Posted tagged ‘Middle East’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Russia deploys cutting-edge S-400 air defense system to Syrian base after Su-24 downing

November 27, 2015

Russia deploys cutting-edge S-400 air defense system to Syrian base after Su-24 downing

Published time: 26 Nov, 2015 21:02

Source: Russia deploys cutting-edge S-400 air defense system to Syrian base after Su-24 downing — RT News

An S-400 air defence missile system is deployed for a combat duty at the Hmeymim airbase to provide security of the Russian air group's flights in Syria. © Dmitriy Vinogradov
An S-400 air defence missile system is deployed for a combat duty at the Hmeymim airbase to provide security of the Russian air group’s flights in Syria. © Dmitriy Vinogradov / Sputnik
Moscow has deployed its newest S-400 air defense missile system to Khmeimim in Syria as part of a security boost following the downing of a Russian jet by Turkey earlier this week.

“In accordance with the decision of the Supreme Commander of the Russian Armed Forces, today (on Monday) an S-400 air defense missile system has been promptly delivered, deployed and already began combat duty to provide cover for the area around the Russian Khmeimim air base in Syria,” General-Major Igor Konashenkov, Russia’s Ministry of Defense spokesman, said.

Commenting on the decision, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said there was previously no need for such measures, because “no-one imagined the Russian aircraft could be in danger. Russia would’ve brought S-400s to Syria a long time ago to protect its warplanes, if it entertained the possibility of a traitorous backstab.”

Putin reiterated, however, that the S-400 systems are not targeting Russia’s partners, “with whom we fight terrorists in Syria together.”

But the downing of the Russian Su-24 bomber by Turkey prompted Russia to “ensure the safety of our aircraft during their operations against IS [and] against terrorists LIH and other terrorist groups via more reliable means,” Defense Ministry spokesman Konahsenkov said in a media briefing.

The S-400 is the most advanced anti-aircraft defense system in Russia, and is unparalleled in the world.

It’s designed to ensure air defense using long- and medium-range missiles that can hit aerial targets, including tactical and strategic aircraft as well as ballistic and cruise missiles, at ranges of up to 400 kilometers.

The system consists of a set of radars, missile launchers and command posts, and is operated solely by the Russian military.

Earlier on Tuesday, the Russian Su-24 was shot down by a Turkish F-16 fighter jet near the Turkish-Syrian border.

One Russian pilot was killed by Syrian rebels while parachuting, with the other one was rescued and delivered to Khmeimim airbase.

Despite claims from Ankara, Moscow maintains that its jet, which crashed in Syria, didn’t violate Turkey’s airspace.

READ MORE: Russian missile cruiser off Latakia coast, ready to destroy dangerous air targets – Defense Minister

Shortly after the incident, the MoD announced three steps which were to be taken following the attack on the Russian Su-24 bomber, including the provision of aerial cover by fighter jets for every airstrike, the boosting of air defense by deploying guided missile cruisers off the Latakia coast, and suspending all military-to-military contacts with Turkey.

Khmeimim airbase in Latakia, Syria, accommodates Russian Air Force squadrons of Su-27SM and Su-30 fighter jets, Su-34 and Su-24 tactical bombers, which are all taking part in airstrikes on Islamic State and other terror groups in the country.

The airbase is protected by state-of-the-art air defense systems and radars. Khmeimim also has a fully operational unit for maintaining fixed- and rotor-wing aircraft and providing logistical assistance to pilots.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey’s President

November 26, 2015

Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey’s President

 by Tyler Durden on 11/25/2015 22:55 -0500

Source: Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey’s President | Zero Hedge

Russia’s Sergey Lavrov is not one foreign minister known to mince his words. Just earlier today, 24 hours after a Russian plane was brought down by the country whose president three years ago said “a short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack”, had this to say: “We have serious doubts this was an unintended incident and believe this is a planned provocation” by Turkey.

But even that was tame compared to what Lavrov said to his Turkish counterparty Mevlut Cavusoglu earlier today during a phone call between the two (Lavrov who was supposed to travel to Turkey has since canceled such plans).

As Sputnik transcribes, according to a press release from Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Lavrov pointed out that, “by shooting down a Russian plane on a counter-terrorist mission of the Russian Aerospace Force in Syria, and one that did not violate Turkey’s airspace, the Turkish government has in effect sided with ISIS.”

It was in this context when Lavrov added that “Turkey’s actions appear premeditated, planned, and undertaken with a specific objective.”

More importantly, Lavrov pointed to Turkey’s role in the propping up the terror network through the oil trade. Per the Russian statement:

“The Russian Minister reminded his counterpart about Turkey’s involvement in the ISIS’ illegal trade in oil, which is transported via the area where the Russian plane was shot down, and about the terrorist infrastructure, arms and munitions depots and control centers that are also located there.”

Others reaffirmed Lavrov’s stance, such as retired French General Dominique Trinquand, who said that “Turkey is either not fighting ISIL at all or very little, and does not interfere with different types of smuggling that takes place on its border, be it oil, phosphate, cotton or people,” he said.

The reason we find this line of questioning fascinating is that just last week in the aftermath of the French terror attack but long before the Turkish downing of the Russian jet, we wrote about “The Most Important Question About ISIS That Nobody Is Asking” in which we asked who is the one “breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various “western alliance” governments, and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as long as it has?”

Precisely one week later, in even more tragic circumstances, suddenly everyone is asking this question.

And while we patiently dig to find who the on and offshore “commodity trading” middleman are, who cart away ISIS oil to European and other international markets in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars, one name keeps popping up as the primary culprit of regional demand for the Islamic State’s “terrorist oil” – that of Turkish president Recep Erdogan’s son: Bilal Erdogan.

His very brief bio:

Necmettin Bilal Erdogan, commonly known as Bilal Erdogan (born 23 April 1980) is the third child of Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, the current President of Turkey.

After graduating from Kartal Imam Hatip High School in 1999, Bilal Erdogan moved to the US for undergraduate education. He also earned a Masters Degree in John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in 2004. After graduation, he served in the World Bank as intern for a while. He returned Turkey in 2006 and started to his business life. Bilal Erdogan is one of the three equal shareholders of “BMZ Group Denizcilik “, a marine transportation corporation.

Here is a recent picture of Bilal, shown in a photo from a Turkish 2014 article, which “asked why his ships are now in Syria”:

In the next few days, we will present a full breakdown of Bilal’s various business ventures, starting with his BMZ Group which is the name implicated most often in the smuggling of illegal Iraqi and Islamic State through to the western supply chain, but for now here is a brief, if very disturbing snapshot, of both father and son Erdogan by F. William Engdahl, one which should make everyone ask whether the son of Turkey’s president (and thus, the father) is the silent mastermind who has been responsible for converting millions of barrels of Syrian Oil into hundreds of millions of dollars of Islamic State revenue.

By F. William Engdahl, posted originally in New Eastern Outlook:

Erdogan’s Dirth Dangerous ISIS Games

More and more details are coming to light revealing that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, variously known as ISIS, IS or Daesh, is being fed and kept alive by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish President and by his Turkish intelligence service, including MIT, the Turkish CIA. Turkey, as a result of Erdogan’s pursuit of what some call a Neo-Ottoman Empire fantasies that stretch all the way to China, Syria and Iraq, threatens not only to destroy Turkey but much of the Middle East if he continues on his present path.

In October 2014 US Vice President Joe Biden told a Harvard gathering that Erdogan’s regime was backing ISIS with “hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons…” Biden later apologized clearly for tactical reasons to get Erdo?an’s permission to use Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base for airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, but the dimensions of Erdogan’s backing for ISIS since revealed is far, far more than Biden hinted.

ISIS militants were trained by US, Israeli and now it emerges, by Turkish special forces at secret bases in Konya Province inside the Turkish border to Syria, over the past three years. Erdo?an’s involvement in ISIS goes much deeper. At a time when Washington, Saudi Arabia and even Qatar appear to have cut off their support for ISIS, they remaining amazingly durable. The reason appears to be the scale of the backing from Erdo?an and his fellow neo-Ottoman Sunni Islam Prime Minister, Ahmet Davuto?lu.

Nice Family Business

The prime source of money feeding ISIS these days is sale of Iraqi oil from the Mosul region oilfields where they maintain a stronghold. The son of Erdogan it seems is the man who makes the export sales of ISIS-controlled oil possible.

Bilal Erdo?an owns several maritime companies. He has allegedly signed contracts with European operating companies to carry Iraqi stolen oil to different Asian countries. The Turkish government buys Iraqi plundered oil which is being produced from the Iraqi seized oil wells. Bilal Erdogan’s maritime companies own special wharfs in Beirut and Ceyhan ports that are transporting ISIS’ smuggled crude oil in Japan-bound oil tankers.

Gürsel Tekin vice-president of the Turkish Republican Peoples’ Party, CHP, declared in a recent Turkish media interview, “President Erdogan claims that according to international transportation conventions there is no legal infraction concerning Bilal’s illicit activities and his son is doing an ordinary business with the registered Japanese companies, but in fact Bilal Erdo?an is up to his neck in complicity with terrorism, but as long as his father holds office he will be immune from any judicial prosecution.” Tekin adds that Bilal’s maritime company doing the oil trades for ISIS, BMZ Ltd, is “a family business and president Erdogan’s close relatives hold shares in BMZ and they misused public funds and took illicit loans from Turkish banks.”

In addition to son Bilal’s illegal and lucrative oil trading for ISIS, Sümeyye Erdogan, the daughter of the Turkish President apparently runs a secret hospital camp inside Turkey just over the Syrian border where Turkish army trucks daily being in scores of wounded ISIS Jihadists to be patched up and sent back to wage the bloody Jihad in Syria, according to the testimony of a nurse who was recruited to work there until it was discovered she was a member of the Alawite branch of Islam, the same as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who Erdogan seems hell-bent on toppling.

Turkish citizen Ramazan Bagol, captured this month by Kurdish People’s Defence Units,YPG, as he attempted to join ISIS from Konya province, told his captors that said he was sent to ISIS by the ‘Ismailia Sect,’ a strict Turkish Islam sect reported to be tied to Recep Erdogan. Baol said the sect recruits members and provides logistic support to the radical Islamist organization. He added that the Sect gives jihad training in neighborhoods of Konya and sends those trained here to join ISIS gangs in Syria.

According to French geopolitical analyst, Thierry Meyssan, Recep Erdogan “organised the pillage of Syria, dismantled all the factories in Aleppo, the economic capital, and stole the machine-tools. Similarly, he organised the theft of archeological treasures and set up an international market in Antioch…with the help of General Benoît Puga, Chief of Staff for the Elysée, he organised a false-flag operation intended to provoke the launching of a war by the Atlantic Alliance – the chemical bombing of la Ghoutta in Damascus, in August 2013. “

Meyssan claims that the Syria strategy of Erdo?an was initially secretly developed in coordination with former French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé and Erdogan’s then Foreign Minister Ahmet Davuto?lu, in 2011, after Juppe won a hesitant Erdogan to the idea of supporting the attack on traditional Turkish ally Syria in return for a promise of French support for Turkish membership in the EU. France later backed out, leaving Erdogan to continue the Syrian bloodbath largely on his own using ISIS.

Gen. John R. Allen, an opponent of Obama’s Iran peace strategy, now US diplomatic envoy coordinating the coalition against the Islamic State, exceeded his authorized role after meeting with Erdogan and “promised to create a “no-fly zone” ninety miles wide, over Syrian territory, along the whole border with Turkey, supposedly intended to help Syrian refugees fleeing from their government, but in reality to apply the “Juppé-Wright plan”. The Turkish Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, revealed US support for the project on the TV channel A Haber by launching a bombing raid against the PKK.” Meyssan adds.

There are never winners in war and Erdogan’s war against Syria’s Assad demonstrates that in bold. Turkey and the world deserve better. Ahmet Davutoglu’s famous “Zero Problems With Neighbors” foreign policy has been turned into massive problems with all neighbors due to the foolish ambitions of Erdogan and his gang. 

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

No, the Islamic State Will Not Be Defeated — and if It Is, We Still Lose

November 25, 2015

No, the Islamic State Will Not Be Defeated — and if It Is, We Still Lose, Breitbart, Ben Shapiro, November 24, 2015

GettyImages-497044984-640x480

Barack Obama has now created an unwinnable war.

While all of the 2016 candidates declare their strategies for victory against ISIS, President Obama’s leading from behind has now entered the Middle East and the West into a free-for-all that cannot end any way but poorly.

The best way to understand the situation in Syria is to look at the situation and motivation of the various players. All of them have varying agendas; all of them have different preferred outcomes. Few of them are on anything approaching the same page. And Barack Obama’s failure of leadership means that there is no global power around which to center.

ISIS. ISIS has gained tremendous strength since Barack Obama’s entry to power and pullout from Iraq. They currently control northern Syria, bordering Turkey, as well as large portions of northern Iraq. Their goal: to consolidate their territorial stranglehold, and to demonstrate to their followers that they, and not other competing terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, represent the new Islamic wave. They have little interest in toppling Syrian dictator Bashar Assad for the moment. They do serve as a regional counterweight to the increasingly powerful Iranians – increasingly powerful because of President Obama’s big nuclear deal, as well as his complete abdication of responsibility in Iraq.

Iran. Iran wants to maximize its regional power. The rise of ISIS has allowed it to masquerade as a benevolent force in Iraq and Syria, even as it supports Assad’s now-routine use of chemical weapons against his adversaries, including the remnants of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Iran has already expanded its horizons beyond Iraq and Syria and Lebanon; now it wants to make moves into heretofore non-friendly regions like Afghanistan. Their goal in Syria: keep Bashar Assad in power. Their goal in Iraq: pushing ISIS out of any resource-rich territories, but not finishing ISIS off, because that would then get rid of the global villain against which they fight.

Assad. The growth of ISIS has allowed Assad to play the wronged victim. While the FSA could provide a possible replacement for him, ISIS can’t credibly do so on the international stage. Assad knows that, and thus has little interest in completely ousting them. His main interest is in continuing to devastate the remaining FSA while pretending to fight ISIS.

Egypt/Saudi Arabia/Jordan. As you can see, ISIS, Iran, and Assad all have one shared interest: the continued existence of ISIS. The same is not true with regard to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, all of whom fear the rise of radical Sunni terrorist groups in their home countries. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, however, because openly destroying ISIS on behalf of Alaouite Assad, they embolden the Shia, their enemies. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan would all join an anti-ISIS coalition in the same way they did against Saddam Hussein in 1991, but just like Hussein in 1991, they won’t do it if there are no Sunni alternatives available. Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan are the top three sources of foreign fighters for ISIS.

Turkey. The Turks have several goals: to stop the Syrian exodus across their borders, to prevent the rise of the Iranians, and to stop the rise of the Kurds. None of these goals involves the destruction of ISIS. Turkey is Sunni; so is ISIS. ISIS provides a regional counterweight against Iran, so long as it remains viable. It also keeps the Kurds occupied in northern Iraq, preventing any threat of Kurdish consolidation across the Iraq-Turkey border. They will accept Syrian refugees so long as those other two goals remain primary – and they’ll certainly do it if they can ship a hefty portion of those refugees into Europe and off their hands.

Russia. Russia wants to consolidate its power in the Middle East. It has done so by wooing all the players to fight against one another. Russia’s involvement in the Middle East now looks a good deal like American involvement circa the Iran-Iraq War: they’re playing both sides. Russia is building nuclear reactors in Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Iran. They’re Bashar Assad’s air force against both the FSA and ISIS. Russia’s Vladimir Putin doesn’t have a problem with destroying ISIS so long as doing so achieves his other goal: putting everyone else in his debt. He has a secondary goal he thought he could chiefly pursue in Eastern Europe, and attempted with Ukraine: he wants to split apart the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which he rightly sees as a counterbalance to check Russian aggression. Thanks to today’s Turkish attack on a Russian plane, and thanks to the West’s hands-off policy with regard to the conflict, Putin could theoretically use his war against ISIS as cover to bombard Turkish military targets, daring the West to get involved against him. Were he to do so, he’d set the precedent that NATO is no longer functional. Two birds, one war.

Israel. Israel’s position is the same it has always been: Israel is surrounded by radical Islamic enemies on every side. Whether Iranian-backed Hezbollah or Sunni Hamas and ISIS, Israel is the focus of hate for all of these groups. Ironically, the rise of Iran has unified Israel with its neighbors in Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. All three of those countries, however, can’t stand firmly against ISIS.

All of which means that the only country capable of filling the vacuum would be the United States. Just as in 1991, a major Sunni power is on the move against American interests – but unlike in 1991, no viable option existed for leaving the current regime in power. And the US’ insistence upon the help of ground allies is far too vague. Who should those allies be, occupying ISIS-free ISISland?

The Kurds have no interest in a Syrian incursion. Turkish troops movements into ISIS-land will prompt Iranian intervention. Iranian intervention into ISIS-land would prompt higher levels of support for Sunni resistance. ISIS-land without ISIS is like Iraq without Saddam Hussein: in the absence of solidifying force, chaos breaks out. From that chaos, the most organized force takes power. Russia hopes that should it destroy ISIS, Assad will simply retain power; that may be the simplest solution, although it certainly will not end the war within the country. There are no good answers.

Barack Obama’s dithering for years led to this. Had he lent his support in any strong way to one side, a solution might be possible. Now, it’s not.

Categories: Assad, Egypt, Foreign policy, Iran, Iraq, Islamic State, Israel, Jordan, Kurds, Middle East, Obama - Middle East, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, Sunni, Syria, Turkey
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

‘The US fails to understand the complexity of the Middle East’

November 24, 2015

‘The US fails to understand the complexity of the Middle East’ Israel National News, Benny Tucker, November 24, 2015

US Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) this week will only heighten tensions – not calm terrorism, former Israeli ambassador to the US Dr. Yoram Ettinger opined Tuesday. 

“This visit unfortunately will not not mitigate terrorism, but on the contrary, pour oil on the fire of terrorism,” he stated, in a special Arutz Sheva interview. “Why reward and meet Mahmoud Abbas, the chief instigator?”

Washington continues to remain disconnected from reality, he said.

“The former senator met with Assad, both the father and the son, and ate dinner with their wives,” he noted. “(Kerry) refers to the Golan Heights as ‘trivial’ and pressured Israel to give up the Golan. He used to hold [PLO archterrorist Yasser] Arafat in high regard and referred to him as a ‘statesman of peace’; as Secretary of State he still maintains that the Arab Spring is leading Arab countries to democracy.”

Ettinger added that Kerry’s career is characterized by ‘erroneous assessments”; “so surely, again, he will call on Israel to make gestures [toward the Palestinians] and give over the immoral equivalence comparing terrorist to victim.”

“Experience shows that all the attempts and plans the US have made [regarding Israel] have failed one by one, due to lack of understanding of the complexity of the Middle East,” he concluded. “Both the peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan were the result of Israeli initiatives and direct negotiations – not indirect negotiations and not through middlemen.”

Categories: Abbas, Arafat, Foreign policy, Israel, Kerry, Middle East, Obama and Israel, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian heroes, Palestinians
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Our World: Obama’s new counter-terrorism guru

November 24, 2015

Our World: Obama’s new counter-terrorism guru, The Jerusalem Post, Caroline B. Glick, November 23, 2015

ShowImage (17)MICHAEL GERSON. (photo credit:Wikimedia Commons)

Since the Islamic State attacks in Paris on November 13, we have seen the development of a new, and strange justification for the Obama administration’s insistent refusal to jettison its manifestly failed strategy of contending with IS specifically and with Islamic terrorism generally.

In broad terms, Obama’s strategy for dealing with radical Islamic terrorism and jihadist movements is to ignore their motivating ideologies, take minimal action to combat them, criticize other governments for failing to destroy IS and its jihadist brethren on their own, and attack Republicans for criticizing Obama’s strategy for defeating radical Islamic terrorism.

The new justification for Obama’s refusal to revise his strategy was first uttered by former secretary of state Hillary Clinton at the Democratic presidential debate on November 14. Five days later, the Democratic National Committee produced an ad attacking Republican presidential candidates based on this new rhetorical theme.

Obama himself resonated the new message during his press conference in Malaysia on Sunday.

According to the new talking points, Republicans have no right to criticize Obama, or Clinton, for their failure to contend with the nature of the enemy because in ignoring the enemy’s doctrine, ideology and strategic goals, they are merely following in president George W. Bush’s footsteps.

During the Democratic presidential debate, Clinton argued that refusing to identify the radical Islamic nature of the enemy that attacked the US on September 11 and in the months and years that followed “was one of the real contributions – despite all the other problems – that George W. Bush made after 9/11, when he basically said – after going to a mosque in Washington – we are not at war with Islam or Muslims.”

In its new ad, the DNC attacks five Republican presidential candidates that have stated in recent days that radical Islam is the force that is warring against the US and its allies.

To prove that the candidates are “unpresidential,” for naming the enemy, the DNC ad includes a clip of Bush’s speeches in praise of Islam as “a religion of peace,” which he delivered in the days immediately following the September 11 attacks.

The Democrats’ invocation of Bush as their counterterrorism authority and as a means to justify their refusal to use the term “radical Islam” is more than a bit ironic, of course, since they have spent the past 14 years pillorying Bush’s counterterrorism policies.

But it is also extremely helpful. By aligning with Bush to justify their refusal to discuss the radical Islamic foundations of the terrorist scourge facing the free world and devouring large swaths of the Middle East, the Democrats have given us the opportunity to consider what that refusal has meant for the US’s ability to lead the free world in its war against the forces of radical Islam.

At the time of the September 11 attacks, and for the first five years of Bush’s war on terrorism that followed them, Michael Gerson served as Bush’s chief speechwriter.

Gerson authored Bush’s statements about Islam being a religion of peace.

In November 2014, Gerson participated in a debate vabout the nature of Islam and the war on terror. Gerson explained that Bush’s decision to ignore the nature of the enemy emanated from a strategic calculation.

Bush believed that radical Islam was but a marginal force in the Muslim world. By embracing Islam as a whole, and insisting that the terrorists from al-Qaida and other groups did not reflect the authentic nature of Islam, Bush hoped to draw the non-radical Muslims to America’s side against the jihadists.

In Gerson’s words, “Every religious tradition has forces of tribalism and violence in its history, background and theology; and, every religious tradition has sources of respect for the other. And you emphasize, as a political leader, one at the expense of the other in the cause of democracy.”

Gerson continued, “That is a great American tradition that we have done with every religious tradition that comes to the United States – include them as part of a natural enterprise and praise them for their strongly held religious views, and emphasize those portions that are most compatible with those ideals.”

The flaws in this reasoning began surfacing immediately.

When Bush made his remarks about Islam after the September 11 attacks, he was flanked by Muslim leaders who were in short order exposed as terrorism apologists and financiers.

On the battlefield, by failing to acknowledge, let alone discredit the enemy’s world view, Bush made it all but impossible for Muslims who oppose radical Islam to stand up against it. After all, if the Americans didn’t think it was a problem, why would they? Since the Americans refused to admit the existence of radical Islam, the US refused to favor non-radical forces over radical ones. And so, in the 2005 Iraqi elections, while Iran spent a fortune financing the campaigns of its supporters, the US did nothing to support the Iraqi forces that shared the US’s goal of transforming Iraq into a multi-denominational, pluralistic democracy.

The results were preordained. The elected government took its cues from Iran, and as soon as US forces withdrew from Iraq, all of America’s hard won gains were squandered. The Iraqi government became an Iranian puppet. And in areas where Iran didn’t care to assert its control, al-Qaida-aligned forces that now comprise Islamic State rose once again.

Obama’s refusal to discuss radical Islam stems from a different source than Bush’s refusal to do so. Unlike Bush’s position, Obama’s insistence that IS, al-Qaida, Hamas, Boko Haram and their brethren have nothing to do with Islam does not owe to a strategic calculation on how to win a war. Rather, it stems from an ideological conviction that the US and the rest of the Western world have no right to cast aspersions on jihadists.

As Obama sees things, the problems in the Middle East, and the Middle Eastern terrorism plaguing the rest of the world, are the result of past Western imperialism and chauvinism. All anti-Western movements – including jihadist movements – are legitimate responses to what Obama perceives as the crime of Western power.

Obama’s peevish response to the massacre in Paris and his assaults on Republicans who argue that the religious convictions of Syrians requesting asylum in the US are relevant for determining whether or not to let them in have brought his refusal to identify the enemy to the forefront of the US debate on how to defeat IS.

This debate is clearly uncomfortable for liberal US media outlets. So they have sought to change the subject.

As the Democratic Party adopted Bush as its new counterterrorism guru, the liberal media sought to end discussion of radical Islam by castigating as bigots Republicans who speak of it. The media attempt over the weekend to claim falsely that Republican frontrunner Donald Trump called for requiring American Muslims to be registered in a national Muslim database marked such an attempt to change the subject.

The common denominator between Bush’s strategic decision to lie about the nature of the enemy, Obama’s apologetics for IS and the media’s attempt to claim that Republicans are anti-Islamic racists is that in all cases, an attempt is being made to assert that there is no pluralism in Islam – it’s either entirely good or entirely evil.

This absolutist position is counterproductive for two reasons. First, it gets you nowhere good in the war against radical Islam. The fact is that Islam per se is none of the US president’s business. His business is to defeat those who attack the US and to stand with America’s allies against their common foes.

Radical Islam may be a small component of Islam or a large one. But it certainly is a component of Islam. Its adherents believe they are good Muslims and they base their actions on their Islamic beliefs.

American politicians, warfighters and policymakers need to identify that form of Islam, study it and base their strategies for fighting the radical Islamic forces on its teachings.

Bush was wrong to lie about the Islamic roots of radical Islam. And his mistake had devastating strategic consequences for the world as a whole. It is fortuitous that the Clinton and the Democratic Party have embraced Bush’s failed strategy of ignoring the enemy for justifying their even more extreme position. Now that they have, they have given a green light to Republicans as well as Democrats who are appalled by Obama’s apologetics for radical Islam to learn from Bush’s mistakes and craft an honest and effective strategic approach to the challenge of radical Islam.

Categories: Democrats, Foreign policy, Islamic slaughter, Islamic State, Michael Gerson, Middle East, Obama and Islamic State, Obama and Islamic terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Turkey condemns attack on Syrian Turkmen village, summons Russian envoy

November 20, 2015

Turkey condemns attack on Syrian Turkmen village, summons Russian envoy

ANKARA

Friday,November 20 2015

Source: Turkey condemns attack on Syrian Turkmen village, summons Russian envoy – MIDEAST

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu. AA Photo

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu. AA Photo

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu has condemned a bombing attack targeting Turkmen villages in Syria, while the Turkish Foreign Ministry has summoned the Russian ambassador over the incident.

“From here, we are once more warning the Syrian regime. We have reacted to all the attacks aimed at civilians close to our border without making any discrimination in regards to whether they have been Turkmen, Arab or Kurdish, not only because they have been Turkmen. At the moment, 40 Turkmen are wounded. We are following the matter village by village,” Davutoğlu told reporters on Nov. 20 an adding Turkish officials contacted their Russian counterparts over the issue.

“In recent days, there have been many intensified attacks against Syrian people in general and against our Turkmen siblings in particular, especially in the Bayırbucak neighborhood. All of last night, we made assessments with our military, intelligence and diplomatic units. Before everything else, this attack has revealed how the Syrian regime is bloody and barbarian,” he said.

“First of all, we are against all kinds of attacks launched against civilian people. The second point, we are against all kinds of attacks leading to a new influx of refugees at our border. The third point: the Bayırbucak Turkmen are our siblings who have lived there for centuries, like other Syrians. We are condemning this barbarian attack against them in the strongest way and once more, calling on everybody to be sensitive to this issue. Nobody can legitimize massacres targeting our Turkmen, Arab and Kurdish siblings there by claiming to have been fighting terror,” Davutoğlu said.

Within minutes of Davutoğlu delivering his remarks, the Turkish Foreign Ministry released a written statement on the same issue.

Upon an order by Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu, Russian Ambassador Andrey Karlov was summoned to the ministry, the statement said.

During the meeting with Karlov on Nov. 19, “It was underlined that the Russian side’s actions were bombing civilian Turkmen villages, not fighting terror, which may lead to serious consequences,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tanju Bilgiç said in the statement, which came in the form of an official answer to a journalist’s question.

Turkish officials told Karlov they wanted Russia to “end this operation as soon as possible,” Bilgiç said, noting the same kind of warning was also conveyed to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, who is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s special representative for the Middle East and Africa, during a telephone conversation.

Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency reported the Syrian regime forces expanded their ground operations on Nov. 19 to the Bayırbucak Turkmen area of the rural town of Latakia.

The agency cited local sources as saying that regime forces, with the support of Russian air strikes, conducted simultaneous attacks on the Fırınlık, Acısı, and Avanlı regions of the Turkmen mountain area near the border city of Kasab.

Ankara has traditionally expressed solidarity with the Syrian Turkmen, who are Syrians of Turkish descent.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has voiced his concern about Russia’s increasing involvement in the Syrian conflict and expressed anger at Russian incursions into Turkish air space in October.

Russia’s air strikes in support of President Bashar al-Assad’s forces have shifted the balance of power in the conflict and dealt a setback to Turkey’s aim of seeing al-Assad removed from power.

The Foreign Ministry said Turkmen villages were subject to “heavy bombardment” by the Russian planes in the Bayırbucak area of northwest Syria, close to Turkey’s Yayladağ border in the Hatay province.

November/20/2015

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

US Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75% of ISIS Strikes

November 20, 2015

U.S. Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75 Percent of Islamic State Strikes ‘We can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us’

BY:

November 20, 2015 5:00 am

Source: US Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75% of ISIS Strikes

Syria air strike

A target is hit during a Russian air raid in Syria / AP

U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.

Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State.

“You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can’t drop, we can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” Royce said. “I don’t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.”

When asked to address Royce’s statement, a Pentagon official defended the Obama administration’s policy and said that the military is furiously working to prevent civilian casualties.

“The bottom line is that we will not stoop to the level of our enemy and put civilians more in harm’s way than absolutely necessary,” the official told the Washington Free Beacon, explaining that the military often conducts flights “and don’t strike anything.”

“The fact that aircraft go on missions and don’t strike anything is not out of the norm,” the official said. “Despite U.S. strikes being the most precise in the history of warfare, conducting strike operations in the heavily populated areas where ISIL hides certainly presents challenges. We are fighting an enemy who goes out of their way to put civilians at risk. However, our pilots understand the need for the tactical patience in this environment. This fight against ISIL is not the kind of fight from previous decades.”

Jack Keane, a retired four-star U.S. general, agreed with Royce’s assessment of the administration’s policy and blamed President Barack Obama for issuing orders that severely constrain the U.S. military from combatting terror forces.

“This has been an absurdity from the beginning,” Keane said in response to questions from Royce. “The president personally made a statement that has driven air power from the inception.”

“When we agreed we were going to do airpower and the military said, this is how it would work, he [Obama] said, ‘No, I do not want any civilian casualties,’” Keane explained. “And the response was, ‘But there’s always some civilian casualties. We have the best capability in the world to protect from civilians casualties.’”

However, Obama’s response was, “No, you don’t understand. I want no civilian casualties. Zero,’” Keane continued. “So that has driven our so-called rules of engagement to a degree we have never had in any previous air campaign from desert storm to the present.”

This is likely the reason that U.S. pilots are being told to back down when Islamic State targets are in site, Keane said, citing statistics published earlier this year by U.S. Central Command showing that pilots return from sorties in Iraq with about 75 percent of their ordnance unexpended.

“Believe me,” Keane added, “the French are in there not using the restrictions we have imposed on our pilots.”

And the same goes for Russians, he said, adding, “They don’t care at all about civilians.”

The French have been selecting their own targets since beginning to launch strikes on the Islamic State earlier this week, according to a second Pentagon source who spoke to the Free Beacon earlier this week about the strikes.

France dropped at least 20 bombs on key Islamic State targets within two days after the terror attacks in Paris that killed 129. French strikes have killed at least 33 Islamic State militants in the past several days.

In the case of the initial French strikes, the “targets were nominated by the French whose strikes against them were supported by the coalition” fighting the Islamic State, the official explained.

Any coalition member can nominate a potential target.

“Once a target is validated, great care is taken—from analysis of available intelligence to selection of the appropriate weapon to meet mission requirements—to minimize the risk of collateral damage, particularly any potential harm to non-combatants,” the official said.

Since the beginning of the year, more than 22,000 munitions were dropped on Islamic State targets during more than 8,000 sorties, according to information provided to the Free Beacon by the Defense Department.

Some experts questioned whether the administration is handing off portions of the battle to other nations.

“The French airstrikes have been billed as a significant uptick in the battle against the Islamic State, Preliminary data indicate that this is not the case,” said Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism expert at the U.S. Treasury Department. “It appears that the U.S. is simply allowing France to strike many of the targets that would usually be reserved for the U.S. and some of its coalition allies. In other words, this appears to be a redistribution of daily targets in the ongoing campaign, and not a significant change.”

These strikes have forced the Islamic State to evacuate at least 20 to 25 percent of the territories it held one year ago in both Iraq and Syria, according to the Pentagon.

Attacks have focused on the Islamic State’s “staging areas, fighting position, and key leaders,” as well as its “oil distribution chain,” according to the Pentagon.

Meanwhile, a poll released Thursday found that at least 70 percent of American support an expanded fight against the Islamic State, including sending U.S. troops to the region.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Beware of Islamic terrorism

November 20, 2015

Beware of Islamic terrorism, Israel Hayom, Yoram Ettinger, November 20, 2015

(Religion and its history are viewed by many in largely secular western societies as essentially irrelevant to how devout Muslims behave. Ignoring the religious foundations of their conduct is a very dangerous mistake. — DM)

All Islamic terrorists — not only the Islamic State group and al-Qaida — systematically and deliberately target civilians, stabbing their Muslim and “infidel” host countries in the back, abusing their hospitality to advance 14 centuries of megalomaniac aspirations to rule the globe in general, and to reclaim the “waqf” (Allah-ordained) regions of Europe in particular.

Emboldened by Western indifference, these destabilizing and terror-intensifying aspirations have been bolstered by the Islamic educational systems in Europe, the U.S. and other Western countries. These proclaim a supposedly irrevocable Islamic title over the eighth-century Islamic conquests of Lyon, Nice and much of France, as well as all of Spain; the ninth-century subjugation of parts of Italy; and the ninth- and 10th-century occupations of western Switzerland, including Geneva.

Europe has underestimated the critical significance of this long anti-Western history in shaping contemporary Islamic education, culture, politics, peace, war, and the overall Islamic attitude toward Europe, North America, Australia, and other “arrogant infidels.” “Infidel” France has been the prime European target for Islamic terrorists, with 11 reported attacks in 2015, despite France’s systematic criticism of Israel and support for the Palestinian Authority — dispelling conventional “wisdom” that Islamic terrorism is Israeli or Palestinian-driven.

Europe has ignored the significant impact the crucial milestones in the life of the Prophet Muhammad have had on contemporary Islamic geostrategy, such as his seventh-century Hijrah, when Muhammad, along with his loyalists, emigrated or fled from Mecca to Yathrib (Medina), not to be integrated and blend into Medina’s social, economic or political environment, but to advance and spread Islam through conversion, subversion and terrorism, if necessary. Asserting himself over his hosts and rivals in Medina, Muhammad gathered a critical mass of military might to conquer Mecca and launch Islam’s drive to dominate the world.

In 1966, this Hijrah precedent was applied by Mahmoud Abbas, Yasser Arafat and the entire Fatah leadership, which emigrated or fled from Syria to Jordan and incited the Palestinian population there, but failed in their attempt to topple the host Hashemite regime. They emigrated or fled from Jordan in 1970, and in 1976, failed in their attempt to topple the host regime in Beirut. In 1990, they collaborated with Saddam Hussein’s invasion and plunder of Kuwait, stabbing the back of the Sabah family, which had hosted them, their relatives and PLO associates after they emigrated or fled from Egypt in the mid-1950s.

On Friday morning, Nov. 13, 2015, a few hours before Islamic terrorists launched their offensive against France, French Muslim children were being taught, and French Muslim adults were hearing in French mosques, that according to the Quran, humanity must submit to Muhammad and the “infidel” must accept Shariah law; that “holy war” (jihad) must be waged on behalf of Islam; and that taking part in jihad brings the reward of the benefits of paradise. Muslims are taught that the Abode of Islam (“Dar al-Islam”) must be expanded by the sword into the Abode of War (“Dar al-Harab’) and the Abode of Infidel (“Dar al-Kufr”). They are taught that they, the believers, are prohibited from submitting to the rule of the infidel, except as a temporary tactic; and that agreements with infidels are provisional, a mere prelude to subordinating the infidel. They learn that emigration of the believers must serve the historical, supremacist goal of Islam; and that shielding the believers from infidels may require the Quran-sanctioned “taqiyya” — double-talk and deception-based statements and agreements to be ignored, contradicted and abrogated once conditions are ripe.

France and all other Western countries tolerate and fund anti-Western Islamic hate-education institutions — in Muslim states and in the West — despite the fact that they are the most effective production line of anti-Western Islamic terrorists.

Europe has failed to read the piercing, bloody writing on the wall, sacrificing long-term homeland security on the altar of short-term convenience and naive, self-destructive interpretation of human rights. Through its immoral tradition of moral equivalence, Europe has embraced Muslim immigrants who are largely ruthlessly controlled and manipulated by rogue terrorist, supremacist organizations and regimes — which use them as a Trojan horse.

In 1982, in the aftermath of Islamic/Palestinian terrorist attacks in Paris that claimed the lives of Israeli diplomat Yaacov Bar-Simantov (April 4) and six patrons of the Chez Jo Goldenberg restaurant (Aug. 9), Israeli Ambassador to France Meir Rosenne denounced the Palestine Liberation Organization but also blamed countries that legitimize and host PLO operatives and supporters for bringing the wrath of terrorism upon themselves. Rosenne was threatened with expulsion from France, but would not retract.

Have France and other Western governments come to grips with reality? Are they ready to heed Rosenne’s warning and dramatically overhaul their ideological and operational approach to counterterrorism, and realize that draining the hate-education swamps is a prerequisite for eliminating the individual mosquitoes?

Or, are they determined to learn from history by repeating — rather than avoiding — past devastating mistakes, which would condemn them, and the rest of the world, to exponentially more ravaging terrorism?

Categories: Asylum seekers, Europe, Hijrah, Islam, Islam - the religion of war, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic terrorism, Israel, Middle East, Supporting Islamic terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

FBI admitted in 2013 that “dozens” of terrorists have already entered the U.S. through refugee program

November 19, 2015

FBI admitted in 2013 that “dozens” of terrorists have already entered the U.S. through refugee program

By Pamela Geller

November 18, 2015

Source: FBI admitted in 2013 that “dozens” of terrorists have already entered the U.S. through refugee program | Pamela Geller

Obama-Middle-FInger

The FBI has 900 ongoing ISIS-related investigations. And now the traitor in the White House wants to bring in at least 200,000 more “refugees,” with untold numbers of jihadis among them. Absolute madness. – See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/11/fbi-admitted-in-2013-that-dozens-of-terrorists-have-already-entered-the-u-s-through-refugee-program.html/#sthash.UmeZr62C.dpuf
obama fbi

FBI In 2013: ‘Dozens’ Of Terrorists In US Through Refugee Program,” by Kerry Picket, Daily Caller, November 17, 2015:

WASHINGTON — The FBI told ABC News two years ago the U.S. may have already allowed in “dozens” of terrorists as refugees. The revelation came after two al-Qaida terrorists who were admitted as refugees and lived in Bowling Green, Ky., later said they attacked U.S. military personnel in Iraq.

“We are currently supporting dozens of current counter-terrorism investigations like that,” FBI Agent Gregory Carl, director of the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center, said in an ABC News interview at the time….

– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/11/fbi-admitted-in-2013-that-dozens-of-terrorists-have-already-entered-the-u-s-through-refugee-program.html/#sthash.UmeZr62C.dpuf

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

USA Delivers 19,000 Bombs to Wahabist Saudis Supporting ISIS

November 19, 2015

USA Delivers 19,000 Bombs to Wahabist Saudis Supporting ISIS Could it be any more clear who is on the right side, and who is on the wrong side of this conflict?

(German Economic News) 1 hour ago

Source: USA Delivers 19,000 Bombs to Wahabist Saudis Supporting ISIS

Dealing death

Originally appeared at German Economic News. Translated by Susan Neumann.

The Islamist theocracy Saudi Arabia is getting heavy ammunition equaling billions of dollars from the United States. It remains to be seen whether this economic booster shot for the U.S. defense industry will lead to consequences in Syria. The Saudis are fighting covertly against the Russians.

The U.S. government has approved a multibillion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia. In order to strengthen its air force, the Islamist monarchy wants to purchase more than 19,000 bombs, which would total up to 1.29 billion dollars (1.19 billion euros).  This was confirmed by the State Department in Washington on Monday. Although the final word from the U.S. Congress is still pending, it’s likely that the approval will go through.

Saudi Arabia is one of the United States’ key allies in the Middle East. The agreement on Iran’s nuclear program has caused tension in the relationship. Saudi Arabia is engaged in a power struggle with Tehran for control in the Gulf. The Saudi Arabian air force is launching air attacks in Yemen, whose government is not accepted by the Saudis. These attacks are recognized by the international community as unlawful.

The Saudis play a special role in Syria. They sit at the table at the Syrian peace talks in Vienna, when in fact, it is they who support the terrorists who are in a fight against the Russians. It’s unclear whether the Saudis are acting on behalf of the Americans. In any case, it can’t be ruled out that those U.S.-provided bombs will eventually be used in Syria, too.

In Saudi Arabia, human rights apply only in the context of a religious fundamentalist theocracy. Up to this point, protests out of the EU and the U.S. have been only scarcely perceived.

The arms shipment includes some 12,000 bombs with a combat weight of 500 to 2000 pounds, 1500 bunker-busting bombs, and more than 6,000 laser-guided precision bombs. According to Washington data, bomb arsenal from the Saudi Arabian armed forces will be heavily taxed by “the high level of deployment in several anti-terrorist operations”. Saudi Arabia participates in the U.S.-led air strikes against the Islamic State jihadi militia in Syria.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »