American Resistance To Empire

Indian Army Launches Airstrikes Into Kashmir–Pak. Threatens Tactical Nukes

[Pakistan defence minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif threatens to unleash nukes against India]

India’s rupee and bonds extended losses, while local stocks plunged after the nation said it attacked terrorist camps in Pakistan.

The currency weakened 0.6 percent, the most since June, to 66.8575 per dollar as of 2:08 p.m. in Mumbai. The main S&P BSE Sensex dropped 1.4 percent, paring an earlier loss of 2 percent. The yield on sovereign notes due September 2026 surged 7 basis points to 6.85 percent, set for the biggest jump for a benchmark 10-year security since August 2015. The central bank was seen selling dollars through state-run banks to stem the rupee’s decline, traders said.

India carried out the surgical strikes on Wednesday night, Director General of Military Operations Ranbir Singh said in New Delhi. There are no plans to continue operations, he added.

“This is negative for the economy,” said Ashtosh Raina, Mumbai-based head of foreign-exchange trading at HDFC Bank Ltd. “Any strike, any tension across the border is definitely going to hurt sentiment.”

Escalating tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors could sour sentiment for foreign investors who have pumped the most money into Indian stocks and bonds this quarter since March 2015. India’s attack follows a deadly assault on an Indian army camp that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration blames on Pakistan, whose leaders have denied involvement. The nations have fought three wars since they split from each other in 1947.

Some fund managers see the equity declines as an opportunity.

“India’s political risk as an investment destination may go up slightly,” Sunil Subramaniam, chief executive officer at Sundaram Asset Management Co., which oversees the equivalent of $3.7 billion, said by phone from Mumbai. “It’s a good time to use the declines to buy stocks linked to the economy as strikes by India don’t alter the economic outlook.”

Heavy casualties were inflicted on militants assembled to infiltrate into India, Singh said at a news conference. Pakistan’s KSE100 Index erased a gain of as much as 1.3 percent and was trading 0.2 percent lower. The notion of a surgical strike linked to alleged terrorists bases is an illusion being deliberately generated by India to create false effects, Pakistan’s military said in a statement Thursday.

Kargil War

The last major conflict between the two countries occurred when Pakistani troops invaded Kargil, in the northern Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir in late May 1999, only to withdraw in mid-July. India launched air strikes on May 27 that year to flush out the rebels, causing the Sensex to tumble 2.8 percent on the day.

Even so, the equity gauge rallied for three months through August as the government took steps to boost investments and spurred tax collections to help overcome the additional costs borne due to the conflict. The measure’s 64 percent jump in 1999 was its biggest since 1991.

“If there is a full blown war, it may be problematic in the near term, but a small strike should not be a big worry for the markets,” Sampath Reddy, chief investment officer at Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co., which has about $6.5 billion in assets, said by phone.

Obama Fails To Protect Royal Saudi Terrorists–Bend Over Bandar

Legal Experts Say Law Allowing 9/11 Families to Sue Saudi Arabia Has Consequences


  • By John Kruzel

PHOTO: Smoke pours from the World Trade Center after it was hit by two hijacked passenger planes, Sept. 11, 2001, in New York City.Robert Giroux/Getty Images

Smoke pours from the World Trade Center after it was hit by two hijacked passenger planes, Sept. 11, 2001, in New York City.

American interests around the world could face serious damage as a result of a new law that empowers U.S. citizens to sue any country with a role in terrorism committed on American soil, legal experts say.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) gives families and survivors of the September 11 attacks an avenue to pursue justice in American courts against Saudi Arabia, for what they believe is its connection to the terrorist attack.

Legal experts told ABC News that JASTA, which Congress passed today over President Barack Obama’s veto, opens the U.S. to lawsuits in foreign courts brought by other countries’ citizens, threatens American interests abroad and risks rupturing diplomatic relations.

What Does the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act Do?

The law allows U.S. citizens to sue any country they allege acted in a way connected to terror acts committed in the U.S. JASTA does this by removing a legal barrier known as sovereign immunity, an ancient legal doctrine that evolved over time to shield foreign countries from being answerable in another country’s courts.

JASTA was born after families of 9/11 victims intensely lobbied for the right to sue the Saudi government. But its effect is much broader and could result in U.S. citizen-led lawsuits against any country, said Curtis Bradley, a law professor at Duke University who co-directs the school’s Center for International and Comparative Law.

“It doesn’t require that the foreign country did anything in the United States, it’s not limited to just nations known to normally be associated with terrorism,” Bradley said. “Potentially any nation could be sued.”

Could This Lead to Lawsuits Against the U.S. in Foreign Courts?

President Barack Obama opposed the bill in part because he feared foreign countries would retaliate by eroding U.S. sovereign immunity. And according to Philip Bobbitt, a law professor at Columbia University who directs the school’s Center for National Security, the president’s concern is well-founded.

The U.S. has generally avoided making foreign governments accountable to individual American citizens because of the potential of leading to a disproportionate response, Bobbitt added.

“We feel often justifiably aggrieved until we step back and look at the global nature of our interests,” he said. “We see that we are so much more vulnerable than really any other state because we have businesses, and we have so many foreign bases, and because we have global interests to a degree that no other state has.”

Immunity is particularly vital in the context of U.S. military activities like drone strikes that are known to have claimed innocent lives, as well as military aid to U.S. allies, Bradley said.

“I’m sure some countries would be interested in saying our military aid to Israel is aiding and abetting things that they would allege are sometimes war crimes against the Palestinians,” he said. “We normally benefit significantly by being able to say we have immunity from those kinds of claims around the world.”

Laura Donohue, a Georgetown law professor who heads the school’s Center on National Security and the Law, said the U.S. has more to lose than other countries by having sovereign immunity eroded.

“This is very dangerous—and some would argue even more dangerous—than the risk to other countries because the United States has such a global presence that if we then are no longer protected by sovereign immunity elsewhere, then it raises a lot a much more difficult situation for us than it would for any other country,” she said. “So at some level, this is a huge mistake for us.”

Could This Hurt U.S. Diplomatic Relations?

Donohue said the law has potential to seriously undermine American diplomatic relations abroad, as well as weaken U.S. negotiating leverage.

“If the United States is trying to engage in a negotiation with a country at the time when its citizens are suing that country in court, it makes it more difficult for the president and the executive branch to actually engage in that negotiation,” she said. “If we’re in a negotiation with another country and they have our diplomat and suddenly our diplomat is arrested on local criminal charges, they can use that as leverage in the greater negotiation between the state powers.”

An unintended consequence of the new law could be to undermine U.S. counter-terrorism partnerships, Bradley noted.

“A sad irony of this bill, which I understand may have the noble purpose of helping the 9/11 victims, is that it could well undermine some cooperation between the United States and other countries designed to combat terrorism,” he said. “It’s going to be harder to work with them to address the very problem we’re all worried about which is global terrorism.”

America’s Passive Aggressive Foreign Policy

America’s Deceptive Model for Aggression


Since NATO’s 1999 war on Serbia, U.S. officials have followed a script demonizing targeted foreign leaders, calling ultimatums “diplomacy,” lying about “war as a last resort” and selling aggression as humanitarianism.

By Nicolas J S Davies

Across the political spectrum, U.S. leaders insist that they will only go to war “as a last resort.” They want us to believe that they will try every peaceful means to resolve differences with other countries before resorting to war. But if those “peaceful means” mean only ultimatums that are unacceptable to the target country, then U.S. leaders are simply going through a diplomatic charade before going to war.

In such a case, “war as a last resort” refers only to the means of achieving a goal, not to the rights or wrongs of the goal itself. If the underlying purpose is to impose the will of the U.S. government on another country or society, then “war as a last resort” amounts to an illegal threat of war to compel a country to submit to U.S. demands, not a commitment to peace or to the rule of law.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix, Arizona, March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix, Arizona, March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

As I wrote last February, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton uses the term “diplomacy” to mean precisely this kind of brinksmanship, which creates a pretext for war if the other side won’t back down and is quite different from diplomacy to resolve international disputes peacefully, as required by the United Nations Charter and customary international law.

When Clinton told a televised “national security” forum that she “view(s) force as a last resort, not a first choice,” she was echoing what she and Sen. Bernie Sanders both said in Democratic Party debates. But in Clinton’s case, using the phrase “last resort” in this way is a clever way to reassure her listeners without actually modifying her hawkish and coercive approach to international relations. By contrast, Sanders was on firmer ground since he voted against two wars on Iraq (in 1990 and 2002), but did vote for war on Yugoslavia in 1999, a vote he still defends.

In negotiations at Rambouillet, France, in 1999, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright gave Yugoslavia only a devil’s choice between agreeing to a NATO military occupation (of all its remaining territory, not just Kosovo) and a NATO assault. When President Slobodan Milosevic refused these impossible terms, the West blamed him for triggering a U.S.-led war that was neither a war of self-defense nor a U.N.-backed collective security operation. In other words, it was a war of aggression by the U.S. and NATO against a largely defenseless nation.

But Milosevic had been so thoroughly demonized that few Americans seriously considered Yugoslavia’s position. Today, even fewer Americans know that the man our leaders tagged as a “new Hitler” and the “Butcher of the Balkans” was eventually exonerated by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), ten years after he died of a heart attack in a prison cell at The Hague.

Few also remember that the 1,380-member-strong Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM) of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was withdrawn six days before NATO began its aerial bombardment.

Pascal Neuffer, a Swiss member of the KVM, said, “The situation on the ground on the eve of the bombing did not justify a military intervention. We could certainly have continued our work. And the explanations given in the press, saying the mission was compromised by Serb threats, did not correspond to what I saw. Let’s say rather that we were evacuated because NATO had decided to bomb.”

The political stage was set for NATO’s assault on Yugoslavia by a battle in a village called Racak two months earlier. Yugoslav forces attacked CIA-backed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) fighters who had terrorized the area and ambushed police patrols. The head of the KVM, former U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador William Walker, arrived in Racak the next day and misreported the battle to uncritical Western media as a massacre of civilians by Serb forces.

But autopsies conducted by Yugoslav, Belarusian and Finnish medical examiners contradicted Walker’s account. The dead did not appear to be victims of summary execution. They died from a variety of gunshot wounds, as in any firefight; only one of 40 corpses examined was shot at close range; and there were only one woman and one teenage boy among the otherwise adult male bodies.

While the Western media largely parroted Walker’s false account, and the confirmation of the autopsy results by the Finnish medical examiners was only partially made public in a journal article two years later, two French reporters in Kosovo immediately challenged Walker’s narrative based on Associated Press video footage of the battle and other anomalies.

Questioning a Massacre

Christophe Chatelet’s article in Le Monde was headlined, “Were the dead in Racak really massacred in cold blood?” Describing how the KLA who reoccupied the village the evening after the battle appeared to have staged the scene to look like the result of a massacre, Le Figaro’s veteran Yugoslavia correspondent Renaud Girard presciently concluded his story on Racak with a rhetorical question, “did the KLA seek to transform a military defeat into a political victory?”

Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.

Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.

Racak was the “atrocity” needed by President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Albright to rally the media, the public and otherwise progressive Members of Congress like Bernie Sanders to support a war of aggression. The U.S. and its allies then dropped 23,000 bombs and missiles on civilian as well as military targets across Yugoslavia, killing thousands of civilians and striking hospitals, schools, power stations, private homes, a TV station and the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.

Kosovo was annexed as a NATO protectorate, and Hashim Thaci, the KLA leader and organized crime figure whom Albright had chosen over Kosovo’s political leaders to head its delegation at Rambouillet, is now the president of a new nation that has struggled for stability and international recognition.

But Thaci’s days in the sun may be numbered – Le Figaro reported in March that an international court is preparing new charges against him. One shocking charge, already well documented by former ICTY prosecutor Carla Del Ponte and an investigation by the Council of Europe, is that Thaci was the head of a criminal gang that exploited the chaos of Kosovo under NATO bombing to murder up to 500 Serbian and Roma prisoners so that they could harvest their internal organs to sell on the international transplant market.

But the Kosovo Model has served Western warmongers well. The exaggeration or fabrication of atrocities by U.S. enemies and the blind eye turned to atrocities by U.S. allies are now standard fare whenever our leaders promote some new military intervention, and the subservient Western mainstream media remains reliable allies in these deceptions. If a foreign leader has been sufficiently demonized by Western propaganda, even baseless predictions of unlikely atrocities can serve as a cases belli, as was the case in Libya in 2011.

The U.K. parliament’s foreign affairs committee recently concluded an inquiry into the Western destruction of Libya. One of its key findings was that the British government “failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated,” because it “selectively took elements of Gaddafi’s rhetoric at face value.”

Of course, it was Western governments themselves who “overstated” the threat to civilians in Benghazi from Libyan government forces. The cherry-picking of Colonel Gaddafi’s statements ignored his offer of amnesty to rebels who laid down their arms. There were also no massacres in other towns recaptured by Libyan government forces.

The committee also concluded that the emergence of “militant extremist groups” among the NATO-backed rebels was entirely predictable; and that the U.K. “drifted into an opportunistic policy of regime change” that “was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya.”

Yet, just last April in a Democratic presidential debate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was still repeating the same propaganda line, justifying the U.S.-supported “regime change” on the grounds that Gaddafi was a “genocidal” dictator.

If only the world had been presented with an honest account of our country’s international crimes against Yugoslavia in 1999, the worldwide civil society resistance to Western aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya would have been strengthened by broader awareness of the dangers of U.S. militarism and the deceptive role of Western propaganda in setting the stage for war.

We’ll never know for sure, but that might just have tipped the balance in favor of those who insisted that only the guilty should be punished for the crimes of 9/11, not millions of innocent people in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries.

Massive Military Spending

Politicians and candidates keep telling us that the key to our safety and security lies in the strength of the U.S. military, which must therefore always be two or three times larger and more expensive than those of all its potential enemies combined. The U.S. today spends more on its military than the sum of our nine closest military competitors (most of whom are U.S. allies in any case) and more than the total military spending of 182 less militarized countries combined.

Barack Obama and George W. Bush at the White House.

Barack Obama and George W. Bush at the White House.

Despite the chaos unleashed by decades of military adventurism, U.S. leaders seem blissfully unaware that this lop-sided military imbalance is undermining global security and stability instead of improving it. After President George W. Bush oversaw the most expensive unilateral arms build-up in history, President Obama has achieved what would have seemed impossible to most Americans in 2008 – he has actually outspent Bush.

The reason that this imbalance is so dangerous lies in the very nature of military force. Weapons of war are designed to wound, maim or kill people, not to help them in any way. Bombs and missiles do not rebuild buildings, cities or societies – they only damage or destroy them.

The term “regime change” is a misnomer. Overwhelming military force does not “change” regimes – it just destroys them. We should understand by now that when our leaders threaten to “change” a regime by military force, that will replace it only with rubble, graveyards, chaos, corruption and poverty.

But this huge imbalance in military forces and expenditures creates the dangerous illusion that our leaders can threaten or use military force to reshape the world as they see fit, to solve any problem or achieve any geostrategic goal. Corporate media, from Hollywood to the New York Times, spin this military madness into a full-fledged fantasy in which a country that doesn’t even provide its own people with basic human rights like healthcare, housing or a subsistence living, and instead manages poverty with aggressive, militarized policing and mass incarceration, is cast as a global warrior for democracy and human rights.

U.S. leaders saw the collapse of the Soviet Union as an ideological victory that opened doors to expand the U.S.-based capitalist economic system to the four corners of the world. They have bullied and bribed compliant governments to join U.S.-led trade and investment schemes that prioritize concentration of wealth and power over people and the environment.

Countries that resist integration into this neoliberal system or try to develop alternative models are subject to withering propaganda, crippling sanctions, U.S.-backed coups and, in the “last resort,” to the threat and catastrophic use of military force.

This strategy and the role of the U.S. military in enforcing it have now been explicitly detailed in U.S. policy documents for 25 years, beginning with the original version of the Pentagon’s “Defense Planning Guidance” that was leaked to the New York Times in 1992. This U.S. policy of illegal, unilateral use of force to “protect vital U.S. interests,” explicitly defined to include “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources,” was formally unveiled to the world in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review and the 2002 National Security Strategy.

The late Sen. Edward Kennedy condemned the latter as “a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other country can or should accept.” But there is no hint that the spiral of violence and chaos our leaders have unleashed across the world has led them to rethink their commitment to the illegal threat and use of military force as an instrument of U.S. policy.

What we need from our political leaders and candidates is not the threat of more “last resort” wars on the Kosovo model, but a new commitment to peace and international law, most importantly to the U.N. Charter’s prohibition on the threat or use of military force.

Until then, we should interpret deceptive formulations like “force as a last resort” as meaning that our leaders remain committed to an endless state of war that they have no idea how to contain or control. If humanity and civilization are to survive, we must force them to consider a very different “last resort”: peace, disarmament and a rule of law that governs the rich and powerful as well as the poor and downtrodden.

Nicolas J S Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.  He also wrote the chapters on “Obama at War” in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card on Barack Obama’s First Term as a Progressive Leader.

Al-Qaeda and Pakistan’s ISI are one and the same

Al-Qaeda and Pakistan’s ISI are one and the same–

Their differences over Kashmir is a smokescreen


On 22 September, just four days after the Uri attack, Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) released a statement accusing Pakistan and its military and spy agencies of betraying Kashmiris. Issued by AQIS spokesman Ustad Usama Mahmood, the statement says: “History testifies to the fact that fighting under the supervision and with the cooperation of Pakistani agencies is tantamount to wasting the fruitage of jihad and getting injustice on oppressed Kashmiris to increase.”

Earlier in mid-July, an AQIS statement had urged Kashmiris to follow in the footsteps of Burhan Wani, the Hizbul Mujahideen commander killed by the security forces.

With regard to statements from within Pakistan attributed to jihadi groups, we know the following: one, the Pakistan military’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) continued to release statements in the name of Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Muhammad Omar for several years after his death in 2013, which was ultimately revealed by the Afghan government on 29 July last year. Two, a 32-page Urdu document attributed to the Islamic State was handed from within Pakistan to a US journalist last year in which the Islamic State warned India of an Armageddon-like terror attack. But, there is credible reason that the document was authored by ISI. It was definitely not issued by the Islamic State.

Not many analysts grasp that Al-Qaeda, though led by Arab terrorists, is fundamentally a Pakistani organisation, a branch of ISI. It was established in Peshawar in 1988. This is a critical year when the Soviet troops stood defeated in Afghanistan. And the ISI – which had commanded the jihadi groups during Afghan jihad with the aid of US arms and Saudi money – had emerged victorious. The ISI thought that it had defeated the Soviets, the mighty power of the time, and birthed a plan to achieve a similar feat in Kashmir. There is no way Al-Qaeda could have been established in Peshawar without the ISI’s knowledge and support.

It is from Pakistan that Al-Qaeda spread to the Middle East. It is in Pakistan that Al-Qaeda’s top leadership, Osama bin Laden to Ayman Al-Zawahiri, has been protected, like the ISI protected Mullah Omar and continues to protect current Afghan Taliban leader Haibatullah Akhunzadah, Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) chief Masood Azhar, Jamaatud Dawa chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and Syed Salahuddin, who calls himself supreme commander of Hizbul Mujahideen but behaves like a sheepish peon before Pakistani officials in Muzaffarabad. Also, both the ISI and Al-Qaeda share the jihadi ideology to establish an Islamic Caliphate, with the only difference being that the ISI longs for Pakistan to be the head of such an international caliphate.

Both the ISI and Al-Qaeda are known to function in close cooperation. So, in all probability the 22 September statement was issued by AQIS to draw attention to the current unrest in Kashmir. It urges the Muslims of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh to support the Kashmiris, and adds: “ending the oppressive pagan system in the Subcontinent is also an obligation on us.” Kashmir is an ideological war for both Al-Qaeda and the ISI. In recent years, Al-Qaeda underwent ideological turmoil and frustration in recruiting Muslims from India, but its message did reach some two-dozen Indian Muslims who joined it and some of them have now moved to Syria to be with the Islamic State.

Ever since 9/11, Pakistani military ruler General Pervez Musharraf adopted a policy of pleasing Americans by offering ‘sacrifices’ of jihadis – by killing them and by arresting and handing them over to the US. Each time General Musharraf would land in Washington to meet with George Bush, some jihadi fighter would be arrested in staged operations and extradited to the US. Over the years, three types of disaffection emerged in Pakistan-based jihadi groups. First, Al-Qaeda began reviewing the Pakistani military’s relationship with Muslims sometime around 2010. This was the result of Arab fighters being killed in the border region in Pakistani army operations.

In its review of the Pakistani military’s relationship with Muslims, Al-Qaeda came out with a jihadi interpretation of South Asia’s history. Al-Qaeda statements and videos questioned the Pakistan army’s historical relationship with Muslims through past three centuries – back at least to the Battle of Plassey in 1757, or 190 years before Pakistan was created in 1947. Al-Qaeda videos pointed out that the Pakistan army – i.e. including the Muslim soldiers of British Indian army – killed Muslims both before 1947 and after it. Al-Qaeda argued that Muslim/Pakistani soldiers were involved in killing Muslims in Plassey in 1757, in Delhi in 1857, during missions in Iraq and Palestine during the World War I and II, in Dhaka in 1971, in Jordan in Black September 1970 commanded by General Zia-ul-Haq, in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas during post-9/11 years, and so on.

Two, an ideologically committed core of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan split from some of its leaders who played in the hands of the Pakistani intelligence agencies, notably Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Asmatullah Muawiya. Third, Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) and other arms of ISI underwent ideological turmoil, especially after Pakistan launched the 2007 military operation in Lal Masjid of Islamabad. JeM chief Maulana Masood Azhar, though worried, remained loyal to Pakistan. But his deputy Shamsh Kashmiri split from the organisation over this issue. The ideological split also occurred because the Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters were tortured in Pakistani jails.

In this context, the ISI felt betrayed by the Pakistan army commanders and some of its soldiers went on to launch assassination attacks on General Musharraf. But the ISI remains part of the army, much as the jihadi groups continue to function as the long arm of the ISI. Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated in a testimony before the US Congress in September 2011, that the Haqqani Network, the dominant unit of Afghan Taliban, was “a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence.” Also, the US military officials classified the ISI as a terrorist organisation. As per the WikiLeaks revelations in April 2011, the US designated the ISI as one of the 32 “militant forces or organisations” with which Al-Qaeda had “an established working, supportive, or beneficiary relationship for the achievement of common goals.”

Both the ISI and its jihadi organisations continue to work in tandem to advance Pakistan’s objectives. The ISI is very much a jihadi organisation with a global ideological outlook. While being part of the Pakistani military which guards Pakistan’s territorial border, the ISI has nursed an ideological commitment for the Islamic Ummah and it stands to guard the ideological border of Pakistan as Madina-e-Sani (the second Medina), the first one being the Islamic state established by Prophet Muhammad in the Saudi city. The AQIS statement of September 22 observes: “The Kashmir dispute is not just a problem of the Muslims of Kashmir. It is problem of Pakistan and India’s Muslims, rather a problem of the entire Ummah’s 1.5 billion Muslims. The basis of this dispute is creed. Its basis is the very dispute between a Hindu and a Muslim.” This eternal Hindu-Muslim dispute, noted in this AQIS statement, is also the Two-Nation Theory that led to the creation of Pakistan and has been the bedrock of Pakistani thinking.So, why is it that the AQIS statement of September 22 accuses the Pakistani intelligence agencies of betraying Kashmiris while simultaneously advancing the cause of the ISI in Kashmir – and at a time it is known that the entire Intifada in Kashmir is planned, funded and executed by the ISI? For now, it appears that the September 22 statement seeks to defend its parent organisation the ISI by giving it believable deniability of any role in Kashmir. While Al-Qaeda affiliates in the Middle East have adopted operational autonomy, Indian security analysts must not fall into the trap that the AQIS and the ISI are different organisations.

Former BBC journalist Tufail Ahmad is a contributing editor at Firstpost, and executive director of the Open Source Institute, New Delhi. He tweets @tufailelif

One Alabama Old Boy With An International “Get Out of Jail Free” Card

Madison County
Full Name: Matthew Craig Barrett
Time: 7:06 PM

[This (most recent) mug shot of Matthew Craig Barrett indicates that Barrett was locked-up in Huntsville within two weeks of his his latest expulsion from Pakistan (his second).  He was first arrested in Pakistan in 2011 outside the National Development Complex in Fatehjang, suburb, Rawalpindi, Pakistan’s primary plant for making M-11 missiles.  After being brought back home to Huntsville, he was arrested for drug-dealing in 2013.

On or about Aug. 23, 2016, Barrett was once again freed from a Pakistani jail and deported back home.  His mug shot above is dated Sept. 6, 2016. 

He claimed to have obtained a visa from the Pak. Embassy in Houston, TX to return to Pakistan in order to fix some paperwork for his Pakistani wife.  Why did Pakistan allow him to return only to send him right back?  Who keeps springing Barrett from US and Pakistani prisons (he was being held in Pakistan’s notorious “hanging jail,” Adiala.)]

Pakistan deports “blacklisted” U.S. national: officials

 Xinhua net

ISLAMABAD, Aug. 20 (Xinhua) — Pakistan on Saturday deported a “blacklisted” American national two weeks after he was arrested in Islamabad, officials said.

Matthew Barrett was blacklisted and expelled in 2011 for his suspicious activities in Pakistan, according to the Interior Minister.

Barrett was questioned by the police about his arrival in Pakistan. The Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan said last week that the U.S. national will be expelled as he is not welcomed in Pakistan.

“Matthew Barrett was deported from the city of Lahore Saturday morning,” officials said.

The interior ministry had suspended two immigration officials at Islamabad’s Benazir Bhutto International Airport for allowing the blacklisted man to enter Pakistan on Aug. 6.

The Interior Ministry has also sought clarification from the Pakistani consulate in Houston of the United States for issuing him the visa.

Russian For. Min. Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 71st session of the UN General Assembly–FULL TEXT


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 71st session of the UN General Assembly,

New York, September 23, 2016

Mr Chairman,

Ladies and gentlemen,
A year ago, from the same rostrum at the anniversary session of the UN General Assembly, plenty of accurate assessments were made of the situation at this crucial stage of international development. The main theme was the recognition that humankind, in transitioning from a bipolar and unipolar international order to an objectively evolving polycentric, democratic system of international relations, is faced with challenges and threats that are common to all and that can only be overcome by joint efforts. It was rightly noted that there is a pressing need to change the philosophy governing relations between states and do away with attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of states and impose development models on countries and nations.
Unfortunately, the ideas of mentorship, superiority and exceptionalism, as well as the pursuit of one’s own interests at the expense of just and equitable cooperation, have become deeply ingrained among the political elites of a number of Western countries.
We can see the results of unilateral reckless solutions, born of a sense of infallibility, in the bleeding region of the Middle East and North Africa. This erodes the foundations of global stability.
It is high time to draw lessons and avert catastrophe in Syria. It was largely thanks to Russian military aid to the legitimate Syrian government in response to its request that the collapse of statehood and the country’s disintegration under terrorist pressure was prevented. Our involvement led to the creation of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) as a means to establish an effective political process to enable the Syrian people themselves to determine their country’s future through an inclusive dialogue between all ethnic and religious groups. This course, which has no alternative, was enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions and found its practical embodiment in the recent agreements between Russia and the United States as ISSG co-chairs.
The main thing now is to prevent the collapse of these agreements and to investigate objectively and without bias the incidents in Deir ez-Zor and Aleppo that undermine them, all the more so since there are plenty of those who wish to subvert the agreed-upon approaches to achieving a settlement in Syria. It is very important to implement the requirement of the UN Security Council to disassociate the so-called moderate opposition from the terrorists, and the members of the US-led coalition bear special responsibility in this respect. The refusal or inability to do this in the current conditions is bound to enhance suspicions that this is an attempt to take the heat off Jabhat al-Nusra and that the plans for regime change are still in place, which is a flagrant violation of the relevant resolution of the UN Security Council. It will be impossible to resolve the Syrian crisis and improve the frustrating humanitarian situation without suppressing ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and the extremist groups that have merged with it. This is the key to consolidating the ceasefire regime and achieving a nationwide truce. It is also unacceptable to delay the start of intra-Syrian talks without any preconditions, as UN Security Council Resolution 2254 requires. Overt subversion of the political process by some representatives of the foreign opposition with the connivance of their patrons is negatively affecting the prestige of the United Nations and suggests that the reason for this may be rooted in an attempt to create a pretext for regime change.
Ukraine, which is a country close to us, has fallen victim of those who like to play zero sum games. Its development was subverted by the unconstitutional coup and is now being blocked by Kiev’s refusal to abide by the Minsk agreements of February 12, 2015. It is obvious to everyone that efforts to use the Ukraine crisis for self-serving geopolitical goals will not go anywhere. We hope that the natural course of events will lead to the implementation of all measures that the Ukrainian leadership signed onto in Minsk. The recent meeting of the Contact Group gives us some grounds for a degree of optimism.
More broadly, the only way to make the Euro-Atlantic region a space of equitable and indivisible security and mutually beneficial cooperation, as the OSCE declared almost 20 years ago, is by honestly implementing all agreements. Neither NATO nor the EU can replace genuinely collective efforts in pursuit of common interests, without winners and losers.
And it is certainly intolerable to hold hostage to political ambitions such spheres as sport, which has always helped bring nations closer together and build friendship and trust. A desire to usurp the right to predetermine the outcome of the battle on the playing field does not improve the image of those who boast about their commitment to honest competition but in reality trample on the principles, approved by the UN General Assembly, of the independence and autonomy of sport and the inadmissibility of any discrimination in sport.
In today’s world, it is unacceptable to be guided by the philosophy of antiheroes from George Orwell’s dystopia Animal Farm where all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. In the enlightened 21st century, it is simply indecent to lecture anyone on what to do, while reserving the right to engage in doping, reckless unilateral actions without UN approval, geopolitical experiments that cost millions of humans lives, or extraterritorial blackmail against everyone, including one’s closest allies, whenever there is the chance of financial gain for one’s own kind. Or even the right to set the criteria of greatness for one country or another. It is my belief that this is unworthy of the principles of liberty and equality that once formed the foundation of the great nations in whose name their elites are now threatening the whole world.
This year, we are marking the 70th anniversary of the Nuremberg Tribunal verdicts. This anniversary will prevent us from forgetting the lessons of the Second World War, and remind us of the catastrophic consequences of attempts to control the fate of the world by trampling on the legitimate interests of other states or people. Freedom of expression or peaceful assembly should not be used as cover for condoning radical movements that profess the Nazi ideology, or seek to glorify fascists and their accomplices. The persistence of these vicious instincts calls for consistent efforts to block the way for neo-Nazism and revanchism, strengthen interethnic and intercultural harmony, and fortify in younger generations the ideas of justice and equality. Russia invites all of you to take part in the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students to be held in Sochi in October 2017.
There is no place for hegemonism in the future, if we want it to be fair and for people to be able to choose their own path of development. This requires learning to respect partners, as well as the cultural and civilizational diversity of today’s world. It’s about returning to the path, norms and principles enshrined in the UN Charter and other documents of this world organization. Russia reaffirmed its commitment to this approach by signing on June 25, 2016 a Russia-China Joint Declaration on the Promotion and Principles of International Law. The decency and legitimacy of any member of the international community should be measured by their respect for the principles of sovereign equality of states and non-interference in the internal affairs of others.
It is naïve to think that global issues like fighting international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other threats that transcend borders can be resolved without renouncing the philosophy of exclusivity and permissiveness.
There is no place for double standards when it comes to combating terrorism. No less than universal joint efforts are needed to form a broad counter-terrorism front, as President Vladimir Putin proposed at this podium one year ago. The tragedies of Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria are indicative of the need to stop opportunistic attempts to use extremists in order to further one’s geopolitical aims. Before it is too late, we need to focus on countering the spread of terrorist and extremist ideologies that are literally taking today’s youth hostage in various regions of the world. We are drafting a UN Security Council resolution aimed at mobilizing efforts to fight this scourge, and hope that you will support our initiative. The settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would also make a significant contribution to eliminating a breeding ground of radical sentiment. It is important to break this deadlock, which is precisely the objective of the July 1, 2016 report by the Quartet of Middle East mediators. Russia calls on all the parties to abide by its recommendations.
Trends in the areas of non-proliferation and weapons control are deeply troubling. There are attempts to replace the crucial task of sustaining strategic stability with populist slogans about “nuclear zero.” The fact that a number of nuclear weapons nations are not parties to existing treaties is also neglected.
The foundational Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is being subjected to pressure, with its parties finding it ever more difficult to find a common language, particularly as some nuclear powers torpedo any compromises that would allow for the start of negotiations on establishing a zone free of WMDs and their means of delivery in the Middle East.
Russia has consistently advocated liberating humankind from the threat of nuclear weapons and other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. But progress along the path to nuclear disarmament should proceed with a full accounting of the totality of factors affecting strategic stability, including the impact of unilateral global missile defense systems, the designing of non-nuclear strategic offensive weapons, the threat of placing weapons in space, the inability to ensure that the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty takes effect, and the growing imbalance in conventional weapons in Europe.
We note the growing support for our initiative to draft an international convention on combating chemical and biological terrorist attacks. The start of substantial negotiations on this problem, as well as on the Russian-Chinese draft Treaty on the Non-Deployment of Weapons in Space, could end the impasse over the key component of the multilateral disarmament mechanism – the Disarmament Conference. We are also calling for careful consideration of our proposals on upgrading the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons.
NATO countries have led conventional weapons control in Europe to an impasse. Our attempts to rescue it encountered tough, ideological resistance. Any and all ideas on returning to this issue would only be worthwhile now if the North Atlantic Alliance realizes the absolute futility of ultimatums aimed at gaining unilateral advantages. We are still open to a dialogue with NATO based on equality and mutual respect, including dialogue through the OSCE.
It is also vital to enhance stability and ensure equal and indivisible security in other parts of the world, especially in the Asia-Pacific Region. Recent actions by the DPRK in violation of UN Security Council resolutions must stop. Russia calls on Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear and missile programmes and return to the NPT. However, this situation should not be used as a pretext for massive militarization of Northeast Asia and the deployment in the region of yet another positioning area for the US anti-missile defense shield. All parties must refrain from further escalating tensions and work towards a political and diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula by resuming negotiations.
Russia will continue to promote dialogue at East Asia Summits with a view to shaping a regional security and cooperation framework in the Asia-Pacific Region based on non-block principles. A number of participating countries, including Russia, India, China and Indonesia have put forward their proposals to this effect. We also invite all countries of the region to coordinate efforts aimed at implementing President Vladimir Putin’s initiative to create a broad Eurasian partnership that would bring together members of the Eurasian Economic Union, other CIS members, as well as members of the SCO, ASEAN and other interested countries. I would like to emphasize that this is an open initiative in full accord with earlier plans to create a single economic and humanitarian space between Russia and the EU. It will be based on WTO norms and principles, unlike projects to set up closed trade and investment blocks that threaten the unity of the global trading system.
Russia will continue promoting a unifying agenda in various international formats, primarily the UN, BRICS, SCO and the Group of Twenty. The recent Hangzhou Summit reaffirmed the G20’s status as a leading global economic and financial forum. Russia thanks the Chinese G20 Presidency for its efforts to make efficient use of this representative forum that provided us with an opportunity to exchange views on the key global economic and political issues for further promoting agreements in the universal framework of the UN.
The signing of the Paris Agreement to fight climate change has become a milestone for the United Nations. The fulfillment of nationally determined contributions is expected to ensure that the Agreement delivers on its stated purpose by keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. In order to achieve this goal, there is now a need to devise clear implementation rules and procedures regarding the Paris Agreement taking into account the interests of all participating countries. Launching the market and non-market mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as envisaged in Article 6 of the Agreement is now becoming a priority. Ultimately, this will be crucial for preventing the competitive environment from deteriorating and the transfer of polluting production facilities from one country to another to the detriment of efforts to achieve the sustainable development goals.
The United Nations was established with a view to “saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and promoting equal cooperation between states. Today, this aim covers all areas of international life and human interaction: from military and political aspects of security to climate change, from conflict settlement and peacekeeping to ensuring human rights and liberties, from sustainable development to fair IT regulations, from fighting terrorism and drug trafficking to combating corruption, from eradicating infectious diseases to affirming corporate social responsibility and encouraging scientific and technological advances. Of course, the purpose of the UN is also to promote dialogue between civilizations, support pluralism and equality among cultures and traditions, and fostering advances in research and the arts. In fact, this is a matter of preserving the humankind in all its rich diversity. It is this objective that should form the foundation for our collective efforts and become a global development imperative, an incentive for improving global governance and fostering true democracy in international relations.
I would like to express appreciation to His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, who made considerable efforts as UN Secretary-General to revitalize the world organization in keeping with the demands of the time.

We expect the next UN Secretary-General to contribute to reaching these objectives.

Russian Caliber Airstrike Kills 30 Western and Israeli Intel Officers

انطلاق صواريخ كاليبر الروسية

“Caliber” missiles targeted a foreign military leaders in Dera Izzat province of Aleppo


According to the source field of the province of Aleppo, that the three rockets from Caliber kind launched by the Russian ships that recently targeted operations room for terrorists in Dera Izzat west of Aleppo in the Mount Simon, which is famous for the harsh nature of the mountainous and contains ancient caves area.

The source for “Sputnik”, the operations room with 30 leading officers of the Turkish and the US and Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the British army and the Mossad, running terrorist operations in Aleppo and Idlib.  people were able to escape from the eastern neighborhoods of Aleppo , despite terrorist threats As for the situation on the ground now between the source that the Syrian army killed about 20 militants during the clashes, the last two days, in the 1070 area, where snipers are firing at present civilians in Hamdaniya area, note that there is a part of the 1070 area with parents, and part Last with the militants, and the third part military zone with the Syrian army.

إقرأ المزيد:

US apologizes to Assad for airstrikes against Syrian army

f-deirelzour-a-20160919-870x580 Deir al-Zour 

US apologizes to Assad for airstrikes against Syrian army: Russian FM



Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Saturday that the United States had apologized to Syrian President Bashar Assad for the airstrikes against Syrian government troops.

“Yes, they have apologized,” Lavrov said in an interview with the Rossiya 1 television channel.

Commenting on restoring truce in the war-battered country, Lavrov said it is only possible on a collective basis, which need the “sincere” cooperation from Washington to separate the so called moderate opposition from terrorist groups.

On Sept. 17, the US-led coalition airstrikes killed over 60 Syrian government troops and injured some 100 others in Syria’s eastern province of Deir al-Zour, incurring a strong response from Moscow, which accused Washington of violating the cease-fire accord in Syria.

On Sept. 10, Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry announced a nationwide cease-fire in Syria, which demands all warring sides stop attacks and airstrikes, and allow access to besieged areas, including Aleppo.

However, crossfire has resumed in the first hours after the truce deal expired on Monday.

Indian PM Modi Agitating For “War” w/Pakistan

[Former Gujarat Minister Writes To SIT
To Probe Modi’s Role Into Gujarat Pogrom]

[Pakistan Media Calls PM Modi’s Speech Venomous]

Will not forget Uri attack, ready to fight 1,000-year war: Narendra Modi


By: IANS | Kozhikode

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday squarely targetted Pakistan, saying India will not forget the sacrifices of 18 soldiers killed in the Uri terror attack and will work to isolate Pakistan globally for exporting terror. (ANI)
Addressing the BJP National Council meet here, Modi said that the Pakistan government was “misleading” its people on Kashmir.

He said Pakistani leaders had been talking of a “thousand years’ war” with India. “Let me tell you that there is a government in Delhi that accepts your challenge.”

However, he mellowed down the rhetoric, saying both countries should “fight the war”, but against poverty, unemployment and illiteracy — and “let’s see who wins”.

“The people of Pakistan should ask their rulers… PoK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) is with you, you can’t even manage that. Earlier, East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, was with you, you could not manage that. You are unable to manage PoK, Sindh, Gilgit- Baltistan and Balochistan, and you are talking of Kashmir… They are misleading you on Kashmir,” he said.

Modi said he wanted to remind the people of Pakistan that before Partition in 1947, their forefathers also considered this land as their own.

“I want to speak to the people of Pakistan. I want to remind them that before 1947 your forefathers too used to consider this country as your motherland, worship it. Keeping that in mind I want to ask a few things.”

He said both countries became independent at the same time. “So how is it that India exports software, but you (Pakistan) export terrorists.”

He also said the “Sacrifice of 18 soldiers” killed in the Uri attack “will not go in vain”.

“We will make efforts to isolate Pakistan” and force it to remain alone in the global stage”.

Earlier in his speech, Modi said there is one nation in Asia which does not want peace or development.

“There is one country which is exporting terrorism in the world from Asia.”

He said that terrorism is affecting India’s neighbours, including Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

“In the world when reports of terrorism come, then this news also follows that the terrorists came from that (neighbouring) country, or like Osama bin Laden, have found a hideout there.”

He said Indian forces were giving befitting reply to all terror acts.

Afghanistan–NATO’s failed experiment



Afghanistan: NATO's failed experiment. 57810.jpeg

Afghanistan was always an experiment for NATO. The country’s only forward-thinking, socially progressive, inclusive government which provided opportunities and public services for all in the 1970s was assailed by marauding gangs of terrorists crawling over the border from Pakistan, sponsored by NATO, with the aim of creating a soft underbelly to attack the Soviet Union.

The phenomenon of western-backed terrorists

The result was a desperate plea from this socially progressive government, under which women had full rights, under which children were encouraged to go to school instead of being shot at, stoned or decapitated, to its friend, the Soviet Union, to defend itself against what had started to show its ugly head: Western-backed terrorists.

The rest is history and is well-documented. The Mujaheddin morphed into the Taliban, a mixture of Wahhabism, Islamism, Islamic law and Pashtun lore. Afghanistan’s massive natural resources were intact, ripe for the taking and so was the opium poppy trade, to flood Russia’s cities with cheap heroin and make billions in funds from the sale of drugs.

Shocking report from the UNO

As we had seen with the escapades of the British Empire in the nineteenth century, as we saw with the Soviet Armed Forces over a decade in the second half of the twentieth century, as we have seen with NATO’s combined force of dozens of countries over a decade and a half in the twenty-first, Afghanistan is untenable. NATO entered the country in 2001, supposedly as revenge for 9/11, although there continue to be huge questions over this event and in 2016, fifteen years later, the United Nations has just released the following report:

afghan-studentThe report, Education and Healthcare at Risk: Key trends and incidents affecting children’s access to healthcare and education in Afghanistan (based on data collected between January 2013 and December 2915), was drawn up by UNAMA (United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund. The UN Special Representative for Afghanistan, Nicholas Haysom, has concluded: “The report’s findings are deeply troubling. It is simply unacceptable for teachers, doctors and nurses to be subjected to violence or threats, and for schools and medical facilities to be misused or attacked.”

The report shows a worsening trend in access to healthcare and education, with healthcare workers being abducted, injured in attacks or murdered. There were 59 such incidents in 2014 and 125 in 2015 and a further 132 conflict-related incidents affecting access to education, with 11 personnel murdered, 15 injured and 49 abducted, also a sharp increase over 2014.

The report documents death threats and intimidation against teaching staff and healthcare workers, assaults, forced closures of schools, letters to families prohibiting school attendance (especially girls), extortion and other threats, which increased by 182 per cent over the previous year. In 2015, 396 schools were forced to close, affecting 139,000 students and 600 teachers.

The statistics lead the UNICEF Representative in the country, Akhil Iyer, to state “In 2015 children increasingly struggled to access health and education services in Afghanistan due to insecurity and conflict-related violence, further exacerbated by high levels of chronic poverty throughout the country.”

As usual, those who bore the brunt of the intimidation and attacks were girls, an outrage against basic human rights and a further example of the sexist and genderphobic approach by Islamist extremists.

The Soviet Union entered Afghanistan to fight against western-backed terrorists and to prop up a socially progressive government. NATO entered Afghanistan to punish the rogue nation it had helped to create and a decade and a half later, this report is the result. Perhaps if NATO had left Afghanistan alone in the first place, generations of children would not have suffered.

Where else do we see the hand of NATO? In Kosovo, reduced to a narco-state run by Albanian terrorists (name me one official who does not look skywards when you mention Kosovo Albanian immigrants). In Iraq, reduced to total chaos with endemic unemployment and civil-war levels of violence. In Libya, reduced from the country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa to a failed State. In Syria, where ISIS grew up under NATO’s nose unchecked. In Ukraine, where the democratically elected President was removed in an illegal coup and where Fascist massacres of Russian-speakers ensued along with death threats against Jews.

Once again we see the need for development and not deployment of troops, which is why NATO gets it wrong time and time and time and time and time again in its intrusive, neo-imperialist, top-down, conceited and arrogant make-it-up-as-you-go-along approach which destroys societies, takes away lives and leaves thousands of people helpless and hopeless. NATO – Nato is A Terrorist Organization.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey


Twitter: @TimothyBHinchey

Third World War has never been so close

Third World War has never been so close



As we have already said many times, the main aspect of this political season is not elections, but war. But if elections do have importance somewhere, then this is in the US where, once again, they are closely connected to war. Two days ago, on Saturday, September 17th, the likelihood of this war was breathtakingly high. As we know, American troops, who no one ever invited to Syria, bombed the positions of the Syrian army at Deir ez-Zor. As a result of the bombing, 60 Syrian soldiers were killed.

This strike was extremely important for ISIS militants, whom the US is informally advising and arming while supposedly fighting them. This crossed the line. Bombing Syrian soldiers is one thing, but this means declaring war not only against Syria, but also Russia, which is fighting in Syria on Assad’s side. And this means that we have reached a climax.

Sure, the US leadership immediately reported that the airstrike was a mistake and warned the Russian leadership not to express any emotions. But Americans can only be lying, as modern technology allows satellite objects to be seen from a desktop. Theoretically, American bombers could not have simply confused such a strike. And what’s most important: if they had told you that they were preparing to bomb you, and you said nothing, then does that mean you agree?

It is completely obvious that the US is preparing to start a war against Russia. Border incidents represent reconnaissance operations. But how will Moscow, Putin, and the Kremlin react? The point of no return has not yet been crossed, but did Moscow’s reaction not show just how many Russians are ready for a direct, frontal confrontation with the US and NATO? This was why the airstrike was launched against Syrian army positions.

The globalist US leadership obviously cannot rule the whole world and, what’s more, the threat posed by Trump puts their control over America itself into question. Now, while the puppet Barack Obama is still in office and the globalist candidate Hillary Clinton is falling apart in front of American voters’ very eyes, is the last chance to start a war. This would allow them to postpone elections or force Trump, if he were to win, to begin his presidency in catastrophic conditions. Thus, the US neoconservatives and globalists need war. And fast, before it’s too late. If Trump gets into the White House when there will be peace, then there will be no such war, at least for the foreseeable future. And this would spell the end of the omnipotence of the maniacal globalist elites.

Thus, everything at this point is very, very serious. NATO’s ideologues and the US globalists falling into the abyss need war right now – before the American elections. War against us. Not so much for victory, but for the process itself. This is the only way for them to prolong their dominance and divert the attention of Americans and the whole world from their endless series of failures and crimes. The globalists’ game has been revealed. Soon enough, they’ll have to step down from power and appear before court. Only war can save their situation.

But what about us? We don’t need war. Not now, now tomorrow, never. Never in history have we needed war. But we have constantly fought and, in fact, we have almost never lost. The cost entailed terrible losses and colossal efforts, but we won. And we will always win. If this were not so, then today we wouldn’t have such an enormous country free from foreign control.

But in this case, we need to buy as much time as possible. The Americans have essentially attacked our positions, like the Georgians in Tskhinvali in August 2008. Russians are under fire, and this cannot be ignored. Our reaction is extremely cautious and balanced. We have expressed what we think about this American act of aggression, but in very deliberate terms.

The fatality of the situation lies in that, if Washington decides to opt for war now, then we cannot avoid it. If they will insist and repeat the September 17th situation again and again, then we will have to either accept the challenge and go to war, or knowingly admit defeat.

In this situation, the outcome of the struggle for peace which is, as always, fully in our interests, does not depend on us. We really need peace, to buy time until November 8th, and then everything will be much easier. But will the collapsing colossus allow us this time?

God forbid that this happens. But those who could pray prayed on the eve of the First and Second World War. In any case, our goal is always and only victory. Our victory.

The Americans are bombing our guys. A Third World War has never been so close. 


44 Staged Photos of White Helmets Carrying Kids

“Dramatic Rescue! Man With Kid Runs Towards Camera!”

– 44 Staged Pictures

moon of alabama

A man with a kid in arm runs towards the camera. The kid’s face is heavily colored, but it looks otherwise fine. On the lower left we see the back of a man with a “White Helmets” logo on his vest. Dust in the background. Always dust or smoke. A bunch of men looking very busy. But are they actually doing anything?

That would be a lucky by-chance photo shot for any normal photographer. Even in country where rubble from a fresh bombing may be around some near corner.

I have done, years ago, press photography for a living. Real accidents or bombings look way more bloody than any of these pictures. And that read color in the girls face is anything but blood.

The photo above is a typical “White Helmets rescue kid” propaganda picture. Except for maybe the old rubble, it is likely completely staged.

There the 43 similar pictures below the fold to demonstrate that. Just ask yourself this: Could these allegedly “by-chance” pictures, taken within a year, really be all as alike as they are if they were all taken at real incidents? Really?


UPDATE (August 18): Another photo of the scene below, from a different angle, was found and proves that it was not staged. Unfortunately the boy seems to have lost his right arm.

The pictures above all look astonishingly similar: rubble, dust or rather haze from a smoke grenade in the background, dusted/greasepaint bloody kids who have no visible trauma, the rescuer with the kid moving towards the camera. Dramatic, high quality scenes which do get distributed by news agencies and published again and again by major “western” media.

Isn’t it an amazing fortune that so many kids get rescued alive by the “White Helmets”, without any serious wounds visible, just moments after bomb impacts? This week after week? With all the same attributes in each picture?

No photo editor at any of the big media ever wondered about that?

Some of these photos may show real scenes. But most are definitely staged. These staged photos are part of the war propaganda against the Syrian people and their government.

The “White Helmets” take and distribute these photos. They also distribute lots of “kids rescued from rubble” videos. We wrote about those a month ago:

Other typical features of these movies, see this one, are smoke (grenades) in the streets, dramatic but small open fires nearby, dust or some red color on the children’s face or arms. The camera is often used in a hectic, intentionally amateurish first person view, a style extensively developed in the 1999 horror clip Blair Witch Project. Sometimes sounds of additional “bomb impact” bangs or screaming/wailing women are added.

The “White Helmets” are part of the (anti-)Syria Campaign. “Kid rescued from rubble” is their standard shtick. They are financed with some $60+ million from your taxes by the U.S., the UK and other governments. Such money will buy a lot of good cameras and props and will pay for many actors and extras.

“Man With Kid Runs Towards Camera!” is central to their brand.

The Syria Campaign and the White Helmets – propaganda camouflaged as humanitarian.

The Syria Campaign was created by Purpose Campaigns LLC. The company fabricates and runs for you any world-wide “grass root” movement you would like. With Purpose LLC or other such companies involved, big dollars will buy you big effects. How about an automated Twitter campaign to spread anti-Shia sectarianism? Someone paid for it and here it is.

The “White Helmets” campaign demonstrates the amazing manipulation potential such companies and their high paying customers have.

Posted by b on June 21, 2016 at 03:57 PM | Permalink

US Running Anti-Syria War On Nothing But Lies

“Unlike its progenitors, however, hasbara does not seek merely to burnish or tarnish national images of concern to it or to supply information favorable to its theses.  It also seeks actively to inculcate canons of political correctness in domestic and foreign media and audiences that will promote self-censorship by them.  It strives thereby to decrease the willingness of audiences to consider information linked to politically unacceptable viewpoints, individuals, and groups and to inhibit the circulation of adverse information in social networks.”Hasbara and the Control of Narrative as an Element of Strategy

[The CIA and State Dept. have been manufacturing news, using more primitive methods (NO SOCIAL MEDIA, NO INTERNET), for a very long time.  Americans have long held false, manufactured ideas, supplanted into their subconsciousness by their trusted national news media.  Since Reagan’s illegal wars began in Central America, we have had to contend with an established “Office of Public Diplomacy” (the American counterpart of Israeli office of “Hasbara“) at the State Dept, producing false news for American digestion (Lost History: CIA’s Perception Management).

“He manufactured op-eds that were passed off to the U.S. media under the name of Nicaraguan rebel leaders as he berated editors and journalists he deemed too soft on the Sandinistas or too tough on the Reagan administration.”–Otto Reich’s Dirty Laundry]

How US Propaganda Plays in Syrian War


U.S. foreign policymakers have experimented at planting propaganda in social media and then citing it as evidence to support their goals, a process now playing out in the Syrian “regime change,” as Rick Sterling explains.

By Rick Sterling

Manipulation of public perception has risen to a new level with the emergence of powerful social media. Multibillion-dollar corporate giants, such as Facebook, Twitter and Google, influence public perceptions, often via payments for “boosting” Facebook posts, paid promotion of Tweets, and biased results from search engines.

Marketing and advertising companies use social media to promote their clients, but so do U.S. foreign policy managers who hire or enlist these companies to influence public perceptions to support U.S. foreign policy goals.

A heart-rending propaganda image designed to justify a major U.S. military operation inside Syria against the Syrian military.

A heart-rending propaganda image designed to justify a “no-fly zone,” a major U.S. military operation inside Syria against the Syrian military.

For example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described making sure that Twitter was primed for street protests in Iran following the 2009 election, ready to spread and manage news of protests following the election and the killing of a young woman, which was blamed on the Iranian government although the circumstances of her death were murky. [Hard Choices hardback, p 423]

The results of similar media manipulation can be seen in the widespread misunderstanding of the conflict in Syria, amid the demonization of the Syrian government and leadership and the skillful use of social media by anti-government activists. Influenced by both mainstream and this alternative media, most people in the West do not know that Bashar al-Assad remains popular with many Syrians. Nor do they realize that Assad won an election two years ago.

There were three contestants in the Syrian presidential election of June 2014. Turnout was 73 percent of the registered voters, with 88 percent voting for Assad. In Beirut, the streets were clogged with tens of thousands of Syrian refugees marching through the city to vote at the Syrian Embassy. Hundreds of Syrian citizens living in the U.S. and other Western countries flew to Syria to vote because Syrian Embassies in Washington and other Western capitals were shut down.

While Secretary of State John Kerry was condemning the Syrian election as a “farce” before it had even happened, a marketing company known as The Syria Campaign waged a campaign to block knowledge of the Syrian election. Along with demonizing President Assad, the company launched a campaign which led to Facebook censoring information about the Syrian election.

Incubating Propaganda

The Syria Campaign was created by a larger company named “Purpose,” which – according to its website – “incubated” The Syria Campaign. The company’s website says, “Purpose creates new movements, brands and organizations from the ground up to address complex global challenges. We apply this experience as movement creators to our work with progressive companies, nonprofits and philanthropies, helping them to put purpose and participation at the heart of what they do.”

Smoke billows skyward as homes and buildings are shelled in the city of Homs, Syria. June 9, 2012. (Photo from the United Nations)

Smoke billows skyward as homes and buildings are shelled in the city of Homs, Syria. June 9, 2012. (Photo from the United Nations)

The major achievement of The Syria Campaign has been the branding and promotion of the “White Helmets,” also known as “Syria Civil Defense,” which began with a British military contractor, James LeMesurier, giving some rescue training to Syrians in Turkey with funding provided by the U.S. and U.K. The group stole this name from the REAL Syria Civil Defense as documented in this recent report from Aleppo.

The “White Helmets” are marketed in the West as civilian volunteers doing rescue work. On Sept. 22, it was announced that the Right Livelihood Award , the so-called “Alternative Nobel Prize,” is being given to the U.S./U.K.-created White Helmets “for their outstanding bravery, compassion and humanitarian engagement in rescuing civilians from the destruction of the Syrian civil war.” 

But the White Helmets are largely a propaganda tool promoting Western intervention against Syria. Unlike a legitimate rescue organization such as the Red Cross or Red Crescent, the “White Helmets” only work in areas controlled by the armed opposition.

As shown in this video, the White Helmets pick up the bodies of individuals executed by the terrorists; they claim to be unarmed but are not; and they falsely claim to be neutral.

Many of the videos from Al Qaeda/terrorist-dominated areas of Syria have the “White Helmets” logo because the White Helmets work in alliance with these extremist groups as primarily a media marketing tool to raise public support for continuing the support to the armed opposition as well as the demonization of the Syrian government. 

The Rights Livelihood press release said the White Helmets “remain outspoken in calling for an end to hostilities in the country.” But that is false, too. The White Helmets actively call for U.S./NATO military intervention through a “No Fly Zone,” which would begin with attacks upon and destruction of government anti-aircraft positions and aircraft.

A Major Act of War

Taking over the skies above another country is an act of war that would require a major U.S. military operation, according to senior American generals.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The New York Times reported that in 2012 General Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the White House that imposing a no-fly zone in Syria would require up to 70,000 American servicemen to destroy Syria’s antiaircraft system and then impose round-the-clock control over Syrian airspace.

General Carter Ham, former commander of the U.S. Africa Command who oversaw the aerial attacks on Libya in 2011, said on CBS News that “I worry sometimes that, when people say ‘impose a no-fly zone,’ there is this almost antiseptic view that this is an easily accomplished military task. It’s extraordinarily difficult. …

“It first entails — we should make no bones about it. It first entails killing a lot of people and destroying the Syrian air defenses and those people who are manning those systems. And then it entails destroying the Syrian air force, preferably on the ground, in the air if necessary. This is a violent combat action that results in lots of casualties and increased risk to our own personnel.”

In other words, an appeal for a “no-fly zone” is not a call for a non-violent solution. It is seeking a bloody act of war by the United States against Syria, a nation that poses no threat to America. It also would almost surely be carried out in violation of international law since a United Nations Security Council resolution would face vetoes from Russia and probably China.

Also, the White Helmets have never criticized or called for the end of funding to extremist organizations including Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate. On the contrary, White Helmets are generally embedded with this organization which is defined as “terrorist” by even the U.S., which is likely why the head of the White Helmets, Raed Saleh, was denied entry to the U.S.

The foreign and marketing company origins of the White Helmets were exposed over 1½ years ago – and since then, writer Vanessa Beeley has revealed the organization in more depth in articles such as “Who Are the White Helmets?” and “War by Way of Deception.” 

Despite these exposés, understanding of the White Helmets is limited, with many liberal and progressive people uncritically accepting the propaganda and misinformation about Syria. Much of the progressive media has effectively blocked or censored critical examinations amid a flood of propaganda about “barrel bombs” dropped by the “brutal dictator” and his “regime.” 

In the last week, Netflix started showing a 40-minute documentary movie about the “White Helmets” that amounts to a promotional video. A substantial portion of it takes place in Turkey where we see trainees in hotel rooms making impassioned phone calls to inquire about their families in Syria. 

The “family values” theme is evident throughout, a good marketing angle. The political message of the video is also clear: after a bombing attack, “It’s the Russians …. they say they are fighting ISIS but they are targeting civilians.”

The movie includes video previously promoted by the White Helmets such as the “Miracle Baby” rescue, an incident that may or may not have been staged. The video includes self-promoting proclamations such as “You are real heroes.” While no doubt there are some real rescues in the midst of war, many of the videos purporting to show the heroes at work have an unrealistic and contrived look to them as revealed here.

Tricking Progressives

“Alternative media” in the West has echoed mainstream media regarding the Syria conflict. The result is that many progressive individuals and groups are confused or worse. For example, the activist group CodePink recently issued a media release promoting the Netflix White Helmets propaganda video.

U.S.-backed Syrian "moderate" rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy (left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot from the  YouTube video]

U.S.-backed Syrian “moderate” rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy (left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot from the YouTube video]

The White Helmets video is produced by Grain Media and Violet Films/Ultra-Violet Consulting, which advertises itself as a marketing corporation specializing in social media management, grant writing, crowd building and campaign implementation. The only question is who paid them to produce this video.  There is growing resistance to this manipulation and deception. In response to a petition to give the Nobel Peace Prize to the White Helmets, there is a counter petition at Following the Right Livelihood Awards’ announcement, there will soon be a petition demanding retraction of the award to the White Helmets.

The story of the White Helmets is principally a “feel good” hoax to manipulate public perception about the conflict in Syria and continue the drive for “regime change.” That’s why big money was paid to “Purpose” to “incubate” The Syria Campaign to brand and promote the White Helmets using Facebook, Twitter, etc. That’s why more big money was paid to create a self-promotional documentary. 

The judges at Rights Livelihood were probably influenced by the documentary since critical examination of facts around Syria is so rare. It’s a sad commentary on the media. As veteran war correspondent Stephen Kinzer recently wrote, “Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press.”

