Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 14, 2017

CentCom Breaks "Safe Passage" Deal - Making Its Allies Bleed For It

On Friday the U.S. "Inherent Resolve" command of its operations in Syria and Iraq released an statement that points to unnecessary intensified fighting about the city of Raqqa and elsewhere.

SAC and SDF Liberate Tabqah

The Syrian Arab Coalition and their Syrian Democratic Force partners completed the liberation of the Tabqah Dam, as well as the city of Tabqah and its nearby airfield May 10.
In Tabqah, the SDF's increased pressure on ISIS from each flank allowed it to accelerate the pace of the fight, clear the final neighborhoods of the city, and isolate Tabqah Dam.

Approximately 70 ISIS fighters conceded to the SDF's terms, which included the dismantling of IEDs surrounding the dam, the surrender of all ISIS heavy weapons, and the forced withdrawal of all remaining fighters from Tabqah City.

The SDF accepted ISIS's surrender of the city to protect innocent civilians and to protect the Tabqah dam infrastructure which hundreds of thousands of Syrians rely on for water, agriculture, and electricity.

(The "Syrian Arab Coalition" is U.S. propaganda parlance for its own forces in the area. That force is part of its Central Command. The "Syrian Democratic Force" are predominantly fighters of the Syrian-Kurdish YPG and a few U.S. special forces embedded with them.)

The Kurdish forces obviously made a deal with the ISIS rearguard. They offered safe passage (safe conduct) to the ISIS fighters if those would dismantled their demolition charges on the Tabqa dam and leave their heavy weapons behind. The ISIS group accepted and fulfilled its part of the deal. The dam was saved. The ISIS forces withdrew.

The Kurdish commander had made the right decision. Any fighting around, on or within the dam structure could have led to a catastrophic dam failure which would have killed ten-thousands (at least) further down the Euphrates.

The next line in the U.S. press release is therefore ominous:

The Coalition tracked fleeing fighters and targeted those that could be safely hit without harming civilians.

The U.S. military broke the "safe passage" deal the Kurds had made with the ISIS fighters.

Quoting that press release via an AFP reporter I remarked:

Moon of Alabama‏ @MoonofA -3:03 PM - 11 May 2017

Ahh - the outrage from @afp if the Syrian government would do alike - targeting rebels after they surrender their weapons and move out ..


Moon of Alabama‏ @MoonofA - 7:26 PM - 11 May 2017

ISIS fighters got screwed on deal, were promised free escape then killed. That trick works only once.

To be able to make such deals in similar future situations one needs to keep them.

The Syrian government managed to reconcile with about 1,500 towns and local areas that had taken part in the insurgency against it. It promised an amnesty for the fighters and reestablishment of public services. If it would have broken this contract with some of the first areas that took part in it, others would never have agreed to such deals but would have fought down to the last man, woman and child. The Syrian government also offered safe passage to al-Qaeda held Idleb for various Jihadist groups in besieged areas. It stuck to those deals and never attacked the departing enemies. This enabled it to make more such deals. Large parts of Homs, Aleppo and Damascus thereby returned to government control without destructive fighting.

In Tabqa the U.S. military broke the deal and the word its Kurdish allies had given to ISIS when the deal was made. It tracked and killed those who were guaranteed safe passage, likely from U.S. helicopters of jets. Like me, the Wall Street Journal found this odd. It asked the Pentagon for an explanation:

“This was an agreement for them to leave the Tabqa Dam and to leave the remaining portions of the city they held, but it doesn’t change the fact that when we see ISIS fighters on the battlefield and we have a clean shot at them, we will continue to take it,” [Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis] said.

Capt. Davis declined to answer whether the U.S. is bound in any way when an ally like the Syrian Defense Forces make an agreement on the battlefield.

“I think SDF let them have safe passage out of Tabqa, but once they continued on the battlefield, I don’t know if that’s something we’re required to honor,” he said.

The U.S. military did not hit the ISIS group "on the battlefield". Its own press releases quoted above said it "tracked fleeing fighters and targeted those". Those ISIS people were not fighting. The were not on the immediate battlefield. They were not "fleeing" either. They had been guaranteed safe passage.

I have yet to see a comment from the Kurdish commanders on the ground who made the deal, or from the U.S. special forces embedded with them. If I were in their place I would be furious. The breaking of this deal guarantees that no future deals can be made. ISIS fighters would never again feel bound to them. They will now kill hostages, not negotiate about them. They will blow up infrastructure instead of accepting deals about preserving it in exchange for safe passage. The Kurdish soldiers on the ground will have to bleed for this stupidity. This was some extremely short sighted and vindictive behavior by the U.S. commanders of the overall operation.

The WSJ points out that the problem is wider. The U.S. military itself urges ISIS fighters to surrender, but has no idea what it would do should they actually do so:

Pentagon officials have said in the past that Islamic State fighters can surrender on the battlefield, but haven't provided details on how such negotiations might proceed, or who would take the lead on such matters since local forces lead the fight in Syria and Iraq.

"..those who do not surrender to the Iraqi security forces will be killed there,” Col. John Dorrian, spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq and Syria said in February.

The U.S.-led coalition didn’t respond to a request for comment or an explanation of policy.

It would be very helpful for the Kurdish and Iraqi forces on the ground if they would have clear public guidelines for handling surrendering enemies. But the U.S. command seems to have none of those for them. This will lead to a TINA mentality: "there is no alternative, we'll have to kill them all" on both sides of the fight.

In terms of propaganda this will work to ISIS' favor. Instead of TV pictures of demoralized, defeated and surrendering ISIS fighters the relevant public will see more ISIS "martyrs"  who "heroically" blow themselves up as the only way out. This will reinforcing ISIS' apocalyptic message.

Posted by b on May 14, 2017 at 13:49 UTC | Permalink


It would seem there need to be a few more firings, court martials even. This is shameful - I was going to say 'policy' but it doesn't deserve that designation. People, your mothers are not proud of you for this.

Some might call it treason.

Posted by: juliania | May 14 2017 14:11 utc | 1

I'm not so sure that sentence means what you interpret it to mean. If ISIS fighters left by agreement they would not be "fleeing," and the military would not use that term with respect to them. I think the US Command statement is unclear, and the statement's issuer should be asked what is meant by "fleeing fighters."

