Sunday, January 12, 2020

Who is responsible for all this terroristic acts?

"Hillary Clinton – who would have probably started a full-scale war with Iran by now – got the horrific, despised anti-Iran cult the MKO (MEK) de-listed even though they are still detestable terrorists and murderers. The US supported the Taliban. The US supports the neo-Nazi groups who led the coup in Ukraine, and who could easily be behind the latest example of the inhuman Western sabotage of airplanes in Iran – today’s terrible crash of a Ukraine International Airlines flight from Tehran."

By Ramin Mazaheri and cross posted with PressTV

https://thesaker.is/if-soleimani-is-a-terrorist-when-will-the-us-de-list-isil/


Iran gibt Abschuss von ukrainischem Flugzeug über Teheran durch "unbeabsichtigten" Raketenstart zu

Trump’s sanctions threat reveal US plan all these decades: total colonization of Iraq

By Ramin Mazaheri and crossposted with PressTV

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of the books ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’ and the upcoming ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism.’

Donald Trump, in his inimitable way, continues to reveal to the world the brutal imperialist truths of “democracy with American characteristics”.
When the Iraqi Parliament voted to expel US troops as a result of Washington’s inhuman slaying of Iran’s Qassem Soleimani US President Donald Trump made it very clear: Iraq belongs to the United States, completely.
“We will charge (Iraq) sanctions like they’ve never seen before, ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame.” Trump added the sanctions would be imposed on Iraq, “if there’s any hostility, that they do anything we think is inappropriate.”
In my mind this is perhaps the 2nd-most important news out of Iraq this year: the public acknowledgment that the US is never leaving Iraq, will never countenance Iraqi dissent and would rather destroy Iraq than recognise its sovereignty.
This was a naked declaration from Trump to Iraq that, “We are your imperial masters.”
Iraq cannot even dare to do anything which Washington might consider “inappropriate” – the values of Washington decide what is “inappropriate” in Iraq, not Iraqi values.
Iraqis, I’m sorry to say, should realise that they have become the 51st US state .(Well, the 52nd, after Puerto Rico.) The Iraqi people have zero sovereignty, its votes are worthless nonsense, and Iraq cannot go against the will of the US federal government any more than Wyoming, Rhode Island or Nebraska can.
My claim here is not an overreaction, and especially when we consider what exactly did Iraq do “wrong” in order to “deserve” sanctions?
Iraq is not Iran – they do not keep defending a popular revolution which successfully mixed Islam and democracy, something the West claims is impossible. Iraq is not North Korea, who refuse to let US troops and corporations based in Seoul move up to the China-Russia border. Iraq is not China, who has a government overseen by a party which refuses to let Western high finance control its major industries (however, I note that Iran is even more vigilant in this regard than China, which earns Iran even more Western animosity).
Baghdad has worked with Washington for nearly two decades.
Yes, we can say that this work was done at the barrel of a US cannon, but Iraq has complied with US demands. Iraqis have created links, contacts, contracts and all sorts of entanglements with Americans and American businesses.
And yet Trump made it clear that without the presence of US troops that all means nothing.
It is now crystal clear that there is zero goodwill from Washington after all these years, zero trust, zero desire to see Iraq stand on its own two feet. Every American smile to an Iraqi inside the Green Zone has been false; every warm word a cold lie.
It’s an amazing declaration by Trump – all the years of talk about “humanitarian intervention” and about the US desire to bring “freedom to Iraq” has been declared a sham. This was guessed at by countless billions of non-Western people, but the threat of sanctions which make the Iran sanctions look “tame”… my God, hasn’t Iraq complied enough at least to avoid that?!
In many ways, this is all a part of the “beauty” of Trump.
Trump came to office in large part because he says things which Main Street knows but which no mainstream politician would even dare to suggest. Trump is such a terror to the Pentagon, Wall Street, Madison Avenue and the Beltway – which concocted an impeachment plan before Trump was even inaugurated – because Trump cannot be trusted to lie properly, and that makes him a risk to US domination.
We cannot imagine Barack Obama bragging about the sanctions he would levy on Iraq if they voted out US troops – he was a smooth-faced liar. Obama would have talked instead about reconciliation with the past, peace and not justice, patience… and then “temporarily surge” more soldiers to Iraq.
Hillary Clinton had none of Obama’s charm – she would have reacted by boringly referring to the legal obligations of Iraq, the feasibility of processes, what the definition here of “vote” is, etc. And then should would have decided on a reaction even more brutal than one Obama or Trump could conceive.
Any “normal president” would have responded to the Iraqi vote in a way which would have calmed the situation; in a way which would have reassured Westerners that, despite their nagging consciences, they were actually doing moral and humane things in Iraq; in a way which the Western media could use as a weapon against dissenters of Western capitalism-imperialism and to further their insistence of TINA (There Is No Alternative).
And this is what so many hate Trump for, yet many others value: if the US had a “normal president” many would have complacently and mistakenly continued to believe there is genuine goodwill from Washington towards the Iraqi people. Instead Trump speaks from his gut and makes it clear: “Ha!”
It’s a big, fat “Ha!” indeed.
Trump is hated by the US 1% because he egotistically and instinctively wants to take the credit and power inherently contained by this “Ha!”, but by doing so he threatens to upset the whole enterprise of US domination; he threatens to provoke resentment which could turn revolutionary.
The Iraqi people need to understand this sadistic laughing, this murderous contempt, this arrogant gloating.
The world is often fooled by brand repackaging like Obama, (phony, alleged) technocrats like Hillary Clinton and professional foolers like Bill Clinton – nobody is fooled by Trump. Trump’s egotism make it impossible to be fooled.
To Trump the Iraqi people do not even have the power of children to mildly rebel, but he is not the only president to hold such an imperial view.
As usual, this was an overreaction by Trump: while I certainly hope it comes to pass (although the US State Department has just officially rejected any troop withdrawal), I will believe there are no US soldiers in Iraq – no “advisors”, “technicians” or “contractors” – when I finally see it. But Trump is undoubtedly on edge over an, empty, superficial, Biden corruption-covering, essentially anti-democratic impeachment process. Incredibly, incredibly lamentably, Trump assassinated Soleimani merely to provide a distraction, and he’s not about to have some puny nobodies like Iraqis make him look weak domestically now.
Iraqis only exist to serve the US – this is what Trump’s threats to terribly sanction Iraq mean.
The pity of it is that Iraqis already know all about inhuman Western sanctions: I used to ask Iraqi friends how their family was doing amid the sanctions (1990-2003) and they said, “Please, stop asking – it just gets worse and worse.” You know they were inhuman and starvation-inducing by the very name of the “concession” plan the West finally granted – the “oil-for-food program”.
Ugh. Iraqis should hope for only Iran-level sanctions, compared to that.
Indeed, it is not a pleasant past, present or future for Iraq.
Their vote to expel US soldiers and reclaim sovereignty was along sectarian lines, just as Washington would have hoped for (or the French in Lebanon, to give another parallel of “Western democratic culture”). It was unanimous, but missing about 150 public servants – Kurdish and Sunni lawmakers didn’t vote.
Will Iraq’s non-Shia politicians also absent themselves when a vote comes up to denounce Trump’s new sanctions? I really don’t see what Shia theology has to do with voting against foreign occupation – do Iraqis think the US will tolerate Iraqi soldiers and bases in the US? Do they think Washington is kidding? The Washington Post reported the new sanctions are already being drafted.
Do Iraq’s non-Shia politicians still think that Washington is their friend and partner? Do non-Shia Iraqis really view their fellow Shia as more dangerous and disagreeable than the current reality – permanent colonisation by the US? Or are these politicians too close to the US (to use a polite phrase) and not close enough to the lower classes, their crushed reality and and their legitimate demands?
We will not get another Trump era anytime soon – we should appreciate the way he shatters one illusion after another, laying bare the realities which so many Westerners have laboured so hard to cover up for so very, very long.

The Essential Saker II
The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA
The Essential Saker II
The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire
Order Nowhttps://thesaker.is/trumps-sanctions-threat-reveal-us-plan-all-these-decades-total-colonization-of-iraq/

Saturday, January 11, 2020

"Ende der USA in unserer Region hat begonnen" – Der Soleimani-Mord und seine Folgen

"Ende der USA in unserer Region hat begonnen" – Der Soleimani-Mord und seine Folgen
Eine iranische Wache hält eine Hisbollah-Flagge während des Trauerzuges bei der Beerdigung von Soleimani in Kerman und steht dabei auf einer US.Flagge. Auf dieser steht: "Abschalten!" (Shut down)

Thursday, January 9, 2020

If Soleimani is a ‘terrorist’, when will the US de-list ISIL?

By Ramin Mazaheri and cross posted with PressTV

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of the books ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’ and the upcoming ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism.’

I remember when ISIL first burst into global consciousness – with the fall of Mosul on June 4, 2014. I happened to be visiting my parents.
My mother rushed in and told me that terrorists in Toyotas had overrun Iraq’s second-largest city in a modern-day Mongol Horde.
I rolled my eyes.
I explained to her that, as usual, she was exaggerating. What she was describing was undoubtedly impossible, and I patiently explained why:
The West has satellites which are tracking everyone at every moment – surely they would see fleets of armed trucks speeding towards Iraq. Undoubtedly they would open fire, not only to get the human target practice they so adore but because – despite an alleged “withdrawal” at the end of 2011 – they had 30,000 American soldiers and contractors in Iraq to protect. Certainly they would have seen this mass army amassing before they ever left their barracks and notified somebody to do something, if the US didn’t want to fight them. Frankly, not even the US would unleash something which my Mom was describing.
Moms… so gullible and prone to worry, eh? They mean well, but I had no doubt I was totally in the right, and if my Mom wouldn’t or couldn’t understand… what can a son do but humour their mom?
It turned out that I was the gullible one and that my Mom was right. (As I get older I realise this happens more often than I would have previously imagined.)
I was gullible to believe that the US would not do all those things I told my mom they would not, but I was not totally stupid: The spectacularly swift rise of ISIL still cannot be properly explained by Washington.
But the current US president claimed to have the answer in August 2016 – Donald Trump said his predecessor Barack Obama was the “founder of ISIS”.
Certainly that resonated around the world and inside the US. 9/11 made widespread the knowledge that the US created the Taliban, who had come back to bite the hand that fed it. That September Obama returned US soldiers to Iraq, something the average American surely did not want.
Trump walked back his comments slightly, but Trump the campaigner had done what he repeatedly did and what immediately earned him the enmity of the US 1%, Deep State and Wall Street – he openly said truths about US neo-imperialism which no US presidential candidate had ever even come close to suggesting. Combine this “Main Street” honesty with his similar “you can’t say that” truths against free markets/free trade, as well as the total corruption of the two US political parties, and that’s how you get a reality-TV star as president of the self-appointed “leader of the free world”.
The US returned to Iraq, but they continued to let ISIL run free. Today, the whole world knows that Iranian General Qassem Soleimani – appallingly assassinated by Trump – was the architect who led ISIL’s defeat.
But the US has known of Iran’s leadership in the war on terror, and the West’s terrorist tolerance, for years. On June 5, 2015, top US newsmagazine Newsweek ran a story about Soleimani titled “Iranian Military Mastermind Leading Battle to Recapture Tikrit from ISIS”.
And yet Washington’s propaganda line, being dutifully and unquestioningly repeated by countless US and Western “journalists” is that Soleimani was killed because he was a “terrorist”?
That is insulting on too many levels to list in this brief article.
But it’s not only the brave, incredibly-missed martyr Soleimani – whom I described as “the Muslim Che Guevara”, because both were international anti-imperialist fighters and heroes slain by Washington – but all of Iran which fights ISIL.
The West knew this already, too: When it comes to foreign policy Newsweek never seriously deviates from the Washington & Wall Street propaganda lines – the notion is laughable – which is why they probably deeply regret their 2nd-most recent issue: on December 27, 2019, their very cover featured Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei with the caption, “If Iran falls, ISIS rises again.”
Yes. Of course. The whole world knows this about Iran, about Soleimani and about the anti-terror ideals of the Iranian Islamic Revolution. The whole world knows the US and their allies do nothing to stop ISIS.
For decades Iran has been the only country which has sacrificed time, money and lives for foreigners in the international fight against US capitalist-imperialism. This is why the illegal, inhuman slaying of Soleimani must be dressed up as “anti-terrorism” by Washington.
I described how ever since the WMD lie of 2003 US democracy has featured a “false-life syndrome”, where everyone is forced to publicly repeat lies about the machinations of the Pentagon. The Iraq War fundamentally changed US democracy by demanding that no one seriously question the official narrative – no matter how preposterous – something which did occur during their Vietnam War.
WMDs, Soleimani and the creation and support of ISIL – all lies from Washington. If the US did not support ISIL why did Soleimani have to be invited by the Iraqi government to fight them? Either the spectacularly-funded US military is even more rife with corruption than we already know, or they never planned to fight ISIL, but to aid them.
And who is aided more by the slaying of Soleimani than terrorist ISIL?
That is the fundamental moral question, and this question goes beyond geopolitical strategy – at least to the average, normal person.
However, Western liberal, aristocratic, domestically-resented democracies cannot honestly answer. This is why Germany, France and the UK all publicly supported the assassination, in great shame to their own people.
If Washington assassinated Soleimani because he was a “terrorist”, then logically they should now de-list ISIL as a terrorist group. Why not just come clean, finally?
All the world acknowledges that Soleimani fought terrorism, but if he must be rebranded as a “terrorist” in the West – in Orwellian fashion – then the time has come for the US and their allies to admit they are collaborating with ISIL. Fighting against ISIL makes one a “terrorist”, not fighting with them.
Why is that so hard to believe? The current US president said the same thing – are we both wild conspiracy theorists?
Hardly – we are simply two people who know just a bit of basic history. Hillary Clinton – who would have probably started a full-scale war with Iran by now – got the horrific, despised anti-Iran cult the MKO (MEK) de-listed even though they are still detestable terrorists and murderers. The US supported the Taliban. The US supports the neo-Nazi groups who led the coup in Ukraine, and who could easily be behind the latest example of the inhuman Western sabotage of airplanes in Iran – today’s terrible crash of a Ukraine International Airlines flight from Tehran.
Why not ISIL as well?
Above all, it would make it clear that Washington’s main enemy in the Muslim World is the continued success and support of the 1979 popular revolution in Iran, and the bad example it sets to their neo-imperial clients worldwide.
Trump claims he wants to fight ISIL, and even claims he is willing to work with Iran to do so, but then he assassinates the leader of the anti-ISIL fight and falsely brands him a “terrorist”?
Calling anti-terror hero Soleimani a “terrorist” is obviously a desperate way to falsely brand all of Iran as “terrorists”, but the world now knows the real truth better than ever. Washington, in their imperialist arrogance, believes that we do not.
Newsweek, Obama and the Clintons and Trump do not care for Iraq or about stopping ISIL, not like Soleimani and Iran.
No amount of Orwellian, mind-erasing doublespeak from Washington will ever change that, and no matter how much they aid ISIL by assassinating its enemies.