Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Today's Links

1--Hawaiian congresswoman explains why US should end illegal war in Syria, CNN ("Must see")

2--SAA close to sealing the Turkish border
Our armed forces have also carried out combat missions in the Salma-Joub al-Ahmar area [near the Turkish border], taking control of key heights," the general added.

3--The "moderate rebel" hoax: The FSA

Other rebel leaders from FSA-affiliated groups made similar comments in response to Russia's proposal. They all reflect what many in Syria and some outside of it know: the Free Syrian Army is a small decentralized umbrella organization lacking unified leadership and with no real presence on the ground.

As a side note, Russian forces choose their targets in Syria based on its own intelligence, as well as data provided by Damascus, Tehran and Iraq.

"I am sure there is no Free Syrian Army because they refused to cooperate with and receive help from Russia as they are fighting ISIL and others. And at the same time they are ready to hold talks with Russia. What is the meaning of that? They want only a political role or political resolution in Syria because they know they have no real existence on the ground. They have no real forces, there is no Free Syrian Army," deputy director of the Damascus Center for International and Strategic Studies, Dr. Taleb Ibrahim, told Radio Sputnik
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov echoed this sentiment by saying that at the moment the Free Syrian Army has essentially "blended into" the terrorist crowd. "Some were scared, some joined ISIL or Jabhat al-Nusra for money. All the Syrians we talked to while trying to contact the Free Syrian Army say that it does not have a single leadership," he told RIA Novosti.
Syrian Ambassador to Moscow Riad Haddad also confirmed that "the so-called Free Syrian Army once existed but its members later joined other terrorist groups
“Another threat that President Obama mentioned was ISIS. Well who on earth armed them?
Who armed the Syrians that are fighting Assad?
Who created the necessary political/informational climate that facilitated this situation?
Who pushed the delivery of arms to the area?
Do you really not understand as to who is fighting in Syria
 They are mercenaries mostly.
Do you understand they are paid money?
Mercenaries fight for whichever side pays more.
So they arm them and pay them a certain amount
I even know what these amounts are.
So they fight, they have the arms, you cannot get them to return the weapons of course, at the end..
Then they discover elsewhere pays a little more..
Then they occupy the oil fields wherever; in Iraq, in Syria.
They start extracting the oil-and this oil is purchased by somebody.
Where are the sanctions on the parties purchasing this oil?
Do you believe the US does not know who is buying it? Is it not their allies that are buying the oil from ISIS?

Do you not think that US has the power to influence their allies? Or is the point that they indeed do not wish to influence them?
Then why bomb ISIS?
In areas where they started extracting oil and paying mercenaries more, in those areas the rebels from ‘civilised’ Syrian opposition forces immediately joined ISIS because they are paid more.

I consider this absolutely unprofessional politics. It is not grounded in facts , in the real world.
We must support civilized democratic opposition in Syria.
So you support, arm them and then tomorrow they join ISIS.
Can they [USA] not think a step ahead?

7--Syrian rebels reject cooperation with Russia, demand end of bombing
Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels have rebuffed cooperation with Russia against the "Islamic State" and holding elections. Their response came after Russia suggested it could work with the rebels.

8---US Destroying Syria’s Oil Infrastructure Under Guise of Fighting ISIS
First appeared:

as President Vladimir Putin emphasized in late 2012, Russia’s “position is not for the retention of Assad and his regime in power at any cost but that the people in the beginning would come to an agreement on how they would live in the future, how their safety and participation in ruling the state would be provided for, and then start changing the current state of affairs in accordance with these agreements, and not vice versa.”

Or as two former members of the State Department’s policy planning staff put it, “For Russia, the Geneva process is about achieving a political settlement in Syria, not about great powers negotiating the end of the Assad regime. . . . Russia’s primary objective in Syria is not to provide support for Assad but rather to avoid another Western-backed effort at coercive regime change, and all of Russia’s actions are consistent with that objective. . . .
“Better US-Russian cooperation on Syria depends on demonstrating to Moscow that Assad and his cronies — rather than the opposition, US policy, or other states in the region — are the main obstacle to a settlement and to stability in Syria, as the US has long argued. That requires pushing ahead with a good-faith effort at a political settlement.”...

The Beirut Daily Star reported that “Many of Syria’s main rebel brigades … rejected any negotiations not based on Assad’s removal and said they would charge anyone who attended them with treason.” A coalition of 19 Syrian Islamist groups called attempts to restart the Geneva talks “just another part of the conspiracy to throw our revolution off track and to abort it.”
In November 2013, under pressure from Washington and London, the main Syrian exile opposition group voted to attend a new round of peace talks — but only if Assad and others with “blood on their hands” were guaranteed to have “no role” in a transition government or Syria’s future — a non-starter.

