Washington’s failure to share data with Russian intelligence about terrorist positions in Syria makes one question the goals that Americans have in their anti-ISIS campaign in Syria and Iraq, a senior Russian diplomat has said.
The refusal to share intelligence on terrorists “just confirms once more what we knew from the very start, that the US goals in Syria have little to do with creating the conditions for a political process and national reconciliation,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said Thursday.
“I would risk saying that by doing this the US and the countries that joined the US-led coalition are putting themselves in a politically dubious position. The question is: which side are you fighting for in this war?”
Earlier, the Russian military said they would welcome American intelligence on the forces of terrorist group Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) to help with Russia’s bombing operation in Syria. But the US State Department said it would not be possible because Russia and the US do not share the same goals in Syria.
“I don’t know how you can share intelligence when you don’t share a basic, common objective inside Syria. We’re not at that – we’re nowhere near that point. There’s no shared, common objective here about going after ISIL,” said John Kirby, a State Department spokesman.
The US has accused Russia of failing to target ISIS and instead bombing moderate rebel forces, which Washington wants to replace the government of President Bashar Assad. Russia denies the allegations.
Ryabkov said that without US intelligence Russia would remain quite effective in the Syrian operation, considering that it has plenty of other sources.
“There are our own means of reconnaissance. We get intelligence from a number of other countries and coordinate its flow through the Baghdad information-sharing center,” the Russian diplomat said, referring to a facility in the Iraqi capital that is used by Syria, Iraq, Iran and Russia to coordinate their efforts in fighting ISIS.
The US-led coalition has been bombing ISIS targets for over a year and provided supplies and assistance to forces such as Iraqi and Kurdish militias, which are fighting the terrorists on the ground. But it has refused to deal with either Damascus or its key regional ally Tehran, saying that the downfall of the government of President Assad is part of the solution to the crisis. Despite the coalition’s efforts, ISIS has enlarged the territory under its control over the last year.
Senior Syrian and Iranian officials questioned America’s determination to defeat ISIS, saying that the coalition airstrikes are more of a show and are not intended to actually harm the terrorists. Instead Washington is trying to get ISIS topple the Assad government, hoping to deal with them later.
Russia voiced similar concerns on Wednesday, after reporting that its week-long effort had done serious harm to the jihadists in Syria.
“The US Air Force and other parties has been conduction airstrikes for a year. We have reasons to believe that they don’t often hit terrorist targets, or rather do so very rarely,” said Igor Konashenkov, the spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry.
Meanwhile Russia’s effort seems to have paid off, as on Tuesday the Syrian Army announced a major offensive against various terrorist groups. Commenting on what role Russia’s support played in turning the tables on the jihadists, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad said that Russia “has produced significant results in several days that greatly surpass those achieved by the [US-led anti-ISIS] coalition in over a year.”
Islamic State is training militants from Russia in Afghanistan as part of its efforts to expand into Central Asia, a senior Russian diplomat told a security conference in Moscow. He added that US and UK passport holders are among the instructors.
“There are several camps operated by [Islamic State, previously ISIS/ISIL, in Afghanistan] that train people from Central Asia and some regions of Russia. They speak Russian there,” said Zamir Kabulov, President Putin’s special representative for Afghanistan.
He added that there is a wide national variety of instructors in those camps. There are Arabs, Pakistanis and even people with US and British citizenship, he said.
Russian intelligence estimates the number of militants in Afghanistan who have pledged allegiance to the Syria- and Iraq-based Islamic State, at 3,500, Kabulov said, and the number is rising.
“The rise of [Islamic State] in Afghanistan is a high-priority threat. Just think about it: [ISIS] showed up in Afghanistan for real just a year ago, and now it has 3,500 fighters plus supporters who may be recruited into the ranks of the militants,” he said.
Overall, there are some 50,000 fighters belonging to more than 4,000 militant groups in Afghanistan, said Army General Valery Gerasimov, who heads the Russian General Staff. He was addressing the same conference in Moscow, which is discussing the security situation in Afghanistan. The Afghan Taliban is by far the strongest militant movement in the country, with some 40,000 fighters in their ranks.
But their dominant position is being challenged by Islamic State, which sees Afghanistan as a recruiting ground, a source of income and a foothold for further expansion over Central Asia, reported Colonel General Igor Sergun, the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate, Russia’s military intelligence agency.
“ISIL [a former name for Islamic State, along with ISIS] uses the worsening of the situation in Afghanistan to strengthen its position,” he said, adding that such development poses a real threat to Russia’s security.
“We estimate that ISIL gets new troops by bribing field commanders of Taliban, the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan and other radical religious organizations operating on Afghan territory,” Sergun said.
