Quote:The majority the new Expeditionary Targeting Force will consist of enablers and other personnel who will support the "very small number" of "trigger-pullers," Warren said, noting that the targeting force will conduct raids, focusing on high-value targets, flowing between both sides of the border between Iraq and Syria.

Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/International/special-ops-targeting-force-combatting-isis-fewer-100/story?id=35534778

Quote:The majority the new Expeditionary Targeting Force will consist of enablers and other personnel who will support the "very small number" of "trigger-pullers," Warren said, noting that the targeting force will conduct raids, focusing on high-value targets, flowing between both sides of the border between Iraq and Syria.

Trigger-pullers? They used to be called Assassins. Murderers. Killers. Terrorists.

Quote:It's a plausible fact that the US does not directly supports the Syrian jihadists, it only sets the broad policy framework and lets its client states in the region like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey do the actual financing, training and arming of the insurgents. For instance, the US strictly forbade the aforementioned clients from providing anti-aircraft weapons (MANPADS) to the militants, because Israel off and on carries out airstrikes in Syria and Lebanon and had such weapons fallen into the wrong hands, it could have become a long term threat to the Israeli Air Force. Lately, some anti-aircraft weapons from Qaddafi's looted arsenal in Libya have made their way into the hands of Syrian jihadists but for the first two years of the civil war there was an absolute prohibition on providing such weapons to the jihadists.

Using the word "folly" to describe the Syrian humanitarian catastrophe is a euphemism. Firstly, the Defense Intelligence Agency's report [1] of 2012 that presaged the imminent rise of a Salafist principality in north-eastern Syria was not overlooked it was deliberately suppressed; the Western powers were fully aware of the consequences of their actions in Syria but they kept pursuing the policy of financing, training, arming and internationally legitimizing the "Syrian opposition" to weaken the Syrian regime and to neutralize the threat that its Lebanon-based proxy, Hezbollah, had posed to Israel's regional security. Secondly, what difference does it makes whether the so-called "Syrian opposition" is comprised of the supposed "moderates" or the radical Islamists? The civil war has caused 250,000 fatalities and made millions refugees, the goals of the war whether it was about "bringing democracy" to Syria or enforcing Shari'a had been irrelevant since the beginning of the civil war, the Western powers' first priority should have been to avert a humanitarian disaster in which they had failed because they were desperate for another regime change after successfully bringing down the Qaddafi regime in Libya.

Sectarianism and the rise of Islamic State:

Syria's pro-Assad militias are comprised of local militiamen as well as Shi'a foreign fighters from Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. And Sunni Jihadists from all over the region have also been flocking to the Syrian battlefield for the past four years. A full-scale Sunni-Shi'a war has been going on in Syria, Iraq and Yemen which will obviously have its repercussions all over the Middle East region where Sunni and Shi'a Muslims have peacefully coexisted for centuries. But the neocolonial powers will conveniently deny all responsibility by simply asserting that: "It isn't our fault, Muslims are killing each other." However, had the US not invaded Iraq in 2003 for its 140 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, would things have reached such a point of crisis? And the victim-blaming neoliberals will point fingers at Islam as a religion and some of its decontextualized Jihadist verses for all the violence and bloodshed without understanding anything about the underlying politics behind the Sunni-Shi'a conflict in the region.

After the Russian involvement in Syria, when Russia claims that it will fight ISIS, it at least makes sense. But how can US claim to fight a force that is an obvious by-product [2] of its own policy in the region in the first place? Let's settle on one issue first: there were two parties to the Syrian civil war initially, the Syrian regime and the Syrian opposition; which party did the US support since the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011 to June 2014? Obviously, it supported the Syrian opposition, and what was the composition of that so-called "Syrian opposition?" A small fraction of it was comprised of defected Syrian soldiers who go by the name of Free Syria Army, but a vast majority had been Islamic Jihadists who were generously funded, trained, armed and internationally legitimized by the NATO-GCC alliance.

ISIS is nothing more than one of the numerous Syrian Jihadist outfits, others being: al Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, al-Tawhid brigade, Jaysh al Islam etc. The reason why the US has turned against ISIS is that all other Jihadi outfits have local ambitions that are limited only to fighting the Assad regime in Syria, even al Nusra's Emir, Abu Mohammad al Julani, has taken a public pledge [3] on al Jazeera on the behest of his Gulf-based patrons that his organization does not intends to strike targets in the Western countries, after which the Western mainstream media has become cozy to it and included al Qaeda Central's official franchise in Syria in its list of so-called "moderate Islamists."

Only thing that differentiates ISIS from all other Syrian Jihadi outfits is that it is more ideological and it also includes hundreds of Western citizens among its ranks who can later become a national security risk to the Western countries, that explains the ambivalent policy of the US towards a monster that it had nurtured in Syria from August 2011 to June 2014 until it threatened the US' strategic interests in the oil-rich, Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) controlled Northern Iraq. Thus the US-led "war against Islamic State" since August 2014 has less to do with finding an expeditious solution to the Syrian crisis or the threat that ISIS poses to Iraq or Syria and it is more about the threat that ISIS poses to the Western countries in the long run, a fact that has now become obvious after the November 2015 Paris attacks.

According to this NY Times report [4], there are more than 30,000 foreign fighters in Syria from over 100 countries fighting alongside the Sunni jihadist groups to topple the Syrian regime; 4500 of those foreign jihadists are from the Western countries and France is the single largest European contributor of foreign jihadists with 1800 fighters, Britain is a distant second with 750, and the number of American jihadists fighting in Syria is relatively small, just 250. Although the report claims that most foreign jihadists fight for the Islamic State but corporate media, being a mouthpiece of the Western political establishments, has a vested interest in selectively singling out the Islamic State and giving a carte blanche to the other Sunni jihadist groups in line with the declared Western policy and the objective of toppling the Assad regime in Syria.

The reason why Iran, Iraq and Syria are more willing to form an alliance with Russia against the Sunni jihadists is that the US-led "war against Islamic State" is limited only to ISIS while all other Sunni Jihadist groups are enjoying complete impunity, and the coalition against ISIS also includes the main patrons of Sunni Jihadists like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey and Jordan. But the Russian-led offensive in coalition with the aforementioned Shi'a regimes will be more comprehensive against all the Sunni Jihadist outfits who are just as much of a threat to the Shi'a regimes as ISIS.

Moreover, the Western corporate media is trumpeting these days that the Assad regime had been unwilling to fight ISIS. I don't know what kind of spin-doctors come up with absurd and counterfactual theories such as these, but it's a fact that the military resources of the Assad regime were stretched thin, therefore, its first priority had been to defend itself around the densely-populated, urban areas from Damascus and Homs to Hamah, Idlib and Aleppo and around the coastal Latakia. However, does anyone remembers the Hasakah Offensive of August 2015 in which the Syrian military successfully defended Hasakah and then routed ISIS in alliance with the Syrian Kurds?

Kurdish factor in the Syrian civil war:

In order to understand the Kurdish factor in the Syria-Iraq equation, we should bear in mind that there are four distinct types of Kurds: 1) the KDP Kurds of Iraq led by Masoud Barzani; 2) the PUK Kurds of Iraq led by Jalal Talabani; 3) the PKK Kurds of Turkey; and 4) the PYD/YPG Kurds of Syria. The first of these, i.e. the Barzani-led KDP Kurds of Iraq have traditionally been imperialist collaborators who have formed a strategic alliance with the US and Israel since the 90s, the first Gulf war. All other Kurds, however, have traditionally been in the anticolonial socialist camp and that's the reason why PKK has been designated as a terrorist organization by NATO because Turkey has the second largest army in the NATO.

Unlike the Barzani-led Kurds of Iraq, however, the PYD/YPG Kurds of Syria, who are ideologically akin to the pro-Soviet PKK Kurds of Turkey, had initially formed an alliance with the pro-Soviet Assad regime in return for local autonomy against the Sunni Jihadists not just against ISIS but against all the Jihadist groups operating in Syria some of which had been supported by NATO and Gulf Arab countries. It was only last year, after the US' declaration of war against ISIS, that the PYD/YPG Kurds of Syria had switched sides and now they are the centerpiece of the US policy for defeating ISIS in the region. One can't really blame the Kurds for this perfidy because they are fighting for their self-determination, but once again the Western powers have executed their tried-and-tested divide-and-rule policy to perfection in Syria and Iraq to gain leverage and to turn the tide despite the dismal failure of their stated policy for the initial three years of the Syrian civil war, i.e. from August 2011 to August 2014.

Until August 2014 when the declared US' policy in Syria was regime-change and the PYD/YPG Kurds of Syria had formed a defensive alliance with the Assad regime against the Sunni jihadists (and their backers, NATO and Gulf countries) to defend the semi-autonomous Kurdish majority areas in Syrian Rojava; that equation changed, however, when ISIS captured Mosul in June 2014 and also threatened the US' most steadfast ally in the region Masoud Barzani and his capital Erbil in the Iraqi Kurdistan, which is also the hub of Big Oil's Northern Iraq operations. After that development United States took a U-turn on its Syria policy and now the declared objective became "the war against Islamic State." That policy change in turn led to a reconfiguration of alliances among the regional actors and the PYD/YPG Kurds broke off their previous arrangement with Assad regime and formed an alliance with NATO against Islamic State. Unlike their previous defensive alliance with the Syrian regime, however, whose objective was to protect and defend the Kurdish majority areas in Syria from the onslaught of the Sunni jihadists, this new Kurdish alliance with NATO is more aggressive and expansionist, and its outcome is obvious from this Amnesty International report [5] on forced displacements and demographic change by the Kurds.

Composition of Islamic State:

The only difference between the Afghan Jihad back in the 80s, that spawned the Islamic jihadists like Taliban and al Qaeda for the first time in history, and the Libyan and Syrian Jihads 2011-onward, is that the Afghan Jihad was an overt Jihad back then the Western political establishments and their mouthpiece, the mainstream media, used to openly brag that CIA provides all those AK-47s, RPGs and stingers to the Pakistani ISI which then forwards such weapons to the Afghan Mujahideen (freedom fighters) to combat the erstwhile Soviet Union. After the 9/11 tragedy, however, the Western political establishments and corporate media have become a lot more circumspect, therefore, this time around they have waged covert jihads against the hostile Qaddafi regime in Libya and the anti-Zionist Assad regime in Syria, in which the Islamic jihadists (aka terrorists) have been sold as "moderate rebels" to the public.

