The origins on the Manchester attack originate in the destruction of Libya by the UK, France & USA

CNN Analyst Says Manchester Attack Could Be “Right Wing False Flag”

Steve Watson — Propagandamatrix May 23, 2017

Less than 24 hours removed from the latest horrific ISIS inspired terrorist attack in the UK, a talking head on CNN programming has suggested that the bombing could actually be a ‘right wing false flag’ in order to ‘frame Islamists’.

 

While admitting that the attack was most likely an Islamist plot, the analyst claimed that there have been multiple instances in Europe of “right wing extremists” plotting to carry out attacks to make it appear that Muslims were to blame.

The comments appear to have been made on CNN in the first couple of hours of coverage of the attack.

Meanwhile, BBC anchor Katty Kay told viewers that Europeans must “get used to terror attacks because we are never going to be able to totally wipe this out.”

 

“As ISIS gets squeezed in Syria and Iraq, we’re going to see more of these kinds of attacks taking place in Europe and Europe is starting to get used to that.” Kay added, with the caveat that no one is “used to having children targeted.”

Kay’s comments echo those of London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who before the Westminster attack in March said that terrorist attacks are ‘part and parcel’ of living in a major city.

Police have now arrested a suspect, and named the suicide attacker as 23-year-old Salman Abedi, who was known to British authorities prior to the attack.

British Prime Minister Theresa May said that there is an ongoing investigation to determine if the attacker “was acting alone, or was part of a wider group.”

“This attack stands out for it’s appalling, sickening cowardice, deliberately targeting innocent, defenseless children and young people who should have been enjoying one of the most memorable nights of their lives.” May said.

“This was among the worst terrorist incidents we have ever experienced in the United Kingdom.” The Prime Minster added.

 

 

Source

Hillary Clinton responsible for transferring Sarin from Libya to Syria’s terrorists

Hillary Clinton Once Accused Of Approving Delivery Of Sarin Gas To Syrian Rebels In Order To Set Up Assad

During the 2016 U.S. presidential primaries, the Inquisitr reported that Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh had publicly claimed to believe that then-candidate (and former Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton had approved delivery of sarin gas to Syrian rebels. According to Hersh, the unbelievable actions attributed to Clinton allegedly took place while she was acting as a go-between for the Obama administration and the rulers of several Middle Eastern countries, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

 

Hersh claims that the transfer of chemicals took place when Hillary was acting in her official capacity as secretary of state, a role she held from 2009 to 2013. The reason for funneling chemicals into Syria was allegedly to set up a sarin gas attack within the nation’s borders and lay the blame for the attack solely on the shoulders of embattled Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, thus providing the United States with a valid excuse to invade Syria.

“By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria.”

  

According to a report by The Free Thought Project, the arms funneling (including chemical weapons, likely the precursors to sarin, which Gaddafi’s Libyan arsenals stockpiled) also involved the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya. That embassy would later be attacked in 2012, also under the watch of Hillary Clinton. The attack on Benghazi cost the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American operatives. Stevens was the first American ambassador to be killed at their post since 1979, and the fallout of the Benghazi attack dogged the remainder of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state as well as her presidential campaign.

Allegedly, and according to investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, Benghazi was the “rat line” for the transport of Libyan weaponry, possibly including sarin gas or its chemical precursors, into Syria.

 

In addition to Hersh, reporter Christopher Lehmann pointed an aggressive finger at Hillary Clinton with regard to her connection to aiding Syrian rebels in an attempt to overthrow Assad. On October 7, 2013, Lehmann claimed that both Saudi Arabian and American officials at the top level of government had their hands all over the chemical weapons being used in Syria against the nation’s own citizenry. What’s more, Lehmann cited a completely different set of sources that led him to the same conclusion reached by Hersh.

“Evidence leads directly to the White House, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA Director John Brennan, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia´s Interior Ministry.”

 

As MSNBC reports, the article titled “Top US and Saudi Officials responsible for Chemical Weapons in Syria” claimed that the purpose behind Hillary Clinton, the U.S., and Saudi Arabia getting chemical weapons into Syria was most likely to give the West a foothold to get boots on the ground in the country, with the ultimate goal of overthrowing Assad.

“The decision to launch the chemical weapon on 21 August was most likely based on two considerations. That the use of chemical weapons was already planned. That the Jobar Entrance should be defended at all costs. The final decision, made by Zahran Alloush may in fact have been predetermined together with his U.S. – Saudi liaison officers.

“Launching a chemical weapons attack would allow the USA, UK and France, to call for military strikes against Syria and to turn the tide.”

 

Ultimately, Hillary Clinton would go on to lose her bid for the U.S. presidency to Donald Trump in an Election Day upset that stunned the majority of Americans. Trump overwhelmingly won the Electoral College, but fell millions of ballots short of Hillary Clinton in the popular vote.

On Tuesday, a horrific chemical attack (similar to what was allegedly planned by U.S. and Saudi Arabian forces under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, per the investigative reporting of Seymour Hersh) took place in Syria. As ABC News reports, the shocking attack on civilians is being blamed for at least 100 deaths, including 30 children, and 400 more injuries. Now, despite her presidential election loss, Hillary Clinton is calling on American forces to “take out” Assad’s air force capabilities.

“Assad had an air force and that air force is the cause of most of the civilian deaths as we’ve seen over the years and as we saw again in the last few days. I really believe we should have and still should take out his airfields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them.”

  

Hillary Clinton made her remarks, calling for the Syrian intervention she was allegedly aiming for years ago (and for precisely the same reason that Hersh claimed she would) at the Women in the World Summit in New York City on Thursday. Interestingly, initially the global media powers-that-be declined to call the chemical attacks in Syria “sarin” attacks. Now, however, the New York Times is reporting that the victims of the horrific attacks did show evidence of sarin gas exposure.

As MINA reports, some are still wondering if it’s possible that the recent sarin attack in Syria is traceable back to Hillary Clinton. According to the publication, in 2014, then-POTUS Barack Obama admitted that Assad had destroyed Syria’s known chemical weapons under the watchful eye of UN inspectors. What’s more, even though Washington, Hillary Clinton, and others were quick to point the finger at Assad for the sarin attack, both Al Qaeda and ISIS are known to have possession of chemical weapons.

Even U.S. politician Ron Paul doesn’t believe that Assad was behind this week’s sarin attack, and he went on the record to make his views clear.

  

Wherever the sarin gas may have come from, be that Hillary Clinton as alleged by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh last year or some other source, it appears that the end result is likely going to be the same. In addition to Clinton’s calls to “take out” Assad’s air force, NBC News is reporting that Donald Trump was briefed today by Defense Secretary James Mattis regarding U.S. military options in Syria.

Military options in Syria would almost certainly target Bashar al-Assad’s regime directly, laying on his shoulders the blame for this week’s deadly sarin gas attack, and laying the groundwork for the U.S. toppling of his regime, something Hillary Clinton has reportedly been vying for for years.

***Update: It has just been reported by The Washington Post that the United States military has launched roughly 50 cruise missiles at Syrian military targets on Thursday night. The attack marks the first publicly acknowledged direct U.S. assault on Assad’s regime since the civil war began in Syria, and is presumed to be a direct response to this week’s sarin gas attack.***

 

Trump’s illegal actions proves the Americans really had no choice in the election

COMPLETE DEGRADATION OF A SELF-STYLED GREAT NATION
by : JOHN CHUCKMAN

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MAX BENWELL IN THE INDEPENDENT

“After the Syrian air strikes, I can no longer get behind a President I admired”

Me too.

In the one area I very much hoped for some advance and change from Trump – change in America’s unprecedented new aggressiveness in the world – he has just proved himself a waste of space.

He has set a world land-speed record for buckling to the demands of America’s unelected inner-government and doing virtually the opposite of anything for which we had reason to hope.

In effect, in foreign affairs, we might just as well have mass-killer Obama still signing the orders for bombings and coups and drone kill lists with his big boyish smile.

Obama is responsible for the deaths of at least half a million in his term of office during the Neocon Wars and the phony CIA-induced Arab Spring plus incalculable damage in the creation of millions of refugees and vast destruction of societies.

Or we might just as well have the psychopath, Hillary Clinton, a woman with a record of damage and hatreds beyond telling. Her role, just at the Benghazi fiasco, has never been discussed, but thoughtful people can piece it together from scraps of information.

She, assisted by her dead ambassador, was running a dark operation to collect weapons from the murdered Gadhafi’s Libya, where they had been spread all over the place owing to the US having dumped carloads of them in support of the same kind of rag-tag mercenaries America runs in Syria today.

The Libyan rag-tag bunch’s job was getting rid of a decent third-world leader the US and Israel simply hated, a man who gave ordinary Libyans everything from free education to good water supplies and peace.

Hillary was also collecting some of the murderous mercenaries. Both these things – weapons and mercenaries – were being transshipped around the Mediterranean to create the horrors we see in Syria. In the process, her ambassador was killed by some of them, who simply saw him as a more accessible and attractive target than Assad. Or perhaps they were angered by some of his demands. When you play with murderous thugs anywhere, all bets are off as to predictability.

Those weapons’ transfer virtually certainly included amounts of Sarin gas from the dead Gaddafi’s stockpiles, which he had maintained as a counterthreat to Israel’s nuclear arsenal, and I think we all know what happened with those transferred poisons. In Libya, Syria, and others places, dear “women’s candidate,” Hillary, killed thousands of women and their children without the blink of an eye or the shedding of a tear.

The records of those two horrors, Obama and Hillary, plus the previous monkey-brain murderer, Bush, made a fair number of us hope for some change. Trump here and there gave important clues – not formal campaign promises, but revealing personal reflections, such as asking why the whole Middle East was on fire or why America didn’t leave it to Russia to clean-up the horror in Syria – that suggested to many we could possibly see important change.

But that has all disappeared, just vaporized, its last outburst being the administration statements about Assad’s future and Syria very shortly before the insane false-flag gas attack conducted by America’s own supported mercenaries and Trump’s insane missile attack without a shred of evidence supposedly in response and the insane shrieking, self-glorifying claims of Trump’s Nikki Haley at the UN.

Some Russian press today call the United States the most unpredictable nation in the world, and they are absolutely right.

As for Trump’s other, domestic issues – his dumb wall and his ranting about migrants – I have always regarded those parts of him as a waste of space.

We know progress with great powerful states comes very slowly, always, but the hope here was that this iconoclastic billionaire just might be a serious agent of change after fifteen years of pointless wars and the birth of a new Cold War. You need a man of Trump’s tough, egocentric type to stand against the collective, entrenched monsters at CIA and the Pentagon, but he has failed us all, failed completely.

I fear for our future, and the planet’s, now that America’s blood-lust is up, and we see virtually no strength anywhere to oppose it. Certainly, pushovers like May and Merkel and Hollande in Europe offer nothing. And the UN has been reduced by the same blood-lust to a toothless debating society.

Russia and China offer the only real hope for getting through a long and dangerous period ahead, but I think, for many reasons, this is truer of Putin’s Russia more than Xi Jinping’s China. And that fact explains just why a new Cold War against Russia has been launched. America’s insanely ambitious and greedy establishment – perhaps best personified by the glaring image of Hillary Clinton and her regular talk of “taking out” this or that person or place – cares nothing for other nations’ views and policies, so long as they do not conflict in any way with its march towards global domination.

As I wrote, above, concerning the dark events at Benghazi in 2012, “When you play with murderous thugs anywhere, all bets are off as to predictability.” And just so, the United States.

Britain’s aid to Islamic terrorists in Libya

Overthrowing Qadafi in Libya: Britain’s Islamist Boots on the Ground

LIBYA AGAINST SUPER POWER MEDIA

LIBYA RESISTING AGAINST THE WEST.org site

by:MARK CURTIS

An extract from Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam, by Mark Curtis

Britain’s willingness to work with Islamist forces has been evident in Libya, where it took a brutal civil war between armed opposition forces and remnants of the regime to overthrow Libyan ruler, Muammar Qadafi, who was killed in October 2011. Massive NATO air strikes, mainly by Britain and France, were conducted during March-October in support of the rebel forces and significantly contributed to the rebel victory. What concerns the story here is not a review of the whole intervention but the extent to which it involved an Islamist element being supported by Britain in furtherance of its objectives in the Middle East.

The Islamist forces were only part of the military opposition that overthrew Qadafi, but were an important element, especially in the east of the country which was where the uprising began and which provided the centre of opposition to Qadafi. The episode, to some extent, echoes past British interventions where Islamist actors have acted as among the foot-soldiers in British policy to secure energy interests. That the British military intervention to overthrow Qadafi was primarily motivated by such interests seems clear – in the absence of access to government files – to which we briefly turn later. Such oil and gas interests in Libya, however, has been downplayed by ministers and largely ignored by the media, in favour of notions of Britain being motivated by the need to support the human rights of the Libyan people and promote democracy: concerns completely absent when it came to defending the rights of other Middle Easterners being abused at precisely the same time, notably Bahrainis.

