ALL ALEPPO ABOUT TO FALL TO THE GREAT SYRIAN ARMY! CHILDREN MURDERED BY OBAMA’S “MODERATE” BARBARIANS!

Ziad Fadel

(Thanks, Brigitte Tulan)

ALEPPO:  The Western Media doesn’t want to talk about this.  But, it’s true.  The Saudis pretend it can’t happen. The Erdoghani Turks pretend they’re fighting terrorists and watch helplessly as the Syrian Army takes care of their business.

The terrorist forces in Aleppo are starving.  Their medical situation is grim, at best.  4,000 newly injected rodents from Turkey have not been able to penetrate Syrian Army lines and are marginalized outside the city, evidently unaware that the final push is about to start.  Once Aleppo is liberated, there will be no point in continuing that charade in Geneva.

(Thanks, Khaled)

Putin tried to send a message of peace to the so-called “opposition”.  With a cease fire in place, it behooved the exiled and impotent Saudi-financed traitors to perhaps find some modus vivendi with the government in Damascus.  Instead, they pursued the same knuckle-headed bedouin-minded policy of demanding the impossible – the ouster of the Assad government.  Now that Putin understands the inability of the opposition to absorb reality, the decision has been made to go for it all at once.

Some media in the West claim that the Syrian government and its supporters in Russia never had the intention of abiding by any cease fire or negotiating in good faith at Geneva.  The West confounded logic by asserting that the Syrian military used the short, two-month respite from hostilities to reorganize and resupply.  Interestingly, in Syria, the military has taken the position that the cease fire was a bad idea from the start because it gave the terrorists and their supporters time to build up their capabilities in order to block the SAA advances at the crucial city of Aleppo.  Whatever the case may be, the cease fire is at an end and the grim business of eradicating the pestilence in the north is proceeding apace.

Al-Raashideen:  This large suburb is in ruins and very few humans live inside it at present.  Yesterday, the Syrian Army moved decisively into Block 4 and is involved at present in an intense battle with terrorist rodents who have almost run out of ammunition.  Monitored terrorist chatter describes an hopeless situation with “jihadists” asking their litter-mates to pray for them since they are about to die.  Morituri, sort of.  Their prayers will be answered soon enough.  The bearded nihilists are being hit with everything from mortars, rockets and bombers.  It is impossible for them to survive.

In point of fact, a look at the map will disclosed the near complete encirclement of Aleppo.  Any news source which speaks of a narrow channel for resupply is lying.  It’s over and all corridors into the city have been closed.

The West continues to spew nonsense.  With no credible evidence of chemical weapons use by a Syrian government which has been confirmed to have cooperated completely with the Russian-inspired policy of CW divestiture, the Western Media has turned to inventing lies about Russian or Syrian Air Force bombing of “hospitals” in “terrorist-controlled areas” of the city. What benefit to the propaganda media is unclear since nobody is interested in an actual ground invasion of Syria.

The field hospital in Al-Sukkari largely run by the terrorist-supporting gangsters at Doctors Without Borders was hit because it was being used by Alqaeda to hide weapons and terrorists.  It was not a pediatric hospital by any means.  It was a haven for murderers.  All scenes showing children inside the terrorist field hospital are taken from archival photos.  There are no pediatricians there.  There are only wounded terrorists who must die anyways.

 

Bashar Murtada shows us how civilians are being murdered by Obama’s freaks:

The terrorists have received more lethal weapons and they’re using it against innocent civilians.  The day before yesterday, they deliberately targeted areas of the city known for their large minority populations.  Quarters like Al-‘Azeeziyya, Mogambo and Sulaymaaniyya received some direct hits.  This has been calculated by the Syrian military.  It is known that the terrorists will often fire at civilians in secure zones as a way to respond to the army’s constant advances on the ground.  It is a price the population of Aleppo has to pay in order to be rid of the plague spread by Obama.

The highway which circles the city is under complete army control.  The process of liberating Aleppo is now strictly defined by slow strangulation.  The Kuwayris air base is operating at a very high level with bombers and helicopters taking off and landing every ten minutes.  Access to the base is unimpeded.

During the last 3 days of fighting, the Syrian Army with Russian help has killed over 200 rodents with hundreds known to be wounded and without any hope of medical care.  Doctors inside government-held areas are warned not to leave their areas for any reason.  There is a fear that doctors are being targeted for kidnaping by the terrorists in order to compel them to treat wounded rodents.  Doctors are being told that if they travel about the city, they do so at their own risk.  Doctors are also not allowed to transport drugs or anything which might help wounded rats.

The cease fire in Aleppo has failed because the terrorist groups cooperated with Nusra/Alqaeda by giving the Saudi-financed terrorist gang cover.  Since Alqaeda and ISIS are not a part of the cessation of hostilities agreement, the group had to find a way to both maneuver around the northern territories while being protected under the agreement.  Both the Syrian and Russian governments began to pick up on this stratagem and viewed it as delusionary.  Russia is now seeking the concurrence of the U.N.S.C. in the inclusion of Jaysh Al-Islam and Ahraar Al-Shaam as excluded groups.

Interestingly,  the Syrian Ministry of Defense announced today a cease fire for 24 hours in the East Ghoutaa.  They also announced a cease fire for 72 hours in Latakia.  I have no explanation why this agreement released to the media.

_______________________________________________________

MORE FROM ALEPPO:

Brigitte Turkmani sent me this tape about a commander with ISIS:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=189804781386418&id=100010706917482

Afraa Dagher tells us about Aleppo here:

https://www.facebook.com/afrona.da/posts/1017909921629032

Children murdered and maimed by Obama’s psychopathic moderate cannibals in Aleppo. (Thanks, Samer Hussein)

(Thanks, Brigitte Tulan)

 

(It means: “Coeur de Leon”.  Thanks, Brigitte Tulan)

 

(Thanks, Khaled Nawaz Al-Nouri)

 

 

________________________________________________________

NEWS AND COMMENT:

John Esq. and Tony Gratrex send this eye-opening article in which Seymour Hersh claims Hillary Clinton approved Sarin gas for terrorists:

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/04/28/seymour-hersh-hillary-approved-sending-libya-sarin-syrian-rebels.html

Brandon Turbeville attacks the questionable role of Saudi Arabia as enemy of radical Jihadist Islam in this article:

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/04/whats-behind-saudi-arabias-claim-to-have-killed-800-terrorists-in-yemen.html

Obama’s charade is exposed by Brandon here with a well-studied analysis of Obama’s gibberish:

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/04/obama-announces-more-special-forces-troops-to-syria-escalates-existing-policy.html

Brandon uses SyrPer’s depiction of the Parliamentary elections in Syria to buttress the argument that Syria is in fact becoming a democracy:

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/04/syrian-parliamentary-election-results-disprove-dictatorship-claims.html

________________________________________________________

WILE E. COYOTE MOMENT:  (Thanks, John Esq.)  Watch ISIS’s impersonation of the Keystone Cops:

https://www.rt.com/viral/341201-isis-helmet-video-death/

Watch Jund Al-Aqsa rodents get wiped out by SAA soldiers after they think they had neutralized the SAA force.  Great scene from Aleppo and John Esq.:

https://www.funker530.com/entire-jihadi-squad-wiped-out-on-gopro/
Read more 

UK Labour Party in Grip of Zionist Inquisition

April 30, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

 by Stuart Littlewood

The orchestrated smear campaign against pro-Palestine sympathisers sent me reaching for my pen. But Gilad Atzmon too was eyeing the Labour Party’s crazed witch hunt for “antisemites” with misgiving and had already declared, in his usual robust way, that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn was not so much a party as a piece of Zionist-occupied territory.

Writing in his blog about Corbyn and McDonnell’s servile commitment to expel anyone whose remarks might be interpreted by Zionist mafioso as hateful or simply upsetting to Jews, Atzmon concludes: “Corbyn’s Labour is now unequivocally a spineless club of Sabbos Goyim” [which I take to mean non-Jewish dogsbodies who do menial jobs that Jews are forbidden to do for religious reasons].

“The Labour party’s policies,” says Atzmon, “are now compatible with Jewish culture: intolerant to the core and concerned primarily with the imaginary suffering of one people only. These people are not the working class, they are probably the most privileged ethnic group in Britain.  Corbyn’s Labour is a Zionist Occupied Territory…  It proves my theses that the Left is not a friend to Palestine, the oppressed or the workless people.

“I would have never believed that Jeremy Corbyn would engage in such colossally treacherous politics. I did not anticipate that Corbyn would become a Zionist lapdog.  Corbyn was a great hope to many of us. I guess that the time has come to accept that The Left is a dead concept, it has nothing to offer.”

This writer too is shocked after signing up a supporter (though not a member) of the Labour Party with the express purpose of voting in the leadership election for that beacon of common sense, that staunch champion of high ideals, that great white hope who would start a revolution in British politics and sweep away the crap and corruption left behind by Blair and Brown.

Boy, was I in for a disappointment!

And the latest casualty in this ugly Zionist power-play is former mayor of London Ken Livingstone. In a heated public spat with one of the party’s chief inquisitors, MP John Mann, he had the temerity to defend a female MP, Naz Shah, who had fallen foul of the party’s antisemitism police for comments made on Facebook before becoming an MP. She had suggested that Israel be transferred to the United States. She apologised profusely, but Labour’s Israel lobby went ballistic after raking up this old remark. Had they forgotten that their hero, David Ben-Gurion, himself, was mad-keen on population transfer… of Palestinian Arabs, that is? So what’s to get excited about? Mann happens to be chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism. One-sidedness is the name of his game.

What seems to have generated greatest sound and fury is this observation by Livingstone: “When Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”

Joan Ryan MP, Chair of Labour Friends of Israel, said: “To speak of Zionism – the right of the Jewish people to self-determination – and Hitler in the same sentence is quite breathtaking. I am appalled that Ken Livingstone has chosen to do so…. He should be suspended from the Labour Party immediately.”

It scarcely needs saying that Zionism may mean self-determination for the Jewish people but it has cruelly denied the Palestinians their right to self-determination for decades. Nevertheless Livingstone is suspended from the party after 47 years.

President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews Jonathan Arkush can be relied on to put in his two-pennyworth on these occasions, and he didn’t disappoint: “Ken Livingston’s comments were abhorrent and beyond disgraceful.  His latest comments combine Holocaust revisionism with antisemitism denial, when the evidence is there for all to see.  He lacks any sense of decency.  He must now be expelled from the Labour Party.”

And on the suspension of Naz Shah, Arkush was in overdrive: “If the Labour party is to re-establish its credibility on this issue, it needs to take four important steps forward:

First, there must be a credible inquiry into the entire Naz Shah episode.  Secondly, the party has to take effective measures to eradicate antisemitism wherever it occurs within its membership.  Thirdly, the leader must make it clear that allegations of antisemitism are not to be dismissed as arguments about Israel.  Fourthly, Jeremy Corbyn must now respond to our repeated calls for him to accept that his meetings with rank antisemites before he became leader were not appropriate and will not be repeated.

Witch hunters’ balloon pricked

Whether Livingstone’s claim that Hitler was a Zionist is correct, I know not and care not. He presumably checked his facts and was itching to score with this mischievous titbit. Whether that was a wise thing to do is a matter for idle chatter, not expulsion. Meanwhile Zio hotheads inside and outside the party would do well to pay attention to the The Jewish Socialists’ Group, which has some sound advice for them and sticks a pin in their not-so-pretty balloon with this measured statement:

Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not the same. Zionism is a political ideology which has always been contested within Jewish life since it emerged in 1897, and it is entirely legitimate for non-Jews as well as Jews to express opinions about it, whether positive or negative. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews.

Criticism of Israeli government policy and Israeli state actions against the Palestinians is not antisemitism. Those who conflate criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism, whether they are supporters or opponents of Israeli policy, are actually helping the antisemites. We reject any attempt, from whichever quarter, to place legitimate criticism of Israeli policy out of bounds.

Accusations of antisemitism are currently being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party with claims that Labour has a “problem” of antisemitism. This is despite Corbyn’s longstanding record of actively opposing fascism and all forms of racism, and being a firm supporter of the rights of refugees and of human rights globally.

A very small number of such cases seem to be real instances of antisemitism. Others represent genuine criticism of Israeli policy and support for Palestinian rights, but expressed in clumsy and ambiguous language, which may unknowingly cross a line into antisemitism. Further cases are simply forthright expressions of support for Palestinian rights, which condemn Israeli government policy and aspects of Zionist ideology, and have nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism.

The JSG goes further and suggests that the attacks come from four main sources – the Conservative Party, Conservative-supporting media and pro-Zionist Israeli media sources, right-wing and pro-Zionist elements claiming to speak on behalf of the Jewish community, and opponents of Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour party. These groups make common cause to wreck the Corbyn leadership, divert attention from Israeli government crimes and discredit those who dare to criticise Israeli policy or the Zionist enterprise.

In short, the JSG says what needs to be said and puts the witchfinder-generals firmly in their place.

Of course, if Labour – or the Conservatives – truly wished to be squeaky-clean in matters of racism they would disband their Israel fan clubs (i.e. Friends of Israel) and suspend all who refuse to condemn Israel’s brutal acts of ethnic cleansing and other war crimes. If people holding public office put themselves in a position where they are influenced by a foreign military power, they flagrantly breach the Principles of Public Life. There are far too many Labour and Conservative MPs and MEPs who fall into that category.

The Labour Party announced today it is considering reviewing its rules to send a clear message of zero-tolerance on antisemitism. For balance, why not match this with zero-tolerance of those who use the party as a platform for promoting the criminal Israeli regime and its continuing territorial ambitions? Go on, Labour, prove Atzmon wrong… prove the party is not Zionist occupied territory.

 

source:

DV- http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/04/uk-labour-party-in-grip-of-zionist-inquisition/

 

Stuart Littlewood’s book Radio Free Palestine, with Foreword by Jeff Halper, can now be read on the internet by visiting radiofreepalestine.org.ukRead other articles by Stuart.

Obama Announces More Special Forces Troops To Syria, Escalates Existing Policy

obama syria

By Brandon Turbeville

In yet another sign of obvious Western escalation in the war against Syria, U.S. President Barack Obama announced on Monday that an additional 250 American military personnel will be deployed to Syria under the guise of defeating ISIS.

In his speech at Hannover, Germany, Obama stated:

Just as I approved additional support for Iraqi forces against ISIL, I’ve decided to increase U.S. support for local forces fighting ISIL in Syria, a small number of special operations forces are already on the ground in Syria and their expertise has been critical as local forces have driven ISIL out of key areas.

So given their success I’ve approved the deployment of up to 250 additional U.S. personnel in Syria including special forces to keep up this momentum.

Obama made a point to state that the troops will not be “leading the fight on the ground” but will be engaged in “training” and providing “assistance” to local forces.

 Obama also restated the U.S. position that “Assad must go” when he said, “Just as we remain relentless on the military front we’re not going to give up on diplomacy to end the civil war in Syria because the suffering of the people in Syria has to end and that requires an effective political transition.”

CNN reports that

The troops will be expanding the ongoing U.S. effort to bring more Syrian Arab fighters into units the U.S. supports in northern Syria that have largely been manned by the Kurds, an official told CNN earlier.

The plan calls for the additional U.S. forces to “advise and assist” forces in the area whom the U.S. hopes may eventually grow strong enough to take back territory around Raqqa, Syria, where ISIS is based.

These troops are not expected to engage in combat operations or to participate in target-to-kill teams but will be armed to defend themselves, one official said.

. . . . .

The official said the President was persuaded to take this additional step because of recent successes against ISIS.

What these statements mean, of course, is that the United States is deploying troops to better assist, train, and organize the terrorists on the ground who are fighting Assad and the Syrian military. After all, these “fighters that the U.S. supports” are nothing more than ISIS, al-Qaeda, FSA, Nusra, and other numerous groups and groupiscules that are ideologically identical to one another and whose only real tangible difference is the names they themselves.

Not only that, any talk of “recent successes against ISIS” is clearly not the successes of the United States, NATO, or the anti-Syria coalition. They are the successes of Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. Indeed, the latter forces have achieved in weeks what the former could not achieve in over a year (ten years according to the U.S.), a true testament to what can be achieved when one actually targets the terrorist organization as opposed to supporting it.

Still, it is important to point out that, regardless of Obama’s recent announcement, U.S. Special Forces have been present in Syria for quite some time, with NATO member Special Forces known publicly even earlier.

In October, 2015, it was announced by the White House that 50 Special Forces troops would be sent to Syria. This announcement came days after it was reported that U.S. Special Forces commandos were working with Kurdish forces to “free prisoners of the Islamic State” in Syria. Later, the presence of U.S. Special Forces in Syria was tacitly acknowledged in 2015 when the U.S. took credit for the killing of Abu Sayyaf.

Reports circulated in October, 2014 that U.S. soldiers and Special Forces troops were fighting alongside Kurdish battalions in Kobane. An article by Christof Lehmann published in March 20, 2015 stated,

Evidence about the presence of U.S. special forces in the Syrian town Ayn al-Arab a.k.a. Kobani emerged. Troops are guiding U.S. airstrikes as part of U.S support for the Kurdish separatist group PYD and the long-established plan to establish a Kurdish corridor.

A photo taken in Ayn al-Arab shows three U.S. soldiers. One of them “Peter” is carrying a Bushnell laser rangefinder, an instrument designed to mark targets for U.S. jets, reports Ceyhun Bozkurt for Aydinlik Daily.

The photo substantiated previous BBC interviews with U.S. soldiers who are fighting alongside the Kurdish separatist group PYD in Syria.

