Middle East: Who is Actually Fighting Terrorism? Not the USA That’s For Sure

.Middle East: Who is Actually Fighting Terrorism

MERU3434534222

Terrorist organizations the Islamic State (ISIS) and Al-Qaeda suffered a catastrophic defeat in the Middle East, which was brought about with active support from Russia. However, evidence shows that not only has the terrorist threat not been completely eliminated but instead it has transformed into new, on their own unprecedented and dangerous forms. Alexander Bortnikov, Director of the FSB, addressed the issue by stating that the unification of ISIS and Al-Qaeda is viewed by Moscow as a fairly serious possibility, fraught with numerous negative consequences. According to Bortnikov, there are a number of indicators that point to their possible unification.

And this is a serious statement made, besides, by an experienced professional and expert on terrorism. In fact, until recently, the world media outlets, especially Western ones, have, for reasons unknown, been writing about disagreements and even conflicts between the two terrorist organizations. But then again, this behavior is understandable, as the West, specifically the United States, was at the foundation of these terrorist organizations by providing money and arms to them.

It is well known that Al-Qaeda was created to fight the Soviet troops that entered Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia’s Osama bin Laden was CIA’s appointee and mercenary. He headed this lawless organization, but later completely fell out with his American friends. But the Saudi Arabian proved his usefulness afterwards by becoming the scapegoat for the tragic event that took place in the US on September 11 in 2001. The American society is still unsure as to who was actually behind the attack. At any rate, in this particular case, a famous Latin phrase seems apt “Cui prodest? Cui bono? Who benefits?” These infamous attacks were, after all, followed by loud assertions by the US that they had the legitimate right to go to war anywhere and at any time. And then the flames of war engulfed the Middle East and North Africa; the US anti-ballistic missile defense systems, against enemies unknown, were stationed any and everywhere, and the United States installed military bases in 140 countries.

The creation of ISIS was also initiated by Americans, and only Americans, which occurred after its completely unprovoked invasion of Iraq. As a result Iraq’s state structures were dismantled, the manufacturing and agriculture sectors destroyed, and infrastructure demolished. The US military commanders had colluded with Iraqi officers to betray Saddam Hussein and capitulate without a fight. Naive Iraqis trusted their American allies, who had betrayed them on more than one occasion, at their word, and followed through with the plan expecting to receive thirty pieces of silver for betraying their country. But, as the Bible says, traitors are not paid, as a rule. Afterwards, these embittered Iraqi officers created the armed organization the Islamic State of Iraq, which later allied itself with like-minded Syrians to form ISIS.

However, Washington, Pentagon and the CIA quickly found common ground with this new terrorist organization and the Heads of the re-established Caliphate. They began to supply it with unlimited funds (undoubtedly with active participation by the Monarchies of the Persian Gulf) and the latest weapons, all the while putting their own plans in motion, which included unlawfully removing Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad from power. If not for the decisive and principled war waged against terrorism by Russia, Washington and its accomplices in the terrorist organizations would have succeeded in drowning the Middle East in blood.

The West accuses Russia and the rest of the world of all the deadly sins, but, as a rule, fails to present any proof to support their accusations, because conventional truth and real life do not fit into their framework of lies and deception. There is more than enough evidence pointing to an alliance between the United States and the terrorists, and to the US support for thugs and insurgents. Here is the most recent proof that came from Syria.   Syrian Armed Forces together with the National Peace Council are continuing to collect weapons, ammunition and medicine, left by insurgents in Jubata al-Khashab and Beit Jinn (near the Quneitra Governorate). The trophies do not only include American weapons and ammunition, such as machine guns, sniper rifles, TOW anti-tank missiles, but also medical equipment. For instance, an ambulance manufactured in the USA, oxygen tanks and ECG – EKG equipment were found. It is clear that the US cannot forgo even the slightest opportunity to earn money by selling modern weaponry, generously paid for by the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, to terrorists and thugs. And to rephrase the Russian saying “for some war is suffering, for the US, an opportunity to reap its benefits”.

At every nook and corner, Western media outlets praise the United States for their efforts, affectionately described as a tireless battle against the Hydra of terrorism. But we have already ascertained who raised this monster and supplied it with weapons. This begs the question “How is it that they are fighting so selflessly?”.   According to a study, published by the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs, nearly half a million people died in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as a result of the so-called War on Terror declared by the US, that began after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The report states that approximately 7,000 US servicemen died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Incidentally, there is still no clear and definitive answer as to who had instigated these criminal acts.

In the study, the number of casualties listed is around half a million, but experts claim that the actual number is far higher. For example, over the last two years, which saw the previous report published, the number of casualties stood at no fewer than 110,000 people.  Although the US society, media and lawmakers often tend to overlook the War on Terror, the increasing death toll speaks to the fact that the war is not abating but instead continuing to intensify.

The author of this study, Neta Crawford, said that many of those, deemed by the US and local forces as militants, were most likely civilians.  We will probably never know the actual number of casualties. The estimate also does not include the people who died indirectly as a consequence of war, because of destroyed infrastructure, worsening economic conditions, and people abandoning their homes.

By analyzing the statement, made by Alexander Bortnikov, we can state, in full confidence, that recent events taking place in the Middle East may be rightfully interpreted as clear signs of closer relations between ISIS and Al-Qaeda. ISIS, which was considerably weakened in Syria and Iraq, and lost significant ground in North Africa, has recently tamed its aggressive rhetoric towards Al-Qaeda. And, seemingly, the leaders of the two terrorist organizations could, at some stage and under certain conditions, unify, at least in part, their forces or stage joint operations.

This forecast is also supported by the fact that Ayman Mohammed Rabie al-Zawahiri, the leader of the terrorist organization banned in Russia, expresses a somewhat moderate stance in comparison to that espoused by Osama bin Laden. Al-Zawahir’s statements encourage convergence of various jihadi movement from all over the world for the sake of the struggle to establish Sharia law. These words, for one, could be interpreted as an extension of a hand of friendship to ISIS and other terrorist groups. Despite armed conflicts between the Al-Qaeda and ISIS groups, many terrorists, guided by self-interest, changes on battle fields and many other reasons, switch from one terrorist organization to another.  Incidentally, terrorist organizations are merging in the infosphere, where these groups are actively seeking new recruits and spreading ideology of Islamic fundamentalism.

Hence, the appearance of a new terrorist monster, which will start operating in regions such as Afghanistan, Central Asia and Indonesia, is a distinct possibility in the near future. Indonesia’s Minister of Defense, Ryamizard Ryacudu, has emphasized that terrorists are enemies of Islam, and their actions do not reflect traditional teachings, Antaranews reports. “Terrorism is not Islam, Islam is different. Terrorists harm Islam,” the Minister of Defense stated.

Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
https://journal-neo.org/2018/11/17/middle-east-who-is-actually-fighting-terrorism/

Advertisements

‘Entire Families Wiped Out’: U.S. Airstrikes Killed Many Civilians In Syria

`Entire Families Wiped Out`: U.S. Airstrikes Killed Many Civilians In Syria

Raqqa’s first responders use a digger to push through the rubble of a building likely destroyed in an airstrike carried out by the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS.

On a busy street corner in Raqqa, Syria, a digger pushes through the rubble of a building hit by an airstrike. Onlookers shield their mouths and noses from the dust and stench of corpses of those who perished beneath.

Just streets away, three recovery workers pull out the delicate skeletons of two children from under the debris of a partially collapsed home. And across the city, in what was once Raqqa’s public park, men unearth more bodies from a mass grave.

“Raqqa did not deserve this destruction,” says Yasser al-Khamis, who leads the city’s emergency response team. “Of course, we understood its fate because it was the capital of ISIS, but we were hoping that the civilian death toll would be lower.”

One year after the U.S.-led military campaign against ISIS ended in Raqqa, Khamis’ team is still recovering the remains of the battle’s casualties. This grim, daily work is revealing a civilian death toll that is dramatically higher than the assessment offered by the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS.

The rescue workers’ findings, which they document in meticulous notes shown to NPR, point to an offensive that killed many more civilians than it did ISIS members, and where the majority of those civilians likely died in American airstrikes.

The U.S.-led coalition against ISIS has so far verified 104 unintended civilian casualties caused by its attacks in Raqqa and is investigating more cases, coalition spokesman Army Col. Sean Ryan tells NPR.

“With new information being submitted to the CivCas [civilian casualties] team by a multitude of sources every month, the numbers will presumably go up,” Ryan adds.

The workers in Raqqa, however, estimate the real tally is much higher — likely in the “thousands.”

Since January, the rescue team has uncovered more than 2,600 bodies. Through their identification process, they say they have found that most of the bodies were civilians killed in coalition airstrikes during the battle for Raqqa between June and October 2017.

Formally called the First Responders Team, the group receives funding from the U.S. government, but the assistance is limited. Its approximately 37 members work long hours for little pay — some are volunteers — and say their efforts are slowed by a lack of heavy machinery needed to access the bodies.

With many more corpses still under rubble, the rescue workers estimate it will take another year to clean the city of the dead.

Faster strikes and artillery barrages

Raqqa served as the capital of ISIS’ self-proclaimed caliphate for almost four years after the militant group seized the city in 2014.

The U.S.-led coalition’s offensive on Raqqa came after several years of fighting the extremist group in Iraq and other parts of Syria.

While campaigning for president, Donald Trump vowed to “bomb the s*** out of” ISIS.

In the months following his January 2017 swearing-in, conflict analysts reported increases in both the numbers of U.S. airstrikes and of civilians reported killed in the attacks.

President Trump reportedly handed decision-making power for major bombardments to the military, enabling airstrikes to be more easily called in by commanders on the ground during a battle.

In May 2017, Defense Secretary James Mattis told CBS News the U.S. was accelerating and intensifying the campaign against ISIS, and added, “We have already shifted from attrition tactics … to annihilation tactics.”

In Raqqa, the consequences of the “annihilation tactics” are still keenly felt.

According to Airwars, an independent research group monitoring the anti-ISIS conflicts in Iraq and Syria, the U.S. was responsible for about 95 percent of the airstrikes and all of the artillery barrages in Raqqa. The U.K. and France also participated in the offensive.

A view of a destroyed Raqqa neighborhood.

Ruth Sherlock/NPR

Data given to Airwars by the U.S. military’s central command show the coalition launched at least 21,000 munitions — airstrikes and artillery — in the city in little over four months.

“Entire families have been wiped out”

By the end of the campaign, Raqqa was a wasteland of smashed concrete; its residential tower blocks were flattened and schools and hospitals toppled. A United Nations study found that over 80 percent of the city — originally home to some 220,000 people — is damaged or destroyed.

Many residents say they lost loved ones in the strikes.

Mohanned Tadfi, 41, recently buried his mother, his brother, his sister-in-law and seven nieces and nephews. “Ten people,” he says. “A plane came and hit the house and the building of five floors fell on their heads.”

Tadfi says his brother Latuf had found it too hard and dangerous for his family to leave. “ISIS was executing anyone from his neighborhood who tried to escape. And in any case, our mother is diabetic and can’t walk well, and it was too difficult [to] carry her because the bridges out of the city had been bombed.”

The family stayed in their basement apartment as the war intensified around them. The Syrian Democratic Forces, a U.S.-backed militia, was closing in on the neighborhood and the family thought the fighters would soon capture the area from ISIS.

On Sept. 5, 2017, just after a muezzin in a nearby mosque called the end of noon prayers, an airstrike hit the building where Tadfi’s family was. Another brother, Raed Tadfi, went to deliver insulin for their mother. He found Latuf dead on the steps and the building collapsed behind him.

