₦airaland Forum

[size=18pt]Netanyahu’s Big Gamble[/size]
March 2, 2015

By going over President Obama’s head to Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is taking a big gamble, apparently hoping that he can block any U.S. rapprochement with Iran and heighten tensions in the Middle East, a strategy that lacks both facts and logic, says Ted Snider.

By Ted Snider

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Iranian policy not only doesn’t make sense, it is becoming a threat to Israel’s own self interest. The Iran policy suffers from a self-defeating paradox.

Netanyahu seems to believe that preventing America from making a nuclear deal with Iran — and, indeed, preventing America from any dealing with Iran — is essential to maintaining Israel’s special relationship with America. But his very action of preventing America from making a nuclear deal with Iran is threatening Israel’s special relationship with America.

https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/netanyahu-protective-edge.jpg
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Aug. 6, 2014, announced the success of Operation Protective Edge, which killed some2,000 Gazans. Netanyahu said, "The goal of Operation Protective Edge was and remains to protect Israeli civilians." (Israeli government photo)



The determination to isolate Iran and vilify it in the international community makes no sense, and the indictment is riddled with false premises.

The first flaw in the case is the very insistence by Netanyahu that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. Netanyahu has long warned that Iran is rounding the corner on the road to the nuclear bomb. But his due dates have come and gone. Why? According to the U.S., it’s because Iran is not building a nuclear bomb.

National Intelligence Estimates (N.I.E.) represent the collective conclusions of the top analysts of all of America’s many intelligence agencies. The 2007 N.I.E. said with “high confidence” that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 (there is no evidence that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program before 2003 either). That conclusion has been “revalidated every year,” according to former CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

The most recent N.I.E. delivered by the intelligence community provides even “more evidence to support that assessment,” according to sources of investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. General James Clapper, who was responsible for preparing the N.I.E., said that “the bottom-line assessments of the [2007] N.I.E. still hold true. We have not seen indications that the government has made the decision to move ahead with the program.”

When Senate Armed Service Committee chair Carl Levin asked General Clapper if the level of confidence that Iran has not restarted a nuclear weapons program was high, Clapper answered, “Yes, it is.” Hersh quotes a retired senior intelligence officer as saying “none of our efforts –informants, penetrations, planting of sensors — leads to a bomb.”

But that’s American intelligence? Perhaps Israeli intelligence disagrees. But it has long been know that it does not. Yuval Diskin, the man who headed Shin Bet, the Israeli domestic intelligence agency, for six years, accused Prime Minister Netanyahu of “misleading the public on the Iran issue.”

Lieutenant-General Benny Gantz, then Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, insisted that Iran has not “made the decision” to pursue a nuclear weapons program and that the “Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people” who are unlikely to build a bomb.

Netanyahu only knows what his intelligence community tells him. They are his eyes and ears, and we only know what our eyes and ears tell us. But perhaps Netanyahu’s certainty that Iran is building a bomb comes from higher up in his defense department.

Not according to then Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who has clearly stated that “it is not the case” that “Iran is determined to . . . attempt to obtain nuclear weapons . . . as quickly as possible.” He then added rhetorically, “To do that, Iran would have to announce it is leaving the inspection regime . . . . Why haven’t they done that?”

So how does Netanyahu know Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb? He doesn’t.

Failed Predictions

In September 2012, Netanyahu gave his memorable UN address in which he insisted that Iran was 70 percent of the way to completing its “plans to build a nuclear weapon,” and that “by next spring, at most by next summer, at current enrichment rates, [Iran] will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage.”

A month later, Mossad, the Israeli foreign intelligence agency, was telling South Africa in a classified assessment that Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons,” and that Iran “doesn’t appear to be ready to enrich uranium to the higher levels needed for a nuclear bomb.”

On a historical timeline, Netanyahu’s public international insistence that Iran was nearly finished building a nuclear bomb would overlap with his intelligence agency’s private “bottom line” assessment that it was not.

The second premise of Netanyahu’s argument against Iran is that it is not only pursuing a nuclear bomb, but that it would constitute a serious existential threat to Israel if it had one, because Iran had threatened “to wipe Israel off the map.”

Leaving aside that Iran has a new administration now, despite the stubbornly persistent reportage by the media and charges by politicians, the former Iranian administration under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never threatened “to wipe Israel off the map.”

The mistranslation has been irresponsibly repeated despite the constant authoritative corrections. Amongst the translation errors, Iranian expert Trita Parsi states that “Ahmadinejad’s statement has generally been mistranslated to read, ‘Wipe Israel off the map.’ Ahmadinejad never used the word ‘Israel’ but rather the ‘occupying regime of Jerusalem,’ which is a reference to the Israeli regime and not necessarily to the country.”

Not only is the “Israel” part mistranslated, but so is the “wiped off the map” part. The line, according to Flint Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, is properly translated as, “this regime occupying Jerusalem must disappear from the page of time.” This statement is a reference to a wish for a future time when the Israeli government no longer occupies Palestinian territory. This wish is not for the end of the state of Israel or her people, but for the end of the occupation, and is not, therefore, a threat of aggression, but a wish no different from the official wish of the United States.

Jonathan Steele adds that Ahmadinejad went on to make an analogy between the elimination of the regime occupying Jerusalem and the fall of the Shah of Iran, clearly showing that he is wishing for a regime change and not the elimination of a nation and her people, unless he is suicidally wishing for the elimination of himself and his own country.

And it is not just Iran experts who deny Ahmadinejad’s murderous wish for Israel. Dan Meridor, Israeli minister of intelligence and atomic energy and the deputy prime minister at the time, admitted to his Al Jazeera interviewer that “They didn’t say ‘we’ll wipe it out.’ You are right.”

Not only did Iran not threaten to annihilate Israel, it promised to recognize and open relations with Israel. At the 2002 Arab League Summit, Iran was among the signatories of the Saudi Peace Initiative that promised to recognize the State of Israel and establish normal relations with it in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territory and a just settlement for Palestinian refugees. The initiative was reaffirmed in 2009.

In Search of Logic

So Netanyahu’s Iran policy makes little sense. Neither does his strategy for approaching that policy. Netanyahu has recently vowed to “act in every way to foil the bad and dangerous agreement” between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus German). But his promise to sabotage the talks has backfired, and his efforts seem, not to have slowed talks between America and Iran, but, instead, threatened the special relationship between Israel and America that his efforts at sabotage are meant to protect.

It has not only placed the two allies in a position of “very real differences,” as President Obama called it, it has led to Israel being cut out of the loop: an extraordinary shift in the relationship between two countries who seemed to share everything on Iran and the Iran negotiations. Because the Obama administration now believes that Netanyahu has cherry-picked sensitive details about the nuclear negotiations and leaked the misleading information to Israeli journalists, it has now begun to limit the scope, quality and depth of the information it shares with Israel.

So, rather than preserving or enhancing the special relationship between the two countries, the U.S. administration now perceives them as having “a conflict of interest regarding the Iranian issue.” Netanyahu’s Iran strategy seems to make no sense because, in his attempt to hang on to the special relationship with the U.S., his attempts to sabotage America’s pursuit of its own foreign policy issues seems to have had precisely the opposite effect. America now sees Israel as a saboteur who is not allied with its interests but in conflict with them.

Netanyahu’s acceptance of the Republican back-door invitation to address Congress has only enhanced this rift in the relationship. In the past, AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) could count on having its policy conference being “attended by more members of Congress than almost any other event, except for a joint session of Congress or a State of the Union address.”

However, the Israeli Prime Minister’s willingness to offer himself as an alternative to the American President in the American Congress has led to several members of Congress staying away from the AIPAC conference this year.

But the change in the relationship is not only demonstrated by the congressional absences. This year’s American delegation will be headed by national security advisor Susan Rice and U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power, both of whom will speak at the conference. Though both speakers are high-ranking officials, the delegation seems to telegraph an important downgrade from recent years when President Obama, Vice-President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry addressed the AIPAC conference. It is also telling that no high-ranking U.S. official will agree to meet with Netanyahu while he is in Washington.

Netanyahu’s actions seem to expose an Israeli vulnerability. The special relationship between Israel and the United States sprouted in the latter half of the 1960s and continued to grow throughout the Cold War when the U.S. feared Soviet encroachment into the Middle East. Different Middle Eastern states allied with different super powers, and, in return, the different super powers protected different Middle Eastern states.

Israel also feared Soviet influence in the region. In particular, Israel feared Egypt’s relationship with the U.S.S.R., the U.S.S.R.’s protection of Egypt and the possibility of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser spreading a pan-Arab communism in the Middle East. Israel offered itself as a bulwark against Soviet expansion and interference with American interests in the Middle East.

From the American perspective, then, the special relationship with Israel is based in large part on Israel being a regional ally to American foreign policy interests. If Israel takes a conflicting interest to that of America’s foreign policy interests and even goes so far as to attempt to sabotage them, then the value of the special relationship becomes questionable from an American perspective.

Recently, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan has said that Netanyahu’s sabotaging of American interests has put Israel at “intolerable” risk. Dagan said that “An Israeli prime minister who enters into conflict with an American administration must ask himself what are the risks. . . . The veto umbrella provided by the Americans could vanish, and Israel would promptly find itself facing international sanctions. The risks in this confrontation are intolerable.”

And now Dagan has been joined by 200 retired and reserve officers all with a rank equivalent to general. The group, calling itself Commanders for Israel’s Security, says that Netanyahu has become a “danger” to Israel and that he is “wreck[ing] our strategic interests with our closest ally.”

Finally, Netanyahu’s approach to Iran now faces one more vulnerability. The recent U.S. trial of Jeffrey Sterling has made it clear to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that countries hostile to Iran could “plant a ‘smoking gun’ in Iran for the IAEA to find.” This real possibility may lead the IAEA to reassess some of the evidence that it has used to criticize Iran.

As James Risen revealed in State of War, the CIA passed on flawed nuclear blueprints in a bungled attempt to lead Iranian nuclear scientists down the wrong road, revealing the possibility that other documents were planted in Iran. If the IAEA reassesses evidence it has used against Iran to see if they are fake, there could be more damage to Israel from its anti-Iran strategy. Several of the most damaging pieces of evidence against Iran – including laptop documents about sites at Parchin and Marivan – have been suspected of being Israeli forgeries, as argued by Gareth Porter in his book Manufactured Crisis and, more recently, elsewhere. Revelation of Israeli forgeries to implicate Iran could damage Israel and backfire in its attempt to convict Iran of duplicitously building nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu’s Iran policy makes little sense, not only because of the questionable veracity of its premises, but, perhaps even more importantly, because of the self-defeating nature of the strategy. In an attempt to preserve Israel’s value to America after the end of the Cold War and the withdrawal of Russia as a threat to the Middle East, Netanyahu seems to perceive the need to maintain Iran as a threat to American interests to maintain the need for Israel as a friendly and powerful partner in the region.

But in pursuing the strategy of preserving the perception of the Iranian threat in order to maintain the special relationship with the United States, Netanyahu is pursuing strategies that sabotage America’s own foreign policy interests and jeopardize the very special relationship with the United States that the strategy is meant to preserve.

Ted Snider has a graduate degree in philosophy and writes on analyzing patterns in U.S. foreign policy and history.

https://www.nairaland.com/1486128/biggest-scam-history-mankind-hidden

The biggest scam in the history of mankind. Make sure you watch

Hmmm...

Obviously speeches like this will never see the light of day in western MSM, since it shows Iran leader to be sensible and reasonable!

Another Fake Bin Laden Story — Paul Craig Roberts
November 7, 2014 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: | Print This Article Print This Article

Another Fake Bin Laden Story

Paul Craig Roberts

RT, one of my favorite news sources, has fallen for a fake story put out by the Pentagon to support the fantasy story that a SEAL team killed Osama bin Laden, who died a second time in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a decade after his first death from illness and disease. http://rt.com/usa/202895-navy-seal-shot-binladen/

This fake story together with the fake movie and the fake book by an alleged SEAL team member is the way the fake story of bin Laden’s murder is perpetrated. Bin Laden’s alleged demise at the hands of a SEAL team was a propaganda orchestration, the purpose of which was to give Obama a hero’s laurels and deep six Democratic talk of challenging his nomination for a second term.

Osama bin Laden died in December 2001 of renal failure and other health problems, having denied in his last recorded video any responsibility for 9/11, instead directing Americans to look inside their own government. The FBI itself has stated that there is no evidence that Osama bin Laden is responsible for 9/11. Bin Laden’s obituary appeared in numerous foreign and Arabic press, and also on Fox News. No one can survive renal failure for a decade, and no dialysis machine was found in the alleged Abbottabad compound of bin Laden, who allegedly was murdered by SEALs a decade after his obituary notices.

Additionally, no one among the crew of the ship from which the White House reported bin Laden was buried at sea saw any such burial, and the sailors sent messages home to that effect. Somehow a burial was held onboard a ship on which there are constant watches and crew on alert at all hours, and no one witnessed it.

Additionally, the White House story of the alleged murder of bin Laden changed twice within the first 24 hours. The claim that Obama and his government watched the action transmitted live from cameras on the SEALs’ helmets was quickly abandoned, despite the release of a photo of the Obama regime intently focused on a TV set and alleged to be watching the live action. No video of the deed was ever released. To date there is no evidence whatsoever in behalf of the Obama regime’s claim. Not one tiny scrap. Just unsubstantiated self-serving claims.

Additionally, as I have made available on my website, witnesses interviewed by Pakistan TV reported that only one helicopter landed in Abbottabad and that when the occupants of the helicopter returned from the alleged bin Laden compound, the helicopter exploded on takeoff and there were no survivors. In other words, there was no bin Laden corpse to deliver to the ship that did not witness a burial and no SEAL hero to return who allegedly murdered an unarmed bin Laden. Moreover, the BBC interviewed residents in Abbottabad, including those next door to the alleged “bin Laden compound,” and all say that they knew the person who lived there and it was not bin Laden.

Any SEAL who was so totally stupid as to kill the unarmed “Terror Mastermind” would probably have been courtmartialed for incompetency. Look at the smiling face of the man Who Killed Bin Laden. He thinks that his claim that he murdered a man makes him a hero, a powerful comment on the moral degeneracy of Americans.

So what is this claim by Rob O’Neill about? He is presented as a “motivational speaker” in search of clients. What better ploy among gullible Americans than to claim “I am the one who shot bin Laden.” Reminds me of the western movie: The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. What better way to give Rob O’Neill’s claim validity than for the Pentagon to denounce his revelation for breaking obligation to remain silent. The Pentagon claims that O’Neill by claiming credit has painted a big target sign on our door asking ISIS to come get us

What unbelievable nonsense. ISIS and anyone who believed Obama’s claim to have done in bin Laden already knew, if they believed the lie, that the Obama regime claimed responsibility for murdering an unarmed bin Laden. The reason the SEAL team was prevented from talking is that no member of the team was on the alleged mission,

Just as the ship from which bin Laden was allegedly buried has no witnesses to the deed, the SEAL unit, whose members formed the team that allegedly dispatched an unarmed Terrorist Mastermind rather than to take him into custody for questioning, mysteriously died in a helicopter crash when they were loaded in violation of procedures in an unprotected 1960s vintage helicopter and sent into a combat zone in Afghanistan shortly after the alleged raid on “bin Laden’s compound.”

For awhile there were news reports that the families of these dead SEALS do not believe one word of the government’s account. Moreover, the families reported receiving messages from the SEALs that suddenly they felt threatened and did not know why. The SEALs had been asking one another: “Were you on the bin Laden mission?” Apparently, none were. And to keep this a secret, the SEALs were sent to their deaths.

Anyone who believes anything the US government says is gullible beyond the meaning of the word.

Well, ain't that something? Blacks, still living their part of being treated less than human..

I am quite disappointed - but not surprised - that this is not getting the attention and scrutiny that it deserves.

From the very beginning I had wondered what the genesis of this Ebola outbreak in West Africa was. How a disease that is known only to eastern and and central Africa suddenly emerged in West Africa? How this happens to be a completely different and genetically modified strain of the virus? How it so happens that the epicentre of this outbreak is the very city in which a bio-weapons lab is located.

Just why aren't our governments investigating these claims? Why aren't they following these leads to finding out if the works of these labs is the cause of these deadly outbreak - either by accident or deliberately? Who are the so called "volunteers" that allowed themselves to be injected with the Ebola virus? Were they aware of what was really going?

My heart bleeds when I come across such news cos I fear that just like other scandals and evil machinations dished upon us by the West, this may very also be swept under the rug and forgotten. Here we are again, victims of yet another experimentation on peoples considered less human than their white counterparts - and as such expendable. Tuskeegee happened. Guatamela happpened. So many others am sure have happened and will never be known and from the look of things Sierra Leone also has happened!

“If intentions to target ISIS and al-Nusra in Iraq or in Syria are sincere, we only welcome them. But I want to say that we have doubts on that – not concerned, but have doubts about the sincerity of the US, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, which created the coalition,” Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moualem said.

If the US “seriously wanted to fight the ISIS and other terrorist organizations” there would be an international organization under the aegis of the UN, in which all countries would participate, Moualem said.


“Why was Russia expelled from that alliance? Why was Iran expelled as well as Syria?” he said.

“Militants who enter Syrian territory do not use parachutes for it. They enter Syria through borders of those countries, whose governments let them do that. These countries are known,” Moualem said, referring to the anti-ISIS coalition participants. “If the US and those countries as [America’s] allies seriously want to fight ISIS, they, first of all, have to immediately stop supporting terrorist formations, financing, arming, preparation, training and illegal intrusion into territory of Syria.”

“The US is mocking the whole world when they say that they are going to coordinate their actions not with the Syrian government, but with the moderate Syrian opposition. This is funny. What moderate opposition are you talking about?”

I know this is a picture thread but lemme chip this in for all you military stuff afficionados...



14TH September 2014 Nigeria North East Situation Report

by Fulan Nasrallah

First Battle Of Konduga

It took me almost 48 hours to obtain very reliable information of how events played out on the ground in Konduga Town, Konduga LGA, Borno State of North East Nigeria, on 12th September, when insurgent fighters in their hundreds launched a two-pronged assault targeting Kawuri Village and Konduga Town about 40km from Maiduguri to the south and east.

Utilizing night cover around 3:45AM scores of fighters drawn from combined Yusufiyya forces (all four groups) struck at Kawuri Village, engaging CJTF forces and an estimated company-sized force of soldiers for twenty minutes.

Fifteen minutes after the Kawuri assault began, a main force of some 450 fighters (confirmed) in trucks and Toyota picukups attacked Konduga from the direction of Bama.

Meanwhile company-sized elements drawn from 143 Infantry Battalion (newly trained by US California National Guard Special Operations personel drawn from 19th Special Forces Group) and 176 Special Forces Battalion (detached Brigade Of Guards), and supporting tube field artillery units drawn from a yet unspecified artillery unit within 1 Division, had developed proper defensive and firing zones into which the insurgents were channeled.

At 09:00AM, 150 insurgent reinforcement fighters arrived on scene accompanied by several truck mounted 60mm and 81mm mortar pieces providing the insurgents with their first artillery cover of the engagement (the insurgents are confirmed to have mostly utilized truck mounted 12.5mm machine guns along with man portable Dashoka and RPG teams to provide heavy weapons support throughout the engagement).

By some minutes past 12PM, insurgent forces broke off the assault retreating with scores of wounded why living some 80 something bodies (confirmed) on the field. A military source on the scene confirmed that over 35 soldiers were killed and dozens more injured in various degrees.

Insurgent forces abandoned damaged vehicles and the Army captured several mortar pieces. Army patrol units followed the retreating insurgents, harassing them and conducting recon-by-fire sweeps until 5km outside Konduga they ran into fresh insurgent troops (estimated at a 100 or so) and a firefight broke out lasting some 18 minutes while the the retreating insurgents retreated, then the obvious rearguard (the new arrivals) and the Army recon units broke off contact, each side returning to its territory.

Analysis

Notable in this was the ‘complete lack of air cover’. Despite frantic radio appeals by on the ground commanders for air support, ‘not one jet showed up’ over the battlefield.

Firstly for the Nigerian Army this was an important battle and victory especially for its propaganda value. With elements of arguably the two best-trained formations in the entire Nigerian Army deployed to engage the insurgents at Konduga, based on what was definitely credible enough intelligence, it is obvious the Nigerian Government was intent on securing a victory (the commanders for morale, the politicians for political points). But on closer examination, this battle and victory for the Nigerian Army was not strategically worth it, and here:

1) This was not an attempt to seize Konduga as is being portrayed in the media nor was the intention to march on Maiduguri. This was a probing attack to test the defensive positions around Maiduguri. 600 men (total number of insurgent fighters said to have taken part at the Battle of Konduga) is definitely not enough to invest and seize Konduga not to talk of Maiduguri, and the insurgents are definitely not stupid (stupid people don’t outsmart an army like Nigeria’s and overrun towns and a city in three whole states). In seizing Gulak, Madagali, Bazza, and Michika, places with considerably less military presence than Konduga, they employed nothing less than 1,000 fighters per each operation. For Konduga, they needed at minimum, 1,800 fighters and definitely much more artillery and heavy weapons support than was used at the last battle of Konduga.

2) The insurgents do not lack artillery (mortars, recoiless rifles, Triple-A guns), but surprisingly they did not deploy much artillery which they would have did (especially the Tripple-A guns), if they intended to capture Konduga.

I expect more of such probes to take place along the approaches to Maiduguri. If the insurgents aim to seize Maiduguri, this might be a prelude to a full-scale assault on Konduga, in which case building on lessons learnt from it, the knowledge gained of the kind of forces they may likely meet in a second battle of Konduga will definitely be put to use by the insurgent battle-planners.

Did this battle change anything? Absolutely did not. Just some kilometers outside Konduga insurgent forces maintain their very visible presence. There was no withdrawal from positions which they occupy.

The Army did not press the advantage it should have gained had its opponents been in flight from the battlefield, rather it did not because it could not, and the recon-by-fire teams it sent out to harass the retreating insurgents were forced back under fire from rebel rearguard forces.

On Bama And Other Towns

Ineffectual aerial raids (note my choice of words, raids, not bombardments) continue on almost daily basis targeting already bombed-out locations apparently still marked as ‘suspected terrorist positions’ e.g the mosques and areas the palaces of traditional rulers in insurgent-occupied towns.

Some civilian casualties are said to have been killed by exploding aerial ordnance in Bama yesterday and today, although this cannot be confirmed.

Do these raids serve any meaningful strategic purpose? I have been asked this question by many followers of this blog via email. The answer depends on if these raids were designed to degrade insurgent capabilities or just to annoy the insurgents and piss them the flaming hell off.

If the aim was the first, the aircraft are too few and too vulnerable to enemy Triple-A guns to do any serious damage. Add the fact that very few insurgents are in the towns as most are dispersed in the surrounding hills and bushes.

However if the aim was to annoy the insurgents like a stingless male anopheles mosquito buzzing in the air, then the aim can certainly be described as over achieved as not only the insurgents but also the locals left in the areas have been pissed off by the air raids that seem to do nothing but destroy the mosques.

Shot Down Jet?

On Saturday 13th September I was made aware that the previous day, a single Alpha Jet was scampered to provide air support to troops battling insurgents at Konduga, my initial source who is a ranking AirForce officer said the plane is suspected to have been shot over Bama-Gwoza axis or Northern Adamawa State. An Insurgent source whom I sent a feeler to claims that a Triple-A gun in Limankara belonging to Harakatul-Muhajiriin claimed to have engaged a Nigerian AirForce plane between 11:00AM and 11:09AM scoring hits . Today the second day after the Alpha Jet left base and did not return, the Director of Defence Information, Major-Gen Chris Olukolade announced via email to journalists that an Alpha Jet with two pilots is ‘missing’ somewhere over Adamawa, leaving base by 10:45AM on a mission and expected back by 12pm, putting it in the air at the time my source claimed a plane was engaged by anti-aircraft fire.

You are welcome....

14TH September 2014 Nigeria North East Situation Report

by Fulan Nasrallah

First Battle Of Konduga

It took me almost 48 hours to obtain very reliable information of how events played out on the ground in Konduga Town, Konduga LGA, Borno State of North East Nigeria, on 12th September, when insurgent fighters in their hundreds launched a two-pronged assault targeting Kawuri Village and Konduga Town about 40km from Maiduguri to the south and east.

Utilizing night cover around 3:45AM scores of fighters drawn from combined Yusufiyya forces (all four groups) struck at Kawuri Village, engaging CJTF forces and an estimated company-sized force of soldiers for twenty minutes.

Fifteen minutes after the Kawuri assault began, a main force of some 450 fighters (confirmed) in trucks and Toyota picukups attacked Konduga from the direction of Bama.

Meanwhile company-sized elements drawn from 143 Infantry Battalion (newly trained by US California National Guard Special Operations personel drawn from 19th Special Forces Group) and 176 Special Forces Battalion (detached Brigade Of Guards), and supporting tube field artillery units drawn from a yet unspecified artillery unit within 1 Division, had developed proper defensive and firing zones into which the insurgents were channeled.

At 09:00AM, 150 insurgent reinforcement fighters arrived on scene accompanied by several truck mounted 60mm and 81mm mortar pieces providing the insurgents with their first artillery cover of the engagement (the insurgents are confirmed to have mostly utilized truck mounted 12.5mm machine guns along with man portable Dashoka and RPG teams to provide heavy weapons support throughout the engagement).

By some minutes past 12PM, insurgent forces broke off the assault retreating with scores of wounded why living some 80 something bodies (confirmed) on the field. A military source on the scene confirmed that over 35 soldiers were killed and dozens more injured in various degrees.

Insurgent forces abandoned damaged vehicles and the Army captured several mortar pieces. Army patrol units followed the retreating insurgents, harassing them and conducting recon-by-fire sweeps until 5km outside Konduga they ran into fresh insurgent troops (estimated at a 100 or so) and a firefight broke out lasting some 18 minutes while the the retreating insurgents retreated, then the obvious rearguard (the new arrivals) and the Army recon units broke off contact, each side returning to its territory.

Analysis

Notable in this was the ‘complete lack of air cover’. Despite frantic radio appeals by on the ground commanders for air support, ‘not one jet showed up’ over the battlefield.

Firstly for the Nigerian Army this was an important battle and victory especially for its propaganda value. With elements of arguably the two best-trained formations in the entire Nigerian Army deployed to engage the insurgents at Konduga, based on what was definitely credible enough intelligence, it is obvious the Nigerian Government was intent on securing a victory (the commanders for morale, the politicians for political points). But on closer examination, this battle and victory for the Nigerian Army was not strategically worth it, and here:

1) This was not an attempt to seize Konduga as is being portrayed in the media nor was the intention to march on Maiduguri. This was a probing attack to test the defensive positions around Maiduguri. 600 men (total number of insurgent fighters said to have taken part at the Battle of Konduga) is definitely not enough to invest and seize Konduga not to talk of Maiduguri, and the insurgents are definitely not stupid (stupid people don’t outsmart an army like Nigeria’s and overrun towns and a city in three whole states). In seizing Gulak, Madagali, Bazza, and Michika, places with considerably less military presence than Konduga, they employed nothing less than 1,000 fighters per each operation. For Konduga, they needed at minimum, 1,800 fighters and definitely much more artillery and heavy weapons support than was used at the last battle of Konduga.

2) The insurgents do not lack artillery (mortars, recoiless rifles, Triple-A guns), but surprisingly they did not deploy much artillery which they would have did (especially the Tripple-A guns), if they intended to capture Konduga.

I expect more of such probes to take place along the approaches to Maiduguri. If the insurgents aim to seize Maiduguri, this might be a prelude to a full-scale assault on Konduga, in which case building on lessons learnt from it, the knowledge gained of the kind of forces they may likely meet in a second battle of Konduga will definitely be put to use by the insurgent battle-planners.

Did this battle change anything? Absolutely did not. Just some kilometers outside Konduga insurgent forces maintain their very visible presence. There was no withdrawal from positions which they occupy.

The Army did not press the advantage it should have gained had its opponents been in flight from the battlefield, rather it did not because it could not, and the recon-by-fire teams it sent out to harass the retreating insurgents were forced back under fire from rebel rearguard forces.

On Bama And Other Towns

Ineffectual aerial raids (note my choice of words, raids, not bombardments) continue on almost daily basis targeting already bombed-out locations apparently still marked as ‘suspected terrorist positions’ e.g the mosques and areas the palaces of traditional rulers in insurgent-occupied towns.

Some civilian casualties are said to have been killed by exploding aerial ordnance in Bama yesterday and today, although this cannot be confirmed.

Do these raids serve any meaningful strategic purpose? I have been asked this question by many followers of this blog via email. The answer depends on if these raids were designed to degrade insurgent capabilities or just to annoy the insurgents and piss them the flaming hell off.

If the aim was the first, the aircraft are too few and too vulnerable to enemy Triple-A guns to do any serious damage. Add the fact that very few insurgents are in the towns as most are dispersed in the surrounding hills and bushes.

However if the aim was to annoy the insurgents like a stingless male anopheles mosquito buzzing in the air, then the aim can certainly be described as over achieved as not only the insurgents but also the locals left in the areas have been pissed off by the air raids that seem to do nothing but destroy the mosques.

Shot Down Jet?

On Saturday 13th September I was made aware that the previous day, a single Alpha Jet was scampered to provide air support to troops battling insurgents at Konduga, my initial source who is a ranking AirForce officer said the plane is suspected to have been shot over Bama-Gwoza axis or Northern Adamawa State. An Insurgent source whom I sent a feeler to claims that a Triple-A gun in Limankara belonging to Harakatul-Muhajiriin claimed to have engaged a Nigerian AirForce plane between 11:00AM and 11:09AM scoring hits . Today the second day after the Alpha Jet left base and did not return, the Director of Defence Information, Major-Gen Chris Olukolade announced via email to journalists that an Alpha Jet with two pilots is ‘missing’ somewhere over Adamawa, leaving base by 10:45AM on a mission and expected back by 12pm, putting it in the air at the time my source claimed a plane was engaged by anti-aircraft fire.

Washington's brinkmanship and insiatable drive for global hegemony is leading the word up to war. At this rate, I don't see how war can be avoided. Russia is a proud, strong nation with as long and cherished history. They won't budge and give in to the US. The Americans won't relent either.....

In 2013 these same Al-Qaeda linked Syrian rebels launched two sarin gas attacks. This was attempt to frame Assad and muster international support for military intervention. Fortunately they were exposed by U.N. and Russian investigators and the push for airstrikes completely fell apart when Russia stepped in to broker a diplomatic solution


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk

The campaign for regime change in Syria, as in Libya has been presented in terms of human rights. Obviously this isn't the real motive.

In 2009, Qatar put forth a proposal to run a natural gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe. Assad however rejected this, and in 2011 he forged a pact with Iraq and Iran to run a pipeline eastward cutting Qatar and Saudi Arabia out of the loop completely. Not surprisingly Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been the most aggressive regional players in the push to topple the Syrian government.

But why would this pipeline dispute put Syria in Washington's cross hairs? Three reasons:

1. This pipeline arrangement would significantly strengthen Iran's position, allowing them to export to European markets without having to pass through any of Washington's allies. This obviously reduces the U.S. government's leverage.
2. Syria is Iran's closest ally. It's collapse would inherently weaken Iran.
3. Syria and Iran have a mutual defense agreement, and a U.S. intervention in Syria could open the door to open conflict with Iran.

In February of 2014 this global chess game heated up in a new venue: Ukraine. The real target however was Russia.

You see Russia just happens to be the worlds second largest oil exporter, and not only have they been a thorn in Washington's side diplomatically, but they also opened an energy bourse in 2008, with sales denominated in Rubles and gold. This project had been in the works since 2006. They have also been working with China to pull off of the dollar in all of their bilateral trade.

Russia has also been in the process of organizing a Eurasian Economic Union which includes plans to adopt common currency unit, and which is slated to have its own independent energy market.

Leading up to the crisis in Ukraine had been presented with a choice: either join the E.U. under an association agreement or join the Eurasian Union. The E.U. insisted that this was an either or proposition. Ukraine couldn't join both. Russia on the other hand, asserted that joining both posed no issue. President Yanukovich decided to go with Russia.

In response the U.S. national security apparatus did what it does best: they toppled Yanukovich and installed a puppet government. To see the full evidence of Washington's involvement in the coup watch "The ukraine crisis what you're not being told"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWkfpGCAAuw

This article from the Guardian is also worth reading.

Though this all seemed to be going well at first, the U.S. quickly lost control of the situation. Crimea held a referendum and the people voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and reunify with Russia. The transition was orderly and peaceful. No one was killed, yet the West immediately framed the entire event as an act of Russian aggression, and this became the go to mantra from that point on.

Crimea is important geostrategically because of its position in the Black Sea which allows for the projection of naval power into the Mediterranean. It has also been Russian territory for most of recent history.

The U.S. has been pushing for Ukraine's inclusion into NATO for years now. Such a move would place U.S. forces right on Russia's border and could have potentially resulted in Russia losing their naval base in Crimea. This is why Russia immediately accepted the results of the Crimean referendum and quickly consolidated the territory.

Meanwhile in Eastern Ukraine, two regions declared independence from Kiev and held referendums of their own. The results of which overwhelmingly favored self rule.

Kiev responded to this with what they referred to as anti-terrorist operations. In practice this was a massive and indiscriminate shelling campaign which killed thousands of civilians. Apparently killing civilians didn't qualify as aggression to the West. In fact the IMF explicitly warned the provisional government that their 17 billion dollar loan package could be in danger if they were not able to put down the uprising in eastern Ukraine.

While the war against eastern Ukraine was raging elections were held and Petro Poroshenko was elected president. It turns out that Poroshenko, was exposed by a leaked diplomatic cable released by wikileaks in 2008 as having worked as a mole for the U.S. State Department since 2006. They referred to him as "Our Ukraine insider" and much of the cable referred to information that he was providing. (A separate cable showed that the U.S. knew Poroshenko was corrupt even at that point.)

Having a puppet in place however hasn't turned out to be enough to give Washington the upper hand in this crisis. What does Washington do when they have no other leverage? They impose sanctions, they demonize and they saber rattle (or pull a false flag).

This isn't a very good strategy when dealing with Russia. In fact it has already backfired. The sanctions have merely pushed Russia and China into closer cooperation and accelerated Russia's de-dollarization agenda. And in spite of the rhetoric, this has not led to Russia being isolated. The U.S. and NATO have put a wedge between themselves and Russia, but not between Russia and the rest of the world (look up BRICS if you are unclear about this).

This new anti-dollar axis goes deeper than economics. These countries understand what's at stake here. This is why in the wake of the Ukrainian crisis China has proposed a new Eurasian security pact which would include Russia and Iran.

Consider the implications here as the Obama administration begins bombing in Syria which also has a mutual defense agreement with Iran.

This is not the cold war 2.0. This is World War 3.0. The masses may not have figured it out yet, but history will remember it that way.

Alliances are already solidifying and and a hot war is underway on multiple fronts. If the provocations and proxy wars continue, it's only a matter of time before the big players confront each other directly, and that is a recipe for disaster.

Does all of this sound insane to you? Well you're right. The people running the world right now are insane, and the public is sleep walking into a tragedy. If you want to alter the course that we are on, there's only one way to do it. We have to wake up that public. Even the most powerful weapons of war are neutralized if you reach the mind of the man behind the trigger.

How do we wake the masses you ask? Don't wait for someone else to answer that for you. Get creative. Act like you children's and grandchildren's futures depend on it, because they do.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP7L8bw5QF4

One year later they got it.

Riding the emotional reaction to 9/11, the Bush administration was able to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and pass the patriot act all without any significant resistance.

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and this wasn't a question of bad intelligence. This was a cold calculated lie, and the decision to invade was made in full knowledge of the disaster which would follow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey9tExYbjm8

They knew exactly what was going to happen but in 2003, they did it anyway. Once Iraqi oil fields were under U.S. control, oil sales were immediately switched back to the dollar. Mission accomplished.

Soon after the invasion of Iraq the Bush administration attempted to extend these wars to Iran. Supposedly the Iranian government was working to build a nuclear weapon. After the Iraq fiasco Washington's credibility was severely damaged as a result they were unable to muster international or domestic support for an intervention. Their efforts were further sabotaged by elements within the CIA and Mossad who came forward to state that Iran had not even made the decision to develop nuclear weapons much less begin an attempt. However the demonization campaign against Iran continued even into the Obama administration.

Why?





Well, might it have something to do with the fact that since 2004 Iran has been in the process of organizing an independent oil bourse? They were building their own oil market, and it wasn't going to be tied to the dollar. The first shipments of oil were sold through this market in July of 2011.

Unable to get the war that they wanted, the U.S. used the U.N to impose sanctions against Iran. The goal of the sanctions was to topple the Iranian regime. While this did inflict damage on the Iranian economy, the measures failed to destabilize the country. This was due in large part to Russia's assistance in bypassing U.S. banking restrictions.

In February of 2009 Muammar Gaddafi, was named chairman of the African Union. He immediately proposed the formation of a unified state with a single currency. It was the nature of that proposed currency that got him killed.

In March of 2009 the African Union released a document entitled "Towards a Single African Currency". Pages 106 and 107 of that document specifically discuss the benefits and technicalities of running the African Central bank under a gold standard. On page 94 it explicitly states that the key to the success of the African Monetary Union would be the "eventual linking of a single African currency to the most monetary of all commodities - gold." (Note that the page number is different on other versions of the document that they released.)

In 2011 the CIA moved into Libya and began backing militant groups in their campaign to topple Gaddafi and the U.S. and NATO pushed through and stretched a U.N. nofly-zone resolution to tip the balance with airstrikes. The presence of Al-Qaeda extremists among these rebel fighters was swept under the rug.

Libya, like Iran and Iraq had committed the unforgivable crime of challenging the U.S. dollar.

The NATO intervention in Libya segued into a covert war on Syrian. The armories of the Libyan government were looted and the weapons were shipped via Turkey to Syrian rebels groups working to topple Assad. It was already clear at this point that many of these fighters had ties to terrorist organizations. However the U.S. national security apparatus viewed this as a necessary evil. In fact the Council on Foreign relations published an article in 2012 stating that "The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now."

(Hat tip to theantimedia.org for catching this.)

Let's be clear here, the U.S. put ISIS in power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI

http://scgnews.com/the-geopolitics-of-world-war-iii

[size=20pt]The Geopolitics of World War III[/size]

11.Sep.2014 | SCG


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC3tINgWfQE
The real reason Russia and Syria are being targeted right now..


Contrary to popular belief, the conduct of nations on the international stage is almost never driven by moral considerations, but rather by a shadowy cocktail of money and geopolitics. As such, when you see the mouthpieces of the ruling class begin to demonize a foreign country, the first question in your mind should always be "what is actually at stake here?"


For some time now Russia, China, Iran, and Syria have been in the cross hairs. Once you understand why, the events unfolding in the world right now will make much more sense.

The U.S. dollar is a unique currency. In fact its current design and its relationship to geopolitics is unlike any other in history. Though it has been the world reserve currency since 194 this is not what makes it unique. Many currencies have held the reserve status off and on over the centuries, but what makes the dollar unique is the fact that since the early 1970s it has been, with a few notable exceptions, the only currency used to buy and sell oil on the global market.

Prior to 1971 the U.S. dollar was bound to the gold standard, at least officially. According to the IMF, by 1966, foreign central banks held $14 billion U.S. dollars, however the United States had only $3.2 billion in gold allocated to cover foreign holdings.

Translation: the Federal Reserve was printing more money than it could actually back.

The result was rampant inflation and a general flight from the dollar.

In 1971 in what later came to be called the "Nixon Shock" President Nixon removed the dollar from the gold standard completely.

At this point the dollar became a pure debt based currency. With debt based currencies money is literally loaned into existence.

Approximately 70% of the money in circulation is created by ordinary banks which are allowed to loan out more than they actually have in their accounts.
The rest is created by the Federal Reserve which loans money that they don't have, mostly to government.

Kind of like writing hot checks, except it's legal, for banks. This practice which is referred to as fractional reserve banking is supposedly regulated by the Federal Reserve, an institution which just happens to be owned and controlled by a conglomerate of banks, and no agency or branch of government regulates the Federal Reserve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcvuBETuwn0



Now to make things even more interesting these fractional reserve loans have interest attached, but the money to pay that interest doesn't exist in the system. As a result there is always more total debt than there is money in circulation, and in order to stay afloat the economy must grow perpetually.

This is obviously not sustainable.

Now you might be wondering how the dollar has maintained such a dominant position on the world stage for over forty years if it's really little more than an elaborate ponzi scheme.

Well this is where the dollar meets geopolitics.

In 1973 under the shadow of the artificial OPEC oil crisis, the Nixon administration began secret negotiations with the government of Saudi Arabia to establish what came to be referred to as the petrodollar recycling system. Under the arrangement the Saudis would only sell their oil in U.S. dollars, and would invest the majority of their excess oil profits into U.S. banks and Capital markets. The IMF would then use this money to facilitate loans to oil importers who were having difficulties covering the increase in oil prices. The payments and interest on these loans would of course be denominated in U.S. dollars.

This agreement was formalized in the "The U.S.-Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation" put together by Nixon's Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1974.

Another document released by the Congressional Research Service reveals that these negotiations had an edge to them, as U.S. officials were openly discussing the feasibility of seizing oil fields in Saudi Arabia militarily.

In the United States, the oil shocks produced inflation, new concern about foreign investment from oil producing countries, and open speculation about the advisability and feasibility of militarily seizing oil fields in Saudi Arabia or other countries. In the wake of the embargo, both Saudi and U.S. officials worked to re-anchor the bilateral relationship on the basis of shared opposition to Communism, renewed military cooperation, and through economic initiatives that promoted the recycling of Saudi petrodollars to the United States via Saudi investment in infrastructure, industrial expansion, and U.S. securities.

The system was expanded to include the rest of OPEC by 1975.

Though presented as buffer to the recessionary effects of rising oil prices, this arrangement had a hidden side effect. It removed the traditional restraints on U.S. monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve was now free to increase the money supply at will. The ever increasing demand for oil would would prevent a flight from the dollar, while distributing the inflationary consequences across the entire planet.

The dollar went from being a gold back currency to a oil backed currency. It also became America's primary export.

Did you ever wonder how the U.S. economy has been able to stay afloat while running multibillion dollar trade deficits for decades?

Did you ever wonder how it is that the U.S. holds such a disproportionate amount of the worlds wealth when 70% of the U.S. economy is consumer based?

In the modern era, fossil fuels make the world go round. They have become integrated into every aspect of civilization: agriculture, transportation, plastics, heating, defense and medicine, and demand just keeps growing and growing.

As long as the world needs oil, and as long as oil is only sold in U.S. dollars, there will be a demand for dollars, and that demand is what gives the dollar its value.

For the United States this is a great deal. Dollars go out, either as paper or digits in a computer system, and real tangible products and services come in. However for the rest of the world, it's a very sneaky form of exploitation.

Having global trade predominately in dollars also provides the Washington with a powerful financial weapon through sanctions. This is due to the fact that most large scale dollar transactions are forced to pass through the U.S.

This petrodollar system stood unchallenged until September of 2000 when Saddam Hussein announced his decision to switch Iraq's oil sales off of the dollar to Euros. This was a direct attack on the dollar, and easily the most important geopolitical event of the year, but only one article in the western media even mentioned it.

In the same month that Saddam announced he was moving away from the dollar, an organization called the “The Project for a New American Century”, of which Dick Cheney just happened to be a member, released a document entitled “REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century”. This document called for massive increases in U.S. military spending and a much more aggressive foreign policy in order to expand U.S. dominance world wide. However the document lamented that achieving these goals would take many years “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”.
http://www.slideshare.net/UnitB166ER/rebuilding-americas-defenses-strategy-forces-and-resources-for-a-new-century-a-report-of-the-project-for-the-new-american-century-september-2000

Sources and transcript here: http://scgnews.com/the-covert-origins-of-isis
https://www.facebook.com/#!/StormCloudsGathering



The Covert Origins of ISIS

ISIS is a product of U.S. government’s twisted and decrepit foreign policy


by SCGNews | August 30, 2014


The Islamic militant group ISIS, formerly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and recently rebranded as the so called Islamic State, is the stuff of nightmares. They are ruthless, fanatical, killers, on a mission, and that mission is to wipe out anyone and everyone, from any religion or belief system and to impose Shari’ah law. The mass executions, beheadings and even crucifixions that they are committing as they work towards this goal are flaunted like badges of pride, video taped and uploaded for the whole world to see. This is the new face of evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI


Would it interest you to know who helped these psychopaths rise to power? Would it interest you to know who armed them, funded them and trained them? Would it interest you to know why?

This story makes more sense if we start in the middle, so we’ll begin with the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

The Libyan revolution was Obama’s first major foreign intervention. It was portrayed as an extension of the Arab Spring, and NATO involvement was framed in humanitarian terms.




The fact that the CIA was actively working to help the Libyan rebels topple Gaddafi was no secret, nor were the airstrikes that Obama ordered against the Libyan government. However, little was said about the identity or the ideological leanings of these Libyan rebels. Not surprising, considering the fact that the leader of the Libyan rebels later admitted that his fighters included Al-Qaeda linked jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq.

These jihadist militants from Iraq were part of what national security analysts commonly referred to as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Remember Al-Qaeda in Iraq was ISIS before it was rebranded.

With the assistance of U.S. and NATO intelligence and air support, the Libyan rebels captured Gaddafi and summarily executed him in the street, all the while enthusiastically chanting “Allah Akbar”. For many of those who had bought the official line about how these rebels were freedom fighters aiming to establish a liberal democracy in Libya, this was the beginning of the end of their illusions.




Prior to the U.S. and NATO backed intervention, Libya had the highest standard of living of any country in Africa. This according to the U.N.’s Human Development Index rankings for 2010. However in the years following the coup, the country descended into chaos, with extremism and violence running rampant. Libya is now widely regarded as failed state (of course those who were naive enough to buy into the propaganda leading up to the war get defensive when this is said).

Now after Gaddafi was overthrown, the Libyan armories were looted, and massive quantities of weapons were sent by the Libyan rebels to Syria. The weapons, which included anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles were smuggled into Syria through Turkey, a NATO ally. The times of London reported on the arrival of the shipment on September 14th, 2012. (Secondary confirmation in this NYT article) This was just three days after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed by the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. Chris Stevens had served as the U.S. government’s liaison to the Libyan rebels since April of 2011.

While a great deal media attention has focused on the fact that the State Department did not provide adequate security at the consulate, and was slow to send assistance when the attack started, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh released an article in April of 2014 which exposed a classified agreement between the CIA, Turkey and the Syrian rebels to create what was referred to as a “rat line”. The “rat line” was covert network used to channel weapons and ammunition from Libya, through southern turkey and across the Syrian border. Funding was provided by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

With Stevens dead any direct U.S. involvement in that arms shipment was buried, and Washington would continue to claim that they had not sent heavy weaponry into Syria.

It was at this time that jihadist fighters from Libya began flooding into Syria as well. And not just low level militants. Many were experienced commanders who had fought in multiple theaters.

The U.S. and its allies were now fully focused on taking down Assad’s government in Syria. As in Libya this regime change was to be framed in terms of human rights, and now overt support began to supplement the backdoor channels. The growing jihadist presence was swept under the rug and covered up.

However as the rebels gained strength, the reports of war crimes and atrocities that they were committing began to create a bit of a public relations problem for Washington. It then became standard policy to insist that U.S. support was only being given to what they referred to as “moderate” rebel forces.

This distinction, however, had no basis in reality.

In an interview given in April of 2014, FSA commander Jamal Maarouf admitted that his fighters regularly conduct joint operations with Al-Nusra. Al-Nusra is the official Al-Qa’ida branch in Syria. This statement is further validated by an interview given in June of 2013 by Colonel Abdel Basset Al-Tawil, commander of the FSA’s Northern Front. In this interview he openly discusses his ties with Al-Nusra, and expresses his desire to see Syria ruled by sharia law. (You can verify the identities of these two commanders here in this document from The Institute for the Study of War)




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYIdmlk2gAU
Moderate rebels? Well it’s complicated. Not that this should really come as any surprise. Reuters had reported in 2012 that the FSA’s command was dominated by Islamic extremists, and the New York Times had reported that same year that the majority of the weapons that Washington were sending into Syria was ending up in the hands Jihadists. For two years the U.S. government knew that this was happening, but they kept doing it.

And the FSA’s ties to Al-Nusra are just the beginning. In June of 2014 Al-Nusra merged with ISIS at the border between Iraq and Syria.

So to review, the FSA is working with Al-Nusra, Al-Nusra is working with ISIS, and the U.S. has been sending money and weapons to the FSA even though they’ve known since 2012 that most of these weapons were ending up in the hands of extremists. You do the math.

In that context, the sarin gas attacks of 2013 which turned out to have been committed by the Syrian rebels, makes a lot more sense doesn’t it? If it wasn’t enough that U.N. investigators, Russian investigators, and Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh all pinned that crime on Washington’s proxies, the rebels themselves threatened the West that they would expose what really happened if they were not given more advanced weaponry within one month.

By the way, this also explains why Washington then decided to target Russia next.

This threat was made on June 10th, 2013. In what can only be described as an amazing coincidence, just nine days later, the rebels received their first official shipment of heavy weapons in Aleppo.

After the second sarin gas fiasco, which was also exposed and therefore failed to garner public support for airstrikes, the U.S. continued to increase its the training and support for the rebels.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk
In February of 2014, Haaretz reported that the U.S. and its allies in the region, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel, were in the process of helping the Syrian rebels plan and prepare for a massive attack in the south. According to Haaretz Israel had also provided direct assistance in military operations against Assad four months prior (you can access a free cached version of the page here).

Then in May of 2014 PBS ran a report in which they interviewed rebels who were trained by the U.S. in Qatar. According to those rebels they were being trained to finish off soldiers who survived attacks.

“They trained us to ambush regime or enemy vehicles and cut off the road,” said the fighter, who is identified only as “Hussein.” “They also trained us on how to attack a vehicle, raid it, retrieve information or weapons and munitions, and how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush.”

This is a blatant violation of the Geneva conventions. It also runs contrary to conventional military strategy. In conventional military strategy soldiers are better off left wounded, because this ends up costing the enemy more resources. Executing captured enemy soldiers is the kind of tactic used when you want to strike terror in the hearts of the enemy. It also just happens to be standard operating procedure for ISIS.

One month after this report, in June of 2014, ISIS made its dramatic entry, crossing over the Syrian border into Iraq, capturing Mosul, Baiji and almost reaching Baghdad. The internet was suddenly flooded with footage of drive by shootings, large scale death marches, and mass graves. And of course any Iraqi soldier that was captured was executed.

Massive quantities of American military equipment were seized during that operation. ISIS took entire truckloads of humvees, they took helicopters, tanks, and artillery. They photographed and video taped themselves and advertised what they were doing on social media, and yet for some reason Washington didn’t even TRY to stop them.

U.S. military doctrine clearly calls for the destruction of military equipment and supplies when friendly forces cannot prevent them from falling into enemy hands, but that didn’t happen here. ISIS was allowed to carry this equipment out of Iraq and into Syria unimpeded. The U.S. military had the means to strike these convoys, but they didn’t lift a finger, even though they had been launching drone strikes in Pakistan that same week.

Why would they do that?

Though Obama plays the role of a weak, indecisive, liberal president, and while pundits from the right have had a lot of fun with that image, this is just a facade. Some presidents, like George W. Bush, rely primarily on overt military aggression. Obama gets the same job done, but he prefers covert means. Not really surprising considering the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski was his mentor.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASlETEx0T-I
Those who know their history will remember that Zbigniew Brzezinski was directly involved in the funding and arming the Islamic extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to weaken the Soviets.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYvO3qAlyTg
By the way Osama bin Laden was one of these anti-Soviet “freedom fighters” the U.S. was funding and arming.

This operation is no secret at this point, nor are the unintended side effects.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw
Officially the U.S. government’s arming and funding of the Mujahideen was a response to the Soviet invasion in December of 1979, however in his memoir entitled “From the Shadows” Robert Gates, director of the CIA under Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior, and Secretary of Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, revealed that the U.S. actually began the covert operation 6 months prior, with the express intention of luring the Soviets into a quagmire. (You can preview the relevant text here on google books)

The strategy worked. The Soviets invaded, and the ten years of war that followed are considered by many historians as being one of the primary causes of the fall of the USSR.

This example doesn’t just establish precedent, what we’re seeing happen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria right now is actually a continuation of a old story. Al-Nusra and ISIS are ideological and organizational decedents of these extremist elements that the U.S. government made use of thirty years ago.

The U.S. the went on to create a breeding ground for these extremists by invading Iraq in 2003. Had it not been for the vacuum of power left by the removal and execution of Saddam, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, aka ISIS, would not exist. And had it not been for Washington’s attempt at toppling Assad by arming, funding and training shadowy militant groups in Syria, there is no way that ISIS would have been capable of storming into Iraq in June of 2014.

On every level, no matter how you cut it, ISIS is a product of U.S. government’s twisted and decrepit foreign policy.

Now all of this may seem contradictory to you as you watch the drums of war against ISIS begin to beat louder and the air strikes against them are gradually widened http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/president-obama-considers-possible-…). Why would the U.S. help a terrorist organization get established, only to attack them later?

Well why did the CIA put Saddam Hussein in power in 1963?, Why did the U.S. government back Saddam in 1980 when he launched a war of aggression against Iran, even though they knew that he was using chemical weapons? Why did the U.S. fund and arm Islamic extremists in Afghanistan against the Soviets?

There’s a pattern here if you look closely. This is a tried and true geopolitical strategy.

Step 1: Build up a dictator or extremist group which can then be used to wage proxy wars against opponents. During this stage any crimes committed by these proxies are swept under the rug. [Problem]

Step 2: When these nasty characters have outlived their usefulness, that’s when it’s time to pull out all that dirt from under the rug and start publicizing it 24/7. This obviously works best when the public has no idea how these bad guys came to power.[Reaction]

Step 3: Finally, when the public practically begging for the government to do something, a solution is proposed. Usually the solution involves military intervention, the loss of certain liberties, or both. [Solution]

ISIS is extremely useful. They have essentially done Washington dirty work by weakening Assad. In 2014, while the news cycle has focused almost exclusively on Ukraine and Russia, ISIS made major headway in Syria, and as of August they already controlled 35% of the country.

Since ISIS largely based in Syria, this gives the U.S. a pretext to move into Syria. Sooner or later the U.S. will extend the airstrikes into Assad’s backyard, and when they do U.S. officials are already making it clear that both ISIS and the Syrian government will be targeted. That, after all, is the whole point. Washington may allow ISIS to capture a bit more territory first, but the writing is on the wall, and has been for some time now.

The Obama administration has repeatedly insisted that this will never lead to boots on the ground, however, the truth of the matter is that anyone who understands anything about military tactics knows full well that ISIS cannot be defeated by airstrikes alone. In response to airstrikes ISIS will merely disperse and conceal their forces. ISIS isn’t an established state power which can be destroyed by knocking out key government buildings and infrastructure. These are guerrilla fighters who cut their teeth in urban warfare.

To significantly weaken them, the war will have to involve ground troops, but even this is a lost cause. U.S. troops could certainly route ISIS in street to street battles for some time, and they might even succeed in fully occupying Syria and Iraq for a number of years, but eventually they will have to leave, and when they do, it should be obvious what will come next.

The puppets that the U.S. government has installed in the various countries that they have brought down in recent years have without exception proven to be utterly incompetent and corrupt. No one that Washington places in power will be capable of maintaining stability in Syria. Period.

Right now, Assad is the last bastion of stability in the region. He is the last chance they have for a moderate non-sectarian government and he is the only hope of anything even remotely resembling democracy for the foreseeable future. If Assad falls, Islamic extremist will take the helm, they will impose shari’ah law, and they will do everything in their power to continue spreading their ideology as far and wide as they can.

If the world truly wants to stop ISIS, there is only one way to do it:

1. First and foremost, the U.S. government and its allies must be heavily pressured to cut all support to the rebels who are attempting to topple Assad. Even if these rebels that the U.S. is arming and funding were moderate, and they’re not, the fact that they are forcing Assad to fight a war on multiple fronts, only strengthens ISIS. This is lunacy.

2. The Syrian government should be provided with financial support, equipment, training and intelligence to enable them to turn the tide against ISIS. This is their territory, they should be the ones to reclaim it.

Now obviously this support isn’t going to come from the U.S. or any NATO country, but there are a number of nations who have a strategic interest in preventing another regime change and chaotic aftermath. If these countries respond promptly, as in right now, they could preempt a U.S. intervention, and as long this support does not include the presence of foreign troops, doing so will greatly reduce the likelihood of a major confrontation down the road.

3. The U.S. government and its allies should should be aggressively condemned for their failed regime change policies and the individuals behind these decisions should be charged for war crimes. This would have to be done on an nation by nation level since the U.N. has done nothing but enable NATO aggression. While this may not immediately result in these criminals being arrested, it would send a message. This can be done. Malaysia has already proven this by convicting the Bush administration of war crimes in abstentia.

Now you might be thinking: “This all sounds fine and good, but what does this have to do with me? I can’t influence this situation.”

That perspective is quite common, and for most people, it’s paralyzing, but the truth of the matter is that we can influence this. We’ve done it before, and we can do it again.

I’ll be honest with you though, this isn’t going to be easy. To succeed we have to start thinking strategically. Like it or not, this is a chess game. If we really want to rock the boat, we have to start reaching out to people in positions of influence. This can mean talking to broadcasters at your local radio station, news paper, or t.v. station, or it can mean contacting influential bloggers, celebrities, business figures or government officials. Reaching out to current serving military and young people who may be considering joining up is also important. But even if it’s just your neighbor, or your coworker, every single person we can reach brings us closer to critical mass. The most important step is to start trying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw


If you are confused about why this is all happening, watch this video we put out on September 11th, 2012

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP7L8bw5QF4

Ha! Marie Harf, the "social media and common sense" State Deparment Deputy Spokesperson.......LOL!

Once again, I gotta ask - does the SANDF have a dedicated PR company that takes its pictures cos they all look so professionally done

Document: Army Preparing to Use Lethal Force Against “Unarmed Civilians” During “Full Scale Riots” in U.S.

Training manual outlines "sniper response" during crowd control operations

http://www.infowars.com/document-army-preparing-to-use-lethal-force-against-unarmed-americans-during-full-scale-riots-in-u-s/

The Mike Brown Shooting What You’re Not Being Told


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_icVWKO4_o

Beautiful artcle

One day it shall all be revealed and all the lies & propaganda will crumble like a pack of cards

Keep up the good work Onyocha....

Tomgram: Nick Turse, An East-West Showdown in the Heart of Africa?

Posted by Nick Turse at 8:01am, July 31, 2014.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch.

For the last two years, TomDispatch Managing Editor Nick Turse has been following the Pentagon and the latest U.S. global command, AFRICOM, as they oversaw the expanding operations of the American military across that continent: drones, a special ops surge, interventions, training missions, bases (even if not called bases), proxy wars. Short of a major conflict, you name it and it's probably happening. Washington’s move into Africa seems connected as well to the destabilization of parts of that continent and the rise of various terror groups across it, another subject Nick has been following. With rare exceptions, only recently have aspects of the Obama administration’s largely below-the-radar-screen “pivot” to Africa made it into the mainstream media. Even more recently, global chaos from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria to Ukraine has driven it out again. As a result, most Americans have no sense of how their future and Africa’s are being entwined in possibly explosive ways.

With this in mind, and with the support of the Nation Institute’s Investigative Fund (as well as the generosity of Adelaide Gomer), Nick has gone to Tanzania and South Sudan to explore the situation further himself. Today, as the first fruits of that trip, TomDispatch has a major story on a development that has, until now, remained distinctly below the radar screen: the Africa-wide contest between the globe’s “sole superpower,” the U.S., and its preeminent rising economic power, China, over which will benefit most from the exploitation of that continent.

Over the next several months, there will be more pieces from Nick on America’s growing stake in and effect on Africa. The next will address a looming crisis in the world's youngest nation. He offers a preview: “My aid agency contacts say that, in September, the United Nations will officially declare a famine in large swaths of South Sudan. As one humanitarian worker here put it to me, add famine to war and you have a powder keg. ‘It’s going to get worse,’ says another, ‘before it gets better.’” Tom


China, America, and a New Cold War in Africa?
Is the Conflict in South Sudan the Opening Salvo in the Battle for a Continent?
By Nick Turse

[This story was reported in partnership with the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute. Additional funding was provided through the generosity of Adelaide Gomer.]

Juba, South Sudan -- Is this country the first hot battlefield in a new cold war? Is the conflict tearing this new nation apart actually a proxy fight between the world’s two top economic and military powers? That’s the way South Sudan’s Information Minister Michael Makuei Lueth tells it. After "midwifing" South Sudan into existence with billions of dollars in assistance, aid, infrastructure projects, and military support, the U.S. has watched China emerge as the major beneficiary of South Sudan’s oil reserves. As a result, Makuei claims, the U.S. and other Western powers have backed former vice president Riek Machar and his rebel forces in an effort to overthrow the country’s president, Salva Kiir. China, for its part, has played a conspicuous double game. Beijing has lined up behind Kiir, even as it publicly pushes both sides to find a diplomatic solution to a simmering civil war. It is sending peacekeepers as part of the U.N. mission even as it also arms Kiir’s forces with tens of millions of dollars worth of new weapons.

While experts dismiss Makuei’s scenario -- “farfetched” is how one analyst puts it -- there are average South Sudanese who also believe that Washington supports the rebels. The U.S. certainly did press Kiir’s government to make concessions, as his supporters are quick to remind anyone willing to listen, pushing it to release senior political figures detained as coup plotters shortly after fighting broke out in late 2013. America, they say, cared more about a handful of elites sitting in jail than all the South Sudanese suffering in a civil war that has now claimed more than 10,000 lives, resulted in mass rapes, displaced more than 1.5 million people (around half of them children), and pushed the country to the very brink of famine. Opponents of Kiir are, however, quick to mention the significant quantities of Chinese weaponry flooding into the country. They ask why the United States hasn’t put pressure on a president they no longer see as legitimate.

While few outside South Sudan would ascribe to Makuei’s notion of a direct East-West proxy war here, his conspiracy theory should, at least, serve as a reminder that U.S. and Chinese interests are at play in this war-torn nation and across Africa as a whole -- and that Africans are taking note. Almost anywhere you look on the continent, you can now find evidence of both the American and the Chinese presence, although they take quite different forms. The Chinese are pursuing a ruthlessly pragmatic economic power-projection strategy with an emphasis on targeted multilateral interventions in African conflicts. U.S. policy, in contrast, appears both more muddled and more military-centric, with a heavy focus on counterterrorism efforts meant to bolster amorphous strategic interests.

For the last decade, China has used “soft power” -- aid, trade, and infrastructure projects -- to make major inroads on the continent. In the process, it has set itself up as the dominant foreign player here. The U.S., on the other hand, increasingly confronts Africa as a "battlefield" or "battleground" or "war" in the words of the men running its operations. In recent years, there has been a substantial surge in U.S. military activities of every sort, including the setting up of military outposts and both direct and proxy interventions. These two approaches have produced starkly contrasting results for the powers involved and the rising nations of the continent. Which one triumphs may have profound implications for all parties in the years ahead. The differences are, perhaps, nowhere as stark as in the world’s newest nation, South Sudan.


Read the rest here
[url]http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175875/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_an_east-west_showdown_in_the_heart_of_africa/#more[/url]

And as usual any heated debate on geo-politics between East and West, Muslim and Christian, etc descends into virulent attacks and spiteful. vile language.

My oga thoth, your thoughts please. Where you?

emmatok: We all know it is geopolitics.
But it is not only the west that should not the trusted.

All dominating world power should not be trusted.

You are absolutely correct emmatok. I like the angle at which you have viewed this.

Should the Chinese or the Russians become world powers, do not trust them either... Power corrupts and you can expect that the same manner in which the US has gone about its hegemonic ambitions will be repeated by China and Russia. Subjugating and subverting non-compliant governments to their will..... We as Africans have to wake up and realize that we ourselves are our only hope. All these looking up to America or trusting in them oyinbos is folly - totally folly....

More on why Russia has taken this step as seemingly autocratic and anti-democratic it may be. I expect a torrent of demonization from Western media over the next few days. Unfortunately alot of people will buy Washington's propaganda


http://landdestroyer..com/2012/07/us-agents-of-subversion-deride-russian.html

http://landdestroyer..com/2012/08/bombshell-us-neo-cons-state-department.html

http://landdestroyer..com/2012/08/russian-punkers-get-2-years-jail-for-us.html

Nigerians are truly a funny lot. I am reading comments from the hialrious, to the ridiculous, to the downtright bizarre.

How on earth is banning sustained street protest going to lead to war? Just how? War between whom and whom? How is Putin Hitler? Can someone please explain?

For those that do not understand - and there are unfortunately so many here - the geo-politics at play, please just refrain from commenting on this issue. Abeg ehn?

Putin has only pre-empted what he sees as efforts by the West to destablize his country with protests and violence that can be instigated and sponsored by Western NGOs, think-tanks and 5th elements masquerading as pro-democracy, pro-transparency, pro-open economy organizations. They have done this in the past and light of Putin, together with other world leaders successfully lauching the BRICS economic block, you can bet your ass that they will attempt to do this again. I have said it before and I will say it again: DO NOT TRUST THE WEST! All the do aren't all for altruistic or humanitarian reasons. They are mostly after their interests and Putin has posed a serious threat to the West's hegemony and control of the world's prime financial institutions, namely the IMF and the World Bank.

Isn't it so obvious to see the geo-politics at play? Russia at the moment is locked in a political and financial war wih the West. At the rate in which things are going, I do not see how a real war will be avoided sometime in the future. Has anyone heard of the Asian pivot and the ABMs being deployed in Eastern Europe which the West claims are actually protection against Iran when in reality that are for countering the tactical nuclear threat that Russia poses? Wars and World Wars have been fought for resources and economic control and I guarantee you that wars are still yet to be fought....

Look at these pictures of past pro-democracy, pro-transparency protests. You can see how the leaders of these protests and so-called NGOs filing into the US embassy in Moscow. NED, ACPC, George Soros Open Society, IRI, AEI, The Brookings Institution, Chatham House, etc.....All poison!!

Open your eyes people!



mascot87, emperorwhale,lucianohose, chemicstein, etc, twale!!!!. You guys are awake and see things as they are. Others - well, I can only hope that one day you too will see things much differently....


Images: Russia has a problem. Caught red-handed - Russia's opposition, long accused by the Kremlin of being foreign-funded, and who have well documented ties to the US State Department, are caught filing into the US Embassy in Moscow in January of 2012, just days after agitator Michael McFaul began his stint as US Ambassador to Russia.

Landdestroyee :
US Appeals to "Law of the Jungle" in MH17 Case

 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) After the Russian Federation disclosed to the worldsatellite imagery, radar information, and abnormalities in Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 flight MH17's flight path, it asked Ukraine and the Western nations backing the regime in Kiev, questions regarding their alleged evidence. To these questions, the West has responded with increasingly suspicious silence and evasion. At one point, US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf, told journalists that the summation of US evidence was "YouTube" videos and other forms of social media - all of which are admittedly unverifiable and some of which is veritably fabricated.


All of Harf's comments assigning blame to eastern Ukrainian separatists so far rests entirely on the alleged veracity of "YouTube clips" and "Facebook posts." Harf left no room for the possibility that the evidence she is hinging her comments on may be fabrications, taken out of context, or otherwise inaccurate.

The abject failure of the United States to once again put forth credible evidence amid a firestorm of propaganda and rush to judgement - and subsequent action - echoes the attempted rush to war after NATO-member Turkey and Saudi Arabia assisted terrorists from the Syrian Al Qaeda franchise, Al Nusra, in carrying out a false-flag sarin gas attack in Damascus in August 2013. It also echoes the fallacious, fabricated evidence peddled before the United Nations regarding Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" that in fact did not exist - but led to the invasion and nearly decade-long occupation of Iraq and over a million dead.

The serial fabrications the West has produced to advance its agenda worldwide is a troubling indictment of the "international order" it presumes itself chief proponent of and arbiter over. It appears to be an "international order" where the "law of the jungle," prevails over the rule of law. Instead of an impartial investigation to ascertain the facts surrounding the downing of MH17, the US has resigned to citing "YouTube" clips as the basis upon which it seeks to undermine, isolate, and diminish the nation of Russia and its population of 142 million people, both politically and economically.

Harf insists on behalf of the US government that "commonsense" dictates who is responsible for the downing of MH17 - but to that a simple question can be asked, and demonstrably answered - cui bono? Downing the Malaysian airliner with nearly 300 on board and blaming it on Russia has been the "game changer" desperately needed by NATO and its collaborators in Kiev to turn the tides in a battle they were decisively losing, politically, tactically, strategically, and economically.

Another curiosity is the fact that most of the "intelligence" the US claims to have is in reference to "YouTube" clips, photography, and conclusions drawn on a series of pro-Kiev Ukrainian blogs (written in English). Is US intelligence simply reading blogs? Or are the blogs somehow a clearinghouse of US intelligence? Or are the blogs fabrications by US intelligence in an attempt to frame Russia? One in particular, "Ukraine at War," is a definitive collection of fabrications, biased propaganda, and dubious claims that appear to precede "US intelligence" claims. 

The list of questions the US must answer after its nearly week-long campaign of baselessly accusing Russia is growing exponentially - with diversions, evasions, and juvenile deferrals to "social media" only further compromising America's waning credibility.

NairaMinted: I would respond to your questions and remarks.




I don't live in that region, yes. Neither do I have friends in that area as well. Do you? I really don't see how that is relevant to this topic. And speaking of sources. What are yours? I am guessing yours are sources that aren't Russian so does that automatically make yours credible and mine not trustworthy? Is that what you are insinuating? Well, it may interest you to know that my sources are mostly American - yes, American!. Sources that are generally known as the Alternative News Media. Sources that generally are rich in material; sources that provide a fair assessment of events; sources that are independent and mostly seek the truth as they are not owned by or affiliated with some big corporation or government; sources that provide a deeper insight into matters. Paul Craig Roberts, Ray McGovern, Robert Parry, Paul R. Pillar, Tom Engelhardt, Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Seymour Hersch, Prof Stephen Cohen, and so many others, some of which have held positions in the CIA and government and/or currently work in or write papers for prestigious American institutions and news media such as Globalresearch, New Eastern Outlook, TomDispatch, ConsortiumNews and so many others are my RUSSIAN SOURCES and in conclusion, from your definition, my Western sources Russian sourcesdestroy the integrity of my argument but somehow validate yours? I see!

Its been 5 days since MH17 was downed. We still await witnesses that witnessed that smoke trail to step forward....



That Ukranian jets trailed the plane is at all not in dispute. See, some of your Western sources have even reported this...
http://www.businessinsider.com/source-malaysia-flight-mh17-was-being-escorted-by-ukrainian-su-27-fighter-jets-2014-7

And about the matter of what exactly was used to bring down the plane. What the Russian authorities initially said that if indeed the plane was brought down by Buk missile as the West is claiming, it must have been from the Ukranian authorities as they had just recently moved such a battery to the region some days before. Intelligence later revealed that two figther jets escorted the plane.




a) my friend BUT have the Ukranian authorities turned over these recordings to anyone including independent investigators? NO they have not!


Question remains: How do you know a Buk missile battery brought down MH17? I really need an answer to that question......The Russians have made their presentation. Where is that of the Ukranians??

I follow your posts and I must say you do have a compelling argument. The shadowing fighter jets, the Buk batteries deployed days before, the lies such as the Buk carrying trucks that have been exposed, etc....

You are though quite a character. Someone must be really be at his A game to tango with you.

I can tell from your posts that you are intelligent. Perhaps a little overly paranoid but very intelligent I must say....