“طلال سلمان: حول “الربيع العربي

Advertisements

Nasrallah Says US Helps ISIS, Does Not Allow it to be Eliminated

[ Ed. note – Sadly, he’s probably right. ]

Press TV

The secretary general of the Lebanese Hezbollah says the United States does not want Daesh Takfiri group to be destroyed and is providing Takfiri terrorists with assistance through its bases in Syria.

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah made the remarks while delivering a speech at a ceremony held in al-Ain town in North Bekaa region to commemorate two martyred members of the resistance movement.

The ceremony was held after Hezbollah commander, Ali al-Hadi al-Asheq, and Hezbollah fighter, Mohammad Nasserdine, were killed, along with five other fighters, while fighting the Takfiri terrorists in Syria last week.

“It is only the United States, which does not let Daesh be totally annihilated,” Nasrallah said in his speech.

The Hezbollah leader added that the US was helping Daesh through its base in Syrian city of Raqqah and also through a base it runs near Syria’s border with Jordan where Daesh terrorists are trained.

“US Air Force does not allow the Syrian army and resistance groups to advance toward positions occupied by Daesh,” he added.

Stressing the need to continue the ongoing fight against Daesh despite efforts made by the US, Nasrallah said, “If we do not continue the war against Daesh, the Takfiri group will hit again and resume its campaign of massacre and terror.”

Nasrallah emphasized that Daesh would return to all areas it had lost if the fight against the group stopped, because Daesh was like a malignant cancer, which must be uprooted.

Nasrallah stated that the US did not want the Lebanese army to fight Daesh in those areas, which had been occupied by the Takfiri group, and to achieve this goal, it even stopped its aid to the Lebanese army for a period of time.

The leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah stated that the “Wahhabi Takfiri Daesh” group was only present in small parts of Iraq and Syria, but the group must be totally annihilated, because if not, it would continue to threaten Iraq and Syria.

He noted that the main strategy followed by Daesh was to extend its existence, so that, it could launch new battles to reclaim liberated towns and villages.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Nasrallah noted that the Middle East region was facing a new scheme devised by the United States and Saudi Arabia, which was mainly aimed at Iran.

He stated that Washington and Tel Aviv kept lying about Tehran’s nuclear program as they were outraged by the Islamic Republic’s influential role in the Middle East.

Continued here

«Israel» Policy Forum: Where Saudis Normalize Ties with «Israelis»

Source

«Israel» Policy Forum: Where Saudis Normalize Ties with «Israelis»

06-10-2017 | 14:29

Local EditorThe New York-based “Israel” Policy Forum announced it was organizing on October 22 a security forum under the title: “Middle East Security Forum” with the participation of former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal and Saudi writer Nawaf Obeid, as well as retired Zionist generals in the “Israeli” Occupation Force [IOF] led by former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy.

IPF Announcement

According to the announcement posted on the forum’s website, the participants will discuss Iran’s nuclear program and regional posturing, the “Israeli” entity’s relations with the broader Arab world, the Syrian war, the Wahhabi Daesh [Arabic acronym for “ISIS” / “ISIL”] and regional instability, and the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Below is a list of other expert discussants:

Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi writer and former adviser to the Saudi ambassador to the United States and the United Kingdom.

David Halperin, Executive Director of the “Israeli” Policy Forum [IPF].

Udi Dekel, reserve general in the IOF and managing director of the Institute of National Security Studies [INSS].

Ephraim Halevy, former Mossad chief.

Nimrod Novik, former Policy Adviser to Shimon Peres, Steering & Executive Committee Member, CIS

Shira Efron is the Special Advisor on Israel, RAND Corporation Center on Middle East Public Policy.

Elisa Catalano Ewres, former Senior Director for the Middle East and North Africa, National Security Council.

Ilan Goldberg, director of the Middle East program at the Center for a New American Security [CNAS].

Nicholas Heras, an American researcher at the Center for a New American Security [CNAS].

Hussein Ibish, Senior Resident Scholar, Arab Gulf States Institute.

Frederic Kagan, Resident Scholar and Director, Critical Threats Project, American Enterprise Institute.

Kimberly Kagan, US historian and president of the Institute for the Study of War.

Colin Kahl, former National Security Advisor to former US Vice President Joe Biden.

Michael J. Koplow, Policy Director at the “Israeli” Policy Forum (US).

Ariel (Eli) Levitt, an “Israeli” nuclear expert and former Principal Deputy Director General for Policy, “Israel” Atomic Energy Commission.

Source: IPF, Edited by website team

Breaking: Syrian Army annihilates ISIS, reopens Deir Ez-Zor highway

 

 

DAMASCUS, SYRIA (4:45 P.M.) – The Syrian Arab Army and its paramilitary allies have managed to re-secure all points lost to ISIS along the as-Sukhnah to Deir Ez-Zor highway and, in doing so, completely regain control of the vital road once again.

Pro-government forces achieved this result after launching a massive counter-offensive against ISIS early this morning.

To clarify, the Syrian Army has secured the towns of ash-Shoulah and Kabajib along the highway and restored the boundaries of territorial control between it and ISIS throughout the region to what it was two days ago.

 Islamic State military losses as a result of the Syrian Army counter-offensive are huge, with many dozens of jihadist fighters being killed over the last 12 hours.

More details to follow soon.

Elite Syrian Army units head to west Deir Ezzor to drive back ISIS

BEIRUT, LEBANON (1:50 A.M.) – The Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) elite forces departed from the northern countryside of the Hama Governorate to western Deir Ezzor after suffering several setbacks to the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) terror organization.

According to a military report, units from the Tiger Forces departed from Qomhana in northern Hama to the Homs Governorate city of Al-Sukhnah late Thursday afternoon.

The reinforcements from the Tiger Forces will be tasked with retaking the town of Al-Shoulah and its surrounding points, which were seized by the Islamic State during their large-scale attack on Thursday morning.

 

BREAKING: Syrian Army counteroffensive in west Deir Ezzor grinds ISIS into dust

 

Al-Shoulah is strategically located along the Deir Ezzor-Sukhnah Highway and directly west of the provincial capital; its liberation is currently a top priority for the army.

BEIRUT, LEBANON (1:27 P.M.) – Following a surprise offensive yesterday afternoon by ISIS along the various parts of the M20 highway, the terrorist group has since been beaten back hard at the hands of re-organized and reinforced Syrian Arab Army forces who are now in the midst of a counteroffensive.

