Declassified document shows Obama DID know he was creating ISIS

Declassified document proves Obama DID know he was creating ISIS

 

by Don Hank

A recent column appearing at zerohedge.com confirmed that a tweet by Donald Trump hinting that Obama knew he was creating a terror group when he sent arms to “rebels” in Syria was on the money.

 

QUOTE:

The tweet included a link to this story that appeared on Breitbart: an account of a 2012  intelligence report from the Defense Intelligence Agency predicting the rise of the Islamic State in Syria – and showing how US policy deliberately ignored and even succored it. Secured by Judicial Watch thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, the document says it’s very likely we’ll see the creation of “an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.” And this won’t just be a grassroots effort, but the result of a centrally coordinated plan: it will happen because “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts” by Syrian “opposition forces” then engaged in a campaign to “control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor) adjacent to Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar).”

 

The author reminds us that “Western countries” includes the US.

Whether Obama and Hillary are Muslims or not is hardly the issue here. They are an important part of the Saudi Rat Pack (SRP) and that is all we need to know. If there were any justice in our country, they would both hang for treason.

BTW, a lot of hullabaloo is made over the “evil Muslims,” and Christians are some of the most vociferous in condemning all Muslims for what the Saudi Rat Pack does. I agree that Islam is not the religion of peace and that Mo was basically a fraud.

However, I have interacted with Muslims lately and am getting a much more-nuanced impression of things.

Two anecdotal pieces of evidence:

I attended a local English-speaking church on Easter Sunday here in Panama, and after the service they offered free food in the church basement. We sat at a table with a guy who turned out to be Indonesian, a really nice, respectful guy who had taken part in the service. When he told us where he was from, I said aren’t you folks Muslims? He smiled and said they were. My family and I gathered that he was admitting that he was a Muslim, and for me that was no surprise. I had lived in Asia for over 3 years and had made friends and acquaintances there. I learned early that Southern Asians are open to various religions and can confess more than one religion. In fact, the Buddhists believe that there are 5 great religions and Christianity is one of them. They deeply respect Christianity. Sounds insane to most Westerners, but that is how they are.

So I told the young Indonesian Muslim church goer that I had understood that Indonesian Muslims are different from their Middle Eastern brothers. He was quick to let me know that his countrymen want nothing to do with the Saudi violence and intolerance. He was definitely sincerely incensed about this and about the fact that people might mistakenly think his countrymen might largely sympathize with radical Islam. He said there was only one small region in Indonesia where the Muslims were radical like the Saudis.

The next piece of evidence came in today. I was seated in a lounge area of a large department store waiting for my wife and daughter to finish spending their money and noticed a gent sitting beside me who was looking about as bored as me and we struck up a conversation. He turned out to be an Albanian, one of 2 diplomats opening an embassy in Panama, and he had lived in Kosovo. Many of you know that I have written a piece on Kosovo, mostly a translation about the horrors that Serbs face there. He did not deny that this had happened in the past but said that the Serbs had really abused the Albanians for years. He pointed out that over 100 years ago, Serbia had tried to illegally annex Albanian territory. I told him I didn’t think any of that justified mistreating Serbs in Kosovo, but I saw he was not to be persuaded, so I decided to change the subject a bit and told him I had heard that the Saudis had sent money to Kosovo after the war was over.

He said that Kosovars do not like Saudi interference and that he knew they were causing trouble in Kosovo.

I was shocked to hear that he and I could agree that the Saudis were behind much of the mischief in the Middle East. In fact, he was clearly disgusted by it. He insisted that no one wants terrorism (meaning Muslims) and he sounded sincere.

Clearly the Islamic world is not a monolith and we owe it to ourselves to learn from individuals like my Indonesian and Albanian friends.

I had noticed a while back that there are certain groups of people who want us to believe that Muslims are all cookie cutter copies of each other, and what I noticed about these folks is important, so please pay attention:

These folks who want us to hate ALL Muslims are by and large Neocons. Now why would the Neocons want Americans to simply hate all Muslims and not just terrorists and potential terrorists?

I cannot say for certain, but I suspect that this is because it is easier to convince Americans of the righteousness of a misguided military action by the Pentagon if the target audience of the war propaganda is a bunch of cattle who accept the notion that all Muslims are equally evil and represent an unnuanced homogeneous group. They could use this excuse to take out any leader, such as Ghadaffi, Mubarak, Saddam, and of course, Assad.

I strongly suspect this slyly implanted idea that all Muslims are evil is what is motivating many Americans to support US military engagements that, without the blanket hatred of all Muslims, would make no sense. Indeed, I have read opinions critical of Assad based on the fact that he is a Muslim and therefore is evil and not worthy of consideration. The people who expressed this opinion did not seem to care that if the US takes him out, he will be replaced by ISIS. To them there is no difference between ISIS and Assad. They are tragically wrong. Assad belongs to a subgroup of Shia Islam that is almost perfectly tolerant of other religions. Despite whatever sins he may be guilty of, he is the perfect choice for protection of minorities and has done an amazing job of creating a tolerant society in Syria. Only the made-in-USA terror groups like Al-Nusra and ISIS have changed this situation and turned groups against each other who once had learned to tolerate each other under the leadership of Assad.

I do not suspect that Trump will use hatred and suspicion of Muslims to such an untoward end. I think he was just shooting from the hip when he said we need to stop the immigration of Muslims until we can figure out what is going on.

But Hillary is another story.

Meanwhile my Albanian acquaintance was surprisingly open minded about Trump and said that Trump no doubt was not referring to all Muslims but only to people from terror-exporting countries. He said that if Trump became president Albanians would support him, but that likewise they would support Hillary if she won the presidency because her husband Bill had “helped” the Albanians in Kosovo. In other words, contrary to the doomsday warnings of both liberals and GOP higher-ups, Trump would not destroy the US’s rapport with all Muslim countries but may only sully the most radical ones, like Saudi Arabia, which is in fact the enemy of the American people and does not deserve to be coddled.

I also told him I thought Kosovo had become more unstable after the war and that NATO was just indiscriminately killing people.

Incredibly, while he disagreed on the first point, he seemed to agree that NATO was just having itself a rowdy shooting match in Kosovo!

Finally, he told me that Kosovo and Albania saved the lives of many Jews in those places. Here is that story confirmed by the Jewish Post http://www.jewishpost.com/news/Why-Albania-A-Nation-of-Muslims-Christians-Saved-Every-Jew.html.

The world is a big place and there are all sorts of nuances that we are best served to examine and try to understand. More-precise knowledge of groups of people can help both avoid unnecessary military intervention and/or make sure the groups targeted by the Pentagon and/or the State Department really are enemies and not in fact friends or potential friends of We the People. We really ought to have noticed by now that groups or nations that Washington declares to be enemies routinely turn out to be friends and vice-versa and that overly strident propaganda against anyone is generally an excuse for a needless war.

I am only just beginning to understand the Muslim world but God has allowed me to make just the kind of contacts that are helping me fill in the blanks.

 

President Hollande finally notices ISIS war

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.

 

Will Russia be first to unite the Middle East?

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:

http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/12/saudi-russo-rapprochement-back-on-track/

 

Game over for Obama power in the world?

I don’t know how to make people realize how significant just that first sentence in the QUOTE OF THE CENTURY below. Suffice to say it signals the end of Obama’s power in the world arena.

Merkel broke the ice about a week before Putin’s blockbusting speech at the UN debate, saying that Assad needs to be included in any negotiations over Syria. http://www.dw.com/en/merkel-says-assad-must-have-role-in-syria-talks/a-18736427

Other European leaders seemed to – reluctanctly — agree.

Hollande is the biggest holdout, but no one can seriously doubt that he will bow to Junker on this.

Obama can huff and bluff all he wants now but it is over. This is reminiscent of how he “warned” his partners not to join the AIIB (Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank), on the flimsy excuse that it lacked “safeguards.” If you wonder what he meant by “safeguards,” the story is here http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/150319.

I had said then that it looked like the rest of the world was turning its back on the US government. My first inkling of that was something a Chinese monetary expert had said: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141219 in a press conference given only in Chinese.

Those were the big signs that America (not Russia as many air heads have said) was being isolated as a result of its insensitivity and outright bullying.

4 major signs so far that the US is losing its place on the world stage:

1—surge of the RMB as part of dedollarization

2—The accession of almost all US allies to the AIIB, a direct competitor of the World Bank/IMF

3—Merkel’s signaling that Assad is an indispensable partner in the war on terror

4—Now, today’s news that Jean-Claude Junker is shucking off the Washington yoke and making a significant overture to Russia.

Alone, Washington can no longer support terror in the Middle East. A sad and disgraceful chapter in US and world history seems to be coming to an end.

This loss of prestige will in turn change American minds like nothing has ever done and will influence our politics. Warmongers like Fiorina are already finished. Obama seems poised to exit the stage with his tail between his legs. Likewise, the Neocons, who also supported the anti-Christian terror in the Middle East, will see much of their prestige and credibility vaporize.

There is only one alternative to that for the Neocons: WW III and the end of life on this planet. Will they risk it?

Only if YOU let them.

 

QUOTE OF THE CENTURY by no less than the head of the EU Commission:

“We can not have our relationship towards Russia dictated by Washington. It’s simply not on.”

Jean-Claude Junker

 

Junker Throws in the Towel

This article originally appeared at German Economic News. Translated from the German by Boris Jaruselski

Huge reversal: the EU seeks a normal relationship with Russia. It seems that the EU is being greatly affected by the actions of Vladimir Putin in Syria: suddenly the EU President Jean-Claude Junker is saying that the EU must not let the US dictate their relationship with Russia. He has demanded a normalization of relations – and indirectly, the end of sancitons.

The EU Commission President advocated a relaxation in the conflict with Russia. “We have to achieve a sustainable relationship with Russia. It’s not sexy, but has to be done. We can’t go on like this anymore”, he said on Thursday in Passau. It isn’t necessary to achieve overall understanding, but a sensible conversational basis. “The Russians are a proud people”, the country has “a role to play”, said Junker: “One must not remove them from the bigger picture, otherwise they’ll call again, very quickly, as we seen already.” He critisized US Presidnet Barack Obama, for having downgraded Russia as “regional power”. “Russia needs to be treated correctly”, the Luxemburgian explained. “We can not have our relationship towards Russia dictated by Washington. It’s simply not on.

This statement is particularly noteworthy. Until now, the EU always placed emphasis on having complete accord with the Americans, with the placement of the Russian sanctions. Some time ago, the US Vice President Joe Biden made it clear that the US had urged the EU to impose the sacntions. Junkers’ big back flip is confirming the statement made by Biden. It’s hard to discern what’s really going on Junker’s mind: as late as March, Junker was demanding the establishment of a EU army, which was expressly directed against Russia: such a European army would “give Russia the impression, that we are seriously intending to defend European Union’s values”, Junker said word for word, back then.