Russia believes that if Islamic State is allowed to grow in Afghanistan unchecked, the group could spread its influence north toward Russia and east to China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, the general said. There the jihadists would be recruiting people from national minorities and local terrorist organizations.
The Afghan government in Kabul is unable to turn the tables on the militants, despite having superior weapons and numbers, Sergun said. He blamed poor planning skills of Afghan commanders and bad training of their troops for it.
On the other hand, Afghan tribal society resists ISIS’s ideology, which makes the terrorist group’s effort to gain support somewhat more difficult, the general said.
“The will to fight for ISIL in most cases comes from financial interest. But at the same time, the ISIL message is spreading quickly among the educated youth who have access to the internet and other media that is spreading the radical version of Islam,” Sergun warned.
slamic State is targeting radical fighters in Afghanistan who are falling for ISIS propaganda, accusing Taliban leaders of abandoning the fight against the United States and the government in Kabul, Sergun reported. This year alone clashes between the Taliban and ISIS have claimed an estimated total of 900 lives on both sides, he added.
Russian officials accused Washington of orchestrating the deterioration of security in Afghanistan and the expansion of Islamic State there.
“It seems like someone’s hand is pushing freshly trained ISIL fighters to mass along Afghanistan’s northern border. They don’t fight foreign or Afghan government troops,” Kabulov said.
He added that on several occasions Taliban groups that refused to join Islamic State were “set up” to be targeted by airstrikes.
“The Afghan Army practically has no aircraft. Only the Americans do. These details bring some very bad thoughts and concerns. We have to take them into account and draw conclusions accordingly,” he said.
Sergun said the US has a long-term goal of preventing stabilization in Central Asian countries and surrounding Russia and China with a network of regimes loyal to America and hotspots of tension.
A bombshell report by the Washington Times reveals that fecklessness in the face of terror isn’t a condition exclusive to the Obama administration. “Bill Clinton’s administration gathered enough evidence to send a top-secret communique accusing Iran of facilitating the deadly 1996 Khobar Towers terrorist bombing,” the Times states, “but suppressed that information from the American public and some elements of U.S. intelligence for fear it would lead to an outcry for reprisal, according to documents and interviews.”
Nineteen American servicemen were killed in that attack and another 372 people were wounded when a tanker laden with plastic explosives was driven into the parking lot and detonated next to the eight-story dormitory used for U.S. Air Force personnel assigned to the Gulf. A U.S. indictment was issued in 2001 charging 13 Saudis and a Lebanese man with the crime for which then-Attorney General John Ashcroft blamed Iran, stating they “inspired, supported and supervised members of Saudi Hezbollah.” Yet no Iranian officials were named or charged, nor was the Iranian government accused of any legal responsibility for the atrocity.
According to memos obtain by the Times, the intelligence demonstrating Iranian involvement in the attack was characterized as extensive and credible. It included interviews by the FBI of a half-dozen Saudi co-conspirators who told the agency their passports were provided by the Iranian embassy in Damascus. They further revealed they reported to a top Iranian general, and received training from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), according to FBI officials.
The Times further notes the revelation about what former President Clinton knew has taken on “new significance” due to the August announcement that Ahmed al-Mughassil, described by the FBI in 2001 as both head of the military wing of Saudi Hezbollah and the alleged leader of the attack, had been captured. According to the Saudi newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, al-Mughassil was arrested in Beirut and transferred to Riyadh. U.S. officials contend his capture has revealed new evidence of Iran’s and Hezbollah’s complicity in the attack—as well as Clinton administration efforts to shield both from responsibility.
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh minced no words describing what occurred. “The bottom line was they weren’t interested,” he stated during an interview. “They were not at all responsive to it. They were looking to change the relationships with the regime there, which is foreign policy. And the FBI has nothing to do with that. They didn’t like that. But I did what I thought was proper.”
Freeh insists that when he initially sought help from the Clinton White House to gain access to the Saudi suspects, he was repeatedly turned down. When he went around the Clinton and succeeded in bringing the evidence to light, it was dismissed as “hearsay,” and a request was made not to disseminate it to others because the administration was endeavoring to improve relations with the world’s foremost state sponsor of terror. Freeh was also dismissed as a partisan when he revealed the same allegations in a book he wrote a decade ago about his time with the bureau. The same Clinton defenders further insisted the evidence obtained by Freeh was inconclusive.
“But since that time, substantial new information has emerged in declassified memos, oral history interviews with retired government officials and other venues that corroborate Mr. Freeh’s account, including that the White House tried to cut off the flow of evidence about Iran’s involvement to certain elements of the intelligence community,” the Times reports.
Damning memo sent in 1999 by Clinton to newly-elected Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.
The chief piece of evidence cited by the paper is a damning memo sent in 1999 by Clinton to newly-elected Iranian President Mohammad Khatami. Clinton stated the American government “has received credible evidence that members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), along with members of Lebanese and Saudi Hizballah were directly involved in the planning and execution” of the bombing. Clinton insisted the United States viewed the evidence “in the gravest terms,” and though the atrocity had occurred before Khatami’s election those responsible “have yet to face justice for this crime.” Clinton further stated “the IRGC may be involved in planning for further terrorist attacks against American citizens,” and that such a possibility remains a “cause of deep concern to us.”
The 2001 indictment was issued after Clinton left office, and whatever doubt remained about Iranian involvement in the crime was shattered in 2006, when U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that Iran was responsible for the bombing, and ordered the Iranian government to pay $254 million to the families of 17 Americans who died. “The totality of the evidence at trial . . . firmly establishes that the Khobar Towers bombing was planned, funded, and sponsored by senior leadership in the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Lamberth wrote.
Following the linkage of Iran to the attack, Clinton had initially ordered the military to come up with plan for a retaliatory strike, and gave the CIA the green light to pursue “Operation Sapphire” aimed at disrupting Iranian intel operations in several nations. Yet just like our current president, Clinton believed the election of the ostensibly more moderate Khatami would produce a thaw in the U.S./Iranian relationship leading to Iran aiding the investigation, and renouncing terror.
Iran pushed back with a vehement denial—and a threat to publish Clinton’s cable to Khatami. Clinton officials were scared such a revelation would force the president’s hand. “If the Iranians make good on their threats to release the text of our letter, we are going to face intense pressure to take action,” wrote top Clinton aide Kenneth Pollack in a Sept. 15, 1999 memo.
As the evidence linking Iran to the crime piled up, the administration was backing down, speculating that Saudi Arabia was fanning a Shia-Sunni confrontation and that it would be better to work with the new Iranian regime rather than dealing with the possibility of engendering a wider war against terror, according to former aides. Thus, despite the State Department and FBI getting increased cooperation from the Saudis with regard to Iranian involvement, the flow of information suddenly stopped. “We were seeing a line of traffic that led us toward Iranian involvement, and suddenly that traffic was cut off,” said career intelligence officer Wayne White, who served as deputy director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research’s Office of Analysis for the Near East and South Asia.
When White tried to get the intel flowing again, he discovered “the stream had been cut off by Sandy Berger, and the original agency producing the intelligence was struggling to work around the roadblock,” he said. Berger was Clinton’s top security aide—and the man who was fined $50,000 following his 2008 conviction for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives, some of which he intentionally destroyed.
White’s account was confirmed to the Times by several U.S. officials “with direct knowledge of the matter” including Freeh, who also revealed he tried to get around Berger by contacting former President George H.W. Bush, who had a good relationship with the Saudis. “I explained to him what my dilemma was and asked if he would contact the Saudis. And he did,” Freeh revealed. White noted that intel analysts didn’t want Iran involved in the attack because of the serious long-term ramifications it would engender for America. But when the evidence became irrefutable, he was disgusted with the administration’s politically-motivated reaction. “You cannot provide your intelligence community selective intelligence without corrupting the process, and that was an outrage,” he declared.
It is an outrage allegedly reprised by the Obama administration, which has been accused by 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command of doctoring their reports in an effort to downplay the danger ISIS and the Syrian branch of al Qaeda presented. The same Obama administration got equally traitorous Democrats to sustain a filibuster against the Iran deal in Congress. The GOP abetted the outrage, allowing a vote to proceed despite the law requiring all parts of that agreement, including Iran’s “side deals” with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to be part of the process. Their cowardice was exemplified by Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, who refused to invoke the nuclear option and force a vote on what is arguably the most important national security issue of our time.
Exactly like Bill Clinton, who also promised us the Agreed Framework of 1994 would prevent a nuclear North Korea, Obama is embracing appeasement with Iranian Islamo-fascists responsible for far more American deaths than the Khobar Towers attack. Beginning with the 1979 hostage crisis, during which Americans were beaten and placed in solitary confinement, Iran has precipitated numerous instances of aggression, including kidnapping and murder, against America. The terror timeline is highlighted by 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, killing 17 Americans and the Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines. Moreover their involvement in both Afghanistan and Iraq cost at least 500 American soldiers their lives, according to Congressional testimony presented last July by current Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford. And one is left to wonder if Iran’s propensity for killing Americans was part of the equation to which our contemptible Secretary of State John Kerry referred, when he admitted the part of the Iranian deal that frees up billions of dollars for their use will be devoted to “nefarious activities.”
Like the Clinton administration before them, the Obama administration is indulging the fantasy they can improve relations with terrorist thugs whose contempt for America hasn’t diminished an iota in 37 years. And as these revelations from the Washington Times indicate, Bill Clinton and his apparatchiks were every bit as dishonest as Barack Obama and his equally duplicitous underlings when it came to pursuing an agenda utterly inimical to American interests and security. Make no mistake: both men have demonstrated a willingness to countenance the murder of their fellow countrymen in pursuit of appeasement. Times have changed. The unconscionable nature of the Democratic/progressive mindset with regard to America’s enemies remains a constant.
Russia would consider an Air Force operation against ISIS in Iraq if that country’s authorities make such a request, Federation Council speaker Valentina Matviyenko told reporters, adding that Russia’s only interest was in defeating ISIS.
“In case of an official address from Iraq to the Russian Federation, the leaders of our country would study the political and military expediency of our Air Force’s participation in an air operation. Presently we have not received such an address,” Matviyenko told reporters on Tuesday during an official visit to Jordan. She also asked the press “to stop reading tea leaves” before actual events take place.
“I want to emphasize that Russia has no other political objectives and no interests other than the defeat of ISIS [formerly ISIS/ISIL] and that differs us from other nations that participate in another coalition,” Interfax news agency quoted Matviyenko as saying at a meeting with the head of the Jordanian Senate, President Abdur-Ra’uf Rawabdeh. She also said that Russian authorities understood the necessity of political reforms in Syria, but the final decision on the nature of these reforms and future head of the Syrian state must be made by Syrian people without any external pressure or direct interference of foreign nations.
During the meeting with her Jordanian colleague, Matviyenko stated that Russia was calling upon all states that see the Islamic State as a threat to join the information center in Baghdad used by Russian, Iraqi, Syrian and Iranian security specialists and military. She added that Russia was ready for other forms of cooperation with all nations that share the common goal of fighting international terrorism.
Last week, Russia started to carry out surgical airstrikes on terrorist positions in Syria after a request for such military aid was made by President Bashar Assad. The head of Russia’s presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, emphasized that Moscow would not be involved in any ground operation – aid would only be in the form of airstrikes.
In comments on the Upper House’s license on use of Russian military forces abroad, Valentina Matviyenko said that fighting against the Islamic State was in Russia’s national interests because terrorists posed a threat to Europe, Russia and the whole world. She also expressed confidence that the operation would be supported by an absolute majority of the world’s nations.
Brussels (dpa) – NATO defence ministers were set Thursday to consider whether to step up protection of the military alliance’s southern flank, amid new tensions in Syria following recent intervention by Russia.
“Our military commanders have confirmed that we already have the capabilities and infrastructure that we need to deploy the NATO response force to the south, and to sustain it there. But we will also consider what more we might need to do,” NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said ahead of the ministers’ talks in Brussels.
The response force has, since 2002, allowed troops from NATO members to be deployed quickly in a crisis. It was enhanced last year after Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
The four-year conflict in Syria entered a new phase last week when Russia started airstrikes in the Middle Eastern country – ostensibly to fight the Islamic State extremist group, but in practice targeting other opponents of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the West says.
Tensions mounted further after Russian warplanes operating in Syria twice violated the airspace of Turkey, a NATO member. NATO officials have said that the violations do not appear to have been accidental.
“Russia is making a very serious situation in Syria much more dangerous,” British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told journalists in Brussels.
“We have seen a troubling escalation of Russian military activities,” Stoltenberg added. “We will assess the latest developments and their implications for the security of the alliance.”
NATO has an increased capacity to deploy forces both to the east and the south, “including in Turkey if needed,” Stoltenberg noted.
“NATO is able and ready to defend all allies, including Turkey, against any threats,” he said.
The 28-country alliance already has five Patriot missile batteries stationed in southern Turkey, deployed in 2013 to thwart attacks from Syria. But the United States and Germany have announced that they are pulling out the two batteries they have each provided.
The US cited a global defence posture review, while Germany said that it had assessed the threat of missile attacks as having dropped.
German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen defended her country’s decision on Thursday.
“The question is which threat can be averted in what way, and in this context the decision is right,” she said in Brussels.
As I write this, events are overtaking me with a huge wave of terror attacks (145 at the last count) hitting throughout Israel, including my own hometown of Petach Tikva. I wonder how the media will cover this – if at all. — anneinpt)
I have been documenting anti-Israel bias in the media since I started this blog. In fact it was one of the reasons I st this blog up in the first place. Sadly it seems to be getting worse despite the fact that there are so many media-monitoring websites out there, at least in certain media outlets (Haaretz, the BBC, the NYT, I’m looking at you – and others besides). This is besides the built-in hostility towards Israel in international institutions like the UN. But it goes further. Much more egregiously, the double standard to wards Israel has become blatantly clear in the US State Department. Following are several examples from the past week which saw several terrorist atrocities in Israel.
CAMERA billboard posted opposite the NYT building
The Algemeiner has an “interesting” (i.e. enraging) roundup of the blatant bias of the New York Times with examples from just the past month (there are many more recent exampels at the following links) documented by two media watchdogs: CAMERA and Honest Reporting):
On September 10, the NYT singled out Jewish lawmakers on the Iran deal. [At the link you will read that this was a blatantly antisemitic act, targeting Jews for no other reason than that they are Jewish. The NYT has yet to be made to pay for this racial discrimination. -Ed.]
On September 15, the NYT suggested that the Israeli who was murdered by rock-throwing Palestinians had died of a “self-inflicted accident” after the attackers had merely “pelted the road” (rather than his car). The National Review provided a detailed critique of this farcical “reporting.”
On September 29, Hadid used an anonymous European advocate of Palestinian rights as a witness to contradict Israeli army claims that a Palestinian woman who was shot at an IDF checkpoint had been armed with a knife. Hadid then omitted confirmatory reports from another witness mentioned in the article, a Palestinian named Fawaz Abu Aisheh, who said the woman had dropped her knife after being shot. (Hadid ignored this evidence even though Amnesty International mentioned Aisheh’s corroborating testimony about the knife).
On September 30, the NYT struck again with false historical information and tendentious coverage of Abbas’ UN speech. The article, by Rick Gladstone and Jodi Rudoren, noted that “Mr. Abbas accused Israel of having systematically violated these pacts,” without mentioning the many violations of the Oslo Peace Accords by Palestinians. In an article exceeding 1,000 words, the reporters made not even one reference to Palestinian terrorism, a basic historical fact that is essential to any fair and balanced understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, since the Oslo Peace Accords, there have been 22 years of Palestinian terrorist attacks — including 140 suicide bombings — which have murdered more than 1,500 Israelis (in U.S. population terms, about 60,000 people killed) and made Israeli compliance with a complex and risky “peace” agreement even harder.
Equally egregious is their patently false claim that “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the most protracted dispute vexing the United Nations since the organization’s founding 70 years ago.” Some basic Wikipedia research reveals that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in 1948 and has produced about 24,000 fatalities since then, while the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan began in 1947 and has produced about 47,000 fatalities, and the conflict over Kurdish separatism in Iran began in 1946 and has caused at least 30,000 fatalities.
Moving on to the events of last week, the BBC outdid itself (if that is at all possible) in its outrageous headlines which even they themselves were persuaded – eventually – to change – four times! – until they matched the events on the ground. Honest Reporting gives us a screenshot of the initial BBC headline after a Palestinian terrorist stabbed and murdered two Israeli Rabbis and injured the wife and child of one of them in the Old City of Jerusalem:
BBC biased headline
Note how the headline focuses on the poor Palestinian murderer.
BBC Watch follows up on how the BBC flunked the headlines on the Jerusalem terror attack: – and includes a reference to the BBC’s misleading reporting on the murder of the Henkin’s two days previously, in which they did not mention the Palestinian Authority’s connection to the murder:
Predictably, that headline prompted considerable protest on social media and shortly after its publication the title was changed to one displaying yet another regular feature of BBC reporting; the use of superfluous punctuation.
Following further complaints, the headline was amended again.
And later on – yet again.
In other words, professional journalists supposedly fluent in the English language had to make three changes to the article’s headline in not much more than an hour.
And what of the report itself? In line with standard BBC practice, the word terror does not appear in any of the versions of an article describing a terror attack on Israeli civilians. Readers are told that:
“It comes two days after an Israeli couple, who were in a car with their four children, were shot dead in the West Bank.”
Of course BBC audiences had not been informed that was a terror attack either.
Readers of the third version of the report were told that:
“Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that rules the Gaza Strip, issued a statement praising the attack which it described as “heroic”.”
The BBC cannot claim to be meeting its remit of building “a global understanding of international issues” as long as it continues to conceal the role played by the Palestinian Authority in inciting violence and executing terror attacks on Israeli civilians.
But the Beeb’s bias doesn’t seem to worry anyone in the British halls of power.
As for international coverage of the terror attacks that killed four Israeli civilians in 2 days, besides the countless attempted murder attacks via rock-throwing on the roads, firebombs, tossing firecrackers at the police, and arson, Israel experienced agricultural terrorism in the form of uprooted vineyards, as well as the destruction of priceless Bar Kochba-era antiquities.
Uprooted vines in the Shilo region
Kiryat Aravia caves before the destruction
The site after Palestinians bulldozed it
If you live outside Israel I’m pretty sure you haven’t heard of any of this. Edgar Davidson has produced another great (but sad) info-graphic showing the disparity in political reactions and the bias in reporting: (click to enlarge):
Compare and contrast responses to terror in Israel
Sadly, I find none of this surprising. We have become so inured to biased, misleading, distorted or simply missing reporting on Israel that, at least speaking for myself, I have no expectations at all from the foreign media and am pleasantly surprised when I find an accurate report.
However the bias at the US State Department which is also not new (it is dominated by Arabists, rather like the “Camel Corps” of the British Foreign Office), seems to have hit a new low.
The blogger “First One Through” at Jews Down Under created an instructive table comparing the State Department’s reactions to Israeli and Arab casualties of warfare and terrorism. Even with the knowledge that State is biased, I admit I was shocked by this (I edited the heading of the chart for errors):
I cannot recall ever such a disgraceful, overtly antagonistic act being taken – for no reason other than hurt personal feelings – by the White House or the State Department. Shame on them!
But history is a cycle. Do you remember the “outrage” and “appalled” feelings at State when Israel hit a school or hospital – or rather, NEAR the buildings – in Gaza? That was described as a war crime and Israel was villified in every media outlet that you can think of, besides the State Department (reminder: the US is supposed to be Israel’s ally!) and of course the UN.
It will certainly be interesting to compare the media coverage of Russian and U.S. air strikes to the reports that Israel had to contend with. All too often, the media attributes a level of malevolence when it comes to Israeli military actions.
So, while, for example, the New York Times’s headline from July 2014 actively attributes responsibility to Israel for the alleged shelling of a UN school, its headline covering the Afghan hospital incident passively attributes the air strike rather than those who carried it out.
Ultimately, both Israel and the U.S. have shared values when it comes to the ethics of war. It is hard to believe that the U.S. has intentionally targeted civilians in a hospital. It does, however, comparatively demonstrate the lengths that Israel goes to in order to avoid just such a scenario as the Afghan hospital.
It is a tragic inevitability that civilians will die in war. Russia does not appear to be influenced by morals or ethics. Meanwhile the U.S. may be realizing that it has something to learn from Israel when it comes to ethics on the battlefield.
I would have been angrier at the duplicity of the State Department, but I must admit I’m finally enjoying a great surge of schadenfreude at their expense as their spokesman squirmed, evaded and tried to wriggle out of a straight answer to a direct question posed by Matt Lee of AP about the Afghan hospital bombing. Watch the video at Israellycool:
Matt Lee decided to ask the State Department’s Mark Toner exactly what kind of standards they hold themselves to because it would seem to be a different set that they applied to Israel last year.
I’ll spoil it. He’s got no answer. They can’t justify it. They hold Israel to an impossible standard, one to which they cannot themselves match because this is war and bad stuff happens. We join the briefing for Matt’s follow up question after his first is left completely unanswered in over 3 minutes of bluster.
You can read the transcript of the entire question and answer session at the Israellycool link.
Enjoy! Maybe the State Department will think twice before again condemning Israel’s perfectly legal actions taken in self-defense.
—
One update before I go: there has been another terrorist stabbing in the Old City, near the site of the double murder on Saturday night:
Watch out for biased reporting about this one too – if it even gets a mention.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
The Orthodox Christian Church, which holds an important place in an insurgent Russia, has described its government’s fight against the Islamic State and other jihadi opposition groups in Syria as a “holy war.”
According to Vsevolod Chaplin, head of the Church’s Public Affairs Department,
The fight with terrorism is a holy battle and today our country is perhaps the most active force in the world fighting it. The Russian Federation has made a responsible decision on the use of armed forces to defend the People of Syria from the sorrows caused by the arbitrariness of terrorists. Christians are suffering in the region with the kidnapping of clerics and the destruction of churches. Muslims are suffering no less.
This is not some new “gimmick” to justify intervention in Syria. For years, Russia’s Orthodox leaders have been voicing their concern for persecuted Christians. Back in February 2012, Putin met with representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church. They described to him the horrific treatment Christians are experiencing around the world, especially the Muslim world:
The head of External Church Relations, Metropolitan Illarion, said that every five minutes one Christian was dying for his or her faith in some part of the world, specifying that he was talking about such countries as Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan and India. The cleric asked Putin to make the protection of Christians one of the foreign policy directions in future.
“This is how it will be, have no doubt,” Putin answered.
The Russian Patriarch Kirill even once wrote an impassioned letter to Obama, imploring the American president to stop empowering Christian persecuting jihadis. That the patriarch said “I am deeply convinced that the countries which belong to the Christian civilization bear a special responsibility for the fate of Christians in the Middle East” must have only ensured that the letter ended in the trash bin of the White House.
Of course, Russian’s concern for Christian minorities will be cynically dismissed in America by the major talking heads on both sides. While such dismissals once resonated with Americans, they are becoming less and less persuasive to those paying attention, as explained in “Putin’s Crusade—Is Russia the Last Defender of the Christian Faith?”
For those of us who grew up in America being told that the godless communist atheists in Russia were our enemies, the idea that America might give up on God and Christianity while Russia embraces religion might once have been difficult to accept. But by 2015, the everyday signs in America show a growing contempt for Christianity, under the first president whose very claims of being a Christian are questionable. The exact opposite trend is happening for Russia and its leaders—a return to Christian roots.
Indeed, growing numbers of Americans who have no special love for Russia or Orthodoxy—from billionaire tycoon Donald Trump to evangelical Christians—are being won over by Putin’s frank talk.
How can they not? After one of his speeches praising the West’s Christian heritage—a thing few American politicians dare do—Putin concluded with something which must surely resonate with millions of traditional Americans: “We must protect Russia from that which has destroyed American society”—a reference to the anti-Christian liberalism and licentiousness that has run amok in the West.
Even the Rev. Franklin Graham’s response to Russia’s military intervention in Syria seems uncharacteristically positive, coming as it is from the head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association: “What Russia is doing may save the lives of Christians in the Middle East…. You understand that the Syrian government … have protected Christians, they have protected minorities from the Islamists.”
Should U.S supported jihadis (“rebels”) succeed in toppling the government of Syria, Graham correctly predicts that there will be “a bloodbath of Christians”:
There would be tens of thousands of Christians murdered and slaughtered and on top of that, you would have hundreds of thousands of more refugees pouring into Europe. So Russia right now, I see their presence as helping to save the lives of Christians.
When asked why the Obama administration is ignoring the persecution of Christians, Graham, echoing Putin, said Obama was more invested in promoting the homosexual agenda than he is in protecting Christian minorities:
I’m not here to bash the gays and lesbians and they certainly have rights and I understand all of that, but this administration has been more focused on that agenda than anything else. As a result, the Middle East is burning and you have more refugees moving today since World War II. It could have been prevented.
Indeed, at day’s end, it is not Russian claims of waging a holy war to save Christians from the sword of jihad that deserves to be cynically dismissed, but rather every claim the Obama administration makes to justify its support for the opposition in Syria (most of which is not even Syrian).
And, based on established precedent—look to Iraq and Libya, the other countries U.S. leadership helped “liberate”—the outcome of ousting the secular strongman of Syria will be more atrocities, more Christian persecution, more bombed churches and destroyed antiquities, and more terrorism, including in the West, despite John Kerry’s absurd assurances of a “pluralistic” Syria once Assad is gone.
Thus, and once again, the U.S. finds itself on the side of Islamic terrorists, who always reserve their best for America. The Saudis—the head of the Jihadi Snake which U.S. presidents are wont to kiss and bow to—are already screaming bloody murder and calling for an increased jihad in Syria in response to Russia’s audacious call to holy war.
Will Obama and the MSM comply, including through an increased propaganda campaign? Top Islamic clerics like Yusuf Qaradawi—who once slipped on live television by calling on America to wage “jihad for Allah” against Assad—seem to think so. Already the U.S. “welcomes” the new cruel joke that Saudi Arabia—one of the absolute worst human rights violators—will head a U.N. human rights panel.
At day’s end and all Realpolitik aside, there is no denying reality: what the United States and its Western allies have wrought in the Middle East—culminating with the rise of a bloodthirsty caliphate and the worst atrocities of the 21st century—is as unholy as Russia’s resolve to fight it is holy.
Angelo Codevilla’s terse and magisterial reading of Putin’s war aims is simply the best thing I have read on a subject which elicits the sort of heavy breathing that belongs in pulp scenario novels (e.g., Commentary Magazine’s post this week entitled “It’s Not a New Cold War– It’s Something Worse“). The US ambled about in a fantasy world after the misnamed Arab Spring, searching for “moderate Sunnis” who might represent a viable alternative to the Assad regime in Syria. Like most sleepwalkers, Washington is grouchy about the rude wake-up, but there is no risk of war, hot or cold.
Something additional, though, needs to be said about Russia and Turkey, which the estimable M.K. Bhadrakumar (India’s past ambassador to Turkey) neglected to say in his note today (“Russia Outflanks Turkey in Syria“). NATO has protested Russia’s violation of Turkish air space, and the usual commentators have been wheeled out to warn that air-space infractions followed by fighter interception can lead to nasty accidents. But that is beside the point. In order to suppress the emergence of a Kurdish zone in northern Syria linked to the de facto Kurdish state in northern Iraq, Turkey has been supporting whatever Islamists it find, including ISIS, to harry the Kurds. It has been using fighter cover to favor its Islamist allies in its war on the Kurds.
Turkish journalist Kadri Gursel last week explained the game in AI-Monitor:
Using some imagination, one could foresee the adverse impacts Russia’s move will have on Ankara’s policies on the ground. Ankara is now likely to be forced to end the de facto situation — virtually a no-fly zone — it has enforced casually in border areas since 2012. In June 2012, after a Turkish reconnaissance plane was shot down by an air defense system in Syria, Ankara announced new rules of engagement, including the interception of Syrian aircraft flying close to Turkish airspace. There has been no indication so far that these rules of engagement have changed. Since the summer of 2012, Turkish media have occasionally reported incidents of Turkish fighter jets taking off from their bases to chase off Syrian planes and helicopters flying “too close” to the border.
Ankara-backed Islamist groups fighting Assad’s regime have emerged as the main beneficiary of these rules of engagement, which have effectively served as a Turkish air cover for their military and logistical operations in border regions.
NATO let the Turks go rogue in their campaign against the Kurds, who will outnumber ethnic Turks among Turkey’s under-25 population in less than twenty years. The Obama administration has given the Turks a pass even when Turkish actions blatantly violate Washington’s declared policy. Evidently Putin has decided to punch Erdogan in the nose, just as he punchd Obama in the nose by blasting some American-sponsored Sunni fighters. Someone has to take the fall in the region, and that someone would be Turkey.
The incident with the Russian jet, which accidentally violated Turkey’s airspace, has been used to include NATO in the media war against Moscow’s anti-terror op in Syria, said Aleksandr Grushko, Russia’s envoy to the Western military alliance.
“The impression is that the incident in Turkish airspace was used in order to include NATO as an organization into the information campaign unleashed in the West, which perverts and distorts the purposes of the operation conducted by the Russian air forces in Syria,” Grushko said.
According to Grushko, NATO has ignored clarifications from Russia about the plane incident. All attempts to explain the reasons behind the incident fell on deaf ears, however, with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg describing the situation as “unacceptable violations of Turkish airspace.”
“Similar incidents are clarified through bilateral or military channels,” Grushko said. “This is common practice.”
“The fact that clarifications from the Russian side have been ignored just gives away the true intentions of the initiators of the [NATO] Council meeting.”
On Monday, Russia admitted making a mistake after its warplane violated Turkey’s airspace. The Russian Defense Ministry has explained that bad weather caused the incident.
Ankara has accepted the explanation, saying there is no ill feeling between the two countries. NATO has slammed Moscow for what it deemed “irresponsible behavior,” however.
The incident, which took place on Saturday, saw Turkey scramble two F-16 jets after a Russian military aircraft crossed into Turkish airspace near the Syrian border.
Ankara also claimed that a MiG-29 fighter jet, which is used by both Russia and Syria, harassed two of its F-16s on Sunday by locking radar on to them as they patrolled the Turkish-Syrian border.
The NATO chief refused to confirm the report.
“Whether the Russian planes locked their fire control radars onto the Turkish planes is something I cannot comment on,” Stoltenberg told reporters.
Did we not here this before and proved by false pictures in the Ukraine ?
Vladimir Putin has previously said there will be ‘no Russian boots on the ground’ in Syria AFP/Getty Images.
Russia has built up a “substantial” military presence including ground troops in Syria, according to the Nato secretary-general.
Jens Stoltenberg told journalists that Vladimir Putin’s forces have not mainly been targeting Isis, but other opposition groups.
“I will not go into any specific numbers but I can confirm that we have seen the substantial build-up of Russian forces in Syria – air force, air defences but also ground troops in connection with the air base they have,” he continued.
A Russian pilot climbs from an SU-25M jet fighter at Hmeimim airbase in Syria
“And we also see increased naval presence of Russian ships and naval capabilities outside Syria or in the eastern part of the Mediterranean.
“So there has been a substantial military build-up by Russia with many different kinds of capabilities and forces, over the last weeks.”
Mr Putin previously said that he had no plans to deploy ground troops in Syria.
“Russia will not take part in any field operations on the territory of Syria or in other states; at least, we do not plan it for now,” the Russian President told CBS last week.
Mr Stoltenberg said the US has made contact with Moscow to establish ways to ensure Russian planes and jets from the international coalition fighting Isis do not clash during their missions over Syria.
But relations with Turkey seemed less cordial after Russia’s Air Force reportedly violated its airspace on Saturday and Sunday.
Mr Stoltenberg said the reported incidents were “very serious“, adding: “It doesn’t look like an accident, and we’ve seen two of them over the weekend.”
Russia’s defence ministry said the first incursion was unintentional and lasted only “a few seconds” as a fighter jet approached a Syrian air base just over the nearby border in bad weather.
There were reports of air strikes in the Isis-held city of Palmyra today, targeting the jihadist group’s vehicles and weapons, as the Kremlin’s campaign continued today.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments