God Wants A Regime Change, Not In Syria, But In The U.S. To Appoint A Good Shepherd Because The Antichrist Is Coming

 

 

2015-10-05-1444055100-4354253-ScreenShot20151005at9.37.30AM-thumb

We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing-grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender.” – Winston Churchill – August 20, 1940

BY SHOEBAT.COM – AWARENESS AND ACTION

Why does man ignore, that God is in control, despite Obama’s tyranny, before the man of sin arises to cause destruction upon the earth, God will raise “seven righteous shepherds” (leaders) who will utterly destroy the man of sin:

and this one shall be peace. When the Assyrian comes into our land, and when he treads in our palaces, then we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princely men. They shall waste with the sword the land of Assyria, and the land of Nimrod at its entrances; thus he shall deliver us from the Assyrian (Micah 5)

How at times Americans forget: God, not Obama, is in control of this nation.

Even the nations that dig traps for other nations to make regime changes forget that it is God who monitors the affairs of man.

He does a much better job in monitoring the world than the CIA, the FBI or the Pentagon.

Obama wanted a regime change in Syria, but the way things seem these days, perhaps the Almighty does not want a regime change in Syria, but a regime change in the U.S. instead.

Can anyone explain why Americans, on both sides of the isle, are becoming more ticked-off by the day, and they want a regime change, not in Syria, but here in the United States?

They are sick of political parties.

Today President Sissy Obama says the U.S.-led coalition is hitting ISIS “harder than ever”. But Americans are not buying it. They all know too well that Russia is hitting ISIS, and if Putin had a U.S. birth-certificate, he too (had he run) might surge in the poles.

Everyone these days know that the real name of that sissy U.S. President is Obama Ben Lyin.

 

Who can truly explain why Donald Trump is surging in the polls, and while we have a mess in the Middle East where even Putin looks like a savior?

While everyone thinks that a candidate rises or falls in the polls for being nice to Muslims, Trump surged even higher for saying “stop Muslims from coming in”.

And for saying that, Donald Trump (according to Monmouth University poll released today) has crossed the 40 percent threshold in a new national poll, giving the Republican presidential candidate the largest lead he’s held in any survey so far.

If perhaps next time Trump says “screw Allah” his ratings in the polls might just hit the roof.

The explanation to Trump’s success is simpler than what these analysts try to tell us on Fox News: Americans want an all-American burger and hating falafel is not racism, its culture.

This is by far the strangest election in American history. Who knows, it could be that the Almighty wants regime change, not in Syria, as Obama wants, but a regime change in the U.S., the planning headquarters of all regime-changes.

The American love for apple-pie is why I rarely if ever, focus on what falafel-loving Muslim groups like CAIR say or do. I never worry about all the crude things I say at times on my blog. Trump is just as crude,  rude, and belligerent as I can be, and he is still soaring like an American bald eagle.

I knew long ago that in every nice American there is also a hidden General Patton inside, carrying a baseball bat.

I have been hanging out long enough with Americans, and besides Muslims, I can easily profile them too. It is easy to expose American hypocrisy. No matter how often Americans count calories or endure Obama’s camel-faced wife saying that we ought to “solve the epidemic of childhood obesity,” Americans know they are being hypocritical. The Hot Dog and Hamburger is the American idol while Michelle Ben Lying will always secretly be viewed by Americans as “butt-ugly” and “wholly stupid”.

and this one shall be peace. When the Assyrian comes into our land, and when he treads in our palaces, then we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princely men. They shall waste with the sword the land of Assyria, and the land of Nimrod at its entrances; thus he shall deliver us from the Assyrian (Micah 5)

How at times Americans forget: God, not Obama, is in control of this nation.

Even the nations that dig traps for other nations to make regime changes forget that it is God who monitors the affairs of man.

He does a much better job in monitoring the world than the CIA, the FBI or the Pentagon.

Obama wanted a regime change in Syria, but the way things seem these days, perhaps the Almighty does not want a regime change in Syria, but a regime change in the U.S. instead.

Can anyone explain why Americans, on both sides of the isle, are becoming more ticked-off by the day, and they want a regime change, not in Syria, but here in the United States?

They are sick of political parties.

Today President Sissy Obama says the U.S.-led coalition is hitting ISIS “harder than ever”. But Americans are not buying it. They all know too well that Russia is hitting ISIS, and if Putin had a U.S. birth-certificate, he too (had he run) might surge in the poles.

Everyone these days know that the real name of that sissy U.S. President is Obama Ben Lyin.

Who can truly explain why Donald Trump is surging in the polls, and while we have a mess in the Middle East where even Putin looks like a savior?

While everyone thinks that a candidate rises or falls in the polls for being nice to Muslims, Trump surged even higher for saying “stop Muslims from coming in”.

And for saying that, Donald Trump (according to Monmouth University poll released today) has crossed the 40 percent threshold in a new national poll, giving the Republican presidential candidate the largest lead he’s held in any survey so far.

If perhaps next time Trump says “screw Allah” his ratings in the polls might just hit the roof.

The explanation to Trump’s success is simpler than what these analysts try to tell us on Fox News: Americans want an all-American burger and hating falafel is not racism, its culture.

This is by far the strangest election in American history. Who knows, it could be that the Almighty wants regime change, not in Syria, as Obama wants, but a regime change in the U.S., the planning headquarters of all regime-changes.

