Hezbollah’s Drone Frightens the Zionists: It’s Only a Prelude to a Massive Aerial Attack Force

Hezbollah’s Drone Frightens the Zionists: It’s Only a Prelude to a Massive Aerial Attack Force

Local Editor

With each new military achievement recorded by Hezbollah in its war against terrorism in Syria, the level of anxiety and tension rises among the Zionists in anticipation of the next confrontation with the resistance.

Hezbollah drone

In this context, the “Israeli” media was highly attentive and fearful of the scenes involving an unmanned drone unveiled by the resistance as it bombed the positions of the Daesh terror organization in the western Qalamoun outskirts. They warned that what is being displayed is only a prelude to an air force with extensive offensive capabilities on the part of Hezbollah, which would alter the balance of power in any future war.

In this regard, Zionist commentators and experts expressed deep concern about the images of the drone displayed by Hezbollah. KAN TV channel said “the scenes show extraordinary capabilities. Although Hezbollah’s attacks were directed at Daesh targets, but there is certainly an “Israeli” follow-up to the operations of Hezbollah.”

The channel added “it is not the first time Hezbollah has shown that it possesses such capabilities. But the use of this weapon at this time after the declaration of a cease-fire in the south west of Syria adds to the growing fears in “Israel” of the security reality, which is forming in Syria that provides freedom of action to Iran and Hezbollah.”

The channel quoted the head of the security studies program at the University of Tel Aviv, Major General Yitzhak Ben “Israel”, as saying: “these images are certainly more helpful to Hezbollah in the psychological war. Tel Aviv did not agree at any time and will not agree in the future to any intensive Iranian presence in Syria because this is a direct threat to us,” noting that “they are addressing this matter through all means, including diplomatic means.”

The channel’s correspondent in the north of Occupied Palestine, Ruby Hammerschlag, said “the images that were displayed reinforce the perception that next time we will face Hezbollah on a completely different scale than we did in 2006. We will confront a more trained Hezbollah with different equipment,” adding that “Hezbollah is no longer an organization but an army in every sense of the word. In the “Israeli” army, they are well aware of this. The scenes presented by Hezbollah have had an impact on the residents of the north, who cannot confront this aerial threat and have been in the past years afraid of the tunnels on the northern border, if there were any.”

For his part, military commentator for Channel 10 Alon Ben David said: “what we’ve seen is an unmanned aircraft flying at a high altitude at a rather slow speed, throwing mortar shells, which is not the best Iranian technology, because the Iranians and Hezbollah have more sophisticated attack aircraft.”

“What has been displayed is only the first step to an important Hezbollah air force, which combines surveillance with offensive capabilities,” Ben David said. “This display of force should not be underestimated.”

The Maariv daily reported that senior Zionist officers admitted to the tense situation at the Lebanese border and the erosion of “Israel’s” deterrence against Hezbollah.

Source: Al-Ahed

23-08-2017 | 08:21
 Related Videos


Related Articles

Trump and American History Have Been Assassinated

Paul Craig Roberts

August 21, 2017

When Trump was elected I wrote that it was unlikely that he would be successful in accomplishing the three objectives for which he was elected—peace with Russia, the return home of offshored US jobs, and effective limits on non-white immigration—because these objectives conflicted with the interests of those more powerful than the president.

I wrote that Trump was unfamiliar with Washington and would fail to appoint a government that would support his goals. I wrote that unless the ruling oligarchy could bring Trump under its control,Trump would be assassinated.

Trump has been brought under control by assassinating him with words rather than with a bullet. With Steve Bannon’s dismissal, there is now no one in Trump’s government who supports him. He is surrounded by Russophobic generals and Zionists.

But this is not enough for the liberal/progressive/left. They want Trump impeached and driven from office.

Marjorie Cohn, whom I have always admired for her defense of civil liberty, has disappointed me. She has written in Truthout, which sadly has become more like PropagandaOut, that the House must bring articles of impeachment against Trump for his abuse of power and before he launches a new civil war and/or nuclear war.

This is an extraordinary conclusion for a normally intelligent person to reach. What power does Trump have? How does he abuse his non-existent power? The ruling Establishment has cut his balls off. He is neutered. Powerless. He has been completely isolated within his own government by the oligarchy.

Even more astonishingly, Marjorie Cohn, together with 100% of the liberal/progressive/left are blind to the fact that they have helped the military/security complex destroy the only leader who advocated peace instead of conflict with the other major nuclear power. Cohn is so deranged by hatred of Trump that she thinks it is Trump who will bring nuclear war by normalizing relations with Russia.

Clearly, the American liberal/progressive/left is no longer capable of rational thought. Hate rules. There is nothing in their lexicon but hate.

The American liberal/progressive/left has degenerated into idiocy. They think that they are fighting “white nationalism” in the White House and that Trump is a champion or symbol of “white nationalism” and that there will be no victory until Trump and all symbols of “white nationalism” are obliterated.

Little do they understand. Ajamu Baraka spells it out for them in CounterPunch. White Supremacy, he writes, is inculcated into the cultural and educational institutions of the West. Liberal and leftist whites are also white supremacists, says Baraka, and Trump and the “alt-right” are nothing but a superficial useful platform on which the white supremacist American liberal/progressive/left can parade its self-righteousness. Ajamu Baraka’s conclusion is “that in order for the world to live, the 525-year-old white supremacist Pan-European, colonial/capitalist patriarchy must die.” It is not difficult to see in this statement that genocide is the solution for the white plague upon humanity. Little wonder the “alt-right” gets exercised by the anti-white propaganda of Identity Politics.

Non-white immigration will finish off the shards of remaining European civilization. All current demographics indicate that all of Europe and North America will sooner than you expect be occupied by non-white majorities.

The problem is not so much the immigrants themselves as it is that they are taught to hate whites by white liberal/progressive/leftists. The destruction of statues will not end with Robert E. Lee’s. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are next. They owned slaves, whereas the Lee family’s slaves were freed by will three years prior to the Lincoln’s invasion of the South. The Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln memorials will have to be destroyed also as they, too, are momuments to racism. Indeed, according to the Identity Politics of the Liberal/progressive/left the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are White Supremacy documents written by racists. This doubles the indictment against Thomas Jefferson and adds all of the Founding Fathers to the indictment. All are guilty of institutionalizing White Supremacy in America.

The uninformed insouciant Average American may think that this is a joke. But no. It is the orthodoxy of the white American intellectual class. It is taught in all the universities.

In Atlanta they are talking about erasing the heads of the South’s generals carved into Stone Mountain. Mount Rushmore in South Dakota will be next. It has carved into it the heads of Washington, Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln. All racists, and Roosevelt was a colonialist and imperialist to boot. Lincoln was the worst racist of all.

Economist/historian Thomas DiLorenzo reminds us that “to his dying day, Lincoln was busy plotting the deportation of all the black people in America, including the soon-to-be-freed slaves.”https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/thomas-dilorenzo/next-target-blacklivesmatter/

The following statements are all statements that are in Abe Lincoln’s Collected Works:

“I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation [of the white and black races] . . . Such separation . . . must be affected by colonization” [sending blacks to Liberia or Central America]. (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln vol. II, p. 409).

“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime.” (Collected Works, vol. II, p. 409).

“I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people” (Collected Works, vol. III, pp. 145-146).

How did Lincoln in the face of his own words and deeds get to be the hero who liberated blacks from slavery? The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave, as Lincoln’s Secretary of State complained. It was a war measure that only applied to slaves under the jurisdiction of the Confederacy in hopes of fomenting a slave rebellion that would pull Southern soldiers off the front lines to rush to the protection of their wives and children. In 1861 the year the North invaded the South, President Lincoln said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so” (First Inaugural Address). In 1862 during the war, Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.”

Lincoln was elevated to the undeserved position of black liberator by the historical lies made up by white liberal/progressive/leftists who hate the South. They are so consumed by hate that they do not understand that the hate that they teach will also devour them. They should read Jean Raspail’s book, The Camp of the Saints. People taught racial hate do not differentiate between good and bad members of the people they are taught to hate. All are equally guilty. As one Third Worlder wrote to me, “all whites are guilty,” even those such as myself who speak out against the West’s atrocities against the darker-skinned peoples.

The Amerian liberal/progressive/left has long been engaged in demonizing white people exactly as Nazis demonized Jews and Communists demonized capitalists. One would think that the liberal/progressive/leftists would be aware of what happened to the Jews and to the Russian, Chinese and East European capitalists and bourgeois middle class. Why do the liberal/progressive/leftists think they will escape the consequences of teaching hate?

What has Charlottesville taught us other than that the hate expressed by the liberal/progressive/left exceeds the hate expressed by the white nationalists themselves. When it comes to hate, the White Supremacists are out-gunned by the liberal/progressive/left.

Hate is the hallmark of the American liberal/progressive/left, and hate always ends in violence.

The Northern ruling economic interests had no interest in devoting resources to a war to free slaves. They wanted the Union held together so that there would be no competition for the lands west of the Mississippi and so there would be an agrarian sector to which to market northern manufactured goods protected by tariffs against lower priced British goods.

The northern work force didn’t want any freed slaves either. The large number of recent Irish immigrants driven out of Ireland by the British starvation policy called Lincoln’s war “a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.” What freed slaves meant for the northern working class was a larger labor supply and lower wages. In 1863 when the Republicans passed the draft, the Irish in Detroit and New York rioted. The rioters took out their anger and frustration on northern blacks, many of whom were lynched. It is not clear to me whether more backs were lynched in the North during the war or in the South during Reconstruction. If there are any memorials to the Irish, those racist statues will have to be taken down also. Perhaps even the Statue of Liberty is racist.

And we haven’t yet heard from Native Americans. In his excruciating history, The Long Death: The Last Days of the Plains Indians, Ralph K. Andrist describes the genocide of the Plains Indians by Lincoln’s Civil War generals, William Tecumseh Sherman, Phillip Sheridan, Grenville Dodge and other of the first war criminals of the modern age who found it a lot easier to conduct warfare against Southern women and children than against armed troops. Against the Native Americans Lincoln’s generals now conducted a policy of genocide that was even more horrible and barbaric than Sheridan’s destruction of Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley.

Lincoln historian Professor Thomas DiLorenzo provides a synopsis of the genocide of Native Americans here: http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803

During the eight year presidency of General Ulysses S. Grant, 1868-76, the Union generals conducted a policy of extermination against the Native Americans. Entire villages, every man, woman, and child, were wiped out. The Union Army’s scorched earth policy starved to death those Indians who escaped fire and sword.

Professor DiLorenzo writes:

“Sherman and Sheridan’s troops conducted more than one thousand attacks on Indian villages, mostly in the winter months, when families were together. The U.S. Army’s actions matched its leaders’ rhetoric of extermination. As mentioned earlier, Sherman gave orders to kill everyone and everything, including dogs, and to burn everything that would burn so as to increase the likelihood that any survivors would starve or freeze to death. The soldiers also waged a war of extermination on the buffalo, which was the Indians’ chief source of food, winter clothing, and other goods (the Indians even made fish hooks out of dried buffalo bones and bow strings out of sinews). By 1882, the buffalo were all but extinct.”

Indian warriors who were captured were subjected to the type of trials and executions that the George W. Bush regime gave Saddam Hussein: “hundreds of Indians who had been taken prisoner were subjected to military ‘trials’ lasting about ten minutes each, according to Nichols (1978). Most of the adult male prisoners were found guilty and sentenced to death—not based on evidence of the commission of a crime, but on their mere presence at the end of the fighting.” In other words, POWs were executed, for which the US executed German officers at Nuremberg.

The Union massacre of the Indians began before the Civil War was won. DiLorenzo reports:

“One of the most famous incidents of Indian extermination, known as the Sand Creek Massacre, took place on November 29, 1864. There was a Cheyenne and Arapaho village located on Sand Creek in southeastern Colorado. These Indians had been assured by the U.S. government that they would be safe in Colorado. The government instructed them to fly a U.S. flag over their village, which they did, to assure their safety. However, another Civil War ‘luminary,’ Colonel John Chivington, had other plans for them as he raided the village with 750 heavily armed soldiers. One account of what happened appears in the book Crimsoned Prairie: The Indian Wars (1972) by the renowned military historian S. L. A. Marshall, who held the title of chief historian of the European Theater in World War II and authored thirty books on American military history.

“Chivington’s orders were: ‘I want you to kill and scalp all, big and little.’ ( Marshall 1972, 37). Then, despite the display of the U.S. flag and white surrender flags by these peaceful Indians, Chivington’s troops ‘began a full day given over to blood-lust, orgiastic mutilation, rapine, and destruction—with Chivington looking on and approving’ (Marshall 1972, 38). Marshall notes that the most reliable estimate of the number of Indians killed is ‘163, of which 110 were women and children’ (p. 39).

“Upon returning to his fort, Chivington ‘and his raiders demonstrated around Denver, waving their trophies, more than one hundred drying scalps. They were acclaimed as conquering heroes, which was what they had sought mainly.’ One Republican Party newspaper announced, ‘Colorado soldiers have once again covered themselves with glory’ (Marshall 1972, 39).

DiLorenzo reports: “The books by Brown and Marshall show that the kind of barbarism that occurred at Sand Creek, Colorado, was repeated many times during the next two decades.”

General Sherman, a war criminal far in excess of anything the Nazis were able to produce, wrote to his wife early in the Civil War that his purpose was “extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [Southern] people.”

His wife responded: Conduct a “war of extermination” and drive all Southerners “like the swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing” ( Walters 1973, 61).

DiLorenzo observes that Sherman did his best to take his wife’s advice.

The extreme hatred and barbarity to which the Northern war criminals had subjected Southern non-combatants broke like fury over the Plains Indians. Distinguished military historians have described the orders given to General Custer by Phillip Sheridan as “the most brutal orders ever published to American troops.”

Clearly, if we are taking down statues, we can’t stop with Robert E. Lee. We will have to take down the Statues of Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and all the rest of the Union war criminals who implemented what they themselves called “the final solution to the Indian problem.”

The designation of the northern invasion of the South as a civil war is itself a lie. The term “civil war” is used to cover up the fact that the North initiated a war of aggression, thus removing the sin of war from the North. A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. However, the South had no interest or intent to control the government in Washington. All the Southern states did is to use the constitutional right to end their voluntary association with other states in the United States. The South fought because the South was invaded. Southerners did not regard the War of Northern Aggression as a civil war. They clearly understood that the war was a war of Northern Aggression.

As brutal as Lincoln’s war criminal armies were to Southern civilians, the inhumanity of the brutality toward Southern people escalated during the long period called Reconstruction. The Northern ruling Republicans did their best to subject the South to rule by the blacks while Northern “carpetbaggers” stole everything that they could. No white Southern woman was safe from rape. “Civil War” buffs have told me that there were southern towns in which all the women were hidden in the woods outside of town to protect them from the Republican Union soldiers and the former slaves that the Republican agents of Reconstruction encouraged. What happened to the South at the hands of the Republicans was no different from what the Russians and Americans did in Germany when the Wehrmacht surrendered. The demonized KKK was an organization that arose to protect what remained of the South’s honor from unbearable humiliations.

Consequently, for decades no Southern person would vote Republican. The Democrats lost the “solid South” by aping the Reconstruction Republicans and again bringing Reconstruction to the South, using federal force instead of persuasion.

No real facts are any longer taught in the US about the so-called “Civil War.” In the place of the actual history stands only lies.

In an accompanying guest contribution, economist/historian Professor Thomas DiLorenzo explains the real reason that Lincoln invaded the South. He shows that Lincoln’s success in conquering the South destroyed the political character of the United States that had been formed by the Founding Fathers. He also shows that the Union policy of conducting war against civilians created the precedents for the massive war crimes of the 20th and 21st centuries. Seldom does the opportunity arise to acquire an enlightening and accurate history lesson from one article. That is what Professor DiLorenzo has delivered. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/21/lincoln-myth-ideological-cornerstone-america-empire/

Trump’s Fascism versus Obama’s Fascism

by Eric Zuesse

August 20, 2017

Trump’s Fascism versus Obama’s Fascism

Barack Obama was the only U.S. President who at the United Nations defended nazism — racist fascism — and Holocaust-denial. It received almost no reporting by the press at the time (or subsequently). But his successor President Donald Trump could end up being removed from office because he said that racist fascists are just the same as are people who demonstrate publicly against them. Trump’s politically stupid (not to say callous) remark became viral, and apparently the press (which had ignored Obama’s defense of nazism at the U.N.) just won’t let go of Trump’s statement unless and until he becomes replaced by his even-more-far-right Vice President, Mike Pence.

Why is there this intense press-coverage of Trump’s support of racist fascism, when there wasn’t of Obama’s (which was actually far more meaningful)? The answer comes closer if we ponder first a different question: How could the Republican Party, which is right-wing at its core, condemn a Democratic Party President who goes out of his way at the U.N. to protect today’s nazis? That wouldn’t be politically practical for Republican politicians to complain about (a Democrat’s being too far to the right); so, they didn’t do it. Similarly, no Democrat will criticize a Republican for being too leftist. There may be a few exceptions, but that’s the general rule: Successful politicians don’t offend their base.

But that still doesn’t fully answer why the press ignored it when Obama defended nazism at the U.N. The rest of the answer comes when we recognize that America’s press gets its cues from the two political Parties. If the ‘opposition’ (and not just the President’s own Party) is hiding something egregious that a President is doing or has done (such as happened there with Obama, and with many other conservative policies that Obama executed), then the press will hide it, too. Republicans weren’t calling attention to Obama’s defense of nazism, because they’d then be offending some of their own supporters. (Democrats weren’t calling attention to it, because a Democrat was doing this, which didn’t fit the ‘progressive’ storyline.) And, if the ‘opposition’ isn’t pointing it out, then neither will the press. The matter will then just be ignored — which is what happened. This was thus bipartisan non-reporting, of what Obama did. There was a lot of that while Obama was President.

In other words: America’s press are tools of, and are led by, the same people who actually, deep down, control both of America’s political Parties — the billionaires. They control both politics, and also the press. Numerous social-science studies have shown that the wealthier a person is, the likelier that person is to be politically conservative — at least to the extent that political conservatism doesn’t threaten his or her particular business and financial interests. As America’s billionaires have come to control America’s politics, this country has been moving farther and farther to the right, except on the relatively few issues (such as immigration, gay rights, etc.) where their own economic interests are served better by a progressive position (or, at least, by a position that seems to most people to be progressive).

Trump’s problem here is that he’s too obviously playing to his Party’s base. Obama didn’t need to do that, because he had massive support from billionaires, and he was a much better liar than Trump, good enough to keep many progressive voters with him even after he had already shafted them in his actual policies. For example, when Obama dropped ‘the public option’ as soon as he became elected, he was excused for it because most Americans thought he was simply being practical and avoiding an ‘unnecessary’ conflict with the opposite Party in Congress. This view ignored that he gave up on it even as being a bargaining-chip to get concessions from congressional Republicans to drive new legislation to be more progressive. Obama had no interest in progressivism. Actually, Obama didn’t want to offend his mega-donors. He thus handed the task of drafting the Obamacare law to the conservative Democrat, and public-option opponent, Max Baucus, instead of to the progressive Democrat and public-option supporter, Ted Kennedy, who desperately wanted (and expected) to have the opportunity to draft it.

Both Trump and Obama (in their actions, if not also in their words) are proponents of what Benito Mussolini called “Corporationism” — big-corporate control of the government, which Mussolini more-commonly referred to as “fascism.” President Trump has been widely condemned both here in the U.S. and around the world (which his predecessor President Barack Obama never was), for his recent blatant statement equating the worst of fascists, which are racist fascists, as being comparable to the people who in Charlottesville Virginia had marched and demonstrated against racist fascists and who were violently attacked and one of them killed by racist fascists, against whom they had been protesting. Trump was equating anti-fascists with fascists, and he even equated racist fascists — ideological nazis — with the people who were protesting specifically against nazism. Apparently, the press won’t let go of it. They treat this event as if top-level U.S. nazism were unprecedented in today’s post-WW-II America — as if this nation were still anti-nazi (as it had been in FDR’s White House), and as if this incident with Trump says something only about Trump, and not also, and far more meaningfully, about today’s American government, including Trump’s own immediate predecessor-in-office, and also about America’s current press-institution, and about what it has become.

As this reporter had headlined on 24 November 2014, “U.S. Among Only 3 Countries at U.N. Officially Backing Nazism & Holocaust-Denial; Israel Parts Company from Them; Germany Abstains”. Obama and his friend and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power were unapologetic about having done that at the U.N., and Obama’s U.N. representative continued in that vein. As I headlined a few months later, on 21 June 2015, “America’s U.N. Ambassador Continues Standing Up for Nazis”. Both of those two news-articles were submitted to all of the U.S. and also to much of the European mainstream — and additionally to some of the ‘alt-news’ — international-news media, but each of the two articles was published only in around a half-dozen of only alternative-news sites. The ‘news’media (especially the mainstream ones) weren’t nearly as concerned about Obama’s blatantly racist-fascist, and specifically anti-Russian, actions, as they are concerned today, about the current U.S. President’s bending-over-backwards to retain his support from America’s racist-fascist or nazi voters, whom he apparently considers an essential part of his base. (Why else would he even say such a thing?)

Whereas Obama was imposing an actual nazi international campaign (via a violent anti-democratic coup, followed by an ethnic-cleansing campaign to cement it) in which his U.N. Ambassador played her necessary role, Trump was politically supporting an important portion of his voting-base, but not doing anything in actual policy-fact — at the U.N. or anywhere else — such as Obama had done. But the press focuses on Trump as if he were initiating the acceptability of nazism in the U.S. body-politic. Trump wasn’t.

Obama had done something truly remarkable: he was the first U.S. President, since the pre-Civil-War U.S. had ended and U.S. President Abraham Lincoln courageously led this nation clearly and explicitly away from its deeply racist past, to support publicly, and to carry out in policy a clearly racist policy-initiative, a blatant ethnic-cleansing military campaign. It aimed to remove from Ukraine’s voter-rolls the residents of the areas of Ukraine where from 75% to 90% of the voters had voted for the democratically elected Ukrainian President whom Obama in February 2014 had just overthrown by hiring racist-facist gunmen to drive out of power that man whom those people had so heavily voted for, in what now turned out to have been Ukraine’s final democratic nationwide election. Unless Obama eliminated those voters — ethnic Russians — the far-right politicians whom he had placed into power after the U.S. coup wouldn’t last through the first Ukrainian national election after the coup. Ethnic-cleansing was the only way to make Obama’s coup-regime stick; so, that’s what he wanted his Ukrainian stooges to do, and they tried their utmost to do it (and they’re still trying).

With all of the decades that have passed after World War II, not only Americans but also publics elsewhere, including publics in nations that America considers to be ‘allies’, such as Israel, seem to have lost any consciousness they might have had in the wake of Hitler’s defeat, about what racist fascism — what the ideology (and not just the German political party, where it had an initial capital letter) nazism — actually was, and what it meant. It wasn’t just anti-Semitic fascism that had been defeated in that war, but anti-Korean fascism, and anti-Chinese fascism, and anti-Russian fascism, and more forms of racist capitalistic dictatorship, the nazi ideology, which were defeated in WW II. During John F. Kennedy’s Presidency, the U.S. federal government very reluctantly started to deal with this country’s deepseated residual institutional racism against America’s Blacks; but, still, the ethnocentrism in America — even among Blacks and Jews — remained so pronounced, so that President Obama on 28 May 2014 could, without shame or any political embarrassment, tell the graduating class of future U.S. military leaders at West Point:

The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.

But the world is changing with accelerating speed. This presents opportunity, but also new dangers. We know all too well, after 9/11, just how technology and globalization has put power once reserved for states in the hands of individuals, raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm. Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts and failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago.

It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead — not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.

Now, this question isn’t new. At least since George Washington served as Commander-in-Chief, there have been those who warned against, foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic wellbeing. Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve. And not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many Americans.

A different view from interventionists from the left and right says that we ignore these conflicts at our own peril; that America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos.

He said that all nations other than the U.S. are “dispensable.” He said that the BRICS countries and “rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums,” and that “It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead — not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.” He said that “conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are … ours to solve.” He derided “self-described realists” who didn’t share his international idealism, of his own nation’s seeking out, instead of warning “against, foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic wellbeing.” He said that “America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos,” and that George Washington was wrong.

He was saying that Hitler and Hirohito were right; that they had merely led the ‘wrong’ countries.

This man, who had just led the bloody coup and instigated the ethnic-cleansing campaign that forced two regions of the former Ukraine to secede from Ukraine and to seek instead Russia’s protection (and he then instituted sanctions against Russia for providing that protection to them), was there and then lecturing America’s future military leaders, to instruct them that they would have the right to invade “dispensable” countries, and to “apply force around the world,” in order to deal with the BRICS countries and “rising middle classes [that] compete with us, and governments [that] seek a greater say in global forums.” (He wanted none of that freedom for them.) He said that ignoring George Washington is “the ultimate safeguard against chaos,” and is somehow in accord with America’s values, even if not of George Washington’s values.

The ultimate insult was that this was coming from a man who considered himslef to be a Black — as if he were in the tradition of Martin Luther King, who had urged America to quit its invasion of Vietnam. Instead, Obama invaded and wrecked Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen.

Well, that wasn’t actually quite the ultimate insult: the ultimate insult was that Blacks continued to believe in him, and never turned against that nazi. They evidently keep what some of them call (as if it were a racial trait) ‘White man’s values’.

Values are not a racial trait, but stupidity and small-mindedness are the human norm everywhere, and no nation is ‘indispensable’ — far less, is any ‘the one indispensable nation’: not ancient Rome, not Germany, not Japan, not the U.S. — none, at all.

Trump’s foreign policies seem to be mainly aiming to out-do his predecessor’s. But, in no way is Trump yet the nazi that Obama proved himself to be. Trump could turn out to be that bad, if the people who are urging him to intensify America’s war against Russia and/or against Iran have their way. The “neoconservatives” (the foreign-policy ideology that’s sponsored by America’s billionaires of both the Republican and the Democratic Parties) seem still to be basically in control. Trump nonetheless could turn out to be the idealist that Obama, Hitler, and Hirohito, were, but there’s at least the possibility that he will instead turn out to be one of “the self-described realists” whom Obama had derided. Trump hasn’t yet exposed his true self, to the extent that Obama did during his eight years. But the ‘news’media are already calling Trump a “White racist.” It seems that the people who cheered-on Obama’s nazism (except when they said that Obama was being  ‘too cautious’ about it) don’t like Trump, at all.

But, are America’s billionaires really that eager to replace Trump by Pence? One might wonder how far this campaign will go.


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.

حبّاً بالجيش أم كرهاً بالمقاومة؟ 

ناصر قنديل

أغسطس 22, 2017

– فجأة صار الذين أنكروا وجود الإرهاب على الحدود وفي الجرود، واسموهم ثواراً، من دعاة الحرب على الإرهاب، يرفعون رايات الجيش اللبناني الذي يخوض حرباً ضروساً على جماعات تنظيم داعش هناك، وقد مضى عليها ثلاث سنوات وهؤلاء أنفسهم يشكلون طابوراً خامساً يربط مصير هذا الاحتلال بمعادلات وظيفية لتخديم مشروع حرب تورط فيها ضد سورية منذ سبع سنوات. فمرة لا يمكن المخاطرة بحرب سترتب آثاراً مأساوية على النازحين، ومرة لا يمكن الفصل بسهولة بين حمل هؤلاء للسلاح، ولو تحت لواء تنظيمات إرهابية، وبين ما يسمونه الثورة في سورية والموقف من نظام يكيلون له كل الشتائم التي تبرر تغطية بقاء الإرهاب محتلاً جزءاً من لبنان.

– عندما يخرج هؤلاء مدافعين عن الجيش اللبناني في هذه الحرب، فهل هذا تعبير عن صحوة ضمير أو التزام باستحقاق وطني، أم تعبير عن توافق وطني كبير وراء الجيش، واصطفاف جامع للبنانيين، أم هو ما تفسره الجملة الثانية لكلمة نعم للجيش، والتي يتخذون منصة دعم الجيش مدخلاً لقولها. وهي بيت القصيد، فيندلع النص على ألسنتهم بعناوين مثل، اللاتنسيق هو ضمانة نصر الجيش، ولا حاجة للتنسيق، ولا مبرر بعد معركة الجيش للحديث عن حاجة لسلاح المقاومة، ومعركة الجيش أسقطت مبررات تدخل المقاومة في الحرب في سورية؟

– طبعاً، لن تدخل المقاومة ولا أهلها في ما يريده هؤلاء من ابتداع سجال تنافسي غير موجود بين الجيش والمقاومة، وكل نصر يحققه الجيش وكل مصدر قوة يظهره، يشكل سبباً لتحية وإكبار ينالهما من أهل المقاومة وقادتها. والنقاش ببساطة مع هؤلاء الذين يفتعلون غباراً لا أساس له، هو بعد السؤال عن سر حماسهم اليوم للمعركة التي يخوضها الجيش بعكس الأمس، وهل المتغير هو خوض المقاومة لنصفها الأول؟ والسؤال هل يستطيعون كدعاة لوقوف لبنان ضمن التحالف الدولي الذي تقوده واشنطن أن يفسروا لنا لماذا يتخلف طيران التحالف عن مؤازرة الجيش اللبناني في معاركه، أسوة بما يفعله مع تشكيلات أقل قيمة عسكرياً وسياسياً؟

– يقول هؤلاء قصائد الحب للجيش أملاً بتحويلها لمنصات كراهية للمقاومة ويتجاهلون أن شباب هذه المقاومة لبنانيون لهم عائلاتهم التي تنتظر عودتهم بفارغ الصبر، ولهم جامعاتهم التي اشتاقت مقاعدها إليهم، ولهم حياتهم التي هجروها ليحموا بلدهم بينما تلهّى سواهم بالقول والفعل على إيقاع ما تأتي به أوامر سفارات لم يقدم أصحابها للبنان إلا الفتن، وعلى المتفلسفين ألا يحلموا بدخولنا النقاش معهم تحت عنوان التشكيك بقدرات الجيش الذي نحبّ وبه نفتخر، بل أن يجيبوا عن أسئلة تمس جوهر خياراتهم وخيارات أسيادهم، إذا كانت معادلة الجيش والشعب والمقاومة قد سقطت في حرب الجرود، فهل سنتوقع تزويد واشنطن لجيشنا الوطني بشبكات الدفاع الجوي لحماية أجوائنا من العربدة «الإسرائيلية»، فنطمئن أننا لا نحتاج لقدرة الردع التي تملكها المقاومة لمنع إسرائيل من التفكير بالعدوان؟ وهل لديهم كلمة سر بأن الباتريوت مقبل إلى خزائن تسليح الجيش اللبناني، أم فقط يريدون من التحية للجيش في إنجازاته تجريد لبنان من مصادر قوته بوجه «إسرائيل» ليشمتوا معها بالاستفراد بالجيش، وإملاء شروط الإذعان التي سبق وصفقوا لها منذ ثلاثة عقود جماعات ومنفردين، وتكفّلت المقاومة بإسقاطها؟

– معادلات حرب الجرود تقول ما يقرأه «الإسرائيليون» فيها، فبدلاً من معادلة جيش وشعب ومقاومة انتقلنا إلى معادلة لا تحتاج الإعلام والتباهي بها علناً، هي معادلة جيشان وشعبان ومقاومة.

– سدّدوا فواتيركم كما شئتم لمن ينتظرها منكم ويسألكم عن الدعوات لنشر اليونيفيل على الحدود، وقولوا غداً عنها، هذا حصرم رأيته في حلب، فلم يعد لديكم إلا لعبة الفواتير والتسديد، أما الفعل فقد صار في مكان آخر.

Related Videos

Related Articles

مقالات مشابهة

ISIS virtually finished in Lebanon as Hezbollah, Syrian Army speed up offensive

  Map Update

DAMASCUS, SYRIA (1:40 A.M.) – ISIS’ enclave on the border between Lebanon and Syria is imploding at an astonishing pace with Hezbollah, the Lebanese Army and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) all advancing in one big coordinated push.

Over the past 24 hours, counter-insurgency efforts have led to the capture of some 45 square kilometers of ISIS-held territory, thereby paving the way for the complete elimination of the Islamic State’s forces in Lebanon.

The main advance took place at the northern fringes of the pocket according to a military source close to Al-Masdar News. He stressed that pro-government forces from the eastern axis (between Al-Mosul and Sin Fiknah) managed to meet up with allied troops further west (between Al-Foqa and the Balousi Dam) on Tuesday; over a dozen hills were secured in the process while ISIS retreated towards rearguard areas.


With ISIS fighters trapped in a smaller and smaller area, they soon face no option but to surrender or die in battle trying to grip onto control of the mountainous West Qalamoun region.

Related Videos

Related News

Trump thinks the USA has been “Nation-Building” & killing terrorists

Trump Unveils New, Dramatic Afghanistan Strategy: “We Aren`t Nation-Building Again, We Are Killing Terrorists”

In a widely anticipated national address, President Donald Trump on Monday announced that he will not pull out U.S. troops from Afghanistan, saying he’s committed to a new strategy aimed at winning the nation’s longest war, now in its 17th year. Admitting that his “original instinct was to pull out” of Afghanistan – Trump’s core campaign pledge was to reduce US intervention in offshore conflicts – Trump effectively admitted he had been wrong, and said he’s arrived at three “fundamental conclusions” about America’s core interests in Afghanistan:

  • U.S. “must seek an honorable and enduring outcome” in which American troops “deserve a plan for victory”
  • The consequences of a rapid exit would be “predictable and unacceptable” adding that “a hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill, just as happened before September 11”
  • The security threats U.S. faces “are immense”; and “we cannot repeat the mistake in Afghanistan our leaders made in Iraq.”

Trump also promised to the soldiers gathered for the speech that “One way or another, these problems will be solved. I am a problem solver. And in the end, we will win.”

In other words, Trump is unveiling a dramatic, new offensive in Afghanistan, only instead of giving details on troop deployments, specific dates, or what the definition of victory would be, Trump will keep the details of the new involvement secret, and that “conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on.

We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities. Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on. America’s enemies must never know our plans or believe they can wait us out. I will not say when we are going to attack, but attack we will. Another fundamental pillar of our new strategy is the integration of all instruments of American power, diplomatic, economic, and military, toward a successful outcome. Someday, after an effective military effort, perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban and Afghanistan, but nobody knows if or when that will ever happen. America will continue its support for the Afghan government and the Afghan military as they confront the Taliban in the field.

Trump also defined what a victory in Afghanistan would mean:

Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win. From now on, victory will have a clear definition — attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge. We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy, with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own. We are confident they will.


Taking a quick detour into domestic politics, Trump said that “the young men and women we sent to fight our wars abroad deserve to return to a country that is not at war with itself at home. We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other.”

Same was true about Obama as with Trump, as soon as they become President their views totally change-Who’s getting to them?

14 Times Trump Warned Against Doing What He Just Did in Afghanistan

Anti-Media – by Aaron Nelson

On the same day millions of Americans were thrilled to witness — and equally distracted by — a total solar eclipse, Donald Trump decided it was time to announce a “dramatically different” foreign policy plan for the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

Just how “different” is Trump’s new plan? In reality, the ‘new’ plan is simply more of the same failed policy of the past, one Trump promised to put an end to numerous times over the years prior to moving into the White House. The only difference is the childish language Trump used to justify the decision, repeatedly vowing to “win” the same conflict James Mattis told Congress “we are not winning” back in June.  

On Monday, August 21, 2017, Trump revealed to Fox News that he had signed off on sending 4,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in what is officially the longest war in the history of the United States. Early Tuesday morning, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg praised Trump’s decision to commit more soldiers to fight on the ground in Afghanistan, reminding allies that NATO is fully committed to backing the ‘new’ plan:

“NATO remains fully committed to Afghanistan and I am looking forward to discussing the way ahead with [U.S. Defense] Secretary [James] Mattis and our allies and international partners,” Stoltenberg said in a statement.

America’s favorite war hawk, John McCain, also praised President Trump’s strategy for Afghanistan. He said in a statement that he believes “the President is now moving us well beyond the prior administration’s failed strategy of merely postponing defeat,” also noting that Trump faces the challenge of keeping “the right level of effort, in the right places, with the right authorities and resources to see this conflict through to success.” He continued:

“To do this, the President must conduct himself as a wartime commander-in-chief. He must speak regularly to the American people, and to those waging this war on their behalf, about why we are fighting, why the additional sacrifices are worth it, and how we will success.”

On Fox News, Lindsey Graham said he was “proud” of Donald Trump’s decision:

“President Trump has the smarts and the moral courage to listen to his generals and take their advice rather than go the political way.”



“What are we doing there? These people hate us. As soon as we leave, it’s all going to blow up anyway. And you say, ‘What are we doing there?’ We’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars, trillions of dollars on this nonsense. … What are we doing? We’re a debtor nation. We can’t build our own schools, yet we build schools in Afghanistan.”

In December 2011 on CNN, Trump said we should “get out” of Afghanistan, declaring:

“We have to rebuild our country. We’re rebuilding. You know, you go to Afghanistan. There is a school. It gets blown up. We rebuild it. We build a road to the school. They both get blown up. We rebuild. In the meantime, if you want to build a school in Brooklyn or Iowa or California, you can’t build them.”

The only facts that were clear following President Trump’s speech on Afghanistan was that nobody knows what to do, and America is clearly not winning.


%d bloggers like this: