Imperialists Weaponize Protests in Iraq, Lebanon, Iran…

Legitimacy of protests undermined by color revolution allusions

Kevin Barrett

Protests against “the Establishment” are commonplace all over the world. As of this writing (November 19) demonstrations in Hong Kong, Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, France, and Latin America are making headlines. Though the massive Yellow Vest protests in France ought to be given wide coverage in the Western media — after all, France is a Western country — that doesn’t seem to be the case. Instead, the Euro-American media downplays or blacks out the Yellow Vests (and Morales supporters in Bolivia, Chavez supporters in Venezuela, and neoliberalism opponents in Chile) while hyping protests against governments that refuse to take orders from the West.

All of these protests are driven by material privations imposed by the neoliberal Western bankers, who are scrambling with increasing desperation to shore up their crumbling global empire. The driving force behind the Hong Kong protests is anger over skyrocketing rents, a symptom of neoliberal capitalism’s culture of untrammeled greed. Iraqi and Lebanese protestors are angered by stagnant economies and widespread corruption — both products of the West’s intentional destruction of the region. Iranian protestors decry gasoline rationing at controlled prices, a necessary measure due to economic hardships imposed by US sanctions. The French Yellow Vests, likewise angered by economic deprivation, have correctly diagnosed the root of the problem as the tyranny of the Zionist international bankers. Perhaps for that reason, the corporate-owned mainstream media ignores and vilifies them, while French police maim them with impunity. Pro-Morales protestors in Bolivia, like pro-Chavez protestors in Venezuela and anti-neoliberalism protestors in Chile, also understand who is really oppressing them. As awareness spreads, perhaps some day we will see one united global protest movement targeting the neoliberal international banking elite.

Meanwhile, why are many of the protestors in Hong Kong, Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran lashing out at the wrong targets? Primarily because they are being manipulated by their real oppressors. All of these protests show signs of being infiltrated by CIA-linked networks responsible for the rise of “color revolutions” around the world. CIA color revolutions, given plausible deniability through USAID, NED, and NGO front groups, are a 5th Generation Warfare (5GW) tactic aimed at pressuring, destabilizing, and overthrowing governments that resist imperial plunder.

The Hong Kong protests are re-using the original color revolution color — black, the symbol of OTPOR, the CIA-sponsored protest movement that overthrew Slobodan Miloševic in Serbia. CIA proxies lavished many tens of millions of dollars on OTPOR during the late-1990s, financing the disguised coup that overthrew Miloševic on October 5, 2000. The same agencies, and presumably some of the same individuals, are undoubtedly behind the Hong Kong riots, whose purpose is to destabilize China on behalf of US imperialism.

The CIA’s OTPOR veterans are obviously present in Lebanon. Sometimes they don’t even bother to disguise themselves. Consider the photo (next page) taken by Andre Vltchek, which shows a huge CIA-manufactured OTPOR clenched black fist with the Arabic word thawrah (revolution) — a stronger version of the Serb otpor (resistance).

Is it a coincidence that protests almost simultaneously broke out in the three core countries of the Axis of Resistance — and a few quickly turned violent? Though it is certainly suspicious the way the Western media instantly began singing from the same hymn book from the very beginning of the protests, as if a script had already been written, it is entirely possible that some or all of the original protests in all three countries may have begun innocently. Some people in Iran are furious about gasoline rationing. Originally priced extremely low but even with the price increase, it is still very low. Iraqis are sick of corruption. Many Lebanese people feel swamped by the nearly three million refugees, more than two million of them Syrian, who are taxing the already struggling economy. Quite a few Lebanese blame these and other problems on the political elite associated with the confessional system that allocates positions according to religion and ethnicity.

In this photograph taken by Andre Vltchek of the protests in Lebanon, the placards and props used by some of the demonstrators indicate the infiltration of imperial and Zionist intelligence operatives, whose objectives would be to channel the anger at local institutions rather than those who leverage control over them from the outside.

But no matter how genuine the motivations of the original protestors, their gatherings — at least in targeted countries — are always quickly infiltrated by 5GW psy-op specialists who seek to divert the crowds toward the imperialists’ purposes. The infiltration happens not only on the streets, but more importantly, in social media and other regions of cyberspace, where the Empire’s heavily-funded psychological warfare experts are not just proficient in, but in some cases actually run the platforms that the protestors are using (to take just a few examples, the CIA basically runs Google and Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook works closely with Israeli intelligence, and Twitter betrays its affiliation to Zionism by deleting the accounts of its critics, most recently Palestinian Quds News Network).

The psy-ops experts are trained to use depth psychology, which manipulates people’s emotions below the level of consciousness, to conjure up rage against the Empire’s enemies. They do this both in cyberspace, where the right messages and images can incite mass anger and even violence, and in what used to be known as the real world, where they use the Empire’s virtually unlimited funds churned out by the Federal Reserve Bank dollar-printing presses to hire rent-a-mobs and pay professional “activists.” Despite its misleading name, the Federal Reserve is not a bank but a privately-owned entity dominated by well-healed Zionists.

The mainstream media is the heavy artillery of the Empire’s 5GW propaganda army. Witness the New York Times story “The Iran Cables: Secret Documents Show How Tehran Wields Power in Iraq.” That story, and many others, was designed, presumably with the help of CIA Operation Mockingbird officers, to try to hijack the Iraq protests and turn them against Iran. The shamelessness of the US — which invaded Iraq in 2003, killed millions of Iraqis, and still occupies the country — as it tries to make the case that the real occupier of Iraq is Iran, is both breathtaking and nauseating.

Writing about the unrest in Lebanon, Sonja van den Ende explains the larger picture,

Some regular MSM outlets in the US, Israel, and EU already called this uprising larger and bigger than the last Cedar Revolution in 2005 and dare to call it the “New Arab Spring.” This is a dangerous remark because all well-informed people know that the so-called Arab Spring was initiated by the US and its allies EU/NATO and financed by George Soros foundations like the Open Society Foundation. It brought the destruction and downfall of Libya, it destroyed Syria and led the world to the brink of collapse. The current situation in Lebanon is caused by exactly that, the so-called Arab Spring and the economic collapse, which is a result of the Arab Spring. Millions of Syrian refugees fled to their neighboring country Lebanon, causing a huge economic burden.

So chaos causes economic privation that causes more chaos which in turn causes more economic privation. It is a vicious cycle with no end in sight. This is the deliberate policy of the Zionist entity and the West: to annihilate the Muslim East in order to facilitate its plunder. From the Zionist Oded Yinon’s plan to balkanize the region in service to Greater Israel, to Col. Ralph Peters and his Pentagon-funded “blood borders map,” Zionists and imperialists have openly announced their mission: to smash the historical heartland of Islam into ever-smaller, ever-more impotent pieces.

The protesters in Lebanon say they are tired of the current confessional system, which is understandable. But impulsively destroying the present system, without offering a viable replacement, is a recipe for disaster. As Hizbullah leader Sayyid Hasan Nasrullah observed, “Some protests have been financed by embassies and suspicious sides. Certain elements are seeking to stir political tensions in Lebanon in a bid to create a political vacuum in the country” with the apparent objective of inciting another civil war.

The people of Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran should reject the chaos scenarios sponsored by their manipulators, and instead demand unity in confronting the aggressors who have crippled their countries’ economies and infrastructures. Specifically, they should be demanding trillions of dollars in reparations from the United States and Israel, a real investigation of the 9/11 false flag that blew up the Muslim East, a united Muslim Ummah with full sovereignty over its own energy resources, and an end to the Zionist-dominated riba-based international currency system.

Impeachment Circus

Will clown Trump be driven from the big tent?

Kevin Barrett

In 1967, French philosopher Guy Debord published The Society of the Spectacle. He argued that Western culture has decayed to the point that “passive identification with the spectacle supplants genuine activity.” The tawdry spectacle of Trump’s impeachment — like Clinton’s and Nixon’s before him — perfectly illustrates Debord’s thesis. Today, one-third of the American public sits in front of a big-screen TV blaring CNN and MSNBC, eating popcorn and cheering for Trump’s impeachment. Another third sits in front of a bigger but cheaper screen watching Fox and Breitbart and cheering for Trump. The final third are too busy playing video games and watching pornography to care.

The decline of American manners and morals can be traced through the three impeachment spectacles of the television era. When President Richard M. Nixon was impeached and forced out of office in 1974, most Americans, whether Republican or Democrat, agreed that it was unacceptable for a president to lie or curse — much less plot or cover up a crime (little did they know that many if not most American presidents have been foul-mouthed criminals).

By the time Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, American culture had changed for the worse. Clinton’s behavior was viewed through the lens of partisan emotions, not moral reason. For Democrats, adultery and perjury were not impeachable offenses, at least for a Democratic president. Republicans disagreed, for partisan rather than authentically moral reasons (most high-level Republican politicians were engaging in behavior similar to or worse than Clinton’s, as exemplified by the June 29, 1989 Washington Times headline “Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush: ‘Call boys’ took midnight tour of White House”). Meanwhile Clinton’s more serious sex offenses, including credible rape accusations, were censored by the mainstream media — as was his destruction of the American working class through frenetic neoliberal globalization. Behind the Clinton sex spectacle was the Zionist entity’s intelligence community, which had manufactured the Monica Lewinsky scandal to prevent Clinton from forcing a peace plan down their throats.

Today Trump’s impeachment hearings reflect an even more degraded, divided, and Zionist-controlled America. Trump, like Clinton and Nixon (among other presidents), is a criminal and a rogue. But he is less intelligent, and a less skillful liar. His supporters see that as a plus. They find his outlandish, uncontrollable spasms of verbal aggression and narcissism refreshing in an era of political correctness and hypocrisy. For Trump’s opponents, the fact that such an obviously dimwitted, unstable, egomaniacal, and ethically-challenged character got to be president in the first place is a world-class disaster.

The hyper-partisan impeachment circus focuses on Trump’s crimes of partisanship (using Ukraine to go after Joe Biden) rather than his far worse crimes against humanity: openly supporting the genocide of Palestine and the destruction of al-Quds; engaging in a war of terrorism against Iran; shamelessly supporting torture as official US policy; effectively erasing the US Constitution’s freedom of religion clause by openly declaring war on Islam and Muslims; assassinating people who are innocent until proven guilty using drones and other cowardly methods; and otherwise running roughshod over the Constitution, international law, and common decency. Presumably the Democrats and the mainstream media don’t mention those crimes because they too are complicit in them, to greater or lesser degrees.

The impeachment hearings focus on Trump threatening to withhold $400 million in military aid to Ukraine if the Ukrainian government wouldn’t investigate Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son. Trump’s shakedown of Ukraine was arguably criminal and perhaps impeachable. But US policy toward Ukraine has been criminal since before Trump took office. The highlight, or lowlight, was the US-orchestrated coup of February 22, 2014, in which the democratically-elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown amidst the chaos of Operation Gladio style violence. Obama-Biden official Victoria “F*** the EU” Nuland, a rabid Zionist operative, bragged about the US spending $5 billion to overthrow Ukrainian democracy and incite civil war (talk about “bribery”!). Obama and Biden should have been impeached and imprisoned for that war crime, among others.

The Obama-Biden coup in Ukraine followed the same script the US employed against Libya and Syria, and is now using against Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran: Deploy money and social media manipulation to get naïve young people into the street, incite violence — then blame your enemies for the very violence you yourself incited. Just like in Syria, NATO’s Operation Gladio snipers in Ukraine shot at police and demonstrators simultaneously, leading each side to blame the other. Such war crimes, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of Ukrainians, are crimes many orders of magnitude beyond Trump’s stupid attempt to get war criminal and sure-loser presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son investigated for petty corruption.

Alongside Ukraine-gate, there is Russia-gate. There, too, Trump’s crimes pale in comparison to those of his predecessors. Trump is accused of getting help from Russia in his successful 2016 election campaign. Whether he actively solicited that help, passively accepted it, or even knew much about it, is unclear (whether Trump knows much about anything at all is equally unclear).

Trump’s 2016 campaign is accused of complicity in WikiLeaks’ publication of Hillary Clinton’s emails. According to the anti-Trump narrative, Russian hackers stole Clinton’s emails and passed them to WikiLeaks, making WikiLeaks a de facto “Russian agent.” Trump operative Roger Stone, who was recently found guilty of obstruction, lying, and witness tampering, allegedly had a back channel to WikiLeaks and knew when the emails would be published. So that supposedly makes Stone a second-degree Russian agent, which would make Trump a third-degree Russian agent.

In fact, the whole “WikiLeaks is a Russian agent” narrative is dubious at best. The Clinton emails were probably leaked by an insider, not a Russian hacker, according to an analysis by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). The likely leaker of Democratic Party (DNC Server) material was Seth Rich, a Democratic insider and Bernie Sanders supporter who was angry at the way Hillary Clinton conspired with party hacks to steal the nomination. Unfortunately, Seth Rich cannot confirm or deny that hypothesis, since he was murdered on July 10, 2016. Julian Assange has indirectly confirmed that the source was Rich — which may be why Assange is now being tortured to death by the Deep State, without a peep of protest from the mainstream media.

The real Trump-Russia scandal, the one the mainstream won’t touch, is the President’s ties to the Russian mob. Trump poses as a hotelier and casino magnate, but his real business is laundering money for organized crime: first on behalf of the Meyer Lansky syndicate and its New York representative Roy Cohn, a psychopathic pedophile who was Trump’s mentor, handler, and suspected homosexual pal; and later, beginning in the 1990s, on behalf of the Russian mob headed by SemionMogilevich. It’s odd how the mainstream media obsesses about Trump’s minor peccadillos in Ukraine-gate and Russia-gate, while never mentioning the fact that Trump is a lifelong organized crime fron-man, and that Trump Tower still houses the Russian mob’s North American headquarters.

Whatever the truth about Trump’s Russia-related misdeeds — did he really pay prostitutes to urinate on Obama’s bed, and would anyone be surprised if he did?! — they are small time offenses compared to the US empire’s crimes against Russia and the world. Under the presidencies of Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Bush Jr., Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump, the US has violated its solemn promise to Mikhail Gorbachev not to bring NATO into Eastern Europe. During the 1990s, as it violated its promise and prepared nuclear war on Russia, the US destroyed the Russian economy, helping its Zionist criminal friends scoop up newly-privatized Soviet property for pennies on the dollar. The US-Zionist-orchestrated near-destruction of Russia caused male life expectancy to plunge by nearly a decade, and created the horrific conditions that have led to the global eruption of the Russian-Zionist mob that inserted Trump into the presidency.

The gambling industry, which like the Trump presidency is controlled by organized crime, currently offers three-in-four odds that Trump will be impeached, and one-in-four odds that he will be convicted and removed from office. Whether those are honest odds, only Semion Mogilivech and Allah (swt) know for sure.

So although it is impossible to predict whether the impeachment circus will lead to evil clown Trump’s being ejected from the Washington big tent, one thing is certain: the American political spectacle will continue to sink ever-deeper into shame and degradation.

Sheik Ubaid on the Crisis in Kashmir

Coalition Against Genocide spokesman talks to

Kevin Barrett

CI: The situation in Kashmir is very dangerous. It is one of the world’s worst and least-known human rights catastrophes, and has been for decades. When I interviewed Andre Vltchek on this show four years ago, he said that India’s abuse of the people of Kashmir was not only comparable, but in some ways worse than the Zionist abuse of the people of Palestine. And now we’re facing a much greater catastrophe. India is talking about annexing Kashmir, which might very well bring on war with Pakistan. So please introduce yourself and tell us how you came to be working on human rights in Kashmir, and how you see the situation there?

Sheik Ubaid (SU): I have been involved in the human rights struggle, whether in Bosnia, Burma, or Congo — which we don’t hear much about, it’s the second-longest-running genocide, the longest being in Burma-Myanmar. And I’m from India, which is why I have been keenly aware of what’s going on in Kashmir even when it’s not in the news. India does not encourage foreigners, even in “normal” times, to report from Kashmir. But now the crisis has exploded. And there is danger of nuclear war. As the prime minister of Pakistan has said, if war breaks out, and two nuclear powers — one being so disproportionately larger, India is seven times bigger than Pakistan — there is no way this will be a limited war.

[I have been working as] an antiwar activist, and speaking up for the suffering Kashmiris. There have been mass graves of Kashmiri civilians; there have been tens of thousands of rapes, since the mid-1980s, when the current situation developed, even though the problem dates back to the partition of British India. So that is why I got involved. And also we have been trying very hard to prevent the takeover of India by fascist forces — forces that have been slowly infiltrating Indian power centers in recent decades, and now have taken over the government. These are the people who killed Gandhi and who openly want to make India an exclusively Hindu state ruled by the upper caste. So we have been resisting that. Our coalition, the Coalition Against Genocide, was instrumental in stopping the visa of Modi, who is now the prime minister of India, so he couldn’t come to the US. He can now come to the US as prime minister. But he can’t come to the US as a private citizen because we got his visa revoked in 2005.

CI: Some think of Modi as being one of these right-wing populist leaders, like Trump, Boris Johnson, Marine Le Pen in France, Orban in Hungary, and so on. But as you mentioned, Modi is representing a movement that wants to put the upper caste in total control. What kind of populist movement is that?!

SU: That’s a very good question. It’s so ironic. India’s caste apartheid is the longest-running apartheid system in the world. It goes back at least 3,000 years, when the Aryan invaders came from the steppes of Central Asia to Iran and India’s Indus Valley civilization, which was one of the world’s oldest civilizations. So the Indus Valley people were pushed back into South India. And there they speak a language that is different from the Indo-Aryan language of North India, which is related to European and Iranian languages. Gradually the caste system developed and became a rigid system where the upper caste ruled the lower castes, and the huge population of the original inhabitants of India became outcasts, called Dalits. And then there is an even older population in India, one of the initial waves that came out of Africa 70,000 years ago. The upper castes were able to manage things by bringing in religion, which taught, “If you are born into a lower caste or an outcast it is because of the sins you committed in a past life. So if you serve the upper caste, then in the next life you will be born as an upper caste. If you resist, maybe in the next life you will be born as an animal.” So there was not much resistance until modern times. After exposure to Islam, and later exposure to Western liberal philosophies, they started to struggle. Gandhi, in spite of having some racist views about Africans, was quite good for lower castes. And that also took some of the pressure off them, and the Dalits started to organize. But they could not gain all they wanted because Gandhi also drew a line. And that is why the leader of the Dalits, [Bhimrao Ramji] Ambedkar [1891–1956], the father of India’s constitution, developed differences with Gandhi.

Dr. Shaikh Ubaid

CI: How did the Hindu fascist movement begin? As you said, these are the people who killed Gandhi, and who are working for authoritarian rule by the upper caste. Was Hindu fascism a backlash against the way the Dalits had been finding escape routes, whether through Islam or Western thinking?

SU: No. When [Hindu fascism] started the Dalits were not a threat. It was more an anti-Muslim feeling that started it. The Brahmanic founders of RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) were mostly from an area of India called Maharashtra, where anti-Muslim feeling was quite strong. When they saw how Mussolini, and later Hitler, rose to power, they got their inspiration. So they mixed religion with ultra-nationalism. And they realized that maybe the British, who allowed the Congress Party and other parties to start functioning, might leave one day. And they did not want Muslims to have any say or power in running India. So actually it is fascinating that initially they wanted to have a division of India, because they wanted areas where Muslims lived in large numbers to be separated, so they [the Hindu fascists] could take over India completely, and then later take over those Muslim lands also, even though they blame Gandhi and Jinnah for the partition of India. But it was Vinayak Damodar Savarkar [founder of Hindutva or Hindu nationalism] who was the first to say there were two different nations, Hindus and Muslims. And his policies, and the policies of other Hindu extremists, led a secular Muslim leader of Congress, Jinnah, to realize that in India, Muslims would be at the total mercy of Hindu majoritarian tyranny if the [Hindu] fascist movement and its thinking spread. So he decided to support the creation of a separate homeland for Muslims.

For decades [the Hindu fascists] worked quietly. They infiltrated law enforcement and education, even when the Congress Party, the party of Gandhi, was ruling India.

CI: Is Pakistan facing a difficult existential situation with its much larger neighbor, India, bent on not only taking Kashmir and committing genocide against the population there, but also being unwilling to live with an independent Pakistan? This creates a very difficult situation for Pakistan as well as Kashmir, doesn’t it?

SU: Yes, it does. Not only taking over Kashmir, they want to take over Kashmir’s land, but they’re not interested in the Kashmiris living there. Kashmir has three main parts: the Valley of Kashmir, Jammu region, and the region of Ladakh. We should not forget that Jammu was also a Muslim-majority area in 1947. That area was ethnically cleansed in 1947 and became Hindu-majority. So they want to do the same thing in the Valley of Kashmir, to change the demographics there, to have an ethnic cleansing, a genocide. And it is just natural for people, as human beings, to resist. Even if you take away religion, take away the Pakistani factor, nobody wants to be treated as slaves or even be killed or ethnically cleansed. So that is the reason why in 1987, when the Kashmiris realized that India would not allow them to have fair elections even locally, the population rose up. And that led to massive reprisals, killing at a massive scale, and rape, which was later adopted by the Serbians who used it in Bosnia. Some of the Serbs responsible even mentioned that they got the idea from the way rape was being used in Kashmir in the late-1980s and early-1990s.

CI: During the Cuban missile crisis, both leaders, Kennedy and Khruschev, were relatively reasonable, sane, peace-loving people. But this time around [though Imran Khan may be in some ways comparable to Kennedy] Modi is a cartoon villain. If we’d had someone like that on one side during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it’s hard to imagine how nuclear war could have been prevented. How can the world restrain somebody like Modi?

SU: That is a very good question. The world could not restrain Hitler. But Hitler’s Germany was a world power. India is not yet a world power. The other thing is, we can learn from the mistakes that were made in Germany. Hitler was allowed to completely take over the military. The Indian military so far has not been completely taken over by the RSS. It is the last institution. Even the judiciary has been taken over now. That is why the Supreme Court is dragging its feet over so many petitions that have been filed about Kashmir — because the special status of Kashmir was a treaty between two states, Kashmir and India, and was abrogated illegally, in violation of the Indian constitution. But the Supreme Court won’t deal with it. And the Indian military, for the past several years, is being slowly saffronized — saffron being the color of the Hindu supremacist movement. So there is still some time, there is still some hope. But the world will have to start moving fast and put pressure on India.

CI: When Imran Khan spoke at the United Nations, he begged the UN to intervene. What kind of intervention could help? The UN has never forced India to honor its promise to hold a plebiscite in which the people of Kashmir could decide their own fate. What kind of intervention could stop the situation from moving toward nuclear war?

SU: Security Council resolutions, taking it to the International Court of Justice, can put a damper on this completely outlandish and outrageous move by Modi. If India tried to take over the whole of Kashmir, even if Pakistan were defeated, China would not allow that. So the UN should realize, and activists and Western governments should realize, that this war is not going to be a limited conventional war. It might be the end of human civilization. Maybe not every human being would be killed right away, but with the destruction of the ozone layer, and nuclear clouds blocking sunlight… between them, the two countries have nearly 150 nuclear bombs, and China has far more. That should take away our peaceful sleep. We should be very concerned about what’s going on in Kashmir. g

Listen to the complete one-hour interview at https://www.patreon.com/posts/30596754.

 

Kevin Barrett

Turks Invade, Trump Flees: Is a Solution Looming?

Or, is this a prelude to more destabilization?

Kevin Barrett

Turkey’s decision to invade Syria — and Donald Trump’s decision to get out of the way — has opened up a whole new world of possibilities for the region, both positive and negative. On the positive side, the Syrian Kurds, who hurled rotten potatoes and obscene insults at US troops fleeing the scene, are now realigning with Damascus. If the Kurds give up their pathetic Zionist-inspired pipe dream of an independent Kurdistan, and accept the legitimate authority of the sovereign Syrian government, the long-term outcome could favor peace in the region: Syria reestablishes control over all of its territory, including the regions richest in such natural resources as oil and gas, agricultural land, and water; while Turkey declares victory, backs off, and lets Damascus rein in the Kurds and other destabilization agents.

This best-case scenario rests on many assumptions, some of them dubious. It assumes that Turkey, facing military difficulties, will recognize Syrian sovereignty and abandon its hope of permanently occupying Syrian territory. It assumes the Kurds will submit to Damascus and abandon their anti-Turkey insurgency. It assumes Ankara and Damascus will re-establish relations and find a way to help the 3.6 million Syrian refugees in Turkey, along with millions elsewhere, return to their homes and restart their lives. And it assumes that Damascus, Baghdad, and their allies, presumably with help from Turkey, will successfully continue on their path to victory over Da‘ish and other foreign-supported mercenaries of destabilization.

Erdogan’s decision to invade Syria — like his earlier decision to support the US-Zionist-instigated War of Syrian destabilization — represents a departure from Turkey’s “no problems with neighbors” policy that worked so well prior to 2011. Such acts of aggression against sovereign states violate international law. They contribute to an environment of lawlessness that fosters ever-increasing war and chaos. The only real winners in destabilization scenarios are the Zionists and their imperialist allies — and even they only win temporarily, at tremendous cost in blood and treasure and human suffering. Let us hope and pray that Turkey has learned its lesson and is planning to admit its mistake, work with Syria to solve the Kurdish separatist problem, and ultimately bow to Syrian territorial sovereignty.

The primary strategic lesson from the Syrian debacle is simple: those of us who would like to see the Islamic world reunited as a single Ummah — meaning all politically aware Muslims — should strive for reunification peacefully. The Zionists and imperialists who sponsored the war on Syria took advantage of naïve Muslims’ legitimate wish to erase national borders established by the 1916 Sykes-Picot imperialist carve-up of the Muslim East. Turkish participation in the ill-fated war on Syria was driven in part by the pan-Islamist designs of Erdogan’s former chief advisor Ahmet Davutoglu, whose ideas inspired Erdogan to seek a Turkish-run “safe zone” on the Syrian side of the border — a step toward more expansive neo-Ottoman boundaries. And demented Da‘ish and its atrocious allies are even more upfront (and even more unrealistically extremist, not to mention counterproductive) in their rejection of Sykes-Picot.

Unfortunately, the Muslims’ legitimate desire to reunite the Ummah has been hijacked in service to the exact opposite goal: further balkanization of the Muslim heartland along ethnic and sectarian lines, as laid out by Zionist strategist Oded Yinon. Turkey was lured into the war on Syria by the Zionist neocons whose 9/11 false flag was designed to implement Oded Yinon and “take out seven countries in five years” as reported by General Wesley Clark. Syria, one of the “seven countries,” had to be “taken out” so the neocon Zionists could “finish off” the list by overthrowing Islamic Iran. As former US National Security Council member Gwenyth Todd explained on my radio show, the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and subsequent attack on Syria, were all designed to surround Iran with US forces and bases in preparation for the mother of all regime-change wars. But as Allah (swt) tells us in the Qur’an, “…they plot and plan and Allah plots, and Allah is the best of planners” (8:30). The neocon-Zionists’ plan backfired, strengthening Tehran’s position in the region and surrounding Iran with US forces and bases incapable of waging a successful war of aggression. Instead, the Americans’ outposts in the region have become big, juicy targets for the latest generation of Iranian missiles. The once-great US Navy has become a fleet of sitting ducks. Like US bases in South Korea and Japan that were originally designed to cow North Korea and China, US bases in the Muslim East are now little more than expensive encampments of voluntary hostages. The prospect of thousands of Americans dying quickly in the event of all-out war dissuades Uncle Sam from going along with the Netanyahu-neocon plan to attack Islamic Iran.

A map of the conflict zone demonstrating the complexity of the situation the local players have to deal with, not the least of which are the terrorists backed by the US-Israel-Saudi Arabia axis on the one hand, who are looking at the invasion as an opportunity to make a comeback and cause further problems for the Asad government; and on the other hand, the US-Israel backed Kurdish outfits (YPG) who once again threw their lot in with the Zio-Western imperial project to balkanize the bulk of the Muslim-majority world into ethno-states perpetually at war with each other. The wise thing to do at this point is for the Turkish, Syrian, and Iranian governments to sit down with each other, excluding any participation by the Gulf royals and their American handlers, and hash out a lasting agreement.

Trump’s withdrawal from Syria is an admission of defeat. The Americans have lost in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria. The 9/11 wars have failed. Whether their aim was a “new American century,” or the real purpose was to pave the road for long-term Zionist domination of the region, the illegal wars of aggression launched on the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center have boomeranged against the warmongers. Today the bankrupted US empire is collapsing on all fronts, while the colonial-apartheid Zionist entity busily rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic, deep in denial about the fact that its position in the emerging multipolar world is unsustainable.

And yet the Islamic pole of the multipolar world is weak and divided. From Colonized Palestine to Kashmir, from Syria to Burma, from Sudan to East Turkestan, Muslim lands are being invaded, occupied, plundered, and subjected to genocidal ethnic cleansings. Roughly one-quarter of the world’s people are Muslim — a proportion that is expected to rise to almost one-third by 2050 — yet Muslims do not enjoy diplomatic and military power in proportion to their numbers. The result is that the Muslim-majority lands are easy pickings for such predators as Modi and his Hindu fascists, the genocidal Buddhists of Myanmar, the equally genocidal Zionists, and of course the Western-dominated riba banking elite behind the West’s grand larceny of Muslim energy reserves. Even China, which sends Han settlers into East Turkestan and seeks domination of the Muslim Silk Road, cannot resist taking advantage of Muslim weakness.

The only remedy for weakness through disunity is strength through unity. Those who imagine they are fighting for a “caliphate,” or a neo-Ottoman pan-Islamic dispensation, should consider the lessons of their war on Syria and realize that they have been following the wrong path — a fake path toward ostensible Islamic unity that dead-ends in further disunity. If enough of the important players learn the lessons of the Syrian misadventure, give up on military mayhem, and resolve to work patiently for voluntary Islamic union on the basis of non-sectarianism (including political and social equality for non-Muslims, as set forth in the Constitution of Madinah and the Covenants of the Prophet) they and their successors may insha’allah one day succeed in re-establishing a united Muslim Ummah as the world’s political and spiritual center of gravity.

 

Kevin Barrett

Is a Hidden Hand Destabilizing Iraq?

Kevin Barrett

In early October, violent protests broke out in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. Some of them degenerated into all-out riots. Eight members of the security forces and almost 100 civilians were killed, and more than 5,000 wounded. At the time of this writing (October 21), the situation is beginning to flare up again as the Arba‘in pilgrimage winds down.

The protestors decry economic stagnation and corruption — two very real problems. But circumstantial evidence, including the timing and context of the protests, the Saudi origins of much of its social media support network, and the targeting of relatively independent Prime Minister ‘Adil ‘Abd al-Mahdi less than a year into his term, suggest that American-Zionist colonial forces may be indulging in their usual color-revolution-style shenanigans.

Historical Context

Iraq’s crippled economy and its political culture of corruption are the product of a century of genocidal Anglo-Zionist assault. As the Australian Jewish scientist and avoidable mortality expert Gideon Polya writes,

The West has now commenced its Seventh Iraq War since 1914 in over a century of Western violence in which Iraqi deaths from violence or violently-imposed deprivation have totaled 9 million… A holocaust is the destruction of a large number of people and 9 million Iraqi deaths from Anglo-American violence or violently-imposed deprivation certainly constitutes an Iraqi Holocaust… Any argument that the British and Americans did not “intend” to kill 9 million Iraqis is belied by the remorseless slaughter over 101 years interrupted only by the period between the overthrow of the British-installed monarchy in 1958 and the commencement of Sanctions in 1990.

The disastrous consequences of the last three decades of American-led annihilation of Iraq are described in detail in Abdul-Haq al-Ani and Tarik al-Ani’s two-volume Genocide in Iraq. The two authors explain,

The current horrific malaise in the state of Iraq has its roots in the US-led destruction of Iraq in 1991, followed by a decade of US/UK-led harsh international sanctions against the entire Iraqi population that killed millions — one of the most heinous crimes of the 20th century.

The neoconservative Zionist war criminals who orchestrated the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq hoped to transform the entire region to benefit Israel. The Iraq misadventure was part of a larger plan to “take out” any regional powers that were sufficiently independent to stand up to the Zionists. But the people of Iraq, and the region, resisted. The result was a quagmire of endless war and destruction.

Today, 16 years after Baby Bush’s invasion, Zionist-imperialist forces still occupy a devastated Iraq. But the occupation has lost much of its influence over the Iraqi government, which has increasingly been working with regional partners beginning with Iran and the Axis of Resistance, along with the occupiers’ antagonists Russia and China. The occupiers are displeased. But they are so unpopular with Iraqis that they cannot act openly. Instead, they use covert means to try to sabotage Iraq’s strengthening relationships with forces promoting regional independence.

Timing of Iraqi Protests

The October protests broke out just two days after Prime Minister ‘Adil ‘Abd al-Mahdi angrily accused Israel of bombing Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces with air support from the United States. Normally when an independent sovereign state is attacked by an aggressor, all hell breaks loose: the aggrieved party mobilizes for retaliation, and the United Nations and other international institutions scramble to contain the situation (imagine if it was Russia or China bombing American targets). But Iraq’s protests fell on deaf ears. The world apparently views Iraq as a permanently occupied territory that the Zionist terrorists are welcome to bomb at will, with protection from their US lackeys.

‘Abd al-Mahdi’s refusal to remain silent while Israel was bombing his country must have angered the occupiers. Shortly after the Prime Minister spoke out, violent protests erupted on the streets of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. The fact that the protestors have legitimate grievances in no way detracts from the likelihood that those grievances were weaponized by experts in the fourth generation warfare tactic of deploying color-revolution-style protests to plague, undermine, and/or collapse targeted governments/administrations.

And then, just as the protests got underway, the world learned of a foiled September plot to assassinate Major General Qassem Soleimani, the most celebrated senior commander in Islamic Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, and a prime force behind Hizbullah’s and Syria’s victories over the Zionists and their proxies. It seems that the Zionist-imperialist alliance, frustrated by its defeat in Syria and its inability to overtly attack Iran, has turned to covert methods, including assassination plots and color-revolution-style attacks on overly independent and responsible Iraqi leaders.

In his article “The US-Iran Silent War Is Transformed into an ‘Iraq Uprising’” Elijah J. Magnier cites Iraqi sources who claim,

…the assassination attempt against the commander of the Iranian IRGC-Quds Brigade Qassem Soleimani is not a pure coincidence but related to events in Iraq. Soleimani was in Iraq during the selection of the key leaders of the country. He has a lot of influence, like the Americans who have their own people. If Soleimani is removed, those who may have been behind the recent unrest may think it will create enough confusion in Iraq and Iran, allowing room for a possible coup d’état carried out by military or encouraged by foreign forces, Saudi Arabia and the US in this case.

Fortunately the plot against General Soleimani failed. In any case, would the people of Iraq permit a Saudi-American military coup designed to keep Iraq vulnerable to Zionist bombing? Such a coup, under its own colors, would be unacceptable to Iraqis. But a regime change operation that used local proxies and opportunists would have a better chance of success.

Those who argue that the protests in Iraq are indeed harbingers of a color-revolution-style regime change effort point out that this scenario is practically universal whenever local rulers of empire-occupied nations attempt to defy their imperial overlords. As Magnier points out,

The recent decisions of Abdel Mahdi made him extremely unpopular with the US. He has declared Israel responsible for the destruction of the five warehouses of the Iraqi security forces, Hashd al-Shaabi, and the killing of one commander on the Iraqi-Syrian borders. He opened the crossing at al-Qaem bet-ween Iraq and Syria to the displeasure of the US embassy in Baghdad, whose officers expressed their discomfort to Iraqi officials. He expressed his willingness to buy the S-400 and other military hardware from Russia. Abdel Mahdi agreed with China to reconstruct essential infrastructure in exchange for oil, and gave a $284 million electricity deal to a German rather than an American company. The Iraqi Prime Minister refused to abide by US sanctions and is still buying electricity from Iran and allowing the exchange of commerce that is bringing large amounts of foreign currency and boosting the Iranian economy. And lastly, Abdel Mahdi rejected the “Deal of the Century” proposed by the US: he is trying to mediate between Iran and Saudi Arabia and therefore is showing his intention to keep away from the US objectives and policies in the Middle East.

And suddenly, as if by magic, crowds of angry young people, mobilized by Saudi social media accounts, start rioting in Baghdad, al-‘Amarah, al-Nasiriyah, al-Basrah, al-Najaf and Karbala’. What a coincidence!

The protestors have every right to be angry. But they should redirect their fury against the war criminals who have occupied and crippled their country, not against Iraqi leaders who assert a modicum of independence.

 

Kevin Barrett

Kevin Barrett: Nation State Law Exposed Truth about Apartheid Nature of Zionist Israel

• 
  

TEHRAN (FNA)- Journalist and activist Kevin Barrett says the “Nation State Law” proved the fact that the regime in Tel Aviv does not represent all the citizens, and the non-Jews “are considered subhuman vermin fit only to be subjugated, expelled, or exterminated”.

Kevin Barrett, in an exclusive interview with FNA, said that such ideas supported by the likes of Ze'ev Jabotinsky, who were once considered extremist, are “now the nearly unanimous view of the Jewish population of Zionist-occupied Palestine.” He further added that “such a rabidly genocidal apartheid state is unlikely to be tolerated by the region, or the world, for very long.”

Dr Kevin Barrett is a journalist, radio host, activist and a former university lecturer. He is a member of the Scientific Panel for the Investigation of 9/11 (SPINE) and a founding member of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance (MUJCA), established in 2004 with the stated aim of improving "interfaith dialogue, coexistence, and understanding" in light of the events of 9/11.

FNA has conducted an interview with Kevin Barrett about Israel’s brutal crackdown on Palestinian protesters, the Israeli legislation known as the Nation State Law and also Trump’s so-called "deal of the century”.

Below you will find the full text of the interview.

Q: It seems that killing scores of people and maiming thousands more over the past several months isn't an indication of what Israel thinks is enough to keep Gaza in check. Do you think Israel’s deadly clamp down on Palestinian protesters is going to end anytime soon?  

A: Israel’s treatment of the people of Gaza will continue to worsen, for two overriding reasons. First, the Jewish majority in Israel is becoming increasingly extremist and genocidal. A few decades ago, the Likud party, representing the heirs of Jabotinsky, was a fringe movement. Today it is considered centrist. Polls show that Isreali Jews (unlike Israeli Arabs) almost unanimously approve of the horrendous periodic massacres of the people of Gaza. They approve of raining white phosphorous on the heads of women and children. They approve of bombing ambulances and hospitals and schools and UN facilities and blowing innocent children, women, and men to pieces. They love this insane cruelty — perpetrated against helpless inmates of the world’s largest open-air concentration camp — so much that whenever Israel decides to “mow the lawn” and stage another mass slaughter, Jewish Israelis throw huge barbecue parties on hilltops overlooking the carnage and cheer the ongoing massacres.

So the horror will continue because it is popular politically. The other factor driving it is strategic desperation. The Zionists, despite their murderous fanaticism and their domination of global media and the world’s biggest financial centers, have been unable to quell Palestinian resistance. Nor have they been able to prevent the world from gradually learning the truth and siding with the Palestinians. And they cannot change the demographic factors that give 

Palestinians, and the other Arabs and Muslims in the region, a long-term advantage. So they know, deep down inside, that their project is doomed. For that reason, driven by deep-seated unconscious desperation, they lash out viciously like cornered rabid rats.

Q: It’s been a year since the start of the protests known as the ‘Great March of Return.’ What do you think the march has accomplished so far?

A: The Great March of Return has sent the world a loud and clear message: Palestinian resistance lives! The Zionist-dominated global media has done its best to obscure the justice of the Palestinian assertion of the Right of Return. But gradually the world is coming to understand the truth about the Palestinian Holocaust of 1948 and the slow-motion holocaust ongoing ever since. Today, even a small but growing segment of the global Jewish population supports a one-state solution which would necessarily involve an acceptance of the principle of Right of Return. The Great March is a leading factor pushing this once-marginal (in the West) idea into the mainstream. And the more brutal the Zionist response, the more the world sees the truth about Zionist oppression and tyranny.

Q: How do you think the US and some Arab states are complicit in crimes against the Palestinians especially in light with the discreet links between Israel and Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states?  

A: Trump and the corrupt [Persian] Gulf dictators, along with their partner in crime al-Sisi, are enslaved to Zionist money-power. Zionists dominate the Western segment of the global financial system. So corrupt individuals and nations who want to be players in that system, and profit from it, are forced to obey Zionist orders, and become complicit in Zionist crimes.

Q: In July 2018, the so-called nation state law was adopted by Israeli Knesset. What do you think the legislation shows about the nature of the regime in Tel Aviv? 

A: The nation state law merely stated the truth: Zionist “Israel” is an apartheid state. It does not represent all its citizens, just the Jewish ones. The others are considered subhuman vermin fit only to be subjugated, expelled, or exterminated. This view, once considered extremist when espoused by the likes of Jabotinsky, is now the nearly unanimous view of the Jewish population of Zionist-occupied Palestine. Such a rabidly genocidal apartheid state is unlikely to be tolerated by the region, or the world, for very long.

Q: Many believe that the continuing illegal Israeli settlement activities have hammered nail after nail into the coffin of a diplomatic solution. What do you think about that?

A: Israeli settlements have doomed the two-state solution. Zionist Israel could have made itself sustainable through that two-state solution. But by rejecting the prospect of peace held out by Arafat and other Palestinians who deluded themselves into believing that the Zionists had good intentions and were capable of making and living up to an agreement, the Zionists have dug their own grave and sealed the fate of their peculiar experiment.

Q: The current administration in the US has been boasting about their new plan for Palestine and even calling it the deal of the century. What do you think would be in the new deal for the Palestinians?

A: The so called Kushner peace plan is a joke. Kushner is from an organized crime family. He is a thug and a rabid Zionist. The idea that such a person could play a role in any peace process is beyond absurd.

The only new deal for Palestinians will come when the genocidal Zionist experiment finally implodes. Not just Palestinians, but also everyone who cares about justice, should work assiduously toward hastening that implosion.