#islamist terror regime proxies

[bsof-maarav]

Elica Le Bon

[matan4il]

Update post:

Most of this will be about the unprecedented attack of the Islamist regime of Iran against Israel, but first I have to take a second to mourn a 14 year old boy, who was murdered in a Palestinian attack on Friday. At around 6 in the morning, teenager Binyamin Achimeir led his sheep herd out of the farm he lives in, but a few hours later, the sheep returned to the farm without him. At first, it was feared that he had some accident, or was dehydrated, and thousands of people voluntarily joined the search for him. On Saturday, at around noon, the IDF found his body, with signs of brutal violence on it. Based on the forensic evidence, he was murdered by several Palestinian terrorists, and he fought back. The army is still hunting down the murderers. May Binyamin's memory be a blessing.

Right, back to the Islamist regime of Iran's attack on Israel. I posted about it as soon as the news started being aired here, in case someone didn't know about it. The news broke past the normal time when people watch news on TV in Israel, I noticed it by chance right before I was about to turn in for the night. I'm physically okay, but I didn't get that much sleep, I had to wake up early to take care of some stuff, so I AM very tired, which is why I'm not going to do the usual thing I do, which is to look for English journalistic sources for everything, but I have no doubt even the stuff I won't look up can all be easily found online.

On a personal note, I can tell you that at 1:43 in the morning I heard the first explosion, but no sirens went off. A few more explosions followed, and only then did we hear the sirens. It was scary, for a moment we couldn't tell whether we're hearing explosions of missiles from neighboring areas, or whether something went wrong with the sirens, and we need to hurry into the bomb shelter. It seems like in Jerusalem specifically there was some issue with the sirens, I heard a reporter mention it. Also, the alert app didn't go off, even though it should have, at the latest when the sirens did.

This is what the Temple Mount looked like from an Iranian attack that could have easily destroyed the al-Aqsa mosque (it's not in the frame, but it's right next to where this was filmed):

Quick background: Iran is the biggest financier of anti-Israel terrorism for decades now, including funding Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, all of which have been a part of a continuous attack on Israel since Oct 7 as Iran's proxies. Iran has sent its own military seniors to help and instruct those local terrorists, in places like Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Israel has eliminated them whenever possible, this is not something new. On Apr 1, Israel carried out such a strike, in which it targeted 7 Iranian army seniors in Damascus, Syria's capital. Iran claimed Israel targeted the Iranian consulate in this city, but diplomatic buildings are all publicly listed. Iran has an embassy in Damascus (in a separate location) and no consulates. That's why the magnitude of Iran's response to this has taken Israel by surprise, because the Israeli strike wasn't that out of the ordinary. In fact, the US assassination of Iran's military commander, Qasem Soleimani, back in 2018, was a far graver blow for the Iranian regime, and yet it did not lead to an attack as massive as the one launched against Israel last night.

It is now known that some of the attack waves against Israel were intercepted by other countries, including The US, the UK, France and Jordan. It's been said that there's at least one more Arab country that helped in intercepting Iran's attack, but it can't be publicized. Many countries denounced Iran for attacking Israel.

We don't have numbers regarding the full size of the attack. Out of all the countries who participated in curtailing this attack, we know that the US has intercepted at least 70 suicide drones and 3 cruise missiles, while Israel has intercepted at least 185 suicide drones, 36 cruise missile and 110 ballistic missiles (that last one is the missile type that causes the most damage). Israel's interceptions are said to have been 99% successful, but like I said, no defence system is perfect. A small number of ballistic missiles did land inside Israel. One hit an Israeli air Force base in the south. There's over 30 people who got injured when rushing to the bomb shelter in the middle of the night (elderly people, including Holocaust survivors, have died from such injuries), and over 30 more ended up in hospital due to severe mental health reactions. On top of that, there's a 7 years old Muslim Bedouine girl who was injured by interceptors debris. A friend of her family that I heard being interviewed said the family wanted to go to the communal bomb shelter, but before they even had a chance to make it out of the house, the girl was hit by the debris piercing into their home, and she is suffering from severe head injuries. The hospital is currently fighting for her life.

The estimate of how much it cost Israel to defend its citizens from this one attack last night is 5 BILLION shekels (which is over 1.3 BILLION US dollars). That's for one night.

Israel will respond. According to one reporter I heard, that was decided as soon as it was clear how big the attack is, so this isn't about how much damage Iran caused, it's about how it crossed several red lines. This is the first time Iran itself attacked Israel itself, it's not an attack on an extension of Israel, nor was it done by using proxy terrorists. Israel has had terrorist organizations attacking it continuously since 2001, but this is the first attack from a fellow sovereign country since Iraq (led by tyrant Saddam Hussein) in 1991, so that in itself is crossing a red line. The size of the attack is also considered an escalation on Iran's part. In 2019, Iran launched a smaller scaled suicde drone attack on Saudi Arabia, and the latter's western allies refused to launch a counter attack, which led to these countries being seen as unreliable, and some Middle Eastern countries renewed their ties with Iran. That's why how it would seen in the Middle East if Israel doesn't react to an even bigger attack, and how it might drive more moderate countries to grow closer to Iran, is another consideration in why Israel must respond. Not to mention that launching such a mass attack basically caused a paralysis of the country once the first intel became known. For example, all educational activity (schools, universities, you name it) has been canceled, Israel's air space had to be closed, every single ambulance across the country had to be manned, and so on. That is not something any country can simply shrug off. Not to mention, Israel financially can't afford this reality to become normalized.

Not to mention, Israel tried to contain Hamas, PIJ and Hezbollah's rocket attacks for decades. What we got for it was the invasion and massacre on Oct 7. The lesson for most Israelis is that containing mass attacks on our population only leads to worse ones.

That said, there's also no desire here of getting dragged into a war on another front while we're still in the middle of one in Gaza and with Iran's proxies on several more fronts. So, Israel is looking for a balanced response, one that won't let this mass attack slide, but hopefully doesn't make matters much worse.

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[mariacallous]

“Did Israel Avert a Hamas Massacre?” That was the question posed by the headline of a Vanity Fair exposé published in October 2014. The investigative report laid out a sophisticated plot by the Islamist terror group to kill and kidnap Israelis on the Gaza border. The plan: to use underground tunnels to infiltrate nearby civilian enclaves on Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, when the communities would be at their most vulnerable. As one intelligence source put it, the operation had two goals: “First, get in and massacre people in a village. Pull off something they could show on television. Second, the ability to kidnap soldiers and civilians using the tunnels would give them a great bargaining chip.” The Israel Defense Forces subsequently confirmed this reporting to other media outlets, but not the specific date.

The tunnels were real. But at the time the massacre-that-wasn’t received little additional media coverage. It seemed too cinematic and convenient. Maybe it was a Hamas pipe dream that was never operational. Or maybe it was a worst-case scenario concocted by the Israeli security services and leaked to the media to justify their own ever-expanding countermeasures. Years passed without a mass border incursion, the tunnels were gradually detected and blocked, and I came to the conclusion that the skeptics were right about the plot being too lurid even for Hamas.

I was wrong. Last week, Hamas executed something quite like the attack on the Gaza border that it had planned all those years ago. Instead of tunneling underground on Rosh Hashanah, it invaded aboveground on another Jewish holiday, Simchat Torah. Some 1,500 terrorists stormed nearby civilian communities by land, air, and sea. They murdered babies in their cribs, parents in front of their children, and children in front of their parents. They burned entire families alive. They decapitated and mutilated their victims. They wore body cameras and documented their destruction as though it were a video game. They executed a grandmother in her home and uploaded the snuff film to her Facebook page. They deliberately targeted elementary schools. They kidnapped toddlers and a Holocaust survivor. They paraded a battered, naked woman through the streets of Gaza like a trophy. All told, they murdered more than 1,300 Israelis, almost all civilians, and abducted some 150 others, including babies and the elderly. The death toll continues to rise as rescue workers recover more remains and reassemble mangled corpses for identification.

Somehow, few saw this eruption of inhumanity coming. Several months ago, Sven Kühn von Burgsdorff, then the European Union ambassador to the Palestinians, performed what he called Gaza’s first paragliding flight to advocate for a future where “anything is possible in Gaza.” Hamas terrorists would later use paragliders to massacre more than 250 civilians at an Israeli music festival, which is presumably not what the envoy had in mind. And he wasn’t the only one naive about the Hamas regime’s intentions.

The consensus was that Hamas was a mostly rational actor that could be reasoned with. To hawks, although the group was an anti-Semitic Iran proxy, it could be deterred through political and economic incentives, because it felt responsible for the welfare of the Gazan people. To doves, Hamas was a quasi-legitimate national resistance movement whose occasional bouts of violence were simply intended to draw attention to that struggle.

Successive Netanyahu governments and security officials, far less sympathetic to the Gazan plight, nonetheless spent recent years lifting economic restrictions on the enclave, granting thousands of work permits for Gazans, and transferring hundreds of millions of Qatari dollars to Hamas in exchange—they thought—for relative quiet.

But it turned out that Hamas wasn’t being pacified; it was preparing. The group was less committed to national liberation than to Jewish elimination. Its violence was rooted not in strategy, but in sadism. And in retrospect, well before the Rosh Hashanah plot, the signs of Hamas’s atrocious ambitions were all there—many observers just did not want to believe them. What Hamas did was not out of character, but rather the explicit fulfillment of its long-stated objectives. The shocking thing was not just the atrocity itself, but that so many people were shocked by it, because they’d failed to reckon with the reality that had been staring them in the face.

First, there is Hamas’s notorious charter, a Frankensteinian amalgam of the worst anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the modern era—the very same that have motivated numerous white-supremacist attacks in the United States. “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious,” the document opens. “It needs all sincere efforts … until the enemy is vanquished.” The charter goes on to claim that the Jews control “the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others.” According to Hamas, the Jews were “behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about,” as well as World War I and World War II. The charter accuses Israel of seeking to take over the entire world, and cites as proof the most influential modern anti-Semitic text, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a Russian fabrication that purports to expose a global Jewish cabal.

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it,” Hamas declares in its credo. “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews.” In case anyone missed the point, the document adds that “so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” In 2017, Hamas published a new charter, but pointedly refused to disavow the original one, in a transparent ruse that some respectable observers nonetheless took at face value.

In any case, Hamas communicated its genocidal intentions not just in words, but in deeds. Before it took control of Gaza, the group deliberately targeted Jewish civilians for mass murder, executing scores of suicide bombings against shopping malls, night clubs, restaurants, buses, Passover seders, and many other nonmilitary targets. Today, this killing spree is widely blamed for destroying the credibility of the Israeli peace movement and helping derail the Oslo Accords, precisely as Hamas intended. And it did not stop there. Since the group took power in Gaza, it has launched thousands of rockets indiscriminately at nearby civilian towns—attacks that continue at this very moment and that have boosted the Israeli right in election after election.

Hamas’s anti-Jewish aspirations were evident not only from its treatment of Israelis, but from its treatment of fellow Palestinians. Despite being the putative sovereign in Gaza and responsible for the well-being of its people, Hamas repeatedly cannibalized Gaza’s infrastructure and appropriated international aid to fuel its messianic war machine. The group boasted publicly about digging up Gaza’s pipes and turning them into rockets. It stored weapons in United Nations schools and dug attack tunnels underneath them. (Contrary to what you might have read on social media, Gaza does have underground shelters—they are just used for housing Hamas fighters, smuggling operations, and weapons caches, not protecting civilians.)

When dissenting Gazans attempted to protest this state of affairs and demanded a better future, they were brutally repressed. Hamas has not held elections since 2006. In 2020, when the Gazan peace activist Rami Aman held a two-hour Zoom call with Israeli leftists, Hamas threw him in prison for six months, tortured him, and forced him to divorce his wife. Why? Because his vision of a shared society for Arabs and Jews, however remote, was a threat to the group’s entire worldview. Jews were not to share the land; they were to be cleansed from it.

Simply put, what Hamas did two weekends ago was not a departure from its past, but the natural culmination of its commitments. The question is not why Hamas did what it did, but why so many people were surprised. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, quick to discern anti-Semitism in any effort to merely label Israeli products from West Bank settlements, somehow overlooked the severity of the genocidal threat growing next door. Journalists like me who cover anti-Semitism somehow failed to take Hamas’s overt anti-Jewish ethos as seriously as we should have. Many international leftists, ostensibly committed to equality and dignity for Palestinians and Israelis alike, somehow missed that Hamas did not share that vision, and in fact was actively working to obliterate it.

Today, in the ashes of the worst anti-Jewish violence since the Holocaust, some analysts have admitted their error of sanitizing Hamas. “It’s a huge mistake that I did, believing that a terror organization can change its DNA,” the former Netanyahu national-security adviser Yaakov Amidror told The New York Times. Others on the left have clung to their tortured conception of Hamas as a rational resistance group, despite it having been falsified by events. Perhaps some fear that acknowledging the true nature of Hamas would undermine the struggle for Palestinian self-determination. But in actuality, it is the refusal to disentangle Hamas’s anti-Jewish sadism from the legitimate cause of Palestinian nationalism that threatens the project and saps its support.

In 1922, The New York Times published its first article about Adolf Hitler. The reporter, Cyril Brown, was aware of his subject’s anti-Jewish animus, but he wasn’t buying it. “Several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded,” Brown wrote, “and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers.” Two years later, the Times published another news item on the future architect of the Holocaust: “Hitler Tamed by Prison.” The Austrian activist, the piece said, “looked a much sadder and wiser man,” and “his behavior during his imprisonment convinced the authorities that [he] was no longer to be feared.”

Many got Hamas wrong. But they shouldn’t have. Again and again, people say they intend to murder Jews. And yet, century after century, the world produces new, tortuous justifications for why anti-Jewish bigots don’t really mean what they say—even though they do.

[liberty1776]

It’s open season for false-flag provocations in NATO’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Russia is winning the war – now in its third year – and the NATO weapons laundering scam with its NeoNazi regime in Ukraine is coming apart. So what to do? Only two weeks after a terror attack near Moscow that killed 144 civilians, which the Western media roundly attributed to Islamist jihadists and Western governments categorically asserted had nothing to do with the Ukrainian regime it sponsors, there now follows a spate of other false flags. Win Your Inner Battles... Foroux, Darius Best Price: $13.01 … Continue reading →

[2midleeast]

Al Kuwari Unmasked: The Al-Kuwari Clan: Orchestrators of Global Terrorism

 The Al-Kuwari Clan: Orchestrators of Global Terrorism's Shadow

Narratives of Engagement: The nature of actions is distinctly shaped through interactions with British financiers. Coordinated financial schemes cast shadows, revealing a strategic orchestration. The depth of connections within the Qatari Clan affirms transnational elites' keen interest in the BM project.

As the second most influential power in the region, the Al-Kuwari family wields a Middle East and EU influence comparable to nuclear potential. Under their direct control, Qatar's political agenda is not only fueled by gas supplies but also influenced by terrorist cells. Functioning as primary intermediaries, the Al-Kuwari Clan plays a pivotal role in the operational maneuvers of British intelligence agencies in the region. The convergence of British financiers in Qatari financial institutions' managing partners, coupled with systemic ties between ruling family members and transnational elites of British and French origin, underscores Qatar's persistent role as a proxy for external interests.

Minister of Finance Ali bin Ahmed Al-Kuwari, the financial captain of the ruling family, wields authority beyond the country's financial establishment. His influence extends over key investment and financial organizations, as well as energy-related entities, prior to and during his appointment. Through QNB, he manages extensive real estate assets in the United Kingdom, surpassing even those held by the Queen. Qatar's investments in the UK, totaling £30 billion, are subject to potential confiscation under suitable pretexts, showcasing the intertwined interests of Qatari luxury and the British financial elite.

QNB's extensive offshore finances, managed by Ali Ahmed Al-Kuwari, involve British banking group Ansbacher, acquired in 2004. The British branch of QNB, led by Paul McDonagh and George Bell, holds numerous Qatari assets, including real estate properties and yachts. Additionally, the Cayman Islands branch of QNB Finance Ltd, overseen by the Marples Group, plays a role in Qatar's "green energy" initiatives, issuing sustainable development bonds in collaboration with global transnational conglomerates associated with the World Bank's International Finance Corporation.

Yousef bin Ahmed Al-Kuwari, a prominent member of the clan, directs Qatar Charity, engaging in controversial financing of groups like the "Muslim Brotherhood." Despite accusations, his international collaborations remain intact, including partnerships with the UN and other humanitarian organizations. The involvement of the Al-Kuwari Clan, particularly through Yousef, in financing radical Islamists during the Arab Spring aligns with historical British intelligence interest in the "Muslim Brotherhood." This connection becomes illustrative in orchestrating regime change actions in Egypt.

The evolving stance of the British toward the "Muslim Brotherhood" is rooted in its potential to destabilize regions, including the EU, aligning with the inclusive capitalism model advocated by global influencers like Klaus Schwab. Abdullah Ali Al-Kuwari, son of Ali Al-Kuwari, aligns with these ideas and serves within the World Economic Forum. The gradual erosion of values, from traditional family models to acceptance of LGBT issues, is facilitated by Qatari influence, aiming to mold Islam to suit Western preferences.

Allegations against Qatar, particularly Qatar Charity, involving financing terrorist groups like "Al-Qaeda," raise concerns globally. Despite these claims, Qatar remains off the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) lists, reflecting a strategic alignment with influential nations that maintain a leash on Qatar's actions in exchange for shadowy exertion of power over its partners.

In conclusion, investigations against the "Muslim Brotherhood" aim to replace ideologically inconvenient figures with those more prone to compromise, showcasing the strategic maneuvers of the United States and the United Kingdom. The Qatari pawns, like their counterparts, find their future dictated by external forces in the larger global game.

[bimboficationblues]

“A Jihadism Anti-Primer,” Darryl Li, Middle East Research and Information Project, Fall 2015

Discussions of jihad today are like a secularized form of demonology. They stem from a place of horror that shuts down serious thinking about politics. Perhaps the most striking example of this orientation is a summer 2015 analysis in the New York Review of Books—like much of its ilk, widely circulated but quickly forgotten—declaring ISIS simply too horrific to be analyzed. [1] Indeed, the magazine’s unexplained decision to grant anonymity to the author (described only as a “former official of a NATO country”), despite the lack of any sensitive information in the article, seemed only to reinforce this sense of radical cataclysmic difference.

The problem with all demonologies, however, is that they all too easily give rise to witch hunts. By positing jihadism as a problem about Islam, the debate is nearly always framed around questions of authenticity: How much do groups like al-Qaeda or ISIS represent something inherent to Islam and Islam only—or, in other words, how afraid should “we” be of Muslims? In this framing, ordinary Muslims are ritualistically called upon to condemn the acts committed by jihadis, something that is never demanded of Christians and Jews for acts of co-religionists who may also seek to justify their actions in scriptural terms. But no matter how sincere or thorough such self-flagellations may be, the demand for condemnation will never be completely sated. For the suspicion will persist that as infinitesimally small as groups like ISIS may be, they nevertheless make claims to Islamic authority that are compelling enough to some number of people to both give and take life in an organized fashion. As a result, “Muslims are presented with a brutal logic in which the only way to truly disassociate from ISIS and escape suspicion is to renounce Islam altogether.” [2]

Aside from its tendencies toward racism, the problem with demonology as starting point is that it sets a low bar for analysis and makes for a lot of boring writing. As a result, the engine of much commentary on jihad runs on the shock of discovery that “jihadis” are organized, may not be very religious, care about money, have fun, know how to use computers, fall in love, drink alcohol, use drugs and so on. These writings reveal far more about their presumed audiences than about the jihadi groups themselves. [3] This banalizing narrative serves both the state—which seeks to discredit the jihadis’ self-presentation as superhuman idealists—and liberal critics, who point to impiety or lack of religious learning as proving that Islam as such is not the issue.

The rediscovery that inhumane acts are committed by human beings is often paired with some kind of disclaimer that the writer is not an apologist or a proponent of “moral equivalence” between state violence and jihad but someone who seeks to understand the enemy in order to better combat it. This skittishness about “humanizing” the enemy is a kind of boundary maintenance reinforcing the false idea that the only choices on hand are apology for jihad or joining the fight against it.

Against this discourse on monsters who are actually human but whose monstrousness must nevertheless be reasserted, there are two main forms of pushback: The first insists that jihadi groups do not represent Muslims or Islam in any meaningful sense. The second holds the US or other governments directly or indirectly responsible for the emergence of such groups. Both arguments are generally correct, necessary and important. But insofar as they engage in debates over who is the “real” enemy, these arguments do not move debates about jihad outside the circle of demonology.

There is an enormous body of scholarship in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies demolishing the myth that Muslims are inherently or irrationally violent. Some of it also shows that political groups fashioning themselves in Islamic terms, such as the Society of Muslim Brothers in Egypt or the Justice and Development Party in Turkey (usually known by the Turkish acronym, AKP), should not be conflated with jihadis, whatever else their flaws may be. There is also scholarship showing that even groups engaging in violence under the banner of jihad cannot all be lumped together—nationalist organizations such as Hamas and Hizballah are distinguished from transnational groups like al-Qaeda. In other words, not all Muslims are pious, not all pious Muslims are Islamists, not all Islamists are violent and not all violent Islamists are at war with the West (or other Muslims they dislike).

There is, however, one significant limitation to this approach when it comes to the question of jihadism: Telling us who is not a jihadi is not particularly helpful for understanding jihadism on its own terms. In a sense, we are back in the condemnation trap, except using more analytical language. Moreover, the “not all Muslims” argument can all too easily play into the distinction between “good” and “bad” Muslims that states have long employed as an instrument of rule. It is much better at telling the state which Muslims not to torture or bomb than it is at arguing against those practices in the first place.

There is a corollary to this political argument, namely “not all terrorists are Muslim,” frequently trotted out to ask why violence perpetrated by right-wing or white supremacist groups is not treated as terrorism. If the question is posed rhetorically to draw attention to the continuities and complicities between state and extra-state forms of racial terror, it is helpful. But when couched instead as a plea for the state to be simply more judicious in the distribution of its violence, then it is at naïve at best.

The other most common pushback against anti-Muslim demonization is to highlight the role that the United States played in creating the conditions that gave rise to jihadism. Indeed, a critical understanding of imperial practices and the US role in particular is absolutely indispensable. But it is equally true that reducing jihadi groups to mere epiphenomena of US actions is a dead end for analysis. Such approaches give rise to a kind of Frankenstein theory of jihad, which insists that the US can manufacture such groups but then somehow always loses control over them without ever really explaining how (an even more conspiratorial argument is that the US continues to control such groups, which at least enjoys the virtue of consistency). Moreover, the political logic of the complicity charge can be all too easily appropriated by warmongers...

A more sophisticated variant of this argument is to highlight the role of US proxies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in stirring up jihadi energies. Again, there is much truth to this account: The House of Saud’s role as a leading exporter of counterrevolution and the Pakistani military establishment’s ruthlessness in pursuit of domestic and foreign policy goals are a matter of well-established record. But when the influence that these regimes exercise over jihadi groups is overplayed or commentators suggest that Riyadh and Islamabad are somehow directing overseas attacks against their most powerful patron in Washington, the argument loses its footing. And politically, this narrative can bizarrely turn into a redirection of militarism rather than a rejection of it...More extreme versions of the argument include conspiracy theories blaming the House of Saud for the September 11 hijackings, which conveniently ignore its long-standing mutual enmity with Osama bin Laden as well as al-Qaeda’s bloody attacks on the Saudi regime.

Arguments over who is the real enemy—whether emphasizing that the enemy is not all Muslims or declaring that there is no enemy as such, only the blowback from imperial policies—ultimately do not challenge jihad talk as demonology. The fundamental problem is not only how Islam is discussed; it is how politics is understood in general. The statist discourse and its liberal opposition present a choice between demonizing the enemy and banalizing him. But there is a third option: taking radicalism seriously as a political orientation, whether its idiom is Islamic, communist or anarchist. The challenge is how to understand the distinctiveness of jihadi groups without lapsing into an all-too-often racialized exceptionalism. Letting racist flat-earthers and their more respectable counterparts set the terms of debate with questions like whether jihadis represent Islam or why they are so horrible only obscures this important task. Jihadi groups may have very different ideas of the good and may operate in forms unfamiliar to those who can only think of politics in terms of the state and its categories. But that does not render any less concrete the ideas and interests at stake in their antagonisms, nor does it make thinking clearly about them any less urgent.

[mariacallous]

The head of MI5 has said his agency has “one hell of a job” to do as the threat from Islamic State has returned while Iran and Russia engage in intensifying efforts to undertake assassination and sabotage plots in the UK.

Ken McCallum said a revival of IS in Afghanistan in particular had brought a resumption of efforts by the Islamist group to export terrorism, and a “bit of an upswing” in Britons seeking to travel abroad to learn from the group.

McCallum said the “worsening threat” from IS and, to a lesser extent, al-Qaida, was “the terrorist trend that concerns me most” and he noted that al-Qaida had “sought to capitalise on conflict in the Middle East” in its calls for violent action.

“Over the last month, more than a third of our top-priority investigations have had some form of connection, of varying strengths, to organised overseas terrorist groups,” he said as he gave a threat update.

Spy chiefs are focused on the revival of IS’s Afghan affiliate, Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), which has grown in strength after the western withdrawal from Afghanistan. It claimed responsibility for the deadly attack in Moscow in March where militants opened fire at a concert, killing 133 people and wounding 140.

Two brothers from Birmingham were sentenced last November for trying to travel to Afghanistan to join ISKP, McCallum noted. They received jail terms of 10 years and eight years.

The spy chief said it was not the case that Israel’s ongoing war with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon had led directly to an increase in terrorist plotting in the UK, though he acknowledged there had been “rising public order, hate crime and community safety challenges” that police had had to deal with.

Terror threats tended to develop over a long period, he added. “The ripples from conflict in that region will not necessarily arrive at our shores in a straightforward fashion,” he said, but the UK terror threat remained unchanged at “substantial”, the third level on a five-point scale.

McCallum highlighted that Iran had been behind “plot after plot” in the UK in the past two years. Five new Iran-backed plots have been uncovered by MI5 and police this year, taking the total since January 2022 to 20.

McCallum said Iranian state actors made “extensive use of criminals as proxies”, to try to carry out threats and intimidation largely directed against dissidents and individuals perceived as a threat to the Tehran regime.

He said MI5 was alive to the possibility that Iran “could, in principle, try to repurpose” that effort to focus on other targets in the UK if Tehran felt that Britain had become a party to the conflict in the Middle East by supporting Israel in its anticipated retaliation to last week’s ballistic missile attack.

He also said Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency was engaged in “a sustained mission to generate mayhem on British and European streets”, noting that there had been arson and sabotage plots, also relying on criminal networks to carry out disruptive attacks because most or all of the country’s embassy-based spies had been kicked out.

Taken together, the number of MI5’s state-based investigations, including China as well as Russia, Iran and others, had risen by 48% in the past year. Russian activity had stepped up again after a chaotic period after the invasion of Ukraine, when 750 diplomats had been expelled across Europe.

McCallum said that meant the spy agency was dealing with terror threats alongside ���state-backed sabotage and assassination plots”, and he observed that “MI5 has one hell of a job on its hands”.

McCallum also said the number of terror cases that involved MI5 investigating under 18-year-olds was continuing to grow, particularly where extreme rightwing threats were involved online.

“Sadly, 13% of all those being investigated by MI5 for involvement in UK terrorism are under 18,” the spy chief said. “That’s a threefold increase in the last three years. Extreme rightwing terrorism in particular skews heavily towards young people, driven by propaganda that shows a canny understanding of online culture.”

For several years, MI5 has found itself investigating teenagers’ activity online, and three years ago said it had realised that the subject of one of its inquiries into neo-Nazi activity was 13.

The number of late-stage terror plots disrupted since March 2017 had increased to 43, McCallum said. The last time the spy chief gave a comparable figure it was 37 in November 2022, meaning six plots have been prevented in nearly two years.

[militantwarriorsaint]

Islamist Terrorists Should Quit Their Whining

A very common rhetoric used by terrorists is to portray themselves as victims of aggression from all sides: its the Crusaders, the Jews, the Americans, the British, the Shias, the Saudis, the Hindus, the Chinese, etc. I’ve picked this up from several rambling speeches by Osama bin Laden who couldn’t stop bitching about “Arabs were being slaughtered”, the “Two Holy Shrines were being occupied by invaders” and it “what happened in Al-Andalus will happen to them”, referring to the Reconquista when the Christians of Iberia slowly had driven the Muslims out of the Penisula. In what context he was referring to this in modern times eludes me: did he think Americans were going to drive out Arabs from the Middle-East? Oh whatever...

Point is, victimhood is a driving motive behind Islamic terrorism you seen this too often involving Palestine, but bin Laden highlighted the suffering of Chechens, Kashimiri and Bosnians all around the world as his list of grievances against their oppressors. You don’t have to be related to them to even perpetrated terrorist attacks: take the Normandy Church attack for example, which was carried out by two lone wolves that swore allegiance to ISIS but couldn’t take the flight to Syria. According to witnesses, the terrorists claimed that “[you] Christians are killing them” and said that “every airstrike on Syria, the attacks will continue”. Of course this plays a hand on those that want to capitulate on the issue of terrorism. The thing I really find cynical about this rhetoric is how it goes hands-to-hands with the concept of martyrdom.

A very popular Islamist slogan is that “we love death more than the infidel loves life”. This is best shown by bin Laden’s ridiculing Westerners for grieving about the loss of their soldiers in Somalia and other conflicts. In fact, he was certain he’d win the War on Terror the same way as the War on Afghanistan, by dragging their forces to fight an guerilla conflict against his mujhadeens which would have caused an economic crisis to cripple America because bin Laden knew that they could never win a conventional war. As a matter of fact, bin Laden thought America would fold quicker than the Soviet Union precisely because they cared about their own men’s wellbeing while the Soviets sent their men like lambs to the slaughter and were still defeated. Needless to say, he is now dead and while America is still bogged down in conflict with Afghanistan as of the time of writing, they have certainly outlasted the Soviet Union in this regard and they have shown no signs of stopping.

In any case, Islamist terrorists love to show fearless they are by carrying out suicide attacks or fighting to their deaths because they believe this is the quickest way to get into Heaven and they wanna make a point to inspire even more martyrs to carry out their attacks against their enemies. They don’t have a concept for defeat because its either “martyrdom or victory” - either way they come out winning. This demonstrates an odd contrast between what Islamists’ reason to fighting, their actions and their goals. In one hand, they lament the supposed loss of innocent life on their side which serves as motivator to lash out against their perceived aggressors, but on the other hand, they don’t hesitate to throw them away - specially from women and children who are used as human shields to deter attacks from enemies.

From their twisted perspective, you’d think they would be lauding their own enemies for making so many “martyrs” our of their families and sending them to Heaven. But no, they use non-combatants as human shields (as shown by ISIS hiding between civilians to deter airstrikes from coalition forces), try to get themselves injured so they can go to an hospital just to blow up even more innocents and stuff like that. They claim to be more moral than us because they base their morality entirely on the Q’uran which has a code how to carry out warfare, but also has a convenient verse that says any situation desperate enough warrants whatever measure is necessary.

And they do all that with a straight face, certain they are winning the hearts and minds of moderates to embrace violent jihadism except the victims of all these attacks have consistently shown to be always more Muslims. I personally despise Bashar al Assad and I can’t get over how the right fawns over him or the left considers him the secular side of the Syrian conflict, but explain to me this: 

By what right did Sunnis from all around the world flew to Syria to overthrow him considering he hated (and still hates) the West? 

Did they ever thought to themselves when genociding Shias that they were killing more of their own people? 

Or how about their non-Muslim victims? 

What did the Arab Christians who lived in these lands for 1400 years had ever done to them to deserve being expelled? 

Did the Yazidi deserve having their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers being enslaved and passed around like cattle?

Why stop here? Lets go to the next step... Why Assad and not say the King of Saudi Arabia, considering their close ties with the POTUS? Or Erdogan? Or any other taghut regime out there?

These questions were mostly rhetorical, I comprehend that the conflict in Syria is just a huge proxy conflict between Islamic powers to exert their influence in order to weaken the other, and the Western morons that sided with ISIS just wanted to give a middle finger to the West. But it’s interesting to entertain them for now: consider that one of the reasons that made bin Laden denounce the Saudi monarchy was their decision to allow American soldiers to guard the border with Iraq because he viewed as invasion of Arabia, which he viewed as sacred ground, and that Muslims were fighting alongside Christians against other Muslims, never mind that:

Saddam was a secular (and I am using the word charitably here) leader that wasn’t exactly fan of religious fundamentalists because how volatile they were to his own power.

The Saudis invited the Americans to guard the border which is just more effective than a bunch of ragteam mujhadeen like the ones he offered.

This is important, because its one of the many reasons why bin Laden turned on both his home country and the West for once assisting him. It’s rather darkly comical when you think people like bin Laden considered the Saudis to be “insufficiently Islamic” and the common meme about Saudi Arabia is considered a “moderate Islamic country” when their practices, customs and many other things are not so different from ISIS themselves (they aren’t wrong, but that is an story for another time). He imagined that the Saudi monarch would inevitably be overthrown like the Shah of Iran was by the Islamic Revolution. You may be wondering: why didn’t they try that already? Besides the fact the USA will cover for the Saudis, ignore their gross human right violations and keep them in power by any means. 

Terrorists still profess themselves as the most moral, honest and noblest people in the planet, yet all they managed is to scare moderates away from their religion and make it synonymous with “terrorism”. And they still get angry when people renounce Islam? Would it have benefited themselves if they remained Muslims?That is what they should decide for themselves, but the terrorist gets angry because that is one less potential soldier in their army. It really comes to not surprise when Muslims opt to convert to Christianity, because no matter how much shit people give today because of the Bible Belt evangelical fundamentalists from America, at the end of the day, those who choose it view it as an less demanding religion than that of Islam.

[libertariantaoist]

If insanity is doing the same thing over and over in the expectation of a different  result, then our foreign policy surely qualifies as madness. Since 2001, in  response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the United States has been in  a state of constant warfare: the Afghan conflict has been ongoing since that  time, the longest sustained combat in our history. From Iraq to Syria to Somalia  and beyond, US forces and their proxies are engaged in a “war on terrorism”  that shows no signs of slowing down, only expanding.

And where has it gotten us?

In Afghanistan, more than half the country is under the control of the Taliban,  the radical Islamist group that sheltered Osama bin Laden – and they are now  joined by ISIS, which has extended its tentacles into that country.

In Iraq, after our war of “liberation,” a civil war pitting Shi’ites against  Sunnis is raging, and terrorist attacks are the norm. The Iranians have extended  their sphere of influence into the country, and US troops are still fighting  there, despite the much-heralded “withdrawal.”

The focus of US military action in the Middle East has now shifted to Syria,  where a multi-sided civil war has been raging ever since the so-called Arab  Spring. There we have managed to destabilize the regime of Bashar al-Assad by  supporting alleged “moderate” Islamists, while we simultaneously fight ISIS  – which is tacitly supported by our “moderate” proxies. The result has been  a disaster of epic proportions: hundreds of thousands dead, as refugees pour  out of the country and into Europe.

Far from winding down, the “war on terrorism” is constantly expanding. The  latest front is in Yemen – arguably the poorest country on earth – where our  Saudi allies, aided by the US, are slaughtering civilians, bombing funeral processions,  and setting off a famine that will kill many thousands more. And while al-Qaeda  does indeed have an active franchise in Yemen, the Saudis aren’t targeting them  – they’re going after the Houthis, a religious sect that is neither Sunni nor  Shi’ite, whose adherents are fighting both the Saudis and al-Qaeda. The Houthi-Saudi  war started because Saudi missionaries were spreading Sunni fundamentalism in  their historic homeland:  in short, the Houthis are resisting the very extremism  that provides terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS with their base of support.  Yet we are aiding Saudi Arabia – the epicenter of global terrorism – in their  merciless war of aggression.

All this frenzied military action – the bombs, the proxy armies, the “surges”  – has led to precisely the opposite of its intended result. If our “war on terrorism”  was supposed to end or even reduce the incidents of terrorism in the West, it  must be judged an absolute failure.

All across Europe, terrorists are swarming like termites after a rain. We saw  what happened yesterday [Monday] in Manchester: the biggest attack in Britain  since 2005, and the culmination of a series of prior incidents. In France and  Germany it’s the same story.

And in the United States, the trail of post-9/11 terror follows the same pattern:  far from diminishing, the number of terrorist incidents is on the upswing. Sixteen  years after the twin towers fells, we are less safe – and less free. Draconian  security measures are now taken for granted, and that includes not only cumbersome  rules and restrictions around airline flights but also universal surveillance.  Engulfed in a quagmire of perpetual war, we are fast approaching the condition  of a police state – with not even the benefit of increased security.

Most ominously, the ranks of the terrorist armies are swelling, as hatred of  America and the West is incorporated into the religious tenets of Islam. Some  argue that Islam was always antithetical to Western values and norms, but this  debate is now rendered irrelevant as the cycle of violence and repression makes  this proposition a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The roots of this disaster are in the presidency of George W. Bush: he and  his neoconservative advisors launched a war that was supposed to transform the  Middle East into a laboratory of “democracy”  –  exported by force of arms. The  idea, as expressed by neoconservative ideologues, was to “drain the swamp” of  the Middle East, so altering the environment in which the “mosquitoes” of terrorism  lived and flourished that they would be unable to produce a second generation.  Yet we are now into the third generation – and they are more numerous  than ever, buzzing around Europe and even the US, stinging at will.

So what’s the solution?

Let’s start by acknowledging that what we’re doing isn’t working.

That’s half the battle right there.

The other half involves winding down the multiple conflicts we’re presently  engaged in. Afghanistan is a hopelessly Sisyphean conflict that can never be  “won” – it’s long past time to get out. If the Iraqi government we put in place  is incapable of defending itself, then let them fall – we can no more prevent  that than King Canute could stop the tide from coming in. Syria is a catastrophe  made in Washington: our “regime change” policy doomed that country to perdition.  We should have the decency to recognize that, and stay out of their internal  affairs: let Assad and the Russians take care of their terrorist problem.

[grootpoepjeplasjehoofd]

The roots of British collaboration with radical Islam, as we will see in the first chapter, go back to the divide and rule policies promoted during the empire, when British officials regularly sought to cultivate Muslim groups or individuals to counter emerging nationalist forces challenging British hegemony. It is well known that British planners helped create the modern Middle East during and after the First World War by placing rulers in territories drawn up by British planners. But British policy also involved restoring the Caliphate, the leadership of the Muslim world, back to Saudi Arabia, where it would come under British control, a strategy which had tremendous significance for the future Saudi kingdom and the rest of the world. After the Second World War, British planners were confronted with the imminent loss of empire and the rise of two new superpowers, but were determined to maintain as much political and commercial influence in the world as possible. Although Southeast Asia and Africa were important to British planners, largely due to their raw material resources, it was the Middle East, due to its colossal oil reserves, over which London mainly wanted to exert influence. Yet here, a major enemy arose in the form of popular Arab nationalism, led by Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, which sought to promote an independent foreign policy and end Middle Eastern states’ reliance on the West. To contain the threat, Britain and the US not only propped up conservative, pro-Western monarchs and feudal leaders but also fomented covert relationships with Islamist forces, notably the Muslim Brotherhood, to destabilise and overthrow the nationalist governments. As Britain withdrew its military forces from the Middle East in the late 1960s, Islamist forces such as the Saudi regime and, once again, the Muslim Brotherhood, were often seen as proxies to maintain British interests in the region, to continue to destabilise communist or nationalist regimes or as ‘muscle’ to bolster pro-British, right-wing governments. By the 1970s, Arab nationalism had been virtually defeated as a political force, partly thanks to Anglo–American opposition; it was largely replaced by the rising force of radical Islam, which London again often saw as a handy weapon to counter the remnants of secular nationalism and communism in key states such as Egypt and Jordan. After the Afghanistan war in the 1980s spawned a variety of terrorist forces, including al-Qaida, terrorist atrocities began to be mounted first in Muslim countries and then, in the 1990s, in Europe and the US. Yet, crucially for this story, Britain continued to see some of these groups as useful, principally as proxy guerilla forces in places as diverse as Bosnia, Azerbaijan, Kosovo and Libya; there, they were used either to help break up the Soviet Union and secure major oil interests or to fight nationalist regimes, this time those of Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia and Muammar Qadafi in Libya. Throughout this period, many jihadist groups and individuals found refuge in Britain, some gaining political asylum, while continuing involvement in terrorism overseas. Whitehall not only tolerated but encouraged the development of ‘Londonistan’ – the capital acting as a base and organising centre for numerous jihadist groups – even as this provided a de facto ‘green light’ to that terrorism. I speculate that some elements, at least, in the British establishment allowed some Islamist groups to operate from London not only because they provided information to the security services but also because they were seen as useful to British foreign policy, notably in maintaining a politically divided Middle East – a long-standing goal of imperial and postwar planners – and as a lever to influence foreign governments’ policies. Radical Islamic forces have been seen as useful to Whitehall in five specific ways: as a global counter-force to the ideologies of secular nationalism and Soviet communism, in the cases of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; as ‘conservative muscle’ within countries to undermine secular nationalists and bolster pro-Western regimes; as ‘shock troops’ to destabilise or overthrow governments; as proxy military forces to fight wars; and as ‘political tools’ to leverage change from governments.

Mark Curtis, Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion With Radical Islam

[newsfundastuff]

On Monday, President Trump announced that a contingent of fewer than 100 U.S. troops in Syria was being moved away from Kurdish-held territory on the border of Turkey. The move effectively green-lighted military operations by Turkey against the Kurds, which have now commenced.Some U.S. military officials went public with complaints about being “blindsided.” The policy cannot have been a surprise, though. The president has made no secret that he wants out of Syria, where we now have about 1,000 troops (down from over 2,000 last year). More broadly, he wants our forces out of the Middle East. He ran on that position. I’ve argued against his “endless wars” tropes, but his stance is popular. As for Syria specifically, many of the president’s advisers think we should stay, but he has not been persuaded.The president’s announcement of the redeployment of the Syrian troops came on the heels of a phone conversation with Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. This, obviously, was a mistake, giving the appearance (and not for the first time) that Trump is taking cues from Ankara’s Islamist strongman. As has become rote, the inevitable criticism was followed by head-scratching tweets: The president vows to “totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey,” which “I’ve done before” (huh?), if Turkey takes any actions “that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits.” We can only sigh and say it will be interesting to see how the president backs up these haughty threats now that Erdogan has begun his invasion.All that said, the president at least has a cogent position that is consistent with the Constitution and public opinion. He wants U.S. forces out of a conflict in which America’s interests have never been clear, and for which Congress has never approved military intervention. I find that sensible -- no surprise, given that I have opposed intervention in Syria from the start (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). The stridency of the counterarguments is matched only by their selectiveness in reciting relevant facts.I thus respectfully dissent from our National Review editorial.President Trump, it says, is “making a serious mistake” by moving our forces away from what is described as “Kurdish territory”; the resulting invasion by superior Turkish forces will “kill American allies” while “carving out a zone of dominance” that will serve further to “inflame and complicate” the region.Where to begin? Perhaps with the basic fact that there is no Kurdish territory. There is Syrian territory on Turkey’s border that the Kurds are occupying -- a situation that itself serves to “inflame and complicate” the region for reasons I shall come to. Ethnic Kurds do not have a state. They live in contiguous parts of Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. Most are integrated into these countries, but many are separatists.The Kurds have been our allies against ISIS, but it is not for us that they have fought. They fight ISIS for themselves, with our help. They are seeking an autonomous zone and, ultimately, statehood. The editorial fails to note that the Kurds we have backed, led by the YPG (People’s Protection Units), are the Syrian branch of the PKK (the Kurdistan Worker’s Party) in Turkey. The PKK is a militant separatist organization with Marxist-Leninist roots. Although such informed observers as Michael Rubin contend that the PKK has ��evolved,” it remains a formally designated foreign terrorist organization under U.S. law. While our government materially supports the PKK’s confederates, ordinary Americans have been prosecuted for materially supporting the PKK.The PKK has a long history of conducting terrorist attacks, but their quarrel is not with us. So why has our government designated them as terrorists? Because they have been fighting an insurgent war against Turkey for over 30 years. Turkey remains our NATO ally, even though the Erdogan government is one of the more duplicitous and anti-Western actors in a region that teems with them -- as I’ve detailed over the years (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, and in my 2012 book, Spring Fever). The Erdogan problem complicates but does not change the fact that Turkey is of great strategic significance to our security.While it is a longer discussion, I would be open to considering the removal of both the PKK from the terrorist list and Turkey from NATO. For now, though, the blunt facts are that the PKK is a terrorist organization and Turkey is our ally. These are not mere technicalities. Contrary to the editorial’s suggestion, our government’s machinations in Syria have not put just one of our allies in a bind. There are two allies in this equation, and our support for one has already vexed the other. The ramifications are serious, not least Turkey’s continued lurch away from NATO and toward Moscow.Without any public debate, the Obama administration in 2014 insinuated our nation into the Kurdish–Turk conflict by arming the YPG. To be sure, our intentions were good. ISIS had besieged the city of Kobani in northern Syria; but Turkey understandably regards the YPG as a terrorist organization, complicit in the PKK insurgency.That brings us to another non-technicality that the editors mention only in passing: Our intervention in Syria has never been authorized by Congress. Those of us who opposed intervention maintained that congressional authorization was necessary because there was no imminent threat to our nation. Contrary to the editorial’s suggestion, having U.S. forces “deter further genocidal bloodshed in northern Syria” is not a mission for which Americans support committing our men and women in uniform. Such bloodlettings are the Muslim Middle East’s default condition, so the missions would never end.A congressional debate should have been mandatory before we jumped into a multi-layered war, featuring anti-American actors and shifting loyalties on both sides. In fact, so complex is the situation that President Obama’s initial goal was to oust Syria’s Assad regime; only later came the pivot to fighting terrorists, which helped Assad. That is Syria: Opposing one set of America’s enemies only empowers another. More clear than what intervention would accomplish was the likelihood of becoming enmeshed, inadvertently or otherwise, in vicious conflicts of which we wanted no part -- such as the notorious and longstanding conflict between Turks and Kurds.Barbaric jihadist groups such as ISIS (an offshoot of al-Qaeda) come into existence because of Islamic fundamentalism. But saying so remains de trop in Washington. Instead, we tell ourselves that terrorism emerges due to “vacuums” created in the absence of U.S. forces. On this logic, there should always and forever be U.S. forces and involvement in places where hostility to America vastly outweighs American interests.President Obama has wrongly been blamed for “creating” ISIS by leaving a vacuum in Iraq. Couldn’t be the sharia-supremacist culture, could it? No, we’re supposed to suppose that this sort of thing could happen anywhere. So, when Obama withdrew our forces from the region (as Trump is doing now), jihadist atrocities and territorial conquests ensued. Eventually, Obama decided that action needed to be taken. But invading with U.S. troops was not an option -- it would have been deeply unpopular and undercut Obama’s tout that Islamic militarism was on the wane. Our government therefore sought proxy forces.Most proved incompetent. The Kurds, however, are very capable. There was clamor on Capitol Hill to back them. We knew from the first, though, that supporting them was a time bomb. Turkey was never going to countenance a Kurdish autonomous zone, led by the YPG and PKK elements, on its Syrian border. Ankara was already adamant that the PKK was using the Kurdish autonomous zone in Iraq to encourage separatist uprisings in Turkey, where 20 percent of the population is Kurdish. Erdogan would never accept a similar arrangement in Syria; he would evict the YPG forcibly if it came to that.Yes, we had humanitarian reasons for arming the Kurds. But doing so undermined our anti-terrorism laws while giving Erdogan incentive to align with Russia and mend fences with Iran. ISIS, meanwhile, has never been defeated -- it lost its territorial “caliphate,” but it was always more lethal as an underground terrorist organization than as a quasi-sovereign struggling to hold territory. And al-Qaeda, though rarely spoken of in recent years, is ascendant -- as threatening as it has been at any time since its pre-9/11 heyday.Those of us opposed to intervention in Syria wanted Congress to think through these quite predictable outcomes before authorizing any further U.S. military involvement in this wretched region. Congress, however, much prefers to lay low in the tall grass, wait for presidents to act, and then complain when things go awry.And so they have: The easily foreseeable conflict between Turkey and the Kurds is at hand. We are supposed to see the problem as Trump’s abandoning of U.S. commitments. But why did we make commitments to the Kurds that undermined preexisting commitments to Turkey? The debate is strictly framed as “How can we leave the Kurds to the tender mercies of the Turks?” No one is supposed to ask “What did we expect would happen when we backed a militant organization that is tightly linked to U.S.-designated terrorists and that is the bitter enemy of a NATO ally we knew would not abide its presence on the ally’s border?” No one is supposed to ask “What is the end game here? Are we endorsing the partition of Syria? Did we see a Kurdish autonomous zone as the next Kosovo?” (We might remember that recognition of Kosovo’s split from Serbia, over Russian objections, was exploited by the Kremlin as a rationale for promoting separatism and annexations in Georgia and Ukraine.)It is true, as the editors observe, that “there are no easy answers in Syria.” That is no excuse for offering an answer that makes no sense: “The United States should have an exit strategy, but one that neither squanders our tactical gains against ISIS nor exposes our allies to unacceptable retribution.” Put aside that our arming of the Kurds has already exposed our allies in Turkey to unacceptable risk. What the editorial poses is not an “exit strategy” but its opposite. In effect, it would keep U.S. forces in Syria interminably, permanently interposed between the Kurds and the Turks. The untidy questions of how that would be justifiable legally or politically go unaddressed.President Trump, by contrast, has an exit strategy, which is to exit. He promises to cripple Turkey economically if the Kurds are harmed. If early reports of Turkey’s military assault are accurate, the president will soon be put to the test. I hope he is up to it. For a change, he should have strong support from Congress, which is threatening heavy sanctions if Turkey routs the Kurds.Americans, however, are not of a mind to do more than that. We are grateful for what the Kurds did in our mutual interest against ISIS. We should try to help them, but no one wants to risk war with Turkey over them. The American people’s representatives never endorsed combat operations in Syria, and the president is right that the public wants out. Of course we must prioritize the denial of safe havens from which jihadists can attack American interests. We have to stop pretending, though, that if our intentions toward this neighborhood are pure, its brutal history, enduring hostilities, and significant downside risks can be ignored.

https://ift.tt/33hAQ4Y

[we-arnold-lockshin-blog]

All US Presidents, Living and Dead, are War Criminals

Факты, которые  подконтрольные ЦРУ СМ»И»  в России скрывают...

“The US has caused the deaths of 20 to 30 million people since World War Two, a level of carnage approaching that inflicted on Europe by Hitler.”

BlackAgendaReport, Dec. 6, 2018

Especially at state funerals, media and politicians pretend that US presidents are honorable men, instead of the mass murderers that all of them become in office.

The daily whitewashing of imperial crimes on corporate media becomes high ceremony when a Genocider-in-Chief dies. George Herbert Walker Bush’s is canonized for bringing “ the greatness, hope, and opportunity of America to the world," in the words of the current CEO of Empire, Donald Trump. Former White House denizens Obama, Clinton and Carter also lauded the life and works of their accomplice in global predation, as did the son-of-a-Bush, George W., who wound up out-doing his daddy in mass murder.

Corporate news anchors absolve the dead leader of culpability for the mega-deaths inflicted on those countries targeted for invasion, drone strikes, regime change, proxy wars, or crippling economic sanctions -- as their colleagues sanitized those crimes while they were in progress.  But the bodies keep piling up, “regimes” go “rogue,” meaning they disobey American dictat or otherwise get in the way of the imperial project, or run afoul of U.S. allies, as with the unfortunate Yemenis and Palestinians.

Whatever the human cost, it is “worth it,” as Clinton’s former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright said of the half a million Iraqi children that died as a result of U.S. sanctions and the bombing of Iraqi infrastructure – carnage begun by Daddy Bush and continued by Bill Clinton, and then begun again with Bush Junior’s “Shock and Awe” demonstration of U.S. military might.

Obama got hundreds of thousands more Iraqis killed when he armed and trained head-chopping legions of Islamist jihadists to swarm the region in an attempted imperial comeback that has killed half a million Syrians, to date.

Most Americans would be shocked – or feign surprise -- if told that their country had caused the deaths of 20 to 30 million people since World War Two, a level of carnage approaching that inflicted on Europe by Hitler. But they do know the U.S. leaves dead bodies in its wake all around the planet. A nation born in genocide and slavery does not change its nature without undergoing a revolution, and the United States has not experienced such a transformation. At least half the U.S. population sees the death of millions of non-whites as “collateral damage” from America’s “civilizing mission” in the world: it’s “worth it.”

The oldest of the living former presidents, Jimmy Carter, contributed to the carnage in Angola and by backing fascist military regimes that slaughtered or disappeared hundreds of thousands in Latin America. He set in motion the U.S. alliance with al-Qaida. The creation of the first international network of Islamist jihadists, initially to force the Soviets out of Afghanistan, was the brainchild of Carter national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Tens of thousands of heads have rolled since then, thanks to Jimmy Carter.

Barack Obama added his own wars to the continuum of the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.  Obama said that his unprovoked attack on Libya was not a war, at all, because no Americans died, thus establishing a new doctrine and definition of warfare in which only U.S. deaths count. His secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, established new lows in diplomacy when she greeted news of Muammar Gaddafi’s death, cackling, “We came, we saw, he died” – which could be the said of all the tens of millions of deaths at the hands of U.S. presidents.

The current occupant, Donald Trump. will increase the body count before the next election season begins in earnest.

/////////////////////////////////////////////

Перед нами сейчас -  коварный и опасный мошенник, расист, лжец и фашист Дональд Трамп, порочный Конгресс, нацистские ФБР - ЦРУ,  кровавые милитаристы США и НАТО >>> а также и лживые, вредоносные американские СМ»И».

Киевские власти — фашистские агенты американского империализма...

/////////////////////////////////////////////

Правительство США жестоко нарушало мои права человека при проведении кампании террора, которая заставила меня покинуть свою родину и получить политическое убежище в СССР. См. книгу «Безмолвный террор — История политических гонений на семью в США» - "Silent Terror: One family's history of political persecution in the United States» - http://arnoldlockshin.wordpress.com

Правительство США еще нарушает мои права, в течении 14 лет отказывается от выплаты причитающейся мне пенсии по старости.  Властители США воруют пенсию!!  

ФСБ - Федеральная служба «безопасности» России - вслед за позорным, предавшим страну предшественником КГБ, мерзко выполняет приказы секретного, кровавого хозяина (boss) - американского ЦРУ (CIA). Среди таких «задач» -  мне запретить выступать в СМИ и не пропускать большинства отправленных мне комментариев.   А это далеко не всё...

Арнольд Локшин, политэмигрант из США

BANNED – ЗАПРЕЩЕНО!!

ЦРУ - ФСБ забанили все мои посты, комментарии в Вконтакте, в Макспарке, в Medium.com... и удаляют ещё много других моих постов!

… а также блокируют мой доступ к таким сайтам, как «Портал Госуслуги Москва»!

[currentbalochistan]

Hyrbyair Marri welcomed the American sanctions against the Iranian regime and said that Iran’s economy is a state control economy which is being used by the regime to wage proxy wars in the region. Hyrbyair Marri said that Iran systematically sanctioned Balochistan’s economy since the occupation. ‘Despite Balochistan’s rich marine and mineral resources, Baloch people lack basic necessities of life under Iranian colonialism and the American sanctions will not further deteriorate current economic situation of Iranian occupied Balochistan’. He said that the American sanctions against the Iranian regime will not affect the Baloch people as we have nothing to lose because our nation has already been sanctioned by the Iranian state since the colonisation of Balochistan. The natural development of Balochistan’s economy was altered and one of the richest country’s natives are living of the poorest life in the region.

Hyrbyair Marri further said that it is the right of western states to protect their people from the threat of Islamist terrorism. He said that Pakistan and Iran’s Jihadist army have been looting and killing Baloch people in the name of religion but unlike Balochistan, United States is a strong country and they can protect their citizens from religious terrorism. Instead of blaming President Trump and other western leaders of Islamophobia it is the responsibility of Muslim countries to look at their own weaknesses and faults that why they have failed to stop their citizen from committing acts of terrorism in the name of religion.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=221977855131997&id=132825120713938

[party-hard-or-die]

U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo stresses need for Gulf unity against…

RIYADH (Reuters) – New U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo underscored the need for unity in the Gulf during a brief visit to the Saudi capital on Sunday as Washington aims to muster support among allies for new sanctions against Iran.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo shakes hands with his Saudi counterpart Adel al-Jubeir during a news conference, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia April 29, 2018. REUTERS/Faisal Al Nasser

Pompeo reassured Saudi Arabia that the United States would abandon the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, reached under President Donald Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama, unless there is an agreement in talks with European partners to improve it to make sure the Islamic Republic never possesses a nuclear weapons.

“Iran destabilizes this entire region,” Pompeo said in a joint press conference with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir. “It supports proxy militias and terrorist groups. It is an arms dealer to the Houthi rebels in Yemen. It supports the murderous Assad regime (in Syria) as well.”

Pompeo also addressed the rift between some Gulf countries and Qatar: “Gulf unity is necessary and we need to achieve it.”

Saudi Arabia, along with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt, cut off travel and trade ties with Qatar last June, accusing it of supporting terrorism and arch-rival Iran on the other side of the Gulf.

Doha has denied the accusations and has said its three fellow Gulf countries aim to curtail its sovereignty. For its part, Iran denies supporting terrorism or having sought to develop nuclear weapons.

Pompeo met briefly with Saudi King Salman on Sunday before heading directly to Jerusalem for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Iran’s arch-enemy.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attends a news conference with his Saudi counterpart Adel al-Jubeir, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia April 29, 2018. REUTERS/Faisal Al Nasser

IRANIAN BEHAVIOR IN FOCUS

The 15-minute encounter with the king took place at Irqah Palace, one of his residences. The 82-year-old monarch stood as Pompeo entered the room and shook hands with his delegation. 

Senior State Department officials had said Pompeo would discuss Iran’s behavior in the region and call for sanctions to curb the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile program during his discussions with Saudi leaders.

During Sunday’s press conference, Jubeir said, “Iran should be dealt with by imposing further sanctions for its violations of international laws relating to ballistic missiles.”

Yemen’s Houthi movement has fired over 100 missiles into Saudi Arabia, the latest salvo killing a man in the southern Saudi province of Jizan on Saturday.

The attacks have fueled accusations by the United States and the Saudi-led coalition that intervened in Yemen’s civil war in 2015 that Iran is providing the missiles to its Houthi allies. The Islamic Republic denies this.

Slideshow (3 Images)

Senior State Department officials also said Pompeo would urge Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies to resolve their nearly year-long dispute with Qatar.

The United States, which has military bases in both Qatar and some of the countries lined up against it, is trying to mediate the feud. Trump publicly sided with the Saudis and Emiratis early in the crisis but is now pushing for a resolution to restore Gulf unity and maintain a united front against Iran.

One U.S. official said Washington feared the rift risked undermining efforts to contain Iranian influence and crush Islamist militants.

“Look, if we are going to be serious about mitigating and containing the threat that Iran poses with a greater degree of unity of effort, unity of purpose, (that is all) the better ��� That is a message that isn’t new but it has increased vigor.”

Just hours after being confirmed as Trump’s top diplomat, Pompeo set off on a whirlwind trip to NATO in Brussels and Middle East allies.

The trip comes as Trump considers whether or not to abandon by a self-imposed May 12 deadline the Iran nuclear deal he sees as deeply flawed. He has called on Gulf allies to contribute funding and troops to stabilize areas in Iraq and Syria where a U.S.-led coalition has largely defeated Islamic State jihadists.

On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani poured scorn on U.S. and European discussions over changes to the nuclear accord and dismissed Trump as a “tradesman” who lacked the qualifications to deal with a complex international pact.

The 2015 agreement limited Iran’s enrichment of uranium for nuclear fuel to help ensure it could not be turned to developing bomb material, and Tehran secured a removal of most international sanctions in return.

Iran has repeatedly said its ballistic missile program has nothing to do with its nuclear work and is non-negotiable.

Russia, China, Germany, Britain and France, the other signatories to the 2015 nuclear pact, see it as the best way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear bomb capability.

Trump sees three defects in the deal: a failure to address Iranian ballistic missiles; the terms under which U.N. inspectors can visit allegedly suspect Iranian nuclear sites; and “sunset” clauses under which key limits on the Iranian nuclear program start to expire after 10 years.

Additional reporting by Sarah Dadouch; Editing by Mark Heinrich

The post U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo stresses need for Gulf unity against… appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2jddMiW via Breaking News

[cleopatrarps]

U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo stresses need for Gulf unity against…

RIYADH (Reuters) – New U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo underscored the need for unity in the Gulf during a brief visit to the Saudi capital on Sunday as Washington aims to muster support among allies for new sanctions against Iran.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo shakes hands with his Saudi counterpart Adel al-Jubeir during a news conference, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia April 29, 2018. REUTERS/Faisal Al Nasser

Pompeo reassured Saudi Arabia that the United States would abandon the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, reached under President Donald Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama, unless there is an agreement in talks with European partners to improve it to make sure the Islamic Republic never possesses a nuclear weapons.

“Iran destabilizes this entire region,” Pompeo said in a joint press conference with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir. “It supports proxy militias and terrorist groups. It is an arms dealer to the Houthi rebels in Yemen. It supports the murderous Assad regime (in Syria) as well.”

Pompeo also addressed the rift between some Gulf countries and Qatar: “Gulf unity is necessary and we need to achieve it.”

Saudi Arabia, along with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt, cut off travel and trade ties with Qatar last June, accusing it of supporting terrorism and arch-rival Iran on the other side of the Gulf.

Doha has denied the accusations and has said its three fellow Gulf countries aim to curtail its sovereignty. For its part, Iran denies supporting terrorism or having sought to develop nuclear weapons.

Pompeo met briefly with Saudi King Salman on Sunday before heading directly to Jerusalem for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Iran’s arch-enemy.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attends a news conference with his Saudi counterpart Adel al-Jubeir, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia April 29, 2018. REUTERS/Faisal Al Nasser

IRANIAN BEHAVIOR IN FOCUS

The 15-minute encounter with the king took place at Irqah Palace, one of his residences. The 82-year-old monarch stood as Pompeo entered the room and shook hands with his delegation. 

Senior State Department officials had said Pompeo would discuss Iran’s behavior in the region and call for sanctions to curb the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile program during his discussions with Saudi leaders.

During Sunday’s press conference, Jubeir said, “Iran should be dealt with by imposing further sanctions for its violations of international laws relating to ballistic missiles.”

Yemen’s Houthi movement has fired over 100 missiles into Saudi Arabia, the latest salvo killing a man in the southern Saudi province of Jizan on Saturday.

The attacks have fueled accusations by the United States and the Saudi-led coalition that intervened in Yemen’s civil war in 2015 that Iran is providing the missiles to its Houthi allies. The Islamic Republic denies this.

Slideshow (3 Images)

Senior State Department officials also said Pompeo would urge Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies to resolve their nearly year-long dispute with Qatar.

The United States, which has military bases in both Qatar and some of the countries lined up against it, is trying to mediate the feud. Trump publicly sided with the Saudis and Emiratis early in the crisis but is now pushing for a resolution to restore Gulf unity and maintain a united front against Iran.

One U.S. official said Washington feared the rift risked undermining efforts to contain Iranian influence and crush Islamist militants.

“Look, if we are going to be serious about mitigating and containing the threat that Iran poses with a greater degree of unity of effort, unity of purpose, (that is all) the better … That is a message that isn’t new but it has increased vigor.”

Just hours after being confirmed as Trump’s top diplomat, Pompeo set off on a whirlwind trip to NATO in Brussels and Middle East allies.

The trip comes as Trump considers whether or not to abandon by a self-imposed May 12 deadline the Iran nuclear deal he sees as deeply flawed. He has called on Gulf allies to contribute funding and troops to stabilize areas in Iraq and Syria where a U.S.-led coalition has largely defeated Islamic State jihadists.

On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani poured scorn on U.S. and European discussions over changes to the nuclear accord and dismissed Trump as a “tradesman” who lacked the qualifications to deal with a complex international pact.

The 2015 agreement limited Iran’s enrichment of uranium for nuclear fuel to help ensure it could not be turned to developing bomb material, and Tehran secured a removal of most international sanctions in return.

Iran has repeatedly said its ballistic missile program has nothing to do with its nuclear work and is non-negotiable.

Russia, China, Germany, Britain and France, the other signatories to the 2015 nuclear pact, see it as the best way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear bomb capability.

Trump sees three defects in the deal: a failure to address Iranian ballistic missiles; the terms under which U.N. inspectors can visit allegedly suspect Iranian nuclear sites; and “sunset” clauses under which key limits on the Iranian nuclear program start to expire after 10 years.

Additional reporting by Sarah Dadouch; Editing by Mark Heinrich

The post U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo stresses need for Gulf unity against… appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2jddMiW via News of World

[newestbalance]

U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo stresses need for Gulf unity against…

RIYADH (Reuters) – New U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo underscored the need for unity in the Gulf during a brief visit to the Saudi capital on Sunday as Washington aims to muster support among allies for new sanctions against Iran.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo shakes hands with his Saudi counterpart Adel al-Jubeir during a news conference, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia April 29, 2018. REUTERS/Faisal Al Nasser

Pompeo reassured Saudi Arabia that the United States would abandon the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, reached under President Donald Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama, unless there is an agreement in talks with European partners to improve it to make sure the Islamic Republic never possesses a nuclear weapons.

“Iran destabilizes this entire region,” Pompeo said in a joint press conference with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir. “It supports proxy militias and terrorist groups. It is an arms dealer to the Houthi rebels in Yemen. It supports the murderous Assad regime (in Syria) as well.”

Pompeo also addressed the rift between some Gulf countries and Qatar: “Gulf unity is necessary and we need to achieve it.”

Saudi Arabia, along with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt, cut off travel and trade ties with Qatar last June, accusing it of supporting terrorism and arch-rival Iran on the other side of the Gulf.

Doha has denied the accusations and has said its three fellow Gulf countries aim to curtail its sovereignty. For its part, Iran denies supporting terrorism or having sought to develop nuclear weapons.

Pompeo met briefly with Saudi King Salman on Sunday before heading directly to Jerusalem for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Iran’s arch-enemy.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attends a news conference with his Saudi counterpart Adel al-Jubeir, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia April 29, 2018. REUTERS/Faisal Al Nasser

IRANIAN BEHAVIOR IN FOCUS

The 15-minute encounter with the king took place at Irqah Palace, one of his residences. The 82-year-old monarch stood as Pompeo entered the room and shook hands with his delegation. 

Senior State Department officials had said Pompeo would discuss Iran’s behavior in the region and call for sanctions to curb the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile program during his discussions with Saudi leaders.

During Sunday’s press conference, Jubeir said, “Iran should be dealt with by imposing further sanctions for its violations of international laws relating to ballistic missiles.”

Yemen’s Houthi movement has fired over 100 missiles into Saudi Arabia, the latest salvo killing a man in the southern Saudi province of Jizan on Saturday.

The attacks have fueled accusations by the United States and the Saudi-led coalition that intervened in Yemen’s civil war in 2015 that Iran is providing the missiles to its Houthi allies. The Islamic Republic denies this.

Slideshow (3 Images)

Senior State Department officials also said Pompeo would urge Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies to resolve their nearly year-long dispute with Qatar.

The United States, which has military bases in both Qatar and some of the countries lined up against it, is trying to mediate the feud. Trump publicly sided with the Saudis and Emiratis early in the crisis but is now pushing for a resolution to restore Gulf unity and maintain a united front against Iran.

One U.S. official said Washington feared the rift risked undermining efforts to contain Iranian influence and crush Islamist militants.

“Look, if we are going to be serious about mitigating and containing the threat that Iran poses with a greater degree of unity of effort, unity of purpose, (that is all) the better … That is a message that isn’t new but it has increased vigor.”

Just hours after being confirmed as Trump’s top diplomat, Pompeo set off on a whirlwind trip to NATO in Brussels and Middle East allies.

The trip comes as Trump considers whether or not to abandon by a self-imposed May 12 deadline the Iran nuclear deal he sees as deeply flawed. He has called on Gulf allies to contribute funding and troops to stabilize areas in Iraq and Syria where a U.S.-led coalition has largely defeated Islamic State jihadists.

On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani poured scorn on U.S. and European discussions over changes to the nuclear accord and dismissed Trump as a “tradesman” who lacked the qualifications to deal with a complex international pact.

The 2015 agreement limited Iran’s enrichment of uranium for nuclear fuel to help ensure it could not be turned to developing bomb material, and Tehran secured a removal of most international sanctions in return.

Iran has repeatedly said its ballistic missile program has nothing to do with its nuclear work and is non-negotiable.

Russia, China, Germany, Britain and France, the other signatories to the 2015 nuclear pact, see it as the best way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear bomb capability.

Trump sees three defects in the deal: a failure to address Iranian ballistic missiles; the terms under which U.N. inspectors can visit allegedly suspect Iranian nuclear sites; and “sunset” clauses under which key limits on the Iranian nuclear program start to expire after 10 years.

Additional reporting by Sarah Dadouch; Editing by Mark Heinrich

The post U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo stresses need for Gulf unity against… appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2jddMiW via Everyday News