Early this morning, the Syrian Arab Army – backed up by heavy Russian airstrikes – commenced a powerful counteroffensive along broad front stretching from the small city of as-Sukhnah (east Homs region) in the west to the town of ash-Shoula in the east.

Most of the hilltops and points initially captured by ISIS around as-Sukhnah and the M20 highway have been re-secured by the Syrian Army and now forces of the terrorist group find themselves pinned down in ash-Shoula were a high-pitched battle within and around the town is currently taking place.

Despite claims from opposition sources that as-Sukhnah and the town of Kabbajeb were captured by Islamic State militants, the fact remains that ISIS never took full control of the settlements (coming nowhere close to doing so in the case of as-Sukhnah) and that the Syrian Army currently holds onto both.

Military sources exclusive to Al-Masdar News confirm claims that over 30 ISIS militants have so far been killed in the course of the Syrian Army’s counteroffensive.

Graphic pictures: ISIS corpses litter east Homs amid Syrian Army counteroffensive

 

BEIRUT, LEBANON (2:45 P.M.) – Early this morning, the Syrian Arab Army launched a powerful counteroffensive along the length of the M20 highway from the small city of as-Sukhnah in eastern Homs to the strategic town of ash-Shoula in western Deir Ezzor.

Within hours of their counteroffensive, Syrian Army forces recaptured most of the hilltops and points they initially surrendered to ISIS yesterday, killing dozens of jihadist fighters in the process.

ISIS also launched an assault on the T-3 military airport. Initially, the Syrian Army retreated from the site, however, within an hour it counterattacked, reclaiming the airbase and pushing Islamic State insurgents back to their starting points further east. Heavy clashes in the area are ongoing.

 

So far, over 30 ISIS militants are confirmed to have died as a result of the Syrian Army counteroffensive.

The pictures shown below have been taken from two main battlegrounds, these being south of as-Sukhnah and near the T-3 military airport.

Andrew Illingworth | AMN

Andrew Illingworth | AMN

Andrew Illingworth | AMN

Related Videos

Related Articles

موسم الهجرة الى خليج البنغال الأميركيون يحشدون والسعوديون ينفّذون وكردستان حصان طروادة

سبتمبر 23, 2017

محمد صادق الحسيني

لعلّ من المفيد التذكير بأنّ للمذابح التي يتعرّض لها مسلمو الروهينغا في ميانمار بورما منذ أواسط شهر آب 2017 وحتى الآن هي مذابح مدبّرة من الولايات المتحدة وشركائها الآخرين في حلف الناتو وباستخدام عملائهم من أعراب شبه الجزيرة العربية وغيرها. وكذلك بالتآمر مع جهات أمنية وعسكرية معينة في دول إسلامية وغير إسلامية في آسيا.

كما أنّ من الضروري الإشارة إلى أنّ مشكلة المسلمين الروهينغا قد نشأت في بورما منذ بدء الاستعمار البريطاني لهذا البلد سنة 1824، اذ شرع البريطانيون في استجلاب المسلمين من الروهينغا واستخدامهم كعبيد لخدمة المصالح البريطانية في بورما، خاصة أنّ أكثر من حرب كانت قد اندلعت بين أهل البلاد الأصليين وقوات الاحتلال البريطاني، علماً أنّ سكان الروهينغا البورميين هم من قومية الروهينغا التي تعيش في ما يعرف اليوم بجمهورية بنغلادش، والتي كانت جزءاً من شبه القارة الهندية المستعمرة من بريطانيا العظمى.

ونظراً لكون هؤلاء المستجلبين عنوة كانوا من المسلمين في الوقت الذي تدين فيه أغلبية سكان بورما الأصليين بالبوذية، ومن خلال تغذية المستعمرين البريطانيين للخلافات بين أتباع الديانتين فقد تبلورت مشكلة الروهينغا في تلك البلاد منذ بدايات عصر الاستعمار. وقد حصلت مذابح عديدة متبادلة بين الطرفين والتي من أشهرها مذابح سنة 1946 عندما قتل عشرين ألف بوذي وأربعة آلاف مسلم خلال موجة من العنف الطائفي، وعلى مرأى من قوات الاحتلال البريطانية

التي لم تحرّك ساكناً لوقف تلك المذابح.

وهنا نودّ أن نؤكد على انّ الهدف من وراء إطلاق العنان لموجة المذابح الحاليّة على يد قوات السلطة المركزية البورمية القمعية العميلة، ليست سوى عمليات قتل مخطط لها من المخابرات المركزية الأميركية ودوائر حلف الناتو تمهيداً لخلق الظروف الملائمة لتدخل عسكري أميركي وغربي في إطار استكمال عمليات الحشد الاستراتيجي ضدّ الجناح الآسيوي من الحلف المعادي للهيمنة الأحادية القطبية على العالم ، أيّ الحشد ضدّ الصين وروسيا وإيران.

وفي هذا الإطار فقد قامت تلك الدوائر، كما تؤكد مصادر رصدنا بالخطوات العملية التالية ضمن تنفيذ تلك الخطط:

أولاً: قامت غرفة العمليات الأميركية في بغداد، ومنذ بدء عملية تحرير مدينة الموصل، بإخلاء ألفين وستمئة وأربعة وثلاثين فرداً من عصابات داعش، وعلى دفعات إلى مناطق سيطرة قوات «الهاغاناه» الكردية، وهم القسم «الإسرائيلي» من قوات البيشمركة، ومن هناك إلى نقاط تجميع داخل قواعد القوات الكردية العاملة تحت النفوذ الأميركي.

ثانياً: بدأت غرفة العمليات الأميركية المشار اليها أعلاه، وهي مسؤولة عن إدارة العمليات في العراق وسورية معاً، ومنذ أن حرّر الجيش السوري وحلفاؤه مدينة السخنة، بإجلاء قيادات داعش اولاً ومن ثم عناصرها من مدينة دير الزُّور وأريافها من خلال مسارين:

الأول براً عبر الآليات العسكرية الموجودة بحوزة مسلحي داعش.

الثاني من خلال المروحيات الأميركية إلى قاعدة الرميلان في ريف الحسكة، ومن هناك إلى قواعد البيشمركة في كردستان العراق.

وقد بلغ مجموع من تمّ نقلهم إلى كردستان من سورية تسعمئة وستة وثمانون فرداً.

