Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 11, 2017

E.J. Magnier - Why ISIS Will Persist

Elijah J. Magnier has decades of experience as foreign policy and war correspondent in the Middle East.

Here is an excerpt from his latest piece:

The danger of ISIS will remain even after the liberation of Syria and Iraq: why?

ISIS benefited from immeasurable experiences of sympathisers who chose to join the ranks; doctors, engineers, university degree holders and many from all walks of life, including experts with large competence in propaganda. Those served ISIS and managed to create a regular magazine, radios and short films in many languages. They integrate the widespread electronic games with pictures of battles and killing in real life. An abundance of informative materials emanates daily from ISIS through the Internet to deliver ideas and messages to every home and continent no group ever had access to before.
The way mainstream media is handling the war in Iraq and above all the war in Syria has had a devastating role and negative influence on various communities around the globe, mainly those previously considered as passive radicals but who never went into action. The media coverage has encouraged “lone wolves” and contributed to providing valid reasons for large convoys who joined in the exodus to “Caliphate land”. The media have helped mislead young people by adopting unverified and fake news related to the war in Syria, and in so doing, disregarded their responsibility towards the profession.
In all places, US soldiers were part of the events, on the ground or in the sky participating in regime changes, building military bases and occupying more territories but leaving behind a fertile ground for terrorist organisation to proliferate and grow, like ISIS and al-Qaeda. Still today the US and Europe have not learned from history and still want to occupy territory: they set up four new military bases in Syria and are prepared to plant roots in Bilad al-Sham under the excuse of recovering ISIS-occupied areas. But ISIS will not be totally annihilated and these new occupying forces will face stronger and more experienced insurgency: history will repeat itself.

More here ...

Posted by b on June 11, 2017 at 6:52 UTC | Permalink

next page »

thanks b.. i value being able to read elijah j. m.'s insights and viewpoint..

i have mixed feelings about this latest post of his.. i agree isis will not go away quickly.. i also agree with some of the reasons he articulates on why this is - regime change being a big one.. however, i believe regime change in isis... isis has a friend in the 2 countries that support the wahabbi death cult - qatar, and saudi arabia... seems like turkey is pretty okay with them too, as is israel for many of the same purposes that the usa and uk in there determination to destroy iraq and libya have consistently shown... could the websites devoted to promoting isis have been taken down, or someone charged for promoting it? that would be like someone addressing the export of wahabbism to the madrassas and mosques around the world and that really hasn't happened much to my knowledge... either this is ignorance, or willful design on the part of some... i tend to believe the later..

one has to be careful they don't get burned when they like to play with fire..

i am curious to know how others here see his article..

Posted by: james | Jun 11 2017 7:19 utc | 1

i believe regime ''has a friend''' in isis.. obama said so himself...

Posted by: james | Jun 11 2017 7:20 utc | 2

E.J. Magnier is still spouting BS about Syria being split apart despite the war starting to rapidly wind down and both Russia and Turkey publicly commited to the complete territorial integrity of the country. There are people with deep insight into the Middle East -Magnier isn't one of them. Sure he is reasonably well informed and can put out decent low to mid-level analysis of developments but beyond that he is out of his league.

Everywhere IS has been defeated, it has been permantly extinquished. Both in Syria and Iraq. Yes, there are still occasional terror attacks in areas cleansed of IS but these are just IS members coming from the dwindling number of IS territories.

Posted by: R Winner | Jun 11 2017 7:20 utc | 3

The problem for the US in trying to cultivate or create the next IS to be used as a pretext for further invasions and regime change in the Middle East is there is increasing fatigue and unwillingness from more and more countries of putting up with the US playing these sickening games.

The US regime got away with it in Libya.
The US regime has been mostly neutred in Syria.

The next country the US regime wants to overthrow, they aren't going to be able to get the UN to go along with their plans. No one on the Security Council is going to let the US regime get away with creating or fostering the next IS and then sending in mercenaries and terrorists to 'fight IS' again.

The US regime has to know this is now the case and, hence, the rise of the next IS is probably less likely because it would be a waste of time. Any UN supported action will be narrowly focused on quickly and efficiently destroying any new IS.

Posted by: R Winner | Jun 11 2017 7:29 utc | 4

E.J. Magnier turns to impress readers! My question to him: Will all the objective conditions of the Islamic state be repeated in order to reactivate? Will America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey be able to launch the same project again? We saw in the Phillipin American play. There they will encounter failure as in any other region in the world..

Posted by: ALAN | Jun 11 2017 7:40 utc | 5

i think he's got his reasons upside down ... not internet, msm, western invasions and occupations, the other way around. and there's not a word about the saudi/qatari billions. i'd say

1. western invasions and occupations, dd&d
2. the msm as insult added to injury
3. the wahabists billions that finance it all
4. the internet, as a sink for a relatively small part of the saudi/qatari and others' billions. most of those billions go for salaries and weapons.

if it weren't wahabism at number three it would be some other application of gcc billions. but when it comes to jihad, wahbism is hard to beat. and it was 'years in the making', as c.b. demille used to say of his productions. saudi terror was begun in the eighties and has been nursed and nurtured ever since. and 'As one senior Qatari official stated, “ISIS has been a Saudi project.”', as ben's link of the other day avers.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 11 2017 7:51 utc | 6

Isis will not persist, because it never really existed the way the media has portrayed it. It will be reduced to whatever it was before the occupation of mosul, large strips of land across iraq/syria and the following media exposure elevating it to stardom.
Isis is a success story in terms of marketing as it was sold, to the masses, as this legit islamic army under the spiritual(?) guidance of its elusive emir from Baghdad (because you always need a front man to sell these types of stories). The purpose of the boogieman is to scare small children into conformity. The west needed an excuse to intervene and occupy all or parts of syria and they found one in Isis; a group with such malice and evil intent that even Al-Qaeda would distance itself from it. For a while, Isis were the rockstars of islamic terrorism.

Regardless if anyone agrees with the above, Isis as a brand will not persist. When they're finally uprooted in iraq and syria, there will have to be a name change. What will the media call it then? Just the Islamic State (of what exactly?) I suppose

Posted by: never mind | Jun 11 2017 8:30 utc | 7

remove the pay masters, and isis will fade away. they will only last as long as they serve a purpose for their owners.

Posted by: insanity | Jun 11 2017 8:38 utc | 8

I think Magnier is right. These people are not simply going to return to Pakistan, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt or the Gulf and stay idle. Their trauma and their capacity to indoctrinate others via the internet will remain. That differs from the locals who in some case helped them as they help anyone they think is their religious kinsmen and is more powerful than them (a rule in some very poor areas).
The only way to change the course for some of these people (not the locals, they go back to their routine and reality and have no lust for technological power) is to have the actual religious authorities condemn djihad and help islam evolve by explaining that some issues that were right in the 7th c don't apply to our days. The only other alternative is to eliminate religion from state institutions and education altogether, and I don't think they want to go that far.

Posted by: Mina | Jun 11 2017 8:43 utc | 9

Magnier is right, but how much of that is new? ISIS will continue as long as there are people willing to continue to fund it (as there are in the Gulf), and as long as the West, i.e. the US continue to want it. There's no sign of the US changing its spots. nor Britain, France or Israel.

Otherwise it will die down, when there's no money and little driving it.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 11 2017 9:33 utc | 10

You think they will run out of hammers and rented cars? Daesh is AQ, the zombies don't care who leads and would pled allegiance to Ben Laden 2 just as they do videos for al Baghdadi without any concern for a neo Ottoman caliphate

Posted by: Mina | Jun 11 2017 9:52 utc | 11

Apparently, Al-Baghdadi has been killed in a Syrian airstrike on Raqqa.
How many times is this now? Would like to see some evidence - evidence other than the watch! :-)

Posted by: AtaBrit | Jun 11 2017 10:08 utc | 13

What everybody, among these experts who speak out but still need to refrain from ruffling too many Establishment feathers, is that ISIL and other cannibals of the same sewer sort are Western allies. Doing the math is easy: they are sponsored by SA and Qatar, both allies of the West.

They have begun in Afghanistan, under the patronage of Zbigniew Brzezinski, against the Soviet Union. They have been used in Yugoslavia, in Libya where they were sent by Theresa May, in Syria, in Chechnya, and so on.

Apart from some "lone wolves" who are obviously unhinged (and so were you if you had cut heads and eaten people), they only attack enemies of the USA. Rodrigo Duterte displeases the USA? Who do we see popping up? ISIL. Chechnya, which is part of the Russian federation, is more or less under permanent siege. Xinjiang, in China, has its own ISIL problems. Turns out China is displeasing the US big time, what with their new Silk Road which will give them enormous clout over Central Asia and worse, the EU. Iran is a bother to the West? Send some ISIL terrorists.

So please please, stop taking us for fools. ISIL is the USA/Saudi Arabia/until recently Qatar/NATO, etc.
Which is why they have so many experts and educated recruits.

Posted by: Lea | Jun 11 2017 10:11 utc | 14

Interesting viewpoint, from his perspective. If one were to look back when Russia was in Afghanistan, this post makes a lot of sense. Of course, that was before "fake news", which is to say, such wasn't to the degree that it is today. The use of proxies, be it to fight military battles or the kinds in the media reporting, shows how out of control this has gotten. Propaganda,in one form or another, hasn't changed the picture, that of spreading the power to control, to which is a guerrilla type war pitted against the lone superpower & its cronies. Isn't this same tactic, a copy of what took place in the American colony's vs the British army? Granted the times are different, but the tactics/battles grow from the same fertile ground. Lessons learned? Good luck on that front, especially from the mindset that believes it's invincible.

Posted by: Eugene | Jun 11 2017 10:25 utc | 15

The issue should be seen as a component of US foreign policy, that is, the possibility of using terrorism in the wars of America against rival and hostile states. I expect Russia and China to do creative work to neutralize risks in this context.
Today it has become a reality, with Russia and China leading the world economy and politics, while one only hears the chatter from behind the Atlantic.
Do not occupy yourself Mr E. Maganier! You are not the only one awake.

Posted by: ALAN | Jun 11 2017 11:14 utc | 16

@ R Winner | 3

E.J. Magnier is still spouting BS about Syria being split apart

He is right, and you must have skipped last... decades? It was always a plan to Balkanize Syria and Iraq by "regime changers." The plan is not even recent, it dates decades back, just US is making it official now, they in press conference declared Raqqa after "liberation" wont be returned to Syria but ruled by the "vetted locals".

US puppets Iraqi Barzani kurds are going to vote for independence soon, and its expected Syria's kurds will follow. Some hope the latter will come to their senses, but facts speak otherwise, and US with its proxies are quickly establishing facts on the ground. The only question now whether it will be full independence or federalized Syria with Kurds having full autonomy, i.e. de-facto independence (Russia proposed cultural autonomy, but kurds rejected). US is still pushing for Sunnistan too, but this part of plan is not going so well, but not for the lack of trying.

Everywhere IS has been defeated, it has been permantly extinquished.

When did Terror axis EVER permanently defeated their terrorists? Name ONE example, I'm all ears. They are useful tools, and will continue to be used as Magnier said, whether under one name or another. Its not just his opinion either, its about knowing the history and Modus operandi of terror states from the West and arab monarchies.

Posted by: Harry | Jun 11 2017 11:33 utc | 17


The US regime can 'declare' all they want. Doesn't mean shit. Anymore than the US regime making 'declarations' in the eastern Syrian desert. The facts on the ground are what matter.

The pipe dream of splitting up Syria is over. Syria, Russia, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq all are united in keeping Syria 100 percent intact. What the US regime wants in northern Syria is irrelevant.

And feel free to name a single area in either Syria or Iraq that has been cleared of IS that has organically regenerated IS.

Posted by: R Winner | Jun 11 2017 11:41 utc | 18

"Still today the US and Europe have not learned from history and still want to occupy territory"

And do they do instead? Isn't it exactly that? Occupying?

Sorry, Mr. Elijah J. Magnier-Ignorance, they do it the same way today like they did it in the past. They create their own "enemy" or what so ever to have a pretext to invade other countries or do what so ever.

You want total control over all slaves? Create some terror events.
You want to get rid of cash (to get total control of ALL financial transactions)? Let rob some people by night.
You want to flood Europe with invaders? Create war and teror outside Europe.