Britain provided a range of support to the rebel Libyan leadership, which was grouped in the National Transitional Council (NTC), an initially 33-member self-selected body of mainly former Qadafi ministers and other opposition forces, formed in Benghazi in February 2011 to provide an alternative government. UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was passed on 17 March, imposing a no fly zone over Libya and authorizing ‘all necessary measures…to protect civilians’ under threat of attack. In an echo of Kosovo in 1999, it was certainly questionable whether civilians in Libya were under the extent of attack described by British ministers as justification for their military intervention, such as David Cameron’s claim that ‘we averted a massacre’.

Subsequently, British policy went well beyond the narrow strictures of the UN resolution, clearly seeking to target Qadafi personally and overthrow the regime. British air strikes and cruise missile attacks began on 19 March and within the first month of what became a seven-month bombing campaign NATO had flown 2,800 sorties, destroying a third of Qadafi’s military assets, according to NATO. The RAF eventually flew over 3,000 sorties over Libya, damaging or destroying 1,000 targets, while Britain also sent teams of regular army, SAS and MI6 officers to advise the NTC on ‘military organizational structures, communications and logistics’. Britain also assisted NATO airstrikes by deploying SAS troops to act as ground spotters and supplied military communications equipment and body armour. Whitehall also aided the NTC’s ‘media and broadcasting operations’ and invited the NTC to establish an office in London.

Military operations were coordinated with France while the US, which played no overt part in the military intervention, authorised $25 million in covert aid to the rebels in April. British ministers denied that they provided arms and military training to the NTC (given that an international arms embargo was applied to Libya) but media reports suggested that the US gave a green light for the new Egyptian regime to supply arms and also asked Saudi Arabia to covertly do so.

The NTC’s military forces were led by various former Libyan army officers, such as Colonel Khalifa Haftar who had set up the ‘Libyan National Army’ in 1988 with support from the CIA and Saudis and who had been living for the past 20 years near Langley, Virginia, home of the CIA, which also provided him with a training camp. But Islamist elements were also prominent. Two former mujahideen who had fought in Afghanistan led the military campaign against Qadafi’s forces in Darnah, to the east of Benghazi, for example. Abdel Hakim al-Hasady, an influential Islamic preacher who spent five years at a jihadist training camp in eastern Afghanistan, oversaw the recruitment, training and deployment in the conflict of around 300 rebel fighters from Darnah. Both al-Hasady and his field commander on the front lines, Salah al-Barrani, were former members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), the Islamist force that had long targeted Qadafi, and which Britain covertly funded to kill Qadafi in 1996.

It was also reported that Sufyan Ben Qumu, a Libyan army veteran who worked for Osama bin Laden’s holding company in Sudan and later for an al-Qaida-linked charity in Afghanistan, ran the training of many of Darnah’s rebel recruits. Qumu spent six years at Guantanamo Bay before he was turned over to Libyan custody in 2007; he was released, along with al-Hasady, from a Libyan prison in 2008 as part of Libya’s reconciliation with the LIFG. Al-Hasady, who had fought against the US in Afghanistan in 2001, had been arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and turned over to the US, imprisoned probably at the US base at Bagram, Afghanistan, and then mysteriously released. The US Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg, told Congressmen he would speak of al-Hasady’s career only in a closed session.

In an interview with an Italian newspaper in late March 2011, al-Hasady said he had previously recruited ‘around 25’ men from the Darnah area to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, were ‘today are on the front lines in Adjabiya’, a coastal city in north-central Libya which saw some of the heaviest fighting against Qadafi’s forces. Wikileaks cables obtained by the British media revealed US files highlighting supporters of Islamist causes among the opposition to Qadafi’s regime, particularly in the towns of Benghazi and Darnah, and that the latter area was a breeding ground for fighters destined for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Captured al-Qaida documents that fell into American hands in 2007 showed that Libya provided more foreign fighters to Iraq in per capita terms than any other country and that most of the volunteers were from the country’s northeast, notably Benghazi and Darnah. Former CIA operations officer Brian Fairchild wrote that since ‘the epicentre of the revolt [in Libya] is rife with anti-American and pro-jihad sentiment, and with al-Qaida’s explicit support for the revolt, it is appropriate to ask our policy makers how American military intervention in support of this revolt in any way serves vital US strategic interests’.

Other commentators recognised the Islamist nature of some of the rebels. Noman Benotman, a former member of the LIFG who had fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, estimated that there were 1,000 jihadists fighting in Libya. Former Director of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove observed that the rebel stronghold of Benghazi was ‘rather fundamentalist in character’ and Admiral James Stavridis, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, said that US intelligence had picked up ‘flickers’ of terrorist activity among the rebel groups; this was described by senior British government figures as ‘very alarming’.

Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander said in parliament that since there was evidence of the presence of al-Qaida-linked forces among the rebels, Britain should ‘proceed with very real caution’ in arming them. In response, William Hague downplayed the concern, saying that ‘of course we want to know about any links with al-Qaida, as we do about links with any organisations anywhere in the world, but given what we have seen of the interim transitional national council in Libya, I think it would be right to put the emphasis on the positive side’. Following a Freedom of Information request by the author to the Ministry of Defence, asking for the latter’s assessment of the presence of al-Qaida forces or their sympathisers in the Libyan rebel forces, the MoD replied that it did not even want to disclose whether it held such information because this would be contrary to the ‘public interest’.

The extent to which these Islamist and al-Qaida-linked elements may have received weapons or military support from the British, French, Egyptians or Saudi Arabians is not yet known, but officials in Chad and Algeria repeatedly expressed concerns that the al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb organisation might have acquired heavy weapons, thanks to the arms supply. What is known is that the state of Qatar was a major financial backer of the Libyan rebels, providing them with a massive $400 million worth of support, much of which was provided to the Islamist radicals. Moreover, Qatar also sent hundreds of troops to fight on the frontline and to provide infantry training to Libyan fighters in the western Nafusa mountains and in eastern Libya. Much of Qatar’s support went to the so-called 17 February Martyrs Brigade, one of the most influential rebel formations led by Abdel-Hakim Belhaj, a leading member of the LIFG who became the rebel military commander in Tripoli.

Qatar’s support for the Islamists in Libya was surely known to British ministers, as they consistently supported Qatar’s prominent role in the campaign against Qadafi, alongside deepening military and commercial cooperation, as we see in the next section. Indeed, Qatar’s chief-of-staff, Major-General Hamad bin Ali al-Atiya, later said: ‘We acted as the link between the rebels and Nato forces’. Qatar also played a key role alongside Britain in the ‘Libya contact group’ that coordinated policy against the Qadafi regime; the first meeting of the group, in April 2011, for example, was convened by Qatar and co-chaired by Britain in Doha. After Qadafi was overthrown, Libya’s new oil minister, Ali Tarhouni, issued a rebuke to Qatar saying that ‘anyone who wishes to come to our house should knock on the front door first’; this was described by the Economist as ‘a thinly-veiled warning to Qatar to stop favouring ambitious Islamists at the expense of the shaky central government’.

What is especially intriguing about this episode relates to the past British support for the LIFG to overthrow Qadafi and whether the British still saw LIFG fighters and other Libyan Islamists as, in effect, their boots on the ground, similar to the way the British saw the Kosovo Liberation Army, then working alongside al-Qaida, in the Kosovo war of 1999. This is surely likely but again the details are murky. Certainly, there were plenty of LIFG fighters available to challenge Qadafi both in Britain and Libya, helped by a reconciliation process between the regime and the LIFG begun in 2007 and presided over by Saif al-Islam al-Qadafi, the son of the ruler. This process resulted in 2009 in dozens of LIFG members being freed from jail in Libya in return for giving up their war against the regime. In July 2009, 30 LIFG members living in Britain, some of them senior figures in the group, signed on to the reconciliation process. British Home Office Control Orders imposed on them, having been regarded as posing a danger to UK national security, were, in some cases at least, dropped. Many of the released LIFG fighters are likely to have taken part in the uprising against Qadafi alongside those who had never been captured by the regime. A series of documentaries shown on the al-Jazeera news channel followed a group of Libyan exiles in London return to Libya to take part in the overthrow of Qadafi.

