Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
December 02, 2015

The Real "Terrorist Sympathizers" Want To Wage War On Syria ... And Russia

Syria airstrikes: Cameron accuses Corbyn of being 'terrorist sympathiser'

David Cameron has appealed to Conservative MPs to give him an overall parliamentary majority in favour of military action in Syria by warning them against voting alongside “Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”.
“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,” the prime minister reportedly told the committee.

To get rid of the "terrorist sympathizers" who do not want to bomb Syria the pig-fucker will have to incarcerate half of the British people.

Surely terrorist sympathizer should not be allowed to run around freely and to influence the children. These could end up no longer believing what the government and the media are telling them. They would become radicals:

A leaflet drawn up by an inner-city child safeguarding board warns that “appearing angry about government policies, especially foreign policies” is a sign “specific to radicalisation”.

Parents and carers have also been advised by the safeguarding children board in the London Borough of Camden that “showing a mistrust of mainstream media reports and a belief in conspiracy theories” could be a sign that children are being groomed by extremists.

The "war on terror" is turning into a war on the local opposition of the ruling classes. Those who oppose its polices are labeled 2terrorists" and those who doubts its word are "radicalized extremists". How far is it from such verbal insults to actually concentration camps?


Who initiated this sudden rush within major NATO governments to get parliamentary blank checks for waging a long war on Syria? Not only in the UK but also in France and Germany?

The German government turned on a dime from "no military intervention in Syria ever" to "lets wage a war of terror on Syria" without any backing from the UN or international law. (The German government's legal argument for war is so flimsy that the constitutional court will probably stop it.) Who initiated this? A simple, medium size terror attack in Paris by some Belgians and French can not be the sole reason for this stampede.

Did Obama call and demanded support for his plans? What are these?

I smell that a trap is being laid, likely via a treacherous Turkey, to somehow threaten Russia with, or involve it in, a wider war. This would include military attacks in east-Ukraine or Crimea as well as in Syria. Obama demanded European backing in case the issue gets of of hands. No other reason I have found explains the current panic. The terrorists the "west" supports in Syria are in trouble. The real terrorist sympathizers need to rush to their help. It is a start of all-out war on Syria and its Russian protectors.

But Russia is cool headed and is preparing to make its position in Syria even stronger. There will soon be at least 100 Russian military planes in Syria, some say up to 150 in total, plus dozens of ground attack helicopters including the very modern KA-52 (vid). New airfields for Russian fighter jets are being prepared in Shayrat (map), south-east of Homs. 10 fighter jets and 15 attack helicopters are already stationed there. Another airport will be in Tiyas (map), some 30 km west of Palmyra. This one will be used to cover east Syria and the Syrian army's movement against the Islamic State in Raqqa. A fourth airport for jets, likely near Hama, is planned and several smaller airfields are to be used for more helicopters. Some 1,000 additional Russian personal will include special forces to designate targets and to provide support for Syrian troops.

The Syrian army was provide with new electronic snooping systems to be able to listen to its enemies communication. To protect against U.S. made anti-tank missiles (TOWs), which the CIA handed to the Jihadists, Syrian tanks are upgraded with the Shtora anti-missile systems. Brand new artillery has also arrived.

The "moderate rebels" of Jabhat al Nusra and Ahrar al Sham which Turkey and others support currently get squeezed (map) in their corridor from the Turkish border down to Aleppo. The Islamic State is pressing from the east against the corridor while Kurdish YPG fighters, with Russian air support(!), are attacking from the west and the Syrian army is pushing from the south. The moves on the government and YPG side and the IS side are not coordinated but a race to conquer as much as possible of the area before the other party reaches it. Two month ago the Kurdish leader had hinted at this plan to close the uncontrolled gap at the Turkish border.

This is the area Turkey wanted to occupy as a "safe zone" for the terrorists it supports. It also needs the corridor to smuggle oil from the Islamic State to Turkey. Should Turkey, backed by the U.S. and NATO, have funny ideas and try to invade Syria to secure that safe zone, it will have to take on very well armed and serious opponents. From there to World War III is only a small step.

I prefer to be called a terrorist sympathizer over supporting any move into that direction.

Posted by b on December 2, 2015 at 13:21 UTC | Permalink

next page »

The unbelievable hypocrisy and stupidity of the Western clowns can be proved also by the fact that they are those who armed jihadists in order to throw the Assad regime in Syria. It can be proved by the fact that they have destroyed entire nations (Iraq, Libya, Syria) in order to throw the "brutal dictators", when at the same time they tolerate the most brutal regime, that of Saudi Arabia. One of the main financiers of the jihadists.

Someone should be absolutely naive to believe that these clowns worry about the hypothetical principles of the West, or, for the lives of innocents. Whether these are Europeans, or, desperate refugees who try to escape from the hell of the Middle East. The absolute mess for which these Western hypocrites are responsible to a high degree.

Posted by: nmb | Dec 2 2015 13:37 utc | 1

i didn't want to be first, so thanks nmb. i'm a 'broken record' in that i see it all coming out of economics. the usa is collapsing; it has become explicitly fascist (mussolini's corporate state, dimitrov's dictatorship of finance capital); usa needs war, big war. but how to do that without armageddon: get the europeans to do the fighting. will the uk's, france's and germany's populations go along with this? that is the question.

Posted by: bolasete | Dec 2 2015 13:45 utc | 2


Excellent analysis!

I reserve special contempt for European leaders who blindly follow US orders even when it goes against their national interest

Posted by: Andoheb | Dec 2 2015 13:46 utc | 3

If Brits have been keeping up at all with the hypocrisy of NATO's role in Syria, Cameron's "terrorist sympathizer" meme will only elicit outrage and broadened resistance. Or is that wishful thinking?

Posted by: Laker | Dec 2 2015 13:55 utc | 4

Wait..wait...Military Maps and Almasdar News are implying that the new US backed Kurd-based units are fighting the Turkish backed units and, after they killed too many of each other, a major town north of Aleppo fell today to ISIS, which nobody seems to understand is either controlled by the US or Turkey or both? It's too confusing to me now and Moon of Alabama needs to be trying to discern better whether or not the US and Turkey are still in cahoots.

Also, why did the WaPo just print a big piece about how the Iraqis think the US controls ISIS? The comments are filled with Americans saying they think like the Iraqis do. Why would WaPo do that?

Also, why was Drudge allowed to headline today that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard thinks Obama is going to get us into nuclear war with the Russians? It's strange that the US media seems to have been allowed to let the American public start wondering about what a faction of the US government is doing?

Posted by: WhyWapoDrudge | Dec 2 2015 13:59 utc | 5

Would Germany be willing to go to war with Russia over Turkey? They'd be obliged to, sure, if a NATO ally were to come under attack. But even then I'm confident that they would prioritize reaching a peace settlement before any shots are fired.

I'm not so sure the US wants to wage open war against Russia either. They'll do everything they can to undermine any nation that refuses to submit itself to the "west", true, but they'll never commit to a two-sided war where they'll stand to lose more than they'll profit (the ruling elite in the US won't simply allow it). They stopped short of bombing Damascus, when England backed out, and settled their ever growing standoff with Iran over their nuclear program. If they didn't go to war with Syria or Iran, non-arguably weaker military powers, why would they start one with Russia (a nuclear power)?

I think the chances of occupying north-west of Syria slipped past Turkey the moment they shot down the russian bomber. Either the turks go in alone, and hope that their NATO friends will come to their rescue in any eventuality, or watch their best effort to carve a piece off of Syria wither away on their side of the border.

Posted by: never mind | Dec 2 2015 14:11 utc | 6

Erdogan is all but gone!

"Russian military reveals details of ISIS-Turkey oil smuggling"
(Streamed live on Dec 2, 2015)

Posted by: doveman | Dec 2 2015 14:13 utc | 7

The noise being made by Camoron sounds a lot like the barking of a scared dog. They might TRY something stupid but the numbers are on the Russian side, Syria is being converted into a fortress that will become a tough nut to further crack. RT is providing fantastic coverage concerning the Syria conflict. The border seems that it will be sealed soon barring a Turkish ground offensive, the SAA and the YPG seems to have the northern area under relative control.
Will the Turks send in Troops?

Posted by: Fernando | Dec 2 2015 14:26 utc | 8

Moon needs to better describe how Cameron's bellowing to fight ISIS really means he wants to support ISIS. That isn't registering. Or maybe Moon needs to point out that, if ISIS ground troops are going to lose the oil fields, NATO ground troops will need to start taking their place so the oil still flows and still gets sold for US dollars. Otherwise, I can see why people in the west will support Cameron et al when they simply say they want to fight ISIS.

Posted by: WhyWapoDrudge | Dec 2 2015 14:34 utc | 9

I'm right with you on this, b. SBS screened the anti-Assad Frontline/NYT/Neocon penny dreadful Obama At War (with the truth) this evening. We, in pro-Israel Oz, are definitely being warmed up for something dramatic, but incomprehensibly stupid.

Btw, I thought the reference to Cameron the pig-fucker was a rip-snorter, b, keeping in mind that the War On Islam is about preserving Cameron's Freedoms, Values and Way of Life...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 2 2015 14:38 utc | 10

Thanks b for a very informative update.


Erdogan is all but gone!

Don't be so sure. Erdogan is being propped up as the front-line against Russia in NATO's southern flank. US never had any morals about supporting any s.o.b, "as long as they are ours." Erdogan is their best dog they can throw against Russia...for now.

This link from former thread courtesy of Oui@192

NATO To Strenghten Turkey Border Defence - US Mission Creep

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 2 2015 14:42 utc | 11

The problem with the Washington Post article is that it dismisses these opinions as a mere perception problem and not as reality-based. They also make it appear to be mostly a result of the Sunni-Shiite divide where the Shiite are suspicious of the Sunnis and the American role. It is a defense of the American position.

Posted by: Les | Dec 2 2015 14:43 utc | 12

It's pretty common now in many of the countries where the US has 'counterterrorism' forces. In Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and Nigeria, it's been shown that the US has worked both sides of the counterterrorism battle, providing support to the insurgents while claiming to fight them. Wikileaks published the report on Gen. Patreaus' implementation of the Divide-and-Rule military policy whereby the US fanned the war between the two insurgencies by staging false flag attacks against both the Shia and Sunni. The report was printed in the UK newspapers, but blacked out here in the US state-run media.

Posted by: Les | Dec 2 2015 14:50 utc | 13

contributing a little to the debate , interesssnte article by columnist of "Asia Times " , speaking of the position changes the US against siria and reproof to the neo crazy ortomano .

Posted by: Carlos | Dec 2 2015 15:10 utc | 14

In Syria, the government conducts at least three major offensive action against ISIS: around Kuiweres airport east of Aleppo, in Palmyra and onto Quraytayn. Rebels had one minor offensive action next to Turkish border, regaining three villages lost to ISIS after "safe zone" plans were promoted.

Number two, major components of "rebel coalition" refuse to fight against ISIS, at least as a matter of policy. On the ground, there are frequent minor fights, like those among the rebels. By the way of contrast, rebels are engaged in many offensive actions against the government. It would be simplicity itself to make a ceasefire, as the government was proposing it in many areas, and there are many local ceasefires. But the outsider fighters are not interested.

What Cameron and other politicians ignore is that the task of eliminating ISIS requires tens of thousands of fighters who are sufficiently similar to locals, like speaking similar Arabic, to be able to control the territory. And to resolve conflicts among the forces that engage ISIS, of which there are many. And my opinion is that these politicians are not stupid, they just want the war to last as long as possible, as no conclusive outcome can serve Western interests (Turkey would be happy with Syria being conquered by jihadists, but the rest of NATO, not so much). So well, 10 aircrafts and 50 Scottish highlanders can be dispatched to carry the sword of the British Empire to contumely ISIS, but Corbyn's approach would be more effective.

In Iraq, the American strategy was clear to everybody there, and it was not a pretty sight. The first priority was to marginalize and, if possible, eliminate from fight, the volunteer forces trained by Iran. Those forces cleared Diyala province and a major part of Salahuddin, while the American assisted government forces had patchy results in Anbar. Peshmerga was active too, but it is clear that their goal is solely to enlarge the Kurdish region. Americans were successful, and after taking Tikrit the volunteer forces were sidelined for months -- but it was during that time that Ramadi was taken by ISIS.

One semi-mystery is why Americans, who do have some influence, giving weapons, instructors and diplomatic cover that allows to get supplies, prevents Turkish mischief etc., do not help in conflict resolution. For example, a major conflict in areas freed from ISIS in southern Kirkuk province: as far as I can figure out, Peshmerga aim to annex the entire province, but volunteer forces defended non-Kurdish locals (described as Shia Turkomans). One possibility is that they do not give a damn, another, they they wouldn't know how to do it even if they wanted.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 2 2015 15:34 utc | 15

When you can't hide the truth, you ban it. Latest MSM meme....Syria is the Homeland of ISIS. UGH.

Who is benefiting from both the Iraqi and Syrian oil. Same people? And the oil is not bought and sold with pebbles and shells, so who [what banks] are transferring the money into ISIS held banks??

Worth repeating:

Islamic State oil trade full frontal: 'Raqqa's Rockefellers', Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, and the Israel connection

In June of 2014, the SCF Altai (an oil tanker) arrived at Ashkelon port. Hours later, the first shipment of Kurdish pipeline oil was being unloaded in Israel. "Securing the first sale of oil from its independent pipeline is crucial for the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) as it seeks greater financial independence from war-torn Iraq," Reuters noted at the time, adding that "the new export route to the Turkish port of Ceyhan, designed to bypass Baghdad's federal pipeline system, has created a bitter dispute over oil sale rights between the central government and the Kurds."

You get the idea. Erbil wants a bigger piece of the pie, Baghdad doesn't want to give it to them, and so some time ago, the KRG decided to simply cut the Iraqi government out and export crude on its own. The dispute is ongoing.

Ok, so why are we telling you this? Recall that over the past several weeks, we've spent quite a bit of time documenting Islamic State's lucrative black market oil trade. Earlier this month, Vladimir Putin detailed the scope of the operation in meetings with his G20 colleagues. "I've shown photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil and petroleum products," he told journalists on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Antalya. The very same day, the US destroyed some 116 ISIS oil trucks, an effort that was widely publicized in the Western media. In the two weeks since, Moscow and Washington have vaporized a combined 1,300 ISIS oil transport vehicles.

No one knows why it took the US 14 months to strike the convoys. The official line is that The Pentagon was concerned about "collateral damage", but we doubt that's the reason (for a detailed discussion of this, see here).


No wonder why we were not bombing the trucks.

Posted by: shadyl | Dec 2 2015 15:34 utc | 16

Thank you, Les, for the link to Joe Giambrone's article in the International Policy Digest.

Posted by: Laker | Dec 2 2015 15:46 utc | 17

The western governments have never wanted to get rid of or fight ISIS because ISIS is their terrorist army, or better yet, it's the terrorist army of their terrorist overlords. Cameron, Obama, Hollande, Erdogan, and any of the other coalition members all have bosses, and their bosses want Syria destroyed and Assad to suffer the same fate as Gaddafi and Hussein before him.

We here in the United States are now subject to the full psy-ops capabilities of our military since the NDAA removed any restrictions against its use on domestic populations. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the UK and EU are similarly subject to being terrorized by their own governments, too. That's all ISIS really is: a terrorist excuse for continued military action in nation states still refusing to bow down to the Empire. Anything else is just noise, in my opinion.

That's why Rita Katz and SITE Intelligence Group have absolutely no problems at all getting their suspiciously cooperative corporate media arm to broadcast any and all terrorist materials "ISIS" supposedly makes to a broad western audience. That's why we in the west need to go to "alternative" news sites to get even a loose understanding of our reality. The entire game is fixed and the criminals are running the show, and to be honest I'm not sure it's ever been any different. It's just that now we've got more efficient tools at our disposal to circumvent their control matrix.

Question now is: Is there anything we can really do to change things?

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Dec 2 2015 16:00 utc | 18

Business Insider (which I am almost positive fronts for the CIA), thinks the Turks can "check-mate" the Russians in the Turkish straits. They cite a Turkish naval analyst who claims: "If Russia cannot send its ships through the Turkish Straits for any reason, the Russian soldiers deployed in Syria may find themselves in a very similar position of General Paulus' Army," Any comments?

Posted by: Maracatu | Dec 2 2015 16:04 utc | 19


If Brits have been keeping up at all with the hypocrisy of NATO's role in Syria, Cameron's "terrorist sympathizer" meme will only elicit outrage and broadened resistance.

Probably not - four years of constant propaganda bombardment by almost all the British media, including the supposedly most progressive national paper, The Guardian, means that too many people believe the Assad-is-most-evil-man-in-the-world propaganda. And even after Sinai and Paris it is still being pumped. Too many people in Britain probably believe that RT.COM is nothing more than Russian propaganda without realizing that most of what is published in British media is neo-lib/neo-con propaganda.
never mind @6
I think the chances of occupying north-west of Syria slipped past Turkey the moment they shot down the russian bomber. Either the turks go in alone, and hope that their NATO friends will come to their rescue in any eventuality, or watch their best effort to carve a piece off of Syria wither away on their side of the border.
The NATO charter is quite specific about it being an attack on their territory so if Turkey invades Syria, NATO should not respond. However, the United States and certain others would have no problem describing a country defending itself as an act of aggression. The problem really comes when Turkey uses artillery based in Turkey to fire into Syria - to Obama that act of self defence would be seen as aggression.
Ceasefires - the United States has an interesting approach to ceasefires - "you will stop firing at me but I can keep firing at you". In the early days of the Syrian conflict, the Syrian government offered ceasefires to stop people dying - the rebels took the ceasefires but then advanced against the government troops regardless. When the United States was asked to intervene, they indicated by their action that they supported the rebels' view of ceasefires. Then back in April, because of the mounting death toll in Yemen and also because the Saudis were running out of ammunition, the United States pressured the Saudis to go for a ceasefire but did nothing when the Saudis kept bombing Yemen throughout the week long ceasefire. If ceasefires are agreed with some rebel groups, then I expect to see something similar play out and if the Russian respond with appropriate force, the United States and its poodles will accuse Russia of breaking the ceasefire. To be honest, Putin would be best advised to talk about ceasefires but never to actually enter into them. The United States can no longer be trusted.

Posted by: blowback | Dec 2 2015 16:10 utc | 20

Hard to keep up with so many articles today.

Russia Presents Detailed Evidence Of ISIS-Turkey Oil Trade

Oh, and for good measure, Lieutenant-General Sergey Rudskoy says the US is not bombing ISIS oil trucks.

@ Carlos 14 re: Bhadrakumar's article. Sounds promising. I still think "Paris" was a turning point, no longer is France on board with the neocon regime change/divide and conquer/fight them there so we don't need to fight them here memes, etc.

Also, Biden talked about partitioning Iraq years ago. Questions I have today: "if" Kurds get their statehood, will they then share the oil wealth with Baghdad?? How would that work? And what was Israel promised? The Golan Heights??

And: Why aren't the Greeks blackmailing the EU, regarding the refugees for debt relief??

Migrant crisis: Greece under EU pressure on Schengen future

Posted by: shadyl | Dec 2 2015 16:13 utc | 21

Posted by: Maracatu | Dec 2, 2015 11:04:54 AM

Any attempt to deny Russia passage through either the Bosphorus or the Dardanelles is a de facto declaration of war. Regardless of how much arm twisting is going on behind closed doors in NATO states, I'm not sure too many western European nations really want to go to war against Russia right now, especially on Sultan Erdogan's behalf.

Problem is, Russia is laying bare the utter hypocrisy of the western ruling elite, so they really need to escalate the conflict so they can completely clamp down on both dissent and alternative news. The more people become aware of what's actually going on in this world, the more people they'll need to round up when the shooting starts.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Dec 2 2015 16:18 utc | 22

Bruno Marz

Exactly. Great summation that hits the nail on the head.

Symptomatic of late-stage empire/capitalism: a sick (economically and spiritually) society with corrupt governance fronted by whores and sycophants that serve oligarchs and fundamentalists bullies.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 2 2015 16:25 utc | 23

Guardian UK ran off many of their best journalists on terrorism and national security after Cameron threatened to shut it down over the NSA-GCHQ surveillance reporting.

Posted by: Les | Dec 2 2015 16:25 utc | 24


That notion is truly laughable. Whoever wrote that lacks a basic knowledge of geography. Russian ships will have no problems rounding Europe and entering through the Gibraltar Straight, which the UK could close only in case of total war. Plus, all we need to do to debunk their bankrupt "Gen. Paulus" pipedreams, is to show them a map of the route the Russian missiles launched from the Caspian Sea followed to reach Syria, Iran/Iraq/Syria. An alternative route would be Chechnya/Azerbaijan/Iran/Iraq/Syria. Controlling the skies will be key in any future war, and the S-400s in Syria + the S-300s in Iran could secure the above supply routes.

What the article really shows is the warmongering mindset the decadent West is propagandizing, getting the masses ready for a conflagration of huge proportions, the only way out of their terminal crisis.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Dec 2 2015 16:29 utc | 25

Pretty obvious the west does want to defeat ISIL, but still supports more pliable Jihadis like Al Queda. Still determined to destroy secular Syrian state.

Posted by: Vollin | Dec 2 2015 16:29 utc | 26

Lone Wolf@25. Thanks for your reply (as well as that of Bruno Marz@22). I've always strongly suspected Business Insider of either being run by the CIA or influenced by it.

Posted by: Maracatu | Dec 2 2015 16:40 utc | 27

b said: Who initiated this sudden rush within major NATO governments to get parliamentary blank checks for waging a long war on Syria? Not only in the UK but also in France and Germany?

The German government's legal argument for war is so flimsy that the constitutional court will probably stop it.) Who initiated this?

A simple, medium size terror attack in Paris by some Belgians and French can not be the sole reason for this stampede.

Saying this is usually enough to get one immediately banned from most websites, but over at Xymphora one can find an answer to b's question.

b probably won't like this answer but here it is anyway . . .

Obama's "impenetrable narrative," and the Paris presser." When Barry is under pressure from the Jewish Billionaires to do something stupid, and can't explain the irrational anti-American things they force him to do, he gets testy and sloppy.

"From Planned Parenthood to Madrid: What Can Paris, London and Washington Learn?" The limitations of noamian analysis.

The problem is you are a "hater" if you mention the necessary words 'Jewish billionaires', 'Yinon', and 'Wars For The Jews'.

Of course, if you don't mention these words the analysis is worse than useless.

Note what a strong virile analysis looks like: "US Caught Faking It in Syria". One of the main reasons the Russians are doing so well is that they aren't afraid to tell the simple truth in their geopolitical analyses, and thus can plan with access to all the facts, particularly the most important ones.

You are going to have a heaping dose of more wars, more wasted treasure, more refugees to look after, and more terrorism, until you are commonly and completely honest in the analysis, starting with rigor the only group that benefits from these wars.

It is now literally illegal in most places to write an honest analysis.

"Is Turkey Waging War on Russia in Crimea, the Caucasus, and Central Asia?" Odd - or not! - overlap with the goals of World Jewry.

The Pig Fucker - and can you imagine the blackmail possibilities that World Jewry must have against somebody universally known as The Pig Fucker?

and Hollande aren't honest about wanting to fight ISIS for the simple reason they do not have access to the only troops on the ground capable of fighting ISIS, the Syrian Army and some Kurdish groups.

This is yet another War For The Jews, this time against the Syrian government, under the guise of fighting terrorism, based on another set of lies.

"French Editor Fined for Naming Jewish Lobby" - I believe France, once probably the best country in the world to live in, is doomed.

"ISIS™ Oil Continues to Flow to Israel While Turkish Stream Pipeline Deal Appears Dead" . . .

"You Can't Understand American Politics Without Reading This Study"

The only comparable loss of hope occurred after the fall of the Soviet Union, when again the natural expectations were overturned, and large numbers of people simply gave up. Curiously - or not! - two cases where running the government was taken over by Jewish Billionaires.


To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.".

Posted by: Voltaire | Dec 2 2015 16:40 utc | 28

Shadyl: I still think "Paris" was a turning point, no longer is France on board...

I think this is a misreading. France is still 'on board' - they are still in the Assad must go! camp and have not denounced the nations that support/tolerate ISIS or the cabal of Zionists/neocons and Sunni monarchies that use extremism as a weapon.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 2 2015 16:42 utc | 29

Well, the Washington Post says it's false, but today it at least makes readers aware of the widespread belief that the U.S. is supporting ISIS: Iraqis think the U.S. is in cahoots with the Islamic State, and it is hurting the war.

Posted by: lysias | Dec 2 2015 16:44 utc | 30

This link from the IDP article linked to by Carlos,Dec 2, 2015, 10:10:20 AM, Comment 14, is a quick way to refresh one's memory (or at least my memory) as to just how long the US and NATO have been trying to enact regime change in Syria. What I hadn't remembered was that this began under BushBoy, way back in 2006. And these are things which have actually found their way into published media reports.

Posted by: jawbone | Dec 2 2015 16:46 utc | 31

I think this is a misreading. France is still 'on board' - they are still in the Assad must go! camp and have not denounced the nations that support/tolerate ISIS or the cabal of Zionists

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 2, 2015 11:42:39 AM | 29

France is very much on-board.

The French power structure is deeply infiltrated by a cabal of Judeo-Zionists

Posted by: Voltaire | Dec 2 2015 16:46 utc | 32

    "You see, the US strategic goal in Syria is not as your faithful mainstream media servants, led by that redoubtable channeler of Neo-Con smokescreens Michael Gordon, might have you believe of saving the Syrian people from the ravages of the long-standing Assad dictatorship. Rather, the goal was to heighten the level of internecine conflict in that country to the point where it will not be able to serve as a bulwark against Israeli regional hegemony for at least another generation.

    How do we know? Because important protagonists in the Israelo-American policy planning elite have advertised the fact with a surprising degree of clarity in documents and public statements issued over the last several decades.

    The key here is learning to listen to what our cultural training has not prepared us to hear.

    In 1982, as the Likud Party (which is to say, the institutional incarnation of the Revisionist Zionist belief, first articulated by Jabotinsky in the ”Iron Wall” that the only way to deal with “the Arabs” in and around Israel was through unrelenting force and the inducement of cultural fragmentation) was consolidating its hold on the foreign policy establishment of Israel, a journalist named Oded Yinon, who had formerly worked at the Israeli Foreign Ministry, published an article in which he outlined the strategic approach his country needed to take in the coming years. . . .

    Yinon’s vision reappeared in the now infamous “Clean Break” document from 1996, authored by a consortium of US and Israeli "strategic thinkers" that included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David and Meyrav Wurmser, which was meant to serve as a foreign policy blueprint for the first administration of Benjamin Netanyahu.

    The text is nothing if not obsessive regarding the need to seriously debilitate Syria’s ability to act in any way is a pole of regional influence in the in the area .

    On September 5th, 2013, Alon Pinkas, the former Israeli Consul General in New York and well-connected member of Tel Aviv’s conservative policy elite described the Syrian conflict in the following terms in the New York Times:

    “This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but atleast you don’t want one to win – we’ll settle for a tie,….Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.”

    I don’t think it can get much clearer than that. The US-Israeli plan in Syria has never been about helping anyone in that country, but rather insuring its effective dismemberment so as to further the perceived “strategic interests” of the Jewish state.

Posted by: Voltaire | Dec 2 2015 16:54 utc | 33

Thank you for highlighting the lack of consistency in various countries' approach to IS. In the MSM I've yet to see a piece explaining that Russia actually has a strategy compared to everyone else. They are trying to link Syrian government forces up with Kurdish ones by dealing with opposition terrorists and, at the same time, close the Syrian/Turkish border. Note the IS corridor that reaches from the Syrian/Turkish border to Iraq - this needs to be shut down.
Syria map
Many organisations lambast Russia for attacking 'Non IS' forces when in fact Russia has the most coherent plan. Rather than randomly bombing IS targets all over the place with little impact, there is an actual battle plan to reclaim territory by supporting well organised ground forces.

Posted by: randomrob23 | Dec 2 2015 17:01 utc | 34


We need to stop blogging and start doing something about this. The US president is supporting ISIS and AlQaida and he wants to go to war with Russia to continue doing so and to balkanize Russia.

Enough is enough. You can't just rely on poor Russia and putin. Many of us are americans and this is our government. Any ideas?

An impeach obama campaign for supporting jihadist terrorists? hell just calling our house and senate representatives would do a lot.

Posted by: alaric | Dec 2 2015 17:01 utc | 35

@ Jackrabbit 29 and Voltaire....OK I am being overly optimistic. But, I do think the refugee crisis can potentially damage the EU long term.

@ Voltaire 28, I could not agree with you more:

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.".

Posted by: shadyl | Dec 2 2015 17:02 utc | 36

Guns and Butter was on WBAI, the NYC Pacific station, this morning, featuring "State Terrorism: Franco American Style," a dicussion with Michel Chossudovsky. He is a Canadian economist and author, professor of economics at the University of Ottawa, and the president and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

The opening excerpt was a comment that Julius Caesar knew that an empire could not be built on a republican form of government, and that both France and the US have disposed of their democratic republics and opted for a faux democracy to hide the loss.

Interesting discussion.

I hope the link will work for all -- the web site for G&B was a bit...confusing....

Posted by: jawbone | Dec 2 2015 17:06 utc | 37

In 2013, Cameron ran the same scam trying to get parliamentary approval to attack Assad. More recently John Humphreys a BBC proagandist attempted to rewrite history claiming the original vote related to attacking ISIS.

"Well its more than 2 years since the Government, our Government asked the House of Commons to approve military action against Islamic State in Syria and MPs said no, it was a devastating defeat. It seemed to proved the end of David Cameron’s plans to for British war Planes to join other Western forces in attacking them in Syria as well as in Iraq."

Posted by: Yonatan | Dec 2 2015 17:16 utc | 38

b: The "war on terror" is turning into a war on the local opposition of the ruling classes. Those who oppose its polices are labeled terrorists" and those who doubts its word are "radicalized extremists". How far is it from such verbal insults to actually concentration camps?

Not far. The prison system is exploited to crush enemies: Internal or external in a stewy mix. Common law crime is therefore not handled properly, which makes it rise, to make ppl afraid, insecure.

And *concentration camps* exist already. They are called refugee centers, retention locales, exceptional ‘hot spots’ and so on. From Calais to Palestine, open air. Plus with lurking moves going unnoticed (imprisoning stateless ppl for ex. - nobody squeaks..) and targetting certain groups > by existing laws. Next post gives details of ONE ex, France, can be skipped to concentrate on Erdogan's psyche.

Posted by: Noirette | Dec 2 2015 17:19 utc | 39

Obomba today declared the Russians aren't attacking IsUS.
The absolute mockery of truth and facts is what Americans have to endure every day.
Zion uber alles!ugh.
Yankee come home,please?

Posted by: dahoit | Dec 2 2015 17:20 utc | 40

Israel formally admits ground forces have been operating in Syria

Posted by: Les | Dec 2 2015 17:21 utc | 41

OT but may be not that much...
The Saker has been outed as one "Andrei Raevsky" and beside the juicy details there remains an "interesting" question:
He DOES lives and blogs and organize his anti "Anglo-Zionist" crusade from Florida at little distance of various US military and intelligence establishments without the slightest objections of such...

Which gives???
(free speech my ass...)

Posted by: acrimonious | Dec 2 2015 17:21 utc | 42

How far is it from such verbal insults to actually concentration camps?

When all they have to do is threaten to take your children away from you, no camps are necessary.

After they take you kids away they hand them over to the "Child Services" which then grant the Paedophiles, that run the UK, access to your kids to do as they wish with them.

The threat of THAT is more than enough to shut most people up

Posted by: Voltaire | Dec 2 2015 17:24 utc | 43

Ho! Ho!
Posted about the Saker being outed and my post doesn't show!
(see on his blog)

Posted by: acrimonious | Dec 2 2015 17:25 utc | 44

The problem is that bombing ISIS will strengthen the narrative of the "Jihadis".

Posted by: Willy2 | Dec 2 2015 17:27 utc | 45

Testing for "forbidden words" in my missing post:
anglo-zionist crusade my ass

Posted by: acrimonious | Dec 2 2015 17:33 utc | 46

Linking to The Saker is forbidden?

Posted by: acrimonious | Dec 2 2015 17:36 utc | 47

@Yonatan 38 imagine if we had attacked the Syrian government because of chemical weapon attacks, which later turned out to be conducted by another party, and what a worse mess we'd be in now. I believe the US turned away from bombing Syrian forces because British MPs voted against action.
Your quote about John Humphreys is shocking. Unfortunately I think he actually believes his revisionist history as do most of our mainstream journalists - Memory

Posted by: randomrob23 | Dec 2 2015 17:37 utc | 48

Thank you b, for such excellent commentary & sources. It looks as if everyone except Turkey now supports an independent, or at least federated, Syrian Kurdistan. I wonder if this w/b a barrier to Iranian influence-- to the "Shiite crescent" that connects Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon? Kurds are Sunni, although being Kurds is more important to them.

As a Westerner it takes some adjustment to understand a conflict heavily determined by ethnicity rather than ideology, which seems to have no place at all. For the record, Syrian Kurds are Marxist & intend their govt to reflect that.

All those foreign forces bombing Raqqa and sending troops I assume want to create an Iraqi Kurdistan and a huge Sunnistan extending over most of Eastern Syria? (ala Juppe-Wright. Map here

Germany has long supplied the Iraqi Kurds w weapons & their leader, Barzani, is Mossad.

Why did Russia keep inviting the West in? This has always perplexed me; does anyone have a theory?

Posted by: Penelope | Dec 2 2015 17:40 utc | 49

ref Piotr, semi-mystery
no mystery at all: the US needs maximum mayhem in Europe to oblige the Eurozone to stick together and ultimately to stick to the US with Transatlantic partnership to save the US economy

Posted by: Mina | Dec 2 2015 17:42 utc | 50

France resembles the US in some ways, anyway it is a good ex.

Prisoners in France.

1946: 62,000 imprisoned, mostly ‘collaborationists.’

1957: 20,000. - a low or lowish rate. The collaborationist were freed.

1950 -1980, 25% of prisoners under a special régime, all N. Africans. (Their no. slopes down after 1968. Info is hard to find and controversial.)

1 jan. 2013:

66,500 plus some 10,000+ not locked up (electronic bracelets.) The prisoners are basically all adult men. That day, there were all of 708 incarcerated women awaiting trial, and 1,507 sentenced women in prison.

724 were minors, under 18, both sexes.

Together, these categories account for *at the very most* 4% of the prison population. 96 / 100 ppl in France in prison are men, most of them young, 18-35.

Today, the estimate is that 70% of prisoners in France are muslim. (Muslims in F, around 7%, as compared to atheists, Catholics, etc.) You need to widen that I reckon to ‘immigrants, down to 3rd generation, from the Mahgreb, probably muslim, or today, self-declared as muslim, or *culturally muslim* (terminology used in a report, not mine - i.e. the definition is ethnic and not religious)’ and lower the figure at least to 60. The uncertainty is due to the fact that F does not collect stats on ‘religion’, ‘color’, ‘origins’, ‘ethnicity’ and so on. Egalité!

The DGSE (dpt. of external security), under the Min. of Defense, has an S (for security) roster which in effect is a watch list. Secret, but a few things can be said. 11,000+ ppl are listed. The bulk are boys/men aged 15 - 25, with another lesser cat, 25-35 on top.-- a few older men.

Negligible no. of girls/women, which is why indoctrination of girls works.

Some 70 - 80% or so are listed for ‘muslim radicalisation’, ‘potential djihadist terrorist inclinations and links’ and so on. The other about 20%+ is composed of ‘at risks’ such as football hooligans, PETA demonstrators, eco-warriors. A mix of brawlers (but not regular drunks etc.) and ideologically motivated bozos.

The problem that F society is waking up to is that F supports ‘islamic terrorism’ directly or indirectly, e.g. in Syria, thru its links with KSA, Qatar, that is obvious, but not only: also thru the US/EU/Nato. How can the repressed enemy within be supported without? Ppl can’t get their minds around that.

The answer is that greedy, mafia-like, savage predatory capitalist actions as some would say, and also repressive moves are implemented to control ordinary ppl, and anything will serve. That choice leads to imprisoning young men with tanned skin and arab name in F, and allying with KSA that chops of heads of thieves and adulterers.

offical stats quoted.

Posted by: Noirette | Dec 2 2015 17:49 utc | 51

You wanna bomb Assad one moment, and then bomb ISIS the next...which is it PigLover...? Cameron looking more schizophrenic than a US War Hawk right now. The masses, blinded by the seeming complexity of it all - no wonder the UK censors want to clamp down on alternative news sites like RT.

Very tough to organise volumes of information to disguise a large truth. The open geo-political play book Putin is using here is just so hard to do battle with. The truth hurts, let's hope more of it seeps through, exposing western hypocrisy...yet again.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Dec 2 2015 17:52 utc | 52

Why did Russia keep inviting the West in? This has always perplexed me; does anyone have a theory?

Posted by: Penelope | Dec 2, 2015 12:40:43 PM | 48

Well someone called Victoriana put forward a theory here the other day but was trolled by the usual suspects because of it.

Posted by: Voltaire | Dec 2 2015 17:56 utc | 53

Re: randomrob23 | Dec 2, 2015 12:01:46 PM | 34 and his comment about how the US MCMers (members of the Mainstream Corporate Media, which includes public broadcasting) are so perplexed as to why Russia wants to clear out the Al Qaeda-type jihadis, salafists, takfiris or whatever they are before flying around dropping bombs on eastern areas of Syria.

I'm pretty sure there are educated people who work for these media giants, people who can understand basic strategy if they wish to; however, they're so used to being good little stenographers to the parts of the government that the Powers That Be want them to listen to that they seem unable to even hint at possible reality based ideas. Such as Russia wants to clean up area by area, but most importantly the Turkish border to keep more bad guys and weapons being sent into Syria from Turkey.

Journamalism, as, iirc, Eschaton's Atrios used to say.

Posted by: jawbone | Dec 2 2015 18:01 utc | 54

thanks b...

@22 brunomarz... exactly.. thanks.

language.. how to say bullshite and deceive people... calling corbyn a 'terrorist sympathizer' is a perfect example of this... fuck with the language and hope you can get away with bullshite like that... cameron is the real 'terrorist sympathizer.. i can't believe the uk had blair and now have to put up with the new pig-shit.. no offense to pigs.. i like pigs.. will have to find a better word to describe what i think of cameron..

Posted by: james | Dec 2 2015 18:15 utc | 55

"...Why did Russia keep inviting the West in? This has always perplexed me; does anyone have a theory?

Posted by: Penelope | Dec 2, 2015 12:40:43 PM | 48 ..."

Good question. I just think Putin (and Lavrov) are at another level here. Politically too strong simply because they dont involve Russia in operating duplicitous foreign policy - they have nothing to hide, so defending the simple truth is easy. Watching western encroachment across central Europe for the best part of two decades - I think they have studied enough of the beast to best deal with it. I enjoy it when Putin remarks... 'our western partners'.

'..what is this thing, my western partners, this so-called 'moderate rebel'...?'

Posted by: MadMax2 | Dec 2 2015 18:24 utc | 56

Important to note, I think, that the shootdown precipitated the apparent end of Turkish-stream gas pipeline, which was likely a major US goal of the entire affair.

Posted by: Casey | Dec 2 2015 18:26 utc | 57

Why did Russia keep inviting the West in? This has always perplexed me; does anyone have a theory?
Posted by: Penelope | Dec 2, 2015 12:40:43 PM | 48

It's deliberate and makes Russians seem gullible, naiive and inferior; thereby encouraging their opponents to gloat and believe even more of their own bullshit than usual. And (imo) it's working beautifully...the Zio-Christians are whipping themselves (and each other) into a drunken frenzy of over-enthusiasm.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 2 2015 18:28 utc | 58

The political and military leadership of the West/NATO remains hoisted on the petard of their own rhetoric. After talking up for over a year the threat of the most evil terrorists to ever walk the earth, their flaccid response and the culpability of their allies has been completely exposed. After blasting the Russians and Chinese for supposedly fracturing the postwar "international order", they seem prepared to defy the wishes of sovereign countries and assert new borders in the mideast. They will not be able to explain themselves coherently. The planet is much larger than NATO, which they also do not understand. Full spectrum dominance sounds great when presented by think-tank talking heads, but the real world has now caught up. A full campaign in Syria will be an extremely hard sell to the populace, especially with the climate conference presenting a much greater challenge and of more interest to more people. Britain just slashed 12 billion from social and infrastructure programs, supposedly as part of austerity, then announced the same 12 billion will be redirected into the military. You can only get away with that for so long, and the moment may well be over.

Posted by: jayc | Dec 2 2015 18:31 utc | 59

Syria is being carved up, the redistribution of citizens based on religious denomination is underway, and the race is on for a stake in that oil rich Raqqa province for when IS has been defeated and some legitimate semblance of Governance is reintroduced there. Any more than that and they'll have to contend with Russian missile defence systems which are giving cover from Lattakia to the Euphrates.

Notice that those militants in Homs and around Damascus are being bussed into Idlib. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Syrian/Russian/Iranian intentions to push these terrorists back over the border with Turkey. Rather, ceasefire zones will be created. The only question that remains in my mind is how big. Barely tangible territorial gains in Hama, let alone any signs of pushing into Idlib suggests the alliance is content with strengthening lines here and bombing attackers into a forced stalemate.

But remember that Iran and Turkey were once negotiating the transfer of Shia villagers in Idlib with militants in Zabadani, as a sort of ethnic cleansing, until the Russians entered the fray. I wonder if the Russians were getting agitated by the proximity of Jihadists to their Mediterranean base and decided the ceasefire line would be pushed East. Undermining an ethnic safe zone for Erdogan's "brothers" must have riled the Sultan something rotten.

IS must be defeated and too many of Assad's men have already been lost to be able to retake all of Syria. Can you really imagine Syrian troops marching through Raqqa again waving the national flag? Or Azaz for that matter? They're lost.

Will the Turks now move in to carve off a piece of the North? Probably. But Palmyra and Deir Ezzor can be saved, and the road to Iran restored.

As for liberating Aleppo? It was the Iranians who first suggested an "international city"..

Posted by: Pat Bateman | Dec 2 2015 18:35 utc | 60

The reason George Orwell was so effectively able to predict the future in 1984 was that he rubbed elbows with the ruling elite in Britain around the time of WWII and their plans for world domination were well in motion even by then.

The aptly-named poster Voltaire is correct in his assessment of who rules over us, and until we can challenge the prevailing resistance to they-who-shall-not-be-criticized, we'll continue to be powerless to their machinations.

I was recently demoted in the internet posting sense from a site I frequent because I aggressively and consistently identified political Zionism as the root cause of both terrorism and its subsequent wars of conquest. For that I was accused of "hate speech" and my comments are now moderated. Score another one for the perpetual victims.

It's fine to toe the company line and blame Arabs or Muslims for everything, but as soon as you identify the man behind the curtain you're using hate speech.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Dec 2 2015 18:48 utc | 61

One of those retrospective bright ideas. Whilst the west is very keen to sell weapons to ME military, it prefers them to be trained at a level to keep the populace under control and no more. I would have taken some Syrian troops along with Syrian-Russian miliary members to a base in Russia and give them serious intensive training in the use of tanks, artillery and MLRS. Maybe such fully trained and rested Syrian military will turn up with their shiny new hardware to dispatch ISIS to their Snackbar In The Sky.

Posted by: Yonatan | Dec 2 2015 18:56 utc | 62

"Why did Russia keep inviting the West in? This has always perplexed me; does anyone have a theory?
Posted by: Penelope | Dec 2, 2015 12:40:43 PM | 48"

I too wonder about this. The result will be a concentration of hostile armed assets in and near syria. Why does putin want that. Inviting them in is good for the pr war he is running but it makes russia, Syrian and Iranian forces vulnerable. A relatively small russian force is surrounded by hostiles from turkey, the US, NATO and really Israel. I think he must have something up his sleeve but I hope he doesn't expect the UK and France to help. I'm sure he doesn't. I'm curious what is he up to?

Posted by: Alaric | Dec 2 2015 19:26 utc | 63

@jawbone 53 I agree - I find it hard to understand how anyone could misunderstand what Russia is doing, which you have crystalised in your comment:

Such as Russia wants to clean up area by area, but most importantly the Turkish border to keep more bad guys and weapons being sent into Syria from Turkey.
Russia have said their campaign is envisioned to last 3 to 4 months. That sounds like they have a thought-out battle plan to me, as opposed to all other 'bomb a bunch of people' policies.

Posted by: randomrob23 | Dec 2 2015 19:29 utc | 64

as for the perpetual question for today "Why did Russia keep inviting the West in?, i share @57 hoarsewhisperer's viewpoint..

Posted by: james | Dec 2 2015 19:31 utc | 65

"as for the perpetual question for today "Why did Russia keep inviting the West in?, i share @57 hoarsewhisperer's viewpoint..

Posted by: james | Dec 2, 2015 2:31:25 PM | 64"

I agree with this but there has to be more to it. The concentration of hostile troops is a good target? Perhaps those new russian EW products are as good as claimed? Putin's invitation changes the ratio of hostile to russia friendly troops in a bad way for russia. Something is up there

Posted by: Alaric | Dec 2 2015 19:55 utc | 66

I can't imagine Putin acceding to a Kurdish state within Syrian territory, especially if Barzani is at all involved in it. Also, I highly doubt the Iraqis or the Syrians will stand idly by while their respective oil resources are removed from their control and effectively given to Israel. Isn't that really what this is all about, anyway?

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Dec 2 2015 19:55 utc | 67

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 2, 2015 1:28:23 PM | 57


i share @57 hoarsewhisperer's viewpoint..

Posted by: james | Dec 2, 2015 2:31:25 PM | 64

"Somewhat delusional" is unfortunately the best thing I could say about his answer @57.

The Zios wanted Chaos, Mayhem, Sectarianism and Bombing to reign in the territories of any of their neighbours that dare oppose their hegemonic plans, and lo and behold it now does.

Don't take my word for it, just read Israel Shahak's translation of "The Zionist Plan for the Middle East"

"Win!" for the Zios with their "Yinon Plan" and their "Clean Break".

It's somewhat surprising that this even needs explanation at this late stage in the game. After all, it's not like the Zios in the US and Israel have hidden their intentions over the last few decades. They have been quite open about it really.

Posted by: Voltaire | Dec 2 2015 19:55 utc | 68

Why did Russia keep inviting the West in? This has always perplexed me; does anyone have a theory?
Posted by: Penelope | Dec 2, 2015 12:40:43 PM | 48

It is a strategy to:
(1) Bring pressure on the western alliance to try and create splits (it is more wobbly than many think, hence why the US has to keep cracking the whip to keep them in line).
(2) Bring pressure on the western allliance via their own people, many (most?) who have become totally skeptical about their own Govts.
(3) Appear as the 'good guy' in the internaional world, important for forming internatonal alliances and support with others (lot more in the world than just the west).
(4) Confuse and confound the western leaders.
(5) let the west hang itself in front of other countries and their own peoples by their own lies, twists and turns.

Remember Boyd: War has 3 dimensions Moral, Mental and Phsyical of which the Moral is the most important.
Putin is waging war on all 3 fronts, inclding that all important 'Moral'.

The west is only fighting using (as usual) 'Phsyical', with a (very?) small smattering of 'Mental'.

US policy over Syria is set by 3 factors: Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. By bribery, blackmail and clever poltics this has meant their domination of US internal politics and the ascendancy of the 'old' neo-cons to determine US foreign policy in the ME.

Does anyone not think that if Israel suddenly turned around tomorrow to become a total supporter of Assad that the US (and the poodles UK, France, Germany, etc) would not follow very quickly, say by the end of the week?

Hence Putin's work on Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to split that de-facto alliance, break/change them ...then the US will change.

Posted by: Lisa | Dec 2 2015 19:59 utc | 69

Penelope. My take: if you're biased towards Putin you won't like it.

Putin is a bourgeois who wanted to curry favour with the rest of the Western capitalist class. (And I'm not a singular socialist, capitalist any other economic ideology. Human characteristics and qualities are far more important then economic ideologies. ) For all the faults of a Chavez or Morales, Putin has nothing on a more social commitment to humanity compared to those two.

Putin for Eg.
- Let the US use Russian military bases after 9/11 to commit war crimes in Afghanistan. Complicit in that crime spree.
- Russia then let pass The Western slaughter in Libya.
Both eg above shows that Putin tried to establish normal relations with the West, so I think to develop normal Western relations and strenghen the Russian capitalist economy and state - and at the expense of those two countries. Unforgivable. But it's relation with Syria was the red Russian line ?

And I have to admit Putin has tried really hard to convince western politicians and western peoples of how friendly ard normal Russians can be. He knows that he has to try real hard against the unfriendly Soviet residual image in people's minds. Putin is still fighting that bad Soviet PR from decades ago.

Also, Putin sold nuclear energy support - to Saudi fucking Arabia - while the Saudis at the same time said they had plans on nuclear weapons!!! Disgraceful. But I guess if Russia makes money while the Saudis in the future threaten nuclear war, I guess that's all right then.
None of the above shows a commitment to humanity or principles. Shows Putin wants normal status quo relations, and a strong Russian capitalist state.

Moving on to inviting the West into the joining its "war on terror", one possibility was that Putin still badly wants to preserve that notion of normal relations with the West.
If they maybe saw that they were all unified attacking ISIL together, Putin thought There would be a strong link of military action joining in a valuable cause. If traditional rivalries were a problem, maybe military cooperation could be the unifier.
He also could've thought of shaming the West into action because Seeing how committed the Russians were to Syria, mabye he thought that they would back down, and re-asses ? Long shot, but he mabye thought worth the effort.
Both show me that the desperation of having normal relations with the West - (which is run by genocidal class war maniacs) -overrided his knowledge of the Wests and Mideast tyrannies use and creation of ISIL. He took a lot of chances at a low % of success because he thought the possible positive gains would worthy enough. .

Posted by: tom | Dec 2 2015 20:03 utc | 70

"In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

Bit of a hint there, direct from Mr Herzl himself

So, whenever one hears Bibi or Tzipi or any of those other horribly murderous racist psychopaths say the english phrase "The Land of Israel" it is NOT a reference to the land currently occupied by present-day Israel

It is a direct translation of the phrase "Eretz Israel", but unfortunately it's real meaning is somewhat obscured by direct translation.

"Eretz Israel" is itself just another way of saying “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

Unfortunately most non-Jewish westerners think it refers to the land currently occupied by present-day Israel, and this his how they hoodwink the dumb gullible goyim.

Posted by: Voltaire | Dec 2 2015 20:05 utc | 71

Why did the Russians invite the West in when given an inch they take a yard [Libya]
The UK Governments motion, which many MP's have latched on to reads..
"Welcomes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249 which determines that Isil constitutes an ‘unprecedented threat to international peace and security’ and calls on states to take ‘all necessary measures’ to prevent terrorist acts by Isil and to ‘eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria’;

Further notes the clear legal basis to defend the UK and our allies in accordance with the UN Charter";
But section 5/ of UNSC Resolution reads...
"Calls upon member states that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW,IN PARTICULAR WITH THE UN CHARTER".
The question is does the UK have the right to enter Syrian airspace without Syrian permission? In my opinion I think that would breach International law and the UN Charter.

Posted by: harry law | Dec 2 2015 20:08 utc | 72

Israel's Longstanding Middle East Plan - by Stephen Lendman

Its two essential premises include:

-- to survive, Israel must dominate the region and become a world power, and

-- succeeding requires dividing Arab nations into small states - Balkanizing them along ethnic and sectarian lines as Israeli satellites, controllable satraps, the idea modeled after the Ottoman Empire's Millet (or nation) system under which local authorities governed confessional communities with separate ethnic identities.

Israel's 1967 Golan seizure and 1978 and 1982 Lebanon invasions followed the plan, Yinon noting "far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967, (created by the) very stormy situation surround(ing) Israel," resurrected whenever Israel wishes.

Its method involves "pre-emptive belligerence" against Palestinians and regional states, making them all eventual targets to be weakened, fragmented, divided, and reconfigured under Israeli control.

In 1982, it included dividing Iraq into Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurdish areas, what, in fact, unfolded after 2003, Shahak noting that:

"The plan follows faithfully the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890 - 1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe."

They were then implemented from 1939 - 1941, "and only (a global alliance) prevented their consolidation for a period of time."

Posted by: Voltaire | Dec 2 2015 20:13 utc | 74

According to a NY based radio station Super Station 95 and also posted on Global Research dot Ca Turkey has blockaded the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits to Russian Naval ships. This is an ACT OF WAR BY TURKEY. I hope its not true because this looks like the runup to the Battle of Armageddon.

Posted by: Bill Warrick | Dec 2 2015 20:15 utc | 75

Now the stream of cheap ISIS-oil seems to stop, you would expect a rise in the price.
But today was a new low ($ 39,84)

Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 2 2015 20:23 utc | 76

Israel Has Been ‘Singled Out’ in the US for a Very Long Time

As has been widely reported, the American Studies Association, the umbrella organization of academics devoted to the study of US literature, history and culture, recently voted to join the movement to boycott Israeli academic institutions.

In the days since that historic vote, numerous high-profile US supporters of the Jewish state have vehemently decried the scholarly association’s historic decision.

The first to do so was Lawrence Summers. He has been followed by numerous others such as Leon Wieseltier of the New Republic and by Michael Roth president of Wesleyan University in Connecticut.

Reading their reactions to the democratically determined posture of the ASA, one particular argument appears with almost metronomic predictability. It goes something like this:

"Considering all the countries in the world where human rights abuses are rife, why in the world is the ASA so concerned about Israel, the only "democratic state" in the Middle East? Why is this organization, along with the millions of others who support the BDS movement, "singling Israel out" for such punitive treatment?"

One is left to wonder. Do these people always treat the intelligence of their audience with such contempt? Do they always assume that those to whom they speak are deeply ill-informed about the structural realities of contemporary politics and incapable of the most basic logical inductions in regard to the nature of Israel’s relationship with the US?

As anyone who has not been living under a rock for the last 50 years knows, Israel has, it is true, long been "singled out" in America…. for extraordinary levels of financial, military and diplomatic support from the United States government.

Indeed, it could be said without exaggeration say that no small and putatively sovereign nation in modern history has ever been the object of such lavishly favorable treatment from a Great Power. There is nothing remotely comparable to the US’s indulgent treatment of Israel in Spain’s or Great Britain’s long historical runs as the world’s hegemon.

But don’t take my word for it. Listen to the current US President who declared quite famously that the US and Israel must "work in lockstep" within the theater of international politics. Or, we could listen to the current Vice-President and current Secretary of State who frequently remind audiences that there is "no daylight" between the US and Israel when it comes to strategic goals in the world.

Is there any historical precedent – within a political establishment that constantly talks about how partisan politics must "stop at the water’s edge" – for the pledge made by house minority leader Eric Cantor to the Israeli Prime Minister in November 2010 that he would "serve as a check" on his own country’s presidential administration should it begin to consider policies that he deemed detrimental to Israel?

Is there another country that could purposely try to sink a US warship, the USS Liberty in 1967, and never suffer any sanction or recognizable alteration bilateral relations for doing so?

Posted by: Voltaire | Dec 2 2015 20:40 utc | 77

BM: Isn't that really what this is all about, anyway?

Energy resources is just one dimension. Another is Saudi and Gulf States paranoia (they have Shia minorities) - which no doubt makes them easy to manipulate. And other is Israel's fear of an "Islamic bomb" (or WMD) in the hands of an unfriendly state. IMO they want to eliminate Hezbollah in Lebanon and the possibility of a Palestinian State so that these areas can not be used to deliver WMD.

Then there is the global geo-political dimension. US wants to deliver gas from ME (Qatar, eastern Med) to Europe - which would complete the new "Iron Curtain" between Europe and Russia. The more setbacks (military, social, economic) that Russia faces, the more the Putin regime is destabilized (regime change in Russia is the ultimate goal). Naturally, they would like to disrupt plans for a "new Silk Road" also.

This 'Long War' will likely take years to play out, but whoever prevails in the Syria-Iraq proxy war could have an advantage. Neither side wants the other to have such an advantage so there are some trying days ahead.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 2 2015 20:43 utc | 78

Are western people stupid? Who goes every year "voting" to bomb another state? Who does that?! Didnt the last war prove them oh so wrong?!

Posted by: Seder | Dec 2 2015 20:56 utc | 79

Why is Russia allowing Israel to continue its policy of limited, and ambiguous, attacks on targets in Syria?

Posted by: Voltaire | Dec 2 2015 20:59 utc | 80

Oh, there's also arms deals and future reconstruction contracts for the winners.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 2 2015 21:04 utc | 81

Israel Supports ISIS
By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, December 02, 2015

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon admitted Israeli support for ISIS and other takfiri terrorists, calling them Syrian rebels – failing to explain they’re imported from scores of countries… There are no so-called “moderates” among them.

Since Obama waged war on Syria in March 2011, Israel bombed government targets multiple times. It continues supplying terrorist elements with weapons, munitions and other support.

Over 1,000 of their wounded fighters were treated in Israeli hospitals, helping them recover to resume waging terror on Syria.

Ya’alon claiming Israeli policy excludes “getting involved in the Syrian war” is a lie.

Israel’s long-range goal is unchallenged regional hegemony, independent governments eliminated in Syria, Iran and Lebanon, area nations balkanized into mini-states for easier control, undeclared Israeli borders expanded to incorporate territory of neighboring states.

On November 24, The Voltaire Network said journalist Sharri Markson got firsthand accounts from wounded jihadist terrorists receiving treatment at Israel’s Ziv Medical Centre, “specialising in war traumology…government-run and linked to the Israeli Defence Forces.”

Their recovery is aided to help them “continue the jihad in Syria.” Israeli security forces detained and interrogated her in a “heavy-handed” way for exposing what they want kept secret.

In September 2014, a photo of Netanyahu and Ya’alon visiting terrorists receiving care in an Israeli hospital went viral online – Netanyahu seen shaking a terrorist’s hand.

According to the al-Araby al-Jadeed newspaper, “Israel has in one way or another become the main marketer of ISIS oil. Without them, most ISIS-produced oil would have remained going between Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Even the three companies would not receive the oil if they did not have a buyer in Israel.”

Posted by: Voltaire | Dec 2 2015 21:05 utc | 82

Also, did anyone notice that Israel's defense minister Yalon said that a Russian jet flew into "Israeli airspace" and that, unlike those Turks, the always rational Israelis were able to sort it out by simply communicating with the offending pilot. I wonder why they didn't mention that the airspace in question is above the illegally occupied Golan Heights and not Israel proper?

Maybe Putin is really using the old "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" routine to a tee here, otherwise I don't know how to explain it.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Dec 2 2015 21:13 utc | 83

Also, why wouldn't Putin have called out Israel for purchasing the oil smuggled through Turkey? It's not like the Turks are the last stop for that smuggled crude. Maybe the truth needs to be metered out in doses so as not to cause cardiac arrest in those first being introduced to it.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Dec 2 2015 21:16 utc | 84

A treacherous trap is certainly being laid, and it will ensnare Europe and probably the whole world. The News today is that NATO is now green lighting its long planned military occupation of Montenegro-and occupation is what it is. Montenegro is not entering NATO, NATO is entering Montenegro, and over the bitter objections of a huge majority of the people that live there. The unelected,notoriously criminal regime of that rump state cancelled a referendum on the NATO issue, precisely because they knew it would fail. There shouldn't even be a nation-state in Europe called Montenegro. Clean majorities of its people were against separation from Serbia in all of the polls leading up to that referendum. The U.S. state and the NATO states of Europe,driven by the supranational ruling class of billionaires is pushing the confrontation with Russia faster and more aggressively every week now.

Posted by: psakiwacky | Dec 2 2015 21:26 utc | 85

@ shaydly @21

I'm wondering if Russia is considering impounding the tankers carrying the stolen terrorist oil, on the high seas. If not then why ? They are certainly legally permitted to do so.

Posted by: psakiwacky | Dec 2 2015 21:29 utc | 86


Israeli oilmen appear to be buying the Iraqi Kurd's oil, also not quite legal, that has Islamic State supplied oil mixed with it but I think other oil traders are also buying this attractively priced oil. Transfer between tankers at sea is one way this oil is made legal or at least difficult to track, they even send multiple tankers to confuse the satellite tracking of the oil distribution and sources.

War profiteering is and has been an easy way to maximize profits and greed overcomes politics the world over.

The picture of Netanyahu and Ya'alon visiting an injured, unidentified Syrian was broadcast on Israeli TV for anyone to see and comment on.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Dec 2 2015 21:43 utc | 87

Was this the NATO plan all along? To get Russia further invested in Syria by using their unruly and untrustworthy Turkish dog to do so?


that was on my mind too. One less outlet for Russian energy. Maybe we can look at a map and see who is next on the regime change / NATO induction hit list to further complicate Russian energy delivery.

Posted by: farflungstar | Dec 2 2015 21:58 utc | 88

@67 voltaire.. it would be nice if you stuck with one alias instead of changing it all the time, but i guess that's the price one pays for being condescending and worse towards the posters at moa.. you missed your chance to comment @52, but instead more cheap shit on your part.. foff, whatever your name is.. the reason why all of the wisdom and logic you offer isn't taken - your attitude sucks.. your wisdom isn't as great as you think it is, but the attitude defines you..

@68 lisa and @69 tom.. thanks.. i share your viewpoints as well..

Posted by: james | Dec 2 2015 22:09 utc | 89

nice to see the usual suspects out trolling again

Keeps em off the streets and out of real mischief I guess, so there's that

Posted by: Voltaire | Dec 2 2015 22:36 utc | 90

the wrath of "James" - run fer yer lives!!!

Posted by: Voltaire | Dec 2 2015 22:37 utc | 91

Why is Russia allowing Israel to continue its policy of limited, and ambiguous, attacks on targets in Syria?

Posted by: Voltaire | Dec 2, 2015 3:59:55 PM | 79

and you missed your chance to comment @79, "james", but instead more cheap shit on your part

Posted by: Voltaire | Dec 2 2015 22:43 utc | 92

Something that caught my eye re: "Voltaire" and his quote @28: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

The quote is not from the real Voltaire, but from this guy. No, I'm not any expert on the historical Voltaire, just caught it here this morning.


Posted by: Vintage Red | Dec 2 2015 22:48 utc | 93

Posted by: Vintage Red | Dec 2, 2015 5:48:04 PM | 92

VR Thus proving the point

good fellow, well done

Posted by: Voltaire | Dec 2 2015 22:53 utc | 94

Syria airstrikes: MPs approve UK action against Isis after marathon debate

...[Cameron] was repeatedly challenged to apologise for remarks at a private meeting of Conservative MPs on Tuesday in which he urged his colleagues not to vote alongside “a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 2 2015 23:17 utc | 95

Just heard another report by the CBC's Sasa P, where he inserts a somewhat subtle pro-West slant to what sounds like a somewhat objective report on Syria. Here's an interesting story I found from HP from a few years back:

Posted by: spudki | Dec 2 2015 23:22 utc | 96

CNN positive on Putin.
As are the most comments.

Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 2 2015 23:28 utc | 97

Vintage Red @92,

Fair enough, but the description of inverted totalitarianism is nonetheless valid, regardless of his sin against the regime.

Besides, the FBI and other spooks plant CP on people's computers all the time, if that's what they gotta do to keep from starting a race war that the oligarchs will lose.

Posted by: Jonathan | Dec 3 2015 0:08 utc | 98

The units of the Syrian army operation in the far north of the governorate (province) of Latakia report that Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) have not only intensified the ongoing blurring of civil and military communications but are using new processes such as blinding lasers and directed energy weapons (Directed Energy Weapons-) in at least three border areas are conducted in fierce fighting for control of strategic points.
The use of microwave weapons by the Turkish military suggests an important logistical support of major NATO countries which Turkey is a member. One of communication and control systems used by the Iranian military advisers supporting the Syrian army on the ground would have been rendered inoperative near the Turkish border.

Posted by: Robert | Dec 3 2015 0:30 utc | 99

"Who initiated this sudden rush within major NATO governments to get parliamentary blank checks for waging a long war on Syria?"

Well, the USA of course. It's worth a PhD dissertation or ten, an investigation of how the US turned Europe from staunch opponents of Middle Eastern wars to the worst sort of empty-headed lackeys willing to drag along next to it in any immoral battle. I'd start first by looking at every election campaign between 2001 and today - after all, if the US was willing to spend $5 Billion to throttle Ukraine's fledgling democracy, how much do you think they'd be willing to spend to subvert - say - France's? Or Germany's? Or Italy's?

There is no doubt that we're in extremely dangerous territory. The US has very little time to seal "the New American Century" at this point. Russia and China are nipping at her heels, and Europe (if it wasn't for its glaring democratic deficit) would be going extremely wobbly at this point.

Posted by: guest77 | Dec 3 2015 0:31 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.