The photo of the three U.S. troopers also substantiates a statement by PYD spokesman Polat Can from October 14, 2014, reports Aydinlik Daily. Can admitted that a special unit in Kobani provides Kurdish fighters with the coordinates of targets which then would be relayed to “coalition forces”.

The first public U.S. Special Forces raid in Syria took place in July, 2014 when Delta Force personnel allegedly attempted to rescue several Americans being held by ISIS near Raqqa. Allegedly, the soldiers stormed the facility but the terrorists had already moved the hostages. While the raid would provide evidence that U.S. Special Forces were operating in Syria in 2014, many researchers believe the story is simply fabricated by the White House to provide legitimacy to the stories of murdered hostages and thus the subsequent pro-war propagandathat ensued as well as to promote the gradual acceptance of U.S. troops on the ground in Syria.

In 2012, an article published in the Daily Star by Deborah Sherwood revealed that SAS Special Forces and MI6 agents were operating inside Syria shortly after the destabilization campaign began in earnest. Sherwood writes,

Special Forces will help ­protect the refugees in Syria along the borders.

Last week as the president ignored an international ceasefire, plans were being finalised to ­rescue thousands of Syrians.

SAS troops and MI6 agents are in the country ready to help rebels if civil war breaks out as ­expected this weekend.

They also have ­hi-tech satellite computers and radios that can instantly send back photos and details of refugees and ­Assad’s forces as the situation develops.

Whitehall sources say it is vital they can see what is ­happening on the ground for ­themselves so Assad cannot deny atrocities or battles.

And if civil war breaks out the crack troops are on hand to help with fighting, said the ­insider.

. . . . .

“Safe havens would be an invasion of Syria but a chance to save lives,” said a senior Whitehall source.

“The SAS will throw an armed screen round these areas that can be set up within hours.

“There are guys in the communications unit who are signallers that can go right up front and get ­involved in close-quarter fighting.”

In addition, in March 2012, it was reported by Lebanon’s Daily Starthat 13 French intelligence agents had been captured by the Syrian government, proving not only that Western Special Ops presence in Syria did, in fact, exist but also that it existed essentially from the start.

Thus, the presence of NATO Special Forces and U.S. Special Forces specifically are nothing new at all. Obama’s announcement is simply the advertisement of a policy that is gradually escalating in regards to Syria and, as a result, threatens to provoke a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia.

From WTFRLY.com

Image Credit

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

The Truth Behind the Israel-Palestinian Conflict

Don’t let the Zionists try to tell you how “complex” the situation is in the Middle East. It’s really as simple as this.

Imad Alshoaabi: Obama Doctrine

Terror in Aleppo: Russia Calls for al-Qaeda Allies to be Named as Terrorists; US Refuses

In the view of Paul Craig Roberts, “World War III has already begun,” we just haven’t moved into the hot stage yet. Hard to say whether Roberts is correct, and perhaps it’s mostly a matter of subjectivity, but of course there are always signs of concern. In fact, we’re seeing them on practically a daily basis.

China has just refused permission for a US aircraft carrier to enter Hong Kong, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has again expressed concerns over US efforts to establish military bases on its borders–this time in comments to a Swedish newspaper, where efforts are underway to bring Sweden into NATO.

There have also been reports in the past couple of days of Russia intercepting a US spy plane in the far east, near the Kamchatka Peninsula.

And then, of course, there is Syria, where terrorists presumably backed by Turkey have been raining death and destruction down upon the city of Aleppo. In the video above we see an Aleppo resident who a month ago lost his two sons as well as his hand and forearm to terrorist shelling of his neighborhood. As Eva Bartlett writes:

Two days ago, a friend in Aleppo messaged me: “Aleppo is burning. Numerous shells.”

He was not referring to the lies found in corporate media on Aleppo, but instead to the unreported reality: foreign-backed terrorists have continued mortaring, rocketing, hell-cannoning Aleppo’s residential areas.

In the past few days, Senator Richard Black has been visiting Syria. Black is not a US senator, he is only a state senator in Virginia, but he is one of the few American politicians willing to speak the truth about Syria. In the video below he states it very succinctly when he says, “There are no moderate rebels, there are simply terrorists.” He also makes some interesting comments about the Syrian elections as well as the Syrian Constitution–information you certainly will never hear in the mainstream media.

Like most decent Americans, Black is appalled–not only by what is taking place in Syria but by the responsibility our own government bears for it. You can go hereto read more about Black’s visit to Syria, including additional videos as well as a gallery of photos.

I have said this before, but perhaps it can’t be repeated often enough: the conflict in Syria is not a “civil war.” It is a foreign invasion using terrorist mercenaries, in many cases trained and equipped by the US, as proxies. And now we are seeing additional US troops, special operations forces, being sent into Syria as well, this despite Obama’s earlier promise of “no boots on the ground.”

Of course, it isn’t only the US that has inserted its stick into the spokes.  Israel has been yammering for the overthrow of Syria’s president for a while now. And there is abundant evidence ( here, here, here, here, here, and here, for example) that the Zionist state has been among the supporters of the terrorist invasion of Syria. Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon even said he would “prefer” ISIS to Iran.

All of this should be kept in mind in trying to evaluate the confused policies of the US government, and particularly the fickle John Kirby’s befuddled discombobulations in the video above. As the RT reporter comments, “The way many people see it when they hear these confusing statements is that the Obama administration does not want to admit that it changed its strategy in Syria.” Perhaps what it comes down to is that the Obama administration has changed its strategy in Syria because it has been ordered to do so.

incharge

***

In Syria, US Rejects Russia Call to Name al-Qaeda Allies ‘Terroris’

aleppo

By Daniel McAdams

Originally Appeared at Ron Paul Institute

The total muddle that is US policy toward Syria continues to astonish. This week we saw the spectacle of a State Department Spokesman telling us that President Obama’s promise to not put US boots on the ground in Syria, was never a promise not to put boots on the ground in Syria. Yes, it was funny to see him squirm, but there is nothing funny about the past five years of disastrous policy in Syria. Particularly considering the thousands killed once the US decided that “Assad must go” and began sending in fighters to make that happen.

Now we see the extraordinary situation where the US government admits that the militia groups Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham are fighting alongside and are “intermingled with” al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front, but resoundingly rejects the Russian request to therefore classify these two groups terrorist.

In fact, not only does fighting alongside and “intermingling with” al-Qaeda not get a group classified “terrorist,” the US government is actually asking Russia and the Syrian government to stop shooting at such groups!

Here’s State Department Spokesman Mark Toner making the request:

US wants Russia & not to target terror grps AhrarSham & Jaish al-Islam even though they fight alongside Nusra

 So the State Department is urging the Syrians and Russians to stop bombing Aleppo because Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham are operating there, even though it also admits that the groups are “intermingling” with al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front.

But it gets even more bizarre, as Pentagon Spokesman Col. Steve Warren said last week in a press briefing that “it’s primarily al-Nusra who holds Aleppo.”

Why does the State Department urge a cessation of hostilities against the forces holding Aleppo while the Pentagon tells us that it is primarily al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front that is in charge of Aleppo?

Do either of them know what’s going on there?

State Department Spokesman John Kirby tries to explain it away by telling us that because Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham are also present (intermingling with Nusra Front — “because they want to be near one another”), there should be no Russian or Syrian attack on Aleppo.

But in a February 22 press briefing, State Department Spokesman Mark Toner explicitly stated that groups who fight alongside al-Nusra Front or other terrorist groups in Syria would be legitimate military targets!

Asked whether the groups fighting alongside al-Nusra in Syria should be considered military targets, Toner made it clear that such actions opened them up to being targeted:

Again, that’s for them to – frankly, to resolve. I mean, if they’re going to be – I mean, they cannot – we have been very clear that – we, the ISSG, have been very clear in saying that al-Nusrah and Daesh are not part of any kind of ceasefire or any kind of negotiated cessation of hostilities. So if you hang out with the wrong folks, then you make that decision.

Is this all coming through clearly? Doesn’t it feel like they are making it up as they go?

Secret Meetings between Zionist, Saudi Officials: Report

Local Editor

A new report emerged this week on the ties between the Zionist entity and Gulf countries, on top of which is Saudi Arabia.

Israeli daily, Maariv disclosed that Zionist and Saudi officials held sec ret meetings in the last three years.

Secret Meetings between Zionist, Saudi Officials: Report

The meeting, which took place in Roma, Czechoslovakia and India, touched upon mutual challenges facing Saudi and Zionist entity, according to the daily.

Maariv said that these challenges are the “regional stability and Iran as a mutual enemy.”

Saudi Ambassador in Washington, Anwar Eshki, met Israeli Foreign Ministry director-general Dore Gold, the daily said, noting that the officials agreed a peace deal between Riyadh and Tel Aviv is not far.

High-ranking Israeli officials are moving freely in Arab capitals in an unprecedented way, Maariv reported.

“We can’t ignore the mutual interest recently developed between Israel and several Gulf countries,” the daily said, citing a poll conducted in Saudi Arabia this year, showing that most Saudis are allegedly  “concerned about Iran more than being concerned about Israel.”