ثالثاً: تمّ حتى الآن نقل ألفين وثلاثمئة وستة عشر فرداً من فلول داعش، الذين تمّ تجميعهم في كردستان العراق، وعبر مطار أربيل، الى كلّ من ماليزيا وإندونيسيا وسنغافورة ليتمّ تسريبهم من هناك إلى ميانمار كي يتمّ ضمّهم الى ما يُسمّى جيش «أراكان» لإنقاذ الروهينغا والذي تديره غرفة عمليات سعودية مقرّها مكة المكرمة. وتضمّ هذه الغرفة عشرين قيادياً من قيادات مسلحي الروهينغا في ميانمار والذين يتزعّمهم المدعو حافظ طهار. وهو موجود داخل ميانمار في الوقت الراهن ويقود العمليات المسلحة ضدّ قوات الحكومة المركزية القمعية العميلة في بورما.

وعلى الرغم من الأرضية المتوفرة دائماً لنشوء الأزمات بين المسلمين والسلطات البورمية، فإنّ هذه الموجة هي موجة مبرمجة ويجري الإعداد لها منذ أن كان حافظ طهار في السعودية عام 2012. وقد تمّ وضع اللبنات الأولى، لما نراه حالياً من مذابح هناك، على يد بندر بن سلطان ومجموعة من ضباط المخابرات المركزية الأميركية في جدة. إذ إنّ قرار تشكيل جيش «أراكان» قد اتخذ آنذاك من قبل المذكورين أعلاه، في حين أنّ حافظ طهار قد توجه في الربع الأخير من العام الآنف الذكر إلى ميانمار عن طريق بنغلاديش.

رابعاً: وضمن الجهود الأميركية الرامية إلى تعزيز وجود القوى المرتبطة بداعش في ميانمار وبهدف تصعيد المواجهة العسكرية بين جيش أراكان والقوات الحكومية البورمية، فقط قامت غرفة العمليات الموجودة في مكة والمُشار اليها أعلاه بنقل ثلاثمئة وأربعة وتسعين فرداً، من المرتبطين مع داعش، من ماليزيا إلى داخل ميانمار وبالتعاون مع جهات أمنية معينة داخل الحكومه الماليزية.

علماً أنّ نائب رئيس شرطة مكافحة الإرهاب في ماليزيا، أيوب خان ميدين، يمتلك كافة التفاصيل المتعلقة بعمليات التسريب التي تتمّ من ماليزيا.

خامساً: أقيم معسكر أو نقطة تجميع لعناصر داعش، التي يتمّ إخلاؤها من العراق وسورية، في ضواحي مدينة كراتشي تحت إدارة سعودية باكستانية مشتركة الاستخبارات العسكرية . وتتمثل مهمة هذا المعسكر في تدريب القادمين وتأهيلهم للمهمات التي سيكلفون بها مستقبلاً في ميانمار. أيّ أنّ هذا المعسكر هو قاعدة إمداد خلفية لداعش في ميانمار.

سادساً: تمّ تكليف ثلاثة من قيادة جيش اراكان لإنقاذ الروهينغا، بالإضافة إلى أربعة ضباط استخبارات سعوديين، بالانتقال إلى كوالالمبور ماليزيا لتنسيق عمليات تسريب عناصر داعش إلى ميانمار عبر مسالك مختلفة، أهمّها يمرّ من جنوب شرق بنغلادش، حيث أقيمت غرفة عمليات سرية لجيش أراكان لإنقاذ الروهينغا في ضواحي مدينة كوكس بازار البنغالية.

سابعاً: تمّ اعتماد مطار أربيل كنقطة انطلاق لعناصر داعش كافة الذين يتمّ إخلاؤهم من جبهات القتال في سورية والعراق والذين يتمّ توزيعهم على نقاط الارتكاز في كلّ من باكستان، بنغلادش، ماليزيا والصومال.

كما تمّ تكليف السعودية بتمويل كافة العمليات اللوجستية المتعلقة بعمليات الإخلاء والنقل إلى نقاط قريبة من ميانمار. وقد تمّ تدشين غرفة عمليات سعودية أميركية، بمشاركة خمسة ضباط أمن أكراد، مقرّها أربيل لإدارة هذه العملية التي تتوقع مصادر أميركية متابعة استمرارها لسنوات عدة.

علماً انّ زيارة الوزير السعودي ثامر السبهان الأخيرة لمسعود البرزاني أواسط شهر أيلول الحالي في أربيل، قد تركزت فقط على ترتيبات عمليات نقل قوات داعش شرقاً لتوسيع رقعة الاشتباكات مع قوات الأمن البورمية، تمهيداً لزجّ مسلمي الصين في تلك العمليات العسكرية، بهدف إنشاء قاعدة انطلاق لعمليات داعش في الصين مشابهة لما كان عليه الوضع في قاطع حمص/ القصيْر الذي استخدم كقاعدة انطلاق باتجاه الغوطة الشرقية ووادي بردى، وكذلك باتجاه حمص – تدمر. أيّ لتوسيع دائرة الحرب وتفجير الأوضاع الداخلية في الصين من أجل تأمين ظروف أكثر ملاءمة لتصعيد عمليات الحشد الاستراتيجي الأميركي ضدّ الصين وروسيا وإيران. وليس قرار إرسال ثلاثة آلاف جندي أميركي إلى أفغانستان أخيراً، إلا خطوة لتعزيز جهود العدوان الذي يجري الإعداد له من قبل الولايات المتحدة وشركائها في الناتو.

تجدر الإشارة إلى أنّ إقليم شينغيانغ المحاذي لمنطقة النزاع البورمي الروهينغي يعوم على احتياطي استراتيجي مهمّ من النفط والغاز واليورانيوم، كما أنه الإقليم الذي تمرّ عبره طريق الحرير الذي أطلقته الحكومة الصينية كمبادرة عالمية لتنمية التعاون مع آسيا المركزية والقوقاز وغرب آسيا. هذا كما يمرّ منه أحد أهمّ أنابيب النفط الصينية التي أحدثتها الحكومة الصينية هناك للالتفاف على خليج مالاقا والتهرّب من سنغافورة التي تسيطر عليها المظلة الأمنية الأميركية.