Since the regime-change objective in those hapless countries went against the established mainstream narrative of "the war on terror," therefore, the Western establishments and the mainstream media now try to muddle the reality by offering color-coding schemes to identify myriads of militant and terrorist outfits operating in those countries like the red militants of Islamic State which the Western powers want to eliminate, the yellow militants of Jaysh al-Fateh that includes al-Qaeda allied al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham with whom NATO can collaborate under desperate circumstances, and the green militants of Free Syria Army (FSA) and a few other inconsequential outfits which together comprise the so-called "moderate opposition."

It's an incontrovertible fact that more than 90% of militants operating in Syria are either the Islamic jihadists or the armed tribesmen, and less than 10% are those who have defected from the Syrian army or otherwise have secular and nationalist goals. As far as the secular and liberal elite of the developing countries are concerned, such privileged classes can't even cook breakfasts for themselves if their servants are on a holiday and the corporate media had us believing that the majority of the so-called "Syrian Opposition" is comprised of moderate and secular rebels.

It is a fact that morale and ideology plays an important role in the battle; moreover, we also know that the Takfiri brand of most jihadists these days has been inspired by the Wahhabi-Salafi ideology of Saudi Arabia, but ideology alone is never sufficient to succeed in the battle. Looking at the Islamic State's spectacular gains in Syria and Iraq in the last year and a half, one wonders that where do its recruits get all the training and sophisticated weapons that are imperative not only for the hit-and-run guerrilla warfare but also for capturing and holding vast swathes of territory? Even the Afghan National Army that has been trained and armed by NATO's military instructors is finding itself in trouble, these days, to hold territory in Afghanistan in the face of Taliban's onslaught.

Apart from the training and arms that are provided to the Islamic jihadists in the training camps located in the Turkish and Jordanian border regions adjacent to Syria by the CIA in collaboration with the Turkish, Jordanian and Saudi intelligence agencies, another factor that has contributed to the stellar success of Islamic State is that its top cadres are comprised of the former Baathist military and intelligence officers of the Saddam regime. According to this informative Associated Press report by Dawn [6], between 100 to 160 ex-Baathists constitute the top and mid-tier command structure of the Islamic State who plan the operations and direct its military strategy.

Moreover, these days the US State department seems to be quite worried that where does Islamic State jihadists get all the sophisticated weapons and especially those fancy, white Toyota pick-up trucks mounted with machine guns at the back, colloquially known as "the technicals" among the jihadists? I think I have found the answer to this riddle in this news story [7] from a website affiliated with the UAE government it is clearly mentioned that along with AK-47s, RPGs and other military gear the Saudi government also provides machine gun-mounted Toyota pick-up trucks to every batch of five jihadists who had completed their training either in the border regions of Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Once such jihadists cross over to Daraa and Quneitra in Syria from the Jordan-Syria border then those Toyota pick-up trucks can easily travel all the way to Raqaa and thence to Mosul and Anbar in Iraq.

Turkish dilemma and the Western intervention:

The dilemma that Turkey is facing in Syria is quite unique: in the wake of the Ghouta chemical weapons attacks in Damascus in August 2013 the stage was all set for yet another no-fly zone and "humanitarian intervention" a la Qaddafi's Libya; they were waiting for a finishing blow and Ahmet Dovutoglu and the Saudi intelligence chief, Bandar bin Sultan, were shuttling between the Western capitals to lobby for the military intervention. Francois Hollande had already announced his intentions and David Cameron was also onboard.

Here it should be remembered that even during the Libyan intervention Obama's policy was a bit ambivalent and France under the leadership of Sarkozy had played the lead role. In the Syrian case, however, the British parliament forced Cameron to seek a vote for military intervention in the House of Commons before committing British troops and Air Force to Syria; taking cue from the British parliament the US' Congress also compelled Obama to seek a vote before another ill-conceived military intervention; and since both these administrations lacked the requisite majority in their respective parliaments and the public opinion was also fiercely against another Middle Eastern war, therefore, Obama and Cameron dropped their plans of enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria.

In the end, France was left alone as the only Western power still in favor of intervention; at this point, however, the seasoned Russian FM, Sergei Lavrov, staged a diplomatic coup by announcing that the Syrian regime is willing to ship its chemical weapons stockpiles out of Syria and subsequently the issue was amicably resolved. Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf Arab states the main beneficiaries of Sunni Jihad in Syria, however, had lost a golden opportunity for crushing the Shi'a axis comprising Iran, Syria and their Lebanon-based proxy, Hezbollah, once and for all.

To add fuel to the fire, the Islamic State trespassed its mandate in Syria and overran Mosul in northern Iraq in June 2014 and threatened the capital of America's most steadfast ally in the oil-rich region Masoud Barzani's Erbil. The US had no choice but to adopt some countermeasures to show to the world that it is still sincere in pursuing its schizophrenic and hypocritical "war on terror" policy; at the same time, however, it assured its Turkish, Jordanian and Gulf Arab allies that despite fighting a symbolic war against the maverick jihadist outfit, the Islamic State, the Western policy of training and arming the so-called "moderate Syrian militants" will continue apace and that Bashar al-Assad's days are numbered, one way or the other.

But then Russia threw a monkey wrench in their wicked schemes in October by its surreptitious military buildup in Latakia that was executed with an element of surprise unheard of since Rommel. And now Turkey, Jordan, the Gulf Arab states and their Sunni jihadist proxies in Syria find themselves at the receiving end in the Syrian civil war. The shooting down of the Russian jet by Turkey in November, which is also a member of NATO, seems like a desperate attempt by Turkey to provoke Russia into a military encounter and thus invoke NATO's treaty obligation of "collective defense" in the face of "aggression" against any of NATO's member states.

Maintaining credibility through charades:

In order to create a semblance of objectivity and fairness, the American policy-makers and analysts are always willing to accept blame for the mistakes of the distant past that has no bearing on the present and the future, but any fact that does has a bearing on their present policy is generally brushed aside. In the case of the rise of Islamic State, for instance, the US policy-analysts are willing to concede that invading Iraq back in 2003 was a mistake that radicalized the Iraqi society, exacerbated the sectarian divisions and gave birth to a Sunni insurgency against the heavy-handed and discriminatory policies of the Shia-dominated Iraqi government; similarly, the "war on terror" era political commentators also "generously" accept that the Cold War era policy of supporting the al Qaeda, Taliban and myriads of other Afghan "Mujahideen" militant groups against the erstwhile Soviet Union was a mistake because all those fait accompli have no bearing on the present and cannot force them to change their present policy.

The corporate media's spin-doctors conveniently forget, however, that the rise of Islamic State and myriads of other Sunni jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq has as much to do with the unilateral invasion of Iraq back in 2003 under the previous Bush Administration as it has to do with the present policy of Obama Administration in Syria of funding, arming, training and internationally legitimizing the Sunni militants against the Syrian regime since 2011-onward in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, in fact, the proximate cause behind the rise of Islamic State, al Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham and numerous other Sunni jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq has been Obama Administration's policy of intervention through proxies in Syria.

If the Obama Administration decides today to stop providing arms and training to the so-called "moderate rebels" and declare them terrorists (Islamic jihadists) the insurgency in Syria will fizzle out within months, at least, in the densely-populated, urbanized Syria from Damascus and Homs to Hamah, Idlib and Aleppo and the coastal Latakia. The northern Syria under the control of Kurds and the eastern Syria from Raqqa to Deir Ezzor which is dominated by the Islamic State, however, is a whole different ball game now and it will take years to subdue insurgency in those rural-tribal areas of Syria, if at all.

Distinction between terrorism and insurgency:

In political science the devil always lies in the definitions of the terms that we employ. For instance: how do you define a terrorist or a militant? In order to understand this we need to identify the core of a "militant," that what essential feature distinguishes him from the rest? A militant is basically an armed and violent individual who carries out the acts of sabotage against the state. That being understood, now we need to examine the concept of "violence." Is it violence per se that is wrong, or does some kind of justifiable violence exists? I take the view, on empirical grounds, that all kinds of violence is essentially wrong; because the ends (goals) for which such violence is often employed are seldom right and elusive at best. Though, democracy and liberal ideals are cherished goals but such goals can only be accomplished through peaceful means; expecting from the violent militants to bring about democratic reform is counterintuitive.

The Western mainstream media and its naïve, neoliberal constituents, however, take a different view. According to them, there is two kinds of violence: justifiable and unjustifiable. When a militant resorts to violence for the secular goals, like "bringing democracy" to Libya and Syria, the blindfolded neoliberals enthusiastically approve such form of violence; however, if such militants later turn out to be Islamist jihadists, like the Misrata militia in Libya or the Islamic State, al Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham in Syria, the neoliberals promptly make a volte-face and label the latter as "terrorists." Thus, it's not violence, militancy or terrorism per se that the ostensibly "pacifist" neoliberals find objectionable, but a specific kind of violence, i.e. religiously-inspired violence that they regard as an abomination. By extension, it can be logically inferred that the neoliberals' underlying animosity is not towards violence or terrorism, as such, rather it is directed at religion, especially Islam, in the "war on terror" context.

More to the point, there is a big difference between an anarchist and a nihilist: an anarchist believes in something and wants to change the status quo in the favor of that belief, while a nihilist believes is nothing and considers life to be meaningless. Similarly, there is also a very big difference between a terrorist and an insurgent: an Islamist insurgent believes in something and wants to enforce that belief in the insurgency-hit regions, while a terrorist is just a bloodthirsty lunatic who is hell-bent on causing death and destruction. The distinguishing feature between the two is that an insurgent has well defined objectives and territorial ambitions, while a terrorist is basically motivated by the spirit of revenge and the goal of causing widespread fear. The phenomena of terrorism is that which had threatened the Western countries between 2001 to 2005 when some of the most audacious terrorist acts were carried out by al Qaeda against the Western targets like the 9/11 tragedy, the Madrid bombing in 2004 and the London bombing in 2005; those acts were primarily the result of the intelligence failure on the part of the Western intelligence agencies.

However, the phenomena that is currently threatening the Islamic countries is not terrorism, as such, but Islamist insurgencies. All the regional militant groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, al Shabaab in Somalia and Boko Haram in Nigeria, and even some of the ideological affiliates of al Qaeda and Islamic State, like Al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula, Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb, Islamic State affiliates in Afghanistan, Sinai and Libya which have no organizational and operational association with al Qaeda Central or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, respectively, are not terror groups, as such, but Islamist insurgents who are fighting for the goal of enforcing Shari'a in the areas of their influence, like their progenitor, the Salafist state of Saudi Arabia. United States realized this fact many years ago when its occupying military in Afghanistan changed its counter-terrorism (CT) doctrines in favor of a counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy.

The goals for which the Islamist insurgents have been fighting in the aforementioned regions are irrelevant for the debate at hand; it can be argued, however, that if some of the closest Western allies in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, had already enforced Shari'a as part and parcel of their medieval legal systems and when beheadings of the criminals for petty offenses are a routine in the Medieval Kingdom, then what is the basis for the US' declaration of war against the Islamist insurgents who are erroneously but deliberately labeled as "terrorists" by the Western mainstream media to manufacture consent for the Western military presence and interventions in the energy-rich region under the pretext of the so-called "war on terror?" The real reason why the US has declared war on some Islamist insurgents, like the Taliban and the Islamic State, is not due to their human rights violations or the goal of enforcement of Shari'a but due to a fierce anticolonial sentiment among the membership of those insurgent outfits as opposed to the friendlier attitude of the Gulf Arab regimes towards the West.

On the subject of the supposed "powerlessness" of the US in the global affairs, the corporate media's spin-doctors generally claim that in Afghanistan Pakistan deceived the US by not "doing more" to rein in the Taliban; in Syria Turkey hoodwinked the US by using the war on ISIS as a pretext for cracking down on Kurds; in Yemen Saudi Arabia and UAE betrayed the US by mounting airstrikes against the Houthis and Saleh's loyalists; and in Libya once again Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt went against the "ostensible" policy of the US by carrying out airstrikes against the Tripoli-based government, even though Khalifa Haftar, the military commander of the so-called "internationally recognized" Tobruk-based government's armed forces, lived next door to CIA's headquarter in Langley, Virginia, for more than two decades.

If the US' policy-makers are so naïve then how come they still control the Persian Gulf and its 800 billion barrels of proven oil reserves out of a global total of 1500 billion barrels? This perennial whining attitude of the Western corporate media, that such and such regional actors had betrayed them otherwise they were on the top of their game, is actually a clever stratagem that has been deliberately designed by the spin-doctors to cast the Western powers in a positive light and to demonize the adversaries, even if the latter are their tactical allies in some of the regional conflicts.

History repeating itself in Syria:

The way I see it, it's neither the Islamic State nor the Assad regime and neither Turkey nor Saudi Arabia, that are primarily responsible for 250,000 Syrian fatalities and millions of refugees; all the aforementioned parties to the civil war are mere pawns that don't have a choice but to react in self-defense. The Syrian Jihad is the re-enactment of the same old gory and grisly drama that had been staged before in Afghanistan in the 80s. The whole cast of this new drama is different though the Syrian theater of war has taken the place of Afghanistan; Turkey is now playing a similar role of the imperialist collaborator that the Pakistani security establishment used to play during the Afghan Jihad against the erstwhile Soviet Union; the Western-backed supposedly "moderate Syrian militants" have replaced the Afghan "freedom fighters" and the Northern Alliance of Ahmed Shah Massoud and Rashid Dostum; and the Islamic State has emerged as the new bogeyman a la the al-Qaeda and Taliban militants of the Afghan theater of Cold War.

Only the lead character in this grisly new drama of Syrian Jihad is still the same the prime mover behind all the wars and conflicts since Vietnam and Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya and Syria. It's unfortunate that we don't learn any lessons from history at all, otherwise the telltale signs are there even for a lay person to acknowledge and draw the parallels.

Fighting wars through proxies allows the international power brokers the luxury of taking the plea of "plausible deniability" in their defense and at the same time they can shift all the blame for wrongdoing on the minor regional players like the Islamic State, the Syrian regime, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia et al. The Western powers' culpability lies in the fact that because of them we cannot build a system of international justice based on sound principles of justice and fair play in which the violators can be punished for wrongdoing and the victims of injustice, tyranny and violence can be protected.

The neocolonial powers only pay a lip service to the cause of morality, justice and humanity in the international arena and their foreign policies are solely driven by the motive to protect the Western national interest without any regard for the human suffering in the remote regions of the world. Sometimes it isn't even about protecting their "national interests," bear in mind that the Western powers are not true democracies; they are plutocratic-oligarchies catering to the needs of their business interests that wield a disproportionate influence in the governmental decision-making and the formulation of public policy. Thus, the real core of "Western national interests" is mainly comprised of the Western corporate interests.

Notwithstanding, back in the 80s the Afghan "freedom fighters" did not spring up spontaneously out of nowhere, some powers financed, trained, armed and internationally legitimized those militants; how else such ragtag militants could have beaten back the super power of yore? One of the party involved in training and arming the Afghan "Mujahideen" was the Pakistani security establishment, which was the other? Then in 2011 in the wake of the "Arab Spring" in Libya that same "hidden hand" once again financed, trained, armed and internationally legitimized the Libyan militants by calling them pro-democracy, "armed" activists against the supposedly "brutal and tyrannical" anticolonial Qaddafi regime.

Similarly, in Syria those same powers once again had the audacity to finance, train, arm and internationally legitimize the Syrian militants; how else could peaceful and democratic protests have mutated into a full-blown armed insurrection? And even if those protests did mutate into an armed rebellion, left to their own resources the best such civilian protestors could have mustered was to get a few pistols, shotguns and rifles; where did they get all those machine gun-mounted pick-up trucks, rocket-propelled grenades and the US-made TOW antitank missiles?

You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a military strategist to understand a simple fact that unarmed civilian population and even the ragtag militant outfits lack the wherewithal to fight against the organized and professional armed forces of a country equipped with artillery, armored vehicles, battle tanks and air force. Once again, one of the party involved in financing, training and arming the Syrian militants was a few regional players, which was the other? The common denominator in all those conflict zones like Afghanistan, Libya and Syria that are separated by a distance of thousands of kilometers and fall in different geographical regions is only one that pretends to be too powerless and handicapped to be of much help to the millions of Afghan and Syrian refugees and hundreds of thousands of Afghan, Iraqi and Syrian dead.

Especially, pertaining to conferring international legitimacy to an armed insurgency, like the Afghan "freedom struggle" of the yore or the so-called "moderate" Libyan and Syrian insurgencies of today, it is simply beyond the power of minor regional players and their nascent media with geographically and linguistically limited audience to cast such armed and brutal insurrections in a positive light in order to internationally legitimize them; only the Western mainstream media that has a global audience and which serves as the mouthpiece of the Western political establishments has perfected this game of legitimizing the absurd and selling the satans as saviors.

Quote:Mister President, Ladies and gentlemen, Chancellor! At the moving funeral service a week ago in Paris to commemorate the victims of the terrorist attacks, the song 'Quand on n'a que l'amour' of the great songwriter and pacifist Jacques Brel was sung. It stood in stark contrast to the bellicose rhetoric of the French president.

Quand on n'a que l'amour
Pour parler aux canons ...

When all you love is to talk about cannons -- The whole song is a tribute to love, and peace, and a clear rejection of violence and war. The ceremony was also shown here in Germany. I wished that all of you, who want to vote yes today had hear that song, and understood its message.
(Applause from the Left - Sabine Weiss (Wesel I) (CDU / CSU): The French also heard and understood!)

In Paris exactly three weeks ago 130 victims fell to a barbaric act of terrorism. The perpetrators were almost exclusively French and Belgian citizens, and grew up in the overgrown suburbs of Brussels and Paris. And now you stand here and say that we are going to weaken and fight back at ISIS by bombing and killing innocent people, women and children in Rakka and other Syrian cities. What is this madness? I ask you: What century are we living in?

(Applause from the Left)
When you stand here and say this was no easy decision, but a carefully considered one, and that we who say no don't have a plan for anything else to do, then I say: Yes, there is a different plan. There is only one other plan. War just makes everything worse. This is not the way to fight ISIS. With this adventure you will only strengthen it.

(Applause from the Left)

Rakka is a city with 200 000 inhabitants. In the recent bombing hospitals and schools have been destroyed. There are no official figures on the victims, but one can safely assume that the bombing in the intervening last three weeks has killed more civilians in Syria than the barbaric attacks in Paris. And the mothers of Rakka weep for their children. Bombing, too, is terrorism.

(Applause from the Left)

Do the warring countries really enter want to get into a killing ocntest with ISIS? To see who is betteer at killing? Who does this has already lost.

(Applause from the Left - catcall of the SPD: "An outrageous argument" - Sevim DaÄŸdelen (DIE LINKE): "Murder is murder!")

Macron, the French Economics Minister, has said after the attacks, the French businesses were responsible for "a breeding ground," on which terror can flourish.

(Marcus Held (SPD): "Now this is going too far"!)
Against the "promise of equality" - still quoting Macron - the French Republic works on a daily basis. "We have put a stop to the opportunities for social advancement," he said. - You insist that you want to be in solidarity with France. I ask you: Which France? The France of the political class, which has been responsible for the worst wars in recent times - I need only recall the in Algeria - or with the France of the French population, that before all else wants to live in peace and security?
(Applause from the Left - acclamation from Marieluise Beck (Bremen) (Alliance '90 / The Greens).)

I tell you: If you want genuine friendship and genuine solidarity with France, then you should, for example, stop imposing austerity measures on the country via Brussels, that ever more and more are depriving young people of their future. That would be genuine solidarity. Because you could do go a step in the direction of progress.
(Applause from the Left - Marcus Hero (SPD): Unbelievable!)

Therefore, once again: It's a simple lie that this war will weaken ISIS. That is also the difference with the struggle of the Kurdish associations on the ground.
(Applause from Mr. Dr. Alexander S. Neu (DIE LINKE))

Perhaps after these 14 years you could still believe that a bombing war will solve the problem of terrorism, but not any more today, not in the face of all experience. In 2001 you decided to send the Bundeswehr to Afghanistan. For 14 years, a war's been going on there, and thousands of civilians and also over 50 Bundeswehr soldiers have fallen victim. With what is the result? Today, the Taliban in Afghanistan have more popular support than ever before. This whole war was one big bust. You could even quietly admit it yourself

(Applause from the Left - Volker Kauder (CDU / CSU): "What BS"!)

In 2003 Bush, with his "coalition of the willing," invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein was overthrown. Six months later they formed the "Islamic State", and today it dominates half of Iraq. In 2011 Libya was bombed. Gaddafi was overthrown. Since then, we've got chaos there, and the "Islamic state" is also established now in Libya. And the same thing in Syria. And yet, the Pentagon itself has recently avowed that various Islamist terrorist groups and initially even the IS were supported by the US to weaken Assad. That's the sad truth: It was the West, and it was mainly the United States, who have created the monster,

(Shouts from the CDU / CSU and the SPD: Oh!)

that has now put us all in fear and terror. That's the truth; you do not want to hear. But it is the product of our wars, the Western wars in this world.
(Applause from the Left)

President Dr. Norbert Lammert: Will you allow a question from Mr Janecek?

Dr. Sahra Wagenknecht (DIE LINKE): Of course.

Dieter Janecek (Alliance '90 / The Greens):

Thank you, Mrs Wagenknecht, for allowing this question. - Also, I will, like you, vote against this expedition. But I wonder very much if you do not act one-sidedly in some of your argument.

(Applause from Alliance 90 / The Greens, the CDU / CSU and the SPD)

You complain, rightly, about the civilian casualties in the air strikes in Rakka. But what about the air strikes on the part of the Russians, for example in the region of Homs? I know a Syrian refugee, whose family is in precisely this region and complains that Russian bombers have been flying massive raids with many victims since mid-September. Not a word from you on that,

(Applause from Alliance 90 / The Greens, the CDU / CSU and the SPD)

nor from Mr Bartsch in the debate last Wednesday.

(Dr. Dietmar Bartsch (DIE LINKE):! Okay. Not a problem!)

Are you blind in one eye, that you blame the West for everything, but do not put the devastating operations of the Russians in this context?


(Applause from Alliance 90 / The Greens, as well as deputies of the CDU / CSU and the SPD - Sevim DaÄŸdelen (DIE LINKE): Who can read, is at an advantage!)
Dr. Sahra Wagenknecht (DIE LINKE): I find it really significant that you all applaud when someone calls up the civilian casualties of the Russian bombs.

(Shouts from the CDU / CSU, the SPD and Alliance 90 / The Greens)

Of course, these victims are just as tragic as the victims of the bombing of the French, like the victims of the bombs the Americans, as victims of any other bombs. This bombing war is the wrong means. Bombs do not create peace, no matter if they are thrown from France, from Russia, or from the United States,.

(Applause from the Left)

We have said that everywhere. I spoke yesterday at a demonstration here in front of the Reichstag, that we were invited to attend. There I said exactly the same thing.

But It is dishonest: to applaud and say that these victims are wrong - as also showed up in the press -

(Opposition from the CDU / CSU, the SPD and Alliance 90 / The Greens)

- but today you agree to a military operation, which will bring a whole new bunch of victims with it.


(Applause from the Left)
That is simply false. If you are against bombs and if you condemn the Russian bombs, then don't raise you hand to send in the Tornadoes that will dump more bombs and kill more civilians. That would be consistent, that would be the logical consequence.

(Applause from the Left)

Then I would have respect for you.

(Volker Kauder (CDU / CSU): We do not want any respect from you!)

Of course, I know very well that Assad is a dictator who brutally suppressed his country. But I know just as well that never in Washington was it a matter of democracy and human rights when it was decided in autocratic arrogance which dictators in the world should be supported and upgraded, and which dictators whould be undermined and overthrown. It was never yet in all these wars been about anything other than gas, oil, and spheres of influence. Now for goals like that 1.3 million people have paid with their.

(Henning Otte (CDU / CSU): All cliches!)

- Clichés? The lives of 1.3 million people, and you talk about cliches? This interjection surely can not be serious! I think it's really outrageous.

(Applause from the Left - Matthias Ilgen (SPD): You are outrageous!)


It was these wars that have transformed the Near East and Middle East into a fire, a fire from which millions of people are fleeing for their bare survival's sake. It is a big failure of European policy to have reached out our hand to the United States for so long and to have let them have their way.
(Applause from the Left)

2001 when the so-called war on terror began, there were some 100 international dangerous terrorists worldwide. Today, after 14 years of the so-called war on terror, there are hundreds of thousands. Do you want there to be millions? Then you need to go the same way and keep right on driving the spiral of war and violence.

(Thomas Hitschler (SPD)
So when will your plan come up? - Marcus Hero (SPD): Where are your suggestions?)

In 2000, worldwide, 3000 people died in terrorist attacks. Last year there were already 30,000. You know perfectly well that you naturally increase the terrorist attacks in Germany with today's decision. No, I tell you: Whoever really wants to weaken the IS must cut off its inflow of weapons, finances, and supply of new fighters.

(Applause from the Left)

That is, he must have the courage to finally put a stop to the terrorist godfathers among your putative allies, ie Turkey and the Saudis.


(Applause from the Left)
It's outrageous that the smuggling across the Turkish border has not stopped to this day, and every night 100 new jihadists - currently even more - cross this border to constitute the supply of IS. I think, rather than bomb Syria to bomb, you'd do better to bring Erdogan around to finally end his foul play. Incidentally, it is this Erdogan, who is bombing the Kurdish groups that are really fighting there, not least with German weapons! That is the scandal. That's the whole hypocrisy of this policy.

(Applause from the Left)
Stop supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia and Qatar! Today we propose a resolution for an immediate halt to arms exports to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the war region. Who refuses to vote for this resolution, should never again say that he wants to weaken the Islamist terror.
(Opposition from the CDU / CSU and the SPD)
That is namely really pure hypocrisy.

(Applause from the Left)
But who votes in favor today, is leading Germany into a war with totally unpredictable risk of escalation

(Volker Kauder (CDU / CSU): Enough now - Gegenruf of Abg Katja Kipping (DIE LINKE): No, it is not nearly enough - Wolfgang Gehrcke (DIE LINKE):.! You've got to hear it, Mr. Kauder !)

in a war, for which there is no UN mandate, which is contrary to international law, and clearly contradicts the basic law, because neither France nor Germany are being defended there in Raqqa and Aleppo. Those in favor today, would be sending our soldiers into a war, where there are already 14 other states fighting side by side, with each other/against each other, with no common goal, and no common strategy, not even within the NATO countries, let alone beyond.

The Vienna peace talks - a week ago we had the feeling that Mr Steinmeier really and honestly was working for their success -

(Matthias Ilgen (SPD): He is - Ulli Nissen (SPD): What's going on What' that supposed to mean?)

-- become much more difficult by the escalation of the war, rather than easier. All this is just irresponsible!


(Matthias Ilgen (SPD): You are irresponsible!)

Well at last be aware of what the so-called war on terror has actually brought on. War is Terror, that generates new terror.

(Applause from the Left - Volker Kauder (CDU / CSU): Aren't your ten minutes up yet?)

I'll tell you: It's as if you wanted to Pope Julius III. confirm what he said in the 16th century - -

(Volker Kauder (CDU / CSU): That's already more than ten minutes!)

- I'm right at the end.

(Applause from the CDU / CSU and the SPD - Shouts from the CDU / CSU: Bravo - Finally!)

- You don't want that to hear it, but you're going to hear it more often, because this war is going to last - It is, as I said, as if you wanted to confirm what Pope Julius III said in the 16th century:

If you only knew with what little effort of understanding the world is governed, You'd be amazed.

But a world with nuclear weapons, can not afford to be governed without understanding; because that's simply too dangerous. Therefore, the Left will vote today against this war adventure.

(Applause from the Left - Matthias Ilgen (SPD): You just don't get it - Katrin Göring-Eckardt (Alliance '90 / The Greens): That was a disaster! Really shameful!)

Paul Rigby Wrote:French and Belgian citizens committed the massacre in Paris. So you bomb Syria? "Bombing, too, is terrorism"

http://fortruss.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/french-and-belgian-citizens-committed.html

"Whoever really wants to weaken the IS must cut off its inflow of weapons, finances, and supply of new fighters. . . must have the courage to finally put a stop to the terrorist godfathers among your putative allies, ie Turkey and the Saudis."

Sahra WAGENKNECHT
Speech in the Bundestag, December 4, 2014

....................

- You don't want that to hear it, but you're going to hear it more often, because this war is going to last - It is, as I said, as if you wanted to confirm what Pope Julius III said in the 16th century:

If you only knew with what little effort of understanding the world is governed, You'd be amazed.

But a world with nuclear weapons, can not afford to be governed without understanding; because that's simply too dangerous. Therefore, the Left will vote today against this war adventure.

(Applause from the Left - Matthias Ilgen (SPD): You just don't get it - Katrin Göring-Eckardt (Alliance '90 / The Greens): That was a disaster! Really shameful!)

Paul Rigby Wrote:The German "Greens," incidentally, are the most rabidly pro-American party in the parliament

Questions to ask President Obama the next time (also the last time) you're invited to one of his press conferences:

Michael Barwell Wrote:RT reckons ISIL's income at $80m/month; of which, oil accounts for c.45%, making c.$35m/month; @ c.$30/barrel, that's 1,166,666 barrels/month being shifted, most of which seems to go to Turkey. All these trucks/'oil tankers' that're being hit, don't seem to be oil trucks per se, but trucks carrying barrels, meaning a much greater physical volume of merchandise being shifted by road, for the last x-number of months/years, regardless of the absolutely massive truck parks. Obviously all this materiel and movement has been well & truely on the eyes-in-the-skies radar for all this time, but it's only since the Russkis started attriting it that anyone's noticed it's there, so to speak.

I just don't understand this shit; the 'west' (-loosely), is at war with the greatest threat to civilization since Adolf Hitler hisselfsbollock, and yet a blind eye's been turned to industrial scale oil processing/shifting/$recupement. Every sodding time I turn-on the news, there's some ISIL fuckwittery afoot, inclining me to be very afraid and allow the Gestapo to rule my life - for my own good.

And another thing, all those A-10's using all that depleted uranium...