Exposing The Clinton/Obama Scheme To Wage Political War On Donald Trump

Former President Barack Obama’s new group plans to drill into issues that aren’t already hitting the headlines, like potential intervention in and intimidation of regulatory agencies by West Wing staff. | Getty

[Obama…Sore Loser, Wants Old Job Back…Hires Civilian Army To Sabotage Trump  ; Obama Rallies the Radical Left, Expecting To Wage Political Civil War Upon Trump Presidency]

Exposing The Clinton/Obama System To Discredit Donald Trump

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Thierry Meyssan via VoltaireNet.org,

This article is a warning – in November 2016, a vast system of agitation and propaganda was set up in order to destroy the reputation and the authority of President Donald Trump as soon as he arrived in the White House. It is the first time that such a campaign has been scientifically organised against a President of the United States, and with such resources. Yes, we are indeed entering a post-Truth age, but the distribution of rôles is not what you may think it is.

The campaign waged against the new President of the United States by the sponsors of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the destruction of the Greater Middle East is on-going. After the Womens’ March on 22 January, a March for Science is scheduled to be held not only in the USA, but also throughout the Western world on 22 April. It’s goal is to show that Donald Trump is not only a misogynist, but also an obscurantist.

The fact that he is the ex-organiser of the Miss Universe pageant, and that his third wedding was to a model, is apparently enough to prove that he holds women in contempt. The fact that the President contests the rôle played by Barack Obama in the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange (a long time before his Presidency) and rejects the idea that climatic disturbances are caused by the expulsion of carbon into the atmosphere attest to the fact that he understands nothing about science.

In order to convince US public opinion of the President’s insanity – a man who says that he hopes for peace with his enemies, and wants to collaborate with them in universal economic prosperity – one of the greatest specialists of agit-prop (agitation & propaganda), David Brock, set up an impressive system even before Trump’s investiture.

At the time when he was working for the Republicans, Brock launched a campaign against President Bill Clinton which would eventually become Troopergate, the Whitewater affair, and the Lewinsky affair. Having changed his colours, he is today in the service of Hillary Clinton, for whom he has already organised not only the demolition of Mitt Romney’s candidacy but also her riposte in the affair of the assassination of the US ambassador in Benghazi. During the first round of primaries, it was Brock who directed the attacks against Bernie Sanders. The National Review qualified Brock as «a right-wing assassin who has become a left-wing assassin».

It is important to remember that the two procedures of destitution of a serving President initiated since the Second World War were set in motion for the benefit of the deep state, and not at all for the benefit of democracy. So Watergate was entirely managed by a certgain «Deep Throat» who, 33 years later, was revealed to be Mark Felt, the assistant of J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI. As for the Lewinsky affair, it was simply a way of forcing Bill Clinton to accept the war against Yugoslavia.

The current campaign is organised in secret by four associations:

Media Matters is tasked with picking up on Donald Trump’s mistakes. You read his bulletin every day in your newspapers – the President can’t be trusted, he got this or that point wrong.

American Bridge 21st Century has collected more than 2,000 hours of videos showing Donald Trump over the years, and more than 18,000 hours of other videos of the members of his cabinet. It has at its disposition sophisticated technological equipment designed for the Department of Defense – allegedly not in working order – which enables it to look for contradictions between their older declarations and their current positions. It should be extending its work to 1,200 of the new President’s collaborators.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington — CREW is a firm of high level lawyers tasked with tracking anything that could create a scandal in the Trump administration. Most of the lawyers in this association work pro bono, for the cause. These are the people who prepared the case for Bob Ferguson, the Chief Prosecutor of the state of Washington, against the immigration decree (Executive Order 13769).

Shareblue is an electronic army which has already connected with 162 million internauts in the USA. It’s job is to spread pre-ordained themes, for example:

  • Trump is authoritarian and a thief.
  • Trump is under the influence of Vladimir Putin.
  • Trump is a weak and quick-tempered personality, he’s a manic-depressive.
  • Trump was not elected by the majority of US citizens, and is therefore illegitimate.
  • His Vice-President, Mike Pence, is a fascist.
  • Trump is a billionaire who will constantly be faced with conflicts of interest between his personal affairs and those of state.
  • Trump is a puppet of the Koch brothers, who are famous for sponsoring the extreme right.
  • Trump is a white supremacist and a threat to minorities.
  • Anti-Trump opposition just keeps growing outside Washington.
  • To save democracy, let’s support the democrataic parliamentarians who are attacking Trump, and let’s demolish those who are co-operating with him.
  • Overthrowing Trump will take time, so don’t let’s weaken in our resolve.

This association will produce the newsletters and 30-second videos. It will base itself on two other groups – a company which makes documentary videos, The American Independent, and a statistical unit, Benchmark Politics.

The whole of this system – which was set up during the transitional period, that is to say before Donald Trump’s arrival at the White House – already employed more than 300 specialists to which should be added numerous voluteer workers. Its annual budget, initially calculated at 35 million dollars, was increased to the level of about 100 million dollars.

Destroying the image – and thus the authority – of the President of the United States, before he has had the time to do anything at all, can have serious consequences. By eliminating Saddam Hussein and Mouamar Kadhafi, the CIA plunged their two countries into a long period of chaos, and the «land of Liberty» itself may suffer severe damage from such an operation. This type of mass manipulation technique has never before been levelled at a head of state in the Western world.

For the moment, the plan is working – no political leader in the world has dared to celebrate the election of Donald Trump, with the exception of Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

IMU…Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan…Tohir Yuldashev/Juma Namangoniy

Who is he, Namangani?


The current fighting in the mountains of Kyrgyzstan, members of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and their mercenaries (the Taliban in Afghanistan, representatives of Arab, Chechen and so on.) – This is the second attempt to break through the fighting on the territory of the Ferghana Valley. The first, unsuccessful, was made last fall in the Batken region. Then the head of Islamic terrorists was Abduvali Yuldashev, in a night of fighting, he was killed. This year the militias led Jumabai Khodzhiev – one of the most influential leaders of the IMU. Who is he? Why was the implacable enemy of democracy in Uzbekistan? Jumabai Khodzhiev better known as Namangani. He served in the airborne troops in Afghanistan, was discharged in 1989 Back home, quickly gained a reputation as a “tough” guy. At the beginning of the 1990s. He became a member of “Tovba” ( “Repentance”), the Islamic militant group. Since its inception, the group its purpose was to create in the Fergana Valley Islamic state, living under Sharia law. Members of the group were taught the theory of jihad in its limited sense – just as the armed struggle against the “infidels”. Members of the “Tovb” were committed a criminal offense. Financing of the organization, its weapons were provided at the expense of the stolen funds. Already in 1992, the group went underground, its activists have preferred to leave the country and to conduct subversive activities against Uzbekistan from neighboring territories.

Escapes in Tajikistan and Jumabai Hodge, wanted by law enforcement bodies of Uzbekistan for committing a number of criminal offenses – from robberies and looting before the assassinations. In Tajikistan, he joined the fighting against the central government troops and the Islamists became a close associate of the organizer and chief leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Tahir Yuldashev.

In February 1993 Jumabai again falls in Afghanistan, but now with the so-called Tajik government in exile headed by Said Abdullo Nuri and Akbar Turajonzoda. These opposition leaders appointed him “emir” of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan revival (IDVU) and deputy chairman of the Islamic Revival Movement of Tajikistan (MIRT).

While in Afghanistan, Khodzhiev are trained in mujahideen camps in the provinces of Takhar and Kunduz. Later, he will visit the Iranian Mashhad and Pakistan Peshawar. It is here and there is a final “polishing” Namanganiy image as a fighter for the triumph of ideological faith. He acquires extensive connections among the spiritual authority of the country in which he was able to attend, but are not limited to: establish contacts with them and representatives of the intelligence services of these states.

Back in Tajikistan, Namangani organize their training camps of militants in the Karategin Valley. By 1997, he already controls significant territory in Tajikistan.

Today Namangani – one of the most prominent figures in the IMU. Influence in Tajikistan among the participants of the United Tajik Opposition, on the side where he fought during the civil war in the country. It is considered a friend and perhaps a relative of Mirza Ziyoev – a recent authoritative field commander Jago – late to get in a coalition government as head of the Tajik Ministry of Emergency Situations.

Namangani called a master of guerrilla warfare tactics and sabotage operations. His battle groups are well-equipped, have on their arms not only almost all types of small arms, but also a few units and BMP armored personnel carriers, as well as rocket launchers “Grad”.

The main base Namanganiy located in Tajikistan, near the Kyrgyz-Tajik border – in Yasmanskom Gorge Jirgatal district and village Hoit Tojikobod area. Jeep, which he used during an operation in Batkente had Alma-Ata rooms.

Namangani and his men directly involved in narkotranzit from Afghanistan-Tajikistan-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan. This forced residents participated in controlled areas Namanganiy Jirgatal. One of the smuggling routes of the area passes through Chon-Alai place Karamyk that IMU fighters mastered three times. In addition to illegal drug trafficking, Namanganiy actively involved in the smuggling of weapons, ammunition, as well as gold and precious stones mined in Afghanistan and Tajikistan Jirgatal area. This allowed him to acquire houses in Afghanistan and Pakistan, particularly in Kabul, Kunduz, Taloqan, Tavildara and Peshawar.

As evidenced by some subordinates Namanganiy in his unit there are a number of unique constraints – such as, for example, the rejection of proper names and replacing them in circulation previously assigned to the personal number, the slightest violation of the established rules threatens death. Strictly prohibited and unauthorized contacts with civilians or militants of other warlords. For actions that can be regarded as a betrayal Namanganiy death threatens not only the offender, but to all his friends.

Sometimes among his subordinates Juma boasts of huge sums, which he directed from abroad. But even his fighters say that commitment Namanganiy terrorist methods is explained by no means a fanatical loyalty to the idea of jihad – it works for a lot of money and at the behest of foreign intelligence services. Some consider him an agent of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services.

Daesh and Taliban are not opposed to each other, says Hanif Atmar, Afghan NSA

Daesh and Taliban are not opposed to each other, says Hanif Atmar, Afghan NSA

In an exclusive chat with TOI, Hanif Atmar, Afghan NSA, says Pakistan should  understand that their proxy terror group, Afghan Taliban, is providing sanctuary to its enemy group, TTP, just like Daesh and Taliban are not really opposed to each other.
To what would you attribute the increased instability in Afghanistan in 2017?It’s no longer about a lone wolf or one specific terrorist organisation. It’s about the evil axis of three actors, violent extremism, criminal economics and state sponsorship of terrorists. These three have come together to challenge the legitimate state of Afghanistan and turn it into a sanctuary for international terrorism, and to expand the criminalized economy with narcotics, use its proceeds to finance terrorism.

Is there something you are missing which fighting the Taliban? Something you can do differently?

Definitely. First of all, the violent extremist organisations that we are confronted by are not just Taliban. There are four groups — first, Taliban and Haqqanis; second Pakistani groups including LeT, JeM, LeJ, TTP and others; third are regional groups like ETIM and IMU, and fourth are international terrorists like Daesh and Al Qaeda.

These four groups have a symbiotic relationship with the Afghan terrorists. They need the Afghans, the Afghans need them. Second, they have symbiotic relationships with the two other relationships I described earlier, the criminal economy and state sponsorship.

What should be your response?

Our response cannot be peace and reconciliation. We can make peace and reconciliation with the Afghan groups based on certain principles, but cannot reconcile with the other three groups. They are not fighting there for anything related to Afghanistan. They want to have a sanctuary there to fight others. LeT would like a sanctuary to fight India, ETIM to fight China, and so on. We told our Pakistani interlocutors that Taliban will allow sanctuary to the TTP, your enemy. Therefore, blind support to the Taliban will be creating a frankenstein again.

Therefore our regional and global partners will have to look at a global strategy to pursue these different elements pursing different objectives.

Russia, China, Pakistan want to do things differently, engage Taliban to fight Daesh. What did you say at the meeting in February?

We objected to the first meeting in December. We said, as a friend you cannot have a meeting about us, but without us. We were present at the next meeting in February. But we also said we wanted US, India and Iran, because these are our partners, especially US and India are critical partners to advance our counter-terrorism and peace and reconciliation agendas.

We said to them, if you want to make peace with the Taliban, that’s one thing, but you cannot make peace between the government and Taliban, especially with the government not being there.

Third we said, your peace with the Taliban will never be seen as legitimate by the Afghan people or the governement. This idea that Taliban and Daesh are opposed to each other is wrong. No Daesh has come from Syria or Iraq, it’s actually the morphing and mutating of Taliban, TTP and IMU into Daesh. They are the same people, but there is a lot of re-branding here.

People who are now saying that Daesh is the enemy of Taliban and Taliban will fight Daesh are wrong. We give them specific examples — there was a local dispute between Taliban and Daesh in Nangarhar, but Daesh and Taliban worked closely with each other in northeastern Afghanistan to fight us.

In addition, using one terrorist group against another is not an ethically correct way forward.

We did ask our friends, if you have such influence with Taliban, use it for peace, bring them to the table, which will be the most effective strategy against Daesh. If you remove the Afghan Taliban from Daesh and other foreign terrorist groups, including Pakistani groups, then they will not have sanctuary in Afghanistan. If they are trying to get sanctuary, it’s only because of the Taliban. The best way to defeat Daesh and other groups is first either defeat the Taliban militarily or if they prefer to have a principled peace, accept Afghan constitution, cut ties with international terror groups and renounce violence then that would be the best way forward.

Rather than getting Taliban to fight Daesh, bring Taliban to the negotiating table, you will never have Daesh.

You mentioned ETIM. Has their activities increased in Afghanistan?

Yes. For all the above reasons. They work closely with the Taliban, they are in Badakshan, under protection of the Taliban. They are also in Zabul, where they come in from Pakistan.

We tell the Chinese, you have our full commitment in fighting ETIM wherever they are in Afghanistan. But we also have to appreciate where they come from and how to actually separate the Taliban from them. They agree with us and they say lets look at peace and reconciliation as a first strategy.

What has been the response of the new Trump administration?

Their commitment to Afghanistan is strategic and long term and not driven by a few operational or tactical issues. We have a strong convergence of interests. The most important interest we share with US and India is to defeat terrorism, which is a common enemy of all of us. The US again strongly expressed commitment to work with Afghanistan under the NATO framework. They are not looking at a drawdown or withdrawal.

What more can India do in the security sector in Afghanistan?

Rather than going into details of our defence cooperation I would say the most important objective here is the strengthening of the ANSF. This is a goal we’ve set for all of our strategic partners. We have a shared interest — the Afghans have demonstrated their will and capability to fight. The enemy we are fighting is three times bigger than the enemy we were fighting in 2009-14. Then we had 150,000 international soldiers. There are much less now, but we are battling them successfully. The Afghans are ready to fight. Not just for themselves, but also to protect the world from the menace of terrorism.


They need tools and resources. Let me clarify — we are not asking for troops from India or any other country apart from the NATO mission. Asking for a wide range of strengthening measures, which I think we will keep away from public conversation.

Trump not involving Russia in terror meeting is odd

Rolling into Raqqa: But not involving Russia in terror meeting is odd

Two new U.S. moves related to Syria raise the inevitable question of what is going on in foreign policy under the new administration of President Donald Trump. The first is an increase in the U.S. force level in Syria, announced Thursday, of 400 Army, Marine and Special Forces personnel, in effect doubling U.S. troops there involved in the now six-year-long multiparty civil war. The ostensible reason for the increase is to aid Kurdish and other, Turkish-backed forces in the campaign to take Raqqa, the Islamic State group’s declared capital in Syria.

The other new U.S. enterprise, also announced Thursday, is the convening of an international conference in Washington, March 22-23, to discuss fighting terrorism. Some 68 nations and international organizations are invited. Russia is not — which in effect abandons the idea that it is on our side in the battle against international terrorism. Also, perhaps snubbing it takes some of the starch out of the suggestion that the Trump administration is too close to Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. China isn’t invited, either.

There may be some thought in Washington that Raqqa can be made to fall either before or during the U.S.-hosted meeting, although that is a risky gamble given the months it has taken for Iraqi and U.S. forces to take Mosul from IS, a feat not yet accomplished.

There are some flaws in what appears to be the new, two-pronged U.S. effort. The first is that Raqqa, the town the new U.S. forces are being sent to take, doesn’t amount to much. A hundred miles east of Aleppo, population 200,000 or so, under IS control since 2013, it is likely that IS forces will simply fade away from Raqqa rather than fight and die to hold it. Victory there would be a minor prize, considering the U.S. investment put into it.

A second problem is that the Kurdish troops the U.S. is supporting in the effort to take Raqqa are considered by NATO ally Turkey to be a bitter enemy. (Turkey also has troops in Syria engaged in the effort to take Raqqa.) So who takes Raqqa and who will govern it after the presumed victory?

Not inviting the Russians to the Washington anti-terrorism conference is probably a mistake also, although the argument for excluding them is somewhat clear. Russia does honestly consider itself engaged in the global war against terrorism, based in part on the Moscow government’s own problems with Islamic extremists in the Caucasus and elsewhere. It could be better to take them at their word on that issue and include them in the late-March Washington deliberations.

China, also not invited, considers Muslim Uighur separatists in the west of China to be Islamic terrorists.

There aren’t that many issues that the United States, Russia and China agree on, but fighting international terrorism is definitely one of them. Besides, the Washington-based media could occupy themselves during the conference trying to figure out with whom in the Trump administration the Russian delegates are meeting, publicly and privately.

Merkel’s Migrant Deception

  • In a government report published last month by the German newspaper Rheinische Post, experts recommended an annual intake of up to 300,000 migrants a year for the next 40 years, to counter lower German birth rates.
  • As they embark on a bizarre social engineering project on a continental scale, members of Germany’s political class evidently do not see the need to consult even their own electorates. Instead, they apparently believe in creating irreversible facts on the ground, and giving voting rights to migrants permanently residing in Germany.

“Never believe anything until it has been officially denied,” people use to say in days of the Soviet Union. Today, the same seems to be true for the European Union’s migrant policy. When German Chancellor Angela Merkel engineered the EU-Turkey deal on migrants, it was widely described by the European politicians and the media as a “breakthrough”. Merkel and other EU leaders agreed on offering a down payment of €3 billion to the regime of Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in return for its promises to “stem migrant flows”.

In December 2015, nearly four months before the EU-Turkey agreement was even formalized, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán accused Chancellor Merkel of working on a “secret deal” with her Turkish counterparts. President Orbán was quite specific in his claims, apparently certain that Berlin would soon reveal the details to the public.

“Beyond what we agreed with Turkey in Brussels there’s something that doesn’t figure in the agreement,” President Orbán said in December 2015. “We’ll wake up one day — and I think this will be announced in Berlin as soon as this week — that we have to take in 400,000 to 500,000 refugees directly from Turkey.”

President Orbán was ridiculed for his claims. European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans dismissed President Orbán’s allegations of a secret deal with Turkey as “nonsense”.

Bloomberg News reported the German and French outrage to President Orbán’s allegations at that time:

“France and Germany are working together to manage the flow of migrants, which is a challenge to everyone,” French government spokesman Stephane Le Foll told reporters in Paris on Wednesday. “Last weekend the union reached an agreement with Turkey,” and Orban should be aware of the details since he was there, Le Foll said.

A German government official, requesting anonymity because EU-Turkey talks are ongoing, said Orban’s claim that Germany made a secret deal is false.

As it now turns out, PM Orbán was right about a “secret deal” all along. According to the latest revelations made by the German newspaper Die Welt, Chancellor Merkel, along with Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, had agreed to accept 150,000 to 200,000 Syrian migrants from Turkey into the EU without consulting other European member states.

Pictured above: German Chancellor Angela Merkel meets with Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara, on February 3, 2017. (Image source RT video screenshot)

Die Welt reported on March 13, 2017:

Contrary to previous information, German Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte made concrete commitments on a legal refugee quota during the negotiations on the refugee deal between the EU and Turkey. Merkel and Rutte promised directly to bring in 150,000 to 200,000 Syrian refugees to Europe from Turkey each year…

The plan agreed upon by Merkel, [Turkey’s Prime Minister] Davutoglu and Rutte was presented the following day as an unexpected suggestion by Turkey. The heads of the state and governments agreed on a “voluntary intake due to humanitarian reason” in the final document of the summit.

The exact number was not revealed to the European [leaders] by Merkel, Davutoglu or Rutte. The three heads of government reached an understanding on the number 150,000 to 250,000 through a gentleman’s agreement. This has been confirmed by several individuals involved in the negotiations.

There is a plausible reason why Merkel and Rutte are still hiding these migrant figures from the public. Both Rutte and Merkel have to face their voters this year and are looking at a real prospect of anti-mass immigration parties making strong gains in the March and September general elections respectively.

Regardless of any secret dealings, however, the idea of importing hundreds of thousands of migrants into Europe fits seamlessly into what seems to be Merkel’s agenda of transforming the German and European demography.

In September 2015, before the migrant crisis could even fully unfold, Germany’s Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel declared that country could absorb up to 500,000 migrants each year.

In a government report published last month by the German newspaper Rheinische Post, experts recommended an annual intake of up to 300,000 migrants a year for the next 40 years, to counter lower German birth rates. According to these official estimates, Germany will have to take in 12 million migrants to keep the current size of the German population — 82 million — stable through 2060.

As they embark on a bizarre social engineering project on a continental scale, members of Germany’s political class evidently do not see the need to consult even their own electorates. Instead, they apparently believe in creating irreversible facts on the ground. They are even proposing a contingency plan to thwart a potential backlash from the population. In case of any future national referendum, Germany’s Federal Commissioner for Refugees and Migrants, Aydan Özoguz, recommends giving voting rights to migrants permanently residing in Germany.

Considering the ironclad support for Merkel’s “Refugees Welcome” policy in the German media and across the political establishment, there seems to be a consensus within Germany’s political establishment to keep the floodgates of mass-migration open, no matter how high the price.

For Merkel and Germany’s political elite, the victims of Islamist terror attacks across Germany or the hundreds of women who were sexually assaulted in Cologne’s central square on New Year’s Eve are merely roadkill on the Autobahn leading to their promised multicultural paradise.

Vijeta Uniyal, a journalist and news analyst, is based in Germany.

American Game of Footsie with Saudi Arabia Must End

American Game of Footsie with Saudi Arabia Must End


American Game of Footsie with Saudi Arabia Must End

This isn’t your granddaddy’s Saudi Arabia. For decades, America purchased Saudi oil and mostly ignored the country’s human-rights issues, including the treatment of women as second-class citizens, while the Saudi royals enjoyed the benefits of having a rich, thirsty customer who paid on time.

But now, Saudi Arabia has become a liability for America’s future energy interests, attempting to hinder North American energy independence by flooding the global market with oil as the lead OPEC nation. As the global price of oil dropped due to skyrocketing supply, related projects in North America stalled.

A great many people have questioned America’s recent pivot to Iran. The U.S., along with the four other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany, reached a nuclear deal that eased sanctions against the Iranians and opened up trade with them. What was the impetus for such a reversal? Well, Saudi tampering with oil prices could certainly be viewed as one justification for America’s courting of Saudi Arabia’s sworn enemy. The collapse in oil prices occurred in late 2014. The deal with Iran was reached in July 2015 (after many years of diplomatic jostling).

All right, so now Trump has the option of courting either Iran or Saudi Arabia — or somehow trying to win the affections of both. What will he do, and what should he do? So far, Trump’s harsher rhetoric has been reserved for Iran.

Despite Saudi Arabia’s status as a longstanding U.S. ally, the Kingdom has largely been a nuisance of late. OK, I concede that if you’re a Western nation and you decide to overthrow a nation-state (let’s say Syria, for instance) and you need to finance and mobilize terrorists to be sold to the public as freedom-fighting “rebels,” then Saudi Arabia is the right friend for the situation — the sort of mischievous friend whose company you sometimes enjoy despite your mom’s instructions to stay away from him.

But here we are now with Trump playing footsie with the Saudi defense minister in the White House this week, nationalist to nationalist. Where’s mom when you need her?

The Saudis have been on a nationalist kick, even as chaos has expanded in the Middle East, making Saudi Arabia sort of a nationalist pyromaniac Pollyanna. You see, the glass is half-full for Saudi Arabia when creating the terrorist killing machine known as the Islamic State ends up driving a significant percentage of the Middle Eastern population into Europe and away from your borders. (Unlike the Saudis, European leaders weren’t smart enough to close those borders to prevent an unmanageable flood of refugees.) And now, Saudi Arabia is using the Islamic State as a pretext to request security assistance from Pakistan — a country that, according to some intelligence officials, might be willing to provide Saudi Arabia with a nuclear weapon should the need ever arise.

According to The National, a newspaper in the United Arab Emirates, “Pakistan is in discussions with Saudi Arabia to send combat troops to protect the kingdom amid growing concern over threats from ISIL militants and Houthi rebels.”

Ah yes, the Houthis: Iranian proxies fighting against Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Somehow it always comes back to the Saudi-Iran cage match — now with a touring roadshow.

If Trump wanted to use his business sense, he’d become the first U.S. president to invoke the “sunk cost fallacy” in dealing with Saudi Arabia. In other words, when you build a hotel or casino and it runs at a loss, you don’t get romantic lamenting all the labor and time you’ve invested. Such emotional weakness in the face of an imminent loss could lead to a much larger loss over the long run. Instead, you just cut those losses. Yes, Saudi Arabia was an American ally, but its recent behavior has harmed the interests of the American people.

It’s time for this new and unconventional American president to disengage the establishment’s autopilot and rethink conventional wisdom.

Erdogan Castigates European Arsonists For Setting Middle East On Fire w/No Plan For Survivors



Islamophobia, Turcophobia, Erdoğanphobia or whatever it might be called, is a reality that Western nations perceive that they face an existential threat from foreigners flooding into their countries. The number of Syrian refugees embraced by all EU countries cannot exceed a fraction of the number of refugees Turkey has taken, which became their second home. If Germany is to be excluded, it could easily be argued that Europe has indeed turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the worst humanity the world has faced since the war in former Yugoslavia.

The world should not of course forget how a Dutch commander and his soldiers watched thousands of Muslim people get butchered in Srebrenica during the Bosnian War. Accusing only Serbian ultranationalists and the Slobodan Milosevic regime for the Srebrenica massacre would be a big unjust to reality. The Dutch commander, who preferred to watch the butchering of Muslims from a distance rather than taking action in line with the mandate he was dispatched with, to this day is provided impunity, making him a less criminal.–(SEE: Dutch officers sue their government for blaming them for Srebrenica)

Accusing the Christian culture of the West alone, however, cannot be a remedy for anything. The other day Murat Yetkin, the editor-in-chief of Hürriyet Daily News, had asked in one of his articles why despite all the negative perception toward the West, Muslim people saw western countries as places where they could live in security. He asked, what the reason behind it was if those “running for their lives are Muslims, but they are not seeking shelter in other Muslim countries, except for Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, where the political systems are not based on religious law. They turn their eyes to predominantly non-Muslim, mostly Christian societies in the West.”

The reason, unfortunately, is obvious. Why are thousands of Turks fleeing Turkey these days? Why were they leaving the country during the period of Feb. 28, 1997? Was it a national sport in the 1980s to escape to Greece and embark to a Scandinavian country or to Germany? The regimes in countries compel people to seek security outside their countries. And, unfortunately, neither of the Muslim countries is better than the rest when it comes to political oppression, isolationism, sheer political torture or use of political power to cleanse the country of everyone who is not subscribing to the views of the absolute power holder.

If the West was and is still a destination for people uncomfortable with the situation in their Muslim countries, if the West is still considered a “secure place,” despite all the differences and the frequently professed social mood not so receptive to foreigners in those countries, perhaps Muslim countries should first try to look at themselves. What was and is wrong with them that people prefer a Christian and not so receptive country as a more secure place to seek refuge in?

It is no secret that the latest escalation of tension between Turkey and Europe did not start with some exchange of furious remarks between Turkish and German politicians. It might be preferred to be perceived as such, but that’s not the reality. The problem is far bigger and more complicated than that. Western societies are very much concerned with the probability of their countries flooded by millions of refugees from Syria, Iraq and who knows from where tomorrow. The Muslim world is on the move and this move unfortunately is not one conducive to cohesion, prosperity, wellbeing or peace.

Right, the latest problem in Muslim geographies was ignited with the so-called “Arab Spring” prepared in some deep places of the West with the aim to usher Muslim societies into an era of democracy in smaller states controllable by the West, which would serve best to the security of Israel. That was a very ill perception. Not only the Americans lost their ambassador in Tripoli to such ugly and shallow policies, the entire region was placed on fire. Innocent societies all of a sudden found themselves in fire, abandoned their homes, and are seeking shelter abroad. Can anyone blame them for abandoning their homes?

In any case, the latest tension started with Germany refusing to shoulder more refugee-related problems, continued with concerns over internal security that could be destabilized with a referendum campaign carried to German soil by the Turkish absolute power holder to win support of millions of Turks living there. Climaxing since then with other European countries telling Ankara “This is your campaign, why should we allow you to export the polarization you created at home to our societies?”

That is, in a way, the Dutch, as well as the Danes who advised the Turkish prime minister to “come at another time” as well as the other capitals not so receptive to Erdoğan’s efforts to create a self-cut super and all the time demanding presidential system in Turkey are turning a cold shoulder to the Turkish government.

Turkish authorities are fuming that European bodies have supported the Netherlands rather than siding with Turkey in the latest crisis. Poor Turkish diplomacy could not understand what the European Union is after sixty more years knocking on the same door. EU is a solidarity organization at the same time. If a son does something bad, should anyone expect the father to punish the son in front of others? Let us be realistic.

Tomorrow, very much like with the Russians, Turkey is compelled to find ways and patch up with the Netherlands and the EU. Don’t we remember the appalling Russia to patch up efforts with Erdoğan? Why escalate tension to such crazy levels if we know that tomorrow there will be a humiliating patch up effort?
The crisis with Russia was concocted by the Fethullah Gülen gang, the government claims. Who concocted the current crisis with Europe?