Welcome to Laigle's Forum!

Sign Up to Receive Alerts and Newsletters from Laigle's Forum

Latest Posts:

President Hollande finally notices ISIS war

November 14th, 2015 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Europe, european union, France, Islam, Russia, Syria, World Affairs | 2 Comments »

President Hollande finally notices ISIS’ war on civilization


By Don Hank


French President Hollande said after last night’s terror attacks in Paris:

“C’est un acte de guerre” commis par une “armée terroriste, Daech” — This is an act of war committed by a terrorist army, Daesh (ISIS)

Another report says: Francois Hollande [whose government, by the way, fully supports the EU’s open borders and the introduction of thousands of unvetted “refugees” from various Muslim countries that is threatening the integrity of Europe — my comment], accused ISIS of orchestrating the worst attacks in France for more than 70 years, declaring it an ‘act of war’ and vowing to ‘mercilessly’ strike back.

This is how it starts. Recall that GW Bush used the 911 attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, which had not aided the perpetrators in any known way. He stood on ground zero in NY and said “the people who knocked down these buildings are going to hear from us,” thereby setting the stage for a false connection in the minds of Americans, most of whom unthinkingly supported the ensuing non-sequitur and disastrous wars, which led, incidentally, to the creation of ISIS. The 911 perpetrators had been mostly Saudi terrorists, supported by Saudi money, but the Saudis did not “hear from us” at all, did they? The State Department did not so much as breathe a hint of caution in their direction. The Saudi conspirators and perpetrators were in fact fully absolved of all blame, which was heaped instead on scapegoats, at a tragic cost of American blood, treasure and prestige.

A slick documentary was aired on French cable TV station TV5 about a month ago showing a typical work day of President François Hollande, during which he said on the phone, apparently to a cabinet member, that he still wants to remove President Bashar Assad. This was a hint for the French people and a red flag for the world.

Thus when Hollande said he would “mercilessly strike back,” we need to ask ourselves: did he mean he would strike at Assad or at the real perpetrators? We can hope that he will join the coalition of Russia and Syria to effectively strike ISIS, but his past statements and actions suggest the opposite.

Think about what Hollande said in the above-referenced documentary. There were definitely ISIS sleeper cells in France at that time, some of which later perpetrated the Paris attacks, but Hollande was blithely ignoring them in his obsession with removing Bashar al-Assad, the only man in the world who had been fighting ISIS since its inception. Instead of focusing on the obvious real enemy, Hollande was hatching plots to remove Assad, the only man truly engaging the enemy. One can assume that Hollande’s aims have not changed since then. After all, Hollande had to know all along that Daesh (ISIS) was the enemy of France and all of civilization, so last night’s statement that this is war was out of place because he had to know before the attack that every murder that Daesh had committed in Syria and Iraq for years was in fact an act of war on France and on every other country purporting to be civilized  – particularly since 100s of French fighters were mingled among ISIS fighters at the time.

Let’s put this in plain English, shall we?

By focusing on removing Assad and his loyal forces – the only effective resistance against ISIS – and by refusing to ally with Assad (despite the latter’s blemishes), Hollande  – like all Western “leaders” –  was in fact assisting ISIS from the start. So now when he says the Paris attacks are an acte de guerre – effectively declaring war on ISIS, this sounds hollow. Indeed, in view of Hollande’s past neglect of ISIS’s warlike behavior and his focus on eliminating the most effective opponents of ISIS (including Russia), François Hollande has been a de facto ally of ISIS.

Now on the US side, my wife and I were watching Fox News this morning (I never watch that channel voluntarily but wanted to be sociable) where various commentators spoke about the Paris attacks and on ISIS in Syria. One “expert” said it would now be necessary for the US to get involved because otherwise, ISIS would never be defeated. I could hardly believe it. It was as if Russia had never accomplished a thing in Syria, and yet, the Russian accomplishments were astonishing, as evidenced here, here, here and by a host of news outlets easily found by a quick search using the search terms “russian accomplishments syria isis.” By the way, as evidence of the West’s crass duplicity, while the entire Western establishment had initially insisted that Russia was only attacking the “moderates,” the downing of a Russian plane over Egypt was graphic evidence that the entire West had been lying in unison.

As shown in the last-linked commentary above, Putin did more in one month than the entire West had done in years to defeat ISIS. Thus, the entire West, including Hollande, clearly had never once intended to effectively answer ISIS’s call to war. So why the fuss now?

Despite the mountain of proof that Russia and the Syrian army have been the only effective resistance to ISIS, not one commentator on Fox this morning gave any credit whatsoever to the forces in Syria that have been shedding their blood to stop ISIS. No one mentioned Russia and their highly effective attacks which now have routed ISIS in various places (places invaded as the US government twiddled its thumbs), and of course, no one mentioned the brave Syrian army which lost a huge percentage of its troops to ISIS over the years.

No, they absurdly insisted that the demonstrably unwilling and ineffective US military leaders are the only chance we have to stop ISIS. In contrast, when my wife switched to CNN, we heard Christiane Amanpour reminding her audience that Russia had also suffered an attack by ISIS on its airliner in Egypt and had received threats of domestic attacks on its soil. So who’s fair and balanced?

All in all, it would appear as if the world is being brainwashed by the Neocons to support another military adventure in the Middle East that is doomed to fail because it is focused on eliminating the only effective forces against ISIS rather than on defeating them once and for all.

Look, let’s make it easy: If you want to eliminate a plague of rabbits, do you start out by killing all the foxes?

Based on Hollande’s clear desire to take out Assad and based on the US position on Assad, there is little hope that the world will ever see an end to Islamic terror as long as “leaders” like him are in power. Sadly, most Western leaders are clones of Hollande.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Will Russia be first to unite the Middle East?

November 9th, 2015 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Islam, Military, Putinology, Russia, Syria, Uncategorized, World Affairs | 2 Comments »

Will Russia be the first to bring Shiites and Sunnis together?


by Don Hank


Today’s situation in the Middle East is very confusing to the uninitiated because US policy is secretly based on a decivilizing and disordering strategy that, to survive, must masquerade as being beneficial to all and designed to bring peace and justice. A major challenge for deceitful policy makers. For example, Obama originally had decided not to send arms and troops to the Syrian “rebels,” but when he saw the Russians bombing rebel bases, he decided to send more troops and arms (perhaps to appease the Neocons or perhaps because he has become one), as reported here.

BTW, note that Israel has apparently done the same, as reported here.

A few months ago Ted Cruz addressed a group of Syrian Christians living in the US. Like many naive Americans, he assumed that the Middle East Jews and Christians share the same plight and therefore sympathize with each other. However, the Christian-killing terrorists in Syria have the moral support of many Israelis and the Israeli government because these terrorists are, for now, also opposed to Hezbollah and Iran, which the Israelis see as enemies. This complexity is overwhelming for most Westerners because the pertinent dots are never connected in our media.

The ingenuous Cruz was surprised at these Christians’ hostile response when before this crowd of Syrian Christians, he repeated the shibboleth “I stand with Israel,” indicating that, like nearly all US politicians, he hasn’t a clue as to Syrian sentiments and the reality there. (Ben Carson, unlike Trump, also wants to ratchet up the cold war).

To state this reality as simply as possible, the Shiites (the Iranian people and the Syrian government–supported by Russia) are perceived as enemies of Israel while the Sunnis (essentially the Saudis, Gulf states and Turkey), who hate the Shia, are perceived as allies.

This unintentionally pits US supporters of Syrian Christians against Israel in the sense that to support these Christians, one naturally supports Russia’s efforts to defeat ISIS and the rebels, but Israel perceives Russia as a threat because she is defeating their Sunni “allies” in ISIS. Thus, when Israelis hear Americans sympathizing with the Syrian Christians, many of them tend to get nervous. On the other hand, US Christians and others who mouth the slogan “I stand for Israel” make Syrians nervous because this suggests that the person who says this is seen as a threat to the Syrian Christians and other minorities.

Thus far, geopolitically illiterate Western politicians (the vast majority) and by far the majority of US analysts, seem to think that not only are Sunnis and Shia irreconcilable, but that in the outside chance they could be brought together, their newfound unity could threaten US interests.

Yet they also perceive perpetual war to be in the US interest, a proposition that is counterintuitive and morally untenable. I have tried to explain here how this absurd and dangerous idea came about and why it has been perpetuated for a half-century with almost no opposition in politics and media.

So how can both sides be brought together?

Putin is an unrivaled statesman who obviously wants to do unite these enemies of long standing. He recognizes that the US-aggravated rivalry between the Sunnis and Israel on the one hand and the Shia and Russia on the other is untenable in the long run and will lead to war. He is clearly trying to defuse the tension nurtured by the US. While attacking the Syrian terrorists who have the tacit support of Israel, he has shown Israel his support by meeting with and speaking with Netanyahu and by agreeing with the latter to involve Russia in the extraction of the Leviathan gas deposit, part of which is claimed by Israel. This tacitly implies several important things:

1—Russia accepts Israel’s existence as a nation

2—Russia agrees with Israel’s claim to its share of Leviathan even though Israel has stretched international law by extending its waters from 12 miles to 200 miles to include the relevant part of the deposit.

