The following video was published by X22Report on Jul 16, 2017 Rand Paul is introducing a pro-gun amendment to health care to counter Obamacare. Using the same logic as the corporate media certain individuals need to be investigated. Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Russia. Another person ended up dead who was looking into the Clinton foundation. New de-classified report shows billions were spent on weapons for Iraq and Syria and they were delivered to al-Qaeda, Wikileaks reports that emails show Clinton was supplying weapons to ISIS and al-Qaeda. China is prepared and ready to make a deal with Syria to run the Silk Road through Syria.
There’s no doubt it. Vladimir Putin is no saint, and his nation no beacon of freedom or human rights. But does that mean that we shouldn’t work with Russia when it comes to fighting Isis? That’s the question that was discussed earlier this week on Tucker Carlson Tonight, where Tucker went toe to toe with Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters, who has long been a cheerleader for regime change across the Middle East, including Syria. During the interview, he even went so far as to compare Tucker to individuals who sympathized with Hitler before World War Two, because Tucker didn’t think it was a bad idea to work with the Russians on this particular issue. That’s when Peters’ rabid Russophobia reared its ugly head.
This post was published at shtfplan on July 13th, 2017.
The mainstream media appears to be celebrating ISIS’ recent defeat in Mosul, albeit with some reservations. The media is largely using the word ‘liberation,’ which indicates the people of Mosul have been freed from a monstrous force by a friendly, benevolent one. *** In reality, the ‘liberation’ of Mosul paints a dark, horrifying picture of America’s foreign policy when one realizes how ISIS took hold of Mosul in the first place. As Anti-Media in summarized in September of last year, the U. S. allowed ISIS to gain control of Mosul quite deliberately: ‘In June 2014, ISIS crossed the Syrian border into Iraq, effortlessly taking the strategic oil-rich cities of Mosul and Baiji and almost making it as far as Baghdad. Amid the terror group’s frightening victory, they uploaded images and footage of drive-by-shootings, large-scale death marches, and mass graves (following the mass executions of Iraqi soldiers). ‘ISIS militants claimed massive quantities of American military equipment, including entire truckloads of humvees, helicopters, tanks, and artillery as their own. This was no secret to Washington, or even the world, as the militants photographed and recorded themselves and publicly flaunted their activity on social media.’
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jul 12, 2017.
BREAKING Islamic State leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has been killed – Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says it has "confirmed information" pic.twitter.com/zFtGqXlNqE — Reuters Top News (@Reuters) July 11, 2017
One month after Russia reported that it had likely killed Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi during a May airstrike in Syria, moments ago ISIS declared that its supreme leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has died, Al Masdar news reported, with the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights telling Reuters it has “confirmed information” of his death. According to AMN, ISIS gunmen issued a brief statement announcing that their leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead and the name of the ‘new caliph’, and adds that some Iranian media outlets earlier circulated images confirming al-Baghdadi’s death. The terrorist group, which recently lost its Iraqi stronghold of Mosul, said it will soon announce a successor to Baghdadi.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jul 11, 2017.
The false reality constructed for Americans parallels perfectly the false reality constructed by Big Brother in George Orwells’ dystopian novel 1984. Consider the constant morphing of ‘the Muslim threat’ from al-Qaeda to the Taliban, to al-Nusra, to ISIS to ISIL, to Daesh with a jump to Russia. All of a sudden 16 years of Middle East wars against ‘terrorists’ and ‘dictators’ have become a matter of standing up to Russia, the country most threatened by Muslim terrorism, and the country most capable of wiping the United States and its vassal empire off of the face of the earth. Domestically, Americans are assured that, thanks to the Federal Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing, that is, flooding the financial markets with newly printed money that has driven up the prices of stocks and bonds, America has enjoyed an economic recovery since June of 2009, which must be one of the longest recoveries in history despite the absence of growth in median real family incomes, despite the growth in real retail sales, despite the falling labor force participation rate, despite the lack of high value-added, high productivity, high wage jobs.
Moscow, Russia – On Thursday, during a weekly press briefing by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, spokeswoman Maria Zakharova explained that their intelligence has revealed active terrorist plots to stage chemical attacks in Syria in order to justify and precipitate U. S. strikes and increased intervention in the Syrian civil war. The information exposes ongoing plans by Syrian terrorist groups to stage chemical weapons attacks, to be blamed on the Assad government, in an effort to justify U. S. attacks against Syrian government forces. ‘According to information available [to us], Syrian terrorist groups plan staged provocative actions with the use of chemical poison gases to justify US strikes against the positions of the Syrian government forces,’ Zakharova said at a weekly press briefing.
The talk of the week is the upcoming meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin on the sidelines of the G20 conference this Friday. There have been some very good articles already written on this topic, I particularly recommend Adam Garrie’s ‘5 obstacles Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will have to address in their meeting’ for The Duran and Israel Shamir’s ‘What Would Putin Tell Trump?’ for The Unz Review. It is undeniable that the fact that these two men will finally meet is an event of immense significance and importance for the future not only of U.S.-Russian relations, but even for the future or mankind. Or is it? I have to be honest here and say that my expectations are pretty close to zero. Oh sure, they will smile, probably a lot, and some minor issues, such as the seizure of the Russian diplomatic residence in the USA, will be resolved. Probably. There might even be some kind of positive sounding sounds about ‘reaffirming the Minsk Agreement’ or ‘fighting ISIS in Syria’, but compared to long list of truly vital issues which need to be urgently discussed and resolved, this will, I am afraid, be as close to nothing as it can get. Why do I say that? First, we should all stop kidding ourselves, Russia and the USA do not have ‘disagreements’. The sad and frightening reality is that we are now closer to war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Not only are Russian and U.S. servicemen now deployed in the same war zone (the Americans totally illegally), but unlike what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis we have a U.S. President who terminally lacks the willpower to deal with the crazies on the U.S. side, I am talking about the Neocons, of course. In fact, under Kennedy there were no real Neocons to tackle to begin with. Now they are running the White House while Trump serves them coffee or watches TV in another room (I am joking of course, but just barely). In this context, to meet on the ‘sidelines’ of a G20 conference is bordering on the criminally irresponsible. What the world would need is for Trump and Putin to meet in a ‘Camp David’ like format for at least 3-5 days with all their key advisors and officials. Even if we assume a 100% of good will on both sides, meeting on the ‘sidelines’ of an already big conference just won’t make it possible to get anything done. In the very best of cases Lavrov and Tillerson could have done most of the hard work away from the public eye, but the truth is that the Russians say that so far the two sides have not even agreed upon an agenda.
Let’s get out of Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2013
The war in Afghanistan is the longest war in US history. Now in its 16th year (and third US President), one might expect the war to be winding down; however, with a resurgent Taliban, and ISIS allegedly present in the country as well, President Trump has recently delegated authority over prosecution of the war to the Pentagon. Now, additional US and NATO troops are being deployed to Afghanistan, and Secretary of Defense James Mattis (together with National Security Advisor HR McMaster) is developing a new, more aggressive strategy for the war. In short, there is no end in sight. Although other wars have claimed this title in the past, Afghanistan is referred to by many as ‘the forgotten war.’ Even though it has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of US troops and many more people from Afghanistan, it sits nowhere near the forefront of public consciousness; it is more a vague blob in the public’s peripheral vision. Nine years ago, in July 2008, PBS aired a video report from their correspondent embedded with US troops in Afghanistan. Even then, at a time before George W Bush had vacated the Oval Office, the title of the video was ‘Afghanistan: The Forgotten War’. Then, eight years later at the height of 2016 presidential race, the LA Timespublished an editorial called ‘Afghanistan: The campaign’s forgotten war’, in which the author points out that neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump even bothered to mention Afghanistan in their convention speeches. Trump was critical of US military interventionism during his campaign however, and even before his bid for the presidency began, he was in the habit of taking to Twitter to lambast the Obama administration for perpetuating the war in Afghanistan.
The commander of anti-ISIS operations in Iraq and Syria, Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, in an interview with the Fayetteville Observer said he hopes American troops have a role in Iraq long after ISIS is driven from that country. Townsend, the head of the CJTF-OIR, or ‘Operation Inherent Resolve,’ said the Islamic State was well on its way to defeat, and that he expects the total liberation of Mosul – once the Islamic State’s primary Iraqi stronghold – to be long complete by September, when the 18th Airborne Corps is expected to return to Fort Bragg and officially end its year-long mission participating in the fight to defeat ISIS. The 18th Airborne, also commanded by Townsend, had a ‘significant presence’ in Iraq, where it fought alongside, as well as trained and advised, Iraqi troops. Townsend says it was the American withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 that left the country defenseless to ISIS (apparently in spite of the fact that the U. S. shelled out a cool $25 billion training and equipping the Iraqi Army and police force), and that he would like to not repeat that mistake. ‘We’ve seen that movie before,’ Townsend told the Observer. ‘My thought is to try something different.’
Despite being outnumbered 15-1, ISIS forces swiftly captured the Iraqi city of Mosul in 2014, before declaring their monstrous caliphate. It was the victory that put them on the map, and it left hundreds of thousands of refugees in its wake. But three years later, Iraqi forces have nearly finished retaking the city, and are in the process of mopping up the few remaining ISIS fighters who are clinging to several acres of territory along the Tigris river. It’s taken 8 months of near constant fighting, but the city of Mosul, which was once the largest city ruled by ISIS, has nearly fallen.
This post was published at shtfplan on July 3rd, 2017.
Qatar has been known for years as a small peninsula nation that punches far above its weight. Its immense oil wealth and enormous influence, through its English- and Arabic-language Al Jazeera channels, have given it diplomatic clout across the Arab world. Its soft power has been felt in negotiations in Darfur, Tripoli, Sanaa and elsewhere. Everywhere it has been either admired or envied. Now Qatar is on its back feet, fighting off criticism from all sides. Qatar’s candidate to run UNESCO is now almost certain to lose; a few months earlier, he was the frontrunner. Activists are pressing FIFA to bar Qatar from hosting the World Cup. Pressure is mounting to close the U. S. air base in Qatar; U. S. Air Force general Charles Wald, who opened the base in 2001, is now, in retirement, publicly calling for its closure. A coalition of thirty-four thousand predominantly African American churches protested Qatar in Washington, DC, on June 28, citing Qatar’s persecution of Christians, Jews and other religious minorities. (Qatar bans crosses on the outside of churches and bars public prayer by Christians, even though there may be more Christians in the country than the three hundred thousand native Qataris.) The protest, outside Qatar’s embassy at Twenty-Fifth and M Streets, is the first-ever public demonstration against Qatar in Washington. It won’t be the last. Even more dramatically, Qatar’s neighbors and allies have turned against it. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have cut diplomatic ties with Qatar and closed their air and sea ports to Qatar’s planes and ships. The Arab-language media is full of venom directed at Qatar. Now it is either pitied or feared. What happened? Qatar was found to be funding the enemies of America and its Arab allies. Washington policymakers are concerned that Qatar has funded, according to the U. S. State department, Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria as well as elements of ISIS – the very groups America is bombing in its campaign to liberate northern Iraq. It also supports Hamas, which both the United States and EU have designated as a terrorist organization. Bahrain believes that Qatar is supporting armed opposition groups against its royal family. The Saudis fault Qatar’s financial support to the Yemen-based Houthi rebels (opposed to the Saudi regime) as well as Qatar’s backing for violent opposition groups in the Saudi province of Al Qatif, which is mostly Shia.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jul 2, 2017.
One of the few elected Democratic lawmakers with an extensive anti-war record, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), has combined forces with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) to push legislation through both the House and the Senate that would bar federal agencies from using taxpayer-backed funds to provide weapons, training, intelligence, or any other type of support to terrorist cells such as al-Qaeda, ISIS, or any other group that is associated with them in any way. The Stop Arming Terrorists Act is so unique that it’s also the only bill of its kind that would also bar the government from funneling money and weapons through other countries that support (directly or indirectly) terrorists such as Saudi Arabia. To our surprise – or should we say shame? – only 13 other lawmakers out of hundreds have co-sponsored Gabbard’s House bill. Paul’s Senate version of the bill, on the other hand, has zero co-sponsors. While both pieces of legislation were introduced in early 2017, no real action has been taken as of yet. This proves that Washington refuses to support bills that would actually provoke positive chain reactions not only abroad but also at home. Why? Well, let’s look at the groups that would lose a great deal in case this bill is signed into law.
Authored by Aaron David Miler and Richard Sokolsky via The Strategic Culture Foundation, Pursuing an ambitious mission against all three adversaries in Syria is dangerous, imprudent and unnecessary The idea du jour circulating inside the Trump administration and among terrorism experts and Syria watchers alike is that ISIS cannot be destroyed in Syria unless Bashar al-Assad is removed from power and Iran’s presence and influence are drastically curtailed. And in a perfect world, this indeed would be the best possible outcome to prevent ISIS and other jihadi groups, including Al Qaeda, from ensconcing themselves there. But needless to say, the Middle East isn’t a perfect world. U. S. retaliation against another chemical-weapons attacks, as the White House threatened late Monday, would be both necessary and justified. (Assad and his military would ‘pay a heavy price,’ the statementread.) But pursuing an ambitious mission against Iran, Assad and the Russians in Syria is dangerous, imprudent and unnecessary to protect vital American security interests. Here are five compelling reasons why.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jun 30, 2017.
The following video was published by X22Report on Jun 29, 2017 CNN tries to push their agenda on immigration but gets shot down by Homan. Paris is building a wall around the Eiffel tower. Duerte told his soldiers to take back the country by using every and all means. ISIS revenue down, land is shrinking to nothing, the IS is basically eradicated. US retreats from Al-Tanf and now is in the middle of nowhere. Putin says the foreign agents are trying to have regime change in his country. Trump is going to meet with Putin and it seems there might be some type of event to stop this from happening. Indicators are pointing to something happening starting Friday and running through next week.
The Kurds have developed a fearsome reputation while fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq. If anything, there probably isn’t any force in the region that has done more damage to the Islamic group, with fewer resources at their disposal. As for how they’ve managed to stem the tide, it helps that their fighters are pretty nonchalant in the face of death.
This post was published at shtfplan on June 28th, 2017.
What a scary week in the Mideast. The epicenter of the world’s energy resources and the land-bridge between Asia and Africa is spinning out of control as the danger of a shooting war between the US and Russia grows daily. A U.S. F-18 warplane shot down a Syrian Air Force SU-22 ground attack aircraft over eastern Syria. This was a grave, reckless provocation clearly authorized by Washington. Russia, Syria’s ally, threatened to begin targeting its supposedly deadly S-300 missiles against U.S. warplanes over Syria. Another U.S. warplane shot down an Iranian drone over southeastern Syria as U.S. forces and U.S. mercenary Arab troops closed in on a worthless piece of ground on the Syrian-Iraq border. Russia is rushing ten more warships into the Mediterranean, though most are obsolescent or small. The U.S. Navy is challenging – or provoking – the Iranians in the Gulf. U.S. technicians and crews are keeping Saudi warplanes bombing Yemen, where half the population faces starvation. Just across the Red Sea, U.S. warplanes and special forces are attacking the Somalia nationalist resistance movement, Shebab. At least 4,000 more U.S. troops are headed for Afghanistan’s stalemated war. U.S. Marines are attacking ISIS positions near Mosul, al-Tanf and Raqaa and adding long-ranged HIMARS artillery rockets. American forces are using white phosphorus, a hideous chemical weapon, against Isis defenders. Iran may send more ‘volunteer’ troops into Syria and Iraq as U.S. warplanes probe Iran’s airspace. Turkey is reportedly moving against U.S.-backed Kurds in Syria. Some Mideast experts believe the U.S. may be set on partitioning Syria.
What could be smellier and more tempting bait to get ISIS to launch a chemical-weapon attack than a US guarantee that ‘any’ chemical weapon attack in Syria will be automatically blamed on Assad’s regime and will automatically result in the US attacking Assad and all of ISIS’s other enemies? Today the White House offered ISIS that ironclad guarantee. White House issues preemptive warning to Syria on chemical attack Today, the White House issued a carte blanc guarantee to ISIS, pledging that the Assad regime will pay a heavy price for any chemical weapon attack that happens inside of Syria: The Trump administration issued a rare, preemptive warning to the Syrian regime against launching any chemical weapons attacks, warning Damascus will ‘pay a heavy price’ if it refuses to heed Washington’s red line. (The Washington Times) The use of the term ‘red line’ makes this more than just another line in the sand because of its historic overtones. Assad and everyone else in the world remembers the political price Obama paid for stating that a chemical weapons attack would be a ‘red line’ for the US that Syria dare not cross. When an attack did happen, which Obama doubted was due to Syria, he refused to cross that line and was criticized for cowardice for years. I think everyone knows that Trump is not about to repeat that kind of retreat from his threat.
This post was published at GoldSeek on Wednesday, 28 June 2017.