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

Advertisements

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

%d bloggers like this: