US-Saudi Blitz in Yemen: Naked Aggression, Absolute Desperation


US-Saudi Blitz in Yemen: Naked Aggression, Absolute Desperation

(Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – The “proxy war” model the US has been employing throughout the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and even in parts of Asia appears to have failed yet again, this time in the Persian Gulf state of Yemen.

Overcoming the US-Saudi backed regime in Yemen, and a coalition of sectarian extremists including Al Qaeda and its rebrand, the “Islamic State,” pro-Iranian Yemeni Houthi militias have turned the tide against American “soft power” and has necessitated a more direct military intervention. While US military forces themselves are not involved allegedly, Saudi warplanes and a possible ground force are.

Though Saudi Arabia claims “10 countries” have joined its coalition to intervene in Yemen, like the US invasion and occupation of Iraq hid behind a “coalition,” it is overwhelmingly a Saudi operation with “coalition partners” added in a vain attempt to generate diplomatic legitimacy.

The New York Times, even in the title of its report, “Saudi Arabia Begins Air Assault in Yemen,” seems not to notice these “10” other countries. It reports:

Saudi Arabia announced on Wednesday night that it had launched a military campaign in Yemen, the beginning of what a Saudi official said was an offensive to restore a Yemeni government that had collapsed after rebel forces took control of large swaths of the country. 

The air campaign began as the internal conflict in Yemen showed signs of degenerating into a proxy war between regional powers. The Saudi announcement came during a rare news conference in Washington by Adel al-Jubeir, the kingdom’s ambassador to the United States.

Proxy War Against Iran 

Indeed, the conflict in Yemen is a proxy war. Not between Iran and Saudi Arabia per say, but between Iran and the United States, with the United States electing Saudi Arabia as its unfortunate stand-in.

Iran’s interest in Yemen serves as a direct result of the US-engineered “Arab Spring” and attempts to overturn the political order of North Africa and the Middle East to create a unified sectarian front against Iran for the purpose of a direct conflict with Tehran. The war raging in Syria is one part of this greater geopolitical conspiracy, aimed at overturning one of Iran’s most important regional allies, cutting the bridge between it and another important ally, Hezbollah in Lebanon.

And while Iran’s interest in Yemen is currently portrayed as yet another example of Iranian aggression, indicative of its inability to live in peace with its neighbors, US policymakers themselves have long ago already noted that Iran’s influence throughout the region, including backing armed groups, serves a solely defensive purpose, acknowledging the West and its regional allies’ attempts to encircle, subvert, and overturn Iran’s current political order.

The US-based RAND Corporation, which describes itself as “a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decision making through research and analysis,” produced a report in 2009 for the US Air Force titled, “Dangerous But Not Omnipotent : Exploring the Reach and Limitations of Iranian Power in the Middle East,” examining the structure and posture of Iran’s military, including its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and weapons both present, and possible future, it seeks to secure its borders and interests with against external aggression.

The report admits that:

Iran’s strategy is largely defensive, but with some offensive elements. Iran’s strategy of protecting the regime against internal threats, deterring aggression, safeguarding the homeland if aggression occurs, and extending influence is in large part a defensive one that also serves some aggressive tendencies when coupled with expressions of Iranian regional aspirations. It is in part a response to U.S. policy pronouncements and posture in the region, especially since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Iranian leadership takes very seriously the threat of invasion given the open discussion in the United States of regime change, speeches defining Iran as part of the “axis of evil,” and efforts by U.S. forces to secure base access in states surrounding Iran.

Whatever imperative Saudi Arabia is attempting to cite in justifying its military aggression against Yemen, and whatever support the US is trying to give the Saudi regime rhetorically, diplomatically, or militarily, the legitimacy of this military operation crumbles before the words of the West’s own policymakers who admit Iran and its allies are simply reacting to a concerted campaign of encirclement, economic sanctions, covert military aggression, political subversion, and even terrorism aimed at establishing Western hegemony across the region at the expense of Iranian sovereignty.

Saudi Arabia’s Imperative Lacks Legitimacy 

The unelected hereditary regime ruling over Saudi Arabia, a nation notorious for egregious human rights abuses, and a land utterly devoid of even a semblance of what is referred to as “human rights,” is now posing as arbiter of which government in neighboring Yemen is “legitimate” and which is not, to the extent of which it is prepared to use military force to restore the former over the latter.

The United States providing support for the Saudi regime is designed to lend legitimacy to what would otherwise be a difficult narrative to sell. However, the United States itself has suffered from an increasing deficit in its own legitimacy and moral authority.

Most ironic of all, US and Saudi-backed sectarian extremists, including Al Qaeda in Yemen, had served as proxy forces meant to keep Houthi militias in check by proxy so the need for a direct military intervention such as the one now unfolding would not be necessary. This means that Saudi Arabia and the US are intervening in Yemen only after the terrorists they were supporting were overwhelmed and the regime they were propping up collapsed.

In reality, Saudi Arabia’s and the United States’ rhetoric aside, a brutal regional regime meddled in Yemen and lost, and now the aspiring global hemegon sponsoring it from abroad has ordered it to intervene directly and clean up its mess.

Saudi Arabia’s Dangerous Gamble 

The aerial assault on Yemen is meant to impress upon onlookers Saudi military might. A ground contingent might also attempt to quickly sweep in and panic Houthi fighters into folding. Barring a quick victory built on psychologically overwhelming Houthi fighters, Saudi Arabia risks enveloping itself in a conflict that could easily escape out from under the military machine the US has built for it.

It is too early to tell how the military operation will play out and how far the Saudis and their US sponsors will go to reassert themselves over Yemen. However, that the Houthis have outmatched combined US-Saudi proxy forces right on Riyadh’s doorstep indicates an operational capacity that may not only survive the current Saudi assault, but be strengthened by it.

Reports that Houthi fighters have employed captured Yemeni warplanes further bolsters this notion – revealing tactical, operational, and strategic sophistication that may well know how to weather whatever the Saudis have to throw at it, and come back stronger.

What may result is a conflict that spills over Yemen’s borders and into Saudi Arabia proper. Whatever dark secrets the Western media’s decades of self-censorship regarding the true sociopolitical nature of Saudi Arabia will become apparent when the people of the Arabian peninsula must choose to risk their lives fighting for a Western client regime, or take a piece of the peninsula for themselves.

Additionally, a transfer of resources and fighters arrayed under the flag of the so-called “Islamic State” and Al Qaeda from Syria to the Arabian Peninsula will further indicate that the US and its regional allies have been behind the chaos and atrocities carried out in the Levant for the past 4 years. Such revelations will only further undermine the moral imperative of the West and its regional allies, which in turn will further sabotage their efforts to rally support for an increasingly desperate battle they themselves conspired to start.

America’s Shrinking Legitimacy 

It was just earlier this month when the United States reminded the world of Russia’s “invasion” of Crimea. Despite having destabilized Ukraine with a violent, armed insurrection in Kiev, for the purpose of expanding NATO deeper into Eastern Europe and further encircling Russia, the West insisted that Russia had and  still has no mandate to intervene in any way in neighboring Ukraine. Ukraine’s affairs, the United States insists, are the Ukrainians’ to determine. Clearly, the US meant this only in as far as Ukrainians determined things in ways that suited US interests.

This is ever more evident now in Yemen, where the Yemeni people are not being allowed to determine their own affairs. Everything up to and including military invasion has been reserved specifically to ensure that the people of Yemen do not determine things for themselves, clearly, because it does not suit US interests.

Such naked hypocrisy will be duly noted by the global public and across diplomatic circles. The West’s inability to maintain a cohesive narrative is a growing sign of weakness. Shareholders in the global enterprise the West is engaged in may see such weakness as a cause to divest – or at the very least – a cause to diversify toward other enterprises. Such enterprises may include Russia and China’s mulipolar world. The vanishing of Western global hegemony will be done in destructive conflict waged in desperation and spite.

Today, that desperation and spite befalls Yemen.

 

UNSMIL Urges End to Violence in Libya, Calls for Release of Brothers of HoR Member Abu Bakr Said


UNSMIL Urges End to Violence in Libya, Calls for Release of Brothers of HoR Member Abu Bakr Said

MakeThumbnail.aspx

I am amazed at the United Nations Support Mission in Libya worrying for the escalation and terrorist acts done to the Libyan civilians while on the other hand does not lift the ban for arms to be given to the Libyan army to fight the NATO TERRORISTS WHICH WERE LEFT BEHIND AFTER THE ILLEGAL WAR FROM NATO AND ITS ALLIES.

Not only does the UNSMIL lies about assisting HoR but also funds and protects the terrorists who are installed in Libya. The eight people who were murdered in Tarhuna was done by Libya Dawn/Fajr which Bernadino Leon and his gang members protect, and when we say they are sitting and discussing in Morocco bear in mind that none of the HoR are present so what kind of PEACE discussions are they doing? What kind of bullshit peace talks are they preaching? When the international recognized government is not sitting in these meetings? The UN Leon together with Ambassador Jones, Arron and the French ambassador have already decided that the Muslim Brotherhood with its militias – who holds Tripoli captive should be the ONLY ONE government and to hell with the Libyan people who voted otherwise DEMOCRATICALLY the government in Tobruk.

So the plan is that Fajr otherwise known Libyan Dawn should murder every political opponent or kidnap them so that HoR will give in – in the demands of F.UK.US/NATO AND THE UN which is to instal the NEW CALIPHATE IN LIBYA.

So these crocodile tears and worries are just a front for the international community believing that they are doing something to save Libya from its own worst enemy.  I am wondering how these people sleep at night knowing that they have blood on their hands… Please do not be fooled by the article below, they do not want PEACE in Libya on the contrary they want a continuation of these small wars so that in a few years when the Libyan people will be tired of insecurity, famine, they will gladly accept the division of our country….

The United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) is gravely concerned about the continuing violence across Libya and calls for its immediate end. The fighting, bombings and abductions not only increase the suffering of the people but also harm the positive and constructive spirit displayed by the participants to the Libyan political dialogue round taking place in Morocco.

In the last few days, eight members of a family were killed in an attack in Tarhuna. On Tuesday 24 March 2015, a suicide bombing killed eight in Benghazi. On Wednesday 25 March 2015, five people were killed in a suicide bombing in Sirte. These suicide attacks show the expanding arm of terrorism that is targeting all sides and that all Libyans stand against.

In addition, the fighting continues in Obari in the south, threatening the social fabric of the city.
The Mission calls on the conflicting parties in Obari to cease the hostilities, and warns that attacks against civilians and violation of human rights are acts punishable under international law and perpetrators will be held accountable.

In Tripoli, two brothers of a member of the House of Representatives for Tarhuna, Abu Bakr Ahmed Said, were abducted by an armed group. The Mission condemns the abduction and calls on the security authorities on the ground and all the influential actors in Tripoli to do their utmost to ensure that they are unharmed and that they are released immediately.

UNSMIL stresses that the abduction for the purpose of putting pressure on the member of the parliament is an unacceptable act that could have negative effect on the political dialogue as Libyans try to find ways to end the conflict in their country.

UNSMIL calls on all Libyan actors to work towards de-escalation to give peace a chance.

 

THE JOKE OF THE YEAR: Press Laughs After U.S. Spokeswoman Claims We Do Not Support Coups


THE JOKE OF THE YEAR: Press Laughs After U.S. Spokeswoman Claims We Do Not Support Coups

So as you can see the United States is famous for backing coups or changing sovereign governments when ever it suits their purposes….. by denying it, it only makes you laugh so hard that tears come to your face, with their audacity that reporters and anonymous readers would believe such a blatant lie. Here is a small preview of the above table which I got it from this article and I suggest you read the whole article maybe some people will wake up from their lethargic sleep and do something

COMMON THEMES

Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.

First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian “collateral damage.” War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc. The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as “accidental” or “unavoidable.”

Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of “freedom” and “democracy,” nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending “freedom” but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship–such as in Grenada or Panama–they did so in a way that prevented the country’s people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.

Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as “terrorism,” “atrocities against civilians,” or “ethnic cleansing,” but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to “end” a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington’s double standard maintains that an U.S. ally’s action by definition “defensive,” but that an enemy’s retaliation is by definition “offensive.”

Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into “friends” and “foes,” and takes one side against another. This strategy tends to enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role.

Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions.

Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Take the list of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you will find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming many of their countries’ internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions.

One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that “people like us” could not commit atrocities against civilians.

  • German and Japanese citizens believed it, but their militaries slaughtered millions of people.

  • British and French citizens believed it, but their militaries fought brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia.

  • Russian citizens believed it, but their armies murdered civilians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere.

  • Israeli citizens believed it, but their army mowed down Palestinians and Lebanese.

  • Arabs believed it, but suicide bombers and hijackers targeted U.S. and Israeli civilians.

  • U.S. citizens believed it, but their military killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere.

Every country, every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them. War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent. The attacks of September 11 were not only a test for U.S. citizens attitudes’ toward minority ethnic/racial groups in their own country, but a test for our relationship with the rest of the world. We must begin not by lashing out at civilians in Muslim countries, but by taking responsibility for our own history and our own actions, and how they have fed the cycle of violence.

and here is the rest of the article with the joke that America is not involved in any coups:

Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro has publicly accused the United States of trying to foment a coup in Venezuela. The accusations come as the Obama Administration has bizarrely labeled Venezuela a national security threat to the United States despite that obviously not being true.Maduro’s accusation stems not just from being labeled a national security threat but from a plot Venezuelan security services uncovered which was publicly detailed by Maduro on Venezuelan TV.

According to Maduro the plot involved Carlos Manuel Osuna Saraco who operates out of New York and Miami, allegedly with the help of the US government. There is audio of Osuna dictating a statement rebel leaders should read after the coup.

If the plot is true it will be the second attempt by the US to foment a coup in Venezuela this century. The first being an amazingly blatant attempt in 2002 against President Hugo Chavez which the White House itself publicly supported before the coup was reversed and Chavez was returned to power.

Which brings us to the laughing stock State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki became yesterday when she claimed [VIDEO] in response to Maduro’s accusations:

As a matter of long standing policy the United States does not support transitions by non-constitutional means. Political transitions must be democratic, constitutional, peaceful, and legal.

We’ve seen many times that the Venezuelan government tries to distract from its own actions by blaming the United States or other members of the international community for events inside Venezuela. These efforts reflect a lack of seriousness on the part of the Venezuelan government to deal with the grave situation it faces.

The Associated Press reporter, Matt Lee, immediately jumped in with quite reasonable incredulity saying “I’m sorry. Whoah, whoah, whoah. The US has a long-standing practice of not promoting [coups] – how long-standing would you say?” Lee continued audibly scoffing and laughing “In particular in South and Latin America that is not a long-standing policy.”

The Middle East oil/nuclear puzzle


The Middle East oil/nuclear puzzle

by Pepe Escobar

Reuters / Ali Jarekji

Reuters / Ali Jarekji

US Secretary of State John Kerry may be starting to enjoy the brinkmanship, as he says it’s “unclear” whether the US and Iran would reach a political framework nuclear deal before the end of this month.

Loud applause may be heard in corridors ranging from Tel Aviv to Riyadh.

As negotiations resume in Lausanne, the fact is a potential nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 (US, UK, France, BRICS members Russia and China, and Germany) is bound to open the possibility of more Iranian oil exports – thus leading oil prices to fall even further. As of early this week, Brent crude was trading at $54.26 a barrel.

Assuming the US and the EU nations that are part of P5+1 really agree to implement the suspension of UN sanctions by the summer (Russia and China already agree), not only will Iran be exporting more energy – that should take a few months – but also OPEC as a whole will be increasing its oversupply.

The EU badly wants to buy loads of Iranian energy – and invest in Iranian energy infrastructure. Beijing, a key yet discreet member of the P5+1, is also watching these developments very carefully.

Whatever happens, for China this is a win-win situation, as Beijing keeps actively building up its strategic petroleum reserves profiting from low prices. And even as oil prices also remain under pressure from the strong US dollar – which makes oil way more expensive if you are paying with a different currency – that’s certainly no problem for China, with its mammoth US dollar reserves.

The oil price war essentially unleashed by Saudi Arabia has hit Iran with a bang. The country may be down, but not out. There were no good options for Tehran except to try to keep its market share by offering the same discounts – especially to Asia – the Saudis are offering.

Tehran has been under a tsunami of nasty Western sanctions for years, which limit its ability to export oil and increase production. It’s extremely difficult for the Iranian governments to reduce the gap of the expected revenue based on previous high oil prices.

Now the name of the game among major oil producers is to keep market share at all costs. Iran can’t escape it – as it needs to keep in check at all times the fear of oversupply and its desire to increase production. Some oil producing countries are definitely keeping upcoming oil supplies out of the market. The result is Iran will have serious trouble going for more production and more exports while trying to regain its pre-sanctions market share.

Reuters / Azad Lashkari

Reuters / Azad Lashkari

Wanna buy a Middle East condo?

While a sort of undeclared “oil war” is still far from reaching an endgame, the nuclear front promises some eye-popping breakthroughs.

Powerful – if sometimes conflicting – ‘Empire of Chaos’ factions in Washington are actively entertaining the dream of transferring US military assets from the Middle East to Europe to keep ratcheting up the pressure on Russia, under the pretext of the “aggression” on Ukraine.

That might happen only after “control” of the Middle East is somewhat shared between Turkey, Iran, and to a much lesser extent, the House of Saud. For the notoriously wobbly “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff” Obama administration’s foreign policy, this development would be a key rationale behind the push for a successful P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran to be reached this summer.

Iran has already cultivated – and blossomed – its own sphere of influence. It’s the Turkey-Saudi case that is way more complicated.

As much as Ankara is well aware of the fierce catfight for regional power between Tehran and Riyadh, it tries to maintain good relations with both.

Crucially it’s in Syria that Ankara and Riyadh are almost on the same “Assad must go” page. Almost – because in fact a pro-Muslim Brotherhood Turkey-Qatar alliance has found itself for four years in direct competition with a Salafi-boosting House of Saud.

Anyway, when Turkey’s President, also known as ‘Sultan’ Erdogan, visited the new Saudi King Salman in early March, they reached an understanding; they will both turbo-charge “support” – weaponized and otherwise – for the Syrian opposition. Problem is there is no credible Syrian opposition; virtually everyone that knows how to fight has migrated to the fake Caliphate of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

What this means in a nutshell is once again a Sunni against Shi’ite set up; a classic Divide and Rule gambit that is the perennial House of Saud priority.

The ’Empire of Chaos’, in theory, should but be pleased. But it’s not. The Obama administration’s objective – on the record – is “[prioritizing] the Islamic State, not Assad.”

But that may also change in a heartbeat. New Pentagon supremo Ashton Carter has just admitted, “the forces that we train in Syria, we will have some obligation to support them after they’re trained.” But that would also “include the possibility that, even though they’re trained and equipped to combat ISIL, they could come into contact with forces of the Assad regime.”

No wonder Damascus is weary, and will wait for US “actions” before any possible negotiation with Washington. One day Kerry says talks with Damascus are necessary to end the Syrian civil war. The next day he repeats, “Assad must go.”

Osama’s pal plays paranoia

As for a no-fly zone over northern Syria – heavily pushed by Erdogan, and a wet dream of neo-cons in Washington – it won’t fly. One extra reason for Ankara to stay away from this new Saudi anti-Iran push.

To complicate things further, power within the House of Saud remains diffused. Both the CIA and BND – German intelligence – agree, and there have been constant rumblings in Washington that the House of Saud eventually should go.

The House of Saud still has not understood that Syria is not the main “threat” against them. They are freaking out about their border with Iraq – as well as their borders with Yemen and Bahrain. On top of it they picked a fight with Russia via the oil price war. The Saudis say they are pumping only 9.5 million barrels of oil a day out of their 12.5 million barrels a day; Moscow is essentially saying they are pumping their entire capacity.

If the oil price war delights the Russia-demonizing ‘Masters of the Universe’, they are at the same time deeply enraged because it is decimating the US shale oil “revolution”. What’s left for masses of unemployed US workers? Find a job in Saudi Arabia. Still one more reason for the ‘Masters of the Universe’ to dump the House of Saud anytime they feel like it.

Predictably, House of Saud paranoia remains the norm. Former Saudi intelligence capo di tutti i capi (and former great pal of Osama bin Laden), Prince Turki, is on overdrive, charging Iran with being “a disruptive player in various scenes in the Arab world, whether it’s Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Palestine or Bahrain”; accusing Iran of “expanding its occupation of Iraq”; insisting “the enemy” is both Assad and ISIS/ISIL/Daesh; and last but not least unequivocally blasting any possible nuclear deal with Iran.

What’s even more worrisome is that King Salman brought Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to Riyadh – rushing to meet him at the airport – to confirm a key strategic, secret nuclear agreement before any Iran/P5+1 deal is clinched. The bottom line: the House of Saud does not trust the American nuclear umbrella anymore. They are making their own nuclear power play with the help of nuclear power Pakistan. The connection does exist, but remains extremely mysterious.

No need to outline the upcoming maze of ominous consequences. Demented nuclear Wahhabis, anyone?

 

OBAMA WON’T KILL MOSSAD AGENTS


OBAMA WON’T KILL MOSSAD AGENTS

John McCain and the leader of ISIS/IS who is Simon Elliot, aka Al-Baghdadi. John McCain’s Whoops Moment: Photographed Chilling With ISIS.

Simon Elliot, the leader of ISIS (aka IS), is a Mossad agent and he has been photographed with Mossad asset John McCain.

ISIS IS RUN BY SIMON ELLIOT, A MOSSAD AGENT

ISIS (now called IS) was trained by the Americans and Israelis and is led by Israelis.

ISIS Leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi Trained by Israel. / ISIL Is Being Aided and Abetted by Israel

Al-Baghdadi (Simon Elliot) with McCain. John McCain’s Whoops Moment: Photographed Chilling With ISIS.

The role of IS is to kill Muslims and weaken all of Israel’s enemies.


The Jews who run ISIS are murderous sadistic pedophiles.

A Kurdish officer said of IS, “Everything they have is American – it is all the latest equipment with the big guns, the Humvees.”

dailymail.co.uk


The Mossad-run IS is crucifying Muslims.
Obama has used IS in both Syria and Libya and now he is using them in Iraq, as he does not like the current Iraqi government and he wants to please Israel.

ISIS in Iraq: A disaster made in the USA / The United States’ biggest ‘allies’ are funding ISIL

Mossad at work.
Obama is NOT going to bomb the Mossad agents in IS.

Obama has no intention of saving the Yazidis.

Iraq crisis: ‘It is death valley. Up to 70 per cent of them are dead’

The aim of Mossad is to wreck all Muslim countries by leading all the Muslim institutions.

All the Muslim militants work for Mossad.

JEWISH POWER. / ISLAM YAKEN – CRYPTO JEW IN ISIS / BASHIR – WORKING FOR MOSSAD


ISIS began its invasion of Iraq from NATO-member Turkey. TURKEY IS LED BY A ‘JEW’.

According to the Financial Times, the US air strikes in Iraq “have failed to roll back ISIS’s advance and can be seen as a propaganda victory for the group…

“So far US forces have failed to target Isis’s buildings, weapons storage facilities or the leadership based in the desert near Mosul.”

US helping Isis. / Financial Times story

Erbil in yellow.

Ryan Crocker, a former US ambassador to Iraq has told the Financial Times:

“A couple of 500-pound bombs from F-18s and a couple of drone attacks are not going to stop Isis.

“We had one chance to hit their leadership and their command-and-control structures, and now it’s over…

“If we’re going to say that this is all about securing Erbil, which Isis never intended (to take over), the mission is over and we can go home.”

Abdulla Hawez, a Kurdish political commentator, has told the Financial Times:

“Isis is advancing and their attacking abilities haven’t been weakened.”

Wladimir van Wilgenburg, an Erbil-based analyst at the Jamestown Foundation, has told the Financial Times:

“I’ve seen on social media that ISIS seem to not really mind that America is involved.

“Propaganda-wise, the American involvement is not so bad at all for them.”

Mossad-led ISIS killing Moslems