Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 16, 2015

Putin Names And Shames Obama Into Bombing IS Oil Smugglers

The U.S. claims it wants to hit the Islamic State but in one year of bombing it never really touched one of its biggest sources of income. Hundreds of oil tanker trucks are waiting every day at IS distribution points to smuggle oil to Turkey and elsewhere. Only one such distribution point was ever bombed and that attack was  by the Iraqi air force.

Now the Russian President Putin played some "name and shame" at the G-20 meeting in Turkey and, lo and behold, the problem gets solved.

The Obama administration recently claimed it would increase attacks on the most expensive Syrian oil infrastructure which is owned by the Syrian government but under IS control. But it said it would still not hit the large truck gatherings.

While the American-led air campaign has conducted periodic airstrikes against oil refineries and other production facilities in eastern Syria that the group controls, the organization’s engineers have been able to quickly repair damage, and keep the oil flowing, American officials said. The Obama administration has also balked at attacking the Islamic State’s fleet of tanker trucks — its main distribution network — fearing civilian casualties.

But now the administration has decided to increase the attacks and focus on inflicting damage that takes longer to fix or requires specially ordered parts, American officials said.

The obvious target to stop the oil trade is to hit the trucks. Without trucks the other infrastructure is useless for IS as the oil can not be sold. With trucks destroyed the men behind the smuggling will lose all profits and leave the business. The "civilian casualties" argument does not hold. There could be warnings to avoid human damage or one could consider that these oil smugglers are dealing with terrorists and thereby accomplices. The real U.S. reluctance to hit the oil smuggling might be out of deference to the Turkish government which of course profits from such oil transfers.

Then came along Russia and its President Putin and demonstrated at the current G-20 meeting that the U.S. is not serious about fighting IS. Today the Turkish journalist Abdullah Bozkurt reports remarks by President Putin from a G-20 sideline event:

Abdullah Bozkurt @abdbozkurt
Putin in #Turkey: I provided examples based on our data on the financing of different #ISIL units by private individuals.

"This money, as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them”, Putin says

"I’ve shown our colleagues photos taken from space & from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil"

Putin provided that information and the photos yesterday. Obama must have been deeply embarrassed and pissed. Suddenly, a day after Putin exposed the U.S. reluctance to hit IS where it is needed, a big truck assembly was bombed:

Intensifying pressure on the Islamic State, United States warplanes for the first time attacked hundreds of trucks on Monday that the extremist group has been using to smuggle the crude oil it has been producing in Syria, American officials said. According to an initial assessment, 116 trucks were destroyed in the attack, which took place near Deir al-Zour, an area in eastern Syria that is controlled by the Islamic State.
Until Monday, the United States had refrained from striking the fleet used to transport oil, believed to include more than 1,000 tanker trucks, because of concerns about causing civilian casualties. As a result, the Islamic State’s distribution system for exporting oil had remained largely intact.

It seems that Putin's naming and shaming with regards to the oil smuggling was successful. We might soon see a similar effect on the financing sources he mentioned.

Posted by b on November 16, 2015 at 17:05 UTC | Permalink

next page »

Hilarius! The USSA are such hypocrites. Thank you for my morning laugh.

Posted by: Joe | Nov 16 2015 17:19 utc | 1

thanks b.. the duplicitous actions here defy logic.. the only way to see them are for what they are - destroying syria and any chance for syria to rebuild itself if they can be successful it getting rid of the 2 headed demon isis - and the west's regime change agenda.. why does the west want to destroy syria? didn't they learn anything from libya, or is that all they want here - failed states?

Posted by: james | Nov 16 2015 17:20 utc | 2

@2.. i said that after reading half the post! seems like obama has no clue of what his military/cia are doing in syria.. there you go jfl.. i was busy making a comment on deir ezzor to you on the previous thread..

Posted by: james | Nov 16 2015 17:24 utc | 3

@ why does the west want to destroy syria?

Because of the prospect of a seamless Shiia territory under Iranian influence stretching to the Mediterranean and because -- Saudis ...

People really believe that this Shiia/Sunni conflict, war even, goes back "centuries" ... even as the guest labor pools of the Gulf states are filled with both Shiia and Sunni guest laborers, both treated appallingly, but there for the paycheck ... details are hard to find ... I could not, for instance determine if non-Arab Sunnis are treated "better" than Arab Shiia but non-Arab Sunni (say SE Asians) are also non-Wahabbi and poor and also often darker skinned ... see also the Kurds. Iraqis claim there was little Sunni-Shiia interpersonal conflict, even as the Sunni were privileged over generations and constituted a much, much larger percentage of the professional classes (and officer corps, etc.)

Yes, KSA is Sunni and Arab and Iran is Persian and Shiia -- but this is about geographic regional dominance ... and with the relative newcomer tribes of KSA trying to maintain their USA-created and maintained dominance.

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Nov 16 2015 17:42 utc | 4

Beware temporary, 'for show' actions.

Where are the clips showing French bombing of Raqqa? The US bombing of the trucks?

How long will the re-energized bombing campaign last? To be effective against the oil smuggling they will have to strike again and again.

On the whole, are these strikes really degrading ISIS resources and capabilities?

We must assume that USA already knew/knows about the details of ISIS funding. So skepticism is warranted.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 16 2015 17:46 utc | 5

Putin accuses some of the G20 Nations [here to day] supporting terrorists, without naming names. Even the UK Foreign Secretary as good as named the US in a speech recently [see MoA 11th Nov 2015] The world powers trying to end the civil war in Syria are drawing up a list of "terrorist" groups, Britain said Tuesday, warning that some countries may have to drop support for allies on the ground.

"It will require deep breaths on several sides, including the US side," British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond warned, speaking to reporters in Washington.

Posted by: harry law | Nov 16 2015 17:49 utc | 6

@Jackrabbit We must assume that USA already knew/knows about the details of ISIS funding. So skepticism is warranted.

It also already knew about the oil tanker. But when Putin exposed Obama in front of the other G-20 members Obama suddenly jumped into action. Must have been a big ego hit ...

Posted by: b | Nov 16 2015 17:52 utc | 8

To be fair, Donald Trump's said numerous times that ISIL should be bombed and their oil fields should be taken over.
He even tweeted that Obama finally did what Trump told him to do.

Posted by: bbbbb | Nov 16 2015 17:56 utc | 9

It is preffered to attack transport, heh, rather than the installations themselves (these would have to re-built, ‘afterwards’, to keep the energy etc. flowing), incredibly cumbersome and expensive, specially if foreign Cos. are involved, or count on being so. So there is some 'action' from the US, according to b's post.

In 2 - 4 months, Syria will be in a political transition of some kind, Syria not cut up, with Assad still there as part of the ‘political process’, and IS/Al Q/ Daesh i.e. US-Isr-KSA-Qatar etc. proxies, will be forced into face-saving moves, muttering about ‘the best international agreed-upon solution.’ Turkey will fold as well, hopefully, how exactly, remains to be seen, the Kurdish question will remain a sore, violent, point. Idk about that.

Take it to the bank. If elections, Assad will be re-elected.

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 16 2015 18:02 utc | 10

@ why does the west want to destroy syria?

Each country in the US-led coalition has their own reasons.

Here is a partial list of some of the vultures that are circling and some of what they are after:

> Israel wants to end Syrian support for Hezbolla, grab the Golan Heights;

> There are competing natural gas pipelines (Qatar vs. Iran);

> Syria has some oil/gas;

> KSA is vehemently anti-Shia (Iran) and wants to grow their influence in 'the Club' (they are likely to have the closest covert ties to Sunni extremists);

> Turkey wants to grow its influence - especially by having a say in the outcome: like no Kurdish State;

> UK, France wants to sell arms and get economic/trade deals;

> US wants to serve its allies (esp. KSA and Israel), sell arms, and counter Russia (a key member of SCO/BRICS);

> Etc.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 16 2015 18:06 utc | 11


All very good questions, Jackrabbit. This late into the game, with cameras on jet-fighters and satellites, who is going to believe the lying times, if they show no evidence of blowing "a third" of @ 300 trucks? That would be a huge fireball, you don't even need a flash to take a picture in the dark.

Obama and his partners in crime have no sense of shame, cannot be shamed into changing their objectives, though they are good at pretending, putting together a show the MSM stenographers will reproduce and magnify. We can be sure everything they do or pretend to do in Syria, is done to further their strategy, in no way the empire can be shamed into changing its murderous tune.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Nov 16 2015 18:09 utc | 12

It's "touching" to see how much the USA cares about not causing direct civilians death while bombing the ISIS oil trucks.
The money of this oil is used by ISIS to buy weapons that are killing much more civilians than the drivers of the oil trucks.
The real reason is that bombing the trail of the Oil trucks will lead to Turkey, the intouchable ally of the USA that has been helping ISIS for years.
Thank God, Russia does not hold such scrupules and the USA is forced to show that they are serious now that France has decided to bomb the oil factories too.
Next Russia needs to threaten to reveal the name the Arab financiers of ISIS. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE must be s.. in their pants.

Posted by: Virgile | Nov 16 2015 18:10 utc | 13

in the past month or so, the Russians have launched multiple bombing runs not so far away from Deir al-Zour... why is this obviously critical target still operative? does Putin prefer to play name and shame?

Posted by: john | Nov 16 2015 18:13 utc | 14

Were the tankers "manned" with drivers and in transit and/or full of oil ... or merely parked at the depot awaiting filling and departure?

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Nov 16 2015 18:13 utc | 15

#12 ""The real reason is that bombing the trail of the Oil trucks will lead to Turkey, the intouchable ally of the USA that has been helping ISIS for years."""

Exactly ... there are maps of ISIS supply line also running out of Jordan and KSA into Syria and Iraq ... even as their obvious origin is not labeled, but Turkey is the super-highway.

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Nov 16 2015 18:18 utc | 16

When this is over and peace is restored, no doubt the US will take credit for it.

Posted by: ruralito | Nov 16 2015 18:29 utc | 17

Agreed that Putin shamed Obama into action, but if Putin knows exactly where the oil transporting trucks are in Syria, why didn't Putin attack them already ? That is quite a simple counterpoint that Obama could make and embarrass Putin with.

And if Putins strategy was to allow these trucks to make deliveries while he waited for the right time to embarrass Obama, then ISIL would've made money in that time, along with the Turks involved, and for what, the embarrassment effect that will have zero effect on most people in the West.

Seems that if Russia bombed these trucks weeks ago, then that would be a greater advantage to Russia and his Syrian allies.

What it also does , is invite the US into more attacks into Syria, and invites/expands US operations in Syria, which is exactly what Russia doesn't want.

Posted by: tom | Nov 16 2015 18:43 utc | 18

Not diminishing the fact that Putin exposed how quickly the US reacted and which shows that the US knows exactly where their proxy terrorists are operating, because the US has the exact same info and satellite data.

I'm just showing in my post above above that there is more than this simple one-dimensional reaction.

Posted by: tom | Nov 16 2015 18:58 utc | 19

Bombing refineries harms Syria as a nation state.
Bombing oil trucks harms the head choppers.
The head choppers harm Syria as a nation state.
We bomb the refineries....Cui Bono

Posted by: Casowary Gentry | Nov 16 2015 19:00 utc | 20

Posted by: tom | Nov 16, 2015 1:43:52 PM | 17

What it also does , is invite the US into more attacks into Syria, and invites/expands US operations in Syria, which is exactly what Russia doesn't want.

Sure? That is not what Putin/Lavrov have been saying. Putin came out a few weeks ago with an assessment that the USA and Russia share strategic interests.

Posted by: somebody | Nov 16 2015 19:06 utc | 21

I'm confused - article says - Plans for the strike were developed well before the terrorist attacks in and around Paris on Friday, officials familiar with the operation said, part of a broader operation to disrupt the ability of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, to generate revenue to support its military operations and govern its territory.

Posted by: Daisee | Nov 16 2015 19:06 utc | 22

I believe Obama said that these trucks had already been targeted, just not yet struck -- well, bless his heart ... Putin called Obama's bluff about all the fighting of ISIS that the USA had planned but just not yet implemented ...

France was targeted for attack because, among other things, it bombed ISIS training camps ... Actually targeting ISIS is not directly in Putin's mandate (as I understand it) which is to support the the Assad regime ... in that plan, ISIS is a hornet's nest to be dealt with once the rebels/civil war are dealt with and/or a ceasefire is in effect.

For Putin to embarrass the U.S. to get its allies in line is ... "priceless"

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Nov 16 2015 19:09 utc | 23

Wonder if French puppet bulldog Hollande has also been shamed into changing its barking from "Assad must go" just a week ago, to "Assad is not the enemy of France, IS is," after 13/11. His intentions, however, are aimed more at the former than the latter, double-tongue talking about a "political solution" in Syria, while he's going to "intensify operations in Syria." For the first time he mentions talks with Russia, the giant bear in the Syrian room, to coordinate "counterterrorism measures" and "join forces" against terrorism. Such a hypocrite MoFo.

Assad is Not the Enemy of France, ISIL is - Hollande

[...] "In Syria, we're looking for the political solution to the problem, which is not Bashar Assad. Our enemy in Syria is ISIL," French president Francois Hollande said during the emergency meeting of the French parliament [...]

[...] "France is going to intensify its operations in Syria… We will continue to strike [at the terrorist targets] in the coming weeks," the French president said [...]

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Nov 16 2015 19:13 utc | 24

According to the article that you linked to:

On Monday, 295 trucks were in the area, and more than a third of them were destroyed, United States officials said. The A-10s dropped two dozen 500-pound bombs and conducted strafing runs with 30-millimeter Gatling guns. The AC-130s attacked with 30-millimeter Gatling guns and 105-millimeter cannons.

This kind of stuff is pretty sick!!!

Imagine that many bombs -- BIG ONES too -- and you eliminate one-third of the trucks out of 295??? This truly sounds like warfare in the ridiculous and of course HORRIBLE.

As far as I've been able to count, some some fourteen countries have bombed Syria: Australia, Bahrain, Canada, France, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and the United States.

What kind of irrationality is this?

Posted by: Kim Sky | Nov 16 2015 19:26 utc | 25


Seems that if Russia bombed these trucks weeks ago...

If US/France are bombing parts of Syria, do those parts collide with Russian area of operations?
Is Russia Air Force covering the whole Syrian territory?
I suppose, at some moment, the parts will collide.

Posted by: citizen X | Nov 16 2015 19:26 utc | 26

Typical Sputnik twist; what he originally says he that for him Asad is not part of the political solution, same as usual

Posted by: Mina | Nov 16 2015 19:40 utc | 27

USA and Russia has a de-confliction agreement that likely restricts Russia's attacking much of ISIS-held territory.

I would guess that that is why Russia has not attacked the trucks.


Russia is attacking ISIS positions in Western Syria in support of ground forces (SAA+Hez+Iranians). And the missile strike from the Caspian sea included ISIS targets (in Raqqa, I think).

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 16 2015 19:40 utc | 28

Curious to hear what the take is here on this piece detailing a collaboration between Russia and the US to research sponsors of IS:

Posted by: yellowsnapdragon | Nov 16 2015 19:43 utc | 29

b @ 7,

Big egos take a little longer to wear down. Papa Putin consoles Obama here......

Posted by: kafkananda | Nov 16 2015 19:48 utc | 30

In the RT article, , Putin is not telling the truth at all. Instead, he is a master diplomat that allows face saving exits for his G20 and Gulf “partners.”

IMO this guy is a master. Looking at Putin’s track record I would say he earns himself a place as one of the top ten leaders of all time; in my book this guy walks on water.

Here’s a quote: “It’s not the right time to try and figure out which country is more and which is less effective in the battle with Islamic State, as now a united international effort is needed against the terrorist group.”

He is a pragmatic realist who also knows the limits to Russian power.

Posted by: Peter B | Nov 16 2015 19:54 utc | 31

I do not want to rain on parade by US attack has nothing to do with shame. This area is about to be taken over by SAA and this is an act of destruction of state assets against Syrians.

Posted by: Kalen | Nov 16 2015 19:55 utc | 32

Surprised that the Obama Administration would even bother feigning the fear of "civilian casualties". I think their drone program has pretty well cemented what their view of civilian casualties: *shruggies*.

Posted by: Jessica | Nov 16 2015 19:57 utc | 33

France is bombing targets that had already been hit.

It might be a good way to minimize casualties among the rebels if they know the same places keep getting hit.

Posted by: Les | Nov 16 2015 20:24 utc | 34


Typical Sputnik twist; what he originally says he that for him Asad is not part of the political solution, same as usual

Thanks for the clarification.

Lost in translation - Hollande's speech, 16/11

The problem with listening to foreign speeches through a translator is that it's difficult to understand exactly what has been said.

Hollande had a sentence about Syria, and American and Russian sites are interpreting it entirely differently. The translator said "We need to find a political solution to the problem in Syria that isn't Assad... Daesh is our enemy". Americans are saying it means "we need to find a solution that isn't Assad", Russians saying it means "the problem isn't Assad", because he added the bit about Daesh in his next breath. We don't know where the punctuation is in this sentence, a comma could make all the difference.

Wish I could find a French speaker who can actually say for sure, because if Hollande is actually saying 'the problem isn't Assad', that is a major development [...]

[...] "En Syrie, nous cherchons résolument une solution politique dans laquelle Bachar el Assad ne peut constituer l'issue. Notre ennemi en Syrie, c'est Daech." [...]

Google translation,

"In Syria, we resolutely seek a political solution in which Bashar al-Assad can not be the outcome. Our enemy in Syria is Daech."

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Nov 16 2015 20:26 utc | 35

Whose War Are We Fighting?

With attacks, ISIS now a global worry   Interview with Nicholas R. Burns | Harvard Belfer Institute |

I think the United States has to lead this international coalition. It means that we have to intensify our airstrikes against the Islamic State in northern Syria, number one. Number two, we need much greater support than we are getting from the Arab world. Most of the Arab countries that were part of the air coalition beginning in the summer of 2014 are now not very active. The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia are doing relatively little against the Islamic State because they’ve been focusing on the civil war in Yemen. We need much greater support from the Arabs. They’re the ones, ultimately, who ought to have the self-interest to defeat this organization.

Posted by: Oui | Nov 16 2015 20:33 utc | 36

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Nov 16, 2015 3:26:17 PM | 34

It is more subtle than google translation. Issue is not just outcome but also way out.
Emphasis is on political. He is toeing the line of Assad being part of the transition but should resign in the end.
Enemy as in war.
Everybody now seems to try to be part of the "bombing ISIS" to earn a seat in Vienna.
I cannot see how there can be buildings in Raqqa still standing.

Posted by: somebody | Nov 16 2015 20:55 utc | 37

Please, please....follow the narrative. Geopoliticaly engineered mass migration (Exodus) to Europe followed by Gladio false flag attack complete with passports found. It produces backlash against Syrian refugees. These are themselves victims for the most part as their country is being blown to bits by neo colonial imperial powers. The intended consequence is to strengthen the hand of host Erdogan at G20. He will call for no fly buffer zone to return refugees to Syria along the border with Turkey. Voila.....Turkey denies area to Kurds and recaptures a piece of prime real estate along its border. All very timely and convenient.

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Nov 16 2015 21:02 utc | 38

@ 37 Geopoliticaly engineered mass migration

So someone has organized this, and it’s not the EU.

So let’s consider who could have organized it. Put aside ISIS and al-Qaïda, as they only exist in the media world, and in the form of armed groups receiving money, weapons and instructors from MI6, and train Bedouins to wield a weapon and cut people’s heads off.

What’s left?

Some serious power, which is forcing the European states to forget their own rules. Who has organized this?

Posted by: From The Hague | Nov 16 2015 21:29 utc | 39

I wish the US and EU would get the hell out of MENA and let Russia and China deal with it.
What difference would it make to us?
The US has enough oil.
Oh, I forgot, the elites in the US want to rule the world.

Posted by: AriusArmenian | Nov 16 2015 21:52 utc | 40

@34[...] "En Syrie, nous cherchons résolument une solution politique dans laquelle Bachar el Assad ne peut constituer l'issue. Notre ennemi en Syrie, c'est Daech." [...]

Translated by a native french speaker to:

In Syria, we seek a political solution in which Bashar el Assad cannot constitute the result.
In Syria, our ennemy is Daesh¨

Therefore, it is not that Assad is now accepted by Holland. He has just been transferred to a less intense back burner.

French speakers would say: "il ne perd rien pour attendre". which means "we will get to him soon enough."

If the Hague Court or the International court were serious institutions and not mere rubber stamps, Syria should sue all the backers of armed rebellion for loss of life and damages
inflicted to Syria by their agents.

As a matter of fact, if Balthazar Garçon were still a sitting judge, Syria should take its case to some Spanish court or any other court were Syria could obtain a verdict against its tormentors.

It doesn't matter where, any court of justice should claim jurisdiction in the matter even
if it were because its interests or citizens were in any form or way victims of such actions.

A court sentence is a court sentence and, some day, some how, it will take its course.
Posted by: CarlD |

Posted by: CarlD | Nov 16 2015 22:01 utc | 41

@38 The map in that link is interesting. Some other observers claim that the objective is to form a destabilizing isolation corridor from the Baltic sea to the Black sea. This would serve the purpose of preventing the economic integration of Europe (Germany) and Eurasia.

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Nov 16 2015 22:05 utc | 42

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Nov 16, 2015 4:02:53 PM | 37

except that it does not seem to work that way at the G20 ...

Posted by: somebody | Nov 16 2015 22:12 utc | 43

1) re: idea of "civilians" associated with oil transport, these convoys are certainly guarded against mundane thievery/banditry, and are thus not un-armed. looking at NATO's own previous wars which even targetted TV stations as conduits of war operations (allegedly), the supply of oil both for direct military use and to fund military oeprations would certainly normally qualify per NATO standards of targetting, even if operated by "civilian" oil smugglers.

2) i believe the true point is that much of oil smugglers were not ISIS per se but "moderate jihadis" JN, FSA, Ahrar et al, buying from ISIS... and US/NATO didn't want to hit those guys even though they were "materially supporting" ISIS thru (illegal/sanctioned) oil trade. ISIS benefits because other people worry about logistics/trucks/etc, and (as seen) are politically "protected" from NATO air strikes.

Which comes back to issue that all the groups armed/trained by NATO/GCC, are "materially supporting" ISIS/AQ to different degrees. When US/allies use MUCH SMALLER degrees of connection to imprison and deport people who donated to hospitals in Palestine (al-Arian et al) clearly all these groups should be treated as sanctioned terrorist supporters... Yet the same standard isn't applied to NATO/GCC "freedom fighters"... or indeed the same intelligence agencies organizing flows of arms/support which finds its way to terrorists.

Posted by: yahyah | Nov 16 2015 22:18 utc | 44

I do not believe that France has the high value target list on Raqqa to be effective on shuch short notice. I believe the RuAF and the Syrian Air Force already bombed the low hanging fruit targets there. France is just late in the game and conducting pure show while the iron is hot and but no substance thus far.

Where Turkey and West foreign leaders are most anxious and apprehensive is on what is going on about the theater attacked by RuAF, SAA, Iranian and Hezbollah. It appears that G20 are ganging on Putin to stop offensive and declare a cease fire. Western intelligence, Turkey and Gulf monarchies are under intense political pressure to relief Western mercenaries, Turkish advisors and takfiris near Aleppo. That is where the epicentre of the action is. But Raqqa is just a side show judging by Putin's and Assad's perceived indifference.

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Nov 16 2015 22:18 utc | 45

ca·sus bel·li
ˈkäsəs ˈbelē,ˈkāsəs ˈbelˌī/
noun: casus belli; plural noun: casus belli

an act or situation provoking or justifying war.

Israel to Annex Golan Heights After 'Billion Barrel' Oil Find
After a massive oil find in Syria's Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967, Israel is asking President Obama to recognize its annexation of the territory, writes Jonathan Cook. To consolidate its hold, plans are afoot to quadruple Israeli settler numbers to 100,000...Were the US to recognise Israel's illegal annexation of the Golan, it would likely clear the way for Israel to plunder any economically viable reserves located there.

...Israel would try to quadruple the Golan's settler population to 100,000 using financial incentives...Zvi Hauser, Netanyahu's former cabinet secretary, wrote a commentary in Haaretz arguing that Israel should seize its first chance since 1967 "to conduct a constructive dialogue with the international community over a change in Middle Eastern borders."

Posted by: S Brennan | Nov 16 2015 22:25 utc | 46

American (now they're Multinational for tax purposes) Oil Companies want the ME Oil. New reserves found offshore Gaza - and elsewhere - require the genocide of the ppl in these areas in order to destroy any claim they may have on what would normally be considered resources belonging to these indigenous ppl. Big Oil makes and breaks US politicians, ergo, they must do as they are told.

Furthermore, the Yinon Plan and the PNAC Plan require the dissolution of ANY quasi-functioning state (except Israel) located in the MENA for the "security of Israel".

These ideals date back in Modern History to 1898 and "Manifest Destiny". Because we are white, we know better how brown ppl should live. That is to say, with their necks under our boots.

Posted by: fast freddy | Nov 16 2015 22:37 utc | 47

Lone Wolf @34

The exact translation ( I am french speaking). He is considering Bashar al Bashar as a nuisance that will be taken care by finding a solution that would exclude him, while emphasizing that the enemy in Syria is Daesh.

"In Syria, we are resolutely looking for a political solution in which Bashar al-Assad could not be the outcome. Our enemy in Syria is Daech."

I think he has been seeking for 5 years for such solution and he wil seek even longer as any political solution in Syria must pass by Bashar al Assad.

Posted by: Virgile | Nov 16 2015 22:38 utc | 48
One of the things Wood's article made clear was that destruction of this caliphate would not be an ending ... that the prophesy has room for many intermediary caliphates before the final battle / end-times. Also, that this caliphate would end if El-Baghdadi is killed or rendered incapable of leading (which is why I have wondered if they are "inviting" the a cataclysmic battle which would "advance the narrative" ... it's difficult to know what/who to believe and really frustrating to try to figure out ... As with Al-Qa’eda, "we" have such need for ISIS to be a behemoth, monster of infinite capacity and range and cunning.
... A quick Google finds no Al-Qa’eda response to Paris ... curious.

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Nov 16 2015 22:41 utc | 49

@43 yahyah.. i think you're right on with why they haven't bombed the oil trucks..

Posted by: james | Nov 16 2015 23:04 utc | 50

Sun Tzu @37

I reached nearly the same conclusion but posted in a different thread:

It is notable how IS/ISIS has been conflated with Syria despite it Iraqi origin/leadership and multi-state scope of operations.

Some hardliners have pushed the notion that Assad is responsible for ISIS because ISIS grew from discontent caused by Assad.

The Paris attackers have helped by shouting "for Syria" (why not shout "Islamic State"?!?). It seems that they did so hoping for an anti-immigrant backlash.

That anti-immigrant backlash is the other shoe dropping in the "something must be done" campaign highlighted by b when the Syrian refugees crisis began.

The Assad must go! coalition will need all the immigrants returned to Syria if they hope to win Syrian the elections that Russia has proposed.

If the US-led coalition can move European refugees/immigrants in large numbers to Syria (whether Syrian or not!) and they vote for a Sunni candidate, then they win.

Ceasefire and elections could be advantages to them. If not, they invade, using Paris as pretext.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 16 2015 23:11 utc | 51

Video of the French bombing Raqqa

Warning - crap loud music and first 77 seconds is pure Rafale sales pitch. From 77 seconds, there are 30 seconds of very poor quality video showing several buildings being hit and then a load of bombs hitting something in the desert.

There you have it. France's massive bombardment of something somewhere.

Posted by: Anonymouse | Nov 16 2015 23:16 utc | 52

I don't like to be late for the party, but I don't know that b has got the situation quite right on the Syrian oil-fields.

The Syrian oil-fields are situated on the Khabur, a western branch of the northern Iraqi oil-fields. Before the war they supplied Syria's needs, but not much more.

There's no refinery in the region. Since early in the war we've heard of primitive local efforts at refining.

Equally early in the war, my Syrian student warned me of trafficking between the regime and the current owners of the oil-fields, before ISIS. This is logical: Syria needs to roll, and buying from the enemy is cheaper than importing. Everyone does it, I would think. FSA or SAA.

I would think that the situation is much as before the war. Most of the production is consumed in Syria, with tankers quietly passing the front-lines. Only a minority is exported, and doesn't give that much revenue to Da'ish.

The major finance of Da'ish will be in the ever-giving private donations of Saudi.

Posted by: Laguerre | Nov 16 2015 23:24 utc | 53

@ 50 No kidding. This engineered refugee crisis is convenient for de-stabilizing, affecting the outcome of polls as you pointed out, and for rallying the populace to more war adventures. Meanwhile the French are putting a show to sell their own fighter jets as the sale of Russian military hardware seems to be brisk and picking up the pace. "It ain't personal just business."

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Nov 16 2015 23:48 utc | 54

G-20 Concludes with Joint Statement Centered on Terrorism

Obama admitted that his country's advanced intelligence agency and information gathering tools were not able to predict the Paris attacks or any potential attack in the West as data from the group “was extraordinarily vague and there is no clear timetable.”

Multiple choice:

1. Obama is lying.
2. The NSA's front - we're spying on the entire world to protect it from terrorists - is admitted as the utter bullshit we all know it is.
3. Both 1 and 2 are true.

On Putin's Little List of (40) countries financing Da'esh (including some G-20 states) ... are they to be named if their behaviour does not improve?

My guess is that the behavior of the sheep will improve ... and then the goats will have names.

This is Putin picking up the financial weapon that's been used to beat Russia for so long?

Posted by: jfl | Nov 17 2015 0:09 utc | 55

Due to elevated terror threat in Brussels, a measrure unheard of ...

International football match Red Devils vs Spain cancelled!

In a statement, the Belgian FA revealed it had taken the decision following consultation with their Spanish counterparts.

    "Taking into account the exceptional circumstances, we cannot take any security risk to our players and fans."

The Belgian FA added it "deeply regretted" the late decision to cancel the match and "understands the disappointment of many supporters".

Posted by: Oui | Nov 17 2015 0:28 utc | 57

@Oui 56,

Shucky darn. Guess they have to watch the war instead of football now. Good thing addictions are fungible.

Posted by: Jonathan | Nov 17 2015 0:48 utc | 58

@56 Oui

I think the zombies are going to wake up if you take their footy matches away.....danger!

Its too bad that the brainwashing will continue until morale improves.

Would that the American zombies could be awoken from their brainwashing.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 17 2015 0:57 utc | 59


I raised this question with Patrick Behzad on one of his Sitreps on Syria over at SST a few weeks back, he and Pat didn’t like I suggest, that by not bombing the fuel/oil tankers which are the softest target possible since US owns the skies us is supporting Daesh/ISIS. I wrote then destroying the oil tankers not only cuts the cash income, but more importantly will reduce or immobilizes the takfirist moving around. The rednecks at SST don’t want to hear that, I suppose they wouldn’t want to be reminded that the government they honorably served is an state sponsor of terrorism and has, and probably will continue to protect the takfiries who just did the job in Paris. This is the informed and intelligent kind we have.

Posted by: kooshy | Nov 17 2015 1:11 utc | 60

@55 why didn't he call out France?

Taleb seems like the other half of Roubini.. metaphysical bullshitters that provide you the whys and hows after-the-fact

Posted by: bbbbb | Nov 17 2015 1:17 utc | 61

How does one sit down to a serious talk about anti-terrorism efforts with Saudi Arabia at the table? Come on man. This is like the bin Ladens heading out of the US on the only flight in the sky on 9/12/01. What does the House of Saud have that is it completely immune to scrunity, public challenge or the like? Has someone given them a nuke? But even North Korea gets hammered publicly and they have nukes. Saudi's immunity vis a vis ISIS is akin to Israel's immunity vis a vis Palestine. Something is rotten here and I don't like it one bit. Call the fuckers out!! Putin, anyone, jesus get the Vatican to do it, get Le Pen to do it, get that manic Nigel Farage to dtand up and say very British-ly "I'm sorry, but if a violent ideology is spreading and providing the impetus for terrorism in the world, then don't we as a collection of relatively civilized nations have a responsibility to follow that ideology back to the source and fuck it up?"

Posted by: Rosco | Nov 17 2015 1:59 utc | 62

@59 kooshy ' I suppose they wouldn’t want to be reminded that the government they honorably served is an state sponsor of terrorism and has, and probably will continue to protect the takfiries who just did the job in Paris'

I think that's it in a nutshell on that site.

Posted by: jfl | Nov 17 2015 2:03 utc | 63

@54 jfl

Thanks for the link to the G20 statement.

Maybe Anonymous, that just released a statement saying they would work to take down ISIS, can take Putin's lead and expose as much as they can about the money being spent by elements of empire in the ME.

The curtain of global financial manipulation needs to be ripped off our world so that the facets of empire fascism can be forced into public consciousness. Stoking fear and hate among the public by fomenting and suppling terrorists cannot be allowed to continue.

Go For It Anonymous! The global plutocrats can't nuke you like they can Putin.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 17 2015 2:17 utc | 64

The BBC might have gotten ashamed of their Russophobic programming and perpetual lies, for once it is reporting some truth from Syria. What caused this hiatus on their anti-Russia/anti-Syria loud barks? 13/11?

Syrians Take to Streets in Praise of Russian Military Support

Demonstration suggests that Assad may have more support than the West believes

There is a lot that the West could learn from this video. This is apparently what it looks like when military intervention is invited and welcomed.

It also seems to show that the West's idea of Assad not being part of a future government may not go down so well with his own people. This scene does not exactly show mass discontent toward the Syrian regime.

One wonders why such popular support is not seen by other people when the West brings them 'democracy' and 'freedom' in its own special way.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Nov 17 2015 2:30 utc | 65

"Demonstration suggests that Assad may have more support than the West believes"

Lord. As if they don't know and haven't been sniffing out every Syrian social media, opinion poll, hookah bar chatter for the last five fucking years.

Posted by: guest77 | Nov 17 2015 3:09 utc | 66

Posted by: jfl | Nov 16, 2015 7:09:02 PM | 54

The 40 countries financing ISIS are of course Russian humour on the "coalition of 40 nations fighting ISIS"

from September 2014

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei said Monday on Twitter that he has rejected the possibility of cooperating with the United States "because (the) US has corrupted its hands in this issue." Khamenei accused the United States of planning to use military action against ISIS to "dominate the region."

Yes, I do believe that the Paris attack hit them completely unprepared and that they do not know who ordered it. It obviously frightens them enough to finally sit down for a deal.

Posted by: somebody | Nov 17 2015 3:12 utc | 67

Major story, which gets NO mention in the US corporate media. So, what else is new?

Again, kudos b!

Posted by: ben | Nov 17 2015 3:17 utc | 68

P.S. TV media.

Posted by: ben | Nov 17 2015 3:21 utc | 69

more on being frightened

The U.S. military has banned troops and civilian personnel from any non-work-related travel to Paris, a Pentagon spokesman said on Monday, after deadly attacks across the French capital last week.

The new policy prohibits unofficial travel to Paris and within a 50-kilometer (31-mile) radius of the city by U.S. military members, Department of Defense civilian employees, and contractors, said Captain Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman.

Posted by: somebody | Nov 17 2015 3:21 utc | 70

The Vienna2 communique from the Nov 14 Talks on Syria:
Statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG):

--It calls for observance of Geneva communique in its entirety.
[Geneva calls for a transitional govt] GENEVA COMMUNIQUE June 2012: "The establishment of a transitional governing body which can establish a neutral environment in which the transition can take place. That means that the transitional governing body would exercise full executive powers. It could include members of the present government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent. "
[Says nothing more about makeup of the transitional govt; entire doc is only 2-3 pp.]

--"The ceasefire would not apply to offensive or defensive actions against Da’esh or Nusra or any other group the ISSG agrees to deem terrorist."

--"broadest possible spectrum of the opposition, chosen by Syrians, who will decide their negotiating representatives and define their negotiating positions, so as to enable the political process to begin."

--"Regarding the fight against terrorism, and pursuant to clause 6 of the Vienna Communique, the ISSG reiterated that Da’esh [Islamic State], [Jabhat al-]Nusra, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the UN Security Council, and further, as agreed by the participants and endorsed by the UN Security Council, must be defeated. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan agreed to help develop among intelligence and military community representatives a common understanding of groups and individuals for possible determination as terrorists, with a target of completion by the beginning of the political process under UN auspices"

Next meeting in a month.

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 17 2015 4:30 utc | 71

Kim Sky @ 24, Most of the countries you have named have bombed exceptionally little. US has probably been bombing mostly sand. However, to the extent that they are bombing as they are supposed to, they are bombiong ISIS , which happens to be in Syria. ISIS has massacred people in the hundreds at various locations. They have systematically practiced rape, looting, kidnapping, selling into slavery, etc.

Tom @ 17, I can't say that I understand it, but US has always been expressly invited to participate in the fight against ISIS in Syria. At Vienna2 press conference, Lavrov once again repeated the invitation. Syria has not.

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 17 2015 4:38 utc | 72

If France decides to send troops or create a safe zone in Syria, with the US saying it will help and support, then any denial to that Syrian space by Russia or the Syrian government, can be easily painted as Russia being supporters of ISIL terrorism by denying them access for their war attacks against ISIL which they will say is necessary to protect France from further attacks. The western media will go ape shit and make Russia look terrible, if the Western Empire make that confrontational move in Syria.
The French and the US could escalate this no-fly zone bullshit as a pre-text for a criminal invasion and occupation of a part of Syria.

Posted by: tom | Nov 17 2015 4:46 utc | 73

@60 bbbb.. that is just what was said in the politico article.. how do we know what taleb has said publicly on the topic aside from this article? i can't say i do.. i like the man and his writing.. i don't think it is metaphysical at all.. very pragmatic and sensible.. again, the article hits on that. we see him differently and i prefer to keep an open mind to him having said more then what the article shares..

Posted by: james | Nov 17 2015 4:48 utc | 74

Rosco @61

I think most commentators here share that frustration. Saudi doesn't get talked about, nor does the Magic Bullet regardless of their immense importance.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 17 2015 4:58 utc | 75

I suppose bombing 100+ oil-smuggling trucks is better than nothing; but not much... This, imo, is what will cause the Yankees and their cowardly boot-licking supremacist friends to rethink their options:

Putin in #Turkey: I provided examples based on our data on the financing of different #ISIL units by private individuals.
"This money, as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them”, Putin says

That accusation by Putin appeared in the scrolling headlines across the bottom of the screen in last night's CCTV NewsDesk broadcast. I had a two little bets with myself.
1. We won't hear about this from Western MSM stenographers.
2. AmeriKKKa's Incredible Shrinking 'International Community' probably doesn't want to find out what will happen, and to whom, if Putin really does decide to "Take the gloves off."

Putin is on a tight anti-vermin schedule in Syria, having indicated that he wants to declare Mission Accomplished by the end of January 2016. So the Coalition of Colonial Vampires & Liars have probably got less than 2 weeks to demonstrate whether they're for or against the Putin Plan.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 17 2015 5:05 utc | 76

Southfront says ISIS has announced they've killed Iranian forces top commander Soleiman + 3 other top officers travelling w him by targeting his car w a TOW missile. Unconfirmed.

I am concerned about the Kurds push towards the South, with help of the US. Thierry Meyssan put out a report about 10 days ago entitled "US & Israel Begin Colonization of Northern Syria" On Saturday's World Crisis radio he said that Syrian Kurds have switched sides, to the US side. MAPS of the Wright Plan for partitioning ME.

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 17 2015 5:18 utc | 77

Does anybody understand what the Iraqi Kurds are up to? I've always understood their leader, Barzani, to be CIA/Mossad asset and to have been installed into power by them. He & several of his assistants have become millionaires. I'm assuming until I know otherwise that he is still pushing for ajoint Syria-Iraq Kurdistan. Am I wrong?

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 17 2015 5:24 utc | 78

Ha! you've got it all wrong, MoA.

AustFinRev suggests Putin is 'falling into line'. Meanwhile back in the real world it's Obama and his EU poodles falling into a very non-exceptional line and following recent Russian Syrian initiatives. (sarcasm off)

"G20 leaders have piled pressure on Russia's President Vladimir Putin to fall into line and help end the Syrian conflict as France launched the first major air strike against Islamic State since the Paris attacks on Friday."

Link to AFR

Remember Gaddafi's curse?

Posted by: doveman | Nov 17 2015 6:02 utc | 79

FARS NEWS denies General Qasem Soleimani is dead or injured, won't say where he is; he changes location often.

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 17 2015 6:10 utc | 80

HoarseWhisperer @ 75,

I just saw this:

“A clear objective is set before the Russian forces – they should provide air support for the Syrian Army’s offensive against the terrorists, and that is why the duration of stay of our military will be determined solely depending on the time this objective is achieved,” Putin said.

'US lukewarm about Russia’s cooperation proposals'

"He expressed Russia’s readiness to cooperate with the US-led coalition’s military efforts in Syria, despite Washington bypassing a UN Security Council resolution that authorizes military action. The US also received no request from the official Syrian government to start the strikes.

“We are ready to cooperate with Washington despite the fact that the US operations in Syria are in violation of international law,” Putin said.

Read more

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 17 2015 6:30 utc | 81

"For a year, up until Monday, we were concerned about civilian casualties, but we're not anymore."

New York Times stenographer knows not to ask "Why?"

Posted by: fairleft | Nov 17 2015 6:34 utc | 82

Penelope @ 76

It's a good and interesting question about the Kurds. I'm sure they know that US sees them as nothing but expendable tools, turkey state terrorists wants to eliminate them as much as possible, and I'm pretty sure that the Russians are not willing to give Sovereignty/ nation state appeal ( which they fully deserve and are entitled to, and which I demanded Putin do straight after he saved the current Syrian state with his military intervention in Syria). But I think Russia will deny that to the Kurds because that would piss off Assad and Break off a part of the Syrian state. And the Turkish state terrorists won't give an inch of their territory in that regard.

The Kurdish leadership has to make their mind up against all these competing interests, and it's a shit position to be in.
Usually in that position it's a good idea to play off the bigger powers against each other.

The Kurds look to be in the main position of a US Empire establishment of the bullshit safe zone. Since Russia wants to attack all other rebel terrorists, including the " free Syrian Army " (?), and that leaves pretty much the Kurds. but will the Kurds be willing/ able to resist, to be used for that dramatic escalation ? Well that's at least one option that the US empire is seriously looking at.

Posted by: tom | Nov 17 2015 6:35 utc | 83

Rosco @61:

I'm getting frustrated too, but we all gotta do our little part. Despite the taboo, the majority of people seem to know Saudi Arabia is being protected and they're pissed off about it. I posted this under a typical ignore the elephant in the room Guardian editorial:

Stop avoiding the obvious! Everyone who has followed the story knows what needs to be done, and it has nothing to do with understanding those thugs: The West needs to stop allowing its close Middle East allies -- Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait -- to finance and provide refuge to ISIS and Al Qaeda. The UN Security Council needs to ban private/public aid of any sort to the terrorists, and punish violators with severe economic embargoes. Why is this not happening? Why hasn't it happened already?

Posted by: fairleft | Nov 17 2015 6:41 utc | 84

Laguerre @ 52,

About the disposition of Syria's oil, here's what I have:
control of syria's oil

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 17 2015 6:42 utc | 85

Posted this under a Guardian report that is as clueless as the NY Times report:

So, for a year the US had not bombed the oil trucks doing the smuggling that finances ISIS, because of 'concern over civilian casualties'. What happened on Sunday so that now it's no worries about civilian casualties. Did ANY reporter ask the Pentagon spokesperson? Could it be that Putin named and shamed Obama into bombing the smugglers?

And how do truckers transporting/smuggling Syrian oil illegally, knowing that they are funding ISIS terror by doing so, suddenly become innocent civilians? Did any reporter ask that question?

Posted by: fairleft | Nov 17 2015 7:09 utc | 86

@76 regarding the Kurdish cooperation with the coalition of the (w)illing: I would have thought that the execution video of Saddam Hussein pretty much spells out the long term strategic value of being allied with the States.

Posted by: Rosco | Nov 17 2015 8:03 utc | 87

Ref: passport.
Certainly fake (they found another guy in Serbia with same name, numbers etc but different picture, bought from same seller in Turkey) but it still helps to go around and not get arrested (that's how the Saleh Abdesalam managed to go back to Belgium after the attacks: being controled at the border but as he was not identified as the person who rented one of the cars used yet, he was left to flee)

Good readings:

Posted by: Mina | Nov 17 2015 8:12 utc | 88

Russia reveals that a bomb was on the plane that exploded over Egypt.

Posted by: tom | Nov 17 2015 8:40 utc | 89
Also, it has been decided to induct the Organization of Islamic Conference into the ISSG. Taken together, this shift opens the way for Islamic parties (such as Muslim Brotherhood) to participate in the future elections under the new constitution. To be sure, this signifies a major concession to Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

No one has thrown light on how this hugely significant shift came about. The media reports have failed to take note of it, too. Presumably, the shift anticipates the evolution of electoral politics in Syria under the new constitution, which would devolve upon political parties

Posted by: Mina | Nov 17 2015 8:53 utc | 90

Islamic State warned in a new video on Monday that countries taking part in air strikes against Syria would suffer the same fate as France, and threatened to attack in Washington.

The video, which appeared on a website used by Islamic State to post its messages, begins with news footage of the aftermath of Friday's Paris shootings in which at least 129 people were killed.

The message to countries involved in what it called the "crusader campaign" was delivered by a man dressed in fatigues and a turban, and identified in subtitles as Al Ghareeb the Algerian.

"We say to the states that take part in the crusader campaign that, by God, you will have a day, God willing, like France's and by God, as we struck France in the center of its abode in Paris, then we swear that we will strike America at its center in Washington," the man said.

Read more at Reuters

Posted by: okie farmer | Nov 17 2015 9:09 utc | 91

@81 tom

This tom is a lover of a Land for the 'Kurds' (apartheid, ethnic cleansing, breaking up sovereign states) and he already ordered Putin about this.

I'm pretty sure that the Russians are not willing to give Sovereignty/ nation state appeal ( which they fully deserve and are entitled to, and which I demanded Putin do straight after he saved the current Syrian state with his military intervention in Syria).

Posted by: From The Hague | Nov 17 2015 9:36 utc | 92
FNA - The Syrian army backed by Hezbollah fighters and the Russian air force destroyed terrorists' positions and inflicted heavy casualties on different militant groups in Aleppo, Dara'a, Damascus, Homs, Sweida and Lattakia over the past 24 hours.

Tens of terrorists were killed and many more were wounded in the Syrian army's military operations across Syria on Sunday.

Posted by: okie farmer | Nov 17 2015 9:54 utc | 94

I agree with somebody @66 on not knowing who ordered the Paris attack. Does anyone have a view on how things would play out given that the attack was timed to be so close to the Vienna talks and the G20 conference?

Posted by: midan | Nov 17 2015 10:36 utc | 95

@64 LW

The BBC is singing on key : Cameron: we can compromise with Russia to end Syrian war. That was posted somewhere here at MoA and properly torn up. I think the Beeb is in harmony.

Posted by: jfl | Nov 17 2015 10:38 utc | 96

Looks like its going to be open season by Barack - Elmer Fudd - Obama and his fellow duck hunters ...

U.S. approves $1.29 billion sale of smart bombs to Saudi Arabia

The U.S. State Department has approved the sale of $1.29 billion in smart bombs to Saudi Arabia to help replenish supplies used in its battle against insurgents in Yemen and air strikes against Islamic State in Syria, the Pentagon said on Monday.

With any luck the Saudi's $1.29 giga bucks will buy just one bomb from the USA's Saudi Special bargain rack. So the Russians will only need to shoot down one Saudi F-16 when it crosses the Syrian border. This one's for the 224 souls over Sinai. The bomb may be smart but the Saudis are dumb as they come.

We the people of the USA are now just a collection of war criminals, from the souls of our feet to the points of our heads.

The Russians need to tell all these criminals what they can expect if they attempt to bomb Syria ... read 'em chapter and verse from the USA's Nuremberg book on aggression,

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
... just so they're not SHOCKED! when they crash and burn.

Posted by: jfl | Nov 17 2015 10:55 utc | 97

West going insane and exploit the Paris attacks to wage more wars. Today I read that
France: Call up EU to help them bomb(?) Syria?
That UK/Cameron demans billions against "terror" in the Middle East
Also Russia take advantage :
Fire missiles from Med. Sea.

Posted by: Seder | Nov 17 2015 12:00 utc | 98

Lone Wolf at 34

[...] "En Syrie, nous cherchons résolument une solution politique dans laquelle Bachar el Assad ne peut constituer l'issue. Notre ennemi en Syrie, c'est Daech." […]

This is purposely extremely ambiguous and vague, open to different interpretations, so it is hard to translate. Hollande is hanging on as best as he can to the no-never-Assad position.

Literal trans.: In Syria, we resolutely seek a political solution..(okey doke got that)

in which…:

may sound odd in Eng, but it is just as odd in F! A translator would scratch his head, within which, which what?

Assad cannot constitute…

*be*, the vaguest, probably best, but often: form, comprise, be part of, etc. -> it really is unclear speech

l’issue …

outcome is indeed correct as standard trans. Other, besides a real physical EXIT, plus other related meanings / uses ::

at the end/conclusion of / term of /after/.. the process, the meeting, the events, the winding up, end-run, etc. It can also come close to ‘conclusion, solution’…

For what it’s worth, I listened to Hollande’s first speech after the attacks, but not closely, so ??? He used the words guerre interne, internal war, which is not a declaration of war. Also combat and combattre, whose meanings in F have a wider semantic field, aka metaphorical use, than in Eng.

For ex, F, lit: “I must combat my tendency to over-eat”, “We will combat false ideas”, and so on, clumsy and odd in Eng, would require, as a verb.: control, repress, inflect, oppose, refuse, challenge, fight, negate, undermine, counter, stand up against, etc. etc. “I must control my tendency to over-eat.”

Our enemy in Syria is Daesh. the trans is no prob, politics here.

In short, Hollande fudged everything, deliberately.

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 17 2015 13:00 utc | 99

UK going all in to bomb Syria
Cameron to make case for Syria airstrikes vote ‘in coming days’

Posted by: Seder | Nov 17 2015 13:22 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.