Days later, SDF fighters seized control of the neighborhood. Tadfi says he and his brother asked the militia for access to the house. “Please, there are children under the rubble. My brother’s children, young kids. Maybe even just one of them is still alive!” he recalls asking them.

But they were told the area was too dangerous for civilians. It wasn’t until three months later that Tadfi was finally able to recover his loved ones. He hired a flatbed truck and took them away to graves he says he dug with his own hands.

The Tadfis’ story is one of the cases being looked at by Donatella Rovera, a senior crisis response adviser for Amnesty International who has spent much of the last year in Raqqa. She compiles witness testimonies and analyzes war damage to buildings as part of an ongoing investigation to determine how many civilians were really killed in the coalition attacks.

The building in Raqqa of the former home of Latuf Tadfi and his family, which relatives say was hit by a U.S.-led coalition airstrike.

Ruth Sherlock/NPR

“This is one case of many that I have been investigating where entire families have been wiped out in places where they thought they would be safe,” she says, standing beside the wreckage of the Tadfis home.

Determining casualties

In a statement responding to NPR, Col. Ryan, the spokesman of the Combined Joint Task Force, said the coalition conducted “thorough assessments” to ensure it didn’t accidentally kill civilians. “The majority of strikes were executed as planned, but to say this was perfect execution from all sides is meaningless and we understand mistakes were made.”

He said the coalition was “fighting a ruthless enemy that was systematically killing innocent civilians and unfortunately some were unintentionally killed trying to liberate them, something we tried to avoid.”

Rovera doesn’t dispute that ISIS tried to prevent civilians from leaving. But, she says, the military knew that before the battle and did not adjust their attack plan accordingly.

Her investigation so far suggests that “many hundreds” of civilians were killed in the Raqqa offensive, which she says prioritized speed, even in densely populated neighborhoods.

Testimony Rovera gathered from embedded journalists and SDF militia sources suggests that strikes sometimes came “within minutes” of a local commander choosing a target.

Bodies recovered at a mass grave site that rescuers discovered in Panorama park in Raqqa, Syria. Rescuers say the remains included militants and civilians. Ruth Sherlock/NPR hide caption

toggle caption

Ruth Sherlock/NPR

Bodies recovered at a mass grave site that rescuers discovered in Panorama park in Raqqa, Syria. Rescuers say the remains included militants and civilians.

Ruth Sherlock/NPR

“If they had had observation for an adequate period of time, they would have realized that there were civilians in those buildings,” she says. “Yes, the war probably would have taken more time. But more lives would have been saved.”

The rescue unit says it determined most of the more than 2,600 recovered bodies were civilians in a few different ways. ISIS combatants often dressed a specific way and carried an ID card, the workers say. Other characteristics, such as victims’ age and gender and testimony from families, also help in the team’s documentation.

Rescuers say they recognize airstrike scenes from the scale of the destruction.

Airwars puts the civilian death toll in the Raqqa offensive at 1,400, but it believes the number could be higher. It gathers data largely remotely, through communication with sources and information from social media, and has not been able to verify every reported case.

“We expected a significantly higher portion of civilian harm reports to be determined as credible, since in Raqqa really the only player causing the destruction was the coalition,” says Chris Woods, the director of Airwars.

He explains that the coalition has assessed and accepted only a fraction of the casualty reports from Raqqa than it did from the major campaign to drive ISIS from Mosul, Iraq, from October 2016 to July 2017.

“That suggests a political dimension to the decision-making process,” he says. “We can’t think of another explanation for that discrepancy.”

Rovera, the Amnesty International adviser, says it is imperative that coalition forces send ground investigators into Raqqa. “Having dropped the bombs from the sky they should now be sending their investigators on the ground now to establish the facts of what was the impact of those strikes on the civilian population,” she says.

Col. Ryan from the coalition said the existing coalition forces in Syria are not a trained investigative force and taking them away “from their mission is not advisable as the fight against this ruthless enemy continues.”

For now, Raqqa’s people are left to count their dead largely alone, while the U.S. and other powers strike elsewhere in Syria.

The United States is responsible for the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Rukban refugee camp in Syria

Moscow Says Situation in Syrian Camp Reminds of WWII Death Camps

Rukban refugee camp

The United States is responsible for the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Rukban refugee camp in Syria, as it has illegally occupied this territory, Yury Tarasov, the representative of the Russian Defense Ministry in taskforces on ceasefire and humanitarian issues in Geneva, said on Friday.

“The whole responsibility for the outrageous situation in Rukban rests with the United States, as it occupies the territory illegally and it uses the humanitarian problems of the refugee camp to legitimize its military presence in the south of Syria. We believe that the elimination of a 55-kilometer [34 mile] zone around At-Tanf [where a US military base is located] will result in the closure of the Rukban camp,” Tarasov said at a conference of the Russian and Syrian centers for refugees return.

He specified that Russian representatives in the taskforces on ceasefire and humanitarian issues were ready to cooperate with international organizations on settling the Rukban camp humanitarian crisis and on evacuating all the refugees willing to leave it.

“As of today, one of the most urgent problems is the situation in the Rukban refugee camp, which is in an extremely difficult humanitarian situation. I want to note that the total number of temporarily displaced people in it is about 50,000 people, of which about 6,000 are militants of the Maghawir Al-Thawra group controlled by the United States,” Tarasov said.

A similar stance has been voiced by Mikhail Mizintsev, the head of the Russian National Defense Control Center, who stated that the situation in the Syrian refugee camp Rukban reminds of World War II concentration camps, but the global community keeps silent about the catastrophe.

“The situation in which the residents of the camp have found themselves in reminds me very much of World War II concentration camps that seemed to have long become history. How have this become possible in the modern world?… Why does the global community, so much concerned about human rights, stubbornly keep silent about the humanitarian catastrophe of the Rukban camp residents, while they are in fact hostages?” Mizintsev said at a meeting of Russian and Syrian joint coordination committees on repatriation of refugees.

He went on to say that UN official institutions, obliged to provide assistance to refugees, were not actively engaged in settling the humanitarian catastrophe of the Syrian refugees.

“Why are not media representatives allowed to communicate with refugees living in Rukban? There is an explanation to it. Someone has something to conceal there. Who is responsible for this barbarity? The answer is on the surface,” Mizintsev added.

At the same time, Russian Health Ministry spokesman Sergey Grabchak reported that diseases and absence of medical assistance in the camp led to the deaths of more than 100 people.

According to the Health Ministry, the disastrous sanitary and epidemiological situation in the camp, an outbreak of infectious diseases was likely, while refugees almost did not receive medical assistance.

“All these circumstances lead to a high mortality rate. Over the past month alone, more than 100 people died in Rukban. I confirm the difficult, disastrous situation in Rukban,” Grabchak said.

The Rukban refugee camp is located in Syria’s At Tanf district (Homs province) near the Jordanian border, next to a US military base where Syrian opposition forces are being trained.

Source

What the mid-term elections tell us about US interior conflict

The US mid-term elections have been interpreted by the major medias in terms of the partisan divide between Republicans and Democrats. However, continuing his in-depth analysis of the social fabric, Thierry Meyssan sees a clear retreat of the Puritans faced with the Lutherans and the Catholics. Donald Trump’s political realignment, just as that of Richard Nixon before him, is close to succeeding.

 | DAMASCUS (SYRIA)  

JPEG - 26 kb
The Republican Party has lost the House of Representatives, but Donald Trump has imposed his ideas.

During the US mid-term elections, voters were asked to pronounce themselves collectively for the renewal of all members of the Federal House of Representatives and one third of the members of the Federal Senate. Besides that, at the local level, they nominated 36 governors with numerous other local responsibilities, and answered 55 referendums.

These elections are considered far less catalysing than the Presidential elections. US politologists take little notice of the voter turnout, since it is possible to participate only in certain elections and not others.

While since the end of the Cold War, the turnout for Presidential elections has been between 51 % and 61 % (with the exception of the vote for Bill Clinton’s second mandate, which interested only a minority of electors), the mid-term elections attract between 36 % and 41 % (with the exception of 2018, which apparently reached 49 %). So, from the point of view of citizen participation, the rules of the game are democratic – however, in practice they are anything but. If there were a quorum [1], the members of Congress elected would be few and far between. Representatives and Senators are usually chosen by less than 20 % of the population.

The researchers who analyse election results with a view to predicting the careers of the candidates do so through the lens of partisan differences. This time, the majority in the House of Representatives will be Democrat, and in the Senate, mostly Republican. This analysis makes it possible to anticipate how much elbow room the President will have when dealing with Congress. But in my opinion, it is of no use whatever in attempting to understand the evolution of US society.

During the Presidential campaign of 2016, an ex-Democrat, Donald Trump, presented himself as a candidate for the Republican Party. He represented a political current which had been absent from the US landscape since the resignation of Richard Nixon – the Jacksonians. A priori, he had no chance of obtaining the Republican investiture. Nonetheless, he eliminated his 17 rival candidates one by one, won the nomination, and then won the election in opposition to the opinion poll favourite, Hillary Clinton.

JPEG - 35.6 kb
Andrew Jackson, whose portrait is shown on the 20 dollar bill, is the most controversial President of the United States.

The Jacksonians (from the name of President Andew Jackson, 1829-1837) are the defenders of popular democracy and individual freedom against both political and economic power. On the contrary, the dominant ideology of the time, both for the Democrat and the Republican Parties, was that of the Puritans – moral order and imperialism.

During this campaign, I observed that the powerful ascension of Donald Trump marked the resurgence of a fundamental conflict – on one side the descendants of the « Pilgrim Fathers » (the Puritans who founded the British colonies of America) and on the other, the descendants of the immigrants who fought for the independence of their country [2].

The first historical component of the United States (the Puritans) intended to create colonies based on a « pure » way of life (in the Calvinist meaning of the term) and to pursue England’s foreign policy. The second (the Anglicans, the Lutherans and the Catholics) were fleeing the misery of which they had been the victims in Europe, and hoped to better their situation by their own work.

These two groups found a consensus around their Constitution. The major landowners who drew up the fundamental laws explained exhaustively that they wanted to reproduce the political system of the English monarchy, but without creating an aristocracy [3]. However, the second group who added the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution), wanted to pursue the « American dream » without running the risk of being crushed by some sort of « raison d’état ».

Over the last few years, the Democratic and Republican Parties have evolved to become the spokespersons of Puritan thought, defending moral order and imperialism. The Bushes are the direct descendants of the « Pilgrim Fathers ». Barack Obama composed his first cabinet by relying massively on the members of the Pilgrim’s Society (the transatlantic club presided by Queen Elizabeth II). Hillary Clinton was supported by 73 % of Judeo-Christians » [4] etc. On the contrary, Donald Trump represented, on his own, the other component of US political history. In no more than a few months, he managed to take control of the Republican Party and steer it towards his own convictions, at least in appearance.

Currently, approximately a third of the population of the United States has become violently polarised between pro- and anti-Trump factions, while the other two thirds, much more moderate, are holding back. Many observers consider that the country is now as divided as it was in the 1850’s, just before the civil war known as the « War of Secession ». Contrary to the myth, that conflict did not oppose a slave-owner South to an Abolitionist North, since at that time, both sides practised slavery. The war was more about economic policy, and opposed an agricultural Catholic South and an industrial Protestant North. During the War, both sides attempted to enrol slaves in their armies. The North was quickly ready to free them, while the South was waiting to seal its alliance with London. Historians have demonstrated that, from a cultural point of view, the conflict was a prolongation, in the United States, of the English civil war, known as the « Great Rebellion » (which opposed Lord Cromwell and Charles the First). However, unlike England, where the Puritans finally lost the war, it was their descendants who prevailed in the USA.

JPEG - 42.7 kb
The methods of the criminal Richard Nixon have unfortunately made us forget his political successes.

It was this conflict that threatened to manifest again under Richard Nixon, and which today has become clear to all. It is not without note that the best historian on this question [5] is Kevin Phillips, the ex-electoral strategist who helped Nixon to gain the White House. Nixon rehabilitated the electors from the South, recognised the Peoples’ Republic of China, and ended the Vietnam war (which had been triggered by the Democrats). He entered into conflict with the Washington establishment, which forced him to resign (the Watergate affair).

Of course, it is possible to read the results of the mid-term elections according to the Republican / Democrat split, and conclude that the Democrats have managed a small breakthrough. But above all, they should be understood according to the Lutheran / Calvinist split.

In this case, we have to note that not only did President Trump participate intensively in the campaign, but so did his predecessor Obama. The objective was either to support the cultural realignment operated by Donald Trump, or to carry the majority in Congress in order to destitute him whatever the pretext. The result is clear – impeachment is impossible and Donald Trump has the support of a majority of the governors, which makes his reelection possible.

The new Democrat representatives are young, supporters of Bernie Sanders, and very hostile to the establishment of their party, particularly Hillary Clinton. Above all, among the Republican candidates, EVERY ONE of those that President Trump went out on the campaign trail to support were elected. Those who refused his help were beaten.

The losers of these elections – primarily the Press and Barack Obama – did not fail because they are Republicans or Democrats, but because they are Puritans. Contrary to the comments of the dominant medias, we are obliged to note that the United States are not in the process of tearing themselves to pieces, but in the process of reformation. If this trend continues, the medias will have to abandon their rhetoric of moral order, and the country should return sustainably to a policy of hegemony rather than imperialism. In the long term, the United States should be able to recover their Constitutional consensus.

[1] The quorum is the minimum number of participants required for an election to be valid. The countries that ask for a quorum before their elections based on universal suffrage generally fix this number at half of the electorate.

[2] “United States – reformation or fracture?”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 26 October 2016.

[3How Democratic Is the American Constitution ?, Robert A. Dahl, Yale University Press, 2002.

[4] By « Judeo-Christians », I mean people who have based their lives on the Jewish scriptures (Old Testament) and the Christian scriptures (New Testament) without pointing out the contradictions between the two.

[5The Cousins’ Wars, Kevin Philipps, Basic Books, 1999.

Israel Wins US 2018 Election

Astute News

Judging from the mainstream media, Israel was not a major issue in the midterm election but it sure did come up a lot when candidates for office were wooing Jewish or Evangelical voters. To cite only one example, Florida Congressman Ron DeSantis criticized his opponent Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum during their gubernatorial race for receiving support from the Dream Defenders, a group favoring Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, and giving a speech welcoming members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations to his city. DeSantis claimed in a video clip that “I can find anti-Semites around him, but it’s almost like ‘we don’t want to discuss that.’”

DeSantis, who sponsored the 2013 Palestinian Accountability Act which called for the withholding of U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority until it recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, charged that Gillum would not be a “friend” of Israel. In 2017, he co-founded

View original post 2,424 more words

Iraq parliament calls for US forces to leave

Source

MEMO | November 10, 2018

Iraqi MP Ahmed Al Asadi, senior leader of the Iraqi Construction Alliance [File photo]

Iraqi MP Ahmad Al-Assadi, senior leader of the Iraqi Construction Alliance, revealed on Friday parliamentarian moves to pressure the Iraqi government to evict US forces from the country.

Al-Assadi said that the previous Iraqi parliament had started the calls, but now the new parliament was calling for a clear timetable for the US withdrawal from Iraq, Arabi21 reported. He added that US forces had entered the country at the request of the Iraqi government for training purposes and assistance in fighting Daesh.

Yet Al-Assadi stressed that: “After the big victory against these gangs [Daesh], the Iraqi government has the right to evaluate the need for American forces to remain on Iraqi soil”. He also said that the calls for US forces to leave would be doubled during the next parliamentary term, noting that the parliament was likely to accept the existence of advisors and trainers based only on the need specified by the authorities.

Regarding the position of the government, Al-Assadi said: “The government has the right to estimate its need for advisors and trainers. The parliamentary discussions, which called for revealing the number, places and need for the American forces were not closed”.

He stressed however that the parliament is entitled to make the final decision regarding whether US forces remain in Iraq or are asked to withdraw.

Time to Get US Forces Out of Europe Before They Can Start WW3.

Time to Get US Forces Out of Europe Before They Can Start WW3

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/11/10/time-to-get-us-forces-out-of-europe-before-they-can-start-ww3/

They’ve been over here for 70 years, but the ‘opaque’ presence of our US allies worries many critics.

[Editors note: I’ll let our US readers in on a little secret – over here in Britain, we really don’t like you and what’s more, we never really have. It’s a most understandable dislike because Yanks that come here have had a nasty habit of the sort of arrogance and disdain for the natives that does not sit well at all with the British. This is something that goes back to WW2, when we were invaded by hordes of Yanks who had too much money, too much arrogance and too few manners, your average Yank simply could not resist complaining about how everything was bigger and better back home and how dismal Britain was. Then there was the rampant racism, the US Army still being a segregated force at that time.

Black US servicemen found that they were far more welcome than their white counterparts as they behaved far better and didn’t emulate the over the top arrogance of their white colleagues. Infact, legion are the tales of groups of white US servicemen getting the holy living snot beaten out of them by British servicemen because the Brits took exception to their blatant racism. It usually went like this: a bunch of white GIs would find their way into a British pub and discover there were already several black GIs there, enjoying the local hospitality. All it then took was one white GI to mutter something about ‘shouldn’t have to drink with niggers’ and it was time for the violence to ensue.

By 1945, Britain had been playing host to these unwanted annoying Yanks for almost three years and we couldn’t wait for them to leave, sadly, they never did, or rather, large numbers remained, US bases were kept open and Britain became a key part of the new US military policy of placing substantial forces in Europe, especially aircraft, including nuclear bombers. Then the US went and stabbed Britain in the back by abruptly terminating the Lend-Lease Agreement and forcing us to sign up for crippling loans that took until 2006 to pay off.

With allies like the US, who needs enemies? The US knew Britain was bankrupt and utterly worn out after fighting so long and so hard, but they still stabbed us in the back, doing all they could to devalue the British currency and cripple Britain’s hopes of post-war rebuilding with the result that it took decades for Britain to recover from the post-war US treachery.

Although Britain has, in the wake of the Cold War, managed to get the US to remove it’s nukes from Britain, we are still host to many US bases and tens of thousands of personnel. The US early warning system is reliant on RAF Menwith Hill and the US needs British airbases for operations in Europe. All of which sits very uneasily with the British people – we want the yanks gone, and gone for good, the ‘special relationship’ never existed outside of the soundbites of politicos and we still don’t like Yanks much at all.

So how do you think Britons feel when we see on TV this bloated orange monstrosity of a man pretending to be US president and doing all he can to destabilise the world and push us ever closer to WW3? I can tell you how we feel – an intense loathing and extreme distaste, we see right through Trump and simply cannot fathom why so may in the US fail to do so too. I guess that stereotype of most Yanks being hopelessly dumb holds a fair bit of water.

Very few in Britain think that remaining in an alliance with the US Evil Empire is desirable, we still collectively remember what it is like to be bombed and to lose large numbers of our young men in futile wars, something the US has yet to experience in anything approaching the same magnitude – perhaps the US needs to see it’s cities burning and it’s young boys thrown into pits, too many to bury properly; to experience the same destruction and warfare that Europe has, then you might wake up and finally do something to get rid of Trump before he starts WW3.

We Europeans will not be holding our breath however….

 

%d bloggers like this: