France directly liable for killings in Syria: President Assad

France directly liable for killings in Syria: President Assad

Press TV – February 17, 2017

President Bashar al-Assad says France’s support for terrorist groups operating against the Syrian government and people is a direct cause of bloodshed in the Arab country.

“The policy of France, that started from day one, has been to support terrorists in Syria, and is responsible directly for the killings in our country,” Assad told TF1 and Europe 1, respectively a French channel and a French radio network.

Assad further said his remarks were not a mere accusation as French officials have on numerous occasions admitted that they are supporting militants in Syria.

“They said many times they supported the war,” said the Syrian leader. “They said that they send armaments to whom they call moderate groups, which are terrorists. They said that; I didn’t say it. The Americans said the same, the French said the same.”

Read more:

The Syrian head of state further cast doubt on the sincerity of Western states in their approach towards the crisis in Syria.

“We have to be cautious with every Western leader because they can say something and do the opposite… do something in the morning and do the opposite in the evening…They don’t have values in their policies,” he added.

File photo of a militant from a foreign-backed group taking part in military training in Syria

Assad said the fate of the Syrian people is not for the West to determine.

“My people have to choose, because this is a Syrian issue, to be frank with you,” he said.

“So, we don’t care about what the Western officials think about this. They have to worry about their people and to protect their people from the terrorist attacks that have been happening because of their policies.”

The foreign-backed violence in Syria has unleashed an influx of refugees toward Europe. The inrush has put the continent on alert against potential entry of terrorists and arms smugglers among asylum seekers.

France’s election in total chaos for the mainstream

February 06, 2017

by Ramin Mazaheri

France’s election in total chaos for the mainstream

Is this the end of France’s mainstream political parties?

The day of reckoning certainly should be near. When 77% of France believes parliamentarians, are corrupt then you have a fundamental problem with your system. If you don’t trust you’re the highest rung of the legislative branch, then that house needs to be purged.

It seems it’s going to happen this election cycle for the executive branch, at least. Legislatively…that will require much more revolutionary spirit.

In my daily reporting for Press TV I’ve covered this “our politicians are all corrupt” story many times over the years. I’m always interested to ask the French the simple question: “Why is France so especially mistrustful of their politicians?” Their response usually is…to defend the system they find so corrupt, LOL:

They say that because they live in such a very, very free country only they are can say these types of things openly (state of emergency nearing 16th month but ignore this). Yes, only the impossible-to-seal mouths of the truly-free French dare speak the truth! The truth being, by implication, that all politicians everywhere are corrupt.

This is, of course, not at all true.

First, the French have some outdated fantasy of other countries being ruled by a secret police, where all criticism can only be whispered in dark alleyways. Never mind the omnipresence of their own secret police.

Second, the entire world does not all share their faithless cynicism in politicians. This is a French cultural problem which runs deeper than hypocrisy, which is a very human foible we all share. I discussed politics with dozens of Cubans recently and I never heard any depressing, cynical thoughts about their politicians as are routinely expressed here. I heard complaints, but different ones, and that is my point.

But, rationalize such cynicism however you like. In fact, let’s move on and just blame the Roma and the Muslims, LOL.

Of course, we still must return back to the reality of staggering corruption in French politics.

The downfall of Francois Fillon, the ‘great man’

Ingrained in Western capitalism and their bourgeois democracies is the idea that the masses are ignorant and that a great man is needed to lead them. A man of moral integrity and prophetic vision – much more than just a “council of grandfathers” must guide the French tribe.

Fillon was that man…according to his campaign platform.

His idea was that only a person of his irreproachable moral integrity could…properly inflict twice as many austerity cuts properly.

He was the clear favorite so this idea actually resonated – the moral part seemed to obscure the austerity part, apparently out of desperation for the lack of moral fortitude displayed by those in the nation’s highest offices.

Fillon was high in the polls and high above us masses in his country manor, just marking an ‘x’ on the calendar for each day he was closer to surely taking office in May.

All he had to do was not screw up, because I can report there was simply not enough proof of support for Marine Le Pen to beat him in the 2nd round, or even make it close. Of course, we are still months from the vote, and things change.

And change they did!

We are now all patiently waiting for Fillon’s proof to disprove “Penelopegate”: allegations that his wife and children got over 1 million euros in ghost jobs.

He hasn’t and he won’t.

He says he will share “proof” of work such as pay slips only with the police. LOL, Francois, proof of payment is not proof of work.

If Frank had any proof…he would have immediately shown it to the media to clear his name and continue coasting to the presidency. However, he only had bizarre identity-politics accusations such as “misogyny” against his wife to counter the claims. I feel bad for the reporters who had to report that without irony….Image result

And how the mainstream loved Fillon! This poster from mainstream magazine Le Point was all over Paris back in November, forcing everyone with a brain in their head to roll their eyes backwards to their personal happy place. It reads “The Incredible Mr. Fillon”.

LOL Le Point, great call on that one! Superb journalistic instincts! Impeccable analysis! I see why you are the top of the top here in France!

Well, every journalist takes orders from whoever signs their paycheck, and the larger point is: The 1% loved Fillon, trusted Fillon, and he was one of them (just on the basis of ghost job income).

Not 1 but both mainstream parties ousted? Pinch me I’m dreaming….

Fillon has absolutely and properly plummeted from 1st to 3rd place in the latest presidential polls. He wouldn’t make the 2nd and final round, were the vote held today.

It’s a shocking fall, but maybe the French are finally punishing people for corruption? If the state won’t do it, as in China, then it’s up to voters. This idiosyncrasy of the Western democratic system – corruption is punished by not winning re-election, as opposed to the prison terms handed out for normal crooks – has clearly worked out fantastically for the 1% in France, who staff Parliament.

Problem is, Fillon is still running 3rd – he could make a comeback.

They all do in France, at least on the right – Sarkozy, Juppé, etc. On the left they are more likely to get permanently exiled – Strauss-Kahn, Cazeneuve, and does anyone see a comeback from Hollande?

Makes one wonder: Which side has the greater moral backbone: The conservative Catholic rural voters or the urban and urbane Socialists? One would think it would be the former, but explain that riddle then?

Anyway, my point to international readers is that the joyful arrival of Penelopegate currently portends the death of not just the already-dead Socialists but the conservative Les Républicains, i.e. both mainstream parties.

That, in a western democracy, is extremely rare, and I can’t recall a postwar historical example in any of the West’s UN veto-wielding nations.

So, now who? Wait…why are you looking at me? I work for Iranian state media, not a fashionable, rich media like Le Point – I must know nothing, right? I didn’t even think Fillon was that incredible?

Frozen mainstream Eskimos float the old out for an icy funeral

Polls currently have 4 candidates within 8% points of each other. I hate to say I told you so, and I’m directing this one towards the US and Trump-Clinton: ignore “margin of error” at your peril.

You can’t call a race when it’s that tight so…check back later.

However, I predict the mainstream media here won’t take this honest and sensible view: The 1% can’t show any disunity among something as important as the presidency – remember how it was “Clinton for certain” in the US?

The mainstream doesn’t want to report the actual facts – that there is chaos, instability and unpredictability in France’s election. Nor is the mainstream media, as Trump v. Clinton reminded everyone, in the habit of listening to the needs of the masses or reporting things properly.

They will circle the wagons around a preferred candidate very soon.

But for now it is fair to say that Marine Le Pen will almost definitely get into the second round…and lose against whoever she faces: There hasn’t been a poll which showed her winning the 2nd round that I’m aware of.

I refuse to believe, because it takes time for my brain to accept change, these most recent polls, which have former Rothschild banker Emmanuel Macron beating Le Pen 66-33% in the 2nd round.

Maybe my brain was impacted by all the tear gas and other violence thrown my way during the months of protests against his Macron Law to accept the heretofore shocking idea that he could be president in May, or that he should be.

The Macron Law…man, that will stand in infamy. That was the right-wing roll back of France’s labor code last year.

Now THAT was the biggest blow against French culture in recent years, as it brings France more in line with the US-UK-German economic model.

There went France’s worker security – nobody punches a clock here, the vast majority have the stability provided by a monthly salary – but now you can get used to more part-time work like in the three Anglo-Saxon countries I listed. Get used to lower wages, as part-time work always pays worse, but the capitalists love this programmed underemployment – keeps ‘em desperate scared and docile.

There went your French exceptionalism, and the colorblind among us will note that it did not go because of a chubby mother in a hejab pushing a stroller while hoping for the best future for her children…but you believe whatever you want.

There went, sadly, my quiet, no-shopping-allowed Sundays in Paris, which is the densest Western cityand so, so busy most of the time. Yeah, let’s turn this place into Tokyo or Manhattan, sounds great.

Of course, it’s not like families need a guaranteed day of togetherness for unity, or like workers need a guaranteed day of rest to be happy and moral the other six. Is there some way I can be a capitalist while I’m sleeping, because I’m just wasting time and time is money, right?

And now, here comes Macron: He will be the lily-white gold-worshipper in the middle of the circled wagons, safely protected from us common Indian savages who simply want to hold on to what little we have and not lose any more.

Get on the Macron train, or think of one hand clapping

Prediction for Le Point’s next cover: “The Incredible Mr. Macron!”

Blame Hollande. Blame him left, right, up and down, because Macron was a nobody until Hollande made him Minister of the Economy. Ugh! We are stuck with Macron for decades, because the pro-banker 1% will keep propping him up no matter what – no pro-capitalist politician ever dies in France. Among the English-speaking media it’s basically St. Macron, sent to destroy the France’s (far more admirable) postwar social model.

Ugh, ugh, ugh. It can’t be. It won’t be.

But it looks like it might be.

Because French voters simply must punish the Socialist Party for their betrayal on austerity, and they will; they simply must punish Fillon for the embezzlement and hypocrisy which he has not been able to disprove whatsoever.

Rejecting the mainstream is the trend in the West or…has this trend died out? We don’t know and it’s not clear, but it’s certainly looking that way more than ever in France.

What about Marine Le Pen? Well, she proposes non-mainstream ideas but is a part of the mainstream – the National Front has been prevalent in the media for decades. She is not like Trump, who is a true outsider form the political game.

Le Pen is capitalizing on all this, recently saying she’s a candidate against the moneyed elite and “of the people” and she is…as long as those “people” are totally White.

Of course, many of her supporters don’t care about a little thing called “minority rights”, which is what prevents Western democracy from being outright mob rule.

Certainly a lot of her supporters suddenly are all about minority rights when you talk about places outside of France…in places like Lebanon when it comes to Christians, to give just one example, but anyway….

Le Pen is sort of in-between on this mainstream idea, I must grant, and the same should be said for the left’s Jean-Luc Melenchon: He gave up on the mainstream Socialists in 2008. That’s ahead of the curve, right? Ya gotta give him that.

But it’s not really that long ago, eh? It’s still hard for many believe in his bona fides as a leftist and many view him as an egomaniac, rightly or wrongly.

He might get over the hump, but he’s currently polling at 11%. In the 2012 1st round presidential election he got…11%. “Stagnation” has certainly been the watchword for France during the past 5 years….

But if you’re asking me who to vote for he’s the best viable candidate. He has so far refused to ally with the mainstream socialist Benoit Hamon: the newcomer Hamon has the hot hand, so the sooner Melenchon would give in the more watered-down his proposals would be in this hypothetical new left union.

And his proposals are great: Like Le Pen he wants a democratic referendum on the Euro, European Union and NATO, and he wants to scrap the 5th Republic and write a new, modern constitution that isn’t tainted by De Gaulle’s postwar paranoia of the people. He’s the only politician who is clearly anti-xenophobia, Hamon being tainted by the Socialist’s mistreatment of Roma, refugees and Muslims.

Going with the capitalist adoration of the “great man”, the “political savior”, “Mr. .00001%” –are you telling me that’s the smug banker Macron?

That is exactly what the mainstream media will probably start spoon-feeding France.

We’ll see how many French swallow it – given that Macron is currently the most popular politician in France, many already have dutifully taken their conformist medicine and are awaiting a pat on the head (and a pink slip).

However, which two politicians have the 2nd and 3rd-highest approval ratings? Hamon and Melenchon, in a tie.

So how the heck do you explain that?! Whoda thunkit just a couple weeks ago?! What does that predict for the election?

You explain it by realizing that rejecting the mainstream is what the past year has been all about across the West. My White Trash Revolution (WTR) theory continues to trend correct.

The right has been dominant, but Fillon’s apparent taxpayer scam could push France’s WTR back to the left.

One can dream.

All that is certain is that there is no certainty today in France’s presidential election.

A lot can change between now and the first round in late April, but the mainstream’s tactics only change, never their goals: They want someone to keep the money flowing to the 1% and that man was Fillon – now it will be Macron, sorry Frank.

Macron is so new, so smug, so Rothschild-y that maybe France’s voters won’t buy the mainstream onslaught that’s coming? That onslaught will be, of course: We must stop Le Pen at any cost, even if it means Macron.

That game plan stays the same with or without Fillon.

But maybe the Left will seize the historical moment and surmount the obstacles which will inevitably be obstructed by the mainstream.

Regardless, I encourage France’s voters to drop their cynicism about politics in general, above all. It’s not normal, useful, accurate or right.

French Socialist primary – hiding 5 years of betrayal

January 21, 2017

by Ramin Mazaheri

The French Socialist Party has the first round of their political primary on January 22nd, and as a longtime news correspondent in Paris I thought it incumbent on me to make a fun prediction.

The fun, if you couldn’t tell, has already started: the incumbent, Francois Hollande, is not even running for re-election.

Let’s bask in what a historically huge loser Hollande is: I cannot recall any incumbent Western president who has not even tried to win re-election. In the US LBJ did 1 win one election before throwing in the civil rights do-rag.

Hollande will go down as a huge traitor to his people: He campaigned on ending-austerity but instituted 5 grinding years of it. Idiot commentators who will talk about how “presidential” he looked during 2 terror attacks, but they don’t realize that such image-related concerns to the millions of people wondering how they will buy food when they have no job.

So, Francois is not there – and everyone is glad about that.

Who does that leave us with? I’m going to start positive – there is always the option of total nuclear annihilation before having to endure the soft parade of fake leftism that will be the Socialist Party primary.

However, failing that, I’m still going to stay positive and predict that Benoit Hamon “comes out of nowhere” to win it. The same surprise has happened with the conservative Republicain Party and Francois Fillon, after all.

I’ll put it simply: In years of covering the Socialist Party and talking to Benoit Hamon I have always thought that he is a rare Socialist Party politician who might actually have a soul. That is an uncommon occurrence, and it is a sincere compliment.

Yeah Hamon’s not a true leftist, because he’s in the Socialist Party, but I am glad to see that he has recently shot up in polls to 3rd place. Hamon is on the correct side of many issues, and he’s always been on the far-left of the Socialists.

He has the courage to promote ideas like guaranteed monthly revenue (welfare) of 750 euros per month. I know people who don’t make that here and that would make such a huge difference in their lives. What’s more, it what would be a huge improvement in the standard of living for the enormous number of people from 18-30 who suffer from tremendous unemployment.

I’ll be honest with you, trusty reader, I just checked the headlines on Hamon and he’s actually leading the polls following last night’s primary debate! This paragraph is letting you behind the curtain of how journalism works, LOL!

Good for Hamon! Maybe French leftists aren’t a bunch of poseurs like I think!

Truly, Hamon has always appeared to me like an authentic person, and I cannot say that at all about his main rival, longtime minister Manuel Valls.

It’s funny to write that Hamon and Valls are rivals – Hamon has been a junior cabinet minister while Valls has been the Interior Minister, longtime Prime Minister, and was the most popular politician for some time. English-language journalists have been writing that Hamon has “come from nowhere”, but junior minister is no small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, and Hamon has always impressed.

Manuel Valls is the type of soulless, ruthless, professional politician that the West specializes in. As the mayor of a heavily-Muslim Parisian suburb he would march with a pro-Palestine t-shirt, and then once he got into the upper echelon he openly espoused his everlasting ties to Israel. Voila.

Valls should lose because he’s been Hollande’s right-hand thug to enforce austerity. “Thug” is the right word – Valls is the one responsible for thousands of arrests of anti-government protesters; countless instances of police brutality; house arrests, warrantless arrests, arrests of (gasp!) non-Muslim environmental protesters.

Valls carried out the order for the State of Emergency, and he also incarnates the Blairist/Obama “3rdWay” philosophy which is just ruthless imperialist capitalism with a gay-friendly face. Valls should lose just like Clinton, Cameron and Renzi lost, if the “white trash revolution” (WTR) continues to be a significant historical trend in the West (and you can throw me in with the trash). It would be fitting if France lost doubly – Hollande and Valls – because whenever the whole world loses France seems to lose twice as badly, LOL.

Hamon should win because the center and right wing of the Socialist Party has totally discredited themselves and must be purged. Such a purge is justice, and it’s necessary for democracy. Otherwise you get 2 mainstream parties which are the exact same, and who wants to live like the Americans or English?

Of course, the WTR will only lose for a short time, just until people realize that the right – just like the center – cannot and should not govern, only the left can. So the WTR is a victory in the long run (vote Le Pen against Fillon in the 2nd round, French readers).

Valls is now running behind Arnaud Montebourg too? Man, I have been in Cuba for the last month (take a moment to salute some real leftists), but this has to be a recent development!

Montebourg is not bad, but he’s simply not viewed as “the one” – he’s also too tainted by being a Socialist Party bigwig for so long. Unlike Hamon, he’s not new – Monty has been around a long time and he may have already lost his soul. One is not sure that Montebourg is a genuine leftist or not. Montebourg may even be one of those poor guys who is so very sincere that he comes off as insincere.

After all, he was Hollande’s Minister of the Economy and resigned after it became clear Hollande would stick with austerity all the way.

The Socialists picking Montebourg would be a good development – he is from the left-flank of the party, but he’s not as left as Hamon.

France wants – France needs – new blood. This is half the reason Marine Le Pen is doing so well: the establishment is totally discredited to the point where people are saying “let’s give the far-right a chance”.

And just as the establishment works to overtake any threat of real democracy – like the Arab Spring – so the establishment has propped up their own “Obama”, someone who is all image, no substance, and no real change.

I was talking recently with a typical “oh-so-proper-and-nice English journalist who really is just aghast at all the bad things in the world but let’s not change horses in mid-stream” about the French left and he brought up Emmanuel Macron.

I did a double take because I thought he misheard the word “left”.

Macron is a former Rothschild banker – it would take a religious conversion for him to be a leftist. People convert all the time, abut he clearly has not yet.

But get used to Macron’s smug face because he will be around for the main reason that the English-speaking press loves him. The reasons are obvious – he’s a banker, and then there’s also that he worked in a bank. The strictly pro-capitalist English-speakers see him as one of their own even though he has a girl’s name.

The French, however, see Macron as they are increasingly viewing Hamon – as someone new. And being such a person is no easy feat in French politics because there is absolutely no new blood here.

In the UK, if you lose then you’re out. In the US it’s similar, but only now is the Hillary machine finally smashed. But in France it’s the same people over and over, who all went to the same school, who go to the same parties, who live in the same bubble and who have never really worked a day in their lives because working on a political campaign doesn’t count.

Dominque Strauss-Kahn defied all precedent by actually being brought down by a sex scandal, but he was the exception that proves the rule. Sarkozy came back despite a half-dozen corruption cases; Alain Juppe, who was the Republicain Party front-runner until the last 3 weeks, was exiled to Canada for 3 years after being convicted of corruption.

Macron intelligently broke with the Socialist Party because he knew two things: he is no socialist, and the Socialist Party’s about-face on austerity has doomed them for at least 1 election cycle, preferably 3 or 4 to clear out the old generation, assuming there can ever be any real justice among mainstream politicians.

Macron – why am I still writing about him, ugh! – started his own party called “En Marche”, which is exactly what dog-sled drivers in Quebec yell at their dogs before whipping them again – you may recognize the Anglicization of this as “mush”. If I can make a crude psychological rendering without losing your journalistic respect, please: Macron gets whipped by his wife – his former high school French teacher who is 24 years older than him – and then he whips us, is that what’s going on here? I vote ‘no’, Emmanuel.

Decades of Macron is yet another reason to hate Hollande: He’s the one who plucked a 37-year old banker from obscurity to replace the honorably departed Arnaud Montebourg. What did I tell you about how France’s politicians being the same permanently-stained socks tumbling around in a dryer? You think I make stuff up for fun? I write journalism, not fiction – look at that clichéd metaphor for proof why.

Macron will also stay around because he most accurately represents the average leftist among his (my) age group which is such a letdown not just personally but globally: Pro-European Union, pro-Eurozone, anti-xenophobia – it’s the “fake leftist trifecta” which is oh-so-popular at French parties but which is nothing but snobbish, effete, hyper-individualistic and culturally chauvinistic fake leftism.

If you think sincere, international leftism is popular in France…well, firstly there’s just so many French grandfathers who I don’t know how many Algerians and Indochinans they killed but I know they killed enough still around, but to be au courant I’ll point out that Hollande’s purely imperialist (and totally destabilizing) wars in Mali and the CAR had overwhelming approval rates here.

That’s the candidate recap. So what’s the best outcome?

That same solid, reliable mainstream English journalist posited that the Socialist Party would break up.

The Socialist Party will never break up, because Socialism will never die.

It is alive and well in places in non-imperialist countries unlike France and it’s actually popular among a small, dedicated minority within France.

The Socialists should break up, certainly, or at least rename themselves. They are totally discredited by refusing to fight austerity, and French voters should seriously pause if hypothetically given a choice between handing power to the actual real people who staff the current Socialist Party or an imaginary Torture Children Party. “Hey, the TCP at least will stop listening to Brussels on economic austerity. Just keep an eye on your kid, that’s all.”

Ultimately, sober citizen that you are and God bless ya for it; you have just read an entire column about a Socialist Party which has no chance at all to make it to the 2nd round of France’s presidential election this spring. Much like the Democratic Party in the US, you can totally write off the Socialist Party in France until checking back in during their mid-term elections.

But remember, Hollande came into power controlling both houses of Parliament and nearly all the provinces, and yet he still refused to implement any true leftist programs. The same can be said for the man leaving office on this very day in the United States, Barry Obama.

Both leave with their parties in total disarray and their countries in far worse condition because they willfully ignored the needs of their own peasants – like me – and we do not forget and we do learn.

Hamon in a surprise. Just to add a bit – just a bit – of genuine leftism into the repugnant right-wing mix that is the French presidential election of 2017.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.

France’s Self-Inflicted Refugee Crisis. The Result of NATO-Led Wars & France’s support for terrorists

Source

By Ulson Gunnar,

See ALSO

FUNDED Rebels, AKA Radical Terrorists, To Overthrow

instead of helping fight terrorism chose instead to arm and fund the terrorists

This is why is a magnet for terrorists attacks, the French Gov’t supports Islamist terrorists in

Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent “al-Nusra terrorists doing a good job in

January ’15 Hollande ‘France supplied arms to Syria Takfiris’

 

refugees

Following rhetoric regarding Europe’s refugee crisis, one might assume the refugees, through no fault of Europe’s governments, suddenly began appearing by the thousands at Europe’s borders. However, this simply is not true.

Before the 2011 wave of US-European engineered uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) transformed into Western military interventions, geopolitical analysts warned that overthrowing the governments in nations like Libya and Syria, and Western interventions in nations like Mali and the Ivory Coast, would lead to predicable regional chaos that would manifest itself in both expanding terrorism across the European and MENA region, as well as a flood of refugees from destabilized, war-racked nations.

Libya in particular, was singled out as a nation, if destabilized, that would transform into a springboard for refugees not only fleeing chaos in Libya itself, but fleeing a variety of socioeconomic and military threats across the continent. Libya has served for decades as a safe haven for African refugees due to its relative stability and economic prosperity as well as the Libyan government’s policy of accepting and integrating African refugees within the Libyan population.

Because of NATO’s 2011 military intervention and the disintegration of Libya as a functioning nation state, refugees who would have otherwise settled in Libya are now left with no choice but to continue onward to Europe.

For France in particular, its politics have gravitated around what is essentially a false debate between those welcoming refugees and those opposed to their presence.

Absent from this false debate is any talk of French culpability for its military operations abroad which, along with the actions of the US and other NATO members, directly resulted in the current European refugee crisis.

France claims that its presence across Africa aims at fighting Al Qaeda. According to RAND Corporation commentary titled, “Mali’s Persistent Jihadist Problem,” it’s reported that:

Four years ago, French forces intervened in Mali, successfully averting an al Qaeda-backed thrust toward the capital of Bamako. The French operation went a long way toward reducing the threat that multiple jihadist groups posed to this West Africa nation. The situation in Mali today remains tenuous, however, and the last 18 months have seen a gradual erosion of France’s impressive, initial gains.

And of course, a French military presence in Mali will do nothing to stem Al Qaeda’s activities if the source of Al Qaeda’s weapons and financial support is not addressed. In order to do this, France and its American and European allies would need to isolate and impose serious sanctions on Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two nations who exists as the premier state sponsors of not only Al Qaeda, but a myriad of terrorist organizations sowing chaos worldwide.

Paradoxically, instead of seeking such sanctions, the French government instead sells the Saudi and Qatari governments billions of dollars worth of weaponry, proudly filling in any temporary gaps in the flow of weapons from the West as each nation attempts to posture as “concerned” about Saudi and Qatari human rights abuses and war crimes (and perhaps even state sponsorship of terrorism) only to gradually return to pre-sanction levels after public attention wanes.

The National Interest in an article titled, “France: Saudi Arabia’s New Arms Dealer,” would note:

France has waged a robust diplomatic engagement with Saudi Arabia for years. In June, Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman visited France to sign deals worth $12 billion, which included $500 million for 23 Airbus H145 helicopters. Saudi and French officials also agreed to pursue feasibility studies to build two nuclear reactors in the kingdom. The remaining money will involve direct investment negotiated between Saudi and French officials.

The article would also note that Saudi Arabia’s junior partner in the state sponsorship of global terror, Qatar, would also benefit from French weapon deals:

Hollande’s address was delivered one day after he was in Doha, where he signed a $7 billion deal that included the sale of 24 French Rafale fighter jets to Qatar, along with the training of Qatari intelligence officers.

In order to truly fight terrorism, a nation must deal with it at its very source. Since France is not only ignoring the source of Al Qaeda’s military, financial and political strength, but is regularly bolstering it with billions in weapons deals, it is safe to say that whatever reason France is involved across MENA, it is not to “defeat” Al Qaeda.

The refugee crisis that has resulted from the chaos that both Western forces and terrorists funded and armed by the West’s closest regional allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, is a crisis that is entirely self-inflicted. The rhetoric surrounding the crisis, on both sides, ignoring this fundamental reality, exposes the manufactured and manipulative nature of French government and opposition agendas.

The chaos across MENA is so significant, and terrorism so deeply rooted in both Western and their Arab allies’ geopolitical equations that even a complete reversal of this destructive policy will leave years if not decades of social unrest in the wake of the current refugee crisis.

But for anyone genuinely committed to solving this ongoing crisis, they must start with the US, European, and Gulf monarchies’ culpability, and resist blaming the refugees or those manipulated into reacting negatively to them. While abuses carried out by refugees or locals are equally intolerable, those responsible for the conflicts and for manipulating both sides of this crisis are equally to blame.

Until that blame is properly and proportionately placed, and the root of the crisis addressed, it will only linger and cause further damage to regional and global security.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The Trump Presidency and the Coming Conflict Between Europe and America

Global Research, January 20, 2017
World Socialist Web Site 19 January 2017
Trump-UE

Donald Trump’s inauguration as president of the United States heralds an unprecedented deterioration in post-war relations between the US and Europe, above all between the US and Germany.

The January 20 ceremony was preceded by an interview with Trump in Britain’s Sunday Times and Germany’s Bild newspaper. His remarks were a broadside against the institutions that have constituted the basis of the post-World War II European order.

Trump praised Britain’s exit from the European Union, describing the EU as a vehicle for German domination and predicting that “others will leave.” He added, “Look, the EU was formed, partially, to beat the United States on trade, OK? So, I don’t really care whether it’s separate or together, to me it doesn’t matter.”

Trump threatened Germany’s auto industry with sanctions and attacked Chancellor Angela Merkel, blaming her refugee policy for destabilising Europe. He also opposed sanctions against Russia, while declaring that he believed the NATO alliance was “obsolete.”

Never before has a US president set as his explicit goal the breakup of the EU. Trump made clear in his interview that he was seeking to pit the UK against Germany and he solidarised himself with the UK Independence Party and other right-wing anti-EU parties.

The response from Europe’s political elite was uniformly hostile. In Germany, Merkel replied, “I think we Europeans hold our fate in our own hands.” Sigmar Gabriel of Merkel’s coalition partner, the Social Democratic Party, insisted, “We must not adopt a servile attitude now… In dealing with Trump, we need German self-confidence and a clear stance.”

French President Francois Hollande said that “transatlantic cooperation” will from now on be based on Europe’s own “interests and values.”

Europe’s think tanks and media predicted escalating militarism and an eruption of nationalist tensions. “EU member states will have to consider increasing strategic autonomy by reinforcing collective defence inside the EU,” said Felix Arteaga of the Elcano Royal Institute in Madrid.

Judy Dempsey of Carnegie Europe wrote that Trump “might rekindle old fears of German encirclement” by encouraging a “gang-up on Germany.” She added, “Since that is the new political outlook, Europe and Germany have to respond.”

In the Guardian, Natalie Nougayrède suggested, “Europe may witness a return to spheres of influence… with governments rushing to try to secure their own interests whatever the cost to neighbours and the continent’s future.”

Trump’s “America First” positions represent a seismic shift in US political relations with Europe. The Christian Science Monitor cited John Hulsman, a transatlantic affairs specialist, berating the “European elites” for having “grown accustomed to ‘Wilsonian’ American leaders who left unquestioned America’s leadership of the postwar internationalist system,” and not adjusting quickly enough to “a ‘Jacksonian’ and more nationalist US worldview promoted by Trump.”

Until now, however, such unilateralist tendencies were generally in abeyance. The American ruling class recognised that their unrestrained application would undermine its ability to exercise effective global hegemony. One of the issues animating hostility toward Trump within the US intelligence agencies in connection with his relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin is their belief that a Russian “bogeyman” is essential to preserve the framework through which the US has long exercised its dominance within Europe, via NATO and the EU.

The last time tensions emerged sharply between the US and Europe was in 2003, during the run-up to the Iraq War, when US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld denounced France and Germany for failing to support the US in Iraq. Rumsfeld called the two countries “old Europe” and counterposed to them the states of Eastern Europe.

On January 26 that year, the World Socialist Web Site published a perspective comment by David North titled “How to deal with America? The European dilemma,” which addressed the historic significance of that conflict.

North explained that America’s postwar relationship with Europe between 1945 and 1991 “was determined fundamentally by its appraisal of its own essential economic and geopolitical interests within the specific context of the Cold War.” He continued: “America’s attitude toward Europe was determined by the overriding need to (1) enforce the isolation of the Soviet Union and minimize its influence in Western Europe (“containment”) and (2) prevent social revolution at a time when the European working class was extremely militant and highly politicized.

“The United States’ emphasis during that period on its alliance with Western Europe was, in fact, a departure from the historical norm. The more basic tendency of American capitalism, rooted in its somewhat belated emergence as a major imperialist power, had been to augment its world position at the expense of Europe.”

North then wrote:

“The collapse of the Soviet Union fundamentally altered the international framework upon which postwar diplomatic relations were based. There was no longer any need for the United States to prop up the Western European bourgeoisie as a line of defense against the Soviet Union. Moreover, the demise of the USSR created a vacuum of power that the United States was determined to exploit to its own advantage.”

In this context, he cited the prophetic warning made by Leon Trotsky in 1928:

In the period of crisis the hegemony of the United States will operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than in the period of boom. The United States will seek to overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties and maladies primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this occurs in Asia, Canada, South America, Australia, or Europe itself, or whether this takes place peacefully or through war.”

The dilemma anticipated in 2003 now assumes its full significance. Sections of the US bourgeoisie continue to be deeply opposed to Trump’s attacks on the EU and Germany, with outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry describing Merkel as “courageous” and Trump’s remarks as “inappropriate.” But regardless of such disagreements, the US is being objectively driven on a steep trajectory toward trade war and protectionism to counter the threat to its global hegemony due to economic decline, the challenge posed by the rise of China and other rival powers, and a series of military debacles suffered since 2003. This must inevitably provoke conflict with Europe.

No one can predict in detail the consequences of this geostrategic shift by the US—including what alliances Germany, France, the UK and Russia might eventually forge. To this must be added the precise role that may be played by China as a potential counterweight to America.

However, underlying all such developments will be an explosion of national antagonisms in which the corollary of Trump’s “America First” agenda will be demands to put “Germany First,” “Britain First” and “France First,” which can lead only to the fracturing of Europe into competing power blocs.

The project of European integration under capitalism is coming to an end, unleashing all of the political demons it was meant to have contained.

Nothing is left of the promise that closer political union and the Single Market would bring prosperity and peace. Instead, right-wing reaction and the growth of fascistic parties are taking place in every country. The European powers speak constantly of the need to militarise, even as NATO troops mass on Russia’s border, while austerity is the only issue on which they all agree.

The assault on the working class will worsen, as Berlin, Paris and London demand yet greater “national sacrifice” to compete against their rivals and pay the vast sums needed to rearm the continent.

The bourgeoisie has proved incapable of overcoming the fundamental contradiction between the integrated character of the global economy and the division of the world into antagonistic nation states based on private ownership of the means of production, which is once again driving them to a war for the redivision of the world.

The working class of Europe must proceed from an understanding that the post-war period, in which, since 1945, several generations have lived their lives, is over, and a new pre-war period has begun. It must assume responsibility for opposing the drive to austerity, militarism and war by all the imperialist powers.

Above all, it must seek the conscious unification of its struggles with those of workers in the United States and internationally. The explosion of working class opposition that Trump’s government of oligarchs and warmongers must inevitably provoke will provide the most powerful accelerant for the struggles of the European working class.


‘The Mainstream Media has Failed in Most of the West’–Syrian President Assad

[ Ed. note – Every time I see Syrian President Bashar Assad interviewed, I find myself impressed. He is soft-spoken, articulate, and everything he says rings true. In this exchange with a group of French journalists, he comments: “For the French people I would say the mainstream media has failed in most of the West. The narrative has been debunked because of the reality, and you have the alternative media. You have to look for the truth.”

The mainstream media narrative has been debunked, whether you are talking about the war in Syria, Russian hacking, presidential politics in America, Brexit, the European Union, or just about any other topic–and it is incumbent upon people now to search for truth from sources other than scoundrel organizations who have proven track records of deceit. This Assad has absolutely correct, and it is probably one reason why the mainstream media so detest him.

In the interview, the Syrian leader also talks about the French presidential election, coming up in April, as well as his own plans for the future. In regards to the latter, he reiterates what he has said before: that the decision of who should be president of Syria is a choice that should be left solely to the Syrian people; it is not up to him, and it is certainly not a decision that should be determined by outsiders.

Or to put it more bluntly, the US State Department should stop trying to regime-change the entire planet. Disastrously, it has been  intent on doing just this throughout the entire eight years of the Obama administration, the Bush administration before that, the Clinton administration prior to that, and the Bush-One administration even afore Willy and Hillary. Enough is enough! The US government’s unquenchable thirst for overturning other governments is the greatest threat to world peace today.

Moreover, it doesn’t seem the thirst has gone away (whether it will under the incoming Trump administration remains to be seen, although I’m not particularly hopeful). The journalists asking questions in the above video are part of a delegation visiting Syria from France. As Vanessa Beeley reports in the article below, the delegation, headed by three members of the French Parliament, came under shelling by the US-backed Free Syrian Army yesterday while visiting Aleppo. This is not to say the Obama administration specifically ordered the attack, but any government providing backing to terrorists holds responsibility for their actions. ]


US-Backed ‘Moderate’ Rebels Target French Delegation in Aleppo

By Vanessa Beeley

In a clear breach of the Russian brokered ceasefire, US backed FSA (Free Syrian Army) division, Company 23, fired upon Aleppo airport. The shelling took place just prior to the departure of a French delegation, led by French politician, Thierry Mariani, after a fact finding trip to the recently liberated industrial, second capital city, of Aleppo.

According to Fares Shehabi, independent, Aleppo MP and head of the Aleppo Chamber of Commerce, the missiles were fired from an area next to Khan Touman, 8km away from the airport, in a deliberate act of terror against the French delegation. The leader of this group of so called “moderates” is Hassan Rajoob, a colonel who had previously defected from the Syrian Arab Army.

Fares Shehabi had been meeting with the three French parliamentarians, Thierry Mariani, Jean Lassalle & Nicolas Dhuiq, and other intellects and journalists who made up the delegation. Shehabi told 21st Century Wire that they had been due to leave via Aleppo airport at 14:00 on the 7th January 2017. The shelling took place just prior to the flight in what appeared to be a deliberate targeting of the delegation.  The flight was delayed a further 3h 3o minutes and the airport was kept in complete darkness in order to ensure safe take-off without further attacks.

Continued here

Everything in the World is Changing Regarding Syria

By President Bashar al-Assad

January 10, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – “SANA” – Damascus, SANA_ President Bashar al-Assad has said that everything in the world is changing regarding Syria on every level, the local, the regional, and the international.

In a statement given to the French media, President al-Assad added that our mission, according to the constitution and according to the laws, that we have to liberate every inch of the Syrian land.

Following is the full context of the statement:

Question1:Mr. President, you have just met a French delegation of MPs. Do you think this visit will have an influence on the French position about Syria?

President Assad:This is a French question. We hope that any delegation that would come here is to see the truth about what is happening in Syria during the last years, since the beginning of the war six years ago, and the problem now, regarding France in particular, is that they don’t have an embassy, they don’t have any relation with Syria at all, so it’s like… we can say it’s a blind state. How can you forge a policy towards a certain region if you can’t see, if you’re blind? You need to see. The importance of those delegations is that they represent the eyes of the states, but that depends on the state; do they want to see, or they want to keep adopting the ostrich policy and they don’t want to tell the truth, because now everything in the world is changing regarding Syria on every level, the local, the regional, and the international. Until this moment, the French administration hasn’t changed its position, they still speak the old language which is disconnected from our reality. That’s why we have a hope that there’s someone in the state who wants to listen to these delegations, to the facts. I’m not talking about my opinion, I’m talking about the reality in Syria. So, we have hope.

Question 2:Mr. President, you said that Aleppo is a major victory for Syria, and a major turn in the crisis. What do you feel when you see the pictures of the hundreds of civilians that were killed in the bombings, and the devastation of the city?

President Assad:Of course, it’s very painful for us as Syrians to see any part of our country destroyed, or to see any blood shedding anywhere,this is self-evident, this is emotional part, but for me as President or as an official, the question for the Syrian people: what I’m going to do. It’s not only about the feeling; the feeling is self-evident as I said. How we’re going to rebuild our cities.

Question 3:But was the bombing of east Aleppo the only solution to retake the city, with the death of civilians, your fellow citizens?
President Assad:It depends on what kind of war you’re looking for. Are you looking for a quiet war, war without destruction? I haven’t heard, in the history, of a good war, every war is bad. Why bad? Because every war is about destruction, every war is about the killing, that’s why every war is bad. You cannot say “this is a good war” even if it’s for a good reason, to defend your country, for a noble reason, but it’s bad. That’s why it’s not the solution, if you have any other solution. But the question is: how can you liberate the civilians in those areas from the terrorists? Is it better to leave them, to leave them under their supervision, under their oppression, under their fate defined by those terrorists by beheading, by killing, by everything but not having state? Is that the role of the state, just to keep and watch? You have to liberate, and this is the price sometimes, but at the end, the people are liberated from the terrorists. That’s the question now; are they liberated or not? If yes, that’s what we have to do.

Question 4:Mr. President, a ceasefire has been signed on the 30th of December, why do Syrian Army still fight near Damascus in the region of Wadi Barada?

President Assad:First of all, ceasefire is about different parties, so when you say there’s viable ceasefire is when every party stops fighting and shooting, and it’s not the case in many areas in Syria, and that was reported by the Russian center of observation regarding the ceasefire. There’s breaching of that ceasefire on daily basis in Syria, including Damascus, but in Damascus mainly because the terrorists occupy the main source of water of Damascus where more than five million civilians are deprived from water for the last three weeks now, and the role of the Syrian Army is to liberate that area in order to prevent those terrorists from using that water in order to suffocate the capital. So, that’s why.

Question 5:Mr. President, Daesh is not a part of the ceasefire…
President Assad: No.

Journalist: Do you plan to take again Raqqa, and when?
President Assad: Let me just continue the second part of the first question. Second part of that ceasefire is not about al-Nusra and ISIS, and the area that we’ve been fighting to liberate recently, regarding the water sources of the capital Damascus, is occupied by al-Nusra, and al-Nusra announced formally that they are occupying that area. So, it’s not part of the ceasefire.

Regarding al-Raqqa, of course it’s our mission, according to the constitution and according to the laws, that we have to liberate every inch of the Syrian land. There’s no question about that, it’s not to be discussed. But it’s about when, what are our priorities, and this is military, regarding to the military planning, about the military priorities. But nationally, there’s no priority; every inch is a Syrian inch, it should be within the purview of the government.

Question 6:Important talks will take place in Astana at the end of the month, including a lot of Syrian parties, including some opposition groups, let’s say. What are you ready to negotiate directly with them, and what are you ready to negotiate to help the peace to come back in Syria.

President Assad:Of course, we are ready, and we announced that our delegation to that conference is ready to go when they define… when they set the time of that conference. We are ready to negotiate everything. When you talk about negotiation regarding whether to end the conflict in Syria or talking about the future of Syria, anything, it’s fully open, there’s no limit for that negotiations. But who’s going to be there from the other side? We don’t know yet. Is it going to be real Syrian opposition – and when I say “real” it means has grassroots in Syria, not Saudi one or French one or British one – it should be Syrian opposition to discuss the Syrian issues. So, the viability or, let’s say, the success of that conference will depend on that point.

Question 7:Are you even ready to discuss your position as President? That has been contested.

President Assad:Yeah, but my position is related to the constitution, and the constitution is very clear about the mechanism in which you can bring a president or get rid of a president. So, if they want to discuss this point, they have to discuss the constitution, and the constitution is not owned by the government or the president or by the opposition; it should be owned by the Syrian people, so you need a referendum for every constitution. This is one of the points that could be discussed in that meeting, of course, but they cannot say “we need that president” or “we don’t need that president” because the president is related to the ballot box. If they don’t need him, let’s go to the ballot box. The Syrian people should bring a president, not part of the Syrian people.

Question 8:And with this negotiation, what will be the fate of rebel fighters?

President Assad:From what we’ve been implementing during the last three years, because you want genuinely to have peace in Syria, the government offered amnesty for every militant who gives up his armaments, and it worked, and they still have the same option if they want to go back to their normality and to go back to their normal life. This is the maximum that you can offer, amnesty.

Question 9:Mr. President, as you know, French presidential election will take place, do you have a favorite, do you have a preference for one of the candidates?

President Assad:No, because we don’t have any contacts with any one of them, and we cannot count very much on the statements and rhetoric during the campaign, so we always say let’s wait and see what policy they’re going to adopt after they are in their position. But we always have hopes that the next administration or government or president, they want to deal with the reality, to disconnect themselves from the disconnected policy from our reality. That’s our hope, and they can work for the interest of the French people, because the question now after six years: as a French citizen, do you feel safer? I don’t think the answer is yes. The immigration problem, has it made the situation in your country better? I think the answer is no, whether in France or in Europe. The question now: what is the reason? This is the discussion that the next administration or government or president should deal with in order to deal with our reality, not with their imaginations as has been happening during the last six years.

Question 10:But one of the candidates, Francois Fillon, doesn’t have the same position as the official one; he would like to reestablish the dialogue with Syria. Do you expect his election – if he’s elected – could change the position of France about Syria?

President Assad:His rhetoric regarding the terrorists, or let’s say the priority to fight the terrorists and not meddling in the affairs of other countries, are welcome, but we have to be cautious, because what we’ve learned in this region during the last few years is that many officials would say something and do the opposite. I wouldn’t say that Mr. Fillon would do this. I hope not. But we have to wait and see, because there’s no contact. But so far, what he said, if it’s implemented, that will be very good.

Question 11:Do you appreciate him as a politician, Francois Fillon?

President Assad:I didn’t have any contact with him or cooperation, so whatever I say now won’t be very credible, to be frank with you.

Question 12:Is there a message you want to address to France?

President Assad:I think if I want to send it to the politicians, I will say the self-evident thing; that you have to work for the interest of the Syrian citizens, and for the last six years the situation is going in the other direction, because the French politics harmed the French interests. So, for the French people, I would say the mainstream media has failed in most of the West. The narrative has been debunked because of the reality, and you have the alternative media, you have to look for the truth. The truth was the main victim of the events in the Middle East, including Syria. I would ask any citizen in France to search for the reality, for the real information, through the alternative media. When they search for this information, they can be more effective in dealing with their government, or at least not allowing some politicians to base their politics on lies. That’s what we think is the most important thing during the last six years.

Question 13:Mr. President, your father has been a lifelong President of Syria. Do you consider the option of not being the President anymore, one day?

President Assad:Yeah, that depends on two things: the first one is the will of the Syrian people; do they want that person to be president or not. If I want to be president while the Syrian people doesn’t want me, even if I win in the elections, I don’t have strong support, I cannot achieve anything, especially in a complicated region like Syria. You cannot be just elected president, that doesn’t work, you need popular support. Without it I cannot be successful. So, at that time, there’s no meaning to be president.

The second one; if I have that feeling that I want to be president, I will nominate myself, but that depends on the first factor. If I feel that the Syrian people doesn’t want me, of course I wouldn’t be. So, it’s not about me mainly, it’s about the Syrian people; do they want me or not. That’s how I look at it.

Question 14:Last question; Donald Trump is to be appointed as President of the United States in less than two weeks. He has been clear that he wants to improve relationships with Russia, which is one of your main allies…

President Assad: Yeah, exactly.

Journalist: Do you consider… do you expect that it will change the position of the United States towards Syria?

President Assad: Yeah, if you want to talk realistically, because the Syrian problem is not isolated, it’s not only Syrian-Syrian; actually, the biggest part… or let’s say the major part of the Syrian conflict is regional and international. The simplest part that you can deal with is the Syrian-Syrian part. The regional and the international part depends mainly on the relation between the United States and Russia. What he announced yesterday was very promising, if there’s a genuine approach or initiative toward improving the relation between the United States and Russia, that will effect every problem in the world, including Syria. So, I would say yes, we think that’s positive, regarding the Syrian conflict.

Journalist: What is positive?

President Assad: I mean the relation, the improvement of the relation between the United States and Russia will reflect positively on the Syrian conflict.

Journalists: Thank you very much.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Information Clearing House editorial policy.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Related Articles

President Assad’s Statements to French Media, January 8, 2017.

Source

 

Question 1: Mr. President, you have just met a French delegation of MPs. Do you think this visit will have an influence on the French position about Syria?

President Assad: This is a French question. We hope that any delegation that would come here is to see the truth about what is happening in Syria during the last years, since the beginning of the war six years ago, and the problem now, regarding France in particular, is that they don’t have an embassy, they don’t have any relation with Syria at all, so it’s like… we can say it’s a blind state. How can you forge a policy towards a certain region if you can’t see, if you’re blind? You need to see. The importance of those delegations is that they represent the eyes of the states, but that depends on the state; do they want to see, or they want to keep adopting the ostrich policy and they don’t want to tell the truth, because now everything in the world is changing regarding Syria on every level, the local, the regional, and the international. Until this moment, the French administration hasn’t changed its position, they still speak the old language which is disconnected from our reality. That’s why we have a hope that there’s someone in the state who wants to listen to these delegations, to the facts. I’m not talking about my opinion, I’m talking about the reality in Syria. So, we have hope.

Question 2: Mr. President, you said that Aleppo is a major victory for Syria, and a major turn in the crisis. What do you feel when you see the pictures of the hundreds of civilians that were killed in the bombings, and the devastation of the city?

President Assad: Of course, it’s very painful for us as Syrians to see any part of our country destroyed, or to see any blood shedding anywhere,this is self-evident, this is emotional part, but for me as President or as an official, the question for the Syrian people: what I’m going to do. It’s not only about the feeling; the feeling is self-evident as I said. How we’re going to rebuild our cities.

Question 3: But was the bombing of east Aleppo the only solution to retake the city, with the death of civilians, your fellow citizens?

President Assad:  It depends on what kind of war you’re looking for. Are you looking for a quiet war, war without destruction? I haven’t heard, in the history, of a good war, every war is bad. Why bad? Because every war is about destruction, every war is about the killing, that’s why every war is bad. You cannot say “this is a good war” even if it’s for a good reason, to defend your country, for a noble reason, but it’s bad. That’s why it’s not the solution, if you have any other solution. But the question is: how can you liberate the civilians in those areas from the terrorists? Is it better to leave them, to leave them under their supervision, under their oppression, under their fate defined by those terrorists by beheading, by killing, by everything but not having state? Is that the role of the state, just to keep and watch? You have to liberate, and this is the price sometimes, but at the end, the people are liberated from the terrorists. That’s the question now; are they liberated or not? If yes, that’s what we have to do.

Question 4: Mr. President, a ceasefire has been signed on the 30th of December, why do Syrian Army still fight near Damascus in the region of Wadi Barada?

President Assad:  First of all, ceasefire is about different parties, so when you say there’s viable ceasefire is when every party stops fighting and shooting, and it’s not the case in many areas in Syria, and that was reported by the Russian center of observation regarding the ceasefire. There’s breaching of that ceasefire on daily basis in Syria, including Damascus, but in Damascus mainly because the terrorists occupy the main source of water of Damascus where more than five million civilians are deprived from water for the last three weeks now, and the role of the Syrian Army is to liberate that area in order to prevent those terrorists from using that water in order to suffocate the capital. So, that’s why.

Question 5: Mr. President, Daesh is not a part of the ceasefire…

President Assad: No.

Journalist: Do you plan to take again Raqqa, and when?

President Assad:  Let me just continue the second part of the first question. Second part of that ceasefire is not about al-Nusra and ISIS, and the area that we’ve been fighting to liberate recently, regarding the water sources of the capital Damascus, is occupied by al-Nusra, and al-Nusra announced formally that they are occupying that area. So, it’s not part of the ceasefire.

Regarding al-Raqqa, of course it’s our mission, according to the constitution and according to the laws, that we have to liberate every inch of the Syrian land. There’s no question about that, it’s not to be discussed. But it’s about when, what are our priorities, and this is military, regarding to the military planning, about the military priorities. But nationally, there’s no priority; every inch is a Syrian inch, it should be within the purview of the government.

Question 6: Important talks will take place in Astana at the end of the month, including a lot of Syrian parties, including some opposition groups, let’s say. What are you ready to negotiate directly with them, and what are you ready to negotiate to help the peace to come back in Syria.

President Assad: conference is ready to go when they define… when they set the time of that conference. We are ready to negotiate everything. When you talk about negotiation regarding whether to end the conflict in Syria or talking about the future of Syria, anything, it’s fully open, there’s no limit for that negotiations. But who’s going to be there from the other side? We don’t know yet. Is it going to be real Syrian opposition – and when I say “real” it means has grassroots in Syria, not Saudi one or French one or British one – it should be Syrian opposition to discuss the Syrian issues. So, the viability or, let’s say, the success of that conference will depend on that point.

Question 7:Are you even ready to discuss your position as President? That has been contested.

President Assad: Yeah, but my position is related to the constitution, and the constitution is very clear about the mechanism in which you can bring a president or get rid of a president. So, if they want to discuss this point, they have to discuss the constitution, and the constitution is not owned by the government or the president or by the opposition; it should be owned by the Syrian people, so you need a referendum for every constitution. This is one of the points that could be discussed in that meeting, of course, but they cannot say “we need that president” or “we don’t need that president” because the president is related to the ballot box. If they don’t need him, let’s go to the ballot box. The Syrian people should bring a president, not part of the Syrian people.

Question 8: And with this negotiation, what will be the fate of rebel fighters?

President Assad: From what we’ve been implementing during the last three years, because you want genuinely to have peace in Syria, the government offered amnesty for every militant who gives up his armaments, and it worked, and they still have the same option if they want to go back to their normality and to go back to their normal life. This is the maximum that you can offer, amnesty.

Question 9: Mr. President, as you know, French presidential election will take place, do you have a favorite, do you have a preference for one of the candidates?

President Assad:  No, because we don’t have any contacts with any one of them, and we cannot count very much on the statements and rhetoric during the campaign, so we always say let’s wait and see what policy they’re going to adopt after they are in their position. But we always have hopes that the next administration or government or president, they want to deal with the reality, to disconnect themselves from the disconnected policy from our reality. That’s our hope, and they can work for the interest of the French people, because the question now after six years: as a French citizen, do you feel safer? I don’t think the answer is yes. The immigration problem, has it made the situation in your country better? I think the answer is no, whether in France or in Europe. The question now: what is the reason? This is the discussion that the next administration or government or president should deal with in order to deal with our reality, not with their imaginations as has been happening during the last six years.

Question 10: But one of the candidates, Francois Fillon, doesn’t have the same position as the official one; he would like to reestablish the dialogue with Syria. Do you expect his election – if he’s elected – could change the position of France about Syria?

President Assad: His rhetoric regarding the terrorists, or let’s say the priority to fight the terrorists and not meddling in the affairs of other countries, are welcome, but we have to be cautious, because what we’ve learned in this region during the last few years is that many officials would say something and do the opposite. I wouldn’t say that Mr. Fillon would do this. I hope not. But we have to wait and see, because there’s no contact. But so far, what he said, if it’s implemented, that will be very good.

Question 11: Do you appreciate him as a politician, Francois Fillon?

President Assad: I didn’t have any contact with him or cooperation, so whatever I say now won’t be very credible, to be frank with you.

Question 12: Is there a message you want to address to France?

President Assad: I think if I want to send it to the politicians, I will say the self-evident thing; that you have to work for the interest of the Syrian citizens, and for the last six years the situation is going in the other direction, because the French politics harmed the French interests. So, for the French people, I would say the mainstream media has failed in most of the West. The narrative has been debunked because of the reality, and you have the alternative media, you have to look for the truth. The truth was the main victim of the events in the Middle East, including Syria. I would ask any citizen in France to search for the reality, for the real information, through the alternative media. When they search for this information, they can be more effective in dealing with their government, or at least not allowing some politicians to base their politics on lies. That’s what we think is the most important thing during the last six years.

Question 13: Mr. President, your father has been a lifelong President of Syria. Do you consider the option of not being the President anymore, one day?

President Assad: Yeah, that depends on two things: the first one is the will of the Syrian people; do they want that person to be president or not. If I want to be president while the Syrian people doesn’t want me, even if I win in the elections, I don’t have strong support, I cannot achieve anything, especially in a complicated region like Syria. You cannot be just elected president, that doesn’t work, you need popular support. Without it I cannot be successful. So, at that time, there’s no meaning to be president.

The second one; if I have that feeling that I want to be president, I will nominate myself, but that depends on the first factor. If I feel that the Syrian people doesn’t want me, of course I wouldn’t be. So, it’s not about me mainly, it’s about the Syrian people; do they want me or not. That’s how I look at it.

Question 14: Last question; Donald Trump is to be appointed as President of the United States in less than two weeks. He has been clear that he wants to improve relationships with Russia, which is one of your main allies…

President Assad: Yeah, exactly.

Journalist:  Do you consider… do you expect that it will change the position of the United States towards Syria?

President Assad: Yeah, if you want to talk realistically, because the Syrian problem is not isolated, it’s not only Syrian-Syrian; actually, the biggest part… or let’s say the major part of the Syrian conflict is regional and international. The simplest part that you can deal with is the Syrian-Syrian part. The regional and the international part depends mainly on the relation between the United States and Russia. What he announced yesterday was very promising, if there’s a genuine approach or initiative toward improving the relation between the United States and Russia, that will effect every problem in the world, including Syria. So, I would say yes, we think that’s positive, regarding the Syrian conflict.

Journalist: What is positive?

President Assad:  I mean the relation, the improvement of the relation between the United States and Russia will reflect positively on the Syrian conflict.

Journalists: Thank you very much.

 Dr. Mohammad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

alibrahim56@hotmail.com

 Related: 

More of H.E. President Al-Assad’s interviews with French Media:

 President Assad’s AFP Interview

Whoever fights terrorism somewhere will protect the rest of the world

 President Al-Assad’s France 2 TV Interview, April 20, 2015

President Al-Assad’s interview with the French ‘Paris Match Magazine, December 4, 2014

President Bashar al-Assad’s interview with Agence France Presse AFP 20-01-2014

PRESIDENT AL-ASSAD/ FRANCE 2 TV INTERVIEW ( November 15, 2009)

PRESIDENT AL-ASSAD/ LE FIGARO INTERVIEW ( November 13, 2009)

PRESIDENT AL-ASSAD/ FRANCE 3 INTERVIEW (May 3, 2009)

PRESIDENT ASSAD/ FRENCH TV CHANNEL3 INTERVIEW (September 2, 2008)

PRESIDENT ASSAD/ LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE (July 9th, 2008)

PRESIDENT ASSAD/ L’HUMANITE INTERVIEW (July 9th, 2008)

 PRESIDENT ASSAD/ FRANCE 3 INTERVIEW (December 5, 2005)

PRESIDENT ASSAD/ LE FIGARO INTERVIEW (June 23, 2001)

PRESIDENT ASSAD/ 2001 FRENCH TV INTERVIEW (June 22, 2001)

PRESIDENT ASSAD/ FRENCH MEDIA INTERVIEW (June 16, 2001)

 

Strange just how much israel loves far right European politicians, in theory it should be the opposite

AUSTRIA – ‘Far right’Hofer would have been better for Israel, says Jewish FPO member

I-24 NEWS – Hofer as Austria’s president would have produced a better result for Israel, a Jewish member of the Freedom Party (FPOe) told i24news Sunday.

“I think Hofer would be the best president for Israel because he knows everything happening in Israel,” David Lasar said after the election results came in.

Hofer, swiftly conceded defeat after polls closed with tallies giving his opponent- independent ecologist Alexander Van der Bellen- 53.3 percent of the vote over Hofer’s 46.7 percent.

According to Lasar, Hofer last visited Israel in 2014, during the 50-day summer war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. “The last time he was there, there were the rockets from Gaza to Sderot and also to Tel Aviv, so he sees the problems,” Lasar said.

SURPRISE, SURPRISE–Dutch Secret Service Investigating Geert Wilder’s Ties to Israel

f8274-geertwilderspamelagellder_atlasshrugs200_typepad_com
The reason for the probe, local daily says, was concern that Geert Wilders is ‘influenced by Israeli factors.’ Wilders’ anti-Muslim Party of Freedom is likely to be a leading member of the next government.

ed note–in other words, he is suspected of being an asset for Israeli intelligence and particularly in his role as a propagator of the same anti-Islamic hysteria that Israel needs in order to foment and fuel her ‘clash of civilizations’ designed not only to destroy the Middle East, but the Christian West as well.

Keep in mind as well that within ‘white nationalist’ circles, Geert is cheered as a hero by those who are too stupid to see how their disaffections and discontent have been harnessed by the very same Judaic forces which they claim to be against and who absolutely LOVE Wilders and the nasty things he has to say about ‘Muzzies’ taking over ‘white Europe’. 

Haaretz

Geert Wilders, leader of Holland’s far-right anti-Muslim Party of Freedom, was investigated in the past by the country’s General Intelligence and Security Service (AVID) over his “ties to Israel and their possible influence on his loyalty.”

Image result

Wilders, whose party is leading the polls ahead of the upcoming election in March, is likely to be a key figure in the next government.

The undercover investigation was exposed over the weekend by the veteran daily De Volkskrant. According to the article, AVID agents conducted the investigation from 2009 to 2010, with its existence and results remaining unknown until now. The Dutch central intelligence organization is in charge of safeguarding internal national security, handling non-military dangers to the country and preventing espionage.

Image result

An investigation of this kind into an active politician is an exceptional occurrence in Holland, the newspaper noted. If conducted, it is only in cases in which there are very reasonable grounds for suspicion. Wilders was a member of parliament at the time, with his party supporting the right-center coalition government from the outside and enabling it to remain in power.

Image result

The reason for the investigation, according to the newspaper, was concern in the Dutch security service about “the possibility that Geert Wilders is influenced by Israeli factors,” with whom he had close ties. He visited Israel at the end of 2008, meeting with “Gen. Amos Gilad in his office in the main military headquarters in Tel Aviv, and regularly attended meetings with Israel’s ambassador to Holland at the time,” according to De Volkskrant.

Image result

The reporters discovered the story during the course of a comprehensive investigation into the tight security protection that the country provided to the leader of the far right. For the purpose of that article they interviewed 37 civil servants, former secret agents, security guards etc.

Both the security services and Wilders declined to comment on the report.

A badge of honor to the Russian media Russian media وسام شرف للإعلام الروسي

Written by Nasser Kandil,

When the European Parliament votes for a recommendation to punish the Russian mass media as a danger against Europe, and puts it with the media which promotes for ISIS as the same danger, it shows how Europe is concerned about the growth and the development of the Russian media in its modern and contemporary version, It is a pure fabrication as the Europeans know by comparing between the Russian media and the media which promotes for ISIS and the terrorism. The Europeans know as a public opinion that Russia is repositioning in the real place in the war on terrorism and that the governments of Europe have stood in an ambiguous place and around which the suspicions of supporting terrorism are hovering. The European polls say the same thing about the lowness of the popularity of the French President to 4 % in a parallel with the accusation of the French President Francois Hollande by his opponents for supporting Al Nusra Front which represents Al –Qaeda organization officially in its war against the Syrian country. The most fortunate candidate of the center-right and the candidate of the Right Marie Le Pen who competes him on the forthcoming presidency in France and who share nearly 80% of voters said that too, but they agree that the bias of Hollande to support Al Nusra has formed a reason for its growth and the continuation of the war on Syria, so the criticism against Russia by the rulers of Europe is its standing with the Syrian country against Al Nusra.

Two months ago the official fierce European campaign was targeting the Russian diplomacy, but the campaigns of intimidation and misinformation have failed in weakening the diplomatic position of Russia. Today Europe’s rulers recognize the fact that the Russian media is no longer marginal, and it is not just virtual opponent, but it is media that penetrates to the forces of the public opinion in Europe and affects its directions. Punishing the Russian mass media financially and then banning and restricting it is not but a revelation of the tightness felt by the rulers of the West, while they are seeing that their followers believe in what is said by the Russian media against these rulers, after the Western media was the source for the Russian citizens to know about their countries and their rulers, but now the roles are reversed along with the Western aggressive hysteria as a sign of the inability to confront in the freedom arenas, because running the game according to professional rules has got the acceptance of the public opinion which believes in the closest to the truth and the most honest, however resorting to punishment and prosecution is just an expression of recognizing two facts the high effectivity of the Russian media on one hand, and the inability to keep up with it and compete it according to the rules of the professional media equation.

When the elected US President Donald Trump said that the administration of the President Barack Obama was a partner in the birth of ISIS and a supporter of Al Nusra front, and that the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton supports through her relationships with Saudi Arabia the terrorist formations in Syria, the people believed Trump and elected him as a president to their country although the Russian diplomacy has mentioned that many years ago, knowing that the Russian media has strived to document the realities which reveal this fact professionally. When the candidates for the French presidency compete in accusing the President Francois Hollande about his responsibility of the growth of terrorism and its rootedness in France because of legalizing the policy of mobilizing the extremists to Syria, and when the Russian media spends effort, money,  and time to document these facts and  presenting them to the public opinion, then logically two things must occur, first the Russian media becomes closer to the Western public opinion than its giant mass media which consumes billions of dollars, and despite of that it fails in promoting the candidate Clinton, and in raising the popularity of the President Hollande. Second, the West rulers are fed up with the Russian media, so they will prevent the freedoms and revenge by the force of suppression, prevention, prohibition, and the inquisition. The Russian media will get the respect of the public opinion and the sympathy of the real owners of freedoms and the opponents of the freedom and the fact will lose their battles at once.

Greeting to the qualitative professional shift witnessed by the Russian mass media, and which qualified it to get the highest Western badge, which is the badge of sanctions.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

وسام شرف للإعلام الروسي

ناصر قنديل
– عندما يصوّت البرلمان الأوروبي على توصية لمعاقبة وسائل الإعلام الروسية كخطر على أوروبا ويضعها مع الإعلام الذي يسوّق لداعش في منزلة الخطر ذاتها فهو يكشف كم تشعر أوروبا بالقلق من نمو وتطوّر الإعلام الروسي بنسخته الحديثة والمعاصرة، وليس ما يعلم الأوروبيون أنه محض افتراء بالتشبيه بين الإعلام الروسي والإعلام الذي يسوّق داعش والإرهاب، فالأوروبيون يعرفون كرأي عام أنّ روسيا تتموضع في المكان الحقيقي للحرب على الإرهاب، وأنّ حكومات أوروبا وقفت في الموقع الملتبس والذي تحوم حوله شبهات دعم الإرهاب، وهذا ما تقوله استطلاعات الرأي الأوروبية نفسها حول تدني شعبية الرئيس الفرنسي إلى 4 بالتوازي مع اتهام معارضي الرئيس الفرنسي فرنسوا هولاند له بالوقوف مع جبهة النصرة التي تمثل تنظيم القاعدة رسميا في حربها ضدّ الدولة السورية، كما يقول مرشح يمين الوسط الأوفر حظاً ومرشحة اليمين مارين لوبان التي تنافسه على الرئاسة المقبلة في فرنسا ويتقاسمان قرابة الـ80 من الناخبين، لكنهما يتفقان على أنّ انحياز هولاند للنصرة شكل سبباً في نموها واستمرار الحرب في سورية، حيث المأخذ الذي يسجله حكام أوروبا على روسيا هو وقوفها مع الدولة السورية بوجه النصرة.

– قبل شهرين كانت الحملة الأوروبية الرسمية الشرسة تستهدف الدبلوماسية الروسية وفشلت حملات التهويل والتضليل في إضعاف موقف روسيا الدبلوماسي، واليوم يعترف حكام أوروبا بحقيقة أنّ الإعلام الروسي لم يعد هامشياً، ولا هو مجرد خصم افتراضي، بل هو إعلام ينفذ إلى قوى الرأي العام في أوروبا ويؤثر في رسم اتجاهاتها، والتوجه نحو معاقبة وسائل الإعلام الروسية مالياً وتالياً بالحظر والتضييق، ليس إلا إشهاراً للضيق الذي يشعر به حكام الغرب وهم يرون جمهورهم يصدق ما يقوله الإعلام الروسي بحق هؤلاء الحكام، بعدما كان الإعلام الغربي مصدراً ليعرف المواطنون الروس ما يريدون معرفته عن بلادهم وحكامهم، وها هي الأدوار تنقلب، ومعها تثور الهستيريا الغربية العدوانية، علامة على الثقة بالعجز عن المواجهة في ساحة الحرية ومساحاتها الواسعة، وخوض اللعبة وفق قواعد مهنية، يحظى بقبول الرأي العام الأقرب للحقيقة والأشدّ صدقاً، واللجوء للعقاب والملاحقة ليس إلا التعبير عن التسليم بحقيقتين، الفعالية العالية للإعلام الروسي من جهة والعجز عن مجاراته ومنافسته وفق قواعد المعادلة الإعلامية المهنية.

– عندما يخرج الرئيس الأميركي المنتخب دونالد ترامب ويقول إنّ إدارة الرئيس باراك أوباما كانت شريكاً في ولادة تنظيم داعش، وسنداً لجبهة النصرة، وانّ المرشحة الديمقراطية هيلاري كلينتون تدعم عبر علاقتها بالسعودية التشكيلات الإرهابية في سورية، ويصدّق الناس ترامب وينتخبونه رئيساً لبلادهم، بينما تكون الدبلوماسية الروسية قد قالت ذلك قبل سنوات، ويكون الإعلام الروسي قد جهد بتوثيق مهني للوقائع التي تكشف هذه الحقيقة، وعندما يكون المرشحون للرئاسة الفرنسية يتبارون في توجيه الاتهامات للرئيس فرنسوا هولاند بالمسؤولية عن نمو الإرهاب وتجذره في فرنسا بسبب إباحة سياسة تطويع المتطرفين إلى سورية، وينفق الإعلام الروسي جهداً ومالاً ووقتاً لتوثيق هذه الحقائق وتقديمها للرأي العام، فالمنطقي أن يحدث شيئان، الأول أن يصير الإعلام الروسي أقرب إلى الرأي العام الغربي من وسائل إعلامه العملاقة التي تستهلك مليارات الدولارات، ورغم ذلك تفشل في تسويق المرشحة كلينتون، وفي رفع شعبية الرئيس هولاند، والثاني أن يضيق حكام الغرب ذرعاً بالإعلام الروسي فيخلعون قناع الحريات ويذهبون لتصفية الحساب بقوة للقمع والمنع والحظر ومحاكم التفتيش، وهنا يحظى الإعلام الروسي باحترام الرأي العام وتعاطف أهل الحريات الحقيقيين، ويخسر خصوم الحرية والحقيقة معاركهم دفعة واحدة.

– تحية للنقلة النوعية المهنية التي تشهدها وسائل الإعلام الروسية، والتي أهّلتها لنيل أعلى وسام غربي، هو وسام العقوبات.

Related Articles

French Journalist Arrested After Exposing israel’s Link To Paris Attacks

French Journalist Arrested After Exposing Israeli Link To Paris Attacks

AWD News.com — Nov 25, 2016

Investigative journalist Hicham Hamza was detained by French police last month after exposing Israel’s role in orchestrating the Paris Attacks on November 13, 2015.

Police charged Hamza with “violating judicial secrecy,” and have threatened him with potential prison time for a photo Hamza published online.

The scene at the Bataclan Theatre: corpses or mannequins?

The scene at the Bataclan Theatre: corpses or mannequins? Click to enlarge

Below is a translation of Hicham Hamza’s article describing his arrest:

Detained by police for investigating the attacks in Paris

An independent journalist and founder of the investigative website Panamza, I was detained for seven hours by police about an article in which I revealed the Israeli origin of the shocking photo of the Bataclan.

On Monday, February 22nd, I went of my own accord to the police station in response to a summons from the Crimes Against Persons Brigade, located in the 13th arrondissement of Paris.

The day before, I had received an “urgent” voice message from an official of the Directorate of the Judicial Police asking me to call him immediately. The reason: my  December 15th article entitled “Bataclan Carnage: The shocking photo was disseminated from Jerusalem.”

I was familiar with the Judicial Police premises, having been summoned twice to respond to “defamation” complaints brought against me by Caroline Fourest and Pierre Bergé.

Surprise! This time, upon arrival I was “placed in custody” following a preliminary investigation by the Paris prosecutor. The officer informed me that I was now suspected of having committed – by publishing my article – the following offenses: “violation of the secrecy of an investigation”, “publication of an image that seriously undermines human dignity,” and “premeditated voluntary violence without ITT.”*

Yes, you read that correctly.

So what happened next?

I was led to cell to await the arrival of my lawyer Isabelle Coutant-Peyre so that she could be present, as the law allows, during my interrogation.

After the interrogation, I was made to read and sign the minutes of my statements. I was then returned to detention pending the police response. Five hours later I left the musty old double-locked room to learn that no decision had been taken by the prosecutor of the Republic.

I was finally allowed to collect my things and go.

The merits of the case?

While following the torturous trail of the shocking, anonymous Bataclan massacre photo, I had done my work as an investigative journalist. My objective was to fully document my sources. So in my article, I inserted the URL of the first web page containing the non-blurred Bataclan picture (which I had chosen to truncate on my site).

The original source of the photo turned out, oddly enough, to be a tweet published by an Israeli organization headed by the U.S. neoconservative Mark Gerson.

My practice – which is increasingly costly and risky – of ultra-sourced web journalism is my guarantee of reliability for my readers: I give them my sources to check so they can judge for themselves the veracity of my information.

Today, the Paris prosecutor – who reports directly to the Ministry of Justice – claimed that I had supposedly “violated the secrecy of the investigation” and committed “premeditated voluntary violence” by “disseminating” the photo necessarily included in this tweet.

Duly noted.

I had already said in my hearing that I contested with the greatest force the validity of such accusations.

The Paris prosecutor’s office, directed by François Molins, now has six months to decide whether to indict me.

In the crosshairs

Keep in mind that on December 1st, the Valls government had announced – via its inter-ministerial delegate Gilles Clavreul – its hostility against me, confessing awkwardly that it would seek “legal loopholes to get (Hamza) prosecuted.”

Meanwhile, the arrival of Jean-Jacques Urvoas to head the Department of Justice was accompanied, more discreetly, by another little-noticed change. Thomas Andrieu, the director of the Civil Liberties and Legal Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Interior (and former right arm of Manuel Valls) became on February 5th the chief of staff of the new Minister of Justice.

On December 2nd I had published an article about this close associate of the pro-Israel network. The chief architect of the state of emergency, Thomas Andrieu had been previously charged with carrying out the government’s promise (which was in the end never kept) of dissolving the Jewish Defense League. (Editor’s note: Responsible for dozens if not hundreds of terrorist attacks, and untold thousands of threats of violence, the JDL has been officially declared a terrorist organization by the FBI; yet due to the power of the Zionist lobby it remains legal in France, Canada, and other countries.)

A detail that speaks volumes: In my article “Bataclan Carnage: The shocking photo was disseminated from Jerusalem,” I also raised questions about the JDL, stressing that this Zionist and racist militia, which is tolerated in France (but considered a terrorist group the United States and Israel) had directly published the gruesome Bataclan photograph on the homepage of its website.

We still do not know all the details about provenance and chain of custody of the photograph in question, which was designed to elicit terror, and whose authenticity is has been much discussed in the foreign alternative media. What we do know is that it first appeared on the website of a webmaster based in Jerusalem.

But it should come as no surprise that the Jewish Defense League – a small group linked to similar networks of the Israeli extreme right – could publish the photo without attracting the wrath of Bernard Cazeneuve, the Minister of the Interior who is extremely obliging to the Zionist movement and its operational relay in France: the MOSSAD.

Surprise, surprise: Along with the explicit title “Bataclan photo of the victims,” the shocking picture, whose publication by the JDL was exposed a month later on Panamza, has since been replaced by an off-topic illustration showing  … the seats in the house.

Someone in high places must have protected the JDL from any police summons by quietly asking them to remove the photograph.

As for me: For revealing the Israeli source of the image, which was manipulated through social media to instil fear and acceptance of draconian security measures, I was detained by police, at the request of prosecutors, for seven hours.

Now I am under threat of new prosecutions likely to bring, this time, a prison sentence.

Source

Trump’s US-Russia Thaw A Chance for Europe to Find its Place in the World’: Analysis

US President-elect Donald Trump

November 13, 2016

French political analyst Caroline Galacteros said that if US President-elect Donald Trump manages to normalize ties between Moscow and Washington, this will change the global geopolitical environment.

In this situation, Europe would get a historic chance to find its place in this new world, Galacteros wrote in a piece for Le Figaro.

Trump’s victory in the United States presidential election became a shock of global magnitude for many Western leaders and media. However, this victory is not the beginning of an “era of uncertainty” as it was described by French President Francois Hollande, Galacteros said.

According to her, Europe should welcome the next American president and the French government should reaffirm its readiness to develop bilateral ties.

“The American fundamental geopolitical principles will not disappear after Trump’s inauguration because these principles are trans-partisan. What will change are the style and the methods of Washington’s foreign policy,” the article read.

Moreover, Galacteros suggested that Trump’s entourage will probably have a more realistic vision of global politics.

Paris should use the situation to establish a European structure of security and defense, which should also involve Russia, she wrote.

According to the author, Donald Trump wants to cooperate with Russia to defeat the Daesh or ISIL Takfiri terrorist group in Syria and Iraq, “and this is good news for Europe”.

Since 2001, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly called for cooperation with the West on counterterrorism efforts. If Trump made the decision to cooperate in fact this would mean the “end of the policy of chaos and destabilization” in the Middle East, the article read.

Moreover, joint military efforts against terrorists by Moscow and Washington would lead to diplomatic efforts.

“The choice of the American people is promising. The ’empire’ is not dead. It is rising from the ashes. […] The scope of these changes will depend on Washington’s policy towards Russia as well as the West’s ability to put an end to the Russia-related nightmares of the Cold War,” Galacteros wrote.

However, she noted, there will be those in Washington and Brussels insisting on running the “policy of ostracism” against Russia.

“Whatever russophobic politicians say, Russia is at the end of the West and at the end of Europe. […] Europe and France are in flames. We need a cognitive, intellectual and even moral rupture to integrate Russia back into the European camps, instead of pushing it to China’s embraces,” the article read.

Source: Sputnik

Welcome to the Trump World Order

By Maria Dubovikova

November 11, 2016 “Information Clearing House” –  So Donald Trump is the new president of the United States. Allan Lichtman and his “13 Keys to the White House” have been proved right. The 30-year tradition of predicting the out-come of the US presidential elections continues uninterrupted. Political figures have started checking their social media accounts, deleting Tweets that could be uncomplimentary to Trump. It doesn’t help as the Internet remembers everything.

Some are even more unlucky. French President Francois Hollande said in public recently that Trump “make you want to retch”. The global political narrative is quickly drifting away from “the dumb Trump” to “Congratulations, dear Mr. President, I always knew you would win!”

Journalists who had been vilifying Trump – and promising apocalypse in case he is elected – have started debating how he would possibly save the world. Most experts failed in their prognosis. They could not imagine that the erratic Trump will be victorious over reserved, pragmatic, and experienced Clinton. They had their reasons but in their analysis they missed a lot of things.

Why Trump is president-elect

Trump is a living example of the American dream. From being a simple middle class Ameri-can, child of second generation German immigrants, he jumped to become a billionaire and then the US president. His penthouse apartment is said to be more luxurious than the White House. He had his own plane before becoming the US president.

More importantly, he has promised to revive the American dream for all Americans, irrespec-tive of their social status. Experts and the so-called elite considered his mannerisms and choice of language as a disadvantage. But instead it turned out to be his advantage as he connected to people in their language.

The fact remains that the elite, and people considering themselves intellectuals, do not form the majority in any society. The US is no different. Trump’s tweets and declarations were shocking for the elites but were very common for the masses. His imperfections made him closer to the ordinary people, especially from the working class. The “he is one of us” image always works when you deal with the masses. He gambled with it and emerged the winner.

He got a chance to grab the Oval Cabinet as he is not liberal. Shadi Hamid seems right not believing that humans naturally inclined toward liberalism. Moreover, some men continue to remain sexist. If they don’t confess it, they keep this deep inside. Women frequently like more bad guys than respectable family men. They may not confess it but this sometimes reveals where their sympathies lie and how they vote.

A large number of white Americans continue to show racist tendencies. While calls for toler-ance goes on, the influx of immigrants gave a fertile ground for racism and somehow xeno-phobia. During these elections, it appeared, that the Americans had to choose between two candi-dates with little credibility. They opted for change and fresh ideas. Also, the turnout was far lesser than on the previous elections, which indicates disillusionment over the current presi-dential campaign and both the candidates.

Popular vote shows the deep divide in the American society, with Clinton showing ad-vantage over Trump. However, it was the US electoral system that brought Trump to power.

Homeland and foreign policy

Apparently he is set to make America great again not by foreign policy and imposing its will but by boosting the economy, retuning to manufacturing and giving new jobs. There is also a possibility that he will put even foreign policy based on business ties. So no help or assis-tance could come for free or without concomitant advantages for the economy.

The tycoon that he has been Trump is aware that money decides everything. He will proba-bly try to implement this rule in policymaking, both at home and abroad. The main motive of the foreign policy could turn into bargain, trading and profit.

Trump is not going to be easy for the Arab leaders. “You, guys, are out of business” – these were his words in response to a journalist asking about the President-elect’s policy vision toward the Middle East. Pro-Israeli and mostly anti-Arab, he will not try to solve Arab prob-lems anymore. However, he will continue the US fight against terrorism and probably be more hawkish than Clinton.

In any case, he will not be inclined to treat the Arabs as equal partners. Such an attitude is going to be unacceptable for the Middle Easters powers and could lead to cooling of ties. The same fate – i.e. no allies, just business – probably awaits Europe.

Trump and Russia

Russia, which was frequently debated during the campaign, is neither a winner nor a looser after this election. First of all, no one really knows who is Mr. Trump and what he is going to do. Secondly, he has Senate and Congress, which will not let him do whatever he likes. Moreover, an anti-Russian spirit prevails in the US no matter what.

With Senate and the Congress, both in Republican hands, they are likely to seriously limit his intentions, as he will have to balance between what he wants and what he actually can. However, this man is hard to deal with. So pressure groups and other instruments of man-agement of the US policy will not probably work with Trump.

Even if there is a shift in the US-Russia relations, this will take a long time. Such a shift is needed anyway and a confrontation isn’t good for the whole world. Trump is probably de-fined to press the reboot button in Russian relations and Russia doesn’t need a weak US. Russia needs to speak with the US, to listen and to be heard. Trump, as a businessman, seems exactly that kind of a figure.

We are entering into a new era that will be hardly predictable but extremely interesting. Clinton had many cards on her hands but failed to play them the right way. Trump has out-smarted her. A game of poker has never been so relevant as an analogy. A spicy 45th season of “the United States Saga” is about to begin.

Maria Dubovikova is a President of IMESClub and CEO of MEPFoundation. Alumni of MGIMO (Moscow State Institute of International Relations [University] of Ministry of For-eign Affairs of Russia), now she is a PhD Candidate there. Her research fields are in Russian foreign policy in the Middle East, Euro-Arab dialogue, policy in France and the U.S. towards the Mediterranean, France-Russia bilateral relations, humanitarian cooperation and open diplomacy. She can be followed on Twitter: @politblogme

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Why Trump’s Presidency Is a Win for Europe

Why Trump’s Presidency Is a Win for Europe

FINIAN CUNNINGHAM | 12.11.2016 |

Why Trump’s Presidency Is a Win for Europe

By vowing to rebuild American society, scale back foreign militarism, de-escalate NATO and seek friendly cooperative relations with Russia, a United States of America under Donald Trump would not only be a boon for America’s best interests. It would also be a win for Europe.

In such a new international outlook, the European bloc would be freed from its atlanticist subservience which has been dominant and deleterious for several decades. European governments would be freer to have more independent foreign policy, instead of toeing the dubious line that up to now has been ordained from Washington. It has been a disaster for the EU to have adhered so slavishly to US foreign policy. Much of the current discontent and disaffection among EU citizens towards the Brussels-based bloc stems from this unnatural and unhealthy subservience to Washington.

Wars in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia and the attendant problems of blowback terrorism and influx of refugees are direct results of European governments following Washington’s foreign policy of regime change and so-called «democracy promotion». Even though these wars have been illegal and vile transgressions of international law.

Financial and economic policies adopted by European governments have been straitjacketed by neoliberal capitalist doctrine dictated by Wall Street and successive US governments. This boils down to misery and austerity for the masses, while a tiny oligarchy become ever bloated with wealth. In short, stagnation.

Deteriorating relations with Russia – Europe’s biggest energy supplier – have also stemmed from the EU following Washington’s confrontational agenda towards Moscow. European governments have bought into the spurious US official narrative of Russia being «aggressive» and «expansionist». Admittedly, certain EU members such as the Baltic states are all too willingly Russophobic. But for many others, such hostility between the EU and Russia does not make sense. While economic impacts on the US have been minimal, the tensions between the EU and Russia have badly hit European businesses, exporters, farmers and workers.

The looming threat of war on European territory from the irrational enlargement of the US-led NATO military alliance along Russia’s border is also seen by many citizens as another demonstration of the EU’s reckless subservience to Washington. It is Washington, of course, that has been the main advocate of increasing NATO forces in Europe, augmented by atlanticist EU governments like Britain, Germany and France, as well as the anti-Russian paranoid Baltic states. Some 500 million EU citizens are held ransom to war policies by a coterie of governments who behave like vassals to Washington.

In many ways, the political, economic and cultural problems challenging Europe arise directly from the EU’s lack of independence from the US. Often it seems that Brussels is acting as a rubber-stamp for foreign policies authored in Washington. No wonder then that in the view of many EU citizens the functioning of the bloc is seen to be undemocratic and unrepresentative of their immediate needs. This explains the soaring rise of anti-EU parties right across the bloc. The phenomenon has less to do with an inherent popular affinity for parties labelled «far right» or «xenophobic» and more to do with a popular desire for democratic governance that attends to urgent social interests.

There is much overlap with the political rise of Donald Trump in the US. As in Europe, the mass of ordinary working-class American citizens have been disenfranchised, politically and economically, over several decades. A rarefied political class has become ossified and is seen to be self-enriching and servile to a tiny wealthy elite of financiers, corporations and the military machine that underpins this oligarchy. Integral to the oligarchy are the corporate-controlled media monopolies that pontificate to the masses on how they should vote in elections – elections that have become inconsequential to democratic needs.

All that now appears to be changing. A revolt is underway.

Trump’s election, like the Brexit before in Britain earlier this year, is a popular revolt against the oligarchy. The mass of people have become sickened and wearied by endless wars and endless economic austerity, while the rich elite become ever more obscenely wealthy, and all the while the media propaganda system cynically instructs the people who to vote for and who not to, knowing full well there will really be no «hope and change».

This time around though, the US election, like the Brexit, was infused with righteous, raw popular anger against the oligarchy.

Trump struck a deep popular chord when he called US-led wars in the Middle East a «disservice to our country and a disservice to humanity». People got it when he lamented how much American infrastructure, schools, hospitals, roads, jobs, would have benefited if the trillions of dollars wasted on wars had instead been invested at home. Despite media concealment, a large section of the American people concurred with Trump’s angry denunciation of Obama and past US administrations for criminally stoking terrorism and conflicts. His presidential rival Hillary Clinton was fixed right at the center of this culpability among the Washington oligarchy, which straddles both the Republican and Democrat parties.

Voting Trump into the White House – a property tycoon who has never held an elected office before – is an historic repudiation of the political establishment. It is a political earthquake.

On the eve of election day on November 8, Trump’s declared that «this will be our independence day… when the American working class will strike back». It may seem incongruous that a billionaire capitalist should exhort the working class to strike. But strike they did.

Trump also said his election would be «Brexit plus, plus, plus». That remark has turned out to be prescient too. The American election earthquake has rocked Europe with greater force than did Britain’s vote to quit the bloc in July. A crevice has been torn open between atlanticist governments and more independently minded ones.

Germany and France in particular have been caught off-side. Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed «shock» at Trump being elected, while French President Francois Hollande – also disapproving the result – called for «united European values» to confront the new American president. Hollande’s bravado for «liberal values» makes him look even more fatuous.

Britain, the other atlanticist voice in Europe, was more congratulatory to President-elect Trump. No doubt, that’s because Britain is seeking to shore up badly needed bilateral trade deals with the US in light of its departure from the EU and therefore it needs to keep Trump sweet.

What really alarms Germany and France is that Trump is no atlanticist or NATO advocate. His nationalist views and tougher stance on immigration controls resonate with EU members like Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Greece and Austria.

Trump’s views also give a boost to anti-EU parties in Germany and France who are challenging incumbents Merkel and Hollande in elections next year. It was telling that while Merkel and Hollande deprecated Trump’s election, he was heartily congratulated by the anti-EU Alternative for Germany and Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France, as well as Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party in Britain. These parties also tend to share Trump’s more sanguine view of friendlier relations with Russia.

If Donald Trump can deliver on his avowed program of rebuilding American society and economy from within while abandoning US imperialist hegemony around the world that will potentially transform world relations. For Russia and China it will lead to a much needed normalization of relations, away from the current Cold War-type hostility that threatens to ignite world war. Both Russian and Chinese leaders Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping were quick to express congratulations and readiness to work with new president Donald Trump.

The political establishment, including the media, in the EU that is dominated by woefully misguided atlanticism has deplored the election of Trump in the US. There is a snobbish handwringing attitude that Trump’s movement is all about racist, white trash numbskulls. There may be some unsavory elements to Trump’s support, as there are in some anti-EU movements. But in the main what it is about is reclaiming democratic power for the mass of people. What the Americans have done in electing Trump is what the Europeans also need to do in order to sack a corrupt and venal establishment that up to now has only served Washington and the atlanticist elite.

If Trump’s victory invigorates similar trends across Europe then that would be a good thing. And especially if it led to Europe having a more independent foreign policy from Washington and in particular gaining a more normal, mutual relationship with Russia.

The End of the West As We Know It

The End of the West As We Know It

MATTHEW JAMISON | 10.11.2016 | OPINION

The End of the West As We Know It

The shock, unbelievable, astonishing election of Donald J. Trump is not only a massive turning point in the history of the United States. It is also the end of an era for the post-WWII American led Global Order and it marks the beginning of the twilight of American global leadership. The repercussions of this presidential election will be felt for years to come and will have profound effects on global politics. Mr. Trump’s «America First» policy and isolationism will lead America to abdicate and eventually lose its role as the World’s Police Man and pre-eminent Superpower status.

President elect Trump has openly questioned and disparaged the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. There are going to be big tensions and fissures within NATO regarding the arrival of Donald Trump and Trumpism in American foreign policy. Mr. Trump will bring to a head the massive imbalance in NATO funding arrangements. To be fair to Mr. Trump does have a point with regards to the funding of NATO. The United States shoulders well over 50% of the funding of NATO while other European members have been able to shelter under the American/NATO defence umbrella without paying their fair share. This has been glossed over and tolerated by various American administrations both Republican and Democrat. Now however, if Trump sticks to his previous pronouncements on NATO it could mean a big shake up of NATO or perhaps even the Alliance breaking apart.

The Donald stated at an election rally back in the summer that he would like to: «keep NATO, but I want them (the other European member states) to pay. I don’t want to be taken advantage of». Most starkly, the United States spends 3 percent of gross domestic product on its armed forces while the rest of NATO averages 1.4 percent of GDP even after agreeing formally to a 2 percent target. And the consequences are natural—for example, at the peak of the Afghanistan war the U.S. provided 100,000 troops to the mission while the rest of NATO managed only about 35,000. Trump has capitalised on this imbalance to further propose his America First agenda. Trump is apparently willing to disband NATO as well as key Asian alliances, and to withdraw from the Middle East as well — a «Trexit».

For President elect Trump, everything, including military alliances, is seen through the prism of zero sum business transactions. Commenting further Trump has questioned one of the most sacrosanct principles of NATO, Article 5, that an attack on one member state is an attack on all members: «people aren’t paying their fair share and then the stupid people, they say, ‘but we have a treaty’». Striking a deeply isolationist and quasi-xenophobic tone Mr. Trump lambasted the idea of having to defend far away countries who were not paying their fair dues: «We’re protecting countries that most of the people in this room have never even heard of and we end up in world war three…give me a break».

The divisions in NATO will now most likely be brought to the fore and could, if not managed carefully, lead to the unravelling of the Atlantic Alliance. It is not just America’s European and North Atlantic alliances, which could fracture during the four years ahead of President Trump. He has previously singled out not just European nations like Germany but also other US allies like Japan and Saudi Arabia, threatening them that if elected America could «walk» if they do not pay the full cost of American soldiers stationed in those countries for their protection. Former Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt reacted after the Trump NATO comments by stating: «I never thought a serious candidate for US President could be a serious threat against the security of the West. But that’s where we are».

German Chancellor Angela Merkel in her statement congratulating Donald Trump on his election contained a veiled warning. Frau Merkel: «Germany & America are connected by values: democracy, freedom, respect for the law and the dignity of human beings independently of origin, skin colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political views. On the basis of these values, I am offering the future President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, close co-operation».

France’s President Francois Hollande was even more pointed in his «congratulation» statement declaring that Trump’s victory: «opens a period of uncertainty». Speaking from the Elysee Palace President Hollande said that there was now a greater need for a united Europe, able to wield influence on the international stage and promote its values and interests whenever they are challenged.

The EU Foreign Policy chief Federica Mogherini alluded to a similar theme in her tweet on the election result talking about the need to rediscover «the strength of Europe». Indeed, the election of Donald Trump as President could provide a catalyst for a dramatic rallying around by the Europeans to a separate and unified European defence organization. Trump’s election could have the consequence of speeding up and providing the rapid rationale needed to kick into high gear the push towards a new European Army, outlined by Jean-Claude Junker in the summer, in contrast to NATO.

At risk is a core principle of America’s post-World War II strategy—that trying to stay out of others’ business did not work and, in fact, helped lead to the world wars. Trump rejects this and would prefer that the United States interfered less in other countries affairs. Trump in particular seems to reject the core elements of America’s strengths in the world market and international security system and appears indifferent to or hostile even towards the post-WWII trans-Atlantic American commitment to European defence which could ease the ascension of a European Defence Community on par with NATO and eventual replace NATO as the main defence pillar for European security giving the EU a global military identity and capability.

If Hillary Clinton had been elected President of the USA then moves towards a common European defence posture might have taken longer and may have been more restrained or perhaps even involve NATO to some extent. NATO would have remained the cornerstone of the United States defence and security apparatus and policy making in Europe and under a Clinton administration with attempts made to strengthen NATO relevance, identity and cohesion with initiatives designed to reinvigorate the alliance.

One silver lining to a Trump Presidency, which ironically could hasten a divergence between America and Europe and cause deep alarm and division within NATO, is the possibility of détente between Russia and America under the respective leaderships of President Trump and President Putin. President Trump will in all likelihood attempt to foster a new and closer relationship between Washington DC and Moscow, particularly with regards to combating ISIS in the Middle East and stabilising Syria.

The EU and NATO, particularly the Eastern European countries will probably resist this push for enhanced cooperation and closer relations between America and Russia but it is clear that a Trump administration will place much greater emphasis on taking into account Russian interests rather than seeking confrontation and conflict and will not take great consideration over Western or Eastern European concerns. So, the election of Donald Trump as American President could represent a seismic geopolitical realignment and the end of The West as we have known The West since the end of WWII. NATO may fracture or become obsolete while the United States could move closer to Russia while the European Union moves away from America.

Hollande is right, the UK should do more to help refugee children. WE did more than any other EU country to create them

Do your moral duty over Calais children, Hollande tells UK

, and

French president François Hollande on Saturday hit back at the UK as the row between the two countries over the fate of hundreds of unaccompanied children still living in the Calais migrant camp became increasingly acrimonious.

Confirming that 5,000 people had so far been evacuated, Hollande said 1,500 remaining unaccompanied minors, housed in a camp made from shipping containers, would be transferred swiftly to reception centres around France.

The announcement dismayed charities which warned the dispersal policy could mean that many children, frightened and distrustful of the move, might attempt to run away.

It also appeared to be a marked change in policy to the one agreed with the UK. Home Office officials had expected to process the children’s applications in Calais. However, a source said “the French have pulled the plug” on the scheme.

Hollande said he had spoken with Theresa May to ensure that British officials would “accompany these minors to these centres and would play their part in subsequently welcoming them to the United Kingdom”.

“Their transfer to Britain is urgent,” he added. “We ask you to take your responsibilities and assume your moral duty by immediately organising their arrival.”

Ginny Howells, emergencies manager with Save the Children, who is at the camp, warned that transporting the unaccompanied children to reception centres around France could backfire.

“We want children to be going to child-appropriate accommodation but our huge concern is that these children will become a massive flight risk. In the last eviction in March we had 129 children go missing. We know that more children have already run away. We know that if you bus a child to somewhere else in France the risk is that they lose faith that they can get to the UK.”

Volunteers at the camp said they had been told that Home Office officials who had been on site all week would be leaving the camp on Monday.

“We had to rise to the challenge of the refugee issue,” Hollande said during a visit to a reception centre in Doué-la-Fontaine in western France.

“We could not tolerate the camp and we will not tolerate any others. There are 1,500 unaccompanied minors left in Calais and they will be very quickly dispatched to other centres.”

She added: “I’ve spoken to children who say: ‘I don’t trust this bus I don’t know where it’s going, I’m going to jump on the back of a lorry, I’m going to try the train tracks.’

“We say to them you can still do your family reunification application wherever you are in France. We’ve managed to convince a few children but more have become so disillusioned they don’t trust the French officials, so they run.”

Clare Moseley, founder of British charity Care4Calais, expressed concern for those children who had already been evacuated. “We are worried about what happens next – there will be a multitude of small camps where conditions are even worse than in the Jungle.”

Charities said the situation for those remaining in the camp was proving extremely difficult. Calais Action said at least 14 children were left on the site on Friday night with nowhere to go. Some children were having to be housed in makeshift accommodation outside the container camp which has now been bulldozed

“It is horrific now,” said Lally Mergler, a volunteer with the women and children’s centre in the camp.

“There are burned-out gas canisters, rubbish every­where, a lot of rats, and this is where the children are going in and out of the container camp. We would like Britain to step up to the plate and take the children it is supposed to take and the French to help out with the others, but neither side seems to want to do anything.”

“We had three Eritrean boys, two aged 13, one aged 14, and we could not identify any sort of official accommodation for them,” Howells said. “We had to say to them, ‘we can’t find you a bed for the night’. That’s completely unacceptable.”

The problem of how to care for the children has become a source of bitter division between France and the UK. Last Monday home secretary Amber Rudd complained that her officials had been given access to the camp only in the previous week. Her claims were rejected by French officials.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “At the request of the French we have moved UK staff out of the Calais camp this weekend but we remain fully engaged and committed to working alongside the French authorities and NGOs to ensure we are able to continue transferring eligible children to the UK.”

 

USA regime change and war against Syria, disguised as a war against ISIS

Source
 The US is not fighting ISIS in Syria. Together with its ally Saudi Arabia it is using ISIS and other Wahhabi terrorist groups like Jabhat Al-Nusra to wage a war of aggression against Syria so that it can take control of Syria and gain possession of the resources of the Middle East.

We may as well start with the US-led “anti-ISIS” coalition airstrikes on the Syrian Arab Army’s positions in the Thardeh Mountain in Deir El-Zour.

These airstrikes were an act of aggression against the Syrian Arab Army, which has been fighting terrorists from the beginning, whether these groups go by the name of the ‘Free Syrian Army’, ‘Al-Nusra Front’, ‘Fath al-Sham’, or what has now become the biggest phenomenon since the Taliban: ISIS.

This act of aggression was not just a violation of the ceasefire.  It was an act of direct help for the terrorists, for ISIS above all.

The Thardeh Mountains are strategically important for the defence of the Queries Airbase.  Their fall would also open up all of Deir El Zour to terrorist control.  From there ISIS can spread into other areas of Syria.

US bombing of Syrian Arab Army positions was intended to give ISIS air cover for an offensive intended to enable it to expand across Syria.

The US not only bombed Syrian military positions.  It also bombed bridges in Deir El-Zour province.  It did so in the knowledge that the bridges were the terrorists’ escape route to Iraq.  

After the bombing of the bridges this escape route has been closed.  Terrorists who want to escape Syria for Iraq can no longer do so.  They have to stay in Syria and wreak their havoc here, draining the power of the Syrian Arab Army and its Russian allies.

The blood of our Syrian soldiers and martyrs in Deir el-Zour has yet to dry. Yet instead of being ashamed of its lies the US claims it is “fighting ISIS.”

On the other side of the country there is Aleppo.  This has now become the centre of world attention.  However not all parts of Aleppo are receiving equal attention.   Only eastern Aleppo – the part where al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria) runs things – does so.

The US laments the failure of the ceasefire.  Of course it fails to say it was never committed to the ceasefire in the first place.

The US rushed to accuse the Syrian Arab Army and Russia of targeting a humanitarian convoy which was in “rebel”-held territory, despite the fact that Russian videos show no Syrian or Russian jets were there.  The US together with Britain and France called on the UN Security Council to treat this as a war crime and to impose a no-fly zone over Syria.

The party which should be asking the UN Security Council for an emergency meeting to end the aggression against it is Syria, just as the party which should be tried for war crimes is the US – first and foremost for bombing Syrian soldiers in the Thardeh Mountains with full intent and knowledge when a ceasefire was in place.

The US and its allies claim to be concerned about a humanitarian catastrophe in eastern Aleppo.  Their real concern is not for Aleppo or its people.  It is for their terrorist proxies there.  Should the Syrian government finally liberate eastern Aleppo it would be a shattering blow for the US’s ambitions in Syria.  Their concern is not for Aleppo.  It is just cover for supporting the terrorists.

It is also a way of threatening Russia and Syria with the possibility of military conflict with the United States if they do not bend to its demands.

Most people long ago fled the Al-Nusra controlled eastern part of the Aleppo for the rest of Aleppo, which is protected by the Syrian military.  However some citizens have not been able to flee. 

This is because the terrorists stopped them doing so, so that they can use them as human shields.   Of course we do not hear one word about that in the Western media or in the halls of the UN Security Council.

Take what Steffan De Mistura, the U.N. envoy, said in a direct appeal to the al-Nusra leaders in eastern Aleppo

“If you decide to leave with dignity, and with your weapons, to Idlib or  anywhere you wanted to go, I personally, I’m ready, physically, to accompany you”

What is this if not an admission of the sort of criminals these “rebels” are, and not by the way just in eastern Aleppo but throughout Syria?

De Mistura’s call is actually criminal and absurd.  Would any other country ever agree to allow terrorists to leave one part of the country to go to another?  Would it have the full approval of De Mistura if it did?  Would any other country in the same position not use all the means in its power to destroy the terrorists and protect its citizens? 

Ask Mr. Hollande how they deal with just one terrorist in France; how many bullets did French security use to shoot down just one terrorist last year in Toulouse?

The civilians in eastern Aleppo the West pretends to care about and about whose humanitarian catastrophe we hear so much, are not the victims of Russia or of the Syrian government, which is trying to rescue them.  They are the victims of al-Nusra and of the other terrorists backed by Saudi Arabia who are using them as human shields.

Which brings us to Saudi Arabia.  Let us consider what Saudi Arabia is doing to Yemen where the Yemeni people are under brutal Saudi airstrikes aimed at schools, hospitals, cemeteries, and weddings.  There are no UN Security Council emergency meetings to condemn Saudi atrocities in Yemen, or to stop the Saudis killing the Yemeni people; just as you will never hear Western leaders say in the UN Security Council that it is the Saudis who are the puppet-masters of the terrorists and the source of the Wahhabi ideology of ISIS and of every other terrorist Islamist group in the world.

So far as the West is concerned its policy is “Let Arab Kill Arab” so that it can march on to its new Cold War in the Middle East, a war that is not so cold for us, the people who live there.

Mrs. Clinton does not even hide the fact. Wikileaks has revealed her straightforward gloating about it in a spirit of “Let them kill and be killed”. 

Meanwhile the Western media runs a daily stream of anti-Muslim propaganda intended to justify the endless aggressions against the Palestinians and other Muslims and Arabs.  

The real godfathers of the terrorists, the real Wahhabists, the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, are allies of the West and Israel, though only in secret in the case of the latter.  However the reality of their alliance with Israel is exposed daily by their actions.  

First and foremost this is by their terrorist war against the Syrian people and the Syrian Arab Army, even whilst Israel seizes Palestinian lands, drives Palestinians from their homes, and builds more and more illegal settlements on Arab and Palestinian land.

Though the Saudis constantly declare their concern for Islam, where is their concern for the al-Aqsa mosque?  What do they do about it?  Their silence and their failure to act shows where their true allegiance is.

The US is fighting a war for the resources of the Middle East. It is not a war fought for democracy or for freedom or for the people living there.  If you think it is then just look at who stands besides the US when it talks about “democracy in Syria” and “democracy in the Middle East”: Saudi Arabia, the US’s ally and friend, the greatest autocracy and the most monstrous tyranny in the whole Middle East and in the Arab and Muslim world.

Syria is the point in the Middle East where the gas and oil pipelines meet. It enjoys a key strategic position in the eastern Mediterranean.  The Arab and Russian oil and gas industries would be greatly affected if the US and its Wahhabist allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar ever achieved control of Syria.  It is for this reason that Qatar, the US, Israel, and Turkey, are all united against Syria.

Beyond Syria are Lebanon and Gaza, also with important gas resources, and Libya and Egypt.

This is the true reason for the US wars in the region. This is why the US and its allies constantly agitate for military action in Syria, itch to bomb Syrian airbases, and seek to protect the Wahhabi fighters and let them spread all across Syria until it is utterly destroyed.

The only ones who are really fighting terrorists in Syria, and who are fighting them on behalf of all humanity, are the Syrian people and their army, the Syrian Arab Army, and its allies: Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah

Hollande and Johnson …. Is the response to Moscow…by demonstrations?

Written by Nasser Kandil,

If the Russian President Vladimir Putin said or did in confronting the war which was directed by Washington and its allies in Syria what the French President Hollande and the British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson said and do in confronting the Russian role of the same war, then the President Putin would become a source of ridicule and laughter, because the French President decided to anticipate the confirmed visit of the President Putin to Paris by coddling, thinking about the feasibility of his receiving, he prepared demonstrations that accompany his visit to Paris. The British Foreign Minister announced in front of the British parliament the importance of thinking of making demonstrations in front of the Russian embassy, in response to the parliamentary demands of an active behavior  as long as the way of diplomacy is impasse.

The matter is not a belittlement of the importance of the role of the public opinion in politics at all, but through discussing and evaluating the equation of proportionality between the act and the actor on one hand, and the act and the opposite act on the other hand. As the groups of Syrian opposition make a comparison by evaluating the reaction of a surgeon to a bleeding wound by a recipe that can be offered by a housewife instead of surgery and stitching the wound, or by ordaining sedative pills by a cardiologist to treat an incurable disease, as the comparison is made by evaluating the treatment of who claims the youth but carrying a pistol, with a burly young man who can catch him with a slap but he advices him to be prudent and invites him for a cup of coffee or by threatening him by calling his family. If the President Putin called for demonstrations against the wars on Syria and wondered about the feasibility of his meeting with the US President Barack Obama, then it would be said regarding the same speech on the two banks but with the exchange of roles in the comments of the allies on their allies and opponents.

Certainly neither Hollande nor Johnson do what they always do, neither say what they always say; a political wisdom and an appreciation of the popular action as well as a belief in the effectiveness of what they say and do. Usually the countries which have colonial history always threaten through deterrent decisions, the least of them is to end the diplomatic relations and to consider Russia in a state of war because it affects the deep interests of the west countries by turning the Mediterranean Sea into Russian lake, because no one believes the words of Francois Hollande and Boris Johnson  about the humanitarian aspect in Syria, where each one of  France and Britain has a history full of crimes against civilians, and it is enough to see what has happened in the Yemeni tragedy by the Saudi crimes and most recently the crime of killing hundreds in a cold blood by air raids on the condolence hall where no official at the level of ambassador in the governments of Britain and France dare to say any word of admonition.

It seemed that the governments of Britain and France were devoid of every strength, from the courage of bravery, and have moved to make policies by the force of  ignoring, releasing of deed, the recognition of the inability, and searching for something that fills the spare time of the public opinion by beholding it the responsibility to respond to Moscow instead of bearing it themselves, as well as they present their bills to Saudi Arabia which holds the responsibility of repaying the maturities of the participants in the war, just in order to say that they did not keep silent toward  Russia and they can do the possible, as they receive the cost of their shameful positions by keeping silent toward the Saudi crimes in Yemen.

When the colonial empires become old, they remember the peaceful expressions, as what happens usually with the major parties which get out of rule and decline, so they remember their ancient history by the movements of demands after they had responded to the demands of their groups by a decision from the government or by an order from an administration. Boris Johnson responded to one of the deputies of the British Parliament who asked him; will the government offer qualitative weapons to the armed groups in the eastern of Aleppo, in a way that they can withstand against the attack waged by the Syrian army which is accompanied by the Russian fiery support, by saying that his government does not think of that, because it behaves according to the NATO assembled, it does not monopolize decisions that are not shared with the allies, while it can organize demonstrations without returning to the allies!

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

» هولاند وجونسون… الردّ على موسكو… بالمظاهرات؟

ناصر قنديل

– لو قال الرئيس الروسي فلاديمير بوتين في مواجهة الحرب التي أدارتها واشنطن وحلفاؤها في سورية أو فعل، ما قاله ويفعله الرئيس الفرنسي فرنسوا هولاند ووزير الخارجية البريطاني بوريس جونسون في مواجهة الدور الروسي في الحرب نفسها، لصار الرئيس بوتين مصدراً للسخرية والضحك. فقد قرّر الرئيس الفرنسي استباق زيارة مقرّرة للرئيس بوتين إلى باريس بالدلع ومتسائلاً عن التفكير بجدوى استقباله، وأعدّ لتظاهرات ترافق زيارته لباريس، وأعلن وزير الخارجية البريطاني أمام البرلمان البريطاني أهمية التفكير بخروج تظاهرات أمام السفارة الروسية، رداً على مطالبات نيابية بتصرّف فاعل طالما أنّ طريق الدبلوماسية مسدود.

– ليس الأمر استخفافاً بأهمية دور قوى الرأي العام في السياسة على الإطلاق، بل بمناقشة وتقييم معادلة التناسب بين الفعل والفاعل من جهة، وبين الفعل والفعل المقابل من جهة أخرى، كما تجري المقارنة من جماعات المعارضة السورية بتقييم تصرف طبيب جراح مع جرح نازف بوصفة يمكن أن تقدّمها سيدة المنزل، بدلاً من الجراحة وتخييط الجرح، أو بوصف طبيب قلب حبوب مهدئة لمعالجة مرض عضال، وكما تجري المقارنة على الضفة المقابلة بتقييم تعامل من يدّعي أنه فتوة الحي الذي يحمل مسدساً مع شاب قوي البنية يطاله بصفعة فينصحه بالتروي ويدعوه لشرب فنجان قهوة معاً، أو بتهديده بالشكوى لأهله. فلو دعا الرئيس بوتين لتظاهرات ضدّ الحرب على سورية أو تساءل عن جدوى لقائه بالرئيس الأميركي باراك اوباما لقيل في تصرفه الكلام نفسه على الضفتين، مع تبادل الأدوار في تعليقات الحلفاء على حلفائهم وخصومهم.

– بالتأكيد لا يفعل هولاند وجونسون ما يفعلان، ولا يقولان ما يقولانه، حكمة سياسية وتقديراً للعمل الشعبي وإيماناً بفاعلية ما يقولان ويفعلان، وعادة الدول ذات التاريخ الاستعماري دائماً كانت حتى أمس قريب، التلويح بقرارات رادعة أقلها قطع العلاقات الدبلوماسية، واعتبار روسيا في حالة حرب، لأنها تمسّ بالمصالح العميقة لدول الغرب، بتحويل البحر الأبيض المتوسط إلى بحيرة روسية، لأنّ أحداً لا يصدّق كلام فرنسوا هولاند وبوريس جونسون عن البعد الإنساني في سورية، ولكلّ من الدولتين الفرنسية والبريطانية سجل مليء بالجرائم بحق المدنيين، وتكفي رؤية ما يجري في الفاجعة اليمنية مع الجرائم السعودية وآخرها جريمة قتل المئات بدم بارد بغارات جوية على قاعة عزاء، لم يجرؤ موظف على مستوى سفير في حكومتي بريطانيا وفرنسا أن يقول فيها كلمة عتب.

– تبدو حكومتا بريطانيا وفرنسا وقد تجرّدتا من كلّ حول وقوة، ومن شجاعة الإقدام، وانتقلتا إلى رسم السياسات بقوة رفع العتب وإبراء الذمة والتسليم بالعجز، والبحث عن ملهاة تعبّئ فراغ الرأي العام وتحمّله مسؤولية الردّ على موسكو، بدلاً من أن يحمّلها هو هذه المسؤولية، ومن جهة مقابلة تقدم فواتيرها للسعودية التي تتولّى سداد استحقاقات المشاركين في الحرب، لتقول إنها لم تصمت لروسيا وتفعل الممكن، بمثل ما تقبض ثمن مواقفها المخزية بالصمت على الجرائم السعودية في اليمن.

– عندما تشيخ الإمبراطوريات الاستعمارية تتذكّر التعبيرات السلمية، كما يحدث مع الأحزاب الكبرى التي تخرج من الحكم وتضمُر فتتذكر تاريخها القديم بالتحركات المطلبية، بعدما كان ترد على مطالب جماعاتها بقرار حكومة وأمر إدارة. وها هو بوريس جونسون يردّ على أحد نواب البرلمان البريطاني الذي يسأله هل ستقوم الحكومة بتقديم سلاح نوعي للجماعات المسلحة في شرق حلب، يمكّنها من الصمود بوجه الهجوم الذي يشنّه الجيش السوري بدعم روسي ناري، بالقول إنّ حكومته لا تفكر بذلك لأنها تتصرف من ضمن حلف الأطلسي مجتمعاً، ولا تتفرّد بقرارات لا يشاركها فيها الحلفاء، بينما تستطيع تنظيم تظاهرات دون العودة للحلفاء!

 

USA, UK and France committing a war crime by flying over Syria in support of terrorists

US, Britain and France now air force for terrorists in Syria

By Finian Cunningham | RT | October 9, 2016

For nearly six years, Washington and its allies have gotten away with playing a cynical double game in Syria’s war. But now the mask is slipping to reveal the ugly face of Western involvement – it is openly siding with terrorists.

Russia was correct to veto a French-sponsored draft resolution at the UN Security Council this weekend. Along with American and British vigorous support, the French proposal centered on halting military flights over the besieged northern Syrian city of Aleppo.

As Russia’s foreign ministry commented, the French initiative was tantamount to giving air cover for insurgents dominated by the internationally proscribed terrorist group Jabhat al Nusra. In short, a no-fly zone protecting terrorists would have been imposed in violation of Syrian sovereign rights, as well as international law.

An alternative draft resolution put forward by Russia was subsequently nixed by the US, Britain and France. The Russian proposal was aimed at reviving the ceasefire arrangement declared last month by US Secretary of State John Kerry and Moscow’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. It reiterated the need for anti-government militants to dissociate from the proscribed terrorist groups affiliated with al Qaeda, including al Nusra and Daesh (ISIS).

Russia is calling for a general ceasefire, but it does not specify the condition of halting military flights over Aleppo.

If France and its Western allies were genuine about wanting to stop the violence, then why don’t they get behind the Kerry-Lavrov deal? They have evidently abandoned that ceasefire arrangement because it was exposing Western claims about supporting “moderate rebels” as distinct from “extremists” as a fallacy.

That the Kerry-Lavrov truce was immediately violated by the insurgents and that there was no separation of “moderates” and “extremists” showed once and for all that Western claims of supporting “legitimate rebels” are a farce. Washington, London and Paris are patently backing a terrorist army fighting for their objective of regime change in Syria.

Since Syria and its Russian ally resumed offensive operations to take the key battleground city of Aleppo on September 22, the Western sponsors of the terror proxies have become increasingly shrill in a media campaign to thwart that offensive.

America, Britain and France have decried “war crimes” allegedly committed by Syrian and Russian air strikes. John Kerry, ahead of the weekend spat at the UN, called for a probe into suspected war crimes attributed to Russia.

Western media have been saturated with unverified reports from the militant-held eastern Aleppo purporting to show Syrian and Russian air strikes on civilian centers, including hospitals. Much of the information coming out of eastern Aleppo is sourced from Western-funded“activists” who are embedded with the Nusra terrorists. Tellingly, Western media and governments are in effect peddling what is terrorist propaganda.

The Russian and Syrian governments deny Western claims. They say their military operations are targeting terrorist groups that are deliberately using the 250,000 civilian population in east Aleppo as human shields.

It is significant that the more the Syrian army and its allies among Iranian, Lebanese and Iraqi militia, as well as Russian air support, make advances to retake Aleppo, the more hysterical Western governments and media become about “war crimes”.

If we start from the premise that the conflict in Syria has from the outset been a Western-orchestrated covert war for regime change involving the sponsoring of a terrorist mercenary army, then the Western hysteria over Aleppo is perfectly understandable.

A defeat for the insurgents in Aleppo means the end of the Western criminal enterprise to install a pro-Western puppet regime in Syria. That would mark a historic blow to the prestige of Washington and its European allies in the Middle East. It would also further expose their criminal complicity.

By contrast, Russian influence in the strategic region would be elevated. And for good reasons too. Moscow will be seen as having stood by a sovereign nation to vanquish Western powers who have wreaked havoc in the region with illegal wars and regime-change subterfuges.

Given the high stakes, this is why Western powers are evidently becoming more desperate to impede Syrian and Russian military success against the insurgents. Western emotive denunciations against Syria and Russia have nothing to do with concern for human suffering. It is all about contriving a moralistic political pressure to hamper the campaign against the West’s terrorist project.

Seen in this context, French calls at the UN for a no-fly zone around Aleppo is a startling admission by the Western powers that they are trying to protect terrorist al Qaeda-affiliated organizations. It is a stunning revelation of the fraudulent and criminal nature of Western governments. Their claims of “fighting terrorism” which have justified overseas wars over the past 15 years are self-evidently bogus. Their claims of supporting a “pro-democracy uprising” in Syria are grotesque.

This giant fraud has, of course, been made possible because Western media corporations have gone along with the vile charade. These media organizations are equally complicit. Giving succor to war crimes is in itself a war crime, as international attorney Christoper Black points out.

Meanwhile, away from Aleppo and the Western distortion of what is happening there, the alternative media report that the US-led military coalition is destroying bridges on the Euphrates in the eastern province of Deir ez-Zor.

According to the Syrian Free Press and others, American air strikes have demolished seven major river crossings over the past week. The latest strike was on the al Syasia bridge north of the city of Deir ez-Zor, the largest bridge in the province.

Targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime. It will prevent humanitarian aid convoys reaching civilians in government-held Deir ez-Zor. But more significantly, the US, French and British coalition – which is operating illegally in Syria in the first place – is working to block the Syrian army and Russian offensive against the Daesh terror stronghold of Raqqa. The bridges knocked out were providing key linkages for the Syrian and Russian forces from Deir ez-Zor towards Raqqa.

The US-led air strikes also give full meaning to the deadly American attack on the Syrian army base at Deir ez-Zor on September 17. Over 60 Syrian troops and nearly 200 more were wounded when US, British and Australian warplanes blasted the base in a sustained attack. Washington claimed it was an “accident”.

But to many other observers, the massacre was no accident. It was a deliberate assault by the Western coalition to end the Kerry-Lavrov pact because the failing ceasefire was exposing the systematic terror connections of the Western governments in Syria.

Washington and its allies are not just trying to give air cover to the terrorists in Syria indirectly by setting up so-called no-fly zones. They are evidently now giving the terrorists air fire-power.

As in the NATO regime-change war in Libya in 2011, the Americans, French and British are riding shotgun in the air for terrorists on the ground.

And the truly disgusting thing about this criminal collusion is that the Western powers claim to be concerned about international law, war crimes and human suffering.

When schools in Gaza mysteriously change into hospitals in Aleppo

The French delegation at the UN yesterday posted a picture of Israeli destruction of Gaza and said it was from Aleppo: they later deleted their tweet

Charlie Hebdo run by jerks

Charlie Hebdo run by jerks

Sep 4, 2016

Italy slams Charlie Hebdo for tasteless quake cartoon. | Photo: Reuters


Its seems nothing is sacred for the French magazine.

Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine attacked by Islamic militants in 2015, drew wide criticism from Italians on Friday for the often impudent publication’s portrayal of victims of the country’s August earthquake that killed almost 300 people as different types of pasta.

An illustration in the the magazine with the heading, “Earthquake Italian style,” portrayed a man covered in blood with the caption, “Penne in tomato sauce,” along with a woman labeled “Penne au gratin.” It showed a “Lasagne” building that had collapsed with feet sticking out from in between rubble.

The French Embassy in Italy said via Twitter than the illustration “absolutely does not represent” France’s position and is rather a “caricature by the press (and) the freely expressed opinions are those of the journalists.” The cartoon made the front page of a number of Italian newspapers.

“How the fuck do you draw a cartoon about the dead! … I’m sure this unpleasant and embarrassing satire does not reflect French sentiment,” said Sergio Pirozzi, the mayor of Amatrice, one of the Italian towns destroyed in the 6.2 magnitude earthquake. Amatrice is famous for the pasta sauce amatriciana, which it is named after.

Still remaining irreverent to Italian sensibilities, the magazine then published another illustration about the earthquake on its Facebook page showing a person under rubble with the caption: “Italians, it’s not Charlie Hebdo who has built your homes, it’s the mafia!” a reference to the Mafia controlling the construction industry.

It’s not that Charlie Hebdo hasn’t been in hot water over irreverent portrayals. In April the magazine blamed Muslims for terrorist attacks in Brussels and Paris. In January it also mocked the Syrian boy Aylan Kurdi, whose body was found washed up in the Mediterranean sea, portraying him as a would-be rapist. Twelve people were killed in the Jan. 2015 attack by gunmen accusing the journal of blasphemy for printing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.

Source URL

%d bloggers like this: