Syria - critical info dump

[Baby Steps]

Hi,

I have almost given up talking to closed minded people regarding this conflict, as they will believe what they chose to believe. Good luck with that.

However there is an issue I run up against, which is people who are a wee bit more open minded- I believe they call it trying to be objective. This seems to consist of an attempt to understand the world through mainstream media. some of these, when presented with a counter-narrative accuse the advocate of just relying on too much RUSSIAN information.

I will detail my version of the counter narrative below, and then share some information that it hopefully not 'Russian' . This thread can then be a go-to for people who do not trust RT etc, but are wondering if there is not something deeply wrong with the Syria tragedy.

1. Israel has a strategic issue, obviously it needs to protect its own security. They are unhappy that due to the disastrous actions of Bush et al, the Shia crescent has been completed. This means there is a land corridor from Iran to Israel's border that is all Iran-friendly and could (is) allowing terrorists & weapons to head towards Israel. The destruction of Iraq has made this possible by destabilising the country and bringing the USA and Israel hostile Shias to power. Israel therefore needs to bring its influence to bear over Syria. Destroy the Assad government which is anti Israel. Encourage a Sunni insurrection that could split Syria. Israel has been illegally bombing Syrian infrastructure. Israel has been helping ISIS with training, materiel, and medicine. Assad was the strongest local opponent of Israel, and was trying to recover annexed Golan territory, that Israel recently has started to develop as a large new source of OIL.

[Sueanne47]

I follow Luke Rudkowski's channel, he is very good when I try to understand what's going on in the middle east. Really its all about the oil pipeline ~ and who will take posession of it.

AH65eDdYchU

Also, not all RT news is disinformation, this can explain about the oil:

uTzjrVaBUYQ

[Baby Steps]

2. Syrian Girl has emphasised syria's banking system. It is described as 'non Rothschild' My understanding of this is that the process of money creation is done by the state, not a privately owned central bank lending money to the government, that they created out of thin air, and charge interest on. Instead, the state creates money. It lends to banks. It disburses the money into the national economy without creating indebtedness for the state or an interest burden that the state pays from taxation. The advantage is that the state could re-structure any banking issues such as asset bubbles or bad debts simply by writing off the debt. It also means that the gentle inflation that usually occurs is only driven by the state's debt-free injection of money. State deficit is a less severe problem. It is no coincidence that the list of nations to be attacked as given by Wesley Clarke just after 9-11 includes the few remaining 'non Rothschild' banking systems.

3. The Pipeline competition. Assad was presented with two rival pipeline offers. Both supplying gas to the Med and Europe via syria, and from the same field. The field stretches from Qatar, under the sea to Iran. Both needed to pipe through Syria. Assad chose the Iranian option, thereby making enemies of Saudi and Qatar. The facts are clear on this. The consequences are clear. Those two nations are the funders and enablers of ISIS, and many of the other groups.

4. It gets worse than this. The terrible two are powerful, and exert influence over US & UK. Qatar is a major US base, and oil trade partner. Saudi is a huge arms export client for UK and USA. This guarantees UK and USA silence whenever the terrible two break the law. Indeed Saudi is very very powerful. It is one of the largest holders of USA treasury debt. It is the biggest player in the Petro Dollar system, which is an informal agreement that oil producers will ONLY SELL IN DOLLARS in return for security. this system guarantees a steady global demand for dollars and falsely props us dollar buying power. In effect the Saudis can shut down the USA economy. Think what influence they can exert.

5. Syrian government and the law. I am sick of hearing sheeple using the concept of Assad being a tyrant as justification for our mass murder. The Assad regime is internationally recognised as the sovereign government of Syria. That is the law. The Assad government is entitled under the law, to invite in assistance from whoever they see fit, against a domestic insurrection. This is true, even if the insurrection was mass supported or the Assad government did not represent its people. But the facts are different. The Assad government has been extraordinarily popular across all ethnic and religious communities there. It seems that the majority of the Syrians believe that this regime is their best option, as it is secular. They do not want a sectarian politics. It is a divided society, and this is why they see a secular government as so important. We in the West are constantly bombarded with the themes around shia-sunni hatred and conflict. We are told that some of Islam is inherantly war-like. There may be some truth in this, but it is a dangerous idea as it diverts us from seeing that the fighting is caused by EXTERNAL INFLUENCES that do not respect SYRIAN SOVREIGNTY. There has always been a minority opposition there,a small part of which is inclined to fight. but because those who would resort to fighting were so small, they rarely dared try. It took EXTERNAL ENCOURAGEMENT (and who knows what guarantees of aid) from People like McCain, to convince these few to fight. Many of the peaceful opposition have in the light of events dropped their opposition, for the time being so that the regime can save the country, and bring forward elections.

[Baby Steps]

6. Turkish involvement. It is hard to fully understand their agenda, but there are various issues. We must remember that ISIS took control of oil heads in eastern Syria. Without question they have been making millions per month selling this on the black market. This is not the only income stream but almost certainly their largest. Oh those terrible black marketers! Who could they be? Newsflash! It is well established that the oil was trucked north to TURKEY. Turkey, the NATO member. Surely NATO would not assist ISIS by turning a blind eye to mass oil smuggling into a NATO member country? Also beyond dispute is that these convoys have been spotted, and known about for years. USA has or had, air assets in Turkey that could easily attack the trucks. The trucks were only attacked once RUSSIA came in. NATO COMPLICITY QED! USA incompetence (or something more sinister) may drive the Turks into the arms of Putin. Why? Because USA has been assisting the Syrian Kurds who have had great success against ISIS. But since they are linked to Turkish Kurds, USA assistance is alienating Turkey. Of course any Turkish bombing , shelling or air attacks into Syria are illegal aggression under the Nuremberg principles. These principles were written after WW2 as a framework for international law in an attempt to make wars of aggression illegal. Under these principles USA, UK, French, Israeli & Turkish attacks are CLEARLY ILLEGAL. We have entered an era where most major countries ignore the laws they wrote. CHAOS.

7. Lies and pretence over the smorgasbord of opposition groups. USA narrative is that there is a large number of well organised moderate opponents to the regime, that deserve to be helped. The value of resources directed to these MIRAGE groups is probably in the billions by now. I would hazard a guess that 95% of it is now in the hands of Al Qaeda (nusra) and ISIS. It is well documented that arms are being handed from one group to another. It is also emerging with the email hacks, that vast amounts of un traceable Libyan weaponry has found its way to Syria via Qatar. The 'broker' or fixer for these shipments was good old Hillary Clinton.

[Baby Steps]

http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74



IS THE FIGHT OVER A GAS PIPELINE FUELLING THE WORLD’S BLOODIEST CONFLICT?

THE Syrian war often seems like a big confusing mess but one factor that is not often mentioned could be the key to unlocking the conflict.
Some experts have pointed out that many of the key players have one thing in common: a billion-dollar gas pipeline.
Factor in this detail and suddenly the war begins to make more sense, here’s how it works:
IT’S THE GAS, STUPID
Many have questioned why Russia became involved in the Syrian war but often overlook the fight over natural gas.
As Harvard Professor Mitchell A Orenstein and George Romer wrote last month inForeign Affairs, Russia currently supplies Europe with a quarter of the gas it uses for heating, cooking, fuel and other activities.
In fact 80 per cent of the gas that Russian state-controlled company Gazprom produces is sold to Europe, so maintaining this crucial market is very important.
But Europe doesn’t like being so reliant on Russia for fuel and has been trying to reduce its dependence. It’s a move that is supported by the United States as it would weaken Russian influence over Europe.
This has not gone down well with Russia, which uses its power over gas as political leverage and has a history of cutting off supply to countries during conflicts. It has even gone to war in Georgia and Ukraine to disrupt plans to export gas from other parts of the Middle East.





As David Dalton, the editor of the Economist Intelligence Unit, told The New York Times: “Russia has always used gas as an instrument of influence. The more you owe Gazprom, the more they think they can turn the screws.”
Much of Russia’s power comes from established pipelines used to transport gas to Europe cheaply. But other countries are now trying to get around Russia and provide new sources of gas to Europe.
Last year US President Barack Obama spoke openly about the need for Europe to reduce its reliance on Russian gas following the conflict in Ukraine.
The US also wants to use its own natural gas supply, recently developed through fracking, to undercut Russian supply. But it will be years before the US will be in a position to ship this overseas.
The US is not the only country trying to outmanoeuvre Russia, and this is where the role of Syria becomes more important.
TWO NEW PIPELINES
Before the civil war, two competing pipelines put forward by Qatar and Iran aimed to transport gas to Europe through Syria.
Qatar’s plans were first put forward in 2009 and involved building a pipeline from the Persian Gulf via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey.
The gas field located 3000 metres below the floor of the Persian Gulf is the largest natural gas field in the world. Qatar owns about two-thirds of the resource but can’t capitalise on it fully because it relies on tankers to deliver it to other countries and this makes its gas more expensive than Russia’s.
It was hoped the pipeline would provide cheaper access to Europe but Syrian President Bashar al Assad refused to give permission for the pipeline to go through his territory. Some believe Russia pressured him to reject the pipeline to safeguard its own business.








In the meantime Iran, which owns the other smaller, share of the Persian Gulf gas field, decided to lodge its own rival plan for a $10 billion pipeline to Europe via Iraq and Syria and then under the Mediterranean Sea.

These plans apparently had Russia’s blessing, possibly because it could exert more influence over Iran, which, unlike Qatar, did not host a US air base.
Assad signed off on the Iran plan in 2012 and it was due to be completed in 2016 but it was ultimately delayed because of the Arab Spring and the civil war.
Many countries supporting or opposing the war against Assad have links to these pipeline plans.
Failed pipeline bidder Qatar is believed to have funded anti-Assad rebel groups by $3 billion between 2011 and 2013. Saudi Arabia has also been accused of funding the terrorist group.
In contrast Orenstein and Romer noted the successful pipeline bidder, Iran, was believed to be helping Assad by running the Syrian army, supplying it with weapons and even troops.
Major Rob Taylor, an instructor at the US Army’s Command and General Staff College wrote in the Armed Forces Journal last year that the rival pipelines could be influencing the conflict in Syria.
“Viewed through a geopolitical and economic lens, the conflict in Syria is not a civil war, but the result of larger international players positioning themselves on the geopolitical chessboard in preparation for the opening of the pipeline,” he noted.
Just as the 2003 Iraq War has been linked to oil in the Persian Gulf, Syria may turn out to be all about gas.
WHY DOES TURKEY CARE?

One of the countries that has a lot to gain from getting rid of Assad is Turkey.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been vocal in calling for the Syrian President to step down and has also been accused of helping Islamic State, something it has rejected.
While Turkey could have other reasons for supporting the rebels in Syria, such as Assad’s support for the Kurds, Harvard University Professor Orenstein told news.com.au that gas would definitely be one reason it was opposing the regime.
Turkey, which stands at the crossroads of Asia and Europe, is an aspiring member of the European Union, and some consider it to be the best option for facilitating the movement of gas supplies from the Middle East to Europe.
As a hub, Turkey would benefit from transit fees and other energy-generated revenues.
It could also insure, with US support, that all gas suppliers in the Middle East could freely export their product.
Qatar’s plans put Turkey at the centre of its plan.
As one of the countries relying on Russia for gas, freeing it from this dependence would be an added bonus.
But none of this can be realised if the pipeline bypasses Turkey and if Assad becomes instrumental in approving an alternative that does not involve it.
Now that Russia is stepping in to help the Assad regime in Syria — possibly to protect its own dominance in the gas market — Turkey is facing a formidable barrier to its aspirations.
When Turkey downed a Russian plane earlier this month, some speculated it may want to weaken any potential co-operation between Russia and the US which could see Assad continue his leadership.
Russia’s motives for its air strikes have also been questioned. CNN military analyst Cedric Leighton, a retired air force colonel, noting that its bombing of Islamic State extremists seemed to have hit Turkmen in northern Syria, who had strong ties to the Turkish government.
Prof Orenstein said the competition over natural gas could ultimately prevent co-operation between the two world powers on fighting Islamic State.
“I doubt there is much basis for US-Russia co-operation due to opposite interests in gas issues and Iran,” he told news.com.au
But despite fears that the world is facing a new Cold War, Prof Orenstein believes it’s more of a “free for all”, with the fight over natural gas acting as just another fuel.

[Baby Steps]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-oil-wars-shift-to-the-golan-heights/

Please appreciate that the 'Northern' oil potential that they are talking about is in illegally annexed SYRIAN TERRITORY in the Golan. What kind of Syria would favour such a GIANT OIL HEIST? A weak, divided, or destroyed Syria. Assad was trying to recover Syrian Sovereign territory.




Israel’s oil wars shift to the Golan Heights
Environmentalists made headlines two weeks ago when they blocked a controversial oil shale pilot project in the Shfela; largely unnoticed, the same US parent company has won approval for exploratory drilling up north
BY MELANIE LIDMAN September 18, 2014, 9:27 pm




What if Moses had made a right turn?

According to the old joke, if Moses had turned right when he led the Jews out of the Sinai Desert after 40 years of wandering, perhaps the Jewish people, rather than the Saudi Arabians, would be sitting on large oil reserves.


But an American oil company is convinced that Moses may not have been wrong after all. It is betting millions of dollars on the hope that Israel actually has enormous amounts of oil inside its borders that could meet most of the country’s needs. The only problem? The oil is either trapped deep inside rock, in a compound known as oil shale, or located hazardously close to Israel’s freshwater reserves.
Environmental activists won an important victory on September 2 when the Jerusalem Regional Planning and Building Committee denied a pilot program for a controversial new technology to extract oil shale in the Judean lowlands (Shfela) near Beit Shemesh, to the west of Jerusalem. But while the country was focused on the south and the war with Gaza over the summer, the Northern Regional Planning and Building Committee quietly approved a pilot for drilling in the Golan Heights.

An American-made drill is already in storage in Haifa, according to Afek Oil and Gas, the Israeli company in charge of drilling exploration in the Golan Heights. If everything goes as scheduled, the preparations for exploratory drilling in the Golan could start as early as September 28.
The Greens take the lowlands
The environmentalists have the momentum of a significant victory in Jerusalem on September 2.

The meeting in Jerusalem for the approval of oil shale exploration near Beit Shemesh lasted 10 hours. Pitting environmentalists against Israel Energy Initiatives, the company that wants to extract the oil shale, the meeting was filled with highly technical presentations about oil engineering, thermodynamics, and a process called “In Situ Thermal Recovery,” which involves drilling heater wells down to the oil shale layer.

In this process, over a period of three years, the rock is heated to a temperature of over 300° Celsius. This abridges the geological process that would normally take place over hundreds of years. As the temperatures rise in the rock, liquid oil and natural gas are released, which, after a condensation period, would produce about two-thirds liquid oil and one-third natural gas. Israel Energy Initiatives (IEI) estimates that there are approximately 40-60 billion barrels of oil located 200-400 meters below the surface of the Elah Valley. IEI said that the process, an experimental one, will not endanger the environment because most of the work would take place underground, leaving a very small footprint. Additionally, it says impermeable rock layers above and below the oil shale level will protect the underground water tables.
But the Jerusalem Regional Committee was not convinced.  The main concern was that the In Situ Thermal Recovery technology has never been used at other locations in the world, and the committee was reluctant to approve the use of untested technology. After 10 hours of discussion, the committee nearly unanimously rejected the pilot program; only one representative from the Energy Ministry, who is not normally a member of the committee and was added for the discussion of the project, voted in favor.
Environmentalists were thrilled with the decision. Environmental justice organization Adam Teva V’Din, which brought petitions against the project, compared the victory to David overcoming Goliath — an ancient battle that was believed to have taken place in the same area as the thwarted pilot project.

Environmentalists had worried that if the pilot were approved, it would be nearly impossible to stop the commercial extraction of oil shale. “The brave ruling proves that a committed and professional group of citizens can stand together against overwhelming odds and successfully defend their environment, their health and their heritage against those who would harm them all in the name of profit,” the organization said in a statement after the ruling.
The Environmental Protection Ministry, which has been steadfastly opposed to drilling, called the decision “an important victory for the next generation.”
“Our children can be sure that the natural resources of Israel will be protected and they can use them in the future if they need to,” said a spokesman for the ministry. “We cannot carry out dangerous experiments that endanger the health, the environment, and the energy security of future generations.”

Israel Energy Initiatives is still licking its wounds, but a spokesman insisted that the company has not given up hope of extracting oil shale from the area. “The company is waiting to receive the full text of the committee’s decision, and after that time we will weigh various options toward the best course of action to implement the pilot in the licensed area, under close supervision from regulators and with an emphasis on protecting the environment,” he said.
Dr. Orr Karassin, an environmental policy expert who heads the Sustainable Development Committee of the board of directors at Keren Kayemet LeYisrael (Jewish National Fund) and was a leader in the fight against the Shfela project, said that IEI’s future hopes of drilling in the Shfela are very low after the committee decision. There is a “slim to scarce” chance that a legal fight against the decision could be successful, since the regional committee followed all protocol.
“I don’t think they have a basis in administrative law to criticize the decision of the regional committee, which was taken both according to regulatory capacity and also in a very open and participatory matter,” said Karassin.
But the environmentalists didn’t have long to celebrate. The war they had just won outside of Jerusalem had already started again in the Golan.
Northern hopes
On September 11, the Northern Regional Planning and Building Committee approved a project for exploratory drilling in the Golan Heights. The area approved is 396 square kilometers, starting in Katzrin and extending southward. Not all of that land — 33% of the 1,200 sq km that make up the Golan Heights — will be used exclusively for oil drilling, as each well has an average footprint of seven dunam (1.7 acres). The area for exploration just delineates areas where Afek has permission to drill.

The exploration program allows Afek to drill 10 wells in order to search for oil, which its experts believe exists in a conventional liquid form and not the oil shale compound found in the Shfela. However, they won’t know until they drill. The company is not yet sure what exactly it will find, or even if it will find oil at all.
“We have a real risk. It could be that we drill our well and it’s dry and there’s no recoverable resource,” acknowledged Geoffrey Rochwarger, the CEO of Genie Israel, the parent company of Afek.
Genie is also the parent company of Israel Energy Initiatives, though the Afek and IEI operate independently of each other, and Rochwarger insists that the failure of the Shfela plan was not any sort of harbinger for the Golan exploration.
Genie Energy, which is chaired by Howard Jonas, has some heavyweight investors. Former US vice president Dick Cheney, Michael Steinhardt, Jacob Rothschild, and Rupert Murdoch are all reportedly connected to the company. It also has connections within the Israeli political establishment: The chairman of Genie Israel is Effie Eitam, a former member of Knesset who also served as the minister of national infrastructures in 2002-2003.

Afek will invest a total of around $30 million just in the process to get the oil exploration approved, said Rochwarger, and he is aware that the oil wells could turn up dry. Since Israel’s founding, companies searching for oil across Israel have drilled 530 exploratory wells, and none of them has turned up commercially viable oil, he said. But Rochwarger feels confident that his company’s geologists have identified areas where this trend will be reversed.

“It could be that when we drill the exploration well there will be something, but once it’s brought out and extracted it will require a lot of refinement that will cost a lot of money and it may not be commercially viable,” said Rochwarger. “Or, it could be that when we do exploration, we’ll find something that does make sense. That’s why the exploration process for us is so important.”
“We need to understand whether or not this resource exists,” Rochwarger continued. “It’s a requirement based on what is happening in the geopolitical sphere today. It’s our responsibility as a country to answer whether or not we have this resource.” He noted that a lot of Israel’s energy dependence comes from nations where diplomatic relations have deteriorated in recent years, such as Turkey. Additionally, with the Sheshinski commission recommending a possible 67-percent tax on oil revenue, a viable find could be an enormous money maker for the government, Rochwarger added.
Rochwarger, who made aliya with his family from New Jersey more than a decade ago in order to direct Genie’s work in Israel, believes fervently that energy independence is essential to Israel’s security and development. Energy independence is the new Zionism, Rochwarger says, and we won’t know if it’s possible until we look.
Keeping it clean
“Come on, give me a hug while I’m still clean, before it’s too late!” A tall blond man dressed up as the Sea of Galilee stood on the steps of the government office complex in Tel Aviv last week, trying to force wary passersby into an awkward embrace while wearing a cardboard cut-out of the lake’s outline. Two dozen activists from the Green Way environmental group demonstrated behind him, calling for Minister of National Infrastructure, Energy, and Water Silvan Shalom (Likud) to stop the Golan exploration project.
“Have you heard about the drilling project in the Golan?” activists armed with clipboards and flyers asked people hurrying by during the Wednesday afternoon rush hour. No one had, despite the scheduled start to the exploration in only a few weeks.

“They’re experimenting with water that belongs to all of us, just for the possibility of maybe getting oil,” lamented Adam Sternberg, the national spokesman for Green Way.
“I am not surprised [by the approval for the pilot], because this is how things happen in this country: People in control of the government are making shady deals with rich companies,” said Raz Unger, a 25-year-old landscape architecture student who lives on a kibbutz near Tel Hai University and is a Green Way activist. “If they find oil — and that’s a big if — where will the money go? Not to me or you and certainly not to the Golan residents. We’re in favor of renewable energy,” he explained. “There is plenty of sun and wind in the Golan. Don’t destroy the Golan, an area that is so beautiful and so beloved by all of Israel,” he pleaded.
During the 60-day period of the approval process — when the public could file opposition to the project — activists and Golan residents filed 900 public oppositions to Afek’s drilling plans.

“The central reason we’re against it is our concern that it will damage the health of both people and the environment,” said Keren Halperin-Musseri, a lawyer and the deputy director of Adam Teva V’Din, the environmental justice organization that filed an opposition paper to the project. “The biggest health concern, of course, is our concern about polluting the Sea of Galilee… If just a little bit of oil gets out, it could pollute the entire Sea of Galilee. This is also a seismically sensitive area,” she added.
Activists contend that even a small amount of oil seeping into the underground water table could eventually reach the Sea of Galilee — actually a lake — and make Israel’s largest freshwater reservoir undrinkable.
On June 19, in another marathon meeting, the Northern Regional Committee bundled together the major complaints by subject, dealing with issues like contamination of the Sea of Galilee, underground aquifers, air pollution, ground pollution, noise pollution, damage to small businesses like agriculture and tourism, or the possibility that oil exploration could lead to more harmful practices like fracking. Another objection was that the Israel Oil law, which deals with oil exploration, dates from 1952 and is severely outdated given the current technologies.
The committee, made up of representatives from the ministries of Environmental Protection, Agriculture, Health, and Justice, and local government representatives, rejected almost every complaint and concern. The only demand it partially accepted was the need to ensure greater public oversight of the project. The oil law, committee members contended, was updated sufficiently in 2012.
In the end, five members of the committee voted for the project, two opposed it, and two abstained, though it took almost two months for the vote to become final due to various bureaucratic processes and Operation Protective Edge.
“After the project was discussed in the committee and all of the oppositions were heard and taken into account, including the environmental issues of water and air quality in the area, it was decided that the project complies with all of the law’s provisions, including the approval of environmental authorities and support from the Water Authority, [and so] the committee has decided to approve the drilling permit,” said Interior Ministry spokeswoman Efrat Orbach in a statement on July 24. The decision to approve the exploration became final on September 11.
Environmentalists slammed the Northern Regional Committee’s approval, which they said was obtained in underhanded ways that did not reveal the large area that was being approved for exploration until the approval process had reached advanced stages. “This is a very grave case of rejecting public participation [in a decision] to give an oil company [licensed access to] public and agriculture land,” said Karassin.

“The Northern Regional Committee did not have information about the company’s future plans,” said Karassin. The approval is only for an exploration program, since the company does not yet know which method it will use to commercially produce oil. “The committee looked at [Afek’s] request in a very narrow prism. In the Jerusalem Regional Committee, the broader expectations in the plan were better understood. Here, that has remained unclear. The decision was taken with limited knowledge and perspective.”
Rochwarger accused the activists of sowing unsubstantiated fear among the public. “We are very sensitive about the water [of the Sea of Galilee], because we’re drinking the same water,” he said. “We have done tons of research, we’ve spent a lot of time and a lot of money and received every single required check, every single committee that was required to review and approve what we were planning to do for oil exploration, including the Water Authority. They all signed off to say there is no danger of contaminating or coming into contact with any part of water in the Golan.” He added that the company could not present its future plans because it does not yet know how it would extract the oil.
Dry run
So what happens now?
There are still two ongoing petitions at the High Court of Justice against the Golan drilling project, one from Adam Teva V’Din and another from the owner of a vineyard next to the first proposed drilling site, which must be resolved before Afek can begin work on the ground.
For the next month, even while the petitions are pending, Afek will complete necessary fieldwork, including surveying the area and moving all the equipment to the site. Preparations for drilling could begin as early as September 28, depending on whether the High Court of Justice dismisses the two petitions or freezes Afek’s work while the petitions are ongoing.
The Environmental Protection Ministry is also carrying out its own research about the proposed drilling sites, and is waiting for experts’ input before taking a public stand, a spokeswoman for the ministry said.
If it receives the green light from the court, Afek will start exploratory drilling at a site called Oil 5, which is located next to the town of Avnei Eitan, southwest of two reservoirs and in between two small rivers. The drilling at the first site will last two to three months, to a depth of 1,200 to 2,000 meters. If it discovers oil, Afek will use a variety of techniques to remove the oil and explore the possibility of commercial production in that area. Then it will cover the well to remove physical evidence of its existence, and move on to the next exploratory drill site. The exploratory stage is expected to take two to three years.


The Northern Regional Committee approved ten exploratory wells. If Afek discovers oil and wants to go into commercial production at any of these wells, it will need to go through the approval process again, which would give activists another opportunity to file public oppositions. But activists are worried that once the exploration goes forward, if oil is discovered, they will be powerless to stop the relentless advancement. For the activists, stopping the exploration before it starts is the foremost goal — something they accomplished in blocking the Shfela pilot project, but have failed thus far to achieve with the Golan project.
“It’s impossible to talk just about the first step, as if we’re just looking at something small and specific,” said Halperin-Musseri, of Adam Teva V’Din. “The goal [of Afek] is to get to the next step [of commercial production]. We must talk about the next step and what damage there’s going to be and decide if there’s even a reason to start this process if it’s so dangerous.”
She added that after the exploration process, Afek would be able to place a huge amount of pressure on government decision-makers, showing how much money the company has already invested, and how much the government could stand to gain.
“[Winning in the Shfela provided] a very dominant sense of satisfaction,” said Karassin. “This was a really important day for Israeli democracy and responsible, participatory government, especially given the fact that decisions was made on scientific rather than political considerations. It was also an achievement from an international perspective. Oil shale companies have been very successful in the Western world, and Israel is one of the first countries, if not the only country, that has said no to oil shale development.”
“On the other side of the coin, I am kind of in awe that the license to [conduct exploratory drilling in] the Golan was hidden to the public until very recently. This is something no one knew about,” said Karassin.
While the public had a chance to file oppositions to the project during the public comment period, and ended up filing more than 900 complaints, the activists knew very little about the proposed exploration before this summer, she said.
“There is also a hope that the Northern Regional Committee will learn a lesson from what happened in [in the Shfela], and will take a second look,” said Karassin. “Either they will do so on their own,” she vowed, “or they will be forced to do so.”

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-stakes-claim-golan-after-oil-find-913890970

[Baby Steps]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/27/syrian-regime-forces-retake-all-of-palmyra-from-isis

Many sheeple protest that Russia is not really attacking ISIS.



Assad hails Syrian regime's capture of Palmyra from Isis
Monitors say taking of historic city by government troops backed by Russian airstrikes is biggest Isis defeat since 2014





The Syrian and Russian governments have hailed their recapture of the ancient oasis city of Palmyra from Islamic State, ending a 10-month ordeal that saw the destruction of some of the historic site’s most famed monuments.
The battle for the city is the latest in a string of defeats for Isis, now in retreat across Syria and Iraq, where it once controlled vast tracts of territory: nearly half of Syria and the desert plains of Nineveh and most of Anbar in Iraq.


Palmyra’s reclamation by Assad’s army, after weeks of intense combat, was aided by some of the heaviest Russian airstrikes since Moscow launched its military intervention last autumn. It is also a significant morale boost for the embattled Syrian strongman as well as the Kremlin.
“The liberation of the historic city of Tadmur (Palmyra) today is an important achievement and is evidence of the efficacy of the strategy adopted by the Syrian army and its allies in the war on terrorism,” Assad told a French delegation in Damascus.

A televised statement by the Syrian military said it had established full control over Palmyra, which was conquered by Isis last May. “We have restored security and stability to the city of Palmyra, and established full control on the surrounding, commanding hills,” the Syrian military said in its statement.
State TV said troops were working on clearing mines from the town and its monuments, where numerous booby traps were laid down by the militants before their retreat.
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, congratulated Assad on the victory, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was quoted as saying on Sunday. “Assad highly valued the help Russian air forces have provided and underlined that such successes as regaining Palmyra would have been impossible without Russia’s support,” he told the Tass news agency.




Russia has long insisted that it sought to fight terrorist groups through its intervention in Syria, when in reality its attacks have predominantly targeted mainstream opposition groups battling to overthrow the Syrian president.
But the victory in Palmyra is likely to boost the Kremlin’s campaign, which has always portrayed the Syrian leader, whose violent response to protests sparked the creation of an armed opposition, as an effective force in fighting terrorism.
“Our army, in cooperation with its friends, is the only effective force able to fight and eliminate terrorism,” the Syrian military said in its statement after securing Palmyra.
The fall of the city to Isis gained worldwide attention as it hosts some of the most well-preserved ruins of antiquity. Isis destroyed the iconic temples of Bel and Baalshamin as well as the Arch of Triumph, looting graves and using the amphitheatre to stage executions.



Palmyra’s contemporary strategic importance lies in its location in central Syria; while under Isis’s control, it was a gateway to threaten the more densely populated government-held provinces to the west, including Homs and Damascus.
Its recapture means Assad’s forces can use Palmyra as a stepping stone for offensives against Isis-held territory in Syria’s eastern desert, where the militants are entrenched in Deir ez-Zor, as well as the self-proclaimed caliphate’s de facto capital in Raqqa.

The Syrian military said it would use Palmyra as the staging ground for just such a campaign, but it remains to be seen whether it has the manpower to attempt such a large-scale effort, debilitated as it is by five years of civil conflict.
The defeat is a remarkable turn of fortunes for Isis, which has seen its territory in Syria and Iraq recede under disparate offensives throughout the two collapsing nation-states. The group has turned instead to attacks abroad to bolster its faltering morale.
Less than a year ago, in May 2015, the group had conquered Palmyra and Ramadi west of Baghdad, and established control over approximately half of Syria’s landmass.
But last November it lost Sinjar, the ancestral homeland of the Yazidi community, to a US-backed Kurdish offensive. Ramadi was liberated by Iraqi counter-terrorism troops, and the group has continued to lose territory in northern Syria, including its strategic hub in the town of Shaddadi, to Kurdish forces.

Iraq is also laying the groundwork for an offensive on the city of Mosul, the largest city under Isis control.


In an article for the Guardian, Syria’s director of antiquities, Maamoun Abdelkarim, said a team of archaeologists would go to Palmyra in the coming days to assess the damage to its monuments, and pledged to rebuild the destroyed temples and arch.
“We will issue a challenge to international terrorism, that no matter what you do you cannot erase our history, and we will not sit idle and weep over the ruins,” he said.

[Baby Steps]

THANKS REGGIE FOR STATING THAT USA IS BREAKING THE LAW. As I have long warned, if the big guy abandons the law, we are in the jungle. Everybody loses. USA has tossed its own reputation, together with international law & security onto the fire. It is not a case of an apple going bad. It is a case of the GOOD GUY giving other bad guys a strong excuse to BEHAVE BADLY. Do as I do, and all that.

http://betweenthelines.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/us-breaking-law-who-cares.html





U.S. breaking the law? Who cares?
By Reginald Johnson



Aided by a compliant media, President Obama and top administration officials keep successfully peddling the lie that while other countries violate international law, the United States never does.

This fact was again on display during the recent “60 Minutes” interview with Obama.

In a question and answer session at the White House conducted by Steve Kroft, Obama talked about the U.S. campaign to roll back the the terror group ISIS and later about American relations with Russia and the U.S. economy.

In the last month, U.S. warplanes have been bombing targets in both Iraq and Syria, with the avowed aim of destroying ISIS, which Obama and other officials maintain is a “grave threat” both to Iraq and the greater Middle East. ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Kroft asked a number of questions --- including why the U.S. is seemingly getting involved in another war in the region after years of following a policy of withdrawal, and also how it was that the U.S. was caught off guard by the sudden rise of ISIS, which has taken over whole areas of both Iraq and Syria.

At no point, however, did Kroft ask the president whether the bombing of Syria, a sovereign country, was legal. He should have asked, because clearly the air strikes are not legal under international law. Syria has not attacked the U.S. and America has not secured either Syria’s permission or the United Nations Security Council permission for the strikes.

An attack on a nation’s homeland or Security Council authorization are the only legal bases for a nation taking military action against another state.

Clearly, under UN law and the Nuremberg Principles, the American attack qualifies as “aggression” against Syria. Checking Dictionary.com, we see the very first definition of the word aggression is this: “The action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights.”

While the subject of aggression and the legality of one nation attacking another didn’t come up during the discussion on Syria, it was a different story when the interview turned to Russia and the situation in Ukraine.

After some diplomatic comments about his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Obama accused the Russians of “aggression” in Ukraine.

“Russian aggression violated the sovereignty and terroritorial integrity of a smaller weaker country and violates international norms,” Obama said, in an apparent reference to Russia’s incursion into and takeover of Crimea in the spring, following a coup in Ukraine led by anti-Russian forces.

There is some validity to the claim that Russia broke international law with respect to Crimea. While the people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to rejoin the Russian Federation following the change in government in Kiev, it is also a fact that Russian security forces, not in uniform, had entered Ukraine prior to the vote and basically taken over the area. This was not authorized by the UN, or in any way agreed to by Ukraine. So it was not legal.

But if the Crimean action by the Russians was illegal, then certainly our attack on Syrian terrority was illegal.

It should also be noted that the Russian grab of Crimea was done without bloodshed, which hasn’t been the case with American attacks on Syria. Already, U.S. bombing has caused civilian deaths, according to a human rights group.

The clear hypocrisy of Obama’s claim about aggression, however, didn’t prompt a question from Kroft. No, he just let Obama’s claims slide, without challenging the president over the double standard.

The “60 Minutes” interviewer also failed to question the president on whether the Syria attacks are legal under domestic law.

According to Constitutional provisions and the War Powers Act, Obama needed to get approval from Congress before sending U.S. military forces into action in another country. This never happened.

Both the violations of international law (the treaties of which are ratified by the U.S. and are part of our law) and of the Constitution with respect to Syria, should form the basis for an impeachment proceeding against Obama. He has failed to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” as stated in his oath of office.

Unfortunately, while some members of Congress are grumbling over the president’s failure to get congressional approval for the Syria attacks, it is unlikely that a large number of lawmakers would ever move towards impeachment over this policy.

Too many Democrats are playing politics and turning a blind eye to Obama’s failings, while Republicans always want to look “tough” on issues of war --- whether laws are being broken or not --- and support the Syria attacks.

So the air strikes will go on and civilian deaths will pile up just like they did in the illegal Libyan intervention three years ago. And there’s always the danger that the Syrian intervention could touch off a wider war.

But does anyone care in Congress or in the mainstream media? Apparently not.

[Baby Steps]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11116792/Are-the-US-led-air-strikes-in-Syria-legal-and-what-does-it-mean-if-they-are-not.html

ERR,NO...


ARE THE US-Led air strikes in Syria legal? and what does it mean if they are not?
By Theo Farrell, King's College London
6:06PM BST 23 Sep 2014

The United States has entered a new phase in its war on Islamic State (Isil), by extending the bombing campaign from Iraq into Syria. Air strikes were conducted against ISIL facilities across four provinces in Syria, including its de facto capital in the city of Raqqa.
The scale of the bombing in Iraq has been larger, with strikes against almost two hundred targets to date. But the intensity of the bombing in Syria is greater, with 14 targets hit in one day. This is not a pinprick.
Most western observers would accept that America is right to use military force against this hideous non-state armed group, which has committed war crimes on a mass scale, displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians, and plunged the region into crisis. But is it legal to do so?




There is a general prohibition against the use of force in international law. This probation is clearly codified in the United Nations Charter under Article 2(4) which requires states “to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force.”
The UN Charter does recognise two exceptions to this general probation. States may use force in self-defence (Article 51), and the UN Security Council may authorise the use of force for the purpose of protecting international peace and security (Chapter VII).




How does the law apply?
On 14 August, the UN Security Council passed resolution 2170 deploring the terrorist acts of Isil, and “its continued gross, systematic and widespread abuses of human rights.” Acting under Chapter VII, it urged all states to protect the civilian population and to cooperate in bringing Isil to justice. However, the key phrase, to use “all necessary means”, which in UN-speak is code for use of force, is missing.
The closest the resolution comes to this is when it calls upon “all states to take all measures as may be necessary and appropriate in accordance with their obligations under international law to counter incitement of terrorist acts.” Lawyers have not read this as UN authorisation to start bombing Isil. This, then, leaves the legal right of self-defence.

Usually self-defence applies when a state has been attacked, and must use force to repel the attacker or prevent further attacks. Thus, the United States clearly exercised a legal right of self-defence when it used force against al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts in Afghanistan following 9/11. However, Islamic State has not attacked the United States. There is a right of anticipatory self-defence under customary international law, but here things get a bit murky.
Most international lawyers accept that states may use force pre-emptively against an immediate threat, for example, to strike first where there is clear evidence that an opponent is about to attack. Under the Bush administration, the United States claimed a right, exclusively to itself, to use force to prevent a threat from emerging.
This could be applied here, in that it might be argued that Isil presents a latent threat to the United States, with the potential for launching al Qaeda style attacks against US facilities in the region if not the US homeland. However, most international lawyers reject the notion that there is a right of preventive self-defence, recognising the danger that it simply gives licence for powerful states to use force aggressively.




In the name of domestic security

States are permitted to use force to remove internal threats to their security, provided force is used in a manner that is consistent international humanitarian law, especially in terms of protecting civilian lives and property. States may further request military assistance from foreign powers, which may be legally given provided that the rebellion is not so widespread as to undermine the legitimacy of the government, as is the case in Syria. Isil has up to 30,000 fighters, and controls a large swathe of territory across Iraq and Syria (an area roughly the size of Jordan). However, ruling by fear, it lacks a widespread popular base of support, and therefore cannot be said to credibly challenge the legitimacy of the Iraqi state. The formation of a more representative Iraqi government under Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, further undermines the legitimacy of the Isil insurgency.
Thus, since US air strikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq have occurred at the request of the Iraqi government, they are legal.
Syria and the United States see a common enemy in Isil. However, cooperation between the two is impossible. Following terrible war crimes by regime forces in the Syrian civil war, the United States no longer recognises the legitimacy of the Syrian government. The problem is that there is no legally recognised government to replace it. Thus, US air strikes have been conducted in Syria without a request from the national government. Thus, in bombing Islamic State targets in Syria, the United States cannot credibly claim that it used force in self-defence or at the request of the Syrian state exercising lawful force to suppress rebellion.




Illegal but justified?

Not for the first time, the United States has acted illegally in using force in response to overriding humanitarian necessity. It did so in March 1999, when along with its Nato allies it launched an extended bombing campaign to stop atrocities by Serbian forces against civilians in Kosovo. In this case also, the United States could not claim it was acting in self-defence. Nor was military action authorised by the UN Security Council. Whilst there was just cause, humanitarian necessity is not recognised in international law as constituting a legal ground for use of force. Thus, among the Nato allies, only Belgian claimed a legal right to use force for humanitarian reasons.
State opinion was divided following Nato's war in 1999. Many states, especially western, recognised the legitimacy of Nato's actions even if few recognised the legality. Russia and China attempted to pass a UN Security Council condemning the Nato bombing as illegal. A year later, in April 2000, the G77 group of 133 non-industrialised states issued a statement rejecting the “so-called right of humanitarian intervention.” Not much has changed since 1999. Indeed, if anything, attempts by the Bush administration to claim a right of preventive self-defence and fallout over the dubious legality of the 2003 Iraq War, have hardened most states’ views against accepting the legality of humanitarian wars.
There is an added strategic imperative, in that Isil military advances threaten the viability of the Iraqi state, in which the United States has much invested, and threaten the stability of the wider region. This is underlined by the involvement of five Arab states – Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – in the strikes against Isil in Syria.
The upshot is that US strikes against ISIL in Syria are probably illegal but widely recognised as legitimate. We are likely to see a rerun of what happened in 1999. Some states may seek to reaffirm the illegality of using force for humanitarian ends or to otherwise interfere in the internal affairs of states. However, most states will welcome this necessary action and simply stay silent on the question of legality.
Theo Farrell is Professor of War in the Modern World and Head of the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. He is co-author of International Law and International Relations (2012)

[Baby Steps]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/16/us-military-syrian-isis-fighters

WHAT I DO NOT GET IS - IF USA DOES NOT HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT WHY ARE THEY DISCUSSING CEASE FIRES AT ALL??? WHO ARE THEY TELLING TO STOP FIRING? THE FIVE GUYS?



US has trained only 'four or five' Syrian fighters against Isis, top general testifies
Senators appear incredulous and call for a new plan after hearing news that US military’s $500m effort has resulted in training of only a handful of fighters




A $500m effort to train Syrian forces against the Islamic State has resulted in only a handful of fighters actively battling the jihadi army, the top military commander overseeing the war has testified.
“We’re talking four or five,” General Lloyd Austin, commander of US Central Command, told a dissatisfied Senate armed services committee on Wednesday.
The training initiative is Barack Obama’s linchpin for retaking Syrian territory from Isis. The Pentagon anticipated in late 2014 that it would have trained 5,000 anti-Isis Syrian rebels by now.
“The program is much smaller than we hoped,” conceded the Pentagon’s policy chief, Christine Wormuth, saying there were between 100 and 120 fighters currently being trained. Wormuth said they were “getting terrific training”.
Both Wormuth and Austin defended US strategy against Isis in the face of bipartisan skepticism from the senators.
Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri, mocked the Syrian training program, expressing incredulity that the Defense Department would seek another $600m to fund fighters she said the US was counting “on our fingers and toes”.
“It’s time for a new plan,” McCaskill said.
Austin, who insisted that “progress is being made” against Isis, said he “would not recommend” establishing a military cordon to protect Syrian civilians from forces loyal to dictator Bashar al-Assad and Isis, which has led to the flow of hundreds of thousands of desperate refugees currently causing a huge immigration crisis in Europe.
“I don’t see the force available being prepared to protect them currently,” Austin told an angry Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican and former presidential candidate who chairs the panel.
McCain called the administration’s strategy against Isis “a debacle”.
Austin conceded that there was “slow movement at the tactical level” but defended the strategy he has overseen for a year. “There haven’t been any dramatic gains on either side,” Austin said, although earlier this year Isis seized the Iraqi city of Ramadi and the Syrian city of Palmyra.

Austin is in the throes of a multi-pronged crisis within his command. Not only did Isis’s capture of Ramadi tear up his battle plan, which prioritized recapturing Mosul for the Iraqi government, his own intelligence analysts are furious at what they see as politicized pressure to portray the war as a success.
The charge, from analysts at Central Command and those attached to it from the Defense Intelligence Agency, has sparked an inquiry from the Pentagon inspector general. Central to it is the command’s intelligence chief, Major General Steven Grove, whom analysts say oversees the suppression of assessments showing the war on a perilous trajectory. They are also alarmed by the unusual and frequent contact Grove has with the US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, first reported by the Guardian, which they see as contributing to an atmosphere of pressure.
Clapper, in a weekend email obtained by Fox News, called the Guardian’s story “fictional BS”. Yet Clapper, who has apologized for misleading the Senate, confirmed and defended his contact with Grove, with its frequency being his only factual challenge to the Guardian’s story: the Guardian reported it as “nearly every day”; Clapper said it came “once or twice a week”.
Former intelligence officials have told the Guardian the command climate inside Central Command is “toxic”. They have expressed bewilderment that Austin has not addressed it forcefully.
Austin said “it would be premature and inappropriate” to discuss the investigation, but reiterated “you can be assured I will take the appropriate action”. He said he greatly valued his 1,200 “seasoned intelligence professionals”, and pledged publicly to “do everything within our power” to protect analysts he called “whistleblower”.
Both Austin and Wormuth publicly affirmed that Russia is engaged in a military buildup in Syria, where embattled dictator Assad is a longtime Russian client. Yet Austin said Russia’s goals in Syria are unclear.
“We really don’t know what their intentions are,” said Austin

[sunpaw]

..

5. Syrian government and the law. I am sick of hearing sheeple using the concept of Assad being a tyrant as justification for our mass murder. The Assad regime is internationally recognised as the sovereign government of Syria. That is the law. The Assad government is entitled under the law, to invite in assistance from whoever they see fit, against a domestic insurrection. This is true, even if the insurrection was mass supported or the Assad government did not represent its people. But the facts are different. The Assad government has been extraordinarily popular across all ethnic and religious communities there. It seems that the majority of the Syrians believe that this regime is their best option, as it is secular. They do not want a sectarian politics. It is a divided society, and this is why they see a secular government as so important. We in the West are constantly bombarded with the themes around shia-sunni hatred and conflict. We are told that some of Islam is inherantly war-like. There may be some truth in this, but it is a dangerous idea as it diverts us from seeing that the fighting is caused by EXTERNAL INFLUENCES that do not respect SYRIAN SOVREIGNTY. There has always been a minority opposition there,a small part of which is inclined to fight. but because those who would resort to fighting were so small, they rarely dared try. It took EXTERNAL ENCOURAGEMENT (and who knows what guarantees of aid) from People like McCain, to convince these few to fight. Many of the peaceful opposition have in the light of events dropped their opposition, for the time being so that the regime can save the country, and bring forward elections.

May I ask where this is from? (not sure if its 'yours' or 'a transcript') Thank you.

[Baby Steps]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-usa-rebels-idUSBRE98405L20130905

One needs to understand, when Kerry goes into the international arena, and says these things, almost everybody in the room thinks it is laughable nonsense. But they also know that when he comes to speak to THEM he is really only addressing his own HOME AUDIENCE




Kerry portrait of Syria rebels at odds with intelligence reports



By Mark Hosenball and Phil Stewart | WASHINGTON
Secretary of State John Kerry's public assertions that moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence appear to be at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.
At congressional hearings this week, while making the case for President Barack Obama's plan for limited military action in Syria, Kerry asserted that the armed opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "has increasingly become more defined by its moderation, more defined by the breadth of its membership, and more defined by its adherence to some, you know, democratic process and to an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution.
"And the opposition is getting stronger by the day," Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday.
U.S. and allied intelligence sources and private experts on the Syrian conflict suggest that assessment is optimistic.
While the radical Islamists among the rebels may not be numerically superior to more moderate fighters, they say, Islamist groups like the al Qaeda-aligned Nusra Front are better organized, armed and trained.
Kerry's remarks represented a change in tone by the Obama administration, which for more than two years has been wary of sending U.S. arms to the rebels, citing fears they could fall into radical Islamists' hands.
As recently as late July, at a security conference in Aspen, Colorado, the deputy director of the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, David Shedd, estimated that there were at least 1,200 different Syrian rebel groups and that Islamic extremists, notably the Nusra Front, were well-placed to expand their influence.
"Left unchecked, I'm very concerned that the most radical elements will take over larger segments" of the opposition groups, Shedd said. He added that the conflict could drag on anywhere "from many, many months to multiple years" and that a prolonged stalemate could leave open parts of Syria to potential control by radical fighters.
U.S. and allied intelligence sources said that such assessments have not changed.
A spokeswoman at the State Department said Kerry's remarks reflect the department's position, adding that the opposition had "taken steps over the past months to coalesce, including electing leaders."

GREATER NUMBERS, LESS STRENGTH?
Experts agree that the Nusra Front, an offshoot of the group al Qaeda in Iraq, is among the most effective forces in Syria.
In a second hearing on Wednesday, Kerry was challenged by Representative Michael McCaul, Texas Republican.
"Who are the rebel forces? Who are they? I ask that in my briefings all the time," McCaul said. "And every time I get briefed on this it gets worse and worse, because the majority now of these rebel forces - and I say majority now - are radical Islamists pouring in from all over the world."
Kerry replied: "I just don't agree that a majority are al Qaeda and the bad guys. That's not true. There are about 70,000 to 100,000 oppositionists ... Maybe 15 percent to 25 percent might be in one group or another who are what we would deem to be bad guys.
"There is a real moderate opposition that exists. General Idriss is running the military arm of that," Kerry continued, referring to General Salim Idriss, head of the rebel Free Syrian Army. Increasingly, he said, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are funneling assistance through Idriss.
Kerry cited an article by Elizabeth O'Bagy, an analyst with the Institute for the Study of War think tank, in which she wrote that Islamic extremist factions are not "spearheading the fight against the Syrian government," but rather that the struggle is being led by "moderate opposition forces."
Several leading lawmakers, including Senator John McCain, Arizona Republican, also have said there is a viable moderate opposition in Syria that Washington should support.
U.S. intelligence sources do not dispute that Islamic extremists are in the minority on the battlefield.
"Most of the groups battling against Assad are composed of Islamist fighters, but only a small minority could accurately be characterized as extremist," one U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
But a second official, who also asked not to be named, said moderate rebels may have lost strength rather than gained it in recent months. Due to their relative lack of weapons and organization, they are beginning to make alliances with better-armed Islamic radicals, whom they see pursuing more effective actions against Assad's forces, the official said.
Paul Pillar, who retired in 2005 as the U.S. intelligence community's top Middle East analyst, said he believed the Obama Administration was walking a fine line, trying to calculate how to punish Assad's government for allegedly using chemical weapons while not bolstering the strength of religious militant rebels.

"In a hard-fought civil war, especially one without a single well-organized opposition movement, success goes to the most ruthless and dedicated elements, which also tend to be the most extreme in their views. We are seeing such a process in Syria today," Pillar said.
An authorization to use military force approved on Wednesday by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee states that U.S. policy in Syria includes "upgrading the lethal and non-lethal military capabilities of vetted elements of Syrian opposition forces."



'CHOOSING ONE AMONG MANY SIDES'
Top U.S. intelligence and military officials have recently offered bleak public evaluations of the relative strengths of moderate and religious extremist Syrian rebels.
In an August 19 letter to Representative Eliot Engel, obtained by Reuters, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, warned: "Syria is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides.
"It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor," Dempsey wrote. "Today they are not."
A European security official with experience in the region said that extremist rebel factions were so strong and well-organized in the north and west of Syria that they were setting up their own public services and trying to create an Islamic ministate along the Iraqi border.
By contrast, the official said, more moderate rebel factions predominate in the east of Syria and along its southern border with Jordan but have largely devolved into "gangs" whose leaders are more interested in operating local rackets and enriching themselves than in forming a larger alliance that could more effectively oppose Assad's government.
"I've heard that there are moderate groups out there we could, in theory, support," said Joshua Foust, a former U.S. intelligence analyst who now writes about foreign policy.
"But I've heard from those same people and my own contacts within (U.S. intelligence) that the scary people are displacing more and more moderate groups. Basically, the jihadists are setting up governance and community councils while the moderates exhaust themselves doing the heavy fighting," Foust said.
As anecdotal evidence, Foust cited a recent report that on August 22, four out of five commanders of the moderate Supreme Military Council had threatened to resign and work "with all forces fighting in Syria."
A video on YouTube shows the rebel commander who made this announcement. He is seated in front of an Islamic extremist flag, next to a bearded cleric clad in the religious dress of a Salafist militant.
(Editing by Warren Strobel and Prudence Crowther)

¤=[Post Update]=¤



..

5. Syrian government and the law. I am sick of hearing sheeple using the concept of Assad being a tyrant as justification for our mass murder. The Assad regime is internationally recognised as the sovereign government of Syria. That is the law. The Assad government is entitled under the law, to invite in assistance from whoever they see fit, against a domestic insurrection. This is true, even if the insurrection was mass supported or the Assad government did not represent its people. But the facts are different. The Assad government has been extraordinarily popular across all ethnic and religious communities there. It seems that the majority of the Syrians believe that this regime is their best option, as it is secular. They do not want a sectarian politics. It is a divided society, and this is why they see a secular government as so important. We in the West are constantly bombarded with the themes around shia-sunni hatred and conflict. We are told that some of Islam is inherantly war-like. There may be some truth in this, but it is a dangerous idea as it diverts us from seeing that the fighting is caused by EXTERNAL INFLUENCES that do not respect SYRIAN SOVREIGNTY. There has always been a minority opposition there,a small part of which is inclined to fight. but because those who would resort to fighting were so small, they rarely dared try. It took EXTERNAL ENCOURAGEMENT (and who knows what guarantees of aid) from People like McCain, to convince these few to fight. Many of the peaceful opposition have in the light of events dropped their opposition, for the time being so that the regime can save the country, and bring forward elections.

May I ask where this is from? (not sure if its 'yours' or 'a transcript') Thank you.

Hi, This bit is me. The law is clear, but the rest is opinion. I would be very keen for some Syrians to comment...

[Baby Steps]

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/10/why-is-the-us-silently-bombing-syrias-electricity-network.html

I conclude that there is a very nasty process going on in Syria. 'Refugee Herding' . If you are fighting a group who occupy a populated urban area, that group to a great degree is benefiting from Human Shielding. Due to population density. In order to minimise the loss of Human life, it would make sense to destroy the key infrastructure there, such as water, electricity, hospitals etc. This would drive out the populus, and leave the fighters un-shielded. I fear this is happening in Aleppo. I would suggest that US/Israeli attacks on infrastructure are different. In those cases, they bomb civilian targets in peaceful regime areas. That I would think is just trying to destroy the regime, for their own reasons.



Why Is The U.S. Silently Bombing Syria's Electricity Network?
The Aleppo power plant is a 1,000 megawatt thermal plant in five units build by Mitsubishi Heavy Industry in 1995-1998. It is situated some 25 kilometers east of Aleppo city center.  During the fighting around Aleppo various electricity distribution stations were damaged and electricity in parts of the city has become scarce and unpredictable. But the main power station had so far not been hit.
The plant is in the hands of the Islamic State but there is an informal agreement between the government, which controls the distribution network, and those who hold the power generating station:
[T]he agreement of understanding pertains to the division of the electricity supply between the parties, whereby ISIS will receive 60% of the quota and the Syrian regime will receive 40%.
Both sides will have some electricity and the civilian as well as fighters on both side will be better off than without electricity. No side has a motive to destroy that plant.
But last night the U.S. coalition bombed the Aleppo thermal power plant and destroyed parts of it:
A military source told SANA that warplanes of the Washington alliance violated Syrian airspace and attacked civilian infrastructure in Mare’a, Tal Sha’er, and al-Bab in Aleppo countryside on Sunday.
The source added that the warplanes attacked the biggest electric power plant that feeds Aleppo city, which resulted in cutting off power from most neighborhoods in Aleppo city.
Just a week ago U.S. air attacks had attacked another power station and a big distribution transformer al-Radwaniye also east of Aleppo.
The electricity generation and distribution system is civil infrastructure. It is used and useful to everyone no matter what side of the conflict. After the first U.S. attack on a power station a week ago the Russian president Putin was asked about the strikes. He called them "strange":
"On Sunday, the American aviation bombed out an electrical power plant and a transformer in Aleppo. Why have they done this? Whom have they punished there? What’s the point? Nobody knows," the president said at a meeting with the Russian government members.
The Russians and the Syrians are sure that it were F-16 planes from the U.S. coalition that bombed the power infrastructure even though the coalition reports do no mention the attacks. Why are these bombings not mentioned in the U.S. coalition reports?
The U.S. claims it is only fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. It accuses Russia of not only attacking ISIS even though Russia, and Putin himself, always said that ISIS is not their sole target but that supporting the Syrian government against all its enemies is the overarching aim. The Russian just snuffed out a 16 vehicle ISIS convoy. Something that the U.S. somehow never manages to do. The U.S. itself, by the way, has killed and kills some non-ISIS "moderate rebels". All its complains against the Russians are just nonsense.
But why would fighting ISIS or this or that "moderate rebel" terrorist necessitate the destruction of valuable infrastructure which serves all sides of the Syrian society?
Without the plant Aleppo city, with some 2-3 million inhabitants and refugees, as well as the surrounding areas in Aleppo governate have no electricity. The damage the U.S. bombing caused will make sure that any repair will take a long time. This will make life for people on every side of the war more unbearable and more people will leave to seek refuge in foreign countries.
Is that the purpose of the U.S. bombardment of electricity infrastructure in Syria? If not what else is this supposed to achieve?
Posted by b on October 19, 2015 at 01:49 PM

[Baby Steps]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-09/us-government-reveals-3000-ton-delivery-weapons-and-ammo-al-qaeda-linked-syrian-rebe


U.S. Government Reveals 3,000 Ton Delivery Of Weapons To Al-Qaeda-Linked Syrian Rebels

OK Zero Hedge is not exactly mainstream, but check it- he references Jeremy Binnie, who writes for 'Jane's Defence Weekly'. This is the most prestigeous publication in the defence sphere.

[Baby Steps]

http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2016/07/is-the-us-behind-fethullah-gulen.html


Is the US behind Gulen? SILLY QUESTION. I prefer this: Are US intelligence agencies monitoring this very powerful and influential man, to ensure that his activities do not anger or damage one of it's MOST IMPORTANT ALLIES?(i.e. TURKEY)




JULY 30, 2016
Is the U.S. behind Fethullah Gulen?
Whenever I talk with another Turk about the Gulen movement, a question invariably props up: is the CIA behind Gulen? In fact for most Turks this is a rather rhetorical question, with an incontrovertible answer. The belief that Gulen and his activities are orchestrated by the U.S. is as strongly held as it is widespread among Turks of all political coloration – secular or Islamist.
This is my attempt at providing a reasoned answer to the question. My conclusion in brief: I don’t think Gulen is a tool of the U.S. or has received support from the U.S. for its clandestine operations. But it is possible that some elements within the U.S. national security apparatus think Gulen furthers their agenda, is worth protecting on U.S. soil, and have so far prevailed on other voices in the establishment with different views. Regardless, the U.S. needs to seriously reconsider its attitude towards Gulen and his movement.
Direct support?
Those who believe the U.S. is behind Gulen typically make two arguments. First, they point to how Gulen got his green card in the first place. The long list of individuals who wrote letters of recommendations on Gulen’s behalf includes two long-time CIA employees (George Fidas and Graham Fuller) and a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey (Morton Abramowitz). These individuals write in their individual capacities and their advocacy was based both on Gulen’s persecution by the then-secularist Turkish judiciary and on Gulen’s apparent promotion of a moderate brand of Islam.
On the latter question, at least, it is fair to assume that these recommenders had only limited knowledge of Gulen’s full corpus, which includes some fairly incendiary stuff against Jews, Christians, the United States, and Western Europe. (Some years ago I showed one of the letter writers a particularly anti-semitic sermons and asked him if he was aware of it; he said he had no idea.)
However, the more important point about his green card -– and one that is overlooked in Turkey -- is that the U.S. administration was in fact opposed to giving Gulen a green card. It rejected Gulen’s application, and then strenuously objected when Gulen’s lawyers appealed. Lawyers for the Department of Homeland Security were scathing about Gulen’s qualifications and argued there was no evidence he was an individual of exceptional ability in the field of education: “far from being an academic, plaintiff seeks to cloak himself with academic status by commissioning academics to write about him and paying for conferences at which his work is studied.”
Gulen owes his residency not to the U.S. executive branch (and whichever intelligence agency may be hiding behind it), but to a federal judge with scant interest in foreign policy or intelligence matters who somehow nonetheless ruled in his favor. The judge’s argument was that the Administration had construed the relevant field of “education” too narrowly, and should have considered Gulen’s contributions to other areas such as “theology, political science, and Islamic studies.”
The second argument is that Gulen and his followers would not have been so successful in spreading their empire and influence without active U.S. support. I think this severely underestimates the movement’s own capabilities. Gulen has long stressed education, organization, and secrecy. His movement has invested in raising a “golden generation” of smart, well-trained individuals. Lack of resources has never been a constraint, thanks to the contributions of an army of devout businessmen. As the AKP found out to its own chagrin, its most capable and competent public servants turned out to be serving a different master in Pennsylvania. And in any case, this argument exaggerates U.S.’ own capabilities in my view: given the CIA’s history of blunders, there is in fact much that it could learn from the Gulen movement on cloak-and-dagger operations.
The critical question here is whether there is anything the movement has done that it could not have done without active U.S. backing. Did it really need the help of some U.S. intelligence agency to expand its charter-school network, to stage the Sledgehammer trial, or to infiltrate and organize within the Turkish military? I don’t think so.    
Tacit support?
The U.S. government may not have had a direct hand in Gulen’s activities, but it is more difficult to dismiss the argument that it provided tacit support – or that some parts of the U.S. administration prevailed on other parts who were less keen on Gulen.  
Judging by Wikileaks cables, U.S. diplomats in Turkey were exceptionally knowledgeable about Gulenist activities. These cables are in fact a goldmine of information on the Gulen movement. Form these we learn, among others, about the elaborate ruses used by Gulenist sympathizers to infiltrate the Turkish army, Gulen’s request for support from the Jewish Rabbinate’s during his green card application, and the attempt by sympathizers within the Turkish national police to get a “clean bill of health” for Gulen from the U.S. consulate in Istanbul. We also learn that even in the heyday of their alliance, Gulenists presciently regarded Erdogan as a liability.
Perhaps of more direct interest to the U.S., foreign service officers have long been aware that many Turks have been obtaining visas under false pretenses, with the ultimate aim of ending up as teachers in Gulen’s charter schools. Yet apparently nothing was ever done to stop this flow, nor to hold the movement to account. A ridiculous number of H-1B visas have been issued to Turkish teachers in these schools. One naturally wonders why the U.S. administration never clamped down on the Gulen movement for apparent visa fraud.
The same question arises with respect to the widespread pattern of financial improprieties that has been uncovered in Gulen’s charter schools. A whistleblower has provided evidence that Turkish teachers are required to kick back a portion of their salary to the movement. The FBI has seized documents revealing preferential awarding of contracts to Turkish-connected businesses. Such improprieties are apparently still under investigation. But the slow pace at which the government has moved does make one suspect that there is no overwhelming desire to bring Gulen to justice.  
Gulen typically defends himself against such charges by saying that the schools are run by sympathizers and are not directly under his control. Yet the fact is that he took direct credit for the schools in his green card application, saying he had overseen their establishment.
Then there is the Sledgehammer case, which has the Gulen movement’s fingerprints all over it. This and the closely related Ergenekon trials did untold damage to the military of U.S.’ Nato ally. The jailing of hundreds of officers, including a former chief of staff, sowed a climate of fear and suspicion within the army and sapped military morale. Perhaps the U.S. was bamboozled, like many others, early on about these trials. But by now it should know that these sham trials were launched and stage managed by Gulenists. American officials have been quick to complain in public about the damage the post-coup purge has done to Turkish military capabilities. Yet there was not a peep from them during the Ergenekon and Sledgehammer witch hunts; and nor has the U.S. administration expressed any discontent about the Gulen movement’s role in them since.
The failed coup
The mystery only deepens after the botched coup. The U.S. has demanded credible evidence from Turkey on Gulen’s involvement, which is as it should be. But beyond that, it appears from the outside as if administration officials have been interested mostly in throwing cold water on the Turkish government’s claim that Gulen was behind the coup – a claim that is largely justified.
The most egregious example is that of James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence. Asked whether Turkish allegations that Gulen planned the attempted coup passed the “smell test” of credibility, Clapper answered: “No. Not to me.” Clapper said Secretary of State Kerry “was right on the ball” to press the Turks to back up their extradition request with evidence of Gulen’s involvement, adding: “We haven’t seen it yet. We certainly haven’t seen it in intel.”
Now coming from the head of American intelligence, this is no less than a stunning statement. As the Wikileaks cables I referred to above make clear, the State Department, at least, has been well aware of Gulenist infiltration of the Turkish military for quite some time. The Gulenists’s role in Sledgehammer, which led to the discharge of many of the most Kemalist/secularist officers in the military is equally clear. Beyond Sledgehammer, the Gulenists’ wide range of clandestine operations against opponents in Turkey must be well known to American intelligence. So when the most senior intelligence officer in the U.S. instinctively brushes off Gulen’s possible involvement, it looks awfully like he is either incompetent or has something to hide.
Since Clapper’s statement was made, the head of the Turkish military, who was held hostage by the putschists during the coup attempt, has said that one of his captors offered to put him in touch with Gulen directly. This, on its own, is prima facie evidence of Gulen’s involvement, and likely passes the “probable cause” test that is required for extradition. Incredibly, administration officials are still quoted as saying “there is no credible evidence of Mr. Gulen’s personal involvement.” In other words, these officials must think that the army chief of their NATO ally is lying.     
(I will not get into former CIA official Graham Fuller’s silly piece exonerating the Gulen movement, which is at best woefully uninformed, at worst willfully misleading. Fuller has been retired for some time, and I doubt he is playing any role in administration policy.)
So what the hell is going on here?
In light of the confusing signals that come out of the U.S., and the apparent desire of many people in or close to the administration to defend Gulen, it’s not difficult to empathize with those in Turkey who believe the U.S. must be behind Gulen (and, yes, even the coup attempt). I think it is too farfetched to think that the U.S. knew of beforehand or supported the coup. There were far too many risks and too few benefits for the U.S. to be involved. And contrary to what many people in Turkey believe, U.S. intelligence is far from omniscient – so yes, the coup likely did happen without U.S. knowledge.
But it is not farfetched to think that there are some groups in the administration – perhaps in the intelligence branches – who have been protecting Gulen because they think he is useful to U.S. foreign policy interests. This could be because Gulen’s brand/mask of moderate Islam is a rare thing in that part of the world. It could be because taking Gulen down would only benefit groups in Turkey they consider more inimical to U.S. interests – Erdogan’s AKP and the arch-secularists. It is even possible that the movement has occasionally performed services for U.S. intel operations. (Some of Gulen’s schools in Central Asia were used to “shelter” American spies according to a former Turkish intelligence chief.) That kind of thing would not be beneath either the CIA or the Gulen movement.
Perhaps these groups have so far have had the better of the argument and have held the upper hand in the administration against those in State or elsewhere who know full well what the Gulen movement is up to and would rather see him go. In the aftermath of the coup, perhaps this balance will change in favor of the latter. Perhaps not. Whether it does or not, I think the Gulen issue will ultimately explode in somebody’s face in the U.S. The only questions are whose, and when.
I would be the first to admit that this is just a hypothesis. But if there is a better story that explains the U.S. reaction I’d love to hear it.
Extradition?
It is very unlikely that Gulen would receive a fair trial in Turkey. So the U.S. has a legitimate ground for not extraditing him. But the U.S. foreign policy establishment would be making a very big mistake if they simply dismissed the calls from Turkey about Gulen’s complicity. It is easy for the U.S. to hide behind Erdogan’s clampdown and the ill treatment of the putschists. But the U.S. has considerable explaining to do too

[Baby Steps]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/turkish-backed-syrian-rebels-advance-manbij-160829154225197.html

I HAVE A SCARY MIND TRICK FOR YOU. WHERE IT SAYS TURKEY - CHANGE IT TO 'NATO'.

WHERE IT SAYS SYRIA - CHANGE IT TO 'RUSSIA'S CLOSEST ALLY IN THE MIDDLE EAST'

Words like Turkey, Syria etc are loaded with pre-programmed prejudice about fractious primitive terrorists. Drop the psi-op.



Turkish-backed Syrian rebels advance towards Manbij
FSA fighters head towards northern Syrian city recently captured by the YPG, as the US tells all sides to stand down.



Turkish-backed Syrian rebels say they are now advancing towards Manbij in northern Syria, a city captured earlier this month by Kurdish forces, as the US condemned the weekend clashes between the sides as "unacceptable".



Turkey's military said on Monday that the Ankara-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) had cleared fighters from 10 more villages in northern Syria, as part of a cross-border offensive that had already captured a string of settlements south of the Syrian frontier town of Jarablus.
The statement did not say whether these fighters belonged to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group or Kurdish forces. 
"After seizing control of the border town of Jarablus, the FSA fighters moved under Turkish air cover to control villages such as Amarna, Yousef Beq and Ain al-Baida within hours," Al Jazeera's Hashem Ahelbarra, reporting from Gaziantep on the Turkish side of the Syria-Turkey border, said.

"But their main target is to take over Manbij," he said. "YPG fighters maintain a significant presence along that area with their local allies."
Just weeks ago, Kurdish and Arab fighters, backed by US coalition air strikes, drove ISIL fighters out of Manbij after months of fighting.
Turkish forces have been pressing on with a two-pronged operation inside Syria against ISIL (also known as ISIS) fighters and the Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) since Wednesday, shelling more than a dozen targets.
"Taking on the YPG is a risk for the Turkish government," said our correspondent. "The Kurdish group is a crucial ally for the US in its fight against ISIL in Syria."
Meanwhile, the US Department of Defence condemned the clashes between Turkish forces and the YPG on Monday, calling them "unacceptable".



Ankara said it had killed 25 Kurdish "terrorists" in strikes on YPG positions on Sunday, a day after a Turkish soldier died in a rocket attack it blamed on Kurdish forces
On Monday, the Pentagon called the clashes "unacceptable" and urged an immediate de-escalation.
"We want to make clear that we find these clashes - in areas where ISIL is not located - unacceptable and a source of deep concern," said Brett McGurk, US special envoy for the fight against ISIL, also known as ISIS.
"We call on all armed actors to stand down," he wrote on Twitter, citing a US Department of Defense statement.
Later on Monday, Ash Carter, the US defense secretary, urged Turkey to not target Kurdish elements of Syrian rebels.
"We have called upon Turkey ... to stay focused on the fight against ISIL and not to engage Syrian Defense Forces, and we've had a number of contacts over the last several days," Carter told reporters.
Turkey's operation aims to push the YPG back across the Euphrates River to prevent it from joining up the region east of the river already under its control with a Kurdish-held area to the west.
US Vice President Joe Biden, visiting Ankara last week, said Washington had told the YPG to go back across the Euphrates or risk losing American support.
After Biden's warning, Kurdish officials seemed to have acceded to Turkish demands and said they withdrew the YPG forces from Manbij. 
"The YPG said they have withdrawn to the East," said Al Jazeera's Ahelbarra. "But activists on the ground doubt that."
Ankara also said it had seen no evidence of this.
'Ethnic cleansing'


Mevlut Cavusoglu, Turkey's foreign minister, said on Monday the YPG "needs to cross east of the Euphrates as soon as possible. So long as they don't, they will be a target.
"In the places where it has moved, the YPG forces everyone out - including Kurds - who do not think like it does and carries out ethnic cleansing," he added.

Cavusoglu said the ethnic composition of the area around the city of Manbij was largely Arab.

Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus on Monday also confirmed one of the key aims of Turkey's operation in northern Syria was to prevent the creation of a corridor stretching from Iraq to the verge of the Mediterranean controlled by the YPG. 
"If that happens, it means Syria has been divided," he was quoted as saying by Turkish broadcaster NTV.

He added that all relevant parties had been informed of Turkey's operation in Syria, including the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

But Kurtulmus denied Turkey was at war. "We are not pursuing an aim of becoming a permanent power in Syria. Turkey is not an invader. Turkey is not entering a war."
"It’s unclear whether Turkish commanders will send ground forces all the way to Manbij to help the FSA take control of the city or only provide air cover, said Al Jazeera's Ahelbarra.
"Either way, the conflict has become deepened with multiple frontlines and agendas at play."

[Baby Steps]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda

I SWEAR,WHEN THE SHEEPLE START ACCUSING YOUR LEADER OF BEING AN EVIL DICTATOR, RUN FOR COVER, AS THEY WILL COME WITH BOMBS. THE MIND CONTROLLED MASSES DO NOT RECOGNISE THAT ASSAD WAS AND REMAINS POPULAR.



Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media
Jonathan Steele

Assad's popularity, Arab League observers, US military involvement: all distorted in the west's propaganda war


suppose a respectable opinion poll found that most Syrians are in favour of Bashar al-Assad remaining as president, would that not be major news? Especially as the finding would go against the dominant narrative about the Syrian crisis, and the media considers the unexpected more newsworthy than the obvious.
Alas, not in every case. When coverage of an unfolding drama ceases to be fair and turns into a propaganda weapon, inconvenient facts get suppressed. So it is with the results of a recent YouGov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha Debates, funded by the Qatar Foundation. Qatar's royal family has taken one of the most hawkish lines against Assad – the emir has just called for Arab troops to intervene – so it was good that The Doha Debates published the poll on its website. The pity is that it was ignored by almost all media outlets in every western country whose government has called for Assad to go.

The key finding was that while most Arabs outside Syria feel the president should resign, attitudes in the country are different. Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay, motivated by fear of civil war – a spectre that is not theoretical as it is for those who live outside Syria's borders. What is less good news for the Assad regime is that the poll also found that half the Syrians who accept him staying in power believe he must usher in free elections in the near future. Assad claims he is about to do that, a point he has repeated in his latest speeches. But it is vital that he publishes the election law as soon as possible, permits political parties and makes a commitment to allow independent monitors to watch the poll.


Biased media coverage also continues to distort the Arab League's observer mission in Syria. When the league endorsed a no-fly zone in Libya last spring, there was high praise in the west for its action. Its decision to mediate in Syria was less welcome to western governments, and to high-profile Syrian opposition groups, who increasingly support a military rather than a political solution. So the league's move was promptly called into doubt by western leaders, and most western media echoed the line. Attacks were launched on the credentials of the mission's Sudanese chairman. Criticisms of the mission's performance by one of its 165 members were headlined. Demands were made that the mission pull out in favour of UN intervention.
The critics presumably feared that the Arab observers would report that armed violence is no longer confined to the regime's forces, and the image of peaceful protests brutally suppressed by army and police is false. Homs and a few other Syrian cities are becoming like Beirut in the 1980s or Sarajevo in the 1990s, with battles between militias raging across sectarian and ethnic fault lines.

As for foreign military intervention, it has already started. It is not following the Libyan pattern since Russia and China are furious at the west's deception in the security council last year. They will not accept a new United Nations resolution that allows any use of force. The model is an older one, going back to the era of the cold war, before "humanitarian intervention" and the "responsibility to protect" were developed and often misused. Remember Ronald Reagan's support for the Contras, whom he armed and trained to try to topple Nicaragua's Sandinistas from bases in Honduras? For Honduras read Turkey, the safe haven where the so-called Free Syrian Army has set up.
Here too western media silence is dramatic. No reporters have followed up on a significant recent article by Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer who now writes for the American Conservative – a magazine that criticises the American military-industrial complex from a non-neocon position on the lines of Ron Paul, who came second in last week's New Hampshire Republican primary. Giraldi states that Turkey, a Nato member, has become Washington's proxy and that unmarked Nato warplanes have been arriving at Iskenderum, near the Syrian border, delivering Libyan volunteers and weapons seized from the late Muammar Gaddafi's arsenal. "French and British special forces trainers are on the ground," he writes, "assisting the Syrian rebels, while the CIA and US Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers …"
As the danger of full-scale war increases, Arab League foreign ministers are preparing to meet in Cairo this weekend to discuss the future of their Syrian mission. No doubt there will be western media reports highlighting remarks by those ministers who feel the mission has "lost credibility", "been duped by the regime" or "failed to stop the violence". Counter-arguments will be played down or suppressed.
In spite of the provocations from all sides the league should stand its ground. Its mission in Syria has seen peaceful demonstrations both for and against the regime. It has witnessed, and in some cases suffered from, violence by opposing forces. But it has not yet had enough time or a large enough team to talk to a comprehensive range of Syrian actors and then come up with a clear set of recommendations. Above all, it has not even started to fulfil that part of its mandate requiring it to help produce a dialogue between the regime and its critics. The mission needs to stay in Syria and not be bullied out.

[Baby Steps]

http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/Why-Is-The-US-Reluctant-To-Bomb-ISIS-Oil-Fields.html

THIS ARTICLE IS HILARIOUS. RYAN OPSAL IS SUGGESTING THAT THE REASON THAT USA IS NOT BOMBING THE OIL FACILITIES UNDER ISIS CONTROL, IS THAT THERE IS A HIGH PRIORITY TO MOTIVATE COMMUNITIES LOCAL TO THE OIL FACILITIES TO FIGHT ISIS THEMSELVES,SO WE MUST NOT ANNOY THEM BY BOMBING THE OIL. RYAN YOU ARE CLUTCHING AT STRAWS.



Why Is The U.S. Reluctant To Bomb ISIS Oil Fields?
By Ryan Opsal - Dec 02, 2015, 4:05 PM CST

There has been some revealing new information coming out recently regarding the strategy against ISIS. One aspect many find troubling is the apparent failure of U.S. and coalition forces to sufficiently target and destroy oil infrastructure located in ISIS territory, which accounts for a significant portion of the terror group’s annual income. The argument goes, if we want to impact their operations, we should target their primary sources of income, and choke off their operational funds. So, why does ISIS oil infrastructure still stand? Is this the result of an intelligence failure? Negligence? Or, is there a more purposeful reason?
Using data from the Department of Defense, we can see the targeting of oil infrastructure has indeed been a relatively low priority. Buildings and military positions receive the bulk of coalition attention, and only 260 oil-related targets have been destroyed since operations began, out of 16,075 targets damaged or destroyed. And, we now know just how many of these oil-related targets remain. So, what reason could coalition forces have for holding off?
We now know with a high degree of certainty that ISIS receives the majority of its oil income selling unrefined crude, at the pump. There was some idea this was the case, but now it is more certain. This means the ISIS oil trade goes as far as pumping oil from the ground, and then selling it to a long line of waiting tanker trucks that are typically not affiliated with the group. And, while ISIS used to run some marginal refining operations, that appears to no longer be the case. Additionally, we now know the organization’s largest market is not from exports, but through sales to its local, monopolized market in northern Syria. The fact that most of the income is local, and not from exports is even more fascinating when you learn that not only does this oil find its way to local civilians that need fuel for power generation, but that much of the fuel finds its way to Assad’s government forces and the various rebel groups that are arrayed against ISIS itself.





We also now have a better understanding of the extent of ISIS’ diverse revenue stream outside of oil. For instance, last year, in the midst of the chaos in northern Iraq, the terror group turned to robbery, and stole well over $500 million from Iraqi banks. They also onerously tax the locals that are unfortunate enough to live under their rule. And, most surprising are the large revenues garnered from farming on very fertile Syrian and Iraqi land. These sources are far more important than the oft-reported revenues from hostage taking and the selling of sex slaves. This tells us oil is important, but not a silver bullet to disrupt operations.
So, a possible reason for not decisively interrupting oil operations could include preservation of infrastructure for rebuilding after the conflict. This certainly has precedent, since coalition forces have tried this in Iraq and Afghanistan most recently, and territorial shifts occur rapidly in this current conflict. Consider this a lesson learned from Kuwait in 1991.
Another possibility is the US does not want to cause any environmental damage in the surrounding region, having learned another hard lesson from the First Gulf War. This is possible, but highly unlikely. In the face of open war and killing enemies, it is extremely difficult to imagine any government placing environmental concerns over decisive strikes against an enemy. This approach does not have precedent.

Another scenario, which may be the be most plausible, is a play for local fighters to turn on ISIS, prevent further humanitarian issues in the region, and to maintain supplies to rebel groups fighting both ISIS and Assad. A loss of fuel in this region would be extremely detrimental to the local population, which relies overwhelmingly on generators for power, fueled by ISIS oil. The same goes for all the groups fighting ISIS – they all receive fuel from their enemies’ oil pumps. Without fuel, this could hamper the war effort on the ground, and even draw the local population into further compliance with ISIS. Since oil provides the lifeline for many civilians under ISIS rule, this must be taken into account for any long-term strategy in the region.
Some might mock the fact that the U.S. Air Force, before a recent strike, dropped pamphlets on the oil transport vehicles giving the occupants 45 minutes to vacate their tankers before air attacks would commence. This is simply a recognition of how crucial a local population is to combatting insurgencies and terrorist groups. We know the tanker drivers are most likely not affiliated with ISIS in any way, and might even despise the terror organization. They might even be retrieving fuel to be delivered to the very forces that are fighting against ISIS.
It’s incredibly important to keep in mind the limits of military power when waging counter-terror and counter-insurgency operations, a fact not lost on top military officials in Washington. Our understanding as to how to effectively combat terror groups has grown immensely in recent years, and key aspects of this are to allow for the creation of divisions in the territory and the terror organization itself and to ultimately draw in the local population to your side. The former involves containing the group and allowing those divisions to bubble to the surface over time.

This is a key point by terrorism expert Daniel Byman, where he makes the case for “containment” and “de-legitimation” in a scholarly work from 2007. In a sense, this was U.S. counterterrorism strategy globally before 2001. The other component is key, and was effectively used in Iraq in 2006-2007, when the Sunni Awakening went into effect after local tribal groups cut deals with U.S. forces, and turned on al Qaeda. This was a vital juncture in the campaign in Iraq ushering in relative calm in a turbulent part of the world.
It’s important to note that the available information provides a conflicting picture and we can’t be entirely clear on motives at this point. However, the evidence does plausibly point toward forcing realignment of local tribal groups against ISIS, and the maintenance of crucial supplies to resistance groups throughout the region, both corroborated with past actions by U.S. and coalition forces, and counterterrorism strategy. It also remains to be seen if the United States is forced to abandon this strategy given recent attacks and Russian involvement in the region. It may now simply be untenable, for any reason, to forgo attacks on oil infrastructure in the region.
By Ryan Opsal for Oilprice.com

[Baby Steps]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-turkey-isi_b_8808024.html

WOW THIS IS A WHOPPER. ALL THE BACKGROUND ON THE VERY CONTENTIOUS,'OUT THERE', CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT TURKEY IS BUYING OIL FROM ISIS




Research Paper: Turkey-ISIS Oil Trade
12/15/2015 11:31 am ET | Updated Dec 15, 2015



David L. Phillips
Director of the Program on Peace-building and Rights, Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights



Introduction


The sale of oil products by ISIS garners about $500 million/year. The US led multinational coalition has pledged to destroy ISIS. Its strategy includes depriving ISIS of financial support. Allegations abound that Turks are engaged in oil trade with ISIS. Additionally, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his family are allegedly implicated. Erdogan takes these charges seriously. He promised “to vacate his post of Turkey’s presidency if the claims are substantiated by concrete evidence.”
The Program on Peace-building and Rights at Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights appointed a team of researchers in the United States, Europe, and Turkey to investigate the allegations. Researchers focus on secondary media sources. This research paper cites relevant reports.
Smugglers transport oil using a variety of means, generating significant revenues for ISIS. Smuggled oil finds its way into Turkey’s export facilities and onto tankers in Ceyhan bound for international markets. There is no “smoking gun” linking the Government of Turkey or Erdogan directly to ISIS oil sales. It is apparent, however, that Turkey turned a blind eye to ISIS oil trade. Turkey failed to seal its border, facilitating ISIS oil exports. Turks have profited at stages of the supply chain.


Transport Trends


Article: “ISIS Export Gateway to Global Crude Oil Markets“
Publication: London Shipping Law Centre, Maritime Business Forum
Date: March 12, 2015
George Kiourktsoglou (Visiting Lecturer, University of Greenwich, London) and Dr. Alec D. Coutroubis (Principal Lecturer, University of Greenwich, London) provide the most extensive account of the ISIS oil industry and potential links to Turkey. ISIS began taking over oil fields in late spring 2014. Since then, ISIS has expanded its operations by creating a loosely integrated and thriving underground economy, consisting of approximately sixty percent of Syria’s oil assets and seven oil producing facilities in Iraq.
ISIS has set up an extensive network of middlemen in neighboring territories and countries, with the aim of trading crude oil for cash and in kind. Upon extraction, oil is first lightly refined on site and then a supply-chain network brings it to the market. The supply chain comprises the following localities in Turkey: Sanliura, Urfa, Hakkari, Siirt, Batman, Osmaniya, Gaziantep, Sirnak, Adana, Kahramarmaras, Adiyaman and Mardin. The string of trading hubs ends up in Adana, home to the major tanker shipping port of Ceyhan on the Eastern Mediterranean. The terminal is operated by Botas International Limited (BIL), a Turkish state company.
The authors examine tanker charter rates, in order to establish transport patterns. They look at the map for crude oil loading terminals that geographically fall within, or border the sphere of ISIS control, over a period of years. They consider deviations in the patters from July 2014, when ISIS started off its smuggling operations, until mid-February 2015. They also consider the integration of ISIS smuggled crude within the global oil markets. A part of ISIS smuggled crude oil is fed into the global oil markets, transported in tankers leaving the port of Ceyhan.
Whenever the Islamic State is fighting in the vicinity of an area hosting oil assets, the exports from Ceyhan promptly spike. Unusual spikes are found from July 10-21, 2014. This spike coincides with the fall of Syria’s largest oil field, Al-Omar, to ISIS. Another spike takes place between the end of October and the end of November 2014. It happens at the same time as fighting between ISIS and the Syrian army over the control of the Jhar and Mahr gas fields, as well as the Hayyan gas company in the east of Homs province.
The authors believe that there is active shadow network of crude oil smugglers and traders, who channel ISIS crude to southeast Turkey from northeast Syria and northwest Iraq. The illicit supply chain along Route E90 delivers ISIS crude to Ceyhan.


Smuggler Citings


Article: “Despite U.S.-led campaign, ISIS Rakes in Oil Revenue“
Publication: Associated Press
Date: October 23, 2015
The Islamic State takes in up to $50 million a month from selling crude from oilfields under its control in Iraq and Syria. Washington has been talking to regional governments, including Turkey, about its concerns over the export of energy infrastructure into ISIS-controlled territory in Syria (e.g. equipment for extraction, refinement, transport and energy production). ISIS management of its oil fields is “increasingly sophisticated,” with assistance from international actors in the region. According to Iraqi intelligence officials, ISIS sells the crude to smugglers who in turn sell to middlemen in Turkey. ISIS is believed to be extracting about 30,000 barrels per day from Syria, smuggled to middlemen in neighboring Turkey. This amount is augmented by up 20,000 barrels per day, mostly from two oilfields outside Mosul. The ISIS “finance ministry” puts at 253 the number of oil wells under ISIS control in Syria. Of these, 161 of them were operational, benefitting from production equipment originating in neighboring countries including Turkey.
Article: “IŞİD petrolü üç güzergahtan Türkiye’ye gidiyor“
Publication: Cumhuriyet
Date: December 2, 2015
ISIS oil is transported to Turkey via multiple routes. Oil from the Raqqa region is transported via the northwest route. A satellite image of the motorway at Azzaz Shows 240 trucks waiting on the Turkish side of border, and 46 trucks on Syrian side of border (13-11-2015). Trucks travel to Dortyol and Iskenderun Port. Satellite images of Deir Ez-Zor show hundreds of tankers carrying oil to towards Qamishli (18-10-2015). After entering Turkey, oil is sent to the “Tupras” refinery in Batman, about 100 kilometers away. Oil is also transported from Syria to Cizre. A satellite image shows 1,104 trucks (14-11-2015).
Article: “Inside Isis Inc: The journey of a barrel of oil“
Publication: Financial Times
Date: October 14, 2015

Smugglers load larger jerry cans (50-60 litres) of oil into metal tubs or small row boats to move cargo across the river and into Turkey. On the other bank, tractors pick up the supply and took it to a local market. Some Syrian and Turkish border towns (e.g. Besalan) have co-operated by burying small rubber tubes under the border. A popular crossing point for smugglers carrying jerry cans of fuel on their backs has been from Kharbet al-Jawz in rebel-held Syria to Guvecci in Turkey.
Article: “Islamic State Financing and US Policy Approaches“
Publication: Congressional Research Service
Date: April 10, 2015
ISIS has no traditional export facilities or access to the open market. As a result, ISIS transports oil by truck to the Turkish border where oil brokers and traders purchase the oil with cash at a steeply discounted price, as low as $18/barrel. Oil sales initially provided the majority of ISIS revenue, but gradually declined due to an extensive campaign of US-led air strikes. The US and Turkey co-chair the Financial Action Task Force, which has studied ISIS revenue streams and recommended measures to prevent cash flow.
Article: “Turkey sends in jets as Syria’s agony spills over every border“
Publication: The Guardian
Date: July 25, 2015
The oil-smuggling operation of Abu Sayyaf, an ISIS leader, has been drastically reduced, although tankers still make it to the Syria-Turkey border. According to an ISIS member, “I know of a lot of cooperation... I don’t see how Turkey can attack the organisation too hard. There are shared interests.”
Article: “Raqqa’s Rockefellers: How Islamic State oil flows to Israel“
Publication: Al-Araby al-Jadeed
Date: November 26, 2015
ISIS oil exports are managed by a colonel in the Iraqi Intelligence Services. He indicated, “After the oil is extracted and loaded, the oil tankers leave Nineveh province and head north to the city of Zakho, 88 kilometers north of Mosul. After IS oil lorries arrive in Zakho - normally 70 to 100 of them at a time - they are met by oil smuggling mafias. The person in charge of the oil shipment sells the oil to the highest bidder. Once in Turkey, the lorries continue to the town of Silopi, where the oil is delivered to a person who goes by the aliases of Dr Farid, Hajji Farid and Uncle Farid.”
Article: “ISIS Oil Trade Full Frontal: “Raqqa’s Rockefellers”, Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, And The Israel Connection”
Publication: Zero Hedge
Date: November 29, 2015
Vladimir Putin detailed the scope of the operation in meetings with his G20 colleagues. “I’ve shown photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil and petroleum products,” he told journalists on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Antalya. The very same day, the US destroyed some 116 ISIS oil trucks, an effort that was widely publicized in the Western media. In the two weeks since Russia’s revelations, Moscow and Washington have destroyed 1,300 ISIS oil transport vehicles.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-28/isis-oil-trade-full-frontal-raqqas-rockefellers-bilal-erdogan-krg-crude-and-israel-c
Article: “Mevzuattan çıktı... Erdoğan zorda! İşte IŞİD petrolüne belge”
Publication: Gazeteciler
Date: December 4, 2015
Turkey amended its transport, trade and custom policy in June 2014. Regulations govern the “transiting of raw Petrol and Fuel via Turkey by road or railways.” (Approved by Ministry of Trade and Customs on June 24, 2014, item no. 1208098). The Reyhanli border gate is not officially used for trade of oil products. However, the Russian Ministry of Defense provided satellite imagery of oil tankers crossing at Reyhanli.
http://www.gazetecileronline.com/newsdetails/18904-/GazetecilerOnline/mevzuattan-cikti-erdogan-zorda-iste-isid-petrolune
Article: “Iran: Elimizde IŞİD’den Türkiye’ye petrol sevkiyatının kanıtları var”
Publication: Rota Haber
Date: December 4, 2015
Iran says it has proof of oil smuggling from ISIS to Turkey. Iran’s Secretary of the Expediency Discernment Council, Mohsen Rezaei, says the government has photographs of truck tankers bringing ISIS oil to Turkey. Rezaei is quoted, “If Turkish government does not have information of the oil trade in the country, we are willing to give it to them.”
http://www.rotahaber.com/m/dunya/iran-elimizde-isid-den-turkiye-ye-petrol-sevkiyatinin-kanitlari-var-h572301.html
Article: “German deputy speaker: NATO must stop Turkey support for ISIS”
Publication: Rudaw
Date: October 12, 2014
According to Claudia Roth, deputy speaker of the Bundestag and a Green Party MP, Erdogan’s “dealings with the ISIS are unacceptable. Also that the ISIS has been able to sell its oil via Turkey is extraordinary.”
http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/12102014
Article: “Turkey Launches Crackdown On Oil Smugglers Feeding ISIS”
Publication: Huffington Post
Date: June 12, 2014
Smuggled fuel came from oil wells in Iraq or Syria controlled by militants, including ISIS, and was sold to middlemen who smuggled it across the 900-kilometer Turkish-Syrian border. Analysts estimate that the Islamic State group gets up to $3 million a day in revenue from oil fields seized in Iraq and Syria. Western intelligence officials have alleged that Turkey is turning a blind eye to a flourishing trade that strengthens ISIS, and Secretary of State John Kerry has called on Turkey to do more to stem the trade. Oil smuggling was a booming business until about six months ago, when Turkish authorities cracked down in response to media reports. New checkpoints and border controls were set-up in Hatay Province. Turkey says it seized nearly 20 million liters of oil at the border in the first eight months of 2015, about four times as much as in the same period the year before.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/isis-oil-money_n_5938472.html
Article: “How ISIS Uses Oil to Fund Terror”
Publication: Huffington Post
Date: September 19, 2014

There are about 8 million people living in ISIS-controlled territory who desperately need fuel and energy supplies. ISIS crude oil is either refined in small facilities or exchanged across the border — mostly in Turkey — for refined oil products. The southern corridor of Turkey has thus become a gateway for oil products and illicit trading. Cross-border trade violates U.N. Security Council resolution 2170 requiring Members States cut the finances of ISIS, Nusra front and other Qaeda splinter groups.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/27/isis-oil_n_5877008.html


