What you “know” about Aleppo is not true

Aleppo war hypocrisy uncovered

translation and commentary by Don Hank

Featured below is my translation of an article on the site of Movimento 5 Stelle (m5s), an increasingly popular anti-Establishment party which, if it comes to power in the vacuum created by Prime Minister Renzi’s resignation, is likely to take Italy out of the euro. Unlike the UK, whose leaders tenaciously still cling to the EU following the Brexit, Italy’s exit from the euro could be more brusque and throw the EU into a tailspin. Of the major anti-elite parties in the EU core countries, m5s is the boldest, most astute and most brutally honest in its critical analysis of western military and foreign policy. The article below should be book-marked for reference because it lists casualty estimates for the “good” war in Mosul and the “bad” war in Aleppo and shows that the numbers of civilians killed in US-waged wars and the Israeli conflicts with Palestine are extremely high, making Western criticism of Russia and the Syrian government look hypocritical. The article does not list the casualties in Aleppo simply because we hear or read about these every day thanks to the media dutiful reporting them in a tone clearly condemnatory of Russia (and Assad), as if only Russian wars entailed collateral damage.  This article sets the record straight, highlighting the rank hypocrisy of the US and allies.

I took the trouble to investigate independently the casualty statistics listed by Fulvio Scaglione in his article below. Here are links to 3 months of UN figures cited:




Not all of the deaths can be attributed directly to US intervention. However, ISIS and its opponents killed a very large number of people as a result of the Obama administration’s refusal to prevent ISIS from entering the towns and cities. He did, however, provide arms to “moderate” terrorists in Syria.

While many conservatives take a dim view of the UN, this organization is the only one providing data of t his kind. Without the UN, the world would be reliant mostly on biased data from outlets loyal to the US government that caused  much of the suffering.

Sadly, from my personal association with prominent and less prominent Brexit activists I have seen that only a minority of them understand that declaring their independence from the EU is only half the battle. They seem unaware that the real enemies are the US and NATO, which constantly beat the war drums against Russia and Assad, despite their own illegal and failed invasions in the Middle East, Ukraine and Kosovo, which leave the world infinitely less safe than before their interventions.

I receive alerts from the main anti-EU parties and after reading their literature, for years in some cases, I would rank them as follows in terms of their grasp of the geopolitical reality, particularly regarding US-waged wars. From most aware to least aware, they are:

Movimento 5 Stelle (m5s) (founded by Beppe Grillo. they will field a candidate for prime minister)

Front National  (founded by Marine LePen, who is eyeing a run for president of France)

Partij voor de Vrijhijd /Freedom Party (founded by Geert Wilders, who is eying a run for prime minister of Holland)

I am not including UKIP (UK Independent Party) in this list because Brits are split on their feelings toward the Atlanticist Establishment; while UKIP was instrumental in bringing about the exit of the UK from the EU, they were only one of several influential groups in that endeavor.   I would put Nigel Farage personally high on the list, because he is in line with Donald Trump – willing to deal with, rather than demonize, the Russians and Syrians. He has in fact traveled to the US to endorse Trump. However, the Brexit groups are divided with regard to remaining in NATO. Some think NATO is necessary for “defence,” despite the fact that all of NATO’s actions in recent years have been offensive and have violated international law regarding sovereignty of states. I also am not including the AfD because there is, at this point, virtually no chance that Germany will exit the EU any time soon.



What they’re not telling you about the war in Aleppo

Movimento 5 Stelle /5 Star Movement   The blog of the stars

by Fulvio Scaglione for TPI

The battle of Aleppo, with the bloodshed of recent days and the terrible years that preceded them, marked among other things the collapse of the Western information system , which is almost indistinguishable from partisan propaganda at this point. Everything in the Western narrative about Aleppo smacks of fraud and deceit. Since the publication of unfiltered and unverified data provided by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, founded and headed by an adversary of Bashar al-Assad and maintained by the British government, the word “siege” has been applied liberally for Aleppo but only in recent months, and never in the over three years that the city was attacked from three sides by rebels and jihadis, who came to occupy 60 percent of the urban territory.

But in a way, these are small details. The real issue is the refusal to confront a reality which can be summarized as: what happened in Aleppo in recent weeks is not at all exceptional. On the contrary, it is the norm of contemporary war. Don’t believe us? Then let’s have a look around. Take Mosul, the largest Iraqi city, which has been occupied by ISIS for two and a half years.

In mid-October the offensive to free it from the jihadists got underway (finally). Great fanfare, triumphant tones, exultation for civilians who “were being freed” from areas previously under the control of militants (while civilians in Aleppo who come from the neighborhoods dominated by al-Nusra Front, are not liberated but rather “escape”). Now, two months later, everything has come to a standstill and no one is talking about liberating Mosul. Not only that, the offensive by Americans, Kurds and Iraqis has been halted to such an extent that ISIS has removed 4-5 thousand fighters from the Iraqi front and sent them to retake Palmyra in Syria. Why?

The answer is very simple. The two and a half years of grueling bombing campaign gave ISIS plenty of time to organize the defenses in the city. The roads were mined or boarded up or replaced by galleries known only to the militia fighters. Some buildings were demolished to clear lines of fire; elsewhere walls were built to block the lines of fire and passage of the attackers. Finally, thousands of civilians were trapped to be used as human shields.

To be “liberated” Mosul will have to become another Aleppo: the bombings, civilian casualties, children torn apart by the strikes, and so on. There is an alternative, namely, house to house combat with hundreds and hundreds of dead Iraqis and Kurds — which has already been going on, even if military operations are almost at a standstill.

The UN Mission for assistance to Iraq (UNAMI), directed by Jan Kubis, former Foreign Minister of Slovakia (2006-2009), has made available mind-boggling data on the number of Iraqi deaths, civilian and other, of the last few months. In September, ie before the offensive on Mosul, the number of Iraqi civilians killed was 609 (951 injured); the number rose to 1,120 (with 1,005 injured) in October and to 926 (930 injured) in November.

As for the military and other combatants, the figures are: 394 killed (208 injured) in September, 672 killed (353 injured) in October, 1959 killed (and 450 injured) in November. Result? Everything blocked, meaning further suffering for imprisoned civilians in Mosul and more time for ISIS to continue building up.

Of course, nouveaux philosophes [a group similar to the Neocons in the US—Don Hank] and other clowns can harp on atrocities and human rights violations in Aleppo. But they are nothing but hypocrites. In 2004, the US Army fought two battles to “liberate” the Iraqi city of Fallujah, in fact occupied by the militants of al-Qaeda, the forerunners of the militants of al-Nusra, which play such an important role in the battle of Aleppo.

According to the independent NGO Iraq Body Count, between 572 and 616 civilians died in the first battle (April 2004); between 581 and 670 died in the second (November 2004) battle. The Americans used phosphorus arms and apparently depleted uranium. Have you ever heard of any new philosophers rending their garments over this? Do you recall Corriere de Sera [an establishment newspaper–Don] ever mentioning “slaughterhouse” in headlines about Fallujah, as it did referring to Aleppo?


And what about Gaza? According to the most conservative data, which are those published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, only 45 percent of the 2,100 Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip during the 2014 war were real civilians and non-combatants. That’s still 945 unarmed people killed in two months of clashes.

Thus it was the very countries that now cry foul over the Aleppo operations, that block motions censure Israel at the UN.  And isn’t Gaza a perfect copy of the eastern districts of Aleppo, attacked with bombs by the Russians and by Assad’s Syrians?

And yet UNICEF has informed us that in the first six months of 2016, Afghanistan had a record number of civilian casualties: 1,601 dead and 3,565 wounded. The worst half-year since the anti-Taliban invasion in 2001. According to UN estimates, 60 percent of Afghan civilians are vulnerable to attack by the Taliban and other insurgent groups and criminals.

But 40 percent of 1,601 deaths is still 640 deaths, or 640 innocent Afghans killed in six months (more than 3 per day) by troops arriving from our countries, that is, by those who are supposed to be protecting and “liberating” them. But everyone is silent; these dead do not deserve the indignation reserved for the dead of eastern  Aleppo.

Thus the war of our times is utterly disgusting. Those who pretend to believe that in Chechnya and Aleppo different things were done than elsewhere, for example in Fallujah or Gaza, are quite simply lying. All of today’s wars are fought on the backs of civilians. All of them.

And in all wars, the armed men, with or without uniforms, are, at the most, collateral victims. Politicians, military people and terrorists know this quite well. So the real issue is to avoid wars as much as possible, not to pretend that there are good wars and bad wars.

(translation from the Italian by Don Hank)


European Left martyrs Wilders, gives him big poll boost

Euro-Left creates martyr, boosts Wilders in polls

By Donald Hank

De Volkskrant was, to my knowledge, the first news outlet to report that Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders was planning to make the anti-Koran movie Fitna and Laigle’s Forum was the first news site in the nation to present a translation of that news with comments, later following it up with the news that the movie had come out on YouTube.

At the time, and ever since then, de Volkskrant has allowed all news items on Wilders to be filtered through the highly biased viewpoints of politicians and dignitaries who opposed Wilders and marginalized him as an anti-immigrant rabble rouser.

Today de Volkskrant turned a corner, reporting on a poll by the market research company TNS NIPO showing that Geert Wilders has picked up in polls since his recent arrest for “hate” and his expulsion from Britain for “security” reasons. Not surprisingly, the new supporters of Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV) tend to be higher educated than the previous average Wilders supporter.

The article states (my translation):

“In the Second Chamber elections in 2006, 9% of the PVV voters had higher educational degrees. That is now 13%, and among the newcomers, it was in fact 16%… The incomes of the average PVV voters also rose. By living standards, they are increasingly coming to resemble the average Dutch person. ‘The Wilders voter is becoming normalized,’ says Peter Kanne of TNS NIPO.

Volkskrant ascribes the uptick in Wilders’ popularity to his recent martyrdom. A Dutch court recently arraigned Wilders for a “hate” crime based on his showing of Fitna, which puts the Koran in a bad light. Britain also expelled him last week even though he had been invited by British lawmakers to discuss his film.

The Volkskrant also says that a poll by another pollster taken since the TNS NIPO poll show an even further uptick in Wilders’ popularity (my translation):

“The PVV rose in the TNS NIPO poll to 14 votes last week. According to Maurice de Hond, the PVV has grown to 25 votes, making the PVV in fact the no. 2 party in the Netherlands. TNS NIPO polled before Wilders was barred from entry to England, while De Hond polled after that. This explains the difference for the most part. Since 2006, freedom of speech is named as a new reason for voting for Wilders. Kanne: ‘the issue has been successfully co-opted.’ “

What De Volkskrant didn’t tell you is that TNS NIPO is a leftwing group that has tried in the past-like Volkskrant-to marginalize Wilders. Yet now both are forced to back off from that stance, proving once again that the media around the world are motivated mostly by politics, not by truth.

This story is not about Holland or Europe. It is about human beings and what motivates them universally, and hence it has major implications for America, where a black pastor is now facing a jail sentence for carrying a sign with the words “Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help” outside an abortion clinic.

Pastor Hoye can take heart from this story about Wilders. As soon as the Left creates martyrs by denying people their God-given freedoms, it automatically pays the price in terms of human responses to their unconscionable actions, greatly advancing the cause of truth and justice.

Further reading


Don’t fall for the ruse / Muslim stock falling

 America, beware this ruse of the Left:

The Left often uses the ruse of foisting some totally unacceptable and obnoxious demand on us, and then when we resist, agrees to a “compromise,” which actually gives them 100% of what they originally wanted. Soft headed “conservatives” fall for this time and again, like ripe plums in autumn.

The latest developments in the Angels in America saga illustrate this.

Laurie Higgens reports that some of the parents who had reservations about the reading and/or performance of Angels in America, the obscene homosexual play we reported on in a previous issue, suggested just stressing the obscenity in their protest and giving the homosexuality a pass. A keen observer would know that doing so would be falling right into the trap. You see, the Left has no interest in foisting obscene language on children at this early stage in the demoralization of America’s children. The prize they covet is to mainstream homosexuality and make it appear attractive to children.

The acceptance of obscenity and explicit sexual portrayals in literature and the arts is the next step.

But Americans have been taught the insidious lesson of “reaching across the aisle” a la John McCain, and appeasement — compromising with evil for the sake of peace. We need to unlearn this behavior as quickly as possible to survive as a free nation.

Laurie Higgins writes:

A parent who objects to Angels in America suggested that those who object to the play should “downplay” the issue of homosexuality, to which I responded as follows:

“The homosexual piece is downplayed at our great peril. At the Saturday meeting, I think I was the only person who addressed the homosexuality. I will not retreat from this because virtually everyone else is. Almost everyone I talk to says that they don’t care about the homosexuality; it’s the language and sex they care about. I think that’s both a strategic and moral error. If Angels is pulled from the curricula just because of the graphic sex and obscene language, then the faculty is free to continue to introduce resources that normalize homosexuality as long as the resources aren’t graphic and obscene.

