Tag: Gulf War I

The US (Working on Behalf of Israel) Made War on Afghanistan and Iraq – Next Up: Armenia?

When I talk of a people group/religion being impacted by US foreign policy, I do so only to confront the myth that the US is a Christian nation. Now we may have a lot of Christians in this country, but the nation, the federal government and its policies are not currently setup to protect Christians from persecution. Of course the Bush II push into Iraq was designed to “protect our freedoms” as an American people, but even this is questionable in the long run.

So a little review is in order. Over the past 30 years since the US gave Saddam (who protected Iraqi Christians) the green light to invade Kuwait and then wagged war (Gulf War I) on him, putting him on lock-down and having the Clinton-era dear Madeleine Albright say to Leslie Stahl about the 500,000 Iraqi children deaths cause by the US’s actions against Iraq:

This was followed during the Bush II administration by blaming Iraq on 9/11, accusing them of having WMDs and while instead of having the CIA root out any possible 9/11 conspirators (they should have looked within their ranks first) in Afghanistan, the USA invaded both countries to the benefit on ONLY Israel and possibly Saudi Arabia.

The result is that Afghanistan no longer has ANY Christian churches and Iraq lost a million plus (1.4M in 1987 to under 200,000 recently) at least bringing those number now almost to the point of extinction. So much for “democracy” that allows freedom of religion. Oh, that is wrong, democracy is mob rule, so I guess that is what we have in Iraq and Afghanistan today with the expulsion of Christians from there homes. This is very similar to Israel’s policy, knowing that 65% of Israel is Atheist where as almost all the Christians in the lands that Israel ruthlessly controls are Palestinians.

But I digress ..

So what does that have to do with two countries that most Americans could not pick out on a world map? Well, the US allied with Israel, in partnership with Turkey is at it again. Azerbaijan, the most secular country on the planet is invading Armenia, the most Christian country on the planet (98% Christian).

In summary, the US favors both Turkey and Israel, and Azerbaijan has oil – and is also favored by Turkey and Israel. Of course, we know Israel’s view of Iran. Iran is not allowed to be seen as a positive force in any manner whatsoever. So this makes Armenia expendable as far as the US is concerned.

There is a major disconnect between the US’s proud Christian heritage and supporting never-ending wars in the Middle East that seem to always work towards persecution of the Christians. We have evangelical Christians in the US totally rooting for Israel and their ally Azerbaijan with the US helping (and infusing the region with its old friend ISIS, which a majority are secular as well).

Moon of Alabama connects the dots well in his article:

Turkey is supporting Azerbaijan by supplying it with Turkish drones and with ‘moderate Syrian rebel’ mercenaries from Syrian and Libya. All are flown in through Georgian air space. Other mercenaries seem to come from Afghanistan. Additional hardware comes by road also through Georgia. Another supporter of the attacker is Israel. During the last week Azerbaijani military transport aircraft have flown at least six times to Israel to then return with additional Israeli suicide drones on board. These Harop drones have been widely used in attacks on Armenian positions. An Israeli made LORA short range ballistic missile was used by Azerbaijan to attack a bridge that connects Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia. Allegedly there are also Turkish flown F-16 fighter planes in Azerbaijan.

The silver lining is that Russia holds the trump card and ends up ONE MORE TIME protecting innocent nations including their Christian populations (while the US has partnered with ISIS in both Iraq and Syria only to have Russia and Iran kick them to the curb in both countries while the US “claimed” to be fighting ISIS since the Obama administration. Pure BS. Pure lies.

The war seems already to be at a stalemate. Neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan can afford to use air power and ballistic missiles purchased from Russia without Russian consent.

This is some good news in a region where the US, Israel and Turkey would have all loved another war distraction. Iran and Russia PLUS Armenian Christians all stand to lose.

Here is proof of what they were really up to:

U.S. plans to ‘overextend Russia’ by creating trouble in the Caucasus just as it is now happening. Fort Russ notes:

The current director of the CIA, Gina Haspel, was doing field assignments in Turkey in the early stages of her career, she reportedly speaks Turkish, and she has history of serving as a station chief in Baku, Azerbaijan, in the late 1990s. It is, therefore, presumable that she still has connections with the local government and business elites.

The current Chief of the MI6, Richard Moore, also has history of working in Turkey — he was performing tasks for the British intelligence there in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. Moore is fluent in Turkish and he also served as the British Ambassador to Turkey from 2014 to 2017.

The intelligence chiefs of the two most powerful countries in the Anglosphere are turkologists with connections in Turkey and Azerbaijan. It would be reasonable to assume that a regional conflict of such magnitude happening now, on their watch, is far from being a mere coincidence.

Before President Trump stopped the program the CIA had used the Azerbaijani Silk Way Airlines in more than 350 flights to bring weapons from Bulgaria to Turkey to then hand them to ‘Syrian rebels’. Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, is not only a CIA station but also a Mossad center for waging its silent war against Iran.

So you see, our intervention abroad to spread democracy only causes despots at home and abroad. The US is a virus on the world stage:

Peace out.

-SF1

Codependency: US Empire and Iraq

We cannot crusade against war without crusading implicitly against the State. And we cannot expect, or take measures to ensure, that this war is a war to end war, unless at the same time we take measures to end the State in its traditional form. The State is not the nation, and the State can be modified and even abolished in its present form, without harming the nation. – Randolph Bourne 1918

You might not have been taught this in your history class, but the United States has had its nose in Middle East affairs for over 70 years now. Specifically, there are a few dates that this relationship has in its timeline:

  • 1957 – The Ba’ath Party is a small, underground Arab nationalist group that supports the creation of a pan-Arab state and at age 20, Saddam Hussein joins the party.
  • 1959 – Saddam is selected by the Ba’ath Party to be part of seven-man hit squad to assassinate Iraqi leader Gen. Abdel Karim Kassem. The plot fails.  Saddam flees to Cairo and becomes caught up in Egypt’s own revolution under the charismatic Gamel Abdel Nasser, whose pan-Arabism Saddam finds appealing. Saddam also becomes a leader of the Ba’ath Party’s student cell in Cairo and reportedly regularly visits the U.S. embassy to meet with CIA agents interested in sparking Gen. Kassem’s overthrow.
  • 1963 – Kassem is assassinated by members of the Ba’ath Party and the CIA helps the Ba’athists by providing lists of suspected communists for the party’s hit squads, who kill an estimated 800 people. Saddam returns home to Iraq and rejoins the party as an interrogator, torturer and killer. Nine months later, the army overthrows the Ba’ath Party and Saddam is jailed.
  • 1968 -The Ba’ath Party seizes power in Iraq, this time under Ahmad Hassan Al Bakr, Saddam’s cousin. Bakr entrusts his 31-year-old relative Saddam with the most important job of all: running the state security apparatus to extinguish dissent both inside and outside the party. Within a year and a half, Saddam emerges as Bakr’s right hand man. CIA connections are intact.
  • 1970s – As Saddam’s power and influence grows, it is clear that he has designs on the presidency himself, but he also knows that Bakr has powerful support from the army. Saddam begins to plot against the military establishment and to systematically remove Bakr’s closest colleagues.
  • 1979 – Saddam stages a palace coup and President Bakr resigns for health reasons. Among Saddam’s first actions after assuming the presidency is purging the Ba’ath Party of any potential enemies.Several weeks into his presidency, Saddam calls a meeting of the Ba’ath Party leadership and insists it be videotaped. He announces there are traitors in their midst and reads out their names. One by one, the individuals are led out, never to be seen again. Tapes of the meeting are sent throughout the country, allowing Saddam to send a message to the Iraqi elite.
  • 22SEP1980 – With U.S. encouragement, Hussein invaded Iran and during this costly eight-year war, the CIA built up Hussein’s forces with sophisticated arms, intelligence, training and financial backing. This cemented Hussein’s power at home, allowing him to crush the many internal rebellions that erupted from time to time, sometimes with poison gas. In one of the largest ground assaults since World War II, Saddam sends 200,000 troops across the Iranian border, initiating what would become a bloody eight-year conflict.
  • 1981 – When Ronald Reagan becomes president, he endorses a policy aiming for a stalemate in the war so that neither side emerges from the war with any additional power. But in 1982, fearing Iraq might lose the war, the U.S. begins to help. Over the next six years, a string of CIA agents go to Baghdad. Hand-carrying the latest satellite intelligence about the Iranian front line, they pass the information to their Iraqi counterparts. The U.S. gives Iraq enough help to avoid defeat, but not enough to secure victory.
  • 1986 -The Iran-Contra scheme is conceived by Reagan administration officials. Iran had been running out of military supplies in its war with Iraq and Reagan is advised that the U.S. could strike a deal in which secret arms sales to Iran could lead to the release of U.S. hostages held by pro-Iranian terrorists in Lebanon. Public exposure of the plan — which also involved illegally diverting the proceeds from the arms sales to the U.S.-backed Contras in Nicaragua — leads to the end of the U.S. policy. However, when Saddam learns of America’s actions, he vows never to trust the U.S. again.
  • 1987 – U.S. supplied chemical weapons are used when Iraqi forces unleash a devastating gas attack in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds.
  • 1988 – Iraq-Iran War Ceasefire
  • 02AUG1990 – (Sec. of State) James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to Iraq to emphasize that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. Apparently, Saddam Hussein took those words as a green light to invade Kuwait.
  • 17JAN1991 – Gulf War I – one of the most egregious acts that the U.S. military committed against the Iraqis was to intentionally destroy civilian water and sewage treatment centers and electrical facilities.

  • 1994 – Clinton sanctions on Iraq most effective when massive water and sewage issues plague a country, diseases such as cholera, measles, and typhoid had led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, and a skyrocketing infant mortality rate, with many more deaths by 2000.
  • 30JAN2002 – US President Bush labels Iraq as part of the “Axis of Evil”
  • 20MAR2003 – Based on a lie, that Iraq had WMDs, the US and their coalition partners invade Iraq. Why did we invade and occupy Iraq? We were told Iraq was strong and dangerous. We were told that sanctions were not working, and Saddam Hussein was not in compliance with the UN disarmament regime. We were told that Iraq was working on a viable chemical, biological and nuclear program, had many of these weapons already, and was also working with terrorists who targeted and would target the United States. It was suggested repeatedly in Presidential and Vice Presidential speeches, in statements by the Secretary of Defense and other administration mouthpieces that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 9-11 attacks on the United States. While the Pentagon, CIA and State Department knew Iraq had no relationship with al Qaeda. Instead, we understood that they were competitors and adversaries on both governing and religious issues. Two things angered Osama bin Laden — US forces in Saudi Arabia, and a godless Ba-ath dictatorship in Iraq. We also knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11!

  • 2007 – Iraq is a country that once had 26 million inhabitants, but two million have fled, two million more are internally homeless, and nearly a million have lost their lives since we invaded in 2003. The 80% who have homes remain huddled and fearful, often behind large walls that separate them from family and friend, in the name of ethnic purification, something that the U.S. military is actively pursuing because it tends to make for better statistics. Everyone in Iraq has been touched, and not in a good way, by our invasion and subsequent occupation.
  • 2008 – Iraqi power vacuum and Syrian regime change appears on CIA vision statements prompting the birth of ISIS
  • 2011 – ISIS grows during Arab Spring as CIA vision statements also talk about regime change in Libya
  • 2014 – US and other coalition troops re-enter Iraq to ‘battle’ ISIS in Iraq
  • 2020 – The US kills the Iranian general who was most effective against ISIS forces

Symptoms of codependency:

In its most basic terms, codependency occurs at one of the extremes of relationship dynamics – when two partners draw more from each other than from their own inner strength.
This is not a stable condition.
Codependency deepens as partner feedback tends to grow in importance and self-confidence steadily diminishes as a result.
The relationship becomes highly reactive and fraught, with mounting tensions. Invariably, one partner hits a limit and seeks a new source of sustenance.
This leaves the other feeling scorned, steeped in denial and blame, and ultimately with a vindictive urge to lash out in response.

Iraq, I ask you, are you there yet?

In Eric Margolis’ latest column he reminds us of what Osama bin Laden saw:

Before he was murdered, Osama bin Laden called this monster Baghdad embassy and its twin in Kabul, `crusader fortresses.’ That is indeed their role, and to serve as the nerve center for all Mideast operations by the US. Iraq enjoys some of the world’s largest oil reserves. Where the profit from Iraq’s mammoth oil exports go remains a closely guarded secret.

He goes on to talk about Iraq’s ‘rich’ history and experience going back 100 years even with the British when they were the imperialists of the day:

Imperial Britain ruled Iraq … using the RAF to smash all opposition to the British-installed puppet ruler in Baghdad. In the 1920’s Churchill even authorized the RAF to use poison gas against rebellious Iraqi Kurds (as well as Afghan Pashtun tribes).

True to form, the US abuses Iraq in a similar way:

Washington has imposed an air exclusivity zone there. Real control of flat, largely barren Iraq comes from the air. US war planes based there and in Qatar can blast anything that moves in Mesopotamia.

It is for the following reason that the US will not be quick to exit Iraq:

Iraq has become the central military base and inexhaustible oil reservoir for the US that was envisaged by the Bush administration and its neocons. That is a major step in the total US domination of the Mideast and its energy resources.

Iraq, have you hit your limit yet? To what degree will you go to remove the US from what should be your sovereign nation with the consent of the governed?

-SF1

What is With the Obsession with Russia, Primarily, and China Secondarily? PART 1

I have to be honest, I am a “boomer” who served in the US Navy after Vietnam and before Gulf War I, in a relative season of peace (rare for the US Empire these days).

The 1970s saw increased cooperation and trade with China and in the late 1980s finally saw increased cooperation and trade with Russia. With the Cold War over, people in general felt a lot better about the global conflicts and started to look at our domestic issues. Politicians and the Deep State do not like that. In search of distractions the Deep State looked for opportunities and continued to feed skewed Intel to the US government.

One would have thought that peace would allow the US to get a handle on its own economy and its own trade balance sheet. Nothing could be further from the truth. What happens time and again in large corporations, government and in bureaucracy in general is that politics squanders opportunities to take things to the next level, a better place AFTER addressing some key foundational and structural issues. The problem with politics and older organizations is that the momentum of the status quo keeps the change agents and whistle-blowers at bay while the existing paradigm sucks the life out of the organization or nation slowly. Because the leaders are temporary custodians of the organization, there is little incentive to do anything but “kick the can” down the road for others to deal with, the next generations of corporate leaders or the next crop of politicians or even the next generation of consumers and taxpayers.

Not cool.

In our existing morass it is apparent that the US Empire desperately needs an enemy. It needed one in 1990 as the USSR dissolved into over a dozen republics and it needed it yet again after the easy Gulf War I win that failed to produce the need for military in a big way for the long haul. Enter the “War on Terror” (Gulf War II, Iraq Invasion), which was designed to never end. This helped Bush II and Obama to satisfy the deep state and elites who see nothing but upsides to perpetual war, but after some rather apparent blunders, the target has shifted to Russia especially followed by China. Sure North Korea and Iran are in the mix but I am pretty sure the deep state is after another multi decade conflict so it can keep its job.

The blunder in the war on terror had to do with the exposure from Wikileaks and other leaks that made it clear that ISIS was actually a US/Saudi/UK and Israel initiative (to keep Iran from being a regional power that threatened Israel). The attempts to regime change Libya and Syria were part of an effort to further destabilize the Middle East which sent refugees to Western Europe by the droves, destabilizing Germany and France especially. The empire likes to keep its competition at bay, either directly or indirectly.

For the past three years, Russia has received the brunt of the attacks claiming that its motives are evil. A quick look at maps from 1990 to present say otherwise:

As you can see, the efforts in the Ukraine in 2014 was an attempt to further weaken Russian influence in the region. Their actual restraint shows the wisdom that Putin possesses in dealing with the US Empire and NATO. Russia did tactfully stepped in and secured Crimea and the critical port of Sevastopol on the Black Sea which they had possession of under lease agreements up until the US sponsored regime change in 2014. Beyond this, with the vast majority of Crimeans desiring ties to Russia there was swift and peaceful investments made by Russia like the Crimean Bridge below:

Crimean Bridge
Sevastopol Naval Base (Russia) on the Black Sea

This peaceful move PLUS the fact that the Russians were invited by Syrians to remove ISIS from their territories actually allowed Russian military to test their weapon systems and now have an edge in several different technological categories that make the Pentagon nervous. The fact that in October 2015 when this calculated effort to push ISIS out of Syria really started, Obama predicted that Russia would fail:

Syria (October 2015)
Syria Dec 2018

So the US was showed up in Syria, as trespassers they “fought” ISIS until Russia could beat ISIS .. and now the US rebels hold the land east of the Euphrates River.

Then, in 2019, the US turns its attention to Venezuela. The US Empire DOES have an addiction that it is not ready to admit. Of course they pull out the old Monroe Doctrine crap .. wondered if that applied in Iraq and Afghanistan, opps, wrong continent. Geez. But I digress. Why can’t the US just defend the US? Because it has a “need for empire” and its belief in the myth called “American Exceptionalism”.

At its root, the US obsession with “extending” Russia until it breaks is summed up by Moon of Alabama in this hilarious highlighting of a RAND think-tank article that was revised to look at the US instead in this  post:

This brief summarizes a report that comprehensively examines nonviolent, cost-imposing options that the Russian Federation and its allies could pursue across economic, political, and military areas to stress —overextend and unbalance— the United States’ economy and armed forces and the U.S. government’s political standing at home and abroad. Some of the options examined are clearly more promising than others, but any would need to be evaluated in terms of the overall strategy for dealing with the United States, which neither the report nor this brief has attempted to do.

Today’s United States suffers from many vulnerabilities — the financial crisis has caused a drop in living standards, regressive tax policies that have furthered that decline, a decreasing life expectancy, and increasing authoritarianism under Barack Obama’s and now Donald Trump’s rule. Such vulnerabilities are coupled with deep-seated (if exaggerated) anxieties about the possibility of Russia-inspired political manipulation, loss of great power status, and even military attack.

Despite these vulnerabilities and anxieties, the United States remains a powerful country that still manages to be Russia’s peer competitor in a few key domains. Recognizing that some level of competition with the United States is inevitable, RAND researchers conducted a qualitative assessment of “cost-imposing options” that could unbalance and overextend the United States. Such cost-imposing options could place new burdens on the United States, ideally heavier burdens than would be imposed on the Russian Federation for pursuing those options.

A team of RAND experts developed economic, geopolitical, ideological, informational, and military options and qualitatively assessed them in terms of their likelihood of success in extending the United States, their benefits, and their risks and costs.

Too funny, because the original 2019 RAND publication was focused in Russia’s situation and how the US might exploit her weaknesses.

What is noteworthy is the last line of this think-tank production, which SHOULD cause the deep state (as well as their Mossad ties) to pause in their agenda:

Most of the options discussed, including those listed here, are in some sense escalatory, and most would likely prompt some Russian counterescalation. Thus, besides the specific risks associated with each option, there is additional risk attached to a generally intensified competition with a nuclear-armed adversary to consider. This means that every option must be deliberately planned and carefully calibrated to achieve the desired effect. Finally, although Russia will bear the cost of this increased competition less easily than the United States will, both sides will have to divert national resources from other purposes. Extending Russia for its own sake is not a sufficient basis in most cases to consider the options discussed here. Rather, the options must be considered in the broader context of national policy based on defense, deterrence, and—where U.S. and Russian interests align—cooperation.

Cooperation, now there is a novel idea!

Hang on, there are more deep state and political thinkers that love their wallet more than life on this planet, especially for generations after their death!

Next time we will look more at China as well as the budding relationship that Russia and China are now enjoying and how Japan and other nations like Iran and Syria figure into all these geopolitics as well as the association called BRICS ( Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa ).

-SF1

Terrorism: 1780, 1865, 1991 and Beyond

In the past weeks and months I have indicated how the British Empire’s use (and sometimes American patriots as well) of tactics that are less than honorable, yet attain short term military goals, would have unintended consequences .. when is it proper to apply this same understanding to other periods of American History?

The last few days has been a time in “American society life” that reflects on a 90-something man’s passing away and a reflection on what he meant to this country as well as the world. This man was the last president to have participated in WWII, which alone puts him on a pedestal in this land. Although the actual events surrounding him being the lone survivor of the plane he was piloting are cloudy at best (pardon the aviator’s pun), it seems that American loves heroes, and it willingly excuse many many character faults along the way as long as one has this elite (no pun intended) status. (think George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc)

While this post is not about the life of HW Bush, and while I have no animosity towards him personally (“revenge is mine says the Lord”), or his family who is in mourning, it does us well as a people (or as various groups of people/cultures across this land) to reflect of certain aspects of their legacy and learn from them.

“Those who do not know history’s mistakes are doomed to repeat them.” George Santayana

So the point here is to reflect on an aspect of Gulf War I that has always disturbed me even as I “thought” I understood the justification of the war at this time. From The Intercept article we read the following:

U.S. bombs also destroyed essential Iraqi civilian infrastructure — from electricity-generating and water-treatment facilities to food-processing plants and flour mills. This was no accident. As Barton Gellman of the Washington Post reported in June 1991: “Some targets, especially late in the war, were bombed primarily to create postwar leverage over Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself. Planners now say their intent was to destroy or damage valuable facilities that Baghdad could not repair without foreign assistance. … Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and interests, invariably described by briefers during the war as ‘collateral’ and unintended, was sometimes neither.”

Got that? The Bush administration deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure for “leverage” over Saddam Hussein. How is this not terrorism?

Here we are 27 years later knowing that Iraq has since been invaded yet a second time and has never returned to its previous state where the average Iraqi could earn enough to support their family in relative peace. We all know it will take decades or centuries to recover from this US/UN effort to “spread democracy” to the Middle East.

If we back up in our mind’s eye and consider the tactics the British opted to use more frequently, especially as they grew increasingly frustrated in not meeting their objectives against “farmers with pitchforks”. Is it ever right to choose tactics that are less than honorable to achieve the ends usually determined by leaders and politicians far away? How can those “sworn” into the service of these military entities individually object to be a part of those types of actions?

In 1780 it was the dreaded Tarleton that we read about and how he is the bad guy. But what happens when these types are on “our” side? Do we treat them different? How does this country’s text books treat Sheridan, Grant and Sherman from the directives each of these generals issued in the early 1860s against innocent families that happened to be in states that peacefully seceded?

“To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better . . . . Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources” – William T. Sherman after the war

“Government of the United States” had the “right” to “take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything . . . . We will take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property . . . ” – William T. Sherman after the war

“the war will soon assume a turn to extermination not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people . . . . There is a class of people, men, women, and children, who must be killed . . .” – letter to William T. Sherman’s wife on 31JUL1862

“We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to the extermination, men, women and children” ..”The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year,” William T. Sherman wrote to Sheridan. By 1890 the U.S. Army murdered as many as 60,000 Indians, placing the survivors in concentration camps known as “reservations.”

So it seems we have the British Empire using these tactics in 1780s, and the USA adopting these tactics in 1860s as well as with the American Indians the balance of that century .. and then fast-forward to 1991 and we find ourselves as “bad” as the British yet again!

So what kind of “democracy” are we spreading? It stinks!

All of this to say once again, to know history is to be best prepared to scrutinize government propaganda when their mouthpieces try to convince the public of the “good” in what they are doing. They know that the first impression is a lasting impression for so many that are not critical thinkers in this land.

So be prepared! Be a student of history, a critical thinker, considering things that you are still in process forming an opinion on.

Stay the course!

-SF1

If the US Bombs Syrian/Russian/Iranian forces in Syria? Who are They Protecting?

  • Is it the civilians in Idlib province of Syria?

  • Is it al Qaeda?

 

Things just don’t add up. I do believe that this is a pivot point for the narrative of the American Empire .. and as Ian56 @Ian56789 at Twitter says:

So you think PTSD levels among combat Vets & the drug sales as a result of these PTSD levels are off the scale?

Just imagine what will happen when these latest War Crimes & Treason sink in

Prozac, Oxycontin & Heroin dealers licking their lips at extra profit

We have been told many lies since 9/11, and IF you apply simple logic, you can see where this may lead. Maybe the US is protecting the civilians, but why didn’t they in Aleppo last year? Maybe the US is protecting al Qaeda. If so, what does that say about saving the very clan that according to the US government DID 9/11?

NOTE: if you still believe that, you do need to see James Corbett’s 911 A Conspiracy Theory. (video)

However, this would make MANY (a vast majority) people uncomfortable, because it upsets the worldview they have come to accept from one god ( the state) or the other god (their religion).

In my last post about Pearl Harbor, and the lies told in the run up to that “Day that will live in infamy” December 7th, 1941, it took several generations to really unpack and research documents that have shown us the truth of that day, two generations later? What will our kids and grand-kids find in declassified documents in 2070 in regards to 9/11? On the other hand, will we have to wait that long for truth to be unveiled?

So here we are in 2018 seeing the final push by Syria/Russia/Iran and the Hezbollah troops on the ISIS/alQaeda forces, an effort that tests the US foreign policy in the extreme:

.. and the United States (and possibly France, UK and even Germany) are coming on on the side of … al Qaeda!!!

So you might be thinking that al Qaeda is the United States’ main asset to protect in the Middle East.

Not so fast.

Today in 2018 we have seen the Taliban make some impressive gains in Afghanistan .. and the US seems fine with the stalemate, a weak Afghanistan is a well behaved Afghanistan:

So the 17 year war in Afghanistan AGAINST the Taliban is NOT BEING WON! 

What about the 14 year war in Iraq (2004 invasion / Gulf War II)? Iraq as a nation is very week and basically divided and impotent in this region and is not a threat to anyone.

[Originally the rationale for was was for Saddam’s WMDs (Weapons of Mass Desctruction), something the US knew something about since the US gave Saddam Hussein them in 1988 during the Iraq-Iran War]

 

ISIS (these are NOT religious zealots, they generally don’t read the Koran, they are 90% PLUS mercenaries only 5% are hard core fundamentalists) is seen below expanding to cover much of Iraq and eventually spilling over into Syria:

…  were given safe passage of over 500 miles across open desert to Syria:

From 2011-2015 the US was “fighting” ISIS in Syria, they claimed, but it was also noted that the US assisted in training ISIS and other moderate rebels in Jordan to get ready for phase 2 of the ISIS tour in the Middle East. All told, more than 250,000 combatants arrived from overseas to fight against the Syrian Arab Republic:

Not until 2015, when the Russians were invited by Syria’s President Assad to assist in battling ISIS/al Qaeda and other “moderate” rebel groups, did the US hand start to be seen clearly. The US (along with UK/Qatar/SaudiArabia and even Israel) were secret supporters of ISIS/al Qaeda.

Since 2015 is is interesting as much as ISIS/al Qaeda has been pressed, they do not enter Israel (although Israel has been observed aiding ISIS units across the borders in the Middle East).

The US apparently has not been in the Middle East since 1990 and then in Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2004), and Syria (2011) with a mission to “fight” al Qaeda (50 – 100 members at the time in 2001 when accused of 9/11) , or the Taliban, or ISIS.

Who is there left to PROTECT in the Middle East?

To see who you are protecting, look at the checkbook!

Who else can it be?

Why else would the US even get involved in 1990 with Gulf War I but to keep Iraq from encroaching on Israel (with US military hardware)?

Why else would the US in 2006 birth ISIS in Iraq but to keep Iran from encroaching on Israel?

Why else would the US in 2011 allow safe passage of ISIS into Syria but to keep Iran from encroaching on Israel?

Remember the conditions Trump’s administration was stating not more than a week ago about WHO has to leave Syria first?

The Trump administration won’t consider withdrawing US forces until Iran leaves the country.

Come on now! Russia was invited. Iran was invited. Hezbollah was invited.

The United States was NOT invited. ISIS/alQaeda was NOT invited.

WHO is complaining in the neighborhood?

There is no other way to look at this except that the Zionist nation of Israel needs the US Empire to accomplish the long-distance “defense” of their “homeland”.

So is the following incorrect in its assumptions?

Thoughts? Am I losing my mind here?

Let’s think on this some more.

-SF1