according to information relayed by the source.
Advertisment
According to the data provided by the military and diplomatic source, the U.S. then airlifted another 20 ISIS commanders and top militant fighters from an area southwest of Deir ez-Zor.
“Militants who lost their commanders due to the Americans, usually tend to cease organized actions, leave their positions, join other [Daesh terrorist] units or one by one flee. This eventually contributes to the success of the offensive by the Syrian government troops in eastern Syria,” the source said.
READ MORE: Declassified Docs Prove US Gov"t Knowingly Armed ISIS, Claimed Weapons Were "Lost"
The airlift of ISIS commanders allegedly happened as Syrian Arab Army forces, backed by Russian support, were in the process of breaking a three-year ISIS siege of Deir ez-Zor.
According to the Russian Ministry of Defense (MOD), Russian strikes on ISIS positions allowed the Syrian military to break the 3-year siege of Deir ez-Zor. The Russian bombardment, which was simultaneously undertaken by air and sea, destroyed fortified ISIS positions – including terrorist ammunition depots underground tunnels, and artillery positions near the city of Deir ez-Zor.
The victory over ISIS forces at Deir ez-Zor was the most crucial strategic victory by the Syrian army during the 6-year war, according to the Russian MOD.
This is not the first time the United States has reportedly airlifted ISIS commanders from a city that is about to be liberated from the terrorist group, as similar activities were reported by an Iraqi commander when the central Iraqi city of Ramadi, which was under ISIS control, was being liberated in late 2015.
“The delay in operations to liberate Ramadi and Fallujah cities in al-Anbar province is the result of the US interference,” the commander of volunteer forces (Hashd al-Shaabi) reported at the time.
“It seems that the US intends to evacuate the ISIL terrorist group’s infamous ringleaders secretly (with helicopters) from Ramadi to unknown places,” he added, according to a report by the Iranian Fars News Agency.
ISIS fighters who had taken Ramadi were ex-Baathist Sunni terrorists, formerly loyal to Saddam Hussein, known as the Former Regime Loyalists, or the FRLs, according to The Intercept.
READ MORE: Canada"s New PM Issues Challenge to US - "We"re Ending Wars and Legalizing Pot"
“It is reasonable to surmise that the ex-Baathists flying the ISIS flag today are covertly working to undermine ISIS’s caliphate and eventually achieve their own political goals,” according to The Intercept’s reporting.
Interestingly, the U.S. has a history of evacuating top terrorist leaders, warlords and fighters it deems as useful from battlefields.
Just after the invasion of Afghanistan, in November 2001, the U.S. allowed thousands of top Taliban commanders and members of Al-Qaeda—as well as and their Pakistani advisers—to be airlifted out of Kunduz in an operation that was eventually deemed the “airlift of evil.”
Please share this article to help others better understand how the so-called “War on Terror” is nothing but a big budget scam to enrich the coffers of the military industrial complex and grow the U.S. imperial war machine—while simultaneously taking away liberty from frightened Americans who willingly give up freedom for safety!
(RT) — Not only were the US-backed ‘moderate’ militants in southern Syria never meant to fight ISIS, but their commanders actually traded US-made weapons and ammunition to terrorists, a rebel defector claimed in an interview with Rossiya-24.
Asaad As-Salem says he defected from the US-backed Maghawir al-Thawra group stationed at the At-Tanf base in southern Syria, and surrendered to Syrian government forces. Along with a number of other militants and their families, they escaped At-Tanf and currently reside in a refugee camp near Damascus.
The former militant told Rossiya-24 correspondent Eugeniy Poddubny that he served as a chief security officer at the base, and that he and his men joined the US-backed rebel group to fight Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) terrorists.
Their US and Norwegian instructors, stationed at the base, taught the militants to fire US-made weapons, trained mortar squads and conducted courses on accident-free driving on the battlefield.
The reality, however, differed from the proclaimed goal of fighting terrorists, as the unit has never seen action against IS and its commander actually traded the US-supplied weapons with the terrorists – all while the American instructors, deployed at the base, turned a blind eye, the former militant claimed.
Advertisment
“When we learned that our unit’s leader was selling weapons to ISIS terrorists, we reported that to American base command, but following our report no action has been taken, the Americans only ramped up the support to the man who was appointed our commander and who was dealing with ISIS,” As-Salem said.
“And he was selling all sorts of weapons our unit possessed, US-made small arms, M-16 and M-4 rifles, recoilless rifles, various machine guns and ammunition for them.”
The areas controlled by the US-backed militants along the Syrian-Jordanian border were cut off from IS-held regions by Syrian government forces and its allies in June, rendering their declared goal of “fighting terrorism” entirely obsolete.
READ MORE: While Families Celebrated Father"s Day, The US Gov"t Just Committed an Act of War
The US, the former militant believes, never actually intended to battle IS in the south of Syria, but wanted to create and expand its influence. He said the US advisors supported only those who can be used to fulfill their own goals, showing no interest in helping civilians.
“There’s no support for the local populace, the Americans are not interested in anything except pursuing their own goals. There’s a refugee camp, Rukhban, for example, located some 20 kilometers from the American military base…” As-Salem told Rossiya-24.
“Some of the people residing in the camp are relatives of those militants, collaborating with Americans, while the others are civilians from At-Tanf. There are no suitable living conditions there, children have nowhere to study, there’s no healthcare, the Americans support only those people who they use to pursue their own goals. All in all, I’ll tell you, they behave like invaders.”
Although the militant’s claims cannot be independently verified, US special forces have indeed, since last year, been based at At-Tanf, located at a strategic Syrian highway border crossing with Iraq.
While the US-led coalition claimed the base was used to fight against Islamic State – they have, on several occasions, opened fire on Syrian government forces approaching the area.
Russia’s foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at a news briefing Thursday that the information obtained by the Rossia-24 correspondents should be thoroughly examined by international organizations.
“Certainly those materials need thorough examination by competent organizations, including international organizations. These materials tell us that the American coalition, the so-called coalition, does not what was proclaimed, i.e. not fighting terrorists in the southern Syria, but pursues its own goals,” Zakharova said.
READ MORE: CBS Attempts to Censor Muslim Panel Who Exposes How Govt "Designs" & "Funds" Terrorism
“One of the goals is creation of their own sphere of influence in the country, exhausted in the fight against terrorism. In order to achieve that, according to witness reports, various means are being used, including direct transfer of foreign-made weapons to militants, as it happened at the At-Tanf base in the south of the country,” she added.
The information revealed by the rebel defector should not be surprising, as covert and overt support for various rebels worldwide is a usual practice by the US, political commentator and journalist John Wight believes.
And it explains the nature of the US airstrikes on the Syrian government and allied forces.
“It adds an extra and murkier dimension to US airstrikes, that were conducted against pro-Syrian government forces as they approached At-Tanf back in June this year, suggesting that rather than motivated by a desire to protect so-called moderate rebels that the US was supporting at the time, they were carried out with the desire to conceal the activities that are being described by this Syrian rebel defector regarding providing arms to ISIS and other Salafist jihadi groups,” Wight told RT.
The reportedly dire conditions in the refugee camps controlled by the US-backed rebels are not surprising as well, since “the US is not really interested in welfare of the Syrian people,” Wight said.
“I can tell they have never been interested in the welfare of the Syrian people,” Wight told RT. “The Syrian people have been used as a proxy and as a justification for the US presence in Syria with its own hegemonic agenda in mind.”
Kamala Harris, the California senator and rumored 2020 candidate for the White House, is now apparently working with the Senate Homeland Security Committee to demand an immediate investigation on the "root causes" of "violent white supremacy" in the United States following the recent tragedy in Charlottesville.
The Senate Homeland Security Committee Democrats & I are calling for a hearing on violent white supremacy to examine root causes.
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) August 22, 2017
Meanwhile, she also started an online petition to collect signatures for hearings on what she dubs "white supremacist terrorism."
"Demand Senate hearings on white supremacist terrorism"
"The federal government has a responsibility to address the rise of white supremacist violence and ensure that all our citizens are safe from domestic terrorism."
"Add your name to demand Republicans schedule hearings on violent white supremacy and other forms of hateful domestic extremism"
Of course, this is all part of the Left"s new propaganda initiative designed specifically to convince you that the "extreme right" (which we assume is now synonymous with "white supremacist") is "the number one domestic terror threat in the U.S." In fact, here is nearly identical language from CNN"s Chris Cuomo used just last week (it"s almost as if the media coordinates with Democrats on the language and branding efforts):
“If you take anarchists at their worst, do you have malefactor? Do you have criminals in their ranks? Do you have people who do violent things? Yes, yes, yes, yes. That is not a moral equivalency to the KKK,” Cuomo said. “It’s certainly not an equivalent to what we see on the right. Just look at the stats. The number one domestic terror threat in the U.S. is the extreme right. There is not even a close second.”
“That’s all they’re about is hate. Two out of three people on this panel they don’t want to exist!”
All of which we guess is completely accurate if you simply ignore the 2,996 people killed in the 9/11 attacks, 49 people killed in the Orlando night club shooting, 14 people killed in San Bernadino, etc.
Meanwhile, we can only assume that violent antifa protests, like the ones conducted during Trump"s inauguration that included a bunch of folks running around with baseball bats and hammers, attacking cops and destroying private property, don"t fit Harris" definition of "domestic terrorism."
Perhaps Harris" time, and taxpayers" dollars, may be better used trying to figure out why Chicago residents are committing 800 murders every single year than why 1 psychopath committed 1 truly awful murder last week...just a thought.
Authored by Daniel Lang via SHTFplan.com,
There’s a very simple principle that helps form the bedrock of any prosperous and civilized society. When people do bad things, they should be punished for it. The moment that rule is turned upside down, and the wicked and weak are rewarded for their behavior, society will crumble. There’s no way around it. Every society that rewards bad behavior is on the fast track to destruction.
You might think that would be obvious, but there are plenty of nations throughout history that have fallen under the weight of corruption, in one form or another. Our species has made this mistake countless times. We never learn, and we always pay for it.
Next on the chopping block of history is Denmark, where the police in the city of Aarhus are now essentially rewarding people who have been accused of being terrorists.
Denmark’s second largest city is attempting to tackle terrorism by offering jihadists “empathy” in a programme dubbed “hug a terrorist.”
Whilst Danes who have fought against Islamic State have been threatened with jail on their return from Syria, terrorists are being offered enormous privileges, including apartments, education, and jobs, to encourage them to rejoin society.
Proponents of the police-run scheme in Aarhus say that jihadists are “isolated” and struggling to integrate, and claim that offering them kindness and forgiveness will deter them from their murderous ideology.
Aarhus Police Superintendent Allan Aarsley explains how troubled Muslim youths were invited to come to the police station for a chat,
"...so they could get some kind of help having a good life here in the city with education, a place to live and things like that."
However, according to Dateline, an Australian news show, the controversial program has received its fair share of criticism.
Danish politician Naser Khader, a Muslim born in Syria, says it sends the wrong message and rewards terrorists who have effectively made war on the West and its values.
He told Australian news programme Dateline the “hug a terrorist” model tells young Muslims: “Go out and do something criminal, be jihadis, you will get a lot of privilege from the society. That’s wrong in my opinion.”
During an appearance on Fox and Friends, Dr. James Mitchell, a former CIA agent who interrogated the mastermind behind 9/11, called the program “extremely naïve.”
"I want you to imagine Rob O"Neill, the guy who shot bin Laden, kicking open the door in his compound, and he"s armed with warm cookies and a "Let"s Cuddle" t-shirt. And he goes, "Get on over here, you rascal. I got lots of hugs for you,"" said Mitchell. "It"s a ridiculous idea."
"You can"t raise a child in a stove-piped community where they"re taught that the entire culture that they"re supposed to assimilate in is evil and out to hold them down, and then when they become an adult expect them to do anything except rebel," he said.
If you applied this approach to literally any other crime you would be heavily criticized by everyone else in society, and for good reason. You wouldn’t give a thief a job, a rapist a free education, or a murderer an apartment. In any decent society these people are thrown in prison. Only after they’ve paid for their crimes, should you even consider helping them readjust to society. Furthermore, if you’re going to reward terrorism, then why bother punishing anyone for anything? Why bother keeping any bad behavior in check?
It’s just common sense. Unfortunately, common sense is quickly dwindling in the Western world.
In just a few months, President Trump is already on track to kill more civilians in his war against the Islamic State than President Obama did in several years in the infamous air war that earned him the nickname of “Drone King.”
The Obama Administration’s offensive against ISIS militants in Iraq and Syria resulted in an average of 80 civilian deaths each month, which led to a total of 2,300 civilian deaths. In contrast, the Trump Administration has increased the civilian death toll to an average of 360 per month, which is around 12 killed per day. In just six months, Trump’s war against ISIS has resulted in 2,200 civilian deaths.
It appears that Trump is making good on his 2016 promise to kill families.
“It’s a horrible thing. They’re using them as shields. But we’re fighting a very politically correct war. And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families,” Trump said last year. “They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.”
Advertisment
As many cases have illustrated, people have come out publicly to decry the members of their families who’ve joined ISIS. What good does killing those people do?
The use of drones skyrocketed under the Obama administration, with attacks in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. In January, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism noted that during his presidency, Obama launched around 563 airstrikes, which was 10 times more than his predecessor, President George W. Bush, who launched 57 airstrikes.
READ MORE: This is What they Were Afraid Of -- Iraqis Use "Sue the Saudis" 9/11 Bill to Sue US for 2003 Invasion
Obama administration officials even used the word “surgical” to define the precise nature of U.S. airstrikes, with White House spokesman Jay Carney saying that, “a hallmark of our counterterrorism efforts has been our ability to be exceptionally precise, exceptionally surgical and exceptionally targeted” in 2012.
Former CIA Director John Brennan claimed in 2011 that Obama himself “insisted” that U.S. drone strikes were “exceptionally surgical and precise” operations that do not put “innocent men, women and children in danger.” Brennan also claimed at the time that there had not been “a single collateral [civilian] death” in at least a year, which was later proven to be highly inaccurate.
A series of classified documents obtained by a whistleblower, and released by The Intercept in October 2015, offered an unprecedented look into Obama’s drone program. The documents claimed that from January 2012 to February 2013, “U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people,” but only “35 were the intended targets.”
The documents also note that during a five-month period of the same operation, “nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.” The source claimed that “anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association.”
The Trump administration appears to be taking the U.S. drone program to the next level, and it is moving forward without the propaganda veil of a “surgical and precise” operation that only takes out terrorists, and spares civilian causalities.
In one of the bloodiest months of his presidency thus far, the Trump administration killed nearly 500 civilians in Syria between May 23 and June 23. The largest death tolls were in the cities of Deir Ezzor with 222 civilian deaths, including 84 children, and Raqqa with 250 civilian deaths, including 53 children. The U.S.-led coalition was also accused of using illegal chemicals such as white phosphorus, which is arguably grounds for a war crimes investigation.
READ MORE: WATCH: Oliver Stone Takes Over Awards, Exposes Warmongering 2-Party Paradigm
While Bush created the “War on Terror,” Obama modernized it by increasing drone strikes in various countries that were beyond the scope of Congress-approved military intervention. Now, Trump is using the same tools Obama put in place, and he is increasing the degree to which they are used—while turning a blind eye to all of the innocent civilians who are killed in the process.
If Russia, Iran or North Korea was doing what the U.S. is doing right now in Iraq and Syria, the mainstream media would be providing 24/7 in-depth coverage. However, the current media blackout of the truth behind U.S. foreign policy is another reminder that just as the mainstream media covered for Bush and Obama, it will ultimately whitewash any war crimes committed by the Trump administration, despite pretending to hold it accountable.
As George W. Bush bathed in extraordinarily high approval ratings following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, plans were already being drawn by his war-mongering cabal to use the event to invade Iraq. The few voices of dissent were drowned in an overwhelming, nauseating tide of nationalistic fervor, completely obscuring all sense of reason.
The administration rolled out a propaganda campaign to convince Americans of the need for pre-emptive war in Iraq, creating a rising sense of inevitability—up to the day of “shock and awe.”
By the time enough Americans realized they’d been duped—with the help of mainstream media from The New York Times to Fox News—it was too late. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and other neocons hailing from the notorious Project for the New American Century (PNAC) had their agenda of military hegemony well underway.
Bush-friendly historians would have you believe the 43rd President made his decision to invade Iraq after careful deliberation and input from many voices. Those of us paying attention already knew this was a sham, but now we have even more proof that Iraq’s fate was sealed the moment Bush was “elected.”
Advertisment
According to Bush’s former ghostwriter, Mickey Herskowitz, Bush had dreams of invading Iraq two years before 9/11 when he was running for president, and wasn’t afraid to let them be known..
Herskowitz was interviewed by Russ Baker, who reported:
“Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade…if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.” Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. “Suddenly, he’s at 91 percent in the polls, and he’d barely crawled out of the bunker.”
The people surrounding Bush had their own visions of grandiosity. They were reportedly in awe over the public adulation of Margaret Thatcher as she maintained British imperialism in the Western Hemisphere. Dick Cheney and the PNAC gang wanted roses thrown at their own feet for conquering the Middle East.
READ MORE: Cops and Lawmakers Exposed in Massive $800m Private Prison Bribery Conspiracy
Invading easily defeatable countries was seen as an avenue to success as an American leader, which, as Baker notes, was the modus operandi in the Reagan White House, where Cheney was deeply involved.
“Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.”
Making war is, of course, a common theme in almost every administration since World War 2 birthed the military-industrial complex.
Bush couldn’t have done it without the help of Dick Cheney, often likened to Darth Vader for the callousness with which he discusses US-wrought death and destruction. Cheney, who cut his teeth in the Reagan era helping to invade sovereign Latin American countries, brought a horde of neocons and military-industrial complex goons to the Bush administration, many from PNAC.
It just so happens that PNAC sent a letter in 1998 to President Bill Clinton, advocating for regime change in Iraq and urging Clinton to take a more hardline stance. The Cheneys always had close ties to the Bush family, and neocons found their man in George Jr.
Bush’s statements in 1999 to Herskowitz weren’t the only indicator of Bush’s obsession about invading Iraq and removing Saddam. That same year, during a presidential primary, Bush said of Saddam’s purported weapons stash, “I’d take ’em out, take out the weapons of mass destruction-I’m surprised he’s still there.”
Just after the 9/11 attacks. PNAC sent a letter to Bush calling for a “a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.” Citing the newly crafted ‘war on terror’ justification—giving the president unheard of powers to carry out unilateral military action around the globe and round up “enemy combatants”—PNAC declared that not invading Iraq would be “an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”
READ MORE: Conviction Thrown Out For Alleged Cop Killer, "Misplaced" Evidence was Found in Cop"s Garage
To the already informed, it comes as no surprise that Bush always intended to invade Iraq, and 9/11 provided the perfect excuse. Of course, in the American political-corporate establishment, there is no chance Bush will actually be prosecuted for the massive campaign of lies and deception used to lead America into the full-scale invasion of a sovereign Middle Easter country.
The more important point to remember is that the U.S. can easily be led into wars of aggression–potentially far more dangerous than Iraq–by elected presidents and lawmakers completely willing to deceive the public by capitalizing on fear.
Sowing division among the populace is a primary step to the conquering of public perception. Never underestimate the willingness of desperate “leaders” to provoke or contrive an attack in order to overwhelm the movement of peace and liberty.
(image: thefederalist.com)Straightaway after Trump’s January 20 swearing in ceremony, a White House statement said defeating ISIS and other terrorist groups is the administration’s “highest priority,” adding:
“To defeat and destroy these groups, we will pursue aggressive joint and coalition military operations when necessary.”
“In addition, the Trump Administration will work with international partners to cut off funding for terrorist groups, to expand intelligence sharing, and to engage in cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable propaganda and recruiting.”
Instead of “defeat(ing) and destroy(ing) these groups,” the Trump administration actively supports them.
Photographic evidence shows ISIS firing US-made TOW-guided anti-tank missiles against government forces.
In last year’s battle for Aleppo, al-Nusra terrorists used these weapons, according to Russian General Sergei Rudskoi – supplied by the Obama administration.
ISIS was earlier supplied with shoulder-launched, man-portable, easy to operate, surface-to-air missiles (SAMS), able to down helicopters and low-flying aircraft.
These weapons are still likely being supplied to the group and other anti-government forces. Washington and its rogue allies covertly support the scourge they claim to oppose.
Numerous times Bashar al-Assad accused Western and regional countries of supporting ISIS and other terrorist groups combating government forces.
On Saturday, his political and media advisor Bouthiana Shaaban accused Washington of arming and financing ISIS, flagrantly violating Security Council Resolution 2253 (December 2015) – sponsored by Russia and America, unanimously adopted.
It covers an asset freeze, travel ban, arms embargo and lists criteria for designating ISIS, al-Qaeda, and “associated individuals, groups, undertaking and entities” as terrorist groups.
It states parties responsible for committing, organizing or supporting terrorist acts must be held accountable. It called on member states to cooperate fully in investigating incidents involving these groups.
It stressed the obligation of member states to prevent their nationals or persons in their countries from aiding them economically and/or militarily.
Russia and Iran scrupulously observe its principles. America and its rogue allies repeatedly violate them.
Separately, according to Libya’s Al-Manar TV, Iraqi forces regained control of the strategically important al-Waleed checkpoint on the Syria border – located near the al-Tanf border crossing, along the important Syrian/Iraqi/Jordanian triangle.
Last week, Syrian Defense Ministry officials held talks with their Iraqi counterparts in Baghdad on coordinating border security and combating “a common enemy, which is the terrorist Daesh (ISIS) organization,” adding:
“We discussed holding Syria-Iraq borders to maintain pressure on the terrorist enemy and establishing a joint operations center through which both sides can coordinate.”
On Saturday, Syrian General Mohammad Issa said “(s)ending US missiles to al-Tanf is (part of a) US (plan) to create a small ISIL state along the Syrian, Iraqi and Jordanian borders to separate Syria from Iraq and Iran, and turn it into a marginalized country which doesn’t play any role in the region.”
A similar scheme is planned for northern Syria to separate it from Damascus control – part of a diabolical US plot to destroy the country’s sovereignty.
Hani Amir / FlickrISIS, al-Qaeda and likeminded groups thrive from foreign support – from America, NATO, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel and other regional rogue states.
Washington created these groups, supports their fighters with funding, weapons, munitions, training and direction, deploys them to its war theaters as imperial foot soldiers.
They can show up in any nation Washington targets for regime change – most recently in the Philippines, perhaps for that purpose.
America’s so-called war on terror is a fabricated hoax. Its alleged anti-ISIS campaign supports the scourge it claims to oppose.
In Mosul, it provided a corridor to redeploy thousands of its fighters to Syria. In nothern Syria, something similar appears planned to facilitate a southern withdrawal from Raqqa to a new location.
According to Tass, “(c)ommanders of the Russian group of forces in Syria ha(ve) taken measures to avert the withdrawal of the Islamic State militants from Raqqa (southward) towards Palmyra.”
“The terrorists have received an opportunity for unimpeded withdrawal on the condition they will head toward Palmyra.”
On Friday, Sergey Lavrov blasted Trump administration policy in Syria, saying “(t)he US-led coalition is behaving the same way it did under President (Barack) Obama’s administration.”
It’s “doing everything to shield Jabhat al-Nusra from strikes. This is a very alarming issue. We often ask about this during our contacts with American partners (sic), and we don’t get any clear answers, but would like to have them.”
US and Russian objectives are world’s apart – America waging war OF terror, claiming otherwise, supporting ISIS, al-Nusra and similar groups.
Russia alone among major powers is combating terrorism in Syria effectively – respecting the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity Washington and its rogue allies want destroyed.
On Friday, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov criticized US reluctance to cooperate with Russia in combating terrorism. Instead of a common struggle against a universal scourge, both nations are on opposite sides of the war in Syria.
On May 28, Russian warplanes struck an ISIS command post in northern Syria where its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and others in his chain of command were discussing exit routes for its fighters from Raqqa through a southern corridor.
According to Russia’s Defense Ministry, al-Baghdadi is believed to have been “killed in the airstrike” along with other high-ranking ISIS commanders and hundreds of its fighters.
Sergey Lavrov said he hasn’t gotten “100% confirmation” of al-Baghdadi’s death. Earlier reports of his elimination proved untrue, Lavrov adding:
“(A)ll examples of…actions to ‘decapitate’ terror groups had always been presented with great enthusiasm and pomp, but experience shows that later these groups restored their combat capabilities”
They and their “numerous reincarnations are still active” – because of support from Washington and its rogue allies. Without it, these groups can’t exist.
Their heavy weapons, munitions and other material support come from foreign sources. They need regular resupply to sustain themselves like all fighting forces.
Cut it off entirely and these groups will wither and fade away – the only way to defeat them.
As things now stand, they remain a serious threat to all countries where they’re deployed, with or without al-Baghdadi and other commanders like him – because Washington wants them used to serve its imperial interests.