Most important, some 75 military factions operating under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army this month reached an unprecedented political consensus: They rejected plans for a peaceful transition of power put forth by UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura. Their political stance confirms that the FSA has become an ally, if not a wholly owned tool, of the Nusra Front.

Pursuing peace remains a worthy — indeed, the only sensible — goal of U.S. foreign policy in Syria. No one should be surprised, however, if Washington’s embrace of that goal comes too late. By pursuing regime change so long and so adamantly, the United States, Western Europe and various Arab powers fostered the rise of the radical Islamist opposition, which has absolutely no interest in peace. Foreign leaders can meet all they want in Geneva, Moscow, or wherever, but facts on the ground will determine the political future of Syria.
If there is to be any hope of an outcome short of a bloodthirsty Islamist victory, it will require a total commitment by foreign powers to halt their supply of money and arms to opposition forces that, for now at least, reject participation in the peace process.

10--A military victory over the militants "will not solve all problems, but it will create conditions for the main thing: a beginning of a political process to encompass all healthy, patriotic forces of the Syrian society," Putin said. His words echoed those of Syrian government officials who have expressed readiness to negotiate with the "patriotic" opposition — a term generally used to describe unarmed, mostly Damascus-based government critics who are tolerated by Assad

11--CIA Ops Finally Revealed: What the US Ambassador in Benghazi was Really Doing
The U.S. special mission in Benghazi and the nearby CIA annex were utilized in part to coordinate arms shipments to the jihadist rebels fighting the Syrian regime, with Ambassador Christopher Stevens playing a central role, documents an explosive new book released today.
The activities, which included a separate, unprecedented multi-million-dollar weapons collection effort from Libyan militias who did not want to give up their weapons, may have prompted the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, charges the new book.

12--No More Jihadism: Russia Serious About Terrorism

The CIA had trained thousand of ‘rebels’, whom they admit were trained not to fight ISIS, but to fight the Assad government and Syrian military. The Washington Post reports:
“…the CIA has since 2013 trained some 10,000 rebels to fight Assad’s forces. Those groups have made significant progress against strongholds of the Alawites, Assad’s sect.” This shows that the US’s Agenda in Syria is regime change and it demonstrates their readiness to spawn terrorists groups to that end.

The US is Not Actually Bombing ISIS...
In a CNN article accusing Russia of not targeting ISIS but rather the “Syrian rebels”, two maps displayed from the Institute for the Study of War show a very telling story. The first shows the areas in which Jabhat al Nusra controls or jointly controls parts of Syria, with its allies – the so called moderate rebels receiving US-backing. But on the next map which shows the location of Russian strikes, Jabhat al Nusra territory can scarcely be seen and the jointly controlled areas have been removed completely.

Though it can be said that the Nusra run areas are obstructed by highly concentrated Russian strikes, which showing Russia’s commitment to wiping out of the terrorist group. The fact that the second map does not even show the jointly held Al Qaeda areas and does not make Al Qaeda’s presence clear, reveals an attempt to downplay Russia’s fight against Al Qaeda. The reason for this is to conceal US’s comparative inaction against Al Qaeda, which makes up the bulk of the CIA backed insurgency. It also fits with NATO’s narrative that Russia is only targeting the so called ‘moderate rebels’. The US is angry Russia is bombing its Al Qaeda assets and hence are painting Russia as bombing ‘the good guys’ in order to pressure them to stop.

The US is Continuing to Fund and Arm Terrorists
The map further illustrates how US-backed ‘moderate rebels’ work alongside Al Qaeda, a fact which has become such common knowledge. Former Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, admitted to McClatchy news that the rebels supported Al Qaeda
The US has been backed into a corner and in doing so, has exposed itself and its allies as the source of terrorism, not champions truly fighting it

13--Putin urges dollar to be ditched in oil deals

14--Syrians return home after Russian bombing raids
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said thousands of terrorist are fleeing Syria now, and many refugees are coming back home, according to Russian Senator Dmitry Sablin who recently visited Syria with a delegation.
"Assad praised the actions of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria. He said thousands of terrorists are now fleeing Syria, and refugees are returning," Sablin said in an interview with the Russian newspaper Izvestia

16--US to 'Violate Int'l Law' With 'Unacceptable' Ground Operation in Syria
The Wall Street Journal reported, citing US officials, on US plans to deploy a small number of ground troops in Syria embedded among Kurdish troops, or what is considered by the US to be a so-called moderate opposition, to fight against the Islamic State.

On Tuesday, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said the Pentagon had not ruled out conducting attacks on the ground against ISIL terrorists.
According to Matvienko, the United States "has already flagrantly violated international law" by organizing an air operation in Syria without an approval from the UN Security Council or Damascus

The Free Syrian Army is ready for dialogue with Russia. We need to organize a new meeting, so that we can present our position and discuss our collective actions,” one of the founders of FSA and the coordinator of National Salvation Front Fahad Al-Masri told RIA Novosti. The group, however, hasn’t yet received an answer from Moscow.
The military operation targeting positions of Islamic State militants in Syria was launched by Moscow September 30 following a formal request from Assad. In the past three days the Russian aviation group in Syria has hit 258 targets belonging to IS and Al-Nusra Front terror groups, the Defense Ministry said.

18--First Amendment flop: McCain & gang calls for ‘shutting down’ RT

19--Israel wants free trade zone with Eurasian Union ASAP

20--Top German Editor: CIA Bribing Journalists

21--More on the fake FSA "moderates": Two Prominent Promoters Of The "Syrian Revolution" Give Up

Since the start of the regime change operation in Syria Jenan Moussa, who works for the UAE based Al Aan TV, is an ardent fan of the "moderate rebels". Her embedded reports about them were more one sided anti-regime propaganda than journalism.
But her honeymoon with the FSA seems to be over. She finally recognizes that the FSA is a mere weapon courier service between the CIA and Saudis on one side and al-Qaeda and the Islamic State on the other:

FSA in Idlib/Hama has only HQ's, no territory. Even worse: FSA have no courts. So if FSA-member makes mistake, trial is at Nusra court >
Nusra allows FSA 2 operate in Hama/Idlib bcz FSA there gets TOWmissiles from West. FSA uses these TOW in support of Nusra etc vs SAA....

When the German journalist Jürgen Todenhöfer, who traveled to ISIS-controlled Syria and Iraq last year, was asked about how the FSA is seen by the Jihadis he responded (vid):
They are laughing about the FSA. They don't take them for serious. They say: "The best arms sellers we have are the FSA. If they get a good weapon they sell it to us." They didn't take them for serious. They take for serious Assad. They take for serious of course the bombs. But they fear nobody. But FSA does not play any role.
Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda in Syria, is meanwhile happy with all the attention the Islamic State gets. It helps Nusra to play the "moderates". In a recent edition of Nusra's English magazine Al Risalah, a long term al-Qaeda/Nusra member from Australia is interviewed:
“One of the greatest things about IS [Islamic State] its that before people saw al Qaeda and the Mujahideen (in general) as the extremists, and those that abstain from jihad as the normal ‘moderate’ Muslims (following the middle-way),” Australi explains. “But now the truth has come out — the Mujahideen are in fact upon the correct and ‘moderate’ path, with IS being the extremists
22--Did Putin just establish a red line? - TTG

Mr. Putin is aware of every detail of the situation in Syria and the strength and the equipment provided to the Syrian rebels. He explained that Russia has used intercontinental cruise missiles to show to all players with proxies fighting on the ground in Syria its determination to target any regional country providing extremists with anti-air missiles (MANPADs) that can damage or shoot down any Russian jet. Any country that supports terrorists exposing Russian jets at risk would be a legitimate target to Russia. War is one of the tools that serve the political track and that the struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia and between the United States and Russia conflict are based on competing interests and influence in the region. Russia is revising its strategy and Foreign policy to orbit around promoting its external national security. Moscow’s role in the World is today equal to what it was Washington’s role in its height and not what it has become today. The United States’ foreign policy and involvement is in a significant decline “, said the source. (Elijah J. Magnier)

23--Putin: Valdai

Today, unfortunately, we have again come across similar situations. Attempts to promote a model of unilateral domination, as I have said on numerous occasions, have led to an imbalance in the system of international law and global regulation, which means there is a threat, and political, economic or military competition may get out of control.What, for instance, could such uncontrolled competition mean for international security? A growing number of regional conflicts, especially in ‘border’ areas, where the interests of major nations or blocs meet. This can also lead to the probable downfall of the system of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (which I also consider to be very dangerous), which, in turn, would result in a new spiral of the arms race.
We have already seen the appearance of the concept of the so-called disarming first strike, including one with the use of high-precision long-range non-nuclear weapons comparable in their effect to nuclear weapons.

The use of the threat of a nuclear missile attack from Iran as an excuse, as we know, has destroyed the fundamental basis of modern international security – the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The United States has unilaterally seceded from the treaty. Incidentally, today we have resolved the Iranian issue and there is no threat from Iran and never has been, just as we said.

The thing that seemed to have led our American partners to build an anti-missile defence system is gone. It would be reasonable to expect work to develop the US anti-missile defence system to come to an end as well. What is actually happening? Nothing of the kind, or actually the opposite – everything continues.
Recently the United States conducted the first test of the anti-missile defence system in Europe. What does this mean? It means we were right when we argued with our American partners. They were simply trying yet again to mislead us and the whole world. To put it plainly, they were lying. It was not about the hypothetical Iranian threat, which never existed. It was about an attempt to destroy the strategic balance, to change the balance of forces in their favour not only to dominate, but to have the opportunity to dictate their will to all: to their geopolitical competition and, I believe, to their allies as well. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful to all, including, in my opinion, to the United States

The global information space is also shaken by wars today, in a manner of speaking. The ‘only correct’ viewpoint and interpretation of events is aggressively imposed on people, certain facts are either concealed or manipulated. We are all used to labelling and the creation of an enemy image.

The authorities in countries that seemed to have always appealed to such values as freedom of speech and the free dissemination of information – something we have heard about so often in the past – are now trying to prevent the spreading of objective information and any opinion that differs from their own; they declare it hostile propaganda that needs to be combatted, clearly using undemocratic means

A terrorist organisation, the so-called Islamic State, took huge territories under control. Just think about it: if they occupied Damascus or Baghdad, the terrorist gangs could achieve the status of a practically official power, they would create a stronghold for global expansion. Is anyone considering this? It is time the entire international community realised what we are dealing with – it is, in fact, an enemy of civilisation and world culture that is bringing with it an ideology of hatred and barbarity, trampling upon morals and world religious values, including those of Islam, thereby compromising it.

We do not need wordplay here; we should not break down the terrorists into moderate and immoderate ones. It would be good to know the difference. Probably, in the opinion of certain experts, it is that the so-called moderate militants behead people in limited numbers or in some delicate fashion.

Why is it that the efforts of, say, our American partners and their allies in their struggle against the Islamic State has not produced any tangible results? Obviously, this is not about any lack of military equipment or potential. Clearly, the United States has a huge potential, the biggest military potential in the world, only double crossing is never easy. You declare war on terrorists and simultaneously try to use some of them to arrange the figures on the Middle East board in your own interests, as you may think.

It is impossible to combat terrorism in general if some terrorists are used as a battering ram to overthrow the regimes that are not to one’s liking. You cannot get rid of those terrorists, it is only an illusion to think you can get rid of them later, take power away from them or reach some agreement with them. The situation in Libya is the best example here.

We understand quite well that the militants fighting in the Middle East represent a threat to everyone, including Russia. People in our nation know what terrorist aggression means and know what the bandits in the North Caucasus have done. We remember the bloody terrorist attacks in Budennovsk, Moscow, Beslan, Volgograd and other Russian cities. Russia has always fought terrorism in all its forms, consistently advocating for truly unifying the global community’s efforts to fight this evil. That is why we made our suggestion to create a broad anti-terror coalition, which I recently voiced in my speech at the United Nations.

Here is what we believe we must do to support long-term settlement in the region, as well as its social, economic and political revival. First of all, free Syria and Iraq’s territories from terrorists and not let them move their activities to other regions. And to do that, we must join all forces – the Iraqi and Syrian regular armies, Kurdish militia, various opposition groups that have actually made a real contribution to fighting terrorists –
and coordinate the actions of countries within and outside of the region against terrorism. At the same time, joint anti-terrorist action must certainly be based on international law.
Second, it is obvious that a military victory over the militants alone will not resolve all problems, but it will create conditions for the main thing: a beginning of a political process with participation by all healthy, patriotic forces of the Syrian society. It is the Syrians who must decide their fate with exclusively civil, respectful assistance from the international community, and not under external pressure through ultimatums, blackmail or threats.

we currently need to develop a roadmap for the region’s economic and social development, to restore basic infrastructure, housing, hospitals and schools. Only this kind of on-site creative work after eliminating terrorism and reaching a political settlement can stop the enormous flow of refugees to European nations and return those who left to their homelands. 

25--Putin Munich 2007 Text

 Here’s what he said:
“President Obama frequently mentions the threat of ISIS. Well, who on earth armed them? And who created the political climate that facilitated the current situation? Who delivered arms to the area? Do you really not know who is fighting in Syria? They’re mercenaries mostly. They are paid money. Mercenaries work for whatever side pays more. We even know how much they are paid. We know they fight for awhile and then see that someone else pays a little more, so they go there…..

The US says “We must support the civilized, democratic opposition in Syria”. So they support them, arm them, and then they join ISIS. Is it impossible for the US to think one step ahead? We do not support this kind of policy at all. We think it’s wrong.” (Putin explains who started ISIS, you tube, 1:38 to 4:03) 



1 comment:

  1. eToro is the most recommended forex broker for novice and full-time traders.