The American love for apple-pie is why I rarely if ever, focus on what falafel-loving Muslim groups like CAIR say or do. I never worry about all the crude things I say at times on my blog. Trump is just as crude,  rude, and belligerent as I can be, and he is still soaring like an American bald eagle.

I knew long ago that in every nice American there is also a hidden General Patton inside, carrying a baseball bat.

In this war on ISIS, perhaps if we take Donald Trump acting as Longshanks in the movie Braveheart. Braveheart and his rebels could be viewed as Al-Baghdadi and ISIS, Longshanks’ son as Obama, the scenario where Obama claims he is “doing something” would fit perfectly. Braveheart (ISIS) after sacking York, sends a head to Longshanks, and his son tells the king that he is addressing ISIS “I’ve sent conscriptions” to only see the obvious, Obama was more of a sissy-homosexual than a real man. America will never have love for a sissy.

To top it all off for sissy Obama’s war on ISIS, Germany has denied US requests to provide additional support for the US-led mission against ISIS (Germans would not obey a sissy), with the federal chancellor stressing that “at the moment” Berlin is already doing enough for its part in the combined anti-terror effort.

Strange, even a woman snubs Obama: “I believe Germany is fulfilling its part and we don’t need to talk about new issues related to this question at the moment,” Angela Merkel told the ZDF.

With Obama, even the stale sauerkraut snubbed him.

article-2684147-1F77DA6E00000578-342_634x672

The American answer to terrorism

Remember we are the greatest!

Under Obama, terrorism became rampant to the point that even UN Security Council rejected a Russian motion to condemn a terrorist attack in the city of Homs where at least 22 people were killed and more than 70 injured.

Why did they reject it? Because it says: “The Syrian government reiterated that most of the terror attacks “would not have happened without … generous support with money, weapons and ammunition to the terrorist organizations as well as the political and media support provided by known countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar,” the Ministry said, reported official news agency Sana.”

To say “Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar” are the main instigators of terror is an anathema. Under Obama, its not only ISIS that gets special protection, but the beast of Turkey and the whores of Arabia, cannot be pointed as the culprits for spilling the blood of saints.

And just to show how messed up the foreign policies are, here, I will explain the small-nail on what sparked the rise of this Muslim beast.

There was once a little nail that held this humpty-dumpty named Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. He was elected with 90% of the vote on 25 October 2009. On 18 December 2010 a revolution sprang which led to the ousting of longtime president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in January 2011.

It eventually led to a thorough democratization of the country and to supposedly free democratic elections. Instead of democracy, Tunisia saw the victory of a coalition of the Islamist Ennahda Movement (sister of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood).

The vent caused a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests (both non-violent and violent), riots, and civil unrest in the Arab world.

The hoopla was not much different from the demonstrations caused by the Muhammad-mocking movie, Innocence of Muslims.

Had everyone ignored the Muslims, things would have calmed down. In reality, it was Muslims who wanted what is called the Turkish Model of Islam as an ideal.

So on January 14, 2011, taking refuge in Muslim Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration quickly adapted, expressing its support for the demonstrations. The U.S. could live without the Tunisian regime.

In Egypt, the 2011 uprising was effectively internationalized, with foreign media devoting countless hours to covering every turn and, in the process, putting the issue at the top of the Western policy agenda.

The United States, making use of longstanding military-to-military ties, pressured the Egyptian army to refrain from using force against Muslim protesters.

Then Obama supported an intervention by NATO forces in Libya, which ultimately led to the end of the revolution and death of leader Muammar Qadhafi.

The naive Americans were jubilant, of course.

Non-politicians who had experience with foreigners overseas like businessman mogul Donald Trump knew better. Just as any kabob stand in the Middle East knew, the hoopla wasn’t about dictators, it was about Islam, stupid.

The U.S. condemned the governments of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen for their actions in dealing with the Islamist demonstrators.

However, it has stopped short of calling for regime change in Bahrain alone among those states. Why? Because Saudi Arabia knew that the majority in Bahrain are Shiites and with democracy, it would end up as a Shiite government allied to Iran.

And if Shiite-happens, in Egypt Sunni-happens.

It was no different from the Shiite Iranian Khomeni revolution in Iran than it was in Sunni Egypt. The Persians were for the revolution. The government of Iran condemned the Egyptian government’s response to protests during the Arab Spring even though Egypt is Sunni. They too, in Iran, wanted an Islamic revolution despite the Sunni-Shiite divide.

As a result, Sunni-happened, especially, approximately 10,000 Egyptians took part in The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID training in social media and nonviolent organizing techniques.

For example, one former Egyptian policeman named Omar Afifi Suleiman. He was coordinating the Tahrir Square protests in Cairo from his office in Washington DC. According to Wikileaks, NED paid Suleiman a yearly stipend of $200,000 between 2008-2011.

The tactics of the Arab Spring was introduced by one American non-violent guru, a son of a Protestant minister, Gene Sharp, the godfather of nonviolent revolution. His links with the Pentagon and US intelligence which played the major role. His work was reportedly taught in training workshops for Egyptian revolutionaries long before the events in Tahrir Square. And it has been used by activists in Zimbabwe, Estonia, Serbia, Vietnam, Burma and Lithuania.

The US goal in the Arab Spring revolutions was supposedly to replace unpopular despotic dictators while taking care to maintain the autocratic US-friendly infrastructure that had brought them to power. All initially followed the nonviolent precepts Sharp outlines in his 1994 book From Dictatorship to Democracy. In Libya, Syria and Yemen, the US and their allies were clearly prepared to introduce paid mercenaries when their Sharpian “revolutions” failed to produce regime change.

Sharp, contrary to the claim, was not simply a “practitioner of nonviolent movements” but rather a “theorist of power”. Some participated in the same State Department trainings as the Middle East opposition activists and instigated nonviolent Facebook and Twitter protests to coincide with the 2011 uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.

Others, in exile, underwent guerrilla training sponsored by the CIA and a few months after Gaddafi’s assassination, some of these same militants would lead Islamic militias attempting to overthrow Assad in Syria.

How much mess can happen as result of the disobedience of God?

I will give just two simple biblical instructions. The first was to believe that the Protestant support for contraception was wiser than the Pope’s. The second was that “civil disobedience” and “non-violent protesting” is a God-given right.

Making contraception halal, and we have Protestant Germany and Protestant England in population-decline with more old geezers demanding to be taken care of by Muslim immigrants who will supposedly take on the work-force in Europe.

The reality was that these Muslims did not mind impregnating European girls and produce more Muslims and more welfare.

The other bad instruction was that we all have the right of “civil disobedience” which resulted is the worst tyranny in recent history: the Arab Spring.

The Bible never taught “civil disobedience” just for simply opposing a kingdom or a dictator. On the contrary, Christians are to obey the rules of the government so long they are allowed to observe God’s mandates and be allowed to worship Jesus freely.

God never told Moses to oust the Pharaoh. He simply wanted to be worshiped freely. Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s does to mean we stop rendering unto God what is God’s.

You take away that second duty (rendering unto God what is God’s), and the second amendment kicks in with “violence” if reason and non-violence fails.

This is America. This is that apple-pie that can never be taken away. America will never have a love for Allah and will turn on any politician when they start dictating how we theologically believe to render unto Allah and Islam some burnt incense.

In fact, it was the condemnation of Trump on his Muslim comments that ticked off many Americans who are afraid to come out of the closet and confess his/her hypocrisy.

I profile Americans daily. An American is a hypocrite. He will never tell you that he hates falafel after you give them a taste. They will simply say that trying falafel “was interesting”. They will never say that they hate Islam, they will simply say they do not want Syrian immigrants when what they truly mean “Muslim” immigrants. An American is not an Arab where burping is polite and women open the door for men is the norm.

Besides Donald Trump, every Republican candidate, to cover his utter-hypocrisy had to bend the knee for Allah and the Muslim.

Trump was brilliant. Trump made them all work like the chicken-pecking on Trump’s head for saying the word “Muslim”. Fortunately, his pure golden hair cut their beaks and the Americans are responding in the polls, while Obama sought to differentiate Islam from the practices and beliefs of terrorists.

“[ISIS] does not speak for Islam,” Obama said. “They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world — including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology.”

Alright then, perhaps if Al-Baghdadi does not speak for Islam, who then does? Al-Azhar University in Egypt? The Wahhabist Saudis? Turkey?

There is no one on the face of the earth who can deny that every major Muslim institution that speaks for Islam is not void of teaching that Jihad is a holy-war against the infidel.

And while Obama fiddles around with ISIS, Erdogan of Turkey insists to “change set-times and laws”. While Turkey can undertake separate referenda for a new Constitution and a switch to an executive-style presidential system (in reality a Caliphate) President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan told reporters on his private plane en route from an official visit to Turkmenistan.

There are all sorts of foreign policy messes at hand and they are all as result of U.S. Administration. Messing with Syria caused Russia to intervene. Russia intervening messed up Turkey’s plans for a Neo-Ottoman hegemony which caused Turkey to mess with Russia. Turkey messing with Russia caused a rift where Turkey is not looking to change it dependency on Russian gas. Changing Turkey’s dependency on Russian gas made Turkey look to the Central Asian countries like Azarbeijan and Turkmenistan that holds the world’s fourth- or fifth-largest natural gas reserves. All this is helping create a new Muslim block with Turkey and the Muslim states in the Caucasus. These, including Iran would constitute tens of Nazi Germanies. All this was caused because some supposed genius wanted “democracy” in the Middle East.

However, Russia is building a natural gas route to China that could rival Turkmenistan’s. This leaves the Trans-Caspian pipeline as the last option for diversifying Turkmenistan’s customer base which will ease the need of Turkey to depend on Russia’s gas.

And now Erdogan wants to become Caliph.

“If they [opposition] want to take this [proposal] to the people they can do so. I believe that a huge proportion of the people will say ‘yes’ to a new Constitution,” Erdogan said.

“The people” will finally give him “allegiance” and the dead-man of Europe will arise from the dead.

But technically, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) would need the support of 367 of the 550 deputies to amend the Turkish Constitution directly, and only 330 to take the proposal to a nationwide referendum.

But in August, Erdoğan argued that Turkey’s government had already been changed into a “de facto” presidential system, as he called for a constitutional framework to “finalize” this transition.

“You can either accept it or not. Turkey’s government system has been de facto changed in this regard. What should be done now is to finalize the legal framework of this de facto situation with a new Constitution,” Erdoğan said during a speech in his hometown of Rize.

Turkey has enjoyed nearly 140 years of constitutional experience since the inception of the Ottoman Constitution of 1876, known in Turkish as the Kanûn-u Esâsî, and the parliamentary system has been the defining characteristic of all constitutions to follow.

Even in the 60-odd years of multi-party politics Turkey has seen, witnessing four military coups and even having a prime minister executed, Turkey has never taken a step to change its system of governance to a presidential one.

Erdoğan has emphasized the superiority of the presidential system (Caliph-Erdogan) many times in the past and said that he wants to change the current parliamentary system of government to a strong presidential system (Sultan-Erdogan).

Claiming that most developed countries are governed by a presidential system, although this is not actually the case, he said in January: “That shows that this [system] produces [better] results. Given this, why should we put shackles on our feet [by sticking with a parliamentary system]?”

The next argument will be that if Catholics have a Pope, why the Muslims cannot have a “Caliph”?

This will be as if Caliph-Baghdadi of ISIS, but he is running the second largest and most powerful army in NATO after the U.S.

Anyone else (besides Obama) dare say that Islam is not the most dangerous religion on earth?

Anyone wants to ignore that God is in control and that He might have Trump win? God even chose Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man, to spend three days in His grave. God does not hate the rich man just because he is rich.

In the end, somethings just never change. Especially when it comes to my three decade observation of Americans. From its discovery of the Hamburger, Americans will always stand in long lines because they love the Hamburger and is why they stand in long lines to see Donald Trump.

 

Author: God in heaven

US-Led Coalition Must Pay War Reparations to Syria

 

Syrian Foreign Ministry: Syria Reserves Its Right in Demanding US-Led Coalition to Pay Compensations for Deliberate Destruction of Economic Facilities

 

 

Syria affirmed that the US-led coalition’s warplanes have launched tens of raids on the Syrian economic facilities instead of raiding the Islamic State (ISIS) organization and its tanks that transport the stolen Syrian oil into Turkey.

“The US-led coalition’s shelling of the economic facilities and infrastructure, and the unilateral coercive measures adopted by some countries on the Syrian people are the reason behind the mounting difficult conditions Syria is passing through,” Foreign and Expatriates Ministry said in two identical letters sent Wednesday to the UN Secretary General and President of Security Council.

It added that in light of this deliberate destruction of the oil and economic establishments, the Syrian Arab Republic reserves its right in demanding the US-led coalition’s countries to pay compensations to Syria in return for this destruction as it is a right guaranteed by the international law.

On December 8th and 13th, the international coalition shelled a number of oil and gas stations in Deir Ezzor under the pretext of hunting the ISIS, causing losses estimated at hundreds of millions USD.

“The US-led coalition has launched scores of raids on the Syrian economic installations instead of bombarding the ISIS tanks which transport the stolen Syrian petroleum and it didn’t present any information about the shelling to the UN according to the UN charter,” the two letters reiterated.

The letters added “In this regard, the armed terrorist organizations don’t loot the Syrian oil directly from the stations, but they steal the oil from places neighboring the oil wells which spread in the Syrian oil fields, then they sell the petroleum through Turkish channels.

The original source of this article is SANA
Copyright © Mazen Eyon, SANA, 2015

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). Unruly Hearts will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.

Putin: Downing of Russian jet over Syria stab in the back by terrorist accomplices

2713698 10/07/2015 A Russian Sukhoi Su-24 lands at the Hmeimim air base in Syria. Dmitriy Vinogradov/Sputnik

2713698 10/07/2015 A Russian Sukhoi Su-24 lands at the Hmeimim air base in Syria. Dmitriy Vinogradov/Sputnik

 

Turkey backstabbed Russia by downing the Russian warplane and acted as accomplices of the terrorists, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

“This incident stands out against the usual fight against terrorism. Our troops are fighting heroically against terrorists, risking their lives. But the loss we suffered today came from a stab in the back delivered by accomplices of the terrorists,” Putin said.

Objective monitoring data confirmed no attempts of Turkish plane to establish communication or visual contact with Rus crew

 

Жители столицы провели митинг протеста у посольства Турции в Москве

 

Follow LIVE UPDATES on Russian warplane shot down at Syria-Turkey border

Putin said the plane was hit by a Turkish warplane as it was traveling at an altitude of 6000 meters about a kilometer from the Turkish border. It was hit by an air-to-air missile launched by a Turkish F-16 jet. The crash site is four kilometers from the border. The plane posed no threat to Turkish national security, he stressed.

Putin said the plane was targeting terrorist targets in the Latakia province of Syria, many of whom came from Russia.

Russia has for a long time been aware of oil going from Syria under the control of terrorists to Turkey, Putin said. The money finances terrorist groups.

IS has big money, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, from selling oil. In addition they are protected by the military of an entire nation. One can understand why they are acting so boldly and blatantly. Why they kill people in such atrocious ways. Why they commit terrorist acts across the world, including in the heart of Europe,” the Russian leader said.

The downing of the Russian warplane happened despite Russia signing an agreement with the US to prevent such incidents in Syria, Putin stressed. Turkey claims to be part of the US-led coalition fighting against IS in Syria, he added.

The incident will have grave consequences for Russia’s relations with Turkey, Putin warned.

We have always treated Turkey as not only a close neighbor, but also as a friendly nation,” he said. “I don’t know who has an interest in what happened today, but we certainly don’t.”

The fact that Turkey did not try to contact Russia in the wake of the incident and rushed to call a NATO meeting instead is worrisome, Putin said. It appears that Turkey want NATO to serve the interests of IS, he added.

Even if we defeat the Islamic State, we’ll still lose the bigger war

 

 

2014-09-24T112509Z_01_SYR04_RTRIDSP_3_SYRIA-CRISIS

Residents of Syria’s Idlib province examine building damaged in air strikes on September 24. The United States and its Arab allies have opened a new front in the battle against Islamic State militants. (Ammar Abdullah/Reuters)

Andrew J. Bacevich, the George McGovern fellow at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, is writing a history of U. S. military involvement in the Greater Middle East.

As America’s efforts to “degrade and ultimately destroy” Islamic State militants extend into Syria, Iraq War III has seamlessly morphed into Greater Middle East Battlefield XIV. That is, Syria has become at least the 14th country in the Islamic world that U.S. forces have invaded or occupied or bombed, and in which American soldiers have killed or been killed. And that’s just since 1980.

Let’s tick them off: Iran (1980, 1987-1988), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014-), Somalia (1992-1993, 2007-), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan (1998, 2001-), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-), Pakistan (2004-) and now Syria. Whew.

With our 14th front barely opened, the Pentagon foresees a campaign likely to last for years. Yet even at this early date, this much already seems clear: Even if we win, we lose. Defeating the Islamic State would only commit the United States more deeply to a decades-old enterprise that has proved costly and counterproductive.

Back in 1980, President Jimmy Carter touched things off when he announced that the United States would use force to prevent the Persian Gulf from falling into the wrong hands. In effect, with the post-Ottoman order created by European imperialists — chiefly the British — after World War I apparently at risk, the United States made a fateful decision: It shouldered responsibility for preventing that order from disintegrating further. Britain’s withdrawal from “east of Suez,” along with the revolution in Iran and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, prompted Washington to insert itself into a region in which it previously avoided serious military involvement.

At the time, oil — not freedom, democracy or human rights — defined the principal American interest, and stability was the goal. Military power offered the means by which the United States hoped to attain that goal. Armed might would keep a lid on things. The pot might simmer, but it wouldn’t boil over.

In practice, however, whether putting boots on the ground or relying on missiles from above, subsequent U.S. efforts to promote stability have tended to produce just the opposite. Part of the problem is that American policymakers have repeatedly given in to the temptation to unleash a bit of near-term chaos, betting that longer-term order will emerge on the other end.

Back in Vietnam, this was known as burning down the village to save it. In the Greater Middle East, it has meant dismantling a country with the aim of erecting something more preferable — “regime change” as a prelude to “nation building.” Unfortunately, the United States has proved considerably more adept at the former than the latter.

Mostly, coercive regime change has produced power vacuums. Iraq offers a glaring example. Although studiously ignored by Washington, post-Gaddafi Libya offers a second. And unless the gods are in an exceptionally generous mood, Afghanistan will probably become a third whenever U.S. and NATO combat troops finally depart.

In place of governing arrangements that Washington judged objectionable, the United States has found itself coping with the absence of any effective governments whatsoever. Instead of curbing bad behavior, spanking induced all sorts of pathologies.

By inadvertently sowing instability, the United States has played directly into the hands of anti-Western radical Islamists intent on supplanting the European-imposed post-Ottoman order with something more to their liking. This is the so-called caliphate that Osama bin Laden yearned to create and that now exists in embryonic form in the portions of Iraq and Syria that Islamic State radicals control.

Want to measure what America’s war for the Middle East has accomplished through its first 13 iterations? The Islamic State has to rank prominently on any list of achievements. If Iraq possessed minimally effective security forces, Islamic State militants wouldn’t have a chance. But the Iraqi army we created won’t fight, in considerable measure because the Iraqi government we created doesn’t govern.

Kurdish fighters defending Kobane warn of a likely massacre by Islamic State insurgents, while Turkey says it will do whatever it can to prevent the Syrian border town from falling. (Reuters)

President Obama did not initiate the long and varied sequence of military actions that has produced this situation. Yet he finds himself caught in a dilemma. To give the Islamic State a free hand is to allow proponents of the caliphate to exploit the instability that U.S. efforts, some involving Obama himself, have fostered. But to make Syria the latest free-fire zone in America’s never-ending Middle East misadventure will almost surely prolong and exacerbate the agonies that country is experiencing, with little ability to predict what consequences will ensue.

Even if U.S. and allied forces succeed in routing this militant group, there is little reason to expect that the results for Syrians will be pretty — or that the prospects of regional harmony will improve. Suppress the symptoms, and the disease simply manifests itself in other ways. There is always another Islamic State waiting in the wings.

Obama’s bet — the same bet made by each of his predecessors, going back to Carter — is that the skillful application of U.S. military might can somehow provide a way out of this dilemma. They were wrong, and so is he.

We may be grateful that Obama has learned from his predecessor that invading and occupying countries in this region of the world just doesn’t work. The lesson he will bequeath to his successor is that drone strikes and commando raids don’t solve the problem, either.

We must hope for victory over the Islamic State. But even if achieved, that victory will not redeem but merely prolong a decades-long military undertaking that was flawed from the outset. When the 14th campaign runs its course, the 15th will no doubt be waiting, perhaps in Jordan or in a return visit to some unfinished battleground such as Libya or Somalia or Yemen.

Yet even as the United States persists in its determination to pacify the Greater Middle East, the final verdict is already in. U.S. military power has never offered an appropriate response to whatever ails the Islamic world. We’ve committed our troops to a fool’s errand.

And worse, the errand is also proving unnecessary. With abundant North American energy reserves now accessible — all that shale oil and fracked gas — we don’t need the Persian Gulf oil that ostensibly made our post-1980 military exertions imperative. For whatever reasons, Washington’s national security elites seem oblivious to the implications these resources have for policy in the Middle East.

No matter how long it lasts, America’s war for the Greater Middle East will end in failure. And when it does, Americans will discover that it was also superfluous.

A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What’s Next?

hillary-clinton-winking-AP-640x480

Make no mistake. A Clinton presidency would be disastrous – the worst of all possible deplorable choices, none worthy of any public office, all aspirants beholden to wealth, power and privilege exclusively.

 

By Margaret Sullivan – Public Editor’s Journal

July 27, 2015 10:00 am

Updated: July 28, 2015 | The story certainly seemed like a blockbuster: A criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton by the Justice Department was being sought by two federal inspectors general over her email practices while secretary of state.

It’s hard to imagine a much more significant political story at this moment, given that she is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.

The story a Times exclusive — appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Friday’s paper. The online headline read “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email,” very similar to the one in print.

But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

From Thursday night to Sunday morning – when a final correction appeared in print – the inaccuracies and changes in the story were handled as they came along, with little explanation to readers, other than routine corrections. The first change I mentioned above was written into the story for hours without a correction or any notice of the change, which was substantive.

And the evolving story, which began to include a new development, simply replaced the older version. That development was that several instances of classified information had been found in Mrs. Clinton’s personal email – although, in fairness, it’s doubtful whether the information was marked as classified when she sent or received those emails. Eventually, a number of corrections were appended to the online story, before appearing in print in the usual way – in small notices on Page A2.

But you can’t put stories like this back in the bottle – they ripple through the entire news system.

So it was, to put it mildly, a mess. As a result, I’ve been spending the last couple of days asking how this could happen and how something similar can be prevented in the future. I’ve spoken to the executive editor, Dean Baquet; to a top-ranking editor involved with the story, Matt Purdy; and to the two reporters, Matt Apuzzo and Michael S. Schmidt.

Meanwhile, I heard from readers, like Maria Cranor who wanted clarification and explanation on The Times’s “recent, and mystifying, coverage of the HRC emails. It appears that your reporters relied on leaks from the Gowdy committee to suggest that Clinton was involved in some kind of criminal malfeasance around the emails. The subsequent walk backs have not been effective, or encouraging. Please help us retain our wavering confidence in the Times’ political coverage!” (Her reference is to the Republican congressman, Trey Gowdy.)

Another reader, Paul Kingsley, demanded a refund for his Friday paper. “We all deserve one,” he wrote to me. And, complaining about the lack of transparency and the errors, he added:

1) please repost the original reporting;
2) provide an explanation as to how it made it to press and what was wrong.
3) what are you going to do to prevent such inaccurate bias in the future?
4) are you going to minimize using unnamed sources?

The story developed quickly on Thursday afternoon and evening, after tips from various sources, including on Capitol Hill. The reporters had what Mr. Purdy described as “multiple, reliable, highly placed sources,” including some “in law enforcement.” I think we can safely read that as the Justice Department.

The sources said not only was there indeed a referral but also that it was directed at Mrs. Clinton herself, and that it was a criminal referral. And that’s how The Times wrote it initially.

“We got it wrong because our very good sources had it wrong,” Mr. Purdy told me. “That’s an explanation, not an excuse. We have an obligation to get facts right and we work very hard to do that.”

By Friday afternoon, the Justice Department issued a terse statement, saying that there had been a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information, stating clearly that it was not a criminal referral. Mr. Purdy says he remains puzzled about why the initial inaccurate information was confirmed so clearly. (Update: Other news outlets also got confirmation of the criminal referral as they followed The Times’s story. They did not report, as an earlier version of this post suggested, that she herself was the target of the referral.)

There are at least two major journalistic problems here, in my view. Competitive pressure and the desire for a scoop led to too much speed and not enough caution. Mr. Purdy told me that the reporters, whom he described as excellent and experienced, were “sent back again and again” to seek confirmation of the key elements; but while no one would discuss the specifics of who the sources were, my sense is that final confirmation came from the same person more than once.

The reporters and editors were not able to see the referral itself, Mr. Purdy said, and that’s the norm in such cases; anything else would be highly unusual, he said. So they were relying on their sources’ interpretation of it. All at The Times emphasized that the core of the initial story – the request for an investigation – is true, and that it was major news, as was the later development.

Hindsight’s easy, but I’ll take a stab at it anyway. Here’s my take:

First, consider the elements. When you add together the lack of accountability that comes with anonymous sources, along with no ability to examine the referral itself, and then mix in the ever-faster pace of competitive reporting for the web, you’ve got a mistake waiting to happen. Or, in this case, several mistakes.

Reporting a less sensational version of the story, with a headline that did not include the word “criminal,” and continuing to develop it the next day would have been a wise play. Better yet: Waiting until the next day to publish anything at all.

Losing the story to another news outlet would have been a far, far better outcome than publishing an unfair story and damaging The Times’s reputation for accuracy.

What’s more, when mistakes inevitably happen, The Times needs to be much more transparent with readers about what is going on. Just revising the story, and figuring out the corrections later, doesn’t cut it.

Mr. Baquet, who is a former Times Washington bureau chief, told me Sunday by phone that he faults himself on this score, and he would do it differently now.

“We should have explained to our readers right away what happened here, as soon as we knew it,” he said. That could have been in an editor’s note or in a story, or in some other form, he said.

“The readers of The New York Times got whipsawed,” by all the conflicting reports and criticism, he said.

He agreed, as Mr. Purdy did, that special care has to come with the use of anonymous sources, but he believes that the errors here “may have been unavoidable.” And Mr. Purdy said that he thought The Times probably took too long to append a correction in the first instance.

But, Mr. Baquet said, he does not fault the reporters or editors directly involved.

“You had the government confirming that it was a criminal referral,” Mr. Baquet said. “I’m not sure what they could have done differently on that.”

None of this should be used to deny the importance of The Times’s reporting on the subject of Mrs. Clinton’s email practices at the State Department, a story Mr. Schmidt broke in March. Although her partisans want the focus shifted to these errors, the fact remains that her secret email system hamstrung possible inquiries into her conduct while secretary of state both by the news media and the public under the Freedom of Information Act and by Congress. And her awarding to herself the first cull of those emails will make suspicion about what they contained a permanent part of the current campaign.

Nevertheless, the most recent story is both a messy and a regrettable chapter. It brings up important issues that demand to be thought about and discussed internally with an eye to prevention in the future.

Mr. Baquet and Mr. Purdy said that would happen, especially on the issue of transparency to readers. In my view, that discussion must also include the rampant use of anonymous sources, and the need to slow down and employ what might seem an excess of caution before publishing a political blockbuster based on shadowy sources.

I’ll summarize my prescription in four words: Less speed. More transparency.

After all, readers come to The Times not for a scoop, though those can be great, but for fair, authoritative and accurate information. And when things do go wrong, readers deserve a thorough, immediate explanation from the top. None of that happened here.

(Update: An editors’ note, explaining the errors and stating that corrections should have been handled differently, was published late Monday, and appeared in Tuesday’s paper on page A2.)

Putin Blew the Whistle on Who Grew ISIS in 2014 (Video)

RUSSIA INSIDER
Mon, Oct 26, 2015

Putin Blew the Whistle on Who Grew ISIS in 2014 (Video)
But he can’t figure out if US did it out of stupidity or malice

This short video showing Vladimir Putin answering a question on ISIS from a US journalist was filmed at the Valdai International Discussion Club in late 2014. While millions of patriotic Americans still believe the simple narrative of ‘Russia is bad, USA is good’, Putin’s explosive comments blow that mindset right out of the water- and they also clearly explain why the Russian President has just decided to send in his military to support Assad’s fight against the Islamic State. After telling the audience that (unlike Obama’s view of him) he does not consider the USA a threat to Russia, Putin begins responding to a question about the ISIS problem.

The President begins: “Well who on earth armed them? Who armed the Syrians who were fighting with Assad? Who created the necessary political climate that facilitated this situation? Who pushed for the delivery of arms to the region?”

Yes, you guessed it: he’s talking about the USA.

Putin: US Neocons Created and Keep Supporting ISIS

Putin continues:

“Do you really not understand who is fighting in Syria? They are mercenaries, mostly. Do you understand they are paid money? Mercenaries fight for whichever side pays more. So they arm them and pay them a certain amount. I even know what these amounts are.” He explains how this insane foreign policy has backfired on the United States: the mercenaries don’t give back the arms, and when they find out they can earn more money fighting for ISIS, they swap sides- taking the USA’s weapons with them, and occupying the oil fields.But who is buying the oil from these terrorists, Putin asks, and why are sanctions not applied to those who purchase it?

“Do you think the USA doesn’t know who is buying the oil?” Putin asks his audience defiantly. “Is it not their allies that are buying oil from ISIS?” Putin then points out that the USA certainly has the power to persuade their allies to stop buying oil from the mercenaries who have deflected to the Islamic State. But, he suggests (here’s where it gets interesting) “they do not wish to influence them.”

Putin claims that in those areas of Syria where ISIS are extracting oil and paying mercenaries great rates of pay, more and more Syrian ‘rebels’ (anti-Assad fighters who were supposed to be on our side) are joining the Islamic State. “So you support them, arm them, and tomorrow they join ISIS. Can they not think a step ahead?” he says scathingly about US foreign policy. “I consider this absolutely unprofessional politics. We must support civilized, democratic opposition in Syria. We don’t stand for this kind of politics of the USA. We think it is wrong.”

If this is true- and concrete evidence suggests it is- Putin’s tirade is very difficult to argue with. Sure, the Russian President has a hell of a lot to answer for, but who is the real terrorist in this situation? Could it be that the USA was also behind the Ukrainian coup all along, supported by its minions in the corporate press who sought to lay the blame on Russia’s doorstep? After all, it was Putin, not Obama, who extended an olive branch to the American people by writing an op-ed in the New York Times in 2013 calling for peace and co-operation between the two powers.

Putin’s comments back up what many have been saying about ISIS and its strong connection to the USA since the start of this crisis. Please share this video to raise awareness of which war-mongering superpower is really to blame for the majority of the misery in this world. You might also like to check out Putin’s United Nations meeting speech late last month, where he talks more about these themes and asks the USA and its allies with reference to Syria: “Now do you realize what you have done?”

Transcript:

“Another threat that President Obama mentioned was ISIS. Well who on earth armed them?

Who armed the Syrians that are fighting Assad?

Who created the necessary political/informational climate that facilitated this situation?

Who pushed the delivery of arms to the area?

Do you really not understand as to who is fighting in Syria?

They are mercenaries mostly.

Do you understand they are paid money?

Mercenaries fight for whichever side pays more.

So they arm them and pay them a certain amount

I even know what these amounts are.

So they fight, they have the arms, you cannot get them to return the weapons of course, at the end..

Then they discover elsewhere pays a little more..

Then they occupy the oil fields wherever; in Iraq, in Syria.

They start extracting the oil-and this oil is purchased by somebody.

Where are the sanctions on the parties purchasing this oil?

Do you believe the US does not know who is buying it? Is it not their allies that are buying the oil from ISIS?

Do you not think that US has the power to influence their allies? Or is the point that they indeed do not wish to influence them?

Then why bomb ISIS?

In areas where they started extracting oil and paying mercenaries more, in those areas the rebels from ‘civilised’ Syrian opposition forces immediately joined ISIS because they are paid more.

I consider this absolutely unprofessional politics. It is not grounded in facts , in the real world.

We must support civilized democratic opposition in Syria.

So you support, arm them and then tomorrow they join ISIS.

Can they [USA] not think a step ahead?

We cannot stand for this kind of politics of the US. We consider it wrong. It harms all parties, including you [USA].”

Putin: US Neocons Created and Keep Supporting ISIS

Fort Russ remembers… Putin’s rating is breaking all records

vladimir

                         Vladimir Putin President of the Russian Federation – 88%

 

Russia’s unbelievable transparency in Syria surprises, astonishes, shocks!

October 17, 2015
Translated from French

While the coalition always keeps the lid on what it does, which indicates its insincerity about its so-called struggle against terrorism, Moscow hides nothing. This poses a real difficulty for the coalition, whose second nature is mendacious propaganda.  

The customary bellicose rhetoric of NATO continues its old ways, but [without details] it is not possible to rebut. Assisted by the propaganda of the mainstream media, NATO attempts in vain to make believe that there are good terrorists and bad terrorists.

Russian aviation has bombarded 40 “terrorist targets” in Syria in the course of the last 24 hours — a significant decrease compared to preceding days, the Russian defense minister announced Wednesday. 

General Igor Konachenkov, spokesman for the ministry, specified that tactical fighter bombers of the type Su-34, and ground attack machines, Su-24M and Su-25M, have completed 41 aerial sorties to strike “40 terrorist targets” in the provinces of Aleppo (north), Idleb (northwest), Hama (center), Latakia northwest), and Deir Ezzor (east). The Russian jets have notably targeted “infrastructures of the group “Islamic State,” he added. 

The others, unable to justify their aerial sorties in Syria or in Iraq are shocked. Actually, they are not bombing anything but the desert.

Translator note: The original headline is just as emphatic as the above: 
“L’incroyable transparence russe étonne, détonne et choque” I love it. INCROYABLE!
Originally posted on June 11, 2015
Vladimir Putin is supported by the vast majority of Russian citizens. Such data was provided by the Pew American research center. According to the expert survey, the rating of the Russian President has reached 88%. This is the absolute maximum for the last 15 years. 
The experts also shared other figures. The policy of the President of Russia towards Ukraine was supported by 83% of respondents, friendship with China – 90%, and Russia’s strategy towards the US – 85%.

Assad and Putin meet at the Kremlin (transcript)

xZB12Vdp1xjCIkOKcJpbLfgMl3dmAu2p (1)

October 21, 2015

Kremlin.ru

Vladimir Putin: Mr President,

Let me wish you a warm welcome to Moscow. Despite the dramatic situation in your country, you have responded to our request and come here to Russia, and we thank you for this.

We took the decision upon your request to provide effective aid to the Syrian people in fighting the international terrorists who have unleashed a genuine war against Syria. The Syrian people have been practically alone in putting up resistance and fighting these international terrorists for several years now, and have suffered great losses. Lately though, there have been some major positive results in this fight.

The attempts by international terrorists to bring whole swathes of territory in the Middle East under their control and destabilize the situation in the region raise legitimate concerns in many countries around the world. This is a matter of concern for Russia too, given that sadly, people from the former Soviet Union, around 4,000 people at least, have taken up arms and are fighting on Syrian territory against the government forces. Of course, we cannot let these people gain combat experience and go through ideological indoctrination and then return to Russia.

On the question of a settlement in Syria, our position is that positive results in military operations will lay the base for then working out a long-term settlement based on a political process that involves all political forces, ethnic and religious groups. Ultimately, it is the Syrian people alone who must have the deciding voice here.

Syria is Russia’s friend and we are ready to make our contribution not only to the military operations and the fight against terrorism, but also to the political process. We would do this, of course, in close contact with the other global powers and with the countries in the region that want to see a peaceful settlement to this conflict.

Once again, I wish you welcome, Mr President.

President of Syria Bashar al-Assad (retranslated): Thank you very much, Mr President.

First of all, I want to express our tremendous gratitude to the Russian leadership and people for the help they are providing Syria. Thank you for supporting Syria’s unity and independence. Most important of all is that this is being done within the framework of international law.

I must say that the political steps the Russian Federation has been taking since the start of the crisis made it possible to prevent events in Syria from taking an even more tragic turn. If it were not for your actions and decisions, the terrorism that is spreading through the region now would have made even greater gains and spread to even wider territories. You have confirmed your course of action by joining in the military operations as part of a common front in the fight against terrorism.

Of course, we all know that any military action must be followed by political steps. Of course, our common goal is to bring about the vision the Syrian people have of their own country’s future.

We must be particularly aware that military strikes against the terrorists are essential above all because we must fight terrorism, and also because terrorism is a real obstacle on the road to reaching a political settlement. Of course, the entire nation wants to take part in deciding the country’s fate, and not just the government.

I want to thank the Russian people once more for the help you are giving Syria and express the hope that we will vanquish terrorism and continue working together to rebuild our country economically and politically and ensure peaceful life for everyone.