يبقى أنّ الكاوبوي الأبله الأميركي الذي يحاول محاكاة عمليات الحشد الاستراتيجي الحالية بعمليات الحشد ضدّ الاتحاد السوفياتي في مرحلة أفغانستان ثمانينيات القرن الماضي، انطلاقاً من ميانمار ضدّ الصين نسي انه اليوم هو مَن يغرق في مستنقع حروب سورية والعراق واليمن وأفغانستان وأنه هو الذي يخرج منها منكسراً ذليلاً وخائفاً يترقب نتائج حرب العلمين السورية العراقية وأسطورة الصبر الاستراتيجي اليمني، والصين التي يظنّها فريسة سهلة لهذا المخطط هي اليوم مَن يعتلي عرش العالم مع روسيا بفضل صمود وانتصارات محور المقاومة الصاعد إلى عرش السماء والذي نقل عملياً مركز ثقل العالم من الغرب إلى الشرق…!

وبالتالي، فإنّ الزمن ليس زمن الحرب الباردة مع السوفيات أبداً، وأنّ هذا المحور العظيم الذي بات ممتداً من موسكو إلى غزة ليس فقط لن يسمح لأمثال الكانكستر الأميركي الاقتراب من سور الصين العظيم ، بل وسيجعله قريباً وقريباً جداً يجثو على ركبتيه طالباً تأشيرة مرور على طريق الحرير الجديد الممتدّ من شانغهاي إلى بيروت بدمغة شامية.

بعدنا طيّبين، قولوا الله…

Related Videos

From the Philippines to Myanmar: “US to Fight US-Saudi Sponsored Terrorism”

 

September 8, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – With the recent attack on police in Myanmar by terrorists described by Reuters as “Muslim insurgents,” and ongoing terrorism plaguing the Philippines where forces are engaged with militants from the so-called “Islamic State,” it would appear that terrorism has spread into Southeast Asia with no signs of waning.

However, the sudden uptick in violence comes at a time when America’s so-called “pivot to Asia” has ground to a complete halt, providing the United States with an all-too-convenient pretext to reengage and establish itself across the region in a much more insidious manner.

US Sought Military Presence in Southeast Asia for Decades but Lacked a Pretext, Until Now 

The United States has openly conspired to establish and expand a permanent military presence in Southeast Asia as a means to confront, encircle, and contain China for decades.

As early as the Vietnam War, with the so-called “Pentagon Papers” released in 1969, it was revealed that the conflict was simply one part of a greater strategy aimed at containing and controlling China.

Three important quotes from these papers reveal this strategy. It states first that:

“…the February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China.”

It also claims:

“China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30′s, and like the USSR in 1947—looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.” 

Finally, it outlines the immense regional theater the US was engaged in against China at the time by stating:

“there are three fronts to a long-run effort to contain China (realizing that the USSR “contains” China on the north and northwest): (a) the Japan-Korea front; (b) the India-Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.” 

While the US would ultimately lose the Vietnam War and any chance of using the Vietnamese as a proxy force against Beijing, the long war against Beijing would continue elsewhere.

More recently, an American policy think tank, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in a 2000 paper titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (PDF) would unabashedly declare its intentions to establish a wider, permanent military presence in Southeast Asia.

The report would state explicitly that:

…it is time to increase the presence of American forces in Southeast Asia.

It would elaborate in detail, stating:

In Southeast Asia, American forces are too sparse to adequately address rising security requirements. Since its withdrawal from the Philippines in 1992, the United States has not had a significant permanent military presence in Southeast Asia. Nor can U.S. forces in Northeast Asia easily operate in or rapidly deploy to Southeast Asia – and certainly not without placing their commitments in Korea at risk. Except for routine patrols by naval and Marine forces, the security of this strategically significant and increasingly tumultuous region has suffered from American neglect. 

Noting the difficultly of placing US troops where they are not wanted, the PNAC paper notes:

This will be a difficult task requiring sensitivity to diverse national sentiments, but it is made all the more compelling by the emergence of new democratic governments in the region. By guaranteeing the security of our current allies and newly democratic nations in East Asia, the United States can help ensure that the rise of China is a peaceful one. Indeed, in time, American and allied power in the region may provide a spur to the process of democratization inside China itself.

It should be noted that the paper’s reference to “the emergence of new democratic governments in the region” is a reference to client states created by the United States on behalf of its own interests and in no way constituted actual “democratic governments” which would otherwise infer they represented the interests of the very people possessing the “national sentiments” that opposed US military presence in the region in the first place.

It should also be noted that in 2000, the United States was cultivating a number of such proxy governments across Southeast Asia including Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy in Myanmar, Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand, and Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia.

Since 2000, all but one of these proxies have been removed from power with Anwar Ibrahim residing in prison and Thaksin Shinawatra fleeing Thailand to evade a 2 year jail term.

Only Suu Kyi managed to ascend to power as a result of billions spent by her US and European sponsors via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its numerous subsidiaries and affiliates. One of these affiliates – The US Institute of Peace – has openly enumerated how the US on virtually every imaginable level is now dictating the outcome of Myanmar’s development from directing its political processes to organizing its economy. It is also providing “technical assistance” on “counter-terrorism.”

In the Philippines, attempts by the US to reestablish its military presence and use the nation in its self-serving, elective conflict with Beijing has suffered many setbacks.

US to Fight US-Saudi Sponsored Terrorism in Asia

Most recently Washington found its relationship with Manila unraveling irrevocably in favor of Manila’s increasing ties with Beijing. This was until the fortuitous arrival of militants from the so-called “Islamic State” on the nation’s shores, overwhelming an entire city in the nation’s southern region.

In Myanmar, terrorists have likewise – suddenly – appeared and are operating on unprecedented levels just in time for another push by the United States to establish a permanent military presence in the country to provide “technical assistance” on “counter-terrorism.”

Such terrorists – however – have not simply sprung from oblivion. Such organizations conducting operations on the scale seen in the Philippines, southern Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Myanmar require immense sums of money, organizational capacity, logistical, and political support.

And indeed, it is confirmed that not only does such support exist, it flows from a very logical and familiar source of state-sponsored terrorism – America’s oldest and closest ally in the Middle East – Saudi Arabia.

The Wall Street Journal in an article titled, “Asia’s New Insurgency Burma’s abuse of the Rohingya Muslims creates violent backlash.” reports in regards to terrorism in Myanmar that (emphasis added):

Now this immoral policy has created a violent backlash. The world’s newest Muslim insurgency pits Saudi-backed Rohingya militants against Burmese security forces. As government troops take revenge on civilians, they risk inspiring more Rohingya to join the fight.

The Wall Street Journal elaborates, stating (emphasis added):

Called Harakah al-Yaqin, Arabic for “the Faith Movement,” the group answers to a committee of Rohingya emigres in Mecca and a cadre of local commanders with experience fighting as guerrillas overseas. Its recent campaign—which continued into November with IED attacks and raids that killed several more security agents—has been endorsed by fatwas from clerics in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the Emirates and elsewhere. 

Rohingyas have “never been a radicalized population,” ICG notes, “and the majority of the community, its elders and religious leaders have previously eschewed violence as counterproductive.” But that is changing fast. Harakah al-Yaqin was established in 2012 after ethnic riots in Rakhine killed some 200 Rohingyas and is now estimated to have hundreds of trained fighters.

The foreign-baked terrorism sponsored by Saudi Arabia and literally directed from within its own borders all-too-conveniently creates a pretext for US military presence in Myanmar it otherwise could not justify or in any shape, form, or way pursue.

A similar superhighway of cash and weapons flows from terrorists operating in the Philippines to Riyadh and its partners in Washington, resulting in a similar opportunity for the US to establish a permanent military presence there in reaction to a crisis of its own intentional engineering.

While the US proposes an expansive US military presence across Southeast Asia for “counter-terrorism” assistance, it is clear that it is Washington’s own aid and support to Riyadh that is at the very source of the security crisis and that simply withdrawing aid and penalizing this state sponsor of terrorism is the solution.

Yet the United States is not making this most logical of conclusions, nor is it taking this most obvious course of action – indicating full complicity with Saudi state-sponsorship of terrorism and placing responsibility for the death and destruction sown by terrorism across Southeast Asia squarely on Washington.

While the US frames its military presence in Southeast Asia as a cornerstone of peace and stability, it is in fact a policy representing a symptom of the sort of very real instability and chaos the United States and its self-proclaimed “international order” represents. It is particularly ironic that not only is the increasingly rampant terrorism across Southeast Asia a result of intentional Washington policy, it is being used as a pretext for setting the stage of a greater and potentially more devastating regional conflict with China.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

Letter to my American friends

Letter to my American friends

The Saker

Introduction by the Saker: During my recent hurricane-induced evacuation from Florida, I had the pleasure to see some good friends of mine (White Russian emigrés and American Jews who now consider themselves American and who fully buy into the official propaganda about the USA) who sincerely think of themselves as liberals, progressives and anti-imperialists. These are kind, decent and sincere people, but during our meeting they made a number of statements which completely contradicted their professed views. After writing this letter to them I realized that there might be many more people out there who, like myself, are desperately trying to open the eye of good but completely mislead people about the reality of Empire. I am sharing this letter in the hope that it might maybe offer a few useful talking points to others in their efforts to open the eyes of their friends and relatives.

——-

Dear friends:

During our conversation you stated the following:

  1. The USA needs a military
  2. One of the reasons why the USA needs a military are regimes like the North Korean one
  3. The USA has a right to intervene outside its borders on a) pragmatic and b) moral grounds
  4. During WWII the USA “saved Europe” and acquired a moral right to “protect” other friends and allies
  5. The Allies (USSR-US-UK) were morally superior to the Nazis
  6. The Americans brought peace, prosperity and freedom to Europe.
  7. Yes, mistakes were made, but this is hardly a reason to forsake the right to intervene

I believe that all seven of these theses are demonstratively false, fallacies based on profoundly mistaken assumptions and that they all can be debunked by common sense and indisputable facts.

But first, let me tackle the Delphic maxim “know thyself” as it is, I believe, central to our discussion. For all our differences I think that there are a number of things which you would agree to consider as axiomatically true, including that Germans, Russians, Americans and others are roughly of equal intelligence. They also are roughly equally capable of critical thinking, personal investigation and education. Right? Yet, you will also agree that during the Nazi regime in Germany Germans were very effectively propagandized and that Russians in Soviet Russia were also effectively propagandized by their own propaganda machine. Right? Do you have any reason to suppose that we are somehow smarter or better than those propagandized Germans and Russians and had we been in their place we would have immediately seen through the lies? Could it be that we today are maybe also not seeing through the lies we are being told?

It is also undeniable that the history of WWII was written by the victors of WWII. This is true of all wars – defeated regimes don’t get to freely present their version of history. Had the Nazis won WWII, we would all have been treated to a dramatically different narrative of what took place. Crucially, had the Nazis won WWII, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the German people would have shown much skepticism about the version of history presented in their schools. Not only that, but I would submit that most Germans would also believe that they were free people and that the regime they live under was a benevolent one.

You doubt that?

Just think of the number of Germans who declared that they had no idea how bad the Nazi regime really was. Even Hitler’s personal secretary, Traudl Junge, used that excuse to explain how she could have worked for so many years with Hitler and even like him so much. There is an American expression which says “where I sit is where I stand”. Well, may I ask – where are we sittting and are we so sure that we have an independent opinion which is not defined by where we sit (geographically, politically, socially and even professionally)?

You might ask about all the victims of the Nazi regime, would they not be able to present their witness to the German people and the likes of Traudl Junge? Of course not: the dead don’t speak very much, and their murderers rarely do (lest they themselves end up dead). Oh sure, there would be all sorts of dissidents and political activists who would know the truth, but the “mainstream” consensus under a victorious Nazi Germany would be that Hitler and the Nazis liberated Europe from the Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists.

This is not something unique to Germany, by the way. If you take the Russian population today, it has many more descendants of executioners than descendants of executed people and this is hardly a surprise since dead people don’t reproduce. As a result, the modern Russian historiography is heavily skewed towards whitewashing the Soviet crimes and atrocities. To some degree this is a good thing, because it counteracts decades of US anti-Soviet propaganda, but it often goes too far and ends up minimizing the actual human cost of the Bolshevik experiment in Russia.

So how do the USA compare to Germany and Russia in this context?

Most Americans trust the version of history presented to them by their own “mainstream”. Why? How is their situation objectively different from the situation of Germans in a victorious Third Reich? Our modern narrative of WWII was also written by victors, victors who had a vested reason in demonizing all the other sides (Nazis and Soviets) while presenting us with a heroic tale of liberation. And here is the question which ought to really haunt us at night: what if we had been born not Russians and Jews after a Nazi defeat but if we had been born Germans after an Allied defeat in WWII? Would we have been able to show enough skepticism and courage to doubt the myths we were raised with? Or would we also be doubleplusgoodthinking little Nazis, all happy and proud to have defeated the evil Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists?

Oh sure, Hitler considered Jews as parasites which had to be exiled and, later, exterminated and he saw Russians as subhumans which needed to be put to work for the Germanic Master Race and whose intelligentsia also needed to be exterminated. No wonder that we, Jews and Russians, don’t particularly care for that kind of genocidal racist views. But surely we can be humans before being Jews and Russians, and we can accept that what is bad for us is not necessarily bad for others. Sure, Hitler was bad news for Jews and Russians, but was he really so bad news for “pure” (Aryan Germanic) Germans? More importantly, if we had been born “pure” Germans, would we have have cared a whole lot about Jews and Russians? I sure hope so, but I have my doubts. I don’t recall any of us shedding many tears about the poly-genocided (a word I coined for a unique phenomenon in history: the genocide of all the ethnicities of an entire continent!) Native Americans! I dare say that we are a lot more prone to whining about the “Holocaust” or “Stalinism”, even though neither of them ever affected us personally, (only our families and ethnicity) than about the poly-genocide of Native Americans. I very much doubt that our whining priorities would have been the same if our ethnicity had been Lakota or Comanche. Again, I hope that I am wrong. But I am not so sure.

Either way, my point is this:

We are hard-coded to be credulous and uncritically accept all the demonization of Nazis and Soviets because we are Jews and White Russians. Careful here, I am NOT saying that the Nazis and Soviets were not evil – they definitely were – but what I am saying is that we, Jews and Russians, are far more willing to accept and endorse any version of history which makes the Nazis and Soviets some kind of exceptionally evil people and that, in contrast, we almost instinctively reject any notion that “our” side (in this case I mean *your* side, the American one since you, unlike me, consider yourselves American) was just as bad (if only because your side never murdered Jews and Russians). So let’s look at this “our/your side” for a few minutes.

By the time the USA entered WWII it had already committed the worse crime in human history, the poly-genocide of an entire continent, followed by the completely illegal and brutal annexation of the lands stolen from the Native Americans. Truly, Hitler would have been proud. But that is hardly all, the Anglo invaders then proceeded to wage another illegal and brutal war of annexation against Mexico from which they stole a huge chunk of land which includes modern Texas, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico!

Yes, all this land was illegally occupied and stolen by your side not once, but TWICE! And do I even need to mention the horrors of slavery to add to the “moral tally” of your side by the time the US entered the war?

Right there I think that there is more than enough evidence that your side was morally worse than either the Nazis or the Soviets. The entire history of the USA is one of endless violence, plunder, hypocrisy, exploitation, imperialism, oppression and wars. Endless wars of aggression. None of them defensive by any stretch of the imagination. That is quite unique in human history. Can you think of a nastier, more bloodthirsty regime? I can’t.

Should I even mention the British “atrocities tally”, ranging from opium wars, to the invention of concentration camps, to the creation of Apartheid, the horrors of the occupation of Ireland, etc. etc. etc.?

I can just hear you say that yes, this was horrible, but that does not change the fact that in WWII the USA “saved Europe”. But is that really so?

To substantiate my position, I have put together a separate PDF file which lists 5 sources, 3 in English, 2 in Russian. You can download it here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByibNV3SiUooWExTNGhMTGF5azQ

I have translated the key excerpts of the Russian sources and I am presenting them along with the key excerpts of the English sources. Please take a look at this PDF and, if you can, please read the full original articles I quote. I have stressed in bold red the key conclusions of these sources. You will notice that there are some variations in the figures, but the conclusions are, I think, undeniable. The historical record show that:

  1. The Soviet Union can be credited with the destruction of roughly 80% of the Nazi military machine. The US-UK correspondingly can be credited with no more than 20% of the Allied war effort.
  2. The scale and scope of the battles on the Eastern Front completely dwarf the biggest battles on the Western Front. Battles in the West involved Divisions and Brigades, in the East they involved Armies and Groups of Armies. That is at least one order of magnitude of difference.
  3. The USA only entered the war a year after Stalingrad and the Kursk battle when it was absolutely clear that the Nazis would lose the war.

The truth is that the Americans only entered the war when it was clear that the Nazis would be defeated and that their real motive was not the “liberation of oppressed Europe” but to prevent the Soviets from occupying all of Europe. The Americans never gave a damn about the mass murder of Jews or Russians, all they cared about was a massive land-grab (yet again).

[Sidebar: By the way, and lest you think that I claim that only Americans act this way, here is another set of interesting dates:

Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: August 6 and 9, 1945

Soviet Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation: August 9–20, 1945

We can clearly see the same pattern here: the Soviets waited until it was absolutely certain that the USA had defeated the Japanese empire before striking it themselves. It is also worth noting that it took the Soviets only 10 days to defeat the entire Kwantung Army, the most prestigious Army of the Japanese Empire with over one million well-trained and well-equipped soldiers! That should tell you a little something about the kind of military machine the Soviet Union had developed in the course of the war against Nazi Germany (see here for a superb US study of this military operation)]

Did the Americans bring peace and prosperity to western Europe?

To western Europe, to some degree yes, and that is because was easy for them: they ended the war almost “fresh”, their (stolen) homeland did not suffer the horrors of war and so, yes, they could bring in peanut butter, cigarettes and other material goods. They also made sure that Western Europe would become an immense market for US goods and services and that European resources would be made available to the US Empire, especially against the Soviet Union. And how did they finance this “generosity”? By robbing the so-called Third World blind, that’s all. Is that something to be proud of? Did Lenin not warn as early as 1917 that “imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism”? The wealth of Western Europe was built by the abject poverty of the millions of Africans, Asians and Latin Americas.

But what about the future of Europe and the European people?

There a number of things upon which the Anglos and Stalin did agree to at the end of WWII: The four Ds: denazification, disarmament, demilitarisation, and democratisation of a united Germany and reparations to rebuild the USSR. Yes, Stalin wanted a united, neutral Germany. As soon as the war ended, however, the Anglos reneged on all of these promises: they created a heavily militarized West Germany, they immediately recruited thousands of top Nazi officials for their intelligence services, their rocket program and to subvert the Soviet Union. Worse, they immediately developed plans to attack the Soviet Union. Right at the end of the WWII, Anglo powers had at least THREE plans to wage war on the USSR: Operation DropshotPlan Totality and Operation Unthinkable. Here are some basic reminders from Wikipedia about what these operations were about:

Operation Dropshot: included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet Union’s industrial potential at a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.

Plan Totality: earmarked 20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike: Moscow, Gorki, Kuybyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yaroslavl.

Operation Unthinkable: assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines. This represented almost a half of roughly 100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time. (…) The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers.

[Were you aware of these? If not, do you now wonder why?]

I am not making these things up, you can look it up for yourself on Wikipedia and elsewhere. This is the Anglo idea of how you deal with Russian “allies”: you stab them in the back with a surprise nuclear attack, you obliterate most of their cities and you launch the Nazi Wehrmacht against them.

I won’t even go into the creation of NATO (before the WTO – known in the West as the “Warsaw Pact” – was created in response) or such petty crimes as false flag terrorist attack (Operation Gladio).

[Have you ever heard of Operation Gladio or the August 1980 “Bologna massacre”, the bombing of the Bologna train station by NATO secret terrorist forces, a false-flag terrorist attack (85 dead, over 200 wounded) designed to discredit the Communist Party of Italy? If not – do you now wonder why you never heard of this?]

The sad reality is that the US intervention in Europe was a simple land-grab, that the Cold War was an Anglo creation, as was the partition of Europe, and that since WWII the USA always treated Europe as a colony form which to fight the “Communist” threat (i.e. Russia).

But, let’s say that I am all wrong. For argument’s sake. Let’s pretend that the kind-hearted Americans came to Europe to free the European people. They heroically defeated Hitler and brought (Western) Europe peace, prosperity, freedom, happiness, etc. etc. etc.

Does this good deed give the USA a license for future interventions? You both mentioned WWII as an example and a justification for the need for the USA to maintain a military large enough to counter regimes such as the North Korean one, right? So, let me ask again,

Does the fact that the USA altruistically, kindly and heroically liberated Europe from both the Nazis and the Soviets now grant the moral legitimacy to other, subsequent, US military interventions against other abhorrent, aggressive or evil regimes/countries out there?

If you reply “no” – then why did you mention it as a justification?

If you reply “yes” – then please forgive me for being so obtuse and ask you for how long this “license to militarily intervene” remains valid? One year? Five years? Maybe ten or even seventy years? Or maybe this license grants such a moral right to the USA ad aeternam, forever? Seriously, if the USA did liberate Europe and bring it peace and happiness, are we to assume that this will remain true forever and everywhere?

I also want to ask you this: let’s say, for the argument’s sake, that the moral license given by the US participation in the war in Europe is, truly, forever. Let’s just assume that, okay? But let me ask you this: could it be revoked (morally, conceptually)? Say the USA did something absolutely wonderful in Europe. What about the subsequent horrors in southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle-East. How many murdered, maimed, occupied, terrorized, bombed and otherwise genocided “non-West Europeans” would it take to outweigh the putatively “happily liberated” Europeans which, according to you, grant the USA the license to intervene? Even if the US in Europe was all noble and pure, do the following seventy years of evil mass murder worldwide really count for nothing or does there come a point were “enough is enough” and the license can be revoked, morally speaking, by people like us, like you?

May I point out to you that your words spoken in defense of a supposed need for the USA to maintain a military capable of overseas operations strongly suggest that you believe that the USA has a moral right (if not a duty!) to conduct such operations, which means that the post WWII atrocity-tally of the USA is not, in your opinion, sufficient to elicit a “enough is enough” reaction in you. Are you sure that you are comfortable with this stance?

In theory, there could be another reason to revoke such a moral license. After all, one can have the moral right to do something, but not necessarily the capability to do so. If I see somebody drowning in a flood, I most certainly have the moral right to jump in the water and try to save this person, do I not? But that does not mean that I have the strength or skills to do so. Right? So when you say that the USA needs to maintain a military capable of protecting friends and allies from rogue and dangerous regimes like the one in North Korea, you do imply that besides having the right to extend such a protection the USA also has the capabilities and the expertise to do so?

Really?

And what is the evidence for that, may I ask?!

I asked you to name me a single successful US military intervention since WWII and you could name none. Good! I agree with you. The reality is that every single US military operation since WWII has resulted in a disaster either on the humanitarian, political and military level (often on all of them combined). Even Grenada was a total (military) failure! Also, do you see who sits in the White House today? Do you really want The Donald in charge of protecting “our friends and allies” and are you confident that he has the skillset needed to do this competently? Or Hillary for that matter? Even Sanders has a record of defending catastrophic military operations, such as the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 which, you guessed it (or not), ended in abject defeat for the Israelis and untold civilians horrors in Lebanon. But forget the President, take a look at US generals – do they inspire in you the belief that they are the kind of people who can be trusted to skillfully execute a military intervention inspired by moral and ethical reasons?! What about US “Congresspersons”? Would you trust them? So where do you see honest and competent “saviors of others” in the US polity?

Did you notice that there was no Islamic State in Iraq before the US invasion? Or did you notice that ever since the US declared a war on ISIS the latter has been getting stronger and stronger and taking over more countries. Yes, of course, once the Russians got involved ISIS began suffering defeat after defeat, but all the Americans had to say about the Russian intervention was to denounce it and predict it would fail. So why is it that the Russians are so good at fighting ISIS and the Americans, and their allies, so bad? Do you really want the Americans in charge of world security with such a record?!

Is insanity not repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results?

Now I hear the reply you gave me to this point. You said “yes, mistakes were made”.

Mistakes?!

I don’t think that millions of murdered people, including hundreds of thousands of children, are “mistakes” (how would you react if somebody conceded to you that Hitler and Stalin made “mistakes”?). But there is something even more insidious in this notion of “mistake”.

How would you define “success”?

Say the US armed forces were not only good at killing people (which they are), but also good at winning wars (which they ain’t). Say the USA had been successful in not only invading Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in fully pacifying these countries. Say the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been successfully defeated, their economy had bounced back, and democratic regimes put in power: capitalism everywhere, 100 channels on each TV, McDonalds in every Afghan villages, gay pride parades in downtown Kabul, gender-neutral toilets in every mosque, elections every 4 years or so and not a single shot fired, not a single bomb going off? Would that be a “success”?

I pray to God and hope with all my heart that your reply to this question is a resounding “no!!”. Because if you answered “yes” then you are truly messianic genocidal imperialists. Yup, I mean that. Why? Because your notion of “success” is the spiritual, psychological and cultural death of an ancient civilization and that makes you, quite literally, an mortal enemy of mankind as a whole. I can’t even imagine such a horror. So I am sure that you answered “no!!” as every decent human being would, right?

But then what is a “success”? You clearly don’t mean the success as defined by your rulers (they would enthusiastically support such an outcome; in fact – they even promise it every time over and over again!). But if their idea of “success” is not yours, and if you would never want any other nation, people or ethnicity to ever become a victim of such as “successful” military intervention, why do you still want your rulers with their satanic notion of “success” to have the means to be “successful” in the future? And that in spite of the fact that the historical record shows that they can’t even achieve any type of “success” even by their own definition, nevermind yours?!

Did you notice that nowhere in my arguments above did I mention the fact that the USA has never asked people (as opposed to local Comprador elites) whether they wanted to be saved by Uncle Sam or not? Neither did they ask the American people if they wanted to go to war, hence all the well-known false flags from the “remember the Maine”, to the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, to Pearl Harbor, to the “Gulf of Tonkin incident”, to September 11th: every time a lie had to be concocted to convince the American people that they had to go to war. Is that really people power? Is this democracy?!

Are there people out there, anybody, who really favor US military interventions? Yes, I suppose that there are. Like the Kosovo Albanians. I suspect that the Afghan Tajiks and Hazara were pretty happy to see the US bomb the crap of the Taliban. So there might be a few cases. Oh, and I forgot our Balt and Ukrainian friends (but then, they were also happy when the Nazis came, hardly much of an example). But it is pretty safe to say that in reality nobody wants to be liberated by Uncle Sam, hence the wordwide use of the “Yankee go home” slogan.

This letter is already way too long, and I will forgo the listing of all the reasons why the USA are pretty much hated all over the planet, not by the ruling elites, of course, but by the regular people. And when I say “the USA” I don’t mean Paul Newman, Mark Twain, Miles Davis, Quentin Tarantino, James Taylor or the Bill of Rights or the beautiful country called “the USA”. But the regime, as opposed to any one specific government or administration in Washington, the regime is what is truly universally hated. I have never seen any anti-Americanism directed at the American people anywhere, not even in France, Greece or Latin America. But the hate for the Empire is quasi universal by now. Only the political elites whose status, power and well-being is dependent on the Empire do, in fact, support the Empire and what it stands for. Everybody else despises what the USA stands for today. And every military intervention only makes this worse.

And you want to make sure this continues? Really?

Right now the US is desperately trying to save al-Qaeda (aka IS, ISIS, Daesh, al-Nusra, etc.) from defeat in Syria. How is that for a moral stance after 9/11 (that is, if you accept the official narrative about 9/11; if you understand that 9/11 was a controlled demolition in which al-Qaeda patsies were used as a smokescreen, then this makes sense, by the way).

By the way – who are the current allies the US are so busy helping now?

  • The Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia
  • The Nazi regime in the Ukraine and
  • The last officially racist regime on the planet in Israel

Do these really strike you as allies worth supporting?!

And what are the American people getting from that? Nothing but poverty, oppression, shame, hatred, fear and untold physical, psychological and moral suffering.

These are the fruits of Empire. Every Empire. Always.

You mentioned that every time you see a veteran you thanked him for his service. Why? Do you really think that he fought in a just war, that his service is something he can be proud of? Did he fight for his people? Did he defend the innocent? Or was he an occupier in a foreign land and, if he saw combat, did he not kill people who defended their own land, their families and their way of life? What exactly do you thank that veteran for? For following orders? But is that not something the Nuremberg trials specifically condemned as immoral and illegal?

Do you remember how you told me that xxxxx’s Marine husband lived in a nice house with all their material needs taken care of? You added “compare that to Russian servicemen”. Well, you clearly are not aware of how Russian soldiers live nowadays, under your hated Putin, but that is besides the point. The question which I wanted to ask you then and which I will ask you now is this: is the comfortable lifestyle granted to US Marines good enough a reason to be a Marine – that is being part of the very first force called in to murder innocent people and invade countries? Do you even know what Marines did to Fallujah recently? How much is a human soul worth? And it is really your belief that being a hired killer for the Empire is an honorable way of life? And should you think that I am exaggerating, please read the famous essay “War is a Racket” by Marine Brigadier General Smedley Butler, who had the highest rank a Marine could achieve in his time and who was the most decorated Marine in history. If war is a racket, does that not make Marines professional racketeers, hired thugs who act as enforcers for the mobsters in power? Ask yourself this: what would be the roughly equivalent counterparts of the US Marines in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? To help you answer this question, let me offer a short quote from the Wikipedia entry about the Marine Corps: (emphasis added)

The Marine Corps was founded to serve as an infantry unit aboard naval vessels and was responsible for the security of the ship and its crew by conducting offensive and defensive combat during boarding actions and defending the ship’s officers from mutiny; to the latter end, their quarters on ship were often strategically positioned between the officers’ quarters and the rest of the vessel.

Does that help you identify their Nazi or Soviet counterparts?

Of all people, is it not we, Jews and Russians, who ought to recognize and categorically reject the trappings of Empire and all the rationalizations used to justify the subservient service to Empires?

I believe that history shows beyond any doubt that all Empires are evil, inherently and essentially, evil. They are also therefore equally evil. Shall I explain why?

Do you know what crimes is considered the ultimate, supreme, most evil crime under international law? It is not genocide, or crimes against humanity. Nope, the ultimate crime is the crime of aggression (that, by the way, makes every single US President a war criminal under international law, think of it!). In the the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson, the crime of aggression is the ultimate crime because “it contains within itself the accumulated evil” of all the other war crimes. Well, to paraphrase Jackson, imperialism contains within itself all the accumulated evil of all empires. Guantanamo, Hiroshima, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Gladio and all the rest, they “come with the territory”, they are not the exception, they are the norm.

The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only delays this outcome and allows this abomination to bring even more misery and pain upon millions of innocent people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now also threatens my country, Russia, with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means that this Empire threatens the survival of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the most evil one in history is debatable, but the fact that it is by far the most dangerous one is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to say “enough is enough”? What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?

The Saker

%d bloggers like this: