Thursday, September 11, 2014

Obama’s Speech - More Wars Against Self Made Terrorists By-passes Congress! How Long Will This Modell of Democracy Bully the World With Its Illegal Wars?

Obama’s Speech: a New Moral Low

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 12.09.2014 | 09:38

President Obama’s  speech was a record low in terms of moral and intellectual analysis: What it boils down to is war – i.e. killing every single ISIS person anywhere, people who he compares to cancer cells.
The war on terror has always been about killing terrorists but you can not kill an ism – terrorism. To do something about the causes that compel people to become terrorists would be much more efficient.
The President has said repeatedly that a lasting solution is political, not military. The speech, however, is exclusively military – not a word of political, psychological or other insights: No, we kill people because we think it is wrong to kill people…
The speech can be seen as a proof of how utterly misguided the U.S. response to 9/11 was – had it been more intelligence and less revenge-oriented, there would neither have been a devastating Iraq war nor an ISIS.
It’s difficult to be Number One in a rank order. You ony teach downward. If you are Number Twenty, there are 19 others to learn from. It seems as if the United States, inside its exceptionalist box, is now unable to learn lessons.
Obama’s ‘strategy’ for The War On Terror will, in all likelihood, lead to more terrorism and hatred of the West – I mean what will frustrated Sunnis in Iraq think about Obama? Or the Syrian civil society that doesn’t carry arms?
Not a word about international law presumably because bombing other countries is aggression when there is no threat and the ‘US is more safe today than then’.
There is a remarkable sentence where the President says that in two weeks he himself will chair a meeting of the UN Security Council! What?! Can any head of state do that??
Further, not a word about Washington’s long-term vision for a better Middle East – indicative of the absence of any such vision.
The last 2 minutes are perhaps the most interesting: A combination of unbearable self-praise, slight megalomania and denial of the changing U.S. role in our changing world.
If this is American leadership at its best – and that’s what the President believes – the world as we know it may soon crumble.
Jan Oberg is the founder of Transnational Foundation for Peace & Future Research.

Obama Launches His War, Finally: "An Imperial War – Albeit With a Nobel as Commander-In-Chief" M. Bhadrakumar

Obama Launches His War, Finally

Melkulangara BHADRAKUMAR* | 12.09.2014 | 00:00

The United States President Barack Obama unveiled in a major speech on Wednesday his strategy to «degrade and ultimately destroy» the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The strategy has no timeline and, quintessentially, the US will pit Muslims against Muslims in a grim war through the deployment of ‘smart power’, which would ensure that American casualties are avoided. From all appearance, it will also be a self-financing war funded by the petrodollar Gulf Arab states of the Middle East. 
The strategy is built on three pillars – firstly, setting well-defined limits to the actual American intervention in military terms, secondly, resuscitating the ‘regime change’ agenda in Syria and, thirdly, dispensing with any mandate from the United Nations. In essence, it becomes a repackaged version of the crudely unilateralist US intervention in the Middle East by the George W. Bush administration. 
Clearly, Obama delayed the unveiling of his strategy until the public opinion in the US ‘matured’. Opinion polls show a high degree of approval rating in America for renewed US military intervention in Iraq and Syria. The gruesome killing of two American journalists by the Islamic State has no doubt inflamed public anger. But the main factor is the fear that has been injected into the American mind through weeks and months of media campaign projecting that the Islamic State posed a direct threat to the US’s ‘homeland security’. The ploy indeed worked, as the opinion polls testify. Obama’s timing is perfect, as he deftly chose the eve of the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to unveil his strategy before the American public. 
Curiously, however, with the ‘maturing’ of the public opinion successfully accomplished, Obama also took pains yesterday to scale down the fear psychosis in America by clarifying that the US has «not detected specific plotting against our [American] homeland» by the Islamic State although its leaders have «threatened America and our allies». Instead, he portrayed the Islamic State as posing threat to the «people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East – including American citizens, personnel and facilities». 
Clearly, not only has a sense of proportions been introduced that calms agitated American public opinion even as the country embarks upon another virtually open-ended war abroad, but Obama has found a rationale for recruiting the US’ Middle Eastern allies in the forthcoming war. Obama’s message to the American people is simple: ‘No need of anxiety syndrome, get on with your life, let your commander-in-chief handle this.’
In return, Obama held out the assurance that the parameters of the US military intervention will be well-defined. There will be «a systematic campaign of airstrikes» at the IS targets even as Iraqi forces go on offense; US will hunt down IS terrorists and increase its support to the Iraqi and Kurdish forces fighting the IS, including providing training and intelligence and equipment; Pentagon will deploy an additional 475 military personnel in Iraq (bringing the total to nearly 1600). But, «American forces will not have a combat mission – we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq». 
Obama underscored that the war ahead will be «different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil». Instead, as the US has been doing in Yemen and Somalia «for years», this war «will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out the ISIL wherever they exist, using our airpower and our support for partner forces on the ground». 
Obama stated that the US military operations directed against will extend into Syrian territory. He spelt out the strategy toward Syria, which is focused on ramping up military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Obama appealed to the US Congress to make available to him additional «authorities and resources to train and equip these [Syrian] fighters». In essence, a big escalation of the US intervention in Syria is in the offing. 
Obama bluntly rejected any notions of the US relying on the Syrian regime. He called it an illegitimate regime and also vowed to «solve Syria’s crisis once and for all». Simply put, the US will accelerate the push for regime change in Syria. 
Quite obviously, Washington realizes that it can never extract a mandate from the UN Security Council to bring about a ‘regime change’ in Syria in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. Obama, therefore, took a de tour and will simply chair a meeting of the UN Security Council later this month in New York «to further mobilize the international community» around his Iraq-Syria strategy. 
The US claims to have so far assembled a «core coalition» of eight North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] member countries (plus Australia) to fight the new war in the Middle East. But Obama said there is need of a «broad coalition of partners». He disclosed that accordingly, Secretary of State John Kerry is travelling across the Muslim Middle East «to enlist partners in this fight, especially Arab nations who can help mobilize Sunni communities in Iraq and Syria». He chose his words carefully, hinting that the US proposes to accord selective roles for the Shi’ites and Sunnis in the campaign against the IS. The most disconcerting part, of course, is the implied intention to enlist an active role on the Syrian theatre for countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. 
No doubt, the enlisting of the petrodollar states ensures that money is not going to be a problem for the US in waging this open-ended war. 
The New Middle East
Nonetheless, will Obama’s strategy work? Clearly, Obama’s strategy a cost-effective one and largely self-financing and might, therefore, be sustainable over a period of time. To be sure, there isn’t going to be any dearth of resources – financial or material or human – for fighting this war, given the involvement of the petrodollar states that have been pushing for regime change in Syria. 
The American public may not militate anytime soon against this war, either. The American strategic community – especially, the think tankers and the media – will also be largely supportive, since this war explicitly dovetails with Israeli interests. In fact, the US is reassembling the same old axis in the Middle East, comprising Israel and the Sunni Arab oligarchies of the Gulf region. At the same time, the US will not be accountable to the UN Security Council. It is a «coalition of the willing» that is fighting this war and internal dissent within that coalition is highly improbable, which in turn would ensure that Washington kept the command and control of this war. 
However, imponderables lie ahead. First and foremost, it is hugely significant that Obama avoided holding out any categorical affirmation of the unity of Iraq. He is also delightfully vague about what his expectations are out of an «inclusive» government in Baghdad. 
The point is, although Washington could engineer the replacement of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whether it still leads to Sunni reconciliation is far from clear as of now. This is important because the US strategy can work only if there is wholesome Iraqi Sunni mobilization against the IS. Or else, it may turn even uglier as sectarian strife continues to tear apart Iraq’s unity. 
But then, on the other hand, this also involves the question of Shi’ite empowerment in Iraq. Suffice to say, the US needs to invent some magical formula that refines the concept of democratic principles allowing majority rule in Iraq. Put differently, this is also a war that involves nation-building in Iraq and the US’s record in such enterprises abroad has been very dismal, to put it mildly. This is one thing. 
The most disconcerting part of this war is going to be its Syrian chapter. Perhaps, the US estimates that now that Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons have been destroyed, it is a safe bet to launch attacks on that country. Even assuming it is so, the Syrian opposition still remains a revolving door for extremist groups, as the saga of the Islamic State proves. The US has learnt nothing and still hopes to use extremist elements as instruments of regional policies. 
Indeed, failure comes at a very heavy cost, as Iraq and Syria in their present form may well cease to exist at the end of it all. Of course, the really intriguing part is that such a denouement may well be the US’s geopolitical objective. In a recent interview with the New York Times, Obama himself put his finger on the unraveling of the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 as the core issue of the Middle Eastern politics. 
Equally, Obama’s intention to recruit as allies «Arab nations who can help mobilize Sunni communities» virtually acknowledges the sectarian dimension to the conflicts in Iraq and Syria. Now, there is a complicated backdrop of regional politics playing out here, involving these every same Sunni Arab nations as key protagonists. Would Obama have some recipe to heal the regional tensions? He’s had nothing to say. Interestingly, not once did Obama refer to Iran, either. 
Obama’s strategy completely bypasses the UN and, in reality, undermines the UN Charter. He failed to convincingly explain the raison d’etre of this particular variant of US military intervention in the Muslim world – unilateralist but ‘risk-free’ and low-cost – since the US’ homeland security is not even in any imminent or conceivable danger. 
At the end of the day, the impression becomes unavoidable that the US continues to arrogate to itself the prerogative to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nation states on the basis of its self-interests. Indeed, that this hydra-headed war is going to assume many varied shapes as times passes and long after Obama disappears into history books is virtually guaranteed. 
Obama’s presidency has come full circle by reinventing the neocon dogmas it once professed to reject. On the pretext of fighting the IS, which the US and its allies created in the first instance, what is unfolding is a massive neocon project to remold the Muslim Middle East to suit the US’ geopolitical objectives. Call it by whatever name, it is an imperial war – albeit with a Nobel as commander-in-chief.

Melkulangara BHADRAKUMAR
Former career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. Devoted much of his 3-decade long career to the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran desks in the Ministry of External Affairs and in assignments on the territory of the former Soviet Union.  After leaving the diplomatic service, took to writing and contribute to The Asia Times, The Hindu and Deccan Herald. Lives in New Delhi.

Tags: Al Qaeda Middle East US Obama

Völker-und verfassungsrechtlicher Einspruch: 4. Deutsches U-Boot «Tanin» unterwegs nach Israel

dpadpa – Mo., 8. Sep 2014 19:11 MESZ
Ein U-Boot der vergrößerten Dolphin-Klasse 212 A auf dem Gelände der Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft in Kiel. Foto: Markus Scholz/Archiv
Ein viertes U-Boot aus Deutschland ist unterwegs nach Israel. Das U-Boot der Dolphin-Klasse mit Namen «Tanin» (hebräisch für Krokodil) habe den Hafen in Kiel verlassen und werde sein Ziel in rund 20 Tagen erreichen, teilte die israelische Armee mit.
An Bord sei eine 50-köpfige Crew. Es sei das erste israelische U-Boot, das über eine außenluftunabhängige Antriebsanlage verfüge. Damit könne es auch in großen Entfernungen eingesetzt werden und sehr lange Zeit unter Wasser bleiben.
Der israelische Generalmajor Ram Rutberg habe bei einer Übergabezeremonie in Kiel gesagt, das U-Boot könne «weiter und tiefer tauchen und sicher heimkommen». Der Leiter des Tanin-Projekts, Oberst A., sagte: «In den vergangenen Monaten hat die U-Boot-Crew unter schwierigen Bedingungen in Ost- und Nordsee trainiert, und ist bereit, ihre herausfordernde Aufgabe zu erfüllen.»
Die von ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems übergebene «Tanin» ist das größte je in Deutschland gebaute U-Boot und soll mehr als eine Milliarde Euro kosten. Ein Drittel davon übernimmt die Bundesregierung. Die Lieferung von U-Booten nach Israel ist umstritten, weil nach Meinung von Experten eine Nachrüstung mit Atomwaffen möglich ist. Damit gelten die U-Boote als wichtiger Teil der israelischen Abschreckung gegenüber Teheran, durch das Israel sich existenziell bedroht fühlt. Drei deutsche U-Boote wurden bereits nach Israel geliefert.

Warum der Westen an der Ukraine-Krise schuld ist

Man muss nicht alle Aussagen des Herrn Professor Mearsheimer für annehmbar und der Wirklichkeit entsprechend befinden, um seine Generalthese mit Nachdruck zu unterstreichen

Mearsheimervon John J. Mearsheimer*

Warum der Westen an der Ukraine-Krise schuld ist

Im Westen gilt es als gesicherte Erkenntnis, dass an der Ukraine-Krise massgeblich die aggressive Haltung der Russen schuld ist.

* Um seine  Position zu würdigen, sollte man seine Biografie bedenken, die erklärt, warum der Mann nur teilweise recht hat:

Mearsheimer wurde im Dezember 1947 in Brooklyn, New York geboren und wuchs bis zum achten Lebensjahr in New York City auf, bis seine Eltern nach Croton on Hudson umzogen.[3]

Im Alter von 17 Jahren ging Mearsheimer zur Armee. Nach einem Jahr entschied er sich, die Militärakademie in West Point zu besuchen, wo er von 1966 bis 1970 blieb. Nach seinem Abschluss diente er fünf Jahre als Offizier in der Luftwaffe.[4][5]
In dieser Zeit erwarb er den Master-Abschluss in Internationalen Beziehungen von der University of Southern California. Danach studierte er an der Cornell University und erwarb 1980 seinen Ph.D. in Regierungslehre mit besonderem Schwerpunkt auf Internationalen Beziehungen. Von 1978 bis 1979 arbeitete er als Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter an derBrookings Institution in Washington, D.C.; von 1980 bis 1982 war er Assistent am Center for International Affairs an der Harvard University. Von 1998 bis 1999 war er Mitarbeiter amCouncil on Foreign Relations in New York.[3]

Syrian Arab News Agency

Churkin: US strikes at ISIS in Syria without consent from Syrian government would hinder international efforts to counter terrorism

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page
Moscow, SANA – Russian Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin warned against the US decision to launch air strikes at the positions of the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) in Syria without consent from the Syrian government.
” This  decision will complicate international efforts in countering terrorism,” Churkin said Wednesday as he spoke live on the Rossiya’24 news channel, adding that the decision’s implementation will pose problems for Russia as well as for many other countries respecting international law, including China.
Churkin warned that the current western campaign against Russia would add more new complications to the international community’s efforts to counteract ISIS.
H. Zain/ Ghossoun

Obama plant Luftangriff gegen Syrien - breiter Widerstand im Repräsentantenhaus! Frankreichs Präsident Hollands zögerlich - Deutschland zurückhaltend - Sagen auch wir Bürger laut NEIN!


vom 08.09.13

Obama will Syrien drei Tage lang bombardieren

Der US-Einsatz gegen Diktator Assad soll länger dauern als bekannt –
offenbar plant US-Präsident Obama einen mehrtägigen Angriff.
Dabei soll auch ein Flugzeugträger im Roten Meer zum Einsatz kommen.

Ein Bomber vom Typ F-18-Hornet startet vom Flugzeugträger „USS Nimitz“ im Persischen Golf. Zu solchen Einsätzen könnte es auch in wenigen Tagen gegen Assad kommen
Foto: REUTERSEin Bomber vom Typ F-18 Hornet startet vom Flugzeugträger "USS Nimitz" im Persischen Golf. Zu solchen Einsätzen könnte es auch in wenigen Tagen gegen Assad kommen
Die USA planen offenbar einen intensiveren und längeren Militäreinsatz in Syrien als bislang bekannt. Wie die Zeitung "Los Angeles Times" am Sonntag unter Berufung auf zwei US-Regierungsvertreter berichtete, bat das Weiße Haus das Verteidigungsministerium um eine erweiterte Liste mit "vielen weiteren" als den bislang vorgesehenen rund 50 Zielen für Angriffe in Syrien. Ziel sei es, zusätzliche Feuerkraft zu mobilisieren, um den stark zerstreuten Streitkräften von Machthaber Baschar al-Assad Schaden zuzufügen.
Das Pentagon plant dem Bericht zufolge nun, Luftwaffen-Bomber, fünf im Mittelmeer stationierte Zerstörer sowie außerhalb der syrischen Flugabwehr abgefeuerte Marschflugkörper und Luft-Boden-Raketen einzusetzen. Zudem könne auch der Flugzeugträger "Nimitz", der mit einem Kreuzer und drei Zerstörern im Roten Meer patrouilliert, Marschflugkörper abfeuern.
Nach jedem Einsatz werde es eine Auswertung geben, welche Ziele verfehlt worden seien, sowie gegebenenfalls weitere Angriffe, und "das alles binnen 72 Stunden", sagte ein mit der Planung vertrauter US-Vertreter der Zeitung.

Werben im Kongress

Wenige Tage vor entscheidenden Kongress-Abstimmungen zieht US-Präsident Barack Obama alle Register, um Zustimmung zum geplanten Militärschlag gegen Syrien zu erreichen.
Deutschland hat sich erst nachträglich einer von den USA eingebrachten Erklärung angeschlossen. Vorausgegangen war am Samstag die Einigung der EU-Außenminister in Vilnius auf eine gemeinsame Haltung zu den Angriffsplänen der USA gegen das Assad-Regime.
Dem Weißen Haus zufolge plant Obama an diesem Montag Interviews mit sechs Fernsehsendern, bevor er sich dann am Dienstagabend aus dem Oval Office an die Nation wenden wird.
Zugleich wollen der Präsident und sein Sicherheitsteam ihre Serie von Einzeltelefonaten und Hintergrundgesprächen hinter verschlossenen Türen mit Kongressmitgliedern fortsetzen. Die "New York Times" sprach vom größten Einsatz dieser Art seit 2009, als Obama seine Gesundheitsreform im Kongress durchboxen musste.

Kongress könnte Waffengang nicht billigen

Laut US-Medien muss Obama derzeit befürchten, dass der Kongress einen Waffengang als Antwort auf den mutmaßlichen Giftgasangriff des syrischen Regimes gegen Zivilisten vom 21. August nicht billigen wird. Demnach zeichnet sich vor allem im Repräsentantenhaus breiter Widerstand ab.
218 Abgeordnete hätten bereits zu erkennen gegeben, dass sie gegen eine Militäraktion stimmen werden oder zu einer Ablehnung neigen. Die nötige Mehrheit für eine Billigung oder Ablehnung liegt bei 217.
Im Senat stehen die Chancen zwar besser, aber auch hier muss Obama zittern. Senat und Abgeordnetenhaus kehren am Montag aus den Sommerferien nach Washington zurück. Noch in der laufenden Woche könnte dann zumindest der Senat über eine Resolution abstimmen, die einen begrenzten Militärschlag gegen das Regime von Baschar al-Assad billigt. Wie der Zeitplan im Abgeordnetenhaus aussieht, blieb zunächst unklar.

Deutschland sorgte für Aufsehen

US-Außenminister John Kerry machte in Paris klar, dass sich Obama noch nicht festgelegt habe, ob er mit einem Militärschlag auf das Ende der laufenden Untersuchungen der UN-Inspektoren warten will. Frankreichs Präsident François Hollande hatte am Freitag überraschend angekündigt, vor einem Schlag gegen Syrien den Bericht der UN-Chemiewaffeninspektoren abwarten zu wollen.
Die Weigerung Deutschlands, sich noch am Freitag der am Rande des G-20-Gipfels in St. Petersburg präsentierten Erklärung anzuschließen, sorgte für Aufsehen. Während die Bundesregierung darauf verwies, zunächst einen innereuropäischen Konsens erzielen zu wollen, billigten die anderen großen EU-Staaten Großbritannien, Frankreich, Italien und Spanien nach US-Angaben unmittelbar die Erklärung.
Mit Blick auf den mutmaßlichen Giftgas-Einsatz bei Damaskus wird darin zu "einer starken internationalen Antwort auf diesen schweren Verstoß gegen weltweit gültige Normen" aufgerufen. Ein Militärschlag wird in der Erklärung nicht ausdrücklich erwähnt.

Russland und China mauern weiter

Im Weltsicherheitsrat haben sich die Vetomächte Russland und China bislang allen Anstrengungen widersetzt, Sanktionen gegen das Assad-Regime zu verhängen. "Präsident Obama ist von den Amerikanern nicht gewählt worden, um Russland zu gefallen", schrieb der amerikanische Botschafter in Moskau, Michael McFaul, im Kurznachrichtendienst Twitter.
2011 hatte Deutschland mit seiner Entscheidung zu einer Libyen-Resolution im Weltsicherheitsrat für Befremden gesorgt. Damals wurde ein Waffenembargo bestätigt und eine Flugverbotszone erlaubt. Deutschland stimmte dieser Resolution nicht zu, sondern enthielt sich – ebenso wie China und Russland.
In der Erklärung der EU-Minister heißt es, das Assad-Regime verfüge als einziges über die Bestandteile der Chemiewaffen und sei auch zu deren Einsatz in größeren Mengen in der Lage. "Eine klare und starke Antwort ist wichtig, um klarzustellen, dass solche Verbrechen inakzeptabel sind und sie nicht ungestraft bleiben können."

Iran warnt den Westen erneut

Der Wunsch nach einem Aufschub der US-Militäraktion bis zur Vorlage des Berichts der UN-Chemiewaffeninspektoren taucht im Text der Erklärung nur indirekt auf.
Der Iran hat die Europäische Union vor einer Unterstützung eines US-Militäreinsatzes gegen das syrische Regime gewarnt. Dort warte ein Minenfeld, sagte der iranische Parlamentspräsident Ali Laridschani am Sonntag.
Laridschani bezog sich auf die gemeinsame Erklärung der EU-Außenminister in Vilnius zur Lösung des Syrien-Konflikts.
"Die Amerikaner sind sich nicht bewusst, dass der Anfang dieser Krise vielleicht einfach erscheint, das Ende aber sehr höllisch werden könnte", sagte Laridschani nach Angaben der Agentur Isna. Der Iran steht im Syrien-Konflikt auf der Seite von Präsident Baschar al-Assad.
Die USA planen Militärschläge als Vergeltung für den mutmaßlichen Einsatz von Giftgas durch das syrische Regime. "Ein Krieg in Syrien würde in der Region zu einem Flächenbrand führen, und die EU wird dieses Feuer definitiv nicht löschen können", sagte Laridschani.
Appell und Gebet gegen Militärschlag in Syrien

Pope at Vatican for the prayer vigil for peace in Syria
Vor einer eindrucksvollen Kulisse am Samstagabend in Rom:
Foto: dpaQuelle:l

Oppose Impending Air Strike on Syria!

Does Obama Plan To Announce the Bombing Of Syria On the Eve of the 9/11 Anniversary?

As the thirteenth anniversary of 9/11 draws closer so does the possibility that the United States and NATO will finally be able to realize their dream of direct airstrikes against the secular government of Bashar Al-Assad’s Syria.
After years of propaganda alleging Assad’s “brutality against his own people” and a recent volley of “ISIS is under the bed”-style hype, complete with beheadings, forced starvations, and other savagery, the American people remain utterly befuddled regarding the true nature of events taking place inside Syria, Iraq, and virtually every other country in the world, including their own. As a result, the buildup to a Western bombing campaign against Syria, while rejected by the general public only a year ago, will now likely move full steam ahead with the tacit support of the population.
Thus, as the thirteenth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, U.S. President Barack Obama is planning to make a dramatic statement regarding his strategy to combat ISIS in both Iraq and Syria.
Although Obama has repeatedly stated that he will not commit U.S. troops to either Iraq or Syria, the possibility of “targeted airstrikes” or aerial bombardment is by no means off the table. Of course, it is also important to point out that Obama has already broken his promise regarding boots on the ground in Iraq with the deployment of at least 1,100 American personnel in the Middle Eastern nation.
Still, as the Detroit Free Press reports, “The plan is expected to involve an expansion of air strikes in Iraq that began in August. Obama is also likely to discuss a coalition of allies that has been assembled in opposition to the Islamic State, and to brace Americans for the possibility that the battle could take years.” In other words, Obama is once again channeling his inner George W. Bush in promoting war with no end against a sovereign state who is the victim of Anglo-American meddling and Western-backed terrorism.
The DFP also states that “In his speech, the president may also discuss the long-term potential for air strikes in Syria, though military action in that country is not considered imminent.”
In a recent interview with NBC’s Meet The Press, Obama stated that he expected Syrians to battle ISIS on their own land. Obama said “In terms of controlling territory, we’re going to have to develop a moderate Sunni opposition that can control territory and that we can work with. The notion that the United States should be putting boots on the ground, I think would be a profound mistake. And I want to be very clear and very explicit about that.”
Obama’s statement is quite interesting considering the fact that his administration claims to have been doing just that – developing a moderate Sunni opposition that can control territory and that we can work with – since 2011. So either his upcoming speech will simply be more repetition of tired talking points that serve to cover up the fact that the West is backing ISIS or it will be admission that there is no moderate opposition inside Syria which would reveal that the U.S. has been backing ISIS all along.
All of this, of course, will simply go over the heads of Americans more focused on “supporting the troops” and football stats than the slaughter of thousands of people overseas or a potential nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. 
There Are No Moderates In Syria
In reality, the so-called “opposition” in Syria is anything but moderate. As Tony Cartalucci wrote in his article, “In Syria, There Are No Moderates,”

. . . . . there were never, nor are there any “moderates” operating in Syria. The West has intentionally armed and funded Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremists since as early as 2007 in preparation for an engineered sectarian bloodbath serving US-Saudi-Israeli interests. This latest bid to portray the terrorists operating along and within Syria’s borders as “divided” along extremists/moderate lines is a ploy to justify the continued flow of Western cash and arms into Syria to perpetuate the conflict, as well as create conditions along Syria’s borders with which Western partners, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, can justify direct military intervention.
Indeed, even the New York Times has been forced to admit that there are, as Cartalucci expertly argues in his article, no moderates in the ranks of the Syrian death squads. As Ben Hubbard wrote in April, 2013,
In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.
Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.
Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.[emphasis added]
ISIS Is Controlled By NATO
It is important to point out that the Islamic State is not some shadowy force that emerged from the caves of Afghanistan to form an effective military force that is funded by Twitter donations and murky secretive finance deals. IS is entirely the creation of NATO and the West and it remains in control of the organization.
As Tony Cartalucci writes in his article “Implausible Deniability: West’s ISIS Terror Hordes In Iraq,”
Beginning in 2011 – and actually even as early as 2007 – the United States has been arming, funding, and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and a myriad of armed terrorist organizations to overthrow the government of Syria, fight Hezbollah in Lebanon, and undermine the power and influence of Iran, which of course includes any other government or group in the MENA region friendly toward Tehran.
Image: ISIS corridors begin in Turkey and end in Baghdad. [image credit: Land Destroyer]
Billions in cash have been funneled into the hands of terrorist groups including Al Nusra, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and what is now being called “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” or ISIS. One can see clearly by any map of ISIS held territory that it butts up directly against Turkey’s borders with defined corridors ISIS uses to invade southward – this is because it is precisely from NATO territory this terrorist scourge originated.
ISIS was harbored on NATO territory, armed and funded by US CIA agents with cash and weapons brought in from the Saudis, Qataris, and NATO members themselves. The “non-lethal aid” the US and British sent including the vehicles we now see ISIS driving around in.
They didn’t “take” this gear from “moderates.” There were never any moderates to begin with. The deadly sectarian genocide we now see unfolding was long ago predicted by those in the Pentagon – current and former officials – interviewed in 2007 by Pulitzer Prize-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh.
Hersh’s 9-page 2007 report, “The Redirection” states explicitly:
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
“Extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam” and are “sympathetic to Al Qaeda” – is a verbatim definition of what ISIS is today. Clearly the words of Hersh were as prophetic as they were factually informed, grounded in the reality of a regional conflict already engineered and taking shape as early as 2007. Hersh’s report would also forewarn the sectarian nature of the coming conflict, and in particular mention the region’s Christians who were admittedly being protected by Hezbollah.
While Hersh’s report was written in 2007, knowledge of the plan to use death squads to target Middle Eastern countries, particularly Syria, had been reported on even as far back as 2005 by Michael Hirsh and John Barry for Newsweek in an article entitled “The Salvador Option.”
Regardless, Cartalucci states in a separate article, “NATO’s Terror Hordes In Iraq A Pretext For Syria Invasion,”
In actuality, ISIS is the product of a joint NATO-GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] conspiracy stretching back as far as 2007 where US-Saudi policymakers sought to ignite a region-wide sectarian war to purge the Middle East of Iran’s arch of influence stretching from its borders, across Syria and Iraq, and as far west as Lebanon and the coast of the Mediterranean. ISIS has been harbored, trained, armed, and extensively funded by a coalition of NATO and Persian Gulf states within Turkey’s (NATO territory) borders and has launched invasions into northern Syria with, at times, both Turkish artillery and air cover. The most recent example of this was the cross-border invasion by Al Qaeda into Kasab village, Latikia province in northwest Syria.
Cartalucci is referring to a cross-border invasion that was coordinated with NATO, Turkey, Israel, and the death squads where Israel acted as air force cover while Turkey facilitated the death squad invasion from inside its own borders.
Airstrikes Will Be Directed At Assad
Despite all the browbeating by the Western media suggesting that any targeted airstrikes would be strikes against ISIS, the truth is that the airstrikes are actually aimed at the Syrian government. The United States allowed ISIS to conquer Iraqi territory so as to justify the eventual invasion of Syria in addition to the reinvasion of Iraq. Indeed, any deployment of American troops, airstrikes, or any other type of US military force, will necessitate a battle against ISIS inside Iraq as well as “cross-border” strikes against the organization in Syria. Such “cross-border” strikes would likely be met with apathetic support from the American people since any restraint regarding borders will be presented and then viewed as placing “handcuffs on the troops.”
Make no mistake, however, any military action taken across the border inside Syria will not be taken for the purposes of eliminating ISIS. The truth is that such military action will be nothing more than a backdoor attempt at establishing the “buffer zone” that NATO so ardently desired early on in the Syrian conflict. With the establishment of this “buffer zone,” a new staging ground will be opened that allows terrorists such as ISIS and others the ability to conduct attacks even deeper inside Syria.
ISIS Attack On Taqba Airbase – The Precursor To A NATO Attack On Syria
Keeping in mind that ISIS is controlled and directed by NATO and Western intelligence, the fact that the death squads have recently focused on the Taqba Airbase in Raqqa province is significant. Particularly when viewed in context of the recent “debate” taking place in front of the American public by the Obama administration on whether or not to engage in targeted airstrikes inside Syria.
For those who may not see the pattern – while the United States and NATO deliberated engaging in targeted airstrikes in Syria and the Syrian government subsequently states its opposition to those attacks and its intentions to shoot down the planes delivering those strikes if they do not coordinate with the Syrian government, death squads have effectively eliminated the air defense capability of the Syrian government in the east of the country.
After all, the Pentagon even stated that one of the biggest threats to an airstrike operation in Syria is the Syrian government’s air defenses. Thanks to ISIS, those air defenses no longer exist in the east of Syria.
This was the end game of the ISIS battle to take over Taqba from the start – eliminate air defenses so that the NATO powers can launch airstrikes against the Syrian military and thus freeing up a launching pad for the terrorists to conduct attacks even deeper into Syria.
With the James Foley beheading video being largely understood as a staged propaganda ploy as well the fact that ISIS and its related terrorist organizations are funded, directed, and trained by the United States and NATO, it is imperative that the American people speak out and oppose the impending strike on Syria.
So far, on this particular issue, American apathy has largely contributed to preventing a war.
Unfortunately, with slightly more clever propaganda narratives, that apathy has been converted over to the benefit of the world oligarchy.
Thus, while apathy may have prevented the desire for a fight the first time around, that same apathy may well serve to allow one the second.


  7  1