ISIS is the prototype of an created "enemy". It's plain, simple Hegelian dialectic: create the problem - control the reaction - implement the solution.

One reason why we run always again against the wall and into the same trap is that so many "experienced" experts are not able to see through the curtain recognizing the hidden black hand. They tell us the same bullshit since decades.

It's not inability but intention what happens in this region and soon everywhere in the world.
ISIS is and was always an imperial tool in the hand of the banksters! Capice?

Posted by: Guest #4711 | Jun 11 2017 12:13 utc | 19

The really dangerous people come to isis only because of money and power -- take that away, only the idiots remain, and that can be managed.

The article of Magnier seems to use the typical strategy of "ontologisation" of a conflict, in order to divert attention from the real interests.

Sure, once the real interests (imperialism in various forms) is taken away (to a good degree at least), we still have the zombies which were created: a good dose of killing will cure that.

Posted by: Oliver K | Jun 11 2017 12:28 utc | 20

The El Qaida was a CIA asset under President Carter; El Qaida has been an asset in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and elsewhere as needed since; El Qaida is a CIA asset today under many differing names; El Qaida will continue to be a CIA asset as long as there is a need to use that asset against any other entity (yet to be determined). How simple is that? It's government business, get accustomed to the blowback.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jun 11 2017 12:34 utc | 21

Allow me to introduce a totally distinct analysis of "IS".

I have recently "invented" ECONO-PSYCHOLOGY: This is the analysis of social and altered individual mental states arising out of the presence or absence of wealth. Poor people, midclass people, and rich people experience very different mental patterns.

When we contemplate the IS group from an econo-psychological perspective, we are really talking about one of the mental patterns available to poor people. This pattern entails an incoherent combination of extreme piety and vice. Their behavior often completely contradicts their fervently held belief systems.

Furthermore, their extreme puritanical religiosity compels them to blindly follow supposed leaders who are generally midclass or even rich people. Also, they are usually very violent and self-destructive. The particular form of the extreme religiosity that binds these behavioral patterns together is not at all relevant.

Posted by: blues | Jun 11 2017 12:44 utc | 22

100,000? Maybe but a lot of them are dead. I think Elijah is exagerating the numbers and the danger for some reason.

Sure there will be 'lone-wolf' attacks but as Sadiq Khan's the new normal.

Still it would help a lot if US/Israel gave up their plans for dividing Syria.

Posted by: dh | Jun 11 2017 13:03 utc | 23

Because the Rothschild Rockefeller Bilderberg group sees Arabs as stupid idiots who have zero technology, without technology Arabs are powerless, and the same Rothschild Rockefeller Bilderberg group controls the planet with the exception of Putin's Russia, and China. So, all the Arabs should get close to Russia and China; only then, the Arab world begin to be protected.
Take a look to: The Creature From Jekyll Island, The Rockefeller File, The Perpetual Peace, The Rockefeller File, and Planet Rothschild by M King.

Posted by: ALAN | Jun 11 2017 13:14 utc | 24

I agree with those who take Magnier to task for not looking behind the facade of terror:
- Lea @14
- Guest #4711 @19
- Oliver K @20
- Formerly T-Bear @21

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 11 2017 13:35 utc | 25

The facade exists but lots of poor and non poor (but poor of minds) flock on friday noon to listen for an hour or more to guys telling them that djihad is the ultimate heroic life! One doesn't exist without the other.

Posted by: Mina | Jun 11 2017 14:01 utc | 26

Terror is a construct designed and used to execute an agenda.

To ignore the history of terror and terror groups and the lockstep MSM broadcasting of disinformation in convoluted and disjointed pieces - confusing name changes, amalgamation of major and minor groups; the history of the CIA and its known acts - is disinformation in and of itself.

Regardless of the zeal they may have for their beliefs, it would be impossible to amass a group of mercenaries if they weren't getting a regular paycheck.

You don't have to pay them much, when they come from economies where $3 per day is the typical wage for unskilled labor (if you can get it).

Here's our old friend Brzezinski, inspiring peasants in 1977:

Posted by: fast freddy | Jun 11 2017 14:12 utc | 27

I was saad to see Corbyn -bravely! huh!- spew the argument that terrorist attacks ‘at home’ can only be stopped / will only cease when the W puts a halt to its invasive policies in Syria (Lybia, etc. ..)

The argument is morally repugnant, is/was promoted by US pundits (Dems, Iraq..) as ‘blowback’.

In essence it states ‘well if we annihilate millions’ (and it is millions) of ‘them’ is natural that at least a very few of them should retaliate / seek revenge, even if they are weak and not very successful! Seems to plead, not worth it to kill millions - better not! baad! - IF it leads to a few deaths on London Bridge!

The argument is also pragmatically beyond idiotic, as E. M. shows in his piece (though that isn’t his primary aim) by following the path, quote -- ISIS ideology seems coherent and powerful, capable of recruiting and reviving itself -- - Yes, for the moment, as there is money in it. Yet he slips close to the ‘if the W stops attacking…’ pov, if in a more realistic and subtle form, > ISIS (Daesh..) exists only as a reaction to the all-powerful US-uk-isr and allies…and if these *change* the reaction will change as well!

As for ‘terrorist’ attacks in the W, any reasonable grasp and analysis has to consider and try to sort out, not exhaustive:

a) if it happened at all or was just pure flim-flam security TV theatre (some do profit / benefit)

b) if it was the regular type of false flag (state or para-s ordered and organised, the MSM waiting in the wings) …

c) was realised thru some skewed and complicated collaboration and money channels between some gangsters, patsy dupes, or willing participants, corrupt ‘security’ personnel, and creative types hanging about, all in it for the money or obscure reasons

d) was the exploitation and manipulation and guidance of ‘psychotic’ crazies, then claimed by X

e) was actually non-terrorist (e.g. a train accident) but hyped as such by all the parties as that may bring fame, fortune if you stick with it (e.g. compensation from the State for your mom being killed in a terrorist plot.)

f) other

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 11 2017 14:44 utc | 28

With due respect, b, EJM deserves the Oscar for Over-acting.
How does any serious 'analyst' write a long screed about ISIS without mentioning that Jews/Israel, the sworn enemies of ISIS, have never been attacked by ISIS? It's also a bit on the nose that he omits mention of the fact that the West's MSM is majority-owned, together with Hollywood, by Jews. He also forgot to mention that Internet Central is AmeriKKKa, so if the NSA and 5-Eyes were only half as clever and protective as they'd have us believe, they'd have nipped ISIS www propaganda in the bud. And the fact that they did not nip it in the bud is pretty persuasive evidence that they're complicit.

It's reflexive, repetitive, diversionary drivel.
Analysis it ain't.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 11 2017 14:52 utc | 29

This guy seems to ignore completely that if ISIS exists, it's because Saudi Arabia is allowed to finance it with the benediction of many Western agencies who beieve they can use it as a justificatio to occupy more lands. During 150 years of colonisation, there was no ISIS/Al Qaeda. It started to emerged after the collapse of USSR because it was possible back those days to invade country X and Y without risking a war with USSR.

Posted by: jfb | Jun 11 2017 14:52 utc | 30

...and long-winded, always a sign that the reader is being gulled...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 11 2017 14:54 utc | 31

Back to Afghanistan?

Posted by: Daisee | Jun 11 2017 14:58 utc | 32

It's also a bit sloppy of EJM to headline his article...

"The danger of ISIS will remain even after the liberation of Syria and Iraq: why?"

but the the link address substitutes 'even' with 'until'.
...meaning 'until' would be merely stating the obvious, the demise of ISIS et al being the benchmark for Syria's liberation.

Second thoughts, or what?

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 11 2017 15:15 utc | 33

@ hoarsewhisperer.. i hear what you are saying, but i think you're being a bit hard on magnier.. he's provided really valuable insights into much of the dynamic of the syrian war for many years... i suppose it's why i was a bit mixed on this article of his.. it is a more complicated topic regarding the nature of isis - who started it, who feeds it and who benefits from it? there are answers to these questions, but putting much of it at the feet of the internet is an interesting conclusion, and a bit of a diversion too in my view..

@28 noirette... that is an unusual post from you.. i am having a hard time understanding you, especially the first couple of sentences in your post.. i think i might really disagree with you actually!

Posted by: james | Jun 11 2017 15:43 utc | 34

Many of these analyses ignore the funding that ISIS receives from KSA and Qatar, and logistical support from CIA, MI6 and Mossad. Unless we eliminate these factors ISIS will indeed be impossible to defeat.

Posted by: Fidelios Automata | Jun 11 2017 15:55 utc | 35

example of zionist money, or usa leadership - not sure what to call this - support for isis.. "United States Representative Dana Rohrabacher expressed gratitude that Islamic State radical elements assaulted the Iranian Parliament alongside Khomeini’s Mausoleum in Tehran."
can't get any more bald faced then that..

Posted by: james | Jun 11 2017 15:59 utc | 36

Most MSM discussing the Gulf crisis mention the WSJ article about the 1 billion dollar paid for the release of the Qatari hunter group that included royals... but no one wants to recall the actual time line.
There was a planned swap of populations, unblockading some rebel areas in exchange for unblockading some Shiite villages. The swap started, but the buses were stopped for 24 hours and then the additional hunter group started to be part of the deal. During the time when the Shiite buses were stopped, an attack was made on these exhausted people and their kids.
Maybe more details will emerge?

Posted by: Mina | Jun 11 2017 16:22 utc | 37

I agree with those who maintain that ISIS is essentially a mercenary construct.
I like the statement by Fast Freddy @27: "Terror is a construct designed and used to execute an agenda. . . Regardless of the zeal they may have for their beliefs, it would be impossible to amass a group of mercenaries if they weren't getting a regular paycheck."

Face it, armies do not just appear in the desert, they cannot survive without immense funds, supplies, logistics. The photos in German newspapers that documented the huge convoys of arms, etc, passing daily over the Turkish borders, these were not the works of " doctors, engineers, university degree holders and many from all walks of life". The real "credi"t goes to Langley, Qatar, and Riyadh, not "immeasurable experiences of sympathisers who chose to join the ranks".

Posted by: Perimetr | Jun 11 2017 16:31 utc | 38

(Great) new post by Bhadhrakumar

Posted by: Mina | Jun 11 2017 16:34 utc | 39

link to the article mina mentions @39..

Posted by: james | Jun 11 2017 16:42 utc | 40

Daesh aka IS will persist but not in its current form as something that resembles a state with armies and armored vehicles. When Daesh is defeated in Syria and Iraq it will go underground and assume a role similar to what is referred to as Al Qaida with here and there suicide attacks.

In Syria it can only be defeated with the help of Russia and Iran because the US (and its partners in crime Israel, KSA, ...) depends on it for its long term goals and also lay at the source of its inception with for example Baghdadi groomed in US prisons, the organization receiving military help with so called accidental droppings, intelligence as well as its opponents bombed by US war planes both in Syria and Iraq.

Of course there will be insurgent groups here and there (Sinai, north-east Nigeria, Marawi, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Mali, ...) that will keep on fighting with a Daesh hat on but only as long as KSA and some other (ex-)GCC countries keep paying them for it.

Posted by: xor | Jun 11 2017 16:47 utc | 41

Robert Michels and the Iron Law of Oligarchy (1911)

“He who says organization, says oligarchy.”

Paraphrasing Lobaczewski c. 1959:

"Organizations and oligarchies are self-reinforcing psychopath magnets."

PavewayIV's Magic Box of Death:

Put a few oligarchs in a box and set on floor. Soon, hundreds of 'little people' will be attracted inside. Close box and shake vigorously. Torrents of dead 'little people' will pour out, but never any oligarchs. Repeat as often as desired. It's magic!

Posted by: PavewayIV | Jun 11 2017 17:10 utc | 42

I am not sure it is about being paid. In the Middle East, this was indeed part of the game: most men have huge families to feed, not necessarily their own children but siblings, parents etc.
In Europe, most attacks are not money related. Algerian and Moroccans have a number of grievances against France, to take one example. More and more in sub Saharian West Africa the same resentment is emerging: without France cozying up dictatorial states and let the tyrants have buildings in Paris richest areas, bank accounts in Switzerland, normal people would have at least enough to live. The result is that once in a while, someone just breaks down and goes for a random killing under the djihad banner.

Posted by: Mina | Jun 11 2017 17:13 utc | 43

I think terror is indeed a facade in order to push trough an agenda, but is simultaneously genuine. That's no contradiction. So it's always unclear who's the useful idiot at any given moment. Terror is a dangerous gamble which in the given circumstances most certaninly will result in a devastating war nobody - exept the pure nihilists - wanted.

Posted by: Pnyx | Jun 11 2017 17:30 utc | 44

M 43 The result is that once in a while, someone just breaks down and goes for a random killing under the djihad banner.


OTOH, Full Spectrum Dominance emphatically demanded by the USA (it's allies get to tag along) can neither be achieved nor maintained without public acquiescence acquired though fear-inducing terror attacks occurring from time to time.

Posted by: fast freddy | Jun 11 2017 17:34 utc | 45

Andre Vltchek on historical roots of Indonesian Islamist proxy fighters

Posted by: jayc | Jun 11 2017 18:11 utc | 46

perimetr @ 38 said:"The real "credi"t goes to Langley, Qatar, and Riyadh, not "immeasurable experiences of sympathisers who chose to join the ranks".

True, but, without the millions of innocent civilians killed by the empire's drive to dominate global resources, might make it more difficult to recruit troops to their side.

Posted by: ben | Jun 11 2017 19:04 utc | 47

b said: "In all places, US soldiers were part of the events, on the ground or in the sky participating in regime changes, building military bases and occupying more territories but leaving behind a fertile ground for terrorist organisation to proliferate and grow, like ISIS and al-Qaeda."

Absolutely true b.

Posted by: ben | Jun 11 2017 19:10 utc | 48

What I found to be a cop out of sorts was that while the article places historic responsibility at the feet of the US and demands that the US reconsider its foreign policy, it does not broach recent changes in regional balances of power and US influence meaning that the demand of the US to 'reconsider its policy' is either extremely simplistic or so broad that it is meaningless. It reads like "you took the genie out the box, now put it back in".

@mina - "lots of poor and non poor (but poor of minds) flock on friday noon to listen for an hour or more to guys telling them that djihad is the ultimate heroic life! One doesn't exist without the other."
This is a very important point that must not be underestimated. Imams and religious leaders hold massive sway. The diyanet in turkey openly stated that those who celebrate New Years Eve are 'kefir' and openly encouraged worshippers to promote this idea ... within days New Years Eve came and the shooting in Istanbul took place!
And wasn't there a report of the London attacker having been seen with a known radical imam only days before?

Posted by: AtaBrit | Jun 11 2017 20:06 utc | 49

@42 pw

thanks for the link. reading what amounts to a short intorduction, i discovered that Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy itself is available, as so many good books are available, from our friends and benefactors at library genesis.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 11 2017 20:58 utc | 50

@44 pnyx, 'it's always unclear who's the useful idiot at any given moment'

multiple strategic agendas overlaying common tactical interests. donny gluckstein has a short video and a whole book on the subject.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 11 2017 21:03 utc | 51

E.M. is always interesting read, although he (perhaps) is over-analyzing whole situation. Numerous commentators mentioned the role of money flowing from the KSA and the GCC. Once that flow stop no more ideology, although Andre Andre Vltchek in his last piece claim and depict different picture, namely stupidity of people.

Now money is important but not everything. Political support and legitimization of the Death Squads is also very important. The West like to play with somebody else money, flesh and blood, while P5+1 is sitting in New York, Geneva and elsewhere and their envoys rising their hand according to realpolitiks.

This article is penned 2013, and explains everything, i.e. the role of the US.

Maintaining a stalemate should be America’s objective. And the only possible method for achieving this is to arm the rebels when it seems that Mr. Assad’s forces are ascendant and to stop supplying the rebels if they actually seem to be winning.

This strategy actually approximates the Obama administration’s policy so far. Those who condemn the president’s prudent restraint as cynical passivity must come clean with the only possible alternative: a full-scale American invasion to defeat both Mr. Assad and the extremists fighting against his regime.

Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Jun 11 2017 21:04 utc | 52

@28 noirette

apparently your 'beef' is that none of the terrorist attacks in the 'West' are real? that it is all the doing of the evil western state-terrorists who have killed the millions outside the W themselves?

well, the proxy terrorists have killed plenty outside the west, too. the nobel peace prize laureate's boys have killed 4 or 500,000 in syria, directly or indirectly.

whether or not the terrorist attacks in the west - which have killed a 'negligible' number of people - are attributable to western state-terrorists themselves or to their proxies, either under their direction or 'free lancing', seems immaterial to me : all the deaths are the result of western state-sponsored terror, directly or indirectly.

so i think we agree : it is all the fruit of western state-terrorism. that's what corbyn was pointing out. i think you've discovered a distinction without a difference.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 11 2017 21:20 utc | 53

@52 cg

that's certainly the neocon, zionist, nytimes position on the never-ending war, be it in iraq or iran or wherever. and it will continue for as long as the usofa has the wherewithal to pursue it, it seems. and has seemed throughout the nobel peace prize laureate's administration. nothing seems to have changed under trump, except its intensification.

it looks like we're in for more of the same until the defeat/collapse of the usofa.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 11 2017 21:27 utc | 54


... lots of poor and non poor (but poor of minds) flock on friday noon to listen for an hour or more to guys telling them that djihad is the ultimate heroic life! One doesn't exist without the other.

Religion can calm or incite. There is much evidence to suggest that religious leaders, political leaders, and oligarchs play off each other.

I wrote about this at MoA in September 2015:

'Whatever-it-takes' thinking of oligarchs and fundamentalists is too prevalent and those that support them behind Mr. Reasonable(tm) facades are dangerous.

. . .

A new age has dawned for humanity. We are connected to each other as never before. But oligarchs and fundamentalist 'whatever-it-takes' manipulators and their assorted puppets, sycophants, acolytes, and hangers-on would turn that promise into a nightmare for most of us as they insist on supremacy for their cult/class/race/sect/cause/etc. This is what I call The Greatest Headfake of All Time.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 11 2017 21:39 utc | 55

Wesley Clark seven countries in five years:

overlaps Yinon Plan for Greater ISrael.


Note that Israel has not been attacked by ISIS, IS ISIL, etc.
Note that a number of these seven countries have already been balkanized.
(Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen currently under way.)

Note that "Islamic Terror" events staged or otherwise keep the public on board.

Posted by: fast freddy | Jun 11 2017 21:49 utc | 56

@56 ff

succinct, straight-forward analysis.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 11 2017 21:51 utc | 57

"....and it will continue for as long as the usofa has the wherewithal to pursue it...."

This call for an end of dollar hegemony as the world's official payment currency. The pillars of the US' edifice is the dollar. It seems to me that Trump's fake weapons deals are also in direction of maintain dollar's position. Unfortunately heavy weight players in int. trade such as China, plays by the IMF rules.

Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Jun 11 2017 21:56 utc | 58

Putin wants to ax dollar from Russian trade

Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Jun 11 2017 21:59 utc | 59

Anyone who reads Moon of Alabama and the comments are not too far from the truth. Seeing the big picture is hard. It is purposefully hidden. Oligarchs pay good money to their staff to manipulate information to keep the money flowing in their direction. In the West, the nation states are secondary to corporations and oligarch families. Russia and Iran are still sovereign nations. They are literally in a war of survival. If they can they will encourage natural rivalries between plutocrats and buy as many Boeing airplanes as they can.

The West’s biggest failing is that it believes its own propaganda. Without a conscription army, it cannot possibly win the eight wars it is fighting. The proxy forces and military contractors that the West uses instead are unreliable and dangerous. The Elite will not restore the draft because that would empower the little people and they would have to restore free education and public healthcare. Instead as democratic governments and enlightenment wither away, people are forced back to their tribal roots to survive and fundamental Abrahamic and Hindu religions take over. This assures that the world will splinter apart into ethnic tribes if the prophesized apocalypse doesn’t happen first.

An Islamic State will exist as long as the forces that gave it birth continue to exploit human beings.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Jun 11 2017 22:03 utc | 60

ff @56

Second jfl on your "succinct, straight-forward analysis" but I would add Sy Hersh's "The Redirection" (published in 2007!!) to your list of "must reads" because it adds the Israeli-Saudi connection AND it demonstrates real planning among states (which matched what later occurred):

The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks ...

Nasr went on, “The Saudis have considerable financial means, and have deep relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis”—Sunni extremists who view Shiites as apostates...

Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan ... Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.

This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 11 2017 22:14 utc | 61

I don't know where Magnier gets his absurdly low figures for foreign fighters in Afghanistan. One study says that more than 10,000 foreigners were recruited, mainly by Pakistan. His article is very flawed in other aspects as well, mainly because he talks about personnel while ignoring the indispensable weapons, munitions, equipment and supplies such an army needs. These have been facilitated by state actors; however, those providers will likely see no benefit in continuing as long as ISIS continues to lose the military campaign.

"Azzam’s grassroots efforts and abundant war materiel attracted foreign fighters from the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, Europe, and the United States to wage war against the infidels (nonbelievers) occupying Afghanistan.14 There is no consensus as to how many people traveled to Afghanistan, but estimates range from 10,000 to 35,000.15 Those who did travel to the battle were largely supported by private donations or nongovernmental Islamic organizations.16"

Posted by: Diana | Jun 11 2017 22:26 utc | 62

British liberal/fascists Winston Churchill on Wahhabism.

"Just like Zionism, Wahhabism was facilitated by Britain in establishing itself in the ‘Middle East’. And the British continue to use both for their own ends."

Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Jun 11 2017 22:38 utc | 63

Jordanian Army shoots dead five US-backed rebels who tried to evade the Syrian Army

In a rare development, the Jordanian Army and Syrian rebels operating under the Free Syrian Army (FSA) banner came in direct conflict with one another over the weekend on the desert border between Jordan and Syria.

Too many other links to post of the Saudi, US regime, Turkish, and Qatar terror groups turning on each other.

The pipelines and partion phase of Syria's war against foreign terror has ended and now the various foreign powers are starting to dispose of their proxies before they start attacking the wrong countries.

Posted by: R Winner | Jun 11 2017 23:07 utc | 64

Isis will persist because the religion of peace provides a large and excellent recruitment base for terrorism

Posted by: Brian | Jun 11 2017 23:08 utc | 65

V V @ 60 said:"Oligarchs pay good money to their staff to manipulate information to keep the money flowing in their direction. In the West, the nation states are secondary to corporations and oligarch families. Russia and Iran are still sovereign nations. They are literally in a war of survival".

Great post, this excerpt stands out.

Posted by: ben | Jun 11 2017 23:23 utc | 66


you've linked sy hersh's redirection at least 100 times by now jr, i think those who might read it have by now :)

Posted by: jfl | Jun 11 2017 23:24 utc | 67

CG 2 59: Thanks for the link, an excerpt:

"I would like to mention one crucial issue in the development of the energy industry, and the economy as a whole. It is a question of finally stopping the use of foreign currency in internal trade,” said Putin at the fuel and energy presidential commission on Tuesday."

The above is a quote from Putin, which, IMO, is critical in hobbling the Western Corporate Empire ( U$A/NATO) With those kinds of statements, he better watch his back..

Posted by: ben | Jun 11 2017 23:30 utc | 68

@62 diana

thanks for the link(s).

Posted by: jfl | Jun 11 2017 23:43 utc | 69

- The US (and "the West") (wrongfully) think(s) that by building military bases in the Middle East they're able to control events in that same Middle East.

Posted by: Willy2 | Jun 12 2017 1:05 utc | 70

Daeshbags persist because of US inaction against it: Huge convoy leaves Raqqah unmolested..

Posted by: Lozion | Jun 12 2017 1:07 utc | 71


Center for Strategic and International Studies

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is a Washington, D.C. think tank. It was founded in 1962, by Admiral Arleigh Burke and David Abshire, "at the height of the Cold War, dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people."

it's a cold war operation ... well, there's a lot of info there anyway ...

Posted by: jfl | Jun 12 2017 1:26 utc | 72


Maria Galperin

Program Coordinator and Research Assistant, Transnational Threats Project

Maria Galperin is the research assistant and program coordinator for the CSIS Transnational Threats (TNT) Project, where she researches global terrorism with a primary focus on Eurasian and Middle Eastern asymmetric warfare. Prior to her duties at TNT, Ms. Galperin interned for TNT and the Cato Institute, where she focused on Russian economic history and policy. Ms. Galperin is a native Russian speaker and holds a B.A. in international relations from Anglo-American University in Prague, where she concentrated on Central Asian insurgency and terrorism.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 12 2017 1:52 utc | 73

You can tell me he has decades of experience but I stopped reading 3 sentences in.

Posted by: DavidC | Jun 12 2017 2:08 utc | 74

I am encouraged by reading all the commenters that point out the obvious terrorism for money world we are allowing ourselves to live in. The elite are in a battle to maintain/expand the control of private finance controlled economies and people. I would add China North Korea to Iran and Russia that seem to be clearly support geopolitical agendas different than the West.

And to previous thread commenters that seem to think that TINA (There Is No Alternative) to the private finance based "capitalism myth", I encourage you to study the 13 5-year plans that communist in name country, China, has executed.

Can we at least try something other than the elite led tragedy humanity is playing out before we go extinct?

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 12 2017 3:05 utc | 75

digitalization not Internet. Internet is merely the messenger.. digitalization is the enabling technology.. and digitalization is a part of all communications, now days. ISIS subscribers were rarely exposed to competing propaganda; worse domestic audiences likewise were rarely exposed to competing propaganda, nearly all journalistic competition to the Intelligence Community supported agendas which seek to justify intervention, take over, invasion, regime change, privatization and the like have been drown out by the oligarch-owned media. After all the oligarchs are the customers of the IC. Conducting government in Secret and drowning out (many journalist were killed trying to cover the other side) one side of the discourse is what gave Al Queda and ISIS its access to the minds of the young.. The Internet is merely one of the many digital messengers..

Posted by: dni | Jun 12 2017 3:30 utc | 76

What would probably do the most to disrupt ISIS is if the GCC monarchies were replaced by elected local parliamentary democracy systems as quickly as possible.

Just asking questions about that causes a crisis at the State Department, though - it's like asking them about Israeli nuclear weapons, they get all quiet.
. .

Just say what you think, forget about protecting your career!

Posted by: nonsense factory | Jun 12 2017 4:42 utc | 77

@77 nf, ' forget about protecting your career! '

at the state department ... that's a joke, right?

reading that article i noticed they cited mother jones ...

In a headline to a blog post, the progressive news magazine Mother Jones quipped: "At the state department, sometimes silence speaks volumes."

... i don't read mother jones regularly, but i saw a piece about 'her' just this morning, When ‘Mother Jones’ Wasn’t Russia-Bashing. apparently mother has sold out to the dnc/cia/state herself.

not so 'progressive' any longer.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 12 2017 5:13 utc | 78

wow, all these new posters suddenly appearing to attack Magnier. hmmmm....

Posted by: ejm | Jun 12 2017 5:19 utc | 79

Wow new poster "ejm" shows up to defend Magnier. Offers nothing more than innuendo.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 12 2017 5:57 utc | 80

In a way, of course, this article is right on: western colonial and neo-colonial policies are the fundamental cause of Islamic terrorism - not just western policies of regime change, but policies promoting war devastation, followed by desperate poverty and social chaos, particularly in nations like Libya and Iraq that once were relatively well off. But really, for the author to claim, as a precursor idea, that there were few international jihadists in Afghanistan? So far as I know, this claim is utter nonsense. There were many many foreign fighters in that war. The constant stream of foreign fighters into that war was one of its particular qualities, leading ultimately to the evolution of Al Queda.

And that leads to another absurdity about this article: no acknowledgement at all that the jihadi wars (as in Syria) are basically proxy wars?!! Perhaps the author felt that to acknowledge the hidden hand of the neo-colonial West and its regional allies would be to deny the motivations of the many thousands of muslim people involved, via an analysis that takes away from them their misguided attempts to be somehow authors of their own fates and NOT mere puppets. One can understand such hesitance to see and state that the people trying not to be puppets of the West by joining ISIS are even more puppets of the west - but painful as they are, such sick ironies are essential to acknowledge.

The West has many centuries of accumulated know-how in the craft of pulling off these kinds of divide-and-conquer manipulations, double manipulations, triple manipulations and so on. At this point in history, we global citizens - regardless of our locations and religions - are all enmeshed in a drama that is as deeply dishonest as it is horrible.

Both Al Queda and ISIS are tools in the sick game of fostering proxy wars. When you come right down to it, so are Republicans and Democrats. Maybe the Corbyn-led Labour party can break away from this paradigm. If so that might change the world.

Posted by: paul | Jun 12 2017 6:50 utc | 81

Thanks for the link. I m not blaming all the imams but the use of religions by the state (hard to avoid?) And more specifically many in the middle east wonder why friday imams are not speaking of the concrete problems they have there in daily life: drugs, thefts, violence. The sense of authority in patriarchal societies is...self evident and we also havd to take into account that some persons who ve never received a minimal education are easy to convince of fantasies and manipulate.

Posted by: Mina | Jun 12 2017 6:53 utc | 82

But really, at this time in history, for people to continue to claim that the consequences of Western neocolonial manipulations (such as propping up despotic regimes, using international economic institutions and policies to immiserate, etc.) and of regime change operations that leave behind writhing oceans of social chaos and violence, which in turn become breeding grounds for waves of jihadis - to claim that this is all "unintended consequences" is inane. If such a claim was ever valid (I doubt it ever was), it can't be valid now. The patterns have been too obvious for too long.

It's like deliberately hitting your head with a hammer and then claiming that the resulting headache is an 'unintended consequence'. That could conceivably be true the first time you do it. Not thereafter.

Posted by: paul | Jun 12 2017 7:05 utc | 83

Happy Father’s Day means More than flowers and gifts It means saying Thank You It means saying I Love You You are the best dad, and my best friend Today is your day. Happy Fathers Day 2017 Messages
Fathers Day Messages from Daughter
Happy Fathers Day Quotes Images

Posted by: Happy Fathers Day 2017 Wishes | Jun 12 2017 8:52 utc | 84

You were always by my side, and I will always be by your side. Happy Father’s Day to you. Funny Happy Fathers Day Images
Best Happy Fathers Day Status
Fathers Day Quotes from Wife for Husband
Fathers Day Messages from Wife to Husband

Posted by: Happy Fathers Day 2017 Quotes | Jun 12 2017 8:53 utc | 85

Mina #52
Are you talking about Republican or Democrat's constituency or Americans in general?

Posted by: Dark side | Jun 12 2017 11:29 utc | 86

Ups at Mina #82

Posted by: Dark side | Jun 12 2017 11:30 utc | 87

Dear Moon

Northen Ireland Home Rule constitutional arrangements have it that UK parliament adjudicates disputes between Sinn Fein and DUP in the Northern Ireland Assembly. If the Tories rely on DUP for confidence the UK parliament can't discharge its duties in Northern Ireland with clean will have a clear conflict of interest. May is going to be legally prevented from forming government by way of DUP favour.

The UK is therefore facing a constitutional crisis...the likes of which it has never known.

Posted by: Amanita Amanita | Jun 12 2017 12:37 utc | 88

..and that's wonderful news. Even the Queen has to delay her post-election speech. And the government is supposed to meet the EU in Brussels next week to start putting the divorce in practice...

Posted by: Mina | Jun 12 2017 13:06 utc | 89

@Diana | Jun 11, 2017 6:26:28 PM | 62
My guess is that he just made a mental error and conflated the number of al qaeda in Afghanistan with the number of foreign fighters total. Or there was a mistranslation and he was talking about foreigners currently fighting for either branch of al qaeda now and back then.

Posted by: cresty | Jun 12 2017 13:13 utc | 90

Why did they legalize marihuana in the USA? The Pentagon is being crippled from methamphetamine epidemic raging on the middle of the USA which makes the young men unfit to serve as MEAT in the armies of the Pentagon.

Add all the gayness to the USA.
Add all the multiculturalism to the USA.
Add the IPhone/Jackass generation to the USA.
Add the fact intelligent men understand the Rothschild-Zionists their game.
Add 100% corrupt military leaders that stay away from any battle themselves.
Add 100% homosexual military staff that are used to take other men in the behind.
Add 100% military leaders who are part of secret boys clubs and only promoted after homosexual sexual favors to those higher up.

The Armies of the Pentagon have GROWN WEAK. Bring it on suckers! No one is afraid of these wimps/sissy boys.

Looks like the Rothschild-Zionists in control of the USA made some strategic mistakes. They wanted the men in the USA to be stupid and divided. Now look at the armies of the Pentagon and start to laugh very loudly!

Posted by: Thucydides | Jun 12 2017 13:23 utc | 91

@77 nonsense factory quote "Just say what you think, forget about protecting your career!"

that's it! unfortunately being trained to lie or obfuscate 24/7 is the critical ingredient for job applicants at the usa state dept..

@88 Amanita Amanita.. fascinating if true.. thanks..

Posted by: james | Jun 12 2017 15:20 utc | 92

Ben 68 "It is a question of finally stopping the use of foreign currency in internal trade,” said Putin."

No matter that trillions are printed, given away, and "lost", the dollar is the supreme paper and the supreme digit. It is backed by the full faith and credit of (the extremely moral, honest and incorruptible) USofA.

It is backed by nothing more than magical faith and magical credit.

Anyone who disagrees has always faced dire consequences.

There's a new rail bridge that China built which connects with Russia.
They don't seem to understand the value of the dollar.

Posted by: fast freddy | Jun 12 2017 16:04 utc | 93

ISIS benefited from immeasurable experiences of sympathisers who chose to join the ranks; doctors, engineers, university degree holders and many from all walks of life, including experts with large competence in propaganda. Those served ISIS and managed to create a regular magazine, radios and short films in many languages. They integrate the widespread electronic games with pictures of battles and killing in real life. An abundance of informative materials emanates daily from ISIS through the Internet to deliver ideas and messages to every home and continent no group ever had access to before. ...

if you run servers pushing bits of a media company they hunt you down and shut down the site, but if you are "ISIS" then you get a presence on "social media" and no one bothers you. what a strange world.

So OP's article is addressing the obvious question of "who is helping these head choppers?" and assures us it is not "experts" of Western intelligence services but actually "sympathisers who join the ranks".

That could easily be a spook resume.

Posted by: nobody | Jun 12 2017 16:12 utc | 94

Strange that doctors, engineers and University graduates become inclined to throw away their careers and risk their lives so they can join ISIS.

Most would come from upper class (wealthy) families with all the comfort and "indoctrination" that comes with that.

I suppose if they were educated in the west, seeing all flat screen tv's and Wal-Marts would really piss them off.

Posted by: fast freddy | Jun 12 2017 16:46 utc | 95

A lot of them were educated in the West!!

Posted by: Mina | Jun 12 2017 17:19 utc | 96

Why isn't the Israel-Europe gas pipeline not included as a driver of current events?

I discuss that here:

Posted by: MSimon | Jun 12 2017 17:28 utc | 97

Thucydides | Jun 12, 2017 9:23:28 AM

Why is the US legalizing pot? Because Prohibition is a price support mechanism for criminals.

We learned that from Alcohol Prohibition.

I guess Americans are tired of its government supporting criminals.

And then there is this.
Addiction doc says: It’s not the drugs. It’s the ACEs – adverse childhood experiences

So why are we making war on abused kids? It seems immoral to me. But that could be a personal defect.

Posted by: MSimon | Jun 12 2017 17:34 utc | 98

@MSimon That is exactly what Hillary Clinton did. Increase the price for THEIR CIA dugs.
So why are they suddenly legalizing Marihuana all over the place? They can not build a good decent army out of Mexicans and Afro-Americans. They need WHITE MEAT for Zionist wars. But the whites of the USA are to smart or on meth.
If I lived in the USA, such a shitty country, I would use hard drugs myself also all day long.

Posted by: Thucydides | Jun 12 2017 18:18 utc | 99

jfl @ 78 said: "not so 'progressive' any longer." $ talks.

Not only Mother Jones, but many others, including almost all in both political parties.

Question of the day, what can change that reality besides regulating human behavior? After 4 decades of non-stop anti-regulation mantras parroted by MSM, it's an up-hill battle.

paul @ 83: The people that don't "get it", are either hopelessly ignorant, or paid "not to get it". Good post.

Posted by: ben | Jun 12 2017 19:15 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.