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/