Source: Al Manar TV

29-04-2016 – 15:12 Last updated 29-04-2016 – 15:12

Related Articles

California Protesters to Trump: Stop Hate

Local Editor

Ahead of Republican candidate Donald Trump’s speech, hundreds of demonstrators descended on the California Republican Convention Friday to protest against him.

California Protesters to Trump: Stop Hate

Protesters — some of whom wore bandanas over their faces and carried Mexican flags — blocked off the road in front of the Hyatt Regency here, forcing the GOP front-runner’s motorcade to pull over along a concrete median outside the hotel’s back entrance. Trump and his entourage got out and walked into the building.

“That was not the easiest entrance I’ve ever made,” Trump said once he began speaking at the convention, adding, “it felt like I was crossing the border.”

At one point before Trump arrived, about two dozen protesters tried to rush barriers near the hotel. Police officers then rushed to the building’s doors, successfully blocking the protesters from getting in. Some of the doors’ handles were handcuffed from the inside so they couldn’t be forced open.

After Trump arrived, protesters took down a barrier and flooded the entrance outside the hotel, where police again blocked them from entering. They chanted, “Get him out.”

Burlingame Police Lt. Jay Kiely said later Friday that five people were arrested, including one who was with the crowd when it tried to rush the Hyatt’s entrance. One injury was reported, but Kiely did not know whether it was a police officer, protester or supporter who was hurt or the extent of the injury.

Kiely estimated the crowd was in the hundreds, though he did not have a precise figure and did not know how many police officers were dispatched to the scene. He also praised the “incredible restraint” shown by authorities.

Protesters have disrupted Trump’s rallies across the country for months, but have rarely escalated into mass street demonstrations. Many protests have focused on Trump’s rhetoric on illegal immigration.

Meanwhile, inside the hotel, a few dozen convention-goers and journalists watched the chaotic scene through the front windows, but otherwise most people hardly noticed.

Instead, they perused convention exhibits or waited in line for the luncheon. Even as a group of police in riot gear suddenly sprinted through a long hallway, people continued to go about their business.

Earlier Friday, bare-breasted protesters, men and women, some of whom were associated with the progressive group Code Pink, chanted “stop hate” as they marched.

The protests follow a rowdy scene Thursday night outside Trump’s rally in Costa Mesa, California, where several scuffles broke out between protesters and Trump supporters. At least one police car was damaged and one Trump supporter was visibly bloodied after being punched in the face.

About 20 people were arrested Thursday night, police said.
In his speech at the convention, Trump predicted the primary season would soon come to a close and called for Republicans to come together, stressing, “there has to be unity in our party.”

But, he made sure to note, he could still win in November even if he fails to unite the party.

“Could I win without it? I think so, to be honest, I think so,” he said. High-profile Republicans such as Jeb Bush, he continued, may not support him in the general, but he brushed that off as a minor issue. “Big deal, like I care. OK?”

“Again, ideally, we’re going to be together,” Trump said.”I think I will win even if we’re not together. I mean there are some people, I honestly don’t want their endorsement. I just don’t want it … It’s not going to have any impact on whether or not we beat Hillary Clinton. It’s not going to have any impact. But most of the party has to come together.”

As he wrapped up his speech, Trump again mentioned the protests outside and the lengths to which he had to go to be there Friday afternoon.

“You have no idea the route they have planned for me to get out of here,” Trump said.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

30-04-2016 | 11:08

Labour Has A Jewish Problem; it is dominated by Zionist Oligarchs

April 29, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Jeremy Corbyn, the man who just a few months ago was a ‘hope for a change,’ is a wimp. For months, the man has unconditionally surrendered to the Jewish lobby. He has systematically betrayed each of his professed core principles. Not surprisingly, the legendary ‘Left Icon’ has even betrayed his friends.

Leftists tend to call each other comrade; they shove the word ‘comradeship’ into every political statement. Apparently, they are unable  to grasp what comradeship is all about.  Corbyn’s ‘comradeship’ was on display when he failed to stand up for the heroic Ken Livingstone who told the well-established and undeniable truth about Hitler’s support of Zionism and the Havara Agreement. Corbyn just ran away with his tail between his legs.

For some time, I have thought the Left a dysfunctional masturbatory concept. But Corbyn was exciting, he seemed to support the oppressed. For decades he was the patron of the dysfunctional Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC). Corbyn promised to care for whatever is left of the British working people. He said all the most exciting things but he has delivered the opposite.

Perversely, I have been delighted with the recent developments in the Labour Party.

If anyone had so far failed to notice the corrosive impact of Jewish power and Jewish political lobbying, it is now all out in the open.

Thanks to the Jewish Lobby and Jewish donors, the Labour Party is not a free place. It is intolerant, it is oppressive, it is an occupied territory. It cares for one people only and these people are not the working class. They are, practically speaking, a bunch of Jewish oligarchs, by far the most privileged people on this planet.

Next we are going to learn that Corbyn’s Labour will remove Karl Marx from Labour’s heritage for writing On The Jewish Question. In 1843, Marx realised that “emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.” Marx thought that in order to emancipate the world from capitalism, the world must be emancipated from “Judaism.”  And in order to emancipate Labour from the Guardians of Judea it must liberate itself from Jewish Zionist oligarchs such as Lord LevyLord SugarMichael Foster and a few others. 

It is probably just a question of time before the Labour party suspends the Working Class altogether for interfering with Labour’s Jewish oligarch funders.

There is now plenty of evidence that Jewish Lobby politics is incompatible with Western thought and values of freedom. We must choose whether we want to live in a United Ghetto dominated by the likes of Lord Levy and Lord Sugar or whether we prefer to dwell in a United Kingdom that is free and cares for all.

To understand Jewish ID politics and intense lobbying read The Wandering Who,

Erdogan Plots for U.S. Plan B

Syria Free Press

psyco-erdogan

Turkey is to deploy US rocket launchers on its border that will put Syria’s strategic city Aleppo within firing range. The move suggests that Turkey is soliciting direct American military intervention in the Syrian war.


By Finian Cunningham, SputnikNews


The immediate pretext for the US firepower is the deadly shelling of the Turkish border town of Kilis at the weekend, apparently by the Islamic State (IS or Daesh) terror group. Turkish authorities claimed that the militants fired missiles from Syrian territory. Five people were reportedly killed in separate attacks.

“Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has said all measures will be taken to prevent missile fire in Kilis,” reported Deutsche Welle.

The German news outlet also reported Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu as saying that the American-supplied High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) would be operational within weeks.

“Our main target is to clear Daesh from a 98-kilometer-long border area… When this is achieved, a safe zone would be naturally formed for Syrian refugees,” added the foreign minister.

The American rocket system greatly extends the firing range from Turkey into Syria. Turkish artillery already in place is said to have only a range of 40 km, whereas the HIMARS guided missiles can reach up to 300 km. The notable thing about these numbers is that the key battleground city of Aleppo is less than 60 km from the Turkish town of Kilis where the HIMARS will be deployed, well within their firing range.

The question arises: is the Turkish regime of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan trying to bounce his American NATO ally into the Syrian war?

Aleppo – Syria’s second city after the capital Damascus – is at a make-or-break moment in the five-year war. The Syrian Arab Army of President Bashar al-Assad, with the crucial military backing of Russian forces and Iranian and Hezbollah militias, is making gains against anti-government armed factions, which have besieged parts of the city since conflict erupted back in 2011.

Most of the factions in Aleppo belong to Al Qaeda-linked terror groups Jabhat al Nusra and Daesh. Other related groups include Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Shams, which Russia wants the UN to proscribe as terror organizations. Incongruously, the latter two groups are part of the so-called political opposition, the High Negotiations Committee (HNC), which this week walked away from the Geneva “peace talks”.

If Aleppo should return to complete government control, the defeat of the myriad terror groups would spell the end of the Syrian war. The city is therefore the last stand by the armed factions.

The high stakes have also put the foreign backers of these terror groups on notice. As the main covert sponsors, Turkey and Saudi Arabia in particular stand to lose if Aleppo falls. Their investment in toppling the Assad government, with billions of dollars, will have been blown.

Washington, London and Paris are also complicit in sponsoring the covert war for regime change, politically and militarily, but arguably it is their regional clients, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, which stand to lose most from defeat.

The US government said that it was considering a Plan B if the Geneva talks failed. This would entail stepping up weapons supplies, including anti-aircraft rockets, to “rebels” within Syria.

This week President Barack Obama disclosed that the US was sending 250 more special forces troops to join a cohort of 50 already present in Syria. The dispatch was vaguely reported as “helping rebels fight IS terrorists”. But as always the details on the exact identity of such rebels are elusive.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused Turkey of scuppering the Geneva talks through its “decisive influence” over the HNC faction. By making the unrealistic ultimatum that Assad must stand down, the supposed negotiations were bound to hit a wall.

That outcome then opens up the American Plan B option. It is noteworthy that the HNC group enthusiastically welcomed Obama’s announcement to send more special forces, even though those forces are purportedly being deployed to “fight IS” – with which HNC factions are intimately linked.

Washington’s position is complex and contradictory. Yes, US Secretary of State John Kerry has worked with Moscow to implement a ceasefire on February 27 and ensuing political talks in Geneva. Nevertheless, the US objective has always been regime change in Syria.

And covertly various arms of US military power, pre-eminently the Central Intelligence Agency, have been involved in orchestrating and weaponizing proxy mercenary forces on the ground, including the Daesh terror group, despite official claims to be fighting this same group.

Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia have long been pushing Washington to intervene more in Syria to expedite the regime-change objective against Assad.

What the imminent deployment of the US rocket launchers on the Turkish border portends is that Erdogan and his Ankara regime are angling for Washington to become militarily committed in the conflict.

Of course, the ostensible pretext is to “protect” the residents of Kilis from Daesh and to set up a “safe zone” across the border for Syrian refugees.

But no-one with a sound understanding of Turkey’s nefarious role in the Syrian conflict buys that. As Russian military surveillance has amply shown, Turkey is the main supplier of weapons, fighters and oil smuggling routes for the terrorists.

Not only Russian intelligence, but Turkish journalists have also exposed criminal complicity of Erdogan’s regime – and that’s why two editors of Cumhuriyet daily – Can Dundar and his colleague Erdem Gul – are currently facing life in prison if convicted on trumped-up charges of “espionage”.

So, who really fired the shells at Kilis last weekend killing several civilians? Indeed, who has been firing on the town dozens of times in recent months? Daesh or one of its related terror offshoots?

That claim is implausible because the Turkish regime of Recep Erdogan and his state intelligence (MIT) are sponsors of these terrorists.

Which points to false flag operations carried out by Turkish forces in collusion with their terrorist proxies in order to furnish a convenient pretext.

Recall that two years ago then Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was actually caught on tape discussing with intelligence chiefs how to set up a “cause for war” with Syria. “I’ll make a cause for war by ordering a missile attack on Turkey,” said Davutoglu. The subsequent leak of the tape prompted his boss Erdogan to shut down youtube internet access in the country.

Also significantly, the latest atrocity in Kilis occurred on the same weekend that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was visiting a refugee center in the nearby Turkish city of Gaziantep. Merkel swiftly backed Ankara’s renewed call for setting up “safe zones” inside Syria following the deaths in Kilis.

Washington’s policy on Syria seems to be all over the place. Regime change, covert weapons, collusion with terrorists, ceasefire, peace talks, Plan B and so on.

What Erdogan’s regime seems craftily aiming for is to push Washington into Plan B and hence deeper military intervention in Syria. Erdogan needs to salvage his jihadist proxies from defeat in Aleppo by getting American firepower deployed.

But unhinged Erdogan could end up igniting an all-out war between the US and Russia. And that’s probably just what this megalomaniac and his Saudi cronies are betting on.

Turkish President Erdogan in Saudi Arabia


FINIAN CUNNINGHAM

AUTHOR: FINIAN CUNNINGHAM

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Northern Ireland, 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 newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. His columns appear on RT, Sputnik, American Herald Tribune, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.


SOURCES:
Originally published on SputnikNews
By Finian Cunningham
Submitted by SyrianPatriots 
War Press Info Network at:
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2016/04/30/erdogan-plan-b/
~

Related Articles

The Independent: KSA is about to Attempt Mao’s Great Leap, Shah Version… Not Going to Work

Patrick Cockburn

Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the son of the ailing King Salman and de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, has launched a highly ambitious plan under which he says his country will speedily “end its addiction to oil.” In terms of its revolutionary ambition, lack of realism and potential for disruption, the plan has parallels with Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward in 1958 which aimed to change China rapidly from an agricultural to an industrial economy, but produced only disaster.

Saudi Prince Mohammad Bin Salman

The Saudi version of the Great Leap Forward is outlined in Vision 2030, a summary of the reform made public last week of which more details will be given in the National Transformation Plan that is to be published in late May or early June. Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed, who is defence minister and controls foreign and economic policy, wants the Kingdom to develop its own industries and services, sell off part of the state oil company Aramco to create the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, and end or reduce subsidies for fuel, water, electricity and other essentials. In practice, he wants to end the long-standing social contract under which Saudi nationals get easy jobs in the government sector and a high standard of living in return for political passivity and loyalty to the House of Saud.

It is not going to work. It is not the first time the ruler of an oil state in the Middle East believed that it would be a good idea to build up a diversified non-oil economy paid for by oil revenues. Saddam Hussein, already effective ruler of Iraq in the late 1970s, made a brief effort before the Iran-Iraq war to build factories and irrigation schemes, the wreckage of which can still be seen on the outskirts of Baghdad. But the most striking – and ominous – precedent for Prince Mohammed’s reforms is not Mao or Saddam, but the Shah of Iran in the five years before the revolution in 1979. Using Iran’s oil revenues, he proposed in 1974 for Iran’s economy to grow by a quarter every year under an expanded version of the Fifth Five Year Development Plan. The outcome of the Shah’s manic desire for growth and modernization was destabilization and popular rage that contributed significantly to his overthrow.

At the heart of the Shah’s downfall was ill-informed hubris and wishful thinking which led him to saw through the branch on which he was sitting. Monarchs and autocrats notoriously live lives detached from the real world by nature of their status, but this is doubly true of the leaders of oil states who mistake their ability to throw unlimited funds at a problem for real ability to cope with the world around them…

The Vision 2030 document might be dismissed as one more costly and far-fetched whim of an oil state autocrat fostered by self-interested advisors and consultants. Few take seriously Prince Mohammed’s belief that “in 2020 we can live without oil.”

The share of the private sector in the economy is to rise from 40 per cent to 65 per cent by 2030 and Saudi Arabia, the third largest defence spender in the world, is to raise the proportion of arms made in the Kingdom from 2 per cent to 50 per cent over the same period. Experience shows that breakneck economic development, propelled by orders from the top, encourages pervasive corruption, while privatisation in unaccountable autocracies mostly benefits, going by what happened in Syria and Libya, a politically well-connected coterie close to the ruling family.

It is easy enough to be derisive or dismissive about Prince Mohammed’s revolutionary changes within the Kingdom. But the danger is that his naive arrogance is not confined to his handling of the economy. He is also pursuing a double-or-quits foreign policy of confrontation with Saudi Arabia’s neighbours. Since his father King Salman succeeded to the throne last year, Saudi Arabia has escalated its involvement on the rebel side in Syria and has launched a war in Yemen. On 17 April, it was a phone call from Prince Mohammed that terminated the talks between leading oil producers meeting in Doha who came close to agreeing a freeze on oil production. By vetoing any deal without the participation of Iran, which is seeking to rebuild its share of the oil market post sanctions, Prince Mohammed showed the extent and arbitrary nature of his power.

The German intelligence agency BND warned late last year that the concentration of so much power in the prince’s hands “harbors a latent risk that in seeking to establish himself in the line of succession in his father’s lifetime, he may overreach”. In the one-and-a-half page document, which was surprisingly made public, the BND expressed fears that Saudi Arabia had started “an impulsive policy of intervention.” Everything that has happened since confirms the BND view. Saudi Arabia, which of all countries in the Middle East has an interest in containing chaos, is instead helping to spread it.

Saudi Arabia certainly faces real problems that are not of Prince Salman’s making. The population of the Kingdom in 1950 was three million and today is 31 million, though eight million of these are foreign nationals. With the price of oil unlikely to reach its previous heights, oil revenues will be insufficient to look after a fast growing population of young Saudis and bribe them with non-jobs and subsidized living. The problems may be real but old regimes are notoriously at their most vulnerable when they recognize their failings and seek to remedy them by ill-advised and disruptive measures.

Some have a more cynical explanation for Saudi Arabia’s proposed Great Leap Forward, with its heady talk of Saudi citizens getting down to work, starting their own businesses and working in their own factories. They argue that the scheme is a tactic to divert the attention of Saudis away from the progressive privatization of Aramco, the one institution in the country that does make money and on which all else depends.

Initially just 5 per cent of Aramco, though the percentage may grow, will be floated with the proceeds being placed in a sovereign wealth fund that will eventually exceed $2 trillion. This will invest in the Kingdom and will presumably be under the control of Prince Mohammed. But sceptics say that turning the value of Saudi Arabia’s main asset into a liquid form is also be highly convenient for the Saudi royal family. They may calculate that the political and economic tide has permanently turned against them. If the Saudi royals ever have to flee like the Shah, then it is much in their interests to have their wealth in a form that they can be held abroad or swiftly moved to safety.

Source: The Independent, Edited by website team

30-04-2016 | 11:39

Washington Likes Wars. So Where Next?

Washington Likes Wars. So Where Next?

BRIAN CLOUGHLEY | 30.04.2016 | WORLD

US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter has ended yet another global war-trot, having visited India, the Philippines, Iraq, and one of the two US nuclear-armed aircraft carriers in its enormous fleet in and around the South China Sea.

He missed out Afghanistan, site of one of America’s recent catastrophic wars, probably because it’s even more dangerous to visit than Iraq, but went to Saudi Arabia on 20 April (along with President Barack Obama), and told his opposite numbers of the Gulf nations that the US has «an enduring commitment» to all of these dictatorships. Then he gave a media conference at which he declared that «the US military remains committed and capable of responding to Iranian malign and destabilizing activities».

What is he planning, now? Which region of the world is next to be blitzed and reduced to shambles by US-NATO military intervention? How many more night-raided women and children and guests at weddings and patients in hospitals will be slaughtered in Washington’s frantic crusade to ensure that America, in the words of its president, dominates the world as «the one indispensable nation»?

Since the beginning of this century the wars of Washington have been disastrous tragedies, although many of us hoped and even believed that after Barack Obama followed George W Bush as President, then sanity might begin to apply. Optimists thought there would be reduction in US military aggression around the world.

We were wrong, and should have been warned by Obama’s declaration in June 2008 that

«I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan», because, among other things, «We cannot lose Afghanistan to a future of narco-terrorism».

After Obama became president he sent an extra 60,000 troops to Afghanistan, for a total of 100,000 by August 2010. They suffered enormous casualties and achieved nothing. (There were 155 US service members killed in 2008, and 499 in 2010; thousands were maimed or mentally wrecked.) The Taliban have not been defeated and drug production is far worse than it was when Bush went to war in 2001.

NBC News reported that the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, Mr John Sopko (one of the few honourable senior officials in Washington) said that in spite of spending 7.8 billion dollars of US taxpayers’ money in trying to stop poppy cultivation and heroin manufacture, Afghanistan continues to be the world’s biggest producer as well as its third most corrupt country.

So much for Obama’s declaration that «the Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring» – because the Afghan people are suffering as they have never done before, from a vile concoction of a crooked, useless central government; a bunch of self-important and ignorant foreign meddlers; scores of brutal warlords who are dedicated only to expanding their enormously lucrative fiefdoms; and an insurrection by Taliban barbarians who are gaining ground and power even as you read this.

The next Washington war began in 2003 against Iraq, where there was not the slightest threat to US interests. Certainly, the country was ruled by a dictator, just like the ones who have ruled Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states for so long, but dictatorship doesn’t seem to worry Washington, providing the despots do what they’re told. Unfortunately for him, Saddam Hussain didn’t like taking orders and his country was invaded and he was hanged. A later target was the even more unfortunate Gaddafi of Libya whose country was subjected to an eight-month 10,000-airstrike blitz by US-NATO missiles, rockets and bombs until the war ended when Gaddafi was brutally murdered in October 2011, after which the likely next president of the United States, Hillary Clinton, «shared a laugh with a television news reporter» and joked that «we came; we saw; he died».

After Washington and its NATO minions had reduced Libya to a similar shambles as those in Afghanistan and Iraq, their attention turned to Syria, run by yet another dictator, but one who, like Saddam of Iraq, but unlike the despots of the Arabian Peninsula, permitted freedom of religion. (Saddam’s deputy prime minister was a Christian.) There was an uprising against President Bashar al-Assad whose country’s constitution specifies that «religious communities shall be protected and respected».

In August 2012, as part of the US campaign against Syria, President Obama declared that

«I have indicated repeatedly that President al-Assad has lost legitimacy, that he needs to step down.»

Yet the feudal monarchy of Bahrain is encouraged by Washington to flourish in spite of committing appalling human rights abuses. As reported by Amnesty International, Bahrain’s dictator, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, has «severely curtailed the rights to freedom of expression and association, and arrested and prosecuted political and religious activists who criticized the government». Unlike the illegally overthrown President Saddam of Iraq, he doesn’t have any Christians in his government.

There isn’t a word of criticism from the White House or the US Congress about the fact that the dictator Hamad authorises «torture… including electric shock, prolonged suspension in painful positions, severe beatings, threats to rape and kill, and sexual abuse» of his serfs.

Why should President Assad be required to «step down» and be faced with US-supported rebel gangs intent on his removal and death while King Hamad remains safely on his throne?

The answer is that Hamad «plays a key role in regional security architecture and is a vital US partner in defence initiatives. Bahrain hosts the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet and participates in US-led military coalitions».

It’s fine to be a dictator if you help Washington in its wars. But if a dictator decides to be independent of US policy, then he runs the risk of being killed in a particularly horrible fashion while his country is reduced to smouldering chaos, resulting in millions of refugees and even greater expansion of terrorism.

President Obama’s proclamation that «America must always lead on the world stage» has had a major international impact. He wanted to take the hero’s role in world leadership, but through poor judgement has become the villain and is now trying desperately, with the enthusiastic assistance of the Pentagon and its war-happy Secretary Carter, to justify US military expansion by choosing and challenging new adversaries.

He has increased confrontation with China and Russia, but couldn’t have made a worse choice, because neither of these proud and ancient countries is going to bow to the self-appointed «one indispensable nation». Obama is moving the world closer to war, and his probable successor will do likewise. But if she thinks that she will ever be able to repeat her happy joke that «we came; we saw; he died», she is greatly mistaken.

Daesh ‘Turns Into Trojan Horse that Washington Uses Wherever It Wants’

Daesh ‘Turns Into Trojan Horse that Washington Uses Wherever It Wants’

Many have chastised US President Barack Obama for his recent decision to dispatch up to 250 special forces to Syria in an effort to tackle Daesh, questioning Washington’s true intentions as well as the efficiency of this approach. Two Iranian analysts shared their views with Sputnik.

Mosayeb Na’imi believes that this is not the best way to proceed if Washington truly wants to defeat the terrorist group.

Obama’s decision “leaves questions that have no answers,” he observed. “Would this deployment be able to drastically alter the balance of power in the region? Where will [the US special forces] be sent – to territories seized by militants or to areas controlled by the government? Was this move coordinated with Russia and other allies, who are actively engaged in counterterrorism efforts in Syria?”

The US launched its anti-Daesh airstrike campaign in late 2014 in Iraq and then expanded it to Syria, but Washington has never been authorized to operate in Syria. Instead, Damascus requested formal assistance in its counterterrorism campaign from Moscow.

Russian aircraft at the Hmeymim Air Base in Syria.
© SPUTNIK/ DMITRY VINOGRADOV
Russian aircraft at the Hmeymim Air Base in Syria.

Russia’s limited military engagement in Syria has greatly contributed to Daesh losing territories, revenue and fighters in recent months. Obama noted that the latest deployment to Syria was meant to reinforce the trend. But Mosayeb Na’imi doubts that it will help.

“A special forces unit comprising 250 or 500 people is incapable of drastically changing the situation in Syria overnight. If the United States is genuinely determined to tackle terrorism, then it could easily conduct an operation with the approval of the Syrian government,” he added.

Many have been critical of Obama’s decision to deploy special forces to Syria. The US president repeatedly pledged not to send US troops to the war-torn country. He was elected on the promise to end the war in Iraq.”Approximately 4,000 – 5,000 US troops have been deployed to Iraq to ostensibly fight Daesh. Now Syria’s turn has come. The question is what right does the US have to send 250 special forces to Syria?” Iranian diplomat Seyed Hadi Afghahi asked. “We should not forget that Syria is an independent state.”

The terrorist group, the analyst added, has “turned into a Trojan Horse that the US uses wherever it wants.”

Daesh would not have existed without Washington, he noted. “Now that this project is in crisis, the US claims that Daesh members are terrorists and Washington is fighting against them. Americans also add that all other states must coordinate their anti-Daesh efforts solely with the US.”

Source

 

 

 

 

Hebron shooter, Elor Azaria, called to ‘kill everyone in Gaza’

Hebron shooter called to ‘kill everyone in Gaza’

Palestinian citizens are being incarcerated left and right for Facebook statuses. But IDF soldier Elor Azaria, indicted for manslaughter, wasn’t even taken in for questioning over tweets calling for massacres of Palestinians. On the double standards in Israeli law. 

By John Brown*

A destroyed quarter in Shujaiyeh neighborhood in the east of Gaza City, during a ceasefire, July 27, 2014. (Photo by Anne Paq/Activestills.org)

A destroyed quarter in Shujaiyeh neighborhood in the east of Gaza City, July 27, 2014. (Photo by Anne Paq/Activestills.org)

On the Facebook page belonging to the IDF soldier who shot and killed the wounded Palestinian assailant in Hebron, one can find calls to massacre everyone living in Gaza, and support for Jewish terrorist Meir Kahane. His father also expressed support for Kahane and for the call to “kill everyone.” His mother suggested killing women and children, first among them, Knesset Member Haneen Zoabi

George Galloway says Ken Livingstone should not be suspended over ‘historic facts’ about Hitler and Zionism

George Galloway says Ken Livingstone should not be suspended over ‘historic facts’ about Hitler and Zionism

‘They’re trying to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, there’s a slow motion coup. The real target is Jeremy Corbyn’

George Galloway has defended Ken Livingstone’s comments that Hitler supported Zionism as “historical fact” but criticised them as poorly judged.

The former Labour MP said scholars are agreed that Zionist leaders in Germany and the Nazi Chancellor signed an agreement to send German Jews to Palestine.

While Mr Galloway admitted the statement was poorly timed and worded, he added that Jeremy Corbyn should not have been pushed to suspend Mr Livingstone from Labour – and accused a core of its members of orchestrating a “coup” against their leader.

This is an entirely synthetic crisis,” he said. “Ken Livingstone said absolutely nothing wrong, everything he said was the truth, historic fact, proven.

“There was an agreement between the Nazi filth of Hitler and the Zionist leaders in Germany to send Germany’s Jews to Palestine, because both of them believed that German Jews were not Germans […]

“So in that sense, Nazism and Zionism were two sides of the same coin.”

Mr Galloway said this Havaara agreement between Hitler and the German Zionists was well-documented by German, Israeli and Jewish scholars.

Yet while Mr Livingstone’s delivery was “ill-judged” he could not be accused of anti-semitism, said Mr Galloway.

“Now should Ken Livingstone have gone around the studio saying that? I think not. I wouldn’t have, neither on timing nor would I have used the words and imagery he used,” he said.

“But […] Ken Livingstone’s entire life has been spent fighting racism. In fact, he’d still be Labour mayor of London if he hadn’t gone so out on a limb to help ethnic minorities.”

ken-livingstone-rex.jpeg

Ken Livingstone campaigning to be Mayor of London, which he was from 2000 to 2008. He established anti-racism campaigns while in the capital (Rex Features)

While Mayor of London, Mr Livingstone launched anti-racism campaigns and spoke out against Islamophobia. He has been accused before of antisemitism.

Mr Galloway concluded that Sadiq Khan and John Mann were part of a “coup” to destabilise Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

“They’re trying to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, there’s a slow motion coup. The real target is Jeremy Corbyn […]

“They will say with all this chaos, we can’t go on like this, we need a new leader.”

Mr Galloway was expelled from the Labour Party in 2003 over allegations of party disloyalty over the Iraq war, which he opposed.

UK Labour Party in grip of Zionist inquisition

UK Labour Party in grip of Zionist inquisition 

 

Misuse of anti-Semitism

By Stuart Littlewood

The orchestrated smear campaign against pro-Palestine sympathisers sent me reaching for my pen. But Gilad Atzmon too was eyeing the Labour Party’s crazed witch hunt for “anti-Semites” with misgiving and had already declared, in his usual robust way, that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn was not so much a party as a piece of Zionist-occupied territory.

Writing in his blog about Corbyn’s and McDonnell’s servile commitment to expel anyone whose remarks might be interpreted by Zionist mafioso as hateful or simply upsetting to Jews, Atzmon concludes: “Corbyn’s Labour is now unequivocally a spineless club of sabots goyim [which I take to mean non-Jewish dogsbodies who do menial jobs that Jews are forbidden to do for religious reasons].

“The Labour Party’s policies,” says Atzmon,

are now compatible with Jewish culture: intolerant to the core and concerned primarily with the imaginary suffering of one people only. These people are not the working class, they are probably the most privileged ethnic group in Britain. Corbyn’s Labour is a Zionist occupied territory… It proves my theses that the left is not a friend to Palestine, the oppressed or the workless people.

I would have never believed that Jeremy Corbyn would engage in such colossally treacherous politics. I did not anticipate that Corbyn would become a Zionist lapdog. Corbyn was a great hope to many of us. I guess that the time has come to accept that the left is a dead concept, it has nothing to offer.

This writer too is shocked after signing up as a supporter (though not a member) of the Labour Party with the express purpose of voting in the leadership election for that beacon of common sense, that staunch champion of high ideals, that great white hope who would start a revolution in British politics and sweep away the crap and corruption left behind by Blair and Brown.

Boy, was I in for a disappointment!

Zionist inquisitors

The latest casualty in this ugly Zionist power-play is former mayor of London Ken Livingstone. In a heated public spat with one of the party’s chief inquisitors, John Mann MP, he had the temerity to defend a female member of parliament, Naz Shah, who had fallen foul of the party’s anti-Semitism police for comments made on Facebook before becoming an MP.

She had suggested that Israel be transferred to the United States. She apologised profusely, but Labour’s Israel lobby went ballistic after raking up this old remark.

It scarcely needs saying that Zionism may mean self-determination for the Jewish people but it has cruelly denied the Palestinians their right to self-determination for decades.

Had they forgotten that their hero, David Ben-Gurion himself, was mad-keen on population transfer – of Palestinian Arabs, that is? So what’s to get excited about?

Mann happens to be chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Semitism. One-sidedness is the name of his game.

What seems to have generated greatest sound and fury is this observation by Livingstone:

When Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.

Joan Ryan MP, Chair of Labour Friends of Israel, said:

To speak of Zionism – the right of the Jewish people to self-determination – and Hitler in the same sentence is quite breathtaking. I am appalled that Ken Livingstone has chosen to do so… He should be suspended from the Labour Party immediately.

It scarcely needs saying that Zionism may mean self-determination for the Jewish people but it has cruelly denied the Palestinians their right to self-determination for decades. Nevertheless Livingstone is suspended from the party after 47 years.

The president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jonathan Arkush, can be relied on to put in his two-pennyworth on these occasions, and he didn’t disappoint:

Ken Livingston’s comments were abhorrent and beyond disgraceful. His latest comments combine holocaust revisionism with anti-Semitism denial, when the evidence is there for all to see. He lacks any sense of decency. He must now be expelled from the Labour Party.

On the suspension of Naz Shah, Arkush was in overdrive:

If the Labour Party is to re-establish its credibility on this issue, it needs to take four important steps forward:

First, there must be a credible inquiry into the entire Naz Shah episode. Secondly, the party has to take effective measures to eradicate anti-Semitism wherever it occurs within its membership.  Thirdly, the leader must make it clear that allegations of anti-Semitism are not to be dismissed as arguments about Israel. Fourthly, Jeremy Corbyn must now respond to our repeated calls for him to accept that his meetings with rank anti-Semites before he became leader were not appropriate and will not be repeated.

Witch hunters’ balloon pricked

Whether Livingstone’s claim that Hitler was a Zionist is correct, (IT’S NOT CORRECT, HE DIDN’T SAY THAT, HE SAID HITLER COLLABERATED WITH THE ZIONISTS AND THAT’S UNDENABLE) I know not and care not. He presumably checked his facts and was itching to score with this mischievous titbit. Whether that was a wise thing to do is a matter for idle chatter, not expulsion. Meanwhile Zionist hotheads inside and outside the party would do well to pay attention to the The Jewish Socialists’ Group, which has some sound advice for them and sticks a pin in their not-so-pretty balloon with this measured statement:

Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are not the same. Zionism is a political ideology which has always been contested within Jewish life since it emerged in 1897, and it is entirely legitimate for non-Jews as well as Jews to express opinions about it, whether positive or negative. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews.

Criticism of Israeli government policy and Israeli state actions against the Palestinians is not anti-Semitism. Those who conflate criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism, whether they are supporters or opponents of Israeli policy, are actually helping the anti-Semites. We reject any attempt, from whichever quarter, to place legitimate criticism of Israeli policy out of bounds.

Accusations of anti-Semitism are currently being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party with claims that Labour has a “problem” of anti-Semitism. This is despite Corbyn’s longstanding record of actively opposing fascism and all forms of racism, and being a firm a supporter of the rights of refugees and of human rights globally.

A very small number of such cases seem to be real instances of anti-Semitism. Others represent genuine criticism of Israeli policy and support for Palestinian rights, but expressed in clumsy and ambiguous language, which may unknowingly cross a line into anti-Semitism. Further cases are simply forthright expressions of support for Palestinian rights, which condemn Israeli government policy and aspects of Zionist ideology, and have nothing whatsoever to do with anti-Semitism.

The Jewish Socialists’ Group goes further and suggests that the attacks come from four main sources: the Conservative Party, Conservative-supporting media and pro-Zionist Israeli media sources, right-wing and pro-Zionist elements claiming to speak on behalf of the Jewish community, and opponents of Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour Party. These groups make common cause to wreck the Corbyn leadership, divert attention from Israeli government crimes and discredit those who dare to criticise Israeli policy or the Zionist enterprise.

In short, the Jewish Socialists’ Group says what needs to be said and puts the witch hunter generals firmly in their place.

Of course, if Labour – or the Conservatives – truly wished to be squeaky-clean in matters of racism they would disband their Israel fan clubs (i.e. Friends of Israel) and suspend all who refuse to condemn Israel’s brutal acts of ethnic cleansing and other war crimes. If people holding public office put themselves in a position where they are influenced by a foreign military power, they flagrantly breach the Principles of Public Life. There are far too many Labour and Conservative MPs and MEPs who fall into that category.

The Labour Party announced today it is considering reviewing its rules to send a clear message of zero-tolerance on anti-Semitism. For balance, why not match this with zero-tolerance of those who use the party as a platform for promoting the criminal Israeli regime and its continuing territorial ambitions? Go on, Labour, prove Atzmon wrong – prove the party is not Zionist occupied territory.

“Sue Saudi Arabia for Complicity in 9/11”, israel & members of U.S. Govt also involved, but it will get the ball rolling

Sue Saudi Arabia for Complicity in 9/11

Without tarry, Congress should pass pending legislation (S. 2040) to authorize 9/11 victims or their families to sue Saudi Arabia for alleged complicity in the international terrorist abominations.

It would be nauseating for President Barack Obama to veto the legislation as he has pledged.

A nation that would subordinate justice to courting a religiously bigoted and misogynist tyranny is a nation that has lost its way.

At present, nations listed by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism can be sued civilly for damages by private plaintiffs for terrorist crimes in which the state sponsor was complicit. Iran and Sudan, for instance, have been held liable for billions of dollars in damages under congressionally enacted exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity. This civil liability exposure has not caused any diplomatic ruptures. Iran recently approved the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that restricts its nuclear ambitions despite the staggering judgment awards against it issued by United States courts in favor of American victims of Iranian terrorism. Nations negotiate out of fear, not love.

S. 2040 — the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act — builds on the state sponsor of terrorism exception to foreign sovereign immunity that has operated for more than two decades without wreaking havoc in United States foreign policy. It would authorize private damages suits by Americans against any foreign nation for complicity in international terrorism that causes death or injury in the United States. Plaintiffs would be shouldered with the burden of proving foreign state complicity with judicially vetted reliable evidence. A newspaper article or Google search will not suffice.

Civilization is a battle between justice and arbitrary power. The purpose of law is to assist justice, not its enemies. By that standard, S. 2040 is long overdue. Any member of Congress who votes against the bill is a moral wretch who should be ousted from office. The legislation is necessary to enable 9/11 victims or their families to seek damages from Saudi Arabia for the 9/11 horrors it seemingly aided.

In December 2002, the Joint Congressional Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, chaired by then- Rep. Porter Goss (Florida Republican) and then-Sen. Bob Graham (Florida Republican) issued a final report. A 28-page chapter was excised and classified allegedly to protect intelligence sources and methods. According to the Joint Congressional Inquiry, the redacted pages detail “specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11th hijackers while they were in the United States.”

A wealth of informed opinion suggests that the 28 pages establish a nexus between the Saudi royal family and the 9/11 perpetrators.

On August 1, 2003, 46 Senators sent a letter to then-President Bush urging declassification. The signatories included former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, incumbent Secretary of State John Kerry and incumbent Vice President Joe Biden.

Among other things, the letter elaborated: “Saudi Arabia’s banks and charities have been used to funnel money to Al-Qaeda; its madrassah schools spew hateful anti-American rhetoric to would-be suicide bombers across the Middle East; and fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis. Given these facts, protecting the Saudi regime by eliminating any public penalty for the support given to terrorists from within its borders would be a mistake.”

Saudi Arabia equals or betters the instruction of ISIS in beheadings for non-violent crimes prosecuted without due process; in the subjugation of women; in religious fanaticism; and, in war crimes against civilians in Yemen. Saudi Arabia is a cause of terrorism, not a cure. Yet the United States has sold the tyrannical kingdom approximately $100 billion in military arms or equipment since 2010 in blind imitation of our military sales to the Shah of Iran before his overthrow.
Opponents of S.2040 worry that it might provoke other nations to reciprocally expose the United States to civil liability in their courts for crimes against humanity such as torture or extrajudicial killings. But the United States should be legally accountable in such cases as long as judgments are rendered consistent with due process.

Sovereign immunity is a moral obscenity based on the tyrannical concept that “the king can do no wrong.” Not only is the king chronically wrong, but commits wrongs on an industrial scale far beyond the means of ordinary mortals. The need for law is at its zenith when the sovereign is implicated in wrongdoing.

A resounding congressional override of President Obama’s veto of S. 2040 would mark one of the finest hours in the annals of justice

Russia: US Deployment of Troops to Syria a Violation of Sovereignty

Russia: US Deployment of Troops to Syria a Violation of Sovereignty

Notes US Sending Troops Without Government Permission

In comments today in the nation’s state-run media, Russian Deputy FM Sergey Ryabkov criticized the announced US plan to deploy 250 more ground troops into Syria, noting that the troops are being sent without the permission of the Syrian government.

President Obama announced the deployment on Monday, ironically less than 24 hours after “ruling out” sending ground troops to Syria. Ryabkov warned the move amounts to a violation of Syrian sovereignty.

This is indeed the position the US has taken historically on such deployments, and the US has been eager for instance to see a government installed in Libya specifically so it can endorse the US war in their territory that will inevitably follow.

Interestingly, when the US first launched its air war in Syria, targeting ISIS and al-Qaeda sites, the Syrian government offered to give them formal permission on condition that the US would coordinate the operations with them. The US has refused, making the actions effectively unlawful, a fact that’s becoming an ever-bigger deal as the US keeps escalating the conflict.

Livingstone vindicated: There WAS a Nazi-Zionist agreement and Hitler DID support it

Livingstone vindicated: There WAS a Nazi-Zionist agreement and Hitler DID support it

By Mike Sivier | Vox Political | April 28, 2016

Ken Livingstone.

Ken Livingstone
By Mike Sivier | Vox Political | April 28, 2016

It turns out all those who clamoured for Ken Livingstone to be suspended from the Labour Party – on the basis that Nazi Germany and Zionist Jews never had an agreement – were completely wrong.

Perhaps John Mann needs to reconsider his actions of earlier today (April 28) – along with all those who accused Livingstone of “rewriting history” when he really was simply quoting it.

Vox Political is grateful to the reader who sent us to the Wikipedia page stating the following:

The Haavara Agreement was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933.

The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany.

The agreement was designed to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine.

While it helped Jews emigrate, it forced them to temporarily give up possessions to Germany before departing. Those possessions could later be re-obtained by transferring them to Palestine as German export goods.

The agreement was controversial at the time, and was criticised by many Jewish leaders both within the Zionist movement and outside it.

Hitler’s own support of the Haavara Agreement was unclear and varied throughout the 1930s.
Initially, Hitler criticized the agreement, but reversed his opinion and supported it in the period 1937-1939.

Source: Haavara Agreement – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RT Once Again Documents Cozy Relations between Turkey, ISIL

Russia Today aired a new documentary exposing  dirty oil secrets and cozy ties between Turkey and Takfiri group, ISIL.

“In The Name of The Profit”, is an exclusive and unprecedented footage filmed by the RT only ten days after the town of Shaddadi in Syrian Kurdistan was liberated from ISIL terrorists.documents prove cozy ties between ISIL, Turkey

The area surrounding the town is well known for its vast oil reserves and extraction activity that for months was reaped by ISIS command to generate revenue.

Following Kurdish soldiers around the destroyed and abandoned homes, RT Documentary found documents which showed a direct link between Turkey and ISIL insurgents operating in Syria.

The Takfiri paperwork included an entire pile of foreign passports with Turkish entry stamps, and booklets encouraging jihad against the Syrian government, printed in Turkey.

But most importantly, among piles of ISIL documents RT journalists discovered heaps of detailed invoices used by the terrorists to calculate and report their daily revenues from illegal smuggling activity.

“Of course, they wouldn’t get any weapons from Turkey if they didn’t ship them oil,” a teenage oil refinery worker told RT.

“They … go with the oil and come back with the guns. And so they go, back and forth, back and forth.”

In addition, the documentary crew was also able to record exclusive interviews with locals – as well as captured ISIL recruits – who shed more light into the ISIL oil trade. According to witnesses on the ground, militants who came from Raqqa and Aleppo to pick up the oil constantly mentioned Turkey as the final destination.

One of the captured ISIL militants admitted that the terrorist group sells oil to Turkey. Others have admitted that crossing the border into the neighboring country proved to be relatively easy.

“Crossing the Syrian-Turkish border was also very easy. It was like crossing the street,” ISIL member from Saudi Arabia, Muhammed Ahmed Muhammed told RT.

“A man told me that the ISIL erased the borders. That there were no borders. I’d heard about that, but I couldn’t quite get it until I saw it myself.”

Ankara has always fiercely denied any involvement in an illegal oil trade with ISIL, and any contacts with the terror group whatsoever. RT has reached out to the Turkish Foreign Ministry for a specific comment on the documentary crew’s findings which Ankara has failed to provide thus far.

Besides collecting irrefutable proof of quite cozy relations between ISIL and Turkey, RT managed capture the mood of the populace who have lived and worked under ISIL yoke for months. They shared their untold stories of survival under the Takfiris’ rule.

Source: Agencies

29-04-2016 – 12:10 Last updated 29-04-2016 – 12:10

Related Articles

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: