HALLELUJA!!! The evil empire has been foiled by the United Nations Security Council, leaving Russia as the only country that may legally bomb any and all terror groups (there are no such things as "moderate jihadis") in Syria and Iraq. "US bombing of the Islamic State in Syria was doubly illegal under international law because it was carried out without permission from either the UN Security Council or from the Syrian government."

---

UN Backs Russia’s War against ISIL / Da’esh

UN Security Council resolution authorises 'all necessary means' to be used against grops associated with al Qaeda

 

By Alexander Mercouris                                                            Region: Middle East & North Africa

Global Research, November 25, 2015     Theme: 9/11 & 'War on Terrorism', United Nations, US NATO

Russia Insider 23 November 2015                                                                               War Agenda

                                                                              In-depth Report: SYRIA: NATO'S NEXT WAR?

Russia’s diplomats have been as busy as Russia’s military.

They have now obtained UN Security Council as well as Syrian government approval for Russia’s military campaign.

They have also got the UN Security Council to scotch the myth of the “moderate jihadis” once and for all.

Back in September, when it became clear the Russians were intending to act in Syria, Russia Insider predicted the Russians would try to get a Resolution from the UN Security Council to give additional legal cover for their military action.

This is in contrast to the US, which avoids the Security Council whenever it can, and which usually prefers to act unilaterally without a UN Security Council mandate.

Thus US bombing of the Islamic State in Syria was doubly illegal under international law because it was carried out without permission from either the UN Security Council or from the Syrian government.

Russia’s military action by contrast is completely legal. It has the permission of both the UN Security Council and the Syrian government for it.

It took weeks for the Russians to get their Security Council Resolution. This was because the US did everything it could to stand in the way. However, after weeks of hard work, Russia’s diplomats have finally got the Resolution Russia wanted.

What changed the position was the terrorist outrage in Paris.

After the Paris attack the French backed Russia’s proposal for a UN Security Council Resolution. At that point the US could no longer block it. The US cannot veto a Resolution backed by its own ally France, especially in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack.

Something that suggests some people in the US might be unhappy with this development is the absence from the Security Council table of one person who would normally be expected to be there for such an important vote.

This was Samantha Power – the US’s UN ambassador – a hardline liberal interventionist and one of the most aggressive voices within the US administration calling for regime change in Syria and confrontation with Russia.

Her relations with Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s exceptionally able UN ambassador, are said to be poisonous (see the photo at the top of this article).

It looks as if voting for the Resolution was more than Samantha Power could bear. That probably explains why she stayed away.

In her absence it was left to her deputy, Michele Sison – a career diplomat – to speak and vote for the US.

The full text of the Resolution – which is not limited to Syria – is below.

The UN has also released – along with the full text of the Resolution – a summary of the debate in the Security Council that preceded the vote.

The key words in the Resolution are these:

“(The Security Council) Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups”

The Security Council has not only backed Russia’s military campaign (“all necessary means”), but it has also made clear that Russia is fully entitled to extend this campaign to “all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups”.

The Resolution names amongst these terrorist groups the Al-Nusrah Front.

Russia is therefore fully authorised to bomb all the various jihadi groups in Syria that it is bombing.

Even the US has been forced to admit – at least in the Security Council – that the talk of Russia bombing the wrong people – the “moderate jihadis” – is nonsense.

---

Transcript of the Security Council’s Decision

“The Security Council,

“Reaffirming its resolutions 1267 (1999), 1368 (2001), 1373 (2001), 1618 (2005), 1624 (2005), 2083 (2012), 2129 (2013), 2133 (2014), 2161 (2014), 2170 (2014), 2178 (2014), 2195 (2014), 2199 (2015) and 2214 (2015), and its relevant presidential statements,

“Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,

“Reaffirming its respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and unity of all States in accordance with purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter,

“Reaffirming that terrorism in all forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations, whenever and by whomsoever committed,

“Determining that, by its violent extremist ideology, its terrorist acts, its continued gross systematic and widespread attacks directed against civilians, abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, including those driven on religious or ethnic ground, its eradication of cultural heritage and trafficking of cultural property, but also its control over significant parts and natural resources across Iraq and Syria and its recruitment and training of foreign terrorist fighters whose threat affects all regions and Member States, even those far from conflict zones, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security,

“Recalling that the Al-Nusrah Front (ANF) and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaida also constitute a threat to international peace and security,

“Determined to combat by all means this unprecedented threat to international peace and security,

“Noting the letters dated 25 June 2014 and 20 September 2014 from the Iraqi authorities which state that Da’esh has established a safe haven outside Iraq’s borders that is a direct threat to the security of the Iraqi people and territory,

“Reaffirming that Member States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law;

“Reiterating that the situation will continue to deteriorate further in the absence of a political solution to the Syria conflict and emphasizing the need to implement the Geneva communiqué of 30 June 2012 endorsed as Annex II of its resolution 2118 (2013), the joint statement on the outcome of the multilateral talks on Syria in Vienna of 30 October 2015 and the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November 2015,

“1.   Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks perpetrated by ISIL also known as Da’esh which took place on 26 June 2015 in Sousse, on 10 October 2015 in Ankara, on 31 October 2015 over Sinaï, on 12 November 2015 in Beirut and on 13 November 2015 in Paris, and all other attacks perpetrated by ISIL also known as Da’esh, including hostage-taking and killing, and notes it has the capability and intention to carry out further attacks and regards all such acts of terrorism as a threat to peace and security;

“2.   Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the people and Governments of Tunisia, Turkey, Russian Federation, Lebanon and France, and to all Governments whose citizens were targeted in the above mentioned attacks and all other victims of terrorism;

“3.      Condemns also in the strongest terms the continued gross, systematic and widespread abuses of human rights and violations of humanitarian law, as well as barbaric acts of destruction and looting of cultural heritage carried out by ISIL also known as Da’esh;

“4.   Reaffirms that those responsible for committing or otherwise responsible for terrorist acts, violations of international humanitarian law or violations or abuses of human rights must be held accountable;

“5.   Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;

“6.   Urges Member States to intensify their efforts to stem the flow of foreign terrorist fighters to Iraq and Syria and to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, and urges all Members States to continue to fully implement the above-mentioned resolutions;

“7.   Expresses its intention to swiftly update the 1267 committee sanctions list in order to better reflect the threat posed by ISIL also known as Da’esh;

“8.  Decides to remain seized of the matter.

The original source of this article is Russia Insider

Copyright © Alexander Mercouris, Russia Insider, 2015

___________________________________________________________________________________

Read this and then decide who are the good guys and by comparison who are the bad guys. Your choices are Bashar al-Assad and his loyal armed forces, Russia's bombing of ISIS and other jihadi forces such as ISIL (also known as Da’esh), al-Qaeda, and the al-Nusrah Front. Don't forget the CIA who smuggle arms to rebels. And then there is Turkey, which sees to it that ISIS and other murderous groups get arms, ammunition, and food daily. Finally think of the people who have had to flee Syria to keep their families from being killed by the jihadis.

---

Logistics 101: Where Does ISIS Get Its Guns?

By Tony Cartalucci                                                                             Region: Middle East & North Africa 
Global Research, November 26, 2015                                                  Theme: Politics and Religion
New Eastern Outlook 9 June 2015

Note: Article originally published in June 2015

Since ancient times an army required significant logistical support to carry out any kind of sustained military campaign. In ancient Rome, an extensive network of roads was constructed to facilitate not only trade, but to allow Roman legions to move quickly to where they were needed, and for the supplies needed to sustain military operations to follow them in turn.

In the late 1700′s French general, expert strategist, and leader Napoleon Bonaparte would note that, “an army marches on its stomach,” referring to the extensive logistical network required to keep an army fed, and therefore able to maintain its fighting capacity. For the French, their inability to maintain a steady supply train to its forces fighting in Russia, and the Russians’ decision to burn their own land and infrastructure to deny it from the invading forces, ultimately defeated the French.

Nazi Germany would suffer a similar fate when it too overextended its logical capabilities during its invasion of Russia amid Operation Barbarossa. Once again, invading armies became stranded without limited resources before being either cut off and annihilated or forced to retreat.

The other half of the war is logistics. Without a steady stream of supplies, armies no matter how strong or determined will be overwhelmed and defeated. What explains then ISIS’ fighting prowess and the immense logitical networks it would need to maintain it?

And in modern times during the Gulf War in the 1990′s an extended supply line trailing invading US forces coupled with an anticipated clash with the bulk of Saddam Hussein’s army halted what was otherwise a lighting advance many mistakenly believed could have reached Baghdad had there been the political will. The will to conquer was there, the logistics to implement it wasn’t.

The lessons of history however clear they may be, appear to be entirely lost on an either supremely ignorant or incredibly deceitful troupe of policymakers and news agencies across the West.

ISIS’ Supply Lines

The current conflict consuming the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and Syria where the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) is operating and simultaneously fighting and defeating the forces of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran, we are told, is built upon a logistical network based on black market oil and ransom payments.

The fighting capacity of ISIS is that of a nation-state. It controls vast swaths of territory straddling both Syria and Iraq and not only is able to militarily defend and expand from this territory, but possesses the resources to occupy it, including the resources to administer the populations subjugated within it.

For military analysts, especially former members of Western armed forces, as well as members of the Western media who remember the convoys of trucks required for the invasions of Iraq in the 1990s and again in 2003, they surely must wonder where ISIS’ trucks are today. After all, if the resources to maintain the fighting capacity exhibited by ISIS were available within Syrian and Iraqi territory alone, then certainly Syrian and Iraqi forces would also posses an equal or greater fighting capacity but they simply do not.
 
And were ISIS’ supply lines solely confined within Syrian and Iraqi territory, then surely both Syrian and Iraqi forces would utilize their one advantage – air power – to cut front line ISIS fighters from the source of their supplies. But this is not happening and there is a good reason why.

Recent maps showing ISIS’ territory show obvious supply lines leading from Jordan and Turkey. Should Syria and its allies manage to cut these supply lines, one wonders just how long ISIS’ so-far inexplicable winning streak would last.

SIS’ supply lines run precisely where Syrian and Iraqi air power cannot go. To the north and into NATO-member Turkey, and to the southwest into US allies Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Beyond these borders exists a logistical network that spans a region including both Eastern Europe and North Africa.

Terrorists and weapons left over from NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011 were promptly sent to Turkey and then onto Syria – coordinated by US State Department officials and intelligence agencies in Benghazi – a terrorist hotbed for decades.

The London Telegraph would report in their 2013 article, “CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked’,” that:

[CNN] said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.

Weapons have also come from Eastern Europe, with the New York Times reporting in 2013 in their article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.,” that:

From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.

And while Western media sources continuously refer to ISIS and other factions operating under the banner of Al Qaeda as “rebels” or “moderates,” it is clear that if billions of dollars in weapons were truly going to “moderates,” they, not ISIS would be dominating the battlefield.

Recent revelations have revealed that as early as 2012 the United States Department of Defense not only anticipated the creation of a “Salafist Principality” straddling Syria and Iraq precisely where ISIS now exists, it welcomed it eagerly and contributed to the circumstances required to bring it about.
 
Just How Extensive Are ISIS’ Supply Lines? 
 
While many across the West play willfully ignorant as to where ISIS truly gets their supplies from in order to maintain its impressive fighting capacity, some journalists have traveled to the region and have video taped and reported on the endless convoys of trucks supplying the terrorist army.

Were these trucks traveling to and from factories in seized ISIS territory deep within Syrian and Iraqi territory? No. They were traveling from deep within Turkey, crossing the Syrian border with absolute impunity, and headed on their way with the implicit protection of nearby Turkish military forces. Attempts by Syria to attack these convoys and the terrorists flowing in with them have been met by Turkish air defenses.

Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) published the first video report from a major Western media outlet illustrating that ISIS is supplied not by “black market oil” or “hostage ransoms” but billions of dollars worth of supplies carried into Syria across NATO member Turkey’s borders via hundreds of trucks a day.

German national broadcaster DW reported on convoys of hundreds of trucks per day crossing into Syria from NATO-member Turkey with impunity, enroute to ISIS terrorists, finally explaining the source of the terrorist army’s fighting capacity. The trucks were reported by DW to have originated from deep within Turkish territory – most likely NATO air bases and ports.

The report titled, “‘IS’ supply channels through Turkey,” confirms what has been reported by geopolitical analysts since at least as early as 2011 – that ISIS subsides on immense, multi-national state sponsorship, including, obviously, Turkey itself.

Looking at maps of ISIS-held territory and reading action reports of its offensive maneuvers throughout the region and even beyond, one might imagine hundreds of trucks a day would be required to maintain this level of fighting capacity. One could imagine similar convoys crossing into Iraq from Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Similar convoys are likely passing into Syria from Jordan.

In all, considering the realities of logistics and their timeless importance to military campaigns throughout human history, there is no other plausible explanation to ISIS’s ability to wage war within Syria and Iraq besides immense resources being channeled to it from abroad.

If an army marches on its stomach, and ISIS’ stomachs are full of NATO and Persian Gulf State supplies, ISIS will continue to march long and hard. The key to breaking the back of ISIS, is breaking the back of its supply lines. To do that however, and precisely why the conflict has dragged on for so long, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and others would have to eventually secure the borders and force ISIS to fight within Turkish, Jordanian, and Saudi territory – a difficult scenario to implement as nations like Turkey have created defacto buffer zones within Syrian territory which would require a direct military confrontation with Turkey itself to eliminate.

With Iran joining the fray with an alleged deployment of thousands of troops to bolster Syrian military operations, overwhelming principles of deterrence may prevent Turkey enforcing its buffer zones.

What we are currently left with is NATO literally holding the region hostage with the prospect of a catastrophic regional war in a bid to defend and perpetuate the carnage perpetrated by ISIS within Syria, fully underwritten by an immense logistical network streaming out of NATO territory itself.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.

The original source of this article is New Eastern Outlook Copyright © Tony Cartalucci,  
New Eastern Outlook, 2015

Paul Craig Roberts and colleagues analyze the shootdown of a Russian aircraft by a Turkish plane for alegedly flying 17 seconds over Tukish soil, given that Russia had made it clear that all parties flying in or near Syrian airspace had agreed "that there be no air to air encounters". PCR gives several reasons why Turkey decided to break rule and three reasons why they are presently lying about their reasons for doing so.

---

Turkey Is Lying — Paul Craig Roberts

---

November 25, 2015 | Original Here                                            Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

Turkey Is Lying

Paul Craig Roberts

Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge has posted the flight paths of the Russian aircraft according to Turkey and to Russia. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-24/17-seconds-changed-world-leaked-letter-exposes-turkeys-hair-trigger-reality

We know that Turkey is lying for three reasons.

One reason is that NATO governments lie every time that they open their mouths.

A second reason is that Turkey’s claim that the SU-24 was in Turkey’s airspace for 17 seconds but only traveled 1.15 miles means that the SU-24 was flying at stall speed! The entire Western media was too incompetent to do the basic math!

A third reason is that, assuming Turkey’s claim of a 17 second airspace violation is true, 17 seconds is not long enough for a Turkish pilot to get clearance for such a serious and reckless act as shooting down a Russian military aircraft. If the SU-24 was flying at a normal speed rather than one that would be unable to keep the aircraft aloft, the alleged airspace vioation would not have been long enough to be noticed. A shootdown had to have been pre-arranged. The Turks, knowing that the Russians were foolishly trusting to the agreement that there be no air to air encounters, told pilots to look for an opportunity. In my recent article, I gave a reason for this reckless act: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/11/24/turkey-has-destroyed-russias-delusion-of-western-cooperation-paul-craig-roberts/

Turkey’s explanation to the UN Security Council gives itself away as a lie. The letter states: “This morning (24 November) 2 SU-24 planes, the nationality of which are unknown have approached Turkish national airspace. The Planes in quesion have been warned 10 times during a period of 5 minutes via ‘Emergency’ channel and asked to change their headings south immediately.”

As SU-24 are Russian aircraft, as Turkey is able to identify that the aircraft are SU-24s, how then can the nationality of the aircraft be unknown? Would Turkey risk shooting down a US or Israeli aircraft by firing at an unknown aircraft? If the SU-24 takes 17 seconds to fly 1.15 miles, the SU-24s would have only traveled 20.29 miles in five minutes. Does anyone believe that a supersonic aircraft can fly at stall speed for 17 seconds, much less for five minutes?

Do not expect any truth from any Western government or from any Western media. Governments and media know that the Western populations are uneducated, unaware, and can be relied upon to accept any preposterous story. In the West the Matrix has a firm grip. The Russians need to wake up to this fact.

NPR this morning confirmed that the media is a government propaganda organ. The Diane Rehm show on NPR presented us with a group of talking heads. Only one was informed, a professor at the Middle East Institute of the London School of Economics. The rest of the “experts” were the typical dumbshit Americans. They repeated all of the lies. “Russia is attacking everyone except ISIS.” How can there be anyone but ISIS to attack when the US general overseeing the area recently told Congress that “only 5” of our trained “rebels” remained? Yet the myth of “moderate rebels” is kept alive by these liars.

“The refugees are fleeing the brutal Assad.” Notice that it is always Assad who is brutal, not ISIS which has cut out opponents hearts and eaten them and routinely cuts off peoples heads and commits the most atrocious atrocities. Here we have “experts” blaming Assad. The “experts” said that the refugees are fleeing from Assad not from ISIS. The refugee problem is Assad’s fault, not the fault of ISIS. It is all Assad’s fault because he doesn’t give up and turn Syria over to Washington’s ISIS henchmen.

There was no acknowledgement from the “experts” that ISIS is a Washington creation or that until the Paris attack Washington was strongly backing ISIS with both words and weapons against the Russian air attacks that caught both Washington and ISIS off guard. This is extraordinary considering the fact that US responsibility for ISIS was acknowledged on TV by the former head of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency. https://www.rt.com/usa/312050-dia-flynn-islamic-state/

Gullible Americans who give money to NPR are supporting lies and propaganda that have resulted in the deaths and dislocation of millions of peoples and that are leading to WWIII. The Western media whores are complicit in the crimes, because they fail their responsibility to hold government accountable and make it impossible for valid information to reach people. The Western media serves as cheerleaders for death and destruction.

---

"Washington, DC—Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA), both members of the House Armed Services Committee, introduced a bipartisan bill today to end U.S. efforts to overthrow the Syrian Arab Republic led by President Bashar al-Assad."

---

Press Releases

Reps. Tulsi Gabbard, Austin Scott Introduce Legislation to End Illegal U.S. War to Overthrow Syrian Government of Assad 

November 19, 2015

Washington, DC—Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA), both members of the House Armed Services Committee, introduced a bipartisan bill today to end U.S. efforts to overthrow the Syrian Arab Republic led by President Bashar al-Assad.

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, a twice-deployed combat veteran, said the intent of the bill is to “Bring an immediate end to the illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.”

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard explained,“The U.S. is waging two wars in Syria. The first is the war against ISIS and other Islamic extremists, which Congress authorized after the terrorist attack on 9/11.  The second war is the illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.

“The war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria—which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world.  Also, the war to overthrow Assad is illegal because Congress never authorized it.”

Congressman Austin Scott said, “Our primary mission should be the war against ISIS, al Qaeda, and radical Islamic extremists that have operations both inside and outside of Syria and Iraq.  Those groups have carried out attacks on American allies, and are currently threatening attacks on our homeland.  This represents a clear and present danger to our citizens, and I support eliminating these radical Islamic terrorists through any means necessary.  Working to remove Assad at this stage is counter-productive to what I believe our primary mission should be.”

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said, “Here are 10 reasons the U.S. must end its war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad:

1.     Because if we succeed in overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad, it will open the door for ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic extremists to take over all of Syria.  There will be genocide and suffering on a scale beyond our imagination.  These Islamic extremists will take over all the weaponry, infrastructure, and military hardware of the Syrian army and be more dangerous than ever before.

2.     Because overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad is the goal of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic extremist groups. We should not be allying ourselves with these Islamic extremists by helping them achieve their goal because it is against the security interests of the United States and all of civilization.

3.     Because the money and weapons the CIA is providing to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad are going directly or indirectly into the hands of the Islamic extremist groups, including al-Qaeda affiliates, al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and others who are the actual enemies of the United States.  These groups make up close to 90 percent of the so-called opposition forces, and are the most dominant fighters on the ground.

4.     Because our efforts to overthrow Assad has increased and will continue to increase the strength of ISIS and other Islamic extremists, thus making them a bigger regional and global threat.

5.     Because this war has exacerbated the chaos and carnage in Syria and, along with the terror inflicted by ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups fighting to take over Syria, continues to increase the number of Syrians forced to flee their country.

6.     Because we should learn from our past mistakes in Iraq and Libya that U.S. wars to overthrow secular dictators (Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi) cause even more chaos and human suffering and open the door for Islamic extremists to take over in those countries.

7.     Because the U.S. has no credible government or government leader ready to bring order, security, and freedom to the people of Syria.

8.     Because even the ‘best case’ scenario—that the U.S. successfully overthrows the Syrian government of Assad—would obligate the United States to spend trillions of dollars and the lives of American service members in the futile effort to create a new Syria.  This is what we have been trying to do in Iraq for twelve years, and we still have not succeeded.  The situation in Syria will be much more difficult than in Iraq.

9.     Because our war against the Syrian government of Assad is interfering with our being one-pointedly focused on the war to defeat ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and the other Islamic extremists who are our actual enemy.

10.  Because our war to overthrow the Assad government puts us in direct conflict with Russia and increases the likelihood of war between the United States and Russia and the possibility of another world war.”

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said, “To destroy ISIS will take international alliances.  If we are serious about defeating ISIS and solving the refugee problem, we’ll work in partnership with Russia, France, and anyone else who is serious about destroying ISIS and affiliated Islamic extremist organizations worldwide.

“The problem is, because the U.S. is trying to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad and Russia is supporting the government of Assad, it is impossible for us to have an effective, cooperative relationship with Russia in our mutual fight against ISIS.  Our focus on overthrowing Assad is interfering with our ability to destroy ISIS.”

“We must immediately end the illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad and ally ourselves with any countries willing to focus on destroying the Islamic extremists who pose a genuine threat to civilization,” Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard concluded.

                                                                   ###

"...fear not: ISIS can’t escape from the U.S. and our allies for long. And when we get ’em, we’re going to kick their cartoonist/woman/gay/Christian-hating Jihadi butts from here until Sunday." "...but "There’s just one problem. If we’re at war with ISIS, why do we keep supplying them with tanks, weapons, Humvees and shiny new Toyota trucks?"

---

Where Does ISIS Get All Those Tanks, Weapons And Shiny New Toyota Trucks?

U.S. Treasury Dept. wonders

By Elizabeth Parker

Global Research, November 19, 2015 

Reverb Press 8 October 2015

Yikes! Those evil, marauding terrorists from ISIS are still at large, but fear not: ISIS can’t escape from the U.S. and our allies for long. And when we get ’em, we’re going to kick their cartoonist/woman/gay/Christian-hating Jihadi butts from here until Sunday.

There’s just one problem. If we’re at war with ISIS, why do we keep supplying them with tanks, weapons, Humvees and shiny new Toyota trucks?  CNN reports:

“They’re hard to miss. Packed with ISIS fighters and heavy weapons, Toyota pickup trucks and SUV’s are featured prominently in ISIS propaganda videos.”

According to ABC, the U.S. Treasury Dept.’s Terror Financing unit has finally taken notice of the endless parades of shiny, new Toyota trucks starring in ISIS’s propaganda videos, and they’ve launched an investigation. Toyota’s U.S. spokesman Ed Lewis told reporters this is part of a larger inquiry into supply chains and capital flows in the Middle East. Lewis promised Toyota’s full cooperation, and assures us that they’d never sell to terrorists.

“Toyota has a strict policy to not sell vehicles to potential purchasers who may use or modify them for paramilitary or terrorist activities, and we have procedures and contractual commitments in place to help prevent our products from being diverted for unauthorized military use.”

Whew. What a relief.

Toyota trucks: The jihadists’ truck of choice.

CNN tracked down Jonathan Schanzer — who used to track terrorist finances for the U.S. Treasury Dept. and who’s now with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies — to find out more. Schanzer explained that rugged outdoorsmen and off-roaders aren’t the only ones who love their Toyota trucks:

“Toyotas is the truck that Jihadists choose for when they want to go to war. It’s the same thing with Kalashnikovs [Russian automatic rifles more commonly known in the U.S. as AK-47s].”

And how to these ISIS terrorists get their hands on these bad boys? Schanzer suspects they just boldly walk into the car dealerships and pay cash!

“I think they’re buying them, probably, through formal channels. They’re probably going right into the dealerships and purchasing them, and not identifying as ISIS. Who would?”

Oh, and although Toyotas are the Jihadist’s truck of choice, they won’t object to a Ford or two. We’d love to see the look on this U.S. plumber’s face after seeing what Schanzer suspects ISIS picked up at an auction. As if to thumb their noses at us, they didn’t even bother to remove the former owner’s information from the front passenger side’s door.

Schanzer adds ISIS’s avid Toyota truck acquisition is just one example of how ISIS operates like “a combination of a mafia gang and a major corporation.” In other words, like a major corporation.

Here’s the video with CNN’s report.

https://youtu.be/AN13M_CCug

ISIS also has tons of U.S. weapons, vehicles and other military gear.

Toyota trucks aren’t all ISIS has managed to buy, capture or scavenge from us. In June, CNBC reported that so far we’ve accidentally furnished the Islamic State with at least $219.7 million worth of weapons, vehicles and other military supplies and gear — and that’s just the stuff we know about.

Based on various reports, CNBC came up with the following laundry list of supplies the U.S. has so kindly provided to ISIS so far.

• 2,300 Humvee armored vehicles at $70,000 each: $16 million
• 40 M1A1 Abram tanks at $4.3 million each: $172 million
• 52 M198 Howitzer mobile gun systems at $527,337 each: $2.7 million
• 74,000 Army machine guns at $4,000 each: $29 million

TOTAL: $219.7 MILLION in military weapons, vehicles, and other supplies and gear for ISIS.

How does the Islamic State get hold of all these U.S. weapons? We deliver them, either directly or through the tattered remnants of Iraq’s military. Jeremy Salt, a political analyst in Ankara, Turkey, gives RT.Com quite the scathing earful:

“Do you think the Islamic State’s advance would have been so successful without access to this U.S. military hardware by mistake, by default? Let me just briefly revise the history of American blunder over the past couple of years with regard to weapons ending up in the hands of Islamic State.”

Salt then reminded us of our nation’s major blunders for supplying weapons to ISIS for the past couple of years.

• Accidental air-dropping of weapons and supplies intended for the Syrian Kurds into Islamic State territory.
• This didn’t just happen once, it happened several times.
• Weapons and supplies seized by ISIS during the falls of Mosul (Iraq), Ramadi (Iraq), AND Palmyra (Syria).

Salt doesn’t even bother explaining how the George W. Bush administration created ISIS by invading Iraq on false pretenses and chasing off all those heavily armed and well-trained Baathist soldiers. But he does ask how it’s even possible that U.S. intelligence and the military — both of which are among the most sophisticated in the world — could have possibly NOT seen what was coming.

What Salt says here about ISIS’s routing of Palmyra also applies to the sack of Mosul and Ramadi.

“Are we seriously to believe the United States couldn’t see them coming? Didn’t see those pickup trucks racing across the Syrian Desert? When they create massive plumes of dust, for one thing? Then they get to Palmyra, and they take over the city.”

Salt has a point. How could we have possibly missed miles of vehicles chock-full of masked ISIS militants waving guns and black flags while churning up choking clouds of desert dust visible from miles around? It’s almost as though we’ve ignored all this on purpose.

As for President Barack Obama, he’s made some smart moves. But how can he slam the brakes on a runaway crazy train that’s been lurching headlong for decades? After all, Reagan’s the one who armed and trained Al Qaeda back when they fought the former USSR as the Mujahideen resistance fighters. Also, we helped Saddam Hussein take power in Iraq in 1963, and Hussein was on the CIA’s payroll since at least 1959. And then we overthrew him and allowed the region to devolve into chaos because George W. Bush isn’t into “nation building.”

Here’s the video with the news report from RT on ISIS’s acquisition of U.S. military supplies, weapons, gear and vehicles.

https://youtu.be/FPqxvvt0O7E

The original source of this article is Reverb Press
Copyright © Elizabeth Parker, Reverb Press, 2015

I would like to run a slightly modified version of PCR's next to the last paragraph. My version goes like this: I am a Muslim ready to die for Allah after murdering dozens of (why innocent?) unbelievers. Do I now rush out of sight to blow myself up, or do I look for some people to watch me do it? If I had done the later, I surely would have been caught in the act (or at least the in aftermath) by the cell phones of multiple witnesses. However, given that no such cell-phone photography of the alleged terrorists has been reported, one must suppose that the authorities very likely invented the story. So if only enough thinking individuals would finally dump their cognitive dissonance, the neocons' wars might finally be arrested.

---

More Paris Puzzles — Paul Craig Roberts

---

November 18, 2015 | Original Here                                            Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

More Paris Puzzles

Paul Craig Roberts

Some people who are not inclined to believe the official story of the Paris attack are troubled by the question why Muslim suicide bombers would blow themselves up for a false flag attack. The answer to this question is very simple. But first we should dispose of the question whether suicide bombers did blow themselves up. Is this something that we know, or is it part of the story that we are told? For example, we were told that during 9/11 passengers in hijacked airliners used their cell phones to call relatives, but experts have testified that the technology of the time did not permit cell phone calls from airliners at those altitudes.

To dispose of the question whether we have or do not have any real evidence that suicide bombers blew themselves up, I will assume that they did.

So we have suicide bombers blowing themselves up.

Now turn to the question that troubles some doubters: Why would suicide bombers blow themselves up for the sake of a false flag attack?

As I said, the answer is simple: Why assume that the suicide bombers knew who was organizing the attack? There seems to be abundant evidence that ISIL is a US creation, one that is still dependent on US active or passive support—thus the conflict between Putin and Washington over attacking ISIL. ISIL seems to be what Washington used to overthrow the government in Libya and afterward was sent by Washington to Syria to overthrow Assad. Obviously, Washington has ISIL infiltrated. Washington has long proven is ability to use Islamic extremists. As Washington used them in Afghanistan against the Soviets and in Libya and Syria against independent governments, Washington used them in Paris. By my last count, the FBI on 150 occasions has successfully deceived people into participating into FBI orchestrated “terror plots.”

Now let us move to some bigger questions. Why do terrorists attack ordinary innocent people who have neither awareness of “their” government’s actions or control over them? The victims of 9/11 were not the neocons and members of the Washington establishment, whose policies in the Middle East justified attacks on their persons. Ditto for the Boston Marathon Bombing, and ditto for the Paris attacks. Innocents were the victims, not those who have taken Muslim lives.

Historically, terror attacks are not on the innocent but on the rulers and those who are guilty. For example, it was the Archduke of Austria/Hungary who was assassinated by the Serbian terrorist, not ordinary people blown up or shot down in a street cafe.

It is interesting that terrorists attacks attributed to Muslims only fall upon ordinary people, not upon the political elites who oppress the Muslims. In past years on several occasions I have remarked in my columns on the total vulnerability of the neoconservatives to assassination. Yet there has been not a single attack by terrorists on a neocon life, and the neocons are the source of the violence that Washington has unleashed on the Muslim world. The neocons walk around without threat free as birds.

How believable is it that Muslim terrorists take their ire out on innocents when the President of France himself, who has sent military forces to murder Muslims, was sitting in the attacked stadium and could easily have been eliminated by a suicide bomber?
 
Now let us turn to questions of identification of the alleged “Paris terrorists.” Is it realistic to suppose that the millions of refugees from Washington and its European vassals’ wars in the Middle East have passports? Were these millions of refugees expecting to be driven by White Civilization’s Bombs out of their countries and thus had prepared themselves with passports in order to flee?

Did they write on their passport applications that they were going to be visiting Europe?
 
Was the beleaguered country, their homeland, under full military assault, able to process all these millions of passports?

What sort of dumbshit Western media goes along with the passport story — a media well paid to lie for Washington’s hegemony and crimes?

One final question for skeptics. Where are the photographs of the terrorists during their terrorizing? Surrounding the scenes of violence there were not only abundant security cameras, but also hundreds, even thousands, of people with cell phones that have cameras. With all of these photos, how is it possible that the authorities do not know if some terrorists escaped, and if so, who they are and what they look like? Why are the authorities relying on fake passports for photos of the terrorists?

and it is the terrorism of Western governments against Western peoples.

---

In this case PCR neither discusses nor opines anything. Instead he replays an English translation of an extremely astute German reporter for the German Economic News, who states that "In Paris Tragedy, It’s Necessary to Know Who’s Pulling the Strings." Is he a German PCR?

---

Who Is Pulling The Terror Strings?

---

November 17, 2015 | Original Here                                       Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/paris-tragedy-its-necessary-know-whos-pulling-strings/ri11201 

In Paris Tragedy, It’s Necessary to Know Who’s Pulling the Strings
Putin demands a real investigation, but the Western establishment has already decided how to use the massacre
(German Economic News)

Originally appeared in German at German Economic News. Translated by David Norris

The attacks on Paris could lead to a massive military operation of NATO in Syria. Russia’s president Putin has consequently asked the question as to who is pulling the strings. The question is related to the Russian military successes in Syria – and with the efforts of the US-Neocons and intelligence agencies to seize the opportunity to extend the war in Syria as quickly as possible.

Once again Russian’s president, Vladimir Putin, has posed the right question: Who were pulling the strings in the Paris attacks? Putin, according to TASS, has given the French his full support in “solving the crime, as well as identifying both those who carried it out and those pulling the strings”.

What do we actually know?

Basically, we know very little. We should note: As unprepared for the attacks as the French security services were, they were quick with ready answers on the day. Said to be responsible were the terror-militia “Islamic State” (IS). President Hollande acknowledged this and declared war on IS. However, Charles Winter of the Quilliam Foundation, specialists on Syria and IS, points out that it cannot yet be shown whether the attacks were directly organised by IS or were “inspired” by the terrorists. It is quite possible that IS, currently under enormous pressure in Syria, have simply claimed the attacks for themselves in order to induce fighting spirit in their followers. The New York Times cites Bruce Hoffman of the Center for Security Studies at the University of Georgetown: the organisation of the attacks points rather to Al-Qaeda. Hoffman recalls the message of Osama bin Laden, who challenged the supporters of terror to carry out attacks such as that in Mumbai – that is to say, on “soft targets” among the civilian population.

The information supplied by the French investigators should be treated with caution: a Syrian passport was found on one of the terrorists, who blew himself up. In security service circles, it is thought to be highly unlikely that a suicide bomber would carry a passport in his pocket whilst carrying out this final action. In this connection the attacks on Charlie Hebdo come to mind: also on that occasion the killers had by chance forgotten their passports in their getaway car. Until this day, it remains unclear, who were pulling the strings, who had commissioned the killers. At the same time, the Greek security service asserts that the killer came into Europe along with refugees. In this way fear of refugees is fomented – very much in the interest of Turkey, that can then drive yet higher the price demanded.

Putin has called for close co-operation in Syria by the world community: this he is doing from a prevailing position of military strength. After a successful offensive in the south of Aleppo, the Syrians supported by Russia and Iran are now just a few kilometres outside Saraqib, the most important intersection of the motorway from Damascus and Lattakia to Aleppo.

Mercenaries of the Americans who were put together for the storm against Damascus and Lattakia where the Russian military base lies, north of Hama and 50 kilometres from Lattakia, will within a few days be encircled. They consist of several hundred Turkish and US military advisers and mercenaries financed by the US. Turkey had already in the past weeks led IS fighters to safety from the Russians. A historical example of this retreat is to be found in the encirclement of the Taliban in the north of Afghanistan. At that time Bush had tolerated an airlift by the Pakistanis for the top Taliban and military advisers ― 5000 fighters died later in the attack. Now a similar fate awaits IS between Kweires and Aleppo.

Here, however, there is no suitable airfield. This is why the Americans urgently need to be militarily active if the mercenaries and the advisers are not to be worn down by the Syrians and the Russians.

For this reason the US-Neocons, the US generals and NATO used the attacks on Paris within a few hours to put US President Barack Obama under pressure: Obama wants to pull out of Syria. This is interpreted by the Neocons and the generals in the light of the Paris attacks as weakness. The military analyst Jerry Hendrix from the Center for a New American Century says in Time Magazine: “The Paris attacks could be a catalysing event that will shake the international community into action.” William Kristol joins in the criticism of Obama’s Syria strategy against IS, writing in the Weekly Standard, he calls for a hard line clamp down ― that is, the intervention of ground troops. Kori Schake of the Hoover Institute writes in Politico “Obama’s strategy of containment of IS is wrong.” He calls for the extermination if IS, not just their containment. This can only be accomplished using ground troops.

NATO general secretary, Jens Stoltenberg, declared himself ready to intervene and invited Paris openly to invoke the alliance treaty. In this case the NATO partners are obliged to become active in Syria. The Bild-Zeitung, whose position appears to be closely aligned to that of NATO, has already asked: “After the terror in Paris – must we now go to war?” The chairman of the German Reservist Association and CDU parliamentarian, Roderich Kieswetter, said to the Bild-Zeitung, “I shall support that we too should deploy our military capabilities in Syria. We could together support our allies by sending in our reconnaissance Tornados.”  The Bild-Zeitung summed up the NATO efforts with the headline: “Preparedness for War Grows”.

Turkey could play a significant role in the deployment of ground troops. For months now she has been conducting her own dubious war, against international law, by fighting against the PKK on Iraqi and Syrian territory. Erdogan claims to know terrorism and its effects from personal experience. The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan said after the Paris attacks, talking must now come to an end. He demanded massive military strikes. The logic of “my terrorist is good, yours is bad” should no longer apply. “Terrorism recognises no religion, no nation, no race, no fatherland.” Yet with exactly the same words just a few weeks previously in Brussels, Erdogan had accused the EU of insufficient support for the fight against the PKK.

The advance of the Russians in Syria brings some difficulty for Erdogan: He desperately needs relief in order to carry through with his own interests in Syria. As a NATO land standing faithfully with France, attacks could afford him some legitimacy to march into Syria with ground troops. Erdogan can in any case mobilise far quicker than the USA who have certain democratic procedures to follow before they can send in the troops. Until they are completed, it could by then be too late because of the successes of the Russians.

Vladimir Putin is himself a security service man. He will therefore know the state of play.

The Russians are de facto the only ones, who at the moment are actually fighting against IS.  At the G20 summit in Turkey it would with some certainty come to a meeting between Putin and Obama. Ironically, Putin is the closest ally of Obama, above all against the Neocons and the generals. At the summit, the refugee crisis is also to be discussed, with which Erdogan blackmails the EU and also the German Chancellor, who is in this matter completely overwhelmed.

The refugees as to cause play only a subordinate role with respect to the Paris terror. In reality the terrorists who shot indiscriminately all around with Kalashnikovs have no need to hide themselves in the stream of refugees. However, with the launching of the assertion that two killers travelled with the refugees to Europe, the fear within the EU of the “threat” from refugees is further fomented. In this way the EU can be forced to agree to a military campaign and authorise Erdogan to be the spearhead.

It must now be decisive whether Putin and Obama can agree on a common way to proceed and whether he can keep the Neocons from his throat. John McCain particularly has built up a tremendous amount of pressure and demanded on Friday that IS be “destroyed”. Secretary of State, John Kerry has only spoken in very general terms about terrorists and has not mentioned IS as the culprits in Paris, as the New York Times analyses.

Putin’s central demand, that also those pulling the strings with respect to Paris must be sought out and punished, is likely, however, in the confusion of war in Syria to come to nothing. Shedding light on what happened, as with the shooting down of MH17, is of less interest than making this out to be a criminal act that can be utilised for one’s own geopolitical advantage.

http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2015/11/15/anschlaege-von-paris-putin-stellt-die-frage-nach-den-drahtziehern/
Anschläge von Paris: Putin stellt die Frage nach den Drahtziehern

---