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist and member of Syria Solidarity Movement

Russian Troops Conduct Exercises w/Pakistan and India, Simultaneously

[Russia cancels joint military drill will Pakistan in PoK post Uri; to conduct drill only at Cherat near Peshawar]

russia, india russia, india russia military exercise, india russia joint military exercise, Indo-Russia joint military exercise, Indra 2016, india news, indian express, indian express news
The 11-day exercise being conducted at the Sergiveskey of the Russian Federation will be held from September 22 to October 2. (Source: Facebook/ ADGPI – Indian Army)

Yes, Russia is engaged in military exercises with India and Pakistan, at the same time

the indian express

Indra, a portmanteau of the names of both the countries, is a biannual exercise which has been carried out between the two allies since 2003.

by Kanishka Singh | New Delhi

The eighth edition of the Indo-Russia joint military exercise ‘Indra 2016’ was flagged off in Vladivostok in Russia on Friday. Indra, a portmanteau of the names of both the countries, is a biannual exercise which has been carried out between the two allies since 2003. This year, the focus is on Counterterrorism Operations in Semi Mountainous and Jungle Terrain under United Nations Mandate. Interestingly though, Russian troops arrived in Pakistan the same day for the first-ever Pakistan-Russia joint military exercise.

READ | Russian troops arrive in Pakistan for first-ever joint military drills

A total of 250 troops from the Kumaon Regiment of the Indian Army are participating in the Exercise Indra 2016. A same number of Russian troops from the 59th Motorised Infantry are participating in the joint exercise. The Indian Army contingent reached Vladivostok on 21 September. The 11-day exercise being conducted at the Sergiveskey of the Russian Federation will be held from September 22 to October 2. Both countries are old strategic allies and India is one of the largest purchasers of Russian defence equipment as well as defence technology.

Watch what else is making news:

Meanwhile, New Delhi has expressed its concern over the drill in Pakistan as a part of it will be held in Gilgit Baltistan, a part of Jammu and Kashmir occupied by Pakistan. The drill will be held at Pakistan Army’s High Altitude School at Rattu along with a special forces training centre at Cherat in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province.

(Source: Facebook/ ADGPI - Indian Army) India is in a precarious position as one of its oldest partners is now engaging with its principal military adversary. (Source: Facebook/ ADGPI – Indian Army)

Russia and Pakistan, both cold-war era adversaries, seem to be improving their relationships on the strategic as well as the military trade front. After the Soviet and Afghan conflict that trickled down into Pakistan, it is now that the two countries are slowly moving ahead as allies.

READ: Russia-Pakistan anti-terror drills will not be held in any part of PoK: Russia

India is in a precarious position as one of its oldest partners is now engaging with its principal military adversary. Russia has the potential to act as another peacemaker between India and Pakistan as they go loggerheads against each other after the recent Uri terror attack. It remains to be seen whether, Russia, just like US and China, will attempt to calm the nerves between the two nuclear neighbours.

UPDATE: In a statement issued late on September 23, the Russian Embassy in India has clarified that drills with Pakistan in PoK are false, adding that the only venue of drills is Cherat.

White House Admits That Obama Will Veto 911 Survivors’ Bill Later Today

US Protected Saudi Arabia Officials Involved in 9/11: New York Post

US Protected Saudi Arabia Officials Involved in 9/11: New York Post

Obama to veto Saudi 9/11 prosecution bill


The government of Saudi Arabia is a US ally but also home nation to 15 of the 19 hijackers

US President Barack Obama on Friday will veto a bill that both houses of Congress passed which would allow survivors and families of victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the government of Saudi Arabia, the White House confirmed.

“We believe this is a bad bill,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. “It’s why the president’s going to veto it.”

The White House argues the legislation would undermine sovereign immunity and potentially expose US officials and service members to litigation.

That technical legal argument will struggle to be heard over emotive accusations that Obama is putting relations with Saudi Arabia before 9/11 victims.

The government of Saudi Arabia, a US ally but also home nation to 15 of the 19 hijackers, has worked hard to see the bill defeated.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act was approved in the House by unanimous voice vote earlier this month, some four months after its Senate passage — and two days before the 15th anniversary of 9/11.

Republican nominee Donald Trump has already tried to paint Obama and his would-be successor Hillary Clinton as weak on terrorism.

Bryan R. Smith (AFP)Bryan R. Smith (AFP)  “Family members gather for the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum in New York on September 11, 2016”

Clinton has preemptively voiced support for congressional efforts “to secure the ability of 9/11 families and other victims of terror to hold accountable those responsible,” according to Jesse Lehrich, a campaign spokesman.

But with the election less than 50 days away, the Republican-led Congress will try to deal Obama a significant political blow by overriding his veto.

Such overrides are rare and this one would show the White House to be almost cripplingly weak as Obama tries to tick off remaining legislative goals in the twilight of his presidency.

Obama has issued 11 vetoes so far in his presidency, none of which have garnered the two-thirds opposition needed for an override.

But Republicans will need the backing of Democratic lawmakers, who the White House is lobbying furiously.

Congressional sources said Thursday that White House appeals to security minded senators like Dianne Feinstein may have been enough to avoid a override vote.

That would be a blow to families of 9/11 victims, who have campaigned for the law — convinced that the Saudi government had a hand in the attacks that killed almost 3,000 people.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens.

Beth A. Keiser (POOL/AFP/File)Beth A. Keiser (POOL/AFP/File)  “The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, if passed by the Senate, would allow the families of loved ones killed in the 9/11 attacks to sue the Saudi government – fifteen of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi citizens”

Declassified documents showed US intelligence had multiple suspicions about links between the Saudi government and the attackers, but no link has definitively been proven.

“While in the United States, some of the 9/11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi government,” a finding read.

But a victory for the White House could help ease relations with Saudi Arabia, already strained by Obama’s engagement with Iran and the July release of a secret report on Saudi’s involvement in the attacks.

A senior Saudi Prince reportedly threatened to pull billions of dollars out of US assets if it becomes law, but Saudi officials now distance themselves from that alledged threat.

The White House is getting some backing from diplomatic allies who share concerns about the United States becoming a venue for citizens to sue governments.

In a diplomatic protest note obtained by AFP, the European Union warned the rules would be “in conflict with fundamental principles of international law.”

“State immunity is a central pillar of the international legal order,” the “demarche” noted, adding that other countries could take “reciprocal action.”

In a letter to lawmakers, also seen by AFP, former secretary of defense William Cohen, former CIA boss Michael Morell and Stephen Hadley, George W. Bush’s national security advisor were among a group of high profile security figures to warn the legislation would hurt US interests.

“Our national security interests, our capacity to fight terrorism and our leadership role in the world would be put in serious jeopardy,” they said.

Syria Bombing Exposes Cracks in American Facade

Syria Bombing Exposes Cracks in American Facade


by Kit

52753262-swervingcarunknown2Yesterday, the USA committed what is – essentially – an act of war against the legitimate government of Syria. The official position is that, due to a breakdown in communication (or possibly bad intelligence), the US Air Force – with Australian support – bombed SAA men and vehicles resulting in the deaths of at least 60 Syrian soldiers.

The Russian’s are, understandably, incensed. Accusing the Americans of “assisting ISIS” and describing it as an “intentional provocation”, all of which ties into a speech Putin gave yesterday, in which he questioned American commitment to the deal.

But why did this attack happen? Assuming it wasn’t just straight incompetence, which is always a possibility when dealing with an American military far more concerned with being expensive than efficient, what was the motivation? Why has the Obama administration worked for weeks to get this deal together, only for the USAF to bomb Syrian soldiers days into the ceasefire? Why has Kerry spent hours carefully negotiating with Sergei Lavrov, only for Samantha Power to immediately launch into abusive and hysterical language the moment any even minor conflict occurs?

The only logical position to take is that, for some reason, some parts of the American political or military establishment are trying to scupper the ceasefire before it can take hold. To smother peace in its cradle.

This is just the latest in a long line of evidence that suggests, tempting and easy as it is to see American power as monolithic, there are factions at work within the heart of the Empire. It has been suggested, many times, that any cracks in Washington run along party political or institutional lines. Democrats vs. Republicans. The FBI vs. the CIA. It has been mooted that Edward Snowden is a CIA agent out to discredit the NSA. I doubt any breaks run along such neatly defined borders. But we can say there are at least two different groups, with different agendas, ideologies and even realities. For now we shall call them the Realists, and the Lunatics.

The Realists are largely Old School diplomats, or veterans of the Cold War. Think Henry Kissinger, who loudly and publicly decried the US’s approach in Ukraine, and even attacked the government’s motives in the news (Kissinger has been a proponent of increased Russian-American cooperation since heading the Track II program). Think Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was one of the few voices of reason on Syria during Obama’s “red line” nonsense. John Kerry, likewise, obviously comes from this same school. Not decent or moral people by any means, but diplomats and pragmatists. Disdaining violence and chaos, not out of empathy, but as waste of time and resources that reflects badly on their skill as politicians. They deal in realpolitik, and can be counted on to always serve their own best interest and at least having some semblance of a notion of veridical reality.

The Lunatics are comparatively new on this stage, spiritual successors to the old-guard Neo-cons, they have been weened on stories of American exceptionalism and see themselves as morally, intellectually and emotionally superior. They believe they can simply create reality through their words, and cannot be shaken from this belief no matter how much the world refuses to shape itself around their certitudes. Look at Samantha Power. Or Victoria Nuland. Or Robert Kagan. They are dangerous because, no matter what, they believe in the moral rectitude of their actions. They cannot see their actions from an outside perspective, or appreciate the position of their supposed “adversary”. They are dangerous because they refuse to deal with the real world. They are black and white creatures in a grey universe.

Watch the following video.

This is the perfect example of what we are talking about, here we have an emotional, irrational ideologue arguing with a pragmatic psychopath. A Lunatic versus a Realist. When Carl Bernstein, yes the Carl Bernstein, argues that “we should morally isolate Russia”, he is confronted with a pragmatist asking him “How?”. It’s a question he never tries to answer.

Interestingly, in this video you hear the first references to “isolating” Russia – a theme that was heavily used by pundits all across the MSM just a couple of years later, during the Ukraine crisis. Ukraine was obviously a neocon plan to try and weaken Russia, in response to Russia’s checking of their war in Syria, and was equally obviously never going to work. Again, when Brzezinski asks how they intend to “isolate” Russia from China or the rest of their partners and allies, he receives no answer based in any kind of reality.

The plan to “isolate” Russia (both morally and strategically) failed…but this has never been acknowledged. Instead, pundits politicians and their proxies, both above and below the line, in the press have simply declared Russia to be “isolated” and “a pariah state”. Regardless of the conflict with reality.

This goes hand-in-hand with Karl Rove’s famous claim that, as an Empire, when America acts it “creates reality”. There are people within the corridors of American power who genuinely believe that this is literally true. That they can shape the world alone, with no checks or balances or compromises. That they have the controls of the game, and everyone is just an NPC awaiting their input. They don’t see that they can push Russia into starting WWIII, because they don’t credit that anyone can take any action without their say-so. It is why so many of their plans fall apart. It is why Syria and Ukraine are in chaos.

Once you factor in that there are different teams pushing for different agendas in Washington, the world begins to make more sense. That’s why the US is currently supporting the Kurds, the Turks and ISIS in Syria..despite the fact they are all (notionally) in conflict with each other. It’s why they go to all the trouble of breaking Ukraine into pieces, but then stop short of arming their Nazi proxies. It’s why Obama can be instructed to lay down a “red line”, but told to stand-down when Assad crosses that line.

American foreign policy is a speeding car with two people fighting over the steering wheel, shooting off in a direction neither intends. The combat between these factions plays out across different battlefields. You can see it through the “leaks” that materialise that discredit and expose one another. Through deals that are made and then broken, and lines that then crossed with no consequences. Through the splintering, confused narratives that surround who is to blame – and why – for terrorist attacks (see the Boston bombing). And, of course, through Presidential elections.

Hillary Clinton is the war party candidate – she has made that clear. Whether that is through actual idealist commitment to “the cause”, or just compulsive and destructive self-interest is unclear, and frankly irrelevant. She is the new face of lunatic neo-con foreign policy. It’s highly likely that her Secretary of State will be Victoria Nuland, perhaps the craziest of the crazies, and her campaign has made it clear they will “tougher” on Syria, and maybe even attack Iran.

These are insane positions. Aside from the very real threat of global incineration, America were unable to win a war in either Iraq or Afghanistan – the idea that same military would be able to take on Iran, and win, is laughable.

That is, in part, why this Presidential election has been so fractious and unpredictable. This isn’t like 2000 or 2008, when all the insiders were on the same page and the election was a formality. This time there is genuine indecision.

On the one hand you have Clinton, a decades-old Washington insider, with enough money and clout (and probably blackmail material) that she can launch herself into the race without the total approval of the intelligence and political infrastructure. Then on the other side Donald Trump, an unknown, a wild-card. Possibly he never intended or expected to be able to win, but then found is campaign being fueled by Washington insiders who dread the possibility of a Clinton-run America.

The leaks and polls and scandals bouncing back-and-forth across the surface betray the roiling movement beneath. No-one is exactly sure who “their guy” is. No one knows, definitively, which candidate will be easiest to control and the least dangerous.

And so we come full circle, to America’s bombing of the Syrian Arab Army, and the scuppering of the ceasefire.

The Realists have been working, frantically, to get an agreement done in Syria. John Kerry, one of the most prominent realists, is desperate to get a deal done soon. Why? Because there’s an election in November, and that faces us with the very real possibility of a psychotic (and possibly brain-damaged) Hillary Clinton taking over the White House with a team of crazy idealogues at her back. Obama et al know that if they leave Clinton even the tiniest sliver of a possibility of starting a war in Syria…she will take it. They need to stabilise the situation before she comes to power.

Likewise, Hillary’s backers from the Lunatic side realise how much harder it will be to start their war, if there have been any clear signs that negotiations might work. They need to undermine any ceasefire, and preferably before the election so that all the blame can be pinned on the previous administration.

The car is weaving all over road.

ADDENDUM: Echoing the questions posed by this article, Russia’s UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, asked in his speech at the UN: “Who is in charge in Washington? Is it the Pentagon or the White House?”

Turkey Using Reorganized “Free Syrian Army” To Clear Kurds From Northern Syria

[If Ankara hopes to sell their story-line, that it is NOT using Turkish troops to take Syrian territory, then it must first explain the following–

“The U.S. special forces contingent recently linked up with Turkish forces in the town of al-Rai, about 20 kilometers from Dabiq, to help with the ‘slow and deliberate’ operation to clear Islamic State from the border region.”Will Upcoming Fight in Syria Usher in Armageddon?

Who are American Special Forces “linking-up” with in Al-Rai?
Will US Spec Forces be leading both sides of the battle, since they have already been advising the Syrian Kurd fighters for quite a while?]

Ankara vows full support for FSA in Syria



AA photoAA photo

Ankara has vowed to support the Free Syrian Army (FSA) with regards to the Turkey-backed rebels’ efforts to clear their own lands in northern Syria of both jihadists and Syrian Kurdish forces.

“Those lands [in northern Syria] are the lands of these people [FSA fighters]. These people are on the defensive for their own land; they see Turkey’s support as very crucial. We give them this support and we will continue to give [support], too,” said Turkish Defense Minister Fikri Işık on Sept. 21.Işık said that their aim was for the FSA to clear land belonging to its people from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and also the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military wing, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), which Ankara says are terrorist offshoots of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

“Everyone should live in their own region,” Işık said.

Turkey launched Operation Euphrates Shield on Aug. 24, with its own troops backing the FSA with the aim of ridding northern Syria, with which Turkey has a long border, of ISIL, as well as the PYD and YPG.

Turkey helped liberate Syria’s Jarablus and al-Rai from ISIL within the scope of this operation.

On Sept. 19, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said al-Bab was the next target within the scope of the anti-ISIL operation that Turkey launched around one month ago.

Al-Bab lies around 30 kilometers away from the Elbeyli district of Turkey’s Kilis province.

Responding to a question with regards to a report that Turkey would deploy its own combatant infantries of the Turkish Land Forces in Syria, Işık said Turkey would not deploy its own infantry in Syria but would use the Ankara-backed Syrian rebels.

“Our current planning is that we will conduct the operation with fighters of the Free Syrian Army. Thus, we do not plan to join this operation with our own infantries,” Işık said.

Işık said on Sept. 21 that Turkey would continue with the operation “until it guarantees its own security,” adding that Ankara’s aspiration was for the FSA and the “moderate opposition” to clear out ISIL and the YPG.
Forces taking part in Operation Euphrates Shied with the aim to liberate al-Bab would be enforced with the inclusion of various combatant infantries, which would accompany Turkish Special Forces and artillery, daily Hürriyet reported on Sept. 21, citing security sources speaking on condition of anonymity.

“In order to go down as far as al-Bab, a more extensive land force is a must. Land forces are included in the operation plans,” the source was quoted as saying. Currently Turkish Special Forces commandos, fighter jets and tanks contribute to Operation Euphrates Shield.

Escalating India/Pakistani Tensions May Br On the Verge of Exploding

[Obama may get what he has been wanting for the Indian Subcontinent before he leaves office…limited nuclear war.  We may have reached the point where just one more threat or attack, by either side, may be enough to force the enemies together.]

[Could India and Pakistan go to war?Pakistan may use tactical nuke if it’s unable to push back Indian army: Hans KristensenUS lawmakers move bill to designate Pakistan as a terrorist state]

India prepares to attack under Cold Start doctrine, Pakistan ready to react

pakistan today

india-prepares-to-attack-under-cold-start-doctrine-pakistan-ready-to-reactIndia has completed the first step of preparedness to wage an attack on selective targets inside Pakistan under the Cold Start doctrine.

According to reports, India has completed its first phase preparations to attack selected targets in Pakistan under the Cold Start strategy. Sources also disclosed that although Pakistan will not initiate an attack, it would respond with full force in case of any strike by India.

The armed forces would not let Indians cross the red line, according to well-placed defence sources.

India has moved military jets and air force personnel to forward air bases to launch surgical strikes as part of the three-phased strategy.

Pakistan has also prepared itself to counter any adventure with full force, they said. The decision to cancel flights to northern areas was taken as a precautionary step.

In a telephonic conversation held a few hours ago, the civil-military leadership expressed satisfaction over Pakistan’s capability to respond to any attack

Measures are being taken with regard to Pakistan’s counter-strategy to defend itself and if an attack is launched from across the border then it would be fully thwarted. The suspension of flight operations in country’s north and sealing of various passages also came as part of the same strategy.

The tensions between the nuclear-armed adversaries have soared recently over deteriorating situation in Indian-occupied Kashmir (IoK). Over 100 innocent Kashmiris have been martyred and 8000 wounded by the occupying forces in recent incidents of violence.

Pakistan is up for pursuing the case peacefully in the United Nations as PM Nawaz Sharif on Monday and Tuesday held meetings with the world leaders on the sidelines of the 71st session of the UN General Assembly.

But, it seems that the neighbouring arch-rival has some other agenda to prevent Pakistan from raising voice over IoK atrocities by engaging it in a short-term war.

Read more: Indian, Pakistani troops exchange fire in Kashmir

Obama Denounces Opposition To His Political Terrorism

At United Nations, Globalist Obama Condemns ‘Crude Populism’ Sweeping the Planet


Obama says globalization will continue growing rapidly, signaling the unstoppable march of progress. But he warned that nations who allow the wealthy to enjoy the benefits of globalism face challenges from their populace. Those people, he noted, were falling prey to an “alternative” narrative, propagated to fuel opposition.

“Alternative visions of the world have pressed forward, both in the wealthiest countries and in the poorest,” he said. “Religious fundamentalism. The politics of ethnicity or tribe or sect. Aggressive nationalism. A crude populism. Sometimes from the far left but more often from the far right.”

He referred to a “collision of cultures” that was challenging each country and called for world citizens to reject religious fundamentalism and racism.

“That’s a truism. That global integration has led to a clash of cultures. Trade, migration, the internet, all these things can challenge and unsettle our most cherished identities,” he said, alluding to France’s burkini laws and Muslim clashes with France’s offensive cartoons.

He also urged each country to evolve towards progress, describing the conflicts as part of the old world.

“The world is too small. We are too packed together for us to be able to resort to those old ways of thinking,” he said.

Obama alluded to Donald Trump’s campaign promise to build a wall on the Southern border three times, pointing out that such an action would be futile to stop many of the threats facing the world.

“Today, a nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself,” he said.

“The world is too small for us to simply be able to build a wall and prevent it from affecting our own societies,” he said afterwards.

“Mosquitoes don’t respect walls,” he added later referring to the Zika virus.

Obama drew laughter from the audience of world leaders after he pointed out that American allies and adversaries believed that all the world’s problems were either caused by Washington or could be fixed by Washington.

“Perhaps too many in Washington believe that as well,” he joked.

He concluded with an examination of fallen human nature, pointing to the challenges that humanity faced.

“Time and again human beings have believed they finally arrived at a period of enlightenment only to repeat cycles of conflict and suffering,” he said. “Perhaps that’s our fate.”

But he explained that young educated people gave him hope and optimism about the future, as they could shed old social and cultural norms to fight for progress.

He cited his own multi-racial and multicultural background as proof that the world could improve.

“My own family is made up of the flesh and blood and traditions and cultures and face from a lot of different parts of the world, just as America’s been built by immigrants from every shore,” he said.

Rather than oppose immigrants and refugees, Obama said, it was important for leaders to help everybody in the world with their problems.

“This is what I believe that all of us can be co-workers with God, and our leadership and our governments and this United Nations should reflect this irreducible truth,” he said.


  • “…he explained that young educated people gave him hope and optimism about the future, as they could shed old social and cultural norms to fight for progress.”

    Meaningless BLATHER.

    Progress IS the fight. You fight for a GOAL, and either you are making progress towards your goal, or you are not.

    This guy – per the usual – just recycles bits of kitschy AgitProp slogans and phrases from 30 years ago, and delivers it with a straight face and sincerely. Odd money says that he has no freaking clue what he is talking about. None. Total twaddle.

    Cannot wait for his term to end.


  • “The world is too small for us to simply be able to build a wall and prevent it from affecting our own societies,”…Is he aware of a place called Asia…there are plenty of metaphorical walls to be found…and the societies are doing just fine…better in fact…

  • Odumbo:
    “Rather than oppose immigrants and refugees, it is important for leaders to help EVERYONE IN THE WORLD — with their problems.!”

    “Today, a nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself,” he said.

    “Aggressive Nationalism. A crude populism. Sometimes from the far left but more often from the far right.”
    Yes , that’s right, we are being Lectured on the evils of Populism , by a Community Organizer…
    —– Another Speech, another steaming pile of Traitorous Globalist Blather.
    This evil man has been a repugnant and malignant force of Cultural; Military, and Social de-construction to our Country since he sauntered into the WH with his clubs.


    • The UN and EU are becoming identical in their objectives and goals. They would see a world without nations, flooded with Islam, with all the power given to the elites. Trump needs to pull us out of the UN and shut down the payments to this global organization of hate.

    • Barack Hussein Obama is completely utterly out of touch with the American and the British patriot. Bitching about “populism” — the new dirty word of liberal globalists — is simple whining about “Patriotism”. Liberals can’t use the right P-word in their griping.

      Globalization will NOT grow. This is the path forged by Trump, and followed by Brexit.

      American patriots WILL have this country back; political correctness is being rejected as is Obama/Clinton leftist policy centered on legal and illegal immigration as tools of vote-pandering.

      Hillary Clinton IS the embodiment of Barack Obama’s ineptitude, incompetence, and failure — SHE WILL BE CRUSHED. And it will be a beautiful thing to behold.

      America WILL NOT lower it’s standards to accomodate money-grifting globalists … America is A SOVEREIGN NATION and ALWAYS will be.

    • Fitting that the thin smoking empty suit man would say this garbage while standing before the UN and behind an emblem of world government and leftist fascism. He’s never been a president. He’s always been a spokesmen for the world elite, Islamization of the West, and the decline of Western society. He is a devil pure an simple. An enemy to freedom and free people.

    • If he were to intentionally try to destroy the country he couldn’t do a much better job than he’s done.

      1) bring in millions of anti-American immigrants who have no intention of assimilating, some intend and have politically and racially insighted violence against legal citizens, others to perpetrate violence for their medieval religion

      2) throw in crushing debt catapulted by economy crushing fiscal policy and indefinite Federally frozen interest rates, give billions of dollars to our enemies, and even establish a precedence for a few million $s for US hostages with our worst enemies

      3) racially incite violence and stir up racial tension at every opportunity, never losing a chance to blame the race, religion, nationality, and culture of the white, Christian, right wing amongst us while condescendingly defending every other group of people, even those who have repeatedly shown themselves to hate the rest of us and want to cause us harm

      4) bulldozer other branches of government while calling any form of descent obstruction, any sort of disagreement bigotry, pass executive orders for everything you can think of while constantly telling the country that we must act now, the agenda must move forward at all cost or we risk disaster

      5) give lip service to the last long honored traditions of our country, our flag, our military, our veterans, while out of the other side of your mouth spew hate and bile at everything our ancestors fought and died for to preserve our great nation

      Yeah, if Obama were trying to destroy the country and prove himself to be a demonic traitor to America there isn’t a whole lot differently he would do…. Just sayin’.

    The Cowardice of Ban Ki Moon In Confronting Syrian War Architects

    UN head: World leaders ‘have blood on their hands’ over Syria conflict


    UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has opened the annual UN General Assembly with strong words for governments who have “facilitated” violence in Syria. US President Obama also criticized a rise in “crude populism.”

    In his final address as the United Nation’s Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon opened the annual General Assembly on Tuesday by appealing for peace and criticizing the Syrian government for civilian deaths.

    “Many groups have killed many innocents – but none more so than the government of Syria, which continues to barrel bomb neighborhoods and systematically torture thousands of detainees,” Ban said.

    The UN leader also reprimanded world leaders and representatives gathered in the room for their role in the deadly conflict in Syria.

    He noted that “powerful patrons that keep feeding the war machine also have blood on their hands.”

    “Present in this hall today are representatives of governments that have ignored, facilitated, funded, participated in or even planned and carried out atrocities inflicted by all sides of the Syria conflict against Syrian civilians,” Ban added in his final address.

    The comments come on the heels of the UN and Red Cross’ decision to temporarily halt aid deliveries in Syria after a 31-truck aid convoy was hit by an airstrike on Monday.

    “Moderate Islamists” Free Syrian Army Rejects US Help

    ALEPPO, SYRIA (11:20 P.M.) – The Free Syrian Army’s “Ahrar Al-Sharqiyah” issued a statement on Friday declaring their refusal to work with the U.S. Armed Forces in northern Aleppo.

    According to their statement, the Free Syrian Army will not fight alongside the U.S. Armed Forces because of their support for “PKK separatists” in northern Syria.

    All of the rebel groups participating in “Operation Euphrates Shield” against the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) are backed by the Turkish Armed Forces and Erdogan regime.

    ‘There was no revolution in Syria’–Czech Ambassador To Damascus

    Eva Filipi, the Czech Ambassador in Damascus, stressed that there was no “revolution” in 2012 and rather it was an attempt by some countries to implement their agendas which proved to be unachievable in Syria.

    Filipi said “what is going on in Syria is a proxy regional and international war”. She added that “though many strategic experts in the West had realized what kind of situation will be created in Syria, western countries insisted to press ahead with their schemes to impose the changes they want.”

    Her comments were said during a debate on the current developments in the Middle East organized by the Czech Institute 2080.

    Kerry Cries “Foul” For Failed Ceasefire, After US Fighter/Bombers Destroy It

    [ Syria war ceasefire: Assad army declares peace deal over with no promise of renewal ]

    [After pretending that the American murder of 80 Syrian soldiers did not happen, or did not matter, Kerry is now howling that Russia must hold up its end of the Syrian peacemaking and enforce a non-existent ceasefire.  He is making a big stink over attacks upon an aid convoy to Aleppo, blaming Russian and Syrian airstrikes, even though it is his Free Syrian Army terrorists who are attacking the convoy and blocking it on the highway (Rebels send more fighters to block humanitarian aid to Aleppo).]

    United States Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during the Summit for Refugees and Migrants at U.N. headquarters, Monday, Sept. 19, 2016. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

    US says Russia must step up if Syria truce is to be salvaged


    Associated Press

    NEW YORK (AP) — The United States is demanding that Russia live up to its commitments in Syria’s fractured week-old truce. This comes after the Syrian military announced it was over amid numerous violations, including an attack on an aid convoy, and apparent Russian unwillingness to press Damascus on the point.

    The latest developments placed added importance on a meeting Tuesday of the International Syria Support Group, or ISSG. The group is comprised of countries with a stake in the conflict and endorsed the truce, and is led by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

    Kerry called the convoy attack an “egregious violation” of the cease-fire and said the U.S. “will reassess the future prospects for cooperation with Russia.”

    TTP Continues To Wage War On Pak Army From Afghanistan

    Three men gunned down in Peshawar attack

    express tribune

    Investigators collect evidence from the sight of a targetted attack on security personnel in Gari Sohbat Khan area of Peshawar on Sunday. PHOTO: EXPRESS

    Investigators collect evidence from the sight of a targetted attack on security personnel in Gari Sohbat Khan area of Peshawar on Sunday. PHOTO: EXPRESS

    PESHAWAR / ISLAMABAD: Three men employed by the army in civilian capacity were gunned down in the outskirts of Peshawar on Sunday, in what appeared to be a targeted attack.

    “Three people have been shot dead in Landy Sarak in Khazana area,” SP Shaukat Khan told The Express Tribune. “The men, believed to be working at an army mess, were travelling in a white Suzuki Bolan when they were targeted by armed motorcyclists.”


    Talking to The Express Tribune a security forces official said all the three men were residents of Punjab and had been employed by the army, in civilian capacity, to supply milk to different units and messes of the army-owned dairy farm located in Khazana.

    Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the military said the matter was being looked into and details would be shared soon.

    Curfew imposed in Mohmand day after suicide attack kills 28

    Investigators, who collected evidence from the spot, told The Express Tribune that bullets of 9mm and 30bore pistol were found from the site.

    “From the surface, it seems like a case of a targeted attack. The attackers were on motorbikes who intercepted the vehicle,” they said and added that the investigation was underway and a final conclusion will be made after all evidence is collected.

    A heavy contingent of police and the military arrived at the site of the incident and cordoned of the area. Areas which fall under the jurisdiction of Khazana police have been the most volatile areas in the current year with many incidents of target killing of police and security personnel traced back to the same areas.

    The deceased have been identified as Iqbal, Abdul Rehman and Farid.

    TTP claims responsibility

    A breakaway faction of the proscribed Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Jamatul Ahrar, claimed responsibility for Sunday’s attack. The group’s spokesperson, Ehsaanullah Ehsan, said in a statement that the TTP JA gunmen carried out the attack.

    The Islamic State militant group also claimed the attack through its Amaq news agency.

    Crazy Redhead Ridicules Russian Response To US ISIS Support

    Timing, Other Aspects of US Strike on Syrian Army Suggest Intentional Provocation: Churkin

    tasnim news


    TEHRAN (Tasnim) – The US’ sudden attempt to “help” the Syrian army fighting Deash (ISIL) in the eastern city of Deir ez-Zor, which resulted in a strike that killed and injured dozens of soldiers, does not look like an honest mistake, Russia’s UN envoy told journalists at the UNSC meeting.

    “It is highly suspicious that the United States chose to conduct this particular air strike at this time,” Russia’s ambassador Vitaly Churkin said.

    Churkin questioned why the US suddenly chose to “help” the Syrian army defend Deir ez-Zor after all these years, recalling how American forces just observed terrorists’ movements and did “nothing when Daesh advanced on Palmyra.”

    “It was quite significant and not accidental that it happened just two days before the Russian-American arrangements were supposed to come into full force,” Churkin added, Russia Today reported.

    Churkin also questioned why the US decided to classify and not share with the public or even members of the Security Council the text of the US-Russia deal reached in Geneva, before reading out two passages from the document.

    The preamble of the document signed by both nations on September 9 read that the US and Russia are prepared to undertake “joint efforts” to stabilize the situation in Syria with special emphasis on the Aleppo region, and would separate moderate opposition forces from those of Al-Nusra. The second passage, presented by Churkin, read that the purpose of the Joint Implementation Group (JIG) is to “enable expanded coordination” between the US and Russia to work together to defeat Jabhat Al-Nusra and Daesh and support the political transition process.

    “The beginning of work of the Joint Implementation Group was supposed to be September 19. So if the US wanted to conduct an effective strike on Al-Nusra or Daesh, in Deir ez-Zor or anywhere else, they could wait two more days and coordinate with our military and be sure that they are striking the right people.”

    “Instead they chose to conduct this reckless operation,” Churkin said.

    He also noted that the US has been voicing its concern over the humanitarian situation in Syria, claiming that because of it, “there are no conditions to start implementing the arrangements of the Joint Implementation Group.” But the Syrian government cleared all obstacles for the humanitarian aid it be delivered, leaving the US with “no serious ground” to halt or postpone the start date of the JIG’s work.

    “So it may well be, one has to conclude, that the airstrike has been conducted in order to distrust the operation of the Joint Implementation Group and actually not to allow it to be set in motion,” Churkin said. “It may well be that the United States is trying to hide the fact that they are actually not in control of the situation, that they allowed the situation to get out of control.”

    Vitaly Churkin spoke to journalists after briefly leaving the closed-door UN Security Council meeting, which was convened by Moscow to give Washington a chance to offer an explanation for the actions of its military.

    However, instead of discussing the issue, US ambassador Samantha Power immediately left the room to address the press and accuse Russia of hypocrisy.

    The US envoy to the UN spent some 30 seconds expressing “regret” over the unfortunate coalition airstrike that resulted in the loss of the lives of Syrian soldiers, and insisting that even if the ongoing investigation proves the US military is indeed to blame, it had never been their “intention” to strike Syrian military.

    After that, Power spent the next 15 minutes slamming Moscow’s “uniquely hypocritical and cynical” attempt to make Washington explain itself at an urgent UNSC meeting.

    “Why are we having this meeting tonight? It is a diversion from what is happening on the ground. If you don’t like what is happening on the ground then you distract. It is a magician’s trick… we encourage the Russian Federation to have emergency meetings with the Assad regime and deliver them to this deal,” said Samantha Power.

    “What Russia is alleging tonight is that somehow the United States is undermining the fighting against ISIL. The Russian spokesperson even said that the United States might be complicit in this attack … this is not a game,” she added, before going into details of how Assad government is to blame for the dire situation in Syria.

    US Deir el-Zour Airstrike Either “criminal negligence and direct connivance with Islamic State terrorists”

    [ISIS evidently knew which jets to shoot-down that day, since it gave American/Coalition attack jets a “free pass,” while its SAM-equipped forces waited for a Syrian jet to show-up.  ISIS boasted about the downing of the jet in Deir Ezzor on their media network, Amaq News, which, mysteriously, can only be accessed by the Zionist SITE website.]

    Islamic State shot down a Syrian military plane in the eastern Syrian city of Deir al-Zor, the Islamic State-affiliated news agency Amaq said on Sunday”

    [Powers then goes berserk, outraged at the audacity of the Russians for trying to make the ceasefire last.]

    US Outraged By Russian Reaction to Mistaken Bombing of Syrian Troops


    samantha-power-the-u-s-ambassador-to-the-united-nations This ugly, red-headed skank represents the United States at the UN, tonight calling this security council meeting “a stunt replete with moralism and grand-standing is uniquely cynical and hypocritical.”

    U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power tonight blasted Russia for calling an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council in response to a U.S.-led coalition airstrike that mistakenly killed over 60 Syrian regime troops, and wounded 100 more, according to numbers provided by the Russian Defense Ministry.

    Speaking at the U.N headquarters in New York, Power said “even by Russia’s standards, tonight’s stunt, a stunt replete with moralism and grand-standing is uniquely cynical and hypocritical.”

    Earlier today the Russians had to call off U.S.-led airstrikes inside Syria that struck a convoy of Russian-backed Syrian troops. The U.S. Central Command later released a statement acknowledging the strikes, saying it had warned Russia in advance of the impending strikes in the area.

    Also tonight a senior Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the U.S. had expressed regret today to the Syrian regime.

    “The United States has relayed our regret through the Russian Federation for the unintentional loss of life of Syrian forces fighting ISIL,” this official said. “The U.S. will continue to pursue compliance with the Cessation of Hostilities as we continue military action against ISIL and Al Qaida.”

    Power derided Russia’s decision to hold an emergency meeting following the strikes, saying essentially that Russia has turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the regime of Bashar al-Assad, including the bombing of his own people and his unwillingness to allow access to humanitarian aid.

    “Imagine if we gathered every time they blocked vital aid from reaching children who are eating leaves… leaves… so they do not starve to death,” Power said.

    “And yet in the face of none of these atrocities has Russia expressed outrage nor has it demanded investigations nor has it ever called for a Saturday night emergency consultation in the Security Council or a Monday day or a Tuesday day or a Wednesday day, Thursday day, Friday day, Saturday, Sunday — you name it,” she said.

    This very public feud between Russia and the United States comes as the two countries are forced to work together to maintain a very fragile, nationwide cease-fire in Syria that they helped put into effect on Monday.

    Senior leaders from all members of the United Nations will be in New York this week for the United Nations General Assembly, and it is almost certain the Russians and the United States will meet again in the coming days.


    4-Man Fedayeen Squad Kills 17 Indian Solders In Kashmir

    Uri terror attack: 17 soldiers killed, 19 injured in strike on Army camp

    times of india

    TNN & Agencies

    NEW DELHI: Terrorists have killed 17 Army soldiers and injured 19 in a suicide attack on an Army camp in Kashmir+ . Four terrorists struck the camp close to the headquarter of the 12th Brigade at Uri in Baramulla District. This makes it one of the deadliest terrorist strikes on security forces in recent times.

    To put the death toll in perspective, seven military personnel had been killed in the Pathankot terror attack in January 2016. The attack on the Indian Air Force base there has since become a major international diplomatic incident.

    The high number of casualties in the Uri terror attack could be attributed to the fact that a large number of soldiers, from the Dogra Regiment, had been stationed at the camp in tents and other temporary structures. Some of these tents caught fire during the attack, and the fire spread to other parts of the barracks. The soldiers had been stationed there as they were turning over from a tour of duty.

    Four heavily armed terrorists struck the camp around 4 am. They have been neutralized by the Army, and combing operations are presently underway to sanitize the area.

    It is believed that the Uri terror attack was the handiwork of a terrorists who infiltrated across the Line of Control (LoC) from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), who might have entered along the Salamabad Nallah into Uri.

    The attack comes two years after terrorists carried out a similar type of attack at Mohra, in the same region. Ten security personnel were killed in the attack that took place on December 5, 2014.

    Helicopters from the Army’s 19th Division headquarters in Baramulla have been pressed into service to evacuate injured personnel.

    Army chief General Dalbir Singh Suhag and Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar are set to visit Kashmir and are expected to meet soldiers injured in the Uri terror attack.

    Let Us Rid the World of Wahhabism

    Mohammad Javad Zarif: Let Us Rid the World of Wahhabism

    new york times logo


    Tehran — Public relations firms with no qualms about taking tainted petrodollars are experiencing a bonanza. Their latest project has been to persuade us that the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, is no more. As a Nusra spokesman told CNN, the rebranded rebel group, supposedly separated from its parent terrorist organization, has become “moderate.”

    Thus is fanaticism from the Dark Ages sold as a bright vision for the 21st century. The problem for the P.R. firms’ wealthy, often Saudi, clients, who have lavishly funded Nusra, is that the evidence of their ruinous policies can’t be photoshopped out of existence. If anyone had any doubt, the recent video images of other “moderates” beheading a 12-year-old boy were a horrifying reality check.

    Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, militant Wahhabism has undergone a series of face-lifts, but underneath, the ideology remains the same — whether it’s the Taliban, the various incarnations of Al Qaeda or the so-called Islamic State, which is neither Islamic nor a state. But the millions of people faced with the Nusra Front’s tyranny are not buying the fiction of this disaffiliation. Past experience of such attempts at whitewashing points to the real aim: to enable the covert flow of petrodollars to extremist groups in Syria to become overt, and even to lure Western governments into supporting these “moderates.” The fact that Nusra still dominates the rebel alliance in Aleppo flouts the public relations message.

    محمدجواد ظریف: بیایید جهان را از وهابیت خلاص کنیم

    سعودی ها میلیاردها دلار صرف صدور این انحراف افراطی ازدین کرده اند. این باید متوقف شود.

    Credit Oliver Munday

    Saudi Arabia’s effort to persuade its Western patrons to back its shortsighted tactics is based on the false premise that plunging the Arab world into further chaos will somehow damage Iran. The fanciful notions that regional instability will help to “contain” Iran, and that supposed rivalries between Sunni and Shiite Muslims are fueling conflicts, are contradicted by the reality that the worst bloodshed in the region is caused by Wahhabists fighting fellow Arabs and murdering fellow Sunnis.

    While these extremists, with the backing of their wealthy sponsors, have targeted Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Shiites and other “heretics,” it is their fellow Sunni Arabs who have been most beleaguered by this exported doctrine of hate. Indeed, it is not the supposed ancient sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites but the contest between Wahhabism and mainstream Islam that will have the most profound consequences for the region and beyond.

    While the 2003 American-led invasion of Iraq set in motion the fighting we see today, the key driver of violence has been this extremist ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia — even if it was invisible to Western eyes until the tragedy of 9/11.

    The princes in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, have been desperate to revive the regional status quo of the days of Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq, when a surrogate repressive despot, eliciting wealth and material support from fellow Arabs and a gullible West, countered the so-called Iranian threat. There is only one problem: Mr. Hussein is long dead, and the clock cannot be turned back.

    The sooner Saudi Arabia’s rulers come to terms with this, the better for all. The new realities in our region can accommodate even Riyadh, should the Saudis choose to change their ways.

    What would change mean? Over the past three decades, Riyadh has spent tens of billions of dollars exporting Wahhabism through thousands of mosques and madrasas across the world. From Asia to Africa, from Europe to the Americas, this theological perversion has wrought havoc. As one former extremist in Kosovo told The Times, “The Saudis completely changed Islam here with their money.”

    Though it has attracted only a minute proportion of Muslims, Wahhabism has been devastating in its impact. Virtually every terrorist group abusing the name of Islam — from Al Qaeda and its offshoots in Syria to Boko Haram in Nigeria — has been inspired by this death cult.

    So far, the Saudis have succeeded in inducing their allies to go along with their folly, whether in Syria or Yemen, by playing the “Iran card.” That will surely change, as the realization grows that Riyadh’s persistent sponsorship of extremism repudiates its claim to be a force for stability.

    The world cannot afford to sit by and witness Wahhabists targeting not only Christians, Jews and Shiites but also Sunnis. With a large section of the Middle East in turmoil, there is a grave danger that the few remaining pockets of stability will be undermined by this clash of Wahhabism and mainstream Sunni Islam

    There needs to be coordinated action at the United Nations to cut off the funding for ideologies of hate and extremism, and a willingness from the international community to investigate the channels that supply the cash and the arms. In 2013, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, proposed an initiative called World Against Violent Extremism, or WAVE. The United Nations should build on that framework to foster greater dialogue between religions and sects to counter this dangerous medieval fanaticism.

    The attacks in Nice, Paris and Brussels should convince the West that the toxic threat of Wahhabism cannot be ignored. After a year of almost weekly tragic news, the international community needs to do more than express outrage, sorrow and condolences; concrete action against extremism is needed.

    Though much of the violence committed in the name of Islam can be traced to Wahhabism, I by no means suggest that Saudi Arabia cannot be part of the solution. Quite the reverse: We invite Saudi rulers to put aside the rhetoric of blame and fear, and join hands with the rest of the community of nations to eliminate the scourge of terrorism and violence that threatens us all.

    US Airstrike Kills 62 Syrian Army Troops, Then ISIS Attacks Army Position

    US-led coalition aircraft strike Syrian army positions, kill 62 soldiers – military


    US-led coalition jets have bombed Syrian government forces’ positions near the eastern city of Deir ez-Zor, killing 62 troops and “paving the way” for Islamic State militants, the Syrian Army General Command told the state television.

    The bombing took place on al-Tharda Mountain in the region of Deir ez-Zor and caused casualties and destruction on the ground, Syria’s official SANA news agency reported on Saturday.

    Sixty-two Syrian soldiers were killed and over 100 injured in the airstrike by the US-led coalition, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman, Major-General Igor Konashenkov, said, citing information received from the Syrian General Command.

    The Russian Defense Ministry said that the aircraft which carried out the bombings had entered Syrian airspace from the territory of Iraq.

    Four strikes against Syrian positions was performed by two F-16 jet fighters and two A-10 support aircraft, it added.

    “If the airstrike was caused by the wrong coordinates of targets than it’s a direct consequence of the stubborn unwillingness of the American side to coordinate with Russia in its actions against terrorist groups in Syria,” Konashenkov stressed.

    The Defense Ministry also confirmed a report by SANA that an Islamic State offensive began right after Syrian Army positions were hit from the air.

    “Immediately after the airstrike by coalition planes, Islamic State militants launched their offensive. Fierce fighting with the terrorists is currently underway in the area of the airport where for a long a time humanitarian aid for civilians was parachuted,” Konashenkov said.]

    [The general command of the Syrian Army statement said,

    “This work is a serious and flagrant aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic and its army and conclusive evidence on the United States and its allies support for the organization,” Daesh “terrorist and other other terrorist organizations and exposes the falsity of their claims in the fight against terrorism.”]

    According to a news release of the US Department of Defense, the coalition’s aviation performed combat missions in Deir ez-Zor on Saturday.

    “We are aware of the reports and checking with Centcom and CJTF (Combined Joint Task Force),” the Pentagon told RT.

    The US Central Command later has issued a statement, saying that it had no intention of targeting Syrian government forces near Deir ez-Zor.

    “Syria is a complex situation with various military forces and militias in close proximity, but [the] coalition would not intentionally strike a known Syrian military unit,” the statement read.

    CENTCOM promised that the strike and circumstances surrounding it will be reviewed “to see if any lesson can be learned.”

    An unnamed US military official told Reuters that he was “pretty sure” that the targets hit in US-led coalition air strike on Saturday had been Syrian forces.

    According to the official, the bombings in Deir ez-Zor were carried out using US intelligence, which was being gathered for days.

    The US attack stopped as soon as Russia notified the American side that they had been hitting the Syrian military, he added.

    Earlier on Saturday, Russia accused the US of being reluctant to take measures to force rebels under its control to fall in line with the terms of the Syrian ceasefire.

    Numerous Russian appeals to the American side remain unanswered, which “raises doubts over the US’s ability to influence opposition groups under their control and their willingness to further ensure the implementation of the Geneva agreements,” senior Russian General Staff official, Viktor Poznikhir, said.

    Poznikhir also said that the truce is being used by the militants to regroup, resupply and prepare an offensive against government troops.

    Last week, Moscow and Washington agreed to influence the Syrian government and the so-called moderate rebel forces respectively in order to establish a ceasefire in the country.

    Since then, Russia has repeatedly complained that the US is failing to keep its part of the bargain. The US, on its part, has blamed Russia for not pressuring Damascus enough to facilitate humanitarian access to Syria.

    Neither a mistaken nor a deliberate strike can be ruled out, Kamal Alam from the Royal United Service Institute, told RT when asked to comment on the incident.

    There’s a possibility “that it’s a genuine mistake and the Americans in going after IS have gone after the Syrian military… because Dier ez-Zor city is under the Syrain Arab Army, but the rest of the districts are all under IS,” he said.

    But it’s “a lot more dangerous” if the US had been “attacking the Syrian military to make the moderates happy,” Alam stressed, recalling recent reports of militants chasing the American Special Forces, which Washington interpreted as a signed of diminishing support from the Syrian opposition.”

    Writer Thinks “War On Terror” Is American Scam

    [The Brit Independent ran a translated version of part of this Egyptian Opinion piece, but I think that Goog Trans. gets the writer’s thoughts through sufficiently.  Most of the article is given below, all can be accessed through the title link.]

    Do not fool us so much?!


    Is it possible to believe the official version for the US government the events of September 11, 2001 ?! Is it a coincidence that the leaders of September atheist attack people received lessons in the American aeronautics institutes?! According the American government to the official version, the first attack was at about 8:46 pm New York time and targeted the north tower of the World Trade Center and after quarter of an hour at approximately 9:03, collided with another aircraft building south tower of the World Trade Center after more than half the time, hit a third plane into the Pentagon, while the fourth plane misfires and crashed … Does it make sense to move the four hijacked planes, with all this freedom and penetrate American airspace and hit the US World trade Center and the Pentagon towers one by one with a time lag first arrived more than 15 minutes the second time and the difference It has reached more than half an hour … and that is all of the above without targeting aircraft and eliminated despite intelligence, satellites and radars America … or that it was premeditated to justify the war on terror that began the series of episodes in Iraq?!

    Is it possible that most of those who belong to Daesh foreign Or that Daesh are other novel and the story orchestrated to justify what is happening and what will be implemented in the Middle East and the destruction of the division and occupation?! Do you remember me from the shapes and sizes were told that they were Daesh who has broadcast video cameraman them they are being slaughtered because they were told a group of Egyptian Christians in Libya? It was it not strange that all members of the group Aldaashah featuring the same height and the same color and the whites are all dressed in the same type of foreign finest hours?!

    Are they being killed, and accused of terrorist attacks in Western countries; representing the defendants leave or are there points of intelligence Western behind what is happening from the attacks and bombings are arrested Muslim citizens and liquidated later charged with simply implementing the incident to justify what is happening as the war on terrorism in the Arab states and justify as well as the persecution and expulsion of Muslims from America and Europe scheme?! … Is it already is to trick us to this point?!

    Weaponized Hindutva Press Slams Pakistani “Deep State”

    [cache only]

    India slams Pakistan’s ‘deep state’ as both face off over Kashmir at UN


    India slams Pakistan's 'deep state' as both face off over Kashmir at UN

    Geneva/New Delhi, Sep 17 (IANS) India and Pakistan continued to trade diplomatic barbs over Kashmir at the UN Human Rights Council, with Islamabad raising the issue of “unceasing oppression” even as New Delhi hit back, saying “Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is administered by a “deep state” and also raked up alleged human rights violations in Balochistan.

    A day after both sides were locked in a diplomatic stand-off over Kashmir, ahead of Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s address to the 71st session of the UN General Assembly, the exchange continued at the 33rd Session of the UN Human Rights Council.

    Under the Right to Reply, India countered Pakistan for raising the issue of alleged human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, terming its “unsolicited and unwarranted comments” as “factually incorrect and bear no relationship to reality”.

    India slammed Pakistan for continually referring to the UN Security Council Resolutions on Jammu & Kashmir, saying that Islamabad “very conveniently forgets its own obligation under these resolutions which is to acefirst vacate the illegal occupation of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir”. It also accused Pakistan of “blatantly disregarding” its commitments under the 1972 Simla Agreement, the 2004 Joint Declaration foreswearing terrorism, and the understanding reached at Ufa, Russia,in 2015.

    India countered Pakistan for saying that Jammu and Kashmir was under foreign occupation, saying “Yes, a part of it is, and the occupier in question is Pakistan”.

    It said that the “foremost challenge to stability in Kashmir is the scourge of terrorism, which receives sustenance from Pakistan and the territories under Pakistan’s control”.

    India said it has handed over “Concrete evidence about cross-border encouragement and support for the protests in Kashmir” to Pakistan, but instead of trying to address the issue, “Pakistan resorts to short-sighted tactics to divert attention”.

    “Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is administered by a deep state and has become an epicentre of terrorism. Pakistan’s human rights record in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir and Balochistan is deplorable. It has had no hesitation in using air power and artillery against its own people, not once but repeatedly over the years.AIt is high time for Pakistan to do some deep introspection,” India said.

    It urged Pakistan to focus on “improving human rights situation and dismantling the terrorism infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir”.

    Under its Second Right to Reply, India slammed Pakistan, saying it was ironical that a nation “that has established a well earned reputation of being the global epicentre of terrorism” was holding forth on human rights.

    “In the last two decades, the most wanted terrorists of the world have found succor and sustenance in Pakistan. This tradition unfortunately continues even today, not surprising when its government employs terrorism as an instrument of state policy,” it said.

    India said the current unrest in Jammu and Kashmir began after the death “in police action of a self-proclaimed terrorist commander of Hizbul Mujahideen with links to the adeep state’ across the border”.

    “Since then, we have seen continuous flow of terrorists trained and armed by our neighbour and convincing proof that they have been tasked with creating incidents that would lead to casualties in the civilian population,a India said.

    “There cannot be a more cynical policy that targets the very people for whom such deep concern is professed.”

    It said the pervasive practice of terrorism was also hurting neighbors.

    “In fact, Pakistan is a nation that practises terrorism on its own people. The sufferings of the people of Balochistan are a telling testimony in this regard. Not coincidentally, this region also serves as a base to conduct terrorism and violate human rights in a neighbouring country.”

    India urged the UN Human Rights Council to take a “clear cut stance against the egregious violation of human rights through state-sponsored terrorism”.

    Nearly 90 Apeople have died in clashes with security forces in Jammu and Kashmir in the aftermath of the killing of Hizbul commander Burhan Wani.

    The sharp exchanges come as Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif met leaders of the Hurriyat in Pakistan-Administered Kashmir, with the aim of raising the issue of alleged human rights violations in Kashmir at the UNGA.

    © 2016 IANS India Private Limited.

    Mohmand Mosque Attack Is Taliban On Anti-Taliban Violence

    [This is a highly unusual suicide-bombing, in that the mosque targeted in the attack was Sunni, leading one to think that the bombers were Shia “terrorists.”  That is, until the Sunni TTP-offshoot, which is “sympathetic to ISIS”, takes credit for the attack, claiming that the target was another anti-Taliban tribal Lashkar.]

    Mohmand Agency blast death toll rises to 25–September 16,2016   Friday prayer in a masjid (mosque) situated in Payee Khan [or Butmaina] Village of Tehsil Ambar, Mohmand Agency

    Boston Globe

    KHAR, Pakistan — A suicide bomber attacked a Sunni mosque in northwest Pakistan on Friday, killing at least 24 worshipers and wounding 28 others, officials said. Several children were also among those killed or wounded in the deadly attack.

    A breakaway Taliban group later claimed responsibility for the bombing.

    The attacker shouted ‘‘God is Great’’ as he entered the mosque in the village of Ambar in Pakistan’s Mohmand tribal region, government administrator Naveed Akbar said. He said rescuers had transported the dead and wounded to nearby hospitals, where some of the wounded were listed in critical condition.

    Akbar said about 200 worshipers were inside the mosque at the time of attack.

    Pashin Gul, the head of local tribal police, confirmed that it was a suicide attack. He said the bombing took place during Friday prayers, adding that several of the wounded were in a critical condition.

    Ahsanullah Ahsan, a spokesman for Jamaat-ul-Ahrar — the breakaway Taliban faction — claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement to media. He claimed the attacker targeted members of a pro-government militia.

    Saeed Khan, in charge of the hospital in the town of Khar, said an army helicopter was being used to transport the critically wounded to Peshawar, the main city in northwestern Pakistan.

    One of the wounded, 41-year-old Ghulam Khan, said he heard a deafening explosion during the prayers and then he fell down. ‘‘I cried for help, but no one came to me . . . there were other bodies . . . wounded worshipers, who were reciting verses from Koran and waiting for help,’’ he told the Associated Press from his hospital bed.

    Associated Press

    Obama Threw Away All Progress In Afghanistan and Iraq

    [The following article by an Australian military expert (who also advised Petraeus in Iraq) discusses the nearly terminal damage done to Afghan military/police progress by Obama’s 2-yr. “withdrawal” ploy.  Obama used the Taliban violence, which was certain to plague Afghanistan, as a lever to pry the Afghan govt. off of its firm position of refusing to allow the Pentagon to run roughshod over Afghanistan and the region…FOREVER.  What Obama (and Hillary) did in both Afghanistan and in Iraq amounted to political terrorism–

    Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence (terror) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. It is classified as fourth-generation warfare and as a violent crime.”

    Barack Obama, the lawyer, runs a foreign policy based on lies, threats, bribery and pure guile.  Both the Karzai govt. in Afghanistan and the Maliki govt in Iraq refused to sign the open-ended “security pacts” that Obama was openly struggling to force upon them.  Obama then used the inevitable violence and the threat of violence from their native insurgencies to coerce the successor govts of those two occupied countries.  He took actions intended to open the tap of violence.  The result should be obvious today to anyone paying attention. 

    The following article describes, in detail, some of the unnecessary, unavoidable tragedies which have befallen Afghanistan as a direct result of Barack Obama’s decision to use political terrorism as a tool of “diplomacy” against the National Unity Govt (NUG) of Ashraf Ghani and that of its predecessor, Hamid Karzai.  All of this wasting of progress and lives, just to create the impression that the govt was free to sign the open-ended, “bilateral security agreement” with the United States, if it served Afghan interests, even though the agreement clearly did not. 

    Now that the US has its piece of paper, Afghanistan will receive what it needs most…AIR SUPPORT…IF it serves American interests.  The only thing that will get help for Afghanistan now, is public outrage, of sufficient volume as to force Obama’s hand in this election year, demanding that he risk American property and lives, to help the embattled Afghan forces, as needed, as agreed to.]

    Hard and soft approach to fight Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan

    the Australian

    Two weeks ago the Taliban very nearly captured Tarin Kowt, capital of Oruzgan province in southeastern Afghanistan.

    At dawn on September 5, well-armed guerillas assaulted the town’s outskirts, quickly overran the defences and forced provincial officials to flee to the airport. Police headquarters were besieged, 15 checkpoints were abandoned without a fight and hundreds of civilians were driven from their homes. Taliban fighters posted video of themselves looting and burning buildings, and searching house to house for government supporters. It took multiple airstrikes by US, NATO and Afghan warplanes to stave off a collapse.

    Lieutenant General Abdul Raziq, police chief of neighbouring Kandahar province, led a column of Afghan National Police to Tarin Kowt to relieve the siege. Supported by the aircraft and fighting alongside army reinforcements hastily flown to the airstrip, they managed to push back the Taliban and clear most of the town. But by week’s end, after four days of fighting, Taliban fighters were counter-attacking — allegedly using civilians as human shields — and still held areas in the city’s outskirts.

    Afghan spokesmen initially claimed heavy Taliban casualties, but later admitted government troops were exhausted, running out of ammunition and effectively encircled.

    Raziq — who, though technically a provincial police chief, has such a fearsome reputation that his force informally has become Kabul’s rapid-reaction force across southern Afghanistan, rushing from crisis to crisis as needed — announced he planned to stay in Tarin Kowt until the town was stabilised.

    But one Afghan officer told me with a shrug that he expected a fresh Taliban assault as soon as Raziq and his police left and the aircraft were diverted to the next battle.

    Australia spent seven years and millions of dollars rebuilding Oruzgan. Forty-two Australian soldiers were killed and 261 wounded in Afghanistan, which at the height of our commitment was the fourth largest recipient of Australian aid in the world.

    Less than three years after the Australians left, all but one of Oruzgan’s districts is Taliban-contested or controlled, and opium cultivation is booming. The 4th Brigade of the 205th Corps — the Afghan unit that was the focus of Australian men­toring from 2006 to 2013 — took little part in the defence of Tarin Kowt.

    Oruzgan is no exception: Afghan forces are fighting simultaneous battles in 15 of Afghanistan’s 34 prov­inces. Whatever their bravery — and there are many courageous, competent soldiers and police in Afghanistan — the challenge is one of scale and simultaneity. There simply aren’t the resources to go around, or troops to defend every threatened point.

    It’s two years this month since the agreement that brought to office Afghanistan’s present national unity government, and one year since the Taliban captured Kunduz, a key northern provincial capital and the first city to fall to the insurgents in the entire war to date. Afghan troops, assisted by US Special Forces, recaptured Kunduz after weeks of fighting.

    But the situation has been looking increasingly shaky ever since, just as world attention has drifted elsewhere. And as the campaign against Islamic State has escalated in the Middle East, many of the same assets needed in Afghanistan are being ­diverted to Iraq and Syria, making this year’s campaign particularly precarious.

    The crisis has been a long time coming. Each year since 2012, the last campaign season in which NATO and coalition troops carried the main combat burden against the Taliban, the insurgents have mounted an increasingly determined offensive.

    Each year, as foreign forces have gradually withdrawn, Afghan forces have almost — not quite — held their own. But each year’s campaign has seen the government start from slightly further behind while suffering costs — in money, equipment, casualties and desertions — it can’t sustain in the long term.

    In multiple interviews during the past several months with Afghan friends, officials and academics speaking by phone from Kabul, members of the international advisory mission, and expert observers elsewhere, four issues have consistently emerged to explain the decline. The first is political fragility in Kabul.
    Political fragility
    In September 2014, Hamid Karzai achieved the first non-violent handover between presidents in Afghan history, brokering a compromise between Ashraf Ghani (a former finance minister and World Bank official from the Pashtun ethnic group) and former foreign minister Abdullah, a veteran Northern Alliance commander and Tajik leader.

    Abdullah had challenged Ghani in the 2014 presidential election; after Ghani won the vote, Abdullah’s allies disputed the outcome. In the event, the agreement gave Ghani the presidency while Abdullah took the new title of chief executive. This delicate compromise averted the immediate confrontation.