3—Russia will not allow encroachment on this deposit during its extraction and will protect any portions of the pipeline that cross Israeli territory.

It is a virtual military protection agreement for Israel. Further, none of this will come as a surprise for Russia watchers of the non-Neocon variety because Putin had visited Israel years ago and gave a press conference relating to this trip in which his respect for the Jews and the people of all faiths is reflected. This video of the conference best illustrates the fact that Putin is by his very disposition a true uniter of peoples and a man of good will.

It was only a matter of time before Israel’s tenuous support of the Sunni terrorists would be discovered and would therefore backfire mightily.

The US and Israel were playing with fire by cultivating Sunni Saudis and, by extension, the Saudis’ pets in ISIS,as their main allies (with the US all the while pretending to fight ISIS for cosmetic purposes). They had set a trap for themselves that has now been sprung by Russia.

Russia is now the only country in the world that intends to bring the Sunni world – and  its allies Israel and the US – and the Shia world – ie, the Iranian people and Syrian government – together as clearly suggested by this report showing that in September, Putin either spoke by phone or met with not only the Shia leaders of Iran and Syria but also their supposed arch enemies the leaders of the Sunni countries Palestine, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, and most amazingly, Israel. This convergence of the Middle East in Moscow represented nothing short of an epoch making plate shift but went almost completely unreported in the West, a benighted region which still seeks answers solely in policies that divide the Middle East and make it more barbaric, supposedly to benefit US interests but in fact to no one’s benefit.

After years and years of relentless brainwashing, the idea of a relatively peaceful Middle East is now alien to Americans, most of whom would scoff at the idea.

Putin, however, understands the commonality of these seemingly divergent peoples (if only based on economic expediency) and his effort to unite all of their leaders is by far the most ingenious, monumental and momentous peace effort ever attempted in the Middle East. Yet no one, not even the brightest and best of geopolitical analysts, seems to have noticed. They are too busy taking sides in an effort to prop up a falling empire.

Some will say that my analysis is weighted in favor of our one-time enemy Russia. Yet what I have shown suggests a happier ending for the US than most would admit to.

Putin continues to refer to the US as a partner, and if only for economic reasons, he is deadly serious about this.

Putin knows that an economically failed US does not favor Russia or its Eurasian partners, all of whom are seeking the greatest prosperity for all, if for no other reason than to benefit from trade with us. After all, what is the percentage in trading with poor countries?

This came in since I wrote the above and it substantiates my commentary:



AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Peter LaBarbera praises Ben Carson’s queer idea

November 8th, 2015 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Christian, Gay agenda, Gender | No Comments »

Anti-LGBT activist Peter LaBarbera praises queer idea

by Don Hank


Bruce / Caitlin Jenner is a confused man. So is Peter LaBarbera. Back in June, LaBarbera  plainly stated in public that transgenders like Jenner are promoting evil.

But now LaBarbera is praising Ben Carson for wanting to introduce transgender bathrooms! Of course, recall that promoting a top GOP candidate is a way to make money.

Oddly, out of the clear blue sky, LaBarbera, the head of anti-LGBT organization AFTAH, once accused me of pursuing my activism for money (from the Kremlin no less! Sure, Peter), and I quickly slapped him down with this scathing piece, showing which of us was REALLY after the buck. Providentially, I didn’t hear much from him after that.

But Peter is still saying queer things, promoting the GOP favorite candidate whose campaign is flush with money and needs support from “Christian” groups. These banquets that LaBarbera’s AFTAH holds bring in donors and, including wealthy Ben Car$on backers.

Peter LaBarbera is supposedly generally opposed to the LGBT agenda, but wouldn’t a transgender bathroom be a way to promote their agenda among impressionable children? I mean, suppose all public buildings had a third bathroom for freaks like Caitlyn Bruce Jenner who bask in the limelight in a major effort to encourage young people to change their sex because it’s the cool thing to do. A few years into Carson’s presidency, suppose your kid and you pass the 3d BR and says “why are there 3 kinds of bathrooms, Dad?”

And you live in a PC America where you can lose your job if you fail to enthusiastically cheer queer. So you’re forced to pretend this is perfectly normal for some men to become women and some women to become men (hey, but wouldn’t that mandate FOUR kinds of bathrooms?). You then become a carrier for an idea you — and Peter, when the price is right — think is dangerous and immoral.

Thanks to good old Peter LaBarbera pushing Ben Carter’s really stupid idea (that is what Trump would correctly call it), this idea is now a reality and you are forced to corrupt your own child or face the PC police and judge.

Does Carson care about this unfortunate aspect of his queer idea? And does he really think that this idea could be implemented without a law mandating it — a law that he would presumably cheerfully sign if president?

But beyond the immorality of the idea, if the government forced the owners and operators of all public buildings to add a third bathroom, the prices of goods and services would have to be increased to build and maintain these.

Sorry, Folks, Carson is being sold by the GOP because they know he is malleable and will do their bidding. Unlike Trump, he can be bought. This transgender bathroom idea shows that he is out of touch in terms of economics and social issues and is even out of touch with his own ideas on morality, simply because he wants to be president.

Compare this with the way Trump responds to social issues questions. He just says he is a traditional kind of person, period. No hemming and hawing and no compromise.

Trump is in touch with the hearts and minds of the average American. Carson is in touch with his campaign fund.

So Peter, what are you doing promoting a candidate who opposes not only the things you have been supporting for years and also the way we as Americans think?

And aren’t you afraid your supporters will see through you and drop you like a hot potato when you waffle like this in a thinly veiled effort to make a buck?

Don Hank


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

The US loses another battle for hearts and minds

October 31st, 2015 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Europe, european union, Global governance, Russia, World Affairs | No Comments »

The US loses another battle for hearts and minds


by Don Hank

I never see in the media or the political world any connecting of the dots with regard to the US’s loss of prestige, and yet the ground is giving way under our very feet even as we party on into oblivion. It seems incredible to me that almost no one notices this geopolitical tectonic shift. Much of the US’s lost prestige and respect is due to Obama’s heavy handedness but after all, the US has been busy creating disasters for years — particularly military ones — that erode the trust our partners have invested in us. We will not recover this trust easily or quickly — perhaps not in any of our lifetimes.

I have been tracking this phenomenon roughly since my report on the total blackout regarding the major dedollarization effort by the Eurasians, as reported here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141009

The next major shift was marked by RMB clearing centers being built all over the world, and most notably in Europe, as reported here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141219

This got very few comments and I did  not see any indication that the rest of the Western press — including the alternative media — noticed or cared.

This was followed not long thereafter by the accession of almost all US allies to the Chinese investment bank AIIB, as reported here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/150319 in another attempted wake-up call that went unnoticed.

These were followed by low-key statements by European leaders indicating that European “alllies” were no longer willing to bow to the Washington hegemon. These included statements by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the most powerful national leader in Europe and no less than Jean-Claude Juncker, the head of the EU Commission, the most powerful man in Europe, as reported here: http://laiglesforum.com/game-over-for-obama-power-in-the-world/3523.htm

These statements showed that Europe’s allegiance was gradually turning from the US to Russia. NATO’s allegiance could no longer be taken for granted.

Now still another sign appears that Europe is ready to ditch its allegiance to the tyrant in DC. The EU Parliament has recently issued a statement in support of Edward Snowden, signaling that he could soon be welcomed in the EU despite all the accusations against him by US Neocons, whom Paul Craig Roberts aptly calls “inhuman filth” because of their interventions that sow chaos everywhere.



Folks, please to not underestimate the importance of each of these small shots across the bow of the DC tyrant. They are all clear signals that the rest of the world is no longer willing to be pushed around by a government that:

1–Intentionally harmed the world economy with its subprime mortgages packaged and sold around the world under the watchless gaze of US agencies tasked with preventing such disasters

2–Intentionally threw the Middle East into near-total chaos with disastrous military interventions starting with Iraq.

The tyrant in Washington has been identified and is targeted for at least a major comeuppance that will definitely be felt as the US government falls into a deep isolation of its own making.

I fear the best we can hope for is lenience.

I will be updating this column from time to time because it is impossible to keep up with all the geopolitical shifts showing how the US is receiving rejection slips from the rest of the world:

Shift 11/3/2015:


Just today I saw an article in El País with an interview with Ban Ki-Moon, where he says (my translation):

“The future of president Assad must be decided by the Syrian people.”