Posted by: Bill H | May 14 2017 14:25 utc | 2

This strategy of perfidious "diplomacy" under duress has the obvious and logical goal of putting the agents it despises in a position wherein they cannot flee and cannot surrender... This is analogous to placing an army against the sea - it absolutely guarantees a fight to the death.

Military officers study war theory...they know this, or must be presumed to know it. They therefore must deliberately intend to create the result.

Because this is an illegal war of aggression in Syria, again, it must also be obvious that they intend to create further aggression - intend to "stiffen ISIS's spine" (at some cost in recruiting one expects).

The aggression is therefore a matter or urgency - evidently the schedule for Barbarossa 2.0 fell behind with the rejection of Hillari...

Posted by: Delmar Bolshi | May 14 2017 14:25 utc | 3

"In terms of propaganda this will work to ISIS' favor. Instead of TV pictures of demoralized, defeated and surrendering ISIS fighters the relevant public will see more ISIS "martyrs" who "heroically" blow themselves up as the only way out. This will reinforcing ISIS' apocalyptic message."
Posted by b on May 14, 2017 at 09:49 AM

Yes. Strategic Betrayal? It's the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the complete absence of ethical standards or morality in the US game plan.
Quite exceptional, in a cowardly sort of way.
The Yankees have been pretending to fight ISIS for far too long.
When will they be confronted in this AmeriKKKans vs Humans conflict?

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 14 2017 14:34 utc | 4

As the Russians have postulated that America is not agreement capable. Or for a variety of reasons America's word and handshake is untrustworthy and not worth the effort in attaining. This is metaphorically like the bully who is forced to stand down by an allied group but who takes one last punch on a weaker member before departing. America ever the bully means to destroy as much infrastructure and to cause as much death as it can get away with as it is pushed out of Syria and hopefully Iraq, Libya and other areas where its pestilence is in operation. The Kurds would do well to mark the treacherous nature of their ally [sic] who when done using them will kick them in the teeth in a parting shot.

Posted by: BRF | May 14 2017 14:42 utc | 5

Only a suggestion, but the immorality would be better reflected in a headline which read...

CentCom Breaks "Safe Passage" Deal - Making Its Allies Bleed For It

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 14 2017 14:49 utc | 6

Sometimes what you assume is a bug is a feature; I think this is such a case.

Posted by: frances | May 14 2017 14:49 utc | 7

Kurds would do well to mark the treacherous nature of their ally [sic] who when done using them will kick them in the teeth in a parting shot.
Posted by: BRF | May 14, 2017 10:42:53 AM | 5

And if this wasn't a kick in the teeth, what would be?

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 14 2017 14:58 utc | 8

b, 'The U.S. can not be trusted.' (Syria - "The regime will be there" - U.S. Concedes Raqqa ... And The Syrian East?)

that remains the bottom line.

the kurds need to realize that the usofa sees no difference between the kurds themselves and isis. the same doublecross is coming for the kurds down the road.

why has the neolibraconian command done this? in order to kill a half-dozen isis members and the their families in retreat?

no, this was a purposeful act of betrayal, with the neocons trying to drag the kurds into the same, sinking criminal boat they occupy.

i wouldn't be surprised if some of those 'special forces' embedded with the kurds now get whacked. makes no difference to the neocons. they see no real difference between us special forces, the kurds, or isis ... they're all just cannon fodder to the neocons.

maybe the us special ops on the ground will begin to use their guns on their own command. teach them what's what in the world of warfare. fragging worked well in vietnam, it'll work well in syria, too.

Posted by: jfl | May 14 2017 15:01 utc | 9

US/Kurds make deal with ISIS to let them flee and then breaks the deal. That sounds like a familiar tactic like the one that played out in Rashidin last month. A deal to move people was made and then those people attacked. 68 children killed. Maybe that wasn't a US direct effort but it was a tactic of US allies.

But wait a minute. We also have the Highway of Death during the first US Gulf War on Iraq. Iraqis, Palestinians, and others were leaving Kuwait when the "turkey shoot" was set up. This was justified officially by declaring them to be "rapists, murderers, and thugs."

Posted by: Curtis | May 14 2017 15:21 utc | 10

Here is a report about the deal from a German activist embedded with the Kurds at the frontline in Tabqa. He doesn't seem to know of any breach that happened, but reports that the deal (offered by ISIS btw) was controversial and some thought it's better to fight them here than let them run and have to face them again in Raqqa. So apparently what the US did was far enough away from Tabqa to not make it known there days after the liberation or at least not appear to be directly connected.

Posted by: CE | May 14 2017 15:37 utc | 11

What goes around, comes around. The US should remember that and not act in such a cavalier fashion, even if the US military thinks it will get a short term gain by doing so.

Posted by: WorldBLee | May 14 2017 15:38 utc | 12

At a certain point in war, peace becomes more important than justice. Thus Assad reconciling with all kinds of scum. Or for example, the Good Friday agreement. How awful that there are people in N. Ireland that must meet the people who murdered their family members on the street everyday. And know that they got away with it unpunished. But that was the price of peace. This is not a dilemma that the Americans have faced since 1865.

Lets all cross our fingers and hope the Kurds can extricate themselves painlessly from the loving embrace of the USA.

Posted by: Køn | May 14 2017 15:51 utc | 13

wow... i agree with you and others b.

i said this 2 days ago.. "one can't find a reliable partner, if they aren't themselves reliable.." and i'm prone to read something more dark into this... the usa is making it so that isis will destroy everything and everyone and forget about making any deal.. it looks like more of the ''destroy syria at any cost'' philosophy that guides the usa in all of it's actions when it can't have (regime change) what it wants.. destruction seems to be all it wants..

Posted by: james | May 14 2017 15:59 utc | 14

Who in the military is pushing this? The ceasefire last year was killed by rogue elements in the military who ordered an unauthorized strike on a Syrian position. What is the agenda of these people?

Posted by: Edward | May 14 2017 16:02 utc | 15

On November 11, 1918 Germany signed the Armistice with the Allies promising an end to all hostilities and a promise of the lifting of the blockade. The Yankees and the British continued starving Germany for another 6 months against their own formal agreements, invaded the Ruhr, and caused the death of hundreds of thousands, or likely millions, of German and Central European children in the Turnip winter.

This treatment by the Allies, many believe is was very deliberate, was part of the "stab in the back" and one of the principle reasons for WWII.

In WWII the "allies" firebombed most of Germany's cities and even nuked Hiroshima and the Christian city of Nagasaki.

In 1991 after Russia gave up its power over the USSR and the Warsaw pact, she was guaranteed by Bush the elder that Nato would not expand an inch. Well we know how that turned out.

So what we have is at least 100 years of wars caused by the treachery of the "allies", and by all appearances this treachery is performed in the last stages of every war in order to foment the next war or crisis. This pattern keeps repeating itself as this evil sadistic and malignant tumor jumps from one host empire to the next, and then repeats. This appears to have been going on for centuries.

In this specific Syrian/ISIS case we know that one regional power has the most to gain by dividing their enemies and forcing them to become dependent on this regional powers support through money, logistic, weapons, and most importantly drugs.

Posted by: Heros | May 14 2017 16:36 utc | 16

On the Media on WNYC this morning was discussing the language reporters should and should not use when the subject is just anything from the the Trump administration. (There does not seem to be all that much agreement, and reporters are falling back on their known and well-used terms and approaches. Normalizing Trump....)

First of all, there seems to be little to no discussion between the president and his administration, other than with the insiders closest to Trump. Secondly, to say that something about Trump policy indicates there IS actual policy is misleading the public; instead, there seem to be things Trump says from day to day, even hour to hour, and cannot be described as actual thought through policy. An example given was when Judy Woodruff of PBS NewsHour introduced a segment on Trump foreign policy. A suggested better intro and topic would have been to say the panel would try to discover any Trump foreign policy.

The last one to talk to Trump seems to be the one he agrees with, unless he subsequently sees something on CNN or FOX which causes him to do an about face or make other changes to his "policy."

Couple that with his belief that anything he says is OK, truth be damned, and perhaps he's told his military leadership to fight and negotiate that way. For Trump, a signed contract is only as good as the ability of the counter party to fight off Trump refusals to abide by the contract. A contract for him is never finalized until he decides it is.

Sadly, he seems to fit right in with the way the USA treats those who do not kowtow to its might.

Posted by: jawbone | May 14 2017 16:40 utc | 17

It is clear. It is like in Vietnam, destroying as much as they can and conflict, agonize local forces turn them against population, a policy of scorched earth and destruction of Civil society and its infrastructure . Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq practiced there. Removal of Assad is not enough. Murder of Syrian nation they are after, a perpetual war and hatred.

Posted by: Kalen | May 14 2017 16:55 utc | 18

This is really outragous. Such a stupidity. And Kim Jong-un ist watching I guess...

Posted by: Pnyx | May 14 2017 16:57 utc | 19

Posted by: jfl | May 14, 2017 11:01:59 AM | 9

Said it better than I could.

I have no love for the ISIS headchoppers and would prefer to see them all caged as they do to their hostages.

Posted by: Curtis | May 14, 2017 11:21:14 AM | 10

I corresponded with a vet who was somehow associated with the highway of death. You would see striking similarities between his thoughts and those of the Israelis who consider Palestinians vermin to be exterminated. It is my impression that the US military for the most part considers all non-white foreigners to be an inferior race and not worthy of respect, let alone a fair deal. I see plenty of history to suggest that the US is not alone in that regard. Ask the Hmong, for instance.

US soldiers rape their colleagues and kill children from the air. So how much taller do they stand than their enemy?

The low-hanging slippery slope is to assert that once the word gets out about the US collusion/coalition business practices, the swords of their allies will swing back at their necks. So who knows, when Big Daddy Warbucks shows up with guns and money, it's game on.

Posted by: Heros | May 14, 2017 12:36:47 PM | 16 Dead right.

One thing we'll never know is how the US Infantry would compare on the ground being equally equipped as those who fight on their behalf, without air support or geospatial intel. Unlikely you'd convince American families that there is enough truth in the ME enterprise to justify the bloodshed.

Posted by: stumpy | May 14 2017 17:08 utc | 20

The Kurdish commander had made the right decision. Any fighting around, on or within the dam structure could have led to a catastrophic dam failure which would have killed ten-thousands (at least) further down the Euphrates.

Who wants to bet that the Coalition/Collusion would see that as a brilliant usage of environmental factors in warfare? Flip a coin?

Posted by: stumpy | May 14 2017 17:15 utc | 21

70 Heavily indoctrinated Daesh terrorists less who wouldn't flinch to blow themselves up amongst civilian 'kaffirs' is something to cheer for. When Daesh 'rose to prominence' they promised safe passage out for the Iraqi recruits in Tikrit who were massacred en mass moments later. Daesh doesn't keep promises as they deem others to be unbelievers. Daesh also regularly executes it's own fleeing members to set examples so I wonder what would have awaited them. All the US actors are very untrustworthy as has been demonstrated numerous times. SDF and/or the Kurdish part are/were trustworthy but they are simply pawns of their US overlords. The Tabqah dam might have been blown up without the deal. But the majority of civilian victims and probably also terrorists would have fallen lower down the stream which for the most part is in Daesh territory.

Posted by: xor | May 14 2017 17:22 utc | 22

One is now left wondering what will happen to the dam. It could now more easily be destroyed via a false flag event staged by the Kissinger School of FF's and blamed on ISIS for "undiscovered booby trap rigging" it left behind.

The destruction, chaos, death and human suffering would be shocking and awesome. Yinon Plan calls for destruction of Arab States in any way possible.

The destruction of food, water and sanitation resources are typically characteristic of the Kissinger School of Demons From Hell.

Posted by: fast freddy | May 14 2017 17:32 utc | 23

America Imperatus has been at war almost constantly over the last 30 years. They have never in that time faced an opponent who has actually fought them on the battlefield. And yet The Empire has consistently grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory.

They defeated the Taliban (or more correctly the Taliban capitulated within weeks in 2001/2) and yet the Americans kept on fighting until they had decisively lost the Afghan war... and they continue fighting to this day.

The Iraq war was done and dusted. The mission was accomplished as their combat shy hereditary leader primped across the decks in his 'fighter pilot' costume. And yet even after that victory they managed to pull defeat out of nowhere and lose the war after winning it. And primarily losing it to their arch enemies (Iran) who had not even been taking part.

The American military is truly the Atlanta Falcons of warfare.

Eisenhower railed against the MIC not because he was a pacifist, but because as a fighting soldier he knew that military decisions made upon the basis of shareholder profit don't make for armies that can actually fight real wars.

Posted by: Køn | May 14 2017 17:40 utc | 24

"There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely," Trump told Reuters in an Oval Office interview ahead of his 100th day in office on Saturday.

Nonetheless, Trump said he wanted to peacefully resolve a crisis that has bedeviled multiple U.S. presidents, a path that he and his administration are emphasizing by preparing a variety of new economic sanctions while not taking the military option off the table.

"We'd love to solve things diplomatically but it's very difficult," he said.


I guess that the choice between sanctions and worthless promises, even if written, is rather clear. The issue is much wider than the military mentality. What I find odd is that WSJ, of all media, have seen a problem.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 14 2017 17:56 utc | 25

great comments others, especially ff @23.. it necessitates close watching..

@15 edward... a part of the usa looking after saudi arabia and israesl interest...

@24 køn.. it makes sense if you think of the usa military as a destructive only enterprise, otherwise what the usa does, doesn't make any sense, this thread being another prime example..

@25 piotr.. yeah - your last sentence... that is weird.. as an official stenographer to the war party, that is odd..

Posted by: james | May 14 2017 18:11 utc | 26

Sort of reminds of an earlier slogan
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His

Posted by: Perimetr | May 14 2017 18:17 utc | 27

Sadly, he seems to fit right in with the way the USA treats those who do not kowtow to its might.
Posted by: jawbone | May 14, 2017 12:40:46 PM | 17

Not saying you're mistaken but Trump is the first person I'm aware of who has publicly declared an intention to Drain The Swamp. I've looked for, but haven't found, the How To Drain The Swamp book. But if Trump thinks he knows the plot, I'm happy to cut him some slack. i.e. plenty.
No offense intended.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 14 2017 19:12 utc | 28

Not saying you're mistaken but Trump is the first person I'm aware of who has publicly declared an intention to Drain The Swamp. Hoarsewhisperer | May 14, 2017 3:12:33 PM | 28

The promise is so ecologically incorrect that it should tip you off. Wetlands are essential to eco-diversity, water balance, flood prevention etc. Imagine a (temporary) drought of political donation without a slush fund! Carnivores feasting on hapless herbivores that are forced to sit at the last remaining waterfalls, dried much getting on fire etc. etc. Zombies with pitchforks muttering "traitors, traitors".

Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 14 2017 19:42 utc | 29

dried much -> dried muck (I though of turf fires).

Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 14 2017 19:43 utc | 30

The Kurds will need the help of the SAA to take Raqqa. Took 3 months and 400 dead to take Manbij. Raqqa is the only provincial capital the Syrian government does not have a foot hold in.
Could be that this little effort was just to ensure that ISIS would fight to the last in Raqqa?

Posted by: Peter AU | May 14 2017 19:56 utc | 31

Old Native American saying about the credibility of Outlaw US Empire: White man speak with forked tongue.

Meanwhile in Ukraine, damning evidence made public proving Ukrainian responsibility for the murder of a US national member of the OSCE: "In any other situation, this would be sufficient reason for the Americans to impose punitive sanctions on this regime with American blood on its hands. But will the US actually impose any sanctions on Ukraine?" As with MH17, nothing is likely to occur.

Posted by: karlof1 | May 14 2017 20:54 utc | 32

@7 &9 "It's a feature, not a bug,."

Agreed, This makes perfect sense, if you wish to continue a conflict into perpetuity. By assuring that one's word is never kept, you will assure your enemy will fight to the last man, which I do believe is the strategy for eternal chaos.

Posted by: Michael | May 14 2017 21:07 utc | 33

I dont have any sympathy for ISIS. Frankly I hope its true and not just a cover story to mask our support for these bastards.

To do evil one must believe one is doing good, and have almost no empathy (Generals have little or none or they wouldnt get promoted that far) One can pretty much rationalize anything with some help from good propaganda and enough of a financial incentive. This is the foundation of any Empire.

Posted by: Pft | May 14 2017 21:55 utc | 34


Your entire article is based on the assumption that the US military as a whole as well as CENTCOM in specific has some sense of honour and a coherent code of conduct. That they are led by souled human beings that cares for the lives and future of its self-proclaimed, easily redefineable 'allies'.

Once you abandon this fundamental misconception, this kind of logically coherent fallacy will dissapear too.

Posted by: Quadriad | May 14 2017 22:22 utc | 35

Quadriad @ 35: I would say that the way the US military treats the Kurds and the ISIS fighters who surrender is not all that different from the way the US government and military treated Native Americans during the 1800s, with treaties over land made only to be dishonoured and broken.

Posted by: Jen | May 14 2017 22:52 utc | 36

@7, @33, et al: Feature not a bug - in the future, ISIS will fight instead of deal

The 'feature' may also include increased recruitment.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 14 2017 23:10 utc | 37

Talking of Central Command, an Australian website provides some more information abut the bombing of Syrian troops at Deir Ez-zor back in September 2016.
The Australian involvement wasn't in the actual attack (the attacking planes were F-16s and A-10s neither are operated by the RAAF), it was a E-7A Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft which the RAAF describes as providing Australia with "one of the most advanced battle space management capabilities in the world".
While Carter might be gone, it looks like that murderous scumbag Lt General Jeffrey L. Harrigan is still the Air Component Commander at Central Command.

Posted by: Ghostship | May 15 2017 0:37 utc | 38

@36 jen

“Indian Country”. it's been said many times before, but no one says it to me like Roxane Dunbar-Ortiz.

Posted by: jfl | May 15 2017 1:07 utc | 39

I seem to recall retreating Iraqis in the gulf war being slaughtered helplessly by American jets...what's new?

Posted by: charles | May 15 2017 1:19 utc | 40

@40 charles

the americans put bulldozer blades on their tanks and buried the iraqis alive in their trenches.

what's new now is the use of proxies, and the diversion of fossil-fuel revenues to pay them. the key to perpetual warfare in the new american century.

Posted by: jfl | May 15 2017 1:37 utc | 41

@39 jfl.. some things never change in that good christian country - usa...

from your link - "A]t least ten Indians are (to be) killed for each white life lost. You should not allow the troops to settle down on the defensive but carry the war to the Indian camps, where the women and children are. [T]he truth should be ascertained and reported, but should not delay the punishment of the Indians as a people. It is not necessary to find the very men who committed the acts, but destroy all of the same breed.

—U.S. Major General William T. Sherman, 1866"

Posted by: james | May 15 2017 2:01 utc | 42

In development: Up to 150 US & british troops crossing from At Tanf into Syria:


Posted by: Lozion | May 15 2017 2:12 utc | 43

>>>> Lozion | May 14, 2017 10:12:11 PM | 43

The original source of that news is SMART TV which was responsible for the White Helmet propaganda video from Khan Shaykhoun being transmitted. I reckon this is yet more terrorist propaganda to show that the Americans and British are protecting the terrorists. The video looked like is was made on a firing range rather than out in the real desert in Syria.

Posted by: Ghostship | May 15 2017 2:28 utc | 44

At Tanf is in Syria.

Also this article in Reuters.
...But the push by the Syrian army and its Iranian backed allies could risk bringing them to close to the Tanf base near the Iraqi border where U.S. special forces operate and train FSA rebels, rebels said....

Posted by: Peter AU | May 15 2017 3:39 utc | 45

@42 james

well, that's general sherman. here's l. frank baum, author of the wizard of oz, and editor of the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer, writing on 'Wounded Knee, South Dakota, when hundreds of unarmed Lakota Sioux, mostly women, children and old men were massacred.'

Both quotes from Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer, Aberdeen, South Dakota, December 20, 1891.

The nobility of the Redskin is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they should die than live the miserable wretches that they are.

Four days after this piece of work the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer's editor Baum sounded his approval, asserting that “we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up ... and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth.”

... follow the yellow brick road ... in search of bravery, brains, and a heart. long way to go yet. people cheered when the rump sent the cruise missiles to syria ... to protect our civilization. The Whites, by law of conquest, are masters of the universe.

Dunbar-Ortiz traces the roots of the english genocide of the american indigenes to the genocide of the irish, in ireland.

same thing today, in 'indian country', around the world ... anywhere the us just happens to be feelin' like killin'. always good for a round applause and congratulation from those 'back home'.

see also Mark Twain's Greatest victory ever achieved by the soldiers of the United States, part 1 and part 2. americans have been sickened by the behaviour of their rulers for well over a hundred years. never managed to 'correct' it though. never managed to take control of our own affairs.

Posted by: jfl | May 15 2017 6:17 utc | 46

Posted by: jfl | May 15, 2017 2:17:33 AM | 46

Very interesting quote and post. One thing Chomsky said that always stuck with me was that America was the only country he knew of that was explicitly founded as an 'Empire.' Quite an interesting observation actually.

I see many people, quite wrongly IMHO, talk about the direction American foreign policy has taken as something that has occurred in the last 10, 20 or 30 years. However, when you look back at the history of the nation it's been quite brutal and expansionist since it's beginnings. At the VERY least the new modern era of hegemony has been in full gear since 1945.

How often I hear people talk about the mess in the mideast starting with Bush I. Never do I hear a mention of Sykes Picot, etc (which is much more relevant in my eyes).

For those wanting a better glimpse of the roots of modern American hegemonic thinking I cannot recommend this book enough: Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner. Though it's only a comprehensive history of the CIA it's still very enlightening about higher levels of power and the trajectory that's been followed (and follow still). It also has a fair bit of info on previous attempts to destabilise the Syrian government back in the 50s (and 70s iirc). It's not written in a particularly academic style so I feel many could appreciate it that might not otherwise read something of this nature.

Posted by: George Smiley | May 15 2017 6:53 utc | 47

"Meanwhile, in Ukraine..." in one of the comments. It begs a question: where precisely?

In 2014, Americans were polled where is Ukraine and what to do about it. 2000 respondents were shown a map of the World without borders and they were asked to click a location within Ukraine. 16% did it correctly. The value of college education shined on that day: non-college graduates clicked within Ukraine with 13% frequency, while those who graduated, 21%. That said, the map was somewhat centered on Eurasia, thus discouraging clicking in Americas and Antarctic (while quite a few clicked in Greenland). A less biased method would allow the polled public to navigate among few pages to select the page where Ukraine shows best, and for the sheer heck of it, add maps of Moon, Mars and Venus.

Similarly, the polled were asked what USA should "do about it". As doing nothing was but one of the options, few people chose that. It could be fascinating to know results of a poll where respondents would rank irritating events, including parking ticket in two hour one, when they parked for less than two hours, absence of a favorite product in the supermarket and the Russian occupation of Crimea.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 15 2017 7:23 utc | 48

Re: Posted by: Peter AU | May 14, 2017 11:39:38 PM | 45

Well. If the Russians are serious about Syrian sovereignty they can't possibly accept this.

Only a bloody nose will teach them a lesson they might listen to.

Posted by: Julian | May 15 2017 8:29 utc | 49

#49 Julian et al, RE Tanf incursion

How does this intrusion of about 150 compare to the total of US Forces, be it standalone or embedded within SDF etc, currently more or less officially deployed in NE Syria?

All I'm saying maybe it's a new storm in an already shakey teacup.

Posted by: Quadriad | May 15 2017 9:04 utc | 50

As long as US SF are not officially in SE Syria, there can still be Kalibrs.

Posted by: smuks | May 15 2017 11:34 utc | 51

fleeing ISIS commanders join Free Syria Army

Posted by: mischi | May 15 2017 11:45 utc | 52

The Kurds are a minority in the extended areas the US has enabled them to take over (e.g. around the Arab city of Raqqa). They have started actions against their supposed Arab allies in those areas, accusing them of being pro-Assad or pro-Turkey. The Kurds are clearly not fighting for Syria. They are fighting for US foreign policy objectives of starting ethnic tensions and dismembering Syria.

Google translate

The US and UK have started action against al Bukamal in the south close to the Syria/Iraq border, with reports of US and UK troops entering Syria, supported by US coalition air strikes.

The US is clearly hoping to take control of the whole east side of the Euphrates.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15 2017 12:26 utc | 53

@53 Except that Deir Ez Zor is being re-inforced by air and with Suhail Al Hassan's Tiger forces being sent to relieve Zarredhine's troops, it simply wont fall and therefore prevent a realistic Eastern "Sunni enclave". Moreover Iraqi PMU forces are moving East to seal the the Syrian border so even if this SF Tanf incursion is true it looks like its too little too late for FUKUS..

Posted by: Lozion | May 15 2017 13:18 utc | 54

Somewhere in ISIS land, a metal cage is set up and a video crew is on standby. Jerry cans are being filled with gas, matches being found.

Posted by: Morongobill | May 15 2017 13:18 utc | 55

George Smiley @ 47

I cannot recommend this book enough: Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner.

Sorry, but that's an "authorized," semi-official history of the CIA that waters down and covers up. Sort of a confession of shoplifting to avoid murder charges. It's what the CIA wants you to think about the CIA and was written with CIA connivance.

Posted by: Ken Nari | May 15 2017 13:55 utc | 56

Peter Hitchens has some good questions for the UK Foreign Office...My Questions to the Foreign office about Syria and Chemical Weapons
As I noted in my Mail on Sunday column on 30th April 2017, I recently sent a series of questions to the Foreign office about their apparent confidence that Syria's government are responsible for the recent alleged poison gas attacks in that country.

The responses I received were, in my view, unresponsive and unsatisfactory. But I cannot publish them because of rules on such matters,which in general I support and to which I had willingly agreed in advance, and because the FO declined to waive those rules when I asked them to do so.

Here, for any interested, are my original questions:

In his article in the Sunday Telegraph of 16th April 2017, the Foreign Secretary states that:
‘British scientists have analysed samples from the victims of the [Khan Sheikhoun] attack.’
Where and when did they do this?
What assurances did they have of the provenance of the samples?
Who controlled the custody chain, and vouched for it?
How did they know that the samples were at no stage handled by persons with a propaganda interest in a certain outcome?
Were they at any stage under the control of Tahrir al-Sham, formerly Jabhat Fateh Al Sham (previously the Jabhat Al-Nusra), or any other part of that faction?
If not, how did they leave Syria?
Under whose custody were they between Khan Sheikhoun and the Syrian border?
How do we know?
He also says : ‘These have tested positive for sarin or a sarin-like substance.’
Eyewitness reports (cited in evidence by the Foreign Secretary) speak of ‘clouds of smoke’ (Independent 05/04/2017) and say ‘We could smell it from 500 metres away.’(Guardian 07/04/2017) and ‘The smell reached us here in the centre; it smelled like rotten food.’ (Daily Telegraph 06/04/2017).
Sarin is odourless and invisible. Videos of the attack also show responders without protective clothing, handling victims, which would be highly dangerous in dealing with victims of sarin. Does the Foreign Secretary have any view on the apparent contradiction here?
The Foreign Secretary also writes:
The UK, the US and all our key allies are of one mind: we believe that this was highly likely to be an attack by Assad, on his own people, using poison gas weapons that were banned almost 100 years ago, under the 1925 Geneva protocol. In view of this horrific evidence, the world last week once again had a choice, just as we did after the gas attack at Ghouta in 2013.
This is doubly interesting.
1. ‘Highly likely’ is well short of a declaration that the matter is in fact proven. Yet the United Kingdom has endorsed a missile attack on a sovereign country by the United States, the pretext or reason for which was given as the alleged gas attack, which the Foreign secretary himself categorises not as proven fact but as ‘highly likely’, allegedly by the Assad government on Khan Sheikhoun. What is the status of this attack under international law? Under which part of the UN charter is it lawful? If it *is* lawful in the case of such an action being proven, then is a belief that the alleged action by the Syrian state is ‘highly likely’ sufficient?
Who, if anybody, does the Foreign Secretary say is responsible for the Ghouta attack? On what basis does he say this

Posted by: harrylaw | May 15 2017 13:58 utc | 57

>>>> Anonymous | May 15, 2017 8:26:32 AM | 53

The US and UK have started action against al Bukamal in the south close to the Syria/Iraq border, with reports of US and UK troops entering Syria, supported by US coalition air strikes.

What is the original source for this claim? Not AMN which is normally fairly reliable but the SMART News Agency which published the White Helmet video of the "incident" in Khan Shaykhoun, which seemed to be HTS propaganda. So why do you attach any importance to other claims they make when the only evidence they produce is a rather boring video of some Arabs and one English-speaker practising firing .50 cal machine from vehicles on a range somewhere in the desert. There were no signs in that video of any of the vehicles being those typically used by the British, so how does that become 150 US and UK troops entering Syria. Most likely it's just SMART News Agency who or whatever they are making stuff up again as propaganda for HTS. And BTW, AMN makes no mention of supporting "US coalition air strikes".

BEIRUT, LEBANON (2:50 A.M.) – U.S. and British forces entered southern Syria on Sunday afternoon while traveling through the Tanf Border-Crossing in the Homs Governorate, the SMART News Agency reported tonight. Based on the report released by the SMART News Agency, approximately 150 U.S. and British military personnel entered Syria, alongside the Free Syrian Army’s “Jaysh Mughawyr Al-Thurah”; they were filmed traveling towards the Hamimah area. The Hamimah area is located 90km east of Palmyra near the Deir Ezzor countryside; its proximity to the key town Albukamal makes it an important military endeavor for the U.S. and British troops. With their recent push to the Hamimah area, the U.S. and British forces could ultimately cutoff the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) from the Deir Ezzor Governorate, which may spark potential clashes between the opposing parties.
And no, AMN makes no mention of supporting "US coalition air strikes", so until there's a better sourced report from elsewhere, this should be treated as terrorist propaganda.

This report makes no sense either. Unless Jaysh Mughawyr Al-Thurah is several thousand strong with armour and artillery there is no way they could stop the SAA from blocking any supply line across the ~220 kilometres of desert between the Al Tanf/Al-Walid border crossing and Al Bukamal and less than one US/UK soldier per kilometre is not enough of a "red line" to protect them and their supply route. It's likely that the reason that people became involved in the "incident" at Khan Shaykhoun was because they believed claims from HTS or whoever that after such a murderous event the US, UK and France would intervene militarily against Syria and do HTS' work for them, so when the only response was a few missiles on scrap metal and a couple of verbal warnings, they must have been terribly disappointed so they come up with this rather stupid story via the propagandists at the SMART News Agency to rally the troops.

Posted by: Ghostship | May 15 2017 14:08 utc | 58

@53 The Kurds are clearly not fighting for Syria. They are fighting for US foreign policy objectives of starting ethnic tensions and dismembering Syria. link to

Anonymous wrote his own interpretation which is not in the linked article. The topic of the article are (mild) repressions that SDF directs at the liberated population. Realistically, one cannot expect otherwise, given terrorism issue: suicide bombings and other terrorist acts necessitate response and prevention. Which does not always look pretty. For example, Damascus government made reconciliation deals with various enclaves in Damascus area, but there was a number of terrorist attacks coming from those localities, so they got ultimatum to surrender and upon rejection and resistance, quite completely destroyed. Tishreen/Qaboun is the latest of them.

SDF are of course dominated by a faction of Kurds, represents interests of that faction and they shop for support, most of it coming from the West, but it is augmented with deals with Syrian government, Russians and Iranians. The very factional nature of the movement gives it a degree of cohesiveness and effectiveness, leaving the West with little alternative in eastern Syria: compare with much less successful efforts under Turkish aegis and Lilliputian successes in the most barren sector of Syria (easy to splash a lot of ink on the map, but also easy to remove).

Nota bene, my impression is that Obama wasted about a year to structure the advance against ISIS in Iraq in such a way that PMU forces ("Iranian controlled" or "Iranian influenced") were sidelines and prevented from entering the Sunni areas of Nineveh (Mosul) and Anbar. And after all the delay PMU participates and now they reach the south-west corner of Syria. Shia dominated government of Iraq will do everything to prevent "Sunnistan" in east Syria and western Iraq, "been there, done that, regret every minute of it".

Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 15 2017 14:34 utc | 59

@58: "This report makes no sense either. Unless Jaysh Mughawyr Al-Thurah is several thousand strong with armour and artillery there is no way they could stop the SAA from blocking any supply line across the ~220 kilometres of desert between the Al Tanf/Al-Walid border crossing and Al Bukamal ..."

Al-Masdar reported "opposition" presence "70 kilometers south of Palmyra", and SAA cannot block their supplies, except for hindering from the air. It seems that the story is mostly true, even if significance is mostly symbolic -- the largest success of an opposition force that neither consists of wily Kurds (who knows what they are thinking) or Gulfie mercenaries (too radical and crazy for the Western taste), so Exibit One for "Syrian democratic opposition" -- no longer a unicorn!

Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 15 2017 14:56 utc | 60

@Piotr Berman | May 15, 2017 10:34:30 AM | 59

Didn't realize at first that your first sentences are a quote. ;-)

I agree that the Kurds are 'shopping around', and it is far from clear whether they really fight for US interests imo. Rather, they seem to honour the agreements they have with Damascus, and unwilling to conquer all of eastern Syria. Which is probably why the US now goes for a 'Plan B' to invade from the south - if those reports are correct, which I somewhat doubt.

Posted by: smuks | May 15 2017 15:54 utc | 61

barzani is a kurd... was he fighting for kurdish interests? he sure seems like a kleptomaniac stooge for the west, including his dancing partner erdogan... all the usa has to do is find a similar thug to represent kurdish interests in syria and they are off to the races... i am sure they have someone already lined up, i just don't know who it is...

Posted by: james | May 15 2017 16:24 utc | 62

Ken Nari | May 15, 2017 9:55:47 AM | 56

If you can recommend a better source than Legacy of Ashes, please do. It was an eye opener to me, I had never known the extent that the Marshall Plan was a money laundering operation for Frank Wizner's dirty ops in the late '40's & '50's. One could only wish the even 10% of USAers knew what is in that book.

Posted by: Enrico Malatesta | May 15 2017 18:06 utc | 63

@47. Can you point to where Chomsky said this? I am doubtful because it is both a meaningless statement and a categorically untrue statement at the same time. I find it hard to believe that Chomsky would say it.

Meaningless because how are we defining 'founding' and what does it mean to be founded as an empire? And is it even relevant because America is an Imperial power now, does it make a difference if it was founded as such. Which in any case it was not by any means...
America if we take a founding point around 1776, (though one could also say that the first Anglo-European settlements in N. America represent the 'founding'), it was definitively not founded as an empire. It was a loose and decentralized association of autonomous states. The original conception of the President was as a figurehead head of state, and absolutely not an Emperor. The whole point had been to shake off the Imperial British control. Yes the colonists chaffed at British insistence that they not expand westward but this westward impetus was at the level of individuals or small groups, not a large country conquering territory. The Americans didn't declare independence so they could form a strong central state based out of Washington and Imperially control all of N. America.

On the other hand I can think of many other countries that were in fact explicitly founded as EMPIRES
Off the top of my head, some countries that were in actual fact founded as empires.
Brazil! On independence from Portugal was created as an Empire with an actual EMPEROR in charge.
Indonesia, upon independence from Netherlands was founded as a Javanese empire, in spite of the fact that it described itself as a multiethnic state...
The Hapsburg Empire... was founded as an 'empire' long before it changed its identity to Austro-Hungary. It was literally an Empire in search of a country. And the moment the Empire disappeared in 1918, the country also disappeared.
And so on... and then there are other more sophistic examples. Was Pakistan founded as an empire? It was born with what was for all intents and purposes a colonial domain in E. Pakistan.

Posted by: Køn | May 15 2017 21:11 utc | 64

Enrico Malatesta @ 63

If you can recommend a better source than Legacy of Ashes, please do.

"The Devil's Chessboard" by David Talbot is much better.

"A Question of Torture" by Alfred W. McCoy, along with McCoy's "The Politics of Heroin," which first exposed the CIA involvement in the drug business and its connections to organized crime which provides "off-the-books" (no oversight) funding.

"The Brothers" by Stephen Kinzer.

"Gladio, NATO’s Dagger" by Richard Cottrell.

"God’s Banker: Money and Power at the Vatican," by Gerald Posner (the CIA and the Vatican getting 50,000-some Nazi's out of Europe on Vatican passports.)

"Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance" by Paul L. Williams.

"Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder JFK" by Peter Jenny and Dick Russel.

"The Killing of Hope" by William Blum.

"America’s Stolen Narrative" by Richard Parry.

"Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein.

"Gold Warriors" by Sterling and Peggy Seagrave.

"Our Man in Mexico" by Jefferson Morley.

Anything by Chalmers Johnson or Paul Dale Scott.

There are more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

Posted by: Ken Nari | May 15 2017 21:47 utc | 65

"The Killing of Hope" by William Blum.

= "Killing Hope" by William Blum.
I've read and recommend it.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 16 2017 6:09 utc | 66

It is my belief that this was deliberate, so that ISIS will fight to the last man and blow up their IEDs from now on. The US wanted the dam blown.

Posted by: David A Lemire | May 16 2017 6:29 utc | 67

@40 charles @41

i bumped into this, U.S. Tank-Plows Said to Bury Thousands of Iraqis, from Newsday 12/9/91. it's not just a folk-tale, it actually happened. shock-and-awe, upclose and personal, more than ten years before it was broadcast live to americans curled up on their couches with their popcorn, and their oooo's and aaaaa's.

@64 k

i don't know about chomsky ... how about george washington ?

The source of the term "Empire State" is uncertain. It has been attributed to the state's wealth and resources, but there is some doubt regarding that. Two possible stories involve America's first president George Washington.

The first refers to an April 10, 1785 letter to New York City Mayor James Duane in which Washington called New York "the Seat of the Empire". Washington is also said to have used the phrase "Pathway to Empire" once when referring to the state in conversation with Governor George Clinton in the 1790s; no documentation exists for this exchange, however.

... all those 'founding fathers' were imperialists. and the usofa was their baby. jefferson said stuff like that all the time, too. they had 'god' on their side as well - deist at their refined heights - but heart-felt racist, puritan throughout the ranks.

of course that stuff didn't get written down, you had to give the secret handshake before you were admitted to conversations at that level of sincerity.

Posted by: jfl | May 16 2017 10:47 utc | 68

@68 jfl... Thanks I had never seen that Washington quote... Hadn't thought of The Empire State... but most of the other states described (with varying degrees of accuracy) themselves as 'commonwealths' which is sailing pretty close to Communism! as a concept.

Or course Georgie is partly where the rot started to set in.

And lets not fall into the trap of condemning people and societies in the past by our modern standards. In many ways the newly independent US was the most progressive and enlightened country that had ever existed up to that point. Though half the country did still feel it was A-OK to own other human being!. But hey Athenian 'democracy' was predicated upon slave labour. If I had to choose to live somewhere in the world in 1790 then Connecticut would be a pretty good choice. Though France would have been more exciting by that point.

The real problem is that America has been very slow to change with the times and has gradually fallen behind the rest of world on many indexes of morality and progressivism. Of course this conservatism is natural, America is the place in the world that has pretty consistently prospered until recently. Why change if it doesn't seem broken. America is not the way it is because Americans have some inherent defect on their soul. There is no such thing as evil.

Posted by: Køn | May 16 2017 11:13 utc | 69

Ken Nari@65

Great list!Alfred W.McCoy and the Politics of Heroin in SE. Asia can be read online at this link.

Posted by: Lark | May 16 2017 17:09 utc | 70

@69 k. 'America is not the way it is because Americans have some inherent defect on their soul. There is no such thing as evil.'

i certainly agree with the last part there, evil is an attribute of peoples' actions or inactions. or more precisely of the consequences thereof. but there is so little reflection in america on its own history, and such a hagiography emplaced instead, that it is no wonder that things are as they are. the usofa is actually the sticks ... a world unto itself on the periphery of humanity.

'In many ways the newly independent US was the most progressive and enlightened country that had ever existed up to that point', and we took that as license. vis a vis the rest of the world its really been one long crime spree since. not because of some intrinsic evil but because we got away with it, and were uninterested in any analysis of the ways and means of our success.

instead of analysis the hagiography was rolled out. and it was nothing but paper to begin with. george washington was real-estate speculator extraordinaire. used his military to create his inventory. a tutelary 'empire of the good' was always behind the veil of american exceptionalism ... and comes out from behind the curtain periodically, in this new american century for instance. but it was ... and unfortunately still is ... always there. it's basis pure air.

Posted by: jfl | May 17 2017 0:23 utc | 71

@47 smiley, @63 enrico, @65 kn, @70 lark

there's a good collection of documents on the cia at altviewstv-fanclub, introduced to me by guest77 an erstwhile belly at the bar here, an interesting subset of which are issues of Philip Agee's Covert Information Bulletin.

it does seem true that most books on the subject are 'cia-approved'.

one of the best I've read is Douglas Valentine's The Phoenix Program. its 'approval' was rapidly rescinded.

Posted by: jfl | May 17 2017 0:52 utc | 72

"Saddam did it" ( trusted USA and their puppets too )

Posted by: Arioch | May 17 2017 10:05 utc | 73

I want to thank King Salman for his extraordinary words, and the magnificent Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting today’s summit. I am honored to be received by such gracious hosts. I have always heard about the splendor of your country and the kindness of your citizens, but words do not do justice to the grandeur of this remarkable place and the incredible hospitality you have shown us from the moment we arrived.

This landmark agreement includes the announcement of a $110 billion Saudi-funded defense purchase—and we will be sure to help our Saudi friends to get a good deal from our great American defense companies. This agreement will help the Saudi military to take a greater role in security operations.

The true toll of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and so many others, must be counted not only in the number of dead. It must also be counted in generations of vanished dreams.

better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your places of worship.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your communities.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your holy land, and


from jeffrey epsteins mossadick video audio blackmail paedo island

from your fired
2 grab um by the kitty cat
thus sprach chabad trumped.

200 billion buys plenty of depleted uranium missile and tank shells for oded yinon year zero

Posted by: tony romantik | May 21 2017 18:39 utc | 74

The comments to this entry are closed.