    It also created the national unity government, letting NATO and its partners (including Australia) declare an end to combat operations in December 2014 and transition to the present “advise and assist” posture, the so-called “light footprint” approach, with far less expenditure and far fewer troops on the ground. But the agreement was for only two years. It expires on Monday and Afghanistan’s leaders have argued over it in recent weeks, with Abdullah publicly declaring Ghani “unfit to hold office”.

    The quid pro quo for Abdullah’s acquiescence was to have been electoral reform, local elections, and a loya jirga (national assembly) to consider constitutional changes converting Abdullah into an executive prime minister. None of that happened: Abdullah claims he has been excluded from decision-making while Ghani delays elections, stacks government with proteges and fellow Pashtuns, and rules without parliamentary checks. Now Abdullah and his supporters — including governors and warlords such as Ismail Khan and Atta Mohammed Nur, as well as Amrullah Saleh, the powerful former head of Afghanistan’s intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security — want a more equitable deal.

    Ghani’s centralising tendency, his attempts to monopolise power in the presidential palace and his lack of a personal support base within his own Pashtun community have made people question his motives, turning Abdullah’s followers into a broad political opposition, according to an Afghan friend who runs a well-regarded news service in Kabul and often speaks with Abdullah supporters. A senior Afghan security official, discussing the Tarin Kowt battle last week, agreed: in his view, lack of political cohesion at the centre of government makes it extremely hard to co-ordinate defences at the provincial and district level.

    Different local officials, loyal to competing factions in Kabul, are unwilling to share information, pool their resources or co-operate tactically in the face of the rising insurgent threat.

    This is a particularly acute problem when it comes to co-ordination among the three critical agencies of the Afghan security forces: the army, police and NDS. In Kunduz last year, a poisonous disagreement over local militias between the provincial governor (a Ghani appointee) and the chief of police (an Abdullah supporter) was a key factor in the loss of the town. Lack of army-police co-ordination also seems to have played a role in the near-disaster at Tarin Kowt.

    For his part, responding to Abdullah’s criticisms, Ghani says security in the countryside simply hasn’t permitted elections or government reform. Whatever his motives, he’s not wrong about that — deteriorating provincial security is the second factor on which virtually all Afghans agree.

    Insecurity in the provinces

    The loss of Kunduz was a shock to the roughly 70 per cent of Afghans who support the government, and not just because it was the first city the insurgents had captured. Kunduz also carried a historical echo: it was the first provincial capital seized by the mujaheddin after the Soviets withdrew in 1989, beginning a period of chaos that led to civil war, spawned the Taliban, drew in al-Qa’ida and prompted foreign invasion after 9/11. So when the Taliban again seized Kunduz, nine months after the formal end of NATO’s combat mission, this sent a disturbing message to Afghans that history was repeating itself.

    Likewise, the size and professionalism of the Taliban force that captured Kunduz (1500 well-armed and disciplined fighters, in three columns with vehicles and heavy weapons) shocked observers, demonstrating that even after 15 years of war the insurgents still could put up a capable force. So though the city eventually was recaptured, last year’s battle triggered a loss of confidence, especially among junior comman­ders and ordinary troops. That loss of confidence was exacerbated by a succession of military defeats in the months that followed.

    About the time Kunduz fell, a local faction of Islamic State emerged in Afghanistan with simultaneous attacks on police stations in Nangarhar, in the country’s east. The group, which has declared a province, or wilayat, for Afghanistan and Pakistan, has since claimed responsibility for a string of brutal attacks on Afghan civilians, including a suicide bombing in Kabul in July that killed 80 members of the Hazara ethnic minority. Despite the death of its Pakistani chief, Hafiz Saeed Khan, in a US strike last month, Islamic State remains a battlefield force and a potent political presence. Its brutal beheadings and use of child suicide bombers also set it apart for its cruelty.

    Then in December, 215th Corps, in the southern province of Helmand, suffered a series of losses as the Taliban captured district after district, threatening the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah. The guerilla offensive continued into this year — a few weeks ago Lashkar Gah was almost fully encircled, it was impossible for pro-government civilians to move safely on the roads outside the city, and so much of Helmand was Taliban-controlled that lawmakers in Kabul warned the entire province was on the verge of collapse. This prompted an influx of US troops, and an emergency surge of strike aircraft and special forces advisers, but these efforts have yet to turn the tide in Helmand, which remains in a critical condition even as the Taliban renew its offensive against Kunduz.

    These insurgent offensives, simultaneously targeting districts across Afghanistan’s north, east, south and southeast, have been enabled by renewed unity in the Taliban movement — the third main cause of Afghanistan’s deteriorating situation.

    Renewed Taliban unity

    Mullah Omar, the Taliban’s founder, was a recluse who dropped from sight after the US-led invasion in 2001. He governed indirectly through the Rahbari Shura, a council of a dozen Taliban leaders based in the Pakistani city of Quetta, where they benefited from an allegedly close relationship with officers of Pakistan’s Directorate-General for Inter-Services Intelligence.

    Omar’s deputy, Mullah Mohammed Mansoor, exercised increasing control from 2011, silencing dissent by claiming to speak on Omar’s behalf. When it emerged last year that Omar had actually been dead since at least 2013, Mansoor’s credibility was destroyed and his autocratic style, along with his rumoured corruption and his tendency to stack key positions with fellow members of his tribal group, prompted open rebellion from powerful Taliban leaders in Helmand, who fought groups aligned with Mansoor, killing dozens.

    Not for the first time in the war, the US inadvertently solved the Taliban’s problem for it, killing Mansoor in a drone strike in Pakistan in May as he returned from a meeting in Iran.

    Mansoor’s deputy, Mullah Haibatullah Akhundzada, stepped into his shoes and moved to unite the Taliban. Haibatullah is a religious scholar who served as chief justice of the Taliban court system before 2001 and has been responsible for the religious indoctrination of many junior Taliban leaders since, giving him strong ties with local field commanders, something Mansoor and Omar lacked. These relationships helped Haibatullah unify the movement, bringing dissidents back into the fold, enabling this summer’s battlefield successes, and drawing a stark political contrast between the Taliban and the divided leadership in Kabul.

    The Rahbari Shura appointed Mullah Omar’s eldest son, Mohammed Yaqoub, as one of Haibatullah’s two deputies alongside Sirajuddin Haqqani, head of the allegedly ISI-backed Haqqani network. Thus not only is the Taliban more unified than under Mansoor, but its alleged cosy relationship with the Pakistani security ser­vices (and hence its safe haven inside Pakistan) looks more secure than ever.

    That said, some observers consider Haibatullah a placeholder — a transitional leader without a personal following, acceptable to competing factions precisely because he lacks his own power base.

    And as Carter Malkasian (a veteran Afghan analyst and author of one of the best books on the war in Helmand) has noted, the Taliban has a tendency towards unity even in the face of disruptions such as Mansoor’s corruption or the infighting after Omar’s death, because of its roots as a unifying vigilante law and order movement in the chaotic days of the civil war.

    Whatever its source, this renewed Taliban unity links to a fourth factor, one that’s particularly visible in Kabul: the increasing threat to Afghan cities.

    Increasing urban threat

    As mentioned, for most of the conflict so far, Afghanistan’s cities have been safer than the countryside. To be sure, groups such as the Islamic State and the Haqqani Network have mounted urban suicide bombings, assassinations and kidnappings through the years. Likewise, given Afghanistan’s harsh climate, many insurgents traditionally have focused on rural guerilla warfare each summer while switching to urban terror in the winter. But this summer has been different: there has been a spike in attacks against urban centres, including complex attacks involving sophisticated planning and a combination of suicide bombers, ground assault teams, snipers and improvised explosive devices. Kabul has been particularly heavily targeted.

    On August 25, less than a month after Islamic State’s suicide bombing against the Hazaras, Taliban attackers used car bombs, suicide bombers and a ground assault team to penetrate the American University compound in downtown Kabul. They held off security forces for 10 hours, killing or wounding at least 40 students and staff. In the weeks since, multiple car bomb incidents and suicide attacks have caused dozens more deaths in Kabul, targeting the Ministry of Defence, NDS, internationally funded charities and government facilities, markets and busy intersections.

    Kidnappings and drive-by shootings are also on the rise in the capital, contributing to a real perception of increased urban threat.

    The feeling is even worse in cities outside Kabul where, in addition to bombings and terrorist attacks, there’s real fear that provincial capitals may fall to a direct Taliban assault as happened in Kunduz, nearly happened in Tarin Kowt, and looks possible in Lashkar Gah. Kidnapping of expatriates (including two Australians in the past six months) increases the sense of threat.

    Overall, civilian casualties (in both rural and urban areas) are at their highest level for years.

    Responding to the crisis

    Barack Obama’s reaction to the deteriorating situation has been to delay the drawdown of the remaining small contingent of US troops in Afghanistan, which numbers 9800 advisers and specialists. The original goal was to withdraw all but a token contingent by the end of the administration, allowing the President to keep his election commitment to end US involvement in the war.

    After the fall of Kunduz, this timeline was extended into the next US president’s term, with 5500 troops to remain in Afghanistan beyond this year. But after this year’s string of Taliban victories, and on the advice of General John (“Mick”) Nicholson, the hugely experienced US commander in Kabul, Obama decided in July to maintain 8400 troops in country into next year. Besides the decision to keep more advisers in the country, in February and again in July US commanders pushed American combat infantry and special forces teams into the field in Helmand to stiffen 215th Corps in the face of the Taliban offensive.

    But the long-term arithmetic of the battlefield, where Afghan ­forces begin each year in a slightly worse position while Taliban fighters use their Pakistani safe haven to regenerate, suggests that merely delaying the planned withdrawal won’t be enough. Indeed, it was always hard to see the military logic (as distinct from the political calculus) behind Obama’s drawdown: as I wrote at the time, if the Taliban could take Kunduz with 13,000 US troops in the country last year, it was hard to see how half that number could prevent a similar outcome in 2016-17, especially when strike aircraft and other assets were being diverted to Iraq and Syria.

    In fact, so-called “special mission assets” — including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, strike planes, special forces advisers and close air support controllers — are far more important than their numbers would suggest, making overall troop totals a poor proxy for coalition commitment.

    Special mission aircraft, in particular, are hubs and enablers that raise the overall combat capability of a force through only a small number of platforms at a relatively low cost. But today, as coalition and Iraqi forces encircle Mosul ahead of a planned offensive at the end of the year, Syrian rebels move against Islamic State’s self-declared capital at Raqqa and US-backed militias battle Islamic State in Libya, these scarce enablers are in even higher demand outside Afghanistan.

    That demand won’t diminish anytime soon. Just as in Kunduz, history seems to be repeating itself: after the 2001 invasion, with Afghanistan still unstable and the whereabouts of Taliban and al-Qa’ida leaders still unknown, US political leaders began diverting resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. In doing so, they ignored furious objections by ground commanders from the military and CIA, who warned that leaving the job unfinished would open the door to a return of al-Qa’ida and jeopardise the entire mission in Afghanistan.

    The result was a quagmire in Iraq from which the US and its allies, even today, have been unable to escape. It would be an utter tragedy if Afghanistan slips into chaos yet again because essential res­ources again are diverted to Iraq.

    Making the light footprint work

    Obama’s decision to split the difference — neither completing the withdrawal as planned, nor putting in enough resources to turn things around — means whoever is elected as US president this November will face urgent decisions on Afghanistan.

    Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump has expressed any desire to commit additional troops: indeed, Afghanistan has scarcely come up in the presidential campaign, showing how far the war is from politicians’ and, by extension, voters’ minds. But in fact additional troops are not what are needed.

    Instead, a critical level of special mission enablers needs to be kept on hand, with access guaranteed to the Afghan army and police as they fight to keep the Taliban from controlling rural districts and targeting Afghanistan’s cities. Air support, including strike and ISR aircraft, and helicopters for battlefield transportation and medical evacuation, is the most critical asset.

    Special forces advisers and attack controllers, backed up by mobile quick reaction units, are another essential — though this would not require any additional deployment of troops to Afghanistan, merely the maintenance of units already there. Intelligence capability, particularly signals and imagery collection, and advanced analytics will allow effective air-ground co-operation. And logistics, including ammunition, fuel, supply and maintenance, will enable everything else — many posts abandoned in Tarin Kowt fell because the police simply lacked the weapons and ammunition to defend them.

    Military assets on their own won’t be enough to turn things around, though providing a guaranteed minimum of military capability will be critical to stopping the deterioration. Rather, a true turnaround will demand two other things that have been equally lacking in Afghanistan: intensive attention from senior political leaders and sustained effort towards a peace settlement.

    Despite coming in with high hopes of a peace settlement, and some promising signs during early talks with the Taliban, the Obama administration lost focus and progressively was overwhelmed by other issues: Iran, the Arab Spring, Libya, Islamic State, Syria, the Pacific pivot, confrontation with Russia, the South China Sea and the war in Ukraine are just a selection.

    The next administration will need a renewed focus on peace in Afghanistan or at least on putting the Afghan government into the strongest possible negotiating position as it confronts a resurgent Taliban. Major regional powers such as Australia can play a key role, including by helping to marshal support for Afghanistan at events such as the donor conference in Brussels early next month.

    Closer to home, the national unity government is already going through a difficult transition as its initial two-year agreement ends amid sharp disagreements between Ghani and Abdullah.

    Close, continuous attention from senior Western political leaders — foreign ministers and heads of government, not (or not only) ambassadors and envoys — will be needed to help ensure this transition succeeds. This will be an extremely tall order, given longstanding animosities, but will be utterly essential to give civil government officials, police and military commanders the unified political leadership needed to stave off renewed (and inevitable) Taliban offensives.

    All these aspects will be important, but the fundamental requirement — and something only the Afghan military, support by coalition enablers, can provide — is security because without security it doesn’t matter how good our other efforts are. And with this year’s sharp deterioration, it’s clear that business as usual is not working.

    The heavy lifting in Afghanistan — the days of hundreds of thousands of international troops engaged in combat — are well and truly over, with no prospect of return. Instead, the need now is for a relatively tiny (and cheap) investment to enable Afghans to hold on for the long term. If we ignore the danger signs, react too late and fail to make the light footprint work in time, we will not only have failed Afghan families such as those forced to flee their homes in Tarin Kowt, we will have rendered everything spent and suffered since 2001 in vain, and all the lives lost and ruined for naught.

    David Kilcullen is a former lieutenant colonel in the Australian Army and was a senior adviser to US general David Petraeus in 2007-08, when he helped to design the Iraq war coalition troop surge. He also was a special adviser for counter-insurgency to former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. He is the author of Blood Year: Islamic State and the Failures of the War on Terror (Black Inc).

    Obama’s Special Forces Haul-Ass Out of Aleppo, Chased-Out By Obama’s Moderate Syrians

    [This video disables after a few seconds, if you get it at all, but you can still mouse over the progress bar to see the frames of the video.  You can see a line of fighting pick-ups flying past the camera, the same as that image of the truck w/machine gun, manned by a guy in apparent Desert Storm camo.]

    In Video: US troops in northern Syria threatened to be slaughtered by Syrian rebels


    US troops operating in northern Syria have been threatened to be slaughtered by FSA-affiliated rebels fighting under the Turkish-led Euphrates Shield operation against the Islamic State.

    Pro-rebel social media accounts reported that nearly 30 US Special Forces members, including 4 high-ranking officers, entered the town of al-Rai in northern Aleppo near the Turkish borders.

    The reasons behind this unexpected military presence for the US forces remain unclear. However, speculations range from pinpointing specific targets for US airstrikes against ISIS positions to setting up a military base.

    Video footage was released documenting the moment machinegun-mounted trucks carrying US soldiers emerging out of the town as the Turkish-backed rebels chanted Islamic slogans.

    One of the militants who put on a black balaclava addressed the mob via a loudspeaker, vowing to slaughter the Americans and whoever fights with them, describing them as ‘infidels and pigs’.

    Yesterday, some 50 US forces, including 10 advisors, have entered Syria through Turkey and set up a camp at the Al-Monbath hill in the countryside of Tell Abyad.

    Afghanistan Stops Two Trucks Coming From Pakistan With 40 TONS of Ammonium Nitrate

    Must address enablers, orchestrators of terrorism, says Afghanistan at United Nations

    the indian express


    “As a strategic imperative, we must move beyond rhetoric and address the enablers of terrorism, including the role of state elements in orchestrating and facilitating the growth of terror'” said Afghan envoy to the UN Mahmoud Saikal.


    Afghanistan, Pakistan, Terrorism in Afghansitan, terror attacks in Afghanistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Pakistan spocering terrorisn, Afghanistan foreign policy, Afghanistan foreign realtions, extremism in Paksitan, Afghanistan and Paksitan Foreign policy, international politics, international relations, Latest news, World news Afghan security forces keep watch (Above). In his speech India for the USD 1 billion of aid promised towards development in Afghanistan Afghan envoy to the UN Ambassador Mahmoud Saikal. (Source: Reuters)

    Afghanistan has asked the international community to address the state elements who orchestrate attacks from “outside” its borders, as it slammed the supporters of terrorist groups in Pakistan for their “cowardly behaviour” of targeting civilians.

    “Growing violent extremism and terror worldwide is proof that the current pace of counter-terrorism efforts is at best, lax, compared to the magnitude of the threat,” Afghan envoy to the UN Ambassador Mahmoud Saikal said at a United Nations Security Council debate at the United Nations.

    “Current efforts remain scattered, slow, and at times static, and have proven incapable to match the sophistication and ever-changing tactics of global terror for its eventual defeat, as far as Afghanistan’s experience is concerned,” he said on Wednesday.

    Citing the recent attacks on police recruits, civilian demonstrations and university students, Saikal said the “savage attacks in populated urban centres showcased the cowardly behaviour of terrorist groups and their supporters to compensate for their so-called spring offensive losses.”

    Saikal noted that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani had in August called Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff and asked for “serious and practical” measures against the organisers of the attack on the American University of Afghanistan in Kabul.

    “We have evidence that most of these attacks were orchestrated outside Afghanistan,” he said adding that last week, Afghanistan seized two trailer trucks entering the country from Pakistan with 35,700 kg of ammonium nitrate.

    “Let us take a second to imagine the magnitude of devastation, had the attack(s) been carried out against us or our allies,” he said.

    “As a strategic imperative, we must move beyond rhetoric and address the enablers of terrorism, including the role of state elements in orchestrating and facilitating the growth of terror. We need to review the state of UN counter-terrorism efforts to identify and address gaps in the implementation, and assess what needs to be done by relevant UN agencies to achieve results and effectively fulfil their mandates,” he said.

    He added that despite Afghanistan’s constant outreach and efforts at a Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG), Pakistan has not utilised the opportunity to play “genuine” peacemaker.

    “It deserves attention that based on the QCG roadmap they must take necessary measures against irreconcilable Taliban elements to win international community’s due recognition as a serious and genuine partner in the fight against terrorism,” he said.

    UN Human Rights Comm. Demands Access To Kashmir

    ‘Pakistan welcomes UNHRC’s request to visit IHK’

    A photo taken at the surgical ICU hospital in Srinagar on July 16, 2016 shows the X-ray of 14-year-old Kashmiri Muslim girl, Insha Malik, showing the multiple pellet marks on her face that have left her blind in both eyes, after she was shot by Indian security forces. According to relatives, Insha was on the first floor of her home when forces fired pellet guns into the building on July 12. She was rushed to the hospital and joined hundreds of injured Kashmiris who have reported devastating eye injuries caused by "non-lethal" pellet gun firings. The death of popular rebel leader Burhan Wani in a gunfight with government forces last week sparked clashes in which more than 3,000 people, including about 200 police officers, have been injured. It is the worst civilian violence to hit the region since 2010, when mass protests broke out and left 120 dead. Hospitals in the main city of Srinagar have struggled to cope with the rush of wounded, hundreds of them with severe injuries in their eyes.  / AFP / TAUSEEF MUSTAFA        (Photo credit should read TAUSEEF MUSTAFA/AFP/Getty Images)

    A photo taken at the surgical ICU hospital in Srinagar on July 16, 2016 shows the X-ray of 14-year-old Kashmiri Muslim girl, Insha Malik, showing the multiple pellet marks on her face that have left her blind in both eyes, after she was shot by Indian security forces.
    According to relatives, Insha was on the first floor of her home when forces fired pellet guns into the building on July 12. She was rushed to the hospital and joined hundreds of injured Kashmiris who have reported devastating eye injuries caused by “non-lethal” pellet gun firings. The death of popular rebel leader Burhan Wani in a gunfight with government forces last week sparked clashes in which more than 3,000 people, including about 200 police officers, have been injured. It is the worst civilian violence to hit the region since 2010, when mass protests broke out and left 120 dead. Hospitals in the main city of Srinagar have struggled to cope with the rush of wounded, hundreds of them with severe injuries in their eyes.
    / AFP / TAUSEEF MUSTAFA (Photo credit should read TAUSEEF MUSTAFA/AFP/Getty Images)

    ISLAMABAD: Pakistan welcomes that the UN Human Rights High Commissioner (UNHRC), Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, has raised in his opening statement the issue of the use of excessive force by Indian authorities in Indian-held Kashmir (IHK), to the 33rd session of the Human Rights Council that started on Thursday in Geneva.

    We strongly support the High Commissioner’s position that an OHCHR team should visit Indian-held Kashmir to independently investigate the grave human rights violations being perpetrated by Indian forces, resulting in the killing of more than 90 civilians and 8,000 injured, including those with severe pellet gun injuries.

    The visit by the OHCHR team would help to end the culture of impunity, which is prevailing for more than 68 years in IHK, in violation of international law and UN Security Council resolutions, said a statement of the FO.

    Pakistan has expressed its readiness for the visit of any UN team sent by the UN high commissioner for Human Rights to Azad Jammu and Kashmir together with the Indian-held Kashmir, even though there is no comparison whatsoever between the situation in AJK and the rampant human rights violations and oppression in IHK, it said.

    “We note the high commissioner’s statement that he awaits a formal letter from India for access to IHK. We urge India to respond to this request,” it added.

    Hillary Clinton–Inside the mind of a shameless liar

    Dr. Keith Ablow: Hillary Clinton — Inside the mind of a shameless liar

    Keith Ablow

    Recently, it has been reported that Hillary Clinton is using psychologists to prepare for her debates with Donald Trump. Apparently, some within the Clinton campaign believed that Mr. Trump seemed ill-at-ease when, during a Republican presidential primary debate, he addressed Senator Marco Rubio’s contention that Trump’s small hands likely meant his private parts were also small.

    In fact, Trump seemed completely comfortable addressing that intensely personal attack, simply saying that it wasn’t true. His willingness and ability to dispense with the matter in such a straightforward way shouldn’t give the Clinton campaign confidence that Trump can be rocked with psychological missives; it should terrify them. Because when a man can speak directly, in front of cameras and the entire nation, even about those matters which are usually unspeakable, he isn’t going to run away from much of anything.

    Donald Trump wears his psyche on his sleeve.

    Hillary Clinton is the one whose psychological make up would seem to leave her vulnerable. Her penchant for lying is a problem, but the really big problem is that she seems unable to determine when her lies are registering with audiences as clearly untrue. At the core, people who lie transparently do so because they lack empathy—the ability to intuit and vicariously experience what others are thinking and feeling. Locked behind walls of narcissism or arrogance or imperiousness, consumed with the pursuit of power, they can’t tell convincing lies because they can’t truly resonate with how their words and mannerisms are being received.

    Hillary Clinton’s penchant for lying is a problem, but the really big problem is that she seems unable to determine when her lies are registering with audiences as clearly untrue.

    Hillary Clinton is, to borrow from a fairy tale, like the emperor with no clothes, who thinks that others can’t see his nakedness. We have in Ms. Clinton, if you will, an empress with no clothes. Everyone knows her cover ups are transparent—except, seemingly, Secretary Clinton, herself.

    All that Donald Trump needs to do, in order to expose Ms. Clinton as a liar is to ask her to repeat her defenses related to her use of a personal email server when she was Secretary of State, her mingling of State Department business with Clinton Foundation business and her having abandoned Ambassador Chris Stephens, Foreign Service Office Sean Smith and two former Navy Seals to die at Benghazi. Tens of millions of Americans watching will feel, in their hearts, that she is a liar.

    Pentagon vs State Dept. Feud Goes Political

    CIA, State Department, Pentagon take their civil war to the campaign trail


    Donald Trump recently gave a noninterventionist foreign policy speech suggesting that he wants to make new allies of old foes and find common ground with them on shared national security challenges. He noted that 88 U.S. generals and admirals have endorsed him, and that “the current strategy of toppling regimes, with no plan for what to do the day after, only produces power vacuums that are filled by terrorists.”

    Trump should tell that to the 51 State Department officials who called for ramping up U.S. military intervention in Syria in an internal memo that was reviewed by CNN in June prior to being classified.

    Hoping to force Syrian President Bashar Assad back to the negotiating table, these State Department officials figured that in lieu of diplomacy, it would be a good idea to prolong a conflict that has already driven millions of migrants into Europe and is demographically overwhelming that part of the world.

    The State Department, which works closely with the CIA in providing official diplomatic cover to CIA officers abroad, has long been at odds with the Pentagon over Syria. It’s no wonder that Pentagon generals are backing Trump, while just a few weeks ago a handful of former CIA directors publicly did the same for Hillary Clinton by signing a letter denouncing Trump.

    Documents sent to and from Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of state suggest that she wanted to remove Assad despite the power vacuum it would create.

    In March 2012, according to a document released by WikiLeaks, Clinton instructed special assistant Robert Russo to print an email sent to her titled, “An interesting proposal from [CIA veteran] Bruce Riedel re how Israel could help get Assad out of office.”

    Another email found on Clinton’s private server, this one purportedly from Clinton herself, iterates: “The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.”

    This is the kind of reckless interventionist mindset that has long infused the State Department.

    Meanwhile, a classified Defense Intelligence Agency report from 2012 obtained by Judicial Watch actually predicted the rise of the Islamic State as a result of the U.S. aligning itself with “rebels.”

    “ISI [Islamic State in Iraq] could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory,” the report stated.

    This issue underscores the clash of worldviews between the Clinton and Trump campaigns. Former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Flynn, a retired lieutenant general and key Trump defense and intelligence adviser, had long warned about Syria turning into a terrorist hotbed.

    Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell, who has publicly slammed Trump’s candidacy, claims that while Clinton was secretary of state, the Obama administration never provided support to the Islamic State or any other terrorist organization.

    “The administration went to great lengths to ensure that any aid provided by the United States to the opposition would not fall into the hands of extremists, including IS and Al Qaeda,” Morell wrote for Politico.

    How disingenuous. Morell and Clinton were both serving in the Obama administration during the rise of the Islamic State. We now know that the CIA was, in fact, training the rebels who ultimately joined ISIS or one of the other terrorist groups that plague the region.

    Just when you think American foreign policy couldn’t possibly get any worse, we might get to see what Clinton, emboldened by interventionist enablers in the CIA and State Department, could do with unfettered executive power.

    Pakistan Flushing 1.5 Million Afghan Refugees Back Across the Durand Line


    “No Contracting State shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”Article 33. Prohibition of Expulsion of Return

    [Pakistan extends stay for Afghan refugees until March 2017]

    afghan_refugee_pakistanAfghan refugees are seen at UNHCR’s Voluntary Repatriation Centre in Peshawar, Pakistan, June 23, 2016. © 2016 Reuters

    Pakistan: Coerced Refugee Return Endangers Thousands

    Abuses, Harassment Force Afghans Home to Danger

    (New York) – Pakistani authorities should cease coercive measures and other abuses that are driving tens of thousands of Afghan refugees from Pakistan. The Pakistani government should extend legal residency status to Afghan refugees until at least December 31, 2017.

    “Pakistani authorities are increasingly committing abuses against Afghan refugees that are triggering a mass refugee return,” said Patricia Gossman, senior Afghanistan researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The government should rein in its abusive security forces and ensure the refugees secure status and protection.”

    Since July 2016, Pakistani police and provincial authorities have stepped up pressure against Afghans living in Pakistan in what the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has called “a concerted push” to repatriate a large number of Afghan refugees before the end of 2016. This followed increasing tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan. By September, nearly 90,000 Afghan refugees, out of an estimated total of 1.5 million, had returned in 2016.

    Returning Afghan refugees – some of whom have lived 30 or more years in Pakistan – have told UNHCR that they returned home due to “economic hardship in Pakistan (linked to loss of access to job markets due to a deteriorated freedom of movement), harassment, and intimidation, arbitrary arrest, extortions, and bribery.” Returnees have alleged that Pakistani police harassed and detained them; that landlords cancelled their rental agreements, and that they were denied access to schools and medical care. Such complaints were already common in 2015, when Human Rights Watch documented abuses against Afghans in Pakistan, and appear to have worsened substantially since June.

    Pakistan is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, but customary international law prohibits refoulement, the return of a refugee “in any manner whatsoever” to a place where they face a serious risk of persecution or threats to their lives and safety. Refoulement occurs not only when a refugee is directly rejected or expelled, but also where indirect pressure on individuals is so intense that it leads them to believe that they have no practical option but to return to a country where they face serious risk of persecution or threats to their lives and safety. Pakistan’s refoulement of Afghan refugees is taking place as world leaders are gathering in New York on September 19 and 20 to discuss how they can better support front-line countries like Pakistan that are host to large influxes of refugees and migrants.

    On June 29, Pakistan had extended the validity of Afghans’ Proof of Registration (PoR) cards until the end of December. On September 9, in apparent response to criticism of abuses against refugees and undocumented migrants, Pakistan granted a 10-week extension, until March 17, 2017. Since few returnees make the journey during the winter months, the extension is not likely to make a difference in returns through 2016.

    When announcing the extension, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif stated that “Afghan refugees living in Pakistan… are our guests and their return plans [would] be decided in a way that does not create any negative impression in the minds of people living on both sides of the border.”

    Also on June 29, as Pakistan announced the six-month extension, UNHCR doubled its grant to refugees “voluntarily repatriating,” from US$200 to $400. But Afghan authorities have cautioned that they are unable to assist such large numbers returning in a short period of time. The massive increase in returns has raised concerns among aid agencies in Afghanistan, whose limited resources are already strained. They warn that many returnees lack accommodation and access to clean water and sanitation.

    The security situation in much of Afghanistan remains precarious, with serious fighting in more than half the country’s provinces.

    In August, the number of returnees increased dramatically to 60,743, compared with 11,416 in July and 2,342 in May. The July 19 meeting in Islamabad between Pakistan, Afghanistan and UNHCR on their Tripartite Agreement on the Solutions Strategy for Afghan Refugees (SSAR), which commits all parties to “voluntary repatriation in safety and dignity,” has done nothing to curtail refugee returns, Human Rights Watch said.

    As Human Rights Watch documented in 2015, many returnees to Afghanistan end up joining the ranks of the internally displaced in settlements in urban areas where assistance is minimal. In response to the massive influx, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) issued a flash-appeal for emergency funds on September 7 to assist an anticipated 220,000 returning Afghan refugees and 400,000 returning undocumented migrants by year’s end. Some 40 percent of the people returning are considered “highly vulnerable.”

    “Pakistan’s forced return of Afghan refugees should remind world leaders gathering in New York that long-time frontline host states like Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey, and Kenya are now pushing refugees back,” Gossman said. “Demands to respect refugee protection principles will carry much more weight if accompanied by significantly higher levels of support from countries that can afford it.”

    Terms of Reference for the Joint Implementation Group–leaked WaPo

    Closing Loopholes in the Proposed U.S.-Russian Agreement on Syria–Washington Institute


    Terms of Reference for the Joint Implementation Group

    [leaked from Wash. Post]
    These terms of reference describe organization, functions, and procedures for the Joint Implementation Group (JIG.)
    The purpose of the JIG is to enable expanded coordination between the United States and the Russian Federation beyond the established safety of flight procedures. The participants, through the JIG, are to work together to defeat
    Jabhat al Nusra and Daesh within the context of strengthening the Cessation of Hostilities (CoH) and supporting the political transition process outlined in UNSCR 2254. The United States and the Russian Federation, hereafter referred to as “the participants”, intend to act in accordance with these terms of
    reference. Unless otherwise stated, the participants will conduct their efforts through the JIG.
    The participants are to implement the provisions of the “Approach for Practical Russian-American Efforts against Daesh and Jabhat al Nusra and Strengthening the Cessation of Hostilities.”
    The participants are to conduct all efforts consistent with the intent to take all reasonable measures to eliminate non-combatant casualties.
    The participants also commit to all efforts, including operations subject to cooperation or otherwise addressed by these terms of reference, occurring in compliance with international humanitarian law and the terms of the CoH.
    1. JIG Location, Organization and Composition
    a. Location.
    The JIG is to be located in the vicinity of Amman, Jordan.
    Participants intend to negotiate their own support requirements with the host nation.
    b. Organization.
    The participants intend to maintain separate, national headquarters in which they will install systems to exchange information with their respective headquarters responsible for tactical actions against Nusra and Daesh.
    The participants, through the JIG, intend to establish a coordination center at which they are to exchange intelligence and operational information.
    d. Composition.
    Participants intend to staff the JIG in numbers sufficient to
    accomplish the JIG’s functions.
    The participants intend to match, as practicable, the ranks of their counterparts.

    i. Staffing. The participants intend to staff the JIG with subject matter experts and professionals with expertise in intelligence, targeting and air operations. Intelligence expertise includes knowledge of the disposition, operations, and tactics of the relevant armed actors in Syria. Targeting expertise requires familiarity with national procedures to choose, confirm
    and prosecute deliberate targets.
    ii. Language and Translation. The participants intend to provide information to the JIG in their native language.
    Participants are responsible for translating material received.
    Participants intend to staff the JIG with a sufficient number of bilingual personnel familiar with military
    intelligence and operational terminology, in order to enable the real-time translation of conversations and documents.
    iii. Senior National Representative. The participants intend to provide the JIG with senior national representatives — Colonels (0-6) or civilian
    employees of the equivalent ranks – with the authority to transmit, on behalf of their respective operational commanders, their participants’ national decisions or positions.
    iv. Intelligence Personnel. The participants intend to staff the JIG with intelligence personnel who can exchange information and resolve differences between how the participants represent information -grid reference systems, place names and other such technical details.
    Intelligence personnel are to include subject matter experts Nusra and Daesh in Syria. The participants, through the JIG, should develop mutually acceptable formats for information to be exchanged.
    v. Operations Representatives. The participants intend to staff the JIG with operations representatives with expertise in national procedures for strike planning, targeting, weaponeering, operational law and other functions. Operations representatives are to resolve differences in how the parties present information. The participants, through the JIG should
    develop mutually acceptable formats for how information is exchanged.
    vi. Support Personnel. The participants may staff the JIG with personnel, as required, to manage logistics, force protection, communications and other requirements.

    2. JIG Role in Military Operations. The participants, through the JIG, should enable coordination between the participants for military operations against Nusra. Participants, through the JIG, may work to maximize independent, but
    synchronized, efforts against Daesh in Syria. Coordination should begin with information exchange on both Nusra and Daesh. If national authorities determine that integrated operations against deliberate targets is in the interest of both
    participants, the participants should coordinate procedures to permit integrated operations.

    a. Nusra Targeting. The participants will commit to supporting deliberate targeting of Nusra. Once senior representatives to the JIG decide that information exchange has produced commonly understood information, the participants, through the JIG, intend to begin coordinating the targeting of Nusra. The participants are to develop target packages for Nusra
    targets under their national targeting processes. The participants, through the JIG, should coordinate on targets that have been developed. Once a decision has been reached on targets, the participants should coordinate the participants’ proposals on how these targets are to be addressed.  Initial efforts against mutually-decided-upon targets will be deconflicted by
    geography or time. With the exception of imminent threats to the participants where prior agreement on a target is infeasible, the participants will only take action against Nusra targets that are agreed to in advance, pursuant to procedures developed by the JIG and deconflicted through existing channels.

    i. Targeting. The participants are to select and prioritize targets, as outlined in previous paragraph, at their respective operational
    headquarters. The participants are to manage the exchange of information between targeting organizations.
    ii. Actionable Targets. The participants are to coordinate agreement on Nusra targets that have been deemed “actionable” through the participants’ respective national processes. National headquarters are to provide information on actionable targets in a format to be developed and decided upon by the participants.
    Actionable targets are those that have been “vetted” – targets for which participants have accurate supporting intelligence. The participants may commit additional Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance resources to support vetting of potential targets consistent with their respective national priorities. The participants anticipate “validating” actionable targets under their respective national processes to ensure they meet the appropriate commander’s guidance, and may be targeted consistent with international humanitarian law and applicable rules of engagement.
    iii. Target Development. Only those targets that both participants agree are actionable will be further developed for strikes. The participants are to facilitate precision targeting by exchanging
    mensurated target locations. Actionable targets, as decided mutually by the participants, are to receive the same treatment as do other national targets – there is no presumption of priority simply
    because the participants mutually decided that a target is actionable.

    b. Daesh Targeting: The participants may communicate targeting information for targets that permit independent, but synchronized, operations against Daesh in Syria. The participants are to select and prioritize targets at their respective operational headquarters. The participants are to manage the exchange of information between targeting organizations. Any decision to jointly validate and execute a Daesh target should be made pursuant to procedures developed by the JIG and deconflicted through existing channels. [Both participants reserve the right to conduct unilateral strikes against Daesh targets outside of designated areas].
    c. Operational Deconfliction and Coordination. The JIG is a liaison body; it is to expose portions of a participant’s targeting and airstrike planning functions to the other participant. The United States and Russia
    should inform one another through the JIG of final plans for operations against a mutually selected target no later than the day before execution. The JIG is to communicate assessments of national actions against Nusra and to the participants. The JIG may communicate assessments of national actions against Daesh in Syria to the participants.

    i. Timelines. The JIG is to operate on timelines that permit the participants to incorporate information developed by the JIG into their normal, national procedures.
    ii. Strike Details. The participants commit to developing a format for the information about intended operations to be exchanged, including the general time of the strike, the intended method of target attack, general force composition, routing of the strike and precise details of the target being struck. The participants commit to ensuring that the intended actions are deconflicted by time and/or geography. The participants commit to coordinating to ensure strike packages are not targeted by air defenses of either party or by
    those of the regime.
    iii. Battle Damage Assessment. Each participant intends to collect BDA on JIG-coordinated targets it strikes; participants may choose to expose the details of the BDA they collect. Either participant may collect BDA on targets the other participant strikes.
    iv. Collateral Damage. The participants intend to facilitate the consideration of any allegations that mutually-decided-upon strikes caused unacceptable collateral damage or loss of life, and explore additional measures to avoid such strikes in the future.
    v. Coordination of Integrated Operations. At some point, national authorities may authorize the participants to coordinate on integrated operations. Should such a decision be taken, the
    participants intend to host a conference of national representatives to develop procedures for integrated operations.

    d. Emergent Circumstances.

    i. Imminent Threats. The participants can target imminent threats to their respective personnel if prior agreement on a target is infeasible. In addition, participants can target imminent threats
    against their respective nationals by named senior Shura council members of Nusra and active external plotters, as agreed by the United States and Russia.
    ii. Other Circumstances. The Syrian military can employ military action, including air activities, against the Nusra Front outside of designated areas if Nusra acquires territory there. Russia can use airpower in defense of Syrian government forces in the event of attack by Nusra from within a designated area, if agreed in advance with the United States. All actions should be consistent with the terms of the cessation of hostilities.
    iii. Cessation of Hostilities Violations. The participants may report information that could corroborate allegations of COH violations to the Geneva Cell.

    3. JIG Role in Monitoring the Grounding of Syrian Air Activities. The participants intend to collect and report information on regime air activities in support of monitoring the grounding of Syrian aircraft in designated areas.

    a. Information to be Collected. The JIG is to be provided advance notice of regime air operations that are permitted as exemptions to the grounding of Syrian military aircraft. The JIG is to maintain a current Syrian air order of battle; changes to the disposition of regime aircraft are to be reported daily. The participants should develop measures to help confirm the Syrian military’s compliance with the grounding. The JIG is to
    report regime violations to the participants.
    b. Prohibited Activities and Exemptions. The regime is prohibited from flying in designated areas; designated areas include areas of most concentrated Nusra presence, areas of significant Nusra presence, and areas where the opposition is dominant, with some possible Nusra presence. Exempted circumstances are:
    • Humanitarian Assistance
    • Personnel recovery
    c. Advance Notice of Regime Air Operations. The Russian Federation is to provide the JIG advance notice of all regime air operations. For exempted missions, the JIG is to be provided the general time of the Syrian mission, general force composition and details of the routing of the package no later than
    the day prior to execution. Routing for operations in areas under Daesh control from areas under regime control is to be provided to the JIG in advance of such
    operations taking place, no later than the day prior to execution

    Approach for Practical Russian-American Cooperation against Daesh and
    Jabhat al Nusra and Strengthening the Cessation of Hostilities
    The following is designed to allow Russia and the U.S. to intensify joint and mutual efforts to bring about the destruction of Nusra and Daesh in the context of a strengthened COH with all COH parties adhering to COH terms.
    To this end, Russia and the U.S. reconfirm their commitment to intensifying support and assistance to regional allies to help them prevent the flow of fighters, weapons, or financial support to UN designated terrorist groups across the Syrian border.
    Delineation of territories controlled by Daesh, Nusra, and moderate opposition forces remains a key priority. Nusra shall enjoy no safe haven anywhere within Syria.
    Russia and the United States will also work in parallel to bring about the political transition process as outlined in UNSCR 2254.


    1) Russia and the United States will intensify their efforts to ensure full compliance with the COH, including the suspension of all offensive ground and air operations against signatories to the COH and civilians in Syria.
    2) In the context of a strengthened COH, which will have been restored with the target of reaching the level that had been achieved in late February and maintained for a period of at least 7 days, the United States and Russia will establish a Joint Implementation Group (JIG) comprised of subject matter experts on Syria and professionals with expertise on targeting. The JIG is to be established NLT [DATE] and located at [LOCATION].
    3) The JIG is to take on the following tasks, in sequence:

    a) Complete, to the extent possible, no later than five days after formation of the JIG, a common map of territories with high concentrations of Nusra formations, to include areas where Nusra formations are in close proximity to opposition formations, for precise target development.
    b) Share intelligence and develop actionable targets for military action against Nusra, including, but not limited to, leadership targets, training camps, logistical
    depots, supply lines, and headquarters.
    c) Designate a set of targets for airstrikes by the Russian Aerospace Forces and/or U.S. military forces related to Jabhat al-Nusra operations in designated areas. Designated areas include areas of most concentrated Nusrah Front presence, areas of significant Nusrah Front presence, and areas where the opposition is dominant, with some possible Nusrah Front presence. Even prior to the establishment of the JIG, technical experts from the U.S. and Russia will plot
    the geo-coordinates of these designated areas.
    d) Devise mechanisms to monitor and enforce the Syrian military’s cessation of military air activity over the designated areas described in paragraph c, with
    appropriate non-combat exceptions to be decided.
    e) Decide on a date, shortly after the initial set of targets is agreed, to simultaneously:

    1) begin Russian and/or U.S. strikes against agreed Nusra targets, and
    2) stop all Syrian military air activities – fixed and rotary wing – in agreed designated areas, with appropriate exceptions for non-combat purposes.
    3)If Syrian military activity in conflict with paragraph or airstrikes in conflict with paragraph 5 occur, either participant may pull out of the JIG.

    4) The process of target development through the JIG and airstrikes against Nusra targets by Russian Aerospace Forces and/or U.S. military forces will be ongoing and continuous. The JIG is to exchange information on the effects of targeting Nusra and the developing situation on the ground.
    5) With the exception of imminent threats to the United States or Russia where prior agreement on a target is infeasible, Russia and the United States will only take action against Nusra targets that are agreed to in advance and pursuant to appropriate procedures through existing de-confliction channels.
    6) The JIG will also work to maximize independent but synchronized efforts against Daesh.
    7) All efforts outlined above will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Laws of Armed Conflict and full implementation of the cessation of hostilities.
    8) Compliance with the CoH will be required for this understanding to remain in effect.
    9) Modalities for the mechanism described above will be further developed in bilateral negotiations to be concluded as soon as possible given the urgency expressed by both Russia and the U.S.
    10) The steps outlined above are intended as steps toward a more comprehensive understanding between the U.S. and Russia, with a target date ofJuly 31, 2016, on three inter-related issues designed to produce a durable end of the conflict and the defeat of Daesh and Nusrah:

    a) military and intelligence cooperation between Russia and the U.S. to defeat Daesh and Nusrah;
    b) translation of the CoH into a durable, nationwide ceasefire, phased with steps on the political transition, inclusive of provisions on the disposition and separation of forces, control of heavy weapons, regulation of the flow of weapons into Syria, independent monitoring and verification, and enforcement; and
    c) a framework on political transition in Syria consistent with UNSCR 2254, to include provisions on how and when a transitional government with full executive
    authority formed on the basis of mutual consent will be established, security and intelligence institutions will be reformed, and constitutional and electoral processes will be conducted.

    Sec. St. Kerry, Russ. For. Min. Lavrov, and UN Special Envoy Speak On Syrian Agreement

    SECRETARY KERRY: So thank you all for tremendous patience during the course of a very long day which obviously has required a lot of detail work, and we appreciate everybody’s patience in hanging in there.

    Today, the United States and Russia are announcing a plan which we hope will reduce violence, ease suffering, and resume movement towards a negotiated peace and a political transition in Syria. And we believe that the plan as it is set forth – if implemented, if followed – has the ability to provide a turning point, a moment of change.

    The suffering that we have witnessed in Syria over the course of more than five years now is really beyond inhumane. People have all seen the pictures – women, children tortured; barrel bombs, gas. And the world has been shocked on a constant basis by what we have witnessed. And we are – I say “we” – the Obama Administration, the United States is going the extra mile here because we believe that Russia and my colleague have the capability to press the Assad regime to stop this conflict and to come to the table and make peace.

    Working together, Russia and the United States and our teams have devised what we think is a more proscriptive and far-reaching approach than we have been able to put together to date. And if – and I again want to emphasize the “if” – if the plan is implemented in good faith, if the stakeholders do the things that are available to them to do and are being called on to do, this can be a moment where the multilateral efforts at the diplomatic table, the negotiations could take hold, and you could really provide the people of Syria with a transition.

    Now, Foreign Minister Lavrov and I have had frequent conversations and face-to-face meetings, most recently in Moscow in July, here in Geneva two weeks ago, in Hangzhou this past weekend. And each time, we have worked together to try to build a consensus on the broad steps and then to develop specific ideas on how those steps could be implemented. As we have both stated several times, we did not publicly spell out these measures earlier because the details of how they would be carried out were crucial to be finalized and because each had an impact on the other. And we know that, especially in Syria, plans do not implement themselves.

    So today, we are announcing an arrangement that we think has the capability of sticking but is dependent on people’s choices. And it has the ability to stick providing the regime and the opposition both meet their obligations, which we – and we expect other supporting countries – will strongly encourage them to do. Obviously, the Russians have an ability to be able to encourage Assad, and we have an ability together with other countries to encourage the opposition.

    So what specifically have we agreed to?

    First, we agreed on the steps through which the regime will come to a place where it will not fly combat missions anywhere where the opposition is present in an area that we have agreed on with very real specificity. Once this arrangement takes full effect, the regime would no longer be able to do in the future what it has been able to do so much in the past, which is go after Nusrah allegedly but hit moderate opposition and mask attacks against the legitimate opposition by claiming that it’s going after Nusrah.

    Now, I want to emphasize: This step is absolutely essential. It is a bedrock of this agreement. And by all accounts, the Assad air attacks have been the main driver of civilian casualties and migration flows and the most frequent violations of the hostilities. Halting all of the regime’s military air activities in key areas, key areas that are defined – not all flights, because there are still Nusrah and ISIL, but that will be managed in a different way also. And that should put an end to the barrel bombs, an end to the indiscriminate bombing of the civilian neighborhoods, and it has the potential to change the nature of the conflict. Whether it does or not depends on compliance.

    Second, the United States and Russia have agreed on steps which we will take, providing there is a sustained period of reduced violence. And after that sustained period of violence, we have agreed that we will then work together – providing both access and reduced violence have been provided for the period of time – we would then work together to develop military strikes against Nusrah.

    Now, I want to be clear about one thing particularly on this, because I’ve seen reporting that somehow suggests otherwise: Going after Nusrah is not a concession to anybody. It is profoundly in the interests of the United States to target al-Qaida – to target al-Qaida’s affiliate in Syria, which is Nusrah, an organization that is opposed to a peaceful transition, an organization that is an enemy of the legitimate opposition, an organization that is currently plotting attacks beyond Syria’s borders, including against the United States. So we must go after these terrorists – not indiscriminately, but in a strategic, precise, and judicious manner, so that they cannot continue to use the regime’s indiscriminate bombing in order to rally people to their hateful crimes. It is our belief that, in fact, Nusrah and ISIL have grown stronger because of the bombing. Now, some might disagree, but that is our belief.

    Now, third, in Moscow we also said before we could move forward with the steps that we have identified, we would need seven days of adherence to the cessation of hostilities in order to convince the people of Syria and the opposition that the actions of the regime and its supporters will be consistent with the words that we put on paper. And I’ve talked to you previously about the words on paper not meaning anything unless the actions follow them up. Now, of course, the opposition will also be expected to adhere to the cessation of hostilities, and that is why today the United States and Russia together are calling on all sides to recommit to a nationwide cessation of hostilities and to honor its previous terms. This will be effective at sundown on September 12th.

    Now, this – I might add also that is the beginning of the Eid holiday, and we can think of nothing more appropriate than for all the parties to come together and make Eid more meaningful to the people of Syria and the region. Now, this requires halting all attacks, including aerial bombardments and any attempts to gain additional territory at the expense of the parties to the cessation. It requires unimpeded and sustained humanitarian access to all of the besieged and the hard-to-reach areas, including Aleppo. And as we stand here, we know that Aleppo continues to be the besieged and bombarded city taken on by the regime and its allies. And if Aleppo is at peace, we believe that the prospects for a diplomatic solution will brighten; if Aleppo continues to be torn apart, the prospects for Syria and for its people are grim. Now, that is why this arrangement also requires forces from both sides to pull back from Castello Road – and we have agreed on that pullback. Castello Road is a major artery into Aleppo, and what this pullback will do is create a demilitarized zone around it, permitting as quickly as possible the resumption of humanitarian and civilian traffic along that road. And that will be achieved over a period of time by some monitoring, which is essential to the compliance.

    Meanwhile, in the Ramouseh Gap area in southwest Aleppo, both pro-government and opposition groups will be required to provide safe, unhindered, and sustainable humanitarian, commercial, and civilian access to eastern and western Aleppo. Now, neither the opposition nor the government will be permitted to attack or to take territory held by the other, or, I might add, to obstruct the delivery of humanitarian goods.

    Now, finally, beginning September 12th, we will then commence preparatory work for a Joint Implementation Center. And these preparations will include initial discussions and some sharing of information necessary for the delineation of territories controlled by Nusrah and opposition groups in the area of active hostilities. And then the more comprehensive process of delineation will be conducted by experts once the joint implementation group – the center, or so-called JIC – once the center is established. Now, once it is established after seven continuous days of adherence to the cessation of hostilities and increased humanitarian access, then U.S. and Russian experts will work together to defeat Daesh and Nusrah.

    I want to emphasize these measures can only be implemented effectively if all the parties live up to their obligations. If groups within the legitimate opposition want to retain their legitimacy, they need to distance themselves in every way possible from Nusrah and Daesh. And we expect that Russia will ensure that the Syrian Government will adhere to all of its requirements about its air activities and about the access for humanitarian deliveries. No one is building this based on trust. It is based on a way of providing oversight and compliance through mutual interest and other things, and we are determined to explore every single avenue possible for progress.

    If this arrangement holds, then we will see a significant reduction in violence across Syria. We’ll see humanitarian aid deliveries go forward in Aleppo and wherever the need is the greatest. And after a period of reduced violence, then we will see the United States and Russia taking coordinated steps to isolate and defeat the terrorist groups that have added immeasurably to Syria’s suffering and misery – and we will facilitate a political transition, which is the only way to bring about a durable end to this war.

    In closing, I just want to emphasize that the crisis in Syria, obviously, is enormously complex and it is still, even as it’s complex, relatively simple at the same time. It’s complex for reasons that we all understand – the number of stakeholders with different agendas, the wounds that have been inflicted by years of fighting, the ideological and sectarian divides, the urban and suburban war zones, the brutality of extremists, and the unhelpful actions of some outside powers. But let me be clear: out of all of this complexity there is emerging now a simple choice between war and peace; between human agony and humanitarian relief; between the continued disintegration of an ancient society and the re-birth of a united and modern nation.

    So I want to thank Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura, whom we will hear from a little later, and the many governments in the Middle East and Europe and elsewhere who have been supportive, and especially the NGOs, the medical assistance organizations, and the religious and advocacy groups that have been working for years to aid victims and halt the fighting in Syria.

    And today Sergey Lavrov and I, on behalf of our presidents and our countries, call on every Syrian stakeholder to support the plan that the United States and Russia have reached – to back its implementation in good faith – and to continue the hard work of bringing this catastrophic conflict to the quickest possible end through a political process. Our goal is to find the day when this kind of round-the-clock diplomacy isn’t necessary, frankly. And I want to thank Sergey Lavrov. He has been – he and his team today have been particularly patient as we work through a very long day to make sure that the Ts were crossed and the Is were dotted and the legal standards were met. And I’m grateful to him for the efforts that he has joined me in trying to help provide this opportunity. It is an opportunity, and not more than that, until it becomes a reality. And both of us are going to do everything we can to help it become that reality. Thank you.


    FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I understand how you can feel at this time of night, but as John has said, we are grateful to you for your patience, we are grateful to each other for our patience and the patience of our delegations demonstrated by them. And we hope that it is – was not in vain.

    We have concluded a huge piece of work which began on direct instructions from our presidents in February this year, and which was ongoing, has been ongoing, without impeding by – which was taken on by experts and by the ministers. As John said, we were in regular contacts, both over the telephone and personally. And as you remember, a year ago when it all began, our proposal to organize a coordination met quite a cool response from our American colleagues, who were ready only to engage in a de-confliction; that is, the mechanism and procedures allowing to avoid unexpectable incidents.

    But as I said, this February the presidents in their conversation put forward an initiative to make additional efforts in order, first of all, to ensure sustainable cessation of hostilities. And after that, on this basis, a number of meetings took place which culminated today, this night, and this long work is justified and explained by many factors of difficulty which exist on the ground, and the puzzle which the Syria situation is, with a lot of stakeholders involved inside and outside Syria – all that, of course, did not help us, as well as the deep lack of confidence and trust between Russia and American partners in the Syrian matter particularly, but not only in it.

    And now, I have to say, the – some mistrust remains and some – there are some people who would like our – today’s arrangement to be undermined. The recent example is, which we discussed with John Kerry, is an arrogant announcement on – of sanctions on the verge of the meeting of our presidents in China and another point and announcement of additional sanctions after our presidents met and before we met. But we are not offended easily. We are clearly stating our position, and we believe that the settlement of the Syrian crisis is not a topic which one can speculate on, unlike some.

    We believe that it is the primary responsibility of the leading powers, first of all, Russia and the U.S. who are co-chairing the International Syrian Support Group, and it is our responsibility and obligation, together with our international partners inside the regime and outside the regime, to do everything to create the necessary conditions to settle this very difficult conflict. And despite all the problems that have arisen, despite all the mistrust that is still witnessed, despite their attempts to undermine our – today’s arrangements, we have managed to develop a package of documents, because the – today’s document is not the only one; there are five documents in total. It is a package of documents that allows to organize an efficient coordination in struggle against terrorism that allows to expand the humanitarian access to the population in need – first of all, in Aleppo mostly – and which allows to enhance the cessation of hostilities regime. And this all creates the conditions – necessary conditions for the resumption of the political process, which has been stalling for a lot of time.

    And the main thing about these arrangements is that the first step would be the reconfirmation of the cessation of hostilities regime will do everything to – for the parties of the conflict influenced by the U.S. and Russia to take the necessary step and confirm and reconfirm their commitment to the cessation of hostilities – first for 48 hours, then it will be extended for another 48 hours – in order to achieve the permanent cessation of hostilities regime adherence.

    After the regime is fully functional for seven continuous days, we, as John has said, are to create a Joint Implementation Center – JIC – where the military men and the special (inaudible) representatives from Russia and the U.S. will be engaged in practical – in solving practical matters of delimitation and separation of terrorists from the moderate opposition. And there will be strikes agreed against terrorists – the strikes of the airspace forces of Russia and the air forces of the U.S. We have agreed on the areas where such coordinated strikes would be taking place, and in those areas, on mutual agreement shared by the Russian – by the – sorry, by the Syrian Government as well, only the air forces of Russia and the U.S. will be functional. The Syrian air forces will be functional in other areas outside those that we have singled out for Russian-American military cooperation.

    I’d like to highlight that the task of separating terrorists and moderate opposition and physical separation of them on the ground is enshrined in the document which we have agreed upon today as a key priority. Another topic is, of course, humanitarian assistance, and the document which we have agreed upon today, we – in this document, we have enshrined the mechanisms of humanitarian assistance delivery, commercial and civil cargo as well, in cooperation with the UN and the Red Crescent, mostly in Aleppo, in western and the eastern Aleppo.

    We have also agreed upon the procedures of response on violations of the regime of cessation of hostilities. The Day D, as John has said, is the 12th of September. Since that moment, a number of steps will begin to be taken in the antiterrorist context and in the humanitarian assistance context and in enhancement of the cessation of hostilities as well.

    John has mentioned that the most important thing is not the paper itself but how it is implemented in practice, how the agreements are fulfilled. We and the United States take the obligation to do all of our best to engage and make the stakeholders comply with the arrangements in our documents.

    As I said, the Syrian Government has been informed by us about these arrangements, and it is ready to fulfill them. It supports the initiative on which we agreed with United States, so we will do everything which depends on us, but it is understandable that not everything depends on us. And some leaks in the mass media about which is the real views of the opponents of the regime from some groups that call themselves supreme committees, et cetera – there have been ultimatums, the refusals to cooperate, et cetera, as well as threats for humanitarian convoys that we have received from the opposition who are now in Aleppo – some of the groups.

    I’d like to remind that humanitarian convoy was ready to be sent on 26 of August already when we met last time with John here. The UN was ready, the Syrian Government was ready, but the opposition said that any convoy that would be going along the Castello Road would be shot at. And this attitude is actually – lingers in them. So many groups need to be influenced, and this process has had a lot of situations when someone could just slip away from the commitments and looked for the explanations why it was impossible to fulfill these or those obligations. But today, I repeat, we have developed a significant and practical and concrete package of documents. And due to the reasons mentioned by John, we cannot make these documents public because they contain rather sensitive and serious information and we do not want this information to come to the hands of those who would be trying to undermine the implementation of measures dedicated to humanitarian access and other parts of our arrangements. But those documents are already entering in force efficiently – officially since the 12th of September, or the so-called Day D.

    And I’m very glad that John said a very important thing. He said that the U.S. is firmly aimed to fight Nusrah and those who believe that the fighting with Nusrah is a concession to Russia are wrong. That is a very important constatation, or statement, because a lot of people supposed that the United States are really not very desirable to fight with Nusrah; they just keeping Nusrah as Plan B for overthrowing of the regime. So today’s statement of John is greatly welcomed by me.

    And this is not the end of the road and the way; that is just the beginning of our new relations. And we hope that all those who dearly value peace and the integrity of the multinational and multi-confessional Syrian state will support our arrangements. We expect to have closest cooperation with our friends from the UN, Staffan de Mistura and his team, because we are convinced that since the beginning of implementation of these arrangements, there will be favorable conditions, as it has been said, to resume the inter-Syrian negotiations on the political settlement. And we will, of course, urgent promote Staffan de Mistura and his team to use this moment. Thank you.

    SECRETARY KERRY: Sergey, thank you very much. I appreciate very much your underscoring that Russia has already talked to President Assad and he is prepared to live by these agreements, which is critical.

    It’s my pleasure now – we’re going to just hear a word – he’s not going to take any questions, but we do want – as you’ve heard tonight, the UN is a critical partner – critical partner – in all of this. We’re very grateful for their many efforts with respect to Syria, and I’d like to introduce the UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura.

    MR DE MISTURA: Thank you. Thank you very much. It’s been a long day and good results, so I will read a statement which is representing the position of the UN, with your permission, rather than talking off the cuff.

    The UN welcomes the understanding announced today by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and by Secretary of State John Kerry. This understanding regards reinstating the cessation of hostilities in Syria so that the parties can return to talks with humanitarian access being delivered and clear rules in place for the management of the cessation of hostilities again. We also welcome the fact that the Russian Federation and the United States of America are prepared indeed to work together to defeat Daesh and al-Nusrah. The United Nations hopes and believes that the political will that led to this understanding is sustained. It creates a real window of opportunity – a real window of opportunity – which all relevant actors in the region and beyond should seize to put the crisis in Syria on a different path and reduce the violence and the suffering of the Syrian people.

    Let me be clear – you have been asking me for that; I am ready to say it: The United Nations stands ready to deliver and to do whatever it can to support an early restoration of the cessation of hostilities. It also expects that all parties will facilitate UN efforts to indeed deliver humanitarian assistance to the population in need, including in besieged and hard-to-reach areas, according to our plan of September which you heard today. The UN will continue to exert all efforts to that end. It is vital that the real change is felt on the ground by the Syrian people.

    And lastly, the UN hopes that the implementation of this understanding will facilitate renewed efforts to reach a Syrian-owned, Syrian-led political settlement of the conflict, as called for in the Geneva communique, Security Council Resolution 2254. I will personally now proceed to New York in the coming days to consult with the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon ahead of the ministerial meeting that, as you know, will be taking place at the level of Security Council on the 21st of September, with a view to advancing this objective and discuss the date for the renewal of the next round of intra-Syrian talks.

    So let me say thank you to both of you for allowing us to restart the work. Thank you.

    SECRETARY KERRY: Both – yeah. I was just going to say Sergey and I both have flights that have been multiply delayed, so we’re just going to take one question, and we apologize.

    MR KIRBY: First question tonight comes from Elise Labott from CNN.

    QUESTION: Thank you, Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov. You talk about implementation as being the most important thing about this agreement. The entire ISSG, along with the Syrians and the opposition, agreed to a ceasefire in February. It was endorsed by the UN Security Council. How is this different? How can you make sure your respective allies in Syria and others who support them, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, are ready to respect the terms of any agreement that you adhere to?

    And Secretary Kerry, we have to ask you about North Korea. For seven years, you’ve – the Administration has attempted the same policy of increasing sanctions and strategic patience with North Korea. The Security Council, including Russia, passed what you called the most biting sanctions ever, and North Korea has only increased its weapons program and provocative behavior. Why is it not time to try either a harder embargo or new negotiations on the terms North Korea is laying out? Thank you.

    FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) Well, as far as the implementation of this arrangement is concerned, no one can give 100 percent guarantees, as I have said. There are a lot of stakeholders involved in this puzzle and there are quite opposite interests of a whole number of them, but the fact that we have managed to create the ISSG by the joint Russian-American efforts, and this group – in this group, all the countries influencing the situation are represented, including the Saudi Arabia and Iran mentioned by you. I believe this is a great achievement in itself.

    Another thing that – is that the capabilities of these group – of this group must be used in a responsible and weighted manner, and the situation when we gather all the participants and receive just an emotional discussion should be avoided. Everything should be prepared in advance, prepared thoroughly and carefully, and the documents that we have approved today – I believe we will have to inform the ISSG and the UN Security Council on their essence and nature if we want to receive the support of these organizations. But there is no other way except organizing the inclusive dialogue. We have – we see no other way, and this inclusiveness must be extended to inter-Syrian talks and to the outside circle which is to be closely involved in assisting those talks.

    And I would like to use this occasion to confirm that about the Korea and the situation on the Korean Peninsula, an official statement has been made by Russia expressing our non-acceptance of the actions that violate the resolutions of the UN Security Council, and we consider those actions as the neglect of the international law by Pyongyang. And we cannot allow that the line to undermine the nonproliferation regime which threatens the peace and security would not be noted and noticed.

    On the other hand, you are right that the current situation shows that maybe diplomats should be more creative than just responding by sanctions, sanctions, and sanctions again on any aggravation of the situation. I’m convinced that by condemning those dangerous exploits of the Korean Government, we must refrain from steps that could lead to further escalation of tensions and put this region on the verge of, we may say, armed opposition.

    We are for – well, as – in the similar situation as in – on the nuclear program of Iran and chemical demilitarization of Syria, there have been very creative approaches used by all the participants, including the U.S. and Russia. And I am convinced that here in the North Korea, besides the bat and – there is – and the stick, there is the opportunity to have a creative understanding of the situation and development of approaches that would allow to defuse tensions in the Korean Peninsula and in the Northeastern Asia as such.

    We are working on that and we believe that the Six-Party Talks – it is too early to bury the Six-Party Talks. We should look for ways that would allow us to resume them. Thank you.

    SECRETARY KERRY: So the question was asked: What is different about this situation relative to the previously announced ceasefires? Obviously, we worked very, very hard to make sure we weren’t just repeating the same thing. That doesn’t mean that it’s automatically going to succeed, but we’ve created an entirely different structure this time. What happened in the past is that, first of all, the Assad regime continued to fly and bomb, and bomb indiscriminately, and everybody knows the record of barrel bombs and hospitals and schools and children and so forth. And what happened was because of that continued bombing, those others who had signed up to the ceasefire felt compelled to fight to save their countrymen.

    Number two, there was always a confusion with Nusrah versus a legitimate opposition group. And in some cases they became melded together – marbleized, as some people have used the term – so that the Assad regime could say, “We’re going after Nusrah,” but at the same time would be attacking those who had signed up for the cessation of hostilities. And that confusion lent itself to a complete ultimate fraying of the ceasefire structure.

    And so the second thing – so you have the combination of the flights, the bombs, and the confusion with Nusrah. What we have just laid out to you, if it is implemented – and the implementation depends on the initial seven days of a genuine reduction in violence and calm that indicates seriousness of purpose. And when that has happened and the joint implementation group gets set up as a consequence of the increased humanitarian access and the reduction in violence, then we will be working together to be delineating and separating Nusrah and defining where they are, and working together using our knowledge and technology and assets to be able to do a more pinpoint/strategic set of operations to deal with Nusrah and/or ISIL.

    So the warning we give to opposition groups who have up until now found it convenient to sort of work with them is it would not be wise to do so in the future. It’s wise to separate oneself. And indeed, that will be different. There is a deterrence in that. There is also a deterrence in Russia holding Assad accountable for his promise. And so this is a new equation, and we believe that this new equation offers an opportunity – again, not a certainty, an opportunity – for people to be able to find a peaceful solution because we don’t believe there is a military solution. And the current trend is simply creating more terrorists, more extremists, and destroying the country in the process.

    So as I said earlier, folks, President Obama has gone the extra mile here in order to try to find a way, if possible, to end the carnage on the ground in Syria. And obviously I think it’s a courageous decision, I think it’s the right decision, and I hope likewise President Putin has made a decision to commit the resources of Russia to try to make sure the Assad regime lives up to its obligations and to work with us. So hopefully maybe this can turn some things around, and that’s what we’re working towards.

    Now with respect to North Korea, we have made overtures after overture to the dictator of North Korea. We have made it very clear to him that we’re prepared to talk about peace, about peace on the peninsula, about food assistance, about normal relationship with the world, about a nonaggression pact – I mean a host of different ingredients – if he will simply acknowledge he is prepared to come to the table and talk about denuclearization and his responsibilities to the world – not to us, to the whole world.

    He has refused to do that again and again. And yes indeed the last round of sanctions was the most biting sanctions to date. But as you recall, it took a number of years and a fair number of ratcheting up of sanctions to bring Iran to the table. Ultimately Iran came to the table and negotiated because they realized it was the responsible thing to do. And our hope is that ultimately we can get back to the talks. We’re prepared to go back right away. All Kim Jong-un has to do is say, “I’m prepared to talk about denuclearization.” But unfortunately he takes the exact opposite tack, recommits to his program, and against all United Nations Security Council resolutions, continues to explode, continues to shoot missiles, and continues to threaten and be provocative in the region. Which is why every country in the region, every neighbor of his in the region and outside of the region – near neighbors – are opposed to what he is doing. He stands alone and he invites even greater isolation.

    MODERATOR: (Via interpreter) And the question from the Russian journalist live news channel.

    QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Good evening. I have a question to Mr. Kerry. As far as the launching of the political dialogue of opposition and Damascus is concerned, when today you have agreed on the difficult issues, Russia and the U.S., will Washington now be able to fulfill its commitments to influence the opposition and return it to the negotiations table?

    SECRETARY KERRY: We’ve had – thank you for your question. We have had discussions with the opposition. The opposition has indicated they’re prepared, providing the regime proves that it is serious and there are the days of reduced violence to meet the standards that we have established. And if that happens and they’re given access for humanitarian goods, as we have been discussing here today, then I know Staffan de Mistura, who has had conversations with them, is prepared to issue an invitation at the appropriate time for them to be able to return.

    I have had personal conversations with the foreign ministers of each of the stakeholder countries. They have all indicated a readiness and willingness to go back to the table and to encourage the opposition to go back to the table. And I spoke with Dr. Hijab by video conference from Washington just the other day. He was in London and I talked to my fellow foreign ministers who had gathered there, and they all agreed that this idea of this ceasefire, if it could be implemented, would be extremely helpful, very welcome, and they all committed to try to urge all of the interested parties to be back at the table for the first really serious negotiation since this concept has existed. Thank you.

    FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) I’d just like to add a couple of words. The beginning of negotiations as soon as possible is not a matter that Russia and the U.S. can solve. That is the demand by the UN Security Council. Resolution 2254 says that the negotiations must be inclusive, with participation of all the sides in Syria, in particular the group – groups that were formed on the meetings in Moscow, Cairo, Riyadh, and other places. Thus all the mandate from the UN Security Council is quite clear, and of course the UN must implement this mandate by providing the inclusiveness of the inter-Syrian talks which we hope will resume in the nearest future in Geneva.

    There are attempts by separate countries to engage in provocations and represent or show one of the groups as the only opposition group that represents the whole opposition ready to engage in negotiations. And there have been even attempts to legalize such a group by inviting it to the UN Secretariat. We have been witnessing such attitudes and we believe that they fully contradict the agreements achieved within the ISSG co-chaired by the U.S. and Russia and the agreements enshrined in the UN Security Council resolutions.

    The sponsors – countries – sponsors of these or those opposition groups should fully understand their responsibility not to pull the blanket over themselves and not to think about their own ambitions but think about the unity of the Syrian people and the Syrian state.

    SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you.

    The supranational suspects behind 9/11

    The supranational suspects behind 9/11–


    White House, CIA, Saudis, Pakistanis, a Russian GRU firm, and the Israelis

    By: Joël v.d. Reijden | Date: January 13, 2013 | Last update: June 4, 2015 | Oversight pre-9/11 relationships | 9/11 STUDY CENTER


    Major additions: June 4, 2015 (now a 70,000 word paper, plus 132,000 words in 557 written-out endnotes)

    “Ba-boom! … like an earthquake… a giant, giant explosion. … massive explosion … huge explosion… huge, gigantic explosions… loud blast… secondary explosions… secondary device… flashes… bombs… shockwave… detonators… controlled demolition… pools of molten steel […] at the bottom of the elevator shafts… vaporized [steel] … lava … [underground] fires of hell… more than 2,800 degrees F [1540°C]…”

    Typical terms used by witnesses, mainly firefighters and other rescue personnel, to describe their experiences during the WTC collapses and the clean up of the site. Little of it fits the attack as it was devised by Osama bin Laden and cohorts. See Part 1 for full details on this aspect.

    “We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (…Inaudible…) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the fuel in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for. …

    “We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. … The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn’t know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes. … Mohammed [Atta] … was in charge of the group.”

    November 1, 2001, Osama bin Laden privately discussing details of the attack. A videotape of the conversation was found by U.S. forces on November 9 and released in December. Apart from 19 hijackers running around in the United States, from this it seems clear that Al Qaeda, whoever is behind them in terms of financing and control, plotted the attack, but also that even a very optimistic Osama did not expect a full collapse of the towers – not to mention WTC 7.



    Obama Forcing Quack Behavioral “Science” On American People

    Social engineering–

    Obama hired behavioral experts to get more people on federal programs


    handoutNewly surfaced documents show that the White House quietly placed 20 social and behavioral experts on the federal government’s payroll in an effort to find ways to make Americans more likely to sign up for government programs.President Barack Obama signed an executive order in 2015 demanding that federal agency directors find ways to use behavioral science to better sell government programs to the public (Executive Order — Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People).

    The government contracted “20 leading social and behavioral research experts” and carried out “more than 75 agency collaborations” with the newly formed Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST) to find ways to better sell federal programs to Americans.

    Judicial Watch, which obtained information about the program via the Freedom of Information Act, reported:

    A memo sent from SBST chair Maya Shankar, a neuroscientist, to OSTP Director John Holdren offers agencies guidance and information about available government support for using behavioral insights to improve federal forms. Sent electronically, the memo is titled “Behavioral Science Insights and Federal Forms.”

    The records, obtained from the OSTP under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), also include a delivery by Holdren in which he insists that the social and behavioral sciences “are real science, with immensely valuable practical applications—the views of a few members of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding—and that these sciences abundantly warrant continuing support in the Federal science and technology budget.” Holdren, a Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate is a peculiar character who worked as an environmental professor at Harvard and the University of California Berkeley before becoming Obama’s science advisor. In the late 70s he co-authored a book with doomsayer Paul Ehrlich advocating for mandatory sterilization of the American people and forced abortions in order to depopulate the country. A head of the OSTP Holdren technically oversees the SBST.

    Despite the FOIA request, there’s still much Americans don’t know about the administration’s secretive efforts to make federal programs more appealing and signing up easier.

    That’s because the Obama White House withheld more than 100 pages of information on the program, saying it was exempt from having to provide the information under deliberative process. Deliberative process privilege is an often-abused transparency loophole which allows government officials to discuss policy without having to make the discussions public.

    US/Russia Syrian Plan Could Actually Lead To Something Resembling PEACE

    A sign for Syria: The U.S.-Russia plan could steer the war to end

    pittsburgh post gazette

    The United States and Russia have put forward proposals that could begin to bring to an end the horrible slaughter in Syria that has continued for more than five years.

    The craftsmen of the proposal were U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. They are the same two who led the way in bringing home the agreement between the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) plus Germany and Iran, exchanging Iran’s nuclear weapons program for international economic sanctions against it. The two reached agreement in Geneva.

    The first critical piece of the accord is a “cessation of hostilities” to begin today at sundown. A second military step will be the establishment Sept. 19 of a joint U.S.-Russian implementation center. It will begin by coordinating U.S. and Russian military strikes in Syria against forces of the Islamic State and Jabbat Fateh al-Sham, formerly known as the Nusra Front, Islamist organizations that both nations and the government of President Bashar Assad in Syria oppose.

    The devil of these agreements is always in the details, but, in this case, the principal enemy of implementation is the plethora of national and international parties to the conflict, active to different degrees. International parties involved include Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

    To begin with, on a positive note, Russia states that the Syrian government is ready to fulfill the measures in the U.S.-Russian accord. Its forces, say the Russians, upon whom the Syrian government is dependent to a degree for its military capacity, will end combat missions into specified opposition-occupied areas. These include at least part of Aleppo, Syria’s largest city and a charnel house of recent killing.

    Some of the hydra-headed Syrian opposition has voiced cautious approval of the U.S.-Russian proposals. The United States is on the hook to deliver the agreement of the Syrian opposition groups that depend on American aid, including Kurdish forces.

    The European Union has called on the United Nations, led by U.N. Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura, to prepare a proposal for a political transition in Syria that could lead from the U.S.-Russian measures to a total end to the civil war. It has continued for five years. An estimated 400,000 have died, many of them children. Another estimated 5 million Syrians have fled the country, stripping it and creating problems in countries of refuge.

    The question now is whether Syrians and the rest of the world have finally reached the point of concluding, first, that Syrians have suffered enough, and, second, that the problems in Syria are not susceptible to being resolved by more fighting. It is possible that that point has now been reached.

    The Delusions of International Diplomacy

    [If we can ignore the “Ziocon” source of the following article, the author makes a lot of valid points about the dangerous US reliance upon so-called “Public Diplomacy”.]

    [The Inevitible End Result of Public Diplomacy In Negotiations With Terrorists ; US Public Diplomacy Means Smiling Faces Hide Lying Lips ; Wikileaks Reveal Ugly Truth About US “Public Diplomacy,” Betraying the People’s Trust]

    North Korea and the Delusions of International Diplomacy

    front page mag

    The high cost of clinging to our superstitions and myths about our superior knowledge.

    Bruce Thornton


    Last week North Korea conducted its fifth nuclear test, this one a 10-kiloton, miniaturized warhead that can be put on a missile. If North Korean claims are true, this successful test, along with the 20 long-range missile tests conducted this year, shows that a rogue thug state is on the brink of being able to send a nuclear-tipped missile as far as Chicago. President Obama responded with the usual empty diplomatic bluster, threatening “additional significant steps, including new sanctions to demonstrate to North Korea that there are consequences to its unlawful and dangerous actions.”  Once again, the magical thinking of international diplomacy puts our national interests and security in mortal danger.

    We’re well beyond a century’s worth of the delusional idealism of what historian Corelli Barnett calls “moralizing internationalism.” This is the notion that non-violent diplomatic “engagement,” economic sanctions, and transnational covenants and institutions like the U.N. can deter or stop aggression without a credible threat to use force.

    A particularly surreal version of this stubborn belief appeared in early 1914, in the British National Peace Council Peace Yearbook:

    Peace, the babe of the nineteenth century, is the strong youth of the twentieth century; for War, the product of anarchy and fear, is passing away under the growing and persistent pressure of world organization, economic necessity, human intercourse, and that change of spirit, that social sense and newer aspect of worldwide life which is the insistent note, the Zeitgeist of the age.

    A few months later the world exploded into the gruesome carnage wrought by trench warfare, machine guns, poison gas, and a billion artillery shells fired. Despite that horrific lesson, the victors, still in thrall to the same internationalist delusions, created the League of Nations. The League spent twenty years in diplomatic chatter, feeble sanctions, and feckless appeasement that culminated in 60 million dead in World War II. Followed, of course by the creation of the U.N., yet another feckless and corrupt manifestation of historical amnesia.

    Seventy years later we still haven’t learned anything. The history of the West’s attempts to keep North Korea from acquiring a nuclear weapon is a depressing chronicle of diplomatic failure. Consider just two years of that history:

    • In 1991, President George H.W. Bush withdrew 100 nuclear weapons from South Korea as part of a deal with Mikhail Gorbachev.
    • A few months later, the South-North Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula was signed, under which both countries agreed not to “test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons” or to “possess nuclear reprocessing.”
    • The next year the North signed the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and allowed in inspectors.
    • In March 1992, the U.S. had to impose sanctions on two companies in the North involved in developing missiles in violation of these signed treaties. In June new sanctions were imposed, and in September the International Atomic Energy Agency found discrepancies in North Korea’s initial report on its nuclear program.
    • In February 1993, the IAEA demanded inspections of two nuclear waste sites. The North refused, and the next month threatened to withdraw from the NPT. After talks in New York, at which the U.S. offered the North a light-water nuclear reactor, the North suspended its withdrawal. Late that year, the CIA estimated that North Korea had separated 12 kilograms of plutonium, enough for two weapons.

    In just two years we can see how a determined aggressor can manipulate idealistic internationalism in order to achieve its aims. Multilateral talks were held, threats were issued, promises made and broken, international institutions joined and repudiated, “carrots” ranging from food aid to nuclear reactors offered and delivered, “sticks” like useless sanctions imposed, inspectors gulled, and moratoria and agreements serially violated by the North. The whole charade ended in 2009 with the North Koreans announcing they had a stockpile of nuclear weapons, today numbering between 10 and 16; China puts the number at 40. Given the failure of the West to punish the North, why should we be surprised that it continues to test missiles and nuclear devices, and now stands on the brink of reaching our shores with a WMD?

    No one should have been surprised, as the whole history of arms control efforts going back to the first Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 comprises the same catalogue of duplicity and cheating on one side, and misplaced idealism and failure of nerve on the other. Another constant weakness of diplomatic idealism since the 19th century is the West’s mistaken belief that the whole world wants what we want and will play by our rules to get it. We cannot imagine that there are peoples and leaders who prefer aggression to coexistence, or supremacism to tolerance, or violence to peace. We are addled by our modern superstition that the “human sciences” have learned the secret springs of human behavior, and that with this knowledge we can improve people and help them abandon their outmoded and irrational traditions and cultures and religious beliefs.  We especially reject the old wisdom that, as Machiavelli put it, “all men are bad and . . . will use their malignity of mind every time they have the opportunity.” Once we’ve moved beyond this crude belief­­––the truth of which is documented on every page of history and in every daily newspaper––then will come the age of global peace and cooperation outlined in the 1914 Peace Yearbook.

    Thus mired as we are in the received wisdom of international diplomacy based on such idealism, we continue to make the same errors despite the long record of its bloody failure.

    Take Russia. The Trumpophobes are currently hysterical over Trump’s overly conciliatory comments about Vladimir Putin. Yet Obama’s appeasing deeds have emboldened Putin more than Trump’s careless words. In 2006, Hillary Clinton presented the Russian foreign minister with a plastic “reset” button labeled with the wrong Russian word. To achieve the improved relations sought by the “reset,” in 2009 Obama dropped plans to install missile interceptors and radar in Poland and the Czech Republic, something Russia vehemently opposed. This appeasing gesture was followed up in 2012 by the infamous hot mic pledge to outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” after the election to address Russia’s continuing displeasure with antimissile defense. Medvedev assured the president he would pass the kind words on to incoming president Putin.

    All this diplomatic “outreach” and “concession” has achieved is Russia’s annexation of the Crimea, its virtual occupation of eastern Ukraine, and its dominating presence in the Middle East that it hasn’t had since Anwar Sadat kicked the Soviets out of Egypt in 1972. But once again, this president and his foreign policy team still cling to the diplomatic magical thinking that more talk and more concessions will change an aggressor’s behavior. The result has been a drastic reduction in America’s global prestige, one perhaps best symbolized the other day by China’s contemptuous refusal to provide a staircase so that the leader of the most powerful nation in history could exit his airplane.

    Of course, the deal with Iran is one of the worst examples of such delusions of diplomacy. It is obvious that Iran carefully studied the North Korean playbook and employed the same tactics to gull the West and bring itself to the brink of nuclear capability. But the danger from Iran far outstrips that from North Korea. The latter is a thugocracy run for the pleasure and profit of the Kim dynasty and its playboy leader. It is unlikely to risk annihilation of its wealth and privilege by using its bombs, especially when the mere existence of its nuclear arsenal is enough to neutralize the West.

    But the theocracy of Iran is a different matter. It follows an apocalyptic sect of Islam that believes a hidden redeemer called the Mahdi will arise after a global conflict that kills a third of the world’s peoples. Then the Mahdi will, in the words of Ali, the reputed founder of Shia Islam, “conquer the whole world. All would enter the fold of religion willingly or unwillingly. He would fill the earth with justice, equity and proof. No disbeliever will remain without accepting the faith.” Iran’s rulers have long believed that these end times can be hastened by violent aggression, starting with the Iranian Revolution. The possession of nuclear weapons will obviously bring such dreams closer to reality. Smug Western secularists may dismiss such irrationality, but it would be a dangerous foreign policy gamble not to take the mullahs at their word and allow them to acquire nuclear weapons.

    Once again we so-called moderns, “the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about,” as Chesterton put it, cling to our own superstitions and myths about our superior knowledge, even as we ignore the wisdom of the past and the lessons of history. The ancient Greeks called this hubris. The nemesis that punishes such arrogance is likely to be devastating.

    China Basically Owns Gwadar Port and Possibly Most of Pakistan

    [Photo from Pak Navy site.]

    [Judging from the above photo, PNS Akram is a joke.  Indian PM Modi waging psywar against Chinese in Pakistan and China may be bending under the assault (SEE:  India Disrupting CPEC Plans, China Trying Diplomacy First ; CIPEC: China India Pakistan Economic Corridor – Howzat?Indian Map Trick Becomes India’s Best Hope To Stop China-Pakistan Economic Corridor–CPEC).  There will be no adding India to the project, and there will be no project without first taming the terrorist plague and solving the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.] 

    China starts offering Gwadar Port’s Economic Zone infrastructure to foreign investors


    Sep 1, 2016 (BE2C2 Report: Irshad Salim) — The Chinese firm ‘Gwadar Free Zone Company’ has begun offering Gwadar Port’s Economic Zone (GPEZ) infrastructure facilities to foreign investors to manufacture, operate businesses and compete with regional market while the Gwadar Port is set to become fully operational by year end.

    The Gwadar Free Zone Company is financing the infrastructure development of the free zone area under the $36bn CPEC, with the exception of access roads, which is being financed by the Gwadar Port Authority. The company will bring local and foreign investments to establish manufacturing assembly and processing plants, according to their agreement with the government of Pakistan.


    Under the agreement, 15pc of gross revenue from the free zone will be paid to the Gwadar Port Authority by the Chinese firm. It is expected that the development of the zone will help create job opportunities, and lead to transfer of technology and regional business activities. It will serve commercial activities and traffic to and from China, the Central Asian states and Afghanistan, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Iran and Southeast Asia.

    In fact, Gwadar is designed to facilitate trade among more than 12 states of the regions encompassing it.

    Based on the free trade agreements signed by Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Chinese products can enter the Middle East market without payment of duty after being sub-packaged in the Free Trade Zone.

    Construction work is proceeding to link the Gwadar deep sea port with the hinterland (China’s southwestern province of Xinjiang) through rail, to fully realize the port’s potential. According to one analyst, the Gwadar project serves both China’s “look west” and Pakistan’s “look east” policies. For Pakistan, handing Gwadar over to China is one of the most visible manifestations of Pakistan’s own “regional pivot” attempts, especially against the backdrop of possible NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan.


    It’s a geo-economics not geostrategic initiative, says Pakistan’s minister for planning Mr. Ahsan Iqbal. According to several analysts, it’s both with potential to emerge into nation-island over several decades.

    The Special Economic Zone (SEZ) being developed at the port will accommodate industrial units for mines and minerals, food processing, agriculture, livestock and energy. It is the first of 27 SEZs being set up across the country under the CPEC.

    The special zone will boost global market presence by attracting businesses, foreign investments in general trade, services, manufacturing, logistics, bunkering and trans-shipments.

    It allows 23 years tax holiday and land lease for 99 years besides other benefits for international investors to establish businesses in the zone.

    Gwadar city and port facilities master plan was designed by United States based company, Arthur D. Little which was considered as futuristic and able to cater all facilities till year 2050.

    The Free Zone is located at major destination and gateway of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and provides opportunities and a window into land-locked central Asian Republics on the north and the Middle East and African region on its southwest.

    At least 13 injured as police foil suicide blasts targeting Shia Offering Eid prayers in Shikarpur

    [Believe it or not, he is still alive.] photos source
    [Failed Suicide-Bomber’s Undelivered Package…NOT Ball Bearings, 1/2″ Nuts.]

    SHIKARPUR: At least 13 people, including five cops, were injured as police foiled two separate suicide blasts during Eid prayers in Shikarpur’s Khanpur tehsil on Monday.

    Police sources said four suicide attackers infiltrated Khanpur during Eid prayers.

    Two of the attackers targeted an Eid prayer ground where one assailant blew himself up, injuring 10 people, two of whom were policemen. The other attacker fled, police sources said.

    Two other attackers targeted an imambargah but were stopped by police at the entrance on account of appearing suspicious. One of the attackers blew himself up after he was stopped by guards for a search, whereas the other was arrested, police said.

    Police officer Bahardin Kerio said the second attacker, a would-be suicide bomber, was shot and wounded at the scene, after which the officers arrested him.

    Three police officers were wounded in the explosion. Kerio said one of the wounded officers was in critical condition.

    He added that there were hundreds of worshippers inside the imambargah at the time.

    Those injured in the blast have been admitted to hospitals in Shikarpur for treatment.

    No one immediately claimed responsibility for the attack.

    “Godfather” of CIA, Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen–CIA’S Actual Files


    RELEASE – CIA Files on Reinhard Gehlen

    Note: While these files have been declassified and available to the public for several years, I have not seen them assembled into any sort of easy to download files. These 2,000+ pages, split into seven volumes, comprise the declassified portions of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) file on General Reinhard Gehlen, the Nazi intelligence chief who served many masters, including the CIA.


    GENERAL Reinhard Gehlen, perhaps one of the most important people in modern American history that few have ever heard of.  While his influence was covert, it was of no less force.  The Nazi intelligence chief who served many masters including Adolf Hitler, NATO, and the United States Government. His intelligence reports on the Soviet Union during the formative years of the Cold War were used to shape American foreign policy.

    During World War II, Gehlen was made chief of Fremde Herre Ost (Foreign Armies East), Nazi Germany’s military intelligence unit on the Eastern Front. He was able to reach the rank of Major-General before being fired by Hitler in 1945 for his accurate, but pessimistic, reports on the Red Army. However, early on he had sensed that Germany might not win the war, and so he had all of his intelligence documents microfilmed, placed in steel drums, and buried in the Bavarian Alps. It would later be these files that would save him from imprisonment and the war crimes trials.

    In 1945, Gehlen surrendered to The Army Counter Intelligence Corp (CIC), and upon interrogation, he offered up his files and network of spies to the United States in exchange for his freedom. The files were dug up, his men in the Allied POW camps were transferred, and he was flown to Fort Hunt in Virginia in secret. It was there that a deal was hammered out for Gehlen to return to Germany, re-establish his intelligence network, and serve the United States Government. Thus the Gehlen Organization was born.

    The Gehlen Organization, or the “Org” as it was referred to, was then grafted on to the fledgling CIA at its creation in 1947, and it was often the only eyes and ears on the ground in many Soviet bloc countries after the war.  It was through the Gehlen Organization that many hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of SS, SD, and Gestapo men came to work for the United States Government. It was the intelligence reports from these Nazi men, that wound up comprising an estimated 70% of all U.S. intelligence on the Soviet Union during the early part of the Cold War.

    In 1956, the Org was handed over to West Germany and Gehlen became the first President of the Federal Intelligence Service (BND). He held this post until 1968 before being forced out due to a combination of factors. At his retirement he received one of the highest civilian grade pensions from the West German Republic, and allegedly, a pension from the CIA…


    Files hosted on

    CIA FILE – Reinhard Gehlen – Vol. I

    CIA FILE – Reinhard Gehlen – Vol. II

    CIA FILE – Reinhard Gehlen – Vol. III

    CIA FILE – Reinhard Gehlen – Vol. IV

    CIA FILE – Reinhard Gehlen – Vol. V

    CIA FILE – Reinhard Gehlen – Vol. VI

    CIA FILE – Reinhard Gehlen – Vol. VII



    Philippine Pres. Duterte Orders US Special Forces To Leave Mindanao

    [International media mistranslated Duterte’s Obama slam as S.O.B., when it should have read, “a son of a whore.”]

    Duterte orders US advisers out of southern Philippines


    President Rodrigo Duterte ratcheted up his feud with the United States, ordering all American special forces out of the southern Philippines where they have been advising local troops battling Muslim extremists.

    Duterte’s order came a week after he called US President Barack Obama “a son of a whore,” causing Obama to cancel their scheduled bilateral meeting at a summit in Laos.

    The Filipino leader, the first to hail from the south and who claims Muslim ancestry, has been stepping up efforts to bring peace to the southern Philippines, where decades-long insurgencies with Muslim and communist rebels have claimed more than 150,000 lives.

    Last month, he restarted peace talks with the largest separatist group, the 12,000-strong Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), which like others has been fighting since the 1970s for an independent Islamic state or autonomous rule.

    US advisors in the area help train Filipino troops but are barred from engaging in combat except in self-defence.

    Previously, about 500-600 US personnel rotated through the Mindanao region but in 2014, then-defence secretary Voltaire Gazmin said, this would be cut back to 200.

    Duterte did not specify when or how many Americans would be expelled but said, the Philippines’ alignment with the West was at the root of the persistent Muslim insurgency.

    “These US special forces, they have to go in Mindanao,” he told a gathering of government employees.

    “The (Muslim) people will become more agitated. If they see an American, they will really kill him.”

    The Pentagon saidm it was aware of Duterte’s statements but had not been contacted by authorities on the issue.

    “We will continue to consult closely with our Filipino partners to appropriately tailor our assistance to whatever approach the new Administration adopts,” Pentagon Spokesman Gary Ross said.

    The United States is Manila’s main military ally and the Philippines’ colonial ruler until 1946. In his speech, Duterte showed photographs and cited accounts of how US troops killed Muslims during America’s occupation of the Philippines in the early-1900s to explain his decision.

    Duterte’s Spokesman Ernesto Abella said that “the statement reflects (President Duterte’s) new direction towards coursing an independent foreign policy.”

    The Filipino leader also hit out at Obama and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for criticising his bloody crackdown on crime that has claimed 3,000 lives in a little over two months.

    “This Obama, when you accuse me of killing… let he who is without sin, cast the first stone,” he said.

    In a brief encounter in Laos, Obama urged the Filipino leader to conduct his war on crime “the right way” and protect human rights, but Duterte has said it is none of America’s business.

    Syria Says It Shot Down Israeli Jet and Drone, Zionist Entity Denies

    Syria’s army said it shot down an Israeli warplane and a drone after they attacked a military position early in the country’s south early Tuesday.

    “Our air defenses blocked the attack and shot down the military aircraft in (the southern province of) Quneitra and a drone” in the province of Damascus, the Syrian Army’s General Command said the statement carried by state news agency SANA.

    This attack is part of the Zionist enemy’s support to the terrorists armed groups, in a hopeless attempt to raise their morals after the major failure and losses in battlefield, the General Command said in the statement.

    For its part, the Israeli occupation army said none of its aircraft had been downed.

    “Overnight two surface-to-air missiles were launched from Syria after the (Israeli) mission overnight to target Syrian artillery positions,” occupation military spokesman Arye Shalicar said.

    “At no point was the safety of (Israeli) aircraft compromised. Nothing true about what they claim.”

    Earlier, the Israeli military said it targeted Syrian army positions after stray fire from Syria hit the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights on Monday.

    Chinese and Russian Navies Practice “Island Seizing” In Ongoing S. China Sea Exercise

    [To include simulated “Island Seizing”]

    Chinese, Russian navies hold joint war games in South China Sea


    Associated Press

    BEIJING — The Chinese and Russian navies launched eight days of war games in the South China Sea on Monday, in a sign of growing cooperation between their armed forces against the backdrop of regional territorial disputes.

    The “Joint Sea-2016″ maneuvers include surface ships, submarines, ship-borne helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, along with marines and amphibious armored vehicles who will conduct live-firing exercises, according to a Defense Ministry statement issued Sunday.

    Tasks will include defensive and rescue drills, anti-submarine exercises and the simulated seizure of an enemy island by marines from both sides.

    The exercise is part of an annual program, which “aims to consolidate and advance the Sino-Russian comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination, and deepen friendly and practical cooperation between the two militaries,” Chinese navy spokesman Liang Yang was quoted as saying.

    “It will also improve coordination between the two navies on joint defense operations at sea,” Liang said.

    The ministry didn’t say exactly where the drills would be held in the South China Sea, home to heated territorial disputes between China and its Southeast Asian neighbors.

    Joint Chinese-Russian drills have grown increasingly common in recent years — this week’s exercises are the fifth between the two navies since 2012 — with the countries joined in their mutual suspicion of the U.S. and its allies.

    Russia has been the only major country to speak out on China’s behalf in its demand that the U.S. and other countries stay out of such arguments. That came as an arbitration panel in the Hague, Netherlands, issued a ruling invalidating China’s claims to virtually the entire South China Sea, a result that Beijing angrily rejected as null and void.

    Following the ruling, China vowed to continue developing man-made islands in the disputed Spratly island group and said it would conduct regular aerial patrols over the strategically vital sea through which passes an estimated $5 trillion in trade each year.

    While China says the drills do not envision specific enemies or target any third parties, their location in the tense South China Sea has drawn criticism.

    During a visit to China last month, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet Adm. Scott Swift said: “There are other places those exercises could have been conducted.” He described them as part of a series of actions “that are not increasing the stability within the region.”

    Russian news outlets said 18 ships, 21 aircraft and more than 250 marines from both sides would take part in the drills. The ships include destroyers, cruisers, a Russian battleship, amphibious warfare ships and supply vessels./rga


    Pak-Russian Special Forces To Train Together In Pak Mountains

    [Counterterror Cooperation Very High on Pakistan-Russia Agenda ]

    Russian Mi-24 helicoptersRussia’s New Silk Road Strategy: Connecting to Pakistan

    Published date: 8th October 2012

    Even though much awaited President Putin’s visit to Pakistan in the first week of October has been shelved, causing disappointment among the Pakistani establishment, the doors for finding a new understanding between the two on Afghanistan and regional issues remain wide open. Putin was to pay a bilateral visit to Pakistan before the quadrilateral summit that was scheduled for 2-3 October in Islamabad. Pakistan had become part of the quadrilateral of Russia, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan in July 2009 when the forum’s first summit was held in Dushanbe. The main goals of the quartet are to promote regional trade and undertake joint projects in energy, transport, communications, agriculture and infrastructure. Combating terrorism, extremism, illegal trafficking of drugs and trans-national organized crimes, supporting peace and stability in Afghanistan and in the region are the other major objectives. These are usually the objectives of any number of multi-lateral structures and organizations that exist in this troubled region, for instance the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

    Finding a regional solution to many of the problems being faced by the region especially that of instability, insecurity in Afghanistan and improving the socio-economic environment have driven the major players like the U.S., China and Russia to advance their own formulations and structures. However, the competing strategies of the main players in the arena have only added to the complexity of the regional issues.

    At a time when Pakistan’s stock is running at all time low with the U.S. and its coalition partners in Afghanistan, Islamabad has been working to find a new strategic equation in the post-2014 Afghanistan scenario. Russians believe that Pakistan remains central to the Afghan imbroglio and has an important role to play in the unfolding scenario. Pakistan hopes to obtain a favourable outcome in the Afghan end game with Russia on its side. Moscow has also not been much enamoured by the so called ‘reset’ in its relations with the U.S., as promised by Obama administration. American policies on BMD, eastwards expansion of NATO and contesting Russia’s ‘privileged status’ in Central Asian region has soured the U.S-Russian relationship. Even though Russia is providing logistics routes through its territory for ISAF troops in Afghanistan it continues to oppose American bases and transit facilities being provided by Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

    Further, in the long run both Russia and Pakistan would like to see the back of the American troops in Afghanistan. They are against the long term presence of the American bases in Afghanistan as these have adverse strategic connotations for both Russia and nuclear Pakistan.

    There is also a wide-spread belief that in its approach to Afghanistan, China is becoming wary of putting all its eggs in the Pakistani basket and has embarked on establishing a direct relationship with the Kabul regime. On the sidelines of the SCO Summit in June this year, China and Afghanistan signed a strategic partnership agreement. At the summit, Afghanistan was admitted to SCO as on observer. Further in September Zhou Yongkang – member of the powerful Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party – visited Afghanistan and signed a number of agreements on assisting Afghanistan in its security sector development programmes. He committed to training 300 Afghan national police officers which in effect could help the ISAF/NATO efforts of training the Afghan National Security Forces.

    Thus, Pakistan has been aiming at finding new partners in the power play taking place in the region. As part of Pakistan’s desire to forge a cozy relationship with Russia Gen. Kayani has also traveled to Moscow in the first week of October. In fact, as a military head and one who is the final arbiter of Pakistan’s security and foreign policies, his visit would give an opportunity to Russian leaders to obtain insights into Pakistan’s fresh thinking, if any, on Afghanistan and regional security issues. While Kayani was in Moscow, the Russian Foreign Minister was in Islamabad for parleys with his Pakistani counterpart to explain the absence of Putin and identify with Pakistan’s role in the region. Sergei Lavrov supported Pakistan’s stance on the U.S. Drone strikes and denounced these attacks as violations of Pakistani sovereign territory.

    Russia and Pakistan are looking for many benefits from mutual cooperation. The Russian gas company Gazprom has been looking forward to being awarded a contract for building the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline without many of the processes associated with the laid down procedures. Russia has agreed to modernise, reconstruct and expand the Pakistan Steel Mills that has been running far below its capacity. Russia would also be supporting Pakistan Railways by undertaking a joint venture for developing a carriages workshop and may even supply Russian rail carriages. The Russians are also converting two Pakistani thermal power plants from furnace oil to coal.

    Gaining access to the warm waters of the Indian Ocean has been a long cherished Russian desire since the days of Tsarist Russia and a route through Pakistan could be one useful option. Writing recently in Pravda, an analyst Lyuba Lulko suggests that “establishing close cooperation with Pakistan will give Russia a real chance to gain a foothold in Central and South Asia. In addition, Russia will be able to access the Indian Ocean, and make the U.S. troops in Afghanistan directly dependent on its logistics.”

    The proposed multimodal transport links, another version of the old Silk Road are expected to provide benefits to all the four countries involved. Pakistan will gain access to Central Asian markets while Tajikistan and Russia would gain access to Pakistani ports. Commenting on last year’s Quadrilateral Summit at Sochi, Chairman of the Russian Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee Konstantin Kosachev, observed that “Russia may become a donor of economic, social and military-political security for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan.”

    Russia has also offered to revive all the Soviet era industrial and infrastructure projects (numbering about 140) in Afghanistan. Russia is also willing to help Tajikistan in the hydro-power sector. The Central Asia South Asia 1000 (CASA-1000) power transmission project of exporting electricity from hydro-power rich Tajikistan to Afghanistan and Pakistan is a much touted project. However, it is difficult to be realized because of objections to hydro-power projects by the down stream Central Asian countries like Uzbekistan. Another project is of building a road from Tajikistan across the Wakhan corridor to Pakistan in order to enhance regional connectivity. If Russia is able to support such projects and find the finances for the same then it would also gain a degree of control and enhance its influence in the region.

    However, Pakistan and Russia would certainly have competing objectives in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Unlike Pakistan, Russia would be apprehensive of a radical Taliban regime in Kabul that may have the agenda of spreading its ideology to the Central Asian republics and beyond to Chechnya. Pakistan has not been able to control its own radical jihadis and it is unlikely that it would be able to have a degree of control over a resurgent Taliban regime in Kabul.

    So far as India is concerned, the pipeline projects like Iran-Pakistan-India or TAPI gas pipeline project or for that any other multi-modal transport corridors can become economically viable only when India is included in them. A limited grouping like Russia-Afghanistan-Tajikistan-Pakistan may only produce a limited benefit. Pakistan’s obtuse policies of denying overland transit to Indian goods to Afghanistan and beyond deprive Pakistan and other regional countries the benefits of revenue and beneficial economic engagement and trade. Equally, its sponsorship of terrorism, and proclivity to use transit for political purposes, as shown most recently by its shutting down the NATO supply lines to Afghanistan, ensure that India remains wary of any such projects.

    Connecting South Asia to Central Asia, especially through Pakistan (the shortest overland route) could be a win-win situation for all countries in the region with Afghanistan emerging as an important hub of communications in all directions. This would have positive effect on security, stability and economy of Afghanistan. But Pakistan will have to undertake a root-and-branch transformation of its security outlook for that to happen.


    9/11 patriotism hard to find


    9/11 patriotism hard to find

    chieftain editorial

    Fifteen years ago today, America was shocked by terrorist attacks primarily in New York and at the Pentagon that took nearly 3,000 lives.

    First, we felt disbelief. Then we were stunned. Then came anger and rage; demands for revenge.

    But something else happened, something that we have lost in the intervening 15 years: Unity.

    In 2001, we came together as a nation. It was common in the days and weeks after 9/11 to see people with flags waving from their cars and motorcycles. Healing concerts were held by numerous top-flight entertainers to raise money for the victims’ families. For a brief moment, we were one as U.S. citizens, united in our love for our country.

    Today, we are far from united. In fact, we are polarized. We have learned, especially in this election cycle, that we are Americans last in the categorization of citizens. No. We are classified as Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, racists and elitists, rich and poor, black and brown and white.

    We don’t listen to each other nor do we consider each other’s points of views. We don’t want to be bothered by the facts. We are close-minded, and those who disagree with us are enemies.

    We yell, we scream. Even at an event as festive and fun as the Fiesta Day Parade on Northern Avenue during the State Fair, protesters yelled obscenities and spat at those who supported a candidate that they oppose.

    We see Colin Kaepernick, an NFL quarterback, sit during the national anthem in protest of racism and mistreatment of minorities in the U.S. We support his right to do that, but frankly, what is his body of work to try to improve race relations?

    Has he spent countless hours in the slums of our inner cities, where his celebrity would give him access to talk to gang members, drug dealers and others?

    Has he spent his life protesting inequality and injustice, like, say, NBA Hall of Famer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? Has he sacrificed his career and his livelihood, as did Muhammad Ali, to take a stand? Has he spent his own money, as has NBA Hall of Famer Magic Johnson, to open businesses in crime-riddled neighborhoods?

    He can go ahead and sit if he feels he’s making a difference. But there comes a time when actions must be real and not symbolic. Sit if you must, Kaepernick, during the national anthem. But then rise and make a real difference.

    And then we have the presidential race, in which one very intelligent candidate calls people names (Little Marco, Lyin’ Ted, Crooked Hillary) like he’s in elementary school. And the other candidate, likewise very intelligent, lacks the common sense to protect sensitive government emails.

    Sadly and unnervingly, this race also has unearthed a great deal of ugliness in this nation. Watch the rallies and press conferences. People are nearly frothing in their hate and disrespect for their candidate’s opponent.

    We are demonizing the two candidates for president. While we likewise are in dismay that this is the best we can come up with, we still want to hear what they have to say and consider their positions.

    But most of the nation does not. Too many people just want to yell and scream and spit and hate.

    Fifteen years since our nation’s greatest domestic tragedy. Fifteen years since we came together as a nation.

    And today? We seem further apart than ever.

    On this sacred day, let’s take a moment to reflect on how fortunate we are to be Americans, to live in freedom in the greatest nation in the history of the world.

    Let’s disagree, but let’s do it with class and consideration for those with whom we don’t agree.

    Let’s look to the example of our Founding Fathers as they debated and argued before producing the remarkable Constitution. They found a way to work through their considerable differences.

    That is what we must do, whether it’s in Congress or at a gathering of senior citizens in a doughnut shop. We must be willing to listen, to compromise and consider all points of view.

    We shouldn’t need a national tragedy such as 9/11 to bring us closer together. And as we remember those who died in 9/11, let us ponder the wisdom of Maya Angelou, who wrote in her beautiful poem, “The Human Family”:

    “We are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike.”

    Fellow citizens, just because we have lost sight of that doesn’t mean we cannot regain it.

    Let each of us rededicate ourselves to being true Americans. To respect each other, to listen to each other, to be willing to change our positions and beliefs if persuaded by the facts.

    “We are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike.”

    Globalist Driven Economic Armageddon

    Globalist-Driven Economic Armageddon


    “Politicians have lately been rewriting a rule in place since 3,000 B.C.”


    Arnold Ahlert

    “Politicians playing by their own rules is an old story. But it should count as news that politicians have lately been rewriting a rule in place since 3,000 B.C. This rule of history is that savers deserve to be compensated when they loan money.”—from a Wall Street Journal column by James Freeman.

    If there is a more ominous development than upending 5,000 years of basic economics — as in paying borrowers to borrow money — one is hard-pressed to imagine what it is. Yet five of the world’s central banks in Denmark, the EU, Sweden, Switzerland and Japan have negative interest rates, and Federal Reserve head Janet Yellin told Congress in February she “wouldn’t take those off the table.” Those rates are for institutional customers only. Or at least they were. Last month a German cooperative savings bank announced it would be charging negative 0.40% on retail customer deposit accounts — a.k.a. savings accounts — in excess of 100,000 euros beginning in September.

    The theory behind this globalist-orchestrated insanity? To force banks to make loans they otherwise wouldn’t make, and to make borrowing so attractive that it jumps-starts an economy. Yet the risks associated with negative interest rates are enormous. Customers forced to pay for the “privilege” of a bank holding their money could withdraw it and stuff it under a mattress, drying up critical sources of revenue, and maybe engendering a bank run in the process. Or, if banks absorb the cost of negative rates themselves, profit margins between their lending and deposit rates will shrink, and might make them less willing to lend than they are right now.

    Regardless, the so-called proof is in the pudding: it hasn’t worked. Notwithstanding, elitists have a “solution” for ordinary people who understand that cash paying no interest whatsoever is better than cash for which they’re getting charged.

    “At present, if central banks try setting rates too far below zero, people will start bailing out into cash,” explains Harvard economics professor Kenneth Rogoff — one of many economists who have proposed the elimination of cash.

    Even worse, these elitists paint its elimination as a good thing. They speak about getting rid of high denomination currency because doing so would decrease crime, money laundering, and tax evasion. Then there is convenience. “Electronic transactions facilitated by credit and debit cards and smartphone payments are frictionless, safer, and cheaper for society, proponents argue,” columnist Alexandra Mondalek writes. Sillier still? Cash is unhygienic, bulky, and a pain to obtain from ATM machines that also charge a fee for doing so.

    The tradeoff? “Cash has a lot of virtues,” writes University of Tennessee law professor Glen Harlan Reynolds. “One of them is that it allows people to engage in voluntary transactions without the knowledge or permission of anyone else. Governments call this suspicious, but the rest of us call it something else: Freedom.”

    And make no mistake: our freedom is in direct conflict with global elitist ambitions. Ambitions borne of sheer desperation.

    It is desperation that begets a plethora of media-enabled lies, the foremost of which is America’s unemployment rate, currently pegged at 4.9%. That is known as the U-3 “official rate” of unemployment, courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Yet the BLS also has a U-6 rate that includes people employed part time “for economic reasons,” and those only “marginally” attached to the labor force. That rate is 9.7%. Both rates omit “long-term discouraged workers” who were defined out of official existence in 1994. Add them to the mix and the unemployment rate hovers between 18% and 23%.

    Zero Hedge’s Tyler Durden cuts through the elitist-driven disinformation campaign, noting the disturbing parallels between today’s economy and that of the Great Depression. In the last eight years our national debt, now at a staggering $19.51 trillion, has increased 94%. Eight years of FDR’s equally ineffective New Deal programs increased the national debt by 115%. FDR’s soup lines have been replaced by EBT cards, and 14-15% of Americans now need food stamps to survive.

    Despite the media narrative about a workforce participation rate as low as 1978 levels representing thousands of retiring Baby Boomers, Durden reveals the percentage of those over 55 years old working “is at an all-time high, while the percentage of men 25 to 54 (prime working years) working is at an all-time low.”

    Durden also eviscerates the elitists’ one remaining “false idol” as in a stock market that has increased 165% from its March 2009 bottom, noting the same stock market “soared by 260% between 1932 and 1937, making the current cyclical bull seem puny in comparison.”

    Moreover, it benefitted precisely the same elitist class then as it does now — even as Main Street Americans remain on the outside looking in at our so-called economic recovery.

    “However it ends, the deflating of the sovereign debt bubble may have us longing for the carefree days of the 2008 mortgage crisis,” Freeman warns. “Internationally tradable sovereign bonds amount to nearly $60 trillion … about six times the mortgage-debt outstanding for American homeowners. But these sovereign bonds are a mere fraction of the liabilities carried by the world’s governments. If you count political promises to support retirees, patients and others, the obligations are hundreds of trillions of dollars higher.”

    Hundreds of trillions of dollars in liabilities run up by globalist elites who have no idea how to unwind them, save for one monumentally disastrous, “kick the can down the road” idea: create exponentially expanding piles of future debt to pay for current debt.

    Unfortunately, most Americans have a difficult time understanding such economic concepts and their ultimate consequences. But they do understand this, courtesy of columnist Michael Gray:

    “Do you see grocery stores closing? Do you see other retailers, like clothing stores and department stores, going out of business? Are there shuttered storefronts along your Main Street shopping district, where you bought a tool from the hardware store or dropped off your dry cleaning or bought fruits and vegetables? Are you making as much money annually as you did 10 years ago? Do you see homes in neighborhoods becoming run down as the residents either were foreclosed upon, or the owner lost his or her job so he or she can’t afford to cut the grass or paint the house? Did that same house where the Joneses once lived now become a rental property, where new people come to live every few months? Do you know one or two people who are looking for work? Maybe professionals, who you thought were safe in their jobs?”

    This scenario is what exactly what Obama’s progressive, globalist economic policies, heartily supported by Hillary Clinton, have wrought. “[Donald Trump] has a great plan to lower taxes and cut red tape, thus creating jobs. But he almost never compares it to Clinton’s Obamanomics redux,” writes Fox News senior correspondent Charles Gasparino.

    It’s about time he got started doing precisely that, loud and often. Despite all the distractions out there, James Carville’s assertion is as timely as ever: It’s still the economy, stupid.

    India Disrupting CPEC Plans, China Trying Diplomacy First

    [PM Modi, Xi Jinping to meet on Sunday, may discuss China-Pakistan corridor]

    [China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: Former PM lauds CPEC’s impact on country’s employment]

    [44 Pakistanis have been killed in attacks on CPEC since 2014: Sources]

    [A corridor of secrecy]

    Political consensus essential for fully exploiting CPEC’s potential: China

    the indian express


    The Baloch activists, who have been protesting against the project, say that CPEC is causing much damage to the environment and would not benefit the people of the region.

    By: ANI | Beijing

    CPEC, China pakistan corridor, China pakistan economic corridor, Zheng Ziaosong, Pakistan People’s Party, news, China news, Pakistan news, latest news, world news, international news Considered a part of China’s One Belt, One Road initiative, the CPEC covers Balochistan and Sindh provinces and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. (Source: Reuters photo)

    Vice Minister of the International Department of the Communist Party of China, Zheng Ziaosong, has stressed that political consensus is essential for fully exploiting the potential of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Zheng made this remarks during his meeting with the visiting delegation of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) in Beijing.

    “Political consensus coupled with unanimity in approach is essential to draw the maximum benefits from this mega project which is a game-changer for the region,” the Express Tribune quoted him as saying. Zheng was of the opinion that more than 50 countries will benefit from this $46 billion project.

    Asserting that national unity is required, especially on projects like CPEC, he said, “In China there is one-party rule; however, in Pakistan, things are different. I don’t want to sound critical of the Pakistani political arrangement — I just want to imply that there are more chances of political division when there are multiple political parties.”

    Meanwhile, PPP vice-president Senator Sherry Rehman, who is leading the delegation, responded that CPEC would be a valuable addition in the joint ventures taken by the two countries, adding the project will have far-reaching and positive implications for the region.

    “Pakistan is fully committed in providing foolproof security to Chinese nationals in general and especially those who have been assigned to the CPEC,” she added. Considered a part of China’s One Belt, One Road initiative, the CPEC covers Balochistan and Sindh provinces and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The Baloch activists, who have been protesting against the project, say that CPEC is causing much damage to the environment and would not benefit the people of the region but alleged that Balochistan’s abundant resources are being diverted for Pakistan’s most populous province Punjab.

    Some of the Things We Must Believe To Be A Part of Society

    Fantastic Tales Americans Must Believe To Be Admitted to Polite Society

    Americans have lost jobs and even been killed by their government because they were unwilling to at least appear to believe Fantastic Tales that couldn’t possibly be true. But we are rapidly approaching a transition period when we will be able to actually Tell the Truth in public.

    The following is an example of a Fantastic Tale: On Tuesday June 4, 1968 Robert Kennedy won the California Democratic primary. We are told that Sirhan Sirhan was the lone assassin. Men and women in Polite Society are required to believe that Sirhan’s 8 shot 22 caliber revolver fired 13 times without reloading. Sirhan who was standing in front of RFK was able to fire five “Magic Bullets” that flew upward and over Kennedy’s head, went past him and then down sharply only to reverse course, travel downwards only to reverse course again and strike him from behind at an upward angle. Somehow the powder burns from these “Magic Bullets” followed their rather strange trajectory sufficiently so as to convince the Coroner that they had been fired only inches away from the likely 1968 Democratic Presidential nominee.


    Another example: Michael Hastings had written an expose of Stanley McChrystal entitled The Runaway General for Rolling Stone magazine. More recently before his death he had written an expose of Bowe Bergdahl who had deserted and went over to the Taliban. President Obama had exchanged five high value prisoners for Bergdahl. Hastings was also working on an expose of the CIA. He went on the Young Turks TV show and said that investigative journalists ought to declare war on the Obama administration because they have declared war on us.

    We are told that Hastings died accidentally after driving recklessly. There was more damage to the rear of his car than in the front which had hit a tree. University professors have shown how modern cars can be electronically hijacked and driven remotely at speeds of 100 mph. His Mercedes car engine was hurled 200 feet down the street at a sharp angle by an explosion. Hastings had contacted his friends and a lawyer to express his fears that the FBI was following him wherever he went.

    We must believe that Americans are the Good Guys and that our enemies are the Bad People.

    John Kiriakou was a CIA agent who blew the whistle on US government torture. Of all the people in the CIA torture program, Kiriakou was the only one to go to prison for it. And he was the one who revealed what was going wrong. He spent 2 years in prison. Bradley Manning revealed  a video of US helicopter pilots killing unarmed civilians and reporters. He is still in prison but those who deliberately target hospitals for attack are in fact running our government meaning our nation is led by war criminals.

    We are supposed to be waging a war on drugs. But the Bush admin told its allies months before 911 that we were going to invade Afghanistan. The only reason to be there after 14 years seems to be the opium. The Global Hawk is a drone version of the U-2 spy plane. Later versions of the Global Hawk have a compartment capable of flying 3,000 pounds of opium past customs to American air bases from which they can be sent to America at a tremendous profit to the men who own the United States government.

    Freeway Ricky Ross was seriously harmed by the public schools. If his school district had taught him to read, he could have won an athletic scholarship in tennis and become a school teacher if not a professional athlete. But he was illiterate and instead had to make hundred of millions of dollars selling cocaine. He says that a Hollywood movie glorifying black drug dealers gave him the impetus to choose crime as a career. Ross made connections with Nicaraguan drug dealers. He did not learn until the end of his criminal career that he was working for the CIA. He could have been released much sooner from prison if he had kept his mouth shut as he had been told.

    Ross has pointed out that black people using crack cocaine on a first offense were being sentenced to ten years while whites using standard cocaine were given probation. There is no war against drugs but there is a War Against America. A young man killed 4 people but avoided jail because his expensive lawyer convinced the judge that his client had grown up without learning that rules applied to him. His parents were rich and had sheltered him from the consequences of his actions.

    Hillary Clinton is a career criminal who has stolen billions of dollars from the people of Haiti and Africa. She has sold American foreign policy for cash and cannot even be indicted. It seems that in America only the poor and the middle class go to jail while everyone in  Washington or on Wall Street is immune from prosecution.

    Americans are not allowed to believe in the laws of physics. On 9-11-2001 three buildings fell down at nearly free fall speed but only 2 of the 3 had been hit by airplanes. We had many witnesses amongst the janitorial staff and the building engineers that there were explosions in the sub-basements before the planes hit the World Trade Center Towers. It is sort of basic science that the fire does not start until you light the match. But on 9-11 we must believe that the jet and its fuel which were more than 30 seconds away from impact somehow caused explosions in the floors below the ground level.

    We have seen videos of the plane fuel tanks exploding on impact with the Towers so there was not much fuel left in the planes to cause fires. But somehow the fuel was able to explode and  pulverize 440,000 cubic yards (336,404.14 cubic meters) of reinforced concrete from WTC Towers 1 and 2 turning them into dust.

    The North and South Towers had 47 central core steel columns and 236 perimeter columns for a total of 283. For the buildings to fall straight down at nearly free fall speed all 283 connections from the columns to each of the 110 floors had to be cut within a second of each other. Keeping in mind open air fires cannot reach less than half of the temperature required to melt steel, how do you explain (2 X 110 X 283) 62,260 connections in the two Towers all being severed simultaneously by an office fire? Isn’t this a definition of a controlled demolition?

    But we are required to believe the impossible.

    Americans were taught lies sufficiently well to get them to enter WW I but after the war they became disillusioned when they learned the truth. America went to war so the Jews of Russia could turn that nation into a Communist dictatorship and Palestine could become a Jewish colony. Many wealthy Gentiles wanted war because they could make billions of dollars selling weapons.

    After World War II, the people of Europe and America were told many lies about the Holohoax to maintain the prestige of liars. The International Red Cross had sent observers into all the German concentration camps including Auschwitz. They had unrestricted access to prisoners and had some of them report on conditions. There were no claims of gas chambers until after the war was over. And these were unbelievable.

    The 1950 World Almanac using Jewish sources said there were 800,000 more Jews alive in 1950 than in 1940. The Jewish witnesses claimed they pulled bodies from the gas chambers 5 minutes after the last person had died inside. America had gas chambers in some states more than a decade after the war. If the Zionists had studied how Americans executed prisoners, they would have known that they had to first neutralize the cyanide gas as it is deadly. You cannot just walk into a room full of cyanide without gas masks and gloves and pull bodies out as the Jewish witnesses claimed. Opening the doors prior to neutralization would have killed everyone in the area. These are just fairy tales for children.

    The world economy will collapse either before the November elections or soon after. The US could plunge into chaos when the Dollar Dies and the Nationwide Food Riots begin. We will no longer have a Polite Society. Impolite men and women will create new nations to replace those that had been in North America, Europe  and elsewhere.

    We personally might not survive but what is coming our way but at least we will no longer have to believe fairy tales as the gospel truth.

    Related Articles:

    911: Short And Powerful Questions

    Video: The Sinaloa Mexican Drug Cartel Is A CIA Subsidiary

    There Is A Lot Of Ruin In A Nation But None Left In America And Its NATO Partners