If no one stands with me, I will stand alone because, to borrow shamelessly the words of Martin Luther, ‘I can do no other. God help me.’ ”

DOES it take a village?

Click here to get an idea:


Have you checked out Amercianshavehadenough.org yet?


IT IS POLITICALLY INCORRECT to suggest, or print news item that suggests, that Islam is weakening. The Left likes Islam because it opposes Christianity, the arch enemy of the Red Revolution and the immorality they are pedaling. That’s why the left-leaning Dutch government and media try to show the public that Geert Wilders is a trouble maker who should be ignored. But that just made everyone all the more anxious to view the movie Fitna, which was a smashing success, and did not result in the expected violence. Why? I suspect it is because Muslims saw that their violent response to cartoons mocking Islamo-fascism and the murder of Theo Van Gogh, whose film highlighted Islamic violence, backfired. The love of truth and freedom still smolders under the ashes of Western civilization.

Further, the argument started to emerge that if Muslim groups, such as the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), threatened violence or demanded Islam’s critics be silenced, then that was merely more support for Wilders’ thesis that Islam is violent and cruel to the core.

Laigle’s Forum led the charge with that argument and kept the Fitna site (notice the comment by Asif and Laigle Forum’s response) available to readers even after it was pulled by LiveLeak.com.

Some have said that the response to Fitna proves the West is hopelessly cowardly. But the truth is, the lack of violence so far also tells us something of the war against Islamic fascism, and this overshadows the lack of cogent arguments by somnolent Westerners. Muslims are starting to see that strapping on bomb belts isn’t helping their cause. Terrorist recruitment is in fact getting more difficult these days.

Maybe the next article will help explain why.

MUSLIMS leaving Islam in droves

Ex-Muslim Magdi Allam’s very public baptism on Easter Sunday made headlines, but he is just one among legions converting from Islam around the world.

April 3, 2008 – by Andrew Walden

Pope Benedict’s choice to publicly baptize the most prominent Muslim in Italy, Egyptian-born Magdi Allam, highlights a quiet worldwide exodus from Islam. In recent years, millions have moved on. With this high-profile action, Pope Benedict demonstratively blesses this massive conversion from the highest levels of the Church.

Interviewed by al-Jazeera in 2006, Ahmad al-Qataani, leader of the Companions Lighthouse for the Science of Islamic Law in Libya, explains the decline:

Read more here


America has 3 leftwing candidates, and many conservatives have fallen into line on the GOP side, resigned to holding their nose and voting for pro-amnesty McCain of McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold fame.

We don’t have to settle for this. Not by a long shot:



IMPORTANT questions for Islamists and their appeasers

Our readers want to know…

by Donald Hank

The Organization of Islamic Conference now wants to sue people like Geert Wilders simply for his movie quoting the Koran against a backdrop showing actual footage of Islamic violence. And as long as treacherous appeasers wield their power in national governments, the OIC could win. Such censorship of the public has been accomplished in Canada, where religious freedom does not extend to those who disagree with other religions. In other words, where moral and religious equivalency is enforced. That’s right, the religion of post-modernism (=moral equivalency) is the only religion you may endorse in that country if you desire not to be sued, jailed or both. How’s that for freedom in a country that may soon share in the lawmaking decisions of the USA if G.W. Bush and the Globalist goons succeed in foisting the North American Union on us?

But there is a question the defenders of the “Religion of Peace” still need to answer: In a previous issue, I had quoted the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) stating that the then soon-to-be-released film by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders will have “serious repercussions which could get out of hand and would be difficult to control.”

In other words, if Wilders insists on showing the world how violent and unreasonable Muslims can be, the OIC, which represents them, threatens that these same Muslims may become violent.

I had pointed out how untenable that position is, since in effect, it expresses both indignation at the suggestion that Islam is violent and at the same time, a threat of violence to those who would dare suggest that it is violent!

Which is it? Are they offended because they are in fact non-violent or are they violent enough to kill and harm people who would suggest this just because they know their behavior won’t bear scrutiny and are sore losers? They seem to want it both ways.

On behalf of my readers, I now ask the Muslim community for an explanation, or at least a position on this.


How can you Muslims leaders, with a straight face, threaten people with violence for suggesting Muslims are violent?

Are you trying to confirm their accusations against you? Or hadn’t you noticed what message you are sending? What’s wrong with sending your co-religionists the message that they can’t afford to provide more support for Wilders’ argument by reacting violently, and that instead Muslims everywhere need to prove to the West that they represent the Religion of Peace?

If you are concerned about your image, please explain how threatening innocent people will help maintain that image. The rest of the world, which you are trying to convert to your “peaceful” way, wants to know.

Of course, the worst offenders are not the Muslims themselves but rather the European appeasers who think coddling bearded babies in bomb belts is the answer to the violence problem.

What strikes me as odd is that the world’s ultimate lesson in the failure of appeasement actually came from Europe itself in the late 1930s. Of course, we need to realize that the European education system has failed miserably to teach history to its young (to the extent that a sizeable fraction of polled products of that system actually think that Churchill was a fictitious character!), and that is probably not a mistake but rather a calculated strategy of the Left. After all, a populace that understands the history of the Left would never want to embrace that failed ideology any more than a seasoned woodsman would want to approach a skunk.

So here is my question for you promoters of dhimmitude in Europe:

If the appeasement approach failed so miserably in England under Neville Chamberlain, while the hang-tough approach was so successful under Winston Churchill, why do you favor the former approach and eschew the latter when confronting another threat to freedom and Judeo-Christian traditions, and yes, to the existence of Jews worldwide, that is remarkably similar to Hitler’s threat?

If it failed before, how do you expect it to succeed this time?

We cordially invite both groups (Muslims and dhimmis) to enter our forum and state their cases. If you are acquainted with Muslims who may be interested in this debate, or if you have a friend who believes in bowing to Muslim censorship demands in the interest of peace, please pass along the link to this column and invite them to post their response in the Comments box below (they will need to be patient. The comment will only show up after it is approved).

We would like to better understand these folks.

Even a no-show would speak volumes, now wouldn’t it?

HOLMEN cross:

My friend Anthony Horvath, whose ads appear at the top and to the right of our columns and whose columns grace our pages from time to time, has a story of a new cross display on public property that seems to be the latest casualty in the war against Christianity.

This is one of multiple examples in our nation of Christian symbols falling prey to the misinterpretation of the First Amendment, which was designed in part to protect religion from government but wound up being appropriated by the Left as an instrument against our godly heritage. An instrument wielded by secularists and atheists to do exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do.

Read about it here.

FITNA the movie is BACK!

Although the film was removed from Liveleak due to death threats from Islamists, there are mirror sites and it can still be seen. You are STILL a click away from Geert Wilders’ movie Fitna. It is the politically incorrect truth about the Koran that the Dutch government is desperate to keep under wraps. (My apologies for the previous link. It was fine when I viewed it first. Later some really nasty images were added). This one seems ok. Let me know if any trash comes up (You can take the poll here. The Dutch expression “zijn punt gemaakt” means “made his point,” referring to Wilders. Obviously he did, so please click there. So far 65% think he did, which shows how biased the Dutch media are when they suggest that the public is not behind Wilders:


And that last part is the real story. Denying the obvious blatant truth, namely that Islam, including the Koran itself, drips with violent threats against anyone who dares deny its “truth,” almost everyone in the entire Dutch government has pleaded with Wilders not to show the film or threatened him with lawsuits. In fact, an Islam society there has already sued him to have his legal right to self-expression rescinded.

Now look at this absurdity, which has to be a new low for even Europe:

The radical Islamic populace in Europe is outraged because some brave souls want to present the truth about them, showing that they are violent to the core. In response, these Islamists, instead of trying, as Christians would, to show that they are not violent, are suing Geert Wilders on the grounds that his movie Fitna, if shown in public, could cause violence among Muslims, who might be offended for being called violent.

Has the utter absurdity of this sunk in yet?

If not, please view this video [still ok?]:


Undoubtedly, if the European leadership took the attitude of Winston Churchill, they would never, never, never give up – their freedom, that is.

Instead too many have opted for the utter abject cowardice of Neville Chamberlain – surrender before the fight.

DANIEL predicts Easter, date and all

Did the prophet Daniel correctly predict the crucifixion hundreds of years before it happened? C.A. Horvath did the math.

Check it out for yourself.

THAT border fence? It’s guarding the sphinx


Now it is becoming clear why the US won’t build a fence at our borders. They are too busy building fences for other nations, like Egypt. You will pay $23 million for that fence. Forget about Mexico. Illegal immigration is only illegal elsewhere, according to neocon logic.