Allegations of Turkey’s Official Involvement


Article: “CHP’li Altiok ve HDP’li Kürkçü ISID’ten petrol alimini 4 ay önce meclise taşimişti”
Publication: Siyasi Haber
Date: December 3, 2015
CHP İzmir MP Zeynep Altıok HDP İzmir MP Ertuğrul Kürkçü accused Turkey of oil trade with ISIS in the Turkish Grand National Assembly (27-7-2015 and 27-7-2015). They referenced Martin Chulov’s article in The Guardian (26-7-2015). Chulov maintains that when Abu Sayyaf was in charge of energy trade for ISIS before he was killed in an air strike on May 15. US Special Forces recovered Sayyaf’s computer records confirming that Turkey was the main buyer of oil from ISIS. Chulov is referenced in Birgun newspaper saying that Turkish security forces were protecting the oil trade (28-7-2015).
http://siyasihaber1.org/chpli-altiok-ve-hdpli-kurkcu-isidten-petrol-alimini-4-ay-once-meclise-tasimisti
Article: “Aykut Erdoğdu yolsuzluk bağlantılarını belgeleriyle anlattı”
Publication: Çağdaş Ses
Date: October 21, 2015
CHP MP Aykut Erdoğdu alleged that partner companies of Berat Albayrak, Erdogan’s son-in-law, and his brother-in-law, Ziya Ilgen, were involved in the ISIS oil trade (17-12-2014). A court case has been brought against him for “insulting the President.”
http://www.cagdasses.com/guncel/25639/aykut-erdogdu-yolsuzluk-baglantilarini-belgeleriyle-anlatti
Article: “Opposition MP says ISIS is selling oil in Turkey”
Publication: Al-Monitor
Date: June 13, 2014
Ali Ediboglu, an opposition MP, said: “$800 million worth of oil that ISIS obtained from regions it occupied this year (the Rumeilan oil fields in northern Syria and most recently Mosul) is being sold in Turkey. They have laid pipes from villages near the Turkish border at Hatay. Similar pipes exist also at the Turkish border regions of Kilis, Urfa and Gaziantep. They transfer the oil to Turkey and sell it at a discount for cash. They refine the oil in areas close to the Turkish border and then sell it via Turkey. This is worth $800 million.”
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/business/2014/06/turkey-syria-isis-selling-smuggled-oil.html#
Article: “As Turkey turned blind eye, ISIS took advantage”
Publication: CBS News
Date: September 4, 2014
Hursit Gunes, a member of Turkey’s opposition, accuses the Turkish authorities of ignoring oil smuggling by ISIS. “The money they get from smuggling could be stopped if the Turkish government and the neighbor countries had decided that they shouldn’t get a coin.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/as-turkey-turned-blind-eye-isis-took-advantage/
Article: “Ankara’s oil business with ISIS”
Publication: RT
Date: November 27, 2015
Last October, the US Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen said Islamic State was earning $1 million a day from oil sales. “According to our information, as of last month, ISIL was selling oil at substantially discounted prices to a variety of middlemen, including some from Turkey, who then transported the oil to be resold. It also appears that some of the oil emanating from territory where ISIL operates has been sold to Kurds in Iraq, and then resold into Turkey.”
https://www.rt.com/business/323391-isis-oil-business-turkey-russia/
Article: “Suspicious Report: “ISIS Selling Oil to Turkey through Qatari Brokers”
Publication: Veterans Today
Date: December 4, 2015
the Arabic-language Al-Akhbar newspaper quoted unnamed sources inside ISIL: “ISIL regularly sells crude it obtains from Iraqi and Syrian oil wells to Turkey through some Qatari middlemen”. In some transactions, oil is bartered for weapons.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/04/suspicious-report-isis-selling-oil-to-turkey-through-qatari-brokers/
Article: “Struggling to Starve ISIS of Oil Revenue, U.S. Seeks Assistance From Turkey”
Publication: The New York Times
Date: September 13, 2014

On September 13, 2014, The New York Times reported the Obama administration’s efforts to pressure Turkey to crack down on ISIS sales of oil. James Phillips, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, maintained that Turkey has not fully cracked down on ISIS’s sales network because it benefits from a lower price for oil, and that there might even be Turks and government officials who benefit from the trade.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/world/middleeast/struggling-to-starve-isis-of-oil-revenue-us-seeks-assistance-from-turkey.html?_r=0
Article: “Sınırsız sınır...”
Publication: Radikal
Date: September 13, 2014
Fehim Taştekin wrote in Radikal on September 13, 2014 about illegal pipelines transporting oil from Syria to nearby border towns in Turkey. The oil is sold for as little as 1.25 liras per liter. According to Taştekin, many of these illegal pipelines were dismantled after operating for 3 years, once his article was published.
http://www.radikal.com.tr/yazarlar/fehim-tastekin/sinirsiz-sinir-1212462/
Article: “ABD Hazine Bakanlığı: IŞİD’in petrol satışına Türkler de aracılık ediyor”
Publication: Diken
Date: October 24, 2015
According to Diken, David Cohen, a Justice Department official, says that Turkish individuals act as middlemen to help sell ISIS oil through Turkey.
http://www.diken.com.tr/abd-hazine-bakanligi-isid-petrol-satisina-turkler-de-aracilik-ediyor/
Article: “Is Turkey Really Benefitting from Oil Trade with ISIS”
Publication: TIME
Date: December 2, 2015
Analysts say it’s very unlikely Ankara has anything to do with ISIS oil. “To go as far to say that Turkey would shoot down a plane to protect its oil supply is unfounded,” says Valerie Marcel of Chatham House. Fawaz Gerges, Professor of International Relations in the London School of Economics and Political Science, agrees that the claims amount to a conspiracy theory. “I think it would be very misleading to say there is an unholy alliance with Turkey and the Islamic State,” he says. According to TIME, “That’s not to say ISIS oil isn’t being imported to Turkey. Getrges adds, “ISIS sells to anyone, it’s not about ideology.”
http://time.com/4132346/turkey-isis-oil/
Article: “Syria conflict: Russia accuses Erdogan of trading oil with IS”
Publication: BBC News
Date: December 2, 2015
Russia’s Defense Ministry accused President Erdogan’s family members of being involved in the trade of petroleum with ISIS. Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said Turkey was the biggest buyer of “stolen” oil from Syria and Iraq. Antonov presented satellite images showing oil tankers travelling from IS-held territory to Turkey. The trucks, travelled to three locations, including refineries, in Turkey. Some oil was sent to a third country. Antonov indicated, “According to available information, the highest level of the political leadership of the country, President Erdogan and his family, are involved in this criminal business.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34982951
Article: “Erdogan’s son-in-law ‘linked to Isis oil trade’”
Publication: The Times
Date: December 5, 2015

An opposition MP claimed this week “that there is a very high probability” that Berat Albayrak, Turkey’s energy minister and Erdogan’s son-in-law, was linked to the supply of oil by the terrorists.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/article4632906.ece?CMP=Spklr-_-Editorial-_-FBPAGE-_-TheTimesandTheSundayTimes-timesandsundaytimes-_-20151205-_-World-_-296171993-_-Imageandlink&linkId=19327838

Article: “Russia accuses Turkish President Erdogan’s son-in-law of being ‘linked to Isis oil trade’”
Publication: The Independent
Date: December 5, 2015

Berat Albayrak was chief executive of Calik Holding, a pro-government conglomerate with an interest in energy and oil, until 2013. Albayrak also managed Powertrans, a company that trucks oil from Iraqi Kurdistan. Albayrak was targeted as part of a thwarted corruption investigation in December 2013, on allegations of tender-rigging and bribery. He was elected as AKP deputy in June 2015, and then appointed energy minister.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-accuses-president-erdogans-son-in-law-of-being-linked-to-isis-oil-trade-a6761436.html
Article: “Putin ve Erdoğan arasında ‘IŞİD petrolü’ atışması”
Publication: Hürriyet
Date: November 26, 2015
Berat Albayrak, Erdogan’s son-in-law, was appointed Minister of Energy and Natural Resources in November 2015. Erdogan’s son, Bilal, has a marine transport company - BMZ group. This company also owns a Maltese shipping company involved in oil transport. Erdogan denies involvement by members of his family. He maintains that the Assad regime and “supporters of that regime” are the buyers of ISIS oil.

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/putin-ve-erdogan-arasinda-isid-petrolu-atismasi-40019208
Article: “Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey’s President”
Publication: Zero Hedge
Date: November 26, 2015
Gürsel Tekin, CHP vice-president, said: “President Erdogan claims that according to international transportation conventions there is no legal infraction concerning Bilal’s illicit activities and his son is doing an ordinary business with the registered Japanese companies, but in fact Bilal Erdogan is up to his neck in complicity with terrorism. As long as his father holds office he will be immune from any judicial prosecution.” Tekin adds that Bilal’s maritime company doing the oil trades for ISIS, BMZ Ltd, is “a family business and president Erdogan’s close relatives hold shares in BMZ and they misused public funds and took illicit loans from Turkish banks.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/meet-man-who-funds-isis-bilal-erdogan-son-turkeys-president
Article: “IŞİD petrolünü Bilal Erdoğan’ın şirketi satıyor“
Publication: Sol Haber
Date: December 2, 2015
Finian Cunningham, who worked for British and Irish press (The Mirror, Independent, Irish Times) alleges that Bilal Erdogan who controls BMZ group is implicated in the oil trade. He says that oil comes from Deir Ez-Zor to Batman in Turkey and then transported to Iskenderun Port where it is loaded onto BMZ group-owned tankers for export to world markets.
Article: “Bilal Erdoğan’s firm purchases two new tankers at cost of $36 million“
Publication: Today’s Zaman
Date: December 15, 2015
The BMZ Group, a company owned by President Erdoğan’s son, Bilal, purchased two tankers in the last two months at a total cost of $36 million. According to the Deniz Haber news agency, the two tankers bought by the BMZ Group, named Türkter 82 and Armada Fair, will be registered in October.
Article: “Are These The Tankers Bilal Erdogan Uses To Transport ISIS Oil?“
Publication: Zero Hedge
Date: November 30, 2015
Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi said, “All of the oil was delivered to a company that belongs to the son of Erdogan. This is why Turkey became anxious when Russia began delivering airstrikes against the IS infrastructure and destroyed more than 500 trucks with oil already. This really got on Erdogan and his company’s nerves. They’re importing not only oil, but wheat and historic artefacts as well.”
Article: “İtalya savcılığına Bilal Erdoğan şikayeti“
Publication: Rota Haber
Date: December 4, 2015
Bilal Erdogan allegedly took $1 billion to Italy in October, 2015. Lawyer Massimiliano Annetta filed a petition with the Bologna prosecutor’s office about alleged money laundering by Bilal Erdogan, requesting an investigation into the money he brought into Italy.


US Views


Article: “Kurdish former MP faces court case over ISIS funding claim“
Publication: Rudaw
Date: October 27, 2014
US Treasury Undersecretary David Cohen said, “Last month, ISIL was selling oil at substantially discounted prices to a variety of middlemen, including some from Turkey. It also appears that some of the oil emanating from territory where ISIL operates has been sold to Kurds in Iraq, and then resold into Turkey.”
Article: “ISIS oil smuggling to Turkey insignificant: US official“
Publication: The Daily Star
Date: December 4, 2015
The State Department has dismissed Moscow’s charge that Erdogan and his family are involved with ISIS oil trade. According to Amos Hochstein, U.S. special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs, “The amount of oil being smuggled is extremely low and has decreased over time and is of no significance from a volume perspective - both volume of oil and volume of revenue.”
Article: “Russia says it has proof Turkey involved in Daesh oil trade“
Publication: The Daily Star
Date: December 3, 2015
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, “The irony of the Russians raising this concern is that there’s plenty of evidence to indicate that the largest consumer of ISIL oil is actually Bashar Assad and his regime, a regime that only remains in place because it is being propped up by the Russians.”
Mr. Phillips is Director of the Program on Peace-building and Rights at Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights. He served as a senior adviser to the State Department under President Obama. He was also a senior adviser and foreign affairs expert to the State Department under Presidents Clinton and Bush. Phillips is author of Losing Iraq: Inside the Post-War Reconstruction Fiasco. His most recent book is The Kurdish Spring: A New Map for the Middle East.

[Baby Steps]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnWWgKxWvtY



The Political Insider



================================================== ===
Article Content
WikiLeaks CONFIRMS Hillary Sold Weapons to ISIS… Then Drops Another BOMBSHELL!

Kosar
Featured Contributor
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is a controversial character. But there’s no denying the emails he has picked up from inside the Democrat Party are real, and he’s willing to expose Hillary Clinton.



Now, he’s announcing that Hillary Clinton and her State Department were actively arming Islamic jihadists, which includes the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria.
Clinton has repeatedly denied these claims, including during multiple statements while under oath in front of the United States Senate.
WikiLeaks is about to prove Hillary Clinton deserves to be arrested:
The Reagan administration officials hoped to secure the release of several U.S. hostages, and then take proceeds from the arms sales to Iran, to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.
Sounds familiar?
In Obama’s second term, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton authorized the shipment of American-made arms to Qatar, a country beholden to the Muslim Brotherhood, and friendly to the Libyan rebels, in an effort to topple the Libyan/Gaddafi government, and then ship those arms to Syria in order to fund Al Qaeda, and topple Assad in Syria.
Clinton took the lead role in organizing the so-called “Friends of Syria” (aka Al Qaeda/ISIS) to back the CIA-led insurgency for regime change in Syria.
Under oath Hillary Clinton denied she knew about the weapons shipments during public testimony in early 2013 after the Benghazi terrorist attack.
In an interview with Democracy Now, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange is now stating that 1,700 emails contained in the Clinton cache directly connect Hillary to Libya to Syria, and directly to Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Via The Duran
Here is the incredible transcript:
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Julian, I want to mention something else. In March, you launched a searchable archive for over 30,000 emails and email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of state. The 50,547 pages of documents span the time from June 2010 to August 2014; 7,500 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton herself. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the U.S. State Department as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request. Why did you do this, and what’s the importance, from your perspective, of being able to create a searchable base?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, WikiLeaks has become the rebel library of Alexandria. It is the single most significant collection of information that doesn’t exist elsewhere, in a searchable, accessible, citable form, about how modern institutions actually behave. And it’s gone on to set people free from prison, where documents have been used in their court cases; hold the CIA accountable for renditions programs; feed into election cycles, which have resulted in the termination of, in some case—or contributed to the termination of governments, in some cases, taken the heads of intelligence agencies, ministers of defense and so on. So, you know, our civilizations can only be as good as our knowledge of what our civilisation is. We can’t possibly hope to reform that which we do not understand.
So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates. So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails. There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.


Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wikileaks-confirms-hillary-sold-weapons-isis-drops-another-bombshell-breaking-news/#ixzz4Ly2ur5

[Baby Steps]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html

WAS THE TERROR ATTACK ON THE CONSULATE JUST SILENCING THOSE WHO KNEW.....




CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked'
The CIA has been subjecting operatives to monthly polygraph tests in an attempt to suppress details of a reported US arms smuggling operation in Benghazi that was ongoing when its ambassador was killed by a mob in the city last year, according to reports.


By Damien McElroy
11:06AM BST 02 Aug 2013


Up to 35 CIA operatives were working in the city during the attack last September on the US consulate that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, according to CNN.
The circumstances of the attack are a subject of deep division in the US with some Congressional leaders pressing for a wide-ranging investigation into suspicions that the government has withheld details of its activities in the Libyan city.
The television network said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.
Sources said that more Americans were hurt in the assault spearheaded by suspected Islamic radicals than had been previously reported. CIA chiefs were actively working to ensure the real nature of its operations in the city did not get out.
So only the losses suffered by the State Department in the city had been reported to Congress.


"Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings," CNN reported.
Frank Wolf, a US congressman who represents the district that contains CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, is one of 150 members of Congress for a new investigation into the failures in Benghazi.
"I think it is a form of a cover-up, and I think it's an attempt to push it under the rug, and I think the American people are feeling the same way," he said. "We should have the people who were on the scene come in, testify under oath, do it publicly, and lay it out. And there really isn't any national security issue involved with regards to that."
A CIA spokesman said it had been open about its activities in Benghazi.
"The CIA has worked closely with its oversight committees to provide them with an extraordinary amount of information related to the attack on US facilities in Benghazi," a CIA statement said. "CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want," the statement continued. "The CIA enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress. We are not aware of any CIA employee who has experienced retaliation, including any non-routine security procedures, or who has been prevented from sharing a concern with Congress about the Benghazi incident."

[Sueanne47]

If the US are sending in 3,000 tons of weapons to al-queda they mean business, and that is bad news for us..

[Baby Steps]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/logistics-101-where-does-isis-get-its-guns/5454726

I WOULD SPECULATE THAT AMONGST MILITARY LOGISTICIANS IN THE WEST,THERE IS A CREEPING UNEASE. THE REALISATION THAT AN ORGANISATION OF THIS SIZE AND POWER COULD NOT COME INTO BEING WITHOUT A LOT OF EXTERNAL HELP. THIS IS MANUFACTURED TERROR ON A HUGE SCALE. IT IS STATE BUILDING- TERROR STATE BUILDING.WE HAVE CREATED A MONSTER, IT KEEPS US FEARFUL,MANIPULATED, IT FEEDS THE LOWER CONFLICT ENERGIES ON THE PLANET. IT IS DOING A GREAT JOB FOR THAT AGENDA. BUT THIS FRANKENSTEINS MONSTER WILL BITE BACK. THE SILLY THING IS THAT IT IS STILL EASY TO STOP. WE DON'T NEED TO SEE IF SAND WILL GLOW IN THE DARK. WE DONT NEED TO FIGHT IT. WE JUST NEED TO STEP BACK AND LET THOSE WHO ARE FIGHTING NOW, THE SYRIANS,KURDS,AND RUSSIANS FINISH THE GOOD JOB THEY ARE DOING WITHOUT FURTHER EXTERNAL HINDRANCE. I SAY THIS BECAUSE THAT STRATEGY WAS ALWAYS THE ONE THAT WOULD SAVE THE MOST LIVES..

PS. WHY HAS NOBODY SUGGESTED A LARGE UN TROOP INTERVENTION? MOON, WHO IS PULLING YOUR CHAIN??



Logistics 101: Where Does ISIS Get Its Guns?
By Tony Cartalucci
Global Research, February 20, 2016
New Eastern Outlook 9 June 2015
:



Note: Article originally published in June 2015
Since ancient times an army required significant logistical support to carry out any kind of sustained military campaign. In ancient Rome, an extensive network of roads was constructed to facilitate not only trade, but to allow Roman legions to move quickly to where they were needed, and for the supplies needed to sustain military operations to follow them in turn.
In the late 1700′s French general, expert strategist, and leader Napoleon Bonaparte would note that, “an army marches on its stomach,” referring to the extensive logistical network required to keep an army fed, and therefore able to maintain its fighting capacity. For the French, their inability to maintain a steady supply train to its forces fighting in Russia, and the Russians’ decision to burn their own land and infrastructure to deny it from the invading forces, ultimately defeated the French.
Nazi Germany would suffer a similar fate when it too overextended its logical capabilities during its invasion of Russia amid Operation Barbarossa. Once again, invading armies became stranded without limited resources before being either cut off and annihilated or forced to retreat.

And in modern times during the Gulf War in the 1990′s an extended supply line trailing invading US forces coupled with an anticipated clash with the bulk of Saddam Hussein’s army halted what was otherwise a lighting advance many mistakenly believed could have reached Baghdad had there been the political will. The will to conquer was there, the logistics to implement it wasn’t.
The lessons of history however clear they may be, appear to be entirely lost on an either supremely ignorant or incredibly deceitful troupe of policymakers and news agencies across the West.
ISIS’ Supply Lines
The current conflict consuming the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and Syria where the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) is operating and simultaneously fighting and defeating the forces of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran, we are told, is built upon a logistical network based on black market oil and ransom payments.
The fighting capacity of ISIS is that of a nation-state. It controls vast swaths of territory straddling both Syria and Iraq and not only is able to militarily defend and expand from this territory, but possesses the resources to occupy it, including the resources to administer the populations subjugated within it.
For military analysts, especially former members of Western armed forces, as well as members of the Western media who remember the convoys of trucks required for the invasions of Iraq in the 1990s and again in 2003, they surely must wonder where ISIS’ trucks are today. After all, if the resources to maintain the fighting capacity exhibited by ISIS were available within Syrian and Iraqi territory alone, then certainly Syrian and Iraqi forces would also posses an equal or greater fighting capacity but they simply do not.
And were ISIS’ supply lines solely confined within Syrian and Iraqi territory, then surely both Syrian and Iraqi forces would utilize their one advantage – air power – to cut front line ISIS fighters from the source of their supplies. But this is not happening and there is a good reason why.

ISIS’ supply lines run precisely where Syrian and Iraqi air power cannot go. To the north and into NATO-member Turkey, and to the southwest into US allies Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Beyond these borders exists a logistical network that spans a region including both Eastern Europe and North Africa.
Terrorists and weapons left over from NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011 were promptly sent to Turkey and then onto Syria – coordinated by US State Department officials and intelligence agencies in Benghazi – a terrorist hotbed for decades.
The London Telegraph would report in their 2013 article, “CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked’,” that:
[CNN] said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.
Weapons have also come from Eastern Europe, with the New York Times reporting in 2013 in their article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.,” that:
From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.
And while Western media sources continuously refer to ISIS and other factions operating under the banner of Al Qaeda as “rebels” or “moderates,” it is clear that if billions of dollars in weapons were truly going to “moderates,” they, not ISIS would be dominating the battlefield.
Recent revelations have revealed that as early as 2012 the United States Department of Defense not only anticipated the creation of a “Salafist Principality” straddling Syria and Iraq precisely where ISIS now exists, it welcomed it eagerly and contributed to the circumstances required to bring it about.
Just How Extensive Are ISIS’ Supply Lines? 
While many across the West play willfully ignorant as to where ISIS truly gets their supplies from in order to maintain its impressive fighting capacity, some journalists have traveled to the region and have video taped and reported on the endless convoys of trucks supplying the terrorist army.
Were these trucks traveling to and from factories in seized ISIS territory deep within Syrian and Iraqi territory? No. They were traveling from deep within Turkey, crossing the Syrian border with absolute impunity, and headed on their way with the implicit protection of nearby Turkish military forces. Attempts by Syria to attack these convoys and the terrorists flowing in with them have been met by Turkish air defenses.
Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) published the first video report from a major Western media outlet illustrating that ISIS is supplied not by “black market oil” or “hostage ransoms” but billions of dollars worth of supplies carried into Syria across NATO member Turkey’s borders via hundreds of trucks a day.

The report titled, “‘IS’ supply channels through Turkey,” confirms what has been reported by geopolitical analysts since at least as early as 2011 – that ISIS subsides on immense, multi-national state sponsorship, including, obviously, Turkey itself.
Looking at maps of ISIS-held territory and reading action reports of its offensive maneuvers throughout the region and even beyond, one might imagine hundreds of trucks a day would be required to maintain this level of fighting capacity. One could imagine similar convoys crossing into Iraq from Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Similar convoys are likely passing into Syria from Jordan.
In all, considering the realities of logistics and their timeless importance to military campaigns throughout human history, there is no other plausible explanation to ISIS’s ability to wage war within Syria and Iraq besides immense resources being channeled to it from abroad.
If an army marches on its stomach, and ISIS’ stomachs are full of NATO and Persian Gulf State supplies, ISIS will continue to march long and hard. The key to breaking the back of ISIS, is breaking the back of its supply lines. To do that however, and precisely why the conflict has dragged on for so long, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and others would have to eventually secure the borders and force ISIS to fight within Turkish, Jordanian, and Saudi territory – a difficult scenario to implement as nations like Turkey have created defacto buffer zones within Syrian territory which would require a direct military confrontation with Turkey itself to eliminate.
With Iran joining the fray with an alleged deployment of thousands of troops to bolster Syrian military operations, overwhelming principles of deterrence may prevent Turkey enforcing its buffer zones.
What we are currently left with is NATO literally holding the region hostage with the prospect of a catastrophic regional war in a bid to defend and perpetuate the carnage perpetrated by ISIS within Syria, fully underwritten by an immense logistical network streaming out of NATO territory itself.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.

[Sueanne47]

This guy Scott Bennett is a whistleblower exposing Isis created by Obama & H.Clinton, one thing he said was that The Union Bank of Switzerland & HSBC bank were all known as terrorist financing:

RU8-bgfR83Q

[Baby Steps]

pond life...

34396

[Baby Steps]

Syria Girl- old video, still informative!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP3mXVRd89Y

¤=[Post Update]=¤

More up to date- thanks you SG (A MUST WATCH)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJZRvp6w4wc

[Sueanne47]

No wonder they want Assad out of the way, Syria is making a firm stand against the NWO. Syria's central bank is state owned & no Rothschild bank, and they have no debt to the IMF, no GMO food, has gas & oil, and opposes Israel & Zionism.

Thank you for the videos BabySteps..

[Baby Steps]

34461

british bombing of syria is a war crime of aggression under the nuremberg principles

britain has no permission from sovereign syrian government to bomb syria

british government has voted for war crimes

prosecute british government for war crimes

[Sueanne47]

....but they are doing the war crimes covertly using Isis as a tool.

9/11 ~ no prosecution

Bush/Blair invasion of Iraq ~ no prosecution

Hillary on Benghazi ~ no prosecution

Bloodshed in Ukraine, Poroshenko US insider implemented ~ no prosecution

[Baby Steps]

In the latest disgraceful move by western interests, we have the following report from the Telegraph detailing UN moves to by-pass the security council and set up a sham war crime narrative.

The real war crimes, as we all know are principally:

- Illegal occupation of Syrian Golan land by Israel, while protected by Western Interests in the UNSC
- Illegal fomentation & supply of Terrorist organisations within Syria by USA, Qatar, Saudi, and probably others
- Illegal black market oil trade from Isis territory, into TURKEY. Erdogan's family likely involved in this.
- Illegal incursions (definitive acts of War) into Syrian Airspace by Israel, Turkey, USA,UK, and most other NATO members
- Illegal troop/special forces deployments within Syria by Turkey, USA,UK etc
- Illegal supply of Chemical weapons precursors to ISIS by Saudi Arablia

THIS IS JUST THE STUFF WE KNOW ABOUT, THERE IS PROBABLY MUCH MORE!

HONESTLY I DO NOT KNOW HOW THESE PEOPLE LIVE WITH THEMSELVES

This story reeks of the kind of secretive elitist manipulation we see more and more of - the proposal originates in Lichtenstein, a notorious tax haven. The logic being that this independent 'Nation State' can function at a very high level of secrecy and non-accountability. You will never know who the real movers are behind this proposal...


UN creates team to prepare cases on Syria war crimes


The United Nations General Assembly has voted to establish an investigative body to "collect, consolidate, preserve and analyze evidence" as well as to prepare cases on war crimes and human rights abuses committed during the conflict in Syria.
The 193-member world body adopted a Liechtenstein-drafted resolution on Wednesday by a vote of 105 to 15 with 52 abstentions over strenuous objections from Syria and close ally Russia who accused the assembly of interfering in the work of the Security Council.
Liechtenstein UN Ambassador Christian Wenaweser told the General Assembly ahead of the vote: "We have postponed any meaningful action on accountability too often and for too long."
He said inaction has sent "the signal that committing war crimes and crimes against humanity is a strategy that is condoned and has no consequences."
The special team will "prepare files in order to facilitate and expedite fair and independent criminal proceedings in accordance with international law standards, in national, regional or international courts or tribunals that have or may in the future have jurisdiction over these crimes."

The UN resolution calls on all states, parties to the conflict, and civil society groups to provide any information and documentation to the team.
The resolution stresses the need for the new body "to closely coordinate" with an independent commission appointed by the UN Human Rights Council which has said war crimes are "rampant" in Syria.

Syria's UN Ambassador Bashar Jaafari said the resolution was illegal and "a direct threat to a solution" of the five and a half-year Syrian conflict.
"The establishment of such a mechanism is a flagrant interference in the internal affairs of a U.N. member state," Mr Ja'afari told the General Assembly before the vote.
Syrian allies Russia and Iran also spoke against the resolution.
The independent UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria was established by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council in 2011 to investigate possible war crimes.
The Commission of Inquiry, which says it has a confidential list of suspects on all sides who have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, has repeatedly called for the UN Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court.
Russia and China vetoed a bid by western powers to refer the conflict in Syria to the Hague-based court.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/22/un-creates-team-prepare-cases-syria-war-crimes/

One counter narrative could be - hey! what about all the other horrors that inevitably do happen when a Nation Liberates itself (with external military help)

Of course there are rapes, reprisals, Massacres, Kangaroo courts, firing squads etc. None of it is RIGHT. But we always need to be mindful of Who is responsible for creating this catastrophe. NOT ASSAD,RUSSIA or the SYRIAN PEOPLE.


Allied War Crimes During WW2: Atrocities By The French


The record of the French is hardly any better: the Resistance and partisan war, which no clauses of The Hague protected; innumerable assassinations of German soldiers, stabbed in the back by invisible enemies; even massacres of prisoners who were protected by the Geneva Convention, such as the one that took place at Annecy (Savoy) on August 18th, 1944, and others in French camps after 1945, to such an extent that the International .Red Cross was so disturbed that it even roused President Eisenhower himself.
Massacre at Andelot. 12th September 1944. The third Battalion of the French regiment "Marche du Tchad" Leclerc at the village of Chaumont, in Haute Marne Andelot. About 500 German prisoners of war were gathered in a barn. A tank commander gave the order to the tank to shoot into the crowd. Limbs flew through the air. Those not yet dead, was massacred with machine guns.

40 German soldiers killed brutally in Tulle on 8 June 1944 by the French Maquis Resistance Movement. The small German garrison at Tulle on the 7th June 1944 was attacked by Bolshevik partisans. Even after the fighting ended, the French maquisards then shot captured German soldiers. The "Partisans-Francs-tireurs" knew exactly what they were doing. Among them were Polish, Spanish Reds, and also four-uniformed Soviet Bolsheviks. After completion of the fighting, they shot more than 12 German prisoners below the cemetery, after this the Chateau Lorraine Abbot had granted absolution. Another mass execution took place in the woods, where another priest before the execution of about 20 German prisoners granted absolution. A total of about 120 unarmed German soldiers were shot after their capture. The bodies were been mutilated in an inhuman way.

Agony of Freudenstadt. In April 1945 the city was severely affected by bombing and artillery shelling by French troops under General Jean de Lattre de Tassigny . German troops in advance had set up a roadblock in the Murg Valley, and shot some French tanks. Freudenstadt was pounded by about 16 hours of artillery. It was also hit by American bombers. The main water line broke and there was not enough water available to clear the many fires that broke out. Approximately 600 buildings, 95% of the total core city were on the night of 16th to 17th April 1945 by direct or indirect influence destroyed and 1,400 families rendered homeless.

During the subsequent invasion by the French troops, there was considerable violence, rape and abuse. Many of the buildings that had been spared were claimed by the French occupiers. Many families lived in makeshift basement. Freudenstadt is just one example of the serious mistreatment of the civilian population by the colonial troops of the British and French. Götz Aly pointed out, that "every village in southwest Germany would report rape by black soldiersm" They were "no different than the Russians"

General Leclerc on May 8, 1945 in Bad Reichenhall had twelve French volunteers of the 33rd Waffen-SS Division "Charlemagne" shot "without trial.

It is well known that the French General Leclere, on 8 May 1945, the date of the surrender of the German Wehrmacht, shot twelve French soldiers in Bad Reichenhall, they belonged to the Waffen-SS Division "Charlemagne," they were shot without trial - a war crime. Later it was known that Leclerc’s division, on the road from Normandy to German Brechtesgarden had committed many war-crimes. None of these war-crimes were ever brought to court. Contrary General Leclerc became a hero in France after WWII.

French historian Daniel Guérain investigated into what happened. During his investigation he interviewed witnesses and visited the German and French sites of the fighting. He wrote down his findings in the book "the other side of the legend, history of liberation" . The historian reports of eye witnesses, also reflected in the French Division. They tell of numerous, often gruesome murders of German prisoners, especially members of the Waffen-SS. They said that, for example, soldiers of the Division Leclerc doused German prisoners of wars with gasoline and watched them burning. At the airport, Le Bourget, near Paris, there had been a massacre of hundreds of German prisoners of war who were crushed by Leclerc tanks .

Lieutenant Robert Galley was particularly brutal while this happened. The French soldier Albert Bisson describes what happened at Andelot (Haute-Marne), during violent struggles between French and German troops. . The French suffered losses, but then broke the German resistance. … A large number of "Boches" as the soldier called themselves surrendered As they approach another 500 prisoners of war. Lieutenant Galley said "Wait!" ... Feuer!.“ He drove the Germans in a barn, over his microphone and commands: "Turn to the left. Stop! Hand grenade! Fire!. " The grenade exploded in the middle of the ... the Boches. The splinters tear their bodies, body parts stuck to the beams of the barn. We shoot those who survive with machine gun, all still living. Today is the day of vengeance! " Although Lieutenant Galley was guilty of war crimes and, as Director of Studies Pohl, he boasted openly on television, he was a minister under de Gaulle, Pompidou and Giscard d'Estaing and was active as treasurer of the party of French President Chirac.

By August 1946 France according to the International Red Cross had enslaved nearly three-quarters of a million former German servicemen. Of these 475,000 had been captured by the Americans who ‘in a deal’ had transferred them to French control for the expressed purpose of forced labour. Interestingly in a macabre way, the French returned 2,474 German POWs complaining that they were weaklings.

Those returned must indeed have been in a bad way for the 472,526 remaining slaves had already been described by correspondents as; "a beggar army of pale, thin men clad in vermin infested tatters." All were pronounced unfit for work, three quarters of them due to deliberate starvation. Of this unfortunate ‘army’ of slaves 19% were so badly treated they needed to be hospitalized

In the notorious camp in the Sarthe District for 20,000 prisoners, inmates received just 900 calories a day; thus 12 died every day in the hospital. Four to five thousand are unable to work any more. Recently trains with new prisoners arrived at the camp; several prisoners had died during the trip, several others had tried to stay alive by eating coal that had been lying in the freight train by which they came.

Source
John Thompson, Chicago Tribune Press Service, Geneva, August 24, 1946).
Gruesome Harvest, R.F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics, Chicago, 1947).
Louis Clair, The Progressive, 14 January, 1946).


http://uncensoredhistory.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/allied-war-crimes-during-ww2-french.html

[Baby Steps]

In one corner of the earth this Christmas the agony is abating......

34739


34740


Aleppo: The truth that the western media refuses to report

Andrew Ashdown is a Church of England priest studying Christian-Muslim relations in Syria. In the last few days he has visited East Aleppo. This is the report of his visit to the area yesterday (14th December) that he published on his facebook page. Photos by Andrew Ashdown.
This morning we visited the main IDP Registration centre at Jibrin, for Internally Displaced Persons from East Aleppo. They are registered here for humanitarian reasons and access to services, before they go either to relatives in other parts of Syria if they have them (many do), or to other reception centres where they are provided with accommodation, food and other services. During the past two weeks they have registered 95,000 refugees, but estimate there may be a further 10,000 who have not registered. There were thousands of people there who have arrived within the last couple of days. Let me make clear that we visited in a taxi without Government or Army accompaniment, and without prior notice. We were not expected.
The Centre is well organised. The Syrian Red Crescent have tents available that offer information about all social welfare facilities available, and offer free medical attention. In cases of emergency, ambulances are on hand to transport patients to hospital. Free food is being distributed by the Syrian Red Crescent and the Syrian Army, and we saw a convoy of Russian lorries providing aid. There is also a Russian field hospital on site which offers immediate medical treatment.

The sense of relief amongst the thousands of refugees is palpable.idp16 All were keen to talk, and we interviewed several who had arrived only yesterday and today. They all said the same thing. They said that they had been living in fear. They reported that the fighters have been telling everyone that the Syrian Army would kill anyone who fled to the West, but had killed many themselves who tried to leave – men, women and children. One woman broke down in tears as she told how one of her sons was killed by the rebels a few days ago, and another kidnapped. They also killed anyone who showed signs of supporting the Government. The refugees said that the ‘rebels’ told them that only those who support them are “true Muslims”, and that everyone else are ‘infidels’ and deserve to die.

They told us they had been given very little food: that any aid that reached the area was mostly refused to them or sold at exorbitant prices. Likewise, most had been given no medical treatment. (A doctor who has been working with the refugees for weeks told me last night that in an area recently liberated, a warehouse filled with brand new internationally branded medicines had been discovered.) Most of the refugees said they had had members of their families killed by the rebels and consistently spoke of widespread murder, torture, rape and kidnap by the rebels. They said if anyone left their homes, their properties and belongings were confiscated and stolen.

One old man in a wheelchair who was being given free treatment in the Russian Field Hospital said he had been given no treatment for three years despite asking. He said: “Thank God we are free. We now have food. We can now live our lives. God bless the Syrian Army.” They all said they were glad to be out and to be free. All the refugees without exception were visibly without exception clearly profoundly relieved and happy to be free. One woman said: “This is heaven compared to what we have been living.” We asked if the Syrian Army had ill-treated anyone. They said never. One woman said: “They helped us to escape and they provide us with food and assistance.”

I therefore have two key questions:
1. It is now only the Syrian Red Crescent, the Syrian Army, and the Russians who are providing humanitarian aid to the tens of thousands who have fled East Aleppo. Why are none of the international agencies offering to help them now?
2. Why is it, given that stories about massacres by the Syrian Army are headline news worldwide, and several international media units are in Aleppo, that there is not one international media agency actually at the Registration Centre talking to the refugees themselves? We were the only ones there. Here are people who have lived through it who are keen to talk, yet the media take at face value unverifiable claims by highly dubious sources. The collapse of any form of reliable investigative journalism in a context of global significance is utterly shocking.
Today the agreement for 4000 fighters to leave Aleppo is reported to have collapsed after the fighters had refused to fulfil the agreement. (I don’t know the details, but think about it… There is no reason on earth why the Syrian Government would want this agreement, which would involve the complete liberation of the city, to fail!) It is reported that the fighters refused to leave or let the civilians do so.
The refusal of the western media to report objectively, or to seekidp2 informed information from the thousands of civilians from East Aleppo who are keen to share their stories, whilst granting full credibility to terrorists without any on the ground verifiable information on their claims, is nothing short of obscene.
Everything that I have seen and heard in Aleppo; from civilians in East and West from all communities, and from talking with doctors, faith communities and with Army people as well, and witnessing and risking bombardments on both sides, convinces me that the reports in the western media are twisted fabrications of the horrors that are happening in ‘rebel’ controlled areas. And still, the media refuses to listen to the witness of the people themselves.

Postscript: Christmas is coming in Syria. In a country and a city in which people of all faiths are free to worship; where mosques and Churches stand side by side; and where Christmas music is playing in cafes and restaurants. And yet the world is mourning the defeat in Aleppo of extremists who destroy Christian and Muslim places of worship, and slaughter any who do not follow their obscene ideology.

https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/aleppo-the-truth-that-the-western-media-refuses-to-report

[Baby Steps]

Ray McGovern's brilliant account of how Obama & Kerry managed to avoid a 'shock & awe' scenario in Syria.Neocons obfuscated-let's hope they continue to be.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnITcUQiK1Y

[Baby Steps]

SARIN - MAYBE - but who's?

Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-10/sarin-unaccounted-us-armys-dugway-proving-ground) has stated that some American Sarin may have gone missing.

The reference is from Army Times (https://www.armytimes.com/articles/report-army-improperly-tracked-sarin-other-chemical-agents):



Report: Army improperly tracked Sarin


By: Todd South, July 8, 2017 (Photo Credit: null)
Officials at an Army chemical and biological storage and testing facility did not follow protocols while tracking inventories of sarin, a dangerous nerve agent, according to a recent inspector general report.

The U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground also at times failed to provide disqualifying information about employees such as drug use and an incident involving alcohol, the report found.

Dugway Proving Ground was the same Utah location cited in 2015 for protocol failures that allowed live anthrax spores to be shipped to 194 laboratories in 50 states and nine foreign countries.

Some of the packages were shipped by commercial carriers such as FedEx.

In the June 7 Defense Department IG report, titled, “The Army Needs to Improve Controls Over Chemical Surety Materials,” leaders from the deputy assistant secretary of defense for chemical and biological defense down to the commander of Dugway Proving Ground simultaneously agreed with some of the IG’s findings while also disagreeing with some of the report’s recommendations.

Inspectors reviewed accountability controls at Dugway, U.S. Army Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado and U.S. Army Deseret Chemical Depot in Utah.

Following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, chemical and biological testing facilities were reviewed for security and storage measures.

Dugway and contractors “did not conduct chemical agent inventories by primary container” when those containers were stored within a secondary container.

Meaning that the container that contained the actual agent, such as sarin, was not physically inspected.

“…therefore, custodians cannot identify and account for leaks, evaporation or theft that may have occurred,” according to the report.

Additionally, Dugway officials did not “immediately notify the chemical materials accountability officer” of a 1.5 milliliter shortage of sarin discovered during an April 19, 2016, inventory. That amount is enough to cause death within minutes, according to the CDC.

Contractors also used re-sealable tape to seal containers, which means that the container could have been tampered with between inspections, according to the report.

These incidents and other practices contradicted specific requirements outlined in a 2008 Army regulation on chemical surety as well as DoD instructions on chemical and biological storage and inventory, the IG wrote.



The report recommended, among others, that the Army deputy chief of staff, G-3/5/7, coordinate with DoD to revise Army regulations to better align with the DoD instruction on chemical agent inventory practices.

Also, the commanders of Army Materiel Command and Dugway should require a 100 percent physical inventory by primary container to establish a baseline chemical agent inventory before changing inventory procedures.

The commander of Dugway also should provide refresher training on reporting and resolving inventory discrepancies and establish better segregation of duties over accountability for chemical agent inventory.

The report also calls the commanders of AMC, Dugway and Pueblo to implement additional internal controls to ensure effective oversight of compliance with program requirements.

The DoD and Army agreed to some of the IG’s recommendations. The IG requested further responses for those items that officials disagreed with be provided by July 7. An Army spokesman didn’t respond by press time if the Army’s responses to the IG would be available or made public by the deadline.


DO NOT FORGET WHAT THE WASHINGTON TIMES REPORTED IN 2013:


Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

By Shaun Waterman - The Washington Times - Monday, May 6, 2013

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.
Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.
But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed.
Damascus has recently facing growing Western accusations that its forces used such weapons, which President Obama has described as crossing a red line. But Ms. del Ponte’s remarks may serve to shift the focus of international concern.
Ms. del Ponte, who in 1999 was appointed to head the U.N. war crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, has sometimes been a controversial figure. She was removed from her Rwanda post by the U.N. Security Council in 2003, but she continued as the chief prosecutor for the Yugoslav tribunal until 2008.

[Baby Steps]

I am very grateful to the BBC for the comical article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-43745629) I found, where they assist us to find more truth speakers regarding Syria.

The most hilarious part is where they characterise the alternative media writers as peddling 'unsubstantiated' information, while they, in the same piece, peddle the unsubstantiated story about the Gouta alleged chemical attack.

they go on to characterise alternative writers as right-wing, fringe, or conspiracy theorists, when in fact , it is obvious that they are often better informed and less biased in their coverage.


According to their narrative, international media organisations across the political spectrum, along with human rights organisations, are somehow covertly aligned with Western governments, Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State group and al-Qaeda and taking part in a secretive plot to take over Syria.

Thanks to this article I have found the excellent Vanessa Beeley (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Beeley):



LIBERATION OF EAST ALEPPO

RT: Why so much hysteria in the media? Why is no one talking about defeating terrorists - who are Al-Nusra, the Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria?

Brent Budowsky, columnist for the Hill: Nobody wants to kill and defeat the terrorists more than I do and more than the US, but what is happening in Aleppo is a moral crime against humanity. I agree with what Secretary of State John Kerry said that the Russian government should do everything to stop it, to end it, to support a ceasefire, to end the carnage, the killing and the bombing of innocent civilians. The UN is concerned about it. And I agree with their investigation into possible war crimes. I agree with what the pictures tell us. The bombing of civilians and the massacre of the innocents must stop. My strong advice to President Putin would be to follow John Kerry’s advice and end that carnage and killing right now. So should Assad, so should the Syrian army. It is a joke to treat them as liberators; they are mass-murdering civilians…

RT: Vanessa, what is your reaction to this political view of the events? As a journalist, how do you feel about that?

Vanessa Beeley, journalist: I’ve just returned from three days in East Aleppo, and I would like to 100 percent correct the lies that are being disseminated by the media, think tanks, governments across the West. Particularly your guest who has just uttered complete lies. I’ve spent basically three days in all the various liberated areas of East Aleppo… Many of the testimonies that we received from the civilians that this gentleman has just accused Russia and Syria of bombing, actually told us that they had been incarcerated for the last four years by the various US-backed terrorist militant groups such as Al-Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham, Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki whom we know beheaded the 12-year old Palestinian child. We were told stories about civilians who were trying to leave this imprisonment when the Russian and Syrian governments opened the humanitarian corridors. I interviewed one lady, I have her on film, where she tells me that one woman, who had been kept in a condition of starvation and malnutrition by these militant factions – who were stockpiling any humanitarian aid that came in and either selling it at extortionate prices. When this lady went on her knees to beg for food, she was shot in the mouth by the militant factions that have been imprisoning these civilians for the last four and a half years. Your [American] media and propaganda have supported that incarceration, torture, abuse and absolute horror that these civilians had had to go through.

RT: The spokesperson of the US State Department said he hasn't seen the videos of people celebrating on Aleppo’s streets. He's in a senior position; he must know what he's talking about, doesn't he?

Brent Budowsky: We can witness day by day dead babies by dead babies. You can watch the CNN, the BBC, any other television station. The point is – the killing, the bombings of civilians must stop. The dead children and babies is a moral outrage against humanity.

Vanessa Beeley: Can I ask one question? Where are these sources being able to transmit this information from? Because in East Aleppo there is no 3G, there is no wi-fi, there is no electricity. So I’d like to know how these sources are able to get this information via Skype connection to organisations – I’ll use that term loosely – like CNN, BBC, Channel 4. I would very much like to know how they achieve it and how there’re able to do that in East Aleppo. Unlike the corporate mainstream media, I have been in East Aleppo for the last three days, therefore, I’m giving you eyewitness testimony unlike your mainstream media that has not been there and relies upon spurious activists – like the White Helmets, who are funded by every single nation that has a vested and declared interest in regime change in Syria. That is your reliable source. Or perhaps the ‘Aleppo Media Center’ – French Foreign Office funded....

Of course, the BBC corrupt narrative is collapsing as such highly respected heavyweights as Robert Fisk tell the TRUTH (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html):


This is the story of a town called Douma, a ravaged, stinking place of smashed apartment blocks – and of an underground clinic whose images of suffering allowed three of the Western world’s most powerful nations to bomb Syria last week. There’s even a friendly doctor in a green coat who, when I track him down in the very same clinic, cheerfully tells me that the “gas” videotape which horrified the world – despite all the doubters – is perfectly genuine.

War stories, however, have a habit of growing darker. For the same 58-year old senior Syrian doctor then adds something profoundly uncomfortable: the patients, he says, were overcome not by gas but by oxygen starvation in the rubbish-filled tunnels and basements in which they lived, on a night of wind and heavy shelling that stirred up a dust storm.

As Dr Assim Rahaibani announces this extraordinary conclusion, it is worth observing that he is by his own admission not an eyewitness himself and, as he speaks good English, he refers twice to the jihadi gunmen of Jaish el-Islam [the Army of Islam] in Douma as “terrorists” – the regime’s word for their enemies, and a term used by many people across Syria. Am I hearing this right? Which version of events are we to believe?

[Cidersomerset]

This weeks dot connector is mainly about Douma, Salisbury and gives his views on
the BS....David has been commenting on this for years as well.


The Warmongering Media - Spineless, Gutless, Clueless -
The David Icke Dot-Connector Videocast

664otH_NZ_E

Published on 20 Apr 2018

[Baby Steps]

How Britain engaged in a covert operation to overthrow Assad (https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/how-britain-engaged-covert-operation-overthrow-assad-1437573498)

Starting just months after the 2011 uprising, UK policy has helped to prolong and radicalise Syria’s devastating war

Mark Curtis

Wednesday 25 April 2018 10:40 UTC


Some commentators in the British mainstream media believe the UK has "done nothing" in the war in Syria and lament the failure to help stop it.
In fact, Britain has engaged in a covert operation with allies to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad for more than six years, and this policy has helped prolong and radicalise the terrible war. It is British action, not inaction, that is the biggest problem with government policy towards Syria. The full story of this covert operation may take years to emerge, but some elements of it can already be pieced together.

Deepening control of the Middle East

UK covert operations appear to have begun in late 2011, a few months after popular demonstrations started challenging the Syrian regime in March of that year. Already repressive, Assad's regime resorted to violence to try to quell the protests, routinely firing into crowds, detaining thousands and subjecting many to torture.
As the number of dead at the hands of the regime mounted, so did opposition to it. The UK and its allies spotted an opportunity, which they had long been looking for, to remove an independent, nationalist regime in the region and deepen their overall control of the Middle East.

Foreign Secretary William Hague planned to establish an interim government in northern Syria and to make Syria’s opposition forces 'come together' on the ground, with the aim of toppling Assad

Qatar began shipping arms to opposition groups in Syria with US approval in spring 2011, and within weeks, the Obama administration was receiving reports that they were going to militant groups. By November, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi wrote that "unmarked NATO warplanes" were arriving in Turkey, delivering weapons and 600 fighters from Libya in support of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), a group of Syrian army deserters.

Britain's MI6 and French special forces were reportedly assisting the Syrian fighters and assessing their training, weapons and communications needs while the CIA provided communications equipment and intelligence.

Thus, David Cameron's government began covert action in Syria while having just overthrown Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, also working alongside Islamists. Some of the Libyan militants joining the Syrian insurgency were reportedly trained by British, French or US forces in Libya to fight Gaddafi. Some would later join the Islamic State (IS) or al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, al-Nusra, which became the most powerful Syrian rebel group.

The 'rat line' of weapons

Britain became involved in the "rat line" of weapons delivered from Libya to Syria via southern Turkey, which was authorised in early 2012 following a secret agreement between the US and Turkey. Revealed by journalist Seymour Hersh, the project was funded by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar while "the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria".
The operation was not disclosed to US congressional intelligence committees as required by US law, and "the involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation".

Hersh noted that "many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists", some affiliated with al-Qaeda. Indeed, it is believed that Qatar – which was the UK's key ally in overthrowing Gaddafi and was now repeating its role in Syria – was pouring weapons and cash into Nusra. The Telegraph reported on a Middle Eastern diplomat saying that Qatar is responsible for Nusra "having money and weapons and everything they need".


However, the US plan that emerged in 2013 to train a large force of Syrian rebels was described as an "echo" of this British plan.

British training of rebels to fight Assad at bases in Jordan was authorised around this time, and special forces operating from there were reported to be "likely" slipping into Syria on missions. By August 2012, Britain's military and intelligence base in Cyprus was also passing on intelligence to the FSA through Turkey, while Britain provided rebel groups with satellite phones to coordinate military operations.
The Foreign Office was also “teaching negotiation and ‘stabilisation’ skills to opposition leaders, and advising on how to address the Syrian people and international audiences”.

Arms funnelled to hardline groups

It was reported that the US was fully aware that most of the arms being provided by its Saudi and Qatari allies were going to "hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups". Yet US and British involvement in the war expanded further in November 2012 when, at a conference in Qatar of the so-called "Friends of Syria" group of countries opposed to Assad, Britain announced it was seeking to organise the armed Syrian rebels into an "efficient fighting force".
Foreign Secretary William Hague planned to establish an interim government in northern Syria and to make Syria’s opposition forces "come together" on the ground, with the aim of toppling Assad.

Two days later, Britain's chief of the defence staff, General David Richards, convened a meeting in London to further arm the opposition. Soon afterwards, the US coordinated an airlift of 3,000 tonnes of arms to the FSA from Croatia with the help of Britain and other European states, paid for by Saudi Arabia.
Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, later said this massive quantity of arms ended up going "almost exclusively to the more jihadist groups". Nusra and another hardline Islamist group, Ahrar al-Sham, secured some of the weapons being supplied to the FSA, while others inadvertently made their way to IS fighters in neighbouring Iraq.

Britain was intimately involved in Obama's "Timber Sycamore" programme launched in April 2013, which became the major US operation to furnish arms and training to supposedly "vetted" Syrian opposition groups. The control rooms in Turkey and Jordan, manned by intelligence officers from the US, Britain, Turkey, France, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, supplied anti-tank missiles and rockets to various opposition groups.
Again, many weapons found their way to IS and al-Qaeda, sometimes being traded on the black market. The US pumped more than $1bn into Timber Sycamore, which was only shut down by President Donald Trump in 2017.
A 'press office' for the FSA

In Autumn 2013, Britain began a major refocus of its campaign to support the Syrian opposition, known to be dominated and driven by extremists and jihadists. The Guardian revealed it was spending £2.4m ($3.3m) for private contractors to deliver "strategic communications and media operations support to the Syrian moderate armed opposition", in what was described as Britain running a "Free Syrian Army press office".

Jaish al-Islam (Army of Islam), a newly formed coalition of around 50 Islamist factions funded by Saudi Arabia, was one of the groups considered by Britain to be part of the “moderate armed opposition”.

Later that year, British and US envoys secretly met leaders of some Syrian Islamist opposition groups in Ankara, reportedly in an attempt to forge a new alliance among them. The Telegraph noted that the talks included "militant groups demanding a hardline Sharia state, as the secular forces they previously backed lose ground".
British operations in Syria with its allies have for years involved working alongside extremist and jihadist groups, in effect supporting and empowering them
It is not clear which militant groups British officials met, but a new coalition, the Islamic Front, emerged around this time, and included Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham. The latter had regularly worked with Nusra and IS until January 2014. Ahrar al-Sham's co-founder, Abu Khalid al-Suri, was al-Qaeda’s representative in Syria before being killed in February 2014, and he was linked to the 2004 Madrid bombing through a series of money transfers and personal contacts.

British and US covert operations were entirely focused on toppling Assad in the early years of the war. The US began air strikes against IS in Syria in September 2014. I have found no evidence of British training of Syrian rebels to fight IS before May 2015, when Britain sent 85 troops to Turkey and Jordan to train rebels to fight Assad as well.

By July 2015, Britain was training Syrians in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and Qatar to fight IS, but the war against Assad also continued.

The myth of the moderate opposition

British operations in Syria with its allies have for years involved working alongside extremist and jihadist groups, in effect supporting and empowering them. Peter Ford, the former British ambassador to Syria, told a parliamentary enquiry in 2016 that the existence of "moderate" groups among the armed opposition was "largely a figment of the imagination".

Although the FSA contained some secular units, it was in effect allied to IS until the end of 2013 and was collaborating with it on the battlefield until 2014, despite tensions between the groups. "We have good relations with our brothers in the FSA," IS leader Abu Atheer said in 2013, having bought arms from the FSA.
The UK-supported rebels had an even closer relationship with Nusra. The BBC's Paul Wood reported in 2013 that "the FSA is so close to Nusra it has almost fused with it". The FSA has collaborated regularly with Nusra throughout the conflict.
In 2015, a court case collapsed at the Old Bailey against a Swedish national, Bherlin Gildo, accused of attending a terrorist training camp to fight in Syria, when it became clear that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same opposition groups as he was. British media reported that Gildo was fighting either with Nusra or a linked jihadist group, the Kataib al-Muhajireen.

Yet it was not clear whether Britain was actually supporting this particular group; it is more likely that the case collapsed since Britain was supporting the armed opposition in the form of the FSA, and these forces were largely indistinguishable from jihadist groups joined by the likes of Gildo.
Britain is unlikely to have directly armed or trained jihadist groups in Syria, but its covert war has continued in the certainty that these groups benefit from its policies. Former MI6 officer Alastair Crooke noted that: "The West does not actually hand the weapons to al-Qaeda, let alone ISIS, but the system that they have constructed leads precisely to that end." The arms supplied to the FSA were "understood to be a sort of Walmart from which the more radical groups would be able to take their weapons and pursue the jihad".

The attempt to "vet" groups before they receive Western aid has been a recognition of the dominant role played by extremist groups in the opposition - but the policy has been largely meaningless. Britain's covert operation has been part of a massive programme in which Saudi Arabia has spent "several billion" dollars and Qatar $3bn funding mostly hardline, extremist groups.

Misleading parliamentarians

In 2017, the British government revealed that it spent £199m ($277m) since 2015 supporting the "moderate opposition" opposed to Assad and IS.
This support included "communications, medical and logistics equipment” and training journalists to develop "an independent Syrian media". But details of more recent UK covert operations remain murky, and few recent media reports have uncovered the UK role.

The government is now providing misleading responses to parliamentary questions. Last week, it failed to answer a question by Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle, asking which armed groups the UK had trained since 2012; it inferred it had only been training groups since 2016 fighting IS.
In response to another parliamentary question last month asking how many troops Britain currently has in Syria, the government also suspiciously failed to specify, saying only that it has 600 personnel deployed across the Middle East, again just fighting IS.

Meanwhile, the British government continues to argue that the "main opposition armed groups on the ground" in Syria "are not terrorists", but support a negotiated political settlement of the crisis.
British policy, together with its allies, has contributed to the suffering of Syrians and has in no way been motivated by their plight. It has also contributed to the terrorist threat at home.
Hundreds of Britons, including jihadists working with the most violent groups, are believed to have been trained in Syria and encouraged to return to the UK to launch attacks. Britain's active, warmongering policy on Syria is a disaster for the people of that country and the UK.
This is an edited extract from Mark Curtis’ most recent book, Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam (Serpent’s Tail, 2018).

More from Middle East Eye

WHEN IT COMES TO MIDDLE EAST POLICY THE UK IS NOTHING BUT A ROGUE STATE (https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/when-it-comes-middle-east-policy-uk-rogue-state-1677623456)

https://i.imgur.com/F3T4yjM.jpg

[Baby Steps]

Just when Syria was stabilising and the suffering was abating



4501045011

[Brigantia]

"Increase pressure" = depose him by any possible means and instal a puppet.

[Lunesoleil]

qeE42a53MrI
In a wide ranging discussion, Sree Iyer and Prof RV talk about Russia, Syria and long term outlook for Turkey. Some of the facts talked about are not covered anywhere else.


Is it possible to summarize what is said in this video, there is no possibility of translation, thank you