US outgunned by Russia?

US Shadow government may be outgunned

by Don Hank

2017, 3-14 russia-ICBM-nuclear-missile

It ought to be clear to everyone that Russia is the West’s permanent whipping boy.

After Aleppo was liberated by a joint Russian-Syrian-Iranian effort, right away, the Western msm spun this victory into an evil deed, reminding the world that there was collateral damage, as if we never have any of that in our wars. Trump – the msm slayer – jumped on the msm’s bandwagon and said that what the Russians did in Aleppo was “bad, very very bad.”  Have you noticed that when Trump makes pronouncements, he rarely bothers to explain? Yet the killing of civilians in Mosul, where the “good war” was being fought by the US and Iraq, while condemned even by Amnesty International, was largely given a pass by the press that Trump claims to oppose. I am not saying Americans should stop supporting Trump. What I am saying is that at this crucial juncture, which I have previously called a rah rah moment, warning that such moments are the most dangerous of all in our  history, Trump needs watchdogs to keep him straight, not cheerleaders to encourage him to keep flip-flopping and being wishy-washy.

After all, when the public absolutely demands something, the msm find it impossible to oppose them for very long. You must demand an end to the provocation of Russia and its allies, and if moral and practical arguments have not persuaded you, then have a look at some military reasons shown below.

We now know that the allegations of a Russian hacking were false. Anyone paying attention knew that the leaks had to have come from the inside. In fact, Craig Murray, a close associate of Julian Assange, said he was involved in passing along this info trove to someone else and that it came from a disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporter. Oh, no, said 17 intel agencies in unison, only Russia had the motive to disclose damning evidence about Hillary to the public. After all, why would a Bernie Sanders supporter be disgruntled about Hillary’s winning the primary thanks to dirty tricks played on Bernie by her campaign?

Anyone with a brain cell knew the Shadow Government was lying as usual. After all, CIA assets are trained in lying. They’re experts.

But this week the world learned that the CIA has software designed to make it look like the Russians are hacking us.

Oh but, said 17 intel agencies, trained to lie, we never used this software, just had it lying around for amusement. Trust us.

I say all this to remind you that the US Deep State/Shadow Government will never be persuaded by reason or diplomacy to tell the truth or stop destroying peaceful and stable countries with their color revolutions and their indiscriminate bombing raids.

Which is why I have decided to translate a long article detailing most of the innovations in Russian military hardware. The first installment appears below, along with other supporting information. For the same reason, I had previously posted my translation from Chinese of the Dongfeng missile, capable of wiping out the entire US instantaneously. But that was in 2013. There is a new and better Dongfeng now. What’s the next step up from instantaneously?

Clearly, neither the Pentagon nor the State Department will ever stop creating chaos and destabilizing perfectly functional countries until they are stopped. I am not suggesting that Washington needs to be nuked to stop the Neocons/Neoliberals in their tracks. What I am saying is that they must probably be convinced with incontrovertible proof that they cannot defeat Russia. To do so would mean defeating China and Iran as well, and within a few short years, the rest of the world could become sick and tired of the US-generated mischief as well, and might very well abandon us. Already, Asian, Middle Eastern, African and South American countries are buying up military hardware made in Russia or China. Europe is interested in their hardware as well and is waiting for the sanctions to be lifted. And of course, the US has been buying rocket engines from Russia to launch its satellites.

I have been trying for years to persuade the public, from a moral and practical standpoint, to support politicians who stand for a more-rational foreign policy. There are precious few, but Hawaiian congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is a commendable stand-out. Now to complement this, I hope to be able to post regular reports aimed at showing why our constant provocation of Russia, and also Russian allies China and Iran, is a bad idea from a military standpoint.

Http://inosmi.ru/military/20170302/238812175.html

Much or all of the translation below is from an into-Russian translation of an article appearing in Swedish in a Swedish journal, which is, unfortunately, available by subscription only.

A new Putin tool: “Satan-2” can cover a territory the size of France

03/02/20173718129

Olle Ohlsén Pettersson

In recent years, Russia has invested heavily in modernizing its armed forces. In addition to the innovative missile system, it includes new nuclear submarines and one advanced air defense system.

On Wednesday, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu presented in the State Duma new plans for their development. Here are some types of weapons that affect the balance of the world – and in the Baltics.

RS-28 “Sarmat”: “Satan-2”

The RS-28 Sarmat is an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead. It can cover an area comparable in size to Texas or France. The missile has a range of 11 thousand km, and weighs 100 tons. It was developed to replace the older R-36M Voevoda, known as the “Satan”. [This is the name assigned by NATO, not Russia—Don]

End of translation

Comparison of US-Russian arms

by Don Hank

The problem with US armaments is cost. The armed forces do not buy efficiently and are sitting ducks for cost overruns and boondoggles, thanks to lobbying and politics in general, problems that Russia has got under control for the most part. Take the F-35. So far it has cost $400 billion to develop. Yet it is at a disadvantage over, say, the Russian S-35 in several ways, including speed, a key factor in dog fights, altitude and number of missiles carried.

Here is what BGR says:

“America’s F-35 stealth fighter platform, which was just formally introduced in 2015 with the F-35B, carries a price of around $100 million per unit, and its stated specs are largely inferior to those Russia claims of the T-50. The plane is expected to enter full production next year, and Russia has already committed to buying ‘at least one squadron of the planes from the first batch’.” [a squadron is anywhere from 12 to 24 aircraft—Don]

The cost of the Russian S-35 is only $65 million, lots cheaper. However, the F-34 is superior in bvr (beyond visible range) combat, thanks to its superior stealth.

The other match receiving world  attention is between the ultimate stealth fighters, the US F-22 Raptor and the Russian Sukhoi PAK FAT-50, both superb fighters rather evenly matched all in all.

However, the Raptor costs $350 million per unit and has suffered enormous birth pangs, as described by the NY Post, while the PAK FAT-50 reportedly “costs a fraction of the Raptor.

More on Russian armaments

http://thediplomat.com/2017/03/russias-navy-to-field-2-new-guided-missile-warships-by-2020/

http://thediplomat.com/2017/03/russia-moves-ahead-with-future-strategic-stealth-bomber-project/

http://thediplomat.com/2017/03/russia-to-arm-nuclear-subs-with-new-supersonic-cruise-missile/

http://thediplomat.com/2017/02/russia-to-commission-worlds-largest-nuclear-icebreaker-in-2019/

Chinese journalist interviews Assad

Interview between Assad and Chinese reporter. Compare this intelligent interview on foreign and military affairs with any interview with any Western official or politicians on such a topic. And compare the articulate and thoughtful Assad with the religious fanatic thug in Riyadh.

But note Assad’s view of Erdogan vs that of Putin. And yet the Syrian president gets along with Putin. This is the essence of diplomacy, which almost the entire West has lost.

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/assad-thanks-russia-and-china-fighting-wests-agenda-instability-video/ri19178

Don Hank

Another rah rah moment in American history

Trump victory: another rah rah moment

by Don Hank

I wonder if you will recall that the GW Bush wars were started by rah rah talk, as when Dubbya stood at ground zero and, with his arms draped around two NY firemen, proclaimed “the people who knocked down these buildings are going to hear from us.”

So ask yourself: Did “the people who knocked down these buildings” really hear from us? Now every American who experienced that moment lived through the wars that followed. But remember that the “people who knocked down these buildings” were mostly Saudis because it was they who founded and funded – together with the US Deep State – Al-Qaeda. But instead of declaring war on the Saudis, our real enemy, we attacked the enemies of our enemy, the Taliban (which had around that time plotted to oust the Saudi royals) and Saddam, who ran a secular type government with little or no emphasis on Shariah and even had a Christian in his cabinet. The Saudis hate secular leaders and the US helps them eliminate them. (Here is a clue as to why we are so obliging to them: http://laiglesforum.com/how-the-petrodollar-perpetuates-islamic-terror-2/3315.htm).

Thus, absurdly, Dubbya was aiding and abetting the “people who knocked down these buildings” and killed up to 3000 Americans.  And he and his Neocon pals had to know that the Christians and other large groups would leave Iraq in droves if we “won,” and that chaos would ensue, forcing the US to occupy.

And how about that Afghanistan? What a great victory! Rah rah. Not. US and allied troops are still there and the carnage is heart-wrenching – for all but the arms industry and its financiers.

Thus we can state with confidence that, facing the TV cameras at ground zero that day, George W. Bush was thumbing his nose at a bleeding America. (This fits in perfectly with Bush’s cover-up of the Saudi role in 9-11 as reported subsequently by the Washington Post ).

Now with that deception in mind, you will note the unbridled euphoria over the Trump election. Rah rah. Millions of Americans were relieved that we would now have peace.

And in fact, we might.

But we might not either.

Yes, Donald Trump had promised he would cooperate with Russia. The prospect of peace that this signaled is one important reason many Democrats crossed over to vote for him, for example.

But what many of us have forgotten is the eerily similar rah rah moments of the Bush years and what rah rah moments usually mean in our great country. The greatness often lies solely in the rah rah, not in the situation on the ground, in the aftermath, our bleeding hearts and pocket books.

Some exceptionally alert observers are already pointing out that Trump has picked two rank Neocons for his cabinet, who have both warned about “Russian aggression” in Ukraine, despite the fact that it was the US and Europe who started and supported the bloody coup in Kiev for the obvious purpose of goading Russia into a defensive action that could be spun by our media into “aggression.”

Trump’s presumptive defense secretary has warned that the Russian “aggression” in Ukraine is “worse than we think.” This is a lie, as you know if you follow the web site that provides regular sitreps on the conflict in E. Ukraine. Bookmark this site and go there at least once a week. If enough Americans did, our “leaders” would not dare arm the Kiev fascists. Even, if you followed the OSCE’s regular Ukraine reports, you would also know the aggressor is Kiev’s troops (many of which are fascists, eg, the Azov Battalion) that the US government supports.

But Mattis is not the only one beating the war drums against the country Trump promised to “cooperate with.” Mike Pompeo, Trump’s pick for CIA director, recently returned from a trip to Kiev, and after fruitful discussions with the Neo-Nazis there, says that “Putin’s aim is to take over Ukraine” (Mike would have fit in nicely in a Clinton cabinet) , implying that Russia wants to attack Ukraine militarily. If that were true, Putin would have done the job a long time ago before NATO had deployed troops all over Eastern Europe, including 30,000 at the Russian borders (reminding Russians of Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa that destroyed much of Russia and killed millions of Russians). No one is saying that a Ukraine thoroughly disgruntled with US and EU lies, like the false promise to let the country join the EU, might not voluntarily ally itself with Russia. It would be hard to paint that as Russian aggression, but recent anti-Russian (hence racist) drivel from the Western msm shows that no lie is too big for the warmongering elites to manage.

The latest E. Ukraine (Novorossia is the real name) sitrep shows that the Neo-Fascist sympathizers the US government supports in Kiev are now recruiting Lumpenproletariat, common thugs, with promises of free land, stolen from Russian speakers.

Now we are at another crossroads, another rah rah moment in American history. The euphoria over the Trump victory is great. Many are willing to go along with anything this leader wants. Like Bush, the Evangelicals have anointed him as God’s servant. The chessboard is arrayed exactly as before.

The question is: will you forget the lessons that Dubbya taught us and say to yourself: this time is different and the rah rah heralds a better world? Or will you recognize the rah rah moment for what it is: a time for you to say “not this time!”?

Postscript:

Writing for a news and opinion site is an endless job, as it should and must be. Since this was written, Trump is reportedly eyeing shifty arch-Neocon Mitt Romney for the position of Secretary of State.

So what’s wrong with that you ask? Here is a video featuring Mitt saying “Russia is our worst geopolitical foe” who always “lines up with the world’s worst actors”, among whom he counts Assad, the most pro-Christian leader in the Middle East, who is fighting for  his country’s life against Al-Qaeda and ISIS, groups that are armed and trained by our “ally” Saudi Arabia.

Trump has said he will cooperate with the same Putin that Romney has spent much of his career smearing.

 

Making sense of the Turkish coup attempt

Making sense of the Turkish coup attempt

 

Incirlik, pron. In-jeer-lik in Turkish but generally mispronounced as In-ser-lik by US TV anchors.

 

It has been reported by various sources that US forces in Incirlik have been surrounded by Turkish troops, although some reports now say that the standoff has been resolved.

The reason for this is that apparently, the recent failed coup against Erdogan has been attributed to the US, although this is a source of speculation. Some think Erdogan (pron. Er-do-an) himself staged the coup to consolidate his power and make himself a full-fledged dictator.

But all of this is secondary to the nitty-gritty fact that the US, via the CIA, USAID, the State Department, Soros foundations linked to the government, etc, has a long and sordid history of interference in other countries in an attempt to manipulate or overthrow governments and replace them with leaders willing to kowtow to Washington and spread senseless revolutions (which essentially started with the “Enlightenment,” as discussed here). The latest example of such US meddling may be the recent Brazil “legal” coup but no one can be sure. The latest documented example is the Ukraine debacle, with Asst. Secretary of State Victoria Nuland proudly announcing that the US had spent $5 billion of your money to overthrow a stable duly elected government and replace it with fascist-friendly “leaders” loyal to the US and EU. The net effect was chaos, with Ukraine now enjoying a standard of living that has been compared to that of Haiti.

Libya was another example. Further, the war in Syria can be traced back to the Arab Spring, a project sponsored by Washington and the EU that aimed to replace the stable democratic government of Bashar al-Assad with “moderate” Islamists and wound up spawning ISIS. Though the uprising has been portrayed as homegrown, numerous foreign fighters are involved. The US-sponsored and armed Islamist “rebels” recently beheaded a young boy. That is the new “democracy” sponsored by the US. Not the best publicity for US foreign policy, although good publicity is hard to come by.

This history of disastrous US-led interference goes back at least as far as the CIA-induced coup in Iran in 1954 that unseated a very popular secularist president, had him killed and replaced with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, a very unpopular man famous for torture and murder of his opposition. In 2013 the CIA admitted its involvement. Pahlavi was eventually overthrown by rebels loyal to the Khomeini, an Islamic fundamentalist and Iran has been a thorn in Washington’s side ever since. Without our interference, Iran could be under secular rule instead of being dominated by Islamic fanatics. Only the Wahhabist Saudi Rat Pack is happy about this situation, which makes Iran an outcast.

Other admissions by the CIA include its admission, in 2000, of involvement in the Chilean coup to overthrow President Salvador Allende in 1973. The barbaric Augusto Pinochet, who replaced him, was subsequently tried for human rights abuses.

Kosovo is another example of US meddling and has produced a Muslim state where historic churches have been razed or damaged and no Christian cemetery has been left unscathed. The story is completely covered up, perhaps because the truth would be too much of an embarrassment to the Clintons, who made the decision to invade this once-Christian country and carve out a caliphate. By a twist of fate, I seem to be the only Western blogger who has uncovered these uncomfortable facts, as reported here.

All of this horrible embarrassment owes to the geniuses in the US State Department, who think they can control the world but keep winding up with unintended consequences that badly damage US relations with other countries. They are godless manipulators who keep proving the existence of God, the only thing standing between them and success in their Satanic plans.

What is happening now in Incirlik, Turkey, is another unintended consequence of US policies, in this case, the policy of “isolating” Russia. In truth, we are isolating the US, slowly but surely, as one ally after the other turns away from Washington in horror and disgust (as when almost every US ally in the world joined the

Chinese investment bank AIIB against vociferous warnings from Washington—it was a soft coup that went virtually unnoticed in the msm).

Finally, since Russia seems to have at least some involvement in the counter-coup, it is highly relevant that the US, mostly via the CIA, was deeply involved in coups and subversion against Russia, because this meddling provides a motive for the Russians to help counter this Turkish coup. Thus, even if it turns out the US was not involved, the blatant, counterproductive interference in governments throughout the world for at least 60 years, much of it aimed at countering Russian influence, has made the world justifiably suspicious of US involvement in all coups and terror events everywhere.

The CIA has not yet admitted to its involvement in the troubles in Chechnya that led to war in that Russian region, but this story is well documented and has been reported in minute detail by Zero Hedge. There are few pertinent reports in the Establishment msm, but a few have appeared, for example, here, here and here, which support the Zero Hedge report (I say that because the rabid Neocons who run the lying US media keep pretending ZH is unreliable).

Again, there is no telling whether the US was involved in the coup against Erdogan, and that is not the point I want to make.

I think it is clear that the Russians warned Erdogan of the coup attempt. You will recall that a Turkish fighter plane had shot down a Russian jet over Syria and this had led to a catastrophic rift in Turkish-Russian relations. But there was too much at stake for both parties to allow this contention to continue. Russia had agreed to lay a gas pipeline across Turkey that would supply Europe. Turkey would have had a steady income from the profits of gas sales. That deal is back on the table now thanks to Putin’s willingness to forgive.

Almost miraculously, the Russo-Turkish relationship may have been saved by some stories, whether true or false, including the report that the pilot who shot down the Russian plane over Syria was not following Erdogan’s orders in so doing but had perhaps followed orders from the US. That pilot has meanwhile been arrested, suspected of complicity with the coup. The story that the pilot was working against Erdogan is possible if far-fetched. But truth is not what matters in this case to the parties involved, which are eager to mend fences.

Like so much of what has happened in world affairs, this renewed Russian-Turkish rapport can be classified as payback for US meddling. And it could change the geopolitical landscape in ways that Washington will regret. US ally and NATO member Germany is already feeling the bite, as reported here.

The lesson, again, is that attempts to manipulate geopolitical events will always fail.

But don’t expect the Neocon maniacs in Washington to learn it.

 

 

Next US president must understand the Putin Principle

The disarmingly simple Putin Principle in foreign policy

by Don Hank

One of the cardinal points raised by Sun-tzu in his “Art of War” is the proposition of knowing the enemy. I will take that a step further and say that sometimes knowing the enemy leads to the discovery that he is not the enemy after all. And one further step: to the discovery that one is one’s own enemy.

The US government is the classic example.

There seem to be an alarming number of people who actually believe that hoax email making its rounds claiming that Hillary’s emails have been hacked by Russia.

First off, the story originated with a well-known hoaxster with the pseudonym Sorcha Faal, who specializes in these Russian fairy tales.

Secondly, if Americans do not have the ability and resources to hack into Hillary’s server, how in heaven’s name would they be able to hack into the Kremlin server?

The Kremlin is not run like the Washington government. No official would dare to let down his guard enough for a Westerner to hack into Kremlin emails. The offender would not get a smack on the wrist, the way Hillary did. Russians are serious about their government. Sadly, Americans have degenerated to the extent that very few care any more or believe that any government could possibly be serious about protecting its people. Why would any government be more honest than ours?, they reason.

The whole idea behind this fake story is that the Kremlin wants to interfere in our elections.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You will recall that when Putin was asked his opinion of Donald Trump, he ventured to say that Trump was clever (Trump later expanded this compliment claiming Putin had called him a “genius”), but in his very next breath, Putin made it clear that Russia has a policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. He was thereby establishing an unmistakable contrast between Russia and the Washington government.

I will attempt in a few lines here to explain a somewhat complex cultural and political situation in Russia as well as the mind of President Vladimir Putin.

One of the most important things you need to know about Putin is that he is serious about government business. Unlike our demented officials, he does not play irresponsible games. I am just now reading his biography, and recently came across an anecdote about his early days in the KGB school in Leningrad, now Saint Petersburg (BTW, Putin was not a spy, but rather an intel analyst). A few of his class mates — senior classmen — were discussing a certain hypothetical order that they might receive in the field.

When it came his turn to add his opinion, Putin said “that order is illegal.” Their attitude was “so what? It is an order.”

He said, “it is still illegal.”

That brief anecdote speaks volumes about who Vladimir Putin is and why he is respected in his own country (his popularity is still in the 80% range) and. increasingly, abroad.

Now, taking this further, Putin saw many years ago that the Washington government lies and cheats. It makes its own laws as it goes and enforces laws that are not on the books. All illegal in the international sphere. (Example: James Baker promised Gorbachev that the US would never encroach on Russian borders. Once an agreement was reached with Russia regarding relations with the US, the US broke that promise, and it is still doing so, with NATO building up heavy forces along Russia’s western border). Americans have been brainwashed into believing that lawless behavior in Washington is a good thing because America is “exceptional.” But this slipshod attitude toward the serious matter of international law – which, after all, governs the circumstances that lead to either war or peace – has led to the near-total destruction of Kosovo (in case you missed these, see: http://laiglesforum.com/so-youre-fond-of-nato-eh-mr-cruz-check-out-these-videos-of-nato-in-kosovo/3690.htm and http://laiglesforum.com/look-whats-happening-in-the-european-region-that-nato-defended/3786.htm), Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Putin discovered long ago that the US was on the wrong track and set about to develop a strategic policy for his country that would restore legality to geopolitics and so impress the rest of the world that they would eventually trust Russia more than any other country. I like to call this policy the Putin Principle. The Kremlin calls it soft power.

It is the iron-clad implementation of this simple principle that led to Russia’s policies in Ukraine (particularly in the former Ukrainian territory of Crimea) and Syria.

The Western press and political class has brainwashed an astounding number of Westerners into believing that Russia is promoting lawlessness in these regions when in fact, even in its military operations, it is respecting sovereignty of nations and ethnic groups and their territories.

The West claims in unison that the accession of Crimea to Russia was an “annexation,” whereby Russia simply snatched territory in a selfish expansionist move. And yet no serious party in this same Western world protested the referendum in Scotland or claimed it was illegal. The US and Europe were all prepared to accept whatever the outcome might be, including Scotland’s separation from the UK, based on the principle that Scotland had a right to sovereignty, even though it was technically part of the UK. And once that vote became official, the Crimean people were free to accede to Russia.

Yet what was perfectly legal in Scotland was “aggression” in Crimea, even though over 90% of Crimeans (the vast majority of whom are Russian speakers and consider themselves Russian) voted in this referendum to break away from Ukraine – and for the same reasons that many Scots (just short of a majority) wanted to break away from the UK, namely, cultural identity.

Thus, by our own Western logic as applied to Scotland, what the Crimeans did was legal and not in any way reprehensible.

Russia simply accepted the will of the Crimean people and honored their sovereignty. But of course, Russia is illegal by definition in the West.

Likewise, in Syria – in contradistinction to the US, which waded into an internal conflict without any invitation from the Syrian people – Russia entered the conflict only when the duly elected president of Syria invited it to do so. In fact, it made a similar offer to the Iraqi government but stayed out of that conflict when the Iraqis declined the offer, choosing instead to allow the US to pretend to fight ISIS there and create one of their  trademark messes.

The “exceptional” US government went into Syria illegally while Russia entered as an invited guest. The US was exceptionally lawless. Yet it accuses Russia of “expansionism,” just as England – the most expansionist country that ever existed, touting an empire on which the sun never set – had once accused Russia of expansionism during the conflict with Turkey in the 19th Century.

Thus the West has always written its own laws as it goes, based on nothing but bare-faced propaganda.

Note that Putin not only wants to apply this more-righteous and in fact, more common-sense international policy of strict adherence to international law to Russia but at the same time, to use this higher virtue as an arm of soft power by contrasting it with the West’s ad hoc law of the Wild West. He and his government, often via the mouthpiece of foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, use every opportunity (eg, UN speeches, speeches before the Valdai Club, press conferences, interviews, RT) to drive this concept home.

The American public will perhaps be the last to grasp this simple concept, not because they are stupid but because they have been brow-beaten into feeling that facing the truth about foreign affairs is somehow unpatriotic. But elsewhere, including in Europe, there are high ranking actors who seem to understand it. And they respect Russia for what must be called a superior approach to geopolitics. After all, ISIS would not be a threat if the Russian principle had been applied in the West.

Commemorating the 1968 anti-Jewish campaign in Poland

Commemorating the March 1968 anti-Jewish campaign in Poland

by Don Hank

The Jerusalem Post recently ran a column commemorating the expulsion of Jews from Poland in March of 1968 in the regime of Wladyslaw Gomulka.

The Jews in communist Poland in 1968 were seen as sympathetic to Israel’s gains in the 6 Day War of 1967, by which Israel seized considerable land, including the Syrian Golan Heights and this angered the communist regime, leading to said expulsion of Jews.

Issues surrounding Israel are always delicate at best, particularly this Six Day War. Note that current Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad’s father Hafez was not yet the leader of Syria at the time of the war, but did side with Russia, which helps explain the Neocon hatred of Bashar Al-Assad today. On the other side of the ledger, Bashar Al-Assad, while still an opponent of Israel due to the loss of territory in the 1967 war, is a stalwart protector of Syrian Christians and other minorities.

Further, in 1994, at President Clinton’s persuasion, his father Hafez had adopted a conciliatory stance toward Israel. Yet when Bashar tried in 2007 to hold peace talks with Israel, the Bush administration took an inexplicable hardline approach. Likewise, Israel rebuffed him with surprising harshness as described here.

QUOTE:

“Attempting once again to break the impasse, Syria’s ambassador to the United States called for talks to achieve a full peace agreement with Israel in late July 2008. “We desire to recognize each other and end the state of war,” Imad Mustafa said in remarks broadcast on Israeli army radio. “Here is then a grand thing on offer. Let us sit together, let us make peace, let us end once and for all the state of war.”

Three days later, Israel responded by sending a team of commandos into Syria to assassinate a Syrian general as he held a dinner party at his home on the coast.”

The first paragraph of the above quote is confirmed here, but this source fills in a missing key fact: the Syrians were offering peace in exchange for return of the Golan Heights to Syria.

The last paragraph of this quoted portion is confirmed by no less than the Times of Israel here.

(Footnote: This bizarre behavior becomes understandable only in light of the US’s petrodollar agreement with the Saudis, by which the US became a de facto mercenary force for Saudi Arabia in exchange for the latter’s propping up the US dollar.  By virtue of its economic and security dependence on the US, Israel is also bound to the same terms, creating a de facto US-Israel-Saudi axis. The Saudis’ Wahhabi sect of Sunni will not tolerate any non-Sunni or secular leader in the Middle East and has enlisted US aid in ousting all such leaders since the mid-60s. Thus you will recall that the attackers on September 11, 2001 were almost all Saudis, who belonged to Al-Qaeda, a Saudi-founded and funded terror group. Yet GW Bush completely ignored these facts and gave the Saudis a pass, apparently believing the US public would never figure out the motivation behind his actions. Be sure your sin will find you out… Numbers 32:23).

Later, in the 70s, Russia staged a similar anti-Jewish purge. These events have led some to consider Russia (and to a lesser extent, Poland) to be anti-Jewish. Yet Putin has traveled to Israel and come back with glowing reports of a prosperous and friendly country. He not only apparently has his own personal positive feelings toward Israel but also knows that Russian Christians consider Israel to be the Holy Land that gave them the Bible and Jesus. Unlike Western leaders, Putin honors the culture and religion of his people. Despite propaganda to the contrary, Christians – whether American or Russian – are the most Israel-friendly group in the world. Putin has also negotiated extensively with Netanyahu, who seems to understand Russia’s potential role as an ally and protector, even as it judiciously maintains a precarious balance between Israel and Hezbollah in Syria.

I was in Poland in the early 70s and heard nothing about this purge. In fact I met Jewish people with important posts in the Polish government.

The point is that it was not the Russian or Polish people who spawned the anti-Jewish sentiment that boiled over in Poland in 1968 and in Russia in the 70s. It was the communist government.

While there are still ultranationalist Russian groups trying to stir up anti-Semitic sentiment, Putin has wisely charted a course that circumvents, and where possible, suppresses these groups. (I watch or read almost all of Putin’s press conferences and speeches and can confirm that no audience member ever asks Putin any anti-Semitic question. It is clear to me that he would severely reprimand anyone who dared to express anti-Semitic views.)

The irony of it all is that the Neocons in the West are trying to minimize, smear and eventually overthrow Putin simply because he will not kowtow to them. Yet they must realize that, should Putin leave office, a real hardline warmonger could come along and replace him. One of the main complaints among the Russians is that Putin is too soft on the West but that is because his is a 100% diplomatic style. I think Putin is by far the smartest statesman the world has seen in a long time, perhaps ever.

Thus the Neocons are on a reckless, potentially suicidal course that could end in WW III, a nuclear one at that.

Donald Trump is the only candidate who does not talk like a warmonger. Ironically, despite all the propaganda to the contrary, the world is probably safer with a Trump presidency.

Slapdown of Erdogan propagandist

The owner of a Turkish web site recently wrote the pro-Islamist email shown below to a group of his readers. I responded as follows and as shown in brackets and bold typeface in his message:

Ahmet,

In our quaint culture, when a person like you presents arguments to us, it is our custom to respond with arguments of our own — unless, of course, your side has a knife at our throat, as has typically been the case in the past.

Unfortunately, despite the best efforts to beautify the pig’s face, there is a gradual shift in Western opinion toward Russia and against Turkey in the issue of the downing of the Russian plane over northern Syria.

The story of Recep Tayyip Erdo?an and son Bilal’s funding of ISIS is now firmly implanted in our Western consciousness (your unconfirmed diversionary assertion that Assad also participated in trade with ISIS is irrelevant to the emerging narrative regarding Turkey because Turkey is our coalition “partner” and fellow NATO member, thanks to the suicidal tendencies of our “leaders”). BTW, it is interesting how similar your arguments are to those of our own Neocons, who also make liberal use of diversionary tactics.

To tell you the truth, Ahmet, Islam is such an absurd idea to most Westerners that it can only be spread by terror, as you well know and as Mohammed also knew. That is how the Turks managed to spread it in the 14th century, not by means of intellectual arguments but by murdering Byzantine Christians and other kafir wholesale, as laid out masterfully by Bill Warner in his book and in this video.

The early Muslims knew that if they relied solely on apologetics in an appeal to the intellect and the spiritual senses (ie, the approach taught by Jesus), they would never have gotten to first base with Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc, which is why you folks massacred us. You were wise enough to know that dead people don’t debate.

As for why Muslim apologetics is ineffectual, I have shown here why the message of Islam fails to convince unless the sword is applied generously by our debating opponents.

My responses to your attempted arguments are in red typeface below.

I can see that you read some of the Western press in order to formulate your arguments. I would like to see at least some deeper thought go into your pro-terror propaganda in the future, because for one thing, I like a challenge and your diversionary Neocon arguments are anything but intellectually challenging, and secondly, if you start analyzing more deeply, you will realize that you can’t provide to sentient Westerners any attractive arguments in favor of Muslim terror and countries that fund and support it. I am sorry that you compel me to point out the obvious.

I am hoping and praying that you and your fellow Muslims –  and especially your allies in NATO – will open their eyes to the truth and heed the clear message of President Vladimir Putin and foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, the only leaders in the world sincerely and effectively opposing terror — even as Washington and Brussels dither and slither.  If you still think you can create propaganda to defend your terror-supporting regime through an appeal to the intellect of the non-brainwashed, you will need to find out what the civilized side says that is swaying world opinion. You may try this site. Once you have heard the other side, you may then be better informed in preparing your truth-resistant arguments.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this topic. I look forward to your disingenuous and ineffectual response.

Best,

Don Hank

 

 

PUTIN: “The breakup of the USSR was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century.” [Westerners don’t say this, so it is irrelevant to us, although in terms of fighting terror and barbarism, if the countries of the former Soviet Union could back today’s re-Christianized Russia in defending the West, we probably would not be seeing such an uncontrollable proliferation of terror, the hordes of “refugees” flooding Europe or the US-style wars that sow chaos everywhere]

FACT: As a matter of fact, the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. With the empire gone, flocks of sheep numbering millions of people and inhabiting a geography that extends from Bosnia-Hercegovina to Yemen and from Morocco to Iraq, were left without their shepherd. All of the man-made catastrophes and crises in recent history are directly connected with the power vacuum left behind by the Ottoman Empire. These include the Yugoslav civil war, the Iraqi civil war, the Syrian civil war, the Libyan civil war, Greece’s bankruptcy, the Crimea crisis, the rise of the Wahhabi/Salafist creed and so-called “Islamic” terrorism. [The Ottoman Empire was created by massacring our fellow Christians, as shown above. I am amazed that you think the revival of this cruel despotic empire could be an attractive idea to civilized people at all, let alone Christians. Whom did you think you were addressing here?]

PUTIN: “The Russian jet never violated Turkey’s air space and was shot down without warning.”

FACT: In the last 18 months, the Russians had intentionally violated the air space of many allied countries including the UK. In Turkey’s case, they had been bombing Turkey’s allies in Syria [The coalition was formed to fight terror. If by your “allies,” you are referring to the Turkish speaking Syrian minority (erroneously reported to be descended from the people of Turkmenistan), these are people fighting the troops of Bashar Al-Assad, the legitimate, duly elected president of the Syrians. These allies of yours were an ethnic minority fighting the Syrian people and their government. The peoples of the Western world have no interest in supporting their illicit and criminal behavior — such as the cold blooded murder of a coalition pilot. Further, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov had already made it clear that Russia does not accept the absurdity of “good” terrorists vs “bad” terrorists, and Obama knew that when he allowed Russia to form the coalition. Turkey had to know it as well. The Turkish speaking fighters in Syria are terrorists, and given Erdo?ans known support for ISIS, it is not surprising that he would have warm feelings toward these terrorists in northern Syria. He is clearly the friend of all Sunni Muslim terrorists and is completely out of place in NATO], then flying over Turkish air space and thumbing their noses at the Turks. They needed the lesson. The warnings issued by the Turkish fighter jet were heard by US pilots flying in the region. One of the recordings circulating in the Internet was supplied by a pilot flying for the Lebanese airline MEA.

[The problem for you is that when coalition planes are participating in a shared mission, it is absurd on its face for one coalition member to intentionally shoot down another coalition member’s plane and the UN has already condemned the Turkish action on these grounds, so that’s that. The self-defense argument is moot. Turkey knew that its own country was not threatened by planes of its own coalition. Nor did coalition members have the mission of protecting certain terror groups in Syria].

PUTIN: “Turkey arms Isis, buys Isis oil.”

FACT: This week the US published a report saying that Russia’s ally Assad was buying most of the Isis oil to supply its troops. The Americans also identified and blacklisted the middle man who made this trade possible. As Putin knows well, Turkey’s leading energy supplier is none other than Russia. That is not all. The tanks and infantry vehicles used by Isis fighters are Russian. The rifles they hang over their shoulders and the AA guns they mount behind their pickup trucks are also Russian. This equipment can only be maintained with Russian spare parts and loaded with Russian ammunition. [There were Russian weapons all over the Middle East and they fell into the hands of terrorists. Unless you have concrete evidence that the Russians knowingly supplied these weapons to their own enemies (which you know very well they did not), this argument only serves as a distraction. (It is strangely similar to the kind of childish arguments regularly made by US Neocons). In the case of the Turkish purchase of oil, there is satellite imaging proving beyond any doubt that Turkey purchased ISIS oil, whereas here is no such evidence that Assad bought the ISIS oil. Putin showed these images to all members of the G20. This enraged Erdo?an at the time but it also led to the destruction of the oil trucks that were enriching him and his son, enraging him beyond his limits of self control. These were key factors in his desperate decision to shoot down a coalition plane and murder its pilot. He then made the stupid blunder of defending the murder, making him look complicit in a war crime. Finally, it is clear to anyone with knowledge of US military and foreign policy that our “leaders” also clandestinely support terror, in tandem with your country (as evidenced, for example, here,  here and here or by googling, for example, the terms: benghazi turkey gun running.) Therefore, the peoples of the West are locked in a death grip with our own renegade governments and also with Muslim terror groups and countries like Turkey that fund them. We can only win with God’s help and with the pure unadulterated truth as our weapon of choice. But while your master has endorsed the use of lies (taqiyya) when dealing with non-believers, our Master has said: ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.]

 

We are being played: French strikes confirm my warning

by Don Hank

In this commentary, written the day after the recent terror attacks in Paris, I warned that French president Hollande may use the Paris terror attacks to overthrow Assad. I based this in part on the aftermath of the 911 attacks, reminding:

… GW Bush used the 911 attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, which had not aided the 911 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.

I saw an analogy with the Paris attacks, where the Saudis, the true perpetrators in the 911 attacks, represent ISIS, the true perpetrators in the French attacks, and the war on Iraq, falsely purporting to be revenge for those attacks (even though Iraq had nothing to do with them), representing the attack on Syria with the full intent of destroying the government of President of Assad, one of the last truly secular regimes in the Middle East that is not aligned with the US government.

Meanwhile, European cable TV stations like the French channel TV5, German Deutsche Welle, BBC, Italy’s RAI and US media outlets are constantly showing how nations all over the world are showing their solidarity with France, illuminating their monuments with the colors of the tricolore and of course, in the midst of this international blend of grief, solidarity and hysteria, no one anywhere (except me) dares to point out that the EU’s open borders and quotas for refugees from the Muslim world are some of the main reasons for terror attacks of the kind the world saw playing out in Paris.

Last night France did indeed execute 150 air strikes against the supposed ISIS stronghold Raqqa. They did so illegally, without the permission of the Syrian people, as I had suggested they would in my article.

Meanwhile ISIS spokespeople have said that the the targets were no longer occupied by ISIS.

The uninitiated would expect ISIS to be lying. So how can we check on this? I decided to do a web search and find out whether Russia had already struck in Raqqa. Indeed, Russian planes, acting legally at the invitation of the Syrian people, had struck Raqqa in early October and again on Oct. 15, as reported here. Reuters reports on Nov 6 of further Russian strikes in Raqqa.

This report from Oct. 5 shows that Russia had already knocked out an ammo dump in Raqqa. Yet the French claim that last night’s strikes knocked out an ISIS munitions dump in the same town.

Since I was able to find reports of at least 3 raids by Russia on ISIS targets in Raqqa, it seems odd that France would need to strike again. Certainly, Russia’s strikes would have left few targets for the French, and that would seem to corroborate ISIS’ claim that the French hit empty targets. Why would they do that? No doubt to claim those areas for the “rebels” fighting Assad. If the rebels reach those areas first, would the legitimate Syrian army dare to challenge them – even with Russia backing them up?

Whereas at that time of Russia’s strikes, the US insisted that the Russian strike only hit “moderates,” the Russians said they had hit ISIS targets. One side was lying. Surely our own State Department would never lie to We the People, would they?

This site promptly showed the State Department was indeed lying:

“The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group, said at least 12 ISIS jihadists from the Islamic State group were killed in the Raqqa attack.”

Now it had been reported earlier that Syrian “rebels” (“moderates” supported by US but operating illegally under international law) intended to attack ISIS in Raqqa.

Now that France has struck again, perhaps striking no actual ISIS members (which the Russians may have routed completely in its October and November strikes in Raqqa), the “rebels.” supported by Washington and Europe, will have the propaganda advantage because the perpetually lying and treacherously deceitful Western media can claim that anyone opposing these US-backed Syrian terrorists are besmirching the memory of the dead in Paris.

You see what a despicable game is being played to gain power in Syria illegally and against the will of the Syrian people? You see how the French are preparing the ground to claim that it was they and not the Russians who liberated Raqqa – despite the fact that Russia had repeatedly struck ISIS in Raqqa throughout October and again in November and destroyed most of the targets France claimed to strike last night? We are being played just as we were in Iraq and in the Arab Spring, eg, Libya, Egypt, Syria….

If we the people again fail to see through the ruse, we will get what we deserve. That is, if indeed the Western powers are only pretending to fight ISIS, as Obama did in Syria by dragging his feet and even “accidentally” air dropping arms to ISIS, and as Hollande is obviously doing in France, by pretending to attack ISIS when in fact his actual target is Assad, the protector of Christians and minorities in Syria, ISIS will continue to grow unopposed and the Western world will be in thrall to these people whom Donald Trump aptly calls “cockroaches.”

Did the French choose to bomb Raqqa so that the anti-Assad rebels could get there first and claim it as theirs? The evidence is piling up to confirm this thesis.

I believe the Paris attacks were indeed used as a pretext to attack Syria without permission from the Syrian legitimate government for the purpose of claiming the very important city of Raqqa for the rebels. This is an indirect attack on Assad, exactly as I had foreseen in yestereday’s commentary.

 

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

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.

 

 

Are the Russians upsetting the “balance” in the Middle East?

Are the Russians upsetting the “balance” in Middle East?

 

Don Hank

 

Neocons shriek that the Shiite Assad is evil and the Neocon Obama insists that anyone messing with his Sunni pets in ISIS in Syria is “upsetting the balance” in the region. (Neocons described here).

But what balance?

The balance in the entire Muslim world had been upset since 632 AD, with Sunnis, the overwhelming majority, lording it over the less-radical Shiites. Thus of these 2 branches, Sunnis are by far the more violent and intolerantOnly Sunnis currently invade other countries (with US assistance) and kill non-believers such as Christians. Backed up by the compliant media, the Neocon Ministry of Propaganda, keeps feeding us the line that all Muslims are equally evil but that the Saudis (whose proxies ISIS, al Qaeda, al Nusra, and the McCain-funded “rebels” etc, keep slitting Christian throats) are necessary to American freedom.

As a quick reference, note that there are 600 Christian churches in Shiite Iran but none in Saudi Arabia (not saying, of course, that Iranian sharia law courts are in line with Western rules of niceness).

So if Russia and its Shiite allies Syria and Iran succeed in upsetting the “balance,” which currently gives the more evil of the two Islams enormous power over the less evil, then how is that a bad thing?

Without the Shia-Sunni schism in 632, there might well be little or no war in the Arab world. But in 1973 the US signed a secret pact with the Saudis, who are Sunni, and worse, are of the Wahhabi sect, arguably the most violent and destructive ideology in the world, whereby the US agreed to support them militarily in exchange for their propping up the falling dollar. Supposedly, the pact was only intended to protect the Saudi royals and the oil fields, but yet every conflict fought by the US military in the Muslim world since then has benefited not the security of the Saudis but the spread of their violent and repressive religion. Actions speak louder than words on paper. Of course, this was cloaked in patriotic language by the presidents and state department — nonsense like “bringing them democracy” or “freedom”. But the answer to the question cui bono was invariably: Sunni (Wahhabist) Islam, the religion behind ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The US military had become a de facto mercenary force bought and paid for by Saudi Arabia.

The salient example of how the US actually supported Sunni Islam is Kosovo, where it invented a charge of “genocide” against a Christian country, Serbia, and went to a war that resulted in the creation of a Sunni Muslim state from a region with Christian roots going back centuries. (Read the “bloody truth” about Kosovo here: http://www.salon.com/1999/12/14/kosovo_11/.)

This is complicated by the fact that many Kosovars converted to Catholicism years ago, although Catholics and Orthodox have been at odds since the East-West schism in 1054. This puts Russia at odds with mainstream Western politicians in two ways:

1—Russia is Orthodox, like the Serbs and the Middle East Christians, which it supports.

2—Russia is allied with the Shiites in Iran and Syria.

That makes the Russians underdogs in two ways, and being Americans, we normally support the underdog. But the problem has been that Americans are unaware of these details because we know little history and little about the cultures of the countries that Washington seeks to control. I keep hearing from my readers that little details are unimportant.

But details are pieces of a puzzle. By discarding some pieces that appear useless when we first start assembling the puzzle, we make it impossible to insert those pieces later when we see how they fit into the whole.

When anyone expresses doubts as to the wisdom of demonizing Russia and its allies Iran and Syria, the sly Neocons invariably remind their zombie followers that “all Muslims are evil,” thereby sanctioning the killing of Iranians and Syrians. Yet they are strangely silent with regard to the Saudis and their support of the world’s most dangerous terror groups by far. Ignoring the details of Middle East culture – the missing puzzle pieces, most Americans are impotent to oppose this fallacy.

Here is how the deception works.

When Neocons discuss Iran, for example, “all Muslims are evil.” But when discussing the Saudis, they have little or nothing to say. So the real trouble makers in the Muslim world get an invisible pass while their opponents, who are now fighting ISIS, are labeled as evil and Joe Sixpack goes along with the meme. As a result, the people and their keepers perpetuate the age-old imbalance among Muslims, but this imbalance is portrayed by sly US politicians and the media as a “balance,” which may not be upset for fear of some undefined consequence.

The going narrative is full of holes. But they know that if you know the truth, you can free yourselves of their grip, help end the US’s pro-Sunni wars around the globe and help heal the Arab world and the West. As long as you believe this pernicious myth that “all Muslims are equal,” you can think that killing Muslims anywhere is a benefit to the West, giving the Neocons in Washington carte blanche to choose whichever branch of Islam to attack while granting the other – the real trouble maker – immunity. In fact, these unbalanced and one-side wars that ultimately benefit terror drive people out of their homelands and to Europe and the US, creating still more problems and solving none.

But Russians know the truth about history and culture and that is why ISIS is finally being challenged over the protests of the Western elitists desperate to save the dollar at the expense of peace in a perpetual blood-for-dollars strategy.

Jesus said: ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.

Want to be finally free?

You can start by learning the truth about the petrodollar deception, for example, by reading this and about the Sunni-Shia divide by reading

this and this.

 

Ron they never knew ye

Ronald Reagan would be crying now

 

by Don Hank

In the context of the current Syria crisis, I am seeing articles by “conservatives” suggesting that Ronald Reagan would have solved this by threatening the Russians or even shooting down Russian planes in Syria.

Conservatives (really Neocons if we are to be honest), I daresay you have forgotten who Ronald Reagan was and what made him a great statesman. His salient trait was, if anything, restraint. He was characterized precisely by not being the cowboy he was accused of being.

This year the GOP held its first major debate in a Reagan-themed venue, suggesting that the candidates were Reagan-like. All but one were the cheapest and shoddiest of imitations. Trump came closest because he is anti-establishment and tussles with the media, as Reagan had done. Of course, unlike Reagan, Trump does not exactly sound like a wise grandfather, more like a cantankerous uncle, but he is the only one who shows restraint toward Russia.

For all their hot air about Reagan, here is what today’s GOP wants you to forget:

Reagan never got the US into wars that killed thousands of Americans, the way the Bushes did.

Despite his cowboy image, exaggerated by the press, his skirmishes were brief and relatively safe. Only 19 Americans died in Grenada (although to be fair, legal experts tell us that war was not in line with international law), only two US airmen died in the 1986 attack on Libya, and no US military fighters died in Afghanistan because Reagan knew he did not dare go head to head with the Soviet Union in that conflict. Unlike today’s amateurs, Reagan knew that a nuclear confrontation would likely spell the end of civilization, if not of human life.

In fact, most of us have forgotten by now that, despite Reagan’s vehement philosophical disagreement with the Soviets, he did nothing to escalate the tension even after the Soviet Union shot down Korean Airlines flight 007 in September of 1983.

Instead of risking US lives in foreign conflicts, Reagan engaged in secret operations, for example, recruiting Osama bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan and numerous terror groups to ostensibly fight communism in Latin America and elsewhere (some of which groups we now, unfortunately, face as enemies).

Reagan also cautiously entered the conflict in Lebanon. However, instead of trying to reconcile the belligerent factions, he sided militarily with the Christian faction because he felt he should represent the people closest in religion to most Americans. Very shortly after that, the US Marine barracks were blown up by suicide bombers and he realized his mistake.

Now if he had been a Bush, he would no doubt have sacrificed still more lives for the sake of American “prestige.” Instead, to his credit, he pulled out all US troops and offered no lame excuses. The plaque on his desk said it all: “the buck stops with me.”

Now I am opposed to about everything our current radical socialist White House resident has done domestically, so the following is hard to say, but I hope you will make an effort to understand this: Like it or not, Obama’s policy of standing aside for Putin in Syria resembles Reagan’s policy in Lebanon and in the 007 shootdown incident more than the Neocon saber-rattling to which we are subjected 24-7. A good president knows when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em. Even a bad president has some good (and many bad) advisers. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

I can’t imagine the Gipper going up against Russia, and for the same reason that Obama won’t. It is just too downright dangerous. And yet, knowing the Gipper as we do, I am sure you will agree that he would not put the Syrian Christians in harm’s way as Obama has done. I would expect that Reagan would have made an effort to reconcile with Assad, knowing that the latter was protecting Christians and all other minorities in Syria.

So would Reagan have taken Israel’s side and opposed Assad over the Golan Heights?

Who knows? At any rate, you will no doubt agree that he’d have tried to find a mutually agreeable solution. On the other hand, it is true that no president, including Reagan, has ever supported making Jerusalem the capital of Israel – despite pressure to do so. Therefore, there never has been a totally pro-Israel US president.

Another important detail is that Jonathan Pollard was convicted of spying for Israel in 1987, near the end of the Reagan administration, and the president did not bow to pressure from Israel to release Pollard.

There are many unfathomables in US politics. Reagan was one of them. Yet some foolish Neocons hide behind the Reagan brand to defend their warlike policies and reckless statements about Putin.

Ron, they never knew ye.