That statement sounds innocuous to the uninitiated but it is in facta block buster because it is in fact a low-key challenge to the Washington policy that Assad must go no matter what the Syrians want, based on the highly dubious notion that the US is entitled to define morality and enforce it. It is also a perfect reflection of what Russia has been saying all long in favor of respecting national sovereignties and it flies in the face of Washington’s untenable position that the US should decide the fate of the Syrians. Washington in so doing fully intends to trample on the sovereignty of the Syrian people (just as it tramples on its own people), who have already suffered much. If anyone deserves to decide the fate of their president it is they.

Here, Ban Ki-Moon joins the swelling ranks of high level officials who cautiously oppose US policy and agree with Russia.

Shift 11/3/2015

Iraq has now effectively excluded the US from participation in military operations in that country against ISIS. Ater seeing the remarkable successes of Russia’s airstrikes in Syria, it realized only Russia will provide honest, sincere assistance in defeating ISIS in Iraq.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Is Putin a sincere Christian? The Bible says it doesn’t matter

October 27th, 2015 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Christian, Conservatism, Putinology, Russia, Syria | No Comments »

Is Putin a sincere Christian? The Bible says it doesn’t matter

by Don Hank

If your young child were drowning in the surf and a swimmer ran toward the water’s edge to save him, would you consider stopping the would-be rescuer and asking him whether he was a Christian before allowing him to proceed to save your precious child?

Of course not. You’d allow even a dog to save the child and you wouldn’t think twice about the worthiness of the rescuer. And yet, the entire world is watching someone save Christians and other minorities in Syria and some Christians are crying “foul” because they think that Putin may not be completely sincere and therefore not morally worthy of saving them. They want only Christians to save Christians. Yet none of them is going to Syria to save these desperate people. Such hypocrisy cries out for a strong response (and even perhaps a severe lashing).

Some Americans keep insisting that Russian President Vladimir Putin must prove his sincerity. Oddly these same people never speak of “sincerity” when assessing US candidates. This is because US candidates are typically insincere and have made us cynical. Many of us assume deceit is part and parcel of politics.

I don’t know whether Putin is sincere, but as I keep saying, he does not owe us an explanation of his faith. He is a political leader of a secular government. Remember that all attempts to create a Christian theocracy have failed. The Chiliastic Christians of the Dark Ages wanted a theocracy. Thinking they were sent by God to save Europe from the autocratic Catholics and feeling called to usher in the Millennium, they massacred priests, burned churches, plundered shamelessly, and finally were subdued and their leaders executed. (I say this as a Protestant. Truth is truth. Life is not a football game where one is obliged to root for the “home team”).

How could such people believe God would bless their bloody endeavors? Such runs counter to Christ’s teachings of free-will choice, whereby each of us makes his or her personal choice whether to accept or reject Him or how to worship Him.

Putin has professed his Christianity, whatever that may mean to him. He has said that he is not publicly entering into detail about his faith because it is a personal matter. This stance is in no way incompatible with Christ’s teachings when we consider that Jesus said we are to pray in the closet instead of flaunting our faith. Why is that commandment almost universally ignored among Christians, many of whom are rushing to be seen as saviors of mankind, even starting foundations and asking shamelessly for donations supposedly in an attempt to “restore a Christian America,” something they must know they will never accomplish? Is it not in fact all about them? Do they not in fact desire to be worshiped? Yet many of these same people condemn Putin for a lack of sincerity! It often seems as if they are vying for the title of Mr. or Mrs. Hypocrisy.

The important thing is not whether Putin is sincere but how his actions are furthering God’s work. We all know how. It is obvious. Traditional Christianity — including the true definition of marriage — is flourishing in Russia and Syrian Christians are being saved from ISIS only because Putin intervened. Once any of Putin’s critics have done this much, they are free to pile on him. Otherwise they are nothing but hypocrites.

God chooses people to do His work and does not have any religious requirements for this.

Nebuchadnezzar and Constantine are good examples.

Historians are not certain whether Constantine was a Christian but he was indisputably enormously instrumental in legitimizing Christianity in Europe and elsewhere. If that is not enough, let his critics do better.

Many readers will be surprised to learn that in another woefully neglected passage, Paul taught that it does not matter whether the one who delivers Christ’s message is sincere or not.

Philippians 1:

…17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What matter? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, 19 for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ…

Though I can’t prove it, I believe that Putin is not acting solely out of selfish ambition. There is abundant evidence that he is working for the good of his people (as well as for a better world — a world he calls multipolar, where no country lords it over others). If the Russians had good reason to suspect otherwise, they would not have reelected him so many times. If only the West had even one leader who did likewise!

Honi soit qui mal y pense.



AddThis Social Bookmark Button