Ziad Fadel


Lt. General Fahd Jaassem Al-Furayj, Defense Minister, and members of the Syrian High Command inspect ‘Adraa’s towns in the aftermath of the spectacular victories here that liberated tens of thousands of Syrian civilians strangled by the fake Wahhabist Islam of the Al-Jabha Al-Islamiyya and Nusra.


Tal Al-Sawwaan:  It had to happen.  The SAA routed the remaining rodents in this town and took over 90 prisoners, almost all from foreign countries.  This town is on the way to the liberation of Jawbar and Khaan Al-Shaykh.  All factories and workshops on the periphery are now firmly in the hands of the legitimate government in Damascus


Jawbar:  Major advance by SAA last night. The SAA is fighting 24 hours to keep the rats in a state of relentless languor.  As the army continues to kill more and more of Obama’s heroes, it is becoming even clearer that the Saudi international terrorist effort to bring in Jihadists was unlimited.  Yesterday, the SAA killed rodents from Jordan, Iraq and Tunisia.  The fighting was centered mostly southeast of the Al-Tayyiba Mosque:


‘Adnaan Al-Ribaahi

Khaldoon Al-Iraaqi (IRAQI WORM EXPECTORANT.  Id pending)

Mustafaa Al-Ghazzaawi

Another 22 rats were determined to be non-Syrian.



Doumaa:  More advances by the SAA.  No details.



Tal Kurdi:  Several nests were destroyed by the SAA in this area northeast of Douma.  Most of the dead rodents were foreigners:


Maalek Taaleb

‘Ali Al-Zaydi

Another 10 could not be identified because they were foreign and carried forged documents.


East of Al-Dukhkhaaniyya:  As you know, this area was liberated 2 days ago by the SAA.  Still, some remaining die-hards insist on collecting their tickets to Hell:

Sa’doon Al-‘Ayyadh (IRAQI HEMORRHOID)



Waadi ‘Ayn Turma:  Liberated also.  A group of foreign rats gave up and are in custody.


Qaarra Foothills in Waadi Zamraani:  This is the Qalamoon.  The rats keep trying to come in and the SAA and NDF continue to exterminate them.  In this group of 16 riding motorcycles, many weapons and much ammunition was saved for use by our NDF:

Taariq Al-Shihaab

Muhammad Al-Qawaasima (JORDANIAN FLEA ORIFICE)

Saami Mukhtaar

Khudhr Muqbil


syrian army

Baseema-Dayr Muqrin Road in Waadi Baradaa:  More dead rats. No details.


Sa’sa’ Farms area:  Ditto.


Fighting also reported here: Al-Zamaaniyya Town, Al-Qaasimiyya Town, Al-Bilaaliyya Village, Daarayyaa at the Shrine of Sukayna


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Short Analysis by Mindfriedo: Struggle for Iraq: Saqlawiyah says it all!

Via The Saker

Following is a chronology of events that took place in mid to end September at the Iraqi Army base of Saqlawiyah (Saqlawiyah is located to the north of Fallujah)
-Daash and allied Sunni fighters take over a few villages to the north of Fallujah
-One of the towns taken over is Sijir, close to Saqlawiyah Military Base
-The Iraqi Army sends in 400 men from the 3rd Brigade, an elite SWAT unit, and members from the Ashaib Ahl Al Haq (League of the Righteous) to take back Sijir.
-Stiff resistance by Daash forces the fighters back to Saqlawiyah base; there are now 800 to a 1000 men at the base and they are running short of supplies, food and ammunition.
-Daash captures areas around the base and blocks the only road connecting Saqlawiyah and starts to encircle the base. They now state that the attack on the village was a trap prepared for the Iraqi army and the “Safavid filth.”
-Daash starts using loudspeakers telling the troops to surrender
-A tank unit from Ramadi advances north and tries to break the siege. The tanks advance on a stretch of road that is strewn with improvised explosives but make it to 500 yards of the base
-Entrapped troops try to break through to the tanks but are beaten back by Daash that carries out suicide attacks and heavy assaults. The troops are forced back to the base and the tank columns retreat over bodies of dead soldiers
-Entrapped soldiers make desperate calls to military commanders who promise relief and air support but nothing arrives. Senior commanders refer to repeated requests being made by soldiers as unnecessary “whining” in the face of attacks
-Daash fighters dressed in Iraqi Army Uniform send in Humvees in a suicide attack. The soldiers guarding the base are reported to have opened the gates assuming the Humvees to be relief supplies. Huge suicide attacks are followed on by a heavy ambush. Daash overruns the base and only a pocket of soldiers are reported to be holding out.
-Conflicting reports suggest that between 50 (unreliable government) to 600 casualties with 200 soldiers managing to escape. Escaped soldiers were starving after 4 days of hunger and were drinking salt water to survive, they were finding it hard to run
-Daash parades 30 men dressed in Iraqi Army Uniform in Fallujah and releases the following statement:
“After placing trust in Allah, and taking into consideration the means and available capabilities, and by the order of the Ministry of War, al-Fallujah Province mobilized all its military detachments, air defense, support, and raiding detachments, and after making the plan and setting its goals, the detachments launched towards their desired objective, which is liberating the area of al-Sijir from the filth of the Safavids [a derogatory term for Shiites], as a first step to besiege the headquarters of Brigade 30, which is located between the area of al-Sijir and the al-Saqlawiyah sub-district.”
-Daash claims to have killed 300 Iraqi Soldiers, captured two M1A1 Abrams tanks and a Russian tank in addition to other supplies that it looted from the base
-Abadi orders an enquiry and Iraqi Army and Air Force Commanders are reportedly suspended but MPs are demanding prosecution and calling Saqlawiyah Iraq’s second Spyker
-The government is claiming that Daash used chlorine gas and is using this as an excuse for the base having fallenHere are some questions that the above events raise:1) Why was Air Support not provided or supplies not air dropped?
Throughout the conflict Iraqi commanders are reported to have ignored calls for resupply and air support and, shockingly, to have given false hope by suggesting that the base was actually resupplied, when it was not. Sour relations between Maliki’s Commanders and Abadi’s desire to replace them is being suggested as another excuse for the fiasco.2) Where are the US air strikes falling?
If Daash was sending such a large number of fighters north why did US airstrikes not target them? Or target the Daash fighters laying siege to the base?
Yazidi fighters have similarly complained of the US not attacking Daash heavy armour in Sinjar while the Yazidis were fighting them, even after the Yazidis pointed (painted) targets for the Americans. The Yazidis were forced to withdraw when they ran out of ammunition from a fight that would otherwise have been easily won.
The behaviour of Turkish troops, preventing Syrian Kurds from crossing the border and help their fellow Kurds fight Daash in Kobani, is also very telling. Also, US strikes outside Kobani were unable to halt Daash’s advance.
It all stinks of “Boots on the ground.”

3) Where are the Sunni tribes in all this?
So far, those Sunni tribes not on the side of Daash are still undecided in backing the government. The reasons they put forward are continuing indiscriminate artillery strikes on Sunni populated areas (Fallujah, Ramadi) and the detention of a large number of Sunni men. Another reason could be that they still have doubts of the government side winning or holding on to territory taken.

4) Effectiveness of the militias?
The militias have helped prevent the fall of Baghdad and have halted the advance of Daash. But they still have a long way to go and may be an ineffective tool in Sunni dominated areas.

The higher ups in the Ashab Ahl al Haq will be furious that their men at the base were stranded and will want answers if not blood from Iraq’s Political/Military leadership. The military leadership of Iraq, politically selected, has shown little or scant regard for its troops and men, and are perhaps more dangerous than Daash.

How Did US Warplanes Redirect Its Rocket Launchers from Assad towards ISIL?

Mohamed Salami

President AssadThe United States and its Western as well as regional allies are still attempting to deny the fact that the situation in Syria has drastically changed as its coalition failed to defeat the state and the regular army whose battlefield victories forced the West to join its counterterrorism campaign.

In September 2013, the world and the region were on the verge of a US atrocious war against Syria. President Barack Obama’s administration was befuddled by the Syrian army’s battlefield achievements, so it decided to back the terrorist groups in order to involve all the parties in a political process. In fact, all the parties of the axis of resistance were targeted.

The Iranian and Russian statements at that time represented a bold response to the US threats.

In an interview with Al-Manar Website, the editor-in-cKandilhief of Al-Binaa local daily and former MP Nasser Kandil revealed that clear messages were sent from Tehran and Moscow to Washington that as US rockets target Syria, the axis of resistance’s rockets will be launched onto the Zionist entity, US military bases in the Middle East and onto the countries which support them.

Despite the counter threats, the US was not deterred. Media reports asserted that the US war on Syria had started yet ended the moment two ballistic missiles were fired.

“The US forces fired these two rockets from a NATO base in Spain, and were instantly detected by the Russian radars and confronted by the Russian defense systems, so one of them exploded in the airspace and the second one diverted towards the sea,” media reports asserted.

Kandil said that that political stage was ended by the “Chemical Deal” which let the American administration find a way out of its confusion caused by its recessive stances.

The US administration, as a result, refrained from carrying out the military plot against Syria under the pretext of the congressional disapproval, what allowed the axis of resistance to contrive a strategic achievement.

The US administration and its regional allies backed establishing the takfiri terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq in order to strike two of the basic resistance strongholds in the region.

ISIL (the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant), the most prominent terrorist group battling the regular army’s and the people in Iraq and Syria, led the takfiri terrorism, displaying its atrocities in different cities and provinces.

This terrorism was directed by the US and its allies to defeat the axis of resistance, yet the outcomes of the ground battles proved that the terrorist track did not lead its supporters to achieve any gain in its aggression against Syria.

Kandil asserted that the key US interests in the region were directly threatened by the terrorist chaos which started to spread out.

Led by Arab-Western intelligence, the terrorist groups may not have strategic plots to attack the Zionist entity; however, since these groups lack a unified command, they usually take uncoordinated decisions, which may endanger the Zionist entity.

On the long-term, the Zionist entity’s security might be affected by the case of chaos which will pervade in the neighboring countries due to the takfiri terrorism.

In addition, the Western economic and political interests in Iraqi Kurdistan represent a main drive for the US coalition to protect this oil-rich autonomous region.

As the terrorist groups threatened of attacking the Gulf countries, the US and the oil-rich states raised the alert in face of the serious terrorist threats.

US Warplane

In short, the Arab-Western coalition has decided to strike ISIL which failed to defeat the Syrian troops as well as Hezbollah and started to endanger its interests.

Politically, Syria was able to force the United States to abide by its sovereignty standards, what obliged the later to notify the former about the airstrikes which would target ISIL posts within the Syrian territories.

Russia and Iran stated that the airstrikes are fruitless if they are not accompanied by a ground attack and considered that fighting terrorism must be a comprehensive policy which halts funding and training the terrorist groups.

The two countries  preserve their strategic support to the Syrian state against all what may threaten its sovereignty and integrity.

Despite Obama’s acknowledgement of the inability of Syria “rebels” to defeat the regular army and in the light of the fact that these “rebels” have been overcome by the Syrian army and its allies since their rise, the western coalition still insists on backing what it calls “moderate rebels” in Syria in order to control the areas where ISIL will be struck by the air raids.

As Obama acknowledged that the “moderate rebels” in Syria can never face the regular troops, the US air strikes and the battlefield achievements of the Syrian army will meet in a short time at the point of defeating the terrorist groups, according to Kandil.

Former MP Kandil, however, stressed that the battlefield achievements of the Syrian army will have a great role to play in identifying the future of the Arab country which can never be controlled and ruled by airstrikes.

The whole region is most probably heading to more political stability and military encounter for the terrorist ISIL. However, if the Western realism withered and the United States insisted on challenging the state in Syria, then all the axis of resistance will be concerned with defending all its strongholds including Syria.

Source: Al-Manar Website

30-09-2014 – 16:28 Last updated 30-09-2014 – 6:28

Related Video

بين قوسين _ سركيس نعوم ، يفغيني سديروف | المنار


Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

US-led coalition against ISIL: Front for regime change

US President Barack Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron

 US President Barack Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron

Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:9AM GMT

By Finian Cunningham

Listening to American and British leaders this week one would think that Barack Obama and David Cameron are knights in shining armor on an epic crusade to defeat global evil.

Of course, that is exactly what Washington and London are trying to inculcate in popular perception – that the US and Britain are the saviors of the world leading a military campaign to destroy the extremist network known as so-called Islamic State (IS, or ISIL/ISIS).

This is a massive public relations scam to burnish the image of America and Britain – the two countries that, rightly, are most associated with illegal war making over the past decade, from Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011) to ongoing deadly drone warfare in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. Between them, Washington and London are responsible for the deaths of more than 1.5 million people over the past 13 years.

What better way to rehabilitate the war criminals than to present them now as leading a moral crusade to defeat a global evil?

Unbelievably, too many states seem to be going along with this ridiculous charade, as can be gleaned from the way Obama and Cameron’s posturing was indulged this week at the United Nations General Assembly.

And now, over the weekend, we hear of more countries – Australia, Belgium, Denmark and Netherlands – sending munitions and warplanes to join the US-led bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria.

David Cameron, the British premier, had the gall to regale the UN with these sanctimonious words: “My message today is simple. We are facing an evil against which the whole world must unite. And, as ever in the cause of freedom, democracy and justice, Britain will play its part.”

Yes, you heard right, the country that helped to destroy Afghanistan and Iraq based on wholesale lies, is telling you that it will do its part for “the cause of freedom, democracy and justice – as ever.”

Note the way Cameron sublimates – incredibly – the supposed defeat of IS “evil” with the supposed virtues of Britain.

Meanwhile, Obama also exhorted the world to unite – implicitly under America’s leadership – to confront “this network of death.” Obama set the militarist agenda by saying: “There can be no reasoning – no negotiation – with this brand of evil. The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force.”

Earlier, Obama greeted the participation of certain Arab states in the bombing campaign that expanded this week from Iraq into Syrian territory as evidence that “America is not acting alone.” This betrays how sensitive the issue is for Washington not to be seen for what it truly is – the leader of a criminal mob. In order to disguise that criminal enterprise, the US and its trusty British sidekick are making the anti-IS coalition sound like a noble service to mankind and world security.

But here are at least seven reasons for why this Anglo-American enterprise can be identified as a fake front to conceal an ulterior agenda:

First: the extremists in the “network of death” are the creation of American and British intelligence, evolving out of the covert war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the 1980s when al-Qaeda was formed. That network was the brainchild of people like presidential National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, and was further deployed by CIA director William Casey to destabilize Russia during the 1990s with proxy wars in Central Asia. This has been all scrupulously documented by Peter Dale Scott and several other respected authors. The latest incarnation of the West’s proxy terror army is IS which was spawned during the American and British occupation of Iraq post-2003.

Conclusion: you can’t defeat something that is an integral creation of your own geopolitical machinations.

Second: the “evil” that Washington and London have so pontificated about in self-serving moralistic terms can best be illustrated by the destruction of Syria over the past three years. IS and related Western-sponsored proxy armies have terrorized the entire Syrian population by waging a war that would not have happened without the overarching direction of Washington and London. Nearly 200,000 people have been killed, millions wounded and millions more turned into refugees. Estimates of infrastructure damage are put at over $100 billion – a debt that would cripple most European states. This “evil” has been inflicted on Syria by the geopolitical directors of IS and the mercenary network – Washington and London.

Former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, for example, testified last year that he was approached by British government figures in 2009 to join the Syrian project of regime change that began in March 2011.

Conclusion: you can’t fight against evil when you are the source of that evil.

Third: the US-led anti-IS coalition is not coordinating with the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. This is in spite of the glaring reality that the Syrian armed forces are the most effective combat force against IS in the actual field. The Syrian army has proven itself over the past three years in holding off, and indeed rolling back, IS and a myriad other such terror groups.

If Washington and London were serious about destroying this network then surely they would be enlisting the support of the Syrian government. The underlying reasons for why they are not, from the aforementioned points, should be obvious. But, taken on face value, the lack of consultation or consent from the Assad government means that the US-led bombing of that country has an ulterior purpose.

Furthermore, it is illegal under international law and, to boot, the intervention does not have a UN Security Council mandate. The US notified Damascus of the air strikes in a high-handed way, warning Syria not to engage foreign warplanes operating over its skies. That’s an ultimatum and it has no legal substance. Russia and Iran appear to be among the few countries that have clearly spoken out against the illegality of American-led actions in Syria, and they are correct in their assessment.

Conclusion: the anti-IS coalition is illegal and lacks integrity.

Fourth: Washington and London are also not enlisting the support of another logical ally Iran – the region’s power house. Grudgingly, the US and Britain are saying that “Iran may have a role” in the purported campaign against IS. But, again, if Washington and London were genuinely trying to wipe out the IS as a threat to world peace and security, then why aren’t they trying to liaise with Iran?

Conclusion: Iran has correctly rebuffed the anti-IS coalition as disingenuous, in part because Washington and London are acting as pretend-firemen who are at the same time going out to not use water to put out a fire.

Fifth: American and British ally, NATO-member Turkey, is clearly not interested in taking effective action against IS. The Turk army is preventing Kurdish fighters crossing its border with Syria. These Kurdish forces want to help defend their compatriots in Syria who are being assailed by IS around the city of Kobani.

But the Turk military is preventing this vital support reaching the Syrian side much to the consternation of the Kurds who are asking the obvious question: why not?

Also, as Kurdish fighters point out, the Turk military is passively viewing IS brigades operating in Syria within firing range. Why aren’t senior NATO members, the US and Britain, telling Turkey to use its firepower to damage IS on the ground?

Conclusion: the with-holding of a key tactical strike against IS, as witnessed by Turkish inaction, shows that the anti-IS coalition is derelict in its stated purpose.

Sixth: what about the genocide against Palestinians in Gaza? Where is Washington and London’s concern over that “evil”? It is by no means a digression to question the integrity of Obama and Cameron when it comes to the pressing issue of evil perpetrated against Palestinians by the Israeli regime. Some 2,100 people – mainly women and children – were slaughtered by the Israeli military over two blood-soaked months this summer.

This was a campaign of relentless, indiscriminate murder on a besieged civilian population that involved decapitation of children not with crude knives but with a panoply of sophisticated American-supplied weaponry. Yet all the while, Washington and London sat on their hands and said nothing to stop the carnage.

Conclusion: If Obama and Cameron have not the moral fiber to condemn and counter such a glaring case of “evil” as in Gaza, then there is no way that their protestations for world action against IS can be viewed as having a scintilla of sincerity.

Seventh: Obama has called for not only the destruction of IS extremism but also for the elimination of extremist ideology. Laughably, he made that declaration while sharing a dinner table this week with key Arab states lending the US-led anti-IS coalition such crucial “international image.” These states are Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. They are all unelected monarchial dictatorships that have ruthlessly suppressed their own people’s demands for democratic freedom.

Saudi Arabia in particular has publicly decapitated hundreds of its citizens and expatriate workers in recent years under official penal policy. While Bahrain continues to lock up hundreds of political prisoners who have done nothing more than call for the Khalifa regime to be replaced with an elected government.

These feudalistic regimes are key logistical components in American military power in the Middle East. That is why their warplanes are riding shotgun with American F-16s and F-22s in bombing Syrian territory – not because their participation is in any way borne out of international legitimacy or solidarity.

But the really bitter irony is that these despotic Arab regimes – that Obama is “so proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with” – are the material and ideological sponsors of the IS and related extremists groups operating in Syria and Iraq. Washington and London may be the ultimatum authors of the proxy network of death, for their regime-change strategy, but it is the reactionary Arab monarchies who are the immediate conduits of weaponry to that network.

And, crucially, it is the extremist Wahhabi fundamentalism of Saudi rulers and the other Persian Gulf dictatorships that fuels the IS ideology. Washington and London are careful to conceal it, but in these despotic regimes other religions, including Shia Islam and Christianity, are deemed “heretical” and punishable by death or imprisonment.

When IS militants chop off the heads of “infidel” Muslims and Christians in Syria and Iraq, they are doing so in accordance with the extremist ideology of America’s and Britain’s closest Arab allies.

Conclusion: The Arab component of the anti-ISIS coalition is the material and ideological wellspring for IS and related extremist groups; so while America’s despotic Arab friends may be bombing their surrogates on the ground – for now – such action does not bestow any integrity or lawfulness. Far from it. The Arab despots are now using warplanes instead of their head-chopping mercenaries on the ground.

Our final conclusion is this: Obama and Cameron are using simplistic moralizing rhetoric about “defeating evil” in order to:

1) conceal their own criminal legacy;

2) pressure the rest of the world into endorsing their presumed but ill-deserved authority; and

3) promote their criminal agenda of regime change under a moral cover.

However, no law-abiding or morally conscious state should have anything to do with the US and British-led anti-IS coalition. It is fraudulent in its stated aims, as the above points testify. The so-called coalition is nothing but a criminal mob run by arch-criminal states – the US and Britain.

The campaign against IS is a front for the criminal agenda of regime change in Syria and the region. This real, criminal agenda should be exposed and condemned at every opportunity. To consort with this mob is to corrupt international law and morality.

Moreover, the international case should be forthrightly made for the arrest and prosecution of the mob’s chief protagonists in Washington and London for their serial crimes against humanity and peace.


Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Originally from Belfast, Ireland, he is now located in East Africa as a freelance journalist, where he is writing a book on Bahrain and the Arab Spring, based on eyewitness experience working in the Persian Gulf as an editor of a business magazine and subsequently as a freelance news correspondent. The author was deported from Bahrain in June 2011 because of his critical journalism in which he highlighted systematic human rights violations by regime forces. He is now a columnist on international politics for Press TV and the Strategic Culture Foundation. More articles by Finian Cunningham

Poll: Americans back airstrikes, oppose arming Syria rebels

Published Tuesday, September 30, 2014

poll conducted by CNN revealed that the majority of American citizens back the US-led airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) but oppose sending military forces to the ground and arming “moderate” Syria rebels.

The poll showed that 73% of US citizens support the coalition’s air raids, however, they expressed concern regarding US plans to arm the so-called “moderate” Syrian opposition.

In Washington, lawmakers voted to authorize the training and arming of “moderate” Syrian rebels to combat ISIS, a move US President Barack Obama hailed as “an important step forward.”

However, the poll showed that while 42% support Obama’s proposal, 52% oppose it.

Moreover, 45% of the surveyed described ISIS’ danger as “very serious” and 23% said it is “fairly serious.”

When it comes to boots on the ground, 24% of Americans do not believe their country is going to send armed forces to the ground, while 36% said there is a “probability.”

US politicians against arming so-called “moderate” rebels

Former 16-year member of the US Congress and two-time US presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich wrote in an article for The Huffington Post on Wednesday entitled “8 Reasons Why Congress Should Vote No on Training and Funding Syrian Rebels,” that the moderates, the US wants to train and fund, captured an American journalist and sold him to ISIS, who beheaded him.”

Similarly, Former US Congressman Ron Paul, an outspoken anti-interventionist, denounced US plans to arm and train “moderate” rebels, noting that these Western-backed forces have been “helpful to ISIS.”‬‪

“The FSA turned over the weapons, that we (the US) sent them, to ISIS,” Paul said. “It is pretty well recorded that for $50,000 the FSA turned over one of the two American journalists to ISIS.”‬‪

In an interview with CNN, Barak Barfi, the spokesperson for the family of murdered American journalist Steven Sotloff, said that “moderate” Syrian rebels backed by the United States government sold Sotloff to ISIS.

“We believe that these so-called moderate rebels that people want our administration to support, one of them sold him probably for something between $25,000 and $50,000 to ISIS and that was the reason he was captured,” Barfi declared.

In his article, Kucinich quoted historian Alastair Crooke who described “moderate” rebels in Syria as being “rarer than a mythical unicorn,” and warned that “funding Syrian rebels will precipitate a new and wider war in the Middle East.”

“Saudi Arabia, which, with Qatar funded the jihadists in Syria, is now offering to ‘train’ the rebels,” which means that “the sponsors of radical jihadists are going to train ‘moderate’ jihadists,” Kucinich added.

Kucinich also described the US Treasury as becoming the “piggy bank” of ISIS.“

The US has supplied weapons to the Iraqi government and to Syrian rebels which have ended up in the hands of ISIS,” he explained. “As a result, the US Air Force has been bombing Humvees and armored troop carriers purchased with US taxpayer money.”

Likewise, Paul said the US sent weapons to rebel groups operating under the banner of the Free Syrian Army “in order to overthrow Assad” but these weapons “ended up with ISIS in Iraq.” After realizing that error, the United States decided that they “better help out the Iraqis again” by “going after these radicals.”‬‪

“We go there (to Iraq) and we blow up the weapons that we sent,” Paul added.‬‪

A recent study by the London-based small-arms research organization Conflict Armament Research revealed that ISIS jihadists appear to be using US military-issued arms and weapons supplied to the “moderate” rebels in Syria by Saudi Arabia.

Senator Mark Begich, a Democrat, also opposed Obama’s plan to arm Syrian rebels, fearing the weapons could fall into the wrong hands.

“I oppose the president’s plan to arm Syrian rebels at this time,” he said. “We must have greater assurance that we aren’t arming extremists who will eventually use the weapons against us.”


Obama: We can’t stabilise Syria under Assad, so we will destabilise instead

Embedded image permalink

As a US-led coalition continues to strike ISIL strongholds inside Syria, President Barack Obama says “we are not going to stabilize” the country under President Bashar al-Assad.

In an interview aired Sunday on CBS’ “60 Minutes” program, Obama acknowledged the contradictory nature of his Syria strategy.”I recognize the contradiction in a contradictory land and a contradictory circumstance.”

The US president explained that the military campaign against the ISIL terror network and al-Qaeda-affiliated groups was also helping the Syrian government.

Many militants who were initially trained and armed by the US and some of its Arab allies to fight the government of President Assad later joined the ISIL terrorist organization.

Obama has authorized airstrikes against ISIL militants in Iraq and Syria, but has repeatedly ruled out American boots on the ground in a combat role, a promise many experts say might soon be broken.

The administration hopes that local forces, comprised of “moderate” militants in Syria and military forces and Kurdish fighters in Iraq, would lead the ground offensive against ISIL, and recapture the lost territory.

As part of that strategy, the US Congress approved a plan earlier this month for the Pentagon to begin arming and equipping 5,000 so-called moderate insurgents in Syria.

Pentagon leaders have said a force of up to 15,000 trained militants was required in Syria to take on both ISIL and the Assad government.

In Iraq, the US has deployed about 1,600 troops to bolster security for American diplomats and facilities there and “advise” Iraqi government forces fighting the ISIL militants.

Earlier on Sunday, House Speaker John Boehner said the United States may have “no choice” but to send American troops to combat if the current strategy failed.

Obama said Sunday that the coalition’s military campaign had “a strong chance for success in Iraq” but added that Syria was “a more challenging situation.”

The president also admitted that the US intelligence had “underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.”

UNSC Resolution 2178 Unanimously Passed but Obama was Diplomatically Rebuked


The United Nations Security Council held a high-level meeting on terrorism on September 24, 2014. UN Security Council Resolution 2178, which underscored the need to prevent the travel and funding of foreign terrorists, was unanimously approved and passed by its five permanent and veto-holding members—Britain, China, France, Russia, and the US— and its elected non-permanent members–Argentina , Australia, Chad, Chile, Jordan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Nigeria, South Korea, and Rwanda—which have chairs for two-year terms.

The Syrian government hailed the passing of the resolution as verification of its claims about the nature of the anti-government forces that the US, Britain, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon’s perfidious Hariri-led March 14 Alliance have been supporting. Syrian Information Minister Omran Al-Zoubi hailed Resolution 2178 as a political victory for Syria on September 28, 2014.

The September 24 meeting was chaired by the US, which since the start of the month of September received the rotating UN Security Council presidency from Britain. Moreover, US President Barack Obama was personally chairing the situation while US Secretary of State, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, and US National Security Advisor Susan Rice all sat behind him. The resolution had been circulated before the session and approved before opening remarks and statements were made.

Australia, Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Canada, Chad, Chile, France, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the former Yugoslav Republic (FYR) of Macedonia, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Qatar, Rwanda, South Korea, Turkey, and Trinidad and Tobago were all represented by either their head of state or head of government. Archbishop Pietro Parolin, Vatican City’s Secretary of State (which is the equivalent of a prime minister) was also present, as was Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the EU’s European Council. Albania, Algeria, China, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Senegal, Serbia, and New Zealand were represented at the ministerial level while Egypt, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Spain, and the UAE were represented by cabinet advisors, special envoys, and lower ranking representatives. Syrian Ambassador to the UN Bashar Al-Jaafari was also in attendance.

The UN Security Council Resolution 2178 is described by the US Department of State, in a factsheet it released on the same date (September 24, 2014), as a legally binding document that requires all countries to prevent foreign terrorist fighters from either entering or transiting their territories and to establish domestic laws to prosecute these foreign terrorists domestically.

UN Security Council Resolution 2178, itself, states that the UN Security Council “through the resolution, decided that all States shall ensure that their legal systems provide for the prosecution, as serious criminal offences, of travel for terrorism or related training, as well as the financing or facilitation of such activities.” It goes on to say that it has been decided that all member states of the UN “shall prevent entry or transit through their territories of any individual about whom that State had credible information of their terrorist-related intentions, without prejudice to transit necessary for the furtherance of judicial processes. It called on States to require airlines to provide passenger lists for that purpose.”

Although it is de-contextualized as Argentina, China, and Russia would all stealthily point out in diplomatic terms, the content of UN Security Council Resolution 2178 in principle was sound. Therefore, it got the unanimous support of the entire UN Security Council. In practice, it is a totally different story.

Liars in High Office: A Pageantry of Dishonesty

Almost the entire meeting about UN Security Council Resolution 2178 was a pageantry of hollow rhetoric and beautiful lies. The room was filled with soulless poets. Most the noble words by the gathering of careerists had no bearing with reality. The biggest state-sponsors of terrorism were in attendance in the chamber presenting themselves as champions of justice and as adversaries of terrorism. Aside from a few comments by countries like Argentina, Russia, and Syria, the entire meeting was almost totally a fiction.

Listening to the session, one could see which countries and governments were truly independent and which countries and governments were proxies and clients of Washington. The US vassals in the chamber all catered to Washington and Obama’s ego. Washington’s vassals took turns to acknowledge Barack Obama’s leadership ad nauseum. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Australia, Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Canada, Jordan, Kenya, Luxembourg, Nigeria, Norway, Qatar, South Korea, and the FYR of Macedonia all thanked Obama for his leadership like subordinates paying homage to their overlord. If Obama did not have to leave before they talked, the representatives of the Netherlands and Morocco would have most probably saluted him for his leadership too like the leaders of Norway and Canada did in his absence. Algeria, Chad, Pakistan, Senegal, and a few other countries also thanked Obama for calling for the high-level UN Security Council meeting, but their tone was not as obsequious as those of countries like Jordan, Qatar, and NATO member Bulgaria.

Washington’s puppets and subordinates all used the same talking points that the US Department of State had been pushing for days. Their statements could have very well have been written for them by the US Department of State. This was very clear in the case of the speech made on behalf of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan by King Abdullah II. Using trademark US Department of State dramatic language, he started by calling what was happening “the fight of our times.” The Jordanian dictator pushed the US points of global reach and—using the latest catchphrase that the US Department of State has taken a shine to— called for “a holistic approach” to fighting the ISIL and other terrorist organizations. Moroccan Prime Minister Abdelilah Benkirane also called for the same “holistic approach” that King Abdullah II was promoting. These statements were following in John Kerry’s footsteps after he had called for a “holistic global campaign” during an earlier UN Security Council meeting on September 19, 2014.

Abdullah II pushed for absolute submission and capitulation to Washington’s new crusade in his speech. With a ridiculously somber tone, he demanded immediate action and said that “there has to be a zero tolerance policy to any country, organization, or individual that facilitates, supports, or finances terror groups or provides weapons or promotes propaganda, whether through media outlets or misusing religious clerics, that incites and helps recruits fighters to these terrorist groups.” “Countries cannot comply in one theater while making mischief in another,” he added.

While the UN Security Council several made statements about stopping the purchase of stolen oil from Iraq and Syria, one of the key facilitators, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, sat in the room. Like Obama and Cameron, Erdogan pretended that NATO member Turkey had no role in the theft of Iraqi and Syrian resources. Instead, President Erdogan took the opportunity to claim that the Syrian government was behind the creation of the ISIL death squads. The next day, on September 25, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Muallem would state that Turkey had not even stopped training and arming the death squads or stopped them from pass through the Turkish border into Syria.

Erdogan would also call for a no-fly zone in Syria. It would later be reported that this topic was discussed between Erdogan, Obama, and US Vice-President Joseph Biden.

Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani would speak after Erdogan. He too would not flinch throughout the meeting whenever the ISIL death squads and their funding were mentioned. Instead when it was his turn to speak, he pointed his finger at both Syria and Iraq as the sources of the terrorism problem. Ignoring the role that Qatar and its allies have played, the Qatari autocrat blamed both Damascus and Baghdad by saying that Syrian state repression and Iraqi state repression is what created the problems of terrorism.

Gjorge Ivanov, the president of the FYR of Macedonia, used the meeting to advocate for Euro-Atlantic expansion. President Ivanov called for the swift entry of his countries and the entire western portion of the Balkans—meaning Albania, Bosnia, the breakaway Serbian province of Kosovo, Montenegro, and Serbia—into NATO and the European Union as soon as possible.

When it was Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s turn to talk, he brought up sanctions. The Dutch official used the UN Security Council meeting to emphasize the importance of sanctioning states that do not comply.

Argentina Exposes the Dirty Hands at the UN Security Council

Using somewhat of a Socratic approach, Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner questioned the hollowness and double-standards in the room. She did so diplomatically and in a very polite way without mentioning the US directly most the time, but she was clearly challenging the US and revlelaing its dirty hands. Along with the Syrian Ambassador to the UN Bashar Al-Jaafari, her statements were the harshest and pointed out how Washington was creating international instability and that its campaigns to fight terrorism were really not showing any results and only feeding a cycle of violence. Anything that would indicate the guilt of the US in fueling terrorism and nurturing the ISIL was not included in the UN Department of Information’s text on the meeting.

Once she took the microphone, President Kirchner explained that Buenos Aires saw merits in the UN Security Council Resolution 2178, but said that Argentina had several important questions and hesitations. Her questions were really criticisms of the US, at least partially. She started off by pointing out how in 2013 there was pressure on Argentina from the US Congress when it signed an agreement to cooperate with Iran to address the 1992 and 1994 terrorist attacks inside her country. She explained how Argentine dialogue with Tehran in 2013 was deemed unacceptable and that her country was slandered as a terrorist state, but how it has been okay for Washington itself to talk to the Iranians. After this Kirchner mentioned that Al-Qaeda did not emerge overnight and was trained to fight against Moscow. Then she said that the Arab Spring was spearheaded by the same type of militants that have formed the ISIL, but that these combatants were presented to the world by the US as “freedom fighters” in 2011. Perhaps she was trying to point out how ISIL’s strength and reach has been deliberately exaggerated to justify US intervention, but she then told the entire UN Security Council that Argentina did not take the ISIL threats to kill her seriously.

Kirchner went on to point out how the US has presented one new threat after another. The threat to the world was Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction a decade ago, the threat then became the Iranian nuclear energy program, then it eventually turned into Syria, and it was the ISIL death squads at the current juncture of the UN Security Council’s meeting.

Very important, President Kirchner told Obama that Washington’s methodology and methods for fighting terrorism are not right and that military force is not the answer. She said it defies logic to use the same methods that are constantly failing and making things much worse instead of solving the problem. The US approach to fighting terrorism has only made terrorism proliferate and violence spread. Cristina Kirchner then said that Israel is also a part of the problem, pointing out that the Israeli massacres of civilians has only created anger and militancy in the Middle East. She then reminded the UN Security Council that the government of Syria in 2013 was presented as a great enemy, while the people fighting it were presented as “freedom fighters” by the US. The world, however, became aware and openly admits that those so-called “freedom fighters” are terrorists she added. President Kirchner additionally asked President Obama and the UN Security Council who had armed these groups fighting inside Syria—an answer that everyone in the room knew the answer for—and then asked about the ISIL’s oil revenues and who is providing it with arms…

She concluded that Argentina will help fight global terrorism, but it had to be done in a legal framework and with respect for human rights—all of which were shots at Washington again. Looking at Obama, Kirchner concluded by pointing out that Argentine had a lot of untapped energy, but said she wondered if it was a curse because it seemed to her that all the countries with oil are riddled at problems—this was another hit at the US for its interference in the affairs of energy-rich nations.

It would be Syria that would partially answer some of Cristina Kirchner’s questions. Syrian Ambassador to the UN Bashar Al-Jaafari would point out that it was several of the member states gathered in the room that were disingenuously denouncing terrorism that in reality were the parties financially, technically, and diplomatically supporting the terrorists and death squads inside his country. He also pointed out how the Israeli ally of some of the US had downed a Syrian jet that was on a mission against the same terrorist forces that they claimed to be fighting.

Russia and China Diplomatically Point the Finger at the US

Although Russia and China approved UN Security Council Resolution 2178, they have very different agendas and made it clear that a global campaign on terrorism has to be led by the United Nations and the UN Security Council and not by the US government and Pentagon.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called for an end to double-standards. Lavrov also called for an end to the illegal oil trade of stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil and an end to the dissemination of weapons from post-Jamahiriya Libya. The Russian official called for a UN forum to be convened for the task of honestly analyzing how terrorism has proliferated in North Africa and the Middle East. He pointed out to the NATO bombing of Libya and the support that some of the members of the UN provided for the anti-government fighters in Syria.

Sergey Lavrov’s point was simple. Russia was asking for the United Nations to look at the roots of terrorism and not just to respond to their symptoms by fighting terrorist groups militarily after they emerge as threats. Foreign Minister Lavrov was asking the UN Security Council to examine how the ISIL was created. In other words, he wanted the UN to acknowledge the role of the US and its allies in creating the death squads and terrorist movements ravaging Iraq and Syria.

Like his Russian counterpart, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called for also looking at the root causes of terrorism. Foreign Minister Yi emphasized that the United Nations and the UN Security Council had to coordinate the “global war on terror.” Although he did not state it explicitly, what Yi meant was that Washington should not call the shots, because it would misuse the campaign for its own interests.

Taking a diplomatic jab at Washington like his Russian counterpart did before him; Wang Yi called for consistency and an end to double-standards. China’s position was that international law and norms must be followed.

Who is a terrorist and who is not? Like so many international agreements and documents, such as the Geneva Communiqué concerning Syria (which was created on June 30, 2012), there will be different interpretations of Resolution 2178. The US and other members of the UN will use it to suit their own interests. There are universal and categorical definitions of what foreign terrorist fighters are. For example, Washington could use it designate Hezbollah fighters in Syria as foreign terrorist fighters while Russia and China will use it contest support for the militant separatists in the North Caucasus and East Turkistan.

The Beginning of a New Phase in the post-9/11 Inquisition?

South Korean president Park Geun-hye—the daughter of South Korean dictator, military strongman, and US puppet Park Chung-hee—stated that the US and its allies need to go after “cyber and nuclear terrorism” when it was her turn to address the UN Security Council. She advocated for tighter controls over the internet as a means of fighting terrorism. Prime Minister David Cameron also said that websites must be controlled, blocked, and removed. There was what appeared to be a general call for policing social media in the chamber for combating terrorism.

Rehashing the main points and entire sections of his speech to the UN General Assembly from two days earlier, on September 22, Cameron said that those he described as preachers of hate needed to be dealt with firmly. He clarified that this included “non-violent” people who believed that Muslims were being persecuted and said that the roots of the problems included the worldviews that the tragic events of 9/11 and the London 7/7 attacks were staged. Schools and universities would need to be cleared of groups and individuals that had these views.

David Cameron declared that a new security regime was being put into place in Britain to seize passports, force restraints of movement on people evaluated as risk, and even keep citizens from returning to their own homelands. Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper also said that Canada was doing the same thing and revoking citizenships.

Not only are the steps that Prime Minister Cameron and Prime Minister Harper presented unconstitutional in their own countries, they will be used by self-declared democracies to hold their own citizens in undisclosed conditions or indefinite detention and imprisonment once they have their citizenships removed. Citizenships will be removed to evade and get around the legally guaranteed rights of citizens for due justice—non-citizens are not treated equally under the law. The revoking of citizenships can also be used to push dissidents opposing and challenging government policies.

The so-called defenders of “freedom of speech” are also opening the door for more intrusive censorships, especially when Cameron advocates for going after individuals that believe that the US and British governments are involved in the murder of their own citizens. Moreover, David Cameron advocated for the removal of the beheading videos being uploaded onto the internet by the ISIL.

Cameron’s demands were made purportedly, because of the violent nature of these videos. For many years, videos of this nature have been uploaded onto the internet and it has never been questioned by either the US or Britain or many of their allies? Why now, after all these years? Could it be because enough people are asking embarrassing questions about the videos and the circumstances behind them? This is why a campaign had started earlier in the US to prevent US citizens from watching the videos. The Times even conceded on August 25, 2014 in an article by Deborah Haynes that the video of James Foley was staged by writing it “was probably staged, with the actual murder taking place off-camera, according to forensic analysis.”

Believe or think otherwise that the beheading of Foley, which was seen on the video, was not his actual death, the point is that there is more to the demands for this type of censorship. Nothing was demanded when Nicholas Berg was executed in 2004 or after years of videos being posted of hundreds of Syrians being beheaded.

What is happening is a new phase of the inquisition or inquisitorial mentality that emerged after the tragic events of September 11, 2001 (9/11). No one is allowed to question the legitimacy of the witch hunts and increasing control over movement and lives that is being done in the name of fighting terrorism and security. “Fear and insecurity prevail over common sense,” is the way that Michel Chossudovsky fittingly describes the inquisitorial process.

While the whole structure of this post-9/11 inquisition is based on warped narratives and lies, everyone has to pay lip service to the same lies; everyone is forced to work within the boundaries of the consensus and boundaries drawn by the inquisition. This is exactly what happened on September 24, 2014 at the UN Security Council. The gathered world leaders paid lip service to fight against terrorism without addressing those really behind it and supporting the death squads, which is why the meeting was truly a pageantry of lies and disregard. Even those that are opposed to US foreign policy were forced to criticize and challenge Washington within the framework of the consensus, never directly pointing the finger at it for being the author of the instability and death squads in Iraq and Syria.

Hypocrisy prevails in the United Nations and inside the UN Security Council. Only Argentina, China, Russia, and Syria raised their voices to challenge the false record being created to carry on the global inquisition. Buenos Aires, Beijing, and Moscow, however, all had to, more or less, challenge the US within the framework of the consensus that Washington was navigating and heavily influencing. While Syria was more open in its criticism, President Kirchner, Foreign Minister Lavrov, and Foreign Minister Ye were more subtleand diplomatic.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 423 other followers