In mid-March 2011, when the Qadafi regime was still clinging to power in Tripoli, Libyan authorities paraded in front of the world’s media a British citizen captured in Libya and branded an Islamic terrorist. Salah Mohammed Ali Aboaoba said he was a member of the LIFG and had moved from Yemen to Britain in 2005, where he stayed until 2010, having been granted asylum, living with his family in Manchester and raising funds for the LIFG. There is no evidence that the British authorities facilitated the despatch of LIFG fighters from Britain to Libya, which may have been a re-run of the Kosovo conflict. Yet there is the suspicion that the Libyan reconciliation process could have enabled the British, and US, to maintain contacts with the LIFG and to regard them as potential future collaborators to remove Qadafi.

At the very least, Britain in 2011 once again found that its interests – mainly concerning oil – coincided with those of Islamist forces in Libya. By now, however, the British relationship with the LIFG was clearly quite complex. Blair’s government had been so keen to curry favour with Qadafi that in 2004 MI6 was involved in the seizure of LIFG leader Abdel-Hakim Belhaj and his deputy Sami al-Saadi. Belhaj was captured at Bangkok airport and claims he was handed over to the CIA, who he alleges tortured him and injected him with truth serum before flying him back to Tripoli for interrogation. Belhaj subsequently spent six years in solitary confinement at Tripoli’s notorious Abu Selim jail, and claims that he was questioned by three British agents, who ignored his complaints about mistreatment.

MI5 sent a delegation to Tripoli in 2005, apparently to cement relations with the Qadafi regime at a time when the British were concerned with the potential threat posed to British security by other dissident members of LIFG living in the UK, whom they believed were increasingly inspired by al-Qaida. MI5 also gave the Libyan regime the names, personal details and addresses of 50 LIFG members living in the UK. Once again, the episode highlights how expedient British policy towards the LIFG was – covertly supporting the organisation in the mid-1990s and acquiescing in its presence in London as a counter to the Libyan regime, then taking action against it at the behest of Qadafi, while later finding itself on the same side again and working alongside those, such as Qatar, providing significant military and financial support to it.

****Editors note: In other words England for over a century has been affiliating all kind of terrorists gave them asylum a British passport aka British citizens all terrorists were working with MI5/MI6 and black ops and when Britain would find a window to overthrow any sovereign government so that it could steal its resources they would use these terrorists. Britain has no intention to protect its own people so any terrorist act that is taken towards Britain the only one who is to blame is MI5/MI6 and the shadow government same goes to all other European countries who have been sleeping with the devil (Alqaeda, Isis, Nusra etc) using them for their own interests. Europe and USA have no interest in DEMOCRACY or saving civilians but how to steal resources and war my friends is a GOOD BUSINESS, as refugees is a GOOD BUSINESS, human trafficking is a GOOD BUSINESS, organ harvesting is a GOOD BUSINESS.

IF YOU THINK THAT YOUR COUNTRY WORRIES ABOUT YOU.  YOU ARE SADLY MISTAKEN AND UNLESS YOU WAKE UP AND GET OUT OF YOUR COMFORT ZONE AND START FIGHTING AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS EARNING IN THE TRILLIONS WHILE YOU GET CHUM-CHANGE AND SUFFER AUSTERITY. WAKE UP

USA wants to keep troops in Libya & Iraq for years on the pretence of fighting terrorism

US Will Keep Ground Troops in Libya

Mattis Wants Troops in Iraq ‘For Years’

Commander: Troops Needed to ‘Degrade’ ISIS Forces

In a press briefing at the Pentagon today, African Command leader Gen. Thomas Waldhauser announced that the US intends to keep ground troops in Libya for the foreseeable future to support “friendly forces,” and to “degrade” the ISIS forces that remain in the country.

Waldhauser did not specify how many US troops are in Libya now, or how many will stay, but did estimate that there were less than 200 ISIS fighters left in Libya. The US had announced the end of the anti-ISIS campaign in Libya back in December, but never fully withdrew from the country.

The US forces were in Libya trying to help the “unity” government defeat ISIS in the city of Sirte. US officials repeatedly claimed the city was totally surrounded, and that no ISIS fighters would get away, though when the fighting finally ended, a substantial number of ISIS fighters did in fact get away.

Waldhauser hinted that the US operations in Libya would primarily be airstrikes going forward, saying that the US needs to have troops on the ground for “precision airstrikes” and “close-air support operations.” He added that the last US airstrikes, in January, involved US troops meeting face-to-face with allies on coordinating the strikes.

Insists Keeping Troops in Iraq Is in the ‘National Interest’

With US officials still hopeful that Iraq’s ongoing offensive in Mosul is the beginning of the end of ISIS’ presence in that country, top Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary James Mattis, are also eager to point out that it’s not going to mean the end of the US military presence in Iraq.

In comments to Congressional committees over the course of the week, Mattis was very clear about the need to keep US troops in Iraq, calling it a “national interest” and insisting US forces need to stabilize Iraq, while downplaying the idea that this would be nation-building.

It’s not going to be a short process either. While Mattis wasn’t very specific on how long this post-ISIS US military presence would last, he made it clear that it would be “years,” and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Joe Dunford said the same thing later.

Pentagon officials have been insisting since last year that the deployment to Iraq this time is more or less permanent. That they are couching this as a matter of “years” now does not necessarily mean that the timespan is going to be finite, but that they don’t want to admit, believing the war is closer to ending, that they intend to stay in an open-ended manner.

What America’s Coup in Ukraine Did

What America’s Coup in Ukraine Did

By Eric Zuesse,

Armée Ukraine USA

On March 23rd, Gallup headlined “South Sudan, Haiti and Ukraine Lead World in Suffering”, and the Ukrainian part of that can unquestionably be laid at the feet of U.S. President Barack Obama, who in February 2014 imposed upon Ukraine a very bloody coup (see it here), which he and his press misrepresented (and still misrepresent) as being (and still represent as having been) a ‘democratic revolution’, but was nothing of the sort, and actually was instead the start of the Ukrainian dictatorship and the hell that has since destroyed that country, and brought the people there into such misery, it’s now by far the worst in Europe, and nearly tied with the worst in the entire world.

America’s criminal ‘news’ media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama regime began planning for a coup in Ukraine, and that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it inside the U.S. Embassy there, and that they hired members of Ukraine’s two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties, Right Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change it to Freedom Party, or “Svoboda” instead), and that in February 2014 they did it (and here’s the 4 February 2014 phone call instructing the U.S. Ambassador whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations that the Embassy organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. ‘news’ media misrepresented as ‘democracy demonstrations,’ though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption, even more than today’s U.S. does, and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end Ukraine’s corruption — which instead actually soared after his coup there).

The head of the ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor said it was “the most blatant coup in history” but he couldn’t say that to Americans, because he knows that our press is just a mouthpiece for the regime (just like it was during the lead-up to George W. Bush’s equally unprovoked invasion of Iraq — for which America’s ‘news’ media suffered likewise no penalties).

When subsequently accused by neocons for his having said this, his response was “I told the business journal Kommersant that if the US were behind a coup in Kiev, it would have been the most blatant coup in history,” As I pointed out when writing about that rejoinder of his, he had, in fact, made quite clear in his Kommersant interview, that it was, in his view “the most blatant coup in history,” no conditionals on that.

Everybody knows what Obama, and Clinton, and Sarkozy, did to Libya — in their zeal to eliminate yet another nation’s leader who was friendly toward Russia (Muammar Gaddafi), they turned one of the highest-living-standard nations in Africa into a failed state and huge source of refugees (as well as of weapons that the Clinton State Department transferred to the jihadists in Syria to bring down Bashar al-Assad, another ally of Russia) — but the ‘news’ media have continued to hide what Obama (assisted by America’s European allies, especially Poland and Netherlands, and also by America’s apartheid Middle Eastern ally, Israel) did to Ukraine.

I voted for Obama, partly because the insane McCain (“bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”) and the creepy Romney (“Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe”) were denounced by the (duplicitous) Obama for saying such evil things, their aggressive international positions, which continued old Cold-War-era hostilities into the present, even after the Cold War had ended long ago (in 1991) (but only on the Russian side). I since have learned that in today’s American political system, the same aristocracy controls both of our rotten political Parties, and American democracy no longer exists. (And the only scientific study of whether America between the years 1981 and 2002 was democratic found that it was not, and it already confirmed what Jimmy Carter later said on 28 July 2015: “Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members.” But yet our Presidents continue the line, now demonstrably become a myth, of ‘American democracy’, and use it as a sledgehammer against other governments, to ‘justify’ invading (or, in Ukraine’s case, overthrowing via a ‘democratic revolution’) their lands (allies of Russia) such as in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and maybe even soon, Iran.

Here are some of the events and important historical details along the way to Ukraine’s plunge into a worse condition than most African nations:

“Yanukovych’s Removal Was Unconstitutional”

“Obama Definitely Caused The Malaysian Airliner To Be Downed”

“War on Donbass was planned to ignite a major war in Europe.”

“Our ‘Enemies’ In Ukraine Speak”

“Meet Ukraine’s Master Mass-Murderer: Dmitriy Yarosh”

“Ukrainian Soldier Explains Why He Enjoys Killing Russians”

“Russia’s Leader Putin Rejects Ukrainian Separatists’ Aim To Become Part Of Russia”

“Gallup: Ukrainians Loathe the Kiev Government Imposed by Obama”

Please send this article to every friend who is part of the majority that, as a Quinnipiac University poll published on March 22nd reported, “A total of 51 percent of voters say they can trust U.S. intelligence agencies to do what is right ‘almost all of the time’ or ‘most of the time’” (and that level of trust was far higher than for the rotten press and for the rotten politicians), even after the CIA’s rubber-stamping Bush’s lies to invade Iraq, and after the FBI’s shameless performance on Hillary Clinton’s privatized State Department emails even after her smashing their cell-phones with hammers, etc., and all the other official cover-ups, with no American officials even so much as being charged for their rampant crimes against the American public.

Besides: ever since the CIA’s founding, it has had an “Operation Gladio” that specializes in organizing terrorist acts so as for them to be blamed on, first, communist countries when they existed; and, then, after the end of communism, on allies of Russia. Did the American dictatorship begin right after FDR died in 1945? How much longer will these lies succeed?

For the people of Iraq, and of Syria, and of Ukraine, and many such countries, this dictatorship has destroyed their lives. Trusting the ‘intelligence’ services of a dictatorship doesn’t make any sense at all. They’re all working for the aristocracy, the billionaires — not for any public, anywhere; not here, not there, just nowhere. Should the cattle trust the feedlot-operator? Only ignorance can produce trust, under the conditions that actually exist.

So, unless the idea is that ignorance is bliss, pass along the truth, when you find it, because it is very rare — and the system operates to keep it that way.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Fighting Terrorists the ‘Russian’ Way: Playtime Is Over For Al-Qaeda in Libya

Fighting Terrorists the ‘Russian’ Way: Playtime Is Over For Al-Qaeda in Libya

A Libyan commander with ties to Moscow has kicked “moderate” rebels out of two key oil ports. Fighting terrorists — the Russian way.

A Libyan commander with ties to Moscow has just recaptured two key oil ports, Sidra and Ras Lanuf, from “Islamist militias” (fanatics affiliated with al-Qaeda) that seized them earlier this month.

Khalifa Haftar, commander of the Libyan National Army (LNA), has previously asked Moscow for weapons and equipment, and had a January meeting with the Russians aboard their aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, en route back to Syria.

The LNA actually lost control of Sidra and Ras Lanuf on March 3, when the Benghazi Defence Brigades (BDB) and “former Ibrahim Jadhran loyalists and units from other allied factions (some reportedly affiliated with al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia)” pushed them out of the oil ports.

Yesterday Moscow denied a Reuters report claiming that Russian Special Forces are operating from an Egyptian airbase near the Libyan border.

<!–

(deployads = window.deployads || []).push({});–>

Of course, the Reuters report could be a well-coordinated western media blitz to play “the Russians are coming!” card (again), but the timing here does raise some eyebrows.

Why did Haftar wait nearly a week to counter-attack? According to our calculations, it took Haftar less than 36 hours to retake Sidra and Ras Lanuf.

Haftar was clearly waiting for “favorable conditions” — perhaps in the form of Russian military advisors.

The level of direct Russian assistance to Haftar is not at all clear at this point, but what is known is that Moscow has aligned itself with the one Libyan general who has a no-nonsense stance on “moderate” rebels. Last year he pushed Islamist militants out of much of Benghazi.

In other words: He fights terrorists like a Russian. 

<!–

(deployads = window.deployads || []).push({});

–>

(Just for some contrast: In nearly every interview he gives, Syrian President Bashar Assad describes the U.S. coalition “strikes” against ISIS as “cosmetic”. In other words: Washington’s idea of fighting terrorism involves bombing empty desert.)

Again, it’s still unclear just how “Russian-backed” Haftar really is. But one thing is certain: Haftar fights terrorists the Russian way.

Playtime is over for Al-Qaeda in Libya. We think this is noteworthy — perhaps even deeply revelatory

%d bloggers like this: